Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Harsher penalties for crime: What is your stance?
//\//\oo
Member, Newbie CommonPosts: 2,767
Is it just me, or are the various justice systems in our western civilization simply not working?
In America, it's not uncommon to see a man committed for child rape to be released less than 2 years later, or a murderer less than 20.
While I can understand some degree of leniency towards first time offenders that did not directly harm a person, repeated violations are an indication of either an inexorable compulsion or an ineffective punishment: Simply take a look at the crime rates in developed countries that adopt capital punisment to a severe degree and tell me that it isn't more effective than the current rehabilitation approach.
Murderers, most child rapists and repeating offenders are hopeless cases that will not never be able to be integrated into society and have already cost more than what they have contributed: Simply executing them after the trial if they are found guilty (for the nth time for repeating offenders) would save the populace tax money and the endangerment they face today through parole.
To give substance to the argument, consider this example: Just recenty two men that had been in prison on many burglary (for one of them it was >= 20!!!) charges had gotten parole only to drive to an affluent development, rape a woman and her two children, kill them and then set their house on fire with their corpses still in it.
That's just a needle in a haystack.
This is a question for Americans and Central Europeans: What do you think about your current justice system? Do you think it needs to become more severe and less forgiving? Do you think that the death penalty should be the minimum for crimes like murder and heinous sexual assault?
As for the inevitable strawman argument "let's try to get rid of the problems that are causing people to commit crimes": Stop being a pussy and answer the damn question!
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Comments
The system of Justice works well.
The problem is that some one like, the OP, as a victim or offender will be in big trouble. As an offender, he probably does not have resources or connections to evade prosecution. As a victim, he pretty much need a lawyer as a victim.
Harsher? No.
Death penalty for permanent removal of the worst cases? Definitely.
Maybe I am imcompassionate...but...if someone kills, no matter the reason...this person as a higher risk of killing another innocent citizen no matter what.
I don't believe in Justice, I believe in improving society. Killing a killer is improving the society, as this individual will not kill another innocent victim. Even if only 1 killer on 20 would re-kill, there 20 killers are worth less to society then 1 human life taken at random.
Some accidents should be consider more nicely...with more compassion. But any accients which could happen again more likely with the "accused" redoing it...if the accused is at least 5% likely to redo it...the guy should just be terminated, for the greater good of society.
This approach isn't very human...it wouldn't be accepted, and I am definitely in the minority. I do however believe in it. You are a danger for society, no matter for which reason you are a higher danger, it is just logical to remove you.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
Yes, somebody like me. You don't know who am I, or what I do, so how do you know what my situation would be like?
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Yes, somebody like me. You don't know who am I, or what I do, so how do you know what my situation would be like?
Based on what you wrote, absolutely. I have a fairly good impression of you based on your assumptions of the Justice system.Yes. Affirmatively.
Yes. Affirmatively.
I cited facts. Now please tell me what my education, resources and "connections" are.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
If the state kills a killer, isn't the state then a killer too? More to the point, if the state kills an innocent person in error, then following your reasoning, surely by destroying the state we can then prevent them from killing another innocent victim?
You stated opinions. Whether you think your opinion is a "fact" or not is your problem.
And, trust me, people get screwed in your justice system. Penalties are probably too harsh. I think the USA has MORE prisoners than any country in the world, second only to CHINA?
If the state kills a killer, isn't the state then a killer too? More to the point, if the state kills an innocent person in error, then following your reasoning, surely by destroying the state we can then prevent them from killing another innocent victim?
No, he did not explicitly state his definition of a killer. A person that kills to avoid self-detriment, or detriment to others is not a murderer. Killing people erroneously (as in unintentionally given all of the facts the person had at the time) is also not murder: It's manslaughter. So the state would be guilty of manslaughter or justifiable homicide, not murder.
That is also a valid complaint given how incompetent state systems are. One way to reduce the number of instances is by making the justice system more fool-proof, but that would cost efficiency... it's definitely not something that can be solved trivially.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
none191,
Do you wear a bowtie beneath you anus?
If the state kills a killer, isn't the state then a killer too? More to the point, if the state kills an innocent person in error, then following your reasoning, surely by destroying the state we can then prevent them from killing another innocent victim?
Not at all.
There are to be exceptions to any rules, the state benefit from this exception, a cops WHILE working benefit from this exception unless XYZ. A rule without exceptions is unapplicable.
The State would have an efficiency rating...if the State has an efficiency of 50%, it is actually improving society a LOT, as you remove a dangerous threat to society half the time while they represent merely a fraction of society, in the long run you will eventually remove them all from society, from the genetic pool (assuming no new creations, which would also happen, however, by removing mistakes steadily, you do indeed improve the final product). However, I am pretty sure the State would have an efficiency of 95%+.
As I said, this isn't very human. This is logical. I don't expect anyone to support it. Peoples would cry for the few cases where the State made a mistake, forgetting all the good moves which indeed improve society.
Also, this ideal system doesn't take into account the corruption of individuals...what if a muderer ends up controlling it? A neutral computer, or a perfected alien could run such a system...humans...ROFL.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
You stated opinions. Whether you think your opinion is a "fact" or not is your problem.
And, trust me, people get screwed in your justice system. Penalties are probably too harsh. I think the USA has MORE prisoners than any country in the world, second only to CHINA?
No, those were facts. Murderers are released here in the USA after a few decades sometimes. That event with the two convicts on parole actually happened within this week in Connecticut. I did not explicitly state anything about ALL western systems, but only America's, which you obviously don't know anything about.Maybe you should try living here for more than 2 decades, or have you already?
I'm still waiting for your evaluation of my education, resources and "connections".
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
A woman I knew lost her life one night when her husband shot her in the head. He called the police and told them that she committed suicide.
He served less then 4 years in prison on the charge of involuntary man slaughter.
The guy murdered his wife and he's free today.
Yes, some penalties need to be harsher.
Edit: At the same time there are some penalties that are too harsh. The justice system is out of wack and needs to be fixed.
Wish Darkfall would release.
none191 you live, or claim to live by your profile, in Paris, France. So what do you care about the US penalties for crimes? I could make an obvious France joke but I have nothing against the French at all.
In my opinion we, USA, could use some harsher penalties for certain crimes. I do belive if you killed someone (not counting you've been deemed insane or by accident) you should be sentanced to death, most may think that is harsh but ok then let's just do Life with out parrole.
From what I keep hearing, the biggest problem is lack of space and money. Prosecutors frequently cut deals because they simply don't have time or resources to go after that many criminals. People get released from prison early because there's not enough space. I honestly don't know how to solve such a problem.
I also support the death penalty, but I have two conditions. First, we'd better be damned sure we know what we're doing, which is sometimes more difficult than it sounds. Second, the execution should be as sterile and humane as possible. I do tend to lean towards bloodthirsty, but I don't think violent televised executions are the hallmark of a health society.
Another problem is that there are indeed two seperate justice systems. If you've got the cash and connections you can get away with a whole lot for a slap on the wrist. If you have nothing you can easily get railroaded by an overcrowded system that just doesn't care about one lone person.
To disagree with an earlier poster, I do not care so much about the good of society, as justice. It's a difference of opinion, of course. Often the two can be served at the same time, but sometimes they can't. Justice demands that the guilty be punished, but the innocent protected. Hence, people being wrongly convicted, or in the most terrible circumstances, wrongly executed, horrify me and leave me awake at night.
It does not help that I know very specifically of a man serving prison time for trumped up murder charges. That knowledge makes me feel distant and alien from the law and the legal system. And above all it especially keeps me up at night.
I voted harsher with min. death penalty. A lot of the problems of the justice system are rooted in overcrowding, take the DeathNote route, and kill all those who commit serious crimes. We have all these lifers just rotting away in there taking up space, and dead men certainly won't commit any more crimes. It's really not good to ask me about this.. I don't really like people to begin with, so I'm just fine with more death penalties.
Yes, it needs to be harsher.
The moment a human murders another human, their life should instantly become void and worthless, and they deserve death themselves. But only as long as they are proven 100% without a doubt that they are guilty. If there is some doubt, than prison for life without parol. Not 100% sure? Prison in life with parol, and so forth.
As for child molesters...do it once, spend a few years in prison, get councelling. Do it twice, castration and life in prison.
^^
While I understand your sentiments, the prevailing consensus seems to be that child molesters cannot be 'cured.' They frequently commit these acts even after being chemically castrated. Until a better solution is found, any child molester must free in society must be watched.
Do it once, life.......all time done in general population with a nice bright jumpsuit to identify you to the other prisoners.
Do it once, and it's my daughter, no police, courts, jury, or jail needed. The offender's body will be found........with foreign objects in every available hole.
you kill intentionally,you should die
my ex-girlfriends mother had her head blown off by a nutball.she dumped him cos he was a drunkard,so he got drunk,stuck a shotgun through her window at home and killed her.
he did 4 years,works at a bar somewhere last i heard.if it was my mother he killed i'd be in jail now because the sytem has no balls.that's not right.
my brothers mate was also killed by a nutter.turns out the guy who shot him had just been released after a number of years for,get this,killing his own family..wtf was this guy doing on the street?
nutters used to be rooted out by society as a matter of course.dangerous loony in your local area threatening folks?woops,he "fell" off a cliff while he was out hunting with the lads,problem solved.
hang em high
Eye for an eye.
I'm glad many here seem to share the same perspective as me.
Locking criminals in jails is a waste. They just simply drain the resources of the state, and don't give a crap about it. Stuck-up murderers who have absolutely no compassion for anyone else. They do nothing to society but cause more harm to righteous people.
I would rather have 1 convicted dangerous criminal executed, then to even have the risk of him harming another human being. The innocent person did nothing to deserve such an act of assault against them. However, the criminal does, as he had incurred the same grief onto another. Actions have consequences, one needs to be aware of that.
* Want to see how dumb you are? Click here to take the dumb test!
Leave the entire world blind.
In the UK if I rob a bank I get 15-25 years (armed robbery but no shots fired), if I commit murder I'll be out in under 10 years, if I rape a child I get a luxury cell then I'm out in 2 years with a new identity a house and a job all courtesy of the state.
Personally I think if I rob a bank I should get the same treatment as the child rapist, if I commit a murder the same as the bank robber in the first example. As for a child rapist I suggest they use leave out the Jury and have a Jury of three lie detectors with their own seperate operators who may not communicate with eachother during the trial. One Judge and bring back public hangings and executions for selected crimes against children. Infact the goverment could turn it into a reality show where you phone in to select the punishment, also how about public floggings for lesser crimes rather than community service? The audience phones in to choose the amount of lashes? Or even better how about a "The Running Man" TV show, that would ROCK!
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience"
CS Lewis
As a government employee in the Criminal Justice system, I can tell you with 100% certainty that the system is BROKEN. From the top to the bottom...
BUT...it's still the best and most fair one around from what I can see...it just needs some tough love to fix...
someone i know who used to love and respect commited first degree attempted murder, on one count they could charge her on and one they couldn't, and was released in 3 years with little to no limitations.
yes we need harsher penalties, but first we need to enforce the ones we have to a full extent.
98% of the teenage population does or has tried smoking pot. If you''re one of the 2% who hasn''t, copy & paste this in your signature.