CarlJ
Member
- Mar 19, 2008
- 52
- 0
- 6
How?
Sentencing
- Thread starter IliketoLMFAO:D
- Start date
It seems like the issue is whether you think the person is in jail because they need to be punished for a set period of time, or because they need correction on how to function normally. Parole seems like it's a combination of both, they need to have served a set amount of time as punishment, but by showing that they are capable of functioning normally then they can be released after that period. If they don't show this change then they get the extended stay.
We sometimes do that in the USA. While in prison, your release date gets backed up for good behavior, based on some formula that I can't remember. It does not get lengthened for bad behavior. However, very often a sentence has two parts: prison term + "supervised release," aka parole. The court writes a list of do's and don'ts for the supervised release. Break anything in the list, and your parole officer can file a petition for your arrest, and charge you with "violating the terms of supervised release." It amounts to a criminal charge because if the judge finds you guilty, then you might go back to jail. The judge has some discretion in the sentence, but jail time is definitely one of his choices.
bookie_17_87
New member
- Mar 13, 2008
- 28
- 0
- 1
I'm a firm believer we need to go back to the days of corporal punishment for many offenses.
Nowadays, from the time you commit the deed to when you finally have to face the consequences for it is far too long. It doesn't have the same effect and is not doing anyone a service. I remember as a kid (many, many moons ago) that if you were out and up to no good and a cop caught you, they'd give you a crack across the back of the legs with their baton and take you home, and then your parents would take a few cracks at you with the cop still there for good measure.
I think attitudes and society in general would change in a hurry if your idiocy could be punished right then and there. Cuff you to a post, a few whacks to the backside in public, and sending you home would have much greater impact (pun not intended) on an attitude adjustment than our current flawed system.
Nowadays, from the time you commit the deed to when you finally have to face the consequences for it is far too long. It doesn't have the same effect and is not doing anyone a service. I remember as a kid (many, many moons ago) that if you were out and up to no good and a cop caught you, they'd give you a crack across the back of the legs with their baton and take you home, and then your parents would take a few cracks at you with the cop still there for good measure.
I think attitudes and society in general would change in a hurry if your idiocy could be punished right then and there. Cuff you to a post, a few whacks to the backside in public, and sending you home would have much greater impact (pun not intended) on an attitude adjustment than our current flawed system.
Although I mean primarily for those troublemakers caught red-handed (for lack of a better term), I include adults in that as well. Most career criminals are not concerned at all about going to jail - it's the cost of doing business. In fact in some cases it's a status symbol of sorts.
Compare that with all your friends in the neighborhood seeing you take a crack across the butt a few times and you'd be surprised how quickly some of these people might shape up.
In a fantasy world, violence and punishment is wrong and should never be used because we're all friends enjoying strawberry ice cream together. For a lot of people here in the real world though, that's the only thing they respect and fear.
If you're caught taking a leak in the street while drunk, would you rather have to be dragged through all the court costs and hustle and bustle for months and months only to pay a large fine at the end (no lie, in some cities in my state, you not only get hit for $500 for the leak in public but also another $500 if you don't try to clean it up)? In most cases, that doesn't teach anything. A whack across the butt or the back of the legs will stick with you for a lot longer than that will.
Compare that with all your friends in the neighborhood seeing you take a crack across the butt a few times and you'd be surprised how quickly some of these people might shape up.
In a fantasy world, violence and punishment is wrong and should never be used because we're all friends enjoying strawberry ice cream together. For a lot of people here in the real world though, that's the only thing they respect and fear.
If you're caught taking a leak in the street while drunk, would you rather have to be dragged through all the court costs and hustle and bustle for months and months only to pay a large fine at the end (no lie, in some cities in my state, you not only get hit for $500 for the leak in public but also another $500 if you don't try to clean it up)? In most cases, that doesn't teach anything. A whack across the butt or the back of the legs will stick with you for a lot longer than that will.
It strikes me that this is the most important point, though I disagree with parent's taking a crack at their children very often. Children need to see consistency of authority and right/wrong at an early age. A more nuanced view can be brought in over time.
There are very few bad kids but there are a ton of people who are not equipped to raise decent citizens that are having kids.
There are countries all over he world where there is extensive corporal punishment and capital punishment, these don't seem to correspond with low crime rates.
Mitch
There are very few bad kids but there are a ton of people who are not equipped to raise decent citizens that are having kids.
There are countries all over he world where there is extensive corporal punishment and capital punishment, these don't seem to correspond with low crime rates.
Mitch
Sometimes the system does get things wrong, people who were in essence innocent are unfairly penalised, and people who we feel should have been punished much more severely are let off with 'light' sentences. However unless someone can suggest an alternate system, I don't really see any other option.
We have laws, and stick to them for a reason. Otherwise justice is governed by passions of the people, and frankly the people are far too impulsive to be able to judge things like that in any reasonable manner.
We have laws, and stick to them for a reason. Otherwise justice is governed by passions of the people, and frankly the people are far too impulsive to be able to judge things like that in any reasonable manner.
ICGayPeople
Member
- Mar 18, 2008
- 38
- 0
- 6
Aren't career criminals going to be used to getting hit in most cases? Yeah its meant to be humiliating, but that was the idea behind making community service people wear high vis jackets and I don't remember hearing that that had any decent effect. There's also a great Louis CK clip on hitting kids and how weird it is that its acceptable but now I can't find it
If I'm in a train station in London I'll take a smack on the butt for taking a pee in the corner over paying 50p for the privelege of a toilet any day.
edit: Yay I found it! Because I know everyone cares: (5:10, naughty language involved) Louis CK - Hilarious - Part 8 - Other People's Kids - YouTube
If I'm in a train station in London I'll take a smack on the butt for taking a pee in the corner over paying 50p for the privelege of a toilet any day.
edit: Yay I found it! Because I know everyone cares: (5:10, naughty language involved) Louis CK - Hilarious - Part 8 - Other People's Kids - YouTube
loljuxtaposition
Member
- Apr 2, 2008
- 33
- 0
- 6
It's very easy to get misty-eyed about the 'good old days', when the friendly bobby on the beat would give grubby urchins a clip around the ear and they would be all the better for it. No doubt if the police hadn't abused their position then they would still be allowed to do it.
The fact is that suofftopicry corporal punishment didn't prevent crime, any more than capital punishment did, or transportation to Australia. There is no totally effective deterrent, unfortunately.
I wouldn't mind seeing the stocks reintroduced, because it would be entertaining. But I wouldn't expect it to bring about a big reduction in crime.
The fact is that suofftopicry corporal punishment didn't prevent crime, any more than capital punishment did, or transportation to Australia. There is no totally effective deterrent, unfortunately.
I wouldn't mind seeing the stocks reintroduced, because it would be entertaining. But I wouldn't expect it to bring about a big reduction in crime.
Yeah I've never understood teaching people that hitting other people is wrong by hitting them.
I'll never hit my kids (and wouldn't let anyone else hit them either, cop or otherwise) and will be very surprised if they turn out to be criminal scum.
Criminal scum are used to being hit. They get hit all the time.
Getting hit might deter a kid from a good family on the cusp of being "bad" but does nothing for a kid that's been getting that, and worse, since birth.
I'll never hit my kids (and wouldn't let anyone else hit them either, cop or otherwise) and will be very surprised if they turn out to be criminal scum.
Criminal scum are used to being hit. They get hit all the time.
Getting hit might deter a kid from a good family on the cusp of being "bad" but does nothing for a kid that's been getting that, and worse, since birth.
I don't know, if you eliminated poverty and created a world where greed was not beneficial, we would probably have an extremely significant decrease in crime rates worldwide. While we all like to sit back and judge criminals, there is usually a reason why they became what they did aside from the more extreme social deviants.
I totally agree.
BUT....justice must still be seen to be done. Like it or not there is a human element to justice.
The "tar and feather" brigade shouldn't get their way but equally 7-10 years for causing someone to die (for example) doesn't seem right either.
I just get a feeling that the sentencing of people (and treatment of career criminals in general) is out of kilter with what even a reasonable person (like myself) would deem appropriate.
BUT....justice must still be seen to be done. Like it or not there is a human element to justice.
The "tar and feather" brigade shouldn't get their way but equally 7-10 years for causing someone to die (for example) doesn't seem right either.
I just get a feeling that the sentencing of people (and treatment of career criminals in general) is out of kilter with what even a reasonable person (like myself) would deem appropriate.
I don't believe there will ever be a time where justice isn't required in some form or another, and I also believe that the way "justice is served" (especially in the states with the drug war for example) is out of touch with appropriateness. One thing I always find entertaining is people who take the position I expressed earlier, but they take it to the extreme. It sure would be nice to live in the world I described earlier, but we're not there yet and giving criminals all sorts of leeway and forgiveness is not at all the solution.
petrolstationguy
New member
- Feb 26, 2008
- 25
- 0
- 1
i don't think he'll last very long in prison. no one likes a child killer.
cubsrock1617
New member
- Apr 10, 2008
- 26
- 0
- 1
7-10 years is a significant sentence for something that was ultimately an accident.
It's the kind of sentence you would expect for other kinds of manslaughter.
It's the kind of sentence you would expect for other kinds of manslaughter.