Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

How do you mean imcompatible? Time-served for one count and 2-5 years for another?

Same thing that happens now. You'll get the 2-5 years.

I've often wondered why we don't empower judges to pass the sentences they see fit. Allow them to handle each legal case on an individual basis. Obviously there's a legitimate reason not to, I just can't think of it.

Let's say one victim decides on solitary confinement for life and another victim decides on community service teaching young offenders not to commit crime.

Smacks wrote: We've been over this... punishment isn't an effective deterrent, there is good evidence for this.

Well, no, punishment is an effective deterrent. The trouble is that the most effective punishment isn't necessarily the harshest one.

Smarter, not harder, as it were.

Jimsolo wrote:I've often wondered why we don't empower judges to pass the sentences they see fit. Allow them to handle each legal case on an individual basis. Obviously there's a legitimate reason not to, I just can't think of it.

Because judges don't create laws and penalties for breaking them. Congress does. Separation of powers, right?

Judges and juries are given a range for a given crime. If they convict someone, they are free to use the minimum and maximum (as well as the entire range) in their sentencing.

Jimsolo wrote:I've often wondered why we don't empower judges to pass the sentences they see fit. Allow them to handle each legal case on an individual basis. Obviously there's a legitimate reason not to, I just can't think of it.

There is a disconnect between criminality and socially permissible behavior.

Kilkrazy wrote:Let's say one victim decides on solitary confinement for life and another victim decides on community service teaching young offenders not to commit crime.

I'd have to let someone that believes that the victim should choose the crime answer that.

I would like to point out that, for the most part, I do not support Mr Hyena's views on this issue.

Let's say one victim decides on solitary confinement for life and another victim decides on community service teaching young offenders not to commit crime.

Both on the same criminal? or on a different criminals? In any case; the best idea is to go by what the victim views as best. If theres multiple victims; go a voting system (composed of the victims) to decide which is the majority decision for a sentence.

Killing another human is so wrong that the only ethical response is to kill the human who did it. That is how terrible killing is.

Mr Hyena wrote:

Let's say one victim decides on solitary confinement for life and another victim decides on community service teaching young offenders not to commit crime.

Both on the same criminal? or on a different criminals? In any case; the best idea is to go by what the victim views as best. If theres multiple victims; go a voting system (composed of the victims) to decide which is the majority decision for a sentence.

This is definitely not justice. Like cases should be decided alike, not based on whatever the victim's feeling like that day.

Mr Hyena wrote:

Let's say one victim decides on solitary confinement for life and another victim decides on community service teaching young offenders not to commit crime.

Both on the same criminal? or on a different criminals? In any case; the best idea is to go by what the victim views as best. If theres multiple victims; go a voting system (composed of the victims) to decide which is the majority decision for a sentence.

The same criminal.

What if the vote is equally balanced? In the example given, there are two victims. If they don't agree, there isn't a way to vote for a majority decision.

What if there are 200,000 victims? How will their individual choices of sentence be recorded and tabutated for voting?

This is definitely not justice. Like cases should be decided alike, not based on whatever the victim's feeling like that day.

Judges can't possibly know what its like to be affected by a crime. Nor can two similar cases be giving the same sentence; thats an insult to the victims.

The same criminal.

What if the vote is equally balanced? In the example given, there are two victims. If they don't agree, there isn't a way to vote for a majority decision.

What if there are 200,000 victims? How will their individual choices of sentence be recorded and tabutated for voting?

If they can't come to an agreement, then thats the only possible time where I could see an Judge being worth deciding the final sentence. If theres 200,000 victims then go for a voting system involving a web-based application (or telephone). Its not really hard in this day and age.

Mr Hyena wrote:
Judges can't possibly know what its like to be affected by a crime.

.. why's that then ?

If they can't come to an agreement, then thats the only possible time where I could see an Judge being worth deciding the final sentence. If theres 200,000 victims then go for a voting system involving a web-based application (or telephone). Its not really hard in this day and age.

... There's no cost effective or realistic way on earth you could make that secure. Or practical.

.. why's that then ?

He didn't lose anyone in a murder in the case.

... There's no cost effective or realistic way on earth you could make that secure. Or practical.

Which is why 'Justice' doesn't exist in this world.

..that doesn't make much sense I'm afraid.

You appear to be claiming that judges will never, ever, have been affected by crime and/or are unaffected by such basic concepts as empathy and understanding.


That's a fairly unique definition of justice you're working off of as well.

Its not a case of empathy and understanding. I'm sure they know murder is bad. But they don't feel the suffering that the victims are going through; they can't feel it until they've lost something. So why then do murderers, rapists, etc get such pitiful sentences? Wheres the Justice for the victims?

Its hardly unique. Most people despise the justice system currently for its utter ineffectiveness at getting justice and closure for the victims.

Mr Hyena wrote:Its not a case of empathy and understanding. I'm sure they know murder is bad. But they don't feel the suffering that the victims are going through; they can't feel it until they've lost something. So why then do murderers, rapists, etc get such pitiful sentences? Wheres the Justice for the victims?

It is a question of empathy and understanding.And intelligence too of course.

You appear to be claiming that unless one has direct and personal experience in or of a situation then their experience or thoughts relating to the area is irrelevant. Which, aside from undermining the logical basis of your own claim, renders pretty much most of what human society and interaction is totally worthless.


And I don't think that the aforementioned all do get pitiful sentences.

And, of course, there are families/friends who do feel that justice has been done when a case is closed.

Its hardly unique. Most people despise the justice system currently for its utter ineffectiveness at getting justice and closure for the victims.

us·tice (jsts)
n.
1. The quality of being just; fairness.
2.
a. The principle of moral rightness; equity.
b. Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness.
3.
a. The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.
b. Law The administration and procedure of law.
4. Conformity to truth, fact, or sound reason: The overcharged customer was angry, and with justice.
5. Abbr. J. Law
a. A judge.
b. A justice of the peace.

As presented, you do not appear to be talking or arguing about justice.

Revenge quite possibly, but there's a difference a twixt the twain.

So do you find it not a pitiful sentence that murders can expect to get out of jail in under half the time they were sentenced for?

I don't accept the premise that is happens in a majority or even a sizeable minority of cases.

I'm more than willing to be persuaded by any such evidence you can present to the contrary however.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1402527.stm

Theres a good example of a pair that didn't deserve to be released early...yet did get released. Also, they went on to reoffend when outside too.

Firstly that example is 10 years old.

Secondly they were children when they were locked up, surely you're not saying that children should be held as accountable as adults are you ?

And a single example doesn't really support your case I'm afraid. There's far, far more people who have/are serving longer cases. Where is the evidence for this tide of undeservedly freed wretches ?

Plus..from that link

Earlier she said: "I would say 15-20 years, I could learn to live with that.

"I know one day they have got to be released, but I think after eight years it's too soon for what they have done."

Kind of refutes your earlier claims about the need for vengence "justice" and the suitability of the current sentencing tariff does it not ?

It's a far cry from your claim that "Justice can only be found in the absolute torture and suffering of the criminal ", to me eyes anyway.

Everyone has a different level of justice. Justice is whatever a victim decides it is; and that can be anything under the sun.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1540632/Convicted-murderers-who-were-set-free-to-kill.html

An interesting article.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41963513/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/dad-ill-kill-my-sons-murderer-if-hes-released/#.TkEFkmHtLcw

This man I fully agree with if I was in the same position.

It's a far cry from your claim that "Justice can only be found in the absolute torture and suffering of the criminal ", to me eyes anyway.

Thats why we have reoffenders.

Mr Hyena wrote:Everyone has a different level of justice. Justice is whatever a victim decides it is; and that can be anything under the sun.

Then you're not actually arguing for a legal system at all. Instead you're, apparently seriously, arguing for mob rule.

...I really don't see how you think this could possibly work.

From the Telegraph article you linked to

This was an overall fall of nine per cent on the previous year and, if the 52 victims of the July 7 bombings are taken out, it would represent a fall of about 15 per cent

..seems the current system is effective with regards to reducing the murder rate then.

Plus, please note that some of those released early, 14 of them were convicted of manslaughter initially and wouldn't have been subject to your proposals anyway.

So, over that 10 year period, we wind up with about 1 person per year reoffending.

.. out of how many releases ?

In the UK between 1 January 2003 and 17 February 2009 there were 758 releases of mandatory life sentence prisoners, all of whom had been convicted of murder. Of those, 48 were later recalled and subsequently convicted of further serious offences. One was convicted of another murder.

The murder rate is currently about 850 a year for the UK as a whole. It's higher in Northern Ireland and Scotland than in England and Wales.

Mr Hyena wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:If I am a victim of crime can I choose whatever sentence I like for the criminal?

In a proper system, yes you should. Nobody else knows what proper Justice would be in that circumstance.

Some guy scratched my car, it was pretty annoying. I dunno if it was on purpose of if he was just some careless clutz with a backpack. Either way, I never scratch other peoples cars, even when I have a backpack (at least I've never noticed myself doing it...). That guys needs to be taught a lesson. A suitable punishment I think: would be to have him strung up by his testicles and beaten like a pinata, till sweets come out. Or maybe I'm overreacting...

Mr Hyena wrote:Its not a case of empathy and understanding. I'm sure they know murder is bad. But they don't feel the suffering that the victims are going through.

I think that's a good thing, justice is better served by a judge who is impartial. It's part of the whole 'fair trial' idea, which is pretty important.

Also remember that not all victims would even want the responsibility of presiding over someone's life, or be able to live with their decision.

What if a girl who was raped chose death for her attacker, but then later regretted the decision. Either because she didn't want that blood on her hands, or she later wanted to face her attacker as part of the healing process. She would then have to spend the rest of her life racked with the guilt of having killed someone, and unable to do what she needs in order to heal. Thank you for your heavy handed regime of brutality Mr Hyena.

Kilkrazy wrote:The murder rate is currently about 850 a year for the UK as a whole. It's higher in Northern Ireland and Scotland than in England and Wales.

I would point out that people living in Scotland and Northern Ireland also have the lowest life expectancy in the UK. Which is probably a good indicator of generally reduced health and well being in those parts of the country. Social well being down... Murder rates up... I wonder if there is a connection?

Kilkrazy wrote:In the UK between 1 January 2003 and 17 February 2009 there were 758 releases of mandatory life sentence prisoners, all of whom had been convicted of murder. Of those, 48 were later recalled and subsequently convicted of further serious offences.

See, if we killed those 758 people, there would DEFINITELY have been 48 fewer serious offences.

Thats an argument for the death penalty right there!

There would also be 12 innocent people dead.

Kilkrazy wrote:There would also be 12 innocent people dead.

And 48 fewer unrelated victims.

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:There would also be 12 innocent people dead.

And 48 fewer unrelated victims.

There would also be 48 fewer victims if life actually meant life, And 12 innocent people would still be alive. Which would be an optimal result.