Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 You beat me to that, Smallc. The very vast majority of what goes on in the courts doesn't get near the newspapers, because it's run-of-the mill, and stunningly uninteresting. Dumb people who did something dumb, pay an appropriate price for their foolishness-- and will never, ever do it again. And I do fully understand what you are asserting, Argus... but the very vast majority of crimes ARE on the paltry end of the scale, not just by actual occurrence rate, but by the very nature of the system. There is considerable overlap between crimes and grey area for judgement calls between them.... for instance it can be quite fuzzy as to when trespassing becomes break and enter; when assault becomes sexual assault, or whether it's aggravated or even 'with a weapon'; or when simple possession becomes 'for purposes of trafficking'. What might be an extraordinarily stiff sentence for one charge is low for another, but police and prosecutors tend to be ambitious in laying charges, seeking the maximum charge that can be shakily supported. When one might reach for a higher sentence, the need has been precluded by a more serious charge. Again, I wonder why you would expect anything other than a very high concentration of sentences at the very lowest end, with only occassional incidents of much higher? Even so, I still believe that sentences are far too short for violent crimes. The non violent type doesn't even register on my concern meter. It is violent crimes that concern me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 That wouldn't include conditional sentences then, since they are only an option on snetences under 2 years, and the criminal no threat to puclic safety. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 That wouldn't include conditional sentences then, since they are only an option on snetences under 2 years, and the criminal no threat to puclic safety. They are an option on almost all sentences right up to and including manslaughter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Yes... IF sensible sentencing in that particular situation would be under two years, and the criminal is no threat to public safety. A conditional sentence for manslaughter is very rare, but it does happen. But don't leave the implication that manslaughter=murder. Manslaughter is accidental death, by definition. That could easily be a hockey fight, or a car accident, or minor chicanery that turns out very, very badly. It doesn't necessarily include serious wrongdoing- just a serious outcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Yes... IF sensible sentencing in that particular situation would be under two years, and the criminal is no threat to public safety. A conditional sentence for manslaughter is very rare, but it does happen. But don't leave the implication that manslaughter=murder. Manslaughter is accidental death, by definition. That could easily be a hockey fight, or a car accident, or minor chicanery that turns out very, very badly. It doesn't necessarily include serious wrongdoing- just a serious outcome. A citzen is supposed to be in control of the generation of chicanery..and there are no such thing as accidents..if you stay aware of your surroundings...and constantly sensitive to your human environment....all will be safe...and there will be no "serious outcome". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.