Judges.....two years for murder

[Handsome Rob]

Good luck with that. The reality is, we have rather long sentences in comparison to many countries with much lower crime rates. People aren't going to take things into their own hands...and if they do, they'll be punished.

Isn't that an oxymoron?

Theorized citizens taking the law into their own hands because perpetrators aren't punished, somehow being punished for doing so?

[Smallc]

Isn't that an oxymoron?

Theorized citizens taking the law into their own hands because perpetrators aren't punished, somehow being punished for doing so?

Perpetrators are being punished. People who take the law into their own hands will also be punished. Whether the punishment is severe or not is a matter of opinion. It's severe in comparison to some countries and not in comparison to others.

[Wilber]

Good luck with that. The reality is, we have rather long sentences in comparison to many countries with much lower crime rates. People aren't going to take things into their own hands...and if they do, they'll be punished.

Actual sentences or pie in the sky maximum sentences that are rarely if ever imposed?

[Smallc]

Actual sentences or pie in the sky maximum sentences that are rarely if ever imposed?

So what, you think the maximum is meant to be used all of the the time? It isn't. That's why there is a maximum and a minimum, and that's why people usually get something in the middle.

[Wilber]

So what, you think the maximum is meant to be used all of the the time? It isn't. That's why there is a maximum and a minimum, and that's why people usually get something in the middle.

No, I don't thing they are meant to be used all the time but you say we sentence for longer periods than others. How can you say that without comparing average real sentences for similar crimes. I would like to see those figures and their source.

[eyeball]

Does this ideal include people with 32 priors?

I don't know, I suppose it might in some cases.

Look. I often feel the same urge towards anger you do but I recognize that reptilian response for what it is and purposely override it with reason. Things are getting better not worse, except that is for the violence associated with the economic maelstrom the prohibition of drugs has caused.

Ironically the vast majority of violent crime associated with substance use is due to alcohol, which the same governments that are charged with keeping the peace sell on the side.

As far as I'm concerned our governments barely have the moral or ethical background to even rationally determine what injustice is never mind pass judgement on it.

Edited May 12, 2010 by eyeball

[Wilber]

So what, you think the maximum is meant to be used all of the the time? It isn't. That's why there is a maximum and a minimum, and that's why people usually get something in the middle.

While you are at it come up with a comparison of actual time served versus time sentenced.

Edited May 12, 2010 by Wilber

[Handsome Rob]

I don't know, I suppose it might in some cases.

Look. I often feel the same urge towards anger you do but I recognize that reptilian response for what it is and purposely override it with reason. Things are getting better not worse, except that is for the violence associated with the economic maelstrom the prohibition of drugs has caused.

Ironically the vast majority of violent crime associated with substance use is due to alcohol, which the same governments that are charged with keeping the peace sell on the side.

As far as I'm concerned our governments barely have the moral or ethical background to even rationally determine what injustice is never mind pass judgement on it.

It's not anger, really. I believe in rehabilitation, for non-violent crimes not involving copious amounts of value, I don't think they should even bother with prison time, a C. record is punishment enough.

But at some point, one has to realise that rehabilitation has failed, and the duty becomes to protect society by preventing the perp from re-offending. Best way to accomplish this is to keep them locked up in a humaine way.

Forget three strikes, but at some point you have to say, OK, I quit.

That, and I find the idea of somebody getting less than 10 years before parole for murder, repulsive.

[Smallc]

While you are at it come up with a comparison of actual time served versus time sentenced.

I don't have that kind of information. What I do know is that we can't afford to spend all of our money keeping people in prisons longer. Even eliminating 2 for 1 is going to cost billions of dollars over 5 years.

[Wilber]

I don't have that kind of information. What I do know is that we can't afford to spend all of our money keeping people in prisons longer. Even eliminating 2 for 1 is going to cost billions of dollars over 5 years.

So it's about money, not justice. As long as we're clear about that.

[Smallc]

So it's about money, not justice. As long as we're clear about that.

It's about balance. We can't have infinite justice because we don't have infinite money.

[Wilber]

It's about balance. We can't have infinite justice because we don't have infinite money.

There is no such thing as infinite justice but you do indeed get what you pay for. Our system has moved to the position that it is better for the victim to pay than the perpetrator or society.

[Smallc]

There is no such thing as infinite justice but you do indeed get what you pay for. Our system has moved to the position that it is better for the victim to pay than the perpetrator or society.

That's not true at all. The victim never pays under our system. They have had wrong done against them, and sometimes the punishment is not what some think it should be, but your statement is completely false. Crime is going down, and laws are getting harsher. What more do people want, exactly?

[Bonam]

Because there will come a piont in time when citizens will take the law into thier own hands...and with little to no consquence for thier actions, what will keep us all in check....I'm not sure how i would react if someone had murdered one of my family members and only recieved 2 years as punishment...it is not the justice system i'd expect for a nation like ours.

Problem is, our backwards system would likely sentence you FAR more harshly than the original criminal. The original crime would likely have been bargained down, sentence reduced, etc, but yours would clearly be seen as motivated by revenge, thus premeditated, thus first degree, and you could easily get the full 25 years. Judges would want to make as strong an example of you as they could to curb vigilantism, which is one of the things they most detest.

[Army Guy]

Good luck with that. The reality is, we have rather long sentences in comparison to many countries with much lower crime rates. People aren't going to take things into their own hands...and if they do, they'll be punished.

Thats all you got is good luck with that, reality is this there has been 3 examples given already were murders have been handed out sentences of 2 years or less for a capitol crime....I'm sure there is alot more out there. 2 years is NOT a long sentence...Shit there is examples out there where they have recieved more time for animal abuse...

So i'm curious do you think if someone murdered your son,daugther, wife,or brother what ever, and recieved one of these light sentences, it would not invoke you into considering taking Justice into your own hands...put yourself in thier shoes for a second...this convict will be walking the streets shortly after the trial is finshed, while you go back to your life without one of your family members because someone decided on a whim to take their life....

It's about balance. We can't have infinite justice because we don't have infinite money.

So what your saying is our justice system is NOT based on meating out roughly the same punishment for the same crimes , but rather based on what we can afford at the time...that sentencing is based on a quick check on funds left in the national accounts....Thats justice ? Thats retarded....Even i know that is not how our justice system works or is based on...

[Army Guy]

That's not true at all. The victim never pays under our system. They have had wrong done against them, and sometimes the punishment is not what some think it should be, but your statement is completely false. Crime is going down, and laws are getting harsher. What more do people want, exactly?

That statement is bullshit....someone robs you or your house, sure your insurance pays for most of your losses, but it's the victim that pays for insurance rates going up, in fact we all pay for costs of goods and services that go up to pay for these added costs to companies ....If the victim NEVER pays then why is there funds set up to assist victims with funding.... Victims suffer in other ways as well, like having thier lives turned upside down, or destroyed...so there is a huge emotional payment to be made as well...

Laws are not getting harsher, not when we can provide 3 or more cases where the sentences are less than 2 years....how is that harsher....

People want to know that our justice system is here to serve them, not the convicts, to hand out punishment that fits the crime, you take someones life then you should spend the rest of yours behind bars, i don't give a rats ass if it does not act as a deterent for the next guy or if crime stats go down from lighter sentences .....what i care about is i know where those convicts are in 20 years....right where they should be...and if it costs to much then recind the rest of thier rights that costs us tax payers funds...old age pensions pay outs, put the bastards to work building something, growing something earning thier keep....

[Shwa]

People want to know that our justice system is here to serve them, not the convicts, to hand out punishment that fits the crime, you take someones life then you should spend the rest of yours behind bars, i don't give a rats ass if it does not act as a deterent for the next guy or if crime stats go down from lighter sentences.

Justice has a blindfold. It was never meant to serve "victims" is was designed to serve society. You say it was consensual, she says it was rape. Do you want justice? Who is the victim then?

Sure we have cases where we don't have access to all the information, the details, the testimony. What we see is the cover of the book and we judge based on that. There are some cases where we have enough detail to be appalled at the sentence, but again, we don't have all the details that went into making a particular judgement. But by and large society is served well by our criminal justice system and I doubt a few abhorrent examples is enough to charge condemn the system as broken.

If someone killed your child or one of your family members and you didn't like the sentence they got and decided to go vigilante, then as much as I might abhor the sentence given, I would want the justice system to put you away for a long, long time. Once you had your trial of course. And were found guilty.

[Army Guy]

Justice has a blindfold. It was never meant to serve "victims" is was designed to serve society. You say it was consensual, she says it was rape. Do you want justice? Who is the victim then?

What you meant is justice is supposed to have a blindfold, to serve all society equally,without discrimination etc etc etc....How is justice being served with a 2 year sentence for murder ?

Sure we have cases where we don't have access to all the information, the details, the testimony. What we see is the cover of the book and we judge based on that. There are some cases where we have enough detail to be appalled at the sentence, but again, we don't have all the details that went into making a particular judgement. But by and large society is served well by our criminal justice system and I doubt a few abhorrent examples is enough to charge condemn the system as broken.

I see your piont and agree, however the charge is murder, not man slaugter or an accident but murder, someone took a life of another intentionally....and while we may not know all the details we do have enough details to atleast have a look at it...

If someone killed your child or one of your family members and you didn't like the sentence they got and decided to go vigilante, then as much as I might abhor the sentence given, I would want the justice system to put you away for a long, long time. Once you had your trial of course. And were found guilty.

Why is that ?, we are willing to live with a light sentence for someone that orginally took a life on a whim....yet demand the toughest sentence on someone that takes justice into their own hands..What are we afraid of? Are we afraid of taking a look at our justice system and examining what may be wrong with it ? Is sentencing suppose to be a deterent? to keep all it's citizens in check from commiting crime or atleast to give them pause and think about it first....Handing out a light sentence such as this 2 year sentence sends what message to the parents...it would send me a couple , one that my son or daugters life is not worth anything but 2 years of this convicts time....that justice was not handed out in a fair or uniformed manner as we all expect....

By demanding a tougher sentence for my actions would resend those same messages would it not....the end result was lives were taken....both on a whim, should we not be demanding the same sentence ?

[Shwa]

What you meant is justice is supposed to have a blindfold, to serve all society equally,without discrimination etc etc etc....How is justice being served with a 2 year sentence for murder ?

"a few abhorrent examples is enough to charge condemn the system as broken." You demand perfection of something that can never be perfect for all people. Plus you are asking the wrong person - I was neither a lawyer nor judge or court official on the case.

I see your piont and agree, however the charge is murder, not man slaugter or an accident but murder, someone took a life of another intentionally....and while we may not know all the details we do have enough details to atleast have a look at it...

What is the first detail of that particular case that stands out for you?

Why is that ?, we are willing to live with a light sentence for someone that orginally took a life on a whim....yet demand the toughest sentence on someone that takes justice into their own hands..What are we afraid of? Are we afraid of taking a look at our justice system and examining what may be wrong with it ? Is sentencing suppose to be a deterent? to keep all it's citizens in check from commiting crime or atleast to give them pause and think about it first....Handing out a light sentence such as this 2 year sentence sends what message to the parents...it would send me a couple , one that my son or daugters life is not worth anything but 2 years of this convicts time....that justice was not handed out in a fair or uniformed manner as we all expect....

By demanding a tougher sentence for my actions would resend those same messages would it not....the end result was lives were taken....both on a whim, should we not be demanding the same sentence ?

Because when a person kills another person, they are usually attacking only another person. But when a person kills another person for vigilante type reasons they are attacking society no matter how they want to spin it in their mind. An attack on society - whether the justice system or a group of persons (i.e police) - demands a severe penalty.

[Smallc]

Problem is, our backwards system would likely sentence you FAR more harshly than the original criminal.

I would hope so. An example would have to be set. In such a case, you are no longer a victim.

Edited May 12, 2010 by Smallc

[Smallc]

Laws are not getting harsher

That is completely false. Obviously, by the example you gave, you didn't know what I meant. Across the board, laws are being changed to impose tougher mandatory minimum sentences.

[Wilber]

That's not true at all. The victim never pays under our system. They have had wrong done against them, and sometimes the punishment is not what some think it should be, but your statement is completely false. Crime is going down, and laws are getting harsher. What more do people want, exactly?

When you have chronic multiple offenders continually put back on the street, the victims are indeed paying.

[Army Guy]

I would hope so. An example would have to be set. In such a case, you are no longer a victim.

I find it alittle ironic that WE need to set an example for vigilante justice, but for someone who just killed someone on a whim we are all right with a 2 year sentence...Had we set the example at the right bench mark in the first place, there would be no need to set one for vigilante crimes.

Now we are saying that we are no longer the victim....and yet convicts use the victim cry all the time, my mother beat me, my dad never gave me enough allowance...and it is all taken into account....and yet here our justice system has failed one of our citizens....who has lost a family member and is in grief beyound imigine....but we feel the need to set an example...that they have stopped being the victim....and the convict is sitting in the park laughing at us all...

[eyeball]

It's not anger, really. I believe in rehabilitation, for non-violent crimes not involving copious amounts of value, I don't think they should even bother with prison time, a C. record is punishment enough.

But at some point, one has to realise that rehabilitation has failed, and the duty becomes to protect society by preventing the perp from re-offending. Best way to accomplish this is to keep them locked up in a humaine way.

No it hasn't failed, it just hasn't worked in every single case is all. This basis for the compulsion to turn our justice system into a vengeance system is entirely political in nature and as near as I can see from the media has little if any support from mainstream criminologists. They seem as uniformly opposed to the direction the Conservatives want to go as economists were who advised against cutting the GST.

Forget three strikes, but at some point you have to say, OK, I quit.

That, and I find the idea of somebody getting less than 10 years before parole for murder, repulsive.

Sometimes I feel this way too...just like part of me that thought a GST tax cut would feel good too.

[Argus]

Politicians, almost exclusively conservative one's, have simply brought us to a place where punishment is laughable.

By fueling cynicism and scorn for justice, in the meantime they have done dick all to prevent crime.

Scorn for justice? It's scorn for injustice most conservatives express.