Want to live in nice resort? Just murder someone

[poochy]

An "eye for an eye" is not the purpose of the criminal justice system.

Which isn't at all the point, but as i said, you're locked into one very narrow ideological corridor and you simply can't see beyond it.

An eye for and eye would be an argument for the death penalty, which wasn't made, murder someone, you forfeit your future, you live out your days in prison, we don't need to rehabiliatate you, we don't need any reformed murderers in society, it's more likely they will do it again than it is that they will add something to society that compensates us for the person they murdered.

What is it exactly that causes you to have this need to feel badly for a murderer? To think they need another chance, when the person they killed doesn't get that? That's just broken, you all can, like i said earlier, pat yourself on your back for your civility, but what you really are is weak. If you can't take a stand against murderers you really can't stand for anything. Not asking for the the death penalty, im not in favor of it, but as you have committed the worst crime, a removal from society, no second chances, we don't need them. Why do you want to help them 'get better'?

Edited March 8, 2016 by poochy

[dialamah]

What is it exactly that causes you to have this need to feel badly for a murderer? To think they need another chance, when the person they killed doesn't get that? That's just broken, you all can, like i said earlier, pat yourself on your back for your civility, but what you really are is weak. If you can't take a stand against murderers you really can't stand for anything. Not asking for the the death penalty, im not in favor of it, but as you have committed the worst crime, a removal from society, no second chances, we don't need them. Why do you want to help them 'get better'?

Consider these murderers:

A woman regularly abuses her husband, verbally and physically; he's been to the hospital twice, once when she threw a pot of boiling spagetti at him and another time when she stabbed him with a knife. Usually, he doesn't react but one day he hits back. He fractures her jaw but also when she falls backward, her head hits the corner of a tile mantel. He immediately realizes the seriousness of her injury and calls for an ambulance but she dies on the way to the hospital. When the police arrive, he tells them exactly what happened. He's arrested and jailed, and put on suicide watch.

A woman takes out a protection order against her boyfriend, who has physically abused her. He ignores the protection order by going to her home because he wants to talk to her; while there, they get into an argument which turns physical. He ends up breaking her neck. He leaves, but a week later turns himself in. He's arrested and jailed, and also put on suicide watch.

A young man with undiagnosed paranoid schizophrenia gets his father's rifle, and on the way out the door shoots and kills his mother and a visiting neighbor. He gets into the family car and drives to a local supermarket, where he shoots every third person he sees. He kills two more people and wounds three, puts down the rifle and begins walking down the street. When the police pick him up, he's mumbling and arguing with someone they can't see. He says he was told to shoot those people with special bullets so that the world would be safe. He's taken to a psychiatric facility for assessment, and eventually put on medication. Five months later, he's back in touch with reality and in front of a judge.

A man is arrested because his DNA has been found on the bodies of six women, all of whom were raped, tortured and killed. He tells the police that there were a lot more, though he won't say who or when. He says he's 'got a problem', and needs help.

So these men are all murderers, but have they all committed the same crime, and should they all have the same punishment - to be removed from society with 'no second chance'?

[dre]

What is it exactly that causes you to have this need to feel badly for a murderer? To think they need another chance, when the person they killed doesn't get that? That's just broken, you all can, like i said earlier, pat yourself on your back for your civility, but what you really are is weak. If you can't take a stand against murderers you really can't stand for anything. Not asking for the the death penalty, im not in favor of it, but as you have committed the worst crime, a removal from society, no second chances, we don't need them. Why do you want to help them 'get better'?

It has nothing to do with compassion... And YOU are the one with the weak emotional position. Like I said... to me its just a numbers game. I just want low crime rates, and if rehabilitation, and parole is effective to that end then I'm fine with that.

[Hydraboss]

#1 - Manslaughter - if convicted, 10 years with a chance of parole, no intent to kill

#2 - Murder 2 - if convicted, 25 years and then a chance at parole, intent to kill

#3 - Murder 2 - if convicted, 25 years and then a chance at parole, intent to kill

#4 - Murder 1 - if convicted, LIFE*, no chance of parole, intent to kill

* LIFE means you die in prison. Period. No need for any rehabilitation. If this were the case, I wouldn't be such a proponent of the death penalty.

[dre]

#1 - Manslaughter - if convicted, 10 years with a chance of parole, no intent to kill

#2 - Murder 2 - if convicted, 25 years and then a chance at parole, intent to kill

#3 - Murder 2 - if convicted, 25 years and then a chance at parole, intent to kill

#4 - Murder 1 - if convicted, LIFE*, no chance of parole, intent to kill

* LIFE means you die in prison. Period. No need for any rehabilitation. If this were the case, I wouldn't be such a proponent of the death penalty.

Bad idea. We need to let judges and juries make that call based on knowing the real context and facts of the crime.

You can get Murder 2 for winning a fist fight if you get unlucky.

[Hydraboss]

We need to let judges and juries make that call based on knowing the real context and facts of the crime.

Correct - judges get to decide on the "if convicted" part. The sentencing should be prescribed. I also happen to believe that judges should take the place of the parole boards.

You can get Murder 2 for winning a fist fight if you get unlucky.

Also correct, but a murder 2 charge would be exceedingly hard to prove in a fist fight. Far more likely you would be hit with manslaughter. And if you punch someone and they die, you killed them. Simple as that. Go to jail.

[Argus]

No, desire for the death penalty is inspired by irrational thought and a failure to think critically. The justice system is here to reduce crime, not to appeal to your emotional pleas for vengeance.

The judicial system serves a number of purposes. Crime reduction is one of them, mostly by incarcerating criminals. I have never seen convincing evidence the current system does anything at all to persuade criminals to not be criminals other than by making it a miserable existence to be incarcerated.

[Argus]

No. Nobody who's child is killed is ever going to be satisfied. Id probably try to kill him in the court room. The justice system needs to get results though... its not there cater to the emotional needs of the victims family.

But it is there to cater to the desire of the community for justice. If it fails at that, then it fails.

[Argus]

I have to admit I am against the death penalty. There's too much of a possibility you get the wrong person. No appeal will do any good once it's too late.

I would have no objection to it if you could actually prove guilt beyond any doubt.

I am too, for the same reasons. I am not, however, against life in prison. And by that I mean you never get out again. Ever.

[dialamah]

The judicial system serves a number of purposes. Crime reduction is one of them, mostly by incarcerating criminals. I have never seen convincing evidence the current system does anything at all to persuade criminals to not be criminals other than by making it a miserable existence to be incarcerated.

There is evidence that neither death nor harsh prison sentences deter crimes, but that education and teaching lifeskills, along with community support does. The States has been all about tough on crime for decades, and now they are forced to let people out because they are so overcrowded and can't accept the new bad guys. Thoughtful and consistent rehab works better than emotional, knee jerk and harsh punishments at reducing crime, for most criminals.

[dialamah]

#1 - Manslaughter - if convicted, 10 years with a chance of parole, no intent to kill

#2 - Murder 2 - if convicted, 25 years and then a chance at parole, intent to kill

#3 - Murder 2 - if convicted, 25 years and then a chance at parole, intent to kill

#4 - Murder 1 - if convicted, LIFE*, no chance of parole, intent to kill

* LIFE means you die in prison. Period. No need for any rehabilitation. If this were the case, I wouldn't be such a proponent of the death penalty.

Exactly my point. There is no one size fits all circumstances. I don't agree with prescribed sentences either, because that approach has been shown to be a failure in the States already.

[Argus]

He already did get one. And my position on this is completely logical. Jumping up and down spewing emotional outrage is not.

It seems like every post you make on this subject accuses others of being emotional. But as far as I can see the emotionalism here is all yours. Your sympathy with the criminals and your desire to reform them (however unlikely that is) plays into your political ideology of feeling all are equal and all need to have chances and breaks given them.

There is no logic to your position here whatsoever. Unless it's the cold, statistical logic which says, well, someone who murders their ex girlfriend or ex wife probably won't murder anyone else. By that sort of 'logic' there's no reason to incarcerate them in the first place. Suppose we have an individual who kills four people while driving drunk, and suppose that individual agrees to have a device implanted which will make the consumption of alcohol impossible. Would you suggest that he should be let go immediately, without punishment, since he isn't likely to drive drunk again?

There is a punishment element to sentencing which society is not willing to forego simply because of the progressives emotional attachment to the theory of rehabilitation.

[Argus]

There is evidence that neither death nor harsh prison sentences deter crimes, but that education and teaching lifeskills, along with community support does. The States has been all about tough on crime for decades, and now they are forced to let people out because they are so overcrowded and can't accept the new bad guys. Thoughtful and consistent rehab works better than emotional, knee jerk and harsh punishments at reducing crime, for most criminals.

The US is not a valuable comparison. Crime there is driven by their large slums filled with vast criminal gangs.

Rehab works on new criminals, sometimes, and sometimes not. The problem is the system lacks the ability to cope with repeat offenders. There should be NO ONE with 100 criminal convictions, but that is common.

And I am not interested in rehabilitating someone who engages in deliberate, unprovoked murder. I believe basic common justice requires they forfeit their ability to enjoy life given they decided to take the life away from someone else. This girl was only 18 when murdered, completely unprovoked. She had her whole live ahead of her, and he stole it all. In my opinion the proper punishment for him is death. The only reason I oppose this is my lack of confidence in the ability of the judicial system to accurately judge guilt in every single case.

[Hydraboss]

There is no one size fits all circumstances.

Hence Murder in the First Degree, Murder in the Second Degree, Manslaughter. There are three sizes to fit all circumstances.

[cybercoma]

Correct - judges get to decide on the "if convicted" part.

Juries.

[Smallc]

Juries.

Depends on what the accuse wants.

[dre]

Correct - judges get to decide on the "if convicted" part. The sentencing should be prescribed. I also happen to believe that judges should take the place of the parole boards.

Sentencing prescribed by politicians that know nothing about individual cases is a terrible idea, and has nearly bankrupted some jurisdictions that have tried it. Sentencing needs to be determined at a hearing and the facts of the case, victim impact statements, and all other relevant information needs to be considered.

Also correct, but a murder 2 charge would be exceedingly hard to prove in a fist fight. Far more likely you would be hit with manslaughter. And if you punch someone and they die, you killed them. Simple as that. Go to jail.

Not really... you can punch a guy once and he can die from a brain anurism. If you tried to have a fixed sentence for second degree murder you would be assigning the same punishment to crimes that are radically different in the degree of severity.

Its just a really stupid idea.

[dre]

It seems like every post you make on this subject accuses others of being emotional. But as far as I can see the emotionalism here is all yours. Your sympathy with the criminals and your desire to reform them (however unlikely that is) plays into your political ideology of feeling all are equal and all need to have chances and breaks given them.

There is no logic to your position here whatsoever.

You obviously haven't read a single thing Iv posted. I have no compassion at all for violent criminals, and feel no moral obligation whatever to reform them. I just want to get the lowest crime rates with the money we have to spend, and if rehabilitation and parole help to achieve that then so be it.

Your emotional moral outrage is understandable and quite natural. But people that make real policy have to look beyond that and try to get real results.

[Big Guy]

While the recidivism rate of Canadian criminals is very difficult to establish it is relatively high but the reconviction rate, "The reconviction rate for all the releases in the first year was 44% with the reconviction rate for violence considerably lower (14%). The non-violent reconviction rate was 30% accounting for the majority of reconvictions." can be measured.

It has varied very little over the years. There are still the bright lights who declare, "Throw them all in jail for the rest of their lives"! When confronted with, "Canadians taxpayers dished out an average of $113,974 to lodge an inmate in a federal prison last year - a 30% increase from four years ago." they have no answers.

I believe the intent of any judicial system is to change the criminals behavior so they do not commit crimes again. Again the bright lights shout, "Beat the hell out of them and that will teach them the lesson". Guess what, it does not work. Beat the hell out of a dog and he will settle down when you are looking - and tear your throat out the first chance it gets.

A person does something illegal - we cannot turn back the clock. The act is done. We can try to prevent recurrence of the act.

To-day, we take an individual who has committed a crime, place them in jail where that individual is surrounded and taught by experts in the field. We then release him with a record - that he has to share with any prospective employer - and tell him to get a job. The only thing that person now has is a graduate degree in crime as taught in school of crime - prison. How do you think he is going to earn a living?

What we do to-day is not working. The only solution is behavior modification. Sure, sure we have the law and order tough guys who suggest that those who suggest we change that behavior instead of punishing it are "softies", "love a thug" and worse - without providing an alternative.

Unfortunately, those with little knowledge of human behavior, see behavior modification as a cuddling and empowering of the criminal and try to make light of programs that do not cause punishment and pain but serve to try to bring the individual into a moral and ethical lifestyle.

But is has always been thus. Some cannot see beyond their own prejudices, continue to support approaches that are not effective and then bemoan the fact that our politicians listen to them.

Why would you assume that a problem will get any better if we keep approaching it the same way?

[cybercoma]

Depends on what the accuse wants.

More often than not juries.

[cybercoma]

Sentencing prescribed by politicians that know nothing about individual cases is a terrible idea, and has nearly bankrupted some jurisdictions that have tried it. Sentencing needs to be determined at a hearing and the facts of the case, victim impact statements, and all other relevant information needs to be considered. Not really... you can punch a guy once and he can die from a brain anurism. If you tried to have a fixed sentence for second degree murder you would be assigning the same punishment to crimes that are radically different in the degree of severity. Its just a really stupid idea.

Another thing that some legal scholars have written about is how mandatory minimums shift the power in the legal system away from judges and towards prosecutors. What they end up doing is holding charges with mandatory minimums over people's heads in order to get them to plead guilty to other charges. It ends up undermining the right to a fair trial by making it less likely that a court will hear the facts of your circumstances.

[Argus]

You obviously haven't read a single thing Iv posted. I have no compassion at all for violent criminals, and feel no moral obligation whatever to reform them. I just want to get the lowest crime rates with the money we have to spend, and if rehabilitation and parole help to achieve that then so be it.

I can't help noting that the only time progressives ever show the slightest care or concern about what something costs is when we're speaking of the mlitary or prisons.

Then they suddenly become penny pinchers.

Your emotional moral outrage is understandable and quite natural. But people that make real policy have to look beyond that and try to get real results.

There's zero evidence that coddling murderers gets 'real results'. And a sense of fundamental justice is what the 'justice' system is supposed to be about, or else why even bother?

[dialamah]

And a sense of fundamental justice is what the 'justice' system is supposed to be about, or else why even bother?

Revenge and punishment is not the same as justice. Revenge and punishment are based on emotion, justice is objective.

[Argus]

Revenge and punishment is not the same as justice. Revenge and punishment are based on emotion, justice is objective.

Justice is indeed objective, and the object is to match the severity of the punishment with the severity of the damage committed.

[dre]

I can't help noting that the only time progressives ever show the slightest care or concern about what something costs is when we're speaking of the mlitary or prisons.

Then they suddenly become penny pinchers.

There's zero evidence that coddling murderers gets 'real results'.

Yes there IS evidence.

Here's an example and there's many more... This particular program was shown to reduce rates of recidivism by 83%.

An intensive re-educational program with violent male offenders in the San Francisco jails reduced the level of violence in the jail to zero for a year at a time. Even more important, participation in this program for as little as four months reduced the frequency of violent reoffending after leaving the jail by 83 percent, compared with a matched control group in a conventional jail. In addition to enhancing public safety, this program saved the taxpayers $4 for every $1 spent on it, since the lower reincarceration rate saved roughly $30,000 a year per person.

And a sense of fundamental justice is what the 'justice' system is supposed to be about, or else why even bother?

The justice system isn't about anyone's subjective "sense" of anything. Its about real tangible results reducing crime, so that people in a society can pursue happiness and pay taxes and produce widgets with little chance of falling prey to someone else.

Its about society functioning in a smooth and orderly manner, and that cant happen if crime is rampant.

Edited March 9, 2016 by dre