Just to show that we *do* have a functioning justice system...

silworth said:
I'm all for rehabilitation for lesser crimes, but taking a life deserves punishment not rehabilitation.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with having both?, and in many cases the rehabilitation is the punishment.

Dkore-DeX said:
I guess that makes it ok then ?
Click to expand...

No of course not, do you actually think that was what he was insinuating ?

What it means is that you have to take into consideration that we as human beings are emotionally driven creatures and sometimes those emotions have a bearing over our actions and cause us to act out irrationally, be it a love crime, or someone that was in an abusive relationship, these are very different circumstances when compared to a premeditated murder for example, these different circumstances have to taken into consideration when you are issuing a sentence.
 
Last edited:
lowrider007 said:
What's wrong with having both?, and in many cases the rehabilitation is the punishment.
Click to expand...

Because as I (and others) have already said, I don't believe that anyone with the mindset to be a killer (intentional, not indirect) cannot ever be a part of a truely balanced and peaceful society, and as such should never become a part of it again.
 
Another thing I hate, is getting a lenient sentence for admitting guilt. That is completely ridiculous for a murder case. "I admit I killed her, please can I have 2 years shaved off my sentence. I'm a good honest girl..."
 
silworth said:
Because as I (and others) have already said, I don't believe that anyone with the mindset to be a killer (intentional, not indirect) cannot ever be a part of a truely balanced and peaceful society, and as such should never become a part of it again.
Click to expand...

Well I believe that if we are going to work towards that "truly balanced and peaceful society" then rehabilitation is part of that process, I don't think locking people up for life is a very balanced way of doing things and is not really the kind of ideals I believe a balanced and peaceful society would have.
 
Whereas the law/justice system sure as hell didnt work in this instance: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...telling-police-hadnt-driving-spared-jail.html

So a person who lied repeatedly about not driving then is later found out that she was driving...gets away with killing her boyfriend..ok get a 9 mth suspended sentence..banned from driving for 3 yrs and will be electronically tagged and place on curfew for 3 yrs :confused:...yep the law is a complete and utter ass of itself...why should she get away with what is essentially death by dangerous driving??..

Oh and heres the icing on the cake when it comes to the law being a complete ass of itself...remember this guy, the guy who broke into another mans house...held his family to ransom then got systematically beaten to an inch of his life?? but instead of him being jailed the homeowner got imprisoned for a few yrs along with his brother....yep he again walks away free ie got bail:rolleyes:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...l-serial-criminal-terrorised-businessman.html
 
PMKeates said:
We only need to imprison people for as long as they are at risk of re-offending.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with that part at all I'm afraid. Say a husband murders his wife in a fit of jealous rage. He would never, in a million years, kill again. Should we just let him off?

There has to be an inherent punishment aspect to all sentences.
 
silworth said:
Because as I (and others) have already said, I don't believe that anyone with the mindset to be a killer (intentional, not indirect) cannot ever be a part of a truely balanced and peaceful society, and as such should never become a part of it again.
Click to expand...

So that's large chunks of the army, navy, RAF and police marksmen all going to jail for life is it?
 
jamief said:
I don't agree with that part at all I'm afraid. Say a husband murders his wife in a fit of jealous rage. He would never, in a million years, kill again. Should we just let him off?

There has to be an inherent punishment aspect to all sentences.
Click to expand...

What's to say he won't ever have a fit of jealous rage ever again? It's happened once it can happen again.
 
She should spend her best years in jail, let her out when she's nearly 50, has no family or friends and actually has matured enough to realise that what she did was awful. Instead of letting her out in 10 years for her to carry on with her ways.
 
Dkore-DeX said:
Another thing I hate, is getting a lenient sentence for admitting guilt. That is completely ridiculous for a murder case. "I admit I killed her, please can I have 2 years shaved off my sentence. I'm a good honest girl..."
Click to expand...

Possibly, just possibly, they do that because it:
A: Saves a huge amount of time and money.
B: Guarantees a that the person does serve time, as opposed to the risk of them going to trial an getting off because there was some doubt or the Jury couldn't be totally convinced.

There is no such thing as a sure fire case when it comes to Jury trials, as you never know quite how the Jury will react, so it can be better to have a guilty plea in return for a shorter sentence, than risk no sentence at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom