The Law: Sentences too light.

[curiousnathan]

I have been thinking that people who are doing horrible crimes/things are getting light sentences of 2-3 years in Jail. People who kidnap children for themelves. (You know what I mean) should get life imprisonment. ect.
What are your thoughts on this?

 

[Melody]

I have been thinking that people who are doing horrible crimes/things are getting light sentences of 2-3 years in Jail. People who kidnap children for themelves. (You know what I mean) should get life imprisonment. ect.
What are your thoughts on this?

I strongly disagree. It really has to boil down to a situation by situation assessment of what the intent of the criminal was. With that being said, 20 years for kidnapping is cruel and unusual punishment anyways...What if say, the father who lost custody of the child kidnapped his kid? Does it make the crime unforgivable because he did it out of love? In my opinion it does not.

Now if someone does REAL harm to another person, it's a different story, like say a burglar who breaks into a house then rapes the resident of the house. It's these kinds of multiple offenses which often deserve harsh punishment and closer to maximum penalties. This is why we have Judges who sentence criminals. If someone is sincerely sorry for what they did, or if they did it for an understandable reason, they shouldn't be kept in jail for longer than 5-10 years depending on the level of harm caused by the crime.

 

[Jammy-182]

I think people should realise that the sentences people are given are not just to punish but to rehabilitate! I believe it was Gandhi who said "an eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind." I think sentences shouldn't be given in years etc but on how the person changes. although many people disagree.

 

[.Gamer]

I think people should realise that the sentences people are given are not just to punish but to rehabilitate! I believe it was Gandhi who said "an eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind." I think sentences shouldn't be given in years etc but on how the person changes. although many people disagree.

People don't change. In the short term they do, but in the long term, people are always the same.


Imo, the punishment should fit the crime. Child molesters are just as bad as murderers, and to some people its worse. Minor crimes should be given lighter sentences, such as stealing should just be a few months to a few years. Repeat offenders should get more time, since obviously they aren't learning. This one guy in Oklahoma or Nebraska or something like that only got 4 months or something ridiculous for raping a small 7 year old girl. I'm sorry, but in no way shape or form is that a just punishment. This girl is scarred for the rest of her life and will probably have to go to therapy, while this guy can roam the streets free??! He should be put in jail for a hell of a lot longer than that. For crimes such as murder the punishment should always be death, I don't give a crap what Gandhi said, the family who lost one (or more) members of their family has to greive over that and can never have them back, the same should happen to said murderer's family.

EDIT: I found the article: clicky. I was wrong, it was in Vermont, he got 60 days for raping a 6 year old girl.

 

[Aureol]

I'm always on the fence for these issues :\ On the one hand, people deserve to suffer for the crimes they do, especially against women and children (sorry, no offense intended, I'm a bit old-fashioned in thinking that men are a bit more expendable). On the other hand though, everyone deserves another chance. The biggest issue isn't fitting the punishment to the crime: it's finding out if the person will change or not. Most people don't change, so they should be dealt to without mercy. But what about those that would change? We can't just let them rot forever. But, if we're too light, we're just allowing potential criminals to cause much more harm.

It's a big mess to me :(

 

[Yusshin]

EDIT: I found the article: clicky. I was wrong, it was in Vermont, he got 60 days for raping a 6 year old girl.

That's outrageous. Really.

I think rapists, child molestors, and murderers deserve the chair :| They've got psychological problems that will haunt not just them, but the society who knows about them forever.

Nothing worse than killing a human, traumatizing a human for life, or destroying another human's psychology freely like that. It's disgusting. Why should another human live after destroying someone else's life / killing someone / killing someone psychologically?

There's no "out of love" thing there; that's just purely wrong. Unless murdering someone is in self-defence, it's wrong. If it's vengeance, it's still wrong.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

The United States has the most Draconian sentences in the Western world. I'm not saying that as an opinion, it's a proven statistic.

The problem is people are easily swayed whenever politicians suggest to increase sentencing and criminalize more activities. This simple-mindedness is why our prisons are overflowing and we pay way more on prisons than on education.

People who have commited crimes don't need to be given free lodging, three free meals a day, and free healthcare on the taxpayer dollar but since we must we should actually make the time as minimal as possible.

People seem to forget it costs money to keep a person behind bars. If there are alternative sentencing options avaliable like probation, rehabilitaion, traffic school, formal warnings or lower fines/sentences for first-time minor offenders (infractions and non-serious misdemeanors), etc. These approaches are aimed at rehabiliation.

I'm not vouching for criminals. I actually support speeding up the appeals process so people who are condemned are executed quicker. Appeals courts should hear these cases before any others. Victimless crimes and petty offenses should carry the lowest penalties which may only be fines or less than 1 month in a county jail.

The U.S. Supreme Court has decided that it is cruel and unusual punishment to execute rapists because "the punishment is not proportionate to the crime." see: Coker v. Georgia

 

[Yusshin]

The United States has the most Draconian sentences in the Western world. I'm not saying that as an opinion, it's a proven statistic.

The problem is people are easily swayed whenever politicians suggest to increase sentencing and criminalize more activities. This simple-mindedness is why our prisons are overflowing and we pay way more on prisons than on education.

People who have commited crimes don't need to be given free lodging, three free meals a day, and free healthcare on the taxpayer dollar but since we must we should actually make the time as minimal as possible.

People seem to forget it costs money to keep a person behind bars. If there are alternative sentencing options avaliable like probation, rehabilitaion, traffic school, formal warnings or lower fines/sentences for first-time minor offenders (infractions and non-serious misdemeanors), etc. These approaches are aimed at rehabiliation.

Chair the worst of 'em, as mentioned above. That'd cut the cost by at least a third lol :P

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Chair the worst of 'em, as mentioned above. That'd cut the cost by at least a third lol :P

If we didn't allow them all these appeals and "super" due-process that the Supreme mandates be given condemned inmates then yes it would. Unfortunately it actually costs more. During the appeals process they are housed in the prison in a special section called Death Row. There appeals are usually heard all the way up to their state's Supreme Court because many states mandate their Supreme Court and all lower courts review death penalty cases. Many of them will also be reviewed by some federal court due to habeas corpus petitions.

Look at that guy who requested the firing squad in Utah, he was sentenced in the 80's and is barely going to be executed in 2010.

 

[Yusshin]

Lame :< if it were simpler, it'd be a solution lol

 

[shookie]

EDIT: I found the article: clicky. I was wrong, it was in Vermont, he got 60 days for raping a 6 year old girl.

That's absolutely disgusting, and that judge needs to be thrown off the bench.

It really has to boil down to a situation by situation assessment of what the intent of the criminal was. With that being said, 20 years for kidnapping is cruel and unusual punishment anyways...What if say, the father who lost custody of the child kidnapped his kid? Does it make the crime unforgivable because he did it out of love? In my opinion it does not.

I agree with this, except for the last part. In most cases one parent loses custody for a valid reason, whether it's abuse or unsafe living standards or what have you. What if that same parent was somebody who had problems with alcohol or anger? Kidnapping is kidnapping even if you're biologically related to the victim(s).

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Also in most states one cannot be in a jail for longer than 1 year. Felonies punishable by 1+ years get sent to state prisons, not jails.

 

[ANARCHit3cht]

I think that a lot of people get too much time for trivial crimes, and not enough for serious ones. 60 days for rape? Honestly? That is horrible. I know someone who got a little over half of that for a DUI. So... that just proves that it is way too little time.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I think that a lot of people get too much time for trivial crimes, and not enough for serious ones. 60 days for rape? Honestly? That is horrible. I know someone who got a little over half of that for a DUI. So... that just proves that it is way too little time.

It could have been stautory rape.
In California statutory rape is a felony when the victim and offender are more than 3 years apart in age and a misdemeanor when they are 3 years close in age. So if it was a misdemeanor, the offender woul have gotten 1 year max.

 

[Fox♠]

Personally I'm still for sending them all to Australia.

 

[shookie]

It could have been stautory rape.
In California statutory rape is a felony when the victim and offender are more than 3 years apart in age and a misdemeanor when they are 3 years close in age. So if it was a misdemeanor, the offender woul have gotten 1 year max.

The case in question is in Vermont, and there is absolutely no way it was statutory rape. The suspect was 34 at the time of his sentencing, and he abused the girl from when she was seven until she was ten years old. You're looking at an age gap of a good 20 years.

 

[Timbjerr]

In my experience, I know people who get sentences that are too harsh.

I know someone who was found guilty of solicitation of a minor (it was a 17-year-old girl...over an online chatroom), and he got sentenced to five years. I can understand such a sentence if the two actually met, and the offender actually got down to the business of raep, but nope...it was just solicitation. >_>

 

[FreakyLocz14]

The case in question is in Vermont, and there is absolutely no way it was statutory rape. The suspect was 34 at the time of his sentencing, and he abused the girl from when she was seven until she was ten years old. You're looking at an age gap of a good 20 years.

In that cases I'd say 15 to life that seems about right.

Personally I'm still for sending them all to Australia.

Sending people to Australia might actually be a reward depending on where they come from.

In my experience, I know people who get sentences that are too harsh.

I know someone who was found guilty of solicitation of a minor (it was a 17-year-old girl...over an online chatroom), and he got sentenced to five years. I can understand such a sentence if the two actually met, and the offender actually got down to the business of raep, but nope...it was just solicitation. >_>

That is too harsh imo. 6 months tops. (I don't know the details of the case so I'm saying that generally.)

 

[rickyisgreat]

I personally hate rapists. they should get executed. thats just wrong to do something like that

 

[Guillermo]

That's outrageous. Really.

I think rapists, child molestors, and murderers deserve the chair :| They've got psychological problems that will haunt not just them, but the society who knows about them forever.

Nothing worse than killing a human, traumatizing a human for life, or destroying another human's psychology freely like that. It's disgusting. Why should another human live after destroying someone else's life / killing someone / killing someone psychologically?

There's no "out of love" thing there; that's just purely wrong. Unless murdering someone is in self-defence, it's wrong. If it's vengeance, it's still wrong.

What? The chair? Are you joking? Rape is a big thing, yes, it deserves a big sentence, yes, but in no way should their life be taken for something like that. If I was raped I would rather see the person who committed the crime rot in jail than have the chair.

Yay, let's send all the bad people to Australia so we can suffer!!!!!

Personally, I think the sentences some people get are far too small but then on the other hand there are other people who get sentences far too large.