Criminal Sentancing

[ace_of_something]

So yesterday I was on court duty which is boring as hell but kind of interesting. You stand there while the judge says ?how do you plead? If you plead not guilty you could be facing between Xdays and XMonths. If you plead guilty you will receive Xmonths. Sir, I suggest you plead not guilty as you are facing a lot of time? and so on and so forth this is after the prosecuter makes his recommendation for how long a sentence if the plead is guilty and justifies why, usually with the persons criminal history. Tears are shed curses muttered under their breath and than they go sit in the waiting room. In four hours we go through about 65 pleading hearings 90% of which are ?guilty? or ?no contest?

So, anyway it got me to thinking about sentencing obviously. Mandatory minimums and maximums. I open this to the escapist for general discussion. How do you feel about maximum and minimum sentencing guidelines? What do you think the sentence for crime X should be and why? Do you know someone who has been sentenced? What are some of the community (work release, probation, etc) they have in your region? Or general questions for me about court. (keep in mind I?m not a lawyer)

If this segues into capital punishment try to keep it civil.

 

[TimeLord]

There should be no minimum, if someone commits a crime they get xdays/months/years dependent on the crime. Simple as... no appeals, no let out for good behavior no nothing. Serve your time.

 

[The Infamous Scamola]

I believe in the minimum/maximum time sentencing. No one crime is the same as the other.

 

[ace_of_something]

I believe in the minimum/maximum time sentencing. No one crime is the same as the other.

Interesting because the 'no crime is the same' argument is usually used by those arguing against min/max sentancing. They suggest the alternative of doing it on a case by case basis. Which I don't agree with either because it can create unfair sentancing.

 

[wooty]

The thing I hate about British law on life sentences at the moment is that its not life, its like 26 years, or in this country 10 years for good behaviour or something retarded like that. Life should be life, 20 odd years isnt life, its just an inconvenience

 

[ace_of_something]

The thing I hate about British law on life sentences at the moment is that its not life, its like 26 years, or in this country 10 years for good behaviour or something retarded like that. Life should be life, 20 odd years isnt life, its just an inconvenience

That is exceptionally retard.

 

[CptCamoPants]

Appeals are there if there for if there is a mistrial

 

[iron codpiece]

Speaking as someone who almost got royally screwed by the system once. That pleading thing is a joke a lot of times guys don't even talk to their lawyers before hand. Not at all like law and order. The judge says "be sure to call the public defenders office' if you plead not guilty. Do you know how hard it can be to use the phones in jail!? It could take a week.

Appeals are there if there for if there is a mistrial

A Harsh sentance doesn't mean mistrial

 

[Aeviv]

The thing I hate about British law on life sentences at the moment is that its not life, its like 26 years, or in this country 10 years for good behaviour or something retarded like that. Life should be life, 20 odd years isnt life, its just an inconvenience

That is exceptionally retard.

Yes, yes it is. Im British as well, you may have heard of a certain 'baby P' case in the UK recently, where a mother, father and friend beat a small toddler to death. And these guys didnt even get life (which isnt even life) sentances. The mother, could be out before 2015. Now im all for compassion in sentancing, but i do think that there should be no chance of parole or early release, although maybe in some circumstances you could be allowed day leave (non-violent offenses only), but certainly that life should be life, and if you take a life, you should get life- i dont support the death penalty

 

[L4hlborg]

Well, in Finland, the max sentence is for life. Which means around ten years. Which is retarded. You can murder like 10 people, get sentenced for a lifetime and get out 10 years later, if you even bother to behave a little. Honestly, I think that there should be no maximum sentence.

 

[CptCamoPants]

Speaking as someone who almost got royally screwed by the system once. That pleading thing is a joke a lot of times guys don't even talk to their lawyers before hand. Not at all like law and order. The judge says "be sure to call the public defenders office' if you plead not guilty. Do you know how hard it can be to use the phones in jail!? It could take a week.

Appeals are there if there for if there is a mistrial

A Harsh sentance doesn't mean mistrial

No, but if someone is innocent and they get called guilty, then that is a mistrial. That's what the appeals courts are for

 

[iron codpiece]

Speaking as someone who almost got royally screwed by the system once. That pleading thing is a joke a lot of times guys don't even talk to their lawyers before hand. Not at all like law and order. The judge says "be sure to call the public defenders office' if you plead not guilty. Do you know how hard it can be to use the phones in jail!? It could take a week.

Appeals are there if there for if there is a mistrial

A Harsh sentance doesn't mean mistrial

No, but if someone is innocent and they get called guilty, then that is a mistrial. That's what the appeals courts are for

Now that you've elaborated I understand what you meant.

 

[Pickel Surprise]

It really depends. For many crimes, what we already do (In the United States at least) works just fine, but some things need some major tweaking.

The only issue I feel like going into right now are those heinous crimes that you don't come back from. What I'm referring to are crimes that are committed only by people so far gone mentally that no amount of "institutionalized correction" can make them sane enough for a normal life among normal people.

A perfect example of this is the good 'ol repeat sex offender: A guy rapes someone, gets caught, goes to prison, gets out X years later, and then he does it all again. You can't swing someone back to sanity from that. They're never going to stop unless you lock them up for good.

I'd normally have no problem with this, but there's a pretty damn big one that I've become enlightened to over the years: it costs a lot of money to keep a guy alive in prison for the rest of his life. Taxpayers are effectively paying out of their own pockets to sustain mentally ill convicts who are never going to improve, are never going to set foot outside of prison again, and are never going to contribute to society in any even remotely positive way.

My personal stance on this matter:

If you're convicted of a sexual crime once, you should be locked up for so god damned long that when you get out, the world won't even be the same one as it was when you went in. If you're convicted a second time, I'd like to go with the death penalty, but then all the bleeding hearts would lynch me for being inhumane. Instead, pump the guy full of cheap alcohol, leave him in the desert with no supplies and no civilization for miles in any direction, and let him kill himself by trying to bone a cactus.

I know it's extreme, but "prison for life" doesn't make any sense to me. There's no reason that innocent people should have to pay to keep convicts alive, especially if they're never getting out again.

 

[Mother Yeti]

Well, in Finland, the max sentence is for life. Which means around ten years. Which is retarded. You can murder like 10 people, get sentenced for a lifetime and get out 10 years later, if you even bother to behave a little. Honestly, I think that there should be no maximum sentence.

And yet Finland has a relatively low crime rate compared to other Western countries. Why do you think that is?

 

[L4hlborg]

Well, in Finland, the max sentence is for life. Which means around ten years. Which is retarded. You can murder like 10 people, get sentenced for a lifetime and get out 10 years later, if you even bother to behave a little. Honestly, I think that there should be no maximum sentence.

And yet Finland has a relatively low crime rate compared to other Western countries. Why do you think that is?

No idea. Well, almost all crime here is that some drunken idiot punches his friend. And when I was talking about ten murders, as you might have noticed, it was theoritical, it's quite rare that somebody gets murdered. You might get killed in a traffic accident (alcohol involved) or get punched in the face so hard you die, but it's quite rare. I don't know why the crime rate is relatively low.

 

[Mother Yeti]

Well, in Finland, the max sentence is for life. Which means around ten years. Which is retarded. You can murder like 10 people, get sentenced for a lifetime and get out 10 years later, if you even bother to behave a little. Honestly, I think that there should be no maximum sentence.

And yet Finland has a relatively low crime rate compared to other Western countries. Why do you think that is?

No idea. Well, almost all crime here is that some drunken idiot punches his friend. And when I was talking about ten murders, as you might have noticed, it was theoritical, it's quite rare that somebody gets murdered. You might get killed in a traffic accident (alcohol involved) or get punched in the face so hard you die, but it's quite rare. I don't know why the crime rate is relatively low.

So if the crime rate is low, why should Finland change its penal system? Seems to me it's working just fine for y'all.

 

[letsnoobtehpwns]

Everyone should get a life time for anything wrong. No exceptions (except me).

 

[ace_of_something]

Well, in Finland, the max sentence is for life. Which means around ten years. Which is retarded. You can murder like 10 people, get sentenced for a lifetime and get out 10 years later, if you even bother to behave a little. Honestly, I think that there should be no maximum sentence.

And yet Finland has a relatively low crime rate compared to other Western countries. Why do you think that is?

No idea. Well, almost all crime here is that some drunken idiot punches his friend. And when I was talking about ten murders, as you might have noticed, it was theoritical, it's quite rare that somebody gets murdered. You might get killed in a traffic accident (alcohol involved) or get punched in the face so hard you die, but it's quite rare. I don't know why the crime rate is relatively low.

So if the crime rate is low, why should Finland change its penal system? Seems to me it's working just fine for y'all.

Not sure on Finnish gun control laws that might have something to do with it. One big part is that it's a homogenous culture so social rules are more set in. Also, they have bigger things to worry about in Finland... like Trolls.

 

[L4hlborg]

Well, in Finland, the max sentence is for life. Which means around ten years. Which is retarded. You can murder like 10 people, get sentenced for a lifetime and get out 10 years later, if you even bother to behave a little. Honestly, I think that there should be no maximum sentence.

And yet Finland has a relatively low crime rate compared to other Western countries. Why do you think that is?

No idea. Well, almost all crime here is that some drunken idiot punches his friend. And when I was talking about ten murders, as you might have noticed, it was theoritical, it's quite rare that somebody gets murdered. You might get killed in a traffic accident (alcohol involved) or get punched in the face so hard you die, but it's quite rare. I don't know why the crime rate is relatively low.

So if the crime rate is low, why should Finland change its penal system? Seems to me it's working just fine for y'all.

Well, even though there is a low crime rate, doesn't mean we shouldn't have a possibility for a proper punishment for some douchebag who goes on a rapemurder spree? Damn, if I got raped and murdered, I would want that guy to be in prison for the rest of his life.

 

[Mother Yeti]

Well, in Finland, the max sentence is for life. Which means around ten years. Which is retarded. You can murder like 10 people, get sentenced for a lifetime and get out 10 years later, if you even bother to behave a little. Honestly, I think that there should be no maximum sentence.

And yet Finland has a relatively low crime rate compared to other Western countries. Why do you think that is?

No idea. Well, almost all crime here is that some drunken idiot punches his friend. And when I was talking about ten murders, as you might have noticed, it was theoritical, it's quite rare that somebody gets murdered. You might get killed in a traffic accident (alcohol involved) or get punched in the face so hard you die, but it's quite rare. I don't know why the crime rate is relatively low.

So if the crime rate is low, why should Finland change its penal system? Seems to me it's working just fine for y'all.

Well, even though there is a low crime rate, doesn't mean we shouldn't have a possibility for a proper punishment for some douchebag who goes on a rapemurder spree? Damn, if I got raped and murdered, I would want that guy to be in prison for the rest of his life.

Well, obviously if you were murdered there's a question as to whether you'd want anything.

But regardless, I question the conventional wisdom that revenge ought to be the goal of the penal system. I'm more for rehabilitation, in which the entire point is that the person gets out eventually.