UPSB v4
Serious Discussion / Crime and punishment - Criminals and the law
-
Date: Tue, Nov 9 2010 19:08:19
I've recently been thinking about crime and punishment a lot recently. This post is from a UK law perspective, however, feel free to discuss things from your countries crime and punishment ideas and laws too! Try to make it clear in your post roughly what the law is NOW before you suggest how it could be better. Most of all, I've been thinking about two things: Serious crime - This would include crimes such as murder, attempted murder, rape, manslaughter etc. Current sentences in the UK for these crimes are 20 years minimum jail time (murder/attempted), various from short term imprisonment to community service + fine (rape) <- I think this one is much too easy on the criminal! , manslaughter is generally around 1 year in prison. Persistant offenders - This includes anyone who is on many occassions finding themselves convicted of offences, for example, assault, theft etc although there could too be serious crimes in there. For those who do not know, manslaughter is killing someone while doing something illegal, for example, if you run a red light and kill someone because of it, or fail to follow building regulations and your building collapses and kills people. To me, these are the worst two kinds of criminal, and a great burden on society, so I think they should be dealt with on a points system. So the points system would work something a little like this: Each crime is assigned an amount of points. The figures in the following list are probably not exactly what they would be after reviews and such - Let's view a short example list: Murder - 15 Rape - 8 Manslaughter - 8 Assault - 2 Theft - 2 Drink driving - 2 And now let's say that anyone who scores over 20 points will recieve, instead of whatever punishment they should get, death. Points are cumulative and you can never ever have points taken away. So, three example cases: Case 1: The defendent has already committed rape (8), 2 counts of assault (4) and drink-driving (2) for a total of 14. He is now facing a second rape charge and is facing death as a consequence. Case 2: Convicted of the rape and murder of a young woman, the defendent is facing 20 points of charges and will be killed if found guilty. Case 3: Having already committed 7 previous thefts (14), the defendent has killed someone while committing an eighth (let's say for example, but smashing a window and the home owner has gotten a glass cut on the neck and died). The defendent now faces a theft and manslaughter charge. If found guilty of manslaughter, the defendent will be killed. Thoughts on the system? Anyone got other ideas of their own?
-
Date: Tue, Nov 9 2010 19:20:53
no system will work nor will any system satisfy the general public. whose to say that murder is worse than rape or manslaughter. Unless you have experienced it, you really can't judge and different experience will be different for each individual. Did they steal GUM or did they steal a Benz. Did they push someone or did the open a can of whoop ass on someone. Whatever system will work and whatever system will be just as bad as any other system anyone can come up with. There is no right or better answer and there probably won't ever be.
-
Date: Tue, Nov 9 2010 19:52:52
I like
-
Date: Tue, Nov 9 2010 21:41:39
PenwisH wrote: Whatever system will work and whatever system will be just as bad as any other system anyone can come up with. There is no right or better answer and there probably won't ever be.
There is perhaps no 'right' answer, however, there are certainly better and worse systems! -
Date: Tue, Nov 9 2010 21:45:28
the current system to judge each offense seperately is better and more flexible, but is prone to many pragmatic weaknesses such as bias.
-
Date: Wed, Nov 10 2010 08:29:47
so if i was like... 50... and have had 9 drink driving charges over the last 30 or so years... then i get 1 more... death? thats a charge every 3 yrs... fairly serious... but not death worthy
-
Date: Wed, Nov 10 2010 17:10:32
Not death worthy? 9 drink driving offences (and that would just be ones you were caught on) is DEATHWORTHY! Christ, think of the odds of someone who gets 9 drink driving chargers serious harming or killing someone?
-
Date: Fri, Nov 12 2010 18:00:34
Originally after reading it for the first time i thought exactly the same as penja, but then i actually realised you got to have a mental condition or you deserve death if you drink and drive 10 times after being told off 9 times!
-
Date: Tue, Dec 7 2010 03:31:27
I believe law is too hard on criminals. Unless it's murder, or rape, or huge stealing. Punishment should be less severe.
-
Date: Tue, Dec 7 2010 13:39:31
Have you considered this? Would you like to be beaten up on the street, only to see that person be free and lightly punished? For them to do it again and again to many people. Persistant criminals are very much a problem. You are also suggesting here, that crimes such as people trafficing, manslaughter, kidnapping etc are not serious?
-
Date: Wed, Dec 8 2010 23:20:56
Sorry, should've included those last 3. And I know, I have mixed opinions. Prison time for drug, prostitution, Low $$ robbery, is just, i dont know, cruel. Sorry, I can't get out what I'm trying to say. Locking people up for large amounts of time for one fucking rage, drunk moment (one time offence) is just harsh.
-
Date: Sun, Dec 19 2010 13:59:46
There is no hard-and-fast set of regulations that people will agree on. What one person feels is harsh, another person will feel is justified. Breaking crime down into numbers seems simplistic because it ignores the social, emotional, and other aspects of crime. This is why being a judge is difficult, because they have to take so many things into account in striving for objectivity, but hey, I guess this is why judges are well-compensated. Wikipedia states that proof of criminal conduct (actus reus or "external element") and a criminal state of mind (mens rea or "fault element") must be established beyond a 'reasonable doubt' for a guilty verdict [true of law in Canada, US, UK, New Zealand, and other countries]. I think each offense should be judged independently of previous infractions when it comes to establishing guilt, even though prior offenses ostensibly support mens rea. The matter of doling out punishment is difficult and sometimes the sentences don't add up. Citing an extreme example, Kent Hovind was sentenced to 10 years in prison for numerous instances of tax evasion. In US law, you might not even receive the same sentence for statutory rape, as imprisonment for this crime ranges from 0-15 years for a first offense (source: Wiki). Not to mention, police can murder innocent people without facing a day of jail time. I agree that punishment should escalate in severity for subsequent offenses. However, positng your hypothetical scenario, criminals who have already amassed nearly 20 points are likely beyond caring or mentally insane. I don't even think the possibility of death would deter these repeat offenders, and they should be placed in a correctional facility or put on house arrest much sooner. Once they have demonstrated they are able to abide by the law, then maybe, in the case of petty crime, the blot on their criminal record should be expunged so that they are able to apply for jobs and other things, but brought up again if they are to stand trial.
-
Date: Sun, Dec 19 2010 14:03:10
Tialys wrote: I agree that punishment should escalate in severity for subsequent offenses. However, positng your hypothetical scenario, criminals who have already amassed nearly 20 points are likely beyond caring or mentally insane. I don't even think the possibility of death would deter these repeat offenders, and they should be placed in a correctional facility or put on house arrest much sooner. .
Well the idea of 20 points is as much a money saving measure as anything else. You can lock someone up forever, keep them in a correctional facility, allow them to go in and out of prison, committing crimes etc OR just get rid of them and better society and save a load of money.