Well, I'm no criminologist so my opinions don't count for much. Fixed penalties for certain crimes might work in some circumstances. The problem is that each case is different & should be treated as such in any "civilised" society. Some murderers who committed their crime under extreme provocation (crime of passion) are unlikely to reoffend & consequently no danger to the general public. Life imprisonment seems an inappropriate punishment.

I'm all for a fair trial where you are innocent until proven guilty. What annoys me is that someone who is clearly guilty is allowed to plead "not guilty" which wastes so much time & results in expensive court cases.

If prison is intended purely to remove criminals from society it will work. However, this has proved ineffective as both a deterrent & a permanent cure for habitual offenders. Criminals usually revert to their old ways soon after release. The only answer in this case would be life imprisonment for any crime. There must be a better way.

http://www.crimevictimsunited.org/measure11/measure11fulltext.htm

Measure 11 - I voted for it, and it passed. Being a Deputy Sheriff, under Ron Gordon. . . .  I have seen what the law has done. There hasn't been a "drastic" decline in serious crimes, but, its definiatly steadily decreasing.

Hmm, it still seems to me that the punishment doesn't fit the crime. I do admire many Arab countries for their solutions to this. You steal, off with a hand. You kill, off with your head. I know it isn't the answer (and many have been proved belatedly innocent), but as someone who had a close friend raped I'd say that off with their mum/daddy parts is a sensible policy, he sure isn't going to do that again!!!
I mean where is the justice in locking these worthless excuses for human beings in a prison that is a holiday camp? Am I the only one that feels that so-called justice is a farce?
If I caught a burgler right now trying to break into my flat I'd fix it so he could never take violin lessons!!
I admire Brad being a deputy sherriff, and my hat is off to him for it, I couldn't do it. I would be justice without mercy, and I know this is one of my great failings. But there are a lot of pickpockets/beggars/burglars in Pecs who are scared of the mere sight of me. So maybe I've done some good, my wife finds it funny that people run away from me rather than hassle me for pocket change. She says I'm probably the most effective anti-crime deterent known to Hungarians (even my colleagues at school threaten their students with 'if you don't behave we'll get Mark in here!').
I know this is a sensitive topic, and I sympathise with the innocents, my father was wrongfully marked by a taxman and spent 18 months in jail for something he didn't do, so I know about being a victim, I still have the mental scars even now, and a pathological hatred of taxmen, before being able to prove his innocence, and we never got an apology or a penny compensation, inspite of the fact they destroyed his business, and our family. So I feel I can see both sides.
No system is perfect, but lately things have become something of a joke. My advice, shoot the next taxman you meet (they are the biggest legalised crooks after insurance people), just kidding. I wouldn't be that humane.... Honest Pete I'm just joking Nooo OUCH. I didn't mean it. No I won't try the things in the Spanish Inquisition handbook. Aaarrrggghhh.....

Ozzy

Well here in the states prisons arent exactly 'holiday camps'. Most prisons let inmates go out to courtyards from time to time; something i think most of them do not deserve. I really love those max Security prisons though. Inmates rarely get to go out to any courtyard: they spend most of their time in their very small cells with a low-voltage light. If it were up to me id leave them in there for the resst of their days, no magazines, no books, no nothin. Might sound a tad inhuman but they deserve it after the atrocities they commit. hey Ozzy, have UK prison officials contacted you for a position of warden yet? you could do a heck of a good job. Oh and almost forgot everyone heard about them chain gangs where they chain inmates together and make them work their backs off fixin the roads and such. I think thats a pretty good thing since not only will they be sufferein from the hot sun but they be helpin out the country by cleanin it up. Too bad its close to being completely abolished now...

I think Hagar has highlighted the difficulty with the 'Book of Standard Crimes and Punishments' issue, Oz.
There are just simply no two crimes exactly alike.
Don't mistake me for a 'bleeding heart'. I have been a victim of crime as have members of my immediate family. I have been have been shot at, and had to shoot back.
With regard to the recent topic concerning molestation, my daughter was molested at age 10, by my ex wife's live-in lover (I took my 3 kids from her at that point and raised them myself). Oh incidentally, he is dead (by his own hand it would seem).
Anyway, as I was saying, and as Hagar has mentioned, there are mitigating circumstances sometimes. I know here, and probably everywhere else, it seems that mitigating ciorcumstances apply to every single illegal act committed. There is always some hard luck story being used to some how justify a terrible act.
But the fact remains that there are sometimes genuine circumstances which need to be taken into account in order to "judge" ang "punish" a person in a way that suits the whole circumstance.
As for people being guilty if there is enough evidence. Who decides if there is enough evidence? Who decides if that evidence is genuine or 'planted' or 'tainted' etc? Who does a 'truly innocent person' go to if it is decided that there is 'enough' evidence, and they want to challenge the validity of it?
The answer, of course, is a Jury. We can't do without that. We would be going back to medieval times if we were to consider conviction without trial.

Anyway, it's been said a million times (I think 'Dirty Harry' even said it), "Until someone comes up with something better, that works, we'll just have to do the best we can with the systyem we've got". 

Oz,

I do agree with the concept that there should be some kind of 'standardization' as far as sentencing is concerned.
It seems (just from these posts) that the situation is the same all over the world (at least western world) where there are ridiculously short sentences being given for 'horrific' crimes, while someone who has committed a 'lesser' offense is having the book thrown at them.

This (at least here anyway) is a very common occurence and has been a topic of controversy for a long time. The problem is that it's up to the judges themselves to get together (or be forced together) to come up with some kind of 'system' whereby there is at least a degree of 'sense' to made of the sentences they hand down.

It hasn't happened hear yet. It seems almost every day there is another sentence handed down that causes a cry of indignation from the general public.

What was that 'Measure 11' that's been mentioned? 

Its interesting to see your observation about punishments Brensec, I know in Britain that women convicted of petty crimes like shoplifting will get more jail time than a man convicted of manslaughter!
In fact women offenders tend to get far longer sentences than their male counterparts, but on the whole theirs are non-violent crimes... Weird huh?

Ozzy

Quote:


That's in place in many parts of the US. It's called Manditory Sentencing but it has it's drawbacks too since it doesn't take the circumstances into account. I heard of a case (don't know if it's actually true but it does illustrate the point) where a man drove up on an accident. The only house nearby had nobody home so he broke in to call an ambulance (forgot his cell phone I guess) and was later arrested for breaking and entering and sentenced to 20 years in prison.

That's an extreme example but it does illustrate that any time you just make an arbitrary rule and apply it to every situation, half the time it does more damage than good. What we need are old fashioned judges who can look at the person and the circumstances and make a decision that's good for society and the person. In some cases he or I guess she nowdays would string them up, in others give them what the circumstances deserve.

Too often I hear of cases like you cited where someone who deserves leniency is railroaded into a draconian sentence while another who deserves to be locked in a hole and never let out walks away with nothing. What we need is more discretion, not less. We need people who are able and willing to stand up and make a decision even when that decision will be unpopular.

What happened with the kids and the wrestling move was that a child was killed. Definately a tragedy but who to blame? Society couldn't go after the industry that glamorizes wrestling and makes it look like people walk away from such treatment every day so they went after the other child. A good judge would see how ludicrous the proceedings were and not given in to the mob screaming for a scape goat.

The same judge would also see the real dangers in our society and not listen to the cry that such and such was a victim of their past. It's really just a question of common sense. Something that seems to be getting rare these days.