What kind of justice do you favor?

[Ó Cathasaigh]

Well, choose a result from the poll and state why.

Myself, I favor harsh strict punishment to criminals who commit a felony. In my opinion there can be some "re-education" for the lesser criminals to teach them how to survive in the public without resorting to crime, how to get off drugs, etc. But for Murderers, Rapists, Pedophiles, Corporate scumbags etc Life in prison and the Death Penalty are perfectly acceptable.

I would also like to see the punishment for Drunk driving go up, if you drive drunk weither or not you kill anyone I beleive you should spend somewhere between 5-10 years in prison. Killing someone, now that's different. I'd say 15-25 years.

My experiances with criminals has drasticaly influenced my opinions.

[therussian]

Well, choose a result from the poll and state why.

Myself, I favor harsh strict punishment to criminals who commit a felony. In my opinion there can be some "re-education" for the lesser criminals to teach them how to survive in the public without resorting to crime, how to get off drugs, etc. But for Murderers, Rapists, Pedophiles, Corporate scumbags etc Life in prison and the Death Penalty are perfectly acceptable.

That's the only part I agree with

[Last Roman]

I choose "Long Prison terms for felony's, short for non-felony"

[Denny Crane!]

Just a quick post from me, evidence has shown that zero tolerance approachs to policing, prosecution and sentencing do reduce crime. I am thinking of new york and a test case in the UK (I forget where). The approach which favours community sentences and focused reform is not working in the UK and I think has more to do with overcrowded prisons than crime reduction.

Edit: does the plural form of "ies" not go on the end of felony - felonies. I don't know american law but is a non felony not a misdemeanour? Just being picky.

Peter

[the Black Prince]

like Hicks i have experience both with criminals, and with the criminal justice system personally, and also from an academic viewpoint to, as both a student of Law and of Criminology

i'd divide offenders as follows
Category 1 offenders - life imprisonment
these offenders are those who commit serial offences, or the former Capital Offences, rape, murder, s18 GBH, treason, multimillion pound fraud
these people should be locked up and never seen again. while perhaps some of them may be reformed, the crimes they have committed do not merit public release, and the risk to the public is too much.

Category 2 Offenders - long term imprisonment
this should be the smallest category, for those who commit offences that might normally be category 3, but rate a custodial sentance due to aggravation, or might normally be category 1, but include some serious mitigation.
offences might include, fraud, serial burglary, some manslaughter cases.
offenders would not be here for reform, but merely incapacitation and punishment

Category 3 Offenders - long term community punishment and rehab
this would be the largest category, for those who commit mid to serious offences, should be sentenced to compulsory rehab programs, and work in the community - burglary - assault

Category 4 Offenders - short term communitry punishment
minor offences
assault - theft

Category 5 Offenders - variable level fines
regulatory offences, not really crimes, unless something else occurs as part of the breach, but still need to punished, speeding, licence evasion

Category 6 Offenders - fixed penalty notices
the really minor stuff, parking tickets and the like.



prison, does not work.
it cannot reform, the environment does not permit it. prison should only be used for those people you do not intent to ever release, maybe 500 out of the Uks current 71,000 prison population.
for the rest, they should be made to repay their crime by work, and in some cases also made to attend rehabilitative programs. it is a criminological fact that these programs work best in the community. close monitoring is obviously essential.

minor regulatory offences, like speeding, should never be punished by criminal sanction, unless the breach of the regulation causes another crime - like death by dangerous driving.


non reverable penalties should NEVER be used (like death and castration) because there is no way you can repay a miscarriage of justice in such a circumstance. 1 innocent man killed is not worth the death of 10 criminals when you can just lock them up for the rest of their natural lives - which believe me, is a FAR WORSE FATE!

[Sétanta]

Murder, Rape, Treason and Attempted Rape/Murder especially should be punishable by death.

[Last Roman]

Murder, Rape, Treason and Attempted Rape/Murder especially should be punishable by death.

and this is coming from a Catholic? Not a very good one then.

[Tom Paine]

Murder, Rape, Treason and Attempted Rape/Murder especially should be punishable by death.

Not really. How does that do anything useful? Most murders certainly are crimes of passion, so killing someone for that is inherently unjust!

[Sétanta]

Not really. How does that do anything useful? Most murders certainly are crimes of passion, so killing someone for that is inherently unjust!

Well, they broke the law taking somebodys life. Do they really deserve life after that. What right do they have to kill another human and not be punished?

[Tom Paine]

Well, they broke the law taking somebodys life. Do they really deserve life after that. What right do they have to kill another human and not be punished?

And someone broke the law by stealing... do they deserve to live or own possessions after that? Its the same utterly broken logic. Punish them yes, but punish them appropriately!

[Ó Cathasaigh]

I can speak on this more than anyone here, I reckon.

What? where you wrongfully accused?


If you were.....I saw the movie "the fugitive" so we're basicaly even now.

[Atheist Peace]

Murder, Rape, Treason and Attempted Rape/Murder especially should be punishable by death.

Treason? Treason? Are you serious?

You really hate freedom that much?

[Denny Crane!]

like Hicks i have experience both with criminals, and with the criminal justice system personally, and also from an academic viewpoint to, as both a student of Law and of Criminology

i'd divide offenders as follows
Category 1 offenders - life imprisonment
these offenders are those who commit serial offences, or the former Capital Offences, rape, murder, s18 GBH, treason, multimillion pound fraud
these people should be locked up and never seen again. while perhaps some of them may be reformed, the crimes they have committed do not merit public release, and the risk to the public is too much.

You must be putting an enormous amount of murder cases under the bracket of mitigating circumstances as of the 700 murders committed each year in the UK I don't think it is viable to suggest detaining all of them indefinitely.

Category 2 Offenders - long term imprisonment
this should be the smallest category, for those who commit offences that might normally be category 3, but rate a custodial sentance due to aggravation, or might normally be category 1, but include some serious mitigation.
offences might include, fraud, serial burglary, some manslaughter cases.
offenders would not be here for reform, but merely incapacitation and punishment

Category 3 Offenders - long term community punishment and rehab
this would be the largest category, for those who commit mid to serious offences, should be sentenced to compulsory rehab programs, and work in the community - burglary - assault

Category 4 Offenders - short term communitry punishment
minor offences
assault - theft

Category 5 Offenders - variable level fines
regulatory offences, not really crimes, unless something else occurs as part of the breach, but still need to punished, speeding, licence evasion

Category 6 Offenders - fixed penalty notices
the really minor stuff, parking tickets and the like.



prison, does not work.
it cannot reform, the environment does not permit it. prison should only be used for those people you do not intent to ever release, maybe 500 out of the Uks current 71,000 prison population.
for the rest, they should be made to repay their crime by work, and in some cases also made to attend rehabilitative programs. it is a criminological fact that these programs work best in the community. close monitoring is obviously essential.

Can this be backed up by a decrease in crime since it was implemented? A tricky one considering there are so many variables but a valid question. How is it proved?

I do think the style of policing has a lot to do with increases in crime, the decentralisation and broken windows method in New York was effective and we have effectively gone in the opposite direction.

minor regulatory offences, like speeding, should never be punished by criminal sanction, unless the breach of the regulation causes another crime - like death by dangerous driving.


non reverable penalties should NEVER be used (like death and castration) because there is no way you can repay a miscarriage of justice in such a circumstance. 1 innocent man killed is not worth the death of 10 criminals when you can just lock them up for the rest of their natural lives - which believe me, is a FAR WORSE FATE!

So if it turns out locking that person up for the rest of there life was a miscarriage of justice then you have actually done a something more morally reprehensible than if you had executed them?

I disagree with capital punishment these days but there is a kink in that logic.

Peter

[God]

non reverable penalties should NEVER be used (like death and castration) because there is no way you can repay a miscarriage of justice in such a circumstance.

sums up what I think exactly.

[Ó Cathasaigh]

and this is coming from a Catholic? Not a very good one then.

OFF TOPIC in my own thread, dammit, but i have to do it.

Being a christian or a catholic does not mean that you are perfect or that you even follow Jesus's principle of "turn the other cheek"

If we were perfect, we wouldn't be christians, we would simply be "Godians" or something. Jeuse "FORGIVES" us of our imperfect hatred for murderers etc. Hence the pic in me sig.

Not really. How does that do anything useful? Most murders certainly are crimes of passion, so killing someone for that is inherently unjust!

Killing is killing. Does it matter to the victim or the victims family if they were killed in a "crime of passion"

[Last Roman]

Killing is killing. Does it matter to the victim or the victims family if they were killed in a "crime of passion"

black and white thinking is never a good thing

[Mangalore]

OFF TOPIC in my own thread, dammit, but i have to do it.

Being a christian or a catholic does not mean that you are perfect or that you even follow Jesus's principle of "turn the other cheek"
If we were perfect, we wouldn't be christians, we would simply be "Godians" or something. Jeuse "FORGIVES" us of our imperfect hatred for murderers etc. Hence the pic in me sig.

Wow, that's one hell of an excuse. Christian martyrs must be rotating in their graves for having sacrificed themselves for such a nonsense attitude. The only thing right about this sentence is that Jesus by Christian mythology forgives sinners, however only those that regret their sins, that's why there is that hell thingie for the others who don't regret them.

As you rationally reason your action for introducing general death penalty and thus cannot seriously regret what you are doing you will have a tough time reason yourself out of that if

Killing is killing. Does it matter to the victim or the victims family if they were killed in a "crime of passion"

Well, when killing is killing how can you get away with killing a man for vengeance?. You morally justify killing a man by your personal standards but do not subject yourself to it.

Justice in a proper jurisdiction is punishment of someone violating rules of society by society to dissuade wrong behaviour, to remove the criminial from society as a threat or to bring him back on the right track. As murderers of passion act without conscious consideration of the impact of their behaviour and the others don't care about social rules the dissuading part doesn't work. Removing from society can be achieved by putting one in jail. Lowering oneself as a society to the level of those we convict doesn't sound like we are standing above our primal instincts, rehabiliting people should be the goal of a free society.

This does not imply soft handling of criminals but simply treating them devoid of emotion and not fall to their levels oneself.

[removeduser_487563287433]

The death penalty is barbaric. Even if it wasn't, there is still the chance of condemning an innocent person, and that is not acceptable. I can speak on this more than anyone here, I reckon.

[God]

Some murderers aren't completely... sane at the time they commit the murder. After a lengthy prison sentence they could come back a changed person. If they don't look like they've improved, keep them in prison.

[Ó Cathasaigh]

When you speak of murder, rape and paedophilia I doubt you have been personally affected by them.

Think again, I do beleive I've been personally affected by Murder. Hence my hatred for Murderers and criminals in general.