For some crimes I see prisoners get huge sentences then others it's like they never learned a lesson.
Should it depend on the person or the crime?
2006-09-03 14:15:55 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Is it when justice transforms into cruelty when the condemned feels remorse for their crime? Or is that when true punishment starts?
For without remorse, there is never punishment.
2006-09-03 14:20:52 · answer #1 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Then there are those that get a huge sentence for a minor crime, because some jerk prosecutor decided to add a firearm enhancement, where there should have not been one, but the due pleads, without talking to a competent attorney. Or the ones that deserve jail, but they come out dumber than when they went in, with all sorts of thoughts how to not get caught this time. Or, the ones that missed a court date, because there dog died and they lost track of time, but get charged with felony bail jump, EVEN if found innocent of the underlying charge. Okay, done ranting. Call your legislature and tell them to ask defense attorneys about the implications of their BS statutes BEFORE they make it law.
It needs to depend on the person, the law(only if it is not a stupid law), a fair charging decision by the prosecutor, and the ability of the local jail/prison to reform the defendant. Further, sentencing needs to be left to a panel- not one judge that could be a total idiot.
2006-09-03 14:29:30 · answer #2 · answered by Jessica 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that our judicial system in some aspects stinks. I mean like child abusers, rapists, child molestors, murderers and criminals such as these should be locked up and the key thrown away. It depends on the severity of the crime, the person (whether it be more than one offense) It is a little of both, I guess. I know that when my nephew at 13 was ran over by a truck pulling a loaded horse trailer and dragged 17 ft before the driver pulled over, and my nephew who later died because of the injuries sustained, the driver did not even so much as get a ticket. She had a burned out head light and she was driving on the wrong side of the road. Her insurance paid 25000 and my sister in law was left without her son and over 75000 dollars in debt due to medical bills, funeral arrangements and the cost of a head stone. There is more to that story, however we are limited to space. The point is everyone will be accountable one day. Maybe not so much here on earth, but we will have to meet our maker one day.
2006-09-03 14:30:53 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Punishment to a person who has commited crime is like service given to a damaged car.If the service is not provided on time to any damaged car,it will create the problem again or in some cases more than the previous one.As we all know that america today is the most powerful and advanced country,but still the crime rate is more in this country compared to Saudi arabia.The reason is that the method of punishment in saudi arabia is different when compared to america.in saudi arabia the two hands of the theft will be amputated in front of the public on friday,so when the public is watching,there are chances that the crime scene is there in thir mind and there are very less chances that any body now dare to the theft again.so according to this punishment is a good way of teaching other people to be safe from doing crime.
2006-09-03 14:30:01 · answer #4 · answered by shahbaaz n 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It should depend on the person AND the crime. Unfortunately, I have heard of some 1st time offenders who have gotten more time for a lesser crime than a repeat offender who commited a more serious crime. They need to have STRICTER guidelines.
2006-09-03 14:20:57 · answer #5 · answered by butrcupps 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, because often the victims or victims' families deal with the consequences of the crime for life, and the criminal just does a few years, or some community service, then they never have to deal with the results of the crime again.
Example: A woman I used to work with had a sister who was hit head on by a drunk driver. Her son was in the car with her. She was killed, her son is paralyzed for life. The heartless drunk? He only lost his license for 5 years (drove anyway) and had to do some community service, and it was over for him. The woman's sister is still dead (of course) and the son is still in the wheel chair. How was that "justice"?
2006-09-03 14:20:18 · answer #6 · answered by innocence faded 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
by no ability. the utmost punishment is existence to a diverse existence. Then what approximately people who take extra existence ?. right here comes the relevance of a existence right here after the place the punishment might properly be made in positive condition to the crime by ability of the writer or in any different case it will be injustice.
2016-11-06 09:09:31 · answer #7 · answered by ai 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, and for a lot of reasons. Lawyers and such are always wheeling-n-dealing for a lesser sentence. Other times laws are too lenient, or have major loopholes. Still others get caught up in judicial red tape. It's bull%^$#.
2006-09-03 14:24:03 · answer #8 · answered by Flea© 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
not always, just as you say some get huge sentences and others get a lite sentence. I believe alot has to do with the judge that is hearing the case, his mood at the time as well as all he has heard.
2006-09-03 14:23:08 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't know. If you do a crime-you should get punished.
But you know how people are, they go crazy and think that just 'cause they're out of jail they can go do some more crime.
I suppose it's both...maybe?
2006-09-03 14:22:37 · answer #10 · answered by sweetdollツ 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋