Is a 15 year sentence without possibility of parole fair for the first offense of a non-violent crime by someone with an otherwise spotless record?
2006-11-22 08:46:30 · 14 answers · asked by hyearwood 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
For what offense would you consider it fair?
2006-11-22 08:54:12 · update #1
How much dope did he have in his possession (home, car...) when he got nabbed? If he was a distributor (and I mean, the one who provides it to street pushers) of bad sh*t like coke, meth, crack or heroin, yes, it is fully deserved.
If it was not that, then maybe you should have been more precise about :
-what he did
-what he got sentenced for.
2006-11-22 08:52:37 · answer #1 · answered by Svartalf 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It depends on the offense. There are a lot of white collar crimes that should have a penalty of 15 years. The people who ran Enron did not participate in any violent crime, but they destroyed thousands of people. I am not a believer in the death penalty, but I wouldn't fight too hard to stop it if the state wanted to execute those guys.
2006-11-22 08:53:34 · answer #2 · answered by Ben B 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Judges take a lot of things into account before sentencing include likeliness to reofend community ties (gang connections) and deterent value to others. Judges know 1st offence often means first time police could sucessfully build a case. Not 1st time someone has commited the offence. To be nailed for trafficking for example he must have traffiked hundreds of times
2006-11-22 09:24:24 · answer #3 · answered by Sid B 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
More detail is needed for a serious response, it really depends on the crime and damage inflicted on the "victim" so without knowing more particulars this isn't a reasonable question, way too general
2006-11-22 08:55:15 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No parole? Sounds like a federal offence. That suggests drug trafficking (at a guess). First offence or not, that is a serious matter if it has gone as far as federal court. The person concerned has only themselves to blame.
2006-11-22 10:24:37 · answer #5 · answered by skip 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends on the crime. If someone stole lots of money that he or she could never pay back, I think that would be fair.
2006-11-22 09:54:06 · answer #6 · answered by Gypsy Girl 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends on the nature of the crime. I'll need more specifics to give you a better answer.
2006-11-22 08:54:30 · answer #7 · answered by S.A.M. Gunner 7212 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Depends on the crime. I think a lot of crimes should have a stricter punishment, but I also think that the punishment should meet the crime.
2006-11-22 08:48:39 · answer #8 · answered by HG 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Depends on the crime the person committed.
2006-11-22 08:50:45 · answer #9 · answered by vanilla53402 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Maybe not but it is also true that any connection between the justice system and fairness is purely coincidental. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
2006-11-22 08:52:12 · answer #10 · answered by DelK 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋