2006-11-27 10:40:12 · 25 answers · asked by carnival queen 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
Yes. Need I say more?
2006-11-27 10:44:22 · answer #1 · answered by jameshens 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
A life sentence should always have a minimum term attached to it unless it is for offences against children ,OAPs or officials of the law..I have always said the judge should always state how long an offender should serve before applying for parole.I also think that any sentence should be adhered to!for example 12 years for drug offences should mean 12 years not 4 then parole for good behaviour.Our country is far to soft i wish that all these do gooder bloody liberals that came up with the prisoners aid society were all victims of crime and see how quick they turn and demand longer sentences. People who break our laws should be punished not bloody pitied they dont deserve pity our laws should be changed to the same as america-ie:-you will never be punished for defending your home,property or family and John Martin should be made patron saint of all victims of crime.
2006-11-27 11:09:56 · answer #2 · answered by celtic 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes it should. It seems only half sentences are carried out now and the punishment is a joke compared to the crime committed. Let the victims of the crime choose the punishment - and if the victim is a child, let the parents choose. I can guarantee that would free up prisons quicker and it might make people think twice before committing a crime!
2006-11-27 10:51:55 · answer #3 · answered by Lost and found 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i dont wish to sound arrogant... but to hell wth it. You'r all wrong. i don't mean in your opinions... opinions can of course never be wrong.
1. Prison doesnt really work as a deteerrent - particularly as the vast majority of those imprisoned for 'Life' commit crimes 'of passion' or have serious mental health/psychiatric problems, so 'deterrent' is irrelevant.
2. Hanging would be no cheaper. It is actually more expensive to impost the death penalty on a individual because of the legnth of trials and the arbitrary appeals.
3. 'If they want to kill themselves, let them'... what can i say? - not a lot really... grow up.
Life should never necessarily mean life. Imprisonment should continue until the individual is appropriately rehabilitated in order to prevent them from re-offending. whether or not this is acually happening is down to a lack of resources and funding within the prison system.. precisely because of the 'popular' attitude that we should lock people up and forget about them.. so you see it is this attitude in part which causes our re-offending rate and our justice system as a whole to be so hopeless...
I know i wont get 'best answer' for this because it's not a popular opinion, but i'd like to see someone put a more reasoned and sensible anwser on here... no really i would. But it's unlikely - 'Flog them' will probably appear somewhere beneath this... alongside a tirade of hatred for my 'wishy-washy liberal' views. (just to be clear i am no liberal... i am a socialist.
2006-11-27 10:58:14 · answer #4 · answered by Richard B 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, Life should mean life. You can not take the most important thing a person has in life and that is life and not pay with your own life in return. An eye for an eye, and a life for a life.
2006-11-27 11:00:00 · answer #5 · answered by Marlien 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As much as the logical side of me wants to shout YES!, I have to admit that moral justice might also be served in some cases where plea and sentence deals are offered.
This is just one more realm of human dealings, that for myself, has a gray area that should not be dismissed easily on only having a right or wrong position.
2006-11-27 11:23:17 · answer #6 · answered by navymom 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends if the offender has pleaded guilty or not, in the court of law, and if the offender has shown any remorse for the actions he/she has undertaken. But, that raises other problems. If, for example the accused has not really committed the crime, he/she doesn't see the reason to plead guilty, nor to show any remorse, which means longer sentence, whereas if the offender that has really committed the crime, pleads guilty and shows remorse can get a shorter sentence....A problem that raises many questions about the philosophy of punishment.
2006-11-27 11:23:25 · answer #7 · answered by Ricky 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely! I strongly agree that it should mean life, although the way our justice system works, this is rarely the case.
It makes you wonder why such a sentence exists when they never implement it to the full, and all the dangerous people who should be kept behind bars are set free to terrorise our communities!
2006-11-27 10:50:20 · answer #8 · answered by ♥Miss Inquisitive♥ 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes it should. Life should mean for the rest of that person's natural life and not 25 years. Although it doesn't necessarily mean 25 years either!
2006-11-27 10:57:05 · answer #9 · answered by mistickle17 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Life - the convicted person cannot leave the prison unless it is feet first.
2006-11-27 10:49:58 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
life used to mean life imprisonment untill u die but because we joined up with the eu and all of our british laws are NOT compatable with the eu`s human rights act garbage it means that a judge has to now reccommend how long they got to serve in prison b4 seeking parole otherwise its in violation of his rights lol
yes you heard me even prisoners have rights now!!
the term life imprisonment should be reserved for and only mean life in prison not life imprisonment and only serve 5-25 yrs etc then if u been good u can ask parole board to free u
2006-11-27 12:22:57 · answer #11 · answered by ck 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋