Well dealing with prison life everyday (as a guard, not inmate) I believe that these in mate get way too many rights. I really think that once they do the crime they need to be responsible for their actions, and they give up their rights....kind of like how they took away the rights of their victim. But you get people that complain that these inmates still have rights. Now tell me how an inmate that rapes someone still has rights, didn't he take away all his victims rights when the forced them into a sexual act. Now his victim may or may not be able to go on with their normal life, and this inmate is now working out 8 hours a day, three square meals, ice skating and playing hockey (don't get me started on that!!) watching TV (with more cable channels that I get) and pretty much living a good life.
I can tell you that when an inmate is written a "major" ticket it does add time to his sentence, so at least that's something.
2007-01-18 01:31:41
·
answer #1
·
answered by photogrl262000 5
·
2⤊
1⤋
I think you need to look at the whole reason we have prisons. They were built so that people who infringe on other people's life, liberty and possessions could be detained, so that they would be no longer able to do harm to others. A committed crime is over and there is nothing you can do to reverse it. This means putting people in prison for the satisfaction of the victims would be revenge - a very immature thing for any society to do. It would be like trying to make a right with two wrongs.
If there is an individual who will no longer do these things there would be no more reason to have him in prison because he is no longer a threat to society.
So the real question is how can one determine if a prisoner has matured enough for him to be released back into society without a reasonable chance that he will commit another crime.
This is very difficult, because it will be different in each individual.
Also, you shouldn't try to make prison "hard" for the inmates, because that won't serve the purpose mentioned above, only hinder the inmate from maturing.
Finally, people who didn't infringe on other people's life, liberty or possession should not be punished because they don't pose a threat to society - only themselves.
PS I do think prisoners should work if they want more than bread and water.
2007-01-18 01:20:14
·
answer #2
·
answered by clevver17 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
A life sentence could mean 20, 25, or 30 years depending on the jusrisdiction. However once you walk into prison they start deducting time for good behavior. A sentence of life that meant 25 could mean you would be out in 18 with good time deducted. The judge probably threw the 40 years on top, knowing that if they were concurrent sentences that the bad guy will never see the outside. By the way...all bets are off if you get sentenced federally. They have mandatory minimums so you serve what you are sentenced! NO good time.
2016-05-24 03:06:56
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes, I do think that life means natural life. One of the things that gets to me too is that juries are not told how long a "life" term is when they are deliberating, so they may decide against it based on it being really "life" and not seven years or something even less. They may feel that life is too harsh of a punishment and give a lesser verdict when all they really want to do is have the person spend 10-20 years in prison - which he would do if given "life".
2007-01-18 01:07:24
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Yes life should mean life not just 35 years which I think is what is currently is. As for people only serving 2years of a 4 year sentence for example, I think it should depend on what they did to be in prison and be monitored better when they are released. As for paedophiles they should never be able to leave due to the nature of the crime, they are mentally unstable and they always re-offend!
2007-01-18 01:13:38
·
answer #5
·
answered by Lisa G 3
·
4⤊
0⤋
These days, most are sentenced to "Life without the possibility of parole", because, several years ago, it was discovered that people sentenced to 20 years were averaging more time in than those sentenced to life. There was sort of an uproar, and the sentencing language was changed on that account.
2007-01-18 01:07:11
·
answer #6
·
answered by gabluesmanxlt 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
i'm all for human rights, but as far as i'm concerned, people should do the full sentence that they are sent down for, at the end of the day, what about the rights of the victims, those who are in prison fo two years, should do two years, if you get ten years, you do ten years, if you get life, you do life, and you should only get bread and water to eat no matter what the sentence.
2007-01-18 01:09:10
·
answer #7
·
answered by sian h 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
I agree with u i mean these prisioners just like get treated like royalty compared on how it used 2 be in the olden days, so ya ur right im kinda peeved off at this i mean some are murderers!!! I mean they can get out and watch tv and all that good stuff, if anything homeless people should really be in Prison they would enjoy it and deserve it!!!
2007-01-18 01:09:16
·
answer #8
·
answered by basenjicrazed 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
I think that life in prison SHOULD be life in prison. I think that the sentence should not be shortened for good behaviour but lengthened for bad behaviour! No parole though! Prison should be basic & downright shoddy compared to haw we live because why should prisoners have a better life than everone who has done nothing wrong whatsoever!
2007-01-18 01:31:35
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
When they say "20 years in prison" it should not include time already spent in custody. It should mean from the time they leave court. They should not be eligible for parole til the 20 years is up, & a thorough assessment should be carried out to see if that person is liable to re-offend. If they are, they should be held a while longer.
2007-01-18 01:18:34
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋