I think judges should be told too get rid of minamim and go with
maximim only. crime would be cut 50%.
2007-03-20 12:19:57 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I agree; there is a revolving door policy (NOT A LAW), that permits a fine and or bail to be posted and the perp. walks, many times with as little as time served and maybe community service.
The truth is that it has become a source of unregulated cash flow to many municipal courts. I know of a place and times where Methcooks and drug dealers get arrested they pay a big some of cash to the DA or Judge, and they walk out and go right back to doing it, One man was arrested 3 times in one month and finally the cop said to heck with it and turned in his badge because of the revolving door. Are you aware that in todays society the criminal offender has more rights than does the victim? This is a Fact, ask any Lawyer or any
Police officer. It is rediculous.
2007-03-20 12:33:20 · answer #1 · answered by Justme 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah. Well, it's really the law. Not the judges' complete decision. They have a punishment for the degree of the crime. What they should do, though, instead of giving serial killers and murderers life in prison, they should give them the death penalty. I'll guarantee you that crime would be cut then. And instead of using lethal injection and all that stuff, they should use hanging or the Guillitine again. That will stop a lot of stuff. The reason for this is this: We pay taxes that go to buy food for all of those people that have the life sentence. If we didn't have all of those people, the money could go to something a little more useful like education and research or something like that. I'm not saying to kill a person that did a little thing. That's just not right, but they should still be punished. All of these bleeding heart people have to realize that if you don't "whoop the dog, it won't behave". That's the way it is.
2007-03-20 19:30:02 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because the prisons would be even more over-crowded with criminals than it already is and there's not enough room. This is also one of the reasons why some inmates get paroled when they really shouldn't be! Judges are different: Some are tough on sentencing and some aren't. My mother's friend is a judge who had convicted a couple of teenagers as adults, and sentenced them 9 - life. Years later, he gave some punk a stalking charge after he tried killing my sister. Some world, huh?
2007-03-20 19:28:59 · answer #3 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Are you willing to pay the higher taxes needed to house and guard all of these excess criminals? Or, maybe we should go extreme and allow executions for more type of crime? Where do you draw the line? What about the guy who only stole a little thing or a low value item. Should he get the same sentence as a high scale thief?
You should think about these things before making such broad statements. As Abraham Lincoln once said, "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."
2007-03-20 19:28:18 · answer #4 · answered by Ross F 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's up to the state legislatures.
They can set minimums and maximums for any crime.
The judges can only issue sentences within those ranges.
So, if you think politicians, without ever hearing the facts of the case, are better suited to making those decisions, get the laws changed in your state.
2007-03-20 19:24:22 · answer #5 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
1) Judges are the government
2) Housing people in prison costs money and prisons are full
3) Housing elderly inmates and providing for their healthcare is astronomically expensive.
4) Judges are elected and appointed and go to school and study for years and bend their brains around these issues and are generally trustworthy and noble and do what is right.
2007-03-20 19:24:25 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who is gonna pay for all those extra prisons? Every situation is different that is why there are minimum and maximum snetences...Should a drug kingpin get the same amount of time as the street level drug dealer?
2007-03-20 19:37:42 · answer #7 · answered by GrnEyedBandita 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
even the judges dont want to be sued or lose the judge ship so they try to let past cases set the tone instead of standing up
2007-03-20 19:25:52 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Liberalism- the whole answer. Putting absolute power in the hands of the judges.
2007-03-20 19:24:21 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
This is why conservatives support mandatory sentencing. Too much discression.
2007-03-20 19:26:37 · answer #10 · answered by Chainsaw 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋