Should people who commit crimes be given the max penalty for their actions?

Question

Criminals must know, they cannot obey the law. Enforcing max penalty will certainly do so, forcing criminals to think about their actions. Plus, by the time they get spending so much time in prison for the first offense, dont you think they will think twice about it next time?

Answer 1

yes...i think every 5 years all cases get maximum penalty for their crimes...remind people that we do live under laws and should respect others...

Answer 2

It all depends really, there are still people out there today that take the rap for crimes they haven't committed. Only those people know the reason why they do it, stress does play an important factor though.
I agree that some sentences are to soft for crimes, but not all of them. There will always be an exception to the rule, which needs to be taken into account also.
The criminal justice system is very crooked and needs an independent review before anything will or can change. But sadly that is very unlikely to ever happen.
I think that maybe introducing a lot more community based punishment orders may work better than the system that is in place today.

Answer 3

Criminals must be given the max penalty for their actions. However, some criminals may become good civilians after getting released while some may have the opposite effect. They may think of taking revenge and this time doing something bigger than ever!!!!!!!!!

Answer 4

I don't agree. I believe there are certain levels of a crime that do not warrant the maximum penalty. An example of this would be a man who plans to shoot someone and does and a man who shoots someone who is trying to do harm to himself. In this case it is murder on both sides, but since the first man deliberately took someones life, he should get the maximum penalty. I understand what you are saying, the laws are lacking a bit of bite, but we have to use reason when sentencing these people.

Answer 5

To be honest, I think the max penalty for a crime committed is indeed warranted, but I also believe it depends on the crime. Speeding is breaking the law, but life in prison seems kinda harsh.

Answer 6

They should, but our prisons are so over populated that most criminals only serve a 10th of their time resulting in repeat offenses. Case in point: Paris Hilton - she should have been in jail for the full sentence as she was DUI and could have killed someone, but instead she got a fraction of her sentence.

Answer 7

Criminals don't think. If they did, they would not commit crimes in the first place. Criminals who break the law think they won't get caught. Punishment in prison is not a deterrent. If it were, there would be no recidivism.

Answer 8

I agree with you depending on the circumstances, that more time would create more thought before the crime. Now the thing to do is to convince all the lawyers of this country the same thing. Another thing to consider would be where we would set all of the additional prisons needed for such incarcerations.

Answer 9

Kinda depends on the crime.
i mean if a 10 year old steals a pack of gum does that mean he get 4 yrs in juvy lock up?
i am kinda a fan of the 3 stikes your out law with exception for manslaughter.

Answer 10

I wish there wasn't a guidline on how you sentence people. It should be on a case by case basis. I am mostly appalled at how they treat drunk driving like it was a speed ticket.

DUI's should be felonies. License should be suspended after one time. I believe in a one or two offenses and no more license in any state law!

Answer 11

Well, not every person is as lucky as you are . I hope you never get charged for something you didn't do and get the maximum penalty.
Also, there are many people like kids who get adopted just , so the family can get a check and can care less to raise them the right way. They deserve a second chance.