As a retired cop, with first hand experience, I can say, NO!!!!!!!!!!
2007-12-12 12:35:24
·
answer #1
·
answered by randy 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
No.
Why should they put the folks away that provide the income for the justice system and the judicial system? Look, every criminal trial lawyer in the us makes his money from defending the pukes that terrorize the law abiding citizen. If all these 'fine' folks were incarcerated where would all these out of work 25 year old lawyers get their money? And the judiciary is nothing more than lawyers and without cases to hear they would be out of work also.
Folks, these people don't want to work, they don't want to do jobs that produce anything, they just want money. And YOU are the ones providing it, through your tax dollars that go to pay the lawyers fees for punks under arrest who have no job and their only income is in the evidence locker at some police station.
2007-12-13 00:05:51
·
answer #2
·
answered by NAnZI pELOZI's Forced Social 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Absolutely not. In most cases, there will be a plea bargain to avoid spending the time on an actual trial. That's certainly no good for the innocent, and makes it so much easier for the real criminals to get out early. While they are in, most of them aren't in the higher security prisons. Most prisons aren't exactly a nice vacation, but they're not too bad. Unfortunately, lots of repeat criminals aren't afraid of going back to prison. If court sentences were a little more harsh, like in the old days when physical torture was more acceptable, I'm sure we'd see a lot of criminals chicken out and give it up, and the ones that didn't sure would soon.
2007-12-12 15:23:04
·
answer #3
·
answered by fishtrembleatmyname 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
NOT at all. There are countries where their criminal justice systems calls for a mandatory minimum one year prison sentence for ANY crime. This means 365 days a year with no time off and no possibility of early parole. Life in prison means a 12-hour day of hard labor with 12 hours to rest. If you are 'sick' and unable to do your hard labor those 'sick days' do not count toward your year's prison sentence.
Amazingly enough, there are NO repeat offenders here. The criminal justice system, in its wisedom, has a built-in fail safe system. Just to make sure that no one abuses the system (by becoming a repeat offender), each prisoner shall be canned at least once a year regardless of the prisoner's conduct during his stay in prison. Six wacks on the bare hinny by a martial arts expert discourages becoming a career criminal by choice. Of course, if the prisoner is one of these bad-a-s-s-e-s who can't stay out of trouble during the time that he is a guest of the prison system, he is accomodated with as many canning sessions as necessary. AND the prisoner must be alert and conscious during the canning. Should the prisoner pass out the one administering the canning will kindly wait until he regains consciouness before delivering the next wack. Sometimes this can take up most of the day, then the prisoner must return to his duties at hard labor not having deducted the time loss from his year's sentence. Sure beats our country club prisons, don't it! I've long thought we should just arrange to let OUR prisoners do their prison time over there, since their prisons are usually empty, anyway.
Best.
H
2007-12-12 22:06:48
·
answer #4
·
answered by H 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
.NO NO, No
Our criminal justice system sucks.
What needs to be done, is
#1- lock up ALL JUDGES & lawyers.
#2- anyone that has been put in prison for LIFE, needs to serve the term. If an appeal hasn't been succesful in 5 years, empty the cell for a new resident ( i don't by any means, say release the prisoner ).
#3- if a person is convicted of rapeing a child, if within 5 years, a new trial doesn't find the person innacent, vacate that persons cell, for a new inmate.
#4- if during the commission of a crime, some scumbag kills someone, upon conviction, execution, within 30 days, along with anyone that was with or conspired with said scum bag
#5- Anyone convicted of transporting or helping to transport in excess of 5 # of pot, 30 days & then, get rid of them.
#6, anyone convicted of selling cocane, crack, heronin, or anyother psycolagenic drug, do away with them.
#7, anyone convicted of giving or selling drugs of any kind, to a kid, execute them.
#8 - revisit the judges & lawyers.
I know that i have went further than the question that was asked, but i need to vent on this 1
2007-12-12 12:29:08
·
answer #5
·
answered by Roger W 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
No!
There wouldn't be a so-called problem with "gun violence" if the courts put the criminals where they belonged.
Guns and law-abiding owners aren't the problem - CRIMINALS are.
Things like "gun buy-back" programs are a farce, like the one now in New Haven, CT. They put these hysterical people on TV asking people to turn in their "weapons of murder", and the police show off these guns and claim the streets are safer with them off the street. Meanwhile, the CRIMINAL that purchased illegally, or stole the guns, and were carrying without a permit (illegal in CT) with the intent of committing a crime, walks free with a Wal-Mart gift card. A week later they probably stole/illegally purchased more guns.
2007-12-12 11:45:55
·
answer #6
·
answered by DT89ACE 6
·
3⤊
2⤋
Not no but HELL NO.
Sitting in court for speeding and they let every drug dealer and addict off with a $50 fine no court cost no nothing. One was caught with over 2# of weed he got $100 fine.
2007-12-12 12:13:23
·
answer #7
·
answered by cpttango30 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
absoutely not..we had a man convicted of 1st degree sexual assult of a minor move in across the street and no one knew about it until he was moved in and there are also 3 daycare facilitys within a block of where he lives
2007-12-12 11:44:02
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, I work for the dept. of correction's and i see it everyday. just 6 month's ago we let this total scumbag out and he went home and murdered his sister and brother in law because they sold his couch. can you believe this over a couch he killed his family. now he's on death row where he should have been in the first place....
2007-12-12 12:10:25
·
answer #9
·
answered by ROB ROY 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
Over 75% of violent crimes are committed by previously convicted violent criminals.
so no.
2007-12-13 17:15:33
·
answer #10
·
answered by Gray Wanderer 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
they r doing a bad job
2007-12-12 23:34:23
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋