Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

Why are the judges so lenient?

Announcements Posted on
Applying to Uni? Let Universities come to you. Click here to get your perfect place 20-10-2014
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zaliack)
    Why are you being an idiot? Those are statutory limits, not my opinion. So everyone should be executed? Someone who shoplifts £5 worth of sweets from Tesco should be treated the same as someone who murders 20 people? Road traffic offences are the same as Sexual offences? Assault is the same as Assault occassioning grevious bodily harm? GBH is the same as GBH with intent? Don't think so
    But you guys say the system is too lenient and we need to make it harsher. When we provide examples of harsher systems like the US or Thailand which all have higher crimes and criminals in jail proving that they don't work. The logical step will be simply to kill all criminals since prisons do not work and hey cost us too much money. You should have the courage of your convictions if you want to eliminate crimes altogether.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bkeevin)
    But you guys say the system is too lenient and we need to make it harsher. When we provide examples of harsher systems like the US or Thailand which all have higher crimes and criminals in jail proving that they don't work. The logical step will be simply to kill all criminals since prisons do not work and hey cost us too much money. You should have the courage of your convictions if you want to eliminate crimes altogether.
    But as already said it costs just as much if not more of the taxpayers money for the death penalty.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ltlukelt)
    But as already said it costs just as much if not more of the taxpayers money for the death penalty.
    Money should never be the deciding factor in how justice is carried out. EVER. All that will cause is one set of punishments or rules for the rich and another for the poor.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ltlukelt)
    But as already said it costs just as much if not more of the taxpayers money for the death penalty.
    I am not for harsh sentences or the death penalty at all.

    For argument sake you could be willing to sacrifice a few innocent lives through miscarriage of justice and simply try a suspected criminal and execute within a week or two as it happens in many totalitarian regimes. You could use the utititarian argument and say if deters so many others from committing the crimes
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bkeevin)
    But you guys say the system is too lenient and we need to make it harsher. When we provide examples of harsher systems like the US or Thailand which all have higher crimes and criminals in jail proving that they don't work. The logical step will be simply to kill all criminals since prisons do not work and hey cost us too much money. You should have the courage of your convictions if you want to eliminate crimes altogether.
    Actually, I don't say our system is too lenient. I believe our system should become even more lenient. Yes, the US is failing because they are harsher, but Norway is succeeding in preventing re offending because, among other factors, they are far more lenient. In the US, you can get over 1000 years imprisonment. In the UK, murder is a mandatory life sentence. In Norway, it's capped at 21 years, yet they have the least reoffenders.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zaliack)
    Actually, I don't say our system is too lenient. I believe our system should become even more lenient. Yes, the US is failing because they are harsher, but Norway is succeeding in preventing re offending because, among other factors, they are far more lenient. In the US, you can get over 1000 years imprisonment. In the UK, murder is a mandatory life sentence. In Norway, it's capped at 21 years, yet they have the least reoffenders.
    Actually you did. You said assault on police officers should carry four times the punishment of that on a civilian. I would have thought a civilian who has been subject to an assault is more likely to suffer and be traumatised from an assault compared to a police officer who are trained to get physical and are more than able to take and receive a fair bit of physical violence and would have thought police officers need not be nannied. That is the reason I assumed you would like us to adopt much longer and harsher sentences. But seems as if your strand is not as straight forward as I assumed,
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bkeevin)
    Actually you did. You said assault on police officers should carry four times the punishment of that on a civilian. I would have thought a civilian who has been subject to an assault is more likely to suffer and be traumatised from an assault compared to a police officer who are trained to get physical and are more than able to take and receive a fair bit of physical violence and would have thought police officers need not be nannied. That is the reason I assumed you would like us to adopt much longer and harsher sentences. But seems as if your strand is not as straight forward as I assumed,
    Wasn't an opinion, was just the statutes (Although now I realise they both have the same sentence, got confused with intent to resist arrest!) Personally though, I do think that offenders are more culpable if they attack any public sector worker while doing their job. Yeah, they may be trained for it and stuff, but it still shows blatant disregard for people who are just doing their job. Most people who are arrested for assaults probably done it in a moment of drunken madness, however when your drunk, you can still recognise police officers and attacking them, in my opinion, shows that there is deep-rooted disregard for the law and individuals rights.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zaliack)
    Wasn't an opinion, was just the statutes (Although now I realise they both have the same sentence, got confused with intent to resist arrest!) Personally though, I do think that offenders are more culpable if they attack any public sector worker while doing their job. Yeah, they may be trained for it and stuff, but it still shows blatant disregard for people who are just doing their job. Most people who are arrested for assaults probably done it in a moment of drunken madness, however when your drunk, you can still recognise police officers and attacking them, in my opinion, shows that there is deep-rooted disregard for the law and individuals rights.
    I still don't see the need or purpose of such discriminatory legislation since anybody committing an assault is by definition showing a blatent disregard for the law. Using your very logic people one could argue that people should not be allowed to insult/be critical of politicians, the army or other public servants since that is equally showing blatant disregard for people just doing their jobs.

    All assault cases should be appropriately dealt with on their own merits. There is no need for giving public official extra protection when the general public is even more vulnerable. Those measures you advocate and some of their ilk are a sure way to lead us to a police state.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JaggySnake95)
    You do realise how many men are falsely accused of rape/
    Nowhere near as many who are guilty. The false accusation rate for rape is roughly 2%, the same as other crimes. However, it's expected that roughly 94% of rapists are never punished in any way.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheBigGeek)
    Nowhere near as many who are guilty. The false accusation rate for rape is roughly 2%, the same as other crimes. However, it's expected that roughly 94% of rapists are never punished in any way.
    Which is due to many people believing that women often come out as having been raped because they are in a relationship and instead of owning up to their partner, they claim they were raped. I'm not saying the majority of girls do, but there has been enough false accusations to cast doubt when charging a rapist because a) for the reasons I mentioned above and b) it is difficult to provide evidence for such accusations.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheBigGeek)
    Nowhere near as many who are guilty. The false accusation rate for rape is roughly 2%, the same as other crimes. However, it's expected that roughly 94% of rapists are never punished in any way.
    There are three categories in court: "Guilty", "We dunno" and "The woman's a liar". It's not helpful to anyone to lump the "We dunno"s in with either of the other two, unless you have a hate agenda against men or women.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    There are three categories in court: "Guilty", "We dunno" and "The woman's a liar". It's not helpful to anyone to lump the "We dunno"s in with either of the other two, unless you have a hate agenda against men or women.
    I do agree with you - but, "the woman's a liar" is fairly common response when in reality it's a "we dunno". Personally (and this is with more than just rape) I feel we do a disservice to many victims of crime. There are studies that show that victims recover much better if their assailants are punished. I feel that we owe them more than we give them. Many crime victims are treated appallingly - if we can't find a way to imprison more criminals, then we should provide better victim services.

    Back to rape though, I think it's actually at a point where we need to find a way to hone the "we dunnos" into guilty or not guilty. There are sites and forums where rape victims chronicle their efforts to recover every day for a decade. On these forums, the majority not only saw their rapists receive no punishment, but were also subjected to a lot abuse from many other sources. Would you look at the ten year daily entries from someone who struggled with their rape/abuse constantly, and say "no, they're not guilty because there was no semen on you."?
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheBigGeek)
    I do agree with you - but, "the woman's a liar" is fairly common response when in reality it's a "we dunno".
    That's because we tend not to try to determine whether it's a "We dunno" and "The woman's a liar" unless the accused really feels they can prove it was made up, and let's face it, if they could then the accusation probably wouldn't have made it to court. It's sort of the same argument as saying rapes are unreported therefore it's higher than we know.

    Personally (and this is with more than just rape) I feel we do a disservice to many victims of crime. There are studies that show that victims recover much better if their assailants are punished. I feel that we owe them more than we give them. Many crime victims are treated appallingly - if we can't find a way to imprison more criminals, then we should provide better victim services.
    True, but what would you suggest? We don't have enough prisons because they cost money (even during the boom years), so especially now no politician's going to spend more on victim support.

    Back to rape though, I think it's actually at a point where we need to find a way to hone the "we dunnos" into guilty or not guilty. There are sites and forums where rape victims chronicle their efforts to recover every day for a decade. On these forums, the majority not only saw their rapists receive no punishment, but were also subjected to a lot abuse from many other sources. Would you look at the ten year daily entries from someone who struggled with their rape/abuse constantly, and say "no, they're not guilty because there was no semen on you."?
    You're right, but even if an effort is made, who's to say the public would accept a "We dunno"? There could be literally no evidence except for one person's word against another in two separate cases, except one was rape and another wasn't - with no evidence you'd have to give the same verdict but clearly they should be different.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    How do you propose to pay for such long sentences?
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jchandler)
    How do you propose to pay for such long sentences?
    Put cameras all over the prisons and let the public watch. Seeing how popular Big Brother was (is?), ad space on the website should bring in enough cash.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: June 4, 2012
New on TSR

Submitting your UCAS application

How long did it take for yours to be processed?

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.