Yeah but then you have the cases like a beaten women who has been beaten by her husband every day for 10 years and then one day looses it and stabs him. Surely this isn't as bad as someone who kidnaps a girls takes her away and then beats her to death. But under your deffinitions they would recieve the same punishment.(Original post by tkfmbp)
the point is, the burden of proof wrt the "degree" system in America is very dodgy, and many convictions are unsafe. Treating evreybody the same gets fair results, at least i think so.
Turn on thread page Beta
Human rights and criminals watch
- 07-07-2004 00:22
- Thread Starter
(Original post by randdom)
- 07-07-2004 00:25
Yeah but then you have the cases like a beaten women who has been beaten by her husband every day for 10 years and then one day looses it and stabs him. Surely this isn't as bad as someone who kidnaps a girls takes her away and then beats her to death. But under your deffinitions they would recieve the same punishment.
(Original post by randdom)
- 07-07-2004 12:57
That is your oppinion. Personally I think that we should institute the first and second degree murder system that there is in the USA. Because there is a difference between planning and committing a murder and killing someone in the heat of the moment and I think sentancing should reflect that.
As one of the few people here who has been imprisoned, i can speak better than most on the subject. The youth custody I served over thirty years ago did not deter or rehabilitate me in any way, and it was pretty tough. The fact that i came from "a bad home", as they called it then, was large and strong and enjoyed violence means that I enjoyed it. I think some of the weaker or stupider inmates came out of it far worse in the harm they suffered and the harm they would do. I don't think that a tougher regime would have made much odds. Then I would have regarded it as a challenge, no matter how harsh or brutal. It was only the good fortune to be advised to join up and to come across mentors in the army who taught me self-control and how to read and write and think that stopped me ending up eventually with a long sentence or dead of drugs or drink.
Gaol is expensive, so just banging people up is a waste of time and money. Some people need to be locked up to stop them re-offending, others because people outside want retribution, others because- or so they say- it deters. The sentence of imprisonmenmt- not being able to do what you want or go where you want, being under the will of others- is the punishment. There is no reason why people shouldn't live in basic comfort within it and attempts made to teach them not to re-offend. It is granting rights to precisely the people who we would least like to give them to that matters.
Finally there are people who work in prisons as well as prisoners: a prison whose sole purpose is punishment would do harm to the people who work there, which would pass on to their families and the outside community. Yes, prison is there to punish, but it must do more for the sake of other people.
(Original post by tkfmbp)
- 07-07-2004 13:01
I think you may misunderstand me. My arguement is that, even though whatever mittigating circumstances there may be, one must look at the facts and realise that both parties knew that murder was wrong. Punish them accordingly i say.