Should criminals have a timed sentence?

Darren

Registered Member
#1
What's the deal with murderers, rapists, terrorists, child abusers and such only getting a few years in prison?

Personally, I don't think anyone should be let out of prison if they have been convicted of murder or any crime associating with murder. If they have committed a crime, they should face the same as their victims.

Of course, then you would get wrongly convicted 'criminals' being innocently put down.

What're your views?
 
Last edited:

Chaos

Epic Gamer
V.I.P.
#2
I think it depends on where you are. Obviously the UK is way too concerned with Human Rights, and don't have the Death Penalty either.

The problem with any legal system is that there are loopholes. A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link, be it the judge or the jury. People can be corrupt, or have pity, or who knows what else. The point is it's a vulnerability that legal systems shouldn't have.

Which brings me to the biggest problem for a legal system; the fact that, while it should be neutral, and while it should treat each case individually and uniquely, it doesn't, it can't. See, for every case there are different aspects to consider, different circumstances. Some people are truly messed up in the head and deserve to spend the rest of their life behind bars - or better yet, have their life ended prematurely so as not to be a drain of resources - yet, there are also some people for whom coldhearted murder isn't as simple as that. Not that it's justified, but what I'm saying is that not everyone should be tarred with the same brush.


Anyway, I'm tired and I'm not sure if any of that makes sense, but I'll probably come back some other time and amend it or make further points. :dunno:
 

Darren

Registered Member
#3
I think it depends on where you are. Obviously the UK is way too concerned with Human Rights, and don't have the Death Penalty either.

The problem with any legal system is that there are loopholes. A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link, be it the judge or the jury. People can be corrupt, or have pity, or who knows what else. The point is it's a vulnerability that legal systems shouldn't have.

Which brings me to the biggest problem for a legal system; the fact that, while it should be neutral, and while it should treat each case individually and uniquely, it doesn't, it can't. See, for every case there are different aspects to consider, different circumstances. Some people are truly messed up in the head and deserve to spend the rest of their life behind bars - or better yet, have their life ended prematurely so as not to be a drain of resources - yet, there are also some people for whom coldhearted murder isn't as simple as that. Not that it's justified, but what I'm saying is that not everyone should be tarred with the same brush.


Anyway, I'm tired and I'm not sure if any of that makes sense, but I'll probably come back some other time and amend it or make further points. :dunno:
I guess so. Personally, I'm a racist and support the BNP. However, I wouldn't randomly disband any colored or foreign individual from my presence. If you're wondering how that links to our point; screw Human Rights :lol:

Vulnerability? Murderers and rapists aren't allowed a lawyer yet their granted vulnerability? I understand you didn't mean the criminals directly but it's the same thing, right?

It's understandable. However, this means our whole system is falling prey to liars, right? Certainly, free speech and human rights are correctly placed but somehow even experts are tricked into misusing their knowledge of law into bypassing the truth.

It made perfect sense. Any contributions are nice. :D
 
#4
What's the deal with murderers, rapists, terrorists, child abusers and such only getting a few years in prison?
I read that in Jerry Seinfeld's voice. lul

Personally, I don't think anyone should be let out of prison if they have been convicted of murder or any crime associating with murder. If they have committed a crime, they should face the same as their victims.

Of course, then you would get wrongly convicted 'criminals' being innocently put down.

What're your views?
I do believe in forgiveness and second chances, so once they have served a good amount of time I have no problem letting them out if the probation officers feel they are worthy to be let out. Also, if you want, implant a tracking device in them for added security. Hmm... I don't know if it's really security, maybe just to watch them and track them. =P
 

Merc

Certified Shitlord
V.I.P.
#5
We used to do the whole "eye for an eye" thing a long time ago where we would just prosecute without mercy and execute people. I think they called those times "the dark ages."

:-/

People are fallible, thus, so is their judgment meaning we must question ourselves in our decisions. To not question is to ignore human nature altogether.
 

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
#6
I read that in Jerry Seinfeld's voice. lul
So did I:lol:

The death penalty has nothing to do with human rights, fyi.

Anyway, most people hear about certain criminals only getting a "slap on the wrist" if you will. What they fail to realize is most times that's from a plea bargain. For example, someone charged with child molestation might make the local news. Then you find out they got what most considered a light sentence. That could have been because the evidence was weak and the prosecutor feared they wouldn't get a conviction. So they offered a less included crime for a guilty plea and probabtion. At least they got a conviction and the person now has to register as a sex offender. Or, at times juries consider mitigating circumstances. Locally a woman was found guilty of manslaughter her husband but it came out she suffered from spousal abuse, physically, mentally and sexually, from her husband for many many years. She was charged with murder, which is what everyone heard on the news, found guilty of manslaughter and was sentenced to 10 years probabtion. Many in the area were upset failing to realize she wasn't convicted of murder.
 

Dopey

Registered Member
#7
Getting the 'Death Penalty' back sounds like a great idea if you ask me. Everything would be dealt with so much quicker, and prisons wouldn't be as full. Plus, the world would get rid of allot of junk.
Though I don't really see it happen, cause now places like Guantanamo Bay are closed down, and if people think thats bad, I don't see the
death penalty coming back anytime soon.

But hey, thats just what I think.
 

Darren

Registered Member
#8
I read that in Jerry Seinfeld's voice. lul

I do believe in forgiveness and second chances, so once they have served a good amount of time I have no problem letting them out if the probation officers feel they are worthy to be let out. Also, if you want, implant a tracking device in them for added security. Hmm... I don't know if it's really security, maybe just to watch them and track them. =P
But is a second chance really necessary? As you've read, I don't think anyone who's taken a life should be granted a second shot at theirs. :-/
 

Merc

Certified Shitlord
V.I.P.
#9
But is a second chance really necessary? As you've read, I don't think anyone who's taken a life should be granted a second shot at theirs. :-/
Even if they did it in self defense?

This is why we have a court system, so we don't make hasty, irrational decisions (just lengthy irrational decisions :lol:)
 

Twitch

Registered Member
#10
Even if they did it in self defense?

This is why we have a court system, so we don't make hasty, irrational decisions (just lengthy irrational decisions :lol:)
But self defense isn't qualified as murder.. is it? I thought it was just 'Self defense'.

I think that everyone should get the same sentence for the crimes they commit. I don't think I football player who murders someone should get off in a few months where a normal person who does the same does life.