If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Aged 16-25? Share your experience of using the discussion boards and receive a £25 voucher! Take part via text-chat, video or phone. Click here to find out more and to take part.
Options
Comments
It's 11 years.
And if after 6 years he shows remorse and is deemed to have been rehabilitated then yes I think it is enough. Else what purpose does it serve to keep him locked up longer?
It's a punishment, which is the main point of sending someone to prison.
Can you enlighten me as to which countries don't use prison at all?
It may be some time ago but legal studies show that the Hebrews did not.
Very helpful as usual. :rolleyes:
Much less hassle to chop off their hands, or stone them to death, I guess.
I'll assume your non-reply - save you the bother.
Eh? Where did Javakrypt say that there are some countries which don't use prisons?
As I understand it, he isn't suggesting that we shouldn't use prisons. Instead, he's making a claim about what the appropriate rationale for using prisons should be, that is, consequentialist considerations about the benefits to society. So we should put people in prison not for retribution, ie, punishment, but because doing so has positive consequences for society in terms of public safety, or deterrence. And if putting someone in prison won't have these positive consequences, then we shouldn't do so.
I'm not sure I agree with that as I think there are numerous reasons which justify punishment - retribution, deterrence, public safety and rehabilitation all seem to me to be good reasons for punishing people, so we need to balance these. But I can see the persuasiveness of the argument that if no good will come of putting someone in prison, then we ought to use different methods of punishment. Sending people to prison for non-violent crimes like shoplifting or credit card fraud seems particularly irrational to me.
In this specific case, I think he should go to prison. And if a judge deems it appropriate to sentence him to 11 years, of which he may only serve 6, then I can see no reason why I should think differently. That's why he's a judge and I'm not - he's an expert and I'm not.
spot on.
Too many arm chair judge juries and executioners these days
A nice piece but completely way off the mark as far as what I wrote.
Prison doesn't help society at all???? There are numerous examples of prisoners, once released, who don't commit more crimes because of the experience of having their liberty removed. Sure, those who do recommit crimes will need a more intense form of rehabilitation program but JavaKrypt's statement seems a bit sweeping.
The reason I asked him if there are any countries that don't use prisons is because I presumed that he was aware of some other 'enlightened' country that had found a way to do without prisons.
I don't blame the judge for the sentence. He can only work within the guidelines of the law. My opinion is that 11 years (and probably out in 6) is too lenient for a crime like this. I don't see how such an opinion reduces me to some indignant thug baying for blood.
Oh I didn't mean to imply that it was.
But bear in mind the judges etc have to bear in mind all other sentences for all other crimes - it has to be properly moderated.
Any crime that upsets people disproportionately will always have a seemingly too leniant sentence. Take sex offenders or child abusers, these are very upsetting and understandably so but in terms of the law are less harsh than murder and so should be balanced that way.
In this case the judge has to come to a balanced decision - I think 11 years was probably a balanced sentence and place my trust in the judge as he's the expert.
Of course if it was massively out I'd be disagreeing too but eleven years is a very, very long time for unintentionally knocking someone over, and it is no doubt that long because he was driving so utterly wrecklessly.
You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.
In spite of (or,perhaps,because of) the lack of grace exhibited in your post, I will reply.
If you are genuinely interested in the study of the crime and punishment legalities, here is a historical legal brief written by Martin Pritikin (Harvard Law School).
http://www.cardozolawreview.com/PastIssues/PRITIKIN.WEBSITE.pdf
If you can be bothered to read it, and of course surmount your displayed prejudices, you may be rehabilitated.
I wrote :
What was the relevance in your reply to my question? Go back far enough in time and obviously no society had prisons.
Thanks for that reassurance, Shyboy.
I hear what you are saying but I just find that in this particular instance, this scumbag is not a run-of-the-mill 'manslaughterer' (if there is such a word?).
As I mentioned earlier, this wasn't someone taking their eye off the road for a moment .. in which case, I would understand any sentence passed down on them. But you can tell from the video that he was quite prepared, repeatedly, to have an accident and he would have fully understood his actions. He was criminal in stealing the car, he was criminal in the way he drove it and he was criminal in killing an innocent person.
Oh well.
You wrote:
Curiosity or mild sarcasm ?
If it was the former my example suggests that it is possible to function without prisons and today's global prison industrial complex.
If it was the latter then maybe the information provided was wasted on you.
It was curiosity. And no, the information you gave was irrelevant. It may have been a statement of historical fact but it is hardly an 'example' of enlightened prison reform. They used to execute people just for working on a Saturday, FFS! No wonder they didn't feel the need for prisons.
Get over yourself already.
I thought you opinion was that if you did support the death penalty 'then this is the sort of bastard that deserves to hang'?
Nah. I wouldn't ever support the death penalty (although the statement did look a little SG'ish
Read it again, you missed a couple of important words - "as punishment"
I did read that. That's why I wrote "here are numerous examples of prisoners, once released, who don't commit more crimes because of the experience of having their liberty removed".
That's prison as a tool for rehabilitation, not just punishment as a form of retribution.
Once a prisoner is deemed to be rehabilitated, and the length of the sentance served is long enough to have served as a deterrent, what good does it do society to keep the prisoner locked up?
Infact it costs the taxpayer to keep them there whilst they could be out contributing to society and getting there life in order.
wheres the HUMANITY?????