At times people get more time for attempted murder than actually killing someone. A rapist can get hard time but a pedofile gets a few years and a sex ofender identification that the general public hardly ever knows about because there is no instant informing. You would have to go to a site to find out. Manslaughter is still killing but gets less time than first degree and so on. Criminals get food, equipment, and whatever they need in jail as if they have done nothing wrong ( of course there is an exception for the innocent ). Also a animal killer can often just get fined and face no jail time but studies have linked killed animals to becoming serial killers in the future. Even so called " mentally ill " suspects atre let off of horrific crimes leaving many victims family hurt and afraid. Do you believe that the justice system works more for criminals and that it should be praticed or enforced greater. I'm not saying the death penalty because I am against that but the time in prison should be longer and they should be put to work for tax dollars to support them.
I think that if you do something horrific like manslaughter or rape you should be put away for a long long time.
Manslaughter = Unintentional. Now lets say you were carrying a broken piece of wood, and someone ran around the corner into it and it stabbed them. Later, this person dies. It's manslaughter, but do you deserve to be punished?
You are wrong about manslaughter being unintentional. My uncle was shot in the face in his own home and his murderer got the "manslaughter" charge. Are you telling me shooting someone in the face is not on puroose. That man got only six m0onths and felt no sympathy and now I am missing a uncle.
This guy from another country, was living here, raped and terrorized a 12 (or 7 year old) for one year. He spoke enough English to have a five minute conversation with the reporters on the phone. The JUDGE let him go because after three years, they couldn't find a translator that understood the language from his country. THREE YEARS! The investigator reporters put an ad in the paper and found three people within a short period of time who could have done the job. That judge should be shot and hanged. Before people can become a judge, they should have a test to see how much common sense and good nature they have before they let someone make rulings like that. Everyday I hear about abductions and people killing people and people terrorizing eachother and that's in our OWN bleeping COUNTRY!! Seriously!! so the answer to your quesiton is: YES, THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IS ON THE CRIMINALS SIDE. Not the innocent people!!
When I was raped a couple of years ago I think the justice system did their job in finding, arresting, and prosecuting the man. But then I don't think that 4 years in prison (follwed by 6 on probation) is long enough for someone who has ruined a whole life for someone else. Also, I agree that they get too much in jail. People argue that they are entitled to their human rights. But actually, I think that if you violate someone elses human rights (i.e. murder, rape, assault, etc) then you forfeit your own. I also agree in the death penalty. But only in cases that are beyond reasonable doubt (i.e. a unanimous verdict) We don't have the death penalty here though. I was shocked to learn that under 5% of rapes reported to the police (I cant remeber the exact figure) resulted in a conviction. I guess I was one of the lucky few. I feel like manslaughter, if it was truly unintentional, should not be punished in the same way as murder. An accdent is an accident after all. But unfortunatly the system has been abused, with murderers trying to get off lightly with 'manslaughter' instead. I also think that in the UK our drink driving laws are wrong. If you are drink driving and kill someone then you can only be charged with manslaughter at the most, and most often just wreckless driving. But drink driving should be seen as intentional murder because you know the risks when you make this sort of stupid decision. A man here who killed a mother and her daughter and her daughters friend (3 lives!) got under 5 years for wreckless driving...
Manslaughter is accidental, so presumably whoever the lawyers of the Guilty were, they pleaded that the Gun went off, or the guy got in the way of the bullet and they obviously won that case. Most of the time Murderers get 'life' but that is something crap like 17-25 years, I think Life should mean imprisoned until they die. That would be better.
Yes I agree, life should be life!! There should be no getting out early for good behaviour and all that rubbish... :nope:
I agree with you about the life thing but the strange thing about the case is my family were in the room when he got shot and spoke against him but he still only got little time. My uncle was 14 and didn't see the gun coming for him because there was no reason for him to...
If you don't mind me asking, how did they get away with manslaughter as a an excuse? What was the defence for that? Because to me it seems outrageous that it could be anything less than murder. There was a gun there for a reason presumably, and that reason is to commit murder...
The point of a punishment should never be because the victim wants revenge only. It should mainly be carried out so that the criminal gets treated and can become a good human being again. At least that's how I look at it. Therefore, I'm don't belive in the death penalty or life, but I do belive in longer prison sentences and mainly psychological treatment for the criminals. And by following their progress carefully, experts should be able to make a decent call of when the criminal has gotten good values, moral and ethics. I'm not saying this because I'm underestimating how much a crime can inflict damage on a victim (depending on the crime), but that every person can change. We are not what we were five or ten years ago, we are completely different people.
I understand what you are saying. I am also against death penalty and now life in prison is becoming where people WANT to go. But its the fact that he is walking. He didn't get any treatment or anything. I do agree people can change as long as society will allow them to change instead of constantly reminding them of what they did. I don't want my uncle's killer to die but to rather I want him to aleast understand the pain me and my family felt. The man was not sorry then and probably isn't sorry now....
"We are not what we were five or ten years ago, we are completely different people." This is a true statement. I think the chances of a criminal getting good values and ethics, when it comes to raping/murdering people (or animals), is slim to none. First of all, life is precious. Even if your parents don't teach you this, you automatically know. And if you feel that someone else's life isn't as important as yours, than why would anyone want you back out on the street, regardless if you learned your values or ethics?
hmmmm... no disrespect or anything, but I'm guessing you have never been a 'victim'. Although we are not victims, meerly survivors... If you had been then believe me, your opinion would be very different!! I believe people can change, but only to a certain extent. And someone who doesn't plead guilty of a crime and doesn't show any remorse should get a heavy punishment. For someone to do something like this in the first place there has to be something fundamentally wrong with them, and I'm not sure if I believe that can be rectified. And once they are in prison, and are still maintaining they are not guilty, then there should be no option for early releases. It's not all about revenge, you have to consider that there is often a whole community who would not relish the thought of having a rapist or murderer back out on the streets. So it's about protecting others too. And also just about justice. Because someone can have their whole life ruined by a crime commited on them or someone close to them, and the perpetrator can walk free, that's just not fair.
the point of justice is to bring society back to the nearest point before the crime. Imposing super harsh punishments does not do that, although for the victims sake the offender should be punished, if you go overboard rehabilitation becomes unlikely. America for example is a country with a fairly strong punishment to crime ratio, and yet they have a high crime rate. Japan on the otherhand has a low punishment to crime ratio, and their crime rate is low. Now im not a mathematician but I think there may be a connection somewhere there
That's a good point, but a crime can be from breaking into a store to killing a mass amount of people.. which happens more where?
Attempted murder, burglary, etc are just as dangerous and may be even more so than the actual crime because there is definite evidence that the accused would have committed the crime had they not been stopped... the fact that they are caught before they actually do it doesn't lessen their guilt. Also, in my area we are always warned when a pedophile comes to live in our area... however I haven't really dealt with crime and law before so my opinion may not be fully justified. However I am against the death penalty mainly because there is always a chance that the person convicted may be innocent.
I don't agree with a single thing you've said and without proof I will continue to do so. A paedophile will simply not get a shorter sentence, they just don't. They get huge sentences, and have to spend their entire time in prison isolated because the other inmates would kill them. http://www.russiatoday.ru/news/news/11914 - Paedophile given twenty years. http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/d...me=yes&more_nodeId1=133951&contentPK=17831752 - Paedophile given life, 10 years before a chance of parole. http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/24/geoghan/index.html - Paedophile priest murdered by another inmate. Onto your second point, manslaughter, or criminally negligent homicide in the United States or Gross negligence manslaughter in the UK "occurs where there is no intention to kill or cause serious injury but death is due to recklessness or criminal negligence." (Wikipedia) What that basically means is someone has got into a fight and accidentally murdered someone, like, they hit them in the face a bit too hard and their nose shattered into their brain and killed them. Whereas murder requires the intent to kill. This means that someone set out to deliberately kill someone, they could of planned it months in advance and had all sorts of set ups to dispose of the body and not get caught. Can you see the difference? If you were arrested for getting into a fight and you just hit the other guy too hard, would you want the same punishment as a guy who bought a gun just to shoot his wife then bury her in the garden? I think not. Completely different crimes. Your third point is a bit blurred. I don't think you've ever been to a prison. You seem to have the idea that these guys and gals live in a 5 star hotel type of prison. Sure, they get fed, this is basic human rights, everyone has access to them no matter what they do. You can't just starve someone because they broke the law, that's criminal in it's self, and you'd be joining them pretty soon if that's what you did to them. So called 'mentally ill' people are not let off to wander the streets, they are locked up in straight jackets in padded cells. Don't be so silly.
Not in OJ's case, haha.. MetricSuperstar has proved on major point, and that point would be that ALL crimes should be punished by a CASE BY CASE basis!