It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How appropriate are sentences?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 06:01 AM
link   
I have just watched a movie, based on fact, where a psychiatrist murdered his wife slowly, over several months.

He was jailed for 15 years.

The wife was about 35 and could have lived until 80 or 90 - I think 15 years is not enough for taking her life.

Surely he should be imprisoned for her life expectancy?




posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by catwhoknows
Surely he should be imprisoned for her life expectancy?


I tend to agree that a lot of sentences are too short and others are far too long, depending on the crime.

However, if terms are based on the victims life expectancy, what term would I expect if I murdered someone aged 95?



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 06:17 AM
link   
reply to post by LightFantastic
 


That is a very good question.

So we are left with the question "What is a life worth?"

And I believe that humans are not entitled to anwer that question.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 06:28 AM
link   
15 years is fair...you have to look at the value of life everywhere on earth during every period of recorded history..Then decide where the median or average value lies..That would be the logical way to get the average value of life, and you'll find it isn't as valuable as you think.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 06:33 AM
link   
reply to post by ATLien
 


OK, you say 15 years is OK.

How would you feel if that was someone you loved?



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 06:43 AM
link   
reply to post by catwhoknows
 


I'm not much of a lover, so that's a bad analogy..but like I just explained, I'm a logical person and logically,historically and factually life is cheap..You have something you think is valuable, someone tells you its not as valuable as you think and then you get mad, lol it's like pawn stars. That's probably my favorite show on TV rite now, that and Vanguard..but oh yea, back to you, stop girling, your not gonna make it in the future if you continue to wear your heart all over your sleeve.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by ATLien
 


Gotta laugh, gotta cry - I definitely wear my heart on my sleeve.

At least I have a heart.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by catwhoknows
 


uh.. thats a touchy one. I initially thought you meant actual sentences, but you are referring to punishment terms.

I'd say they may bring in to consideration how people may change, or their contribution towards society..?

I wouldnt know what to sentence someone, for how long, for certain offenses.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Myendica
 


If their contribution to society has been to murder someone, I say throw away the key.

What gives anyone the right to take someone's life away?



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by catwhoknows
reply to post by ATLien
 


Gotta laugh, gotta cry - I definitely wear my heart on my sleeve.

At least I have a heart.


I have a heart, it pumps blood through my body..You need to wake up, can't you see you're just physiologically conditioned to think in a counterproductive manner?

[edit on 22-7-2010 by ATLien]



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 07:14 AM
link   
Sentence guide lines emposed on the court system is completely over stepping the seperation of the branches.
When you have some inter city youth get 8 years or more for having a few "Rocks" in his pocket and some Stock broker gets probation for having 10 times that ammount of "Coke" just because is still powder is completely wrong.
A Black man in the US has a 35% chance in going to prison before the age of 30.
Now murder, LIFE FOR A LIFE. only fair



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by catwhoknows
 


exactly. how can you throw someones life away but sending them to death for alleged murder?
some people deserve death, though you'r not the judge, just the jury.

like i said, I wouldnt know how long to punish someone, but you should have restraint and humanity.

mentality has a lot to do with it.

I dont condone murder, and im not necesarily against death penalty, but people are different and you cant just kill everyone.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by brokedown
 


I agree. a local township had a D.A. get caught throwing underage parties with drugs and sex, and for raping an underage boy, and providing them with drugs, he got 2 years house arrest.

the people didnt stand for it and got a more harsh penalty, but not by much.

you cant do anything but protest and civil disobedience.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 08:09 AM
link   
There are multiple reasons you might think we imprison people. The assumption you seem to be going on is that it is "for justice", for giving the criminal what they deserve. But, you might also think that we should use prison to rehabilitate prisoners. You might also think we use it to protect people. For example, this man, who slowly and painfully killed someone, is probably a dangerous individual, and perhaps society should protect itself from him by locking him up.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by ATLien
 


"Is" does not imply "ought". I see no connection at all between the way things are (the way people treat other people, the way nature treats people, how easy it is to ruin or end a person's life), and the way things ought to be (how much moral value we ought to give life).

Please explain to me why a history of horror means that we should continue the horror?



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by catwhoknows


Surely he should be imprisoned for her life expectancy?


Or murdered the same way. These laws, smh the laws that bother me are the laws that let child offenders free to me anyone caught messing with kids should be jailed for life... There was just an inncident in my old neihborhood where they found a poor 14 yr old girl dismembered in a trash can and the evil 1 who did it was jailed for sexual assult before, but the loop holes let him out and the poor girl is dead now. I feel these laws are so old and have underlying loopholes set within them from day1 that were designed to assist powerful IGNORANT people back then who may have gotten involved in negative activities and had connections to more or less say fk the law, because they were in bed with the powerful ignorant people with connections... You can still see the influences even in todays societies were MONEY TALKS YOU CLEAN OUT THE COURT ROOM AND BULL#$#$ WALKS YOU CLEAN INTO THE PRISON.... Now wonder the powerfull criminals/elites of the world dont give a damn, because they know AS LONG AS THEIR MONEY IS RIGHT NOONE WILL TOUCH THEM---AMAZING---



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 08:24 AM
link   
I think if you murder, rape, or commit any major crime against children you deserve to rot in a cell the rest of your life. If you take a life you owe a life. To me rape is taking a life, its almost worse since you have been violated and you have to continue living with the memories. Child killers, rapists, and abusers are in my opinion the worst. Anyone who can hurt a child should not only die but die in the most horrific way possible.

There are always exceptions though so I think that punishing should take into account the past history. Except children, Children are innocent and if you hurt an innocent child there is NO exception.

Xiamara



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by catwhoknows
 




Surely he should be imprisoned for her life expectancy?


I suppose that depends on your rational for imprisonment in the first place. If your goal is to punish a person, I would expect that after a few years, an individual would acclimate to prison lifestyle. The first year is probably worse than the next two or three years combined. By year 10, I'd expect a prisoner to be highly adapted to prison life. Possibly to the point that being released might be more stressful.

If your objective is simply to keep a dangerous person away from the rest of society...that seems tricky. With the constant exposure to all the unsavory prison people in prison, I'd expect a prisoner to generally be more likely to become someone you'd want to keep away from society the longer you keep them in. So if you want to keep bad people away from good people, long prison sentences don't make a lot of sense unless you plan to keep them locked up permanently.

And if your goal is to rehabilitate them, I don't think prison is a good choice at all.



How appropriate are sentences?


You tell me. What's your goal? Will imprisoning people for more years accomplish it?


[edit on 22-7-2010 by LordBucket]



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by catwhoknows
 




If their contribution to society has been to murder
someone, I say throw away the key.


Ok.



What gives anyone the right to take someone's life away?


...wait, what?

Didn't you just claim the right to imprison someone for their entire life? How can you say that and then turn around and ask what give someone the right to take away a life? Is locking somone in a jail cell for their entire life not taking away their life?



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 09:08 AM
link   
My husband is currently serving 13 years on a first offence cannabis charge, his cell mate 15 for murder of 3 people.

Fair? I think not. However I am biased.

He is housed in a max security prison, at present he has found no one else there for cannabis alone. All others have other drug charges and crimes combined with their sentencing.

Two years into this and we are just taking it day by day. Court on Monday to hopefully get a new trial and reduce his time.

Keeping our fingers crossed.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join