Should a life sentence mean LIFE.

pantsonfire321@aol.com · Sat Jun 24, 2006 9:28 am

I personally think life should mean life no excuses - anyone else have any thoughts on this subject.

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 10:48 am

A life for a life. The most effective deterrent.

Marie5656 · Post by **Marie5656** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:01 am

I find it interesting that there is "Life" and then there is "Life without benefit of Parole". I mean baring something like the sentence being overturned because the person has been proven innocent, then life should mean that...life. Carry them out in the pine box.

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:32 am

Marie5656 wrote: I find it interesting that there is "Life" and then there is "Life without benefit of Parole". I mean baring something like the sentence being overturned because the person has been proven innocent, then life should mean that...life. Carry them out in the pine box.

Or we could bring back life for life, save prison space, and save taxes as well.

cars · Post by **cars** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:43 am

YES! :guitarist

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:49 am

Life should mean life with one appeal and no parole. If they are innocent I would hope someone would come forward or the appeal process would open the case again. :-5

I also think that we keep those we sentence to death on death row for decades with appeal after appeal. All of these evil people should be put to death as quick as possible in my opinion we sentenced them carry it out.

What about their victims they weren't given any chances or appeals they died at the hand of these beasts. "An eye for an eye" I will go so far as saying they should be killed in the same manner as they killed their victims. But you see I'm not very tolerant of beasts who pray on the innocent. I don't think evil changes they are evil right to the bone put them out of their misery and save us from ever having to deal with their crimes again..

I'm sorry they may have been a victim of evil in their lives as well but they can't be cured or saved they will kill again and again and again...

OK I'm ducking because I know there will be incoming on my views..

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 12:02 pm

CARLA wrote: OK I'm ducking because I know there will be incoming on my views..

At last, someone concurs with me.

cars · Post by **cars** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 12:04 pm

CARLA wrote: Life should mean life with one appeal and no parole. If they are innocent I would hope someone would come forward or the appeal process would open the case again. :-5

I also think that we keep those we sentence to death on death row for decades with appeal after appeal. All of these evil people should be put to death as quick as possible in my opinion we sentenced them carry it out.

What about their victims they weren't given any chances or appeals they died at the hand of these beasts. "An eye for an eye" I will go so far as saying they should be killed in the same manner as they killed their victims. But you see I'm not very tolerant of beasts who pray on the innocent. I don't think evil changes they are evil right to the bone put them out of their misery and save us from ever having to deal with their crimes again..

I'm sorry they may have been a victim of evil in their lives as well but they can't be cured or saved they will kill again and again and again...

OK I'm ducking because I know there will be incoming on my views..

No ducking needed, stand up tall!!! You're right CARLA, if "they" kill me, "I" want "them" killed the next day!:-5

annabelle · Post by **annabelle** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 12:50 pm

Life should most definately mean LIFE!

Having said that, I'm personally in favour of the death sentence, preferably implemented within one week of sentencing.

Failing that, just dump all life sentence imposed prisoners onto remote desert islands to fend for themselves with no means of escape. With a bit of luck their killing instincts will be directed against one another as a means of food! A far more interesting way to dispose of lifes losers and at no cost to the tax payer! ..:p :wah:

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 12:57 pm

Brilliant has to be some island you can't escape from by sea. :sneaky: They would have all the fresh air and excercise they want, just so long and they stay alive and fend for themselves. No one goes back to drop food or water they are left there till they die... I think there was a movie about this with "Ray Liotta" in it ..

Failing that, just dump all life sentence imposed prisoners onto remote desert islands to fend for themselves with no means of escape. With a bit of luck their killing instincts will be directed against one another as a means of food! A far more interesting way to dispose of lifes losers and at no cost to the tax payer! ..

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 4:30 pm

Your pants are on fire.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 6:46 pm

I see no point to life sentences. If there is no hope of rehabilitating the individual to be a productive member of society, throw the switch, push the syringe, ready-aim-fire.

That's precisely why I disagree with you about appeals, Carla. We have to know we got it right and did it right. I'd rather 100 criminals go free than have one innocent be executed.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 9:04 pm

pantsonfire321@aol.com wrote: I personally think life should mean life no excuses - anyone else have any thoughts on this subject.Why do prisons exist at all? There are several alternatives to imprisonment. I'd much rather start by deciding what the function of a prison is, and then afterwards to decide how to use them. Ever since prison privatization started there has been pressure from the prison owners themselves to increase prisoner numbers, and I find that disturbing.

If you want to discuss just "life should mean life no excuses" we ought to consider specifics, and I know the UK better than I know the US system. I doubt if the local UK one is what's at issue though, so let's stick to US cases..

Sergio Garibay is serving 29 years to life as a sentence for conspiracy to sell $20 worth of cocaine. His girlfriend sold the drugs. Sergio says that he and his girlfriend were not drug dealers but that she was just doing a favor. He had one prior conviction for a robbery in 1986 - a purse snatching that the victim said was actually done by his co-defendant. Sergio also admits that he is an extensive record, but has never commited an act of violence. Pants, you feel Sergio should live the entire remainder of his natural life in prison with no prospect of release?

Let's try another one. Luis Demetillo was at a public telephone when police asked for his ID, having a warrant relating to parole violation. When they searched him they found a knife which a parolee can't have. He's serving 25 to life for possession of the knife. He had two prior convictions for residential burglary in 1982 and 1985. Pants, you feel Luis should live the entire remainder of his natural life in prison with no prospect of release?

Let's leave it at those cases for the moment. There are, obviously, more.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 10:06 pm

So where "life means life" we have effectively two completely different reasons for imprisonment. For lifers we have punishment and segregation from the community. For everyone else we have punishment, segregation from the community and rehabilitation.

If studies showed that punishment hinders rehabilitation, would you ditch the one in favor of the other rather than see the effects of the one mitigated by the existence of the other? If, for example, punishment was less unpleasant while rehabilitation was offered, would you abandon rehabilitation? If rehabilitation were more effective without punishment, would you abandon punishment?

Can we agree that "rehabilitation" can only be measured outside of prison, and that a fair indicator of "rehabilitated" is a lack of reconviction within a reasonably measurable period?

cars · Post by **cars** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 3:19 am

Diuretic wrote: It's a conundrum isn't it? It's a bit like murder. The sentence for murder in my jurisdiction is "imprisonment for life" but it doesn't mean for the term of someone's natural life. On the the other hand though, some prisoners can be held indefinitely by order for certain offences - but murder isn't one of those offences. That ability is saved for rape and other sexual offences. Now this for me is an interesting distinction. For murder there is one sentence and the judge has no ability to sentence other than to life imprisonment. But the judge can order a non-parole period for the sentenced murderer and the length of the non-parole period indicates the circumstances of the offence. There is no question of rehabilitation here, just punishment. In the orders for indeterminate sentencing similarly, there is no question of rehabilitation, just the ability for society to keep them in prison for as long as is deemed necessary.

I'm not trying to avoid your question but I can't answer it in an "either-or" fashion. Let me say that most people who face long prison sentences (not murderers) have usually failed rehabilitation and just need to be put in prison to give society a rest from them. Rehabilitation may be effective where someone may have failed the initial diverisionary programmes - with juveniles for example - and it's worth a try but plain incarceration is still necessary for many criminals.

That would be fair - and that's the basis of parole which is a useful concept.

The severity of the crime is what should dictate the severity of the punishment. Murder was mentioned, someone convicted of "Murder" beyond any doubt, by DNA evidence, fingerprints on the murder weapon, eye witnesses, should be put to death within days of conviction! There should not be any "Life in prsion" sentence in these cases, as there is no rehabilitation of that kind of person. That is the only punishment that would be "fair reprisal" for the murdered victim & their families.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 3:19 am

Some crimes are so appalling life definitely should mean life. Paedophiles being one i think most would agree should never be let out. There are also some crimes where the intent may not have been to kill but the effect of their action is such that there should be an element of punishment. I'm thinking of cases such as someone who kills while drunk driving. they may not have intended to kill but while sober they took the decision to drink and drive-they knew the potential results of their action.

Most murders are committed by people who know their victim and are unlikely to kill again but I would still consider locking them up for life. Someone who kills in self defence should you not take in to account the motives for the action? I don't know about the states but in this country women who kill an abisive husband after years of abuse still get harsher sentences (The rational being that they must have been planning to do it).than someone who kills a total stranger in an unprovoked attack.

The problem we have in this country is judges who take no account of the effect of the crime and even more so the sentencing guidlenes laid down by the government. Someone being up for parole after a quarter of the sentence has been served or getting a reduced sentence if they plead guilty is down to new labour and the changes they introduced a fact they would like us to forget and blame everybody else but them. And if anyone thinks reorganising the police in to larger fporces will make things better they need their heads examined.

State murder is still state murder even if you call it execution and there are enough wrong convictions that should make anyone pause before advocating the death penalty without the right of appeal.

As a deterrent it doesn't work. The states have the death penalty and you have the highest murder rate on the planet.

As to those who advocate the death penalty with no right of appeal just think of the situation babyrider and bullet are in at the moment. Just because someone is accused of a crime doesn't mean they actually did it. Even if they did do it the reason for the action has to be considered and whether they are a danger to society as a whole has to be taken in to account before you throw away the key on the prison door.

Most justice systems have a system of checks and balances to stop summary judgement and require proof beyond reasonable doubt and consideration of all factors and time to reconsider for very good reasons. Juries can be prejudiced and prejudice is by definition irrational-sod the evidence he's the type that would have done something like that and is a danger to society.

There is also very good reasons why politicians have no control over the judiciary and are themselves not above the law.

posted by spot

If you want to discuss just "life should mean life no excuses" we ought to consider specifics, and I know the UK better than I know the US system. I doubt if the local UK one is what's at issue though, so let's stick to US cases..

Actually i don't think you should. It's likely to end up ina slanging match.

What you need to discuss is whether you are prepared to have tabloid provoked knee jerk calls to action let's get someone for this without thinking through the consequences.

If you want to be specific how about if it was you in the dock?

If you are accused of a crime how do you do you want to be judged?

Do you want to be able to face your accusers in court and require them to prove their case or do you believe that if the police say someone did it then that is enough? After all the police know who the criminals are don't they?

Having been judged do you want the right to appeal if you are in fact innocent or do you believe that juries never get it wrong?

Would you prefer not to have a jury but just a judge deciding guilt or innocence?

Do you believe that some people have a lifestyle that makes it clear that they are disposed to criminal activity that they don't deserve any protection in law at all?

cars · Post by **cars** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 3:37 am

Diuretic wrote: There's always a doubt. If you weren't there how would you know what really happened - and that's what we ask of juries. A criminal trial is a bit like knowing the Battle of Agincourt took place in 1415 or the US Civil War happened. You can be persuaded but you never really know what happened beyond any doubt at all. Even the balance of proof in a criminal trial is "beyond a reasonable doubt" and I defy any lay person to explain to me - without reproducing meaningless legal terms - what that really means. No, there are too many flaws in the criminal justice system for me to be satisfied enough to see someone put to death for a crime.

I did mention "beyond any doubt", using DNA evidence, finger prints on the murder weapon, eye witnesse"s" provided as convicting evidence. I don't, you don't, need to be there when that kind of incriminating evidence it provided.

pantsonfire321@aol.com · Sun Jun 25, 2006 3:57 am

spot wrote: Sergio Garibay is serving 29 years to life as a sentence for conspiracy to sell $20 worth of cocaine. His girlfriend sold the drugs. Sergio says that he and his girlfriend were not drug dealers but that she was just doing a favor. He had one prior conviction for a robbery in 1986 - a purse snatching that the victim said was actually done by his co-defendant. Sergio also admits that he is an extensive record, but has never commited an act of violence. Pants, you feel Sergio should live the entire remainder of his natural life in prison with no prospect of release?

Let's try another one. Luis Demetillo was at a public telephone when police asked for his ID, having a warrant relating to parole violation. When they searched him they found a knife which a parolee can't have. He's serving 25 to life for possession of the knife. He had two prior convictions for residential burglary in 1982 and 1985. Pants, you feel Luis should live the entire remainder of his natural life in prison with no prospect of release?

Let's leave it at those cases for the moment. There are, obviously, more.

Spot both of the above cases need to be looked at in much more detail i dont know anything about either case , both defendants would have access to representation and we dont know all the facts - are the cases from the US .

The types of crime that i'm talking about are Murder/ rape /peadophilia ,,,,

I know a criminal family and two of them are serving life sentances the first got 18 years for stabbing a drug dealer he was a smack head himself he appealed and will serve 12 - do i feel bad for him ..NOWAY the second (his step father) got life, to you and me thats 8 years the guy is scum. He used to put a pregnant woman out on the street and when a punter came along he would rob them in the bushes. This man has commited every type of crime you can think of (hes been shot twice had acid thrown in his face his speciality was stabbing people up the arse ) - he has served 3 and half years of a life sentance he will probably be out next year the rest of the family have done armed robbery /theft /drugs you name it theyve done it .What i disagree with is the lenient sentances being handed about

.Take the wife of the guy,she tried to smuggle class A drugs into the prison where the guy was being held - did she get a prison term NOOOOOO all she got was a fine - now where is the deterrant . I think if you murder somebody in cold blood (and there are no extenuating circumstances) you should spend the next 30 years in prison thats what i say .

Uncle Kram · Post by **Uncle Kram** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 4:03 am

As Spot has highlighted, there are clearly anomalies, but for Murder..yes....next question

cars · Post by **cars** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 4:35 am

pantsonfire321@aol.com wrote: Spot both of the above cases need to be looked at in much more detail i dont know anything about either case , both defendants would have access to representation and we dont know all the facts - are the cases from the US .

The types of crime that i'm talking about are Murder/ rape /peadophilia ,,,,

I know a criminal family and two of them are serving life sentances the first got 18 years for stabbing a drug dealer he was a smack head himself he appealed and will serve 12 - do i feel bad for him ..NOWAY the second (his step father) got life, to you and me thats 8 years the guy is scum. He used to put a pregnant woman out on the street and when a punter came along he would rob them in the bushes. This man has commited every type of crime you can think of (hes been shot twice had acid thrown in his face his speciality was stabbing people up the arse ) - he has served 3 and half years of a life sentance he will probably be out next year the rest of the family have done armed robbery /theft /drugs you name it theyve done it .What i disagree with is the lenient sentances being handed about

.Take the wife of the guy,she tried to smuggle class A drugs into the prison where the guy was being held - did she get a prison term NOOOOOO all she got was a fine - now where is the deterrant . I think if you murder somebody in cold blood (and there are no extenuating circumstances) you should spend the next 30 years in prison thats what i say .

And when the murderer is 20 years old, then that means they get out at 50?! :-5

along-for-the-ride · Post by **along-for-the-ride** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 4:50 am

A life sentence is just a slow death sentence.

IMO

pantsonfire321@aol.com · Sun Jun 25, 2006 4:56 am

cars wrote: And when the murderer is 20 years old, then that means they get out at 50?! :-5
I know what you mean, this person will be in their 50s when they come out and i have no doubt they will pick up where they left off and continue to commit crime - is 12 years enough for taking a mans life (even if they where both drug dealing scum)

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 5:30 am

gmc wrote: As a deterrent it doesn't work. The states have the death penalty and you have the highest murder rate on the planet.
I know it wasn't your overall point, but I couldn't resist checking the facts. I found a really cool site www.NationMaster.com that lists all kinds of international stats.

For murder rate, the US doesn't have the highest, Colombia does per capita, followed by South Africa. The US is 24th on the list; the UK is 46.

As for executions, The Bahamas is number one, US is 20th, and UK is of course not on the list.

No countries are in the top ten for both lists.

For the raw statistic total murders, which can't be used for fair comparisons, the honor goes to India, with the US lagging at 6th, UK at 18th.

Total executions honors go to the sovreign nation of China, but the US is third on the list.

Still, we can't draw any correlations about the death penalty deterring crime, because each nation has different rules about what deserves execution.

cars · Post by **cars** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 6:05 am

Accountable wrote: I know it wasn't your overall point, but I couldn't resist checking the facts. I found a really cool site www.NationMaster.com that lists all kinds of international stats.

For murder rate, the US doesn't have the highest, Colombia does per capita, followed by South Africa. The US is 24th on the list; the UK is 46.

As for executions, The Bahamas is number one, US is 20th, and UK is of course not on the list.

No countries are in the top ten for both lists.

For the raw statistic total murders, which can't be used for fair comparisons, the honor goes to India, with the US lagging at 6th, UK at 18th.

Total executions honors go to the sovreign nation of China, but the US is third on the list.

Still, we can't draw any correlations about the death penalty deterring crime, because each nation has different rules about what deserves execution.

The death penalty deterring crime is arguable issue, that's for sure! But it goes without saying that what's really fair to the victim, is the old saying: "An eye for an eye"! If you kill me, then, mine kill you! :-2

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 6:20 am

cars wrote: The death penalty deterring crime is arguable issue, that's for sure! But it goes without saying that what's really fair to the victim, is the old saying: "An eye for an eye"! If you kill me, then, mine kill you! :-2
We can't let fairness to the victim enter into it, because different victims have different ideas about justice.

Our system is set up to remove the victim from the process as much as possible. The crime is against the state, not the victim. That allows abuses (my opinion) of plea bargains as well as executing a criminal against the victim's wishes.

I've stated here before that we need to take "punishment" out of the equation. Punishment is for kids. These are adults. Take all emotion out of it. Convicted criminals have proven themselves as detriments and/or dangers to society. We should separate and warehouse them until such time that qualified opinion declares them to be rehabilitated, no matter the crime.

Rehab services can be offered to the extent limited budgets make it possible. Convicts request the services voluntarily and receive them on a first--come-first served basis. No request, no service. No service, no way to ascertain rehabilitation.

The waiting lists will naturally be long, which means any imprisonment will be long. This will satisfy punishment-mongers and deter minor criminals. Since most major criminals start as minor ones, major crime should also decrease.

Again, if there is no hope for rehab, I can't see a reason to keep them around.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now everyone come and poke holes in this generalisation and poo poo it as too difficult, so we can get on with the business of complaining about the hopelessness of the current system.

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 8:11 am

We can't let fairness to the victim enter into it

Neither the victims nor their families can be taken out of the equation. The crime was comitted against the victim as much if not more so than against the state. In the case of murder, there should be recompense from the murderer and if the murderer is poor, then the state should recompense the family and take repayment from the murderer.

I agree that rehabilitation should be considered. It would be better to gain a valuable member of society. Otherwise, if unrehabitable, then the murderer's life should be forfeit and whatever estate he has should first be used to recompense the victim's family.

It is the neglect of the victims and their families that is causing people to lose faith in the legal process. At least, this is so in this country. On a machine, the smallest washer is vital for the machine's performance, for this country, every individual is important and this should be recognised by the state.

The 'eye for an eye' philosophy had an extra element. If an Israelite murdered another, the victim's immediate family had the right of blood avengeance. This meant that they could catch the murderer and kill him/her. The only salvation for murderers was to get to the sanctuary of the priests and turn theirselves in. Then the right to blood avengeance expired.

This, of course, raises concerns about vigilanteism which is also undesirable. However, it would make the job of the police easier if people turned theirselves in for fear of being killed in turn.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 8:48 am

OpenMind wrote: Neither the victims nor their families can be taken out of the equation. The crime was comitted against the victim as much if not more so than against the state. In the case of murder, there should be recompense from the murderer and if the murderer is poor, then the state should recompense the family and take repayment from the murderer.

WTF?!?!? How am I - a taxpayer, thus the guy the recompense comes from - responsible for the murder?? What possible dollar figure would you recommend squeezing from my hard-earned paycheck, in the name of the murderer?

OpenMind wrote: I agree that rehabilitation should be considered. It would be better to gain a valuable member of society. Otherwise, if unrehabitable, then the murderer's life should be forfeit and whatever estate he has should first be used to recompense the victim's family.Sure, I agree with that. What about the murderer's family?

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 12:20 pm

I don't give a damn about the murder's family.

I give a damn about the victim's family simple. To many word games in our legal system today just not working. I understand what they are trying to do by making it the murder against the state, but as Openmind state that isn't what happened the murder killed a person who had a family with loved one, not the cold calulated legal system call the State vs Murder not real...:-5 :-5 It's not working that is pretty clear..

You know what we are paying for murders out of tax payers money every damn damn. Charlie Mason comes to mind we the tax payer of California have been paying for that scums 3 hots and a cot for decades. I would have much rather seen the money go to the victims family period or to schools. What a waste of my money. I'm tired of paying for criminals educations, they get there masters, become lawyers. I would love to get my masters degree, Oh but wait I have to pay for the criminals first then hope and pray I can scrape enough together after rent, food, car, clothes to get mine. I wIsh I could get help like they do..

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 1:17 pm

Accountable wrote:

WTF?!?!? How am I - a taxpayer, thus the guy the recompense comes from - responsible for the murder?? What possible dollar figure would you recommend squeezing from my hard-earned paycheck, in the name of the murderer?

Sure, I agree with that. What about the murderer's family?

A man could come from a good family and still commit murder. The murderer's family are no more responsible than anyone else for the murder.

The burden of recompense belongs to the state. After all, it is one of the roles of the state to protect its citizens. Consider for a moment how your family would manage without you.

You might say that we can take out an assurance. There are plenty to choose from. However, when a murder enquiry is involved, it would be a long time before the money is paid out. The same can be said of the state. A payment would not be forthcoming until someone had been convicted for the murder.

To be honest, I don't know which would be best. To add to the profits of the already swelling coffers of the insurance companies, or to expect the community to make a contribution.

Perhaps a means test should be introduced to determine whether the victim's family are adequately provided for or not. That would be something for them to look forward to wouldn't it? The means test would seek to minimise payments. Therefore, even if the victim's family received a payment, they would still be forced to sell everything.

Since I don't have an effective say in how my tax contributions are spent, all this is irrelevant. However, I would be a sad and bitter man if I objected to payments to the families of victims from taxpayers money.

I share Carla's sentiments too. Why are we paying for criminals and letting the victim's families 'drown'?

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 1:29 pm

DITTO..!! The victims are all but forgotten after the sentencing, but the killer, or rapist, or child molestor is well provided for and protected all be in behind bars he has his mental health looked after, his physical health taken care of, and can receive a top rate education to get out and do it again..:-5 :-5

[QUOTE]Since I don't have an effective say in how my tax contributions are spent, all this is irrelevant. However, I would be a sad and bitter women if I objected to payments to the families of victims from taxpayers money.[/QUOTE]

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 1:33 pm

CARLA wrote: DITTO..!! The victims are all but forgotten after the sentencing, but the killer, or rapist, or child molestor is well provided for and protected all be in behind bars he has his mental health looked after, his physical health taken care of, and can receive a top rate education to get out and do it again..:-5 :-5

Hehe. You had me fooled there for a minute Carla. I thought I'd written woman instead of man. I had to go and have a look.

Sometimes, I think our societies are set up in favour of criminals. And, considering the rogues that run our countries, I would not be surprised if that were the truth.

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 1:49 pm

Gotcha OM...:wah: :wah: Yes its getting harder to tell on this side of the pond as well..:-5

Uncle Kram · Post by **Uncle Kram** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 2:58 pm

One of my best mates brothers was murdered and it really got under his skin that after just a few years, the 3 guys that stabbed him to death were walking the streets again after being kept by taxpayers like him

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 4:28 pm

OpenMind wrote: A man could come from a good family and still commit murder. The murderer's family are no more responsible than anyone else for the murder.

The burden of recompense belongs to the state. After all, it is one of the roles of the state to protect its citizens. Consider for a moment how your family would manage without you.*trying to keep balance while my head's spinning* OM, we're apparently on completely different planets on this issue. The state's obligation is to allow me pursuit of happiness. To say it is the state's responsibility to pay what a murderer stole from a family is ludicrous in my view.

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 4:31 pm

Accountable off topic but what the heck is on your avartars head...:wah:

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 4:41 pm

CARLA wrote: Accountable off topic but what the heck is on your avartars head...:wah:Dunno. Clancy's making me wear it.

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 4:43 pm

OK I can go with that Clancy is a good man.. :wah:

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 3:29 am

I'll bet the king didn't pay the victim on behalf of an impoverished criminal, though. :yh_eyebro

Carolyn · Post by **Carolyn** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 6:25 am

Yes, a life sentence should mean just that. Walk in--get carried out. If the judge does not intend for that person to really spend the rest of his/her life in prison, than the judge should give them a sentence that specifies a number of years. I am not for the death sentence, but I am for life sentences for murderers. They seem to make a distinction between a murderer who might kill again and one who is likely never to kill again. The ones who are not likely to kill again are the ones who could get paroled.

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 9:32 am

Accountable wrote: *trying to keep balance while my head's spinning* OM, we're apparently on completely different planets on this issue. The state's obligation is to allow me pursuit of happiness. To say it is the state's responsibility to pay what a murderer stole from a family is ludicrous in my view.

That's not quite what I said which was that it is one of the roles of the state to protect its citizens.However, I would ask you if it is fair to spend our money on convicts when the families of victims are left to find their own way, and it is far from a happy one. This, to me at any rate, appears to be a gross injustice to law abiding citizens.

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 9:33 am

Accountable wrote: Dunno. Clancy's making me wear it.

Looks like a peak cap which was quite common among the British working class in the last century.

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 9:41 am

That may well be so, but the monarchy no longer makes the laws. The economical impact today of losing a main breadwinner is greater now in our modern society than in Henry II's time when the common folk belonged to their manor and were taken care of by the manor.

Post by **spot** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 9:47 am

This entire thread seems to me to be unproductive, as it stands. For one thing it concentrates on what should happen to A when A causes the death of B.

What do we want, as a society?

Do we want to reduce the costs associated with punishment?

Do we want to reduce the absolute number of B?

Do we want to distinguish between legal and illegal killing?

Do we want to distinguish between the men pulling the trigger and the men creating the circumstance in which B's death becomes inevitable?

Do we want to distinguish between those B we want to see dead and those B we consider innocent victims?

This board lauds its military, who kill B on an industrial scale, hundreds of whom each year are unarmed children. Nobody here seems to want accountability for those deaths, either by punishing the trigger-pullers or by punishing the instigators.

So, we concentrate instead on just those B we consider innocent victims. My call would be to reduce the number of those deaths to an absolute minimum. Some of you feel that punishment of A is a positive route toward that end. I have seen no evidence to suggest that it is. Most of you feel that punishment of A is an ethical demand and has nothing to do with reducing further deaths. I think that's very debatable and even were it true it fails to address the need for reduction.

So, does anyone want to take any of those paths a little further?