Mike111 0 #1 August 23, 2005 Today, a lot of murderes in this countr get let out after 20- 30 years after being given life sentences. Some,. remain in jail. But can we really justify letting people out for committing murder? Agreed that there are some cases, crimes of passion and cases where insanity was to blame where one could argue against it . But it seems in most cases that is a kick in the teeth to families of victims, to have their killer relaeased after serving only a third of their life after they permanently ended someone else's life. Therefore, should we let these people out, risking them reoffending and assuming they are have changed? Or should life mean life? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BillyVance 35 #2 August 23, 2005 If they are going to give a convicted felon life in prison, they should mean life, until you die in prison. They shouldn't have to create a sentence "Life without Parole". Life is Life. Unfortunately, the penal code is really confusing and convoluted. And it varies from state to state. Some heinous crimes don't even mandate a life without parole sentence, so sometimes a judge will hand down a long, long sentence so that even serving the minimum percentage of that sentence won't get you out before you die..."Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #3 August 24, 2005 Yes and no. I have no issues with giving the convicted sentences of 20 or 30 years for a murder... I just think that if you're going to send them down for 20 years call it "20 years". There's little logic in calling it "life" when you're not actually planning on imprisoning them for life. The logic comes from the fact that technically if a lifer is ever let out they are merely on parole and thus could go back to serve the rest of their original sentence if they do anything else wrong. Therefore in a way their sentence really is a life sentence, it's just that for the latter portion of it you're allowed to go back home on certain conditions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike111 0 #4 August 24, 2005 i think the paroll idea is a really good one, as they are under constant pressure to behave. Although, i think all murder cases should be given life it was a cold and ruthless crime, with no paroll. Unfortunately our country is too soft: Last year, a man ni watford was assualted by a drunk who punched himin the head - this caused him to strike a wall and then the pave ment which killed him. The offender got 4 year 3 months. Ridiculous really. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #5 August 24, 2005 QuoteAlthough, i think all murder cases should be given life it was a cold and ruthless crime, with no paroll. I think that should go for child molesters and sexual predators too. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IanHarrop 42 #6 August 24, 2005 QuoteQuoteAlthough, i think all murder cases should be given life it was a cold and ruthless crime, with no paroll. I think that should go for child molesters and sexual predators too. J I am much more in favor of never letting child molesters and sexual predators out of jail than murders. Those that commit these crimes are not wired up right and very likely to re-offend. Murderers have a very low rate of re-offending."Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike111 0 #7 August 24, 2005 But they haven't ended a life, so in some ways why should we take their lives fully away? The victim still has a chance to recover. they deserve veyr harsh sentences, but maybe not life as in forever. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #8 August 24, 2005 QuoteThe victim still has a chance to recover. Punishment has nothing to do with the victim. It has to do with protecting future potential victims. The criminal showed the ability to choose to hurt. That's why they are imprisoned, they might do it again. The 'eye for an eye' thing is bad logic. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike111 0 #9 August 24, 2005 But, i dont; think i was referring to that "eye to eye", but judges do weigh that up - they say well how much was the victim damaged. Same with assalt really- how bad you hurt them influences the length of sentence. If that makes sense, ( i never explain things well) - you probably noticed!) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
