4 ms·

If someone attempted to murder you, what do you think would be a suitable punishment for that person? Honest question. If they were in jail for a short amount o

by redml 11y ago

If someone attempted to murder you, what do you think would be a suitable punishment for that person? Honest question. If they were in jail for a short amount of time you'd probably be a bit worried that they would come find you after and finish the job.

jacquesm 11y ago
I think after 44 years I'd feel pretty safe. Attempted murder of a head of state, maybe 25 years or so? Assuming pre-meditation. Attempted murder of myself, 10 years at most, if not pre-meditated, otherwise if it was pre-meditated then some more, but with a chance of parole given good behaviour and maybe psychiatric observation. Aggravating or other circumstances should be taken into account too, I'm sure that those judges would do their best. 44 years is excessive, by any measure. You're simply not talking about the same person any more. 22 -> 66, that's a life gone. Does the guy in that article look like a serious threat to you? To the officer he tried to kill? To anybody else? All I see is an old guy who made a really bad dumb move when he was a lot younger, and probably a whole angrier than today. I also question the extra months after he served the many many years for a shoplifting charge when he was 17. That's just revenge, it has nothing to do with justice or having the best of society at heart.
- redml 11y ago
  > Does the guy in that article look like a serious threat to you? Well he's old now, that was probably the point of his sentence. > I also question the extra months after he served the many many years for a shoplifting charge when he was 17. He did allegedly try to kill a cop afterall, I have no doubt the judge was not kind to him for that. He's rehabilitated now, but you're right that 44 years wasn't necessary. I'd also say 25, tops.
- zanny 11y ago
  Except carte blanche sentencing on intent is not enough. The attempted murderer after 10 years may be incredibly vindictive and immediately seek revenge, possibly mass murder in retaliation for his incarceration. Likewise, the 25 year sentenced individual might wholly repent after five years, and thus sit in prison for another twenty with no rehabilitative meaning, he just rots to serve as an example to others. You need informed decisions in the process of removing people from society and when to reintroduce them. It is not something to write down on paper or try to set universal rules. You need extensive oversight to prevent exploitation of those given the power over the lives of others, but you need informed and intelligent decision makers with multiple opinions deciding when the dangerous are fit to participate again in society, not arbitrary number guessing. And no, its not cheap. But its more expensive socially to have the redeemed rot and the vengeful run free.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    > The attempted murderer after 10 years may be incredibly vindictive and immediately seek revenge, possibly mass murder in retaliation for his incarceration. I'll take that chance. For every how many people that just spent a decade in jail do you think there will be one that manages to squeak by observation and hearings for a decade? How many people would you be prepared to jail to save one life of an innocent person?
    - zanny 11y ago
      Thats the point. You cannot just assign a sentence and presume rehabilitation at the other side. Crimes along the entire violence spectrum that require removal from society all require case by case consideration of when, if ever, the criminal is suitable to reenter society. A lot of them never should, that never repent and would always be a threat to others. But then you have those that rot in jail for decades after being completely rehabilitated by policies like mandatory minimums and extended sentencing like mentioned in this article waste their lives and our tax dollars on something that a board of active professional psychoanalyists should be able to see is a shut case. It is easy to deceive an inefficient, corrupt, or lazy system when given per-case inspective authority. But it is not easy in the presence of a rigored well implemented system. Rather than try to simplify criminal justice to sentencing based on crime committed with fixed sentences taken from a textbook, we should appeal to reach the global maxima of justice, which includes curtailing the injustice of keeping those no longer dangerous behind bars perpetually.
throwaway2048 11y ago
there is a reason victims don't determine sentencing

by redml 11y ago

jacquesm 11y ago

I think after 44 years I'd feel pretty safe. Attempted murder of a head of state, maybe 25 years or so? Assuming pre-meditation. Attempted murder of myself, 10 years at most, if not pre-meditated, otherwise if it was pre-meditated then some more, but with a chance of parole given good behaviour and maybe psychiatric observation. Aggravating or other circumstances should be taken into account too, I'm sure that those judges would do their best. 44 years is excessive, by any measure. You're simply not talking about the same person any more. 22 -> 66, that's a life gone. Does the guy in that article look like a serious threat to you? To the officer he tried to kill? To anybody else? All I see is an old guy who made a really bad dumb move when he was a lot younger, and probably a whole angrier than today. I also question the extra months after he served the many many years for a shoplifting charge when he was 17. That's just revenge, it has nothing to do with justice or having the best of society at heart.

redml 11y ago
> Does the guy in that article look like a serious threat to you? Well he's old now, that was probably the point of his sentence. > I also question the extra months after he served the many many years for a shoplifting charge when he was 17. He did allegedly try to kill a cop afterall, I have no doubt the judge was not kind to him for that. He's rehabilitated now, but you're right that 44 years wasn't necessary. I'd also say 25, tops.
zanny 11y ago
Except carte blanche sentencing on intent is not enough. The attempted murderer after 10 years may be incredibly vindictive and immediately seek revenge, possibly mass murder in retaliation for his incarceration. Likewise, the 25 year sentenced individual might wholly repent after five years, and thus sit in prison for another twenty with no rehabilitative meaning, he just rots to serve as an example to others. You need informed decisions in the process of removing people from society and when to reintroduce them. It is not something to write down on paper or try to set universal rules. You need extensive oversight to prevent exploitation of those given the power over the lives of others, but you need informed and intelligent decision makers with multiple opinions deciding when the dangerous are fit to participate again in society, not arbitrary number guessing. And no, its not cheap. But its more expensive socially to have the redeemed rot and the vengeful run free.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  > The attempted murderer after 10 years may be incredibly vindictive and immediately seek revenge, possibly mass murder in retaliation for his incarceration. I'll take that chance. For every how many people that just spent a decade in jail do you think there will be one that manages to squeak by observation and hearings for a decade? How many people would you be prepared to jail to save one life of an innocent person?
  - zanny 11y ago
    Thats the point. You cannot just assign a sentence and presume rehabilitation at the other side. Crimes along the entire violence spectrum that require removal from society all require case by case consideration of when, if ever, the criminal is suitable to reenter society. A lot of them never should, that never repent and would always be a threat to others. But then you have those that rot in jail for decades after being completely rehabilitated by policies like mandatory minimums and extended sentencing like mentioned in this article waste their lives and our tax dollars on something that a board of active professional psychoanalyists should be able to see is a shut case. It is easy to deceive an inefficient, corrupt, or lazy system when given per-case inspective authority. But it is not easy in the presence of a rigored well implemented system. Rather than try to simplify criminal justice to sentencing based on crime committed with fixed sentences taken from a textbook, we should appeal to reach the global maxima of justice, which includes curtailing the injustice of keeping those no longer dangerous behind bars perpetually.

throwaway2048 11y ago

there is a reason victims don't determine sentencing