5 ms·

I think main difference is that some people get more sympathy from jury and better chances to get away with crime. In continental law judge tends to be more fai

by jkot 10y ago

I think main difference is that some people get more sympathy from jury and better chances to get away with crime. In continental law judge tends to be more fair. For example black receive higher sentences for drug related crimes. Women commits 30% of all murders but are 10 times less likely to be convicted. Also in continental law sentences are shorter and more reasonable; 8 years for murder etc. EDIT: we actually have sentences for murder 10 years to lifetime. It depends on case.

hnamazon123 10y ago
> Also in continental law sentences are shorter and more reasonable; 8 years for murder etc. This may be the most European thing I've ever read.
- mysterypie 10y ago
  Before laughing too much at the European idea of justice, think of the absurd sentencing that regularly happens in the US: A "60 Minutes" story some years ago reported that a California man was sentenced to life in prison for shoplifting two double-A batteries. Yes, life for a pack of AA batteries. He was a twice convicted felon who had already served his time but got mandatory life for a third crime, even a misdemeanor like shoplifting, under California's three strikes law.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Before laughing too much at the European idea of justice, think of the absurd sentencing that regularly happens in the US: A "60 Minutes" story some years ago reported that a California man was sentenced to life in prison for shoplifting two double-A batteries. Note that this is not something that "regularly happens in the US", it seems to be an illustration of a failure mode of California's particular implementation of a "three strikes" law under Prop 184 of 1994, which was abnormally severe (not requiring the third felony strike to be "serious or violent", as most three-strikes laws in the US do) -- and it seems to be a seriously misremembered one, at that, since even when this version of three strikes existed in CA, it still required the third strike to be a felony. Also, this rule was changed to align CA's three strikes implementation with the common rule requiring the third strike to be a "serious or violent" felony in by Prop 36 in 2012 (which also provided a process for after-the-fact sentence adjustment for those sentenced under the old version for a third strike that would not have been subject to the enhanced sentence under the reformed version of the three strikes.)
    - mysterypie 10y ago
      Thank you for the insightful reply. However, I am not misremembering the story about the AA batteries. There was something in the original story about the third crime automatically getting elevated to a felony. So, yes, it needs to be a felony, but a minor third crime gets elevated to a felony. I can't find the original 60 Minutes video, but here's a partial transcript of the episode (search for the word "batteries"): https://listserv.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=JUSTWATCH-L;16e9ef1a.0207 https://listserv.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=JUSTWATCH-L;16e9e... And a book that recounts the same incident. The author is a Senior Fellow in Criminal Justice at the University of Southern California, so I assume he knows what he's talking about and has checked the accuracy of the story. http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=8356210389&searchurl=&cmtrack_data=cm_abecat%3D100203556 http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=8356210389&... And someone's letter to the Governor of California with a list of three strike convictions, a number of which are not felonies: http://www.prisontalk.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-39951.html http://www.prisontalk.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-39951.h...
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        Actually, your transcript refers to a provision which elevates any theft (not any crime), with a prior theft, to a felony. This is a separate rule that predates and operates separately from the three-strikes law. (Though, obviously, before the reform to three strikes requiring the third felony to be violent or serious, had an interaction with it: but the conviction was, itself, a felony independently of the three-strikes law.)
- Majestic121 10y ago
  I think you are right, it seems perfectly reasonnable to me (French) while the comments like "he could kill 10 people in his lifetime" seems ludicrous. That's cultural differences for you !
  - afsina 10y ago
    Sure when a low-life kills your children with cold blood and get away with it for 8 years, I would like to see your reaction after murderer goes out of jail and smiles at you.
    - bambax 10y ago
      The purpose of the legal system is NOT to offer retribution to victims. Making the murderer suffer won't bring back your kids. It will accomplish exactly nothing, in fact.
      - afsina 10y ago
        And 8 years is justified because of it? Why not 1 year? Or none?
      - Artoemius 10y ago
        It won't accomplish anything for the victims' relatives, that's true. But other people will feel safer knowing that at least some percentage of children murderers are locked out for good. It's not about making the murderer suffer either, it's about preventing future crimes. When you have cancer, you don't kill cancer cells because you want them to suffer. You kill them to prevent them from killing you.
        pluma 10y ago
        If harsher penalties were the solution to preventing serious crimes, you'd think the death penalty would have fixed that, right? Turns out the only thing harsher penalties do (beyond a certain threshold) is make it more likely for crimes to escalate because there's no point restraining yourself (if it means leaving witnesses) if you're already going away for life / going to be murdered by the state anyway. As a matter of fact, the best way to prevent crimes is actually preventing crimes. Figure out why people commit crimes, then try to fix that. E.g. if you stop treating addicts as criminals you can solve their underlying psychological/social problems and they don't end up robbing people to pay for drugs.
smm2000 10y ago
I do not think 8 years is even close to being reasonable for premeditated murder.
- jkot 10y ago
  I just looked it up. In Czechia the sentence for murder (killing with intent) is 10 to 18 years; or 15 to lifetime in special cases.
- sandworm101 10y ago
  >> premeditated murder If it isn't premeditated, it isn't murder. Perhaps the more accurate term is "premeditated killing" in which the outcome is premeditated. But in murder only the act must be premeditated, not the consequence. Punching someone and thereby causing their death is murder, you don't need to be trying to kill someone in order to murder them, but it isn't a premeditated killing.
  - gbuk2013 10y ago
    At least in the UK, "murder" requires a proven intention to kill. Your example of a punch killing a person would fall under "manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act" but not murder.
    - sandworm101 10y ago
      I disagree. Imho all you need is the intention to do harm.
      - gbuk2013 10y ago
        Not just any harm will do - it has to be GBH[1] and it has to be a "virtually certain" result of the action.[2] IMHO your example of a punch would not pass this test. [1] http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/#murder http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_mansl... [2] http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199798/ldjudgmt/jd980722/wool.htm http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199798/ldjudgmt/j...
Artoemius 10y ago
I don't think 8 years for murder is reasonable. Within a lifespan of 80 years, someone could kill about 10 people. That doesn't seem reasonable to me.
- Loic 10y ago
  The ultimate goal of prison is to reintegrate people in the society. It fails at the moment miserably also because people consider the prison as a way to prevent people to come back to the society. Your comment and the one to whom you respond show these two points of view. It is interesting that at the moment in the US you have more a "keep the criminals away from the society" point of view and in Europe "try to reintegrate them".
  - Snargorf 10y ago
    No, the ultimate goal of prison is to prevent crime. Both by deterring would-be criminals, and by keeping future lawbreakers behind bars where they can't do harm.
    - BrandonM 10y ago
      You left out perhaps the most important part: "...in the most cost-effective way possible," where cost includes repeat offenses, taxpayer money, the opportunity cost of lost productivity, destroyed families (multi-generational effects), etc.
      - ricksplat 10y ago
        I think this is an important point. These costs are amongst the many things a judge should (does?) weigh up in sentencing. If she gets it wrong a sentence may be reviewed (made more harsh or lenient as appropriate) on appeal. However when sentencing is politicised, such as with mandatory sentences the judge's "judgement" is taken out of the equation. It may be appropriate to give a guy life for stealing batteries when a bigger picture is taken into account but that should be for the professionals (i.e the judiciary) to decide rather than politicians looking to buzz frightened people into voting for them.
sandworm101 10y ago
Juries have a rather minor role in criminal justice. Far less than 1% of crimes ever get to a jury. There are some US jurisdictions where the only cases that ever get to a jury are those with mandatory life and/or death punishments that preclude plea bargaining. Even amongst those who want to go to trial on lesser charges regularly opt for a judge rather than jury.
riffraff 10y ago
the jury/judge ruling does not match exactly the civil law/common law split. I.e. france and italy both have a civil law system but some crimes (murder, for example) depend on a popular jury in addition to the judge.
- aktiur 10y ago
  In France, juries are involved only for cases defined as "Crimes" (the American equivalent would be felony, but it's much more restrictive), such as murder and rape, especially violent thefts and war crimes. And even in these cases, their role is much less important than in the US for two reasons : * the 6 jurors (9 in appeal) decide the case alongside 3 professional judges whose influence is often decisive during the jury's deliberation (and in any case they always carry 3 votes) * there's no need for an unanimous decision: 6 votes are necessary for any conviction (8 in appeal)
pluma 10y ago
To paraphrase Malcolm Gladwell: the only situation in which you're better off being tried by a jury is when you're actually guilty. If you're innocent, bad luck.

by jkot 10y ago

hnamazon123 10y ago

> Also in continental law sentences are shorter and more reasonable; 8 years for murder etc. This may be the most European thing I've ever read.

mysterypie 10y ago
Before laughing too much at the European idea of justice, think of the absurd sentencing that regularly happens in the US: A "60 Minutes" story some years ago reported that a California man was sentenced to life in prison for shoplifting two double-A batteries. Yes, life for a pack of AA batteries. He was a twice convicted felon who had already served his time but got mandatory life for a third crime, even a misdemeanor like shoplifting, under California's three strikes law.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Before laughing too much at the European idea of justice, think of the absurd sentencing that regularly happens in the US: A "60 Minutes" story some years ago reported that a California man was sentenced to life in prison for shoplifting two double-A batteries. Note that this is not something that "regularly happens in the US", it seems to be an illustration of a failure mode of California's particular implementation of a "three strikes" law under Prop 184 of 1994, which was abnormally severe (not requiring the third felony strike to be "serious or violent", as most three-strikes laws in the US do) -- and it seems to be a seriously misremembered one, at that, since even when this version of three strikes existed in CA, it still required the third strike to be a felony. Also, this rule was changed to align CA's three strikes implementation with the common rule requiring the third strike to be a "serious or violent" felony in by Prop 36 in 2012 (which also provided a process for after-the-fact sentence adjustment for those sentenced under the old version for a third strike that would not have been subject to the enhanced sentence under the reformed version of the three strikes.)
  - mysterypie 10y ago
    Thank you for the insightful reply. However, I am not misremembering the story about the AA batteries. There was something in the original story about the third crime automatically getting elevated to a felony. So, yes, it needs to be a felony, but a minor third crime gets elevated to a felony. I can't find the original 60 Minutes video, but here's a partial transcript of the episode (search for the word "batteries"): https://listserv.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=JUSTWATCH-L;16e9ef1a.0207 https://listserv.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=JUSTWATCH-L;16e9e... And a book that recounts the same incident. The author is a Senior Fellow in Criminal Justice at the University of Southern California, so I assume he knows what he's talking about and has checked the accuracy of the story. http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=8356210389&searchurl=&cmtrack_data=cm_abecat%3D100203556 http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=8356210389&... And someone's letter to the Governor of California with a list of three strike convictions, a number of which are not felonies: http://www.prisontalk.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-39951.html http://www.prisontalk.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-39951.h...
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      Actually, your transcript refers to a provision which elevates any theft (not any crime), with a prior theft, to a felony. This is a separate rule that predates and operates separately from the three-strikes law. (Though, obviously, before the reform to three strikes requiring the third felony to be violent or serious, had an interaction with it: but the conviction was, itself, a felony independently of the three-strikes law.)
Majestic121 10y ago
I think you are right, it seems perfectly reasonnable to me (French) while the comments like "he could kill 10 people in his lifetime" seems ludicrous. That's cultural differences for you !
- afsina 10y ago
  Sure when a low-life kills your children with cold blood and get away with it for 8 years, I would like to see your reaction after murderer goes out of jail and smiles at you.
  - bambax 10y ago
    The purpose of the legal system is NOT to offer retribution to victims. Making the murderer suffer won't bring back your kids. It will accomplish exactly nothing, in fact.
    - afsina 10y ago
      And 8 years is justified because of it? Why not 1 year? Or none?
    - Artoemius 10y ago
      It won't accomplish anything for the victims' relatives, that's true. But other people will feel safer knowing that at least some percentage of children murderers are locked out for good. It's not about making the murderer suffer either, it's about preventing future crimes. When you have cancer, you don't kill cancer cells because you want them to suffer. You kill them to prevent them from killing you.
      - pluma 10y ago
        If harsher penalties were the solution to preventing serious crimes, you'd think the death penalty would have fixed that, right? Turns out the only thing harsher penalties do (beyond a certain threshold) is make it more likely for crimes to escalate because there's no point restraining yourself (if it means leaving witnesses) if you're already going away for life / going to be murdered by the state anyway. As a matter of fact, the best way to prevent crimes is actually preventing crimes. Figure out why people commit crimes, then try to fix that. E.g. if you stop treating addicts as criminals you can solve their underlying psychological/social problems and they don't end up robbing people to pay for drugs.

smm2000 10y ago

I do not think 8 years is even close to being reasonable for premeditated murder.

jkot 10y ago
I just looked it up. In Czechia the sentence for murder (killing with intent) is 10 to 18 years; or 15 to lifetime in special cases.
sandworm101 10y ago
>> premeditated murder If it isn't premeditated, it isn't murder. Perhaps the more accurate term is "premeditated killing" in which the outcome is premeditated. But in murder only the act must be premeditated, not the consequence. Punching someone and thereby causing their death is murder, you don't need to be trying to kill someone in order to murder them, but it isn't a premeditated killing.
- gbuk2013 10y ago
  At least in the UK, "murder" requires a proven intention to kill. Your example of a punch killing a person would fall under "manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act" but not murder.
  - sandworm101 10y ago
    I disagree. Imho all you need is the intention to do harm.
    - gbuk2013 10y ago
      Not just any harm will do - it has to be GBH[1] and it has to be a "virtually certain" result of the action.[2] IMHO your example of a punch would not pass this test. [1] http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/#murder http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_mansl... [2] http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199798/ldjudgmt/jd980722/wool.htm http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199798/ldjudgmt/j...

Artoemius 10y ago

I don't think 8 years for murder is reasonable. Within a lifespan of 80 years, someone could kill about 10 people. That doesn't seem reasonable to me.

Loic 10y ago
The ultimate goal of prison is to reintegrate people in the society. It fails at the moment miserably also because people consider the prison as a way to prevent people to come back to the society. Your comment and the one to whom you respond show these two points of view. It is interesting that at the moment in the US you have more a "keep the criminals away from the society" point of view and in Europe "try to reintegrate them".
- Snargorf 10y ago
  No, the ultimate goal of prison is to prevent crime. Both by deterring would-be criminals, and by keeping future lawbreakers behind bars where they can't do harm.
  - BrandonM 10y ago
    You left out perhaps the most important part: "...in the most cost-effective way possible," where cost includes repeat offenses, taxpayer money, the opportunity cost of lost productivity, destroyed families (multi-generational effects), etc.
    - ricksplat 10y ago
      I think this is an important point. These costs are amongst the many things a judge should (does?) weigh up in sentencing. If she gets it wrong a sentence may be reviewed (made more harsh or lenient as appropriate) on appeal. However when sentencing is politicised, such as with mandatory sentences the judge's "judgement" is taken out of the equation. It may be appropriate to give a guy life for stealing batteries when a bigger picture is taken into account but that should be for the professionals (i.e the judiciary) to decide rather than politicians looking to buzz frightened people into voting for them.

sandworm101 10y ago

Juries have a rather minor role in criminal justice. Far less than 1% of crimes ever get to a jury. There are some US jurisdictions where the only cases that ever get to a jury are those with mandatory life and/or death punishments that preclude plea bargaining. Even amongst those who want to go to trial on lesser charges regularly opt for a judge rather than jury.

riffraff 10y ago

the jury/judge ruling does not match exactly the civil law/common law split. I.e. france and italy both have a civil law system but some crimes (murder, for example) depend on a popular jury in addition to the judge.

aktiur 10y ago
In France, juries are involved only for cases defined as "Crimes" (the American equivalent would be felony, but it's much more restrictive), such as murder and rape, especially violent thefts and war crimes. And even in these cases, their role is much less important than in the US for two reasons : * the 6 jurors (9 in appeal) decide the case alongside 3 professional judges whose influence is often decisive during the jury's deliberation (and in any case they always carry 3 votes) * there's no need for an unanimous decision: 6 votes are necessary for any conviction (8 in appeal)

pluma 10y ago

To paraphrase Malcolm Gladwell: the only situation in which you're better off being tried by a jury is when you're actually guilty. If you're innocent, bad luck.