|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Criminal penalties, fairness and related things
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Is there fairness in criminal penalties? Just read in the local newspaper about a man who chased a woman, threw her down and raped her. The judge sentenced him to 3.5 years "because he pleaded guilty". It stated that the sentencing guidelines for rape start at 3 years.
We also see that assaults warrant 30 to 90 days even on repeat offence, maybe a little longer if the victim has some injuries. The person who drives drunk may get 6-24 months on repeat however, and no one is injured.
I don't get it. Crime of violence and trauma gets about 3 years, and financial crimes get much much longer.
Is this fair? What's going on here? To me, violence is the worst sort of crime. What do crimes warrant with sentencing where you live?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomOfTarsus
Shipmate
# 3053
|
Posted
Good question, but I doubt that anything we come up with will be fair. If you look at some of the most egregious financial crimes, people have lost year upon year of their hard-earned savings to dishonesty and thievery - what was going to be a modest retirement now looks more like flipping burgers or working at some other menial task, if you can get it.
Still, it's pretty easy to prove racial bias in sentencing (at least in the US), and it's long been a complaint that a man will get less time for killing his wife than some minorities get for a convenience store stickup that netted $200.
No, it's not fair - I don't know if we ever could get it that way - "eye for eye" is barbaric by today's standards, but as I understand it, it was quite a step forward at the time.
--------------------
By grace are ye saved through faith... not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ... ordained that we should walk in them.
Posts: 1570 | From: Pittsburgh, PA USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
than some minorities get for a convenience store stickup that netted $200.
In the case of an armed robbery, I don't think the proceeds have much to do with the level of crime. Shoplifting a tube of toothpaste from the supermarket is certainly a much lesser crime than stealing someone's unattended jewellery, say, but in the case of armed robbery, the important factor is the threat, and real possibility, of death. The fact that you just got $200 from the gas station rather than $5,000,000 from a bank doesn't alter the crime much.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomOfTarsus
Shipmate
# 3053
|
Posted
Well, yes, but you could probably swap in one of those crimes and my statement would still hold true...
--------------------
By grace are ye saved through faith... not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ... ordained that we should walk in them.
Posts: 1570 | From: Pittsburgh, PA USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I find that crimes involving 'things' like money and property are much lesser than those involving violence. Having had a family member attacked, I'd have given all 'things' and been a complete pauper to not have that happen. We all also had murderous fantasies as well.
If you get my drift, I think the focus on stuff is totally crap.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I find that crimes involving 'things' like money and property are much lesser than those involving violence.
Yet there are plenty of people for whom a bit of a punch-up (assault, ...) is a normal, anticipated part of a Friday night. So whilst I agree with you that violent crime is particularly bad, the evidence suggests that not everyone agrees.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
In the US, this is complicated by federal mandatory drug sentencing, which means that prisons regularly get overcrowded with convicts locked up for non-violent drug charges. Since they can't release them, when the courts rule the prison to be overcrowded, they have no choice but to release much more dangerous prisoners convicted of violent crimes (but w/ no mandatory sentencing) out into the general population. Madness.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I find that crimes involving 'things' like money and property are much lesser than those involving violence. Having had a family member attacked, I'd have given all 'things' and been a complete pauper to not have that happen. We all also had murderous fantasies as well.
If you get my drift, I think the focus on stuff is totally crap.
Personally if someone said we'll give you a good, hard punch in the face, or we'll steal your lifetime's pension contributions, I think I'd go for the punch in the face.
No shipmates need volunteer as there are plenty of people in Real Life who are willing to give me a good, hefty smack in the mouth.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I find that crimes involving 'things' like money and property are much lesser than those involving violence. Having had a family member attacked, I'd have given all 'things' and been a complete pauper to not have that happen. We all also had murderous fantasies as well.
If you get my drift, I think the focus on stuff is totally crap.
Personally if someone said we'll give you a good, hard punch in the face, or we'll steal your lifetime's pension contributions, I think I'd go for the punch in the face.
No shipmates need volunteer as there are plenty of people in Real Life who are willing to give me a good, hefty smack in the mouth.
Really? You surprise me.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
marsupial.
Shipmate
# 12458
|
Posted
Generally speaking in Canada violent crimes draw heavier sentences than property crimes. Three years is, relatively speaking, a pretty long time in Canadian sentencing law -- especially for someone with no prior entries of commensurate seriousness.
I'm not sure where you get 6-24 months for an impaired no prophet. I don't know the tariff offhand, but the starting points for a first or second offender is much much lower, absent aggravating circumstances (e.g. you caused an accident where someone was injured). Drunk driving is considered a violent crime because of risk of injury and death it creates for other people -- query whether there is really any significant difference in moral blameworthiness between a seriously impaired driver who causes a fatal accident and one who by good luck manages to get home without causing an accident.
Posts: 653 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by marsupial.:
Generally speaking in Canada violent crimes draw heavier sentences than property crimes. Three years is, relatively speaking, a pretty long time in Canadian sentencing law -- especially for someone with no prior entries of commensurate seriousness.
I'm not sure where you get 6-24 months for an impaired no prophet. I don't know the tariff offhand, but the starting points for a first or second offender is much much lower, absent aggravating circumstances (e.g. you caused an accident where someone was injured). Drunk driving is considered a violent crime because of risk of injury and death it creates for other people -- query whether there is really any significant difference in moral blameworthiness between a seriously impaired driver who causes a fatal accident and one who by good luck manages to get home without causing an accident.
None whatsoever in my view. Sentencing for driving offences should, IMV, depend upon the degree of danger the driving posed, not what, by pure happenstance, was the actual outcome.
Take two examples.
1. Person drinks 6 pints, staggers to car, drives all over the road at high speed, fortunately everyone gets out of his way and he collides with a wall, causing only property damage.
2. Person waiting at t-junction, looks both ways, fails to notice moped approaching from right for reasons unknown, pulls out, moped rider killed.
Personally, I'd sentence the first as if they'd caused a death, plus the aggravating factors of alcohol, high speed and dangerous driving. This isn't what happens.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I find that crimes involving 'things' like money and property are much lesser than those involving violence. Having had a family member attacked, I'd have given all 'things' and been a complete pauper to not have that happen. We all also had murderous fantasies as well.
If you get my drift, I think the focus on stuff is totally crap.
Personally if someone said we'll give you a good, hard punch in the face, or we'll steal your lifetime's pension contributions, I think I'd go for the punch in the face.
No shipmates need volunteer as there are plenty of people in Real Life who are willing to give me a good, hefty smack in the mouth.
Really? You surprise me.
But in fairness there's quite a few people who I'd smack in the mouth if it was required.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
Old Testament seems to have no prison. Would that justice system work here?
Note that eye for an eye is not the sort of thing that would have been literally enforced very often, more likely a negotiation - you destroyed my arm, I get to demand your arm be cut off, what will you give me in exchange for being allowed to keep your arm? If I ask too much I get nothing but the satisfaction of seeing your arm cut off. If you offer to little, you risk getting your arm cut off. Both sides have reason to negotiate.
But the criminal system makes the state the injured party. He robs me, the state fines him and keeps the fine, jails him and keeps the profit (if any) from his prison labor - I lose state wins. Something wrong with that picture?
Just musing out loud.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Nomads didn't have or need prisons. All you had to do was cut one of a man's achilles tendons. Shackle him so he couldn't ride a horse. He's got life imprisonment in the open with you as your slave.
We are urban and live private, uncommunal lives and so can't have a modern version of this. Except Norway, where children who kill are kept in plain sight in society.
I see tagging at work and it's remarkably effective.
Google Glass will change everything. I mean EVERYTHING. We ain't seen nuthin' yet.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Personally if someone said we'll give you a good, hard punch in the face, or we'll steal your lifetime's pension contributions, I think I'd go for the punch in the face.
No shipmates need volunteer as there are plenty of people in Real Life who are willing to give me a good, hefty smack in the mouth.
If you carry your life savings in your pocket your issue is probably medication not assault.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
3rdFooter
Shipmate
# 9751
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Old Testament seems to have no prison. Would that justice system work here?
But the criminal system makes the state the injured party. He robs me, the state fines him and keeps the fine, jails him and keeps the profit (if any) from his prison labor - I lose state wins. Something wrong with that picture?
Just musing out loud.
The logic of retributive state justice runs like this: In committing a crime, regardless of whether there is an identifiable victim, you harm the 'well-being' of society as a whole. Society, through the administration of the state, takes retribution on the criminal in proportion to the crime committed against it. AS it is the state that does this, the element of revenge, however understandable, is removed. This makes justice more equitable.
You have to set that against a rehabilitative logic that says that the convict will learn something through the experience of punishment that will lead them to being a better member of society. By this theory, forcing drunk drivers to drive a moped might teach them about the vulnerability of other road users and the need for good co-ordination.
(By the way, I work for HBM's Ministry of Justice. Profit from prison labour? Have you any idea how costly it is to retain someone at HM's pleasure? Short of turning Pentonville (trad. destination of fraudsters and the like) into a bank there is no risk of profit)
Posts: 602 | From: outskirts of Babylon | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 3rdFooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
the criminal system makes the state the injured party. He robs me, the state fines him and keeps the fine, jails him and keeps the profit (if any) from his prison labor - I lose state wins. Something wrong with that picture?
The logic of retributive state justice runs like this: In committing a crime, regardless of whether there is an identifiable victim, you harm the 'well-being' of society as a whole. Society, through the administration of the state, takes retribution on the criminal in proportion to the crime committed against it. AS it is the state that does this, the element of revenge, however understandable, is removed. This makes justice more equitable.
A friend was a taxi driver. A passenger refused to pay, friend took him to court, court said "failure to pay for a taxi ride is a crime, $200 fine." Passenger paid the court. Court system kept the money. Taxi driver was out the lost fare plus the day of lost work being in court.
Taxi driver didn't want revenge, he wanted his money, which the court agreed he was owed but failed to get for him even though it collected ample money from the bad guy.
Taxi driver told me the next time someone didn't pay, he just beat him up instead of going to court, since going to court didn't repair the situation.
I understand the theory, but a system in which you repay the one you hurt (plus court costs) would do more for society than keeping the victim in a condition of loss by keeping all the fine collected in the state treasury. The system actually encourages personal revenge. A personal lawsuit is expensive and time consuming.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
marsupial.
Shipmate
# 12458
|
Posted
In Canada, a court has the power to order restitution to a victim when imposing sentence -- which makes sense in cases where the victim's loss can be easily quantified. Likewise, voluntary restitution is seen as a sign of remorse and is mitigating on sentence.
Posts: 653 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
