A 67 day Murder sentence

[avaserfi]

Johnd, it seems the biggest problem you have with the "justice" system is that it is reactive which as you put can never actually right a wrong. This is a consequence of humans not having 20 foresight and will probably never be fixed.

The current ideal behind the justice system is to deal most appropriately with all offenders and to keep the general public as safe as possible. This is often done by attempted rehabilitation which is all well and good until you learn that the majority of offenders cannot be successfully treated especially with conventional methods.

 

[Johnd]

Johnd, it seems the biggest problem you have with the "justice" system

Avaserfi: I never declared that I have any problem with the "justice system", more accurately called the court or legal system. I don't even have a "problem" with people's misuse of the term "justice."

And I believe that you are wholly incorrect in your declaration that one can "never actually right a wrong."

Many wrongs can be righted. But not murder, rape, or a host of other things. For that we must rely upon some retribution, repayment, punishment, etc. Do not confuse these things with justice.

 

[avaserfi]

Apologies for saying your problem. That is just how I understood it.

The legal system as you like to call it has many purposes and attempting to right wrongs as best as it can is one of them. Yes crimes that have been deemed mala prohibita generally aren't hard to rectify because they usually involve things or something that is easily replaced or fixed but when we get to the malum en se crimes there is no way to right these wrongs and that is what I was referring too, I just didn't word my response clearly enough. In the end we agree on this situation that it is not justice carried out in the latter cases but something that appeases the people, as best as can be done, and (this is where I might deviate from you) at the same time it doesn't work to lower recidivism significantly.

 

[Johnd]

Apologies for saying your problem. That is just how I understood it.

The legal system as you like to call it has many purposes and attempting to right wrongs as best as it can is one of them. Yes crimes that have been deemed mala prohibita generally aren't hard to rectify because they usually involve things or something that is easily replaced or fixed but when we get to the malum en se crimes there is no way to right these wrongs and that is what I was referring too, I just didn't word my response clearly enough. In the end we agree on this situation that it is not justice carried out in the latter cases but something that appeases the people, as best as can be done, and (this is where I might deviate from you) at the same time it doesn't work to lower recidivism significantly.

I agree with your last post, except that I have never seen the legal system's purpose as "attempting to right wrongs." In the criminal system, it's primary purpose is to exact punishment for the misdeed. Again, wholly different than "justice."

 

[stratman]

Precisely. Thus my declaration of justice does not really exist.

Well the way you're looking at justice is from a Utopian point of view, in a perfect world they'd be no need for justice because everyone would play by the golden rule (do onto others as you would have others do onto you.) Sadly reality is much different, people are constantly perpetrating acts of evil on their fellow man and justly there must be repercussions to their actions if not we will be living in utter chaos. I still believe in Lex Talionis, much more now as I see the system deteriorated from within.

 

[Johnd]

Well the way you're looking at justice is from a Utopian point of view

Jibber-jabber, jibber-jabber. No, you are now just expelling more poppycock.

In its' simplest terms it means to make right or equitable. How can the rape or murder of one be made equitable?

I have before me a copy of The Oxford English Dictionary. And to be sure, down the line (#3, #4, #5) these more loosely coined usages are described in their definitions. I am simply stating that the term has been taken out of context. One of their definitions is "Exercise of power or authority in maintenance of a right". Hmmm. By that definition, any judgment that exercised authority would be justice.

Perhaps the best we can do is throw the perp in prison for 50+ years for murder, and 40+ years for rape. I say that is not justice. It is simply the best (or the most severe) punishment that can be meted out given the guidelines that the (state's) Legislature has enacted. Perhaps that is the best we can ever do...perhaps not.

If the most severe penalty available was just one day for rape, is that then justice because that is the only punishment that can be meted out? Because the Legislature says so? That's the lazy man's way of thinking. It is not "Utopian" to ponder a heinous crime, and then ponder exactly what it would take to render "justice" for that act.

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

Regardless of what kind of headcase this woman is/was, or what her husband did to her....... she took aim and blew the guy away with a shotgun. For that, she should spend the rest of her natural life behind bars. In these cases, the death penalty should also apply.

There is one more angle not being discussed. Criminals that do harm to others need to be locked away, so they can't hurt anyone else. IE..... like Vermont whose liberal judges like to keep serial child rapists on the streets by sentencing them to light 30-60 day sentences & or just probation with no time served.

Forget the punishment angle........... these types of criminals need to be locked away for a very long time to protect others!!

 

[stratman]

Jibber-jabber, jibber-jabber. No, you are now just expelling more poppycock.

In its' simplest terms it means to make right or equitable. How can the rape or murder of one be made equitable?

I have before me a copy of The Oxford English Dictionary. And to be sure, down the line (#3, #4, #5) these more loosely coined usages are described in their definitions. I am simply stating that the term has been taken out of context. One of their definitions is "Exercise of power or authority in maintenance of a right". Hmmm. By that definition, any judgment that exercised authority would be justice.

Perhaps the best we can do is throw the perp in prison for 50+ years for murder, and 40+ years for rape. I say that is not justice. It is simply the best (or the most severe) punishment that can be meted out given the guidelines that the (state's) Legislature has enacted. Perhaps that is the best we can ever do...perhaps not.

If the most severe penalty available was just one day for rape, is that then justice because that is the only punishment that can be meted out? Because the Legislature says so? That's the lazy man's way of thinking. It is not "Utopian" to ponder a heinous crime, and then ponder exactly what it would take to render "justice" for that act.

John you're tripping on semantics, you don't want to quantify justice. You say justice doesn't exist because there is no way of "un-doing" the wrong (whatever the wrong is: murder, rape, etc), you want divine retribution? Us as imperfect humans that we are, have one way of meting out "justice" it's called retribution and I say make it as severe as possible.

 

[Johnd]

Forget the punishment angle........... these types of criminals need to be locked away for a very long time to protect others!!

That is already well described within the federal guidelines for sentencing, as well as most states...what danger any criminal poses to society.

 

[Johnd]

John you're tripping on semantics, you don't want to quantify justice. You say justice doesn't exist because there is no way of "un-doing" the wrong (whatever the wrong is: murder, rape, etc), you want divine retribution? Us as imperfect humans that we are, have one way of meting out "justice" it's called retribution and I say make it as severe as possible.

Caveman, You are the one semantically impaired. I never used the term "undo." The phrase is..."righting a wrong." Completely different things.

 

[stratman]

Ok, fine, still I believe the harsher the retribution the better society is for it. IMO, justice is payback within the full extent of the law, so make the laws fit the crime.

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

That is already well described within the federal guidelines for sentencing, as well as most states...what danger any criminal poses to society.

Aaaaahhh, I guess that explains why & how liberal judges in Vermont only sentence serial child rapists to probation

 

[stratman]

Now that is a total lack of justice, the judge as well as the criminal should be held liable.

 

[Johnd]

Aaaaahhh, I guess that explains why & how liberal judges in Vermont only sentence serial child rapists to probation

Buckeye_Nut: you are the one that inappropriately titled this thread to begin with. I called you on it, but you refuse to correct the mislabelling. Murder and Manslaughter are completely different things...about the only thing they share is that someone dies. If you care not to educate yourself on appropriate terminology...so be it.

I also stated that travesties and injustices occur daily. I do not know all the particulars of this case, nor does anyone else here...unless they were seated on the jury and heard every single detail. The case at bar may very well be justice not served...but then again, the punishment may well fit the crime in this particular instance. Do not presume to know unless you become aware of all the facts of the case.

Anyhow, I interjected to call attention to the fact that this case is about manslaughter, not murder as you so entitled the thread. It then spun into "what is justice?" Far better topics to peruse (imho) then simple Monday night quarterbacking. Other than that, I appreciate your start of the thread to debate these issues.

 

[Buckle-meister]

Us as imperfect humans that we are, have one way of meting out "justice" it's called retribution and I say make it as severe as possible.

Justice: let the punishment fit the crime, you take someone's life (during a crime) you forfeit yours. You rape, you die. You do anything to a child, you die.

And what about the ones you erroneously convict? It has to happen at sometime given that, as you yourself note; humans are imperfect. And after, what then? Do the jury serve a sentance for manslaughter?

 

[Tomorrow]

And what about the ones you erroneously convict? It has to happen at sometime given that, as you yourself note; humans are imperfect. And after, what then? Do the jury serve a sentance for manslaughter?

How would you deal with this situation, Robbie? Or how would you avoid it?

 

[stratman]

And what about the ones you erroneously convict? It has to happen at sometime given that, as you yourself note; humans are imperfect. And after, what then? Do the jury serve a sentance for manslaughter?

Mr.B,

Read post 11, bottom paragraph.

 

[Johnd]

Mr.B,

Read post 11, bottom paragraph.

That paragraph fails to address that part of the meister's question called capital punishment. How does one renumerate a wrongly convicted "murderer" that has already been put to death?

 

[stratman]

There are steps that can be taken to make sure it doesn't happen, DNA, accountability of prosecution: no "railroading" and the term "without a shadow of a doubt" to be really applied, the jury wouldn't be at fault, the "accuser" would be, so it's up to the prosecution team to understand that they're at "jeopardy" too. It'll keep proceedings honest and fair, giving the accused a "fair shake" if you will. Sloppy, uncaring, un-ethical and lastly unprofessional police officers, prosecutors and judges send the wrongly accused to their deaths or jail. No one should be above or shielded from the law. Oh and lets not forget false witnesses, they're at jeopardy too, since their false testimony might lead to prosecution.

 

[Tomorrow]

That paragraph fails to address that part of the meister's question called capital punishment. How does one renumerate a wrongly convicted "murderer" that has already been put to death?

'Remunerate'.

Yeah, John. How do we bring 'justice' to this person? Ain't no justice, you say? Then you say have to say, "Oops."