Should Life Mean Life?

[Kyle B]

This isn't about justifying a crime, though. If some 16 year old for instance commits a horrific murder, do you think they are still a danger to the public and the same person 40 odd years down the line?

Possibly not, but if you establish a precedent, then potential murderers and other violent criminals will get the idea that they can commit horrific crimes but have a likely early release, hence possibly encouraging the crime.

 

[hart]

It's a hard question to answer, Peter. In some cases, I think the perp should have died, especially serial killers, killers and rapers of children, etc. But there keep being cases, where years later, DNA proved the guy didn't do it, so it would have been awful if they had been put to death.

I think one has to take each case individually, some should be let out early, some shouldn't, some should have gotten the death sentence.....

 

[anathelia]

I think . . . the punishment should be determined by the victim, or the victim's family. Let them decide what happens. Life/no parole, a second chance, death.

I agree with this to an extent. Like Peter said, I don't think most people are in an appropriate frame of mind to give a sentence to someone who committed a crime against them. However, I think they should be allowed to partake in the deliberating process and choosing what the punishment should be. I think that the family is the only one in the frame of mind to understand just how irreparable the damage is that has been done.

 

[Tuxx]

It REALLY depends on the situation. Life sentences should indeed be "life sentences". What would you call it if it wasn't? "A Seemingly Long Half Life Sentence that is rather long possibly 20 years"

Say the person was convicted of murdering and/or raping 24 victims over the years.
Yes. That without a doubt deserves life. The person was consistently doing the crime over a long period of time. Not to mention, that's like, 24 lives you're dealing with. (Ok, sure, not everyone is killing 24 people all of the time but you get the idea)

Say the person was convicted of 1 rape or 1 murder.
I don't know.

As for letting the victim decide, as I seen this was brought up
I am kinda-sorta for it, not really.
I can get my phone/car/money/whatevermateriallisticimportantitem stolen, and I might want for whoever stole that phone to get their damn ass kicked/ (killed in some peoples minds), but when they are convicted, that would be a little unorthodox and unfair to sentence death or 47 years in jail for being a dick.

 

[JanieDough]

If life sentences actually meant life, then we would need to re adjust our penal code and consequences.

 

[canidae]

I agree with this to an extent. Like Peter said, I don't think most people are in an appropriate frame of mind to give a sentence to someone who committed a crime against them. However, I think they should be allowed to partake in the deliberating process and choosing what the punishment should be. I think that the family is the only one in the frame of mind to understand just how irreparable the damage is that has been done.

Agreed :thumbup

It's pretty much like that at present in the US, where the Judge hears from family members as to what they deem an appropriate punishment/sentence etc.

I know I'm a bit of a caveman when it comes to this, and I can only say how I think I'd feel in this situation (e.g., kill my wife, and I won't rest until they die as well). But thankfully I've never had to experience it, and hope I never do.

Now, I'm waiting for someone to tell me I'm no better than the murderer if I want them dead, or kill them myself.

(wow, I'm glad Peter and I are such good friends - as I skew this off topic a bit )

 

[HottyToddyChick]

It can be argued either way but I kinda side with this Dodd fellow. " A chronic, calcified sexual sadist, Mr. Dodd stated in a recent court brief, "If I do escape, I promise you I will kill and rape again, and I will enjoy every minute of it."

I remember seeing a documentary with / about him. He's not a guy I would leave my kids with.

They executed him but before he took his last walk he did have some stuff to say about the matter... it's buried in here somewhere.

http://www.vachss.com/av_dispatches/disp_9301_a.html

More here.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westley_Allan_Dodd

And here.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIxrS3PkMug

Is it horrible that I feel the guy should be given *some* credit for acknowledging he's a menace to society and agreeing that he should be executed?

 

[Meirionnydd]

I agree with this to an extent. Like Peter said, I don't think most people are in an appropriate frame of mind to give a sentence to someone who committed a crime against them. However, I think they should be allowed to partake in the deliberating process and choosing what the punishment should be. I think that the family is the only one in the frame of mind to understand just how irreparable the damage is that has been done.

No they shouldn't. Never ever.

The entire sentencing process is supposed to be fair, just and impartial. Hence why judges do it. It would bring the entire justice system into disrepute if we allowed the victims of the crime to contribute to the sentence given to the offender.

 

[Natasha]

I *do* think that life should mean life...and I think anybody that commits murder should go to jail for life if they're not executed.

 

[Accountable]

Life without parole is stupid and a waste of money. If there's no hope or possibility the guy will go free we may as well execute the convict. Same end without dragging it out for decades. Come to think of it, life without possibility of parole should be considered cruel and unusual punishment compared to the relatively humane death penalty.

 

[canidae]

No they shouldn't. Never ever.

The entire sentencing process is supposed to be fair, just and impartial. Hence why judges do it. It would bring the entire justice system into disrepute if we allowed the victims of the crime to contribute to the sentence given to the offender.

Now here's where it gets interesting. Tell me why a person, who heinously murders someone, should be treated fairly? What was fair about what happened to the victim?

And if we're being fair - then it's only fair that the victim or family is treated with fairness and allowed to speak at the sentencing. Otherwise, it seems the only one who gets any fair treatment at all is the one who committed the most unfair act of all.

Fair enough?

 

[porterjack]

No they shouldn't. Never ever.

The entire sentencing process is supposed to be fair, just and impartial. Hence why judges do it. It would bring the entire justice system into disrepute if we allowed the victims of the crime to contribute to the sentence given to the offender.

however aboriginal sentencing circles, in use in Australia I believe and in parts of Northern Canada help vicitms and families of victims have their voices heard, if i understand the process correctly a Judge still sentances the offender but the victims get to recommend, i realise this is probably reserved for minor offences and not serious issues like murder, but is interesting nonetheless

 

[Meirionnydd]

however aboriginal sentencing circles, in use in Australia I believe and in parts of Northern Canada help vicitms and families of victims have their voices heard, if i understand the process correctly a Judge still sentances the offender but the victims get to recommend, i realise this is probably reserved for minor offences and not serious issues like murder, but is interesting nonetheless

Such a process in Australia are called 'Murri courts', and the option is only available to the offender if he/she pleads guilty. Not only do the victims have their voices held, but the offender does too, police officers and community leaders are also present to provide input. However, the final decision of sentencing falls upon the Judge. The courts are primarily designed to incorporate the traditions and customs of the indigenous community into the contemporary justice system.

But as you said, the option is only reserved for minor offenses.

Now here's where it gets interesting. Tell me why a person, who heinously murders someone, should be treated fairly? What was fair about what happened to the victim?

And if we're being fair - then it's only fair that the victim or family is treated with fairness and allowed to speak at the sentencing. Otherwise, it seems the only one who gets any fair treatment at all is the one who committed the most unfair act of all.

Fair enough?

For someone so concerned with the principle of 'fairness', you seem to think it should be unevenly applied. How does the process become more fair with having someone with a direct and personal interest in a case help determine a sentence for an offender?

The adjudication is supposed to be absolved of any personal prejudices and biases throughout. Your proposed system is unfair, because the person the largest vested interest in the case, is all of a sudden helping decide the sentence. One of the principles of fairness in the justice system is 'balance'. Again, your idea tilts the balance heavily in favor of the victim; don't forget that the offender, no matter how heinous his act, has rights too.

 

[Dana]

absofuckinglutely... it's called life for a reason. NOT Half life or Mid Life.

 

[canidae]

For someone so concerned with the principle of 'fairness', you seem to think it should be unevenly applied. How does the process become more fair with having someone with a direct and personal interest in a case help determine a sentence for an offender?

The adjudication is supposed to be absolved of any personal prejudices and biases throughout. Your proposed system is unfair, because the person the largest vested interest in the case, is all of a sudden helping decide the sentence. One of the principles of fairness in the justice system is 'balance'. Again, your idea tilts the balance heavily in favor of the victim; don't forget that the offender, no matter how heinous his act, has rights too.

So, I agree with you in principal that I tilt the so called 'balance' in favor of the victim. And here's why: For me, the victim is all that really matters. Especially with repeat offenders, and ultra heinous crimes. Yes, I understand that there are those unfortunate souls that never get a good upbringing and are abused and are never afforded a decent education. And there are some that can and have been reformed, and have gone on to be decent human beings. But then . . .

Try this one on for size, in my own home town no less: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wichita_Massacre

In my mind, the carr brothers lost their rights on December 14, if not before.

But I see how it might not be fair. There are those who could watch their loved one murdered right before their eyes, and feel nothing but pity and sympathy for the murderer, and would decide to let him go free. In that case he could quite possibly come on murder someone I love. So I say let the victim have their say, and mitigate that with some common sense. And this is how it happens in the US. The victims/families are allowed to speak to the judge at the sentencing, and the judge takes that into account before making a decision based on that, the law, and any other pertinent information.

[edit] - It goes like this:

Tarvis Miller said he has no clue why someone would kill his father. "I'd be glad if he would be a man and step to the plate and say, 'Yeah, I took your father's life,'" said Miller, 31. "That's all I want. If he could do that for me ... I'll bless him." - [source] http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/mar/12/plant-city-homicide-victim-identified/

So, good, you bless the guy who killed your dad - to each his own.

 

[Meirionnydd]

But I see how it might not be fair. There are those who could watch their loved one murdered right before their eyes, and feel nothing but pity and sympathy for the murderer, and would decide to let him go free. In that case he could quite possibly come on murder someone I love. So I say let the victim have their say, and mitigate that with some common sense. And this is how it happens in the US. The victims/families are allowed to speak to the judge at the sentencing, and the judge takes that into account before making a decision based on that, the law, and any other pertinent information.

I suppose you're talking about a Victim Impact Statement, right?

Just a few things to clear up here. A judge is not obliged totake into account the Victim Impact Statement when determining sentencing, and generally, a Victim Impact Statement only serves as an opportunity for the victim to tell the court how the crime has affected them. Furthermore, in Australia at least, the impact statement cannot include input from the victim on how he/she would like the offender to be sentenced.

What do I include in my statement?
You might like to include:

• details of any physical injuries and the effect of these
• injuries on your life
• where the crime has resulted in death, you may wish to talk about the deceased person and the life they led
• details of the emotional impact of the crime on you and your family
• information about what your life was like before the crime if it has changed (including any career changes or loss of future prospects)
• details of the financial impact of the crime (for example, lost wages, medical or counselling expenses, transportation costs and damage to property)
• any request for compensation or restitution to be considered by the court
• any other information you think is important.

Is there anything I should not include in my statement?
You should not include:

• anything that is abusive or offensive
• details of the crime, as this is contained in your police statement
• how you would like the offender to be sentenced
• anything that is factually inaccurate.

http://www.courts.dotag.wa.gov.au/V/victim_impact_statement.aspx

Evidence also shows that victim impact statements do not contribute to more lengthy or severe penalties for the offender when sentenced, either.

Victim Impact Statements allow the victim to have a say and contribute to the process of criminal justice, however, they are a far cry away from having the victim directly contribute to the sentencing of an offender.

 

[canidae]

I suppose you're talking about a Victim Impact Statement, right?

Just a few things to clear up here. A judge is not obliged totake into account the Victim Impact Statement when determining sentencing, and generally, a Victim Impact Statement only serves as an opportunity for the victim to tell the court how the crime has affected them. Furthermore, in Australia at least, the impact statement cannot include input from the victim on how he/she would like the offender to be sentenced.



Evidence also shows that victim impact statements do not contribute to more lengthy or severe penalties for the offender when sentenced, either.

Victim Impact Statements allow the victim to have a say and contribute to the process of criminal justice, however, they are a far cry away from having the victim directly contribute to the sentencing of an offender.

I think it is similar here in the US. It may vary from state to state, or district to district. I think the victim/family is allowed to voice opinions as to the degree of punishment they deem appropriate. And while not obliged to take into account what is presented by the victim/family . . .

A judge may decide to hand down a heavier or lighter sentence on the basis of what the victim has to say, as some victims have been known to ask for clemency [source] http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-victim-impact-statement.htm

All is as it should be, as the law here was set up without consulting me

 

[Hans]

Its a dangerous line to walk. It is a noble idea that people can repent and aspire to be a better person, learning from their mistakes. It truly shows progress of society and that the American penal system is actually capable of helping inmates rebound from the mistakes they have made.

However, what happens when someone tricks the system? What if you release one man on parole who then returns and kills the DA who prosecuted him? Or rapes the wife who reported him? Is it worth the risk of the redeemed to have their freedom at the cost of the those who may recieve harm that do not deserve it?

Its a hard question to answer IMO, but I guess it is something that could be done given the proper medicine, psychological attention and other factors. In the current penal system though, there just seems to be far too many flaws for this to safely occur, yet it still does.