Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Killers' Life Terms 'breached Their Human Rights'  
User currently offlinenighthawk From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2001, 5126 posts, RR: 34
Posted (1 year 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2778 times:

Quote:

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled the whole life tariffs given to murderer Jeremy Bamber and two other killers breached their human rights.

The court ruled there had to be both a possibility of release and review to be compatible with their human rights.

However it said this did not mean there was "any prospect of imminent release".

Bamber, along with Peter Moore and Douglas Vinter, argued their sentences were "inhuman" and they should have the right to a review.

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23230419

So now you can't even sentence someone to life without breaching their human rights! How long before locking someone in prison is ruled 'inhuman'?


That'll teach you
58 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineoffloaded From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2009, 871 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2761 times:

Well here in Portugal the maximum "life" sentence is 25 years, even for multiple murders.

Foreign (i.e non-Brit) judges on the ECHR are likely to see things differently, and as the UK is a signatory to the ECHR, I'm guessing the UK will comply with ECHR judgements.



To no one will we sell, or deny, or delay, right or justice - Magna Carta, 1215
User currently offlinesabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2714 posts, RR: 47
Reply 2, posted (1 year 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2743 times:

In Belgium too, the maximum sentence is "for life" (even for multiple murder, as sentences aren't added up) and this life sentence is automatically turned into a 30 year sentence which can be (and mostly is) cut short further during your stay in prison to something like 12 to 18 years, so unless you are a re-offending mass murderer, you're never going to serve more than say 20 years in a Belgian prison cel, no matter what you did.

[Edited 2013-07-09 03:40:21]

User currently offlineL410Turbolet From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5665 posts, RR: 20
Reply 3, posted (1 year 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2708 times:

Wouldn't it be nice to also have the European Court of Victims' Human Rights...??? You know to provide some desperately needed counterbalance to those bleeding hearts at the ECHR an their relentless care about human rights for criminals and terrorists.

Quoting offloaded (Reply 1):
Well here in Portugal the maximum "life" sentence is 25 years, even for multiple murders.
Quoting sabenapilot (Reply 2):
In Belgium too, the maximum sentence is "for life" (even for multiple murder, as sentences aren't added up) and this life sentence is automatically turned into a 30 year sentence

I am afraid it would be a depressing competition trying to find which European country has more pathetic sentences. Here, one is likely to end up with a more severe sentence for an insurance fraud than for a murder.


User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13028 posts, RR: 12
Reply 4, posted (1 year 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2706 times:

With that standard, we have 20,000 or more serving 'life sentences' in the USA without parole and it could be cruel and unusual punishment per our Constitution and breaches international standards of human rights. Still, most in the USA think there are some criminals who deserve to spend the rest of their natural lives in jail for their crimes. It is also a far better choice than the death penalty and has become a common sentence in the USA and replacing the death penalty.

To me the real answer is to have some procedure of review of a person serving a long sentence (15 or more years) what is called in the USA parole to review any new evidence, if any false statements, if were violations of Constitutional rights, if the person has 'rehabilitated' themselves and obeyed jail rules. Unfortunately parole has become less used in the USA due to 'law and order' demanding politicians seeking votes.


User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8680 posts, RR: 43
Reply 5, posted (1 year 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2664 times:

Quoting nighthawk (Thread starter):
So now you can't even sentence someone to life without breaching their human rights!

Bollocks.    You can. All you have to do is make a review of the sentence and an eventual release POSSIBLE - but if the inmate is deemed unfit for release, (s)he will remain in custody. Even the article that you quoted - and hopefully read in its entirety - mentions that reviews of all sentences used to be possible:

Quote:
Up until 2003, all terms could be reviewed, including whole-life tariffs.

To top it off, you even quoted the very line:

Quote:
However it said this did not mean there was "any prospect of imminent release".

that renders your next Daily Mail-worthy line completely ridiculous:

Quoting nighthawk (Thread starter):
How long before locking someone in prison is ruled 'inhuman'?

Enjoy your outrage.    We in the real world would like to get on with our lives.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlinePvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1196 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (1 year 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2662 times:

O yea justice systems in most European countries just suck...

Around here you get worse sentences from economic crimes than from manslaughter. They care so much about human rights of all kinds of mass murderers and other evil scum, yet nobody seems to care about victims and their families as even the worst murderers rarely stay in jail much more than 10 years.

Dangerous criminals are increasingly often being put back into society even before they have properly finished their sentences in jail, our government apparently doesn't care about safety of ordinary citizen... Also mental health services seem to be inadequate which makes these problems worse.

I'm glad I live far away from the nearest major city and I intend to do so in the future too, less crazies around here.



"A rational army would run away"
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1830 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (1 year 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2559 times:

I think people are going to be mad about this just because they like to get mad about things. It's really a non-issue.

1) This ruling only says that there must be the possibility of release...nowhere does it stipulate what that possibility may be. Britain can easily just adjust their "life sentences" such that the case is reviewed after X number of years by a designated board. A strict criteria will be set out that certain conditions must objectively be met to even consider lowering a sentence. If the criteria are not met, the guilty party remains in jail the rest of their life. You have satisfied the court's mandate of "possibility".

2) Instead of always bitching about the ECHR all the time, why don't you guys just leave? So long as you are party to it, you have to abide by the rulings it hands down.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 4):
It is also a far better choice than the death penalty and has become a common sentence in the USA and replacing the death penalty.

It's also far cheaper.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 3):
Wouldn't it be nice to also have the European Court of Victims' Human Rights...???

Ah, the classic "victims rights" line.  

Tell me, L410Turbolet, how do you propose such a "European Court of Victims' Human Rights" would function? Is the sentencing of a perpetrator not in fact the response to the "victims rights"?



Flying refined.
User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8680 posts, RR: 43
Reply 8, posted (1 year 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2555 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 7):
Instead of always bitching about the ECHR all the time, why don't you guys just leave?

I think you've already provided the answer to that question:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 7):
people (...) like to get mad about things.

Many of us are fully aware that the bitching wouldn't end, it would merely find another target. So you might as well make that target a European court which is an almost perfect scapegoat, as opposed to something domestic.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently onlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21490 posts, RR: 56
Reply 9, posted (1 year 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2533 times:

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 4):
To me the real answer is to have some procedure of review of a person serving a long sentence (15 or more years) what is called in the USA parole to review any new evidence, if any false statements, if were violations of Constitutional rights, if the person has 'rehabilitated' themselves and obeyed jail rules.

Which is exactly what the ECHR is saying needs to happen.

Let's face it: if there's a criminal in jail who has taken steps to improve his life and is ready to be functioning member of society again, why go to the expense of keeping him in jail the rest of his life?

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinePvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1196 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (1 year 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2433 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 9):
Let's face it: if there's a criminal in jail who has taken steps to improve his life and is ready to be functioning member of society again, why go to the expense of keeping him in jail the rest of his life?

Who defines when an individual is ready to be a "functioning member of society"?

I can definitely see all kinds of crazies getting out to murder more people just because some clowns think they are ready for society because they have behaved well in jail...



"A rational army would run away"
User currently onlinestealthz From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5678 posts, RR: 45
Reply 11, posted (1 year 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2428 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Message to ECHR..(and the UNHCR and many other orgs)

Killers crimes invalidated any claim to "their" human rights.

I am a bit over all these bleeding heart organisations and courts making the criminal into the victim.

I am not a huge supporter of the death penalty but .. you commit heinous crimes, you forfeit your rights to participate in human society.



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1830 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (1 year 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2391 times:

Quoting Pvjin (Reply 10):
Who defines when an individual is ready to be a "functioning member of society"?

As I mentioned in my first reply, a board of experts would review the case and decide whether the guilty party objectively meets a defined set of criteria that would allow him/her to have their sentence reduced.

Quoting stealthz (Reply 11):
I am a bit over all these bleeding heart organisations and courts making the criminal into the victim.

How are they being made a victim? Where does it say that they're going to be let out? And the most important question: did you even read the article? This ruling is being so far blown out of proportion, it really is astonishing.

Quoting stealthz (Reply 11):
I am not a huge supporter of the death penalty but .. you commit heinous crimes, you forfeit your rights to participate in human society.

The United States have kindly shown us that the death penalty doesn't work.



Flying refined.
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8938 posts, RR: 40
Reply 13, posted (1 year 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2385 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 9):
Let's face it: if there's a criminal in jail who has taken steps to improve his life and is ready to be functioning member of society again, why go to the expense of keeping him in jail the rest of his life?

Because justice isn't just about the criminal, it's about the victim, too.

Look at the Nazis who have been found in places like Wisconsin over the past couple of years. No indication that they have committed crimes after they left Europe, at least to my knowledge. Does that mean they moved on from hurting people? Looks like, doesn't it? Does that mean they should avoid being sent to jail? Of course not.

There is very clearly a role for punishment in society. It should come as a form of restriction on the criminal's human rights, not in the form of barbaric punishments one can read from history.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8182 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (1 year 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2379 times:

Quoting aloges (Reply 5):
All you have to do is make a review of the sentence and an eventual release POSSIBLE - but if the inmate is deemed unfit for release, (s)he will remain in custody:

Best example of that is Charles Manson. Procedures require that he be given a Parole Hearing periodically - and he has been given those hearings. And he is still in prison and remain so until the undertaker comes to pick up his dead body.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 7):
It's also far cheaper.

Is it? Keeping someone in prison had an annual cost of $25,000 several years ago. No telling where it is now. And, for people like Timmy McVey I believe that the death sentence is more than appropriate.

For violent criminals I have no problem with some long term sentences. For less dangerous criminals I believe we need to work out better ways of punishing them. Sadly we consider the whippings handed out in Singapore as "cruel" - sad because it would save a fortune in running jails. 30 Days, 3 to 5 lashes and home arrest is a lot cheaper than 3 to 5 years.

While a lot of people want to see long sentences for everyone we tend to forget that it costs money to build prisons, pay staff and all the other costs, such as food and medical care. There are some legal battles going on here because the state prisons are too full and the state isn't picking up inmates who have received their sentences - leaving the city/county jail over crowded. And, since out female Republican Governor (we have the one with the decent face lift) is cutting taxes instead of increasing funding for the prison system the problem is only going to get worse.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6511 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (1 year 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2376 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 9):
Let's face it: if there's a criminal in jail who has taken steps to improve his life and is ready to be functioning member of society again, why go to the expense of keeping him in jail the rest of his life?

I guess you're not a fan of the three strikes laws, then.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 13):
Look at the Nazis who have been found in places like Wisconsin over the past couple of years. No indication that they have committed crimes after they left Europe, at least to my knowledge. Does that mean they moved on from hurting people? Looks like, doesn't it? Does that mean they should avoid being sent to jail? Of course not.

Personally I think that punishing them now for crimes committed in the 40's is pointless. If you want a trial or something to get remorse, admittance of guilt, whatever, fine, but jailing them is vengeance not justice.

That's why we have statute of limitations. Of course crimes against humanity are excluded, but I feel they shouldn't, just put a higher mark like 30 years.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1830 posts, RR: 10
Reply 16, posted (1 year 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2368 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 14):
Best example of that is Charles Manson. Procedures require that he be given a Parole Hearing periodically - and he has been given those hearings. And he is still in prison and remain so until the undertaker comes to pick up his dead body.

Exactly. I can't imagine those hearings take more than a few minutes before the panel dies his parole. The guy is never getting out of prison.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 14):
Is it? Keeping someone in prison had an annual cost of $25,000 several years ago. No telling where it is now. And, for people like Timmy McVey I believe that the death sentence is more than appropriate.

Due process guarantees appeals to those sentenced to death in most jurisdictions. This appeals process can climb to a 7-digit figure before the appeal falls. Also of note is that those sentenced to death sit on death row an average of 15 years until they are finally put to death, hence why about a quarter of all death row inmates die of natural causes before being put to death. Whether you sentence these folks to death, or life, chances are you're paying a similar amount for their rent...the only real difference being the millions in court costs for death row inmates.

Also, as a side argument, the privatization of prisons has made it cheaper to house these criminals.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 15):
Personally I think that punishing them now for crimes committed in the 40's is pointless. If you want a trial or something to get remorse, admittance of guilt, whatever, fine, but jailing them is vengeance not justice.

I tend to agree. Putting a 97-year old man in jail doesn't really accomplish anything. If people want retribution, they should go after their estate when they die (which shouldn't be long) and donate whatever they get to a relevant cause.



Flying refined.
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7688 posts, RR: 21
Reply 17, posted (1 year 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2331 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting aloges (Reply 8):
Many of us are fully aware that the bitching wouldn't end, it would merely find another target. So you might as well make that target a European court which is an almost perfect scapegoat, as opposed to something domestic.

Aloges, I'm sorry, but no. I agree with you a hell of a lot, but it's a shame you leaped to such a stereotypical and facile assessment. This is not a scapegoat for anything. It is, however, part of a couple of wider debates, namely the wider European influence and the perceived softness of British justice. I actually think this is one is at least as much about the latter as the former, as many in Britain have long being sick of soft sentencing. The right to sentence somebody to life is absolutely one that any country should have if the crime is serious enough. It's not 'bollocks' (as another poster said) to say that it's no longer going to be possible to sentence someone for their whole life. This enforced 'possibility' of release, regardless of how realistic the prospect of success is, is precisely what the whole of life sentence is designed to achieve. The lack of hope is the punishment itself, and multiple planned murders deserve that. I really hope that this situation isn't hijacked for use in misguided campaigns about EU membership and so on, but it does pose valid questions about self-determination when our nation is prevented from imposing the prison sentences it sees fit for serious crimes. It is also not fair to simply dismiss at a stroke the legitimate concerns that many in the UK have over the fact that the ECHR all too often seems to rule against the interests of the law-abiding citizens of the UK, and instead takes the easy option of stretching the definition of human rights articles to cover every conceivable avenue of defence and argument a criminal comes up with.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8182 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (1 year 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2321 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 15):
I guess you're not a fan of the three strikes laws, then.

I recall reading about a shoplifter getting his third strike nicking a pair of jeans. At the time I thought that was going to cost the state (California) a bloody fortune. Overkill if there ever was.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 15):
Personally I think that punishing them now for crimes committed in the 40's is pointless.

I don't. That time was so obscenely horrid that anyone caught who participated in the crimes should face a judge and jury, regardless of how long ago it was.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 15):
but jailing them is vengeance not justice.

Being found guilty of participation in the Holocaust and sent to prison will be justice, not vengeance.

Letting the Nazi walk away laughing is afar greater concern.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 16):
This appeals process can climb to a 7-digit figure before the appeal falls.
Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 16):
Whether you sentence these folks to death, or life, chances are you're paying a similar amount for their rent.

It's just how long the rent will be paid.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 16):
Also, as a side argument, the privatization of prisons has made it cheaper to house these criminals.

I'm against privatization of jails & prisons. The only way it is going to be cheaper is by paying personnel a lot less in terms of wages and prison guards don't make that much any way. We don't need prison guards making minimum wage.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 16):
Putting a 97-year old man in jail doesn't really accomplish anything.

It gets a Nazi arrested, put on trial and put in prison it accomplishes a lot. For those still alive with the horrors of the Holocaust it demonstrates that there is no escape from those crimes. For the rest of us it is a reminder of those horrors and maintains the "Never Forget" history of that time.

If there is anything that deserves a Zero Tolerance attitude it is the participation in the Holocaust


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7688 posts, RR: 21
Reply 19, posted (1 year 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2318 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 18):
I'm against privatization of jails & prisons. The only way it is going to be cheaper is by paying personnel a lot less in terms of wages and prison guards don't make that much any way. We don't need prison guards making minimum wage.

Totally. Private jails exist in the UK, it's a complete disgrace. Justice is a business for the nation, not something to be outsourced to the lowest bidder.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1830 posts, RR: 10
Reply 20, posted (1 year 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2307 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 18):
I'm against privatization of jails & prisons.

What specifically are you against? I'm not particularly for or against them, but I think they can be effective if highly regulated and stripped of their ability to lobby.

They don't exist here though, so I haven't given it too much thought.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 18):
The only way it is going to be cheaper is by paying personnel a lot less in terms of wages and prison guards don't make that much any way.

My best friend is a prison guard at a correctional facility in Edmonton. He works about 10-12 hours of overtime every week and he's slated to make $100,000 this year. He's at the lowest pay rate as well.

The argument there I guess is that prison guards should make more than what American private prisons pay, but less than what the public-sector unions are gouging the province for.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 18):
It gets a Nazi arrested, put on trial and put in prison it accomplishes a lot. For those still alive with the horrors of the Holocaust it demonstrates that there is no escape from those crimes. For the rest of us it is a reminder of those horrors and maintains the "Never Forget" history of that time.

If there is anything that deserves a Zero Tolerance attitude it is the participation in the Holocaust

I appreciate the sentiment, and I fully agree that these men and women do not deserve any forgiveness, but I personally feel that it's a waste of taxpayer money to actively prosecute them at that age. It also depletes the accused's bank account such that their estate can't be sued civilly after death in order to recoup some money for Holocaust organizations.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 19):
Justice is a business for the nation, not something to be outsourced to the lowest bidder.

Justice happens in the court room, not the prison cell. Justice can be meted out regardless where you stick the perpetrator after they're convicted.



Flying refined.
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7688 posts, RR: 21
Reply 21, posted (1 year 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2304 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 20):
Justice happens in the court room, not the prison cell. Justice can be meted out regardless where you stick the perpetrator after they're convicted.

I don't agree. Justice includes the punishment, and the punishment meted out by the courts should be enforced directly by the state, belong to the state and be the sole business of the state. Private prisons are an abomination.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6511 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (1 year 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2297 times:

In the US we see judges bribed by private prisons to send more perps there...


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1830 posts, RR: 10
Reply 23, posted (1 year 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2296 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 21):
I don't agree. Justice includes the punishment, and the punishment meted out by the courts should be enforced directly by the state, belong to the state and be the sole business of the state. Private prisons are an abomination.

If the state can regulate everything else, why can't they regulate how these private prisons operate? The problem isn't with free-wheeling private prisons, it's with the laziness of the government to regulate them effectively.



Flying refined.
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7688 posts, RR: 21
Reply 24, posted (1 year 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2295 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 23):
If the state can regulate everything else, why can't they regulate how these private prisons operate? The problem isn't with free-wheeling private prisons, it's with the laziness of the government to regulate them effectively.

It's the principle of it. The state should be entirely responsible for all aspects of it. In any event, putting that aside, 'effective regulation' costs a fortune, as does the fact that time and time again these things are underquoted and cost more than claimed. That aside though, I just don't feel that the private sector should have a place in running prisons - no more than I want to see private Police pulling me over for speeding or executing search warrants on the cheap.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineL410Turbolet From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5665 posts, RR: 20
Reply 25, posted (1 year 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2315 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 7):
Tell me, L410Turbolet, how do you propose such a "European Court of Victims' Human Rights" would function?

It was a tongue-in-cheek suggestion...  
Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 7):
Is the sentencing of a perpetrator not in fact the response to the "victims rights"?

Not if the sentence is a complete joke considering the severity of the crime, which is sadly the case all over Europe. Not if justice system fails to accomplish one of its principal missions - protecting the rest of the society from criminals.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 15):
Personally I think that punishing them now for crimes committed in the 40's is pointless. If you want a trial or something to get remorse, admittance of guilt, whatever, fine, but jailing them is vengeance not justice.

What you are saying is that Nuremberg trial was a justice but the trials of e.g. Klaus Barbie or Anton Malloth were "vengeance" merely because they were able to get away with it long enough, to be specific to defer extradition long enough in the case of Malloth?

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 16):
Putting a 97-year old man in jail doesn't really accomplish anything. If people want retribution, they should go after their estate when they die (which shouldn't be long) and donate whatever they get to a relevant cause.

Not everything can be quantified in money and my guess is that victims of war criminals would prefer to see them behind bars rather than to take some blood money from them.


User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1830 posts, RR: 10
Reply 26, posted (1 year 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2298 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 22):
In the US we see judges bribed by private prisons to send more perps there...

Again, that's an issue of regulation. It seems the government has taken somewhat of a blind eye to that issue, when they should really be punishing them severely if caught. There should be nothing short disbarring those judges immediately and trying them for bribery.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 24):
'effective regulation' costs a fortune

Not nearly as much as running a prison less efficiently than private enterprise. The government also has a nasty habit of bending over to public-sector unions, further adding to the burden on the taxpayer.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 25):
rather than to take some blood money from them.

I never suggested blood money. I'm suggesting donations to Holocaust organizations such as museums, research groups, and the like. As you mention, the survivors likely don't want to be enriched by this, but I'm sure they would like to ensure that the horrors of the Holocaust are never forgotten, and to be able to uncover more answers about what happened during that time, which these organizations would be able to provide.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 25):
It was a tongue-in-cheek suggestion...

It's the go-to suggestion of people who complain about the system yet don't provide an alternative solution to the problem.



Flying refined.
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8182 posts, RR: 8
Reply 27, posted (1 year 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2282 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 20):
but I think they can be effective if highly regulated and stripped of their ability to lobby.

There is simply too much money for intrusive regulations. Costs, especially in the area of guards, will be cut to make them look "more efficient". Money also solves a lot of regulations that cost money and no way will politicians stop the Lobbyists right to free speech. Not with all that money involved.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 20):
but I personally feel that it's a waste of taxpayer money to actively prosecute them at that age.

Prosecutors and judges work on salary and the costs of the court room is fixes, regardless of activity. The only costs are the Nazi's

Quoting Aesma (Reply 22):

In the US we see judges bribed by private prisons to send more perps there...

We've caught at least one already. Sadly it is the politicians who are going to be bugger problem when it comes to cash.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 23):
it's with the laziness of the government to regulate them effectively.

First understand that the general population has no sympathy for prisoners. Now add the cash "contributions" and regulating private prisons takes a nose dive.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 26):
when they should really be punishing them severely if caught.

And we need to make sure they are not put into the private prisons.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 26):
Not nearly as much as running a prison less efficiently than private enterprise

Just like Medicare? Medicare Advantage STILL has a 15% override - an override that was supposed to be for start up costs only.

How will private prisons be different? Will they pay minimum wage to guards? That sounds like a safe approach. Maybe we need to learn exactly how private prisons operate at lower costs AND still makes a profit.


User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1830 posts, RR: 10
Reply 28, posted (1 year 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2271 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 27):
Costs, especially in the area of guards, will be cut to make them look "more efficient"

Well that's the definition of efficient, isn't it? Maximizing outputs given a certain level of inputs?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 27):
no way will politicians stop the Lobbyists right to free speech

Only in America is "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" referred to as "free speech"...

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 27):
Prosecutors and judges work on salary and the costs of the court room is fixes, regardless of activity.

Adding cases adds to the backlog, which does come at a cost. Think about all those accused who are locked up as they await trial, only to be found not guilty. If the backlog weren't so long, they wouldn't have been living on the public dime so long, thus reducing the cost.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 27):
Just like Medicare? Medicare Advantage STILL has a 15% override - an override that was supposed to be for start up costs only.

I honestly don't know enough about Medicare to comment with confidence.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 27):
How will private prisons be different? Will they pay minimum wage to guards?

If they were smart they would pay above minimum wage. You get what you pay for, after all.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 27):
Maybe we need to learn exactly how private prisons operate at lower costs AND still makes a profit.

It's quite simple really. Government-run institutions don't have incentive to run efficiently, whereas a privately-run prison has a bottom line to maintain and shareholders to answer to. They have incentive to meet project timelines, use the most current (cost reducing) technology, and minimize wastage. I'm also of the belief that prisoners should work away their sentence and not just laze about all day. Private prisons are able to monetize that labour.

People have become so used to government functions being money pits that they can't fathom how they can be run profitably.



Flying refined.
User currently onlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21490 posts, RR: 56
Reply 29, posted (1 year 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2254 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 13):
Because justice isn't just about the criminal, it's about the victim, too.

Look at the Nazis who have been found in places like Wisconsin over the past couple of years. No indication that they have committed crimes after they left Europe, at least to my knowledge. Does that mean they moved on from hurting people? Looks like, doesn't it? Does that mean they should avoid being sent to jail? Of course not.

There's a difference between not sending someone to jail at all and not keeping them there their entire lives.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 15):
I guess you're not a fan of the three strikes laws, then.

No I'm not. There should always be a possibility for parole.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9142 posts, RR: 29
Reply 30, posted (1 year 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2221 times:

Quoting aloges (Reply 5):
Bollocks. You can. All you have to do is make a review of the sentence and an eventual release POSSIBLE

Not quite, some get life with prventive detention after they served their life sentence after 18 or 20 years. Preventive detention is much more comfortable, they live in small groups, just as an example.

Some, like a 9 time smurdere and terrorists who was paroled after 25 1/2 years although he has not changed his twisted mind, got a more favorable treatment.

The US system is inhumane. OK, people like Manson must never walk free, he would butcher people within 24 hours from release.

But take Jens Soering, who is rotting in a Virginia jail for things he most likely did not do, based on faked evidence and a stupid confession he made thinking that as a son of a diplomat he could not be tried. . He has little chance of release, even though the US public would not be "endangered" by his presence. He would be transported to IAD in chains and put pon the next LH flight back to Germany.

No chance for the poor guy, he is a pawn of an inhumane system. In Germany, the police officer who faked the evidnece woult have been put to jail.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineL410Turbolet From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5665 posts, RR: 20
Reply 31, posted (1 year 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2169 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 26):
yet don't provide an alternative solution

There is no need for an alternative solution in terms of institutions. Perhaps if those lovely folks at ECHR got a reality check and instead of their futile belief in prison sentence as a form of rehabilitation and resocialisation rather than form of protection of the society agains its own bad apples would be a great step forward.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 28):
I'm also of the belief that prisoners should work away their sentence and not just laze about all day.

You don't need to privatize state's monopoly on use of violence to enforce laws to achieve that. It is not about cost-saving, it is about a principle.
Besides, good luck trying to make all prisoners work. The moment you try it all those moaning about "inhumane, cruel" prison sentences will be all over you accusing you of violationg the precious human rights of prisoners.


User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1830 posts, RR: 10
Reply 32, posted (1 year 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2159 times:

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 31):
There is no need for an alternative solution in terms of institutions.

You're mixing the two conversation happening in this thread. I've been arguing that private prisons aren't that bad, but when I was referring to an alternative solution, it was about you complaining about sentencing and not providing that alternative.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 31):
Perhaps if those lovely folks at ECHR got a reality check and instead of their futile belief in prison sentence as a form of rehabilitation and resocialisation rather than form of protection of the society agains its own bad apples would be a great step forward.

Well there's a bit of a hole in your belief. Where I'm from, prisons actually do act as a form of rehabilitation and resocialization...and our overall crime rates are well below that of the UK or US. Yes, prison is a punishment, but it should also be about focusing on making sure the convict doesn't commit more crime when they leave.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 31):
Besides, good luck trying to make all prisoners work. The moment you try it all those moaning about "inhumane, cruel" prison sentences will be all over you accusing you of violationg the precious human rights of prisoners.

Refusal to work = longer sentence. If the prisoner enjoys sitting around doing nothing all day, then maybe he'll enjoy doing for a few extra months or years. Watch how quickly they get to work then.

There's also nothing inhumane or cruel about forcing prisoners to work so long as you compensate them. I'm not advocating forced labour camps here.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 30):
OK, people like Manson must never walk free, he would butcher people within 24 hours from release.

Manson never actually killed anybody. He shot one guy who survived, and ordered the death of the others, but nobody ever died by his hands. This isn't to say he isn't extremely dangerous though. Thankfully he doesn't have another parole hearing until he's well into his 90's.



Flying refined.
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8938 posts, RR: 40
Reply 33, posted (1 year 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2123 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 15):
That's why we have statute of limitations. Of course crimes against humanity are excluded, but I feel they shouldn't, just put a higher mark like 30 years.

Statute of limitations on violent crimes? Definitely not on murder, highly controversial on other crimes, such as rape.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 34, posted (1 year 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1730 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 30):
But take Jens Soering, who is rotting in a Virginia jail for things he most likely did not do, based on faked evidence and a stupid confession he made thinking that as a son of a diplomat he could not be tried. . He has little chance of release, even though the US public would not be "endangered" by his presence. He would be transported to IAD in chains and put pon the next LH flight back to Germany.

No chance for the poor guy, he is a pawn of an inhumane system. In Germany, the police officer who faked the evidnece woult have been put to jail.

Poor guy? Pawn? He either murdered two people or tried to use his diplomatic status to manipulate our legal system on behalf of a murderer (his girlfriend).

Sorry Jens, we'll be happy to send you back to Germany in a box. It has nothing to do with whether he's currently a threat to anyone...you mess with the Commonwealth of Virginia and you get what's coming.


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9142 posts, RR: 29
Reply 35, posted (1 year 23 hours ago) and read 1619 times:

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 34):
Sorry Jens, we'll be happy to send you back to Germany in a box. It has nothing to do with whether he's currently a threat to anyone...you mess with the Commonwealth of Virginia and you get what's coming.

well, such an asnwer leaves me speechless. Can you understand that the guy is innocent, did not kill anyone and just wanted to defend his girl friend who most likely is the guilty person here? Plus the police chief who tampered evidence should be in jail, not Jens.

Jens Soering is no thread to the "commonwealth of Virginia" and the citizens of that state. He served more than 25 years for his stupidity, that should be enough. To keep him behind bars is cruel and temendously inhuman.

He costs Virginia some 25K per year which the state should use to feed some unemployed people, the state would just have to send him fob IAD, Germany will pay for the LH ticket and receives him here as a free man.

And BTW, I hope for your sake that you never get into a situation like that, but the way your write you might be closer than you know.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 36, posted (1 year 20 hours ago) and read 1570 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 35):
Can you understand that the guy is innocent

I obviously haven't seen the actual evidence but based on a cursory review of what's available online I am not sure that this is a true statement. His actions back in the mid-1980s certainly don't seem consistent with someone who was innocent.

Was he lying when he made the confession? Or was he lying later when he recanted because it didn't work out for him! Call me cynical but just about everybody in jail is "innocent". Unfortunately for Soering when he had the opportunity to demonstrate by his words and actions that he was the kind of person who could be trusted, he fled to Europe and told lies (either the confession or the recant was false).

He loved his girl so much to confess when he thought his diplomatic status would shield him, but apparently not enough to actually take the heat. Now he's writing books and blaming politics for what he did to himself. That they're trying to paint him as some sort of Jesus would be laughable if it weren't so creepy.

I agree with you that Virginia's cited reason for denying parole (threat to the community) is bogus. They ought to just be honest and say that the reason he remains behind bars is in retribution for the crime and as a warning to others not to game their legal system.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 35):
And BTW, I hope for your sake that you never get into a situation like that, but the way your write you might be closer than you know.

Not sure/don't really care what the second part of that means, but I'll tell you this - if I give a false confession to protect someone else I will take it to the grave. That is the whole point.


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9142 posts, RR: 29
Reply 37, posted (1 year 1 hour ago) and read 1472 times:

The point is, any legal system that takes prison inmates "to the grave" is cruel and inhuman. I would not want to live in a state that does not give people a chance to lead a ormal life after serving their term. Such laws are indeed against human rights.

No argument that the guy is an idiot and he behaved like that. He never had "diplomatic immunity" as a dependend of a diplomat. He had a special status in his visa, that's all. Even a diplomat cannot committ murder and get away with it, same goes for US soldiers in Germany who, in that case, are lucky when treated under German laws.

But in any case, he heas served his time, he is likely innocent, there is evidence that will exonnerate him but the state of Virginia refuses to ackowledge that evidence. The state of Virginia could talke the easy road and just release Jens and send him back to Germany. For sure he will never set foot on American soil.

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to keep him behind bars.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineRara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 2054 posts, RR: 2
Reply 38, posted (1 year ago) and read 1468 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 37):
The point is, any legal system that takes prison inmates "to the grave" is cruel and inhuman. I would not want to live in a state that does not give people a chance to lead a ormal life after serving their term. Such laws are indeed against human rights.

That's it. End of story.

Society has the right to defend itself against dangerous individuals, but that's a decision that has to be made based on fact, not on sentiment.



Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 39, posted (12 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1442 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 37):
The point is, any legal system that takes prison inmates "to the grave" is cruel and inhuman.

I'm being totally serious here...it may be cruel and inhuman, but isn't that the point?

If you murder someone, you forfeit the rest of YOUR life. You take human life, you surrender your humanity. That seems pretty straightforward to me. I understand parole for minor crimes where we are genuinely trying to rehabilitate someone, but I don't see the rationale for releasing prisoners who have been convicted of murder or rape. It undermines the entire purpose of deterrence.

Maybe what works for Germans and what works for Americans is different. We've obviously got a lot of challenges getting people to meet the lowest possible expectations over here.


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9142 posts, RR: 29
Reply 40, posted (12 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1429 times:

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 39):
I'm being totally serious here...it may be cruel and inhuman, but isn't that the point?

No, revenge is not the base for justice. Revenge is injustice

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 39):
If you murder someone, you forfeit the rest of YOUR life. You take human life, you surrender your humanity

that is medieval and backwards. A person must have somehting to look forward for, rotting in a prison for the rest of the life is cruel and inhumane. Besides, the chances are 99% that he did not kill anyone. Leaving a person who knows that with no options is, well, I said it already.

.

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 39):
Maybe what works for Germans and what works for Americans is different.

Soering is German. Neither Virginia nor the US would be bothered if he is released. He'd be flown out next LH flight to FRA. And yes, it works in Germany, our murder rate is way below than that of the US.

Think about it, someone is doing something wrong and it ain't us.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 41, posted (12 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1412 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 40):
No, revenge is not the base for justice. Revenge is injustice
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 40):
that is medieval and backwards. A person must have somehting to look forward for, rotting in a prison for the rest of the life is cruel and inhumane.

If someone murdered my wife or daughter I think they should spend the rest of their life sitting in a completely empty jail cell with absolutely no nothing to hope for at all, ever. Just abject misery until the end of time, punctuated by regular visits where I would remind them how much they suck.

They could look forward to me possibly dying before them.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 40):
Besides, the chances are 99% that he did not kill anyone. Leaving a person who knows that with no options is, well, I said it already.

Well, separate issue. If Soering is truly innocent of murder I agree he should go free. Even though I personally don't feel bad for him because I think he is at worst guilty of murder and at best has no integrity.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 40):
Soering is German. Neither Virginia nor the US would be bothered if he is released. He'd be flown out next LH flight to FRA.

If he is truly guilty, I disagree. Otherwise the state is telling the people that it is OK for visitors come and murder them because they'll just take the problem back with them when they go home. Not much justice in that.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 40):
And yes, it works in Germany, our murder rate is way below than that of the US.
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 40):
Think about it, someone is doing something wrong and it ain't us.

I'd be careful giving too much credit for this to your justice system. I believe your system would be quickly overwhelmed by the fine individuals we have here in the US, just like ours is.


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9142 posts, RR: 29
Reply 42, posted (12 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1400 times:

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 41):
Otherwise the state is telling the people that it is OK for visitors come and murder them because they'll just take the problem back with them when they go home. Not much justice in that.

This is so far fetched that I had to read it twice. My apologies, but what state of mind are you in?


Ever came to your mind that this

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 41):
If someone murdered my wife or daughter I think they should spend the rest of their life sitting in a completely empty

is the reason for that:

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 41):
I believe your system would be quickly overwhelmed by the fine individuals we have here in the US, just like ours is

"Our system" works, much better than yours, we don't usually leave people alone on the streets.


BTW, and that goes for your remark about the visitors as well, I live close to Wiesbaden where the US Army is just in the process of moving the EU HQ. Should I say that the average "quality" of the GIs was better when the draft was still
on but I am not complaining. Couple of houses in my street are rented to officers living on the economy and they don't create problems.

Like the German and other tourists who drive the blue ridge parkway.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 43, posted (12 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1387 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 42):

This is so far fetched that I had to read it twice. My apologies, but what state of mind are you in?

I read your post as suggesting that the US should not try or imprison Germans who murder people here - that we should just send them back to Germany instead. If that is not what you meant then please disregard.

It sounds lik you feel like I insulted the German justice system. To be clear my point is that if it works for you, that is great. But I think it would fail here because of the differences between Germans and Americans.

[Edited 2013-07-22 09:11:37]

User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9142 posts, RR: 29
Reply 44, posted (12 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1365 times:

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 43):
I think we have a language barrier. I read your post as suggesting that the US should not try or imprison Germans who murder people here -

Well, I was not talking about "Germans" and "Americans" in general, I was talking about Jens Soering, who has served more than 25 years in prison for 2 morders he most likely did not do.

It is only fair to release him and send him back, he will not harm anyone in the US and certainly not in Germany either.

In general, I say that revenge cannot be the goal of a justice system. Period. Life in Germany means 15 years, in special cases 18 years till parole and some never get free, but are put after 18 years in special groups with a lot of freedom,

What really puzzles me, well I knew it before, is that in the so much Christian bible belt such opinions as yours prevail. I am not a church goer but that is not ewhat I understand as "christian".



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 45, posted (12 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1360 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 44):
Well, I was not talking about "Germans" and "Americans" in general, I was talking about Jens Soering, who has served more than 25 years in prison for 2 morders he most likely did not do.

Fair enough, I was indeed speaking in general terms.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 44):
What really puzzles me, well I knew it before, is that in the so much Christian bible belt such opinions as yours prevail. I am not a church goer but that is not ewhat I understand as "christian".

I'm not a Christian so I can't help you there...personally I have no patience for those who cannot or will not respect the rights and property of others.


User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1260 posts, RR: 3
Reply 46, posted (12 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1357 times:

I think there should be no such thing as "life" in prison, so I agree with this ruling to some degree providing:

1) The maximum sentence for first-degree murder should be no less than 40 years
2) All murder sentences involving multiple victims must be served consecutively

Under my system Dale Cregan would absolutely have a chance of release, assuming he got the maximum sentence he'd just have to reach the age of 100. Peter Sutcliffe, again assuming a max sentence, will be released at the ripe old age of 555.

This concurrent sentencing grates on me for some reason.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 47, posted (12 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1352 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 44):
In general, I say that revenge cannot be the goal of a justice system. Period. Life in Germany means 15 years, in special cases 18 years till parole and some never get free, but are put after 18 years in special groups with a lot of freedom,

This is really intriguing, to be honest with you.

Don't you feel like that is letting them get off 'easy'? 15 years is nothing compared to the finality of death or the violation of rape. Why should a killer or rapist get to enjoy the fresh air of freedom when they have deprived that from someone else?

Again, if somebody killed my wife or kid, the way I feel right now I can't tell you what brutality that I would want to personally unleash on them. It would take me days just to decide exactly how to proceed in order to make it as horrifying as possible.

I think I need a vacation.


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9142 posts, RR: 29
Reply 48, posted (12 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1266 times:

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 47):
Don't you feel like that is letting them get off 'easy'?

well, times and opinions change. It taks more times in some regions, as we can see and it sometimes taks a big catastrophe to change the laws and make the "human rights" paramount.

Considering that the Magna Charta was signed on June 15, 1215, the Brits should not have executed William wallace , aka Braveheart, the way they did. After all, this happened 1305, some 90 years after the Magna Charta. OK communication wasn't that quick those days.

Considering what Braveheart had to endure, your thoughts about punishment are indeed liberal.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 49, posted (12 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1261 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 48):
Considering what Braveheart had to endure, your thoughts about punishment are indeed liberal.

LOL and fortunately subject to my mood at the time. Which has improved.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6511 posts, RR: 9
Reply 50, posted (12 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1218 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 33):
Statute of limitations on violent crimes? Definitely not on murder, highly controversial on other crimes, such as rape.

Well this varies from country to country, here in France it's ten years for the most serious crimes (including rape and murder). You couldn't accuse yourself without consequence though, as that would likely reopen the case and start a new 10 years period, but clearly after ten years cold cases are really cold.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7084 posts, RR: 3
Reply 51, posted (12 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1187 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 12):
The United States have kindly shown us that the death penalty doesn't work.

The US doesn't apply it correctly, it should be simple, get sentenced to death, get one appeal within a given (2-5 year) time period if you aren't found innocent you end up dead. Sitting on death row for 20 years is no deterrent.


User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1830 posts, RR: 10
Reply 52, posted (12 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1176 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 51):
The US doesn't apply it correctly, it should be simple, get sentenced to death, get one appeal within a given (2-5 year) time period if you aren't found innocent you end up dead. Sitting on death row for 20 years is no deterrent.

True, but what I meant was that it's not a deterrent at whatever wait times...and they also have a history of questioning sentencing people to death. Common sense would dictate that only the most open-and-shut cases should ever give any consideration to the death penalty, but we have seen numerous instances of people getting the chair based on highly circumstantial cases.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 48):
the Brits should not have executed William wallace , aka Braveheart, the way they did

I immediately regret looking up how he was executed   

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 47):
Don't you feel like that is letting them get off 'easy'? 15 years is nothing compared to the finality of death or the violation of rape.

Using that logic, anything short of 'an eye for an eye' is getting off easy. In cases of theft, an eye an for an eye is appropriate in that the perpetrator should compensate the victim the amount they stole from them...but in cases of murder, I don't think 25 years behind bars is anything to sniff at.



Flying refined.
User currently offlineJoePatroni707 From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 493 posts, RR: 0
Reply 53, posted (12 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1122 times:

This is exactly why the death penalty is better.. A bullet is cheap and effective. Only problem is it takes too long.

User currently offlineSmittyone From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 54, posted (12 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1111 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 52):
Using that logic, anything short of 'an eye for an eye' is getting off easy. In cases of theft, an eye an for an eye is appropriate in that the perpetrator should compensate the victim the amount they stole from them...but in cases of murder, I don't think 25 years behind bars is anything to sniff at.

Well sure, I guess that is what I'm saying. What holds society together is the idea that the way I treat others is what I should expect to receive in return. In a lot of cases I think that the punishments meted out, especially for "White collar" type crimes are not harsh enough. Take for example identity theft. This phenomenon has resulted in untold waste of resources and pain and suffering to its victims. That we now have to live our lives constantly looking over our virtual shoulders has decreased the quality of life for all of us. So while not a violent crime I think that those who do it should get HAMMERED.

When you think about it, every dollar that society spends on mitigating the impacts of crime is money that could/should have been spent on things like food, medicine, education etc. At the end of the day people's lives are shortened for the lack of these things...admittedly perhaps very indirectly. So those who draw from the system due to their misconduct should suffer...pay the opportunity cost, 'out of hide' if necessary. Until every cigarette butt and load of dog crap is picked up in this country there will exist an opportunity for guilty parties to pay back their debts to society.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 52):
True, but what I meant was that it's not a deterrent at whatever wait times...and they also have a history of questioning sentencing people to death. Common sense would dictate that only the most open-and-shut cases should ever give any consideration to the death penalty, but we have seen numerous instances of people getting the chair based on highly circumstantial cases.

Agreed. I oppose capital punishment due to the low level of confidence I have in the state's ability to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But in cases like this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshir...Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders it's hard to argue why we shouldn't immediately run the guilty parties through a wood chipper feet first...and give the execution crew a smoke break halfway through. I'm being facetious but you get the idea.


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9142 posts, RR: 29
Reply 55, posted (12 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1086 times:

Quoting Smittyone (Reply 54):
I have in the state's ability to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But in cases like this one: http://en.wikipedia.org

Cute. But when the state failed, it is still alright to keep the perpetrator behind bars for life?

Quoting Smittyone (Reply 54):
through a wood chipper feet first...and give the execution crew a smoke

little has changed in 700 years.

Quoting Smittyone (Reply 54):
Take for example identity theft. T

can't happen if the state implements a mandatory registry system with a mational ID card. Works fine in many European countries and we even don't have to look over the shoulders. Except for the NSA but they scan what we write here anyhow.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineSmittyone From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 56, posted (12 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1079 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 55):
But when the state failed, it is still alright to keep the perpetrator behind bars for life?

No, of course not...I have already agreed with you there. The challenge is establishing that the State failed, when people whose freedom is on the line will say anything to save themselves and the State will by default seek to protect itself from scrutiny.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 55):
little has changed in 700 years.

To me, this is a value-neutral statement. Being 700 years old doesn't make something wrong, though I would definitely disagree with the religious justifications used for dishing out barbarity back then.

It is a question for philosophers whether or not a man surrenders his right to call himself 'human' when he brutally rapes and burns women and young girls. Not bound by Christianity or similar doctrines I am willing to ponder that question freely. As far as I can tell the only good reason not to issue brutal punishments would be the risk of losing our own humanity in the process of giving people what they deserve.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 55):
can't happen if the state implements a mandatory registry system with a mational ID card. Works fine in many European countries and we even don't have to look over the shoulders. Except for the NSA but they scan what we write here anyhow.

I don't know enough to comment, but I am confident that if there is a dollar to be made people will find a way to steal it!

[Edited 2013-07-24 12:52:26]

User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9142 posts, RR: 29
Reply 57, posted (12 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1042 times:

Quoting Smittyone (Reply 56):
It is a question for philosophers whether or not a man surrenders his right to call himself 'human' when he brutally

There is simply no question. The German basic law / constitution starts with the sentence "The human diginity is untouchable" . §§ 1 is an eternal paragraph, it cannot be changed even by a 100% majority.

No person in this world surrenders the right to be treated as a human. Everyone has a right to a fair trial, this far the US holds up. The way the US treats convicted persons is a different story. Their treatment is in many ways unconsitutional and certainly do not hold up to basic human rights.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineSmittyone From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 58, posted (12 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1022 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 57):
There is simply no question. The German basic law / constitution starts with the sentence "The human diginity is untouchable" . §§ 1 is an eternal paragraph, it cannot be changed even by a 100% majority.

From a (German) legal standpoint, human dignity has been declared to be 'untouchable'; great. Based on history I can see why you have that in your Constitution. We can legislate whatever labels we want to things but that doesn't make it truth. The fact that it's constitutionally not a question for Germans doesn't mean it's not a question!

The fact that mankind has historically deprived the dignity of people who have done nothing wrong (ie the Holocaust, slavery etc.) does not make depriving the dignity of people who have the capacity to make choices - and make the wrong ones - is inherently wrong.

There is nothing magic about being human. At the end of the day we are all animals that have the capacity to do great things....one of which is the ability and desire to treat each other with dignity. But when people 'break the contract' with their fellow man and deliberately and wrongfully deprive the dignity of others it is a fair question of why they should be further treated with any dignity in return.

Again, these men who committed the rape and murder in Connecticut...other than an arbitrary determination in your law, what justification is there to treat them any better than we'd treat a rat? Rats do not intentionally harm us, yet we trap and poison them with little compassion just because their presence is inconvenient to us. These men intentionally did unspeakable things. Whatever the greatest possible suffering that we can inflict (which may be life imprisonment) seems appropriate to me.

What makes humans special is that despite facing the same challenges as other creatures, we generally choose to operate at a higher level than the other members of the animal kingdom. I think we cheapen the concept of 'human dignity' when we treat it as some sort of magic quality and confer it on those who are capable of, but do not operate at that level. Again, my concern about harsh punishment is the negative impact that it might have on the punishers.

[Edited 2013-07-25 03:38:51]

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Human Rights Law Is An Ass posted Fri Dec 17 2010 04:52:49 by skidmarks
Obama, AZ & The UN Human Rights Council posted Wed Sep 22 2010 22:54:08 by fr8mech
Does This Infringe On Human Rights? posted Tue Dec 8 2009 04:13:08 by EISHN
Human Rights Wimps Hate Predator Drones posted Fri May 29 2009 15:12:26 by AirTran737
US To Rejoin UN Human Rights Council posted Sat Apr 4 2009 10:28:11 by Aaron747
Democracy, Human Rights, The Origin posted Tue Sep 30 2008 18:08:11 by HapppyLandings
Situation Of Human Rights In North East China posted Thu Jan 10 2008 12:27:45 by LHStarAlliance
Fujimori Sets Tone At Peru Human Rights Trial posted Tue Dec 11 2007 14:20:50 by MaverickM11
Iran Accuses Canada Of Human Rights Violations posted Fri Sep 14 2007 22:04:50 by TheCol
N K Accuses Finland For Violating Human Rights posted Sun Feb 25 2007 13:47:18 by SK A340