I read an article that was written in 2012 about results from a survey given to judges about sentencing for a crime. The survey was based on a scenario in which a robbery took place and a store clerk was beaten. The survey results showed that judges reduced sentences by about a year if the defendant had a biological basis for their psychopathic behavior. What would you do? Impose a longer imprisonment time for someone who is more likely to commit a crime again, or reduce the imprisonment time because a person has "defective genes or brain function that leaves the criminal with less self-control and ability to tell right from wrong"? We cut slack for people who make poor decisions that are based on misinformation, ignorance or mental deficiency when the consequences of their acts have minor unwanted effects. What about the more serious things like violent crimes? Should slack be cut there? That's a tough one for me. I think people who cause harm should be rendered unable to cause more harm. At first glance, I say cut no slack. However I'm trying to consider the other point of view - to take into consideration the fact that the person commiting a crime might not have been able to help it. Why would so many judges consider this even in a violent crime? I'm going to have to think on this one for a while. http://psychcentral.com/news/2012/08/17/biology-may-give-criminal-psychopaths-a-break/43281.html
robbery usually includes an investigation. I wasnt there. thats the job of the police. its goes to prelim. prelim judge decides what charges stick what dont. DA can whip up some new charges, goes to big court. defendant makes plea deal during pre trial conference, court excepts the deal or they dont. presentence investigator digs up priors. goes to court. Defendant has 3 strikes : goes to jail for maximum Defendant has 0 strikes : No gun, no violence, stole few packs of smokes and knocked the clerk over in struggle. leniency probability is high..
I think the "unable to tell right from wrong" card is waayyy over-played. In exactly what scenario could you really not tell right from wrong? The only way I can think of is if someone were in a completely psychotic state which is highly unlikely. The insanity defense almost never works and it shouldn't work in most cases. Does the person have mental issues? Maybe. Does it make them not understand that robbing a store or killing someone is wrong? Doubtful.
The motive of why the person did it is important for the punishment. The chance of it happening again as well. Longer imprisonment seems not to be constructive with most psychopathic robbers. I do not have the final and best solution ready (since I am far from an expert) but I am convinced longer imprisonment is counterproductive for both society and the criminal in the long end.
To be clear, I wasn't making a point about sentences. Just about people using the excuse that they somehow didn't know what they were doing was wrong. Even sociopaths....they know what they are doing is wrong....they simply don't care though.
Even psychopaths have an understanding of right and wrong based on societal expectations. They might not feel guilt when they commit a wrongful act but they have the ability to understand that its not generally an acceptable act in society. I would be a big fat bitch to violent offenders personally, and if their defense is they can't discern right from wrong, to me that is all the more reason to give them the maximum sentence. Why would I, as a judge, want someone without morality or a conscience loose in the world?
I agree with this generally, but there are exceptions. Rehabilitation instead of punishment is generally a good focus but some people can't be rehabilitated.
http://vcp.e2bn.org/justice/page11405-background-and-reasons.html http://vcp.e2bn.org/prisoners/byname.php http://vcp.e2bn.org/justice/ interesting site , check it out. lots about crime and punishment .. Note that poor people have nothing to lose sometimes. When you factor in modern prisons are more like upscale hotels. Jail seems like a nice place, and not a deterrent of crime..
Always. Insisting a generalized solution works in all situations is simplifying reality and when we do that with serious social issues we're just asking for problems (if not new ones than at least for the old ones to remain forever ).
I don't care so much about individual people committing violent crimes as much as I do the government killing... say... 3,000+ people. Yeah, it's bad either way, but people are so blind to the fact that the people who run this world have so much blood on their hands, and they get away with posing as our saviors by putting lone criminals behind bars, as if they're making the world any safer. I say let there be total anarchy. It would be better than what we have now.
That might be true if most of them weren't running at nearly triple capacity, and the stats are obscured by the practice of continuous transfer of prison inmates. http://online.ccj.pdx.edu/resources...overcrowding-is-a-growing-concern-in-the-u-s/ Can prison overcrowding be stopped? A number of law enforcement agencies have examined the causes and effects of prison overcrowding and work to solve the problem. Students pursuing criminal justice degrees can learn more about these efforts and assist in them through various resources and organizations. Monitoring prison overcrowding and long-term suggestions – A 2011 report examines the long-term effects of prison overcrowding and offers suggestions to combat it. One of the primary suggestions is to re-evaluate prison sentence terms for some crimes, drug-related offense in particular. Examining best practices – A task force in Michigan examined the best practices of law enforcement regarding prison overcrowding and made suggestions on how to correct this problem. From examining sentencing to probation laws and how mentally ill inmates are handled, the report addresses issues with all of these conditions. A look at how to alleviate jail overcrowding – In 2000, the DOJ re-examined jail overcrowding and released information, suggestions and a strategy for prisons and jails to assist in overcrowding situations. This strategy includes a checklist and revamped prisoner release information. Prison overcrowding as a weakness of the penal system – The DOJ reported in 2002 that it found that prison overcrowding is a serious weakness in the justice system. However, the actions that the report suggested have not yet caused a change in the issues.
Here is my view, sentence him as you would any other and if there is a real reason to back it down some because of meds or genetic defect then sure, reduce it and let the person spend the rest of his sentence in a care facility that would be able to take that time to assess and keep or let the person go, it goes back to court for reassessment and he/she is let go or kept due to a chance to reoffend. All should pay the same price even if it's in a special care facility, not let free because of this or that. IMO one should never be let go sooner then another for the same from the system till they pay somehow. Meds are becoming a huge excuse to kill and that's wrong. It's becoming a license to kill. In Canada our criminals are let off way too easy. 25 years for killing one person but if you kill two it would likely still be 25 years, except in a case like Clifford Olson. Don't know why we don't sentence them 50 for two,,, so here you lose nothing for killing a second just because he was a witness against your crime and you can say it was a bad moment, that one wasn't supposed to happen, it just did.
Also we had a Double time thing, I think it's washed now, not sure. This is where if you were held say 3 years in custody to be found guilty and you were,,, then they gave you six years counted for the time you spent,,, Double time? What the hell,,,,! For waiting for the obvious? Now if you were found innocent then there should be something but not when found guilty. That one kills me.
I think the focus of our criminal system is completely wrong. I think rehabilitation doesn't work because our society is broken, and if it weren't that way, people could be rehabilitated. Most crime is based on opportunity and lack there of. Some people are truly violent and we don't understand neurology enough to prevent that, so they do need to be sequestered. But at the end of the day, Judges and the legal system do as much harm as they do good and the system is innately broken, and wicked.
True. And the fact that we now have "for profit" prisons all but insures that nothing is going to change any time soon. It creates a demand for prisoners and that's something that is immoral and never should have happened.
So, if they have a disability and cannot help themselves from committing crimes, they will probably do it again without some sort of real help, so I think they need to be somewhere..
Neither. I would require the offender to stay at an inpatient correction facility to be treated for the violent outbursts. Rather than simply locking him in a cell, I would give him the tools to better cope with the burdens of life that triggered him to do something socially unacceptable like robbing and savagely beating another person. Its like teaching a child. Simply saying "no" / "you're being bad" (without explaining why/teaching) doesn't further the child's ability to discern right from wrong and his own feelings.
