Should life in prison really mean life in prison? [Archive]

Eki

8th July 2010, 10:09

On Tuesday, a 41-year old man shot three people at a drive-in McDonalds in Finland:

http://yle.fi/uutiset/news/2010/07/remand_hearing_for_suspect_in_porvoo_shooting_1815 954.html

In 1997, he had been sentenced for life in prison for a murder and two attempted homicides. He was released in December 2009 after 12 years in prison:

The main suspect, a Porvoo resident with a record of violent crime, has said during interrogation, that he remembers almost nothing of the events. He was paroled just over six months ago after serving 12 years of a life sentence for homicide, and police say that he had apparently been drinking.

In Finland, those sentenced for life are in average pardoned after 13 years:

http://yle.fi/uutiset/news/2010/07/prisoners_jailed_for_life_in_finland_serve_an_aver age_of_13_years_1813792.html

Should a life sentence really mean a life sentence? I'm not sure for first time offenders, but I think at least the second time it should. If they'll release this man again after another 13 years, he'll be about 54 and still a danger to the society, because it seems he doesn't learn.

Daniel

8th July 2010, 11:33

Where the person is always going to be a danger then yes, they should be put away till such an age where they are no longer a threat.

Whoever pardoned this guy should be ashamed.

Rudy Tamasz

8th July 2010, 15:41

Convicts must only be granted parole for a reason, if they really represent no danger to society and show genuine remorse. Otherwise they must be doing their time till they die.

This was a major screw up on part of whoever paroled him.

Tazio

8th July 2010, 15:43

I'm not sure;
I tend to agree with Daniel

We had our own "McDonalds massacre" here in S.D. I recall it quite well.
The establishment was so bullet riddled that they had to demolish the building. (which may have had more to do with Mickey D’s brass, and the general public concern of what that particular establishment would be associated with)

There are still many souvenirs of the building that are collected by human suffering enthusiasts. :confused:

The San Ysidro McDonald's massacre was a killing spree that occurred on July 18, 1984, in a McDonald's restaurant in the San Ysidro section of San Diego, California. The shootings resulted in 22 deaths (including the perpetrator James Oliver Huberty) and the injuries of 19 others.

On the day before the massacre, Huberty had called a mental health center. The receptionist misspelled his name on intake as "Shouberty". Since he had not claimed there was an immediate emergency, his call was not returned. Huberty and his family went to the San Diego Zoo on the morning of July 18, and had eaten at a McDonald's in the Clairemont neighborhood in northern San Diego a few hours prior to the massacre

I find it more than a little ironic that the most atrocious act of violence near our International Port of Entry was by a Midwesterner against largely Mexican/Americans and Mexicans legally visiting our city.

Huberty responded that he was "hunting humans".

Huberty used a 9 mm Uzi semi-automatic (the primary weapon fired in the massacre), a Winchester pump-action 12-gauge shotgun, and a 9 mm Browning HP in the restaurant, killing 21 people and wounding 19 others. Huberty's victims were predominantly Mexican and Mexican-American and ranged in age from 8 months to 74 years. The massacre began at 3:40 p.m. and lasted for 77 minutes. Huberty had spent 257 rounds of ammunition before he was fatally shot by a SWAT team sniper

Easy Drifter

8th July 2010, 16:13

In Canada a 1st degree murder conviction sentence is life with a parole application period specified. The toughest is life with no parole for 25 years and basically that means parole after 25 years. Shorter periods can be included in the sentence by the judge.
Most 2nd degree convictions usually end up with parole after about 10.
Most other crimes have a mandatory release after 2/3rds of the sentence which means, as an example, 6 years really is 4. Add in day passes, halfway houses and other 'programs' a 6 year sentence might end up being about 3 months.
Until the federal Govt. put a stop to it, recently, pre trial custody often meant 2 for 1 or even 3 for 1 credit in sentencing.
This could result in a person who had not been granted bail and was in jail for a year prior to conviction walking out of court a free person if sentenced to 3 years!
How ever we do have a provision that someone who is considered a dangerous offender stays in jail period. It is a rare occurence and most applications by the Crown for such designation fail.
Canada does not have the death penalty.

markabilly

8th July 2010, 17:13

Most intelligent comment I have heard about the deterrence effect came from a little old Hispanic lady, who was asked (while the jury deliberated the death penalty for someone for killing her daughter, one of a number of his victims) if giving him the death penalty would deter others from the same crime, and in broken English she said, no...

Of course all the reporters jumped in her face, and said so you don't favor death peanlty, ant him to live...yaydada, and when permitted to speak again, she said, " no, i don't think so, it will not deter others, but it will deter him mucho...."

And I think the same about the life sentence, put them away for good, if one has not the guts to permanently "deter" them....

About 20 years ago, I had a friend who was a police officer who was killed in the line of duty

The person who killed him was from Minn. where he had murdered both his parents. Indeed, his mother had called the police about a month before, when he got in trouble and they nearly shot him dead, but did not, and she told them that next time, well she would understand if they did....

Anyway, he killed them and they gave him a whole life sentence but served less than 10 years, out on parole, goes to a party, gets mad, goes home gets 12 guage with slugs and goes back and kills 4 people, and wounds a ten old girl......he is going home, and runs a stop sign in a nice neightborhood, and gets stopped,

They had just put computers in the cars, so he enters the plate number and gets out of the car. He is shot as he gets out with the slug hitting him in the throat right above the bullet proof vest and kills him instantly....

At the time, the only way to get the death penalty was to kill a fireman or a cop........at the funeral wake, I made several officers very mad when I said why give the guy the death penalty???

After all, the ONLY PERSON who this guy killed and for which he would get the needle and be executed, was the only person who had a chance at surviving a confrontation with him----he had a gun, a bullet proof vest, radio for immediate back up and all this training, that none of the other victims had

Anyway, the officer had a massive funeral, probably over a thousand or more were there

The little girl had been shot in the side of the face, and it took her whole jaw off, along with her nose, and would eventually die several weeks later. Very few people showed up for her funeral

So if one is convicted and given life, one needs not to ever be back on the streets again, ......ever....

airshifter

8th July 2010, 23:25

This is one of the basic flaws of a society that is too "civilised". Though it might make some people feel better when they give someone another chance, I'd like to know how those people feel right now.

And I'd really like to know what the family of the person murdered feels about it.

People may think it is primitive to execute someone, but in reality life in prison (if it in fact actually means life) is probably just as bad if not worse on a persons mind. And regardless of what anyone thinks, a dead man does not rape, murder, or torture another human ever again.

BDunnell

9th July 2010, 00:59

F1boat

9th July 2010, 08:29

On Tuesday, a 41-year old man shot three people at a drive-in McDonalds in Finland:

http://yle.fi/uutiset/news/2010/07/remand_hearing_for_suspect_in_porvoo_shooting_1815 954.html

In 1997, he had been sentenced for life in prison for a murder and two attempted homicides. He was released in December 2009 after 12 years in prison:

In Finland, those sentenced for life are in average pardoned after 13 years:

http://yle.fi/uutiset/news/2010/07/prisoners_jailed_for_life_in_finland_serve_an_aver age_of_13_years_1813792.html

Should a life sentence really mean a life sentence? I'm not sure for first time offenders, but I think at least the second time it should. If they'll release this man again after another 13 years, he'll be about 54 and still a danger to the society, because it seems he doesn't learn.

From the description it seems that the man was probably insane, killing people and not remembering it is an awful sign. Terrible mistake for the people who let him free.

Mark in Oshawa

9th July 2010, 08:36

Where the person is always going to be a danger then yes, they should be put away till such an age where they are no longer a threat.

Whoever pardoned this guy should be ashamed.

We see the same stories in our press almost every week. The current Conservative government is trying to change the rules and lengthen sentences and the opposition gives up only when they realize they are against the public on this.

This catch and release justice system is an idea that the Scandinavian nations have practiced for some time, and it was our Libreal gov't in the 70's that sent Corrections officials over to Sweden and Finland to import it back here.

So to read Eki wanting to keep a guy locked up is rather ironic. I was almost expecting him to defend the right of the state to release this cretin....

BTW....how did he get a gun so fast to do the deed Eki? I thought you Finn's outlawed that sort of thing???

Mark in Oshawa

9th July 2010, 08:40

The answer is 'no', but the term 'life' is clearly ridiculous. Why is it used? If it wasn't employed in this context, I genuinely think there would be a lot less dissatisfaction with sentencing, because there would be no need for these 'should life mean life?' discussions.

No life shouldn't mean life? How about 40 years? How about 60? You want a number? I don't care how they do it, Just don't let the psychotic moron out of jail in 13 years and spin it to the press and the world at large he is rehabilitated. THAT is what angers me. The parole boards and corrections officials who figured this guy was ok certainly wouldn't want to have this guy sleeping on their couch his first night out or even in the same town, but they will look people in the eye and tell you that they thought he was rehabilitated. For many criminals and killers, Prison is just finishing school.

We cannot lock up everyone for everything, and I do agree education and retraining must be aspects of corrections, but by god there should be more accountability in the corrections system. There also need to be the realization people would prefer sentences to be what they are. Not changing the terms for time served, good behaviour and all that sort of thing.

Eki

9th July 2010, 09:05

We see the same stories in our press almost every week. The current Conservative government is trying to change the rules and lengthen sentences and the opposition gives up only when they realize they are against the public on this.

This catch and release justice system is an idea that the Scandinavian nations have practiced for some time, and it was our Libreal gov't in the 70's that sent Corrections officials over to Sweden and Finland to import it back here.

So to read Eki wanting to keep a guy locked up is rather ironic. I was almost expecting him to defend the right of the state to release this cretin....

BTW....how did he get a gun so fast to do the deed Eki? I thought you Finn's outlawed that sort of thing???
It was an illegal gun. But as one politician on the TV said, illegal guns have been legal in the beginning. When you lose legitimate control of a legal gun, it will become illegal.

They said on TV that the easiest way to get an illegal gun is to get a gun deactivated for collectors, undo the deactivation and make them working again. So, now some are thinking to change the law so that you'll need a license to obtain and possess deactivated weapons as well.

Mark

9th July 2010, 10:17

On Tuesday, a 41-year old man shot three people at a drive-in McDonalds in Finland:

http://yle.fi/uutiset/news/2010/07/remand_hearing_for_suspect_in_porvoo_shooting_1815 954.html

In 1997, he had been sentenced for life in prison for a murder and two attempted homicides. He was released in December 2009 after 12 years in prison:

In Finland, those sentenced for life are in average pardoned after 13 years:

http://yle.fi/uutiset/news/2010/07/prisoners_jailed_for_life_in_finland_serve_an_aver age_of_13_years_1813792.html

Should a life sentence really mean a life sentence? I'm not sure for first time offenders, but I think at least the second time it should. If they'll release this man again after another 13 years, he'll be about 54 and still a danger to the society, because it seems he doesn't learn.

Quite simply yes it should.
But that doesn't mean to say everyone who is currently sentanced to 'life' should service life. Merely that they should be sent to jail for a set number of years, and if a life sentance is imposed it should indeed mean that.

My objection is a syntax one, not a crime & punishment one :p

Mark

9th July 2010, 10:21

From a punishment point of view. I don't agree with the death sentance, but surely if someone had committed a crime which would have resulted in the death sentance were it still legal, then locking them up until they die seems the right thing to do.

Why should Myra Hindley now be free when her victims remain dead?

markabilly

9th July 2010, 10:53

Why should Myra Hindley now be free when her victims remain dead?
that is revenge type punishment.....

but for me, I am concerned about deterrence....and when someone, be they insane or not, has demonstrated the capacity for this type of behavior, they should be permanently removed, forever, from society to avoid repetition and the only way to do that effectively, is execution

Locking someone up to spend a meaningless life behind bars, esp when we get lazy and/or cheap, and decide to reduce overcrowding by letting them go, is dumb....

in many states, a prisoner gets three days credit for every one day served....and prison officials think it is easier to control the prisoners, if they think they will get out soon, if they just be good and do not kill the guards :rolleyes:

Mark in Oshawa

9th July 2010, 18:49

It was an illegal gun. But as one politician on the TV said, illegal guns have been legal in the beginning. When you lose legitimate control of a legal gun, it will become illegal.

They said on TV that the easiest way to get an illegal gun is to get a gun deactivated for collectors, undo the deactivation and make them working again. So, now some are thinking to change the law so that you'll need a license to obtain and possess deactivated weapons as well.

It would make more sense to make prison so nasty that no one would want to flirt with prison in the first place. That would cut down on the narcissitic gang bangers and thugs but I suppose it wouldn't stop all of it.

I think in the end, society will have those wont play by the rules. You can outlaw every gun in the country not on a cop, and you will have criminals and thugs. Drugs such as Heroin, Cocaine and Crystal Meth are illegal too...yet addicts are all over most cities of any real size. Why should legitimate gun owners and collectors be forced to jump through one hoop after another to protect us from those who don't respect the law.

It always comes back to punishing the law abiding in the vain hope it might stop the really sick and twisted from committing crime rather than just putting all the financial resources into making the corrections system truly serve society, and not the criminal.

airshifter

10th July 2010, 03:14

I agree 100% on prisons being tough, nasty, degrading places that a person doesn't want to return to. Give them a hardcore military style environment that teaches discipline and respect, and give them plenty of hard labor to think about what they have done. Take away TV, good food, and all the "rights" prisoners currently have. As for rehabilitation for those needing it, make that at the end of the sentence, and make the prisoner work hard enough to earn their keep while getting such treatment. It shouldn't be the governments problem to rehabilitate these people in the first place, let alone after they have commited crimes.

anthonyvop

10th July 2010, 07:05

Speaking of murderers sentenced to life being released early.

Way to go Scotland!!!!

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2010/07/why-isnt-dying-lockerbie-bombe.html

ShiftingGears

10th July 2010, 08:15

Speaking of murderers sentenced to life being released early.

Way to go Scotland!!!!

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2010/07/why-isnt-dying-lockerbie-bombe.html

That is disgraceful.

Daniel

10th July 2010, 08:44

Speaking of murderers sentenced to life being released early.

Way to go Scotland!!!!

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2010/07/why-isnt-dying-lockerbie-bombe.html
Tbh there were major doubts about whether he was even involved and even parents of the victims didn't believe that he was the actual bomber....

Garry Walker

10th July 2010, 10:07

Eki

10th July 2010, 10:36

So what punishments should we give to criminals who will just keep committing heinous crimes? 3 years of singing kumbaya?

As for me, I am against life sentence - far too expensive and risky. Far cheaper to just shoot or gas the vermin.

Then you're not much different from them, if you think it's OK to kill people you don't like.

Garry Walker

10th July 2010, 11:15

Then you're not much different from them, if you think it's OK to kill people you don't like.

What the hell are you on about, you fool? Who mentioned anything about liking the criminals? They are a danger to society, ergo, we need to get rid of them to protect people. The best way (and the cheapest way) to achieve that is through executing them.

Eki

10th July 2010, 13:01

What the hell are you on about, you fool? Who mentioned anything about liking the criminals? They are a danger to society, ergo, we need to get rid of them to protect people. The best way (and the cheapest way) to achieve that is through executing them.
The danger cannot be known beforehand, only afterwards.

Daniel

10th July 2010, 13:42

00steven

10th July 2010, 16:15

Clearly the nut should never see daylight again. Life should mean life.

markabilly

10th July 2010, 21:25

The danger cannot be known beforehand, only afterwards.

BRILLIANT!!!!!
I wish I could claim credit for that inspiring thought of intelligent wisdom

that is so true, for example, if someone kills both their parents, they are not going to do that again, so let them go.

Indeed, if they kill their spouse, just pass a law that says they can never marry again, and they will not be doing that again, so let them go.

Indeed, if they kill all their children, require them to be sterilized, and let them go...

Indeed, they kill everybody at macDonald's, pass a law that says they can not eat there......

Indeed, if they kill Mr. XYZ, , might as well let them go, too, because they are not going to be killing him again.....because he is already dead!!!!!

simple, really, once you realize the danger can not be known before hand..and since afterwards, he will not be killing that person again......the whole world should thank Ekiwikie, especially all those prisoners turned back loose on the streets

he deserves the Nobel peace prize!!!!

world problem solved, well hellayouareahha....... :s mokin:

Daniel

10th July 2010, 21:40

BRILLIANT!!!!!
I wish I could claim credit for that inspiring thought of intelligent wisdom

that is so true, for example, if someone kills both their parents, they are not going to do that again, so let them go.

Indeed, if they kill their spouse, just pass a law that says they can never marry again, and they will not be doing that again, so let them go.

Indeed, if they kill all their children, require them to be sterilized, and let them go...

Indeed, they kill everybody at macDonald's, pass a law that says they can not eat there......

Indeed, if they kill Mr. XYZ, , might as well let them go, too, because they are not going to be killing him again.....because he is already dead!!!!!

simple, really, once you realize the danger can not be known before hand..and since afterwards, he will not be killing that person again......the whole world should thank Ekiwikie, especially all those prisoners turned back loose on the streets

he deserves the Nobel peace prize!!!!

world problem solved, well hellayouareahha....... :s mokin:
He's got a point though Markabilly. You can't always know if someone is truly dangerous till after they've done something.

Eki

10th July 2010, 22:11

He's got a point though Markabilly. You can't always know if someone is truly dangerous till after they've done something.

Correction: You can NEVER know for sure if someone is truly dangerous till after they've done something.

markabilly

10th July 2010, 22:29

He's got a point though Markabilly. You can't always know if someone is truly dangerous till after they've done something.

oh, I agree, and when you read what he was responding to...even more so.....

just because someone murders somebody, you have NEVER have a reason to think he is a danger and just might do it again.....NEVER

after all, you can only kill someone once

and I certainly wil now sleep much better knowing that if someone kills me, they will probably not kill me again

:roll:

And so since that eliminates the reason to lock them up and worse, well that barbaric, cruel, outrageous and unusual puishment must stop

and set those poor children free.....and even worse, why I heard some places are still killing killers, well the UN needs to stop that too

Oh happy days.....wonder if ekiwikie will give me a cut of his nobel peace prize winnings...

Ghostwalker

10th July 2010, 23:09

On Tuesday, a 41-year old man shot three people at a drive-in McDonalds in Finland:

http://yle.fi/uutiset/news/2010/07/remand_hearing_for_suspect_in_porvoo_shooting_1815 954.html

In 1997, he had been sentenced for life in prison for a murder and two attempted homicides. He was released in December 2009 after 12 years in prison:

In Finland, those sentenced for life are in average pardoned after 13 years:

http://yle.fi/uutiset/news/2010/07/prisoners_jailed_for_life_in_finland_serve_an_aver age_of_13_years_1813792.html

Should a life sentence really mean a life sentence? I'm not sure for first time offenders, but I think at least the second time it should. If they'll release this man again after another 13 years, he'll be about 54 and still a danger to the society, because it seems he doesn't learn.

we have a similar case here in Sweden where Mathias Flink, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mattias_Flink#The_mass_murder)who murdered 7 poeple 16 years ago,
have gotten his penalty converted from life, to 32 years in prison.
This means that he will be out after less then 2/3 ("good behaviour")
of the time since he will be released in 2015.

Imo 21 years is too short for someone who killed 7 poeple. Life should be life for such crimes.
If they want convert it to time it should be the length x the nr of people he killed.

Eki

11th July 2010, 00:33

we have a similar case here in Sweden where Mathias Flink, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mattias_Flink#The_mass_murder)who murdered 7 poeple 16 years ago,
have gotten his penalty converted from life, to 32 years in prison.
This means that he will be out after less then 2/3 ("good behaviour")
of the time since he will be released in 2015.

Imo 21 years is too short for someone who killed 7 poeple. Life should be life for such crimes.
If they want convert it to time it should be the length x the nr of people he killed.

Yes, that shows it's not perfectly safe to give guns to military persons either. On the same year that Flink commited his crime was a similar case in Finland:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mika_Muranen

maxu05

11th July 2010, 01:07

IMO, anyone that commits a crime that warrants life in prison, should be executed.

anthonyvop

11th July 2010, 02:43

Tbh there were major doubts about whether he was even involved and even parents of the victims didn't believe that he was the actual bomber....

Oh Please.....He was convicted in a court of law that gives the accused every benefit of the doubt.

Of course Libya gives a hero's welcome to people who didn't do anything.

markabilly

11th July 2010, 06:20

Oh Please.....He was convicted in a court of law that gives the accused every benefit of the doubt.

Of course Libya gives a hero's welcome to people who didn't do anything.
besides, he clearly will not be blowing up that airplane again and since as to doing other airplanes, buildings, buses et al, well that is not a justification, cause as the wikiekie says, " You can NEVER know for sure if someone is truly dangerous till after they've done something".....so let him go....

gee I guess that means only if they try and do not succeed, that you need to lock them up, because they might keep trying......... :dozey:

F1boat

11th July 2010, 12:47

Correction: You can NEVER know for sure if someone is truly dangerous till after they've done something.

I agree and I also think that those who trade freedom for security deserve neither.

markabilly

11th July 2010, 18:08

I agree and I also think that those who trade freedom for security deserve neither.
err, if you read the context of eki's statement, he was referencing the so-called opinion that one can not keep someone locked up, just because of some particular crime in the past, because you never know if someone is dangerous and might do that again.... :rolleyes:

Eki

11th July 2010, 18:25

err, if you read the context of eki's statement, he was referencing the so-called opinion that one can not keep someone locked up, just because of some particular crime in the past, because you never know if someone is dangerous and might do that again.... :rolleyes:
No, I was referring to Garry Walker's post. I said you shouldn't give a death penalty to those you suspect might be dangerous, because you don't know if they'll really be dangerous in the future. Heck, in some cases, you can't even be sure afterwards that they really did the murder they were accused of. Preemptive death penalty would be efficient, but you'd also kill many innocents in the process, which would be counterproductive.

markabilly

11th July 2010, 19:37

No, I was referring to Garry Walker's post. I said you shouldn't give a death penalty to those you suspect might be dangerous, because you don't know if they'll really be dangerous in the future. Heck, in some cases, you can't even be sure afterwards that they really did the murder they were accused of. Preemptive death penalty would be efficient, but you'd also kill many innocents in the process, which would be counterproductive.
duh, dude, you can not even read your own posts...walker said kill the killers...those who keep repeating heinous crimes over and over......to keep them from doing it in the future, and avoid wasting resources......... you come along, all screwed up as usual

F1boat

11th July 2010, 20:07

No, I was referring to Garry Walker's post. I said you shouldn't give a death penalty to those you suspect might be dangerous, because you don't know if they'll really be dangerous in the future. Heck, in some cases, you can't even be sure afterwards that they really did the murder they were accused of. Preemptive death penalty would be efficient, but you'd also kill many innocents in the process, which would be counterproductive.

Yes! IMO it is preferable, even if regrettable, to risk letting criminal escape that to punish an innocent man.
Of course, in case of proven acts of mayhem, maybe death penalty is medieval, but life sentence should be served appropriately.

Bob Riebe

11th July 2010, 23:46

Yes! IMO it is preferable, even if regrettable, to risk letting criminal escape that to punish an innocent man.
Of course, in case of proven acts of mayhem, maybe death penalty is medieval, but life sentence should be served appropriately.
Talk is cheap, and when it comes to the death penalty, there are some real bargins.

libra65

12th July 2010, 02:11

Life should mean LIFE. I like the sentences handed down that say Life in prison WITHOUT POSSIBILITY of parole. That is the only way to keep these killers off the street. I live in Pennsylvania and even when someone gets the death sentence here, they are more likely to die of old age in prison than be executed.

Roamy

12th July 2010, 04:33

there should be NO life in prison sentence. If you qualify for that you get death within 180 days = period end of story.

Mark in Oshawa

12th July 2010, 10:17

I am against the Death penalty for the most part, since I don't always feel that I trust some people in the prosecution business to not fudge the truth to get convictions at times. There are three prominent cases in this country alone that came to light in the last 10 years of guys condemned to life in prison where the cops/Crown Attorney's either fabricated or hid the truth of other evidence that led to the killer's being found not guilty. DNA usually helped in the end free these guys, but in some cases it was just inept defenses not being able to yell "BS" or "objection" enough to make the prosecution come clean.

So I am all for the life sentence, let them rot in jail for sure.....

That said, there are some killers where an idiot could figure out the guy did it, and in those cases, I suppose if the death penalty did come back, I would protest, but not too loudly in those cases.

I am a toss them in jail and throw the key kind of guy....

OH more question: Why is it if you are charged and convicted of Attemped Murder, you get a lighter sentence than if you succeeded? Talk about rewarding ineptitude...it is like saying, "If you killed this guy, we would give you life, but since you botched the job, here is a 10 year sentence, and see you in year 11 when you try again to finish the job?"

skotie jay

12th July 2010, 13:03

markabilly

12th July 2010, 15:16

personally if u can commit the crime do the time. if a person can take a life by either shooting some one or with there own hands they should be made to spend the rest of there life behind bars. In england life is 25 yrs which is a bit weak when u look over the pond to america where it is 90 yrs per murder.
our justice system is very soft on people that commit such evil acts of selfishness. least give them plenty of time to think bout what they have done imo.
Not really, we have credit for good time which means 90 years is really 30, and then in most harsh states, you are eligible for parole after serving a third of the sentence (which really means ten years of the 90 (actual 30) years or less)

At one point time, a life sentence in Texas, meant serving about an average of somewhere between 6 to 7 years in real years before being set loose :rolleyes:

Mark in Oshawa

12th July 2010, 19:34

Not really, we have credit for good time which means 90 years is really 30, and then in most harsh states, you are eligible for parole after serving a third of the sentence (which really means ten years of the 90 (actual 30) years or less)

At one point time, a life sentence in Texas, meant serving about an average of somewhere between 6 to 7 years in real years before being set loose :rolleyes:

In TEXAS!!!!???? Good lord, I thought it was just Canada that this liberal "catch and release" program going.

The sad lie is, even tough on crime jurisdictions don't want to spend the money to build the prisons to hold these guys to full terms. Prisons are expensive, and about half of the convicts in them CAN be rehabbed to some degree, so they just fastforward the process.

For some crimes, this maybe makes some sense, but in the case of murder, no....
For murder, the sentence should be exactly what is, no time served, no reductions, no parole.

Bob Riebe

12th July 2010, 23:21

markabilly

13th July 2010, 14:30

In TEXAS!!!!???? Good lord, I thought it was just Canada that this liberal "catch and release" program going.

The sad lie is, even tough on crime jurisdictions don't want to spend the money to build the prisons to hold these guys to full terms. Prisons are expensive, and about half of the convicts in them CAN be rehabbed to some degree, so they just fastforward the process.

For some crimes, this maybe makes some sense, but in the case of murder, no....
For murder, the sentence should be exactly what is, no time served, no reductions, no parole.
yeah, appearantly in Texas, they do give out the death penalty, but now it is by the needle....

in the trial, the choice is life in prison or death which is decided after the liability phase when and after the jury makes certain findings relating to the nastiness of the crime in the liabilty (quilty or not, and at what level--manslaughter, second degree murder, etc) phase

If it is the death penalty, they go to a form of solitary confinement and wait ten to thirty years or more (indeed, may even get a couple of new trials, the sentence commuted to life or whatever...)

If it is life, they do six years, and get out on parole... :eek: ....the thing is that the jury is NOT told the reality of their choice, and probably think life means life.....

Mark in Oshawa

13th July 2010, 14:34

markabilly

13th July 2010, 15:12

Well I know in Texas, you are more likely to get the death penalty, but if the public at large got it into their heads that life didn't mean life, a lot more people would be facing the death penalty. Because faced with the reality that the guy you convicted of murder might be out on the streets in 10 years, you might decide, screw it, he doesn't deserve the needle, but I will be damned if I want him moving next door either.....
That is why they do NOT tell them.......which is a way of lying to them....

okay the real choice is six years actual time in the pen, or death for this really nasty murder (which, by law, it must be, before they can consider the death penalty), so you know what the choice would be for most.....

OTOH, if he is locked away for life, the choice is much harder, but little do they know....

My suspicion is that many jurors have figured it out, so that is why they give the needle.....

Bob Riebe

13th July 2010, 16:34

Well I know in Texas, you are more likely to get the death penalty, but if the public at large got it into their heads that life didn't mean life, a lot more people would be facing the death penalty. Because faced with the reality that the guy you convicted of murder might be out on the streets in 10 years, you might decide, screw it, he doesn't deserve the needle, but I will be damned if I want him moving next door either.....
Mark, did you read about the perp here who boldly chose to be executed by firing squal.
The judge said- OK.
Well- suddenly the perp did not want to die, much less be shot to death, so he appealed.
To the credit of that legal system, and I cannot remember which state, the judge said, in a very shot time, screw you, and the sob was shot to death.