PDA

View Full Version : Sentencing



Kevin Bonham
14-09-2004, 04:32 AM
On another thread Matthew challenged me as follows (actually this is the censored version):


Try this: A "life sentence" should/should not be until death.

There. A nice simple question. Have a go. Let's see if you [can] make a decission and argue it.

Firstly, let's get a semantic issue out of the way. I don't agree with calling a sentence a "life sentence" unless it is exactly that - the remainder of an individual's life. So to make the question well formed perhaps it should read "The sentences for crimes which currently incur what are misleadingly described as life sentences should/should not be until death".

My answer is - in the vast majority of cases, "should not". Again, a semantic point - I do not mean this as a moral absolute. I just mean that if I was voting in a referendum on the issue, I would subjectively vote for "should not" (although I am open to being convinced otherwise if anyone's arguments are strong enough to do it). A selection of reasons, though I may add others later:

* There is unlikely to be much deterrence difference between the prospect of jail for 15-20 years and the prospect of permanent jail.
* At a certain stage of the prisoner's life they are also extremely unlikely to still be a danger to other people.
* A person's character is likely to change immensely over such a long period in jail. Does it make sense (except in physical terms) to say the person you are punishing is still "the same person"? I doubt it.
* Imprisonment is inordinately expensive. An imprisonment that serves little purpose punishes everybody to some small degree. This places an onus of proof on those wanting to keep a person who is no longer a danger in jail.

I'll add that there are some criminals who should never be released, namely those who are shown by psychiatric evidence to be a permanent danger to other people.

There you go Matt. Now I would like to see you eating a very big load of humble pie on your rubbish about me not having the courage to state a position one way or the other. Any lack of grace in your grovelling retraction will be viewed as evidence of moral inferiority. :lol: :hand:

antichrist
14-09-2004, 12:54 PM
Jesus' death sentence only lasted three days -- a record. Should he return we will lock him up until he really dies -- infinity if necessary.

Trent Parker
14-09-2004, 12:57 PM
Jesus' death sentence only lasted three days -- a record. Should he return we will lock him up until he really dies -- infinity if necessary.

They killed him then locked him up as well. And he still did the harry houdini!! :D

Garvinator
14-09-2004, 01:01 PM
They killed him then locked him up as well. And he still did the harry houdini!! :D
are you saying that jesus's crucifixion and resurrection was a magic trick ;) and just one big illusion.

antichrist
14-09-2004, 01:07 PM
KB, sorry for making your thread a low-brow affair. Hope it picks up.

antichrist
14-09-2004, 01:11 PM
They killed him then locked him up as well. And he still did the harry houdini!! :D

I have always thought that while JC was being crucified down here he was also up there as God probably laughing at all of us and having 50,000 organisms simultaneously. When Xians ask me why I say that I reply: well that is what I would be doing if I was God and the silly humans were stringing me up.

eclectic
14-09-2004, 02:35 PM
Jesus' death sentence only lasted three days -- a record. Should he return we will lock him up until he really dies -- infinity if necessary.

actually it wasn't three days

he was dead by sunset on the friday
he had risen by sunrise on the sunday

about thirty six hours or 1 1/2 days

eclectic

PHAT
14-09-2004, 05:42 PM
Firstly, let's get a semantic issue out of the way. I don't agree with calling a sentence a "life sentence" unless it is exactly that - the remainder of an individual's life. So to make the question well formed perhaps it should read "The sentences for crimes which currently incur what are misleadingly described as life sentences should/should not be until death".

I don't think you know how predictable you are, and I don't think you even try to hide your procliveties for dodging the question. I said, only 24 hours ago, "My advice, don't trust the bastard in any discussion - [KB] shifts the goal posts to where ever he has kicked the ball." Goooooo Kezza.

This is my thread and I set the goal posts. If you want, I can trundle the sight screen, but I set the posts.

I will clarify the question for you and then you may start again.

Should a person who is incarcerated for a term described as a "life sentence," remain incarcerated until his death?




There you go Matt. Now I would like to see you eating a very big load of humble pie on your rubbish about me not having the courage to state a position one way or the other. Any lack of grace in your grovelling retraction will be viewed as evidence of moral inferiority. :lol: :hand:

You seem to think that you should be paid $250/hr for being a ditch digger. For get it. You only half answered the simple question in your first paragraph

"I don't agree with calling a sentence a "life sentence" unless it is exactly that - the remainder of an individual's life." - KB

You then go on to list some of the pros & cons:

* There is unlikely to be much deterrence difference between the prospect of jail for 15-20 years and the prospect of permanent jail.
* At a certain stage of the prisoner's life they are also extremely unlikely to still be a danger to other people.
* A person's character is likely to change immensely over such a long period in jail. Does it make sense (except in physical terms) to say the person you are punishing is still "the same person"? I doubt it.
* Imprisonment is inordinately expensive. An imprisonment that serves little purpose punishes everybody to some small degree. This places an onus of proof on those wanting to keep a person who is no longer a danger in jail.

I'll add that there are some criminals who should never be released, namely those who are shown by psychiatric evidence to be a permanent danger to other people.

Big deal, this is what we all already know. Now note this: Nowhere here, have you answered yes or no to the question. Al you have done is wring your hands and say that on one hand yes, but on the other, no.


To help you out (since you apparently need someone to hold your hand on this) , here is the clarified question again. "Should a person who is incarcerated for a term described as a "life sentence," remain incarcerated until his death?" Yes or No. If you wish to place some specific limits, feel free to do so. But start with "yes" or "no".

eclectic
14-09-2004, 07:05 PM
Should a person who is incarcerated for a term described as a "life sentence," remain incarcerated until his death?


If two people participate in a murder and both get life where life means "never to be released" is the sentence equally just if both are sentenced at age 25 but one dies at 30 and the other at 95?

I take it that life means "the period of ones working life" and that offenders get paroled at 65 or 70.

If a person is to feel remorse for what they have done it's felt within the first five years of incarceration.

Beyond that time it contributes nothing to the offender's rehabilitation and if the sentence is excessively long the offender gets so used to being inside that renegotiating with the outside world sometimes often becomes a reason to not seek parole.

Fifteen years solitary confinement would be my idea of a "life sentence".

eclectic

arosar
14-09-2004, 07:11 PM
Fifteen years solitary confinement would be my idea of a "life sentence".

Is there such a sentence? I mean, is it even allowed as it seems quite cruel?

AR

eclectic
14-09-2004, 07:29 PM
Is there such a sentence? I mean, is it even allowed as it seems quite cruel?

AR

Arosar,

There probably is no such sentence but my dig here is that often people go to prison and inside are doing uni degrees getting fortnightly conjugal visits and what not to the extent that all they are suffering from is being restricted to within a confined area for x amont of time.

Perhaps if we were all put in a solitary confinement cell for a week when young and then told that if we break certain rules we can expect to get this but in a much large dose then we'd be "innoculated" against being tempted to do crime.

Then again, if some man comes home to find his wife helping some strange man (or even his best mate) to fix a screwdriver, I doubt he will be thinking "Oh! I might get life or go to the gallows for this ..." as he's emptying a shotgun into both of them.

To be fair, despite what the rating computation thread might infer, sentencing isn't a simple formula and I doubt sentences ever please both sides of a case.

And is the "public" (as portrayed by right wing radio shock jocks) ever appeased anyway?

eclectic

Kevin Bonham
14-09-2004, 07:57 PM
I will clarify the question for you and then you may start again.

Should a person who is incarcerated for a term described as a "life sentence," remain incarcerated until his death?

This question, as worded by you, is a no-brainer.

Because it is accepted within our institutions that what is called a "life sentence" is not really a full-life sentence, the answer is no.

And no, I was not moving the goalposts but doing my best to answer the question you posed as I understood it. If it meant something else it is your fault for not wording it clearly enough.

Actually I think the one moving the goalposts is you, because you will do anything to attempt to avoid or delay retracting what you said on the other thread. How very amoral. :lol:


Now note this: Nowhere here, have you answered yes or no to the question. Al you have done is wring your hands and say that on one hand yes, but on the other, no.

I will give you some credit and assume that this is trolling, although not very much because it is an extremely weak, lame and stupid example of the genre.

It is just like if you were asked "Should a chessplayer develop knights first and then bishops?" Anyone who answered "always knights" or "always bishops" is an idiot with a rating even lower than yours. The correct answer would be "Generally knights, except {insert discussion of cases where bishop is developed first} instead." That is an answer of the sort that I gave.


To help you out (since you apparently need someone to hold your hand on this) ,

Again Matthew blames the reader for his inability to write clearly, which he admits to by pointing out that the question is now "clarified".


here is the clarified question again. "Should a person who is incarcerated for a term described as a "life sentence," remain incarcerated until his death?" Yes or No. If you wish to place some specific limits, feel free to do so. But start with "yes" or "no".

No, unless it has also been stated that the life sentence includes a proviso that the prisoner never be released. Reason: the term "life sentence" does not carry the meaning of permanent imprisonment within our justice system.

Happy now?

Now, you morally deficient goalpost-shifting coward, about that retraction ... :lol:

Kevin Bonham
14-09-2004, 08:02 PM
KB, sorry for making your thread a low-brow affair. Hope it picks up.

Don't worry about it. My only purposes in starting this thread were to call Matthew's foolish bluff from another thread without him trashing it in the process, and to watch him wriggle and squirm as he evades his moralist's duty to retract. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Of course, if anyone wants to say anything intelligent on the issue of sentencing in the process, feel welcome.

Rhubarb
14-09-2004, 08:24 PM
* At a certain stage of the prisoner's life they are also extremely unlikely to still be a danger to other people.
* A person's character is likely to change immensely over such a long period in jail. Does it make sense (except in physical terms) to say the person you are punishing is still "the same person"? I doubt it.


Then again, if some man comes home to find his wife helping some strange man (or even his best mate) to fix a screwdriver, I doubt he will be thinking "Oh! I might get life or go to the gallows for this ..." as he's emptying a shotgun into both of them.

Hey, I saw The Shawshank Redemption too. ;)

PHAT
14-09-2004, 10:31 PM
This question, as worded by you, is a no-brainer.

Because it is accepted within our institutions that what is called a "life sentence" is not really a full-life sentence, the answer is no.

Clever boy :clap:

See how easy it is to answer a question when I hold your hand and walk you through the process.


And no, I was not moving the goalposts but doing my best to answer the question you posed as I understood it. If it meant something else it is your fault for not wording it clearly enough.

Yes


It is just like if you were asked "Should a chessplayer develop knights first and then bishops?" Anyone who answered "always knights" or "always bishops" is an idiot with a rating even lower than yours. The correct answer would be "Generally knights, except {insert discussion of cases where bishop is developed first} instead." That is an answer of the sort that I gave.




Again Matthew blames the reader for his inability to write clearly, which he admits to by pointing out that the question is now "clarified".

Bazzar logic. How can you say that I admit to blaming the reader for my sloppy wording, by clarifying the wording. You are throwing roundhouse punches hoping one will land. Mate, you are not as smart as youthink you are, and at times you do a stirling imitation of a total FW.




No, unless it has also been stated that the life sentence includes a proviso that the prisoner never be released. Reason: the term "life sentence" does not carry the meaning of permanent imprisonment within our justice system.

Happy now?


Yep. Now all you have to do is keep talking like a normal human being instead of a slime bag giving evidence at the ICAC.


Now, you morally deficient goalpost-shifting coward, about that retraction ... :lol:

Honestly, I don't recall what I am supposed to be retracting. What trivial pebble is in your shoe?

PHAT
14-09-2004, 10:37 PM
Back to the topic
No, unless it has also been stated that the life sentence includes a proviso that the prisoner never be released. Reason: the term "life sentence" does not carry the meaning of permanent imprisonment within our justice system.


Are you saying, in effect, that, if the law stated that "life" means "until death", Bloggs should die in gaol?

Kevin Bonham
14-09-2004, 11:01 PM
Bazzar logic. How can you say that I admit to blaming the reader for my sloppy wording, by clarifying the wording.

Your post was an inconsistent mess - most of it attempted to blame me for your sloppy wording but your use of "clarified" gave the game away and admitted that the fault was yours. (I didn't express this point very well above but it was my expression not my logic that was astray.)


Mate, you are not as smart as youthink you are, and at times you do a stirling imitation of a total FW.

You are the genuine article of an EFZ.


Yep. Now all you have to do is keep talking like a normal human being instead of a slime bag giving evidence at the ICAC.

Actually I was talking like someone who does care (which I do) about people not being left to rot in jail at everybody's expense for no good reason. If you think only a slimebag would articulate that point then that says a lot about you.


Honestly, I don't recall what I am supposed to be retracting. What trivial pebble is in your shoe?

You certainly are a trivial pebble, but you're not in my shoe, you're under it, getting stomped as usual.

Forgettable as it was, you're supposed to be retracting this:


For once I would like to see you declare yourself as pro or anti XYZ and defend the position. But you cannot, because all your arguments come back to your prefences and not your person standards - because you have no standards, you are amoral.

--


Are you saying, in effect, that, if the law stated that "life" means "until death", Bloggs should die in gaol?

No, but far from going "back on topic", that largely returns us to my response that you claimed to be off topic (after you moved your own goalposts.)

Also, if the law said "life" meant "until death" and there were prisoners being held "until death" without good reason because of it, then the law should be changed so they can be released at an appropriate stage. I would not want to argue the reverse because that would involve increasing a sentence outside its set range, which isn't fair.

JGB
14-09-2004, 11:06 PM
hey Kevin, or anyone else
why do we use the term 'life sentence', when a 'life' for prisoner is about 25 years? Are they referring to the average lifespan of someone sent to jail when this term was first used? Or is this the worth of another humans life... such and such will be sentinced for so long in jail (life sentence) because the life of the person murdered was worth this much (in years)?

antichrist
15-09-2004, 03:04 PM
Not specifically answering the question at hand (has never stopped me previously) I thought the Lebo rapist who received about ten years for intimidating a girl to preform a certain type of sex was maybe too severe. If intimidation was carried out with gun well maybe deserved.

But those Lebo rapists got up to 55 years jail. Now a Greek Aussie has done worse. He kicked a girl severely before raping. Will he get say 70 years to be consistent? I bet he does not get anything like 55 years.

antichrist
15-09-2004, 03:08 PM
moved to God exist thread

PHAT
15-09-2004, 05:40 PM
You are the genuine article of an EFZ. I try


Forgettable as it was, you're supposed to be retracting this:...

I see now that you can actually "declare yourself" when bludgened into doing so.


... if the law said "life" meant "until death" and there were prisoners being held "until death" without good reason because of it, then the law should be changed ...

What are those good reasons?

Kevin Bonham
16-09-2004, 01:32 AM
I try

Do you even know what EFZ stands for?


I see now that you can actually "declare yourself" when bludgened into doing so.

And I often do it without being "bludgeoned" (translation: calling Matt's unwise bluff) too. I'm curious Matt, what is your own historical involvement in political activism?


What are those good reasons?

Permanent danger to the community is the only one I can think of right now.