Do you oppose the death penalty? If so, why?

[Lord Zentei]

applying the letter of the law, which would be the case with mandatory sentancing in cases covered by the mandatory sentencing guidelines.

Fixed.

"Guidelines"? What the hell do you think the current situation is? This post is, in essence, a concession.

"A good stab at it"? That doesn't cut it.

So perfection or nothing?

Don't strawman me, buddy. You have already backed down on inviolate mandatory sentancing and replaced it with "guidelines". If you wanted a list of mandatory sentances that would cover all possible angles, with no interpretation being permitted by the judiciary, you would need it to be damn near perfect if you wanted no bullshit results to emerge.

And I have already mentioned that amazing thing called APPEALS.

Which cost money, time, distress for the victim's family or friends, even if successful.

Ditto for the family of the falsely accused.

Or maybe they are morons who don't consider cost-benefit in a rational manner.

Or maybe they're up against morons who attach far too high a value to human life and who fail to see how such a view can be detrimental to society .

Blah, blah, blah. How about if you drop the asinine appeal ad populem already, asstard?

You have done jack and shit in showing how this view is detrimental to society with a rational cost benefit analysis.

Actually the interesting thing is, people regularly attach monetary values to human life whenever they award compensation for the death of someone.

And this means what, in the way of excusing your appeal ad populem? Nothing much, really. Nor does it serve to provide proof that death penalties are neccesary.

[Ma Deuce]

My problems with the death penalty are purely practical, namely human error and the potential to execute innocents. Morally I have no problem with it whatsoever, since the worst criminals deserve such a fate, and many of this lot are beyond rehabilitation anyway. As suggested earlier, employing stricter evidence standards to death-penalty cases is one solution (which if are not met, the sentence would have to be commuted to life in prison at the very least), but I doubt even that would would eliminate the possibility of executing innocents. Even though I feel some criminals clearly deserve death, I'd rather pay to keep those scum behind bars for the rest of their lives (where at least they'll no longer be a threat to society) than have one innocent executed.

[Teleros]

Don't strawman me, buddy.

Well it sounded like a classic example of the perfectionist fallacy from over here. I mean, here I am implicitly stating when I say "we can have a good stab at it" that we can't get it perfect, and your response is "that isn't good enough".

You have already backed down on inviolate mandatory sentancing and replaced it with "guidelines".

A poor choice of words on my part too I admit: when I was writing it I was thinking of the automatic sentences for particular crimes / situations as informing (or guiding) any decisions made when a case not covered by them comes up.

If you wanted a list of mandatory sentances that would cover all possible angles, with no interpretation being permitted by the judiciary, you would need it to be damn near perfect if you wanted no bullshit results to emerge.

And given how hard (if not impossible) that would be, that's why I'm advising the above use of mandatory sentences to guide the judicial system when a situation not covered by those sentences inevitably crops up. Over time too you can review and update the mandatory sentences to include some of the new situations, thus improving the system and reducing the chance for any crazy results to emerge.

[Lord Zentei]

Don't strawman me, buddy.

Well it sounded like a classic example of the perfectionist fallacy from over here. I mean, here I am implicitly stating when I say "we can have a good stab at it" that we can't get it perfect, and your response is "that isn't good enough".

It is not perfectionism to note that legislators would be hard pressed to include innumerable permutations of sundry cases into the lawbooks, particularly since they have less experience with specific kinds of cases than judges do.

You have already backed down on inviolate mandatory sentancing and replaced it with "guidelines".

A poor choice of words on my part too I admit: when I was writing it I was thinking of the automatic sentences for particular crimes / situations as informing (or guiding) any decisions made when a case not covered by them comes up.

Even with "particular crimes/situations" there may well be additional qualifying circumstances the legislators had not considered. It's not just a matter of including certain types of crimes, but excluding combinations with circumstances that would alter the case in unforseeable ways.

Basically, you are expecting that legislators will be able to do the job of judges better than the judges despite:

• The judges are experienced in the types of cases they cover in a given instance as opposed to the legislators who have to compose laws covering all kinds of situations.
• The judges are able to assess the cases on an individual basis with all the relevant evidence on hand, while the legislators will have to anticipate them all in advance.
• The legislators are no less human than the judges are.

And this whole idea of "mandatory sentancing guidelines" for certain conditions and types of cases - apart from "mandatory guidelines" being a bit of an oxymoron - is irrelevant, since prescenents already exist and are available to the judge.

If you wanted a list of mandatory sentances that would cover all possible angles, with no interpretation being permitted by the judiciary, you would need it to be damn near perfect if you wanted no bullshit results to emerge.

And given how hard (if not impossible) that would be, that's why I'm advising the above use of mandatory sentences to guide the judicial system when a situation not covered by those sentences inevitably crops up. Over time too you can review and update the mandatory sentences to include some of the new situations, thus improving the system and reducing the chance for any crazy results to emerge.

That's what the presecents and appeals processes are for. There is no need to shove all that crap onto the legislature's table. Indeed, there is no basis to assume they would do a better job of it for reasons noted above (moreso since they have a load of other work to do).

[Teleros]

Even with "particular crimes/situations" there may well be additional qualifying circumstances the legislators had not considered. It's not just a matter of including certain types of crimes, but excluding combinations with circumstances that would alter the case in unforseeable ways.

Which is again why you should use the mandatory sentences as guidelines when such unconsidered situations arise. Later on, a Committee on Mandatory Sentencing or similar in Parliament can decide whether to make the sentences made this way a part of the official list of mandatory sentences, or modify them first for future cases. In this way you get an evolving but consistent system not subject to the whims of judges but that still takes their pronouncements in court into consideration.

Basically, you are expecting that legislators will be able to do the job of judges better than the judges

I think it's not so much a case of doing the job of judges but of limiting their options. Ultimately it is the job of judges to uphold and enforce the laws (and the spirit of the law) created by the legislature: when they consistently fail to do this (often in the face of precedent or by picking and choosing precedents to follow) then you either shrug your shoulders and say "what can we do?" or you stop them. You can have two identical premeditated murder cases in every way bar the judge, and due to this one criminal will be executed and the other gets 20 years in prison.

[Lord Zentei]

Even with "particular crimes/situations" there may well be additional qualifying circumstances the legislators had not considered. It's not just a matter of including certain types of crimes, but excluding combinations with circumstances that would alter the case in unforseeable ways.

Which is again why you should use the mandatory sentences as guidelines when such unconsidered situations arise. Later on, a Committee on Mandatory Sentencing or similar in Parliament can decide whether to make the sentences made this way a part of the official list of mandatory sentences, or modify them first for future cases. In this way you get an evolving but consistent system not subject to the whims of judges but that still takes their pronouncements in court into consideration.

What? You accept that it is not possible to anticipate all migitating circumstances in advance and therefore, one should use mandatory sentancing as opposed to judicial interpretation of law and prescedent? Have you taken a stupid pill?

Basically, you are expecting that legislators will be able to do the job of judges better than the judges

I think it's not so much a case of doing the job of judges but of limiting their options. Ultimately it is the job of judges to uphold and enforce the laws (and the spirit of the law) created by the legislature: when they consistently fail to do this (often in the face of precedent or by picking and choosing precedents to follow) then you either shrug your shoulders and say "what can we do?" or you stop them. You can have two identical premeditated murder cases in every way bar the judge, and due to this one criminal will be executed and the other gets 20 years in prison.

You are doing the judge's job if you are limiting their options to specific parameters, genius. Of course you can claim that judges can ignore prescedent, but guess what, if they do, you can appeal.

Moreover, you are going to get far more cases with varied circumstances than identical ones. And you ignored the point regarding the greater trust you seem to put into the legislature than the judiciary, even though the advantage vis-a-vis understanding particular kinds of cases rests with the latter, for reasons I showed earler.

[Teleros]

What? You accept that it is not possible to anticipate all migitating circumstances in advance and therefore, one should use mandatory sentancing as opposed to judicial interpretation of law and prescedent? Have you taken a stupid pill?

No, I said you should use "judicial interpretation of the law and precedents" based on, or guided by, mandatory sentencing when those mandatory sentences do not apply. Unless you want to abolish the judiciary and have it all done within the legislature or something (!) it seems like the most sensible way of using mandatory sentences.

You are doing the judge's job if you are limiting their options to specific parameters, genius.

Not really. Judges are there to uphold, enforce and, in the case of uncertainty, interpret, the law. Legislatures are there to create the laws - and that includes setting up specific punishments for specific crimes. Murder is a crime and punishable by anything from imprisonment to murder not because of the judges, but because of the legislatures creating the law that made murder a crime and specified its punishment(s).

Of course you can claim that judges can ignore prescedent, but guess what, if they do, you can appeal.

Moreover, you are going to get far more cases with varied circumstances than identical ones.

That depends on the range of crimes you're considering for mandatory sentences. It's not hard to narrow down reasons for murder for example:
1. Crime of passion.
2. Insanity.
3. Premeditated.
4. To carry out another crime (eg theft, burglary).
5. Whilst committing another crime (eg theft, burglary).
6. Casual.
Etc etc etc.
Now of course that little list up there is hardly conclusive (took what? 30 seconds to write up?), but it does I hope help show that, in some cases, it would be relatively easy to come up with mandatory sentences. Now if I were to argue for mandatory sentencing for theft, well... let's just say that really would be a hard one.

And you ignored the point regarding the greater trust you seem to put into the legislature than the judiciary, even though the advantage vis-a-vis understanding particular kinds of cases rests with the latter, for reasons I showed earler.

I tend to put greater trust in a legislature because they are accountable: for all the things done "in our name", we can at least kick the politicians out if we're fed up - not so with judges.
Anyway, as for particular cases, what I'm trying to do is create a legal system where the courts' primary role is to find out what happened, then, if a mandatory sentence is required, to use it, and if not then to arrive at a sentence like they do now (but bearing in mind what I've said earlier about using mandatory sentences to guide the court's decision). It's not as if there's not room for manoeuvre after all.

[Lord Zentei]

What? You accept that it is not possible to anticipate all migitating circumstances in advance and therefore, one should use mandatory sentancing as opposed to judicial interpretation of law and prescedent? Have you taken a stupid pill?

No, I said you should use "judicial interpretation of the law and precedents" based on, or guided by, mandatory sentencing when those mandatory sentences do not apply. Unless you want to abolish the judiciary and have it all done within the legislature or something (!) it seems like the most sensible way of using mandatory sentences.

And that is precisely the issue, fool. Who creates the mandatory sentance cannot anticipate the migitating circumstances. Therefore, the mandatory sentance may be applicable in cases where it should not apply.

You are doing the judge's job if you are limiting their options to specific parameters, genius.

Not really. Judges are there to uphold, enforce and, in the case of uncertainty, interpret, the law. Legislatures are there to create the laws - and that includes setting up specific punishments for specific crimes. Murder is a crime and punishable by anything from imprisonment to murder not because of the judges, but because of the legislatures creating the law that made murder a crime and specified its punishment(s).

Blah, blah, blah. See above.

Of course you can claim that judges can ignore prescedent, but guess what, if they do, you can appeal.

Moreover, you are going to get far more cases with varied circumstances than identical ones.

That depends on the range of crimes you're considering for mandatory sentences. It's not hard to narrow down reasons for murder for example:
1. Crime of passion.
2. Insanity.
3. Premeditated.
4. To carry out another crime (eg theft, burglary).
5. Whilst committing another crime (eg theft, burglary).
6. Casual.
Etc etc etc.
Now of course that little list up there is hardly conclusive (took what? 30 seconds to write up?), but it does I hope help show that, in some cases, it would be relatively easy to come up with mandatory sentences. Now if I were to argue for mandatory sentencing for theft, well... let's just say that really would be a hard one.

Screwed up the quote tags there, didn't you?

You are an idiot if you think that any such list can be made exhaustive to the point of allowing for mandatory sentances or that your brief list demonstrated anything of the kind. These broad classifications have nothing to do with the migitating circumstances that may arise.

And you ignored the point regarding the greater trust you seem to put into the legislature than the judiciary, even though the advantage vis-a-vis understanding particular kinds of cases rests with the latter, for reasons I showed earler.

I tend to put greater trust in a legislature because they are accountable: for all the things done "in our name", we can at least kick the politicians out if we're fed up - not so with judges.

Are you stupid? You think that specific laws can become election issues to the extent that they can be fine tuned by the sheeple? Or that the sheeple are competent to know what laws are just in specific instances?

You think that because someone is elected (with a plethora of issues arising on his platform, many of which will be unrelated) he becomes more "accountable" when judges can be disbarred for specific screwups?

Not that judges aren't elected in many cases: unfortunate since that politicises a process which should be as objective as possible.

Anyway, as for particular cases, what I'm trying to do is create a legal system where the courts' primary role is to find out what happened, then, if a mandatory sentence is required, to use it, and if not then to arrive at a sentence like they do now (but bearing in mind what I've said earlier about using mandatory sentences to guide the court's decision). It's not as if there's not room for manoeuvre after all.

And if the mandatory sentance is retarded (because the case meets conditions that were placed upon the law but also other conditions that were not anticipated), the judge has his hands tied, as in the exaple I cited already. Lovely.

[Qwerty 42]

As I recall, there was an article here a few weeks ago regarding a sitution with a minimum sentence, I'll try to find it.

[Plekhanov]

For those who've said they think there should be the death penalty for rape and/or paedophilia does it not occur to you that this would give rapists & paedophiles who might not have done otherwise a strong motivation to kill their victims?

Think about it a moment:
If a rapist faces the death penalty for rape then he may as well kill the victim so she can't identify him, after all if he gets caught he's dead anyway so he may as well take out the any witnesses, it's not as if they can kill him twice or anything.

[Zor]

I am going to say that i don't support it on both moral and practical grounds.

On practicality grounds, as well as the fact that innocents might get executed by mistake, execution also removes any chance of Rehabilitation, just leaving the world with two corpses insted of one. And history has proven that on practical grounds brutal punishments are ineffective in terms of deturing crime.

On moral grounds, i am opposed to inflicting death and pain whenever there is a practical alternative, which is the case. The right of sapient beings to exist is the most fundamental right of them all, even if they are scum. I am also oposed to retributative violence in general.

Zor

[Jericho Kross]

Why should we let killers of the hook that easy. They deserve to rot in prison. Not to mention most don't get executed right away and it gives those who are innocent a chance to get free.

[Teleros]

And that is precisely the issue, fool. Who creates the mandatory sentance cannot anticipate the migitating circumstances. Therefore, the mandatory sentance may be applicable in cases where it should not apply.

Maybe that's why I've been saying I'd use the courts to investigate any mitigating circumstances .

You are an idiot if you think that any such list can be made exhaustive to the point of allowing for mandatory sentances or that your brief list demonstrated anything of the kind. These broad classifications have nothing to do with the migitating circumstances that may arise.

Well what would you think counts as a suitable "mitigating circumstance" for, say, forcibly raping someone? I'm not talking about whether you actually did or not, but what sort of circumstances might make this any less of a crime? Claiming insanity would be one, and being forced to (say threat to your family) another, but what else?

You think that because someone is elected (with a plethora of issues arising on his platform, many of which will be unrelated) he becomes more "accountable" when judges can be disbarred for specific screwups?

And when was the last time a judge was disbarred for screwing up a case (leaving aside blackmail, conflict of interests and whatnot)? Yes it's a lovely theory but it doesn't work in practice.

Not that judges aren't elected in many cases: unfortunate since that politicises a process which should be as objective as possible.

Makes them more accountable than the ones this side of the pond.

[Lonestar]

I oppose it on practical grounds. Hell I even support it...if the case was frickin' ironclad with the whole gamut of physical evidence supporting the court's case. 90 or even 95% of all convictions?

Nope.

[Rye]

I don't mind the notion of killing the worst of the worst, but I wouldn't trust any justice system in the world with the lives of either myself or those I love. It would fucking suck for Stofsk if Australia had the death penalty, wouldn't it?

[Raesene]

I don't mind the notion of killing the worst of the worst, but I wouldn't trust any justice system in the world with the lives of either myself or those I love. It would fucking suck for Stofsk if Australia had the death penalty, wouldn't it?

I've been thinking about that for last few days...

I hope Australia has a similar system like Austria - if the professional judges consider the verdict of the jury wrong because they did not consider some point, the process must be repeated. (spoken as an amateur). That puts a brake on the jury running wild.

Why should we let killers of the hook that easy. They deserve to rot in prison. Not to mention most don't get executed right away and it gives those who are innocent a chance to get free.

Only if someone bothers to investigate again.

[Lord Zentei]

And that is precisely the issue, fool. Who creates the mandatory sentance cannot anticipate the migitating circumstances. Therefore, the mandatory sentance may be applicable in cases where it should not apply.

Maybe that's why I've been saying I'd use the courts to investigate any mitigating circumstances .

You are a fucking moron.

If there are mandatory sentances, the migitating circumstances are not relevant, because the courts cannot hand out a lower sentance anyway.

You are an idiot if you think that any such list can be made exhaustive to the point of allowing for mandatory sentances or that your brief list demonstrated anything of the kind. These broad classifications have nothing to do with the migitating circumstances that may arise.

Well what would you think counts as a suitable "mitigating circumstance" for, say, forcibly raping someone? I'm not talking about whether you actually did or not, but what sort of circumstances might make this any less of a crime? Claiming insanity would be one, and being forced to (say threat to your family) another, but what else?

So, you are asking me to name a migitating circumstance for a crime; after which you'll presumably say "lol, then we include that in the list of permutations". Fuck off.

You think that because someone is elected (with a plethora of issues arising on his platform, many of which will be unrelated) he becomes more "accountable" when judges can be disbarred for specific screwups?

And when was the last time a judge was disbarred for screwing up a case (leaving aside blackmail, conflict of interests and whatnot)? Yes it's a lovely theory but it doesn't work in practice.

Bullshit It happens.

And you are ignoring the appeals process. Again.

Not that judges aren't elected in many cases: unfortunate since that politicises a process which should be as objective as possible.

Makes them more accountable than the ones this side of the pond.

"Accountable" -- to what? The whims of the sheeple? The party line?

Or to the rule of law?

Nice to see that you snipped the bulk of my post, there -- I surmise this is because you have nothing to respond with to it?

[Knife]

Why should we let killers of the hook that easy. They deserve to rot in prison.

I've never understood this line of reasoning, considering that one of the major complaints about the Death Penalty is that it's cruel. People who say it's better to let them rot in prison are being more cruel I think that a quick death, if in fact the person was going to spend his/her entire life rotting in prison.

Obviously though, if you're innocent, rotting in prison still allows for the hope of being released.