Ridiculously Light Court Rulings

[Imperial Esplanade]

I thinks it's pretty easy to think of a case in which the law was excessively harsh and unfair. But what about cases in which the person(s) on trial did not receive a punishment that even reached the level at which it could be deemed as being proportional to the crime? Have you heard of such cases? Can the Law be too "light"?

In my opinion the single most ridiculous case has to be the one of Pedro Lopez. A known serial killer who was arrested and convicted for murdering/raping 110 girls, although he confessed to 300. Despite being caught in 1980 he was classified as mentally insane and put into a psychiatric hospital; from which he was released in 1998 for "good behavior". Currently nobody knows where he is. I think he should have been sentenced to death or at least a life in prison; letting a person deemed mentally insane, and a known murderer, walk out of their respective institution is simply bs.

If someone is a murder or a rapist, they should be thrown into a gulag, executed by firing squad, or both.
Regardless of mental health.

Cute, until you find out that you unintentionally killed someone who was either falsely accused or wrongfully convicted - and the real perpetrator of the crime is still out there.

[Kartofian]

Secondly, I see no reason that the execution of mass-murderers of any mental health should be considered an ill-informed or unjustified position

It opens the door to executing people who are mentally incompetent because of age. You know, children. Plus, what good does a punishment do if you don't understand what you're being punished for in the first place? Answer: none.

Ad hoc laws aside if someone is proven in court to be a mass murderer then they should get executed, yes children and mentally unsound people included. Never herd of a child mass killer, but i see no reason for them to get special treatment.

[Impireacht]

It opens the door to executing people who are mentally incompetent because of age. You know, children. Plus, what good does a punishment do if you don't understand what you're being punished for in the first place? Answer: none.

Ad hoc laws aside if someone is proven in court to be a mass murderer then they should get executed, yes children and mentally unsound people included. Never herd of a child mass killer, but i see no reason for them to get special treatment.

Agreed. Accidentally pulling a trigger on a gun they found in daddy's closet is one thing, intentionally killing multiple people is another, and should be punishable by death with no loopholes or ways out.

[Telconi]

If someone is a murder or a rapist, they should be thrown into a gulag, executed by firing squad, or both.
Regardless of mental health.

Cute, until you find out that you unintentionally killed someone who was either falsely accused or wrongfully convicted - and the real perpetrator of the crime is still out there.

I think criminal punishment is the discussion. To lighten punishments on convicted criminals because they could be innocent is foolish. Inevitably mistakes will occur, but the solution is to increase the accuracy and effectiveness of the trial system, not to allow sentencing to be paralyzed by doubt.

[Imperial Esplanade]

Cute, until you find out that you unintentionally killed someone who was either falsely accused or wrongfully convicted - and the real perpetrator of the crime is still out there.

I think criminal punishment is the discussion. To lighten punishments on convicted criminals because they could be innocent is foolish. Inevitably mistakes will occur, but the solution is to increase the accuracy and effectiveness of the trial system, not to allow sentencing to be paralyzed by doubt.

I didn't say a single thing about paralyzing the legal system, so I'm not even sure as to why you bring it up unless you think that avoiding a barbaric "eye for an eye" sort of punative style is "paralyzing the legal system" somehow.

[Telconi]

I think criminal punishment is the discussion. To lighten punishments on convicted criminals because they could be innocent is foolish. Inevitably mistakes will occur, but the solution is to increase the accuracy and effectiveness of the trial system, not to allow sentencing to be paralyzed by doubt.

I didn't say a single thing about paralyzing the legal system, so I'm not even sure as to why you bring it up unless you think that avoiding a barbaric "eye for an eye" sort of punative style is "paralyzing the legal system" somehow.

Your objection to his proposal was based upon the wrongful conviction of a person. Defining punishment based upon a doubt of the person's guilt is paralyzing. If you are searching for an appropriate punishment for someone who may be innocent, you're making a mistake.

[Imperial Esplanade]

I didn't say a single thing about paralyzing the legal system, so I'm not even sure as to why you bring it up unless you think that avoiding a barbaric "eye for an eye" sort of punative style is "paralyzing the legal system" somehow.

Your objection to his proposal was based upon the wrongful conviction of a person. Defining punishment based upon a doubt of the person's guilt is paralyzing. If you are searching for an appropriate punishment for someone who may be innocent, you're making a mistake.

My point is that the situation is typically much more complicated and ambiguous than an obvious black-or-white guilt or innocence. Anyone who has sat in jury duty before knows how important it is to be deliberate in the grey areas that frequently exist. Also, it's not like there aren't other options available for sentencing aside from execution of anything.......

[Telconi]

Your objection to his proposal was based upon the wrongful conviction of a person. Defining punishment based upon a doubt of the person's guilt is paralyzing. If you are searching for an appropriate punishment for someone who may be innocent, you're making a mistake.

My point is that the situation is typically much more complicated and ambiguous than an obvious black-or-white guilt or innocence. Anyone who has sat in jury duty before knows how important it is to be deliberate in the grey areas that frequently exist. Also, it's not like there aren't other options available for sentencing aside from execution of anything.......

Yes, but that's the purpose of a trial. Once convicted, sentencing should carry out on the presumption of guilt. You're right, we could give murderers frowny face stickers that say "Bad Little Boy/Girl". But that wouldn't be an effective punishment would it?

[Audioslavia]

People who get off light for their crimes?

Their called women.

Hi Donut Section.

We're not fans of this kind of thing right here. Please lay off the massive sweeping generalizations. It looks too much like flamebait to me.

Cheers,

Audio.

[Herskerstad]

The recent Swedish livestreamed rape had the offenders get slapped with up to 2,5 year sentences and no deportation.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-swede ... =applenews

Sweden, setting an example.

[Imperial Esplanade]

My point is that the situation is typically much more complicated and ambiguous than an obvious black-or-white guilt or innocence. Anyone who has sat in jury duty before knows how important it is to be deliberate in the grey areas that frequently exist. Also, it's not like there aren't other options available for sentencing aside from execution of anything.......

Yes, but that's the purpose of a trial. Once convicted, sentencing should carry out on the presumption of guilt. You're right, we could give murderers frowny face stickers that say "Bad Little Boy/Girl". But that wouldn't be an effective punishment would it?

All I have to say is that stiff prison sentences are a far cry from handing out stickers, I also doubt this conversation is capable of going past the content-level of being superficial and sarcastic.

[Camicon]

I didn't do that, actually. And regardless of what crime someone might commit, I don't think that the state should be executing them.

It opens the door to executing people who are mentally incompetent because of age. You know, children. Plus, what good does a punishment do if you don't understand what you're being punished for in the first place? Answer: none.

Executions are more expensive, and retribution is not the purpose of the justice system.

Google is your friend.

Haven't done that either.


Self-imposed ignorance it is, then.

1.

Advocating the execution of people who are mentally unable of understanding what they were doing is an opinion that is generally frowned upon, because to be held responsible for the things you've done you have to be able to understand them.

This is why a young child who accidentally kills someone when playing with Daddy's unlocked and loaded handgun isn't put on death row. This is why people who are the mental age of young children, and are similarly unable to understand cause and effect, aren't put on death row.

Really, you didn't say that? Because this post says otherwise.

2. I was stressing the point that the justice system isn't for retribution, but rather to decrease crime rates and increase public safety. This is usually done through rehabilitation, but in cases that rehabilitation would be risky, execution is an efficient way of dealing with a criminal's threat to society.

3. Seeing as most of that cost is due to our complex legal system and the pretty damn massive expense of hiring lawyers, is that really a problem with capital punishment, or rather with our legal system?

4.

Didn't take long for this thread to turn into an ITG dick measuring contest. How quaint.

Again, pretty sure that you did say that... I mean, if you can't remember what you said a day ago, at least check the previous page and read your own posts.

5. While I actually agree with you on the point of women being treated with more leniency, calling someone ignorant repeatedly is a good way to get a mod in here warning you, and we all know once a mod enters a thread it's only a matter of days before things escalate and we have a few bans and a locked thread.

1. That wasn't a comparison. I was using a hypothetical to explain why having execution be the mandatory sentence for murder and rape is a terrible idea.

2. If you want to decrease crime rates and increase public safety, then you should be advocating for a rehabilitative, rather than a punitive, justice system. Incidentally, rehabilitative justice systems don't utilize execution.

3. Take away the red tape and more innocent people will be murdered on death row. Sure, you can make it easier to execute people, if you don't care about the state executing innocent citizens.

4. I did not dismiss any arguments with that post, nor war I whining; merely noting the lovely kinds of posts that this thread was bringing out.

5. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge or information about a given subject or topic. If I say "you are ignorant about X" I am not saying "you are stupid", I am saying "you don't know anything about, or understand, X". When I say that Calladan is ignorant, and has chosen to remain ignorant, I am saying that they do not understand or know nothing about the topic, and are choosing not to correct that state of affairs. That's not a flame or bait, unless the rules have changed without my knowing and noting someone's lack of knowledge or understanding about something is now forbidden; that would make debate quite difficult.

Not sure why you felt the need to comment on a post that wasn't addressed to you, but whatever...

People who get off light for their crimes?

Their called women.

Hi Donut Section.

We're not fans of this kind of thing right here. Please lay off the massive sweeping generalizations. It looks too much like flamebait to me.

Cheers,

Audio.

The gender disparity in sentencing is well documented. This is less a generalization and more a statement of fact. It's no more a flamebait than saying white people receive lighter sentences than black people (another well documented sentencing disparity).

[Valgora]

Hi Donut Section.

We're not fans of this kind of thing right here. Please lay off the massive sweeping generalizations. It looks too much like flamebait to me.

Cheers,

Audio.

The gender disparity in sentencing is well documented. This is less a generalization and more a statement of fact. It's no more a flamebait than saying white people receive lighter sentences than black people (another well documented sentencing disparity).

I'd call it more of an over simplification.

[Audioslavia]

The gender disparity in sentencing is well documented. This is less a generalization and more a statement of fact. It's no more a flamebait than saying white people receive lighter sentences than black people (another well documented sentencing disparity).

Walking into the thread and leaving a incendiary two-line shitpost that adds nothing to the conversation is close to flamebait, hence the mod reaction. If they'd written what you'd written in the quote above they'd be fine.

[Tobiasia]

People who get off light for their crimes?

Their called women.

Oh aren't you just adorable. Also, if we're to understand what you're attempting to get at, it would be 'they're'.

How about Brock Turner, and other similar instances? There's plenty of murder cases where the punishment didn't seem to fit the crime for whatever reason, though one of the most egregious has already been mentioned here.

The insanity plea - here's my problem with it. Sane people do not go out and kill others for shits and giggles. The lack of 'sanity' there is a fecking given. This idea that 'oh, lost my mind at the time, didn't know what I was doing' is a valid defense in a number of these cases is absolutely ridiculous. They knew exactly what they were doing, temporary insanity is largely a cop-out with rare exception, and the only people for whom a plea of mental deficiency ought to stick are those who have actual mental deficiencies, or the actual proven disability to understand what they were doing is wrong - another rarity, and not generally one associated with serial killers, or repeat offenders.

There are more crimes for which some people will never a) recover from, b) achieve full rehabilitation from, c) be able to reintegrate into society after. And for those, can't help but think we would all be better off without - no need to stockpile, no need to pay for a pointless stretch of imprisonment that all too often simply adds to their criminality and does nothing to actually rehabilitate in the first place, and no need to prolong their punishment, or the suffering of their victim's surviving kin at the taxpayer's cost. Those bolt guns they use on cattle? We're told those are 'humane'. Pretty certain the cost of that is a number of degrees less than the drugs that don't always work, no potential slip-ups like the chair, or hanging, no possible suffering from bullets gone amiss ...

Yeah. Not a popular position I'm sure, but there you have it. A quick relatively humane death seems preferable to me, all things considered. Certainly more humane than what happened to the victims in any case.

But you have forgotten. Grammar is for experts. The people who are overlooked by the liberal elite don't have to use grammar.

[Camicon]

The gender disparity in sentencing is well documented. This is less a generalization and more a statement of fact. It's no more a flamebait than saying white people receive lighter sentences than black people (another well documented sentencing disparity).

Walking into the thread and leaving a incendiary two-line shitpost that adds nothing to the conversation is close to flamebait, hence the mod reaction. If they'd written what you'd written in the quote above they'd be fine.

Apologies in advance for the tangent, but...

The above describes 90% of all shitposting. Is moderation considering adding that to the verboten list, or identifying it as a specific kind of flamebait?

[Hirota]

Yeah - because the guy who raped an unconscious woman behind a dumpster in an American college - CLEARLY a woman. Not sure why I didn't see it before.

And the woman who got sent to jail for jaywalking when a drunk driver hit her daughter (and he got - I think - 6 points, a fine and maybe six months?) - clearly not a woman.

I am not certain your argument holds water.

Your two anecdotal examples certainly hold very little.

But your right, donut's post is very thin on details. Lets solidify that shall we?

Standard disclaimer - it's worth pointing out that the social sciences are not exactly the most reliable when it comes to following the scientific method. Sometimes studies are not reproducable, for instance.

Estimating Gender Disparities in Federal Criminal Cases

I'll summarise a couple of key points:

This study claims that men receive sentences that are 63 percent higher, on average, than their female counterparts.
This study also claims that females arrested for a crime are also significantly more likely to avoid charges and convictions entirely, and twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted.

(Incidentally the same professor wrote a study on the Racial Disparity in Federal Criminal Charging and its Sentencing Consequences)

It's not the first time this has been reported either, although this study is arguably the most credible.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I thinks it's pretty easy to think of a case in which the law was excessively harsh and unfair. But what about cases in which the person(s) on trial did not receive a punishment that even reached the level at which it could be deemed as being proportional to the crime? Have you heard of such cases? Can the Law be too "light"?

In my opinion the single most ridiculous case has to be the one of Pedro Lopez. A known serial killer who was arrested and convicted for murdering/raping 110 girls, although he confessed to 300. Despite being caught in 1980 he was classified as mentally insane and put into a psychiatric hospital; from which he was released in 1998 for "good behavior". Currently nobody knows where he is. I think he should have been sentenced to death or at least a life in prison; letting a person deemed mentally insane, and a known murderer, walk out of their respective institution is simply bs.

The law can be too light, but that's what defense lawyers are getting paid to do, to get you out of a harsh sentence, or to get you a "not-guilty" verdict. The prosecutor takes care of the "guilty" verdict and get a sentence proportional to the crime.

It's a staple of our system of justice, that people are entitled to a vigorous, candid defense and for a fair trial in court.

[Unrepentant Piracy]

I thinks it's pretty easy to think of a case in which the law was excessively harsh and unfair. But what about cases in which the person(s) on trial did not receive a punishment that even reached the level at which it could be deemed as being proportional to the crime? Have you heard of such cases? Can the Law be too "light"?

In my opinion the single most ridiculous case has to be the one of Pedro Lopez. A known serial killer who was arrested and convicted for murdering/raping 110 girls, although he confessed to 300. Despite being caught in 1980 he was classified as mentally insane and put into a psychiatric hospital; from which he was released in 1998 for "good behavior". Currently nobody knows where he is. I think he should have been sentenced to death or at least a life in prison; letting a person deemed mentally insane, and a known murderer, walk out of their respective institution is simply bs.

If someone is a murder or a rapist, they should be thrown into a gulag, executed by firing squad, or both.
Regardless of mental health.

Murder is a very subjective issue when it comes to ethics. For example, your serial killers, your mass killers, and basically anyone who kills for enjoyment- sure, do what you will with 'em.

But then you have your less clear-cut killers: revenge murderers, vigilantes, killers for hire, etc. What are you going to do with them? Let's not be moralistic here: some of these people weren't necessarily wrong for what they did. You gotta examine it on a case-by-case basis. Kid kills his mom b/c he couldn't go to a concert? No, that's wrong. Prostitute kills her pimp 'cuz he had been abusing her? Maybe not so bad. Guy kills a man who had done terrible things to his daughter? I dunno, maybe give the guy a medal.

You gotta look at things less black-and-whitely.

[Unrepentant Piracy]

Everyone who's committed homicide and not been executed.

I just wanna ask you, what about justifiable homicide?



Basically it all boils down to this: the law and your personal sense of justice might not always agree. What do you do with that?

[Valgora]

Everyone who's committed homicide and not been executed.

I just wanna ask you, what about justifiable homicide?



Basically it all boils down to this: the law and your personal sense of justice might not always agree. What do you do with that?

There's self-defense, and if you kill someone in self-defense it's justifiable.
However, that's based off of a very vague understanding of the law in the U.S. which could be different depending on the state.

Homicide for revenge, depending on why you want revenge, could be justifiable.
So laws could be made and/or changed to create certain standards for revenge making the homicide justifiable.

[Valgora]

If someone is a murder or a rapist, they should be thrown into a gulag, executed by firing squad, or both.
Regardless of mental health.

Murder is a very subjective issue when it comes to ethics. For example, your serial killers, your mass killers, and basically anyone who kills for enjoyment- sure, do what you will with 'em.

But then you have your less clear-cut killers: revenge murderers, vigilantes, killers for hire, etc. What are you going to do with them? Let's not be moralistic here: some of these people weren't necessarily wrong for what they did. You gotta examine it on a case-by-case basis. Kid kills his mom b/c he couldn't go to a concert? No, that's wrong. Prostitute kills her pimp 'cuz he had been abusing her? Maybe not so bad. Guy kills a man who had done terrible things to his daughter? I dunno, maybe give the guy a medal.

You gotta look at things less black-and-whitely.

I see your point.
I honestly should have elaborated more when I made that post.

[Impireacht]

1.

Really, you didn't say that? Because this post says otherwise.

2. I was stressing the point that the justice system isn't for retribution, but rather to decrease crime rates and increase public safety. This is usually done through rehabilitation, but in cases that rehabilitation would be risky, execution is an efficient way of dealing with a criminal's threat to society.

3. Seeing as most of that cost is due to our complex legal system and the pretty damn massive expense of hiring lawyers, is that really a problem with capital punishment, or rather with our legal system?

4.
Again, pretty sure that you did say that... I mean, if you can't remember what you said a day ago, at least check the previous page and read your own posts.

5. While I actually agree with you on the point of women being treated with more leniency, calling someone ignorant repeatedly is a good way to get a mod in here warning you, and we all know once a mod enters a thread it's only a matter of days before things escalate and we have a few bans and a locked thread.

1. That wasn't a comparison. I was using a hypothetical to explain why having execution be the mandatory sentence for murder and rape is a terrible idea.

2. If you want to decrease crime rates and increase public safety, then you should be advocating for a rehabilitative, rather than a punitive, justice system. Incidentally, rehabilitative justice systems don't utilize execution.

3. Take away the red tape and more innocent people will be murdered on death row. Sure, you can make it easier to execute people, if you don't care about the state executing innocent citizens.

4. I did not dismiss any arguments with that post, nor war I whining; merely noting the lovely kinds of posts that this thread was bringing out.

5. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge or information about a given subject or topic. If I say "you are ignorant about X" I am not saying "you are stupid", I am saying "you don't know anything about, or understand, X". When I say that Calladan is ignorant, and has chosen to remain ignorant, I am saying that they do not understand or know nothing about the topic, and are choosing not to correct that state of affairs. That's not a flame or bait, unless the rules have changed without my knowing and noting someone's lack of knowledge or understanding about something is now forbidden; that would make debate quite difficult.

Not sure why you felt the need to comment on a post that wasn't addressed to you, but whatever...

Hi Donut Section.

We're not fans of this kind of thing right here. Please lay off the massive sweeping generalizations. It looks too much like flamebait to me.

Cheers,

Audio.

The gender disparity in sentencing is well documented. This is less a generalization and more a statement of fact. It's no more a flamebait than saying white people receive lighter sentences than black people (another well documented sentencing disparity).

1. Alright then, it just looked a hell of a lot like a comparison...

2. As I stated earlier, I actually support rehabilitative punishment in cases where rehabilitation is possible- also note that rehabilitation doesn't happen overnight, you don't toss a rapist into a cushy jail for a couple years like freaking Sweden does and expect him/her to walk out a model citizen. Sometimes people have to be broken to be fixed - it's like parenting, if you give a kid everything they want and just gently tell them "don't do that again" when they misbehave, they're gonna do it again. If you make the punishment memorable without being abusive, then they're more likely to think back to it before they act up again. So honestly it depends on what you mean by "rehabilitative". But this is off topic and has nothing to with execution - I still strongly believe that in any case where rehabilitation and release would pose a serious danger to the public, it's better to rid youself of that danger via execution.

3. There's probably a lot of crap we could repeal right now and still maintain about the same ratio of prosecuted innocents to people who were actually guilty. I don't know all the details, but I do know a good portion of the time and money put into an execution involves the prisoner sitting idle for months or even years for a sentence, along with tons of appeals. I mean, if you're convicted guilty 3 times in a row, you're probably freaking guilty. Maybe you get one chance at an appeal instead of going back and retrying so many times.

4. I'm pretty sure I could pull up a few quotes of you specifically dismissing posts, and when you call a thread a dick measuring contest in the first ten posts you're pretty much calling people out.

5. Alright then, you ought to educate yourself on the superiority of my ideological beliefs, and if you refuse to acknowledge them and accept them as your own, you are willfully remaining ignorant. I mean, I can pull up plenty of websites that give good evidence aa to why classical liberalism is far superior to your modern-brand left-wing liberalism. We seem to be ignoring the fact that bias is even a possibility, so it doesn't matter where I get those from I'd assume. Statistics can be pulled out of people's asses quite easily, and anybody with a freaking google account and basic understanding of how to work a computer can put data into a chart, so I honestly don't blame him for not immediately accepting your information. In addition, saying "self-imposed ignorance" as if he's supposed to already believe in and accept what you're saying instead of simply saying he is uninformed on the subject at hand just sounds like a major flamebait.