This guy, at 20, was convicted of two armed robberies and given a 98 year sentence, served 8 years and was released due to a clerical error, lived 6 years as a free man, got married and had kids, then was forced to finish the sentence.
There are arguments on both sides of this. Should he or should he not be forced to finish the sentence?
So many lawyers in this thread oh my. ( ͠° ͟ل͜ ͡°)
deletedabout 10 years
that's...... not a good argument for deterrence. if there was no law yes there'd be more crime.
deletedabout 10 years
Deterrence clearly doesn't work in America if you go by their ridiculous amount of prisoners.
Rehabilitation is one of the things prison is for. It's not the only one. Retribution & Deterrence, Rehabilitation, Protection (of others, and also sometimes of the offender) and Vindication (If you aren't consistent, then other people who break the same law in a perhaps more serious way can appeal for the lighter punishment you got.)
Oh and deterrence works in as much as if there were no punishments for crimes, there'd be more crimes.. but that's roughly the extent of its significance.
I don't care about the reason it doesn't work, as I said before I didn't say it works nor do I think it does. It was part of the list of things that isn't "cuz I'll feel good if this person suffers" which is the same rationale killers and rapists themselves use to commit the acts they do.
deletedabout 10 years
it also is a reason that historically doesn't work, has led to 3 strikes statutes, which ahve thus resulted in people going to prison for life without parole for stealing soda from mcdonald's when they ordered a water.
Academically, I mean. Emotionally the idea of revenge or 'justice' is quite appealing, but since we're talking about the objective validity of an approach I'll argue for my intellectual side.
I find all reasons for punishment outside rehabilitation, deterrence, and protecting the public to be twisted, and invalid. Perhaps that's where our disagreement is stemming from.
deletedabout 10 years
that's using information we know now to retroactively alter a sentence that was handed down prior to the information. which, as herrera v. collins will tell you, is not legal.
Was he supposed to serve a 98 year sentence or was that the mistake?
deletedabout 10 years
kerry, under your logic, it's hypothetically okay for me to only serve 10 years for first degree murder if i've changed my ways and atoned for the crime. this is bad and unequal relative to the rest of the CRJ system.
at the very least he should have got a lesser sentence
deletedabout 10 years
the criminal justice system is not about rehabilitation. what you're thinking of is parole. it already exists, and there are strict regulations regarding it to make sure people don't misuse the system.
but the crj system is not about rehabilitation, it's about making people serve a punishment from breaking a rule in a codified set of rules with precisely determined punishments (that can vary depending on the circumstances)
after proving he's perfectly capable of not showing any criminal tendencies for 6 years with no signs of relapsing, i find it very unfair for him to be thrown back into prison for the rest of his life to rot and die
I mean ok let's rectify the injustice that JOHNNY WAS INNOCENT BUT GOT SENTENCED TO DEATH by KILLING ALL OTHER INNOCENTS CAUSE ITS UNFAIR OTHERWISE since we can't bring johnny back to life ... that's the kind of "injustice" we're looking at here guys.
