Shouldn't courts hand out punishment more objectively?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-09-2012, 02:43 AM
Shouldn't courts hand out punishment more objectively?
Crimes in America have incredibly loose and fluctuating punishments. "Five to ten" is an official term. Say you're guilty of grand theft auto, punishable by five to ten years in prison. Meaning depending on the judge's mood, you may get anywhere from 5 to 10 years in prison. This isn't a few inconvenient extra weekends, these are entire years of your life, decided on the whim of one man. Sites online tell you that statistically, judges give out harsher punishment right before lunch and more lenient ones immediately after. You may spend entire extra years incarcerated because the judge was craving Arby's.

There are other factors. Racism, sexism, religious affiliation, and anything that happens to piss the judge off. Simply having a lawyer that the judge likes can get you half the amount of punishment. I've sat in municipal court, watching the judge sentence person after person, with people guilty of the same crime getting different sentences (fine amounts).

All I'm saying is, why do we do this? Why isn't there a list somewhere that details every punishment? Guilty of dealing meth? 2nd offense in 2 years? You get such and such a punishment. And so does every person with the same conditions.

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2012, 03:36 AM
RE: Shouldn't courts hand out punishment more objectively?
Because you guys are crap and don't use the common law system of law.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2012, 09:18 AM
RE: Shouldn't courts hand out punishment more objectively?
(25-09-2012 02:43 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  Crimes in America have incredibly loose and fluctuating punishments. "Five to ten" is an official term. Say you're guilty of grand theft auto, punishable by five to ten years in prison. Meaning depending on the judge's mood, you may get anywhere from 5 to 10 years in prison. This isn't a few inconvenient extra weekends, these are entire years of your life, decided on the whim of one man. Sites online tell you that statistically, judges give out harsher punishment right before lunch and more lenient ones immediately after. You may spend entire extra years incarcerated because the judge was craving Arby's.

There are other factors. Racism, sexism, religious affiliation, and anything that happens to piss the judge off. Simply having a lawyer that the judge likes can get you half the amount of punishment. I've sat in municipal court, watching the judge sentence person after person, with people guilty of the same crime getting different sentences (fine amounts).

All I'm saying is, why do we do this? Why isn't there a list somewhere that details every punishment? Guilty of dealing meth? 2nd offense in 2 years? You get such and such a punishment. And so does every person with the same conditions.

Buddy, you, along with my legal studies teacher, are giving me the impression that the USA's justice system is a waste of money. Undecided

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Free Thought's post
25-09-2012, 10:17 AM
RE: Shouldn't courts hand out punishment more objectively?
(25-09-2012 09:18 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(25-09-2012 02:43 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  Crimes in America have incredibly loose and fluctuating punishments. "Five to ten" is an official term. Say you're guilty of grand theft auto, punishable by five to ten years in prison. Meaning depending on the judge's mood, you may get anywhere from 5 to 10 years in prison. This isn't a few inconvenient extra weekends, these are entire years of your life, decided on the whim of one man. Sites online tell you that statistically, judges give out harsher punishment right before lunch and more lenient ones immediately after. You may spend entire extra years incarcerated because the judge was craving Arby's.

There are other factors. Racism, sexism, religious affiliation, and anything that happens to piss the judge off. Simply having a lawyer that the judge likes can get you half the amount of punishment. I've sat in municipal court, watching the judge sentence person after person, with people guilty of the same crime getting different sentences (fine amounts).

All I'm saying is, why do we do this? Why isn't there a list somewhere that details every punishment? Guilty of dealing meth? 2nd offense in 2 years? You get such and such a punishment. And so does every person with the same conditions.

Buddy, you, along with my legal studies teacher, are giving me the impression that the USA's justice system is a waste of money. Undecided
It's not a complete waste, the people are still being punished. It may be in different levels, but people are still having to deal with cosequences.

When you are courting a nice girl an hour seems like a second. When you sit on a red-hot cinder a second seems like an hour. That's relativity.

You cannot successfully determine beforehand which side of the bread to butter.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2012, 11:45 AM
RE: Shouldn't courts hand out punishment more objectively?
(25-09-2012 10:17 AM)Xinoftruden Wrote:  
(25-09-2012 09:18 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  Buddy, you, along with my legal studies teacher, are giving me the impression that the USA's justice system is a waste of money. Undecided
It's not a complete waste, the people are still being punished. It may be in different levels, but people are still having to deal with cosequences.

The system is very costly, regardless of justification, and takes quite some time to fulfil a criminal case, it also seems to lack a precedent system (A la Case/Common Law), wherein judges can refer to previous sentences in similar cases for sentencing... I could be wrong, not familiar with the US system.

It does not help my opinion that the US judicial system seems to still focus on the the Retribution Theory of Punishment, which (very basically) stipulates that a crime destroys lives and the sense of security (in a varying sense), which can only be rectified by the punishment of the criminal, wherein punishment is generally equal to that of the crime. Basically "Suffering for suffering", which may in fact increase criminal activity as punishment increases.


Sorry if this didn't make sense, I am tired at the point of writtng this, so it wouldn't surprise me if it were just incoherent babble... sorry again. Good night.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2012, 12:36 PM (This post was last modified: 25-09-2012 12:40 PM by TrainWreck.)
RE: Shouldn't courts hand out punishment more objectively?
(25-09-2012 02:43 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  Crimes in America have incredibly loose and fluctuating punishments. "Five to ten" is an official term. Say you're guilty of grand theft auto, punishable by five to ten years in prison. Meaning depending on the judge's mood, you may get anywhere from 5 to 10 years in prison. This isn't a few inconvenient extra weekends, these are entire years of your life, decided on the whim of one man. Sites online tell you that statistically, judges give out harsher punishment right before lunch and more lenient ones immediately after. You may spend entire extra years incarcerated because the judge was craving Arby's.
Weeping

You cannot be serious??? You know, that in infamous crimes there is always a several week lay period between the trial verdict and sentencing. And you can bet that for the most part in, in lesser offences, especially in plea deals that the minimum sentence is usually levied.

(25-09-2012 02:43 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  There are other factors. Racism, sexism, religious affiliation, and anything that happens to piss the judge off. Simply having a lawyer that the judge likes can get you half the amount of punishment. I've sat in municipal court, watching the judge sentence person after person, with people guilty of the same crime getting different sentences (fine amounts).
I do not believe you were objective, nor privy to all the evidence known about the crime and the suspect that the court was aware of and weighed.

(25-09-2012 02:43 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  All I'm saying is, why do we do this? Why isn't there a list somewhere that details every punishment?
Classification - my specialty.
It is a very good guess that the state's penal codes pretty much detail the information you are concerned about. The problem is it may not be arranged in the order that you expect it to be organized in.

It is a real shame that a person of your intelectual abilities and sensitivity to the common sense of people hasn't the gumption to try and figure it out, but rather wants to blame it on some unforseeable force - incompetent Christians running the show.

Why isn't there a list of crimes and punishments for the descent people to understand, like humble BuddyChrist - it's amazing that this society has lasted as long as it has with such incompetent organization, isn't it?

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2012, 12:39 PM
RE: Shouldn't courts hand out punishment more objectively?
Having arrested a few people over my career, I would agree that "justice " seems nonsensical. I often walk out of the courtroom shaking my head in disbelief. A commrade of mine was told by a very liberal judge that it was part of his job to get punched in the face (during a felony resisting arrest trial). I have learned to accept the inconsistencies in court and look at the bigger picture. Most folks, who I had to arrest ,were repeat customers. Even if they caught a break in court, I would most likely encounter them again, or they would otherwise suffer from poor decision making. The thought of spending one minute in jail is unacceptable to me yet, it isnt enough to change the behavior of some. I suppose I am speaking of Karma if such nonsense existed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2012, 05:20 PM
RE: Shouldn't courts hand out punishment more objectively?
TrainWreck, you're like Andy Dick.

You show up, everybody groans and abandons what they were talking about as they flee for their cars.

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Buddy Christ's post
25-09-2012, 06:23 PM
RE: Shouldn't courts hand out punishment more objectively?
(25-09-2012 11:45 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(25-09-2012 10:17 AM)Xinoftruden Wrote:  It's not a complete waste, the people are still being punished. It may be in different levels, but people are still having to deal with cosequences.

The system is very costly, regardless of justification, and takes quite some time to fulfil a criminal case, it also seems to lack a precedent system (A la Case/Common Law), wherein judges can refer to previous sentences in similar cases for sentencing... I could be wrong, not familiar with the US system.

It does not help my opinion that the US judicial system seems to still focus on the the Retribution Theory of Punishment, which (very basically) stipulates that a crime destroys lives and the sense of security (in a varying sense), which can only be rectified by the punishment of the criminal, wherein punishment is generally equal to that of the crime. Basically "Suffering for suffering", which may in fact increase criminal activity as punishment increases.


Sorry if this didn't make sense, I am tired at the point of writtng this, so it wouldn't surprise me if it were just incoherent babble... sorry again. Good night.

It seems like it because they flat out don't have the common law system.

Judges/Lawyers can't refer to other cases, it's simply not what they do. SO the outcome is that you get far varied punishments for the exact same crime/situation, basically what BB is talking about.
If they had a common law system then judges would actually have to fully consider the case before them due to implications down the road.

Plus Judges over their have WAY to much power anyway. You can get a law through the legislation system and then have a judge just turn around and say 'Nope". That's just wrong, they're not elected, they're primarily old white conservative fuckheads, hence they shouldn't have that power. That is afterall why we have a legislation process done by the government, because in theory anyone can become a minister or whatever.
Judges need to learn that all their role is is to INTERPRET the law, not make it. But judges just love to make law, even in a common law system they tend to make law in high profile/highly complicated cases where they really shouldn't.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes earmuffs's post
25-09-2012, 06:38 PM
RE: Shouldn't courts hand out punishment more objectively?
Why are Courts punishing people?

Did we buy the wrong furniture?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: