Darci13
9 Answers
PEOPLELOVER
Best answer!
I have to agree that in far too many cases the perpertrator found guilty has a ,to me, easy time of it whilst the person who was wronged is all but forgotten.
I believe that time served whilst waiting for trial should not come off the sentence awarded. Why? because if the person awaiting trial is a risk to abscond or try to manipulate witnesss then they should be in the clink until trial.
I believe the judges, magistrates should 100% set a non parole period and that period should be in the statute and NOT up to the individual judge/magistrate.too much is left to the judge/magistrates discression.
The convicted person should have reasonable comfort but not airconditioning and TV in their cell not access to gynasium equipment ( let them jog around the yard like the rest of us) Reading material should be limited to prison library and closely monitered. A communal TV room should be ample for the prisoners` use.
I do not have TV in my bed room. I do not have Airconditioning in my bed room. I do not have gym equipment full stop. ( I walk my dog for exercise)
Crime and punishment are out of proportion and should be fixed. Punishment by its` very meaning does not include excessive comfort levels.
You do not agree with my comments? well that is your perogative but could I say "YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM" and stiff bickies to you.
| 12 years ago. Rating: 1 | |
Chiangmai
Unlike the code law countries like England, the U.S. is a common law country. Common law systerm operates under the premise that everybody being charged is innocent until proven guilty.
| 12 years ago. Rating: 2 | |
I have also seen many innocent black men get sent to prison for the rest of their lives for crimes they never commit.
Incidentally, my reference to "innocent until proven guilty" does not apply in America. For example, with the Internal Revenue Service, it usually is guilty until proven innocent. Please don't ask me to explain this.
ed shank
The system hasn't changed. The mind set of juries who decide guilt or innocence of defendants has. When DNA and other scientific evidence are presented to the average person they become overwhelmed and guilt can be questioned only be cause of their ignorance/stupidity, or unwillingness to comprehend the facts. They thereby give the benefit of doubt to the defendant. Should race factor into a trial, a politically Liberal jury is preferred. After all what juror wants to be branded a racist during deliberations. Justice is no longer blind, verdicts must be politically correct today. So much for justice.
| 12 years ago. Rating: 2 | |
Darci13
dad59
The criminal has more rights and protection than the victims, the VICTIMS get lost in the system and forgot about, Let's look OJ, ANTHONY, an on, an on, an on. Our ANCESTORS are turning over in their graves and then our system allows the criminals and their attorneys make a killin off of the victims memory, demise and CRUEL UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT.
| 12 years ago. Rating: 2 | |
zorro
matheneyg
mom
It seems in more cases than not it is the perpetrator that gets the favouring. By law here in Canada, if you are being robbed and you protect yourself say with a knife or gun, you are charged. If a robber is lurking on your property and happens to step in a hole in your lawn and suffer an injury, it is my understanding that you as the property owner is liable.If you have a watch dog and have a sign up stating "Beware of Dog" you are already admitting your dog is dangerous and a liability. The list of stupidity could go on.
| 12 years ago. Rating: 1 | |
