ForumGarden

RedGlitter;535768 wrote: That's a hard call Bill. I can't tell you yes or no until I've thought more on it. What do you think about it?

Then we could say fiddling with the radio, lighting a cigarette, slapping your kid in the backseat, etc, were all death deserving. Is it because phones are still relatively new and drunk driving is not? I don't know. All I can tell you is what I feel and that is if you mow someone over after you've had enough to impair your driving, you just murdered someone and might as well have done it willingly since you knew what booze can do.

I get on my friend all the time about her calling people and answering people on that stupid phone of hers while driving. She is not permitted to use her phone or answer it when I am with her in the car unless she pulls over to do so. When I'm home and she calls me from her car, I refuse to talk to her. I don't want her killing somebody. As it is, she's killed probably 15 rabbits while being on her phone and she blames the rabbits. :mad:

I wouldn't mind seeing a 50 year sentence for a phone death. Do you think I'm being harsh?




Maybe a bit too harsh there Red! I do agree there should be serious sentences for reckless driving etc but I struggle sentencing a young parent to 50 years who was driving under the speed limit, is a valuable, upstanding member of their community who works hard, pays their taxes and bills and who is human enough to without thinking grab the mobile phone whilst driving if, for example, they are waiting for an anxious call back or they have been out and their kids name appears on the phone and so naturally they pick it up anticipating a problem with one of them - you get my drift. People who intentionally rape/murder someone don’t get that long in jail. Another more logical approach to the old saying do the crime pay the time should be adopted to ensure that the message of the sentences handed out due to careless driving is well and truly heard by all. The actual circumstances and in most cases the personal trauma affecting both parties as a result of the accident should also be a contributing factor to determining the actual sentence for such a crime. Don’t get me wrong I don’t know how it feels to be a bereaved relative affected by such a circumstance nor am I implying I do, but I have learnt that its too easy to let emotions overshadow ones ability to pragmatically and rationally deal with a situation and destroying two lives/families doesn't seem the most logical pathway to retribution or solution. Just my opinion.

spot;535682 wrote: There are only three reasons for having jails at all: to take revenge on an offender, to rehabilitate an offender, and to protect the public from an offender. Does anyone know any other reasons?

The Parole system for murderers is in place in England to extend the protection of the public from the offender for as long as the Board feels it's required. Until jail has rehabilitated that offender he will continue to serve his sentence in jail. There is no release into the community until the Board feels this has been achieved.

That only leaves revenge as a reason for keeping a murderer in jail beyond that point. Is revenge a good reason for extending jail time?

The ethics of killing the murderer are complicated but have nothing to do with the question I just asked. Killing a murderer depends on a cast-iron guarantee that society never ever kills a victim of a miscarriage of justice, which has always happened in the past when murderers have been killed by society. If matters ever reaches a point where society can do that, killing the murderer might become an option though other considerations would then need to be discussed. At the moment there is no possibility of making such a cast-iron guarantee.


You say revenge I say punish. Keep the murderer in prison to punish them not for revenge.

IMO, nothing wrong with revenge.

I wish they did the Life without parole more often..in states that do not have death penalty.

I mean, the person they killed does not get a "parole"..they don't suddenly come back to life after 10 or 20 years.

I do not think there would be any mitigating circumstances outside of self defense...which also would include an abused spouse or child killing while the abuse is occuring.

RedGlitter;535903 wrote: IMO, nothing wrong with revenge.


There is no profit in revenge. Neither for the transgressor nor the vengeful.That is why inmates are not supposed to be mistreated. They return to the streets filled with more hatred, and wanting revenge themselves. The problem with the death penalty is that there is always a margin of error. Rent the film The Exonorated. 7 people, wrongfully accused, all sentenced to death, all later found to be not guilty.

Weeder, I think you and I might have had this conversation before. It sounds familiar. I can't say I agree with you on revenge. I am an eye for an eye type of person. But there are plenty more who are not.