Freaking liberals. This is what happens when you go soft on crime and still think of criminals as people.
Freaking liberals. This is what happens when you go soft on crime and still think of criminals as people.
I have my own criticisms of mandatory minimum sentences, but I feel legislated sentences are acceptable in general. It's almost comical to say that it's a breach of human rights to establish minimum sentences for murderers.
I can't believe our government wasted money spying on organizations like this.
Taking odds that this becomes a major issue in the British EU referendum debate?
Hope is the denial of reality
Because we are not literally shackled to the past? Even in the US, ex post facto restrictions only really apply to making things worse for the person facing state power, not making things better. Or are you asserting that the executive power to pardon, grant clemency, or otherwise commute sentences is also irrational and ought to be invalid? Is there some statute of limitations on mercy which I am unaware of?Originally Posted by Loki
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I think there have to be additional protections against ex post facto behavior. There has to be a presupposition that legislative and judicial acts of the past have legitimacy. I have no problem with mechanisms existing that would reverse past "mistakes", but this needs to be a process separate from the one involved in making new legislation.
Hope is the denial of reality
No, you are right.
Congratulations America
Because that is one of the basic rules of criminal law? Up there right along with the one that says you can't be convicted for what wasn't a crime according to the law when you did it.
Congratulations America
Huge of course, but so was abortion in all Irish EU referenda, so what is your point? Are you trying to make clear that people in referenda hardly ever vote on the actual question in front of them?
Congratulations America
So if, for instance, someone was in jail for same-sex statutory rape in Kansas back before Lawrence v Texas (2004) or State v Limon (2005), he needs to stay in jail even though the legislation that imprisoned him is no longer on the books? Are based on legal premises and moral constructs which are no longer held, are even deemed unconstitutional? After all, past government acts under (at the time) legitimate law are valid prima facie right? No Loki, the present trumps the past. 's why, in the US, the Supreme Court can overturn precedent when it wants to, even if it would prefer to avoid doing so when possible. Indeed, as it did with its Lawrence decision. If you don't mind, could you explain to me how the events prompting this thread are not a process separate from the one involved in making new legislation?
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Indeed. Principle normally in law is that the future can lift/relax the punishments of the past but not expand them.
I've only read the first page, but that's a good description of our judicial and ethical dilemmas.
Felons in California's Pelican Bay have been serving their time in Isolation for decades. They've tried hunger protests, but that didn't capture media attention the same way Gitmo could. Even Gitmo hunger strikes haven't had enough/proper media coverage to capture the attention of the general populace.
The US might like to portray itself as the home of truth, justice, and fairness for all....but that's mostly a Hollywood movie myth.
Do you think the Californian inmates are innocent? Serving their time is justice.
They were protesting the solitary confinement, in some cases lasting for over a decade.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Solitary confinement is expensive so why would it be used if unnecessary?
Well I'm glad to see you've changed your opinion of the government's spending habits
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Funny that you would say that about what is easily the worst of his posts this week.I've only read the first page, but that's a good description of our judicial and ethical dilemmas.
Felons in California's Pelican Bay have been serving their time in Isolation for decades. They've tried hunger protests, but that didn't capture media attention the same way Gitmo could. Even Gitmo hunger strikes haven't had enough/proper media coverage to capture the attention of the general populace.
The US might like to portray itself as the home of truth, justice, and fairness for all....but that's mostly a Hollywood movie myth.
Congratulations America
The nice part about hunger strikes is one way or another it will be over soon.I've only read the first page, but that's a good description of our judicial and ethical dilemmas.
Felons in California's Pelican Bay have been serving their time in Isolation for decades. They've tried hunger protests, but that didn't capture media attention the same way Gitmo could. Even Gitmo hunger strikes haven't had enough/proper media coverage to capture the attention of the general populace.
The US might like to portray itself as the home of truth, justice, and fairness for all....but that's mostly a Hollywood movie myth.
I can't think of anything nice about hunger strikes.
If a serial killer does what he does because he is crazy, and so is sentenced to life in prison at least in part to protect society from what he does, then what happens if medical technology is developed to cure his crazy? Is it right to keep the life sentence?
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Unless he was acquitted on insanity grounds yes.
So the murderer ends up dying from the hunger strike. The tax paying people no longer have to pay for his incarceration.
Prisoners should have every right to commit suicide. Why should there be such a drawn out process as a hunger strike?
If present trumps the past....and the future holds the possibility that science can isolate and treat the causes of "crazy" that lead to criminal behavior...that gets us into a very fuzzy realm where genetics and brain physiology meet sociology and cultural behaviorism, and legislating "values".
They don't. Suicide is illegal. Prisoners are under the custody of arresting authorities. Those authorities are thus responsible for ensuring that the prisoners don't break the law.
Hope is the denial of reality
Hunger strikes don't automatically mean "suicide" attempts, any more than religious fasting means starvation. But refusing food can be the best tool available to prisoners who have no other options, in order to gain attention from the media and public, and highlight Human Rights abuses, and/or cruel and unusual punishment.
Like long-term isolation for internal prison infractions that have nothing to do with their original crime or sentence. Apparently, that can mean having too much toilet paper in their cell, reading books with political titles, or talking to "gang members" during meal time. That's how prisoners end up in solitary confinement....sometimes for decades.
Come now GGT, you know you're exaggerating... everyRB knows that prison is a wonderful place filled with love and friendship rather than with torture, abuse and the violation of basic rules of justice and decency
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I said should not do. They should be able to commit suicide and the law should be reformed.They don't. Suicide is illegal. Prisoners are under the custody of arresting authorities. Those authorities are thus responsible for ensuring that the prisoners don't break the law.
Why shouldn't prisoners be isolated if they're infracting prison rules. Oh its a tough life - here's a protip: Obey the law, and if you can't do that obey the rules once you're thereHunger strikes don't automatically mean "suicide" attempts, any more than religious fasting means starvation. But refusing food can be the best tool available to prisoners who have no other options, in order to gain attention from the media and public, and highlight Human Rights abuses, and/or cruel and unusual punishment.
Like long-term isolation for internal prison infractions that have nothing to do with their original crime or sentence. Apparently, that can mean having too much toilet paper in their cell, reading books with political titles, or talking to "gang members" during meal time. That's how prisoners end up in solitary confinement....sometimes for decades.
Prison here at least is neither of those. Its a far too lax place where prisoners even have TVs with Sky Sports in their cells.
They have to serve out their sentence, otherwise what's the point?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Fully agreed they should serve out their sentences. That sentence should be a punishment not a resort.
TVs and games consoles should not be allowed and instead a fully stocked library should be the entertainment available. If you want to believe in rehabilitation maybe instead of watching Daytime TV and being fully catered for they should be working and learning to read in their spare time. Which is going to better adjust someone to being more literate and able to adjust to society - watching Jeremy Kyle on TV or reading a book?
Okay but I was talking about serving out sentences instead of escaping by committing suicide
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
