Mandatory Sentencing. (1 Viewer)

[Sir-BigBoyJames]

Does it warrant more or less? And I think murder in this context constitutes pre-meditated murder, not manslaughter or crimes of passion.

Less.
Statistically speaking, most murders are done is haste. A decision made in such a split second should not conclude to 25+years in jail.

15 years is suffice. But as you said, it totally depends on the context.

 

[Izzay]

wouldn't even go for 15 years.

the murder rate in NSW is low enough that each sentence should be judged on its on merits.

 

[blue_chameleon]

Murder: probably should be divided into different categories like in the US. For the most serious cases 25 years or never to be released is fine.

Rape: Never to be released.

Pedophilia: Again pretty broad, sex with a young child should result in never to be released. Other stuff is questionable, but mandatory, severe minimum sentences would be a good thing. (I assume by pedophilia you mean child abuse, not merely exhibiting characteristics of a pedophile).

Assault on Police: There is no reason to treat this any differently to an assault against any other person.

Regarding the following:

Murder: Potentially, there's a pretty big difference between 25 years and life. :/

Rape:If this is the mandatory sentence, then by allowing a minimum of 25 years for Murder..........Rape > Murder? :/

Assault on Police: Interested to hear reasoning behind treating assault on those on the frontline of ensuring order is maintained throughout the community, in the same light as assault against fellow citizens? The only time I could see reason to this is [obviously] when officers are off-duty.

 

[blue_chameleon]

Its not a case of whether rape is 'worse' than murder. Its a case of whether rapists are more likely to re-offend. There recidivism rates for sexual assault and child abuse related crimes are much higher than for murder. Therefore, there is a greater need to lock rapists up for the protection of the community.

Sure, even in the absense of any supporting evidence, I will accept that rapists may be a higher chance of re-offending. Fundamentally it comes down to life vs no life. Murder is just that; taking a life from somebody. Rape on the other hand, whilst certainly damaging psychologically, still affords the victim their life. I would be basing my sentencing lengths, if not solely on this principle, than with at least due consideration of the fact.

Well surely the presumption should be that we treat all people equally before the law. If you feel there should be an exception for police, the onus is on you to show why.

Isn't violence against all people equally deplorable?

Blatant strawman, if ever i've seen one.

I'll agree with you that violence is deplorable. However, attacking those that are called to ensure the laws are enforced and the community is civil, shows a higher disregard for the exact laws these people are enforcing. Higher disregard should receive higher penalty.

I see this issue as pretty cut and dry really. :/

 

[jb_nc]

Potential for cops to abuse that power > the utility derived from it.

^{[citation needed]}

 

[incentivation]

I think we enter dangerous territory if we too readily erode the discretion of the judiciary.

Whilst I think that there should be mandatory minimum sentences for more serious offences, these designated terms should remain at a point where the judiciary still possess the capacity to extend the sentence with consideration to the circumstances.

Murder: 10 years

Sexual Assault: 5 years (Aggravated - 10 years)

Assault Police: 12 months

The latter is of course rather contentious. I'm with blue_chameleon though. I think if someone resorts to assaulting a police officer, they have shown a complete and utter disregard not just for the law, but the legal system itself.

I would hope that most normal minded people would recognise that the involvement of police generally indicates that the situation has escalated to a point of lawlessness.

I would point out though, that there should be equally harsh penalties for police who are found guilty of an unlawful assault where an unreasonable amount of force is applied in the execution of their duty.

 

[KFunk]

Well surely the presumption should be that we treat all people equally before the law. If you feel there should be an exception for police, the onus is on you to show why.

Isn't violence against all people equally deplorable?

I think you're taking the idea of equality before the law in the wrong way. My understanding is that it is about individuals being subject to the same laws - this doesn't mean that laws can't differ across contexts.

For example, I would argue that most people see some level of moral difference between punching (talking sucker punches here) a police officer on duty, punching a verbally offensive drunk and punching one's four year old daughter. To focus on the act of punching itself is overly simplistic. Context matters.

Laws can be context dependent whilst still being applied equally.

 

[Graney]

\Pedophilia: Again pretty broad, sex with a young child should result in never to be released. Other stuff is questionable, but mandatory, severe minimum sentences would be a good thing. (I assume by pedophilia you mean child abuse, not merely exhibiting characteristics of a pedophile).

I agree, but you'd want to look at the current age of consent, and who is considered a child.

A 40 y.o. having sex with a 15 y.o. could be nothing but predatory, whereas it would be absurd for a large mandatory sentence to apply to a 17y.o. undertaking the same act. However a 17 y.o. abusing a 9 year old would deserve a significant sentence.

Perhaps there could be graduation based on pre vs. post puberty, with a general age of consent of 16 or so. Large mandatory sentences for all pre-puberty perpetrators, but there'd still have to be subtantial discretion in the prosecution of post-puberty offences in order to take into account the perpetrators age and maturity relative to the victim.

 

[bell531]

I think we enter dangerous territory if we too readily erode the discretion of the judiciary.

Whilst I think that there should be mandatory minimum sentences for more serious offences, these designated terms should remain at a point where the judiciary still possess the capacity to extend the sentence with consideration to the circumstances.

Murder: 10 years

Sexual Assault: 5 years (Aggravated - 10 years)

Agreed. We should trust the legal system to deliver appropriate outcomes, but should also provide minimum sentences for some crimes. Murder and Sexual assault sound right, as above (possibly higher for aggravated), but we should primarily leave judicial discretion alone, provided there are measures in place to restrict power and "guide" sentences.

I would point out though, that there should be equally harsh penalties for police who are found guilty of an unlawful assault where an unreasonable amount of force is applied in the execution of their duty.

Definitely. They are meant to protect us, and if they harm society then the punishment should be worse.

 

[withoutaface]

You either trust the judiciary or not. If you do, then there is no need for minimum sentences which may be inappropriate for some completely unforseen case, and which could lead to reluctance to reach guilty verdicts. If you do not, then why would you trust the legislature, the executive or the mob to make a better decision? Because these are the people who will decide what the minimum sentences are, for a broad range of crimes without giving consideration to a specific case in the same way as a judge can afford to do.

 

[Riet]

Oh right. Well.. eh. I'm ambivalent about the whole thing because I don't know if it'd be effective. Is it practiced successfully anywhere else in the world?

Many states in the USA have the policy of 3 felonies = 25 to life.

 

[Riet]

You either trust the judiciary or not. If you do, then there is no need for minimum sentences which may be inappropriate for some completely unforseen case, and which could lead to reluctance to reach guilty verdicts. If you do not, then why would you trust the legislature, the executive or the mob to make a better decision? Because these are the people who will decide what the minimum sentences are, for a broad range of crimes without giving consideration to a specific case in the same way as a judge can afford to do.

man i heard on da current affairs dat some youf of middle eastern appearance raped a WHITE woman and got out after 3 months cos da judge was his cuzin.

But seriously ever case should be judged on its own merit. It is the entire point of the judiciary. This is ignoring the issue that from a utilitarian standpoint encarceration should be about rehabilitation not punishment. Although the ignorant vox populi may detest such a notion, the entire idea of someone "rotting away in a cell." achieves anything.

Mandatory sentencing is as much posturing as being 'tough on drugs' or 'tough on illegals', etc. It relies on people base concepts of vegence and biblical justice. I do not believe it is what a civilised society should be striving for.

 

[withoutaface]

Agreed, except it should be about rehabilitation and deterrance.

 

[Iron]

I dont think that there's much evidence that you can cure criminal tendancies. If theyre not in a looney bin, then you can guess that these were rational individuals who made a conscious decision to do a serious crime.
How do you fix that?
Without reorganising all of society, from top to bottom, with insane marxist notions of equality that make everybody inmates, arbitrary incarceration is the best we can do

 

[wrxsti]

wrxsti: Would having sex with your 9 year old wife count as grounds for a mandatory 25 year sentence?

Maybe, but FUCKING YOUR MUM is wayy more fun!!!!

 

[Venom.]

Thanks for response guise.

Personally I think its a ridiculous concept, especially in the US, as mentioned by Riet (3 felonies = 25 to life). Mandatory sentencing regarding individual crimes (murder, rape) doesnt allow for objective circumstances to be taken into account, and therefore is pretty dangerous to the achievement of justice.

 

[katie tully]

Make drinking driving that results in the death of another murder.

 

[Venom.]

Make drinking driving that results in the death of another murder.

I think its currently under manslaughter through negligent driving

 

[katie tully]

I think its currently under manslaughter through negligent driving

Nah I don't even think it's that harsh tbh, maybe some cases ... I saw some thing on some t.v. show and some guy killed a toddler in her driveway and he got 18months suspended sentence, despite being 3x limit.

 

[Venom.]

I know that recently a law was enacted that classified negligent driving as a form of manslaughter. The max sentence was only 12 years though.