Someone needs a long jail sentence

MaryL wrote:



"Bastette" wrote in message ...

jmcquown wrote:

On 11/5/2013 6:11 PM, Lesley wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2487807/Thug-tried-kill-neighbours-cat-noose-teach-lesson-went-toilet-garden.html?ico=home^editors_choice_six_of_the_bes t

Lesley

Slave of the Fabulous Furballs

An eye for an eye! Hang Karl Dyke from a gibbet, just to "teach him a
lesson". After all, it couldn't possibly kill him. This guy is not
only cruel, he's stupid.

Dare I read this? The link says he *tried* to kill the cat. Did the cat
survive? Is he (the *CAT*) OK?

Thank you!

--
Joyce

The heck with top and bottom -- I want relationships with strangeness
and charm.

wrote in message
...
Lesley wrote:
He got jailed for 20 weeks

Lesley

Slave of the Fabulous Furballs

That should have been 20 years.
--
Adrian

At least.

Joy

Jack Campin wrote:

He got jailed for 20 weeks
That should have been 20 years.
I'm in absolute agreement.

I'm not. American culture is ridiculously punitive, and I think the
English judge got it about right this time.

I was wondering what kind of time people do who are convicted of attempted
murder of a human being, assuming the circumstances are similar?

I agree that this culture is overly punitive when it comes to nonviolent
crimes. And it's absurd about victimless crimes. People used to go to prison
for a serious amount of time just for smoking marijuana. The only reason
that's changed is because our attitudes about marijuana have changed. But
people still get long sentences for other victimless crimes, for things
where our attitudes have not changed.

Many US states have a law known as "Three strikes." If you have two prior
convictions for violent crimes, and then you commit a third crime, it doesn't
matter what the crime is, you go to prison for *life*. That includes nonviolent
and even petty crimes. This law was recently amended in California so that
petty and nonviolent crimes can't count as a "strike."

I'm not so lenient when it comes to violence, though. If someone has harmed
or killed another person (or non-human), they need to be locked up so they
won't harm anyone else. That's the function I think prison should perform -
keep society safe from dangerous people. Of course, then there's the question
of who will keep other inmates safe from violent offenders?

--
Joyce

The heck with top and bottom -- I want relationships with strangeness
and charm.

On 11/16/2013 4:05 PM, Judith Latham wrote:
In article ,
jmcquown wrote:
On 11/15/2013 5:59 PM, lid wrote:
Lesley wrote:
He got jailed for 20 weeks

Lesley

Slave of the Fabulous Furballs

That should have been 20 years.

I'm in absolute agreement.

Jill

It has been documented that a person who has inflicted violence on animals
is more likely to to inflict it on human children or adults. So I agree
the sentence should be severe to reflect this. If, as he'd stated, this
man didn't realise that hanging a a cat would kill it then he needs to be
taken out of society and given treatment. If he lied and knew it would
kill the cat then he needs to be taken out of society as he is obviously
evil and dangerous. Would his next victim be a child who annoyed him?

Judith

While I agree with the documented studies, this man was much older than
the typical profile of a 'serial murderer'. It gave his age as 52.
That doesn't mean he hadn't killed anything in the past and gotten away
with it. Will he escalate? Who knows.

Jill

"Bastette" wrote in message
...
Jack Campin wrote:

He got jailed for 20 weeks
That should have been 20 years.
I'm in absolute agreement.

I'm not. American culture is ridiculously punitive, and I think the
English judge got it about right this time.

I was wondering what kind of time people do who are convicted of attempted
murder of a human being, assuming the circumstances are similar?

I agree that this culture is overly punitive when it comes to nonviolent
crimes. And it's absurd about victimless crimes. People used to go to
prison
for a serious amount of time just for smoking marijuana. The only reason
that's changed is because our attitudes about marijuana have changed. But
people still get long sentences for other victimless crimes, for things
where our attitudes have not changed.

Many US states have a law known as "Three strikes." If you have two prior
convictions for violent crimes, and then you commit a third crime, it
doesn't
matter what the crime is, you go to prison for *life*. That includes
nonviolent
and even petty crimes. This law was recently amended in California so that
petty and nonviolent crimes can't count as a "strike."

I'm not so lenient when it comes to violence, though. If someone has
harmed
or killed another person (or non-human), they need to be locked up so they
won't harm anyone else. That's the function I think prison should
perform -
keep society safe from dangerous people. Of course, then there's the
question
of who will keep other inmates safe from violent offenders?

I've seen your violent criminals get 99 years, and what is the point of
that? They have nothing to risk if they are bad in prison. Our bad boys
have a chance of getting out with less sentences so behave well (sometimes)
If I was in a prison for 99 years, I would be more than worried :-)
Tweed