Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Rlyss · 09-11-2004, 09:06 AM

I don't normally like to respond to legal things, but this one (perhaps because I'm the first to respond) caught my attention and got me thinking.

Last year I served on the jury pool for a rape case, and although it was declared a mis-trial (the accusor (?) said some things she shouldn't have, the jury asked a few too many questions), it was a real eye-opener for me. At the point before the mis-trial was declared, we (the jury) were sort of agreeing that the two were an on/off couple, and into some pretty rough sexual play, and there was bitterness involved over a break up, so it was very, very difficult to determine if it was a real case of rape or a case of spite and revenge.

As for your case there, Strange Famous, my first thought is to say that for a first offence, the sentences should perhaps be served concurrently, although to be perfectly honest I've never been able to get my head around concurrent sentences. For subsequent punishments, I see no problem in having them served one after the other. In this guy's case, 43 years altogether (if I have my 3am math correct). In my eyes, your first time in prison is your chance at rehabilitation, and your second (similar) offence is the act of you volunteering that you can't be rehabilitated.

Concurrent sentences for multiple murders or something, where it might add up to 300 years in prison is obviously ridiculous, but for a case like the one you described, I see no point in that guy wandering around the city after only eleven years.

As for the arguments about it costing so much to keep people in prison, I think almost every country on earth spends far too much on military spending, and far too much on other various things. It sounds barbaric, I know, but I think that if the United States, Great Britain, Australia, etc. were to be more efficient with their budgets, they might be able to afford to keep their prisoners in prison, instead of letting them out early because it's cheaper. There IS money to go around, but it's a matter of where the authorities decide it's best spent.

09-11-2004, 09:06 AM	#2 (permalink)
Rlyss The Pusher Location: Edinburgh	I don't normally like to respond to legal things, but this one (perhaps because I'm the first to respond) caught my attention and got me thinking. Last year I served on the jury pool for a rape case, and although it was declared a mis-trial (the accusor (?) said some things she shouldn't have, the jury asked a few too many questions), it was a real eye-opener for me. At the point before the mis-trial was declared, we (the jury) were sort of agreeing that the two were an on/off couple, and into some pretty rough sexual play, and there was bitterness involved over a break up, so it was very, very difficult to determine if it was a real case of rape or a case of spite and revenge. As for your case there, Strange Famous, my first thought is to say that for a first offence, the sentences should perhaps be served concurrently, although to be perfectly honest I've never been able to get my head around concurrent sentences. For subsequent punishments, I see no problem in having them served one after the other. In this guy's case, 43 years altogether (if I have my 3am math correct). In my eyes, your first time in prison is your chance at rehabilitation, and your second (similar) offence is the act of you volunteering that you can't be rehabilitated. Concurrent sentences for multiple murders or something, where it might add up to 300 years in prison is obviously ridiculous, but for a case like the one you described, I see no point in that guy wandering around the city after only eleven years. As for the arguments about it costing so much to keep people in prison, I think almost every country on earth spends far too much on military spending, and far too much on other various things. It sounds barbaric, I know, but I think that if the United States, Great Britain, Australia, etc. were to be more efficient with their budgets, they might be able to afford to keep their prisoners in prison, instead of letting them out early because it's cheaper. There IS money to go around, but it's a matter of where the authorities decide it's best spent.