BM>>Same punishment for same crime. It's a great idea isn't it? It's one reason why i believe all fines should be in percentage of income/assets not a fixed number of dollers. Otherwise the rich suffer less from a fine than a poor person so the rich can afford to commit crimes more.

I think you will find that more crimes are committed by poor, than by rich people.

A crime, is a crime!

And remember, nobody goes to gail without committing a crime. In any case, I think jail should be only for hardened crims and, it should be a hole in the ground. The worse the crime, the deeper the hole.

Criminals have forgone their rights once they committed the crime. Get this clear, I don't think what this guy did warrented gail, but that's not what my beef is about.

Aime, if you don't like the gail, don't commit the crime.

It really is that simple.

I have never been to gail, nor had my father, my mother, in fact, any of my family.

>> 'different' to the general run-of-the-mill male 21 year old.
So I am assumming this is your example of 'normal'! Right?

"Aime, if you don't like the gail, don't commit the crime."

Rechtub, do you really think this person deliberately set out to commit a crime? Especially the crime of killing their girl-friend?

At the tender age of 18, I was caught out on a dirt road causing a very memorable incident. I was in a hurry to get somewhere and misjudged a bend in the dark. My car ended up hanging over a steep embankment above a deep water hole. I had a passenger at the time and we could both have easily been drowned that night. I shudder when I think about it and the consequences that could have arisen from it, but did I set out to do it on purpose? Absolutely not!

The tragic event that led this young person before the courts and saw an innocent girl killed was just that. A tragic accident, unless intent was presented before the court, but since we weren't there and don't have a transcript, we'll never know what really happened that night.

I hear what you say in regards to 'do the crime, do the time' but in this instance, I'm not at all sure you could call it a crime. To me a crime involves intent. In other words, you intend to commit a crime and then proceed to do so.

From now on, this conversation will probably go round and round in circles. You're most likely not happy with the result but the law is the law and the judge made a decision and I believe rightly in this case. In all law, there's never a complete case of black and white, open and shut. The law is not perfect, but it's the best we have.

"I think you will find that more crimes are committed by poor, than by rich people."

LOL per capita figures? And remember the rich afford better lawyers so get out of punishment easier. But regardless fining a poor person 1000 dollers can malnourish their children while a millionaire won't notice the loss. So thats not equal punishment is it! Make fines a percentage of income/assets and everyone becomes equally punished regardless of wealth! Surely thats ok by you? Equal suffering for rich and for poor criminals?

"I think jail should be only for hardened crims and, it should be a hole in the ground. The worse the crime, the deeper the hole."

To what purpose? Incentive to behave? The brain injuries i mentioned stop people being prevented by fear of jail, thy don't have impulse control! But if we get everyone with those injuries and spend the money to give them back impulse control we can save money on incarceration AND stop the crimes BEFORE they happen! Less rape less assaults and less murder? Surely you agree that would be good?

Especially as we release almost every prisoner anyway so wouldn't you rather those that get out of jail have their brain-injuries treated and have less people in jail because they had theirs treated and never comitted the crime in the first place?

"Aime, if you don't like the gail, don't commit the crime.

It really is that simple."

Someone who has an interferance with their decision making can't have the threat of jail impact their decisions though can they! So it's not that simple at all! If we want the crime rate lower we must deal with the reality of judgement-impairing injuries.

rechtub, why not start campaigning for brain-injury rehabilitation if you care about the justice system so much? Make a real difference?

Aime>>> Rechtub, do you really think this person deliberately set out to commit a crime? Especially the crime of killing their girl-friend?

I said,
Get this clear, I don't think what this guy did warrented gail, but that's not what my beef is about.

Now, which part of this is unclear to you?

BM, expensive lawyers are only part to blame.

It's more the experts that find something wrong with the offender that often cloud the judgement of judges.

There are many 'get out of gail free cards' money is only one.

BTW, millionaires are often tighter with their money than the poor and, they miss the $1000 just as much.

In any case, they are the ones who provide most of the free legal council for the poor, along with most other hand outs they receive.

But once again, we are getting off track, as my thread has nothing to do with wealth. It has to do with one being punished, while another is not.

Ok rechtub, I agree lets not drift off to rich vs poor stuff...

So what about responding to the rest of my posts?

rehctub,

You did use this instance for your example.
If, however, this person had committed a grievous crime with intent he would have been incarcerated in whatever institution was suitable, especially if he was deemed a danger to the community. The fact that this didn't happen was due to a weighing up of the pros and cons of this singular situation.