|
| Thread: British Fritzl (!) jailed |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · «PREV |
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted November 28, 2008 09:10 AM |
|
|
You seem to miss something.
First step is that the guilt of a party must be determined. The GUILT, not the punishment. This is probably not much of a problem in the current case, but in most cases involving the kind of gruesome stuff this is all about it might well be.
The second step, after the guilt is determined, ideally with a confession, the shrinks are there ONLY for any victims to determine with them what THEY want and need in connection with the guilty party. At this point the only sentence for the guilty is that he has to wait with that until the victims are finished with him. In this time, to make up for the cost, he may donate regularly blood, work things no one wants to or cares to and so on.
The victims may want his death; the victims may want him being tortured; the victims may want to hear him personally apart. However, the aim of the shrinks workingf with the victims is to determine the best course of action for them to get over it and be able to live their life as best as possible: they may WANT to tear him apart piece by piece, but they won't be able to do it, even if they were allowed to, most of the time.
So the side of the VICTIMS will, after a time, have established what the best course of action for them in connection with the evildoer would be. This might indeed involve killing the evildoer, but I'm pretty sure that it won't. Note that this procedure would be necessary in my eyes with all cases where victims get seriously traumatized, for example rape.
After that, after the victims had been satisfied, it would be up to the courts again to see what would then happen with the evildoer, if there this was one, that is.
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted November 28, 2008 09:12 PM |
|
|
The victim's feelings should have little impact on a criminal trial. If they want retribution, they can sue in civil court. Criminal proceedings are the state vs. X. Not victim vs. X. The punishment is determined by the judge through case precedent or setencing guidelines. What the victim wants, should and does mean nothing in a criminal proceeding.
If the victim wants a say, as mentioned above, they can sue the defendant in tort for a variety of claims. Even then, the plaintiff's claim for relief is outlined in the complaint and generally a judge won't deviate from the requested relief if he or she finds in favor of the plaintiff. Furthermore, it is a lawyer's job to determine what is in the best interest of his or her client and advise that client about the pros and cons of the relief sought. Not a psychologist's. They are not experts on the law or punishment.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 29, 2008 10:17 AM |
|
|
I'm not going to allow you a lecturing about the actual law system when you are a member of the side who wants to "do away with the evildoer", no matter what the law says.
What we are talking about here is a special case (and in general all cases with a high "burn-'im-at-the-stake" factor), not the system of law and jurisdiction.
Remember, we are not talking about you-owe-me-a-buck cases. The point is, that in cases where nearly everyone calls for the death penalty we have VICTIMS.
I suspect that the do-away-with-him attitude is motivated by an urge of everyone to bury those gruesome cases as fast as possible - that, however, is not possible for the VICTIMS, and one way or another the evildoer leaves soeciety with them.
Now, no matter what happens with the evildoer, the most important thing here are THE VICTIMS and to make sure that THEY get the most intensive and best care possible, ESPECIALLY in connection with the evildoer and what happens to him. This is not even debatable - in a shooting for example, where an evilduer would seriously hurt innocent bystanders, you'd make sure that the victims get taken care of before you actually start hunting, if it's necessary.
So the logical consequence is, that whatever society deems necessary to happen with the evildoer, it has to be with consideration of what the victims need to get over it as best as possible.
In practise this would mean - and I repeat, this is talking about a certain kind of high-disgust cases - that first the guilt would have to be established as is normal procedure. In that time any victims would have to get psychological help by experts - this should be a matter of course, since normal medical treatment is a matter of course as well.
At the end of the trial - if the guilt has been established - it would now be the turn of the experts to testify about the victims condition and what may be necessary to happen with the evildoer for them to be able to lead a halfway normal life again.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 30, 2008 06:30 AM |
|
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted November 30, 2008 08:04 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I'm not going to allow you a lecturing about the actual law system when you are a member of the side who wants to "do away with the evildoer", no matter what the law says.
Let's get a couple things straight. While I may be proprosecution, I follow the law. Doesn't matter what I think the punishment should be. If I ever become a prosecutor, I will follow the laws and precedent of the state I practice in. Period. Secondly, I don't appreciate your statement. I'm an attorney and know what I'm talking about while I'm "lecturing." Furthermore, I'm more than willing to listen to your opinion on the subject, regardless of your utilitarian attitude towards criminals, and have a friendly debate. Yet, you seem quite dismissive of what I say because I subscribe to a more retributionist approach to punishment. If you are so willing to write my opinions off because of that, I see little point in continuing this discussion.
Back on track:
In a criminal case, the victim is not a party and therefore, his or her rights and desires are secondary. It may not be right but that's how it works. The accused isn't punished for what he did to the victim per se; the accused is punished for breaking the law and disrupting the social order of the state. The sentence is what the state deems appropriate to punish the criminal. Any consideration of victim's rights are discussed and deliberated upon by the state legislature but ultimately, it's the state that is being vindicated, not the victim.
@Mvass
While barbaric, I can't think of a more fitting punishment.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 30, 2008 12:20 PM |
|
|
Either your point is that the law is the law, than there is no discussing at all, because there IS a law already.
If you are suggesting instead changes to the law (death penaltyfor certain crimes and so on), you have to allow alternative suggestions as well, don't you?
So the bottom line is simply, that you cannot argue against my points with the point that the law says otherwise, when the law says otherwise about YOUR death penalty stance as well.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 30, 2008 03:33 PM |
|
|
What's the point in discussion when people say "The law says otherwise" 
isn't that the whole point? I mean to change something or how it should be etc... because obviously laws are different in each country.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted November 30, 2008 06:56 PM |
|
|
I've explained how the system works. You think victim's rights should be taken more into consideration during criminal trials. I've explained why that isn't the case and how relief can still be sought in a civil fashion. If a way exists for a victim to get relief civilly, why should the legislature overhaul the criminal system to do the same?
Your "law says otherwise" statement isn't quite valid either, seeing as how the death penalty is still employed by several states in the United States as well as many other countries around the world. Do you know why there isn't a death penalty for rape?
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 30, 2008 07:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You think victim's rights should be taken more into consideration during criminal trials.
I said NOTHING of that sort. I said, that, since the victims are those that really gut damaged, the victim's BEST INTERESTS should be considerd first and foremost AFTER (not DURING) trial, BEFORE the sentence is given. Which means, when SENTENCING the evildoer, the VICTIMS' interests should be considered first and foremost.
Quote:
Your "law says otherwise" statement isn't quite valid either, seeing as how the death penalty is still employed by several states in the United States as well as many other countries around the world.
The question is not WHTHER the death penalty is employed, but WHATFOR it is employed and WHEN it is employed.
I think, that the law says otherwise for you the same as for me in this respect.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted November 30, 2008 08:25 PM |
|
|
Quote:
While we're on the subject of crime in general...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7754756.stm
This is taking "eye for an eye" quite literally. I hope this'll sour the guy's vision of the world.
I think its a better solution than a jail sentence in this case. And i think it would indeed be in some other cases.
To sum it up:
*He got what damage he did back
*She got componsation
*Nobody went to jail
Not saying its a simple and good solution is someting that may be said, however i think it works.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 30, 2008 08:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Not saying its a simple and good solution is someting that may be said, however i think it works.
No it's absolutely horrible.
They both are blind -- which means both bring less benefits. The 'criminal' could, for example, be put to work (forcefully) and perhaps compensate the victim, but nah, we have to blind him, as if that'll benefit the victim in any way.
How does that benefit the victim may I ask?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted November 30, 2008 11:07 PM |
|
|
They aren't approaching it from the victim's perspective.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 01, 2008 06:55 AM |
|
|
|
And that's exactly the problem with all this.
|
| |
|
|
