Should rape carry a potential life sentence?

kellyb said:
What is a situation where a judge can make the reasonable call that even one week is too severe for a rape conviction?
Click to expand...
It isn't reasonable.

I would rather have one person who is under-jailed and keep having judges have discretion in setting jail terms rather than a legislature setting an inflexible minimum based only on feels which tends to harm minorities a great deal more, by the way.
 
The Norseman said:
It isn't reasonable.

I would rather have one person who is under-jailed and keep having judges have discretion in setting jail terms rather than a legislature setting an inflexible minimum based only on feels which tends to harm minorities a great deal more, by the way.
Click to expand...

Why would you oppose a one month mandatory minimum?
 
kellyb said:
Why would you oppose a one month mandatory minimum?
Click to expand...
Is that really what is discussed when setting mandatory minimums though? A single month?

Or is it more like 36 months or 60 months or something of that nature?

What felony crime in any jurisdiction has a one month mandatory minimum on the books?
 
The Norseman said:
It seems that you want many many many people to be overly jailed — usually for life — for petty crimes but run afoul of things like 3 strikes and mandatory minimums just to try and prevent an incredibly rare case such as Brock Turner.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to make some sort of slippery slope argument? It's either that or a straw man, I can't tell.
 
The Norseman said:
Is that really what is discussed when setting mandatory minimums though? A single month?

Or is it more like 36 months or 60 months or something of that nature?

What felony crime in any jurisdiction has a one month mandatory minimum on the books?
Click to expand...

I'm wondering what this bizarre, hysterical opposition to the entire principle of it is, if saying "My worry there, and I'm really worried about it, is that the mandatory minimum will be set incredibly high" would be a better way to accurate phrase whatever concerns you (might?) have.
 
The Norseman said:
Mandatory minimums take away a judges discretion of what the sentence should be for a particular crime, taking into consideration a variety of variables. Mandatory minimums are set up by the legislature imposed on the judges and are not able to take into consideration variables which could and do affect what the final sentence should be.
Click to expand...

Because Judges should "not" be able to do anything they want in sentencing. We give them leeway, and we should, to adjust sentencing based on individual factors but we don't give them a blank check to impose any sentence they want.

We don't want judges letting rapist go with a slap on the wrist or sending someone to the gulags for stealing bread.

I don't get what you don't get about this or why it is s important to you.
 
SOdhner said:
Are you trying to make some sort of slippery slope argument? It's either that or a straw man, I can't tell.
Click to expand...
Oh, not at all. Neither.

You stated you are worried that people are getting a slap on the wrist so you are in favor of mandatory minimums.

I'm pointing out that mandatory minimums take away judges' discretion in sentencing which is their main job all because people "feel" that "too many people" "get away with x crime" and often all the other nonsense comes into play such as "being too light on crime" and so on.

I'm also saying that mandatory minimums end up, once again in our criminal justice system, disproportionally affect minorities in getting massively heavy sentences and, in general, not doing what they were supposedly intended on doing.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Because Judges should "not" be able to do anything they want in sentencing. We give them leeway, and we should, to adjust sentencing based on individual factors but we don't give them a blank check to impose any sentence they want.

We don't want judges letting rapist go with a slap on the wrist or sending someone to the gulags for stealing bread.

I don't get what you don't get about this or why it is s important to you.
Click to expand...

Right. If "no time, or alternately, life" is the leeway, what's the point of the jury of 12 peers?
 
kellyb said:
I'm wondering what this bizarre, hysterical opposition to the entire principle of it is, if saying "My worry there, and I'm really worried about it, is that the mandatory minimum will be set incredibly high" would be a better way to accurate phrase whatever concerns you (might?) have.
Click to expand...
Bizarre and hysterical opposition? There is certainly no need to characterize my posts as such so... bye.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Because Judges should "not" be able to do anything they want in sentencing.
Click to expand...
This is now the second time you've brought this up and if you think this is my stance, you're reading way too much of whatever you want to project onto me.



We give them leeway, and we should, to adjust sentencing based on individual factors but we don't give them a blank check to impose any sentence they want.
Click to expand...
Never said that, never implied it.

Jesus christ, talk about uncharitable reading here.



We don't want judges letting rapist go with a slap on the wrist or sending someone to the gulags for stealing bread.

I don't get what you don't get about this or why it is s important to you.
Click to expand...

I'M AGAINST MANDATORY MINIMUMS FOR THE REASONS STATED.
 
The Norseman said:
Bizarre and hysterical opposition? There is certainly no need to characterize my posts as such so... bye.
Click to expand...
Yes.
Saying "To be clear: you would all rather that we get life in prison for theft of a $50 watch for a whole lot of people than an extremely rare Brock Turner by taking away all discretion of the judge (which is exactly what they're there for) and instilling mandatory minimums which cannot distinguish the details from one another because "it feels better" is very, very hysterical and bizarre.
 
The Norseman said:
I'm pointing out that mandatory minimums take away judges' discretion in sentencing which is their main job all because people "feel" that "too many people" "get away with x crime" and often all the other nonsense comes into play such as "being too light on crime" and so on.
Click to expand...

Because you refuse, rather oddly at this point, to accept any thing other than "Judges can impose any sentence they want" as the Judges having any discretion at all.

Judges had discretion, they can't do anything. What is possibly difficult about that?
 
JoeMorgue said:
Because you refuse, rather oddly at this point, to accept any thing other than "Judges can impose any sentence they want" as the Judges having any discretion at all.
Click to expand...
Not at all.

Every sentence has sentencing guidelines. Mandatory minimums screw around with those sentencing guidelines. They have been imposed by the legislatures for reasons having to do with how a crime feels rather than any actual studies or reflections of why a certain sentence should carry such mandatory minimums.

No where have I ever said or implied that "judges can do anything they want" except in a very limited sense of "within the normal sentencing guidelines, they can take into consideration of a variety of circumstances in order to reach a reasonable sentence."

No one has of yet come up with any reason why they think that mandatory minimums are a good thing or actually have a positive impact on crime. So far as I can tell, it's based on emotion and nothing more.


ETA: What is possibly difficult about that? Even a third grader would understand.
 
I can't possibly understand how "sentencing guidelines" are okay but "minimum sentences" set you off to this degree.

Legislatures have a right to be involved in the sentencing process to some degree.
 
The Norseman said:
I'm pointing out that mandatory minimums take away judges' discretion in sentencing
Click to expand...

They place a specific restriction on one part of sentencing for specific crimes.

I'm not saying I'm always in favor of mandatory minimums, I think they need to be applied carefully both in terms of what that minimum is and how clearly the conditions are defined, but I think it's a bit silly to say that being in favor of a mandatory minimum of some sort for rape is the same as saying I want to "willing to crush the many in the hopes of catching the one" or any of the other strange comparisons you made.
 
I don't have a strong opinion on mandatory minimums and haven't really considered it much, but one thought I just had regarding it is that implementing them probably leads to a higher average sentence, since if a judge uses the minimum, they will be viewed as soft on crime.

This is (I think reasonable) speculation, of course
 
Justice is all about feelings.

There are no scientific formulas for justice.
 
I think that a life sentence is needed for serial rapists to protect the public. I think prison should only be used based on likelihood to re-offend.

All rapists should spend the rest of their lives on the sex offenders register.
 
kellyb said:
Justice is all about feelings.

There are no scientific formulas for justice.
Click to expand...

Bingo. There are some people here who seem to think that it's desireable that we humans strive to behave like machines. And are convinced that at some point we will. Because logic... I guess?

Good luck to them. I've got a feeling (heh...) they're setting themselves up for a lot of disappointment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom