I am interested to know you thoughts on this.
Some people commit absolutely heinous crimes, are charged, are judged by a jury of common folk who all must find the person guilty and are sentenced by the presiding judge. That sounds fine, doesn't it.
At times the general public think sentences are inadequate, but they have not heard all the evidence or the judge's reasoning for the sentence.
The sentences are usually between 20 and 30 years in gaol, but even before their sentence is completed, they are eligible to apply for parole. For the unrepentant and unreformed prisoners, this will normally be denied. One such person may be Julian Knight who shot dead nine people and injured many more in a random mass shooting.
But eventually they have served their sentences and are released from gaol. That is unless the State Government intervenes and decides to keep them in gaol at His Majesty's pleasure. To me the decision seems to made by the view of the general public. Keep the bastard locked up, or similar.
There are a number of criminals who have served their time and are detained at His Majesty's pleasure.
I am not sure if I feel comfortable with this as it mixes up public opinion, governments, the law and royal assent. They were sentenced for the crime they committed, served their time and should be released. (And very closely monitored if necessary)
It may be best to argue that their sentences were inadequate, with a good whipping added to make them repent, or a longer sentence. I am just not keen on governments interfering with the legal system, even though they do so all the time with legislation.
.jpg)
I strongly suspect His Majesty knows nothing about such cases either (and probably cares less). If there is good reason to keep them incarcerated then let us know what they are. And give them the right of appeal.
ReplyDeleteEC, our King hasn't even visited us downunder. He cares not about us. Your thoughts are good.
DeleteI probably take a view that will be considered too simplistic for many. If their crimes have been so very heinous then I believe they should remain incarcerated for the rest of their natural lives. If they have committed a depraved and violent crime then I doubt that their nature would change so drastically that they would ever not pose a danger to the rest of society. Unless someone can prove otherwise.
ReplyDeleteJayCee, I don't know how many would be genuinely rehabilitated and repentant. It might be easy to fake. I think perhaps the real issue is sentencing, but twenty five to thirty years is a long time.
DeletePuede que un equipo de expertos, hayan estudiado el caso y vean, que hay un peligro inminente, para la sociedad. Hay que saber bien los factores, que han decidido esa determinación, para tener los motivos necesarios, para poder dar una buena opinión, a ese asunto.
ReplyDeleteFeliz año 2024.
You are quite correct. Without knowing the detail, we can't really judge. But I still don't like the thought of someone serving their sentence but not being released.
DeleteIf the law is there to do an eye for an eye, then the system would always fail the victim's expectation. If one treasures his/her own natural life, then taking away the younger 20 to 30 years would be quite deadly
ReplyDeleteRoentare, we do have to remember that being gaoled for two to three decades is quite a severe punishment.
Deletethecontemplativecat here. don't get me started! Americans and the legal system are messed up.
ReplyDeleteCC, if #45 is gaoled, then I will have a lot of respect for the American system.
DeleteIf a person has been sentenced to life then life they should serve.
ReplyDeleteThe problem we have is with criminals who have been sentenced to a defined period but who have not been rehabilitated whilst inside and may offend again. If they have served their term and show signs of possible reoffending what do we do?
I agree that most of these cases seem to be based on community outrage though.
Off with his head?
Merlot, very close monitoring including phone and internet usage should be enough and certainly cheaper than keeping them in prison. I guess the very determined could get around this. We may feel like off with his head for some crimes.
DeleteIt's not exactly double jeopardy (being tried twice for the same crime) but it's close, so I don't think constitutionally you could do that in the U.S. But even if you could, I'd be against it. Now, if someone commits a felony while IN prison--murder a fellow inmate, say--then, yes, keep them in longer, but only AFTER being found guilty for that particular crime.
ReplyDeleteKirk, it used to be the case that no one could be charged a second time but now I think if there is overwhelming evidence comes to light, they can be. Concurrent sentences are also an issue. Yes, if the commit a crime in gaol and found guilty, they will serve longer.
DeleteI don't mind if mass murderers are locked up for the rest of their lives, as long as they have adequate food, some exercise each day and proper medical care. Execution would be an obscenity but so would an early release back into the community.
ReplyDeleteHels, if someone is of sound mind and commit a mass shooting, I think they have lost the right forever to freedom. All should be entitled to basic care, as you describe.
DeleteFor very wicked people, life should mean life, not 20 or 30 years with parole after two thirds of the sentence has been served. The trouble is that our prisons are bursting at the seams so the whole system needs to be overhauled.
ReplyDeleteI'm with you JB. Was the name changed to parole when it used to be called 'good behaviour'. It may mean the same but the latter is palatable to the public. As our population grows, we are building more prisons. Is it just population growth? Or are people misbehaving more?
DeletePeople are misbehaving more. They don't learn values and respect at home as children and it shows when they are adults who think they are entitled.
DeleteNo argument from me River. We saw two brats in the supermarket today behaving very badly. I can't imagine the consequences if I behaved like that as a child.
DeleteI wonder sometimes if the Paroles come too soon. People who have committed violent crimes and are sentenced to however many years should serve all those years in my opinion, not get out on Parole after maybe only three years. Many of them learn the "tricks" to the type of good behaviour and repentance that will get them released early so they can continue doing just what they did to get locked up in the first place.
ReplyDeleteRiver, I agree. Remember when parole was called 'good behaviour'. As I've said in other comments, there needs to be strong monitoring of some when they are released. And yes, some do work the system to their advantage.
DeleteThe law and law makers along with Judges do not always make the correct decision when sentencing criminals. There are so many if's and but's, governments should keep their noses out on most cases, exceptions of course.
ReplyDeleteMargaret, so many of us think judges make wrong decisions when sentencing. Maybe they do. I agree, the judiciary should prevail over politics.
DeleteDidn't the English have an alternative to prison that got people out of the country?
ReplyDeleteErr, well yes they did TP. Depending who you ask, it went rather well.
DeleteThat's interesting. I don't think American prisons have any similar provision. If you've served your sentence you're released, period. You can be denied parole or clemency DURING your sentence, but that's a different ball of wax.
ReplyDeleteSteve, essentially I think as you describe is how it should be.
DeleteI agree that the government shouldn't be involved. What a complicated issue. Be well, Andrew.
ReplyDeleteDarla, especially here where there is a strong demarcation between the state and the judiciary.
DeleteYou mean by His Majesty, the King of England? Meddling in criminal justice affairs? That's laughable, scary too.
ReplyDeleteYes Strayer. He doesn't really, but potentially could using his Australian representative, the Governor General or state Governors.
DeleteOscar Pistorius is now out on parole, to be enjoyed in his uncle's mansion. What a shame famous athletes can practically murder without consequences.
ReplyDeleteHels, there were consequences for him but not as severe as we think there should have been. Had a black South African murdered his wife, it would have rather different.
DeleteI'm OK with dangerous and unreformed people being locked up for their whole lifetime but I'm not ok with keeping anyone in gaol after their sentence is served. Doing that makes a mockery of the entire system and if we mock the whole justice system it has no value
ReplyDeleteI agree Kylie. You have clarified my thoughts. But I do think that sentencing periods are perhaps too short.
Delete