Crime and Punishment

We're talking decades. Could even be 50+ years. Much will change

The treatment of Turing was just unbelievably bad. I've read that even the chemical castration option was offered after special intervention by Churchil to 'help'. Otherwise it would have been hard labour. (Or freedom and great honours if he had been upper class).

the parents? did receive 30-60 days for tampering with evidence or something. the mother tried to wash the blood soaked cloth for which she got busted. for that she received 30-60 days and 5 year probabtion.

if a dog kills someone, the dog owner goes to prison here,
at least he gets fined. is that different in the UK?

how much would he get in the uk?
also 25 years?

Four years is the longest I can find for a dog owner on a quick google. Less than 2 years seems more common.

Are you totally incapable of the most basic reading comprehension? I said juveniles can't be given life without parole. You keep saying "but but he got life". I keep saying "yes, with parole". And you're like "let me show you a bunch of articles saying he was given life". Ok. With. Parole. JFC, my 5 year old nephew has better comprehension than you do.

they can get life sentence now in extreme cases.

here are 14 teen years:
"Owners of killer dogs face 14 years in jail"
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013...

You argued the parole thing. Go back and read your own posts.

There is no such thing as an automatic death sentence. And life without parole sentences and death sentences are not available for juveniles, even when tried as an adult.

alright alright
you said nothing wrong. (technically)

I am saying that life without parole sentences for juveniles have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. That makes it illegal to give a juvenile a LWOP sentence in the US. I wouldn't call that "cutting slack" but that's semantics.

They'll go up for a parole hearing like everyone else. If they have behaved themselves in prison, they have the same chance of getting out as anyone else with a parole date. If they have a long institutional record of infractions, or they have caught additional time for crimes committed inside, then no, they won't get out. Just like anyone else with a life sentence.

It's not a whole natural life sentence. Parole is an option. Re your other post, you stated minors were given the dp in the US and it was pointed out to you that this was incorrect. You also very much did argue on parole and appear not to know the difference between a life with parole sentence and one without and... here we are.

In all US jurisdictions I am aware of, a death sentence has to be given by a jury, in most jurisdictions unanimously, in some by a majority. So, there is no such thing as an automatic death sentence, even in a death penalty case - the jury can still come back with a life sentence.

Also, it is always at the discretion of the prosecutor whether to make a case a death penalty case. There is no scenario under which the prosecutor is mandated to try for the death penalty.

You are right that there are a lot of jurisdictions where life without parole is mandated for first degree murder for adults, and the sentence is automatic upon conviction.

Many (most?) people on this forum tell me that being in prison for awhile makes one more likely to commit crimes in the future, not less. That doesn't make a good argument for parole.

It also makes a good argument for locking people up for life for any offence, if you take it to its logical conclusion.

Yes, you did.

D2 said minors cannot be given life without parole. You said they could be, and referenced that murder.

Can you really be this dense?

So now you think 14 years is a life sentence too?

Life in prison for any violent offense would be ideal, IMO.

Good thing you're not in charge, really.

It makes a very good agrument against prison wherever possible

also a very good argument for improving prisons dramatically

(Not that thes arguments weren't already compelling)

We non-violent criminals would certainly all be much safer.

You certainly sometimes do exhibit this view of the world that I can only describe as childlike naivete, and I can only assume that this is trolling. In case it's not - I am not going to explain to you why this is a completely terrible idea, as I am sure with more than 5 seconds thought you can figure it out, you're a smart lad.

You're welcome to think it is a bad idea. I doubt you actually disagree that it would make the non-violent members of society safer though. I guess you have other values that you hold higher than that one, while I do not (as far as criminal justice goes).

I also think that shooting all the bears would make hikers safer. That doesn't mean I think it's a good idea.

Me neither. I would just shoot the bears who have attacked hikers with no provocation.

what percentage of violent crimes are commited by ex-prisoners convicted of violent crimes?

Shoot the hikers for not having bear spray. (If they survive the bear attack obviously)