Guest c4evap Posted November 19, 2005 Share Posted November 19, 2005 I was reading the other day how some politicians want to extend the prison sentences of sex offenders even thought the inmate has finished his/her sentence and is due for release. While on the surface this might seem like a good idea...is it right and where does it end? Today it's sex offenders. Tomorrow it might be anything. Do we have the right to arbitrarily extend a sentence past what the courts and juries have decided regardless of the crime? That kind of power scares the hell outta me! c4 :thinking: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psheldrake1 Posted November 19, 2005 Share Posted November 19, 2005 I don't think a sex offender should make it to prison. They should be shot on sight. I do believe they should extend prison sentences for the more dangerous offenders. Ones that don't attend councelling, have no remorse. But then I think we should have the death penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annika Posted November 19, 2005 Share Posted November 19, 2005 I agree in theory, but I think every case should be looked at individually. If you make such a general law there always will be people who suffer the consequences that don't deserve it. US justice system does not have a very good reputation, I've heard a large percentage of your prisoners is actually innocent :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralLee Posted November 19, 2005 Share Posted November 19, 2005 Do we have the right to arbitrarily extend a sentence past what the courts and juries have decided regardless of the crime? No. But maybe the laws can be modified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostShadow Posted November 19, 2005 Share Posted November 19, 2005 you know, i don tink that this law should affect the ppl who have already be sentenced. It should just go to the ppl who comite the crime now. "People should not be judged by their actions, but rather how well they rise after they fall" How can ppl rise if they are not givin a chance? ppl make rash desisions in the moment, desisions that may later be regreted. I think that they should be punished but i dont know.... jail always makes me wonder. in the Constitution of the United States you are given un-alienable right, these rights are not to be taken away under ANY curmstance. the right to fredom, the right to persue happines... its it kinda weird that we have jail? eh, w/e i dont make the laws, i just follow them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GorunNova Posted November 19, 2005 Share Posted November 19, 2005 you know, i don tink that this law should affect the ppl who have already be sentenced. It should just go to the ppl who comite the crime now. "People should not be judged by their actions, but rather how well they rise after they fall" How can ppl rise if they are not givin a chance? ppl make rash desisions in the moment, desisions that may later be regreted. I think that they should be punished but i dont know.... jail always makes me wonder. in the Constitution of the United States you are given un-alienable right, these rights are not to be taken away under ANY curmstance. the right to fredom, the right to persue happines... its it kinda weird that we have jail? eh, w/e i dont make the laws, i just follow them. Without law, we have anarchy... many someones have said that. Do you really want people who commit crimes to go unpunished? If someone's expression of 'freedom' is to go on a shooting spree, would that be acceptable to you? There have to be commonly accepted limits, or society -will- break down, and people should be protected from other people's 'freedoms'... One person's happiness shouldn't come at the expense of another's, another dozen's, or another hundred's... ... otherwise, I totally agree. It's not really fair to extend existing jail terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostShadow Posted November 19, 2005 Share Posted November 19, 2005 I never said i wanted that, i was just pointing out a rather interesting conridictiction in the constitution, or at least interesting to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GorunNova Posted November 19, 2005 Share Posted November 19, 2005 Actually, you have a point. Taken literally, jail shouldn't be possible, as that would be a matter of temporarily suspending rights, unless there's a clause somewhere that involves suspension of rights due to criminal activity... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostShadow Posted November 19, 2005 Share Posted November 19, 2005 i dont know, i just thought that since it said "un-alienable rights" i would assume that since that means thoes rights are not to be taken away under any curcumsance that jail is a contidiction of the constitution.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrDad Posted November 19, 2005 Share Posted November 19, 2005 Actually' date=' you have a point. Taken literally, jail shouldn't be possible, as that would be a matter of temporarily suspending rights, unless there's a clause somewhere that involves suspension of rights due to criminal activity...[/quote'] It's called 'due process'. Criminal trials and civil proceedings are two examples Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest c4evap Posted November 19, 2005 Share Posted November 19, 2005 Actually' date=' you have a point. Taken literally, jail shouldn't be possible, as that would be a matter of temporarily suspending rights, unless there's a clause somewhere that involves suspension of rights due to criminal activity...[/quote'] It's called 'due process'. Criminal trials and civil proceedings are two examples But wouldn't extending a prisoner's sentence (who had done nothing wrong since being sentenced and serving said sentance) be usurping due process? c4 :thinking: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcant Posted November 19, 2005 Share Posted November 19, 2005 a senetnce should be fixed allowing it to be altered gives credence to the spectre of retrospective laws Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbbb Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 I for one don't care if the criminals have remorse of go to counseling. They are in prison to protect society from a threat more real and closer to home than Al-Qaeda. I don't really care about Al-Qaeda, from what I'm told they all got nuked out of the caves in Afghanistan. A military person told a large group of people this weird story. If it is true than the US is guilty of heinous acts. If not, this military person should be sent to the loonie bin. Did I forget to say that he is an army guy? As for criminals, if guilty they commited acts contrary to the rights and laws of Man, and can remain there for all time for all I care. End dictation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
str82u Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 Extending a sentance is wrong I think unless the inmate has shown themself to be dangerous still, like commiting more of the same crimes in prison, but hatss not an extention, it's a new sentence. Courts do have sentenceing guidelines for all sorts of conditions/situations for all sorts of crimes, those should be adhered to and modified BEFORE setencing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest c4evap Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 a senetnce should be fixed allowing it to be altered gives credence to the spectre of retrospective laws You sing and dance as well as anyone here...but what the heck are you talking about?!? c4 :thinking: :thinking: :thinking: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StitchInTime Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 a senetnce should be fixed allowing it to be altered gives credence to the spectre of retrospective laws You sing and dance as well as anyone here...but what the heck are you talking about?!? c4 :thinking: :thinking: :thinking: Hee hee. Translation: I think it means that if you allow the duration of sentences to be altered after the person has already been sentenced, then it establishes a precedent for applying this as a general rule. So, for example, let's say the minimum prison sentence in your jurisdiction for unarmed robbery is two years. The day after you get sentenced, however, a law comes into effect that increases the minimum sentence to three years. So, if the precedent is applied in this case, this change could be made retroactive, so that you would now have to serve three years, even though your original sentence was only two years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruk Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 Hate to break it to you folks, but we already extend the sentences of sex offenders. Its called "Megan's Law", and requires all sex offenders to register where they live and work even after their sentence and paroles are fully completed. This is just a lesser form of parole in my opinion and certainly seems like an extension of punishment by most definitions of the word. In my opinion Megan's Law would be legal for future sex offenders, but applying it retroactively to past ones convicted before the law is a violation of due process in my opinion. But of course nobody is going to stand up for sex offenders and fight for their rights (and thus this becomes a lesser evil we are willing to overlook to protect kids). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StitchInTime Posted November 25, 2005 Share Posted November 25, 2005 But of course nobody is going to stand up for sex offenders and fight for their rights Mmm. Probably not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hilander72 Posted November 25, 2005 Share Posted November 25, 2005 I think it's wrong to extende sentences in retrospect, no matter what. Cause any new law, could send anyone to prison for a crime they commited in the past (when it was NOT illegal). :thinking: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyran Posted November 26, 2005 Share Posted November 26, 2005 No you cannot extend sentences but you can add to them if the perp does other things wrong megans law is not extending a sentence it's acknowledging our inability to guarantee the perp won't do it again We released gary glitter and now he's in jail in veitnam for sex with kids we should have hung him the first time but in nam they shoot them KEEP your fingers crossed cos THAT would be a deterrent to these people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now