Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
It only completely removes the chance of reoffense if it's a life sentence. If the goal is to prevent future crime shouldn't we lock up everyone who gets a DUI above a certain amount for life. If the goal is to prevent reoffending doesn't it make more sense to only punish the action and not the outcome.
A person who didn't kill someone but drove just as drunk has a similar risk to kill again as the drunk driver who killed someone.
A person who gets in fights in bars and stabs someone has a similar risk to kill again regardless of if the stabbing victim lives or dies.
Intent and the actions leading to the incident have far more to due with the likelihood of reoffend evidence than the outcome does.
|
I'm not saying to not punish the act itself. Those would undergo whatever punishment those acts would carry in those cases. I just wouldn't deem it the same act as where a person actually died.
That being said, attempted murder i think still carries max life sentence like murder anyways so there is indication of punishment of the intent as well as the outcome. So yes you could still sentence someone that doesn't kill to a punishment equal to murder. But when you're at the murder stage, there would be no difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ResAlien
Interesting watching someone essentially argue for life under totalitarian rule. Takes all sorts I suppose.
|
While media does play a role in how my thoughts turned into what they are today, I have a University degree and a minor in law and society (irony?fate?serendipity?) with course specializations in war history and can't say I always thought like this. Or did I but merely didn't know it? Hard to say on that count. I like to think i bring a unique perspective to things. Homegrown Canadian with immigrant parents too!