Should our justice system be liable for repeat offenders?

CODave · 03-10-2004, 08:20 PM

I was reading and contemplating posts on the situation with the abuse by priests. I made a post stating that the Church should be held accountable... liable for repeat offenders and cover-up.

I thought to myself, how is it any different than our justice system letting violent criminals, molesters, rapists etc, back out on the street, only to do it again. If we had some system of accountability for that, would that help our justice system take matters more seriously?

Do you all have any ideas of how this could be handled, or why this cannot be done?

I know jurys decide guilt, but judges dish out the sentence. I'm thinking the judges should be held accountable. Maybe the dang jurys need acountability too! What do you think?

stealthycat · 03-10-2004, 08:27 PM

If a parol board deems a person rehabilitated and ready to go back into society before his punishment is served, they should be accountable for his actions. I believe that 100% and the passing of such a law would keep almost all criminals behind bars full term - a good thing in my opinion. It would also perhaps set a precedence for life in prison and/or death for violent offender. If there is a murder who gets 20 years, is released and murders again, who's to blame ? Perhaps the jury for not putting the threat to society behind bars for life ?

Aught Six · 03-10-2004, 08:42 PM

Nope, the criminals should be held 100% liable. Only they control their actions. And if they can't, well that's when they get locked up.

CODave · 03-10-2004, 08:45 PM

On the other hand, judges and jurys and parol boards if held accountable might want everyone put away for good! Hmmm. That could be a problem.

Vee_9 · 03-10-2004, 09:12 PM

Quote:

On the other hand, judges and jurys and parol boards if held accountable might want everyone put away for good! Hmmm. That could be a problem.

thats EXACTLY right. If you hold judges liable for criminals after their sentencing, they would give everyone life. And to go beyond that, who would want to be a judge??

I think that judges should have "records" of every case they handle, what the sentencing was for the criminal, and where the criminal is now. If the judges prove to be too lenient (after LONG analysis of records) they should be punished. But it should be a pretty laid back law, so as people wouldn't stray away from choosing the law as a career.

If a judge lets someone out after they murdered someone, and served 40 years or something, I dont see how the judge should be punished for that. Before we start attacking our judges and officials, we should simply make punishments for repeat offenders incredibly brash.

Look at that poor Carly girl who was murdered, and last seen by a video surveillance tape. The man who killed her had a record a MILE LONG! People like that should not be roaming the streets, at ALL. It sickens me that after so many offenses, he was just roaming around town, looking for a little girl to kidnap...... and kill. Who knows what he did to her inbetween that time.

CODave · 03-10-2004, 09:23 PM

You know, I think most people are good. It is a small percentage that keep doing the same things, not to mention they pro-create themselves when they have children, and abuse them and teach them hate and violence.

I'll let you come to your own conclusion as to what we should do with violent and repeat offenders.

Coastie · 03-11-2004, 04:32 AM

Here in Georgia the Jury is responsible for a decision as to guilt but also as to the law. Judges never explain that though and lawyers go to great extremes to keep them from knowing also.
SECTION II

Par. 1 In all prosecutions or indictments for libel the truth may
be given in evidence; and the jury in all criminal cases,
shall be the judges of the law and the facts. The power of
the judges to grant new trials in case of conviction is
preserved.

I believe a constitutional ammendment is in order to hold elected officials responsible for the damage their "Law Making" efforts cause. It has been specifically stated in the Constitution that they are exempt from that. An alternative might be to cause all punitive laws to be enforced only on congress, their families and prior business associates for say a period of two years before it affects the general population and conversely, any law that would provide advantage would affect only the general population before being applied to the congress, their families and business associates. That could slow down a lot of the nonsense they come up with.
The criminal justice system has their hands tied for the most part, except for parole boards, these people have been given too much latitude in many instances in releasing supposedly reformed inmates. Maybe the first time around they should be given a pass but if an inmate is paroled a second time and commits a felony, then the parole board should serve the rest of the original sentence.

kevin1 · 03-11-2004, 06:00 AM

Here's a thought ,

HOW ABOUT HOLDING THE REPEAT OFFENDERS LIABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS FOR A CHANGE !

Coastie · 03-11-2004, 07:22 AM

Heres a thought also; How about holding those responsible that gave them a second chance ???
While it is true that the offender is responsible for the act in and of itself, if they had remained in the slammer where they should be, there would not have been that particular second offense. How about calling it an accessory before the fact, if you need a label.

stealthycat · 03-11-2004, 07:38 AM

I have 10 pit bulls, they showed through there puppy years they were mean animals. I keep them chained 95% of the time. One day I let them out and the kill a neighbors dog. A few weeks later I let them out again and they kill a small child.

Dogs fault or my fault ?

A judge sees a guy that has a history of violent crime, sentences him to 30 years after he rapes someone. Parol board lets him out after 6 years and he gets out and kills a little girl.

Who's fault ?

Personal responsibility is one thing, allowing a crime to occur is another.

What is jail for ? Punishment or rehabilitaion ? if its punishment, there should be no parol. if its rehabilitation, there should be no one released thats still a threat to society. If there IS an early release and the criminal is still a threat, then why release him ?