Both the defendant and prosecutor have a right to a defense. A jury of peers makes a decision on guilt objectively based on the evidence provided by both the defendant and prosecutor. And then the judge decides punishment guided by maximum and minimum sentences with leeway for his personal judgement.
But is this right?
It was thrown at me the other day that the whole basis for this system is wrong.
Take this example:
Say someone stole your ring. Is it right for a third party to arbitrarily assign a value to it and sentence the thief? What about if it is accidentally destroyed? Then it is merely a $ value, no sentencing at all, no account for sentimental value.
To him it may only be a ring. But to you it might be the only thing left to remember your deceased husband by.
Should the sentencing be in the hands of the victim?
Allow a murdered woman's children/parents to decide the length of sentence of the killer.
Some would be sentenced to death, others may not even recieve jail time. It is all dependent on the depth of suffering of the victim's family, and their feelings about wether or not the killer is remorseful, etc.
Of course a large barrier of time would be required to assure that the decision was not made entirely on impulse.
This might not be the only way that would work. Are we basing our judicial system on the right principles?
There is a Wizard of Id comment that this reminds me of. A theif is brought to the king to be judged. He asks for a trial by jury and the king asks where he is supposed to find a jury of 12 guilty thieves.
This might not be the only way that would work. Are we basing our judicial system on the right principles?
Yes, third parties are likely to give the most appropriate sentence because they are unbiased. If someone stole something from your shop, and you got to decide his sentence, you could very well ask for life imprisonment for a minor offence. How is that rational/fair?
If someone stole something from your shop, and you got to decide his sentence, you could very well ask for life imprisonment for a minor offence. How is that rational/fair?
Do you really believe there are people out there who would sentence someone to life in prison for the theft of, say, a movie from a video store filled with movies?
I seriosuly doubt it. This system would rely on the common sense/decency of the everyman. Which does exist believe it or not.
Do you really believe there are people out there who would sentence someone to life in prison for the theft of, say, a movie from a video store filled with movies?
No, most probably wouldn't, but they could, and given the law of averages, there would be those who would be very unfairly treated at the extreme end of the spectrum. The law should not be ambiguous, it should be based on logical unbiased principles, not be up to individuals who have a vested interest in the matter.
I seriosuly doubt it. This system would rely on the common sense/decency of the everyman. Which does exist believe it or not.
I also believe in the tendency humans have to throw rationalism to the wind and let their emotions get the better of them.
Say for example the guy who was caught was a serial offender, who had stolen a number of times, but hadn't been caught. I think you'd be surprised at the wrath of the average shopkeeper when their livlihood is threatened.
There is a Wizard of Id comment that this reminds me of. A theif is brought to the king to be judged. He asks for a trial by jury and the king asks where he is supposed to find a jury of 12 guilty thieves.
Okay, first of all, what firefly said is true. People are biased and a third party is much more fair. Though there is the possibility of the jury not caring enough to sentence the guy reasonably, it is in majority more fair than if you have every victim sentencing the offender. As for the common sense/decency thing, I wouldn't trust 99% of the people i've ever seen to make a fair judgement or a smart one. Secondly, with that much arbitrary power to sentence, people would stage thefts or incite them just to punish someone they don't like, and don't even get me started on how people are decent enough not to do that, where do you think the McDonalds lawsuits have come in saying that they spilled coffe on themselves so they sue the company. That's both dumb and selfish. The current judicial system works fine when the jury pays attention and isn't utterly retarted and there is proper evidence to allow you to infer what actually happend.
Should the sentencing be in the hands of the victim?
No, because most people are ignorant fools who care about revenge when they are wronged. The next largest group would be those who say, "I forgive you. No sentence for you, even though you raped and murdered someone."
The judicial system, though still very flawed, is the most fair way to decide punishments.
The sentencing should not go to a victim. Some people would go nuts and give a life sentence for something small like stealing a wallet or a purse. Only a few would do that, but you get what I'm saying.
To him it may only be a ring. But to you it might be the only thing left to remember your deceased husband by.
This is exactly why having an objective jury with no stake in the proceedings at all is so important.
It could be that the person stole the ring so that they could have money to eat that day, and that the ring has high sentinmental value - but to the jury, it's a stolen article with a fixed value.
Now if we were going to argue about whether or not a jury is an accurate representation of one's "eers", I'd have something else to say....
