Europe really is soft on crime.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Shrapnel12
My common sense tells me there are probably other countries like the US, but I don't know of any. So an honest question: What other countries have judicial systems where you are innocent until proven guilty and the prosecution has to show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

The US is also the only country in the world where eating babies is a crime. God bless America!

[Wernazuma III]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Europe really is soft on crime.

Originally posted by Shrapnel12
Guilt is presumed in France. The US is the only country I know of where guilt has to be proved.

Please spare us with your self righteous complete ignorance in the future. Greetings from Nazilandia.

[Dry]

Originally posted by MikeH
Yeah, it's standard in all western countries.

It's standard in all western countries since end of middle ages.
Today, it's standard everywhere, at least for civil crimes.
It is one of the single 'human rights' that is agreed upon everywhere.
I can't tell a single country where it is not the case.

What may happen is that in a dictatorship, you are guilty until proven innocent for some political or religious crimes, like being a dissident, member of a labor union, blasphemy, treason...
I'm not sure but I think there is some political crime in China where you are guilty until proven innocent.

[Dry]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Voluntary manslaughter (what he'd have been convicted of here unless he planned to kill her ahead of time and this could be proven) would bring around an 8 year sentence typically in the US, or even a bit less often.

Voluntary, not voluntary... that is the question.

The full story is following:
Bertrand Cantat was violent, abusive BF and he already beated Marie Trintignan before, but never to death (of course). Marie nevertheless stayed with him. She was shooting (she was an actress) in Lithuania, under Mom's direction (Mom: Nadine Trintignan, is film director), but probably bored in some foreign country, she called him and asked him to come.
Cantat comes to Lithuania, and, probably out of boredom decide to have some drug party. Both take drugs.
They have an argument and Cantat, while stone, starts beating her. He is not in his normal state, he does not know when to stop and he beats her to death.

So, if you are yourself drunk, you step in the car of a drunken person - you called him: he is your BF, but you also know he is a terrible driver - and you get yourself killed because he crashed the car in a tree.
How much should he get for this?
Is he a murderer?
Is it voluntary manslaughter?

[Kidlicious]

I think his problem was drugs and beating women. I don't think he's a murderer. So I don't think 4 years is too short if he has stopped using drugs and worked out his issues.

[Krill]

Could he have been rehabilitated in a reasonable time frame is a good wuestion to ask...

[The Mad Viking]

Being tough on crime is being tough on closing the barn door, after the horses have escaped.

The damage is already done. Tougher sentences are all about making the victim(s), family and/or friends FEEL BETTER after the fact.

Tougher sentences are about vengeance. Not a very productive or useful thing, in my experience.

All this talk about longer sentences, and never any talk about what is done during the sentence. I cannot imagine a worse system for training people to re-enter society than the normal penal institution.

Personally, I would prefer to focus on steps to reduce the crime rate, which reduces victims, jails, courts and, of course, criminals.

Prevention is the solution.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
The damage is already done. Tougher sentences are all about making the victim(s), family and/or friends FEEL BETTER after the fact.

No, tougher sentences is also about keeping the criminal away from doing the same thing again for a longer time. The sooner the criminal gets out, the sooner he can do it again

[Krill]

Only if he can not be rehabilited.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
The damage is already done. Tougher sentences are all about making the victim(s), family and/or friends FEEL BETTER after the fact.

Why put them in jail?

[Krill]

Why not just kill them outright?

[DinoDoc]

I don't believe I said that, Krill.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Shrapnel12
My common sense tells me there are probably other countries like the US, but I don't know of any. So an honest question: What other countries have judicial systems where you are innocent until proven guilty and the prosecution has to show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

What a nob

[Krill]

Never said that you did DD.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Tougher sentences are about vengeance. Not a very productive or useful thing, in my experience.

Often, esp. in heated public debates - yes. But I have no doubt that for certain serious crimes there has to be a serious verdict.

It's one of the things which is difficult to discuss just "in general". Being generally "soft on crime" is as dumb as being generally "tough on crime".

No, tougher sentences is also about keeping the criminal away from doing the same thing again for a longer time. The sooner the criminal gets out, the sooner he can do it again

Well, unless you plan to hand out life sentences or DP for all crimes the moment of release comes sooner or later, and then the question if tougher sentences do make people any better, or if they provide a meaningful deterrence comes really into play.