Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Europe really is soft on crime.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    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!

    Comment


    • #47
      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.
      "The world is too small in Vorarlberg". Austrian ex-vice-chancellor Hubert Gorbach in a letter to Alistar [sic] Darling, looking for a job...
      "Let me break this down for you, fresh from algebra II. A 95% chance to win 5 times means a (95*5) chance to win = 475% chance to win." Wiglaf, Court jester or hayseed, you judge.

      Comment


      • #48
        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.
        The books that the world calls immoral are the books that show the world its own shame. Oscar Wilde.

        Comment


        • #49
          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?
          The books that the world calls immoral are the books that show the world its own shame. Oscar Wilde.

          Comment


          • #50
            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.
            I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
            - Justice Brett Kavanaugh

            Comment


            • #51
              Could he have been rehabilitated in a reasonable time frame is a good wuestion to ask...
              You just wasted six ... no, seven ... seconds of your life reading this sentence.

              Comment


              • #52
                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.
                Best MMORPG on the net: www.cyberdunk.com?ref=310845

                An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. -Gandhi

                Comment


                • #53
                  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
                  This space is empty... or is it?

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Only if he can not be rehabilited.
                    You just wasted six ... no, seven ... seconds of your life reading this sentence.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      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?
                      I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
                      For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Why not just kill them outright?
                        You just wasted six ... no, seven ... seconds of your life reading this sentence.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          I don't believe I said that, Krill.
                          I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
                          For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            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
                            Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.
                            Douglas Adams (Influential author)

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Never said that you did DD.
                              You just wasted six ... no, seven ... seconds of your life reading this sentence.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                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.
                                Blah

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X