Should compassion be a part of the justice system?
- Thread starter Asguard
- Start date
Without specifying the nature of the crime or the repentance of the perpetrator: no. Guilty is guilty. Innocent is innocent.
Bells
Staff member
Which people? Those who were bused in for the welcoming party?
There is a difference between the justice system and the prison system. He was released on compassionate grounds, not by the court, but by the Government and the prison itself, both of whom, along with the parole board, felt that a compassionate release was warranted.
Compassion in the justice system in and of itself would not work. Simply because compassion is not something that everyone shares the same level or type. Or even understands. Compassion can and will result in unfair findings in a court of law. Personal feelings such as compassion should not come into play to be honest.
No grey areas? So a guilty person cannot be found innocent and vice versa? Yes, there are some who are guilty and are sentenced and imprisoned. And there are some who are innocent who are sentenced and imprisoned. There will always be grey areas. It can never be so black and white. If it were, then the system would be perfect. But the system is far from perfect and many innocent people have been imprisoned or even put to death as a result. Just as many guilty individuals have been found not guilty and released to commit the same crimes again.GeoffP said:
I did say "without details" - and my comment was without reference to false conviction. For me, the details may just cut more finely. But is being increasingly compassionate a balanced response to false conviction rate?
And how are you doing!? Haven't heard from you in a long time - post-flood and deadly fever, are you doing OK? This is why I say people should just move out of Australia.
j/k mon ami.
And how are you doing!? Haven't heard from you in a long time - post-flood and deadly fever, are you doing OK? This is why I say people should just move out of Australia.
j/k mon ami.Depends on what kind of compassionate grounds, and for what he got sentenced, and if said individual would still pose a risk to society. Someone who killed 270 people and got a life sentence shouldn't be released just because he has a terminal disease. I mean.."life sentence"...should hint on that, no? Just because he has cancer doesn't make him any less of a culprit now does it, nor does it decrease the chances of him becoming a repeat offender.
in most westen countries i have herd of life means 20-25 years, no more. Life without parol is oviously different but thats a seprate sentance. Most murders only do 20 or 25 years, have herd of one given 35 (god what was his name, the guy from underbelly) but for the "run of the mill" murders its 25 years
^ yes, I know about the life sentence limit. It's just..that for example the Lockerbie terrorist did only sit for around 8 years of his original sentence.
Personally, I find it a stupid idea. To release people after 25 years. After 25 years in prison most of them probably won't be capable to reintegrate themselves into society...
Personally, I find it a stupid idea. To release people after 25 years. After 25 years in prison most of them probably won't be capable to reintegrate themselves into society...
err, thats why the goverment puts so much money into reintergration programs, paying for uni corses for prisoners ect
anyway what difference if they are being let out to die with family.
bells, i find your comments interesting. are you suggesting that having these decisions made politically would be better than independent bodies like the parol boards?
there is a reason the DPP is independent and apointed rather than elected like the US. that is so procutions arent politically motivated, for instance someone procuted for "looking guilty" to the public rather than BEING guilty or worse being procuted simply to apease the public ect (because we all know just because your aquited doesnt mean that you will actually be treated as innocent by the public especially if the case is high profile)
Bells
Staff member
One can never know. Being compassionate to a false conviction will mean nothing if the conviction is not overturned.
I'm doing well. As is the family.And how are you doing!? Haven't heard from you in a long time - post-flood and deadly fever, are you doing OK? This is why I say people should just move out of Australia.
Enjoying our new house at the moment. And we're all over the deadly flu. I can actually speak without sounding like I am croaking now, which is always good. Loving working again and adoring the new job. I have been very busy balancing work and family life, but enjoying it. Very different to what I'm used to, so it's all good.I hope you and yours are keeping as well?
No. Having the decisions made legally is all that I would ask for. One's political beliefs or leanings should not come into it. Parole boards don't care about compassion. They just want to make sure that the prisoner has behaved well and said sorry, as well as said they would never do it again. That is all they are concerned with.Asguard said:
And sometimes they get it very wrong.
Heh!
You don't think that happens now? Prosecutors are only interested in one thing and one thing only. Getting a guilty verdict. Innocent? Meh. Who cares. The only thing they care about is the simple fact that they can prove on their resume that they could get the verdict. Notch on the belt, if you will.
Then of course you have some states, like Queensland, where it is up to the whim of the Government whether some prisoners are to be released or not, even after they have served their sentence in full. If they think that the individual still poses a risk to society, they can keep them in jail until they die.. even if their sentence has been fully served. And a lot of that decision comes from public pressure.
Yeah, and that's why so many of those criminals after being released become repeat offenders.
Ever heard of http://www.familywatchdog.us/?
A good way to make them become repeat offenders, at least in the USA that is.
What difference? He murdered 270 people just like that. And he never felt sorry for his victims. He didn't give them the chance to die with their families either, so why should he receive that particular right he denied his victims?
Murder? Depends on what kind of murder, or more like what the causation is behind it.
If you have any sources for those re victimisation rates for murder..I'd gladly receive a link to them.
If you have any sources for those re victimisation rates for murder..I'd gladly receive a link to them.
True, but they'd still be rotting in jail all that time.
I'm doing well. As is the family.
Well, thank God. What are you guys doing now? Did you relocate far? (Maybe PM is better for this.)
Really ?.
Those people believed and still believe he is INNOCENT .
The trial was a sham and a disgrace to the juridical system .
They did not say that he is guilty and they welcomed him in such way .
.I watched a video of it and saw who attended and it looked like a heroes welcome and not the return of an unjustly imprisoned prisoner - who is dying - celebration. I mean if they are just glad he's home - to die - this is not some vindication. I could see if he was released because his sentence was overturned or something. But this looked like a hero' welcome.Really ?.
Those people believed and still believe he is INNOCENT .
The trial was a sham and a disgrace to the juridical system .
They did not say that he is guilty and they welcomed him in such way .
But I will admit, I could be misinterpreting another culture's idea of what to do when someone who is dying is released on compassionate grounds. I would find it strange if in a Western country a relative of the Prime Minister or President met a prisoner released to come home to die.
Its the equivalent of a prisoner of war being released after decades. Don't forget what these people have experienced at the hands of western governments. And what their neighbors are still experiencing. Imagine if some one from your country was taken hostage by the Taliban, put through a sharia trial that was obviously rigged and sent to prison for life. Then he was released because he was dying. Would a Prime Minister or President come to meet him?
I don't know.
I am not sure how you guys know they were not welcoming home a 'soldier' who had accomplished his mission, rather than a 'victim of the West's injustice'. How are you so certain about this?
My opinion on combatants who go against the Geneva convention...
Why are they alive?
On compassion and justice...
Of course, but how do you legitimize compassion?
Why are they alive?
On compassion and justice...
Of course, but how do you legitimize compassion?