LogFAQs > #939823440

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Nah - if you were going by Draco or Hammurabi, they should just slit the dude's throat and throw his corpse in a ditch somewhere.

...which is the kind of justice people on this board are often into.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

It honestly is, because of how the legal system works (at least in the US). Unless there's a specific "no chance of parole" clause, a 10-year sentence can result in someone being out in less than a year (parole is generally 1 month served per year sentenced).

I like that you're bringing up US law in relation to an Iranian crime. More importantly, in the US or anywhere else how often does a 10-year sentence result in a year of actual prison? And also importantly there's a pretty massive point of diminishing returns when it comes to punitive measures like prison.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

But also notice the article doesn't say 10 years. It says between 3-10 years. So unless he gets the max sentence, it could easily be bordering on a slap on the wrist.

And notice that my post said "up to 10 years"

ParanoidObsessive posted...

But even 10 years is going to seem like too little time when you're dealing with a premeditated murder in cold blood. Moreso when you're dealing with prison systems that focus more on incarceration than reform - there's a very strong perception that the person coming out is just as bad (if not worse) than they were when they went in, meaning maybe they shouldn't come out at all. Especially since, as people will point out, it's not like their victim gets to come back to life in 10 years - they're dead for good. So there's always a perception that "the punishment should fit the crime", even if there's a competing assumption that punishment shouldn't be "cruel or unusual" or "excessive".

Which once again comes back to the glaring issue of diminishing returns when it comes to punitive measures like prison. You'll see people on the internet bitching that even 20 years isn't a long enough sentence, despite the fact that in many of those cases the complainant isn't even 20 years old -- with none of those years being spent in prison -- so they have no real comprehension of how long that actually is. If everybody who advocates or doles out sentences were made to spend a full month in prison, sentencing in this nation would likely decrease in duration by three-quarters.

Devoid of context, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, or 100 are all just numbers. And whether they're in there for 5 months or 5 decades, no amount of punishing them is going to bring back the dead. That just leaves punishment, reformation and deterrence. Because murder is emotional rather than rational, a draconian sentence is an ineffective deterrent (which is one reason why the death penalty hasn't deterred murder). That leaves us with punishment and reformation. Reformation doesn't rely on a time frame, so that just leaves punishment. And while I think 10 years is more than enough, I haven't spent even spent a day in prison and I suspect that my conception of "more than enough" is probably three times longer than necessary.

---

(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.