Is prison really appropriate here and if so why? on 14:28 - Apr 25 with 356 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
Is prison really appropriate here and if so why? on 12:57 - Apr 25 by lowhouseblue | but your answer is ...? |
In my new role as chief prosecuter I will settle for considerable and immediate compensation to the families of all concerned, the seizure of all of the CEO's personal assets to leave him at the level of his company average and 20 years meaningful community service. |  |
|  |
Is prison really appropriate here and if so why? on 14:32 - Apr 25 with 343 views | lowhouseblue |
Is prison really appropriate here and if so why? on 14:28 - Apr 25 by BanksterDebtSlave | In my new role as chief prosecuter I will settle for considerable and immediate compensation to the families of all concerned, the seizure of all of the CEO's personal assets to leave him at the level of his company average and 20 years meaningful community service. |
so 10 years for 4 murders would also be wrong? |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
|  |
Is prison really appropriate here and if so why? on 14:43 - Apr 25 with 337 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
Is prison really appropriate here and if so why? on 14:32 - Apr 25 by lowhouseblue | so 10 years for 4 murders would also be wrong? |
I'm sorry but I just can't keep up with your ever shifting goalposts. |  |
|  |
Is prison really appropriate here and if so why? on 12:30 - Apr 26 with 223 views | WeWereZombies |
Is prison really appropriate here and if so why? on 12:12 - Apr 25 by lowhouseblue | why does your logic only apply to gross negligence manslaughter? no sentence reverses the effect of any crime. why then is manslaughter special? with manslaughter your intent is not to kill, whereas most crimes involve intent, but manslaughter involves an avoidable act which carries a high probability of someone dying. why is acting with recklessness and imposing that unchosen risk of death on another person, a person who is reliant upon your competence, special for you? is there really a difference in culpability just because the death came about through a risky gamble rather than through conscious intent? what about corporate manslaughter where companies impose risks on their customers - are you happy for the ceo just to be left with a lasting sense of inner guilt? |
Your second sentence seems incorrect to me, any sentance that involves restitution reverses the effect of a crime - most notably in theft where the goods are returned to the victim in the same state as when they were stolen. Of course that does not reverse the emotions experienced, which is why the topic of restorative justice (which I guess is the direction that Bankster is coming from) is so difficult and has not gained much traction. But in the three main justifications for punishment (retribution, deterrence and reform of the offender) there can be an element of restitution that seeks to return the position of both victims and offenders to an original point, hence damages being due to sufferers of society as a whole when corporate gross negligence results in pollution, for example. |  |
|  |
Is prison really appropriate here and if so why? on 10:41 - Apr 29 with 100 views | WeWereZombies | She got off very lightly when compared to this case in Brazil: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62x6qx682jo But then when you go beyond the headline you see that there is a bit more to the sentencing: 'Justice Cristiano Zanin, one of a panel of five judges overlooking Rodrigues's case, stressed she was not being tried solely for the graffiti and was convicted of multiple offences, but many in Brazil believe her sentence is too harsh.' It's a sad sign that the BBC has descended a little too far into tabloid journalism in there frantic efforts to keep an audience, and that they age a defendant by ten years in the space of four paragraphs... |  |
|  |
| |