re: whats your stance?

Quoting Tait's Mommy:“ I think that is a great idea. I got robbed at gunpoint when I was 7 months pregnant,(at the nail salon no less)and they only got like 4 years or some crap. Bullshit if you ask me”

Were you hurt?

Why is that a bs sentence?

What would you have thought more suitable?

C.

I only think the set sentence should be imposed for murderes and rapist, not other minor crimes (the problem with this is whats the scale for how bad a crime is? Personallyi dont think some drugs should be illegal, so i would say thatsdeserves less or no timewhile othersmight say its ruins society so 30 years or something crazy). Of course this would never happen only in a perfect world where everything is fair haha.

Quoting Ms.Melody:“ I'm so sorry to hear about your sister I can't even imagine the torment your family must've gone through! ... [snip!] ... gone through! I say I don't believe in the death penelty but to be honest if I was in your shoes... I'd want to kill him myself”

I did want to kill him myself, and my dad almost did. I swear if my dad owned a gun at the time, the guy wouldn't be alive anymore, and he told the judge that at his trial.. espically after the sentenceing.. it was that much worse.. but the worst part of all.. my mother is still with the ass-hole, and she expects me to let her see my kids.. I think NOT!!

Quoting God:“ Were you hurt? Why is that a bs sentence? What would you have thought more suitable? C.”

No I wasnt hurt or anything. But I think it's rediculous that a pregnant woman cantgo get her nails done withough getting robbed at gunpoint. I dont know what a more suitable sentence would be, I'm kind of starting to agree that the degree of violence etc should be taken into account. Armed robbery is a class B felony, and usually gets 10 years. But I also think most times prison doesnt rehabilitate criminals. I dont know what we should do, but prison obviously working for some.

People commit crimes, not robots. I think a first-time offender who steals a car shouldn't have to do the same time as a career criminal who has stolen hundreds. Same for assault - a person who gets in a fight outside a club when they're drunk the same as a person who's been planning on beating so-and-so's ass for weeks, goes in his yard with a baseball bat and starts swinging.

I think taking everything case-by-case is a better way, examining the circumstances and the evidence, and giving harsher punishments when necessary and lighter ones when necessary.

Blanket sentences will just lump everyone together and let people off easy that should be in prison for life, or keep someone who just got caught up in some bs in jail for too long to rehabilitate but long enough to create an unemployable recidivist.

So say it was a persons first time murdering and he shot someone during a robbery....do you think he should get the same time as someone else who murdered 10 people...obviously the one who murdered 10 people is worse but they should both get equal time because you can never get those lifes back.

Im not including other things such as robbery, drugs, domestic violence etc. I mainly think just murder, rape andpedophiles they should never get out wether its their first time or fiftith time to me there is no leaniancy...they ruined someones lifeand their families for ever so why shouldnt they have to pay for life and equal time as the other rapist or murderer.

Quoting MamaAndrea:“ So say it was a persons first time murdering and he shot someone during a robbery....do you think he ... [snip!] ... lifeand their families for ever so why shouldnt they have to pay for life and equal time as the other rapist or murderer.”

What if you shoot your husband because he's been beating you for years? It's not technically self defense unless he was threatening you at the time, but if there's a set sentence for murder, the woman who killed the man who has been beating her for years goes to jail for life the same as the guy who raped and killed an infant...

C.

Quoting MamaAndrea:“ Self defense to me is not murder thats protecting yourself. I dont believe under that circumstance that ... [snip!] ... the idea of them having a minimum for any crime and then added on years for the severity of the crime, circumstance, record....”

If somebody is threatening my life then me killing them first WOULD BE SELF DEFENSE!! I would only use this if my life or the life of my family was threatened. You wouldnt do the same? What kind of mother are you?

I said self defense is NOT murder therefore you cant be charged with murder. If you kill someone because they are trying to kill you then theres no way you should get in trouble for that i think thats common sense.

Quoting MamaAndrea:“ I said self defense is NOT murder therefore you cant be charged with murder. If you kill someone because ... [snip!] ... someone because they are trying to kill you then theres no way you should get in trouble for that i think thats common sense.”

What about my situation about the woman killing her husband to stop the abuse, but it's not technically self defense so she'd get the same charge.

You agree with that?

C.

I think the only circumstance to kill someone is self defense. So as a response to "God" I think a woman who killed her husband when she wasnt threatend should go to prison for murder just like anyone else who murdered. It doesnt matter that he beat her the years leading up to it she could have left, restraining oreders and so on. Thats just my opinion.

Quoting MamaAndrea:“ I think the only circumstance to kill someone is self defense. So as a response to "God" I think a woman ... [snip!] ... matter that he beat her the years leading up to it she could have left, restraining oreders and so on. Thats just my opinion.”

What if he would have killed her if she chose to leave?

It happens.

That IS self defense, just not LEGALLY.

C.

Thats a very good question...i would have never known that was not self defense in the eyes of the law. I still think theres always a way out in situations like this...why didnt she leave before?

The main point i am trying to make is that the laws seem to be very unfair...you will see one person who kidnapped and raped 4 little girls in prison for 10 years and another person who did the exact same thing in another county get 40 years. If the law stated that anyone that murders gets a mandatory 40 years there would be acceptions and people like that could have a jury and so on.

Quoting MamaAndrea:“ Thats a very good question...i would have never known that was not self defense in the eyes of the law. ... [snip!] ... that anyone that murders gets a mandatory 40 years there would be acceptions and people like that could have a jury and so on.”

I agree that the justice system needs serious reformation. I don't agree that mandatory sentencing is the way to do that, though. It just creates more problems than it solves.

C.

But i really dont know who would deam the "acceptions". Thats another problem cause it would be pretty much the same thing because there would be so many acceptions and every lawyer would try to get their client to fall under the "acceptions list" SO all in all i really dont know! I just would love to see people actually pay for their crimes!