Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[G-Flex]

Nor can we allow the value of an individual overshadow the fact that we're dealing with murderers and rapists here. To give an example, several years ago, a bunch of dutch Hells Angels brutally murdered a member of another motor gang. Guess what sentence they got?

Spoiler: this one (click to show/hide)

None at all. Since the persecutor could not prove conclusively who was the actual murder and who were merely accomplishes, he could not convict them

Are you even paying attention to the argument you make? Your response... isn't a response to what I'm saying at all. It's not even related. I'm not even saying anything about the "value of an individual" in the first place. If you're going to respond to things, at least read them enough to make sure that you're actually, you know, responding to them.

The case you mention just has to do with the bizarre legal artifacts of however that system handles a crime like "murder". It has almost nothing to do with the discussion, never mind what you quoted from this thread.

[Virex]

I was reading the gist of your reply as "The individual circumstances matter most", which I wanted to counterbalance because it is very easy to stare yourself blind on individual characteristics and lose sight of what really matters.
The example I gave was one where the judge is essentially hiding behind a legal definition so he doesn't have to convict people instead of, you know, actually convict people for what they have done. It is one of the very problems I'm trying to argue; people are looking for ways out to not convict people or even admit that they're dealing with people that don't belong in our society, because it is hard to tell someone to his face that he is not just wrong, but Wrong. Or maybe I am seeing too much behind the case.

[Vector]

I disagree, and hope you read the essay on the prison systems that MSH linked.

[G-Flex]

I was reading the gist of your reply as "The individual circumstances matter most", which I wanted to counterbalance because it is very easy to stare yourself blind on individual characteristics and lose sight of what really matters.
The example I gave was one where the judge is essentially hiding behind a legal definition so he doesn't have to convict people instead of, you know, actually convict people for what they have done. It is one of the very problems I'm trying to argue; people are looking for ways out to not convict people or even admit that they're dealing with people that don't belong in our society, because it is hard to tell someone to his face that he is not just wrong, but Wrong. Or maybe I am seeing too much behind the case.

I have no idea how that individual case relates to the idea that cases should be judged based on individual merit. If the judge had actually done so, he would have sentenced them, unless the law is so screwy over there that he was actually implementing it as intended.

If you're a judge and you're still looking for any possible excuse to not convict someone for murder, then you shouldn't be a judge. I also strongly doubt that this is how most judges or juries work.

So... well, what's your counter-argument, anyway? That the individual merits of a case shouldn't be considered? That doesn't exactly lead to a functional judicial system.

[Virex]

No my argument is that it's too easy to get lost in individual details (his father was a marine and thus he got into contact with violence early. His mother was very protective and possessive. He had bad friends. He had a bad relation with his wife.. etc.) and forget that usualy most of those details are inconsequential and irrelevant.

I disagree, and hope you read the essay on the prison systems that MSH linked.

Oh.
Sorry about that, I forgot that this is a very US-centered thread.
Disregard my ranting.

[Vector]

Oh.
Sorry about that, I forgot that this is a very US-centered thread.
Disregard my ranting.

Dammit, and I forgot that Europe doesn't have the same problems we do.  Yeah, it's pretty US-centered, for now.

So, er, I guess I'll say: is there really that problem with just not wanting to convict people over there?

[Virex]

Well things have changed recently, but it used to be that you could get community service for things like breaking into and plundering a house or a ridiculously low prison sentence, like less then a year prison time for assault. Luckily we got minimum sentences for the most grievous crimes, but we don't have a jury system in the Netherlands and the judges are still clinging to the old norms, so we still have a way to go.

[Vector]

Huh... no jury system?  Are the judges really that trustworthy?

[Virex]

Huh... no jury system?  Are the judges really that trustworthy?

Erm, no, but it's hard to change the system.

[Taricus]

Huh... no jury system?  Are the judges really that trustworthy?

Erm, no, but it's hard to change the system.

Mind you, Juries aren't really that good either.

[G-Flex]

No my argument is that it's too easy to get lost in individual details (his father was a marine and thus he got into contact with violence early. His mother was very protective and possessive. He had bad friends. He had a bad relation with his wife.. etc.) and forget that usualy most of those details are inconsequential and irrelevant.

Those individual details still matter. If they aren't taken into account properly, then obviously there's a problem, but you still can't discount them.

[Virex]

Huh... no jury system?  Are the judges really that trustworthy?

Erm, no, but it's hard to change the system.

Mind you, Juries aren't really that good either.

It could prevent cases like this one (sorry, couldn't find an English link) where a mother got a 1 year suspended prison sentence and 240 hours of community service for maltreating her children (the maltreatment included amongst others starving them, locking them outside naked while it was freezing and beating them with sticks).


The official explanation given by her lawyer is that she was maltreated and threatened by her man (which left the country prior to the incidents), but that's exactly one of those detail-problems I'm arguing about, because nobody should walk away with 240 hours of community service after doing that to her children...

[Gantolandon]

Huh... no jury system?  Are the judges really that trustworthy?

I would say that they are. European countries (except the UK) don't follow common law, they follow civil law instead. Judges are not free to give sentences, because they have to follow codified laws issued during by the central authority. Also their decisions are not binding - the court doesn't have to follow similar previous verdicts, it only has to follow the letter of the laws. Which are usually pretty precise.

[Taricus]

True, But it may also lead to some very incompetant jurors. Especially if the juror's decision has to be unanimous.

Also, just so I can use a web translator on that link, what language is it in?

[G-Flex]

Also their decisions are not binding - the court doesn't have to follow similar previous verdicts, it only has to follow the letter of the laws. Which are usually pretty precise.

Legal precedent usually isn't "binding", really; it just carries weight in countries where it matters.