Punishment or Wrist Slapping?
I was sitting at my desk doing some reading for criminal law of a rather interesting case, when this article dawned on me. It affects everyone in society, in some small way, and we all have a right to the ownership of a solution, or an answer at the very least, to the question of criminal sentencing: is mercy, leniency, the best way to ensure our safety?
First, I’ll dish out all the legal waffle on this topic. Ideally, the principal aims of the criminal justice system – sentencing a part of that – are retribution, deterrence, and rehabilitation (there are more but I’ll leave it at this). Now, retribution, in the large scheme of things, should be seen as the weakest of these goals, vengeance in the long run, benefits the greater good or wider community not in the slightest. Rather, incarceration and financial sanctions are geared to deter potential criminals from criminal acts. However, incarceration is often seen as counterproductive to the aim of rehabilitation as sentencing otherwise ‘decent’ people to jail with ‘hardened criminals’ will be detrimental to their mental stability.
Now that that is out of the way, the real deal is whether or not two young men, who in a drunken state stumbled across what they believed to be a victim of rape, and then acting as vigilante law enforcers, accosting two harmless and innocent individuals, beating one of them to death with bare hands, should be jailed for only six years – out in four for being good boys, having already served 6 months. These are the facts of the case I was reading. The two young men were convicted of manslaughter, an offence carrying a maximum penalty of 20 years in the lockup. What would one have to do to get 20?
Legal issues aside, as I believe the real focus of, and answer to, the sentencing question must be found somewhere away from the law: is it right that a man causing the death of another, essentially willfully and in full knowledge of the implications and consequences, gets three and half years because he was until know of good character? Similarly, is it right in cases such as Mokbel, to grant lenient bail to someone who is obviously in a position to leave the country, or indeed commit further criminal acts? Lastly, another case I have searched around for in recent time is one of a teacher who was sexually involved with her 16-year- old student. Youthful masculine innuendo aside, consent to the relationship has no place in this ‘arena’ and it teachers actions effectively amount to rape – the result in this case was four months in prison with four months suspended. Let’s bear in mind she probably already served four months in remand; possibly out straight away (note, this sentence is believed to be in the process of appeal by the prosecution).
What do you think? Drop a line on any of the issues raised (either the legal stuff, or just good hard crunching of the moral issues) and we’ll see what comes up. Im keeping my opinion reserved a bit on this one until later.
First, I’ll dish out all the legal waffle on this topic. Ideally, the principal aims of the criminal justice system – sentencing a part of that – are retribution, deterrence, and rehabilitation (there are more but I’ll leave it at this). Now, retribution, in the large scheme of things, should be seen as the weakest of these goals, vengeance in the long run, benefits the greater good or wider community not in the slightest. Rather, incarceration and financial sanctions are geared to deter potential criminals from criminal acts. However, incarceration is often seen as counterproductive to the aim of rehabilitation as sentencing otherwise ‘decent’ people to jail with ‘hardened criminals’ will be detrimental to their mental stability.
Now that that is out of the way, the real deal is whether or not two young men, who in a drunken state stumbled across what they believed to be a victim of rape, and then acting as vigilante law enforcers, accosting two harmless and innocent individuals, beating one of them to death with bare hands, should be jailed for only six years – out in four for being good boys, having already served 6 months. These are the facts of the case I was reading. The two young men were convicted of manslaughter, an offence carrying a maximum penalty of 20 years in the lockup. What would one have to do to get 20?
Legal issues aside, as I believe the real focus of, and answer to, the sentencing question must be found somewhere away from the law: is it right that a man causing the death of another, essentially willfully and in full knowledge of the implications and consequences, gets three and half years because he was until know of good character? Similarly, is it right in cases such as Mokbel, to grant lenient bail to someone who is obviously in a position to leave the country, or indeed commit further criminal acts? Lastly, another case I have searched around for in recent time is one of a teacher who was sexually involved with her 16-year- old student. Youthful masculine innuendo aside, consent to the relationship has no place in this ‘arena’ and it teachers actions effectively amount to rape – the result in this case was four months in prison with four months suspended. Let’s bear in mind she probably already served four months in remand; possibly out straight away (note, this sentence is believed to be in the process of appeal by the prosecution).
What do you think? Drop a line on any of the issues raised (either the legal stuff, or just good hard crunching of the moral issues) and we’ll see what comes up. Im keeping my opinion reserved a bit on this one until later.
posted by Kav at 10:02 PM
0 comments
