Opinions on the criminal justice system

[el_flel]

This is a topic I find really interesting, so thought I would throw the question out to all of you to find out what you think: how do you feel about the criminal justice system in your country?

Do you think that it serves its purpose? Is it effective? Do you think that the punishments administered are appropriate for the crime committed? Do you think it could do anything better?

[Oaktree]

The only real problem I have is more a legislative problem. I don't think that our jails should be crowded with pot users. Using pot is a relatively harmless offense and is a victimless crime. That alone makes it not really worth prosecuting, but when you consider the sheer expense of holding a prisoner, as well as the fact that our prisons are already crowded, there is no practicality to it, either.

I do have some serious problems with the civil court, but I'm guessing you'll want to stick to criminal court in this thread.

[fakepeeps7]

Do you think that it serves its purpose?

Somewhat.

Is it effective?

In some instances, not really. I've heard our system referred to as a "revolving door", especially when it comes to things like theft. And the courts are often so concerned with the perpetrator's "human rights" that they forget that the victims have rights, too.

Do you think that the punishments administered are appropriate for the crime committed?

No. I think the sentences for the serious crimes are too short and a complete slap in the face to victims. I don't believe in the death penalty (we don't have it here anyway), but I do think that the jail sentences for things like killing a person should be longer.

Do you think it could do anything better?

We don't have things like consecutive sentences here, so a person could get the same punishment for killing ten people as he gets for killing one. So I might change that.

[kattenijin]

My idea of how to fix the criminal justice system in my country is enough to reduce most people into a quivering, gibbering wreck; so, I won't get into it. Suffice to say that if I had my way, we'd need 2/3 less facilities, and there would never be a fear of overcrowding what was left.

[Vanito]

It works quite well but punishments for big offenses could be some longer.

[dreforall]

Depends on what you call effectiveness. If effectiveness equals stopping crime - the criminal justice system will never be effective, because fear of punishment has never, ever, stopped people. Ever. Otherwise, states with death penalty wouldn't have the amount of people put to death that they do.

That said, no, it doesn't fulfill its purpose over here in my turf - and believe me, it's evil.

[pinketamine]

I'm from Spain, so I'll just talk about my country.

Do you think that it serves its purpose?
More or less, I'm not really sure, I think that many things have to be improved.

Is it effective?
Some expamples in the last years have made me think that... no, it isn't. A system that allows a psycopath go back to the street and continue killing/raping is not effective at all.

Do you think that the punishments administered are appropriate for the crime committed?
No. I think this is a really big problem. Two or three years for a rapist/child abuser is a bad taste joke to the victim. Sexual abuse should have much longer imprisonment, in my opinion.
There is also a problem with underage people (I'm talking about 14-18 year olds), who can murder someone and go back to the streets four or five years later.

Do you think it could do anything better?
Yes, and in fact I think it is really urgent to make some important modifications.

[Mistermook]

I'm pretty vocal in my dislike of the US Justice system, mostly because it's become an industry that's got a strong vein of "let's be tough on crime, because that gets people elected" and increasing law enforcement/punishment activities to collect government money. That, and it's racist. I think we need less people in prison, better training and screening for law enforcement, absolutely no elected judges, and maybe some sort of system to keep district attorney's offices from becoming politicized stepping stones where lawyers go to throw poor people into prison on their way to higher offices.

[el_flel]

I'm not really sure how I feel about it so thought it would be interesting to see what others thought (and all of your answers seem to vary quite a bit, which is great!). Many people that I know or come across tend to have really strong views about it, yet don't even have a basic understanding of it's purpose and how it works. For example, our new coalition government in the UK started a website where the public could suggest what laws they would like repealed or brought in. There were so many 'suggestions' surrounding laws that don't exist, things that people had read about in the Daily Mail (why you would take anything from that paper seriously is beyond me), and just basic ignorance. Talk about having an uninformed opinion.

From the research I've done (which at the moment has been primarily focused on Canadian studies because they were the first ones I found, however these opinions seem to be the same across countries) people tend to think that the CJS is too lenient, however when these same people are asked to assign a sentence their response actually falls in line with what a judge would assign. A suggestion as to why this happens, I think, is the source from which people get their information which is used to base their opinion on. Most people hear about cases in the news which is always biased and only reports more extreme cases. So they develop an opinion that the system is too lenient, based on very few actual cases.

For those of you that think their CJS could be improved, what specific parts would you like to see improved and how could they be improved?

[spotlight-shure]

The laws are fucked up, that's for sure. I'm in the US, and it's pretty pathetic when a drug dealer gets longer prison time than a child molester. A drug dealer supplies, they don't force you to do shit. A child molester fucks you up for life, and forces you into doing something that could change your life.

[Oaktree]

The laws are fucked up, that's for sure. I'm in the US, and it's pretty pathetic when a drug dealer gets longer prison time than a child molester. A drug dealer supplies, they don't force you to do shit. A child molester fucks you up for life, and forces you into doing something that could change your life.

I did a search on minimum sentences and, at least in theory, the sentencing for child molestation is a lot worse than for drug dealing. The mandatory minimum sentence for drug dealing is either 5 or 10 years, depending on how much you have. I haven't found any one estimate for mandatory sentencing for child molestation, but I've seen numbers ranging from 15 years to 25 years minimum. Unless the judge is being particularly harsh on a drug dealer and giving the minimum sentence to pedophiles, it seems likely that pedophiles get longer jail sentences. Maybe there are some cases like that, which would be wrong, but I don't think it's common.

[simbalena]

In Australia the penalties for violent crime are pathetic, and penalties for drug possession (and so called "dealing" in some cases) are too extreme.

[Miquel Destina]

The only real problem I have is more a legislative problem.

[KICKRamone]

The key is money, power, sex and skin color like most systems in the U.S. (my country/ for one example).

If a person does not have money or power and is not white the CJS will eat them alive.

If a person has money, power, and is white the CJS will bend over backwards for them.

A; war profiteering, treasonous, human rights violating, President or Vice President will be pardoned for those crimes (those are crimes right?) and anything else that they might have done.

But get caught drinking and driving with out all of the "right" things working for you, good luck.

I had a lawyer try to convince me that a BB gun was a deadly weapon. You could just as easily kill someone with a wad of paper.

A sentence to prison is cruel and unusual punishment, due to the sexual violations that will occur to that person.

Rehabilitation is cheaper than imprisonment and yields better results. As far as a person's likely hood of committing further crimes upon completion.

Crimes of which there were no external victims should not result in prison period.

Non-Violent crimes for which there was a victim should be handled through a probation and rehabilitation treatment.

Violent criminals should be the only ones in prison, if they meet the criteria as follows:
Non severe mental illness
Apparent escalation in crimes committed

And these prison sentences should be paired with rehabilitation.

Laws should not be based in religion or discriminate based on skin color, sex or sexual preference.

The focus should be correction of behavior not the penalty for it.

If you do not support this humanity, for whatever reason. Call it what it is, "Fuck 'EM" and at least support the death penalty for all crime and save tax payers money.

[funcioná!!!]

The justice in Argentina is pathetic. A famous boxer killed a pregnant woman while he was "driving". It happened about three or four months ago, and he's free and he still has his driving license. It's not effective, there are not death penalties. There are people that should certainly not have the right to live, specially the military from the last dictatorship.
And I don't think that criminals can change. That only happens in fiction.

[Oaktree]

funciona: Some criminals can change, others can't, at least, not without the will to change. Some crimes are a matter of innate nature, others of opportunity or emotional distress. Someone who walks in on his/her spouse sleeping with someone else and proceeds to kill the spouse and/or lover isn't likely to repeat the crime and may later feel guilty for it (though not all do). This is someone who should certainly be punished for what they have done, but is not deserving of the death penalty, unless they demonstrated a high degree of sadism in the method of committing the crime. On the other hand, serial killers are extremely likely to commit further crimes if given the opportunity. I think this has a lot to do with why most of them are given the death penalty, where it is legal to do so. I think that there are few cases where the death penalty is necessary, but that they do exist, so I do agree that the death penalty should be legal, though only under very specific circumstances.

[supersimoholic]

(I didn't read any other responses, sorry if I say the same as someone else)

I live in england, and as far as I can tell, the legal system sucks.
Just after Christmas my Mum (36) was attacked by two teen (17&18) girls and basically, my mum tried to press charges and the police said no, because they'd probably get off so they weren't even going to bother, basically. THEN the same girls put her windows through, thretening to beat up my 7 months pregnant sister up, saying they were gonna "kick the baby out of her" and one of the girls got off AGAIN and the other had to pay my mum £50 for damages... Yeah. THEN, no more than a few weeks ago, literally minuets after putting the baby to bed, they smashed the living room window with a brick (and they have double glazing, so it was a pretty hard throw) and the baby walker was covered in glass, that would have been the baby, in fact mum was still upstairs tucking him in, that's how close it was. Mum ran out and saw the girl running (it was the one who had to pay her) with a boy (obv, he threw the stone) and what did the police say? "Sorry, not enough evidence".

And from what I've seen on the news, most people who commit serious crimes get off with a slap on the wrist! They get sentenced, say, 3 years and they only actually serve 1! It's pathetic, there should be no "get out early on goo behaviour".

Edit: went back to read through the other messages -
Using pot is a relatively harmless offense and is a victimless crime.
... so the families and friends of users aren't victims? what about when the user steals from them to feed their habbit? No? How about when they attack them because they are frustrated over not getting a fix? Sounds like victims to me...

[funcioná!!!]

I think that there are few cases where the death penalty is necessary, but that they do exist, so I do agree that the death penalty should be legal, though only under very specific circumstances.

Yes, I agree, it's just that the specific circunstances are a lot.

[Oaktree]

... so the families and friends of users aren't victims? what about when the user steals from them to feed their habbit? No? How about when they attack them because they are frustrated over not getting a fix? Sounds like victims to me...

Stealing is a crime with a victim. A person who steals should be charged for that crime. Not all pot smokers steal, though, so you are making a flawed assumption if you are criminalizing pot because it makes people do stupid things. If that is how our laws should function, why is alcohol not illegal? People act just as stupidly while drunk, but it is legal to drink and any crime committed while drunk is charged as the crime it is. People who smoke pot would still be responsible for their actions while under the influence because they chose to take a mind-altering drug, but it doesn't mean that everyone who tokes up is automatically going to do bad to others.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

Stealing is a crime with a victim. A person who steals should be charged for that crime. Not all pot smokers steal, though, so you are making a flawed assumption if you are criminalizing pot because it makes people do stupid things. If that is how our laws should function, why is alcohol not illegal? People act just as stupidly while drunk, but it is legal to drink and any crime committed while drunk is charged as the crime it is. People who smoke pot would still be responsible for their actions while under the influence because they chose to take a mind-altering drug, but it doesn't mean that everyone who tokes up is automatically going to do bad to others.

then, yes.
that is the drug's fault. and ideally, irresponsible people wouldnt be allowed near it. alas, such is not the case.

[Mistermook]

People do stupid, irresponsible things without drugs too. Maybe we should give a test, and anyone who doesn't meet your high standards of behavior should be tossed into an open grave? Locked away forever?

"You're no good at living! No life for you!"

I'm not saying it can't work. I'm just saying that once you start penalizing and imprisoning people for being morons it sounds like you're spending an awful lot of effort keeping society in a box. Lots of brilliant people have been known to do stupid, irresponsible things too - throwing all their money in building flying machines, or packing up everything and moving across the ocean or across the country. It's like guns: Guns make it fairly easy to pop a few bullets in the soft, fleshy centers of human beings and decease them. Still, without any guns whatsoever we managed to slay each other on a pretty regular schedule for something like 100,000 years.

Getting rid of drugs won't make anyone smarter. It will just make stupid people look harder for other stupid things to do. Eventually you'll be banning people from licking the inside's of cat's anuses, because that's the last stupid thing you've legislated into a crime or something.

[fakepeeps7]

Eventually you'll be banning people from licking the inside's of cat's anuses, because that's the last stupid thing you've legislated into a crime or something.

If people need to be told not to do that, then I think we do need some laws...

[Oaktree]

then, yes.
that is the drug's fault. and ideally, irresponsible people wouldnt be allowed near it. alas, such is not the case.

It isn't the drug's fault because all it does is suppress the part of your brain that tells you not to do stupid things. I suppose that was poor wording on my part, but the stupid things you do while under the influence are things that it is entirely within your ability to do while not under the influence. The drug doesn't create new thoughts in your head, it simply lets the thoughts that you keep locked away get loose. Even then, not everyone who takes pot becomes completely uninhibited, or has thoughts of harming other people that can get out. And not everyone who smokes is so strapped for cash that they steal from others to feed their addiction. By simbalena's logic, we shouldn't allow poor people to smoke because smoking is addictive and there is a higher likelihood of them having to steal from others in order to feed their addiction. As Mistermook pointed out, the things you do for a fix or while under the influence are not the fault of the drug, but of the user.

Edit: I meant supersimiholic, not simbalena. All the 'sim' names kind of get mixed up in my head. :D

[whiterider]

It's up to individuals to be sufficiently sensible and self-aware to realise that there are things they should avoid, knowing that they would act irresponsibly if they did otherwise. I've never done anything really heinous when drunk - a few physical failings (like falling over and breaking the toilet seat), but nothing violent, nothing particularly embarrassing, nothing dickheaded. This is because I know my limits, I know what I can handle, and I know when to stop. I would never in my life take any addictive drug, like coke, because I know that I have an addictive personality and I will not risk becoming addicted and, as supersimoholic says, ending up stealing or hurting people to feed the habit.

As an adult, I am responsible for making intelligent decisions about my actions - as is every other adult out there. I don't believe that it's the government's job to regulate such things any more than it is its job to regulate whether or not people choose to check that their ladder is secure before climbing it, or to read the instruction manual for their new oven before using it; except in the case of children and adults who aren't capable of that level of responsibility (with good reason, I mean, not just because they're idiots).

As for the UK criminal justice system - it's mixed. There aren't, as far as I'm aware, too many cases of stupidly heavy sentences for minor crimes; and there are some very effective rehabilitation and training programs, for those who choose to go into them - which sadly isn't always many. There is, however, a problem with young people going into prison and coming out more inclined towards crime; and the system costs a ridiculous amount. I would tend to agree with those who protest that prisons shouldn't have cable. (Hell, I don't have cable any more!)

[el_flel]

And from what I've seen on the news, most people who commit serious crimes get off with a slap on the wrist! Don't believe everything you read. The media only report extreme cases and they sensationalise everything. You won't get an accurate account of a crime from the media. With regards to the problems your mum is having, is there any chance you could try and get a camera placed in the part of your house that they keep targeting? If the police are saying there's no evidence then give them the evidence. I do feel for your family, that is not a pleasant situation to be in.

One issue that does irk me about the CJS here which I am reminded of by supersimoholic's post, is that the police seem to have statistics to conform to, which tends to mean they are more concerned with making an arrest/getting a conviction than actually catching the right person. The reason this links in with supersimoholic's post is that in her case I am betting the police don't want to make an arrest because they know they wouldn't get a conviction, which would bring their stats down. In my case, my brother was caught shoplifting (the twit) with a friend. They were both arrested, had agreed not to dob each other in but the friend dobbed my brother in and as a result got away with it. They were totally right in charging my brother, but is it just that they let the equally-guilty friend go? I think not.

If someone makes the decision to smoke pot, or get drunk and then does something stupid then it is entirely their fault. They weren't forced to take anything.

[ElementMK]

... so the families and friends of users aren't victims? what about when the user steals from them to feed their habbit? No? How about when they attack them because they are frustrated over not getting a fix? Sounds like victims to me...Pot users would totally attack their friends because of it, man, but it's a loooong way to get to them when they're across the room or, like, whatever. Buildings are strange creatures, man. And should we be advocating violence when humanity is about peace, you know? Dude, I can't even get up from this couch until I have some eggs.

In other words, you're being stupid and hyperbolic. Pot is a relatively low risk item (http://addiction-dirkh.blogspot.com/2007/05/is-marijuana-addictive.html) to become addicted to, and legal drugs such as chemically-altered "tobacco", alcohol, prescriptions and Double Stuf Oreos are often easier to get hooked on. It simply doesn't have the same addictive properties as these and other hard drugs.

[supersimoholic]

Pot users would totally attack their friends because of it, man, but it's a loooong way to get to them when they're across the room or, like, whatever. Buildings are strange creatures, man. And should we be advocating violence when humanity is about peace, you know? Dude, I can't even get up from this couch until I have some eggs.

In other words, you're being stupid and hyperbolic. Pot is a relatively low risk item (http://addiction-dirkh.blogspot.com/2007/05/is-marijuana-addictive.html) to become addicted to, and legal drugs such as chemically-altered "tobacco", alcohol, prescriptions and Double Stuf Oreos are often easier to get hooked on. It simply doesn't have the same addictive properties as these and other hard drugs.

There are lots of different types of "pot" and some of them are a lot stronger and are addictive. And I'm going by experiance when I say that they can get violent, and I don't mean when they are high, but after it's worn off and they need money but you wont give them money so they make you give them money... And this person used to be one of the nicest people you knew but now all they care about is being high...

[ElementMK]

You're starting to sound like a 90s anti-drug videotape. I'm sorry for your pain, but let's get our facts straight. There's several different plants that fall under the genus Cannabis (which I assume is what you mean when you say "pot"). Most of these are completely unfit for recreational use, due to low levels of THC. These would be the plants that are processed to produce things like hash oil and hemp such-and-such.

There are two plants in the genus Cannabis that do produce an actual "high": Cannabis satvia and indica. While indica is generally regarded as the more powerful of the two, due to higher amounts of THC, both are equally and narrowly addictive.

Now, there is the issue of pot with chemical additives. It is true that some growers will throw random crap into the mix to make it easier to become hooked on, but this is small and dwindling minority. Besides, in this case, the user isn't becoming addicted to the pot itself, but the chemicals that were added to it. Most modern marijuana users prefer their pot to be all-natural to avoid getting hooked while still enjoying that recreational high. This is an issue that can only be eradicated by proper education and actual, mature regulation of the marijuana industry.

Do you know who else adds addictive and dangerous chemicals to their product? Tobacco companies. Natural dried tobacco is relatively harmless, not much more addictive or damaging than pot. However, today's over the counter counter cigarettes have extreme nicotine concentrations that put their addictive power on par with heroin. I scoff at the idea that pot is "the gateway drug", when a much more dangerous drug is completely legal for anyone over 18 to use.