Location114 Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 So if you plead guilty should you get a shorter sentence In my opinion its A full on NO!! at the end of the day you still did the crime so you should do the time, if you stole your work computer then went and said sorry Mr Boss i stole my computer the chances are youd get the sack so whats different now. Plus i think for serious crimes there better off where they are behind bars reducing the sentences in theory rewards the criminals and put the public at risk. However on balance though i think if anything happened to me ie a relatively raped murdered or badly beaten up id want confirmation of what actually happened and ultimately theres only the criminal who can give you all the facts the Serious crimes unit, and courts can only build a case of what they think happened and what the evidence shows theres not actual way other then the criminal to confirm definetly what happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANGELFIRE1 Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 They should increase sentence's by 50 percent, never mind about reducing them. If you commit the crime you should do the time. Regards Angel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 So if you plead guilty should you get a shorter sentence Of course you do! It saves court time, money, witnesses/victims the stress of having to give evidence and secures an admission of an offence which otherwise there would be no incentive to not contest. ..and you can probably imagine it's taken account of in the sentencing guidelines Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
callippo Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 it's not as if its anything new. Pleading guilty, you're always going to get a lesser sentence for most offences than pleading not guilty, and then getting found guilty after a trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donuticus Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 As much as I hate quoting the Daily Mail I can't help but be pleased by the outcome of this trial. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2000441/Finally-judge-gets-He-jails-stunned-burglar-15-years-protect-dignity-elderly.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 We only need one thread on this thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 They should increase sentence's by 50 percent, never mind about reducing them. If you commit the crime you should do the time. Regards Angel. Many people argue that "prison doesn't work." It does punish people, it doesn't seem to act as a deterrent, nor does it rehabilitate people. It also protects the public from the predations of those who are incarcerated. - It is a pretty good 'warehouse'. If you're going to increase sentences by 50%, you would need to increase prison capacity by 50%. If you're going to imprison people for longer, then perhaps - instead of putting them in single cells - they should be put into 'prison suites', formed by fitting a connecting door between pairs of adjoining cells. One room would have a bed and the other would be a 'day room'. Each suite could be occupied by 3 people, with each having 8 hours use of the sleeping room. The prisoners would need exercise, so each day room could be fitted with an exercise bike/treadmill coupled to a generator. Those in the day room could get their exercise without leaving the peter and could generate the electricity to light (and heat(?)) the prison. That would increase the prison capacity by 50% and reduce the running costs at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.