FabSwingers.com forum: sentences

By *ophieslut OP TV/TS
over a year ago

Central

Not a grammar police chat.

If developments supported more dead people being resuscitated, or a pill erased hurtful memories completely, for a few pence, should perpetrators of crimes be charged with lesser offences?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex

"Not a grammar police chat.

If developments supported more dead people being resuscitated, or a pill erased hurtful memories completely, for a few pence, should perpetrators of crimes be charged with lesser offences?"

No. The crime would be the same it would still be wrong to do it even if the effects could be erased.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *anchestercubMan
over a year ago

manchester & NI

I think it would depend on intent.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

This really goes to the root of criminal law.

Are wrong-doers sentenced because they are being punished? Is it rehabilitation? Is it because they aren't fit for society? Is it to enact vengeance?

Western societies have long told themselves that sentencing was about rehabilitation, but evidence has long been to the contrary. First decide our motivation for sentencing the guilty, and then your question will be easy to answer.

-Courtney

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ophieslut OP TV/TS
over a year ago

Central

"This really goes to the root of criminal law.

Are wrong-doers sentenced because they are being punished? Is it rehabilitation? Is it because they aren't fit for society? Is it to enact vengeance?

-Courtney"

I thinks it's largely now become about vengeance and delivery of rehabilitation has diminished Courtney. I dont work in law but curious about people's motives for punishment.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *harpDressed ManMan
over a year ago

Here occasionally, but mostly somewhere else

"Not a grammar police chat.

If developments supported more dead people being resuscitated, or a pill erased hurtful memories completely, for a few pence, should perpetrators of crimes be charged with lesser offences?

No. The crime would be the same it would still be wrong to do it even if the effects could be erased."

Wouldn't the sentences for, for example, "dangerous driving" an "causing death by dangerous driving" have to become the same? Jaywalking and suicide?

Actually, you'd have to lock up all the reanimated suicides.

Prison populations would increase massively as all assaults are sentenced per attempted murder, and all prisoners live forever.

Very quickly, we'd have more prisoners than guards, no way to pay for it all,law and order breaks down....arrrgjjjjjhhhh we're doooomed...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"...If developments supported more dead people being resuscitated"

Then the victim wouldn't be dead so it would be attemped murder? If the attacker believed that resucitation would be successful, or had a reasonable belief that this would be the case, it might be considered manslaughter instead.

Whilst mitigation of of post attack trauma, of victim(s) as well as family and witnesses, might reduce the severity of the long term result, the crime would be based on the intent

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *alandNitaCouple
over a year ago

Scunthorpe

I agree with the idea that the largest part of a crime is the intent.. personally I believe that the sentence for attempted murder should be the same as for actual murder.

Cal

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Interesting philosophical question, but I will say no for the following reasons.

Firstly 'erasing painful memories is a dubious clause, as there is very rarely only 1 victim. You also have to deal with family and friends of the victim too, as they could be affected to some degree also.

Secondly, since it is impossible to excise a single memory or bad experience you are left with a moral quandary. If you take the basic belief that our persona or id is made up of everything we have ever experienced, would removing a section of those experiences diminish you as a person and if you removed the memory of something you may also lose any lessons learnt from it too. An example could be a naive girl accepting a spiked drink and being assaulted...remove the memory and sbe could repeat the mistake.

Finally, sentencing is supposed to be a deterent to committing crime. Your suggestion could open up innumerable loopholes and getout clauses and would make a mockery of an already overstretched justice system.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Ooops. Looks like I killed this thread haha

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread