Quote:
Originally Posted by xxweekxx
yeah tell that to the guys in california serving life sentences for drug crimes that REALLY arent that serious.. when someone commits a crime, give him a jail time equivalent to the CRIME..
SO you rob a bank 1st time = 5yrs, 2nd time = 5yrs, 3rd = 5yrs.
just cause someone does it 3rd time doesnt mean you give them life.
Its kinda like saying you get caught going 10mph over limit, you get 2 points, 2nd time you get caught, 2 points again, 3rd time you get caught, 20 points.. is that fair?
|
To answer your last question, yes. Consider that laws are designed to define what a crime is, jail sentences are used for punishment, rehabilitation, as a deterrent and to keep the public safe. If a guy robs a bank for the 3rd time he's clearly demonstrated that a) the sentence has not been a deterrent, b) he hasn't been rehabilitated, c) he's still a threat to the public.
So while life imprisonment does not fit that single crime (the 3rd robbery) clearly, the existing punishment (say 5 years) hasn't had the desired effect. So at that point I think it's in the public's best interest, and to protect their constitutional rights, that the offender be taken off the streets for good.
And remember, life isn't usually "life" - he could be up for parole, sentenced reduced, etc. depending on how state laws are. Certainly I would agree that if a 22-year-old man is convicted of armed robbery for the 3rd time, he shouldn't necessarily be in jail until the day he dies.... But I wouldn't find it inappropriate if he served 25-35 or more for the 3rd offence.