As time goes on, the justice system seems to be getting more lenient in terms of the punishment of convicted criminals. There seems to be a growing trend for judges to hand out suspended sentences, which really don't meet the aims of criminal sanctions, which are to deter, protect society, denunciate the crime, punish, to rehabilitate and to provide retribution for those affected. I'm personally from Australia, so maybe for some people in other parts of the world this isn't the case. What are your opinions on judges handing out suspended sentences, or specific sanctions in general?
Suspended Sentences
- Thread starter Raptor lx
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2011
- Sythe Gold
- 900
- Messages
- 5,679
http://www.smartjustice.org.au/resources/SMART_Suspended_Jan11.pdf
Putting it very briefly. A wholly suspended sentence is, in theory, a deterrent. I don't know how 'if you do bad stuff again, you will go to jail, and serve an extra x years in that rape dungeon' is not a deterrent. Also, a lot of suspended sentences accompany CSO, which are punishments in themselves. Suspended sentences are also a form of negative sanctions, and encourage people to conform to the norms of society, that is, to not do what got you the suspended sentence. Suspended sentences are also typically for non-violent crimes, so 'how it provides retribution' is moot, and again, they are accompanied with things such as CSO. Any form of sentencing also denunciates crime, as it reaffirms crime as deviant behaviour. Another things, some suspended sentences are partial, meaning they do go to jail.
Putting it very briefly. A wholly suspended sentence is, in theory, a deterrent. I don't know how 'if you do bad stuff again, you will go to jail, and serve an extra x years in that rape dungeon' is not a deterrent. Also, a lot of suspended sentences accompany CSO, which are punishments in themselves. Suspended sentences are also a form of negative sanctions, and encourage people to conform to the norms of society, that is, to not do what got you the suspended sentence. Suspended sentences are also typically for non-violent crimes, so 'how it provides retribution' is moot, and again, they are accompanied with things such as CSO. Any form of sentencing also denunciates crime, as it reaffirms crime as deviant behaviour. Another things, some suspended sentences are partial, meaning they do go to jail.
I have recently just recieved a suspended sentence, That was in self defense for a girl. I totally agree with them depending on circumstances of the crime. Also prisons in the UK are over crowded. Another male attacked my girlfriend and i acted on her behalf and recieved a 36 month suspended sentence. On the right circumstances i am totally 100% agreeing from my past experience.
I did 6 months inside, and i got a suspended sentence also. Just because they suspend it, it don't mean you don't do any time in jail.
I did 6 months inside, and i got a suspended sentence also. Just because they suspend it, it don't mean you don't do any time in jail.
Valid argument. As for your point regarding them acting as a deterrent, to some degree I would agree with that point (rhyme!) but if you look at the figures (for Australia at least) the amount of people who recommit after being released from custody is astounding. Shouldn't we be looking to make the punishments harsher to further discourage law-breaking behaviour rather than less harsh?
There's a difference between being released from custody and receiving a suspended sentence. For nonviolent crimes it makes alot of sense since beyond the deterrent effect it's also important to enable rehabilitation, while prisons tend to at in the opposite direction. Suspended senteces are also applied with several requirements, but the important factor is to make sure that the one sentenced is able to reintegrate into society - especially if they have committed a nonviolent crime. It's much like accepting a pardon and allowing someone to return with a TwC.