I oppose the death penalty in all cases, but I support life in (super-maximum) prison with no chance of parole for all murderers, sexual offenders, dealers of hard drugs, kidnappers and those guilty of felony domestic assault and treason. So as not to overstrain our prison budget, I would lighten sentences on non-violent property criminals. What are your opinions on sentencing criminals? I appreciate all replies. Thank you very much.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

Judges are there for a reason. Every crime is different. Circumstances are different. Give him guidelines and let him decide.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

I'm against "three strikes" laws because I don't necessarily agree that all crimes currently labeled as felonies really should be felonies, but when judges have too much power, some of them let off child rapists with no jail time (remember Rebellion's link?). That is why I support absolute mandatory life sentences in super-maximum prison and no chance of parole for all of the crimes I listed above.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

You can have minimums and maximums and even remove judges. But there is too much "noise" in too many cases. The judge should be competent enough to weigh the issues and come out with a fair verdict. I don't like legislatures making one size fits all rules. Because one size never fits all.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

Sometimes it does. How could anything but a life sentence be appropriate for any of the crimes I listed at the beginning of this thread?

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

There are tons of examples. If a non-custodial parent fails to return the kids from their weekend visit it's "kidnapping". But I would hardly sentence them to life for that.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

I would. It would be better that some people receive harsh sentences than that judges have discretion to give horrendous criminals light sentences.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

My example was not a horrendous criminal. And you would likely be doing far more harm under your system than under mine.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

Flexibility is the key to our country. Every rule has exceptions. The best system is one that allows us to get around the exceptions and refine rules to the individual cases. And treating someone who has done little wrong as harshly as the worst criminal is Dracconic, not to mention heavily bureaucratic.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

My point is this. Imagine two kidnappers and our comparative systems of justice. One kidnapper is guilty of violating court orders in a custodial case, and the judge who sentences them has no choice but to give them life in prison. The other kidnapper is guilty of kidnapping a child, probably with the intent of molesting them or holding them for ransom, but nothing can be proven except the kidnapping. The judge has discretion in sentencing and lets the monster off with a few years. Which is worse? My answer is the latter.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)