Of bandits, laws and due punishment

Remove all ads!

I doubt I could find an English version anywhere, so I'm afraid you'll have to rely on my summary. So, a court in Poland has finally meted out some justice to three bandits.

They got over ten charges, including three rapes of which two were gang rapes, and arm robberies with the use of dangerous devices. Those degenarates would assault with knives and baseball bats pairs sitting in cars. The judge stressed their level of demoralisation, their cruelty and anti-social attitude. He presented their low intellectual level as the sole mitigating circumstance.

During the trial, the criminals approached the victims with a lot of cynicism, especially one of them, who said the victims expressed pleasure in what he was doing. This one got a total (joint) term of 12 years. The other ones got 13 and 10. The prosecutor wanted 15 years for the one who got 13, and 13 for the remaining two, stressing that they committed exceptionally abhorrent, brutal and drastic crimes, offending against the most important goods: freedom, intimacy, health and property, that their motivation was monetary gain and sexual drive, that they terrorised the victims, beat them, threatened them with death, that their deeds provoked outrage and wrath.

The typical scenario in that region was that the bandits (these three people or another gang)attacked a pair sitting in the car, subdued the man and took away money and valuable items.

Note: The highest sentence you can get in Poland is 15 years unless the code says 25 years or life applies. For rape, it's 1-10 years, 2-12 if exceptionally cruel or gang rape. For armed robbery, it's 2-12 - and 3-15 if threatening life or using a gun or knife or similar device. Prison terms add up, but they can't exceed 15 years total. Also, offences that warrant that warrant a punishment no lighter than 3 years are crimes. Other ones are felonies.

Problems to ponder:

1. Do you think the prison sentences ruled by the court are too short, too long or just right, given the legal maximum of 15 years?

2. Is the law just, or should it allow longer terms for these crimes? What kind of punishment would you suggest?

3. What is your opinion on the fact that armed robbery incurs a more severe punishment than rape?

4. What is your opinion on the fact that life-threatening armed robbery is a crime while even rape with exceptional cruelty (that's how it's called here) is a felony?

Feel free to discuss other countries and other laws, maybe also other crimes but of the serious kind. We're talking bandits here.

[ December 21, 2004, 23:05: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Well I think they got about enough really. I'm not awfully fond of very long sentences and twelve years is a hell of a long time to spend in prison.

The law is just according to view. I do not support capital punishment and see it inhuman and a ghost of the past. Neither do I support "life in prison" sentences except possibly for those who are physically sick and can not be let free to the society. If prisons are well guarded and prisoners are educated and violence controlled I believe that prisons can have a curing effect. On the other hand if prisons are mini hells the inmates will probably just get worse in prisons. Between 10-20 years would be the maximum punishment I would suggest.

Depends really. I do think it is wrong if stealing a wallet from someone is worse than raping him/her but on the other hand we must also think of the economic consequences a robbery might have on the person and the society. As much as I hate to say it, it is a fact that robbery of a bank causes a lot more damage to the society than a rape.

For some reason I do not see the difference between these two terms but I suppose felony is a lesser version of crime? If so then I definently think it's wrong but in the end it's just a matter of definition and I don't think it's a very big deal allthough I do find it strange.

 

Why 15, why not life without parole or death, then people will be less inclined to rape.

 

What legal maximum of 15? What crazy country limits the time it locks up its undesirables to only 15 years? In general, bandits don't go away for long enough and don't do enough useful stuff while they're away. They should all be hooked up to exercycles to generate electricity to run the prison. Bring back hard labour, I say.

 

I'm going to watch this thread most intently.

I'm from Poland myself, and I know the laws laid here are absurd, not to mention sentences are very often completely unjust. The fact that they have been jailed is quite refreshing after what I can see is standard in the legal system. E.g. my sister had her car broken into, radio stolen, but she had caught the bandits red-handed, notified a nearby policeman, and they were apprehended. The radio, however, since it was carried by them, was assumed to be owned by them. After 6 hours they were released, the radio returned (to them!) and summoned to court soon afterwards. On the very first case, the judge went with "no social harm" (or whatever it's called in English) clause, and closed the case. The robbers weren't even punished with so much as reparations or at least return of the stolen goods - their houses were searched, but since the radio hasn't been found (they sold it), the judge decided the case is closed.
And that's not a secluded case mentioned here, so it is refreshing to see such an optimistic report.

 

Oh about every nation in the EU with a few exceptions. In Finland the maximum time a person can sit in prison is 12 years.

Yeah that's the spirit! And while we're at it why don't we gather them all in massive concentration camps and force them to build railways or dig mines and if they complain we can allways whip them a bit to get them back to work. And the food in prisons is way too good for them too, bread and water is all they deserve. And if someone tries to run we can shoot them on the spot. After all they have no human rights because they are evil rapists.

And no I do not accept rape I just respect the human rights and the human values. A prisoner no matter what deed he has done is still human and deserves human treatment even if he has not offered similar treatment to others. Fighting fire with fire won't benefit anyone.

 

If somebody who has to work for their daily bread is somehow less than human, than I guess that I am somewhat less than human. Sorry for thinking that people shouldn't get something for nothing.

I just didn't think that making a prisoner pay back his or her debt to society was too much to ask. But, no, I will continue to work and pay my taxes to put food on the ciminals' tables in prison whilst they do nothing to contribute. That's just fine. Let them relax. They're having a hard enough time already.

 

If they want to behave like animals, treat them like animals. Those sentences are far too lenient. Rape should allow up to Life if it involves a group or a weapon. Laws assume that you will obey. If you disobey, then you forgo your freedom. I also support Capital punishment in cases of Murder or Treason.

 

I'm guessing our legal system is a bit different than yours; here, a crime that carries a sentence of a year or more in state prison (a bad, bad place) is a felony, and a crime that carries a sentence of less than a year in county jail (country club by comparison. Not that it's nice) is a misdemeanor. How does yours function?

There're also federal crimes/prisons, but I'm not sure how those work. DMC, where are you?

 

The problem with capital punishment is when you get it wrong. There's no going chance of a re-trial, and which legal system is 100% infallible?

I do, however, think that some people, the worst criminals, should be locked away forever (Huntley, to give a recent example).

 

On a emotional level I think rapists should have the red hot poker treatment. On a theoretical level I would like castration to be considered in cases of violent rape. Unfortunately I recognise the problem that there is always a chance for a miscarriage of justice so it's probably a bad solution, much like the dealth penalty. I take my hat off to those countries who allow rapists the chance to elect to be castrated. (I have no figures on rapists re-offending after castration but presume they are fairly low.)

What I would like to see is that each individual crime is tried seperately, and sentances do not run concurently. Therefore if someone has committed two rapes, they will serve two jail terms one after the other.

I agree with Midwinter that some people should only come out of prison in a wooden box. The Wests, Sutcliffe, Hindley, Huntley etc. Unsurprisingly, these criminals have often had a sexual motive.

I don't think armed robbery is worse than violent or gang rape, but I am concerned with the way rape cases are handled in Britain. There have been a lot of cases thrown out of court, but by that point the accused's name has already been tarnished beyond redemption. I would prefer names to be with-held it these situations pending the outcome of the trial.

 

There has been a suggestion that Poland should rent out former Soviet war prisons.
a) It would be cheaper to keep prisoners there.
b) They would have plenty of work to do.
c) They would behave.
d) They would have to work for their daily upkeep.
e) They would be able to return once:
- they have been found not guilty at a re-trial - they would return home with all pardons, and all money they have made in prison would be given to them; or:
- they have served their sentence and they have saved up enough for a return trip to Poland - the money they've made, if any (if it hasn't been gobbled up by upkeep) however, returns to the state, as assumed reparations;
f) If the sentence included repaying the victims or their families, the money they would make would go to cover it.
g) The punishment they would receive would be severe enough to make them think over their next crime.
h) They wouldn't think of escaping - if the nearest settlement is 100 km away, they would not be able to even think of surviving the winter nights (I assume the prisons would be on the Kola peninsula, or on Siberia), and guards wouldn't think twice about using full capacity of theirs to apprehend an escapee.

I must admit that I love this idea. In any case, it would be due punishment, and if they worked hard enough (being forced to do so to work up their upkeep), and were treated harsh enough:
- no luxuries, such as single cells, free TV, any rental movie, etc.
- no luxurious food - highly nutritious yes, but not necessarily cooked by some special chefs - why not some prisoners working in the kitchen to feed the others?
- only basic entertainment - such as reading, sports, and such.

Don't go and tell me it is inhumane. People have to live in such conditions being free, why should prisoners have all the luxuries they are given in what is supposed to be prison?

 

Not like it isn't deserved, but if you set the same punishment for rape and murder, rapists will start killing their victims to cover their tracks. They had that in the USSR in the thirties and they changed the law after that. On the emotional level, I agree - the toughest they could get they should get.

If you can get no more than a month of prison or so called "limited freedom" or 30 daily rates of fine, it's misdemeanor. If you can get more than that, it's an offence (misdemeanor isn't an offence in this sense, doesn't belong in the penal code but in a separate code of misdemeanor, and doesn't really carry moral reproach). Offences are divided into felonies and crimes. Crimes are offences for which you can't get less than 3 years. The actual length of the prison term you get or sit isn't relevant here. So something worth 2-12 years is a felony (and sometimes the sentence looks indeed like 2d6 ), something worth 3-6 is a crime.

The police were too lazy to bother properly investigating the problem of the radio and the judge was an idiot. I think it should be called "negligible social harm". "Low social harm" can only get you a lighter setence. "Negligible social harm" is a means of avoiding the criminalising of people who although have trespassed against the literal meaning of the law, but haven't done anything nearly as wrong and evil as the average case of the same offence and justice demands they can't be declared legally guilty of that kind of an offence. But in that case, it clearly was something that car burglars normally do. The judge could have raised "low social harm" and sufficed with "extraordinary commuting of the punishment" plus repairing the damages. Return of stolen goods is always obligatory and if the criminal has sold those goods he should be ordered to pay the monetary equivalent. That's what the bloody penal code says and I can show you the exact articles, it's not just my vain divagations. Why didn't your sister appeal from that sentence?

Yeah, the same for castration. Rape is difficult and tricky to prove. That's why many rapists get away with it. But it's also easier to frame someone than with most crimes... except maybe possession of forbidden goods.

Why only violent and not all? I'm just asking because I'm curious. I haven't looked on the problem from this side. I've only ever thought all rapists should be castrated, given sufficient proof. It won't go in countries that are serious about human rights, but perhaps sterilisation and compulsory intake of some kind of antilibidiants?

I couldn't agree more. Perhaps not many people get falsely accused of rape, but I think just about every man has been accused of unwanted advances at least once by a liar or a person with serious problems.

And I agree with toughluck about work in prison. A prison sentence isn't supposed to be a long holiday. They should work for their upkeep, they should work for the reparations, they should do all the chores. Unless they can make enough money to hire someone for that purpose. But I doubt that, since the upkeep cost for a prisoner is higher than the average salary. Sometimes even twice higher.

A good thing for them would be learning some new skills, maybe even a new job, so they would be more likely to make an honest living after they have served their term. Schools aren't a bad idea. Some of prisoners in Poland even study for university diplomas. Even in laws. Why not.

Well, but I would make a reservation, as well: violent criminals shouldn't sit with non-violent ones. Those who are likely to rape other prisoners (large level of agression plus this kind of sexual inclination) should sit separately. A prison sentence is not a torture and rape sentence.

For those who offend again, in prison, there should be normal trials and normal punishment, adding another prison term to do after they get out. For those who serve life terms - worse conditions, lack of option to get out on parole/probation, etc.

[ December 22, 2004, 12:55: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Forcing someone to work with something with violence is against human rights. Starving someone is against human rights. So what would you do if a prisoner refuses to work? Beat them until they work or starve them to death? Both actions are wrong and inhuman. Prisoners have the possibility to work in prison so that they have some money to spend and something and perhaps they even have something left to help them start a new life after their sentence.

Do you know why USA has a horrible problem with prisons being full? That's because the long sentences, and of course they cut their spending from supporting the guards and education in their prisons. This leads to the fact that the prisoner will be no better when they come out than they were when they went in possibly even worse. Retribution is a useless ideology of punishment which really does not benefit the society in any way.

Well some people starve to death free, does that give us the right to starve prisoners to death? My point is not that much to give luxury to the prisoners but more to educate the prisoners so that the society may someday actually benefit from them. Having them suffer for say ten years in a minisized version of hell does really not make them better persons or would you disagree?

[ December 22, 2004, 13:30: Message edited by: Morgoroth ]

 

toughluck

Brilliant plan - that could only come from you I guess. I have a few improvements on your plan because you're IMO way to lenient: You could re-open Auschwitz (that's closer and in-country), that facility has a name that alone will bring the deserved chill of fear on the back of all evildoers! And it has a terrific record.
You could also hire some nigerian or ugandan specialists as prison wardens, or get some outside advice from the beheading jihadist squads of Iraq (they could tell you a thing or two about skinning too, I guess). Some Vietnamese experts from Hanoi Hilton would help to add a nice exotic flair to your project and give advice on how to invoke real fear in your convicts ... And anyway - the harder the punishment the better: Burning on a stake rocks - or how about boiling in oil on the market place for attempt of escape?

[snip]

It never occured to you that criminals wouldn't commit their crimes if they knew they would get caught? The problem is that they always think they get away.
Harsher punishment has never solved the problem of crime, in fact, if a criminal has to expect the worst if caught he is unlikely to leave any witnesses behind in order to improve his chances to get away. He will rather be more ruthless. How to deal with that - still harsher punishment?

Ironically, extreme penalties have an adverse effect on the protection of the victims. Their protection is the reason that criminal law is there, not that there are perpetrators.

[ Warning pending ] - Beren

[ December 23, 2004, 08:54: Message edited by: Beren ]

 

OK. Let's say every one will be caught and punished. Let's say for a day. Superior plan, you know? Longer sentence is impossible because there would be too many criminals to imprison.

Prove it.

Let's say the punishment is unavoidable. There's one witness. Gee, he's going to leave him alive so that he can be punished, or is he going to kill him so he can get away?
If punishment is more severe, and the perpetrator just did something that he will face up to fifteen years, and murder is punished with fiteen years as well, why would he kill the witness?

You can find proof for either side of the story, and there is no clear answer.

Fact is - prisons are luxurious hotel resorts for criminals. If anything, they teach that crime does indeed pay. Oh, and don't tell me that "resocialising" crap. It doesn't work if there is no external motivation (e.g. "If I go to the psychologist, I will have lighter time here") at first. Intrinsic motivation (e.g. "if I go to the psychologist, I will leave earlier) doesn't work.

Perpetrating crime is in concord with human rights then, am I correct?
If the person voluntarily broke law and has trespassed on someone else's human rights, he or she should have their own rights rescinded.

Tell that to the government, or to the bosses who pay as little as possible. That is starving someone, too.

Question: a normal person is forced to work, or else they would starve. Why should prisoners be treated more lightly? Why should they get to eat without working? Why shouldn't they be treated as any normal member of the society? If everyone has to work, why should prisoners be sent away for holidays? I fail to grasp it. If they broke the law, they should know that it is their own fault.
So why should the society be punished for their actions???

 

First of all, let me echo AMaster's sentiments. In the U.S. there are three types of crimes: summary offenses, misdemeanors, and felonies. Summary offenses include actions that generally don't require jail time, and include things like moving violations in your car. Misdemeanors are the next kind, which sometimes require a prison term, but often not. Vandalism, petty theft, shoplifting, etc., fall into this category. Felonies are the highest form, and they include things like murder, rape, armed robbery, etc.

Under the Clinton administration, the U.S. enacted the "three strikes and you're out" rule. Essentially, the law states that if you are convicted for three felonies, it is a mandatory life sentence.

1. So obviously, if these criminals were in the U.S., all of them would be put away permanently. A maximum of 15 years? Way too light.

2. See above - life in prison.

3. Depends, although generally I think rape is worse as it is an obviously violent crime. Armed robbery may scare the hell out of you, but if the perpetrator doesn't actually fire his weapon, there will be no physical harm done to you. If he does fire, then I'm inclined to say the armed robbery is worse. (Although then it's not just armed robbery. The perpretrator would be charged with assault with a deadly weapon, or possibly even attempted murder.)

4. Well, seeing as how I feel that rape is usually worse, then I think it is wrong that rape is classified as a lesser offense than armed robbery.

 

@Aldeth: does it mean you get a life sentence the third time you are convicted of, let's say, burglary?

It seems we have a lexical problem here. In common law, crime seems to be any public offence. Here in Poland, we reserve the word "crime" for the most serious crimes that can be punished by no less than three years of prison.

In order to correspond with the American classification, we could call any violation of penal law "crime" and then attribute the name of "felony" to those most serious ones worth 3+ years of prison. "Misdemeanor" would be anything worth less than 1 month of prison (or 30 daily rates of fine). Anything between "misdemeanor" and "felony" would have to be called a casual offence or whatever such. But here's the problem: if we called the 3+ years worth offences "felony", then rape wouldn't even be called a felony. Now that would really stink.

 

Of course I'm now talking about civilized countries which can afford to feed the prisoners. I do not expect the prisons to be in top shape in the developed world so you can leave them out of the discussion, and I do in fact believe that UN does give warnings/advice/help to countries which are suffering of famine.

No a normal person is not forced to work, or are all the unemployed in Poland dying of starvation? If so then I'm very glad I don't live there since I hear you have quite high unemployment rates.

Very often these are products of problems in the society. Which you can easily see in crime statistics, those who are poor do crimes more often than those who are rich. So society is in my view responsible for its products. People do not do crime just because they are "evil" you know.

The human rights do not work that way. A human has his human rights as long as he lives. No crime or deed can take those away.

Instead of allways demanding others to prove things you could be nice and sometimes dig up some proofs of your own to support your arguments.

 

Morgoroth - I view it as such: if a normal person does not work, they have no money to get food. If they do not get food, they starve. Is jail to be a penalty or a reward?

19%. Which means that 81% of people have jobs. These 81%, aside from working for the benefit of their employers (understandable) have to support the remaining 19% of the society. Quite clear. But these people have their requirements, among those safety and feeling that their money is not going to waste. If the minimum wage is ca. $250/195€ monthly, and the person has to sweat all month to earn it, it is obvious that nobody wants prisoners to cost the state over ca. $550/400€.
If not cover entire cost, why not at least part of it? There are jobs that nobody can give, because they are not willing to pay more than what is minimum wage. I say - prisoners should be forced to take them. Give them only basic provisions, and if they want anything more/better, make them pay for it.

This doesn't explain why some poor societies have next to no crime rate, and very rich, cultural and educated societies have excessive.
Oh, if you are right, then perhaps I should blame the society for ever poor grade I've received in school, or at university? After all, it's their fault that I've been unable to study. Perhaps I should blame the internet if I were to be fired from work because I've been caught using it? After all, if there wasn't internet, I would have been working and I would not be fired. Or, I should blame the furniture factory, sales assistants etc. since the bed I had was too soft and I overslept?
I would be inclined to agree that this is one of the greatest problems with society today. Shifting blame to anyone, save the perpetrator.
Ultimately, someone has to be blamed. The society will blame the government, the government will blame the society, ad infinitum?
And what if the criminal simply enjoys killing people? I guess society is still to blame. Or no, better yet - the victim should be blamed.
Just imagine the world then! The rapist would blame the woman for dressing provocatively and it should be her that should go to jail! The thief was tempted by the opulent shelves in the store. The storekeeper should be punished! He should be sentenced to pay reparations and hand over the store to the thief!

Ra, ra, ra!!!