Man Sentenced For Stomping Ex-Girlfriend's Puppy To Death

[jessecwalters]

Not gonna lie i like puppies WAY more than babies.

this.

[redkow97]

I remember gearing a little while ago about a guy in PA who got busted with 40 lbs of weed. He got one year. I disturbed more by the.guy with the.puppy then someone selling weed. But I guess everyone has there own opinions

it's about what will get people elected. Being "tougher on crime" gets judges (re)elected.

In drug cases, there are minimum sentences based on the weight of the drug. the way they're calculated is retarded though. The packaging is weighed with the drug, so heavy containers add to the weight of certain drugs. Obviously 40 lbs of weed can be distributed to a LOT of people, so the possession charge probably didn't earn the guy a year, but the intent to distribute on top of that may have.

But really, it goes back to getting elected. "i'm going to be tougher on drug dealers" is something you can campaign on. "i'm going to be tougher on puppy stompers" just sounds ridiculous.

If i'm being honest, I think we over-sentence on a lot of crimes. As noted in my previous post, 6 months for X crime doesn't sound like much when it's not you serving the time. The same is true when people get 13 years for attempted murder and such. But contemplate how long these sentences would feel if it were YOU. Someone who is being released today from a 13 year sentence may never have seen a cell phone smaller than the one Zach Morris used. CD players were basically brand-new technology when they got locked up. They'll never know what an MP3 player is. AOL instant messenger came and went while they were locked up. Laptop computers were huge, and cost 4 times what they do now.

I'm not trying to suggest that some people don't deserve to be locked up for a long time, but seemingly short sentences change a convict's life quite a bit more than you'd think.

[Steve Butters]

^ agree with this whole post

[Scruit]

But contemplate how long these sentences would feel if it were YOU.

Isn't that the point of the deterrent factor?

[Scruit]

For comparison... In the UK three men were just jailed for looting - they got 2 years each.

Two boys who used social media to try to organize looting in their city were jailed for four years each. This has started a debate on deterrence versus making the punishment fit the crime.

Some argue that once someone has been sent to jail it's really more of a case of "revenge" to keep them for years and years if they are no longer a danger to society. (ie Kiddle fiddlers can rot in there for all I care, but 5 years may be too much for embezzling money where nobody is hurt and the person won't be in a position to do it again once released.)

On the flip side, I bet there would be far fewer DUIs if a first offense was 5 years in jail.

I think the lentgh of time a person stays in jail should reflect the need to protect the rest of society, whether by simple physical seperation or by the time taken to rehabilitate the offender. Once they are no longer a threat to society their crimes can be paid for in other ways, such as fines, community service etc. In the DUI example it would be more appropriate for a massive-deterrent-crackdown on DUI to involved fining someone a high percentage of their annual income, or serve long terms of community service rather than just sitting in jail for years.