From time to time, a judge will pass down a rather harsh (stiffer than usual) sentence to a dependent in an attempt to send a message. Do you think that this is ever warranted? Is it fair to use someone as an example?

I think the punishment should fit the crime. I don't think someone should necessarily get an excessive sentence just as an "example" to others. But I do believe habitual offenders at some point should just be put in for life. If the door of the prison is revolving they might as well spare the public from the crimes & grief someone who is never going to figure it out.

On Snapped there was a woman who killed her father, cut off his penis and threw it away. Everybody thought he died from the blood loss, in fact he died accidentally because she put a towel in his mouth to shut him up and he choked on that. She did this because he had been sexually abusing her since she was four years old and she now had young nieces who would also be staying with him. The jury found her not guilty on the murder charge, guilty on a lesser charge, and the judge gave her like a 5 year prison sentence and I've always believed he was trying to make an example out of her and that it was complete bullshit to do that to her because she spared the world and other young girls a lot of trouble.

Was it proven that he molested her?

Punishment should fit the crime. I have an issue with vigilantism unless it's warranted. If this man raped her, why would she let agree to having this man be around her kids anyway?

Chris wrote:

From time to time, a judge will pass down a rather harsh (stiffer than usual) sentence to a dependent in an attempt to send a message. Do you think that this is ever warranted? Is it fair to use someone as an example?

Eh, not so much as a deterrent to others but as CeCe said, the punishment should fit the crime. If they did something horrible I think they should get the max.

I can see both ways on it. But I feel punishment should fit the crime and we should avoid trying to make examples, but I am sure there are some rare cases it'd be appropriate.

Rockbird wrote:

Was it proven that he molested her?

Punishment should fit the crime. I have an issue with vigilantism unless it's warranted. If this man raped her, why would she let agree to having this man be around her kids anyway?

Not her kids, her sisters' kids. And how could it be proven when she was in her 20s and he had been doing it to her since she was 4 years old?

So, it was hearsay?

Rockbird wrote:

So, it was hearsay?

The victim saying it, someone directly involved, even if all others are dead or silent, that is not hearsay.

'Hearsay' is what was told to a third party, by one of those directly involved.

There are even exceptions to the hearsay rule.

I think the punishment should fit the crime but all too often, criminals get off with far less than they deserve.

i can think of somebody who i WISH they made an example of out...

sorry double post

Perhaps it isn't the sentence for the crime that is held up as the example, but it is the amount of publicity the whole matter gets.

An excessive sentence isn't much of an example if no one knows about it.

Someone could do a crime and get convicted, but instead of disappearing into obscurity, they get lambasted in the press and on TV, that is the part that could be the 'example'.

cheaps wrote:

i can think of somebody who i WISH they made an example of out...

I think we've all known that asshole.

CeCe wrote:

cheaps wrote:

i can think of somebody who i WISH they made an example of out...

I think we've all known that asshole.

Ditto.

DanaShelbyChancey wrote:

Rockbird wrote:

So, it was hearsay?

The victim saying it, someone directly involved, even if all others are dead or silent, that is not hearsay.

'Hearsay' is what was told to a third party, by one of those directly involved.

There are even exceptions to the hearsay rule.

No, but it is speculation. I don't believe people just because they say something happened. Lots of people lie.

Rockbird wrote:

DanaShelbyChancey wrote:

The victim saying it, someone directly involved, even if all others are dead or silent, that is not hearsay.

'Hearsay' is what was told to a third party, by one of those directly involved.

There are even exceptions to the hearsay rule.

No, but it is speculation. I don't believe people just because they say something happened. Lots of people lie.

Cutting off your father's penis and throwing it away is not a random thing, that is very personal, and why would she do it if there wasn't something sexual that happened to her? It was her equivalence of disarming him.

Rockbird wrote:

DanaShelbyChancey wrote:

The victim saying it, someone directly involved, even if all others are dead or silent, that is not hearsay.

'Hearsay' is what was told to a third party, by one of those directly involved.

There are even exceptions to the hearsay rule.

No, but it is speculation. I don't believe people just because they say something happened. Lots of people lie.

Sure they do. If you were on a jury, that would be one of your duties, to determine if you think the witness is lying.

Supernova wrote:

Rockbird wrote:

No, but it is speculation. I don't believe people just because they say something happened. Lots of people lie.

Cutting off your father's penis and throwing it away is not a random thing, that is very personal, and why would she do it if there wasn't something sexual that happened to her? It was her equivalence of disarming him.

Stranger things have happened. I'm not saying it didn't happen. I'm just not also saying it did. I need more evidence than the word of a woman who is clearly unstable.

CeCe wrote:

cheaps wrote:

i can think of somebody who i WISH they made an example of out...

I think we've all known that asshole.

I am not sure who everyone means! Can someone enlighten me? I have ideas, but I am not sure.

DanaShelbyChancey wrote:

CeCe wrote:

I think we've all known that asshole.

I am not sure who everyone means! Can someone enlighten me? I have ideas, but I am not sure.

It means we all know somebody like that.