Mom gets 99 years for gluing tot's hands to wall

You are right.

 

Who gives a fuck? He's still right. Dog eat dog is out of line, too, dragging the political crap here. We have one thread for politics for exactly that reason.

 

So she got a longer sentence than Sandusky did.

 

Texas, dude. She's lucky Rick Perry didn't offer to flip the switch himself.

 

Do you agree with that?

 

In my mind, there's at least some difference between of prisoners by prisoners and the near murder of a 2-year old.

In other words, I don't really give a fuck what you say.

 

And you're oversensitive. I was simply talking about birth control by giving people like this a permanent morning after pill.

 

You did feel the need to respond, so obviously, you give a fuck what I say.

 

A huge part of the problem is that we always tend to use length of sentence as a barometer of the severity of the offense.

Do something a little bad and get a year in prison. Do something worse and get 10 years. Do something really bad and get 99 years or life.

Seems like it would make more sense to classify based on what the person has to do while incarcerated. Do something a little bad and get a light punishment. Do something worse and you get a harsher sentence, not necessarily in length, but in severity.

Truth be told, there isn't much difference between a 5-year sentence and a 99-year sentence in terms of your day-to-day activities. You serve one day at a time. You live in the same conditions, you eat the same food, you have the same privilidges (or lack thereof). Segregation and classification is based on largely different criteria. The only difference is the length of sentence. And, perhaps, the mindset that goes with it.

In reality, once you've been in a while, you become institutionalized and that environment becomes your new normal. Many don't even want to get out because they have no place to go and nothing to do. Sort of like an animal being released into the wild.

Thus, it seems to make sense to base sentencing on something other than length. As stated earlier, the reality is no one is going to discharge a 99-year sentence anyway. So those kind of numbers do little other than publicity and shock value.

 

quote author=Mark2010 link=topic=93126.msg3454723#msg3454723 date=1350152744]
A huge part of the problem is that we always tend to use length of sentence as a barometer of the severity of the offense.

Do something a little bad and get a year in prison. Do something worse and get 10 years. Do something really bad and get 99 years or life.

Seems like it would make more sense to classify based on what the person has to do while incarcerated. Do something a little bad and get a light punishment. Do something worse and you get a harsher sentence, not necessarily in length, but in severity.

Truth be told, there isn't much difference between a 5-year sentence and a 99-year sentence in terms of your day-to-day activities. You serve one day at a time. You live in the same conditions, you eat the same food, you have the same privilidges (or lack thereof). Segregation and classification is based on largely different criteria. The only difference is the length of sentence. And, perhaps, the mindset that goes with it.

In reality, once you've been in a while, you become institutionalized and that environment becomes your new normal. Many don't even want to get out because they have no place to go and nothing to do. Sort of like an animal being released into the wild.

Thus, it seems to make sense to base sentencing on something other than length. As stated earlier, the reality is no one is going to discharge a 99-year sentence anyway. So those kind of numbers do little other than publicity and shock value.
[/quote]

Except for that little thing about the prisoner getting out after five years.

 

That's certainly not the case, I assure you. I just think it's distasteful when people joke about a two year old girl being beaten to near death.