BF2S Forums Why does the US insist on NOT punishing criminals??

what's your problem ? if the law says 12 years is the maximum for child neglect, then so be it. I am not saying the crime isn't serious, it is surely horrid and disgusting, but you'd get in trouble if you sentence child neglectors to the same jailtime as - let's say - muderers, rapists and the like.

12 years is a long time, and they are never going to see their kids anyway.

12 years seems about right. They never intended to actually kill their children - they were just irresponsible. 12 years - 4400 odd days - of your life taken away from you is not exactly cause for celebration.

12 years is a long time, specially in prison.  It seems a fair punishment.

First, the article says they could only get the MAX of 12 years it did not say they were going to get 12 years. It will probably be much lower than that. Whatcha think, maybe 1.5-3 years?

Anyway, 12 years is not fitting for this crime. Do the math, that is only 6 years per child and is appalling. These 2 children almost died do to the ABUSE ( attempted murder) not neglect, of their parents.

Rape, Murder, Child Molestation, should equal capital punishment, since DNA testing the way it is now, pretty much hangs you or sets you free.

DWI, Child Abuse etc. should be the same as attempted murder, and warrants life in prison.

Anyway, I can now see where the attitude that not having the punishment fit the crime comes from.

Last edited by lowing (2007-07-25 09:41:10)

I can't stand it when people get out on good behaviour, does NOT change the fact that they neglected there babies during there most important developmental stages of their lives. Cant stand bullshit.

lowing wrote:

First, the article says they could only get the MAX of 12 years it did not say they were going to get 12 years. It will probably be much lower than that. Whatcha think, maybe 1.5-3 years?

Anyway, 12 years is not fitting for this crime. Do the math, that is only 6 years per child and is appalling. These 2 children almost died do to the ABUSE ( attempted murder) not neglect, of their parents.

Rape, Murder, Child Molestation, should equal capital punishment, since DNA testing the way it is now, pretty much hangs you or sets you free.

DWI, Child Abuse etc. should be the same as attempted murder, and warrants life in prison.

Anyway, I can now see where the attitude that not having the punishment fit the crime comes from.

Lowing - the 'abuse' was not 'attempted murder', if anything it would be 'neglect likely to cause manslaughter'. There was no deliberation here.

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

First, the article says they could only get the MAX of 12 years it did not say they were going to get 12 years. It will probably be much lower than that. Whatcha think, maybe 1.5-3 years?

Anyway, 12 years is not fitting for this crime. Do the math, that is only 6 years per child and is appalling. These 2 children almost died do to the ABUSE ( attempted murder) not neglect, of their parents.

Rape, Murder, Child Molestation, should equal capital punishment, since DNA testing the way it is now, pretty much hangs you or sets you free.

DWI, Child Abuse etc. should be the same as attempted murder, and warrants life in prison.

Anyway, I can now see where the attitude that not having the punishment fit the crime comes from.

Lowing - the 'abuse' was not 'attempted murder', if anything it would be 'neglect likely to cause manslaughter'. There was no deliberation here.

Yer right Cam, abuse is not attempted murder, IMO I am saying it should be, so back to deliberating.

What do you suggest for punishment?

lowing wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Yer right Cam, abuse is not attempted murder, IMO I am saying it should be, so back to deliberating.

What do you suggest for punishment?

IMO, child abuse is attempted murder and should carry life. In general, start actually punishing criminals for their actions.

Your saying these two people should get life in prison?

lowing wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Yer right Cam, abuse is not attempted murder, IMO I am saying it should be, so back to deliberating.

What do you suggest for punishment?

IMO, child abuse is attempted murder and should carry life. In general, start actually punishing criminals for their actions.

An important fact that shouldn't be discounted is that these parents are far more likely to learn from their obvious mistakes and rehabilitate back into society unlike someone who was actually deliberately attempting to kill someone. Then again I guess it depends what you think prison is for, revenge or rehabilitation. I think they should and will get 6 or so years and will learn the error of their ways, be pubished for it then get back to pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps and not sponging off the state in prison.

Lowing, you have no sense of how long jailtime is. Perhaps you should surrendur a year of your life to a pleasureless life of physical labor and poor accomodations. Come back and complain about sentences then.

jonsimon wrote:

Lowing, you have no sense of how long jailtime is. Perhaps you should surrendur a year of your life to a pleasureless life of physical labor and poor accomodations. Come back and complain about sentences then.

Typical, feel sorry for the criminal who spends 5 years in prison, while his victim spends eternity in the ground. Don't look now, jonsimon but that is exactly why it is called JAIL/PRISON and not a day at the beach. It is supposed to be hard.

lowing wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Specifically, these 2 should be taken out back and shot!! But in general I am saying that child abuse, after the facts comes out in each case, should hold a max possible sentence of life, yes.

Look, everyone on here is up in arms about "torturing" terrorists, calling for Bush's head on a platter,well,what do you  think child abuse is?? And the majority of you posting here thinks that 12 years is tough enough for TORTURING a small child??

Worse is the fact that there is NO WAY IN HELL an infant or toddler is guilty of anything.

In that context, hypthetically, let's say evidence proved Bush was guilty of war crimes. Hypothetically now. He should then be executed for the loss of lives in Iraq?

In that context, first answer my question, why can you not replace child abuse with child torture? Tell me the difference. YOU guys are the ones that loathe torture yet imply that child abuse is different and locking these people away for life is too harsh.

I have no problem torturing terrorists for info, never have, so to me they are different topics. YOU guys think torture is torture and it is wrong and should be punished harshly, that is, apparently except torturing a child. In that case 12 years max is almost too harsh. Now, I am asking why?

Get your quotes right. I didn't mention torture at all. Im asking the question.

12 years in this situation suits the crime I believe. There was no loss of life and the children will be fine, so a life sentence would be too harsh. <---that is just my opinion. Its your opinion that it was torture. By law, it was neglect.

In your opinion what should Scooter Libby's punishment be for perjury?



Bu