Jaahda Explores the Darkside > Comments on Is prosecuting someone 25 years after they committed a crime necessary ?

Go to Jaahda Explores the DarksideAdd a commentGo to Is prosecuting someone 25 years after they committed a crime necessary ?

What is gained
how about the victim's family. They have relief that someone who killed an innocent person is  behind bars and will not live the freedom's that the killer took away from murdering their daughter. And if we have to pay for the meals to keep that a$$hole from walking free we will. Good Post!

posted by 8-ball on March 15, 2007 at 8:34 PM | link to this | reply

Jaa...
I really, really, rEALLY think it depends on what crime was committed...also depends on the life the perpatrator lead over the past 25 years!  Were they productive members of society or career criminals...I'd have to judge the "delayed" prosecution on a case by case basis. 

posted by ---Masky--- on March 15, 2007 at 6:56 PM | link to this | reply

jaadha
I feel that once a crime is committed, the culprit has to be convicted without taking into consideration the time frame.

posted by richinstore on March 15, 2007 at 3:37 AM | link to this | reply

great ceil .glad i fired your brain cells LOL
and thanks for the response. i'll address it in the next blog here rather than posting a long comment :-) keep posted LOL.

now - what else can we do for those brain cells ? ps - thanks for introducing me to cafepress.


posted by Jaahda on March 14, 2007 at 6:34 PM | link to this | reply

great ceil .glad i fired your brain cells LOL
and thanks for the response. i'll address it in the next blog here rather than posting a long comment :-) keep posted LOL.

now - what else can we do for those brain cells ? os - thanks for introducing me to cafepress.


posted by Jaahda on March 14, 2007 at 6:34 PM | link to this | reply

Punishment for crimes serves three functions, generally:

--protection: to safeguard society by getting someone dangerous off the street or sufficiently motivated to rethink their sense of entitlement to commit the crime.  In the situation you're speaking of, society got lucky if this person, capable of losing their cool and killing, has lived a valuable life since the crime.

--consequences: to motivate others to keep their cool and simply not commit the crime.

--balance: retribution 'gets even' which sounds childish and petty, but the retribution exacted by law is better than the chaos and barbarity that results from letting individuals exact their own revenge.  Of course, not everyone needs the same kind of retribution or vengeance to arrive at closure.  But closure does require a balancing of accounts of some sort.

Personally, I have wondered the same thing .  I think of kids in the Vietnam era, who robbed banks, maybe killing someone in the process, because they were passionate about their own kind of patriotism, and being kids, lacking in judgement and understanding, perhaps, of the big picture.  In my opinion, those who have been model members of society since their crime should still face judgement, still give society that chance to hand them the bill for what they cost the community by their actions, but punishment should take into account that they have been doing time since the crime in terms of guilt, hiding and running, living in fear of getting caught. 

The statute of limitations is how our legal system recognizes the need for some kinds of forgiveness--but sets a standard also that there are some crimes, like murder, that cannot ever be dismissed, no matter how much time has passed. 

I'm glad you brought up this topic-- got my brain cells functioning!

posted by Ciel on March 14, 2007 at 6:00 PM | link to this | reply

I sure think so! But then, I'm sort of a revengeful person... so.... anyway

posted by bandanafish on March 14, 2007 at 6:00 PM | link to this | reply

Referrals - About Us - Press - Terms of Use - Privacy Policy - Conduct Policy
Copyright © 2017 Shaycom Corporation. All rights reserved.