Should imprisonment and jail-sentencing by reasonable?
Posted: Mon May 13, 2013 3:14 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z41YRgFll3A
After seeing this (series of) case(s) and a similar case in Norway (which was not about imprisonment but about going to court at all over a person owing government half a dollar and collection agencies increasing the amount by a thousand-fold after taking fees for themselves... btw, in Norway the case was discarded by court authorities as against principles of reasonableness) I have to ask whether law enforcement should not be exercised under a principle of reasonableness as a more vague concept and idea (as opposed to strict definition which makes acting reasonableness very difficult and limited), including taking into account the reasonableness of size of crime and nature of crime when one speak for a possible solution between the offender and the offended so that it's not the principle of the crime that matters, like pocket theft or wrongful parking or the like, but the weighing up of how much it has costed the offended, that matters, and that the solution should not be about destroying the criminal, but about reaching three possible objects:
1) the offended is returned what he or she or it has lost including a share of the possible meanwhile loss as a cause of the prior loss that is relative to the financial and personal capabilities of the offender (unless the object was to disrupt the offended so that "meanwhile losses" were intentional in the crime, then a full share should be demanded)
2) authorities are given guarantees of improved future respect for laws and regulations
and 3) guarantees of the strive for improvement of possible underlying causes for the crime are taken into account, but also as a component of the case in question, such that attendance to work, education and other things that can be socially valuable to decrease dependence on crime as a means for some dissatisfactory expression, are prioritized versus penalisation and also can come into prioritization against things like contract enforcement or immediate fulfilment of penalty if time is the only factor needed to have a notable improvement in a person's character of compliance to law and to some degree society's needs (like finishing a high-demand education that can quickly earn society and him- or herself wealth and important expertise), that is not to say there should necessarily be any guarantees of either, but if society can make a person work, and work like in functioning, and stay compliant to law and regulation, it is far more beneficial than carrying out immediate penalty or full penalty or soar and deteriorate on past mistakes beyond what is sufficient to preserve a sense of justice and society's retributive response to crime.
After seeing this (series of) case(s) and a similar case in Norway (which was not about imprisonment but about going to court at all over a person owing government half a dollar and collection agencies increasing the amount by a thousand-fold after taking fees for themselves... btw, in Norway the case was discarded by court authorities as against principles of reasonableness) I have to ask whether law enforcement should not be exercised under a principle of reasonableness as a more vague concept and idea (as opposed to strict definition which makes acting reasonableness very difficult and limited), including taking into account the reasonableness of size of crime and nature of crime when one speak for a possible solution between the offender and the offended so that it's not the principle of the crime that matters, like pocket theft or wrongful parking or the like, but the weighing up of how much it has costed the offended, that matters, and that the solution should not be about destroying the criminal, but about reaching three possible objects:
1) the offended is returned what he or she or it has lost including a share of the possible meanwhile loss as a cause of the prior loss that is relative to the financial and personal capabilities of the offender (unless the object was to disrupt the offended so that "meanwhile losses" were intentional in the crime, then a full share should be demanded)
2) authorities are given guarantees of improved future respect for laws and regulations
and 3) guarantees of the strive for improvement of possible underlying causes for the crime are taken into account, but also as a component of the case in question, such that attendance to work, education and other things that can be socially valuable to decrease dependence on crime as a means for some dissatisfactory expression, are prioritized versus penalisation and also can come into prioritization against things like contract enforcement or immediate fulfilment of penalty if time is the only factor needed to have a notable improvement in a person's character of compliance to law and to some degree society's needs (like finishing a high-demand education that can quickly earn society and him- or herself wealth and important expertise), that is not to say there should necessarily be any guarantees of either, but if society can make a person work, and work like in functioning, and stay compliant to law and regulation, it is far more beneficial than carrying out immediate penalty or full penalty or soar and deteriorate on past mistakes beyond what is sufficient to preserve a sense of justice and society's retributive response to crime.