Should some crimes be overlooked?
- Thread starter Katrina
- Start date
No crime should be overlooked. Whatever made it a crime means automatically it should be looked on.
If we overlook some crimes,the rate at which crimes are done will increase because people will certainly have one reason to misbehave. So when people commit any sort of crime,they should be treated the way crimes are been treated.
If we overlook some crimes,the rate at which crimes are done will increase because people will certainly have one reason to misbehave. So when people commit any sort of crime,they should be treated the way crimes are been treated.
I think there are crimes that shouldn't be crimes e.g. watching certain channels on live TV can get you a criminal record in the UK. That's approximately 50,000 people a year, predominantly women, criminalized for watching mostly garbage TV.
Another more serious example is 'Joint Enterprise' where you can be imprisoned for life for simply being there.
Another more serious example is 'Joint Enterprise' where you can be imprisoned for life for simply being there.
I think each case is different and intent is always a mitigating factor. If you rob a house and someone dies, you'll be charged with the murder, even if the home owner shoots your partner in crime. No one intends to have a car accident, but if her driving is responsible, then she is responsible. Now if it was revealed that cyclist ran a light or was in a lane he should not have been in, that's another story.
I feel the same way about Stephen Seagal. 😂
King Belieal
Acquaintance
You can't overlook anything that has been labelled a crime. No matter how inconsequential you might think of it, there is a reason it is proscribed as a crime by the government and it shouldn't be overlooked.
UniqueGrace
Reputable
Exactly my thought, all crime should be treated the same way crimes are treated. I wonder how the world would have been if all crimes are just overlooked.
A UK law that has now been repealed has left approximately 3000 people in prison potentially for life (99 years) and in many cases their crime was arguably no crime at all.
In one case the 'Imprisonment for Public Protection Act' has seen a man incarcerated for 18 years so far for the failing to steal a cigarette.
www.theguardian.com
I believe the punishment should fit the crime and that's one example where it really doesn't. It also cuts both ways, it's not unusual for some people to get away with crimes because of who they are.
In one case the 'Imprisonment for Public Protection Act' has seen a man incarcerated for 18 years so far for the failing to steal a cigarette.
Martin Myers tried and failed to steal a cigarette. Why has he spent 18 years in prison for it?
A devoted father with a zest for life, he was given an indeterminate sentence in 2006. He is still locked up – and losing hope that he will ever be released
www.theguardian.com
I believe the punishment should fit the crime and that's one example where it really doesn't. It also cuts both ways, it's not unusual for some people to get away with crimes because of who they are.
Affiliates
