do the majority in the u.s receive tougher sentencing compared to the majority?
110335
Compared to the majority of what?
217508
Mandatory minimums in sentencing do not help society... Determining appropriate punishment and duration of prison terms is something for Judges to do, not for the District Attorney's office to decide at the time of filing charges.\nMinimum sentencing requirements can backfire and lead to juries finding "Not Guilty" in cases where a "Guilty " verdict would be right just because the accused is young, or likeable or the jury for some reason does not want to see that person sentenced to a long prison term\nLet the DA file charges\nLet the Jury determine Guilt or Innocence\nand\nLet Judges decide sentencing.\nPlease take our criminal justice system out of the hands of politicians.
250152
The ones that are obeying the laws of the country trying to make a better future for themselves and their families are a blessing.  Those who are not abiding by the law are a hinderence the same way American criminals are.
240856
Yes, there is so much lobbying for human rights in this country that people who need to be locked up are set free, or given very light sentences.  Longer/more severe sentences would not only keep them off the streets longer, but they would make people more afraid of commiting the crime.  This is why the death penalty works, it scares people.
888621
No, this is not how it is. The problem of our justice system is quite the opposite. The majority of today's prison population consists of the offenders who have been convicted of drug charges. If only about 20 years ago, if you go to a maximum security prison, you will mostly see murderers or robbers there. Today, however, most people there are drug dealers and drug users. For the drug users, I believe is where the system fails: they need to be treated, not sent into a maximum security prison.
824193
Most countries have the laws you mention; they will vary from one country to another. Unfortunately as in the west there are differences over what is just. For example in parts of the US it's seen as acceptable to execute teenagers with learning difficulties in other parts of the US and in Europe this is seen as barbaric.\nAnother issue is that people break the law; again this happens all over the world. \nOn top of that you have the people in control who have a vested interest in preventing change; again this applies to the the west as well as the east.
849298
No.\n\nAs a matter of PUBLIC POLICY, I would cite the following reasons:\n\n(1) Death is an irreversible punishment, and overzealous juries/prosecutors get it wrong WAY too often.  (RECENT EXAMPLE:  Read "The Innocent Man", a nonfiction book by John Grisham.)\n\n(2) Taxpayer dollars spent on criminal sanctions should be designed to protect society, not dish out retribution. Yet, statistical data is clear that the death penalty and tougher criminal sentences does not deter murder or violent crime.  Why?  Most violent criminals are sociopathic/psychopathic and simply do not rationally weigh the consequences of their actions before committing violent crimes.\n\n(3) The numbers indicate that the death penalty is not imposed upon the worst of the murderers (i.e., the person who actually pulled the trigger and killed).  Why?  Truly disturbed seriel killers more often than not have mitigating circumstances that get them out of the death penalty (e.g., severe abuse as children).  Second, the death penalty is most often sought where the prosecution can get an easy sentence (i.e., the person who drove the person who pulled the trigger, because the person who actually pulled the trigger ran to the police and got a plea deal for life without parole).\n\n(4) Prosecuting the death penalty costs taxpayers more than simply giving them a sentence of life without parole.  Why?  Courts want to do everything they can to ensure that an innocent person is not put to death.  Unfortunately, innocent people are being released from death row routinely, despite the fact that they had numerous appeals.\n\n(5) The death penalty is not fairly applied.  For example, Harris County, Texas prosecutes more death penalty cases than the rest of the State of Texas combined.  Is that fair?  Is it fair that a black defendant who kills a white victim is 8 times more likely to get the death penalty than a white defendant who kills a black victim?  Is it fair that over 90% of the defendants on death row in states like Texas, which have no public defenders, had no money to hire an attorney and had to receive court-appointed counsel, most of which have no criminal law experience?\n\n(6) Once again, criminal sanctions should be designed to protect society, not dish out retribution.  Although victim's families will say, on the eve of execution, that the death penalty gives them closure; pyschologists who actually follow up with victim's families will tell you that is a fallacy.  (Read up on it for yourself.)  If the government wants to be in the business of making victim's families feel better (as opposed to making society safer, which is the primary purpose of criminal law), then it would better devote the financial resources to providing psychological services than seeking death penalty prosecutions.\n\n(7) The assertion that a person who commits murder poses a risk that he/she will murder again is ridiculous if the alternative sentence is life in prison without possibility of parole (as it is in most states for murder).  A rapist or other violent criminal is just as likely to murder or commit violent crimes on other inmates than murderers are.  We are not making other inmates (all of whom commited violent crimes if they are in high security prisons) statistically safer by killing murderers.\n\nNow, my Christian view:\n\n(1) One of the Ten Commandments given to Moses says "Thou shalt not kill."  That's a period at the end of that sentence.  It does not say, "Thou shalt not kill unless the person you are killing killed someone else."  There is no "unless", no "if", no qualifiers whatsoever.\n\n(2) In response to all of those "good Christians" who are often so quick to cite the Old Testament (Exodus 21:23-25) as grounds for supporting the death penalty, I would direct you to two passages from the NEW TESTAMENT:\n(i) "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a too
167920
I don't believe so.  I believe that standards and laws are what make much of our crime today.  When aomeone is constantly told not to do something then that makes them want to do it even more.  You know what I mean?  Even so, more rules means more people and forces to enforce these rules, and I don't know about where you live but Detroit had layed off much of their police officers and Detroit is known for being full of crime.  The more police there are the worse things seem to get!!!  Just my experience.
299500
I think America has come along way to be more ethical and to show more humanity and humane treatment of one another because of fair labor laws, the equal rights amendment, civil rights movement, fair housing, and laws to protect people against discrimination, age, sex, and religion.  If people feel discriminated against they can just sue someone anymore.  Also, I believe American's on the whole are more educated these days.  But I have known people including myself who have been treated poorly and their civil rights stepped on by those in control and authority.  We still have alot of evil-doers in this country who are very corrupt and we unfortunately still have the "good ole boy" system in our country where money talks.  And with the treatment given to American POW's by our own American military makes me not proud at all to be an American sometimes.  Especially violating the Geneva convention.
4086
Gallup published results of a death penalty poll in November 2004. Included are breakdowns by a variety of categories, including political affiliations, religious affiliations gender, and race. To answer your question, results showed 49% of African-Americans surveyed are opposed to the death penalty; 44% in support, 7% "no opinion"\n\nThis is as opposed to the statistics for white people: 71% for, 24% against, 5% no opinion.\n\nThe results are aggregate for years 2001 to 2004, and can be found here: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=23&did=1266
1130898
Great question. Remember the judge that gave the guy probation after raping a 9 yr old girl saying he was of small stature and would not survive in prison. I think the judges in this country are not following the law. They are following their own value system. A good example is the 9th circuit court of appeals.
72872
Not that many.  America is a meritocracy that awards students that do well, not poorly.
676461
United States of America (only its leaders, why punish people for what leaders do???) is the country that is most suited to be thrown in Jail. Mind it , not its people but their leaders who wage wars, who bring sanctions on poor countries etc which is but against Humanity.
904661
I am sure that Christians have it a lot easier than other religions in the U.S. That doesn't mean though that they aren't persecuted at all, just less than others.\n\nThink of it this way. If you have a bad headache, it doesn't help you knowing that I have a much worse headache, your headache is still the same and makes you feel bad. In the same way, American Christians may be persecuted less than other groups in the country, but they still suffer some persecution.\n\nI think persecution against a majority is a lot less serious than persecution against a minority though. The majority tends to be forceful and tries to dictate the lives of the minorities or even goes so far as trying to eliminate the minorities, which can't do much about it since they're outnumbered. A minority persecuting the majority can be unpleasant for sure, but it's not nearly as much of a threat as when the minority is being persecuted by the majority. Still, them knowing that somebody has it worse doesn't solve their problem.
215821
No, I think that the majority of the population is good and obeys the law.  The minority needs to be punished.  If prosecution didn't exist, it would be the majority that the country would be alienating.
657292
Dear Friend,\n\nI can't answer as to the second part of your question, but my experience in the U.S. is that judges HATE mandatory sentencing.  Basically the sentencing rules tied their hands and forced them to impose harsher sentences than the circumstances required.  Always easy to say in the abstract what someone should get, much harder when faced with the concrete, a flesh-and-blood person's life, as judges are.  Recent decision in US says that judges can't be held to mandatory sentencing (e.g., for drugs), but have to view them as guidelines.\n\nYour Friend,\nFrancesois
1007520
for some people yes\n\nfor the majority no