Should the punishment fit the crime?
412193
The punishment should fit the crime.  Our justice system is too lax.  Prisoners complain their rights are being violated.  What about the rights of others they violated when they committed their crime?  Prisoners should have no rights.  \n\nIt's pathetic that prisoners eat better and have health care at their fingertips when law abiding citizens and their families can't afford 3 meals per day or health care.  Doesn't sound like punishment to me.
8395
Definitely right.  Murder would be the best example of a crime that merits the punishment.
579018
I don't know the circumstances, but I feel if somebody commits a crime, they should have to pay. What's right is right!
1050037
I saw a show on thirteen world about this topic, it is very interesting. \nIt should vary from case to case. If someone found evidence of prior  hate or bad thoughts and such for the victim of the crime, they should have a some jail time, but even if they commited murder, it is  not wise to put them to jail because they were unconcious. If you can prove that they were concious that in fact changes everything. Judges should handle this with thought. I Disagree with everyone else because subconsious movement may be a sickness.
651852
yes..an eye for an eye...each person should be held responsible for their own action and should be punished/rewarded to what he/she has done to others
515755
I think the better punishment is to have the person work for the family of the person they killed for the rest of their life. That way they have to confront the evil they did, and the family as the opportunity to choose forgiveness or revenge. \n\nYou must listen to the song "An Eye for an Eye" by Leslie Nuchow, written soon after and two blocks away from 9/11.\n\nI am divided on capital punishment. However, if someone steals $100 from me, I would want their punishment to be to work to repay me that $100. Makes more sense than prison.
416989
I am for the death penalty, and for expanding the number of crimes eligible for the death penalty.\n\nI am also for corporal punishment. Caning or whipping can cure a lot of criminal tendencies.\n\nIt is called punishment. There is nothing immoral about harsh punishments. But there is something wrong with failure to punish wrongdoers. Leniency towards evil-doers is surely as immoral as the crimes themselves.
235758
Once a person is judged guilty and proven to be guilty of first degree murder, the punishment is clear. \n\nFor some it is a conundrum if they are Christian, an eye for an eye or thou shall not kill. For me it is simple, after the ENTIRE judicial process is seen through, and death is the penalty, then it should be followed though. There are few mitigating circumstances which would KEEP an innocent person behind bars. Not to say it doesn't happen and it would be wise to err on the side of caution, but, if you add in one very relevant fact, the confession, then the path is clearer. I say clearer because the confession has fault factors as well. In our country, the process of convicting a person or releasing them as innocent is the best judicial service in the world. \n\nWe are human and make mistakes and Goddess forbid it happen, ever, but to allow someone that is clearly eligible for the death penalty to live is a crime against the one murdered and the families they left behind.\n\nI will add a personal note here; I believe child rape should be a death penalty possibility. Especially if kidnapping is involved. I know this sounds harsh but the repeat offender rate for these crimes is so high and the devastation to the child so deep, the offender should NEVER be able to walk the street again.
1068029
No one should be above the law, and consequently no one should be exempted from the law. Past deeds should not effect  punishment any more than changing your life while you are in prison should effect it. If your crime was heinous enough to warrant the death penalty I believe at that point you have forfeited previous good credit in your life.
875271
First drugs are illegal so a punishment goes there.\nUnder the use of drugs an act of crime occurs, may not have if accused was clean.\nConsider priors he/she may have.\nThen put together a jail term and a drug rehab program.\nI would suggest  a 3 to 5 year  sentence and less time for good behavior.  \nYes you are right about a killing being less time. That really stinks.
347771
Well, this is a matter of philosophy, and thus expect as many answers as there will be people answering.\n\nPersonally, I wouldn't think of it as a "punishment". See, you punish someone to let him know he has done something bad, and shouldn't do this any more - he should be a better person. If he's dead, he can't change himself to be better.\n\nOn the other hand, there are situations where we can't change someone, and thus we have to protect the rest of the society from that person. Death is, undisputably, a 100% effective measure against reoffending (and the only one so effective I heard about). It's like dealing with a rabid dog: we can't help it, and putting it to death is the only way to ensure it will harm no one. \n\nIMHO, it isn't about revenge. Or rather, it shouldn't be - and thus the act should be performed in as humanitarian way as possible.\n\nAnd never, ever should it be taken lightly. In cause of any mistake, you have no way of changing the fact the man is alrady dead...
838958
CASE IS UNDER TRAIL AND HE MUST BE PUNISHED ACCORDING TO LAW.
629045
They should absolutely be charged. It should also be a felony with prison time implimented.
1167077
innocent to be locked up.  if someone has a propensity for criminal behavior, there is a chance they will meet justice eventually.
683316
i think that sometimes, its a little harsh. the fact that like... your third strike can be something like, stealing a bag of cheetos and BAM-- life in prison. its a little weird. i think that each crime should be evaluated individually, and that often times, the first crime warrents prison time. i dont think the 3 strikes law is very good.
43858
John's answer is absolutely correct, though I'd add one thing to it.   Punishment for criminal offenses often is dealt out in different degrees.  In California, many crimes are punishable by an upper limit of days in county jail (example: up to one year in county jail, meaning a person could get no jail time, or up to a year in jail), or by a number of determined years in prison (2, 3, or 4 years, for example).  \n\nThere are many factors that determine the sentence handed out to the defendant, but you should expect to see the prosecutor argue for the upper limits of allowable punishment because, after all, police officers are supposed to be perfect (okay, I'm getting a little testy here) or at least not supposed to go around committing crimes.  It's hard to argue that a cop should be prosecuted and punished just like anyone else, because the cops are indeed supposed to be the people who enforce the law, not break it.\n\nBottom line: John's right, but you'd probably expect to see the prosecutor at least ask for harsher sentences for cops - and maybe even get them.
622795
There is not such thing as a perfect crime.  Something is always left behind.  And with all the technologies they have today, you'll be lucky to get away with it. Sooner or later, it will catch up with you, and the statutes of limitations don't run out on somethings.  The perfect crime is...NOT TO COMMIT THE CRIME!