I'm thinking whether caning is appropriate for a crime like vandalism.
If the act of vandalism causes monetary loss and no harm or injury to any person, would it not be more appropriate to fine the person to the extent of the losses plus additional punitive amount?
Caning should perhaps be for crimes where violence is involved or where people were injured or harmed by the perpetuator.
If it's murder, death penalty applies.
If it's manslaughter, no death penalty, but perhaps the perpetuator's freedom should also be taken away from him in the form of life imprisonment or hard labour for a long period.
If someone causes a death in an accident, perhaps he should be responsible for supporting the victim's dependents until the court deems them to be independent, i.e. essentially taking the place of the victim.
Punishment to fit the crime as far as possible. Do you think it is more appropriate? Will it be more justified?
If the act of vandalism causes monetary loss and no harm or injury to any person, would it not be more appropriate to fine the person to the extent of the losses plus additional punitive amount?
Caning should perhaps be for crimes where violence is involved or where people were injured or harmed by the perpetuator.
If it's murder, death penalty applies.
If it's manslaughter, no death penalty, but perhaps the perpetuator's freedom should also be taken away from him in the form of life imprisonment or hard labour for a long period.
If someone causes a death in an accident, perhaps he should be responsible for supporting the victim's dependents until the court deems them to be independent, i.e. essentially taking the place of the victim.
Punishment to fit the crime as far as possible. Do you think it is more appropriate? Will it be more justified?