FTM - Sentencing Lie exposed

*WARNING* You MUST read the disclaimer before viewing this website. If you have not read the disclaimer, you MUST click here NOW or Close your browser NOW.

Some of the Lies used when sentencing criminals exposed

This page will reveal and debunk some of the faults, lies, myths, and contradictions in the current criminal justice system.

A. The ridiculous claim that some kind of measurement that represents an "appropriate" level of punishment could exist in sentencing.

One thing that really stands out as a lie and a sham, is the way that the justice system claims to measure the amount of punishment to be received by a criminal. Of course, any punishment at all is demonstrative of total immorality and malevolent derangement on part of society and is utterly false. However, I still would like to point out an obvious further flaw in the claim.

This flaw relates to the Truth that even IF any citizen-slave required or somehow deserved punishment (which is never the case), it is literally impossible to measure or adjudge what punishment would be relevant for an external and impartial third person.

Consider as an analogy : You were in your house and there was a dispute between two humans living there. The third flat-mate is impartial, and so a complete stranger comes in to judge what happened. Can you imagine this scenario? It would be none of his business, and he would not know the people involved, he would not know anything about anything. You would probably tell him to mind his business.

Of course, the Truth that each individual uniquely experiences external reality differently in True Reality proves that any claim to measure punishment (ignoring the Truth that punishment would not be deserved or justified in the first place) is absolutely false and ridiculous. However, this is not a claim that the justice system would accept, either, and what I am going to do is prove that the justice system must be wrong using only the claims and lies that it currently espouses.

Problem #1
The first problem is that no sentencing judge could possibly "weigh" the "gravity" of any crime because he or she themselves have not experienced the crime or the punishment themselves. For example, no judge can be an ex-con, and therefore has never experienced the punishment that he would dish out. Therefore, he could never know what the punishments were "worth". For example, if a criminal was convicted of hitting someone, and got 3 months, how would the judge know if it should be 1 month or 6? He could not possibly know. Of course, there is no legitimacy to the claims of justice and right to punish criminals made by society, I am just ignoring that for now for the sake of argument alone.

Some inferiors will actually try and argue here that there are sentencing guidelines, and case-laws that can be "drawn upon" to render the unjust and perverse sentences that are passed down. This answer is ridiculous! It attempts to answer how the individual sentence is reached by appealing to a larger group of previous individual sentences that share the same problem! Of course, these previous sentences are only individually justified by the others, so that answer just begs the question. The same with any other source, such as community attitudes.

Another explanation is that so-called "experts" have determined the sentences. Of course, not only does that fail to explain how the sentences could be measured, by simply deferring the question to another mystery authority, but it also entails the exact same difficulty that the original answer faced.

So, there simply cannot be a just and fair measurement of sentence even if one was to reject the Forbidden Truth I reveal regarding society having no legitimate right to pass moral judgment or punish any criminal.

Problem #2
Here is an even greater problem. The problem is related to whether or not the judge can foresee the future. Of course, he cannot, but I will look at both possibilities below, using a scenario.

Scenario : This is a real-life scenario. A prisoner is sentenced to several years jail over drug related offences. While sentenced, he is brutally gang-raped in jail. This constitutes in itself a far more severe, cruel, unjust and "unusual" punishment than he is claimed to be responsible for. Therefore, the sentence inherently does more harm and punishment than can be justified. Even though the rape was not ordered and directed by the judge and society, it can be only directly linked to the fact that such punishment was enacted in an unsafe environment.

1. The judge can see the future. Therefore, he is sunk because there can be no justification for the rape. Of course, this point can be dismissed because it is not possible to see the future.

2. The judge cannot see the future. Therefore the judge cannot possibly determine what the level of punishment and harm will be inflicted upon the sentenced prisoner, in fact not even the prisoner could know, and thus knowing what a dangerous environment prisons are, and what goes on in them on a daily basis, he cannot legitimately claim that he can measure and judge the level of punishment claimed to be required.

Of course, I realise that the above is a totally moot point because the Forbidden Truth clearly proves that all the concepts and claims of the justice system are entirely false and ridiculous. No human being ever deserves to be punished by the villainous, twisted and totally immoral society that is responsible for creating and victimizing them.

Cruel and unusual punishment.
I wish to reveal some Truth about this crazy and ridiculous statement used by society. Society claims that any punishment it unjustly and malevolently delivers is not cruel nor "unusual". This statement is an utter mental derangement and it is completely false.

The justice system is designed to promote the vindictive and unjust infliction of cruel punishments. The entire prison system is designed to be cruel, harmful, unfair and abusive. Therefore, there cannot be any legitimacy that the punishments are not cruel in design.

Now we come to the worded claim of "unusual". This word is an utter joke. All punishments are either :
1. Unusual because the average person does not experience such conditions. Therefore, all the punishment acts and prison environment must be unusual.
2. Unusual only for those who are sentenced to such punishment. This only applies only to the subjects themselves and thus it is self- or circular justifying. No matter what the punishment was, it would have to be usual because it is the punishment used.

The biggest critique, of course, is that society has no legitimate business punishing anyone. There has never been a single legitimate reason given that explains why society should punish anyone. Illegitimate reasons are given, but these are all baseless, appeals to consequence and irrational fallacious reasons.

Societal policies on murder target selection.

This section deals with how societal whore judges, acting on behalf of society, decide upon the unjust sentences wrongly given to criminals. Although the Forbidden Truth dictates that all sentences given to criminals are unjust, undeserved and immoral, we can still gain useful insight into the intentions and reasons for the varying degrees of lie-based and illegitimate sentences handed down to criminals on behalf of society.

There is a recent an interesting example case in Media Stories on this matter, that is here.

There are many lie-based and illegitimate considerations that society, via it's socital whores, makes when deciding how much unjust and undeserved punishment to inflict on a so-called criminal.

A personal case of total injustice :
As readers of My website know, I also have been subjected to gross injustices by australian society via the legal courts . In fact, I am the #1 known political prisoner in australia during the 2000-2010 period. Click here to read more about this case.

Click here to return.