Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Violent crime is at historic lows you nincompoop! So apparently something IS working....This is the least violent generation in human history..
As the famous quote goes "Everyone complains about things getting worse while things always get better."
Indeed, but we also have an all time high in prison population and an absurdly high recidivism rate. Realistically, non-violent offenders should be the easiest to rehabilitated, yet the non-violent offenders, who are apparently so plentifully that we can house 25% of the world's prison population, are somehow not being rehabilitated. So something is fundamentally wrong with our current system. If violence is down, so should prison population, and therefore, recidivism should also be pretty low, yet that's not the case.
I suggest that prison needs to be re-thought. I have often wondered how things might be different if incarcerated people were locked into a 10x15 room with a nice mattress, a tv with the full cable package, internet and a computer, a total gym, and otherwise essentially isolated. maybe encourage to use the and internet to connect to support groups.
Wow, you think people should be rewarded with a better life in prison than many have outside of prison?
If anything we need to return to roadside chain gangs making prisoners work off their debt to society. They should be provided nothing more than medical care, three squares, a roof and a cot.
Indeed, but we also have an all time high in prison population and an absurdly high recidivism rate. Realistically, non-violent offenders should be the easiest to rehabilitated, yet the non-violent offenders, who are apparently so plentifully that we can house 25% of the world's prison population, are somehow not being rehabilitated. So something is fundamentally wrong with our current system. If violence is down, so should prison population, and therefore, recidivism should also be pretty low, yet that's not the case.
Actually it is just the opposite. Violent people, especially murders and rapists will continue to commit crimes until they are stopped. Just like a predator needs to find prey, so too are these sick individuals driven to harm other people. By having minimum mandatory sentences, 3 strike laws, 10-20-life etc., we have put away individuals who would have continued to commit a disproportionate number of crimes. Therefore violent crime goes down, vs. having a revolving door that lets these predators back on the street to commit more violent crime.
Actually it is just the opposite. Violent people, especially murders and rapists will continue to commit crimes until they are stopped. Just like a predator needs to find prey, so too are these sick individuals driven to harm other people. By having minimum mandatory sentences, 3 strike laws, 10-20-life etc., we have put away individuals who would have continued to commit a disproportionate number of crimes. Therefore violent crime goes down, vs. having a revolving door that lets these predators back on the street to commit more violent crime.
Murderers have, and to my knowledge that has pretty much always been the case, the lowest recidivism rate of all other criminals.
And I'm sure you have a source for all of this? Or is it just what you heard on Fox News from Bill O'Riley shouting something about someone who did a bad thing?
Mandatory minimum sentencing laws are ridiculous. Congress, who does nothing right pretty much ever, should not have the authority to determine how long someone goes to jail. That authority should rest exclusively with a judge. If a judge decides that a murdered only needs 1 year in jail, he has the power to do so and should come to that conclusion after the trial has revealed the relevant evidence of a person's guilt. So, an example. Murder is the only federal crime (aside from some sex offenses against children, as prescribed by the Adam Walsh Act) that has no statute of limitations. But lets say someone is in a gang, and they kill someone. After doing this, they feel guilty and get away from the gang. After 20 years, they pull their life together, get a decent job, and start a family; they are an upstanding citizen. But, 20 years after they commit the crime, the police show up with evidence linking them to the murder they committed in their past. Under your logic, this person who clearly isn't a bad person, not only deserve, but NEEDS, to be sentenced to a minimum amount jail time, which for murder at the federal level is about 19 to 30 years, depending on how clean their record is.
I personally have no issue with a 3 strikes law, but prisons need to be better suited for rehabilitation. If someone is given the resources they need to turn their life around, and doesn't, it's reasonable to increase the punishment. I wouldn't say the effect of the 3 strikes law should be so set in stone though. I remain against the concept of life in prison (as a stand alone sentence) or other lengthy prison sentences. I've suggested that a max of 20 yeas per sentence should be done before, and often get the response that is along the lines of 'that's too generous' as if putting someone even in a relatively nice Finnish prison for two decades, or statistically 1/4 of their life, is in some way being too nice. Either people suck at math or they are just insanely cruel; either way, it reaffirms my view that most people really aren't thoughtful enough to make decisions for other people.
And people can say all they want about Scandinavian prisons being too 'nice.' Their results are substantially better than that of the US. Less crime overall, fewer violent crimes by quite a margin, and lower recidivism across the board. If we want results like this we need to drop our misguided revenge politics when it comes to political justice. No matter how much it works using freedom math, in reality, which is what we should base our decision off of, our system is not giving us ideal results. If it's decided so, we don't have to copy the Scandinavian model, but we need to try something else (of course, prisons do generate profit for the government, so...; but yeah, congress is obviously making the right call with mandatory minimum sentencing laws ).
Murderers have, and to my knowledge that has pretty much always been the case, the lowest recidivism rate of all other criminals.
And I'm sure you have a source for all of this? Or is it just what you heard on Fox News from Bill O'Riley shouting something about someone who did a bad thing?
Mandatory minimum sentencing laws are ridiculous. Congress, who does nothing right pretty much ever, should not have the authority to determine how long someone goes to jail. That authority should rest exclusively with a judge. If a judge decides that a murdered only needs 1 year in jail, he has the power to do so and should come to that conclusion after the trial has revealed the relevant evidence of a person's guilt. So, an example. Murder is the only federal crime (aside from some sex offenses against children, as prescribed by the Adam Walsh Act) that has no statute of limitations. But lets say someone is in a gang, and they kill someone. After doing this, they feel guilty and get away from the gang. After 20 years, they pull their life together, get a decent job, and start a family; they are an upstanding citizen. But, 20 years after they commit the crime, the police show up with evidence linking them to the murder they committed in their past. Under your logic, this person who clearly isn't a bad person, not only deserve, but NEEDS, to be sentenced to a minimum amount jail time, which for murder at the federal level is about 19 to 30 years, depending on how clean their record is.
I personally have no issue with a 3 strikes law, but prisons need to be better suited for rehabilitation. If someone is given the resources they need to turn their life around, and doesn't, it's reasonable to increase the punishment. I wouldn't say the effect of the 3 strikes law should be so set in stone though. I remain against the concept of life in prison (as a stand alone sentence) or other lengthy prison sentences. I've suggested that a max of 20 yeas per sentence should be done before, and often get the response that is along the lines of 'that's too generous' as if putting someone even in a relatively nice Finnish prison for two decades, or statistically 1/4 of their life, is in some way being too nice. Either people suck at math or they are just insanely cruel; either way, it reaffirms my view that most people really aren't thoughtful enough to make decisions for other people.
And people can say all they want about Scandinavian prisons being too 'nice.' Their results are substantially better than that of the US. Less crime overall, fewer violent crimes by quite a margin, and lower recidivism across the board. If we want results like this we need to drop our misguided revenge politics when it comes to political justice. No matter how much it works using freedom math, in reality, which is what we should base our decision off of, our system is not giving us ideal results. If it's decided so, we don't have to copy the Scandinavian model, but we need to try something else (of course, prisons do generate profit for the government, so...; but yeah, congress is obviously making the right call with mandatory minimum sentencing laws ).
So your "logic" dictates what exactly, the murderer who has been free the entire time just get some small sentence?
As to trying to compare America with other small countries who have the same culture/race/religion etc. will never be an accurate way to think it will work over here.
If mere protection is what you are after, rather than any kind of justice, it would be enough to incarcerate all males between 16 and 35 or so. The remaining majority would be safer.
hey you know what, that is not what I said.
CONVICTED criminals should be segregated from the rest of us.
Or would you prefer that convicted rapists and murderers be wandering free among us?
Should prisoners who receive life sentences without parole be given access to some sort of drug like the one Brittany Maynard took to end her own life? Is life in prison actually worse than the death penatly itself? It seems very expensive to take care of prisoners and if they want to commit suicide, why shouldnt we let them and possibly even assist in the process? I am all for it and think that people with life sentences should be allowed and even encouraged to off themselves whenever they please. It would help bring costs and overcrowding down.
This was brought to light by Aaron Hernandez recently being placed on suicide watch after being convicted and sentenced without parole. I find it absurd that a prisoner would be placed on suicide watch. Why should we prevent prisoners from committing suicide?
I am admittedly very much a hawk when it comes to law breakers, and prison.
Prison should be a deterrent. Make it mean and nasty. Let people understand that if you go into prison, you will be kept in a cell, no amenities outside of a sink and a toilet, and you will likely die in there from going crazy, untreated illness, or disease.
Offering them a convenient way out with "permitted" suicide? No. If they wish to hang themselves with a bed sheet, or stab themselves and bleed to death with a dinner fork, fine. Pretty cruel way to die, but prison is not supposed to be easy.
That arrogant clown Hernandez, for example, still doesn't understand that he committed a murder...maybe more than one...and he will spend the rest of his life in a jail cell. Don't give him the easy way out by offering him a pill to allow him to end his suffering.
Perhaps...just maybe...if these knuckleheads understand that they will rot/die in jail it MIGHT be a deterrent to criminal behavior. If going to jail means exercise yards, television, healthcare, free meals, "rehabilitation", and "education" it becomes a "so what" when it comes to fearing the experience.
No easy way out. No assisted suicide. Let 'em rot until their sentence is up.
If the state is protected against lawsuits that would cost more than a lifetime of incarceration, I have no problem with assisted suicide being an option for some people given LWOP.
If it's a capital crime eligible for the death penalty, and for whatever reason the judge/jury opted not to impose it? I'd have no problem with the prisoner being given the final choice for him/herself.
If it is a state that doesn't impose the death penalty ever? I'd consider giving the prisoner the option of assisted suicide if there are aggravating factors that would make it a death penalty case elsewhere.
I'd save the option for the most egregious crimes, like serial killers, sadistic torture involved in a murder, or other evidence of extreme psychopathy and/or depraved indifferent to life, for example.
Imagine the taxpayer money saved that could be used to rehabilitate prisoners who do not pose a grave danger to the rest of society.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
).
Yes:
