Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2
Prison is that consequence. If they are deemed safe to release back into society, then they should resume the full measure of rights and responsibilities they had prior to their incarceration. If they are not safe, then they should not be released at all. There is no excuse for the way ex-cons are treated in our society. Either it is unjust to public safety not to keep them locked up, or it is unjust to the individual to continue punishing them after they have served their sentence.
|
It's a moot point, and fails miserably.
Prisons are not about rehabilitation....prisons are about warehousing.
A lot of that has to do with the fact that nobody knew anything about rehabilitation or psychology, or how to apply it. And they still don't. Like I've said before, if you want to attempt rehabilitation, then you sentence everyone to a minimum mandatory 7 years, you create an in-take system where they are evaluated by a team of social workers, educators, psychologists and psychiatrists, formulate a rehab plan, and get them on it.
That would be incredibly expensive, with no guarantee of success.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2
Either way, lifelong consequences for ex-felons isn't justified.
|
Yes, it is....if the ex-con earns it.
No one is obligated to forgive anything. And forgiving and forgetting are not the same thing.
On top of that, your argument is hypocritical.
I hire an ex-con convicted of stalking and rape, who subsequently stalks and rapes a co-worker or customer.
I get sued for that.....for hiring someone I never wanted to hire in the first place, because of the risk.
I hire a ex-con with misdemeanors and low level felony assaults, who then assaults a customer or co-worker, and I'm on the hook for that, too. I hire an ex-con crack-user who then injures or kills a co-worker with a fork-lift because they're stoned or on crack, and I'm on the hook for that.
You can't have it both ways; you can't force employers to hire loose cannons, and then penalize employers when those loose cannons go off.
If you want employers to hire ex-cons, then you must shield employers from any and all civil liability arising out of misconduct or criminal acts by the ex-con, and double indemnify for any and all losses.
That means if hire a convicted thief who then embezzles $1 Million from a client and me, and I get sued by the client, then the tax payers pick up all the legal costs......every friggin' penny, plus tax-payers pony up $2 Million to cover the $1 Million loss.
Maybe if tax payers get their services cut or taxes increased, they'll show a little more respect and common sense.
You want to force someone to stick a fork in their eyeball, and then levy a $1,000 fine, because they did exactly what you told them to do, and stuck a fork in their eyeball.
Does make sense?
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
I find some of the socipathic comments from some folks here fascinating. I especially love the "throw them out of a plane into some hellhole" comment. Yeah thats classy. lets toss 8.6% of our total population out of planes over some other country. Nothing like cheering on getting rid of 25 million people or so. Yup.
|
Straw Man
Your reasoning contains the straw man fallacy whenever you attribute an easily refuted position to your opponent, one that the opponent wouldn’t endorse, and then proceed to attack the easily refuted position (the straw man) believing you have undermined the opponent’s actual position. If the misrepresentation is on purpose, then the straw man fallacy is caused by lying.
I was referring to three-time convicted felons.
Do a cost benefit analysis.
Oh, I'm sorry, didn't mean to talk over your head.
The cost of JP-5 (aviation fuel), plus an air national guard air crew for a C-130, plus a ten dollar bill, plus a brown bag lunch and a parachute are cheaper than what you're paying now.
What kind of hypocrite screams about minimum wage not keeping pace with "inflation" (snicker) and then wants to waste $Billions and $Billions of tax-payer dollars a futile effort?
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
I suppose I will miss my sister. Shes a federal felon. She took rocks from BLM land.
|
Why am I not surprised that "it" runs in the family.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2
I don't care what they did when they were convicted of crimes after their sentence is complete. The sentence is the consequence of their crime.
|
Uh-huh....so a Hollywood turd gets probation, why exactly?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon
Not my America that I served as both a soldier and a peace officer. Sorry about your country, whatever it is.
|
At ease, week-end warrior.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon
Preposterous!
|
Oh, yes, gosh, what kind of peace officer doesn't understand restitution?
Shouldn't complete restitution be part of the punishment?
And of course, a burglar who steals a $400 lap-top gets 9-17 years, but a public servant who embezzles $100,000s from a city, township or county gets 2 years probation, because, you know, that's fair.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon
It sure is, for their entire family.
|
As a week-end warrior and security guard, you should understand the concept of peer pressure.
We know what the Sumerians and Akkadians did, because we know what the Amorites and Canaanites did, because the Hebrews being Canaanites employed the same custom and even wrote about it their works in the Old Testament.
Commit a crime, and you were exiled for a period of 7 years....ostracized.
It was very difficult for families. Sometimes the family didn't care, but at other times, the family had to move to be with the exiled criminal....in order to care and provide for them.
In the Congo and Niger River Basins, tribal groups there exiled criminals, as well. They did that right up the 1880s-1890s.
What do you do, when you are exiled from the village?
Normally, you go to your mother's village to live out your exile.
What if your mother was dead? Then you'd have to find another family member in another village to take you in, and if they wouldn't, then you were stuck out in the jungle to fend for yourself...and you'd probably die.
Can't exactly do that in the US, but you can make the convicts pay for 100% of the costs, and attached that to parents, siblings, children and spouses.
Let's see....
mileage for police, investigators, EMT, fire etc etc etc.
hourly rate for police, investigators, EMT, fire, etc etc etc
hourly rate for judge, bailiff, stenographers, etc etc etc
court-room rental
jail cell rental
prison cell rental
prosecutor's hourly rate
food/meals
per diem
healthcare
The governments can take that money out of Social Security retirement checks, Social Security disability checks, SSI checks, Food Stamps, ADC, TAN-F, HUD, Medicare, Medicaid, seize bank accounts and real property, collateral such as autos, boats and RVs, and then seize items in apartments and houses to be auctioned off to pay for the cost of the crime...oh, and restitution to victims.
Do you think that parents might suddenly mystically magically become very, very, very involved in parenting and child-rearing, so as not get stuck footing a bill?
Do you think family members might be more inclined to get involved with other wayward family members?
Isn't just amazing how a teeny tiny wee bit of pressure causes major changes?
You can have a whistle-blower rule: if a parent, sibling, child or spouse comes forward with documentary evidence or physical evidence (I'm not talking over your head, am I?) of the family member's involvement in a crime, then they aren't financially responsible.
What kind of deterrence on crime do you think that might have?
Granted, it won't stop crimes of spontaneity or passion (I'm not talking over your head, again, am I?), but it would have a serious impact on premeditated crimes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon
So clearly you approve of all the illegal immigrants who have "invaded" the United States as it's obvious a country's borders and sovereignty mean nothing to you. That's special!
|
One could assume that your lack of reading comprehension is the reason you never made it past Buck Private.
I said no such thing.
The US is more than capable of controlling its borders, it simply refuses to do so effectively.
As I have mentioned before, on numerous occasions, it would be very simple and cheap to dig a big ditch 100 feet deep, and 300 feet wide on both the Canadian and Mexican borders, with some nice landscaping and flowers and lots of shrubbery at the bottom of the ditch so it looks pretty from the Space Shuttle.
That would leave people the option of coming to illegally to the US through a border control point by car, or sneaking in by boat.
For a "failed State" like Libya, or Somalia or Afghanistan, what does it matter?
If they cannot protect their borders, then that's just too bad.
If Myanmar (Burma) doesn't want US C-130s flying over and dumping turds, I guess they'll either spring for an air force and put the money to run CAPs, or buy some Patriots or Guidelines.
I guess no one has the wit, intelligence or common sense to see the irony here.
Dumping a homeless alcoholic or drug addict in Somalia or Indonesia?
Um, many States execute for drug offenses, and Muslim countries typically don't have alcohol.
The homeless who want to pan-handle, buy a 40 ounce, and the pee all over themselves in a drunken stupor can do that in Namibia or Angola just as easily as they can here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life
The thing is someone who commits a felony, generally, is not that bright to begin with, that is why they turn to a life of crime. The felony is not what prevents them from getting a good job, it is not having any marketable skills that an employer will pay for. Most felons have not graduated high school, let alone have a job worthy skill
|
I think you're confusing premeditated crimes with spontaneous crimes or crimes of passion.
The not-too-bright are known for the latter two. You know, you're my dad, we're both drunk, we get into an argument, and you pull out a gun and shoot me. Isn't that what happened to Marvin Gaye?
Anyway, stuff like that happens all the time.
However, those people have the greatest chance of being rehabilitated, if they would be properly evaluated, given a proper course of treatment, and the appropriate support and in a conducive environment.
The people who commit premeditated crimes, they're sheer evil. No chance to rehabilitate them, and the only thing you're doing is throwing money away.
Delinquently....
Mircea
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.
