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.
If you murder someone (think about what that means) society can take into account your reputation and interact with you accordingly.
There is nothing that says that after leaving prison you start with a clean slate, you do not. You still committed the crime. You might have been punished by society having been sent to prison but that doesn't mean anyone has to forget what happened.
A murderer has stolen the life of another human being. Where is the clean slate for the person murdered, for their family and the possible contributions they might have offered to society?
Society already trusted that person and they went and killed someone else. Punishment does not mean trust is restored. They damaged their reputation as a human being and too bad, they have to live with that. At least they get to live which is so much more than they allowed for the murdered that it can't be measured on the same scale.
You are forgetting that the criminal justice system has nothing to do with the civil one. Any murderer is lucky to be alive. The rest of their life should have one focus, to work in the service of the one they murdered. They took a life and really don't have much right to their own.
The person she murdered wasn't completely innocent either. That person abused her, who knows what it did to her mentally? With that being said it doesn't completely excuse her actions, and she should've face repercussions. IMHO, she should've received some sort of counseling.
It's messed up that spoiled rich kids can get away with killing multiple people in the name of 'Affluenza', but people with actual post traumatic stress disorders and other mental illnesses get punished.
She pleaded guilty to 1st degree murder. That should follow her for life.
The "ban the box" is a stupid idea. Employers, and co workers, have a right to know about the criminal past of a person they are spending their workday with.
Did she pay for that degree she got behind bars? Who ever thought it was a good idea to give degrees to inmates but people who did nothing wrong have to struggle with student loans.
So how is she supposed to live a productive life? Without a job which would help with personal responsibility, then she would have to be what some on CD call a "taker." But more likely she would gravitate back to crime and end up in prison at the taxpayers expense. I assume this is what you then prefer.
A person who commits first degree murder can be productive in prison. Roads need gravel, make them sort trash, clean sand for playgrounds, lots of things they an do, all within the confines of a prison.
Let them cultivate their own food. If they refuse, they don't eat.
The person she murdered wasn't completely innocent either. That person abused her, who knows what it did to her mentally? With that being said it doesn't completely excuse her actions, and she should've face repercussions. IMHO, she should've received some sort of counseling.
It's messed up that spoiled rich kids can get away with killing multiple people in the name of 'Affluenza', but people with actual post traumatic stress disorders and other mental illnesses get punished.
Only in the United $tates of Murica.
Let go of that United $tates of Murca schtick. I read the complete article and very much empathize with her and do not doubt that what that monster did to her starting at age 12 did very much affect her. That being said, she was 26 when she murdered her abuser and knew what she was doing. Unfortunately the law does not permit us to take justice into our own hands, esp. after the fact.
She pleaded guilty to 1st degree murder. That should follow her for life.
The "ban the box" is a stupid idea. Employers, and co workers, have a right to know about the criminal past of a person they are spending their workday with.
Did she pay for that degree she got behind bars? Who ever thought it was a good idea to give degrees to inmates but people who did nothing wrong have to struggle with student loans.
The real outrage is that she only served seven years for murder.
Regarding this "Ban the Box" movement, it's going over like a f- - - in church in many localities, and I'm not surprised. Who the hell wants an ex-felon doing, for example, home improvements and knowing the layout of your house? And the idea that, all things being equal, a prospective employer should not be allowed to hire the applicant without a criminal record of any kind is absurd.
But isn't the criminal past wiped out by serving the time? Also, why do you have a right to know other people's business, so you can play judicial system with their lives? If the judicial system said they're free to go, that's good enough for you.
Wall st kid, I'm curious about something. If a person who is a stock trader or a financial adviser breaks the laws of his or her business, loses customer money, and goes to jail, what should happen after the time is served? Should the former felon be able to hang up a shingle and go back into business? Should innocent people who have no idea of this person's history be left to trust their financial investments to the former felon?
The person she murdered wasn't completely innocent either. That person abused her, who knows what it did to her mentally? With that being said it doesn't completely excuse her actions, and she should've face repercussions. IMHO, she should've received some sort of counseling.
It's messed up that spoiled rich kids can get away with killing multiple people in the name of 'Affluenza', but people with actual post traumatic stress disorders and other mental illnesses get punished.
Only in the United $tates of Murica.
We know what happened, she murdered someone. This isn't about what other people did or didn't do, not about spoiled rick kids either. Stay on topic.
She killed someone and was convicted of murder in the first degree. What you are trying to do without any success is share some of the responsibility for the murder with someone else.
Here is the way it works, each person is responsible for their own actions. This woman decided to murder someone. She was convicted. She went to prison. Now she has to deal with society.
End of story no matter how differently you want it to be.
But if the person didn't serve life in prison, how is that the 'maximum'? Its only the maximum if a person serves life in prison but really deserved more time.
NO?
If you are going to quote someone, be honest about it and include the entire context, otherwise you are mis-characterizing what someone else said and you get called out on it, like now.
Did you read up on how the law works in this case? Apparently not. I'm not in for playing word games so look elsewhere.
You don't get a clean and unblemished slate when you leave prison. We all carry our reputations with us. The people will forever be leery of your actions, especially with certain crimes like rape and murder. Yes, you've paid your debt to society, but that doesn't mean we're all supposed to erase your crimes from our minds and pretend you didn't do them. You don't owe us...and we don't owe you anything either.
The person she murdered isn't faring so well either.
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.
