Only in San Francisco

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by bigdumbgod

Maybe. Then again, I believe what is being alluded to is the fact that not all felons are equal. Shall we really put someone who successfully defends oneself from a home invasion attack in the same boat as, say, a psycho nationalist who goes to an island in Norway to shoot up a bunch of trapped unarmed kids to make some sort of point?

When did that become against the law and a confinable offense?

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

When did that become against the law and a confinable offense?

When you get arrested for it (assault, battery, murder) and get convicted. Happens to those who can't afford expensive attorneys. Really sucks to think you have to think twice about defending yourself in a violent attack, knowing that if you win the battle, you might have to pay a high price for it. Yes, it is an absurdly litigious society, as you may agree.

[gone down south]

Originally Posted by Doctor Blues

I don't want them to re-integrate. Most are sociopaths that cause most of the crime. They need to stay in jail. I want them punished as severly as the law allows. And if illegals, I want them deported AFTER their 50 year sentences.

Most people in jail are non-violent offenders who made stupid decisions.
If your kid got caught selling weed, would you want him locked away for life? Or once he got out would you want him blackballed from any good job or apartment just because of a mistake he made in his youth?

[Phil306]

Originally Posted by gone down south

Because felons who re-offend end up costing us a heck of a lot more than we pay out to help felons re-integrate successfully into society.

That sounds really good and nice. Until said felon rapes your daughter and the FIRST question out of your mouth is: Why was he out of prison?

Richard Alan Davis was on PAROLE, from state prison, when he kidnaped, probably sexually assaulted, and killed Polly Klass.

Richard Alan Davis was on PAROLE for forcible rape. He FORCED another female to have sex with him. Hell, he did his time. Let him out.

[expect]

Originally Posted by Phil306

Uh, that is THEIR problem. Not mine. I didn't make them commit crime X; so why should I pay for it? Which is what you are tacitly approving.

agreed.

[NorCal Dude]

Originally Posted by gone down south

Most people in jail are non-violent offenders who made stupid decisions.
If your kid got caught selling weed, would you want him locked away for life? Or once he got out would you want him blackballed from any good job or apartment just because of a mistake he made in his youth?

No one goes to prison in California any more for even for selling weed. Get out of the 1980's. I guy I went to high school with got caught with an illegal grow house. The cops set him up, even flew airplanes over his house and checked his utility bill before getting a warrant.

Well dude had already harvested so they found no plants, just a bunch of bagged weed with a scale. He was given diversion, completed some classes, and his case was dropped. He never so much as even had to pee in a cup for a drug test.

Several people I know got caught smoking while driving, and each one simply had the Dui reduced to reckless driving. The court system is too broke and backed up to deal with that type of stuff. Some counties have stated that they are not even sure if they will be able to effectively prosecute misdemeanors in the coming months..

[sjnative]

As said, these policies have already been implemented in other states and I somewhat sympathetic to them. I agree that a lot of people made mistakes earlier in life and a lot of those mistakes were made after having grown up in environments in which criminality was normative. I think that after having been in carcerated, not all but many will emerge with varying degrees of rehabilitation and will genuinely want to make new lives for themselves even if only for the unadmirable reason that they don't want to be put back in their cages.

Denying these people most employment and housing opportunities will only discourage and disillusion many ex-cons who want to make a new life for themselves. When sufficiently frustrated with being able to find only low-paying dead-end employment and finding housing only with indiscriminate landlords in low-income, high-crime areas, I think many will become frustrated and may at first augment and may later even wholly constitute their income with the instant monetary gratification of cirminal behavior.

What I am suggesting is that these people be given some chance to climb the social ladder and realize whatever potential they may have.




I think what is called for is:

• a tiered and categorized system in which these individuals can be placed; the one-time-charged non-violent criminal, e.g. "NV1" can be differentiated from those who have committed multiple violent crimes such as battery, manslaughter and murder, e.g. "V4"
• categories of housing and employment for which different tier/categories of ex-con individuals will be eligible, e.g. NV1 will be eligible for housing and employment and would enjoy more trust by the penal system than a V4 who would be kept on a shorter parole administrative leash
• persons of higher categories, e.g. V4's, being able to descend the tiered system, rung by rung, by years of post incarceration during which they have not been convicted of relapses and have been held to higher standard of nonviolence than the non-ex-con population; a V4 would be more susceiptible to punishment if there are multiptle/complaints of assault (not battery) on his part;
• the descent of the tiered ladder could commence as follows: 1-5 years = V4 descends to V3, 5-10 years = V4 descends to V2, etc. the caveat being that they retain their alpha-numeric designation while enjoying their new housing and employment rights

Of course, this will require more and more-complex employment and housing code and more administrative rules & regs to enforce it, along with an expanded population of government employees, but I think this may be the lesser evil- not a supposed "solution" than ex-cons having too few opportunties to redeem themselves and, instead, being more tempted to relapse.


That's CA, for you. 40M diverse people in a state with a high COL, about half of whom are crammed into two metros. Such circumstances will inevitably require complicated and expensives means of dealing with complicated and expensive problems.

As usual, no real solutions, just ways of tolerating our problems.