When Life in Prison Is Not Enough

[Lewkowski]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/12/29...ife-sentences/

The Massachusetts Parole Board is under scrutiny after a local police officer was killed by a career criminal who was released despite serving a term of three concurrent life sentences.

Dominic Cinelli was serving time for shooting a security guard during an armed robbery to feed his heroin addiction when he told the board in November 2008 that he was a changed man, the Boston Globe reported.

Four months later the board unanimously voted to free Cinelli, but police say the 57-year-old returned to his ugly ways Sunday, fatally shooting Woburn police officer John Maguire, 60, while robbing a Kohl's department store. Cinelli also died in the shootout.

But critics say Cinelli isn't the only person to blame for Maguire's death.

"I don't know how any member of the Parole Board justifies that," Laurie Myers, president of Community Voices, a Chelmsford-based nonprofit that advocates on behalf of crime victims, told the Globe. "He shouldn't have been out, and now there's another person dead."

Cinelli had a lengthy rap sheet filled with armed robberies, assaults and other offenses, had been serving three life sentences since 1976, and had chronic disciplinary problems while in prison including two escapes during which he committed crimes, the Globe reported.

Still, he won the board over by saying the deaths in the family, including his mother's, and drug counseling changed him, the paper reported.

"When you hear that somebody who had been serving three life sentences is released on parole and commits another violent crime that causes the death of a police officer, that causes us great concern," Mark K. Leahy, president of the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association and the Northborough police chief told the Globe.

John Grossman, the state's undersecretary of public safety and security, told the Globe that Gov. Deval Patrick ordered the Parole Board to review the decision.

"We're doing a complete look at what happened, and whatever amount of time it takes to do it right, we're going to take," he said.

***********************

Seriously? We really need to have truth in sentencing guidelines. Life MEANS life. This is another example of why the death penalty is important. Yes sometimes people not guilty of the murder charge they were convicted of die, it is a sad fact. But people like this wouldn't be free to roam around and kill more people.


And screw the parole board. Screw them hard. I want cameras in their face and their careers forever ruined.

[GGT]

No, life without possibility of parole means life in prison. He was 22 yrs old at the time of those crimes. Heinous, yes. (It sounds like the officer survived, though, so he wasn't initially sentenced for capital murder.....?)

We can change and improve sentencing and parole guidelines, without using the death penalty.

[Illusions]

No, life without possibility of parole means life in prison.

The fact that he was serving three concurrent life sentences, during which he obviously wasn't a model prisoner, should have weighed in a lot more on whether or not he got of prison though.

[GGT]

Sure, but I was responding mostly to Lewk's preference for the death penalty as a panacea.

[Lewkowski]

He was older then 22 when he committed more crimes while out on furlough. The guy should have never been released. Multiple convictions for assault and robbery. The parole board is clearly incompetent.

[GGT]

He was older then 22 when he committed more crimes while out on furlough. The guy should have never been released. Multiple convictions for assault and robbery. The parole board is clearly incompetent.

Then why did you even mention the death penalty? It's quite possible to have stringent sentencing guidelines and strict parole boards, without a death penalty.

[Lewkowski]

Then why did you even mention the death penalty? It's quite possible to have stringent sentencing guidelines and strict parole boards, without a death penalty.

If the person is dead a parole board can't make a mistake about letting him go free...

[Nessus]

Yes sometimes people not guilty of the murder charge they were convicted of die, it is a sad fact.

So they get murdered. Who should get the DP for their death? The judge presiding over the case? The prosecutor? The members of the jury? All of the above?

I mean, someone has to be killed, right? An innocent just got murdered! If people should be killed when tooth-paste is stolen, certainly people have to be killed when innocents are killed.

[Aimless]

If the person is dead a parole board can't make a mistake about letting him go free...

So in this thread you claim that it's better to sentence and kill an innocent man than it is to free a guilty man :man:



It sounds like this man should have been in psychiatric care. Shame you guys don't seem to be particularly good at this sort of thing.

What does "life" really mean, in the US? Does it in fact denote the upper limit of what a person should serve provided he doesn't meet specific demands? Ie. "up to life unless you lose 5 pounds"?

[Illusions]

So in this thread you claim that it's better to sentence and kill an innocent man than it is to free a guilty man :man:

Actually Lewk is claiming that its better to have the death penalty even though it may potentially kill innocent people, because it might potentially save people, rather than to have a guilty man be released from jail and potentially kill innocent people. Wrap your head around that. In both circumstances innocent people might be killed, but Lewk says its better that we kill some of them so that we might save some others, rather than have a released convict possibly do it.

[GGT]

If the person is dead a parole board can't make a mistake about letting him go free...

Whatever makes you advocate the "shoot first and ask questions later" must be tied to your "fry 'em" mentality. Where does that mentality come from? Seriously.

[Lewkowski]

Actually Lewk is claiming that its better to have the death penalty even though it may potentially kill innocent people, because it might potentially save people, rather than to have a guilty man be released from jail and potentially kill innocent people. Wrap your head around that. In both circumstances innocent people might be killed, but Lewk says its better that we kill some of them so that we might save some others, rather than have a released convict possibly do it.

No system is perfect. We carry out punishment for crime when guilt goes beyond reasonable doubt as decided by a jury.

[Illusions]

No system is perfect. We carry out punishment for crime when guilt goes beyond reasonable doubt as decided by a jury.

Do you think we kill less innocent people than we save by having the death penalty? Does it not matter to you who is doing the killing of innocents (the law or the guilty) so long as there is a net positive of innocent people saved? Would you push an innocent man in front of a train to save ten innocent people farther down the tracks?

[agamemnus]

The Massachusetts justice system is known to be overly lenient; it's not just the parole board. It's the whole culture. A smaller example is when a few months ago a robbery suspect (home invasion) got bail. They all get bail way too often for serious alleged crimes.

[GGT]

The Massachusetts justice system is known to be overly lenient; it's not just the parole board. It's the whole culture. A smaller example is when a few months ago a robbery suspect (home invasion) got bail. They all get bail way too often for serious alleged crimes.

Chappaquiddick?

[agamemnus]

Chappaquiddick?

Who knows?

[rumrunner]

Tis better to let 1000 guilty go free than for even 1 innocent man go to jail (or his death).

[Being]

He was older then 22 ...

You don't see a problem with this, do you?

[Loki]

Tis better to let 1000 guilty go free than for even 1 innocent man go to jail (or his death).

A nice and useless slogan. The only way to make sure that no innocent person goes to jail is to not put anyone in jail.

[Aimless]

I think it's just a way to express feelings about what we should prioritise, not a set-in-stone law about exactly how many innocent men we can accept in prison.

[Loki]

The point is that "an innocent man" might get punished is not a valid argument unless one is an anarchist. The key is to have a high burden of proof in serious cases, and that is already the case.

[LittleFuzzy]

The point is that "an innocent man" might get punished is not a valid argument unless one is an anarchist. The key is to have a high burden of proof in serious cases, and that is already the case.

. . .

Does acknowledging that the state is a lot bigger, more powerful, and generally more effective than an individual, and desiring to keep things less lopsided between innocent individuals and a misinformed or poorly-behaving state count as being an anarchist now?

[Loki]

. . .

Does acknowledging that the state is a lot bigger, more powerful, and generally more effective than an individual, and desiring to keep things less lopsided between innocent individuals and a misinformed or poorly-behaving state count as being an anarchist now?

How is that relevant to the point being made? I said that it's important to have a high burden of proof before you could convict someone, especially for major crimes. But that doesn't mean that we should be under the illusion that any judicial system will be able to avoid convicting innocent men. Neither is it desirable to have a system whose requirements are so strict that an innocent man would have no chance of getting convicted by it. Hell, even on utilitarian grounds, one can easily argue that the 1000 guilty men who are freed in order to spare one innocent men will end up hurting far more than one person.

[LittleFuzzy]

How is that relevant to the point being made?

How is threatening the appellation "anarchist" relevant?

[Loki]

How is threatening the appellation "anarchist" relevant?

Because a non-anarchist would accept that any judicial system will occasionally punish the innocent. Only an anarchist is willing to fully sacrifice order on the alter of total freedom.

[Aimless]

It's a strong argument for ensuring that punishments aren't permanent without hope of being lifted

[Loki]

It's a strong argument for ensuring that punishments aren't permanent without hope of being lifted

Another ridiculous argument. Any punishment is permanent. You can't bring back someone's years in prison (especially if it's life). This is an inane argument against the death penalty.

If you don't want permanent punishments, don't punish criminals.

[Aimless]

Another ridiculous argument. Any punishment is permanent.

You know what you can do? You can sentence someone to prison for 200 years and then review things after 5 years and make another decision. You can also sentence someone to life in prison and then let him out early and alive. You can sentence someone to death but then pardon him.

You can't kill someone and then bring him back to life, and that's my idea of a permanent punishment. If you sentence someone to life in prison, lock him up without any hope of getting out, that's another permanent punishment to me.

Now if you're arguing that it's better to kill an innocent man than to put him in prison for five years, well

well



PS. these are also arguments for preventing prison-rape and torture.

[Loki]

You know what you can do? You can sentence someone to prison for 200 years and then review things after 5 years and make another decision. You can also sentence someone to life in prison and then let him out early and alive. You can sentence someone to death but then pardon him.

You can't kill someone and then bring him back to life, and that's my idea of a permanent punishment. If you sentence someone to life in prison, lock him up without any hope of getting out, that's another permanent punishment to me.

Now if you're arguing that it's better to kill an innocent man than to put him in prison for five years, well

well

I don't think you realize how few cases get reversed 5 years (let alone more) after the fact. So let's talk about what actually happens and would happen instead of what you wish would happen in a perfect world full of fairies and leprechauns.

[Veldan Rath]

Loki, this is when I pull my hair out when it looks like you purposefully miss the point.

The argument that you can kill an innocent man in error, is not on the same line that 'any punishment is permanent'.

There is a stark difference in the degree of going to Prison for 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, and Death, and you know it.