I call BS. Please show me anyone in the US with a clean criminal record who's been locked up for life for stealing a candy bar.Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Yes, putting someone away for life for stealing a candy bar, that's surely justice
No you don't.The point is, you'll have to let them back out at some point. You somehow keep forgetting that point.
Don't know about current status, but
http://articles.latimes.com/2003/mar...nion/oe-chem10
http://www.americanbar.org/publicati...oplifting.html
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I said clean criminal record. No-one has ever been sentenced to life for "just stealing a candy bar" if they already had 2 other convictions.
I'm not sure why you'd ask for that, I thought it was clear from the context that Khen was talking about the three strikes rules.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Well, context is not one of his strong points.
Wait, what? So every criminal gets locked up for life or how am I to understand this reply to my "You have to let them out at some point"?
Especially in light of your indignant reply that no one gets locked up for life for a candy bar.
Does not compute. Walk me through this "special" logic:
I'm saying that the 3-strikes-rule is ridiculous for the draconian punishment it imposes - namely life sentence. You get indignant and say that no one gets locked up for life for just a "candy bar" (which, to head any strawmen off, is just an example for some really minor crime).
I also tell you that criminals have to be let out of prison at some point (at least the ones not locked up for life which I somehow doubt present the majority of prisoners). You proceed to tell me that criminals don't have to be let out.
So, what is it: Mandatory life sentences or not?
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
No it is and that's the problem. It is incredibly disingeneous to claim that the third strike was the only crime they're getting sentenced for and ignoring the other 2.
You said you "have to let people out" - that is categorically untrue, life sentences are an option. You said people get life setences for "just stealing a candy bar" - that is categorically untrue, life sentences are given for being a serial criminal commiting another offence after having already been caught and convicted by law in two priors.Wait, what? So every criminal gets locked up for life or how am I to understand this reply to my "You have to let them out at some point"?
Especially in light of your indignant reply that no one gets locked up for life for a candy bar.
Does not compute. Walk me through this "special" logic:
I'm saying that the 3-strikes-rule is ridiculous for the draconian punishment it imposes - namely life sentence. You get indignant and say that no one gets locked up for life for just a "candy bar" (which, to head any strawmen off, is just an example for some really minor crime).
I also tell you that criminals have to be let out of prison at some point (at least the ones not locked up for life which I somehow doubt present the majority of prisoners). You proceed to tell me that criminals don't have to be let out.
So, what is it: Mandatory life sentences or not?
Wait, so you want to reward thieves, muggers, murderers and rapists with free nanny-state room and food for the rest of their natural lives? What the fuck kind of message does that send to the kids? At the very least, you got to lop their hands off, or something.
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
I never figured out this thing about getting punished twice for the same crime.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
If they were already sentenced and served time for their 2 previous crimes, why are getting sentenced for them again because of a candy bar?
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Because they were allowed to go free on the condition that they behave. They broke that condition. They knew that if they re-offended they'd get life, so don't claim its "just a candy bar".
I'm not a serial criminal but if I was and knew if I reoffended I'd get life in prison, I wouldn't steal a candy bar. Why didn't they stop commiting crimes on the first or second occasion? Why should we be so stupid to think that they'd be rehabilitated on the third?
I thought they were allowed to go free because they'd served their non-life-term sentence.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Allowed to go but with a record to be taken into account next time if they reoffend.
Let's say that one in a thousand sentences is unfair, ie. that an innocent is convicted. If someone has, let's say four convictions under their belt, there's only a one in a thousand billion chance that they're completely innocent. Clearly they've proven themselves lebensunwertes leben at this point, but what I can't comprehend is why Randblade wants to coddle them for some few odd decades instead of just putting a bullet through their necks.
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Because there's a chance (however slim) that they may be innocent. I don't believe in the Death Penalty for that reason only, it's too final. Once you've executed someone you can't say "oops, you're right you were innocent. Sorry about that old chap."
I do believe in suicide though. If a criminal wants to hang themselves, I have no problems with that. I don't know why people like the Moors Murderer Ian Brady who will never be freed can't just starve himself to death like he wants. We shouldn't have "suicide watch".
Again, one in a thousand billion chance, I'm pretty sure you have a bigger chance of being hit by a fucking meteorite.
Why's it better if they off themselves instead? You kinda have to put them in such a wretched physical and mental situation that they feel they have no choice, which kinda sounds like torture. And you're still responsible for engineering their death even if it wasn't society's hand pulling the trigger.
Would you object to the old military style where someone's given a letter of resignation to sign, a gun with a bullet and 15 minutes alone? And if there wasn't a gunshot in the 15 mins, they were put behind lock and key.
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
The same applies if you've locked them up for life or for 25 years or whatever. Look man, you can't give people their time back. If a life is infinitely valuable then 50% of a life--or 100% of a life spent in prison--is going to be too valuable for you to make up for it with an "oops, sorry". This is also the only subject I know of where you're disinclined to act based on a trillion-to-one chance. I'm glad you oppose the death penalty--we haven't yet established its positive effects in this thread--but are you being consistent?
Yes and how different is that from punishing someone twice for the same crime? Or, for that matter, from having an indefinite sentence.Allowed to go but with a record to be taken into account next time if they reoffend.
This is a bit yuckyIn California, first and second strikes are counted by individual charges, rather than individual cases, so a defendant may have been charged and convicted of "first and second strikes", potentially many more than two such strikes, arising from a single case, even one that was disposed of prior to the passage of the law. Convictions from all 50 states and the federal courts at any point in the defendant's past, as well as juvenile offenses if the defendant was age 16 or older that would otherwise be sealed can be counted (although once a juvenile record is sealed, it cannot be "unsealed"; it does not exist any longer and there is no longer any record to be used as a prior conviction), regardless of the date of offense or conviction or whether the conviction was the result of a plea bargain. It is up to the prosecutor's discretion how many charges to levy against a defendant for a single criminal event.[12]
Defendants already convicted of two or more "strike" charges arising from one single case potentially years in the past, even if the defendant was a juvenile over 16 at the time, can be and have been charged and convicted with a third strike for any felony or any offense that could be charged as a felony (including "felony petty theft" or possession of a controlled substance prior to Proposition 36 (see below)) and given 25 years to life. (In the California Supreme Court decision People vs. Garcia, 1999, the Court withdrew residential burglary from the juvenile strike list. For a juvenile residential burglary to count it must also be adjudicated in combination with another felony such as armed robbery, which is a strike. Out of the over 43,000 second and third strikers in California prisons today, none has received a prior strike for residential burglary as a juvenile.)
It is possible for a defendant to be charged and convicted with multiple "third strikes" (technically third and fourth strikes) in a single case. It is also possible for multiple "third" strikes to arise from a single criminal act (or omission). As a result, a defendant may then be given two separate sentences that run consecutively,[13] which can make for a sentence of 50 (or 75, or 100) years to life. 50 years to life was the actual sentence given to Leandro Andrade (more information below).
In turn, as a result of all these factors, three strikes sentences have prompted harsh criticism not only within the United States but from outside the country as well.[14] Within California, criticism has come from organizations such as Families to Amend California's Three Strikes (FACTS).[15] On a practical level, the Stanford Law School Three Strikes Project is working to reverse life sentences imposed for non-violent, minor felonies. Enforcement of the provision differs from county to county in California. For instance, current Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley does not pursue third strike convictions against offenders whose felony is non-violent or non-serious in nature.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
LittleFuzzy's comments on zero tolerance seem appropriate about now.
thats a good question, and instead of trying to answer that, you want them put away for life, for a candy bar.Why didn't they stop commiting crimes on the first or second occasion? Why should we be so stupid to think that they'd be rehabilitated on the third?
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
This may be a good time to explore what we know/think/believe about "rehabilitation".
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Pshaw, it's not justice we're talking about here. It's vengeance. Big difference. But, yeah, you're effectively getting punished twice.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
No one here has provided any evidence in support or opposition to the initial question in this thread.
You mean odds of recidivism shouldn't enter into how a criminal is sentenced?
And you're confusing conviction for a crime with sentencing for a crime. Can you at least try to make a consistent argument in this thread?
Hope is the denial of reality
No one here has posted pictures of Tricia Helfer, either
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
It's a little worrying, although I console myself by remembering that absence of evidence isn't necessarily evidence of absence
RB's remark about rehabilitation is an interesting one. Is prison rehabilitation? What are the rehabilitating elements? Why don't they work better? Could they work better?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Hope is the denial of reality
SPAM
This is not about the positive effects of Tricia Helfer dammit
That's like the only pic of her that's good
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
And what's the point of asking this question? So that Khen et al. can provide irrelevant evidence and then go off on a new tangent? I realize thread drift happens, but perhaps it should happen after someone actually addresses the main topic.
Hope is the denial of reality
Being serious now, I really liked your first response to the question and I kinda figured that settled the "Loki" aspect of it all. If someone does have data and an attempt at analysis, I'd be glad to see it, but I'm not overly optimistic about that happening.
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Do you really need to encourage aimless to create another thread?
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Depends, if its a thread with pics of that Tricia Helfer OK. Who's she?
If your punishment is increased by a hundredfold for a previous crime, then yes, it is punishing twice for the same offence. It's not all black and white, Mr. Strawman.
I mean, what exactly is the monstrous danger to society if you steal a candy bar? One might validly argue in the face of serious crimes like rape, aussault and so on - but those three strikes are also applied to really petty crimes.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
The punishment is not for a prior offence, it is for the fact that you as an individual are a threat to society who has on repeated occasions been convicted yet continue to commit crimes.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
