Fry 'em

[LittleFuzzy]

On the balance how much value do you place on potential innocents being harmed? If 100 criminals are in prison and the choice is life or release (making it simple for the sake of argument) and 99% of those criminals will never victimize another person again but that one person will rape someone. How much value should society be placed on the criminal's freedom versus the victimization of the innocent?

They should value their lives equally. 99 of those people are innocent of further wrong-doing and you are victimizing THEM. Using the state to do so, in fact. I'm more of a libertarian than you are. Have them serve a reasonable term for what they have done, and since I place an emphasis on rehabilitation I'm even willing to accept the idea of sentences being conditioned on a good-faith belief that they HAVE been rehabilitated, within some mild limits to protect from overextension and abuse of state power. But I cannot and will not punish someone for future crimes they MIGHT commit, anymore than I will do so for those who have not yet been caught committing a crime, i.e. the supposed innocent of yours.

There is no number because you can't apply probability to decide whether you are going to toss someone in jail for a crime they have not provably committed.

[Lewkowski]

There is no number because you can't apply probability to decide whether you are going to toss someone in jail for a crime they have not provably committed.

We aren't tossing people in jail for a crime they have not provably committed we are *keeping them there* for crimes they have already committed.

[LittleFuzzy]

We aren't tossing people in jail for a crime they have not provably committed we are *keeping them there* for crimes they have already committed.

No you're not. You just said you weren't. You said you wanted to permanently take away their freedom because of the risk of future crime. That's what recidivism means, it's not a term which applies to actions already taken.

[Lewkowski]

No you're not. You just said you weren't. You said you wanted to permanently take away their freedom because of the risk of future crime. That's what recidivism means, it's not a term which applies to actions already taken.

Not sure if I'm not being clear or if you are deliberately misinterpreting. The person who is in prison *currently* is not there due to future crimes. They are there for past crimes. The decision on how long the sentence should be should absolutely consider the likelihood of the person re-offending. Do you disagree with that notion?

[LittleFuzzy]

Not sure if I'm not being clear or if you are deliberately misinterpreting. The person who is in prison *currently* is not there due to future crimes. They are there for past crimes. The decision on how long the sentence should be should absolutely consider the likelihood of the person re-offending. Do you disagree with that notion?

No. You cannot consider actions they have not been convicted of when determining the penal response to the acts they have been convicted of. Innocent and guilt is not a state of being, Lewk. It is a description of a person's relation to specific acts. You are not an innocent person or a guilty person. You are innocent of doing x, or guilty of doing y.

[Lewkowski]

No. You cannot consider actions they have not been convicted of when determining the penal response to the acts they have been convicted of. Innocent and guilt is not a state of being, Lewk. It is a description of a person's relation to specific acts. You are not an innocent person or a guilty person. You are innocent of doing x, or guilty of doing y.

Bull shit. If that were the case they wouldn't bother with parole boards.

[LittleFuzzy]

Bull shit. If that were the case they wouldn't bother with parole boards.

Why not? See my comment about rehabilitation.