Sure, why not? It's not unethical since both methods are currently in use.Originally Posted by Aimless
I'm proposing not releasing people who commit more than one violent crime. I'm perfectly willing to try to rehab people when they commit the first crime (assuming that crime didn't permanently hurt someone intentionally).are you proposing not releasing anyone from prison EVER??!?!
Hope is the denial of reality
As you may recall from discussion in our former home, I'm also not opposed to the death penalty because I think there are people who are violent in ways which are beyond rehabilitation. Nothing I've said can possibly be construed as indicating I think there is never, at any time, a place for prison sentences. One might reasonably construe from what I said that I don't think jail time is an appropriate response to mendacity, but since you're arguing something way beyond that. . . G, we've talked for many years now. You and I both know I'm not going to play along with an argumentum ad absurdum. So stop trying so hard.
And yeah, from a functional viewpoint, if someone is no longer a threat to society, it doesn't make all that much sense to continue treating them as if they were a threat. Assuming perfect knowledge, of course. You've never had any problem assuming that in the past.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I'm trying to see where you'd draw the line though. I think we can both agree that teens who burgle a house when everyone was out shouldn't be put in general population for 10 years, and we can probably agree that murderers shouldn't be let out. But that leaves a lot of crimes in between. Like I said, at which point do you stop trying to rehab someone?
It weakens the deterrent argument, however, since you're basically telling criminals that if they commit a crime, they can expect to be let out of prison once they get old/sick enough. Here's a hypothetical for you. A guy kills his wife, who he's been with for 20 years. He kills her because of some flaw of hers that he had to put up with for 20 years. The odds of him facing the same situation again are virtually nil. Do you not send this guy to prison?
Hope is the denial of reality
That's not what he was talking about, Loki. He's talking about people who're not a threat anymore after having been to prison.
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 you're not. If you were, you'd have sourced your responses in what I said, rather than in wildly extreme things my words never supported. I'm not interested.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Because you don't understand human nature.And then, of course, I am opposed to the concept of criminal justice as punishment.
It is NOT just about deterrence but that is a BIG factor. Deterrence = fewer future crimes committed. Plus you must understand those who do a serious crime such as murder, rape, child molestation and the like become less. They become evil creatures not worthy of life, happiness, joy or hope. Their human worth and potential to improve the world around them is gone. Period.The only thought you ever have in your head is deterrance, but deterrance is not a panacea. You can't just reach for a bigger punishment, a bigger hammer, when the last attempt fails and be assured it will work. I don't want to punish crime.
Nah. Putting a rapist in prison for life ensures that he won't rape anyone again. Pretty much solves that problem doesn't it?. Constantly. Your solution is to just never let any criminal out. Three strikes laws, harsher punishments on reoffenders, etc. Besides being fairly ineffective, it's also inefficient and a "smashing eggshells with sledgehammers" approach. There are more effective ways.
My view of things is that we have PLENTY of room in prison for the murders, rapist and child molesters. The terrorists, arsonists and career thieves. Get rid of the retarded drug laws in this country and you've got the room.
What rate is acceptable? Should we let a child molester go free if there is a 1% chance they will do it again? So for every 10,000 child molesters you are OK With 100 children being raped? Fuck that. Fry the bitches. 0% chance beats 1% chance EVERY time.Concentrate on rehabilitating people, integrating them into society without committing crimes. Work-release programs, probation, alternate forms of incarcaeration, etc. These tools don't have a 100% success rate, of course, but they perform a damn sight better than jail time and more jail time.
I'd appreciate a source. Most sources I've seen show recidivism after prison to be about the same as recidivism for alternatives.
What's not taken into account though the fact that crime is not commited while the individual is incarcerated. How many crimes are commited by people who are not in prison because they've been given an alternative sentance, during the length of time that they would otherwise have been in prison?
Recidivism while incarcerated is almost zero. Recidivism rates after release may be the same as recidivism rates after sentencing for alternatives, but total crime would be lower with prison not because the individual is "treated" but that while locked up they can't offend.
You refer to "three strikes you're out" - that isn't about treatment, it means the person sentenced can't re-offend not because he no longer wants to, but because he's locked up. It's estimated that 1000 people in the UK commit half of all offences, locking them up wouldn't treat them, it will simply take away their ability to re-offend. On a personal level, if we had "three strikes you're out" I'd have never been assaulted. The guy who did it already had over 10 convictions - the "three strikes" system wouldn't have "cured" him - it would have done his job by removing that serial offender from society to prevent him doing what he did in the first place.
Fair comparisons between sentences should start as soon as the sentence is given, not comparing after prison to the alternatives as you're excluding a major period of time. Prison doesn't "cure" people or "treat" them, but neither do the alternatives. Prison locks up the threats to society so the rest of society can operate without them. Prison works.
"Recidivism while incarcerated" is quite an idiotic argument to make. Maybe you should look up what recidivism actually means.
You're trying to redefine a term in order to create a moronic metric.
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?
He could have just said that all other things being equal, the crime rate would be lower if these kind of people are locked up.
Hope is the denial of reality
No, I am not. Recidivism is the habitual relapse into crime, the recidivism of inmates is something that can be measured: what is the rate of relapse into crime of those who are incarcerated while incarcerated? That is the recidivism of inmates. I'd struggle to get that measurement simply because its so low! Because prison works.
While incarcerated, how many convicts relapse into commiting more crimes against the public? That is a serious metric. You only don't want to answer it because the truth jars with your point of view.
No, I don't want to answer it because it's moronic. Seriously, the only way your thinking makes sense if we lock up all criminal offenders for life. ALL of them.
If we don't, your argument makes even less sense since recidivism does not sport a temporal dependency.
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?
Its moronic only because its self-evident I'm right and you're wrong. Why are you so afraid to admit incarcerated criminals don't commit crime? For that reason: Prison works.
While incarcerated, prisoners have a recidivism rate close to 0% - name anything else remotely that successful.
Furthermore no, we don't need to lock up all offenders for life. We lock up the offenders who are a risk to society, while locked up they are no risk to society. Problem solved.
You are mistakenly of the opinion that the only outcome that matters is the rate of re-offending while the criminal is on the street, so mistakenly exclude the most important time of all - the time society is protected from the criminal by the prison. The prime outcome that matters is actually the vulnerability of society to crime: While incarcerated the criminal can not commit crime. Job done.
Yeah, and it's sooo easy to determine who's a risk to society.
Yeah. That's why the code of law is so thin. That's why psychologists only need one semester at the university. Right.
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?
Yeahhh, that's why we have no courts at all. No laws, no police, no prosecuters, no juries and no judges. Because finding out who's a threat to society is sooo difficult
Unless you're denying that any prisoners are a threat to society, my point about prison removing from society the threats to it is right. Are you denying that? Because if not, you have absolutely no leg to stand on in claiming you should exclude the time the prisoner is actually in prison from comparisons.
That's a pretty dumb and frankly ass-backwards argument. They are legion because it is difficult to ascertain guilt to a reasonable degree, and even then this vast system makes mistakes, innocent people are convicted. How is their existence an argument for their job being easy?Yeahhh, that's why we have no courts at all. No laws, no police, no prosecuters, no juries and no judges. Because finding out who's a threat to society is sooo difficult
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 claimed it was easy, I claimed there were people and structures there specifically to do it.
Big difference.
Innocent people may be convicted, that is the sole reason I oppose the death penalty (since it is irreversible) and that is why we have legions more appeal etc courts.
I expected the "criminals aren't human beings anymore" line from Lewk, but I did not expect it from you. Because one of the things your argument there hinges on is that things criminals do to other criminals in jail are, for the most part, not treated as crimes the way they would be if they were committed out of prison.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Come on Fuzzy, that is why I have not said that there are no crimes commited by incarcerated criminals, just that there are a lot less than when they are not incarcerated. I have always placed the caveat above with my wording that there could still be some crime amongst inmates and indeed it is typically other inmates that are the victim too. Lewk revels in that, I do not.
However, I would still rather the victims of crime are not the innocent public. That criminals commit crimes against each other behind bars is not a reason to free them from security and set them loose upon the streets.
Recidivism is about crime committed after being punished for another crime (e.g. a prison sentence), you moron. Which means that crimes committed while being in prison don't play much of a role. And if a criminal is not incarcerated then he either has not been caught or his crime was not jail-worthy. And you're even making less sense with your first sentence - one could construe that somehow non-incarcerated incarcerated criminals existed.
Geeze. Did someone do a lobotomy on you?
Besides, the fact that criminals can commit less crimes in prison is a null argument. That's what the prisons are for in the first place but has nothing to do with recidivism (which, as stated above, only goes for crimes committed after a sentence).
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?
But we weren't talking about a child molester or a rapist. We were talking about someone whose offense was falsehood. You wish to treat anyone who does anything you don't like as inhuman.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
And by making false claims like this it interferes with catching the REAL rapists. And oh yeah lets go with kidnapping too... what she did was attempted to kidnapping via the state IMO.
Why don't you like the idea of this bitch going to prison?
Social interaction isn't your specialty, is it?
Hope is the denial of reality
but RB what is imprisonment INCREASES crimes eg. by making criminals even more likely to commit a crime after going to jail???
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Would you imprison a murderer if you were pretty sure that they wouldn't commit murder again?
Hope is the denial of reality
Why wasn't this man already in jail?
Delaware pediatrician's alleged victims may surpass 103
A Delaware grand jury returned a sweeping indictment Monday against Dr. Earl Bradley, seen Dec. 23., a pediatrician accused of serial molestation.
By Cris Barrish, The (Wilmington, Del.) News Journal
Delaware authorities who have charged a pediatrician with sexually abusing 103 children say the number may go higher.
Attorney General Beau Biden said police are still conducting interviews with parents and children to identify those seen on videos seized from the Lewes home and office of Earl Bradley.
Bradley, 56, had been charged in December with raping nine girls. A 471-count indictment handed down Monday says he fondled children and forced them to engage in oral sex and intercourse. All but one, a 3-month-old boy, were girls, according to court records.
The indictment says the videos show crimes occurring from 1998 through Dec. 13, three days before he was arrested.
Bradley is awaiting arraignment while being held at the state prison near Smyrna in lieu of $2.9 million bail. He will pursue a mental-illness defense, said his lawyer, Gene Maurer.
Bradley's medical license was revoked last week.
Before his arrest, prosecutors had investigated him in 2005 and 2008 on allegations of improper behavior with patients — excessive kissing and improper vaginal exams — but neither probe led to an arrest or a report to the Delaware Board of Medical Practice, which disciplines doctors.
Videotaping by child predators "is not a one-time act," said Patricia Tedford, director of Contact Lifeline, a group that helps abuse victims and families. "They continue to do it until they get caught," she said.
"There is no sense of right and wrong or the harm they are doing to their victim."
She said of the Bradley case, "The scope of it is so unbelievable."
Biden said he had never heard of a pedophilia case with so many victims.
Seth Goldstein, a lawyer and former police officer who heads the non-profit Child Abuse Forensic Institute in California, said Bradley fits the profile of an abuser who chooses an occupation "where he had ready access to victims."
As the investigation continues and Delaware braces for the possibility of more revelations, Tedford said, "you don't want to believe it, and there's a natural human reaction at first that it can't be."
"Nobody wants to believe that it's been going on," she said.
Because we shouldn't be jailing people. It makes them more likely to commit more crimes.
Hope is the denial of reality
You're mixing up vengeance, justice and a skewed view of the purpose of criminal law, my dear.
Geeze man, you're trying to knot everything into an either-or-situation. The fact that human interactions and the results thereof are not binary seems to elude you. Are you deliberately dense?
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?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
