Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 43

Thread: And yet another question to invoke debate....

  1. #1
    Administrator Peck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,835

    Default And yet another question to invoke debate....

    Ok, here is a tough one.

    What is the primary responsibilty of our justice system? Is it Punishment or is it rehabilitation?

    Ideally it's both, however just to get a feel for where we all stand I want you to list THE most important element.


    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Frankfort, IN
    Posts
    9,136

    Default Re: And yet another question to invoke debate....

    Should be or is?

    The most important IS punishment. Now the legal system has stated that one of the legitimate functions of the courts is to cause pain. Obviously, not phsyical pain, but social pain.

    The legal system has also stated that causing pain is one of the most effective means of altering negative behaviors. This has been debated by a lot of people and recividism rates would at least on the surface seem to argue against that.

    Anyway, according to the official doctrine of the courts, punishment and rehabilitation are one and the same. However there's no doubt that our legal system was at least partially set up based on the "eye for an eye" theory. Or "you reap what you sow." Or any of a half dozen other Biblical references.
    The poster formerly known as Rimfire

  3. #3

    Default Re: And yet another question to invoke debate....

    The primary responsibility of our judicial system is punishment. Doesn't mean prisons should be allowed to operate with inhumane conditions.

    Rehabilitation comes from inside one's heart and in developing a better moral compass about what is right and what is wrong. Rehabilitation also comes when an individual has the tools to make an honest living in the work place. I suspect prisons are lousy places for rehabilitation.

  4. #4

    Default Re: And yet another question to invoke debate....

    Sorry to dodge a simple choice between two options. But I think what the criminal justice system does is keep dangerous people off the streets. It does a poor job of this, both by letting dangerous people back out too soon and by keeping people who are not very dangerous in too long. But at least the courts and prisons can show some record of accomplishment at this task.

    As punishment or as rehabilitation, the criminal justice system is ineffectual.
    And I won't be here to see the day
    It all dries up and blows away
    I'd hang around just to see
    But they never had much use for me
    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

  5. #5

    Default Re: And yet another question to invoke debate....

    I agree with Putman. I would want it to keep the rest of society safe. Trying to punish would will always be imperfect. Looking to rehablitate takes the focus off of the victim and places it on the criminal.
    "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

    "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

  6. #6
    Jimmy did what Jimmy did Bball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    20,519

    Default Re: And yet another question to invoke debate....

    Indiana Constitution
    Article 1
    Section 18. Penal code and reformation

    Section 18. The penal code shall be founded on the principles of reformation, and not of vindictive justice.

    ----


    -Bball
    Nuntius was right. I was wrong. Frank Vogel has retained his job.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

    -John Wooden

  7. #7

    Default Re: And yet another question to invoke debate....

    Recently I've been involved in work for the city that has included testimony from several ex-offenders and their advocates. They all seem to bring up this point:

    We use the phrase, "pay your debt to society" as a euphemism for jail time. The implication is that the debt is a finite one, and that serving jail time is sufficient to pay that debt. Presumably, a person who has paid the debt should be allowed to re-enter society with a clean slate and no prejudice against them.

    But society is never satisfied, and guys who've done their time and paid their debt are almost never welcomed back into society. I'm not talking about the bad eggs. I'm talking about the guys who really don't want to go back to jail and are penitent about their crime. (They are a minority of ex-offenders, but such people exist.)

    Society has almost no capacity for distinguishing such people from habitual criminals. Penitent/reformed ex-offenders still have to check "Yes" on the job application where it asks, "Have you been convicted of a felony?" and that is where their chances of going straight end.

    So, whatever the correctional system is designed to do or intends to do, it seems that our society at large is unwilling to permit reform to occur.
    And I won't be here to see the day
    It all dries up and blows away
    I'd hang around just to see
    But they never had much use for me
    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

  8. #8

    Default Re: And yet another question to invoke debate....

    Quote Originally Posted by Putnam View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Recently I've been involved in work for the city that has included testimony from several ex-offenders and their advocates. They all seem to bring up this point:

    We use the phrase, "pay your debt to society" as a euphemism for jail time. The implication is that the debt is a finite one, and that serving jail time is sufficient to pay that debt. Presumably, a person who has paid the debt should be allowed to re-enter society with a clean slate and no prejudice against them.

    But society is never satisfied, and guys who've done their time and paid their debt are almost never welcomed back into society. I'm not talking about the bad eggs. I'm talking about the guys who really don't want to go back to jail and are penitent about their crime. (They are a minority of ex-offenders, but such people exist.)

    Society has almost no capacity for distinguishing such people from habitual criminals. Penitent/reformed ex-offenders still have to check "Yes" on the job application where it asks, "Have you been convicted of a felony?" and that is where their chances of going straight end.

    So, whatever the correctional system is designed to do or intends to do, it seems that our society at large is unwilling to permit reform to occur.
    As usual, very thoughtful post.

    What we do to those who enter our correctional system may be nearly as wrong as what those who enter the correctional system collectively did to us.

    Wish I had some answers. I don't. Warehousing the oonvicted is becoming a huge business that is taking on a life of its own. All I know is what we do now is not the best we can do as a society.

  9. #9
    Administrator/ The Real Jay ChicagoJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Chicago
    Age
    45
    Posts
    17,000

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: And yet another question to invoke debate....

    What's the old saying, "you can tell a lot about a society based on the way they treat their inmates."

    I don't have any answers, though, other than evidence that capital punishment itself is not an effective deterrent.

    I don't think its remotely vindictive to think that Tim McVeigh, for example, should've spent life in prison in isolation with no opportunity for parole.

    But he should not have been executed. That was vindictive (and in the eyes of some wackos, made him a "martyr"). I know Bball's quote was the Indiana constitution, that doesn't change my point.
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you


  10. #10
    Administrator Unclebuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    32,991

    Default Re: And yet another question to invoke debate....

    I think the most important responsibility is to protect its citizen from criminals and by that I mean locking them up so they don't hurt someone else or someone else's property. Get them off the streets and keep them off the streets the most important function.

  11. #11

    Default Re: And yet another question to invoke debate....

    To punish. I don't want to rehabilitate a murderer.

  12. #12
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    21,756

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: And yet another question to invoke debate....

    Why shouldn't he have been executed?

    Most people's answer to that, is because of the cost. The only reason capital punishment is so expensive, is because they're allowed as many appeals as they want, up until their number is called.

    IMO, the number of appeals should be limited.

    I see no reason why he should have lived. He murdered over a thousand people, a lot of them children. He had no reason to live. He was a waste of space/food/utilities/clothing. He obviously didn't value human life, so why should I value his? He made his bed, and he's sleeping in it.

    Personally, I'm probably more on the extreme side of capital punishment, punishment all together really, I'll freely admit that.


    Prisons, as is, does nothing but teach smarter convicts. It's not viewed as a punishment nor a rehabilitation center. I've mentioned him before, but my brother has been in and out of prisons. I'm not talking county places, but in the state/federal system. It doesn't stop him, hell it actually gives him more incentive to keep on snorting. His rap sheet for drugs is longer than my arm, yet the last time he was picked up, he spent no longer than 6mons in there.

    I think he's been in either for an arrest or parole/probation violation no lower than 8 times. Once he went in for conterfiting money, and he recieved what they called a "10-1" sentence. For every one day he spent in, it counted as ten. So he was sentenced to ten years, and was out in 10mons because of good behavior, which was a joke because he was involved in several fights which caused him to get surgery for a broken nose and teeth problems.

    Our prison system is a joke. From top to bottom.

  13. #13

    Default Re: And yet another question to invoke debate....

    Everybody ought to agree with this:

    Quote Originally Posted by UncleBuck
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think the most important responsibility is to protect its citizen from criminals and by that I mean locking them up so they don't hurt someone else or someone else's property. Get them off the streets and keep them off the streets the most important function.
    Whether you are utilitarian or Christian or liberal or conservative or libertarian or whatever, you ought to agree with Uncle Bucks' comment. And given that protecting the citizenry is the top priority, it appears as a great failure when you read this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Since86
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    His rap sheet for drugs is longer than my arm, yet the last time he was picked up, he spent no longer than 6months in there.

    Repeal offenders who go in and out frequently prove the system doesn't work as reform or as protection for the community. Four out of five people involved in homicides in Marion County this year have five or more prior arrests on their records. These people should have been convicted with the state's under-utilised habitual criminal statute and put away before they pulled the trigger again.

    Which is why it is worth the effort to identify the small share of inmates who aren't a threat to repeat (and, ironically, most of these will be murderers) and get them out of the cells so the real rotters can stay in longer.
    And I won't be here to see the day
    It all dries up and blows away
    I'd hang around just to see
    But they never had much use for me
    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

  14. #14
    Nerd.
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Greenwood, IN
    Age
    33
    Posts
    5,069
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: And yet another question to invoke debate....

    Murderers, rapists, paedophiles, and their ilk should not be rehabilitated. Lethal injections for them all. Just cut out the delays that cause someone to be on Death Row for 10 years.

    Jay said that capital punishment is not an effective deterent. I agree, only somewhat. It IS an effective deterent for the one being executed, not for the rest of society.

  15. #15

    Default Re: And yet another question to invoke debate....

    I'm a big fan of making prisons an unenjoyable place to be. You really want to punish and rehabilitate at the same time? Take all distractions away from the confines. No TVs, stereos, or frivolous lawsuits. You get one visit per month for 1 hour. Absolutely nothing comes in from outside, including money or cigarettes. Those are priviledges. You revoked yours. We've got a library chock full of textbooks, self-help books, and classical literature. You can check up on current events via the newspaper, if you're so inclined. If you can't read, class is on Wednesday. Psychiatrists will be available to talk to you about what you did, who you are, and how to become a better human being at your leisure.

    After your third felony or fifth misdemeanor, your stay is indefinite. You will only be released when a panel decides, based on your actions, that you have put forth the effort neccessary to ensure your internal reform and external good behavior.

    That's how I'd do it.

  16. #16
    Grumpy Old Man (PD host) able's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    8,706

    Default Re: And yet another question to invoke debate....

    The harsher the punishment, the more chance there is on recidive.

    The 3 strikes you out method (or what Eindar is proposing) only leads to more violent crimes and more chances to people dying in the process.


    If your basic penal-system is based upon revenge (as it is in most of the USA) then the chances are that each and every inmate comes back to haunt you.

    But the basic question about what is justice is not answered with all this, the penal-code and penal system have little to do with justice, justice also has to do with the fact that you can complain about almost anything to a judge to be awarded compensation, justice is equality, justice is the right to speak your peace, justice is balancing right and wrong.

    Justice is about the balance between punishment and retribution.

    There is a reason whu justice is pictured as scales, the reason is the balance on all accounts, not only the victim.
    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

    If you've done 6 impossible things today?
    Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!


  17. #17

    Default Re: And yet another question to invoke debate....

    Quote Originally Posted by able View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The 3 strikes you out method (or what Eindar is proposing) only leads to more violent crimes and more chances to people dying in the process.
    How can this possibly be true or make sense? People who are incarcerated do not commit crimes out in the community. The only reason an habitual offender law would not do what eindar says is if the law is passed but not enforced. Unfortunately, that is what we have in Indiana now. Although I feel society needs to allow people to reform and rejoin society, I agree with eindar that the habitual offender law needs to be enforced. It is one of the major tools other states and cities use.
    Quote Originally Posted by able
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    justice is balancing right and wrong.... There is a reason whu justice is pictured as scales, the reason is the balance on all accounts, not only the victim.
    Phooey. Justice is not balancing right and wrong. Justice is doing as much right as possible, and that includes punishment when punishment is deserved. The reason justice is depicted as a blindfolded woman holding a scales is that justice is supposed to weight testimony without prejudice. And then make verdict which falls heavily on the truly guilty party.
    And I won't be here to see the day
    It all dries up and blows away
    I'd hang around just to see
    But they never had much use for me
    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

  18. #18
    Grumpy Old Man (PD host) able's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    8,706

    Default Re: And yet another question to invoke debate....

    Quote Originally Posted by Putnam View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    How can this possibly be true or make sense? People who are incarcerated do not commit crimes out in the community. The only reason an habitual offender law would not do what eindar says is if the law is passed but not enforced. Unfortunately, that is what we have in Indiana now. Although I feel society needs to allow people to reform and rejoin society, I agree with eindar that the habitual offender law needs to be enforced. It is one of the major tools other states and cities use.

    In order to commit that 3rd (or wharever number) offense, you have to be out, ppl incarcerated can not commit crimes (in general).

    If you are on your way to once again steal a loaf of bread because you are hungry, but were caught the previous two times and know you are facing life if you get caught this time, wouldn't that make you change your target and means?
    The use of (heavy) violence becomes an "easier" consideration, seeing as what awaits you when you get caught, in the end the "upgrade" of the risk, makes the "upgrade" of the crime more likely.



    Quote Originally Posted by Putnam View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Phooey. Justice is not balancing right and wrong. Justice is doing as much right as possible, and that includes punishment when punishment is deserved. The reason justice is depicted as a blindfolded woman holding a scales is that justice is supposed to weight testimony without prejudice. And then make verdict which falls heavily on the truly guilty party.
    Justice does not equal punishment, penal code is no justice, it is penalty.

    I have no time to go into this deeper but there is a huge difference between the two, an eye for an eye might be seen as "justice" by some, others think that turning the other cheek is "justice".

    Once you proclaim to have cornered the market on what is right and what is wrong, without weight to both sides interests and without hearing both sides and then balance those interests, you have created an "injustice" on itself; who am I to judge?
    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

    If you've done 6 impossible things today?
    Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!


  19. #19

    Default Re: And yet another question to invoke debate....

    Quote Originally Posted by able View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Once you proclaim to have cornered the market on what is right and what is wrong, without weight to both sides interests and without hearing both sides and then balance those interests, you have created an "injustice" on itself
    I agree with this, and hope everyone does. Of course it is important to hear both sides and weigh the evidence fairly. But that is the process that leads to the decision. That decision has to be made on the basis of individual responsibility. You cannot spread guilt around. Each accused person much be found guilty or innocent.

    Quote Originally Posted by able
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    who am I to judge?
    Good point. As a person whose expertise lies with managing computer networks, there are a lot of things you don't know. And I can admit the same. We'd all be a lot happier if we as individuals withheld a lot of our opinions about things we don't know enough about. (though Pacers Digest is exactly the kind of place where we can let go and express opinions that may be half-baked.)

    The greater point, however, is that even if each individual can and should withhold judgment, society cannot afford to. Society must maintain a system of justice that does the job of dividing the guilty from the innocent. I am not at all saying that our current judicial system is a good one -- I'm just saying that a system is necessary.

    Quote Originally Posted by able
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    If you are on your way to once again steal a loaf of bread because you are hungry
    This is a fiction. Jean Valjean steals a loaf of bread in Hugo's Les Miserable. But people stealing a loaf of bread because they are hungry isn't a big problem in Indianapolis. Mostly they steal cars, drugs, jewelry and bling.


    Quote Originally Posted by able
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    ...but were caught the previous two times and know you are facing life if you get caught this time, wouldn't that make you change your target and means?

    The use of (heavy) violence becomes an "easier" consideration, seeing as what awaits you when you get caught, in the end the "upgrade" of the risk, makes the "upgrade" of the crime more likely.
    This makes sense, I admit. But the justification for an habitual offender law is borne out by the number of criminals who commit a 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th........felony. Crime would definitely be reduced if those guys were inside after the third.





    Quote Originally Posted by able
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    others think that turning the other cheek is "justice".

    The concept of "turning the other cheek" is a Christian principle. It does not signify "justice" but "mercy". Jesus taught his followers to show mercy in their own affairs, and to bear abuse as if they had a better place to keep their treasures than this world. But there is nothing in any of the gospels (and that is where the concept of turning the other cheek comes from) to suggest that the civil society should overlook crime.

    Able, I thing we both agree that a "good" society would provide each person with adequate food, shelter, clothing, education, amusement, etc. And that crimes of frustration and rage should be curtailed through more fairness and opportunity before the crime. It is part of the injustice of justice that the silly criminal, by committing the crime, draws ALL the focus onto himself and compels society to view him as the offender when he is, in fact, to some degree, a victim of systemic injustice.
    And I won't be here to see the day
    It all dries up and blows away
    I'd hang around just to see
    But they never had much use for me
    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

  20. #20
    Grumpy Old Man (PD host) able's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    8,706

    Default Re: And yet another question to invoke debate....

    Quote Originally Posted by Putnam View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Good point. As a person whose expertise lies with managing computer networks, there are a lot of things you don't know.
    And to think I studied law

    Quote Originally Posted by Putnam View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Able, I thing we both agree that a "good" society would provide each person with adequate food, shelter, clothing, education, amusement, etc. And that crimes of frustration and rage should be curtailed through more fairness and opportunity before the crime. It is part of the injustice of justice that the silly criminal, by committing the crime, draws ALL the focus onto himself and compels society to view him as the offender when he is, in fact, to some degree, a victim of systemic injustice.
    So justice would also allow you to focus on rehabilitaion, better upbringing, education and so on.

    Justice turns to penal when to many things in society go wrong, countries like Sweden (and I can name quite a few more) have very low crime rates for other reasons then their penal system, which is mainly based on rehabilitation.
    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

    If you've done 6 impossible things today?
    Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!


  21. #21
    Well lubricated Skaut_Ech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,397

    Default Re: And yet another question to invoke debate....

    Quote Originally Posted by able View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The harsher the punishment, the more chance there is on recidive.

    The 3 strikes you out method (or what Eindar is proposing) only leads to more violent crimes and more chances to people dying in the process.
    Quote Originally Posted by Putman
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    This makes sense, I admit. But the justification for an habitual offender law is borne out by the number of criminals who commit a 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th........felony. Crime would definitely be reduced if those guys were inside after the third.
    I
    Quote Originally Posted by #Eindar
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    'm a big fan of making prisons an unenjoyable place to be. You really want to punish and rehabilitate at the same time? Take all distractions away from the confines. No TVs, stereos, or frivolous lawsuits. You get one visit per month for 1 hour. Absolutely nothing comes in from outside, including money or cigarettes. Those are priviledges. You revoked yours. We've got a library chock full of textbooks, self-help books, and classical literature. You can check up on current events via the newspaper, if you're so inclined. If you can't read, class is on Wednesday. Psychiatrists will be available to talk to you about what you did, who you are, and how to become a better human being at your leisure.

    After your third felony or fifth misdemeanor, your stay is indefinite. You will only be released when a panel decides, based on your actions, that you have put forth the effort neccessary to ensure your internal reform and external good behavior.
    First of all, great, great, thread. So much so that I can't even begin to comment on all the stuff I want. Jail overcrowding issue aside, I agree with Eindar and Putnam. If you're on the way to committing your third felony, then society needs to be protectted from you because you're an obvious predator.

    In Indiana, we do have a three strikes, but the way it works is that it has to be for three unrealated felonies.

    That is to say, if you are a career car thief, the third time you get caught doesn't do it. It has to be a different crime in an unrealted incident.

    Hence, car theft, car theft, car theft= NO
    burglary, car theft, felony battery= YES

    But getting to why I posted. Most criminals don't think "Ohh, this may be my third strike, I'd better make it good and be extra violent". Hell, most of them can't even admit, even to themselves, that they did something wrong.

    You wouldn't believe how many jail phone calls I listen to where the inmate says "Yeah, they got me locked up in here" not "I got myself locked up again", which is what they SHOULD say. It's always someone else's fault. They don't think they're doing wrong, so why would they see down the road that they may get caught and it would be their third strike? They don't. Criminals, for the most part, are very short sighted. Very. Short sighted.

    They aren't going to be more violent cause they think it might be their last harrah for a three strikes rule.

    Hell, a LOT of these guys view jail as some kind of social thing. "Hey, guess who I saw in cell 5? Yeah, that guy from down the street!" A lot of them act like jail is no big thing.


    *Sidenote* I'm in a unique position to see both sides of the coin. My nephew was away for Felony cocaine distribution for about a year. It was his second felony. (The other related to drunk driving). He's been out for 3-4 years now. Imagine how fun and easy it's been for him trying to get work where he has to check that felon box on job applications.

    So anyways, in two weeks he will return from a rehabilitative, spiritual, wilderness camp, where he's been for the past month and a half. The change in him is pronounced. Talking to him on the phone is bizarre. He's lucid, repentant and aware of the harm he's done for the very first time ever. It's like I'm talking to a different person. I'll admit, he makes me cry when I talk to him just seeing him coming out of his criminal fog being ashamed of his actions and apologetic for the harm he's done.

    The justice system didn't do that for him, nor do I think it could have. That being said, I wonder how many career predators actually have the desire at some point in their lives to turn things around?

    My nephew made a conscious decision to do so before it was too late. Is three strikes a mark we should strive for, then the hammer comes down? Can people change?

    I always had a pet theory that the reason some prisoners find God and quit being predators is out of sheer boredom of being incarcerated and realizing there are bigger predators than them in jail and they have no one to truly prey upon.

    So anyways, I'm still for the three strikes deal. The burden should be on punitive. I don't think a huge burden should be put on the state to make you a different person that you've decided to be. You provide options,, show them how to better themselves, then leave the rest up to them. They commit a third unrealated felony, then the option of them being back on the street is outweighed by the protection of society as a whole.
    Hey! What're you kicking me for? You want me to ask? All right, I'll ask! Ma'am, where do the high school girls hang out in this town?

  22. #22
    Administrator Unclebuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    32,991

    Default Re: And yet another question to invoke debate....

    Quote Originally Posted by Skaut_Ech View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote


    So anyways, in two weeks he will return from a rehabilitative, spiritual, wilderness camp, where he's been for the past month and a half. The change in him is pronounced. Talking to him on the phone is bizarre. He's lucid, repentant and aware of the harm he's done for the very first time ever. It's like I'm talking to a different person. I'll admit, he makes me cry when I talk to him just seeing him coming out of his criminal fog being ashamed of his actions and apologetic for the harm he's done.
    That is great to hear. Has his family forgiven him and do they trust him now. I certainly don't know your nephew and even though I'm a big law and order type of a guy, I believe in forgiveness, I believe in multiple forgiveness of those close to you. I'm sure he's hurt a lot of people close to him, but it is great to hear he's turned his life around.

    I'll be praying for him

  23. #23
    Administrator/ The Real Jay ChicagoJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Chicago
    Age
    45
    Posts
    17,000

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: And yet another question to invoke debate....

    Quote Originally Posted by Since86 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Why shouldn't he have been executed?

    Most people's answer to that, is because of the cost. The only reason capital punishment is so expensive, is because they're allowed as many appeals as they want, up until their number is called.

    IMO, the number of appeals should be limited.

    I see no reason why he should have lived. He murdered over a thousand people, a lot of them children. He had no reason to live. He was a waste of space/food/utilities/clothing. He obviously didn't value human life, so why should I value his? He made his bed, and he's sleeping in it.

    Personally, I'm probably more on the extreme side of capital punishment, punishment all together really, I'll freely admit that.


    Prisons, as is, does nothing but teach smarter convicts. It's not viewed as a punishment nor a rehabilitation center. I've mentioned him before, but my brother has been in and out of prisons. I'm not talking county places, but in the state/federal system. It doesn't stop him, hell it actually gives him more incentive to keep on snorting. His rap sheet for drugs is longer than my arm, yet the last time he was picked up, he spent no longer than 6mons in there.

    I think he's been in either for an arrest or parole/probation violation no lower than 8 times. Once he went in for conterfiting money, and he recieved what they called a "10-1" sentence. For every one day he spent in, it counted as ten. So he was sentenced to ten years, and was out in 10mons because of good behavior, which was a joke because he was involved in several fights which caused him to get surgery for a broken nose and teeth problems.

    Our prison system is a joke. From top to bottom.
    Have you been to Alcatraz?

    I'd rather McVeigh, for example, be locked up forever in one of the old Alcatraz isolation units. I was scared to even step into one, for fear that someone would pull a prank and close the door.

    The death penalty is much easier (and more expensive) for an attention-whore like McViegh than living the rest of his life in isolation, with his only human contact coming when an arm slides food through a small door. That's punishment.
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you


  24. #24
    Administrator Peck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,835

    Default Re: And yet another question to invoke debate....

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay@Section19 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Have you been to Alcatraz?

    I'd rather McVeigh, for example, be locked up forever in one of the old Alcatraz isolation units. I was scared to even step into one, for fear that someone would pull a prank and close the door.

    The death penalty is much easier (and more expensive) for an attention-whore like McViegh than living the rest of his life in isolation, with his only human contact coming when an arm slides food through a small door. That's punishment.
    Actually for McViegh the death penalty was much cheaper than life long incarceration. He waived almost all of his appeals & his death came quickly.

    I've addressed the expense issue of the death penalty before & I'll try & locate that thread & post it here.


    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

  25. #25
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    21,756

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: And yet another question to invoke debate....

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay@Section19 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Have you been to Alcatraz?

    I'd rather McVeigh, for example, be locked up forever in one of the old Alcatraz isolation units. I was scared to even step into one, for fear that someone would pull a prank and close the door.

    The death penalty is much easier (and more expensive) for an attention-whore like McViegh than living the rest of his life in isolation, with his only human contact coming when an arm slides food through a small door. That's punishment.
    Which is why I said I'd like to see a limit of appeals. That's why it's so expensive.

    It maybe scary for the first time, but after you've been in there a couple weeks, it would seem like home (which it would be). Unless you want to keep relocating them, which would be a hassle and unrealistic, they'd be accustomed to their surroundings and it wouldn't have the same affect. It's like living beside railroad tracks. First time you sleep/stay there, it sounds like you're house is coming down and you can't sleep. After a while you don't even notice.

    I hate to say it, but keeping them alive serves no purpose. They're a walking dead man. They're a waste of space/money/food/clothing whatever.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •