Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Life in prison without parole- non-violent

Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2014 9:26:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/8/2014 2:17:52 PM, paigeb wrote:
I am not sure where I stand on this. It is for life in prison for non-violent crimes. I was looking for some input?

Are you sure it happens on a regular enough basis?
If I defraud 10,000 people, I may only get 3 years in prison for each count, but if they run consecutively, I'd have 30,000 years in prison.
My work here is, finally, done.
paigeb
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2014 8:17:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
My apologies for not being specific. There are around 3,000 inmates sentenced to life without parole. A non- violent crime is a crime not forced on a person. For example, fraud and drug related crimes would fall under non- violent crimes.

Some people at debate brought up this topic that would prohibit anyone who committed a non- violent to be sentenced to life in prison without parole. The bill continued to say the sentence could only be 70 years or less (which I disagreed with and found the bill flawed, as the average ave of an American is roughly 79 years of age, so the principal of this bill to people not spending life in prison would be contradicted with that point.

For this forum, I would like to keep it as getting a life sentence, and possibly just relating it to a person receiving life, and not the specific 70 years or less. Instead, lets not put a specific age limit on it, but for the sake of this forum, just comment about getting life in prison without parole for non- violent crimes.
Paige
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2014 8:10:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/11/2014 8:17:02 PM, paigeb wrote:
My apologies for not being specific. There are around 3,000 inmates sentenced to life without parole. A non- violent crime is a crime not forced on a person. For example, fraud and drug related crimes would fall under non- violent crimes.

Are these 3,000 people sentanced to life for non-violent crimes only?
For example, a drug dealer that murdered his client is likely in for murder and drug possession/selling. The stats you have could be misleading like that... it's what advocates do.

Also, is the sentance literally "life without parole", or is it effectively such, like a 60 year old man who is not eligible for parole for 25 years.

Some people at debate brought up this topic that would prohibit anyone who committed a non- violent to be sentenced to life in prison without parole. The bill continued to say the sentence could only be 70 years or less (which I disagreed with and found the bill flawed, as the average ave of an American is roughly 79 years of age, so the principal of this bill to people not spending life in prison would be contradicted with that point.

For this forum, I would like to keep it as getting a life sentence, and possibly just relating it to a person receiving life, and not the specific 70 years or less. Instead, lets not put a specific age limit on it, but for the sake of this forum, just comment about getting life in prison without parole for non- violent crimes.

Generally I am against it, and I think so are the courts if only 3,000 people are in for it.
However, a burglar is a non-violent criminal. Should somone who has been convicted 15 times and shows no remorse or evidence of an ability to change be on the street?
My work here is, finally, done.
paigeb
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2014 9:51:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/14/2014 8:10:54 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/11/2014 8:17:02 PM, paigeb wrote:
My apologies for not being specific. There are around 3,000 inmates sentenced to life without parole. A non- violent crime is a crime not forced on a person. For example, fraud and drug related crimes would fall under non- violent crimes.

Are these 3,000 people sentanced to life for non-violent crimes only?
For example, a drug dealer that murdered his client is likely in for murder and drug possession/selling. The stats you have could be misleading like that... it's what advocates do.

Also, is the sentance literally "life without parole", or is it effectively such, like a 60 year old man who is not eligible for parole for 25 years.

Some people at debate brought up this topic that would prohibit anyone who committed a non- violent to be sentenced to life in prison without parole. The bill continued to say the sentence could only be 70 years or less (which I disagreed with and found the bill flawed, as the average ave of an American is roughly 79 years of age, so the principal of this bill to people not spending life in prison would be contradicted with that point.

For this forum, I would like to keep it as getting a life sentence, and possibly just relating it to a person receiving life, and not the specific 70 years or less. Instead, lets not put a specific age limit on it, but for the sake of this forum, just comment about getting life in prison without parole for non- violent crimes.

Generally I am against it, and I think so are the courts if only 3,000 people are in for it.
However, a burglar is a non-violent criminal. Should somone who has been convicted 15 times and shows no remorse or evidence of an ability to change be on the street?

It is literally life without parole. The criminal is sentenced to life with no chance of parole. That is exactly what I was thinking. People like Bernie Madoff should not be given a lesser time just because it was considered non- violent.

During debate, my opposition gave examples of first time offenders who, for example, had drugs or stole a truck, and they got life without parole.

I would like to hear your input about that statement.
Paige
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2014 7:29:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/14/2014 9:51:58 PM, paigeb wrote:
At 1/14/2014 8:10:54 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/11/2014 8:17:02 PM, paigeb wrote:
My apologies for not being specific. There are around 3,000 inmates sentenced to life without parole. A non- violent crime is a crime not forced on a person. For example, fraud and drug related crimes would fall under non- violent crimes.

Are these 3,000 people sentanced to life for non-violent crimes only?
For example, a drug dealer that murdered his client is likely in for murder and drug possession/selling. The stats you have could be misleading like that... it's what advocates do.

Also, is the sentance literally "life without parole", or is it effectively such, like a 60 year old man who is not eligible for parole for 25 years.

Some people at debate brought up this topic that would prohibit anyone who committed a non- violent to be sentenced to life in prison without parole. The bill continued to say the sentence could only be 70 years or less (which I disagreed with and found the bill flawed, as the average ave of an American is roughly 79 years of age, so the principal of this bill to people not spending life in prison would be contradicted with that point.

For this forum, I would like to keep it as getting a life sentence, and possibly just relating it to a person receiving life, and not the specific 70 years or less. Instead, lets not put a specific age limit on it, but for the sake of this forum, just comment about getting life in prison without parole for non- violent crimes.

Generally I am against it, and I think so are the courts if only 3,000 people are in for it.
However, a burglar is a non-violent criminal. Should somone who has been convicted 15 times and shows no remorse or evidence of an ability to change be on the street?

It is literally life without parole. The criminal is sentenced to life with no chance of parole. That is exactly what I was thinking. People like Bernie Madoff should not be given a lesser time just because it was considered non- violent.
Bernie Madoff was sentenced to 150 years, not life without parole.
There is a distinction.

During debate, my opposition gave examples of first time offenders who, for example, had drugs or stole a truck, and they got life without parole.

I don't believe that for a second.
I would have demanded sources and researched the events.
I could see that if there was a murder involved, because a murder in the commission of a crime is "felony murder" and I think generally murder 1 (potential life sentence).

I would like to hear your input about that statement.

Also, I think in Florida, there was a man who was reported to be sentenced to life for stealing a $1 soda from McDonalds. Upon research, it wasn't that he stole the soda, it was that he was trespassing, as he refused to leave after stealing soda (asked for water glass, took soda, refused to pay when caught, refused to leave when asked/told). Also, this was a "third strike" for him, a policy where three crimes (I assume gross misdemeanors or more) land you in prison for life. However, maybe it wasn't life, but something like 25 years.
My work here is, finally, done.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 3:20:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/14/2014 8:10:54 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

Generally I am against it, and I think so are the courts if only 3,000 people are in for it.
However, a burglar is a non-violent criminal. Should somone who has been convicted 15 times and shows no remorse or evidence of an ability to change be on the street?

Should they spend their life in prison (an environment which has been shown to reinforce criminal behavior) instead?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 6:55:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 3:20:56 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/14/2014 8:10:54 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

Generally I am against it, and I think so are the courts if only 3,000 people are in for it.
However, a burglar is a non-violent criminal. Should somone who has been convicted 15 times and shows no remorse or evidence of an ability to change be on the street?

Should they spend their life in prison (an environment which has been shown to reinforce criminal behavior) instead?

If you are talking about recidivism, I disagree with you vehemently.
My work here is, finally, done.
Beverlee
Posts: 721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 8:26:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/15/2014 7:29:50 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/14/2014 9:51:58 PM, paigeb wrote:
At 1/14/2014 8:10:54 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/11/2014 8:17:02 PM, paigeb wrote:
My apologies for not being specific. There are around 3,000 inmates sentenced to life without parole. A non- violent crime is a crime not forced on a person. For example, fraud and drug related crimes would fall under non- violent crimes.

Are these 3,000 people sentanced to life for non-violent crimes only?
For example, a drug dealer that murdered his client is likely in for murder and drug possession/selling. The stats you have could be misleading like that... it's what advocates do.

Also, is the sentance literally "life without parole", or is it effectively such, like a 60 year old man who is not eligible for parole for 25 years.

Some people at debate brought up this topic that would prohibit anyone who committed a non- violent to be sentenced to life in prison without parole. The bill continued to say the sentence could only be 70 years or less (which I disagreed with and found the bill flawed, as the average ave of an American is roughly 79 years of age, so the principal of this bill to people not spending life in prison would be contradicted with that point.

For this forum, I would like to keep it as getting a life sentence, and possibly just relating it to a person receiving life, and not the specific 70 years or less. Instead, lets not put a specific age limit on it, but for the sake of this forum, just comment about getting life in prison without parole for non- violent crimes.

Generally I am against it, and I think so are the courts if only 3,000 people are in for it.
However, a burglar is a non-violent criminal. Should somone who has been convicted 15 times and shows no remorse or evidence of an ability to change be on the street?

It is literally life without parole. The criminal is sentenced to life with no chance of parole. That is exactly what I was thinking. People like Bernie Madoff should not be given a lesser time just because it was considered non- violent.
Bernie Madoff was sentenced to 150 years, not life without parole.
There is a distinction.

During debate, my opposition gave examples of first time offenders who, for example, had drugs or stole a truck, and they got life without parole.

I don't believe that for a second.
I would have demanded sources and researched the events.
I could see that if there was a murder involved, because a murder in the commission of a crime is "felony murder" and I think generally murder 1 (potential life sentence).

I would like to hear your input about that statement.

Also, I think in Florida, there was a man who was reported to be sentenced to life for stealing a $1 soda from McDonalds. Upon research, it wasn't that he stole the soda, it was that he was trespassing, as he refused to leave after stealing soda (asked for water glass, took soda, refused to pay when caught, refused to leave when asked/told). Also, this was a "third strike" for him, a policy where three crimes (I assume gross misdemeanors or more) land you in prison for life. However, maybe it wasn't life, but something like 25 years.

It's actually a problem. There are thousands of people that are locked away forever on sometimes silly charges, mostly because of very harsh drug laws. The right combination seems to be: an unsympathetic defendant, a sloppy defense attorney, and a "tough on crime" fad in the legislature. Mix those three things, and you start seeing people getting actual, real LWOP sentences for just almost anything, or else super long terms for things that might not even get them a fine. I know of one case where a guy got years extra in prison for smoking a cigarette. (He was already in prison, and he lost his parole over it.) Other people are picked up off the street after a first offense drug charge, and will never get out.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 8:42:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 8:26:37 AM, Beverlee wrote:
At 1/15/2014 7:29:50 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/14/2014 9:51:58 PM, paigeb wrote:
At 1/14/2014 8:10:54 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/11/2014 8:17:02 PM, paigeb wrote:
My apologies for not being specific. There are around 3,000 inmates sentenced to life without parole. A non- violent crime is a crime not forced on a person. For example, fraud and drug related crimes would fall under non- violent crimes.

Are these 3,000 people sentanced to life for non-violent crimes only?
For example, a drug dealer that murdered his client is likely in for murder and drug possession/selling. The stats you have could be misleading like that... it's what advocates do.

Also, is the sentance literally "life without parole", or is it effectively such, like a 60 year old man who is not eligible for parole for 25 years.

Some people at debate brought up this topic that would prohibit anyone who committed a non- violent to be sentenced to life in prison without parole. The bill continued to say the sentence could only be 70 years or less (which I disagreed with and found the bill flawed, as the average ave of an American is roughly 79 years of age, so the principal of this bill to people not spending life in prison would be contradicted with that point.

For this forum, I would like to keep it as getting a life sentence, and possibly just relating it to a person receiving life, and not the specific 70 years or less. Instead, lets not put a specific age limit on it, but for the sake of this forum, just comment about getting life in prison without parole for non- violent crimes.

Generally I am against it, and I think so are the courts if only 3,000 people are in for it.
However, a burglar is a non-violent criminal. Should somone who has been convicted 15 times and shows no remorse or evidence of an ability to change be on the street?

It is literally life without parole. The criminal is sentenced to life with no chance of parole. That is exactly what I was thinking. People like Bernie Madoff should not be given a lesser time just because it was considered non- violent.
Bernie Madoff was sentenced to 150 years, not life without parole.
There is a distinction.

During debate, my opposition gave examples of first time offenders who, for example, had drugs or stole a truck, and they got life without parole.

I don't believe that for a second.
I would have demanded sources and researched the events.
I could see that if there was a murder involved, because a murder in the commission of a crime is "felony murder" and I think generally murder 1 (potential life sentence).

I would like to hear your input about that statement.

Also, I think in Florida, there was a man who was reported to be sentenced to life for stealing a $1 soda from McDonalds. Upon research, it wasn't that he stole the soda, it was that he was trespassing, as he refused to leave after stealing soda (asked for water glass, took soda, refused to pay when caught, refused to leave when asked/told). Also, this was a "third strike" for him, a policy where three crimes (I assume gross misdemeanors or more) land you in prison for life. However, maybe it wasn't life, but something like 25 years.

It's actually a problem. There are thousands of people that are locked away forever on sometimes silly charges, mostly because of very harsh drug laws. The right combination seems to be: an unsympathetic defendant, a sloppy defense attorney, and a "tough on crime" fad in the legislature. Mix those three things, and you start seeing people getting actual, real LWOP sentences for just almost anything, or else super long terms for things that might not even get them a fine. I know of one case where a guy got years extra in prison for smoking a cigarette. (He was already in prison, and he lost his parole over it.) Other people are picked up off the street after a first offense drug charge, and will never get out.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

1. Cigarettes are contraband in prison, and parole =/= extra time in prison. If I get out on parole, that means my sentence is cut EARLY.
2. Every single case of these 3,000 + LWOP criminals had previous criminal records.
Again, no one is getting this for their first offense. So, your last sentence is false, Bev.

Now, I am opposed to mandatory sentences, but drug dealing, while may be non-violent, shows a serious disregard for the law. Running an illegal enterprise, which often results in violence directly (since you cannot sue over an illegal contract) or indirectly (addicts committing crimes for your benefit), is a very serious attack on society.
My work here is, finally, done.
Beverlee
Posts: 721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 9:02:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 8:42:51 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/16/2014 8:26:37 AM, Beverlee wrote:
At 1/15/2014 7:29:50 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/14/2014 9:51:58 PM, paigeb wrote:
At 1/14/2014 8:10:54 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/11/2014 8:17:02 PM, paigeb wrote:
My apologies for not being specific. There are around 3,000 inmates sentenced to life without parole. A non- violent crime is a crime not forced on a person. For example, fraud and drug related crimes would fall under non- violent crimes.

Are these 3,000 people sentanced to life for non-violent crimes only?
For example, a drug dealer that murdered his client is likely in for murder and drug possession/selling. The stats you have could be misleading like that... it's what advocates do.

Also, is the sentance literally "life without parole", or is it effectively such, like a 60 year old man who is not eligible for parole for 25 years.

Some people at debate brought up this topic that would prohibit anyone who committed a non- violent to be sentenced to life in prison without parole. The bill continued to say the sentence could only be 70 years or less (which I disagreed with and found the bill flawed, as the average ave of an American is roughly 79 years of age, so the principal of this bill to people not spending life in prison would be contradicted with that point.

For this forum, I would like to keep it as getting a life sentence, and possibly just relating it to a person receiving life, and not the specific 70 years or less. Instead, lets not put a specific age limit on it, but for the sake of this forum, just comment about getting life in prison without parole for non- violent crimes.

Generally I am against it, and I think so are the courts if only 3,000 people are in for it.
However, a burglar is a non-violent criminal. Should somone who has been convicted 15 times and shows no remorse or evidence of an ability to change be on the street?

It is literally life without parole. The criminal is sentenced to life with no chance of parole. That is exactly what I was thinking. People like Bernie Madoff should not be given a lesser time just because it was considered non- violent.
Bernie Madoff was sentenced to 150 years, not life without parole.
There is a distinction.

During debate, my opposition gave examples of first time offenders who, for example, had drugs or stole a truck, and they got life without parole.

I don't believe that for a second.
I would have demanded sources and researched the events.
I could see that if there was a murder involved, because a murder in the commission of a crime is "felony murder" and I think generally murder 1 (potential life sentence).

I would like to hear your input about that statement.

Also, I think in Florida, there was a man who was reported to be sentenced to life for stealing a $1 soda from McDonalds. Upon research, it wasn't that he stole the soda, it was that he was trespassing, as he refused to leave after stealing soda (asked for water glass, took soda, refused to pay when caught, refused to leave when asked/told). Also, this was a "third strike" for him, a policy where three crimes (I assume gross misdemeanors or more) land you in prison for life. However, maybe it wasn't life, but something like 25 years.

It's actually a problem. There are thousands of people that are locked away forever on sometimes silly charges, mostly because of very harsh drug laws. The right combination seems to be: an unsympathetic defendant, a sloppy defense attorney, and a "tough on crime" fad in the legislature. Mix those three things, and you start seeing people getting actual, real LWOP sentences for just almost anything, or else super long terms for things that might not even get them a fine. I know of one case where a guy got years extra in prison for smoking a cigarette. (He was already in prison, and he lost his parole over it.) Other people are picked up off the street after a first offense drug charge, and will never get out.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

1. Cigarettes are contraband in prison, and parole =/= extra time in prison. If I get out on parole, that means my sentence is cut EARLY.
2. Every single case of these 3,000 + LWOP criminals had previous criminal records.
Again, no one is getting this for their first offense. So, your last sentence is false, Bev.

Now, I am opposed to mandatory sentences, but drug dealing, while may be non-violent, shows a serious disregard for the law. Running an illegal enterprise, which often results in violence directly (since you cannot sue over an illegal contract) or indirectly (addicts committing crimes for your benefit), is a very serious attack on society.

I linked to an article that told about 32 people that were given LWOP for relatively small crimes. This is what I read that made me say that one of them was convicted on a first offense:

"Danielle Metz is serving three life sentences for her involvement in her husband's cocaine distribution enterprise -- her first offense. "

Here is another link that talks about her case:
http://www.candoclemency.com...

The reason I posted these examples is just to show you that it happens, not to get you to say that it shouldn't be happening, although I don't think that it should.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 11:58:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 6:55:22 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/16/2014 3:20:56 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/14/2014 8:10:54 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

Generally I am against it, and I think so are the courts if only 3,000 people are in for it.
However, a burglar is a non-violent criminal. Should somone who has been convicted 15 times and shows no remorse or evidence of an ability to change be on the street?

Should they spend their life in prison (an environment which has been shown to reinforce criminal behavior) instead?

If you are talking about recidivism, I disagree with you vehemently.

I didn't say anything about recidivism, though I'd be interested to hear why you'd disagree with the idea that prisons churn out criminals.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 12:36:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 11:58:40 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/16/2014 6:55:22 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/16/2014 3:20:56 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/14/2014 8:10:54 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

Generally I am against it, and I think so are the courts if only 3,000 people are in for it.
However, a burglar is a non-violent criminal. Should somone who has been convicted 15 times and shows no remorse or evidence of an ability to change be on the street?

Should they spend their life in prison (an environment which has been shown to reinforce criminal behavior) instead?

If you are talking about recidivism, I disagree with you vehemently.

I didn't say anything about recidivism, though I'd be interested to hear why you'd disagree with the idea that prisons churn out criminals.

What do you suggest we do with a serial felon?
Of the two options, I'd rather put him away for life, then deal with him every few years.

Long story short, recidivism is high because society doesn't believe in second chances.
My work here is, finally, done.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 12:37:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 12:36:15 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/16/2014 11:58:40 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/16/2014 6:55:22 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/16/2014 3:20:56 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/14/2014 8:10:54 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

Generally I am against it, and I think so are the courts if only 3,000 people are in for it.
However, a burglar is a non-violent criminal. Should somone who has been convicted 15 times and shows no remorse or evidence of an ability to change be on the street?

Should they spend their life in prison (an environment which has been shown to reinforce criminal behavior) instead?

If you are talking about recidivism, I disagree with you vehemently.

I didn't say anything about recidivism, though I'd be interested to hear why you'd disagree with the idea that prisons churn out criminals.

What do you suggest we do with a serial felon?

Who's 'we'?

Of the two options, I'd rather put him away for life, then deal with him every few years.

Is it you who's dealing with him?

Long story short, recidivism is high because society doesn't believe in second chances.

You don't think prison-life re-subjectivises inmates?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 12:47:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 12:37:33 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/16/2014 12:36:15 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:


What do you suggest we do with a serial felon?

Who's 'we'?
Society


Of the two options, I'd rather put him away for life, then deal with him every few years.

Is it you who's dealing with him?

Does it matter?
Chances are I am uneffected by a murderer.
Long story short, recidivism is high because society doesn't believe in second chances.

You don't think prison-life re-subjectivises inmates?
Not sure what that means, but probably.
However, IMO, that is not why people return (or truly turn) to a life of crime.
My work here is, finally, done.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 12:52:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 12:47:55 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/16/2014 12:37:33 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/16/2014 12:36:15 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:


What do you suggest we do with a serial felon?

Who's 'we'?
Society


Of the two options, I'd rather put him away for life, then deal with him every few years.

Is it you who's dealing with him?

Does it matter?
Chances are I am uneffected by a murderer.
Long story short, recidivism is high because society doesn't believe in second chances.

You don't think prison-life re-subjectivises inmates?
Not sure what that means, but probably.
However, IMO, that is not why people return (or truly turn) to a life of crime.

Why?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 12:54:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 12:52:18 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/16/2014 12:47:55 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

Long story short, recidivism is high because society doesn't believe in second chances.

You don't think prison-life re-subjectivises inmates?
Not sure what that means, but probably.
However, IMO, that is not why people return (or truly turn) to a life of crime.

Why?

People return/turn to crime out of desperation.
No one will hire them, no one will accept them, on one will trust them.
This makes for unpleasant circumstances; however, it does seem to matter what the initial crime was for.
My work here is, finally, done.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 1:00:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 12:54:51 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/16/2014 12:52:18 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/16/2014 12:47:55 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

Long story short, recidivism is high because society doesn't believe in second chances.

You don't think prison-life re-subjectivises inmates?
Not sure what that means, but probably.
However, IMO, that is not why people return (or truly turn) to a life of crime.

Why?

People return/turn to crime out of desperation.
No one will hire them, no one will accept them, on one will trust them.
This makes for unpleasant circumstances; however, it does seem to matter what the initial crime was for.

This seems like a factor. Do you not think prison culture is a factor at all?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 1:13:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 1:00:06 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/16/2014 12:54:51 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/16/2014 12:52:18 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/16/2014 12:47:55 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

Long story short, recidivism is high because society doesn't believe in second chances.

You don't think prison-life re-subjectivises inmates?
Not sure what that means, but probably.
However, IMO, that is not why people return (or truly turn) to a life of crime.

Why?

People return/turn to crime out of desperation.
No one will hire them, no one will accept them, on one will trust them.
This makes for unpleasant circumstances; however, it does seem to matter what the initial crime was for.

This seems like a factor. Do you not think prison culture is a factor at all?
I'm sure it is, in fact I am pretty sure I said so.
However, what aspect of prison culture? Any of them, really, depending on the person.
I don't think most people that come out of prison go back in for different types of crimes.
Here are factors to consider:
- prison offers three meals a day, shelter, and clothing (after six months of looking for work, I seriously considered this), so you have security
- prison offers structure and, frankly, you don't need to worry about anyone but yourself, which is kinda nice, but when you get out, that's not really the case anymore
- you hear tales of how good others had it, on the outside (like drug dealers), and learn tools of the trade, so maybe you try your hand at that
- you learn from your, and others', mistakes, if you decide to fall back
- prison can be gritty and war-like, which can change a man (however, I don't know of many cases where prison turned a non-violent offender into a thug, but I could be wrong)

I honestly don't know how many criminals come out of prison and go back in due to new crimes. The recidivism rates, to my knowledge, include parole violations (which land them back in prison, but not really a new crime in the general understanding) and those who get out of county jail and go to prison. Jail does not offer the same resources prison does, like job placement, education, and the like.
My work here is, finally, done.