Rampant crime, and LENIENT JUDGES

[Andykev]

Don't miss my point

You can help, Andy. In your will, leave some money for the building of more prisons.

.

Thanks Marc, you have me in the grave already. I don't plan on that for another 40 or so years....and my will won't leave much to do any good. My point is that VIOLENT FELONS with GUNS who ROB CITIZENS and then flee endangering everyone....
That has nothing to do with drug problems. I am not commenting on the entire prison population. I am commenting that VIOLENT ARMED PIECES OF S*** Should be LOCKED UP. And yes I am shouting.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Forty years ain't enough. Hang in there with us


I agree with you, Andy. I don't think that it is the state's responsibility to try to rehabilitate violent repeat offenders. I think it is the state's responsibility to keep them away from us. Our safety is more important than their freedom to violate it.


That said, I can only see one way to do this: make room for the more dangerous criminals. The justice system is a big machine that deals with space management. Overcrowded prisons mean less space; the "3 strikes" laws leave little room (both literally and figuratively). Either we build more prisons or we incarcerate fewer people (or lock them up for shorter periods).


The justice system (like all systems) has its own inane logic; its own rules lead to long sentences for "3rd strike" drug possessers and short sentences for violent offenders. I'm not a fan of drugs, but I'm much more concerned about violent armed robbers and killers.


.

 

[scotrace]

.

What's our take on mandatory sentencing?

 

[Baron Kurtz]

I thought judges in this country were held to account. Aren't they elected (at least to the level of court that are dealing with the crimes we're discussing)?

now, it's a lifetime appointment in the UK. There are some stunning things which have happened because of senile judges ...

If you don't like a judge: get rid of 'im (or 'er).

bk

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Mandatory sentencing ...

... is problematic since it assumes there are no extenuating circumstances. For example the wife who kills her husband in his sleep because he beats her. Since he wasn't actually beating her when she killed him, the mandatory sentence for murder would get her quite a spell in prison. But taking the extenuating circumstances into account the judge should be lenient.

That said, i agree with minimum and maximum sentences. These prevent the type of judge we're talking about giving ridiculously short (or ridiculously long) sentences.

bk

 

[Baron Kurtz]

I thought judges in this country were held to account. Aren't they elected (at least to the level of court that are dealing with the crimes we're discussing)?

If you don't like a judge: get rid of 'im (or 'er).

bk

Quoting myself. Anyway, i don't think this really works because the crazy judges on both sides of the argument seem to have the biggest support groups. There is a judge in this town who is known as "Maximum". This because if you're not white, you get the maximum sentence. The man is a terrible racist, and is quite open about it. He gets reelected every time. The defence of his supporters is that "he has the right to be a racist" and their blind trust that what everyone else can see in his sentencing policy is merely the propaganda of the "bleeding heart liberal" variety. This from the lock-'em-up-and-throw-away-the-key types.

bk

 

[Section10]

Cases should be judged on their own merits. More laws means more lawbreakers -- it's inevitable. As morally opposed to illegal drugs as I am, still I really wonder if legalizing them might be the right thing to do. I think it's really hard to legislate morality and I sometimes question its wisdom. I see nothing wrong with permanently locking up criminals who have proven to society that they are a threat. There are 2 kinds of people in jail: Those who have made a mistake and those who are enemies of society. They should be treated with different long term goals in mind.

 

[MK]

.

....then we could have a wonderful society like Amsterdam!

 

[Pilgrim]

I find myself thinking about Marc and the Baron's comments about mandatory sentencing.

There certainly is a problem with prison overcrowding, and I'm not enthusiastic about funding more prisons. But I do think that much of the overcrowding is due to mandatory sentencing, or laws which compel sentences for minor crimes. There has been a politically expedient trend topward mandatory sentencing for certain crimes, and those laws don't always make sense.

There is a problem when we try to deal with the variances of human behavior by fixed mathematical formulas. Three strikes surely came about as a way to assure that repeat offenders would be incercerated rather than get a pass out of jail, but those laws often end up trapping people who commit a minor third offense that doesn't merit a long jail sentence.

I'd rather see someone in jail for spousal assault than having an ounce of marijuana on a third offense. Let's find a way to move the non-violent and petty criminals out of the prisons and make room for the ones who really endanger others.

I would much rather see the U.S. spending money on programs that would help people avoid the poverty and cultural ignorance that tend to stimulate traffic in drugs and social violence, rather than spending more and more money on prisons to house the products of poverty and ignorance. Too many minorities end up in prison every year.

Surely, some of both is needed. But IMO right now, we're heavy on enforcmenent and incerceration, and too light on prevention.

I don't feel that we can continue to watch the gap between "haves" and "have-nots" expand, and keep jailing the "have-nots" that get crossways with the law. This is clearly not the whole picture, but it's a significant factor.

 

[Section10]

....then we could have a wonderful society like Amsterdam!

Moslem countries have gone overboard in the other direction and legislate everything according to their moral views. I don't have the answer to this one and somewhere in the middle is probably best, but I have a problem with seeing a recreational pot smoker as a threat to society. Alcohol is not one bit better in my opinion. It seems social acceptability is the basis for legality. I'm against homosexuality, too, but I can't see how it should be a crime. Victimless 'crimes' with respect to their legality are a real stumbling block and just because something is immoral can't simply give us the green light to make it illegal particularly when the word immoral is becoming less and less definable in society. Most people here aren't questioning the legality of Fred Phelps' protests, but the decency of them. How can a pot smoker be more wicked than him? Legalize it and tax the daylights out of it and kill 2 birds with one stone.

 

[Sunny]

Terrific Luther quotes, Dean! I've read bits of that before, but never that much. I agree, too, that to stay on topic perhaps it wouldn't be wisest to head off into an Islam/Christianity/religion/justice discussion. Freedom through submission is true on many levels and in ways that Christianity and Islam would not agree on, so I cannot continue in that thread. And I can't even plead a professional bias! PMs are good, though.

I thought judges in this country were held to account. Aren't they elected (at least to the level of court that are dealing with the crimes we're discussing)?

There are many judicial levels, from small county courts to state and national supreme courts. The lower levels tend to be elected, while the higher levels are appointed by elected officials. This is yet another part of the checks and balances of this system: The elected judges are quickly accountable to the voters, as are the U.S. Representatives with their 2-year terms. The appointed judges preserve stability and have a conservative* influence, like the Senators with their staggered 6-year terms. Appointed judges aren't held to account - except by impeachment - but those who appoint them certainly are. Ideally, appointed judges are to be less biased by public opinion and can focus more on cases, since they don't have to run campaigns.

I think it's really hard to legislate morality and I sometimes question its wisdom.

And yet, all law and government is legislating morality on some level. The alternative is anarchy - everyone doing what is right in his own eyes.

My own comment, instead of responding to everyone else's:

I love the news headlines: "Crime Rates Fall, but Jails Are Full." :eusa_doh:

 

[Viola]

I live in a city thats in the top five for murders.

Why are non-violent druggies crowding up the local prisons? You can get as long for dealing as you can for bashing an old lady's head in. That's sick. I don't really care what someone puts in their own body.

I have a lot more issue with being able to walk my own body down the streets.

Don't even get me started on the bonehead mayor who, ignoring all statistics on muggings and on how concealed carry permits drop crime, wants to ban handguns. Yeah, that always works!

 

[Marc Chevalier]

I love the news headlines: "Crime Rates Fall, But Jails Are Full." :eusa_doh:

Sad, huh? I'd love to see the day when a headline might read, "Crime Rates Fall, But Jails Are Nearly Empty".


.

 

[Story]

I live in a city thats in the top five for murders.

Why are non-violent druggies crowding up the local prisons? You can get as long for dealing as you can for bashing an old lady's head in. That's sick. I don't really care what someone puts in their own body.

I have a lot more issue with being able to walk my own body down the streets.

Don't even get me started on the bonehead mayor who, ignoring all statistics on muggings and on how concealed carry permits drop crime, wants to ban handguns. Yeah, that always works!

You want change? Work for Nutter.
http://www.nutterformayor.com/

 

[Viola]

You want change? Work for Nutter.
http://www.nutterformayor.com/

Right now I would work for ANYBODY who wasn't Street.

 

[Twitch]

Hey Andy my Dad was in law enforcement much of his life so I always identify with this type of scenario. I simply feel we've gone way past the benefit-of-the-doubt leniency days. We have proved that does NOT work yet continue to ride down that path. All the bleeding hearts are convinced rehabilitation is possible for career criminals yet they simply use those programs to exploit the system yet again.

Since we all seem to love this Golden Age stuff we must note that crime and punishment then was more harsh. A person got 20 years for armed robbery and they did every day of the sentence. No good behavior, no 1 day served counts for 2, no work release programs.

The 1960s brought a national experiment in attitudes about criminal justice that are still around. I remember about 1969 police chief Tom Redden in L.A. saying after nearly a decade of alternative socially acceptable punishment of bad guys, "We are going to say to criminals, 'we don't think you're sick, we think you're a criminal,' and treat them accordingly."

But it's a social problem and criminals are sick we still hear. Next it'll be classified as a disease so crooks can get yet more sympathy as victims.

Yeah, it costs lots of $$ to continue to fund the criminal justice and penal systems for punishment but so far the alternatives haven't proved very successful.

 

[Section10]

And yet, all law and government is legislating morality on some level. The alternative is anarchy - everyone doing what is right in his own eyes.

I would edit that slightly and say: All law and government is legislating somebody's morality..... Whether it's yours or not depends upon which side of the issue you're on. Prohibition was somebody's morality, too.
I agree though, anarchy is not the answer.

 

[Sunny]

I would edit that slightly and say: All law and government is legislating somebody's morality..... Whether it's yours or not depends upon which side of the issue you're on. Prohibition was somebody's morality, too.
I agree though, anarchy is not the answer.

Oh, certainly. (Personally, I'd say "Somebody's morality," or more actually "Right." But there's no need to go into that.) I just hear that statement ("You can't legislate morality!") thrown out a lot by people who don't want anyone to tell them what to do. As if it justifies them! lol

Sad, huh? I'd love to see the day when a headline might read, "Crime Rates Fall, But Jails Are Nearly Empty".

That would be great for everyone! (Unless it means that we've reduced rates by abolishing all laws, of course.) It's just the supposed illogic of the one I quoted. When criminals are off the streets, they're not commiting crime. But these journalists write as if there's no connection at all. (I'm a journalism major, and bad journalistic writing drives me nuts!)

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Unless it means that we've reduced rates by abolishing all laws, of course.

You got me! lol I didn't think of that possibility. That headline of mine (accidentally) looks like one of those "trick" statements in graduate school entrance exams.

.

 

[Benny Holiday]

The chain gang

We don't have chain gangs here in Australia, so they were a rather controversial topic when the Australian Sixty Minutes TV program aired a segment about them in the U.S. a couple of years ago.

To me, they seem like a good idea in that prisons are costly to run, and having convicts work on road maintenance schemes seems like a good way to use their energies effectively. (They always seem to have plenty of energy to burn lifting weights in the exercise yards on TV shows, anyway lol ). Am I being a bit Draconian here? There was a time when hard labour meant just that.

Deanglen, I enjoyed what you've had to say in this thread, I think it'd be great to explore the thoughts you've raised in a thread all of their own.