Hypothetical: Life in Prison

[NT!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Once he gets out, reoffending is almost a foregone conclusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is my point.

NT!, I'm not saying every offense is a life sentence, but the more violent crimes would be.

I guess I thought it was an interesting topic on my own.

[/ QUOTE ]

FX,

it is indeed an interesting topic. Why don't you find us some figures on the rate of recidivism of paroled violent offenders, rather than merely speculating that they are incapable of reintegrating into society?

like you, i would probably not entrust my child to the care of a known murderer, but this doesn't have that much to do with whether that person needs to be in prison. i wouldn't leave my child with most anyone other than a trusted friend or family member.

[ItalianFX]

I didn't really connect bar fights as a "violent crime" as those are mainly harassment, disorderly conduct, simple assault, or aggravated assault - depending on the severity of the issue.

Also, for the guy who sliced another's throat, I don't think he killed the guy. The guy I talked to about the child custody probably overemphasized what "sliced" really meant since he was trying to make it sound like a huge deal to us, as police.

Also, I think there could be some other crimes (nonviolent) that could be linked in here.

I'll do some searching and see if I can come up with anything.

[Warik]

[ QUOTE ]
The OP stated that, in his hypothetical, anyone who committed a violent crime would go to prison, and their only way out would be to be rehabilitated and paroled. Not just people who stab others, or people who rape and mutilate people. Getting in a bar fight is a violent crime. Death penalty FTW, as you say? I hope not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would not put a druken bar fight in the same category as first and second degree murder, armed robbery, rape, etc... The fact that you would doesn't make my post retarded or ignorant (nor yours. It does; however, make it needlessly insulting).

Anyway. Now that we have that distinction settled, we can move on.

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that prisons do a poor job of rehabilitating people does not support your post. You stated that the people in prison are "animals" and prisons are only there to keep them away from society for a set amount of time. Well, that's not how our prisons are legally established and it's not the basis of our criminal system.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not talking about how prisons are legally established or the basis of the criminal justice system. I'm talking about reality. If in reality you and I both agree that rehabilitation in prison is laughable at best, what purpose does sending people to prison serve? I'm sure you can agree that a recently released inmate is in WORSE shape to reintegrate into society (criminal record, likely no immediate assets, etc...). As such, what purpose could sending them to prison possibly serve other than keeping the rest of us safe?

[ QUOTE ]
Moreover, recidivism among corrections inmates is not a guaranteed phenomenon as you stated, and one could only make such an incorrect statement out of total ignorance.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Within three years of their release, 67% of former prisoners are rearrested and 52% are re-incarcerated, a recidivism rate that calls into question the effectiveness of America's corrections system, which costs taxpayers $60 billion a year.

[/ QUOTE ]
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0933722.html

67% ~ "almost a foregone conclusion," especially considering that it's guaranteed that not ALL of the offenders are re-apprehended.

[ QUOTE ]
So, I called your post retarded, rather than go through a long explanation, because anyone who is going to type out such a steaming pile of inaccurate generalizations and cowboy-up tough-on-crime crap such as you have is probably not going to listen to actual facts about the basis of our (flawed) justice system or the behaviors of people who end up in prison. All of the things which you quoted as 'facts' are not facts, but beliefs that you have probably formed by watching COPS, eating Doritos and being an ignoramus. Good luck with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I appreciate the time you've taken out of your busy schedule to "go through a long explanation" to which I've listened and replied without calling you a retard or ignoramus. Please make an effort to do the same if you happen to find yourself capable of not being an ass for a long enough period of time. If you can't resist the urge, maybe you could go back and edit out the childish namecalling before submitting your reply. Thanks.

And no, I neither watch COPS nor eat Doritos.

[citanul]

the absolute ignorance about everything in the real world of huge piles of 18-25 year old white men is no longer shocking to me, though it continues to depress me quite a bit.

[jaydub]

[ QUOTE ]
the absolute ignorance about everything in the real world of huge piles of 18-25 year old white men is no longer shocking to me, though it continues to depress me quite a bit.

[/ QUOTE ]

The continued retardness of non OOT mods within OOT is no longer shocking to me, though it continues to depress me quite a bit.

Do you have a relevant point here or are you just choosing to insult people knowing you will not be punished? I am well outside your called out demographic but perhaps you could elaborate?

J

[citanul]

jaydub,

nah, thanks, NT is doing a great job making basically all of the points i would have to spend time rewriting, and so i just thought i'd add a comment about how depressingly far removed from "the real world" implications of serious policy shifts the vast majority of oot posters are.

in particular comments on recidivism, line drawing for things like "since DUIs aren't violent they wouldn't count," and such are all just ridiculous.

[jaydub]

[ QUOTE ]
jaydub,

nah, thanks, NT is doing a great job making basically all of the points i would have to spend time rewriting, and so i just thought i'd add a comment about how depressingly far removed from "the real world" implications of serious policy shifts the vast majority of oot posters are.

in particular comments on recidivism, line drawing for things like "since DUIs aren't violent they wouldn't count," and such are all just ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

In english please?

J

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
67% ~ "almost a foregone conclusion," especially considering that it's guaranteed that not ALL of the offenders are re-apprehended.

[/ QUOTE ]
NO

[ShakeZula06]

This country needs to figure out a way to have actual rehabilition in prisons. Jails are just schools on how to become a better criminal. Oh, and jails would cost a lot less if they stopped arresting people for selling goods or putting drugs in their bodies. This is a huge reason for why America has the highest incarceration rate in the world.

[NT!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
67% ~ "almost a foregone conclusion," especially considering that it's guaranteed that not ALL of the offenders are re-apprehended.

[/ QUOTE ]
NO

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah. not to mention that 67% of prisoners doesn't mean violent offenders. there are a ton of people who are arrested for nonviolent drug crimes, then go to prison and learn how to become real criminals. the people in prisons aren't 'animals who don't know how to live in society,' as Warik so tactfully put it - some of them are, but quite a few of them come out of it much worse than they came in.

just because i don't think the prison system does a good job of rehabilitating doesn't mean we're making the same point.

regardless, this was the actual issue: the OP called for all violent offenders to be locked up for life, and forced to demonstrate 'rehabilitation' to be released, and then someone else jumped in and said that everyone in prison is an animal who CAN'T live a civilized life and is only there because we don't want him in the world.

if that's the case, why do we lock drug dealers up for five years and murderers for life? why not just keep everyone in prison until they die? if they're all animals, what's the difference? don't try to back away from what was said or frame it in a better way.