81–90 of 157 posts
I'm sure I'll figure it out eventually.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Private prisons have basically nothing to do with this. They house very little of the prison population (less than 10% IIRC)
>>Private prisons have basically nothing to do with this. Incorrect. Private prisons have lobbyists that contaminate the system further upstream to ensure a steady supply of inmates. They do this by lobbying legislators for harsher prison sentences on trivial crimes.
The idea their lobbying efforts have had any effect on punishment guidelines is laughable.
1. The Public in General Votes for "Tough on Crime" politicians, the Public wants "criminal" to pay, they are just to ignorant to understand who "criminals" are as they picture the person is a ski mask robbing and raping them, not some person filling out a government form incorrectly
2. The Police Unions, Guard unions, and various other Non-Profit Groups lobby far far far more effectively than any of the For-profit Government Contractors for very very harsh punishments, and for the creation of new laws and regulations to make even more criminals every year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I murdered someone out of curiosity and in doing so realized it was not fun at all should I be allowed to go free immediately since I will not murder again? In other words the rehabilitation occurred during and as a result of the criminal act.
There's also 'fairness' in law - so you have to serve a sentence similar to others guilty of the same offense. And yes in this strawman case your sentence should perhaps not be a long one. Except the sociopath angle - a person who commits crime for fun is quite likely to find another fun crime to commit.
Punishment has three purposes: retribution, rehabilitation, and deterrence. We seem to be suffering from a contemporary bias against retribution [0]. However, these three purposes are intimately connected. When a punishment fits the crime, we communicate the severity of the crime to the criminal. In that way, we help facilitate rehabilitation by making it clear how grave his offense has been. Deterrence is facilitated by the same token. Obviously, these are not absolute measures. For example, a criminal may be unrepentant, but then rehabilitation is not possible. In any case, adequate remorse does not remove the possibility of retribution (though a sincerely remorseful criminal would accept that he deserves commensurate punishment), but it does allow for mercy.
[0] A common confusion here is that retribution entails hatred of the punished. It does not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, as a white guy in Texas , "not all white Texans" isn't the most helpful response. Regardless of the last name of the judge in this case, your comment more or less meets with my experiences. This conviction is a pretty fucking vile turn of events, and it is fundamentally tied to the racist fears about voter fraud that are, themselves, sublated attempts to prevent "illegitimate" populations from voting: "It's ver…
An aside, can you explain your usage of the word "sublated"? Is that referring to "Aufheben"?[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aufheben
How does such an attorney and judge feel after such a trial? Do they feel satisfied, fulfilled? Taking away 5 years of someone's life over a little mistake that didn't hurt anyone? I don't get it: why does a free people like the Americans allow for that kind of sinister figures to be their prosecutors and judges?
Why in the world is this a felony ? If it's "mere" disenfranchisement you're going for, why not simply… don't count the vote ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think Americans by and large see prison as this dungeon where we store people we don’t like for as long as possible rather than as a place where people who have made mistakes go to get the training and help they need in order to get back on track. That’s the simplest way to explain things like ultra long sentences compared to the rest of the civilized world, mistreating people after they’ve done their time (felon s…
Calling crimes "mistakes" is a terrible euphemism. It may be accurate in some cases. But many criminals commit their crimes knowing full well what they are doing, and with no regard for those who are hurt by their actions, and show little or no remorse (unless they think pretending can reduce their sentence). Now, many are in prison due to unjust laws, selective enforcement, or a flawed prosecution incarcerating the…
I think many of us are aware that felons loose their right to vote. I guess I assumed you would be blocked from voting. So I never thought about what the penalty should be. Now that I’ve seen the penalty, I’m appalled.
Frankly, I think we should quit criminalizing everything. The governments responsible for jailing criminals, no-fly lists and a lot of other things. Why not take responsibility for blocking felons from voting?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you notice the color of the woman's skin? There you go.
I'm not racist, so no, I don't notice it. :-)
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/color-b...
How does such an attorney and judge feel after such a trial? Do they feel satisfied, fulfilled? Taking away 5 years of someone's life over a little mistake that didn't hurt anyone? I don't get it: why does a free people like the Americans allow for that kind of sinister figures to be their prosecutors and judges?
Vote fraud is an extremely serious crime in a democracy.