Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How I got here

pthorpe92.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 373 posts

Re: How I got here

#321

Post by morgante »

Aeolun wrote: post #295
morgante wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you can stop them from doing it again by locking them up in comfort for 10 years instead of discomfort for 20, then that is what we should do. You're never going to stop many of them from reoffending. Even the "best" rehabilitation programs have crime rates far above the general population. The additional 10 years is 10 more years where they can't hurt innocent people. The justice system exists for the benefit o…

> The additional 10 years is 10 more years where they can't hurt innocent people. The justice system exists for the benefit of society and innocent citizens, not criminals. By this logic we should just never release them. Should we keep the 80% that would not reoffend locked up to prevent the 20% that would from doing so? Should we increase the sentence from 10 to 20 years to make that ratio 60% to 40%? Then we preve…

> By this logic we should just never release them.

The problem with that is it removes the deterrence effect—if you're going to get the same punishment for murder as for shoplifting, criminals will exercise no restraint.

> Should we keep the 80% that would not reoffend locked up to prevent the 20% that would from doing so?

Why are you just making up numbers? The majority of violent criminals reoffend after release, often very soon after. [0]

> Because most people aren’t stopped by the deterrent effect.

Sure, most people don't commit crime because they're not morally bankrupt criminals. The point of policies is not to prevent normal people from committing crime.

Deterrence absolutely has an impact on criminal behavior. Why do criminals brazenly rob and openly deal drugs in San Francisco, but not in Miami? They know they won't be published in SF.

[0] https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-pu...

Re: How I got here

#322

Post by morgante »

closewith wrote: post #90
modeless wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's unfair to say it "makes" them that way. They were incarcerated because they already proved willing to commit a crime. It failed to change them back into an average citizen, sure. Understandably a very difficult problem. It's quite possible that it makes them worse instead of better but we'd need different evidence to show that.

The average citizen in every country is already willing to commit a crime. The difference between the average criminal and you is a couple of meals.

This is completely untrue and does a tremendous disservice to the many impoverished people who do not become criminals.

> The difference between the average criminal and you is a couple of meals.

This is an insane point of view! Most criminals aren't stealing food.

Re: How I got here

#323

Post by cpill »

morgante wrote: post #276
Aeolun wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think for all the criminals that are going to be released back into society at some point, recidivism should be at the top of our mind, not punishment. If you can stop them from doing it again by locking them up in comfort for 10 years instead of discomfort for 20, then that is what we should do (assuming that doesn’t cause more people to do it in the first place).

> If you can stop them from doing it again by locking them up in comfort for 10 years instead of discomfort for 20, then that is what we should do. You're never going to stop many of them from reoffending. Even the "best" rehabilitation programs have crime rates far above the general population. The additional 10 years is 10 more years where they can't hurt innocent people. The justice system exists for the benefit o…

> You're never going to stop many of them from reoffending.

would seem to contradict:

> Punishments absolutely have a deterrent effect.

?

Re: How I got here

#324

Post by morgante »

cpill wrote: post #323
morgante wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you can stop them from doing it again by locking them up in comfort for 10 years instead of discomfort for 20, then that is what we should do. You're never going to stop many of them from reoffending. Even the "best" rehabilitation programs have crime rates far above the general population. The additional 10 years is 10 more years where they can't hurt innocent people. The justice system exists for the benefit o…

> You're never going to stop many of them from reoffending. would seem to contradict: > Punishments absolutely have a deterrent effect. ?

Both can be true. Most violent criminals will commit another crime after release, but the severity and swiftness of that crime will depend on how likely they are to be punished for it.

Even if punishment had no deterrent effect on recidivism it could still be effective at deterring youths from going down a criminal path.

Re: How I got here

#325

Post by RecycledEle »

closewith wrote: post #220
indymike wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This does not solve the problem that many of us do not want to hire convicted criminals. The issue that keeps people from hiring ex-offenders isn't hard to solve: One part is social. This one requires a little leadership and a little bit of re-defining what is an acceptable attitude. The other part is a financial issue and is EASY to solve politically: most business insurers will raise rates or not insure companies…

You could just make criminal background checks unlawful, which is the case in Ireland. There is police vetting for people who work with the vulnerable and certain key jobs, but the average person will never face vetting for a job.

The problem with this is that it encourages crime.

I know a really nice guy who went to prison for "stealing" cable TV. He's an electrician and a convicted felon. He is exceptionally productive, and has a ton of sense, but he's also a thief. His time in prison (in Texas) may have been what changed him, but he will never stop stealing.

After knowing him, I would not hire a convicted criminal who spent time in prison / jail.

Re: How I got here

#326

Post by RecycledEle »

freedomben wrote: post #77
RecycledEle wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

That's genuinely horrifying, and I don't find many opinions horrifying. Are you being serious or trolling? If serious, I hope people don't kill your comment because this is one I think should be discussed.

> Are you being serious or trolling?

I'm serious. I support changing sentnecing guidelines so that we execute anyone who is convicted of a felony after having previously spent at least 10 years in prison.

If you think this is a bad idea, hire someone who spent at least 10 years in prison and learn for yourself. Even if you just hire them to mow your law, hire them. See for yourself.

Re: How I got here

#327

Post by dragonwriter »

RecycledEle wrote: post #326
freedomben wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's genuinely horrifying, and I don't find many opinions horrifying. Are you being serious or trolling? If serious, I hope people don't kill your comment because this is one I think should be discussed.

> Are you being serious or trolling? I'm serious. I support changing sentnecing guidelines so that we execute anyone who is convicted of a felony after having previously spent at least 10 years in prison. If you think this is a bad idea, hire someone who spent at least 10 years in prison and learn for yourself. Even if you just hire them to mow your law, hire them. See for yourself.

> I'm serious. I support changing sentnecing guidelines so that we execute anyone who is convicted of a felony after having previously spent at least 10 years in prison.

That's not something you can do by changing sentencing guidelines, since sentencing guidelines are, as the name suggests, guidelines for setting sentences within the statutory bounds for the underlying offenses.

If you mean setting statutory special circumstances for all felonies (essentially, all crimes already otherwise punishable by one year or more in prison) such that the there is a mandatory minimum of death if the offender has previously spent 10 years or more in prison, combined, for any combination of reasons, well, then that's both ludicrously bad policy and clearly, under existing Constitutional jurisprudence, an Eighth Amendment violation—see, particularly, Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008), holding that it is unconstitutional to apply the penalty of death to a crime against an individual (leaving open some things like treason, drug kingpin activity, etc., where the principal offense is not against a particular individual victim) where the victim does not die. This would apply to the vast majority of existing non-capital felonies.

> If you think this is a bad idea, hire someone who spent at least 10 years in prison and learn for yourself.

If we're going to adopt capital punishment for crimes by anyone I wouldn't want to hire, well, that's going to be a lot broader than “people who have been in prison at keast 10 years”.

Not sure what the two things have to do with each other, though.

Re: How I got here

#328

Post by leononame »

frob wrote: post #302
morgante wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you can stop them from doing it again by locking them up in comfort for 10 years instead of discomfort for 20, then that is what we should do. You're never going to stop many of them from reoffending. Even the "best" rehabilitation programs have crime rates far above the general population. The additional 10 years is 10 more years where they can't hurt innocent people. The justice system exists for the benefit o…

If locking large numbers of people up for inordinately long times prevented crime, the United States would be the safest place in the world. We have 5% of the world's population but 25% of the world's prison population. We are one of a dwindling number of countries that will lock up a child for life (there was a SCOTUS case baring automatic life sentences for minors, but it leaves a loophole wide enough for a semi to…

The US imposes life sentences on minors? Do I read that right or am I misreading this comment?

Re: How I got here

#329

Post by kortilla »

verall wrote: post #192
kortilla wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But rape? There's no rationalizing rape other than mental illness. 20 year old having sex with a 17 year old isn’t mental illness.

This obviously isn't what he's referring to and isn't illegal in most states.

It might be obvious in context, but not when you just see someone labeled as “convicted rapist” and you intend to make policy based on that label.

Re: How I got here

#330

Post by cnasc »

_heimdall wrote: post #318
cstrahan wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How does that work exactly? How does one end up with a tint amount for personal consumption if someone else couldn't legally allowed to have enough to sell? Same way people acquire guns illegally in US states that prohibit gun ownership: involved parties choose to break the law. > Seems really strange that the government would have bothered decriminalizing consumption if the supply itself is illegal. These governme…

> Same way people acquire guns illegally in US states that prohibit gun ownership: involved parties choose to break the law. There are legal avenues to buy guns in the US though, that's the confusion for me. Why bother saying I can own it if the law also says no one can legally sell it to me?

> Why bother saying I can own it if the law also says no one can legally sell it to me?

The government isn’t saying “we’re totally ok with you personally taking drugs,” it’s saying “we don’t think that arresting people who have small amounts of drugs for personal consumption is a valuable use of law enforcement resources, so we’re decriminalizing personal possession and use to focus those resources on larger criminal organizations.”

Post reply on HN