201–210 of 567 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
they take an (actually very reasonable) cut, but he is free to take his salary.
No cut is reasonable.
Hopefully, we see more of this throughout the country!
Maine's remote work program is an incredibly promising development to prevent recidivism. The amazing thing about it is that it gives real jobs to prisoners that they can seamlessly continue after they get out of prison. Normally when you get out, it's impossible to get a job, and the clock is ticking. This leads to desperation, which leads to bad behavior. There is a real risk of exploitation, but if it's properly m…
This sounds good. It is important that we recognize all of the purposes of punishment instead of overemphasizing one or neglecting the other. Punishment has three ends: retribution, rehabilitation, and deterrence. It is important that you pay for your crime for the sake of justice; it is charitable and prudent to rehabilitate the criminal, satisfying the corrective end of punishment; and would-be criminals must be gi…
One might argue a fourth end as well: removal.
When people talk about "cleaning up the streets" they don't mean causing ruffians to clean up their act, what they refer to is removing the ruffians entirely. To "someplace else". To "Not in my backyard". Out of sight, out of mind as is often said.
For profit prisons may view prisoners as cheap labor or levy bait, but for the voting public who gets no cut of that action the real inducement starts and ends with "make the problem go away". Sweep human beings we do not know how to cohabitate with under a rug.
Retribution may appeal to those directly wronged, or to the minority of sadists in a population. Deterrence is oft admired, but few honestly believe it's really possible given that harsh sentences never seem to cause crime to go to zero (sensationalism-driven media that magnifies every mole-hill notwithstanding) and that repeat offenses outnumber first offenses. Rehabilitation appeals to those with compassion, though nobody has a clear bead on how to actually land that plane with more than the lowest hanging fruit of only-slightly-off-course offenders.
So I think the real elephant in the room is that people want/demand/rely upon removal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your doing the Lord's work. Even if you just paid him the state minimum wage, it would stop him from having a giant employment gap. The next step would be background check reform. A DUI record isn't relevant to anything not involving driving. Excluding a very small handful of SVU level crimes everything should be wiped clean after 5 years or so. I had an experience with a co worker who would brag about robbing people…
The Lord is doing His work, in Preston's heart. I am very humbled to given a chance to be a part of this.
Locked up, locked in! On a serious note, I think inmates should have 24/7 laptop computer access with (at least) limited sessions of internet connectivity.
They had a computer lab, but it was only for Mavis Beacon. I found the C# compiler that's hidden away in the Windows directory and started teaching programming on the sly. Luckily one of the nuns at the facility took pity on me and bought C# Weekend Crash Course on Amazon (with the CD) and sneaked it through the security checks for me so I'd have a good reference to teach from.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The 13th amendment specifically allows slavery of prisoners. Edit: I don’t mean to imply the author isn’t paid fairly by Turso. A few posts down, the CEO of Turso asserts that they do pay fairly. The OP in this thread might reasonably wonder about this because several states do in fact use prisoners as unpaid slave labor.
It's unclear whether the carve out for prisoners applies to just "involuntary servitude" or "slavery and involuntary servitude." In practice, only "involuntary servitude" has been used. "Community service" - unpaid - is a very common low level sentence. The eighth and fourteenth amendments almost certainly forbid enslavement - permanently becoming human property - as a criminal sentence. Even before the 13th amendmen…
https://theappeal.org/louisiana-prisoners-demand-an-end-to-m...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cites, please? A quick skim of the literature doesn't support this and I'm dubious, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.
Here's an example in connecticut[]. DV applications: ~8800 DV ex parte granted (no chance for defendant to defend him(her)self): ~5100 DV final order granted after defendant able to defend him(her)self): ~3200 So for example in CT on just a civil standard, only 2/3 of the accusers were able to get even a temporary order when the defendant had zero chance to tell their side of the story. Once the defendant was able to…
Some notes: in Connecticut, restraining orders can be granted for a variety of reasons, not restricted to domestic violence alone. Fairly close correlation but it does include, for example, stalking.
It seems unwise to assume that restraining orders alone represent the entire count of domestic violence complaints that reach the legal system. For example, surely domestic violence arrests should be counted? Which seem to be a much higher count than restraining order applications -- 24,850 DV arrests in 2011 vs. 9033 DV applications. I'm not sure how to count the 32,111 "Family Violence Protective Orders" in 2011; are they the result of arrests? Are they yet another possible outcome of law enforcement involvement, separate from either a requested restraining order or an arrest?
There are way more reasons a restraining order might not make it to a final order besides "the requestor was proven wrong." I'd want more detailed data here before reaching a conclusion. Otherwise, this assumes that failure to grant a restraining order proves lack of DV. I am not sure that it would change the percentages you've shown significantly -- we're all aware of cases where restraining orders weren't granted with very bad results, but there's always a tendency to report on the most clickbaity outcomes. Still, worth digging into that one a bit more.
Again, appreciate the cite.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This sounds good. It is important that we recognize all of the purposes of punishment instead of overemphasizing one or neglecting the other. Punishment has three ends: retribution, rehabilitation, and deterrence. It is important that you pay for your crime for the sake of justice; it is charitable and prudent to rehabilitate the criminal, satisfying the corrective end of punishment; and would-be criminals must be gi…
One of the most baffling elements of the justice system is how little the victim is involved in the justice. 'Society' should not lord the lion's share of the justice decisions over the victims. Quite often the victim would prefer compensation and release over getting fuck all while the perpetrator languages in prison at the tax dollar of the victim. Much of 'justice' has been usurped from the victim into a jobs camp…
In most US jurisdictions the victim of a crime is allowed to make a statement during the sentencing phase of the trial. So the victim can certainly request release if they want it although the judge isn't obligated to adhere.