Why do we let the incorrigible live among us?

[Homie]

I belive there is a quote on that "A sociaty should be djuged on how it threats it's criminals" or something.

That is suppose to be "...how it threats its poor"

Those of you who wrote "criminal recidivists" did you mean criminal reidents? Or is recidivists actually a word? If it is would anyone explain its meaning to me, thanks.

What if the jury gets it wrong? We'd be sentencing an innocent person to a life in jail, or worse, death.

You cannot think like that, by that logic we could never punish anyone for anything, because they might be innocent.

 

[Homie]

Yes, society should be tough on criminals who continue with criminal acts even after being caught and punished. In California (I think) they have a good system, it is called 3rd strike. It means that if you commit 3 serious offences you get life imprisonment. The logic is that these people cannot (or wont) change, therefore lock them up to secure the citizens.

 

[IglooDame]

That is suppose to be "...how it threats its poor"

Those of you who wrote "criminal recidivists" did you mean criminal reidents? Or is recidivists actually a word? If it is would anyone explain its meaning to me, thanks.

Recidivist criminals are those who continue committing crimes, usually referring to after they've been caught, convicted, and served time for the first crime.

I've heard the quote both ways (a society should be judged on how it treats its poor, and how it treats its criminals) and I disagree with both.

 

[Mise]

What if the jury gets it wrong? We'd be sentencing an innocent person to a life in jail, or worse, death.

You cannot think like that, by that logic we could never punish anyone for anything, because they might be innocent.

How does my logic lead to that conclusion? I merely said that sometimes, people get it wrong.

Besides, one might argue that, by YOUR logic, we should jail EVERYONE, because we ALL might be criminals.

Of course, that would be stupid...

 

[Tassadar]

It is simple, insteed of building prison and bank ( to rob us with loan and mortage), built communitary appartement, so all the poor homeless will have a home and will stop to resort to violence to survive.


But the capitalist system make you work 30 year and you pay 3 time the value , for a house. This is the source of the problem.


In the old day, a few man gather togheter, cut some wood and built a house within a few day, it didnt cost anything and 1 of them get a home, but bring the capitalist in, and then.... do i need to continue ?

 

[vonork]

Why not shoot everyone that commits a crime then.

 

[Hitro]

I think if someone commits one (not too extreme) crime and served his time in prison, he deserves a second chance.

Under some circumstances even someone who does it twice deserves so.

Beyond that I don't get it...

 

[Homie]

How does my logic lead to that conclusion? I merely said that sometimes, people get it wrong.

Well, considering the discussion in this tread I naturally assumed that you meant we could not sentence people to life imprisonment because they might be innocent, and thus we would be commiting a great injustice.

Was this not your point? Did you mean to merely say that sometimes people get it wrong? If so, I'd also like to add some interesting relevant facts to the discussion:
1. Sometimes cars are blue
2. Somtimes birds poop on people's heads

 

[Double Barrel]

My initial rant pertains specifically to INCORRIGIBLE criminals. (Incorrigible being defined as "Incapable of being corrected or reformed").

The recidivism rate for these career criminals is 100%, and that is my point.

What do we, as a civil society, do with these people?

I am not against second (or even third chances), including programs to teach convicts work skills and further education. Just about everyone should be given a chance to correct their devious ways.

But, like the old saying goes, "you can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink", there are those criminal minds that will not be reformed under any circumstance.

And it is these sorry excuses for humans that I specifically created this thread to discuss.

Our governments have finite resources, even to the point of handing our grandchildren debt from current/past government expenditures. This being said, how much money/resources do we allocate to deal with incorrigible human scum?

Do we take money away from education? Roads? Social programs? Defense spending? Etc.?

And what, exactly, do we do with these individuals? Lock them up, throw away the key? Use them for human experimentation? Execution?

I have absolutely no sympathy for those that CHOOSE to be criminals. And make no mistake, they do have a freewill choice in the matter.

Personally, if a person is guilty of multiple crimes beyond a reasonable doubt (as in 100% proof of guilt), then they have lost any/all rights as a citizen of this country, and should be terminated.

Perhaps you folks have other ideas of what to do with them. I'd like to hear it.

 

[Mise]

Well, considering the discussion in this tread I naturally assumed that you meant we could not sentence people to life imprisonment because they might be innocent, and thus we would be commiting a great injustice.

Was this not your point? Did you mean to merely say that sometimes people get it wrong? If so, I'd also like to add some interesting relevant facts to the discussion:
1. Sometimes cars are blue
2. Somtimes birds poop on people's heads

Ha ha ha. That is funny.

Anyway, my point was that the criminal justice system must allow for mistakes, i.e. it is wrong to condemn someone to a life in prison on the basis that they are "incorrigible", because on that basis, it would be pointless to grant them an appeal to prove their innocence (that is, to correct any mistake the jury may have made), or even to acknowledge whether they have truely changed.

That is to say, calling a criminal "incorrigible" is dependant on the arbiter being 100% correct 100% of the time. This goes against the tenet of the criminal justice system which must allow for mistakes.

 

[Homie]

Ha ha ha. That is funny.

Thank you.

This goes against the tenet of the criminal justice system which must allow for mistakes.

I have already mentioned a simple solution for this. Well, it is not actually my idea. I'll post it again:

In California (I think) they have a good system, it is called 3rd strike. It means that if you commit 3 serious offences you get life imprisonment. The logic is that these people cannot (or wont) change, therefore lock them up to secure the citizens.

Wouldn't this work? No arbiter has to make a decision about the "incorrigibleness" (I know it is not a word) of the criminal, because by definition he is incorrigible when he has commited 3 seperate serious offences.

 

[Mise]

Wouldn't this work? No arbiter has to make a decision about the "incorrigibleness" (I know it is not a word) of the criminal, because by definition he is incorrigible when he has commited 3 seperate serious offences.

Huh? No arbiter has to determine what is incorrigible, because by definition s/he is incorrigible after 3 offences? Seriously, read what you just wrote! Who is the arbiter of incorrigble-ness if not the guy who made the "3 strikes" rule?

Further, I suppose this life sentence is incommutable? Where is the allowance for error? And while s/he's in prison, what if s/he changes? Oh, wait, s/he can't change because by definition s/he is incorrigible...

 

[Ancient Grudge]

Thats what the death penalty is for.

Iam against capitol punishment so life imprissonment is an appropiate punishment. No less cruel then being put to death.

Capitol punishment is a good thing in my eyes, why on earth would you want your taxes for someone to be in a room with a bed, regular meals, hot running water and if they act nice in prison a playstation and a tv in their room, why oh why do you want scum to eat up your tax money?

 

[Homie]

Huh? No arbiter has to determine what is incorrigible, because by definition s/he is incorrigible after 3 offences? Seriously, read what you just wrote! Who is the arbiter of incorrigble-ness if not the guy who made the "3 strikes" rule?

Don't try to be difficult. You know I meant there wouldn't be need for a arbiter to determine if someone is incorrigable in each individual case, because the law says that any criminal who commits 3 seperate offences is incorrigable. I know someone has to make this law, but if we can't trust the law making we should just disable the whole court system?Anyway, Example:
1. A guy steals a car, gets caught, spends 8 months in jail and is free.
2. Then the same guy badly beats up some random people on the street. He spends 1 maybe 2 years in jail, he is set free.
3. Said person tries unsuccessfully to rob a bank, he spends another 3 years in jail.
Do you seriously expect that when this person gets out AGAIN he will change his ways and become a decent citizen?

Further, I suppose this life sentence is incommutable?

Nothing in the court system is incommutable. The criminal can always appeal.

Where is the allowance for error?

Do you mean on the part of the criminal or the court? On the part of the criminal, he had 3 chances, he knew it, he blew it! (That rimes )

On the part of the court, it would be like any trial. Some very odd times the sentence is faulty, an innocent person is convicted. But we cannot abandon the judicial system because sometimes we get the verdict wrong.

And while s/he's in prison, what if s/he changes? Oh, wait, s/he can't change because by definition s/he is incorrigible...

Quite right! Now you understand, good job

 

[Mise]

Don't try to be difficult. You know I meant there wouldn't be need for a arbiter to determine if someone is incorrigable in each individual case, because the law says that any criminal who commits 3 seperate offences is incorrigable. I know someone has to make this law, but if we can't trust the law making we should just disable the whole court system?

Ok, this logic is completely stupid on so many levels. First of all, can we trust the law in every case? If there was a law which said that wearing shoes without socks is murder, is that law trustworthy? Secondly, even if the offences are justified, a criminal cannot be deemed incorrigible, because if he is, there is NO chance of appeal, NO chance of commuting the sentence, NO chance of having the sentence reduced, BECAUSE THE CRIMINAL IS INCORRIGIBLE!!! Basically, everything you say after this is pure rubbish, because by definition, none of it applies to incorrigible criminals.

Anyway...

Anyway, Example:
1. A guy steals a car, gets caught, spends 8 months in jail and is free.
2. Then the same guy badly beats up some random people on the street. He spends 1 maybe 2 years in jail, he is set free.
3. Said person tries unsuccessfully to rob a bank, he spends another 3 years in jail.
Do you seriously expect that when this person gets out AGAIN he will change his ways and become a decent citizen?

If they person is willing to change, does it matter whether or not I think he is capable of change?

Nothing in the court system is incommutable. The criminal can always appeal.

If a sentence is commutable, the criminal is not incorrigible, despite what your law might say.

Do you mean on the part of the criminal or the court? On the part of the criminal, he had 3 chances, he knew it, he blew it! (That rimes )

On the part of the court, it would be like any trial. Some very odd times the sentence is faulty, an innocent person is convicted. But we cannot abandon the judicial system because sometimes we get the verdict wrong.

Who said anything about abandoning the judicial system?

Quite right! Now you understand, good job

Responding to sarcasm with sarcasm is confusing...

 

[insurgent]

religious/moral/liberal concepts...

Wow, that's quite a mouthful.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Capitol punishment is a good thing in my eyes, why on earth would you want your taxes for someone to be in a room with a bed, regular meals, hot running water and if they act nice in prison a playstation and a tv in their room, why oh why do you want scum to eat up your tax money?

Last I heard, when you consider the costs of court trials and the like, life-in-prison is actually eats less tax dollars than capital punishment.

 

[Double Barrel]

Mise, there is a word in the english language (and probably other languages, as well) that was created specifically to describe those individuals that simply will not change from their criminal ways. Doesn't this ring a bell in your head that some people simply are incorrigible? It is not for an individual to define, rather, the actions of a criminal define themselves. Incorrigible is just a word created to describe these particular individuals.

A few sincere questions for you, please answer honestly:

How many chances are you willing to give a career criminal (before deciding that they are lost cause)?

Why do we have life sentences if you believe that everyone can be changed / reformed?

What do you propose we do with violent criminals that prey on citizens?

How many times does a man have to rape a women, or molest a child, or any other heinous act, before you would agree that the perp is incorrigible?

I see many people criticize the system, but they offer no real-world solutions to the on-going (and growing) problems we face.

Creating straw-man arguments (ie. "If there was a law which said that wearing shoes without socks is murder, is that law trustworthy" - what does this have to do with this particular subject?) does not bring us to a mutual understanding of potential solutions.

Proposals such as Homie mentioned - the three-strike policy - are a step in the right direction. When a person knows the consequences of their actions, but refuses to change those actions, then responsibility and accountability lie squarely on the shoulders of the person making the decisions - the career criminal.

Why do you seem to have hope and compassion for those that choose to break society's rules and laws of order? Why not save that compassion and caring for those that truly deserve it, like the victims and their families.

 

[Mise]

Mise, there is a word in the english language (and probably other languages, as well) that was created specifically to describe those individuals that simply will not change from their criminal ways. Doesn't this ring a bell in your head that some people simply are incorrigible? It is not for an individual to define, rather, the actions of a criminal define themselves. Incorrigible is just a word created to describe these particular individuals.

A few sincere questions for you, please answer honestly:

How many chances are you willing to give a career criminal (before deciding that they are lost cause)?

Why do we have life sentences if you believe that everyone can be changed / reformed?

What do you propose we do with violent criminals that prey on citizens?

How many times does a man have to rape a women, or molest a child, or any other heinous act, before you would agree that the perp is incorrigible?

I see many people criticize the system, but they offer no real-world solutions to the on-going (and growing) problems we face.

Creating straw-man arguments (ie. "If there was a law which said that wearing shoes without socks is murder, is that law trustworthy" - what does this have to do with this particular subject?) does not bring us to a mutual understanding of potential solutions.

Proposals such as Homie mentioned - the three-strike policy - are a step in the right direction. When a person knows the consequences of their actions, but refuses to change those actions, then responsibility and accountability lie squarely on the shoulders of the person making the decisions - the career criminal.

Why do you seem to have hope and compassion for those that choose to break society's rules and laws of order? Why not save that compassion and caring for those that truly deserve it, like the victims and their families.

I like the way you discourage my "straw man" (which, by the way, it wasn't - it was quite pertinant - perhaps you should read the post again) and then construct you own. This post has nothing to do with anything I said. I refuse to argue against people who blatantly disregard everything I say in an attempt to promote their own agenda. Taking the lead from you, I chose to ignore your post, and whatever point it may have had.

What I said was, calling a criminal incorrigible:
(a) leaves no room for mistakes, and
(b) leaves no room for rehabilitation.
A good criminal justice system must allow for mistakes, and for rehabilitation. Thus, allowing the law to call criminals incorrigible is to deny these two tenets of the CJS.


EDIT: Perhaps the first paragraph was a bit harsh! I now see that my meaning may not have been clear. Basically, you were asking me whether I would call them incorrigible. I have no problems calling people incorrigible, and I don't care if you call them incorrigible. But when the LAW calls them incorrigible, denying them any hope of reintegration into society, THEN I have a problem with it.

 

[Double Barrel]

Mise, my straw-man mention was merely a sidestep that did not mean to distract from the discussion at hand. It was not meant to insult you in any way.

I have not blatantly disregarded anything you said; Matter-of-fact, the exact opposite is true, or I would not have taken the time to ask your opinions or cared what you said in return. I do not have any desire to place you in the defensive, so please excuse my wording if it appears that way to you. And I do not wish to debate, but rather discuss. Cool.

My main point is that there are individuals that truly are beyond the reach of modern techniques for dealing with them. No amount of therapy / love / discipline / whatever can reach these folks, and they simply have no desire to change their ways or participate within the legal framework of a civil society.

And this is the point of my thread, as well as discussing the matter with you. What do we do with these people? I tend to believe that the perp in the above mentioned story is this kind of deranged individual. It is obvious that he made a conscious decision to exact revenge on the victims based upon some twisted logic that he has conjured up in his wicked little brain. It is also obvious that he is a multi-convicted felon than simply disregards the rule of law and the civilized behavior that citizens must follow to live in our societies.