Why do we let the incorrigible live among us?

[Mise]

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.

The problem is, they may not have any desire to change NOW, but after years and years in prison, the idea is that they aqcuire a desire to change.

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.

Repeat offenders already get a longer time in jail than first time offenders. But they are currently always given a chance to change. The punishment should fit the crime; It should not be used to prevent future crimes. You can't convict someone of something they haven't done yet, which is what this kind of pre-emptive sentencing amounts to.

(This is basically all an extension to point (b) made in my last post. Also, sorry for assuming you were being antagonistic )

 

[andrewgprv]

The punishment should fit the crime; It should not be used to prevent future crimes.

Then what's the point of punishing at all? What's done is done, right?

 

[Mise]

Then what's the point of punishing at all? What's done is done, right?

I meant, to prevent future crimes once the criminals are released from jail. I.e. you shouldn't send people to jail for life just so they can't commit the crime again. Otherwise, we'd all be in jail right now for drinking, smoking or looking at pornography underaged.

 

[andrewgprv]

you shouldn't send people to jail for life just so they can't commit the crime again.Otherwise, we'd all be in jail right now for drinking, smoking or looking at pornography underaged.

So why ever send anyone to jail? If the purpose is not to prevent future crime, why do we ever lock anyone up?

We weren't hurting anyone around us by drinking, smoking or looking at porn. And if we were chances are the damage was minimal. Thus we were not a major threat to our society.

 

[Mise]

So why ever send anyone to jail? If the purpose is not to prevent future crime, why do we ever lock anyone up?

We weren't hurting anyone around us by drinking, smoking or looking at porn. And if we were chances are the damage was minimal. Thus we were not a major threat to our society.

Well if we weren't a major threat to society, doesn't that back up the idea that we are jailed in order to punish people for disobeying the law?

Oh wait, I see where the confusion is. I DO believe in jail for the purpose of rehabilitation. When I said "to prevent future crimes" I meant serving a life sentence for the purpose of protecting society from a dangerous criminal.

I have a feeling we're on the same side after all Sorry for the confusion. (man that's twice today...)

 

[Homie]

Actually, one of the purposes of prison is not only to punish, but to protect the society from these dangerous criminals. We are talking about hardcore criminals here, people who have been convicted and served several sentences (several years), but have commited more crimes when they get out every time. Shouldn't we consider the safety of the innocent before the criminal's right to change?

 

[Mise]

Actually, one of the purposes of prison is not only to punish, but to protect the society from these dangerous criminals. We are talking about hardcore criminals here, people who have been convicted and served several sentences (several years), but have commited more crimes when they get out every time. Shouldn't we consider the safety of the innocent before the criminal's right to change?

Doesn't that open the door for jailing everyone for life, regardless of the crime they commited?

"He'll never steal my apples again, because he's in jail for life."

Aren't we considering the safety of the innocent before the criminal's right to change?

 

[Hitro]

Doesn't that open the door for jailing everyone for life, regardless of the crime they commited?

"He'll never steal my apples again, because he's in jail for life."

Aren't we considering the safety of the innocent before the criminal's right to change?

Isn't this about people who did it multiple times, people who got their second and maybe third or even fourth chance and wasted them all? I think then at least society should come first...

 

[Mise]

Isn't this about people who did it multiple times, people who got their second and maybe third or even fourth chance and wasted them all? I think then at least society should come first...

Well, yeah, that's why there's longer sentences for repeat offenders. But they should always be given a chance to change, regardless of how many times they've commited a crime. And if they've been let out 4 times already, the crime they commited can't be that bad anyway. If it were murder, they'd be let out after, what? 20? 30 years? They might be so old by then they can't even hold a knife, let alone stab someone in a dark alley.

 

[Hitro]

Well, yeah, that's why there's longer sentences for repeat offenders. But they should always be given a chance to change, regardless of how many times they've commited a crime. And if they've been let out 4 times already, the crime they commited can't be that bad anyway. If it were murder, they'd be let out after, what? 20? 30 years? They might be so old by then they can't even hold a knife, let alone stab someone in a dark alley.

But (at least in our justice system) murder is almost the only offense this applies to. Seriously injuring others, for example due to beating them up or while robbing them would not have that result.

At least for every crime that involved harming others there should definetely not be more than two chances...

Sexual offenses are another case of that sort...

 

[Mise]

Still, that denies the criminals a chance to change while in prison. Ideally, we should imprison people until they have changed, no less, no more. Lacking a good way to determine whether they have changed, the only alternative is to allow them to prove that they have changed, and if they haven't, slap a far heavier sentence on them.

 

[Hitro]

Lacking a good way to determine whether they have changed, the only alternative is to allow them to prove that they have changed

Wrong, there is another way, keeping them in. It's true that thus they would be on the losing side of it but otherwise society would be, and when it comes to deciding between a repeated violent criminal and general society I'd choose society. If only because I and the few people I really care about are part of it.

It's no right to get infinite chances to change yourself. Some people can't be changed.

 

[Homie]

Doesn't that open the door for jailing everyone for life, regardless of the crime they commited?

No, not at all. As I've already explained several times, this has to be repeated SERIOUS offences, is that so hard to understand? It has to be, since I keep repeating myself.

Aren't we considering the safety of the innocent before the criminal's right to change?

Yes. And that is a bad thing? I don't understand how your mind works, favor the criminal instead of the victum, what is that all about?

 

[Homie]

Still, that denies the criminals a chance to change while in prison. Ideally, we should imprison people until they have changed, no less, no more. Lacking a good way to determine whether they have changed, the only alternative is to allow them to prove that they have changed, and if they haven't, slap a far heavier sentence on them.

What you are describing is a fantasy solution, one that could never work. Because how could one prove/disprove that one had changed?

 

[Mise]

Wrong, there is another way, keeping them in. It's true that thus they would be on the losing side of it but otherwise society would be, and when it comes to deciding between a repeated violent criminal and general society I'd choose society. If only because I and the few people I really care about are part of it.

It's no right to get infinite chances to change yourself. Some people can't be changed.

Some people can't. Agreed. But your solution imprisons those who can.

No, not at all. As I've already explained several times, this has to be repeated SERIOUS offences, is that so hard to understand? It has to be, since I keep repeating myself.

And I JUST SAID that it OPENS THE DOOR to the following sentence (which you cunningly ignored...)
"He'll never steal my apples again, because he's in jail for life."

This goes to Hitro too:
This entire debate is about people who are deemed "incorrigible". I'm saying that deeming someone "incorrigible" allows us to lock them away and forget about them. This is wrong, because sometimes, the jury makes a mistake, and deems someone incorrigible when they are not. So if we deem someone incorrigible, it MUST be 100% correct 100% of the time. This is impossible.

 

[Homie]

And I JUST SAID that it OPENS THE DOOR to the following sentence (which you cunningly ignored...)
"He'll never steal my apples again, because he's in jail for life."

Cunnigly ignored, WHAT??? This was the very sentence I was adressing. How could you not see that?
Is stealing apples a serious offence?

Forget about it Mise, I have had enough of these childish games you play. Consider yourself ignored.

 

[Mise]

Cunnigly ignored, WHAT??? This was the very sentence I was adressing. How could you not see that?
Is stealing apples a serious offence?

Forget about it Mise, I have had enough of these childish games you play. Consider yourself ignored.

I care....