14 ms·

My life after 44 years in prison

200 points by doppp 11y ago

dayon 11y ago
Out of society since 1975 and landing in Times Square... that's gotta be like stepping out into an alien world.
- avmich 11y ago
  We as the society can probably learn a lot from these people. A sort of live time capsules, you know, providing some "more stable" benchmarks for our life, habits, intents.
- joonoro 11y ago
  What's even scarier is imagine it happening to you now: out in 2050. Wouldn't be surprised if self-driving cars were the norm by then. Probably some crazy new world conflicts to deal with. No more Facebook or Google, a radical new internet. That is, assuming all of this fuss about prison reform nowadays doesn't lead to anything in 44 years. "Oh by the way, your RSA keys have been worthless for a couple of decades."
id 11y ago
I wasn't aware that there was a "Steve Jobs era".
- igammarays 11y ago
  Where have you been all this time? In prison?
- seesomesense 11y ago
  It happened at the around the same time as the Jack Welch era and a little after the Charles Kettering era. It will be just as well known as those in 20 years.
webo 11y ago
This man's experience and attitude towards life is amazing. Very inspiring. Props to him. 44 years is ridiculous amount of time for an assault when others are getting away with a few years for an actual murder or slavery. Don't prisons have common areas with TVs, radios, or magazines? It worries me that inmates don't have access to basic development as a human/society.
- ChrisLomont 11y ago
  Who got a few years for murder?
  - chillwaves 11y ago
    Have you attempted to answer this question yourself? http://abcnews.go.com/US/affluenza-dui-case-deposition-tapes-reveal-details-fatal/story?id=34505481 http://abcnews.go.com/US/affluenza-dui-case-deposition-tapes... I'm sure there are many cases with people getting away with murder.
- pakled_engineer 11y ago
  Most prisoners avoid the TV common area, usually it's gang members watching something and you don't want to be around if some other gang decides to attack them. The libraries depend on the prison and are usually spartan with just law books and religious material, and magazines like National Geographic are considered contraband in some prisons. Radios they have in some state jails not sure about federal. You have to buy an approved radio that can't be taken apart to make any weapons or hide contraband in, and they are very expensive considering most prisoners make hardly anything, and sometimes are forbidden any income at all such as TDCJ.
jacquesm 11y ago
44 years for attempted murder of a police officer, I guess with such a benchmark the next police officer murdering a civilian will be sentenced to at least double that given that they're supposed to set an example. Incredible. What standard of sentencing would essentially take someone's life away for an attempt. Makes you wonder how big a sentence you'd get if you succeeded, more than a lifetime?
- temuze 11y ago
  I think attempted crimes should get the same sentence as successful crimes. Imagine two people stabbed identical twins in the same spot with the same intent at the same time. One dies, one lives. Should they get different sentences? It's just a roll of the dice.
  - derekp7 11y ago
    What if you turn this around -- two people punch two identical twins in the face. One twin dies from his injuries, and the person who punched him now faces at least involuntary manslaughter, whereas the other person just has a light assault charge. Should both people get charged with involuntary manslaughter, or should they both just get the lighter assault charge?
    - kazinator 11y ago
      They should be treated differently because a fist is not considered a priori a deadly weapon. Punching someone isn't the use of lethal force. Death is almost certainly an unintended consequence of a punch. Whereas, by contrast, the absence of death is the unintended consequence of, say, a shooting or stabbing (in any vital area of the body). We can't go easy on an attempted murdered just because, luckily, the victim didn't die. We also can't go easy on someone who killed using a punch just because death was unintended; the fact is that the victim died, and the fact is that not all punches are the same. They vary in intensity and area of delivery. A punch which kills (directly) must be quite a wallop, backed by a lot of rage.
      - 11y ago
tomcam 11y ago
Don't understand the title--article is not in first person
- MIKarlsen 11y ago
  But the video is somewhat first person.
  - tomcam 11y ago
    Thank you. I didn't even realize there was a video :-O
- everyone 11y ago
  Yeah, I was dissapointed. Article had very scant mention of the mans experience, which was certainly an odd one and probably very interesting. Title was basically clickbait. Article was really about the politics behind this issue.
- biot 11y ago
  The article is there as a background to the video, which is all first person. The heading shows the filmmakers behind it, another clue that the video is the subject of the title.
leftnode 11y ago
Everything about this is ridiculous, but this especially so: "Johnson’s release date was originally scheduled for earlier, but he ended up serving an additional eight months at the age of 69 for a juvenile shoplifting charge he received when he was 17." How in any reasonable society is this justifiable? I re-read the sentence probably five times because I simply couldn't believe it.
- badloginagain 11y ago
  I'm surprised the sentences stack, I would have expected that if you have 5 jail-terms assigned to you, you would serve until the longest one. American law sure favours punishment.
  - mrec 11y ago
    Once you'd committed one crime, that would remove the primary deterrent against committing more (as long as they were no more serious than the first).
    - newjersey 11y ago
      I'd still think the judge can and should be able to use discretion and allow concurrent sentences. Maybe the judge decided in this case that the sentences should not be concurrent. We don't know what judge had in their mind. I hate to go all PC (I swear I am not one of them) but I wonder whether mandatory sentencing isn't all bad. Perhaps mandatory sentencing is the most effective way to bring down sentencing rules and guidelines to make them more humane. This is getting a little off-topic but I don't have much sympathy for violent offenders (I'll lower the bar to those who actually commit battery or robbery as opposed to a threat). As far as non-violent crimes, especially victim less*, crimes go there should really be no jail time at all. I don't have all the answers but I think we really ought to limit our criminal justice system. Specifically (sorry for going off topic) copyright and such topics should not belong to the criminal justice system. Let those be civil lawsuits between two private entities.
      - 11y ago
Asbostos 11y ago
What I've started to realize about people is that you can't influence them all with deterrents. No matter how long the sentence, or how permanent the memory of the justice system (8 months in prison for robbery, 50 years later), none of that is bad enough to actually stop people committing crimes in the first place. Essentially, people aren't rational. They don't act in their own self interests. I saw this also when I was a teacher. No amount of detentions or removal from class would change the behavior of some students. Saying clever thing to them however, would. Many people respond more strongly to their animal instincts than to logic. You could trick a student into not distrupting class (eg offer them two choices and a minute to make a decision - they somehow forget they really have more choices), but for many, you couldn't incentivize them.
- rl3 11y ago
  >Essentially, people aren't rational. To expand on this, people with proclivities towards committing serious crimes tend to be highly irrational. Thus, employing a deterrent that relies upon the rationality of such individuals makes about as much sense as using a flamethrower to mow the lawn.
  - cb18 11y ago
    I don't know if your meaning to say we should do away with criminal sentencing? I would think your not saying that, but just so no one gets the wrong idea. For people that commit crimes that are highly disruptive to society, on any level, from assaults to massive ponzi schemes, be these 'not particularly rational' individuals or otherwise, the sentence is a deterrent on the one hand, and on the other hand a deterrent as well, but one with a guarantee, because if they are in jail they are not going to be committing more crimes that are disruptive to society. So the criminal justice system still serves a purpose. If the prospect of jail, or just the desire to be a good human didn't stop someone from impulsively raping or murdering someone, then they belong in jail where they can't act out their impulsive rapes or murders on society at large.
    - vacri 11y ago
wpblogheader 11y ago
I think I pooped my pants.

200 points by doppp 11y ago

dayon 11y ago

Out of society since 1975 and landing in Times Square... that's gotta be like stepping out into an alien world.

avmich 11y ago
We as the society can probably learn a lot from these people. A sort of live time capsules, you know, providing some "more stable" benchmarks for our life, habits, intents.
joonoro 11y ago
What's even scarier is imagine it happening to you now: out in 2050. Wouldn't be surprised if self-driving cars were the norm by then. Probably some crazy new world conflicts to deal with. No more Facebook or Google, a radical new internet. That is, assuming all of this fuss about prison reform nowadays doesn't lead to anything in 44 years. "Oh by the way, your RSA keys have been worthless for a couple of decades."

id 11y ago

I wasn't aware that there was a "Steve Jobs era".

igammarays 11y ago
Where have you been all this time? In prison?
seesomesense 11y ago
It happened at the around the same time as the Jack Welch era and a little after the Charles Kettering era. It will be just as well known as those in 20 years.

webo 11y ago

This man's experience and attitude towards life is amazing. Very inspiring. Props to him. 44 years is ridiculous amount of time for an assault when others are getting away with a few years for an actual murder or slavery. Don't prisons have common areas with TVs, radios, or magazines? It worries me that inmates don't have access to basic development as a human/society.

ChrisLomont 11y ago
Who got a few years for murder?
- chillwaves 11y ago
  Have you attempted to answer this question yourself? http://abcnews.go.com/US/affluenza-dui-case-deposition-tapes-reveal-details-fatal/story?id=34505481 http://abcnews.go.com/US/affluenza-dui-case-deposition-tapes... I'm sure there are many cases with people getting away with murder.
pakled_engineer 11y ago
Most prisoners avoid the TV common area, usually it's gang members watching something and you don't want to be around if some other gang decides to attack them. The libraries depend on the prison and are usually spartan with just law books and religious material, and magazines like National Geographic are considered contraband in some prisons. Radios they have in some state jails not sure about federal. You have to buy an approved radio that can't be taken apart to make any weapons or hide contraband in, and they are very expensive considering most prisoners make hardly anything, and sometimes are forbidden any income at all such as TDCJ.

jacquesm 11y ago

44 years for attempted murder of a police officer, I guess with such a benchmark the next police officer murdering a civilian will be sentenced to at least double that given that they're supposed to set an example. Incredible. What standard of sentencing would essentially take someone's life away for an attempt. Makes you wonder how big a sentence you'd get if you succeeded, more than a lifetime?

temuze 11y ago
I think attempted crimes should get the same sentence as successful crimes. Imagine two people stabbed identical twins in the same spot with the same intent at the same time. One dies, one lives. Should they get different sentences? It's just a roll of the dice.
- derekp7 11y ago
  What if you turn this around -- two people punch two identical twins in the face. One twin dies from his injuries, and the person who punched him now faces at least involuntary manslaughter, whereas the other person just has a light assault charge. Should both people get charged with involuntary manslaughter, or should they both just get the lighter assault charge?
  - kazinator 11y ago
    They should be treated differently because a fist is not considered a priori a deadly weapon. Punching someone isn't the use of lethal force. Death is almost certainly an unintended consequence of a punch. Whereas, by contrast, the absence of death is the unintended consequence of, say, a shooting or stabbing (in any vital area of the body). We can't go easy on an attempted murdered just because, luckily, the victim didn't die. We also can't go easy on someone who killed using a punch just because death was unintended; the fact is that the victim died, and the fact is that not all punches are the same. They vary in intensity and area of delivery. A punch which kills (directly) must be quite a wallop, backed by a lot of rage.
    - 11y ago

tomcam 11y ago

Don't understand the title--article is not in first person

MIKarlsen 11y ago
But the video is somewhat first person.
- tomcam 11y ago
  Thank you. I didn't even realize there was a video :-O
everyone 11y ago
Yeah, I was dissapointed. Article had very scant mention of the mans experience, which was certainly an odd one and probably very interesting. Title was basically clickbait. Article was really about the politics behind this issue.
biot 11y ago
The article is there as a background to the video, which is all first person. The heading shows the filmmakers behind it, another clue that the video is the subject of the title.

leftnode 11y ago

Everything about this is ridiculous, but this especially so: "Johnson’s release date was originally scheduled for earlier, but he ended up serving an additional eight months at the age of 69 for a juvenile shoplifting charge he received when he was 17." How in any reasonable society is this justifiable? I re-read the sentence probably five times because I simply couldn't believe it.

badloginagain 11y ago
I'm surprised the sentences stack, I would have expected that if you have 5 jail-terms assigned to you, you would serve until the longest one. American law sure favours punishment.
- mrec 11y ago
  Once you'd committed one crime, that would remove the primary deterrent against committing more (as long as they were no more serious than the first).
  - newjersey 11y ago
    I'd still think the judge can and should be able to use discretion and allow concurrent sentences. Maybe the judge decided in this case that the sentences should not be concurrent. We don't know what judge had in their mind. I hate to go all PC (I swear I am not one of them) but I wonder whether mandatory sentencing isn't all bad. Perhaps mandatory sentencing is the most effective way to bring down sentencing rules and guidelines to make them more humane. This is getting a little off-topic but I don't have much sympathy for violent offenders (I'll lower the bar to those who actually commit battery or robbery as opposed to a threat). As far as non-violent crimes, especially victim less*, crimes go there should really be no jail time at all. I don't have all the answers but I think we really ought to limit our criminal justice system. Specifically (sorry for going off topic) copyright and such topics should not belong to the criminal justice system. Let those be civil lawsuits between two private entities.
    - 11y ago

Asbostos 11y ago

What I've started to realize about people is that you can't influence them all with deterrents. No matter how long the sentence, or how permanent the memory of the justice system (8 months in prison for robbery, 50 years later), none of that is bad enough to actually stop people committing crimes in the first place. Essentially, people aren't rational. They don't act in their own self interests. I saw this also when I was a teacher. No amount of detentions or removal from class would change the behavior of some students. Saying clever thing to them however, would. Many people respond more strongly to their animal instincts than to logic. You could trick a student into not distrupting class (eg offer them two choices and a minute to make a decision - they somehow forget they really have more choices), but for many, you couldn't incentivize them.

rl3 11y ago
>Essentially, people aren't rational. To expand on this, people with proclivities towards committing serious crimes tend to be highly irrational. Thus, employing a deterrent that relies upon the rationality of such individuals makes about as much sense as using a flamethrower to mow the lawn.
- cb18 11y ago
  I don't know if your meaning to say we should do away with criminal sentencing? I would think your not saying that, but just so no one gets the wrong idea. For people that commit crimes that are highly disruptive to society, on any level, from assaults to massive ponzi schemes, be these 'not particularly rational' individuals or otherwise, the sentence is a deterrent on the one hand, and on the other hand a deterrent as well, but one with a guarantee, because if they are in jail they are not going to be committing more crimes that are disruptive to society. So the criminal justice system still serves a purpose. If the prospect of jail, or just the desire to be a good human didn't stop someone from impulsively raping or murdering someone, then they belong in jail where they can't act out their impulsive rapes or murders on society at large.
  - vacri 11y ago

wpblogheader 11y ago

I think I pooped my pants.