8 ms·

6/7/8 are not after a prisoner has "served their said time" its an alternative to that.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
mschuster91 9y ago
Oh no, 6/7 are not just alternatives. Parole after release is common (e.g. you're sentenced to X years, get released earlier at Y years and are now on parole for X-Y years). Depending on country, a simple traffic ticket(!) can be a parole violation, so you get why this is an issue. Same goes for alcohol and drug testing, again often used in combination with parole.
- kbenson 9y ago
  > e.g. you're sentenced to X years, get released earlier at Y years and are now on parole for X-Y years I think that's exactly what was meant as an "alternative" to serving their time. You state it yourself, they were sentenced to X, but only serve Y behind bars. They are offered the choice of some years outside prison but with restrictions instead of that time in prison.
  - mschuster91 9y ago
    The point of parole should be to prevent future criminal acts. Making "everyday crime" (like loitering, jaywalking, speeding, "driving with a broken light") a possible breach of parole defeats this purpose and thus is no alternative. It's keeping someone in constant fear.
    - kbenson 9y ago
      > The point of parole should be to prevent future criminal acts. I think you mean the point of enforcing the rules of and revoking parole is to prevent future crime? Sure. But parole, which is specifically something handed out for good behavior in prison and is in lieu of prison, is still better than prison. They are still serving a sentence, and it's not as bad as it would be in prison. There's lots of problems with how we treat felons and restrict their futures, but I do not consider strict parole rules part of that, given it's during the time allotted for their original sentence. Just because they are out of prison, doesn't mean their punishment is complete (in this case). Put simply, in all cases I can think of, parole is better than prison, and that's what it should be compared to, because that's the other option (no parole). Comparing it to being completely free for the purpose of deciding whether it's fair is nonsensical to me. Edit: s/Comparing it to not being/Comparing it to being/
clamprecht 9y ago
You are wrong. Look up federal supervised release. Source: I served it, after completing my federal sentence.
- kasey_junk 9y ago
  Sure there are sentences that include supervision up front and supervision that is given after sentencing as an alternative to completing the full sentence. But from the parents post that isn't in addition to "has served their said time", its part of the said time. Are you suggesting that you got supervised release after completing your full sentence as outlined after your conviction?
  - clamprecht 9y ago
    For example, my sentence was 70 months prison (1 month under the maximum allowed), then 3 years supervised release (the maximum allowed for my crime). During that 3 years, if I violated any condition of supervised release (including accessing the Internet, or working as a programmer), I could have been sent back for 3 more years of prison. This is different from parole, where you are conditionally released before your original sentence is completed. In my case, they had to let me out when I completed the 70 months. They could not let me out any sooner or any later.
    - kasey_junk 9y ago
      Right. But the supervised release was part of "your time" to use the OP's term. I'm not arguing that this is fair, or right, or the best we can do. I'm arguing that its not a case where these specific items are tacked on "after" your time is served. The other things he mentions (loss of voter rights, loss of housing rights, etc) truly are permanent punishments.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Oh no, 6/7 are not just alternatives. Parole after release is common (e.g. you're sentenced to X years, get released earlier at Y years and are now on parole for X-Y years). Depending on country, a simple traffic ticket(!) can be a parole violation, so you get why this is an issue. Same goes for alcohol and drug testing, again often used in combination with parole.

kbenson 9y ago
> e.g. you're sentenced to X years, get released earlier at Y years and are now on parole for X-Y years I think that's exactly what was meant as an "alternative" to serving their time. You state it yourself, they were sentenced to X, but only serve Y behind bars. They are offered the choice of some years outside prison but with restrictions instead of that time in prison.
- mschuster91 9y ago
  The point of parole should be to prevent future criminal acts. Making "everyday crime" (like loitering, jaywalking, speeding, "driving with a broken light") a possible breach of parole defeats this purpose and thus is no alternative. It's keeping someone in constant fear.
  - kbenson 9y ago
    > The point of parole should be to prevent future criminal acts. I think you mean the point of enforcing the rules of and revoking parole is to prevent future crime? Sure. But parole, which is specifically something handed out for good behavior in prison and is in lieu of prison, is still better than prison. They are still serving a sentence, and it's not as bad as it would be in prison. There's lots of problems with how we treat felons and restrict their futures, but I do not consider strict parole rules part of that, given it's during the time allotted for their original sentence. Just because they are out of prison, doesn't mean their punishment is complete (in this case). Put simply, in all cases I can think of, parole is better than prison, and that's what it should be compared to, because that's the other option (no parole). Comparing it to being completely free for the purpose of deciding whether it's fair is nonsensical to me. Edit: s/Comparing it to not being/Comparing it to being/

clamprecht 9y ago

You are wrong. Look up federal supervised release. Source: I served it, after completing my federal sentence.

kasey_junk 9y ago
Sure there are sentences that include supervision up front and supervision that is given after sentencing as an alternative to completing the full sentence. But from the parents post that isn't in addition to "has served their said time", its part of the said time. Are you suggesting that you got supervised release after completing your full sentence as outlined after your conviction?
- clamprecht 9y ago
  For example, my sentence was 70 months prison (1 month under the maximum allowed), then 3 years supervised release (the maximum allowed for my crime). During that 3 years, if I violated any condition of supervised release (including accessing the Internet, or working as a programmer), I could have been sent back for 3 more years of prison. This is different from parole, where you are conditionally released before your original sentence is completed. In my case, they had to let me out when I completed the 70 months. They could not let me out any sooner or any later.
  - kasey_junk 9y ago
    Right. But the supervised release was part of "your time" to use the OP's term. I'm not arguing that this is fair, or right, or the best we can do. I'm arguing that its not a case where these specific items are tacked on "after" your time is served. The other things he mentions (loss of voter rights, loss of housing rights, etc) truly are permanent punishments.