10 ms·

If you served your time, you served your time. If not, shoulda got more time

Florin_Andrei 7y ago
> If you served your time, you served your time. Seriously, so much this. The thing should be stateless. You made a mistake, there were consequences - but once that's over, you ought to be good as new. Eternal punishment only ought to have a place in dumb mythology.
- sokoloff 7y ago
  Though I see that point, I think there's a counterpoint which is, "We can choose to release felons at the earliest moment when they no longer represent a serious threat to a peaceable society" but that by releasing them at that earlier moment, we give them many freedoms but don't trust them with certain things we trust other citizens with (gun ownership, voting, jury duty, working with children, commercial trucking/aviation, serving as a military officer, whatever...) I can imagine many cases where I'd be comfortable with someone being out of prison but not with owning a gun after let's say N years for an armed robbery conviction. In fact, I might not be comfortable with them legally owning a gun ever again. If we demand that the system be totally stateless and that we not release a prisoner until we're comfortable giving them all the possible rights, it seems sensible to argue the penalty for armed robbery should be life (which is, of course, ridiculous).
  - chx 7y ago
    Nah, it should come with thos specific things attached to their release but voting and jury duty ? Why not? There are any number white collar crimes where everything you listed wouldn't be a problem. Seriously, someone embezzles a few grand you don't want them to drive a truck??
  - ryeights 7y ago
    Isn't that what supervised release should be for? We monitor them in the general population for a short period (a few years) to determine if they're still dangerous. If not, restore their rights. I don't think anyone who goes to prison for 10 years and is observed on perfect behavior for another 3-4 is going to suddenly become dangerous again when their right to buy a gun is restored. These are pretty large timescales we're talking about.
  - crazygringo 7y ago
    The thing is, most of the things you've listed already has certain standards (though some need to be tightened). If you have any kind of likely violent history or mental illness, you shouldn't get a gun period, regardless of whether you were arrested and convicted or not. If you can't pass a commercial driving test or ever showed up drunk to the job, you shouldn't get a license. You can't vote until you're 18. And so on. So I think the right way to frame this isn't "felons won't get back X rights" but rather "nobody gets X right who has relevant evidence they can't handle it responsibly". Except for voting, which is such a fundamental right it arguably shouldn't be denied to anyone unless they're below a certain age or mentally incompetent.
- faeyanpiraat 7y ago
  We learn from our mistakes. If the consequences are too great, it makes people not want to make mistakes, therefore getting stuck. If consequences are too small, people do not learn to think about "what could go wrong", and do stupid things over and over again. In this day and age where everything gets recorded and shared, I tend to be more cautious. However the smaller amount of mistakes gets shared to more people to learn from, therefore maybe we are learning faster this way?
- tialaramex 7y ago
  > You made a mistake, there were consequences - but once that's over, you ought to be good as new. The consequences for being found guilty of a crime are more nuanced than this suggests, although not so much in the US which is very focused on vengeance. Let's take an example a sentencing example I sat in on: The man had forged paperwork purportedly showing he'd paid a bunch of money for supplies, because he had already written a fraudulent claim for a large tax refund for his business, and the tax office wrote back asking for evidence of this expenditure. That was his last chance to say "Oops, that was er... a mistake" and maybe get a fine, once he decided "I'll just forge the paperwork" he was doomed to go to prison. Item 1 on the court's agenda was to tell Companies House that the guilty man must not direct any companies. Never (unless a successful application is made to reverse this, which is unlikely) can this man serve as director or secretary of any type of company again. In his family business this means a son will now run the company - why? Because the freedom to direct a company is not essential and we evidently can't trust this guy to do so because he purposefully lied to the tax authorities. He doesn't need to "earn" that back, let somebody trustworthy do it instead. The guy also got some months of prison time, after the court had reassured itself that this would not leave any dependants destitute -- no point sending one guy to prison only to have his kids turn to crime to get food right? But the fervent hope of the court is that this results in him being _reformed_ and no longer breaking the law. We can also disqualify people who commit electoral fraud from participating in elections. Oh two government employees conspired to stuff a ballot for a $500 pay off? They're not just going to prison for a little while, they will also have a lifetime ban on standing as candidate in any election and from participating in any way, including as an ordinary voter. No more democracy for you motherfucker. As to "eternal" punishment, in countries that don't have the Death Penalty (all of Europe for example) what else should we do with unrepentant murderers? Anders Breivik for example still expresses the belief that murdering a bunch of young volunteers was the right thing to do. We obviously can't be like "OK Anders, you've served your time, don't kill anybody else" because that's exactly what he'll do. So he will most likely spend the rest of his life in a cell - periodically psychologists will assess him, say nope he's still dangerous, and he'll stay behind bars.
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    An alternative way to think of this is you're not punishing the former crime, but punishing anticipated future intent. It's down to the candidate for release to decide whether to change. Of course in some circumstances, maybe paedophilia, the candidate may not be able to change the desire to commit further crimes.
bufferoverflow 7y ago
Would you let a pedophile who served his time babysit your children?
- colejohnson66 7y ago
  False equivalence. No, but I’d let someone convicted of a robbery 20 years ago and nothing since serve me at a fast food restaurant since they’ve served their debt to society.
  - RaceWon 7y ago
    > False equivalence. No, but I’d let someone convicted of a robbery 20 years ago and nothing since serve me at a fast food This appears as a perfect false equivalence imo. Would you also let someone who was convicted of poisoning people serve you fast food? Here's some [0] stats about repeat offeders [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recidivism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recidivism
    - colejohnson66 7y ago
      No I wouldn’t, but some would. I should’ve mentioned that where they’re allowed to work should be dependent on what their crime was. A robber can’t work at a bank, etc.
      - RaceWon 7y ago
        > No I wouldn’t, but some would. I should’ve mentioned that where they’re allowed to work should be dependent on what their crime was. A robber can’t work at a bank, etc. However; a robber can serve as a jurist? I don't understand your logic; if it was you who were on trial, wouldn't you hope that the jury of your peers had a higher degree of ethics than a gal who robbed a bank? I know I would.
        colejohnson66 7y ago
        The logic is: they have served their debt to society, let them be free. Don’t continually punish them even after they’re out. If you want to punish them more, keep them in prison longer.
tomohawk 7y ago
If you did the deed, people should be able to know and make their own decisions. It's part of your history. Serving some time in a facility is beside the point.

> If you served your time, you served your time. Seriously, so much this. The thing should be stateless. You made a mistake, there were consequences - but once that's over, you ought to be good as new. Eternal punishment only ought to have a place in dumb mythology.

sokoloff 7y ago
Though I see that point, I think there's a counterpoint which is, "We can choose to release felons at the earliest moment when they no longer represent a serious threat to a peaceable society" but that by releasing them at that earlier moment, we give them many freedoms but don't trust them with certain things we trust other citizens with (gun ownership, voting, jury duty, working with children, commercial trucking/aviation, serving as a military officer, whatever...) I can imagine many cases where I'd be comfortable with someone being out of prison but not with owning a gun after let's say N years for an armed robbery conviction. In fact, I might not be comfortable with them legally owning a gun ever again. If we demand that the system be totally stateless and that we not release a prisoner until we're comfortable giving them all the possible rights, it seems sensible to argue the penalty for armed robbery should be life (which is, of course, ridiculous).
- chx 7y ago
  Nah, it should come with thos specific things attached to their release but voting and jury duty ? Why not? There are any number white collar crimes where everything you listed wouldn't be a problem. Seriously, someone embezzles a few grand you don't want them to drive a truck??
- ryeights 7y ago
  Isn't that what supervised release should be for? We monitor them in the general population for a short period (a few years) to determine if they're still dangerous. If not, restore their rights. I don't think anyone who goes to prison for 10 years and is observed on perfect behavior for another 3-4 is going to suddenly become dangerous again when their right to buy a gun is restored. These are pretty large timescales we're talking about.
- crazygringo 7y ago
  The thing is, most of the things you've listed already has certain standards (though some need to be tightened). If you have any kind of likely violent history or mental illness, you shouldn't get a gun period, regardless of whether you were arrested and convicted or not. If you can't pass a commercial driving test or ever showed up drunk to the job, you shouldn't get a license. You can't vote until you're 18. And so on. So I think the right way to frame this isn't "felons won't get back X rights" but rather "nobody gets X right who has relevant evidence they can't handle it responsibly". Except for voting, which is such a fundamental right it arguably shouldn't be denied to anyone unless they're below a certain age or mentally incompetent.
faeyanpiraat 7y ago
We learn from our mistakes. If the consequences are too great, it makes people not want to make mistakes, therefore getting stuck. If consequences are too small, people do not learn to think about "what could go wrong", and do stupid things over and over again. In this day and age where everything gets recorded and shared, I tend to be more cautious. However the smaller amount of mistakes gets shared to more people to learn from, therefore maybe we are learning faster this way?
tialaramex 7y ago
> You made a mistake, there were consequences - but once that's over, you ought to be good as new. The consequences for being found guilty of a crime are more nuanced than this suggests, although not so much in the US which is very focused on vengeance. Let's take an example a sentencing example I sat in on: The man had forged paperwork purportedly showing he'd paid a bunch of money for supplies, because he had already written a fraudulent claim for a large tax refund for his business, and the tax office wrote back asking for evidence of this expenditure. That was his last chance to say "Oops, that was er... a mistake" and maybe get a fine, once he decided "I'll just forge the paperwork" he was doomed to go to prison. Item 1 on the court's agenda was to tell Companies House that the guilty man must not direct any companies. Never (unless a successful application is made to reverse this, which is unlikely) can this man serve as director or secretary of any type of company again. In his family business this means a son will now run the company - why? Because the freedom to direct a company is not essential and we evidently can't trust this guy to do so because he purposefully lied to the tax authorities. He doesn't need to "earn" that back, let somebody trustworthy do it instead. The guy also got some months of prison time, after the court had reassured itself that this would not leave any dependants destitute -- no point sending one guy to prison only to have his kids turn to crime to get food right? But the fervent hope of the court is that this results in him being _reformed_ and no longer breaking the law. We can also disqualify people who commit electoral fraud from participating in elections. Oh two government employees conspired to stuff a ballot for a $500 pay off? They're not just going to prison for a little while, they will also have a lifetime ban on standing as candidate in any election and from participating in any way, including as an ordinary voter. No more democracy for you motherfucker. As to "eternal" punishment, in countries that don't have the Death Penalty (all of Europe for example) what else should we do with unrepentant murderers? Anders Breivik for example still expresses the belief that murdering a bunch of young volunteers was the right thing to do. We obviously can't be like "OK Anders, you've served your time, don't kill anybody else" because that's exactly what he'll do. So he will most likely spend the rest of his life in a cell - periodically psychologists will assess him, say nope he's still dangerous, and he'll stay behind bars.
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  An alternative way to think of this is you're not punishing the former crime, but punishing anticipated future intent. It's down to the candidate for release to decide whether to change. Of course in some circumstances, maybe paedophilia, the candidate may not be able to change the desire to commit further crimes.

bufferoverflow 7y ago

Would you let a pedophile who served his time babysit your children?

colejohnson66 7y ago
False equivalence. No, but I’d let someone convicted of a robbery 20 years ago and nothing since serve me at a fast food restaurant since they’ve served their debt to society.
- RaceWon 7y ago
  > False equivalence. No, but I’d let someone convicted of a robbery 20 years ago and nothing since serve me at a fast food This appears as a perfect false equivalence imo. Would you also let someone who was convicted of poisoning people serve you fast food? Here's some [0] stats about repeat offeders [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recidivism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recidivism
  - colejohnson66 7y ago
    No I wouldn’t, but some would. I should’ve mentioned that where they’re allowed to work should be dependent on what their crime was. A robber can’t work at a bank, etc.
    - RaceWon 7y ago
      > No I wouldn’t, but some would. I should’ve mentioned that where they’re allowed to work should be dependent on what their crime was. A robber can’t work at a bank, etc. However; a robber can serve as a jurist? I don't understand your logic; if it was you who were on trial, wouldn't you hope that the jury of your peers had a higher degree of ethics than a gal who robbed a bank? I know I would.
      - colejohnson66 7y ago
        The logic is: they have served their debt to society, let them be free. Don’t continually punish them even after they’re out. If you want to punish them more, keep them in prison longer.

tomohawk 7y ago

If you did the deed, people should be able to know and make their own decisions. It's part of your history. Serving some time in a facility is beside the point.