8 ms·

There are a lot of people saying they're in favor of this type of thing. And for non-violent offenses I'd probably also be on board. But this person committed

There are a lot of people saying they're in favor of this type of thing. And for non-violent offenses I'd probably also be on board. But this person committed a "serious, violent crime" that sent them to prison for 13 years. Are you comfortable sitting next to someone who is capable of a "serious, violent crime"? Are there certain crimes that cross the line for you? Would you expect your employer to inform you of their record? Edit: Just want to remind people, 13 years could very well mean that they murdered someone. Context around the charge is key, and no one seems to be acknowledging that.

clevergadget 6y ago
If you think the people around you haven't done terrible things over the last 13 years they haven't been caught for I've got some bad news for you about humanity
- thelean12 6y ago
  13 years for a "serious, violent crime" could very well be referring to second degree murder in many states. No, I don't think my coworkers or friends have committed second degree murder. Context is of course key, but a blanket statement of "hiring someone who spent 13 years in prison for a serious, violent crime is a good thing" seems wild to me, which is the vibe on this thread.
  - Apocryphon 6y ago
    So it becomes either a law enforcement issue- does our system properly rehabilitate offenders? or a psychological issue- is someone who commits a violent crime inevitably going to repeat it?- or maybe a moral philosophy question- are people inherently evil and dangerous? Because you’re asking a safety/comfort question, but it’s dependent on the answers to the above.
    - thelean12 6y ago
      I think those questions are distracting to my very simple point: I don't want to work with a person who has murdered someone without a damn good reason (self-defense). I truly can't believe that HN thinks this is some offensive opinion.
      - Apocryphon 6y ago
        They're not distracting, because those underlying questions shape your reaction. Murder is considered one of the worst offenses in any society. But this person was already punished by society, and seen fit by the law to return to it. So what could explain your continue (and very understandable) discomfort? Is it because you believe that the penal system did not properly make this person safe to return to society? Is it because that once someone has committed such a terrible crime that they are inevitably going to be able to do so again, because they have the psychological profile to do it? Such a person is more likely to slip into violence? Finally, does it mean that such a person is forever marked as fundamentally dangerous and unworthy of reintegration? After the visceral recoil that is an instinct that preserves safety, you have to examine why you are so opposed to working with someone who has committed such a crime. Because we claim to live in a free society that gives people the liberty to pull themselves up from the bootstraps no matter their circumstances, yet discriminates against those who have done the time. Because we claim this society is built upon Christian and post-Christian Enlightenment principles, yet we reject the power of redemption and modern methods of recovery. It's fine to have such an opinion, but you have to justify it, because it's an example of how our society operates.
        thelean12 6y ago
        > Is it because you believe that the penal system did not properly make this person safe to return to society? I absolutely don't believe the penal system makes people safe after they serve their time. > Is it because that once someone has committed such a terrible crime that they are inevitably going to be able to do so again, because they have the psychological profile to do it? If a person killed someone without a damn good reason, why would I think they wouldn't do it again? > Finally, does it mean that such a person is forever marked as fundamentally dangerous and unworthy of reintegration? Correct. And maybe I'm caught up on the murder aspect. Murder isn't a small little crime. It takes a certain type of person to be able to intentionally murder someone. And maybe most of this thread can be summarized by: I think if you intentionally murder someone without a damn good reason you should spend life in prison. Right now, second degree murder can include that and often is not life in prison.
- yroc92 6y ago
  So by that logic, you’d be as comfortable being entirely surrounded by former violent criminals at your work as you would be seated exclusively by citizens with spotless records?
UncleOxidant 6y ago
> Are you comfortable sitting next to someone who is capable of a "serious, violent crime"? I'd guess pretty much everyone you sit next to currently is capable of committing a serious, violent crime under the right (wrong) circumstances.
- sethammons 6y ago
  I agree. Given some circumstance or set of them, the overwhelming vast majority of people are capable of extreme violence. What is scary is those who enjoy violence and causing harm. My grandma worked in the next cube over from a guy for years. "Nicest guy ever." He spent his weekends cutting people into parts and mailing the the parts around.
  - learc83 6y ago
    > Given some circumstance or set of them, the overwhelming vast majority of people are capable of extreme violence. If you consider circumstances where society would generally consider violence justified then maybe. Historically even in combat only a small percentage of people would intentionally shoot to kill.
ansible 6y ago
I am quite capable of "serious, violent crime". Have I ever done so? No. I've had a relatively easy life, all things considered. I've never been truly desperate. I've never wondered where my next meal will come from. I never made any major mistakes, like messing around with drugs or alcohol. I'm not planning on committing any violent crimes, ever. But I could. You should beware.
- themomaster 6y ago
  ^This is why I use Puppet.
jasonjayr 6y ago
Did they complete a sentence that was decided to be appropriate for the crime they committed? Then I don't mind at all. They can't change their past, but they can control their future. If they are still dangerous after serving their time, then they should be held in prison longer.
- Meph504 6y ago
  The problem with this line of thinking is that some how people think that serving time in prison does anything to make someone less likely to commit crime. Our prison system doesn't positively reform people, in fact it almost certainly will make things worse. If you make someone spend 13 years in a prison, whose social rules are defined by violent criminals the persons cultural norms change. The person doesn't leave prison ready to productively reenter society, they leave prison indoctrinated into prison culture. If you made a programming error at work, and instead of someone spending time to teach you how you ended up making that mistake, and working to give you the knowledge and tools to not make it again. But instead made you stand in a corner for a fixed duration of time, it would be illogical to assume you would be a better programmer after standing in the corner, its the same with the US prison system.
  - jasonjayr 6y ago
    I don't disagree with you, but I cannot fault the individual for the failings of the system. I also support efforts to reform and improve the prison system to focus on reform and improvement, rather than punishment. Society decides that their crimes earns them X years of punishment. After they've done their X years, there should be no need to punish them more. I sympathize with the victims of the convict's crimes which depending on the crime, no value of X would suffice. But we are all human, and sometimes showing a shred of compassion is what motivates the real reform.
vincentmarle 6y ago
So what would be a fitting punishment if sitting for 13 years in prison is not enough, when will she be done with paying her debt to society?
- heyoni 6y ago
  I think the real issue is that we don’t rehabilitate, so under our current system of justice, I would argue that it’s normal for someone to feel something in proximity of such a convict. The reason being, they were probably treated like an animal for over a decade. Give them hope and some courses to get their shit together and suddenly I’m less worried about the whole situation.
  - moate 6y ago
    So a whole lot of "not in my neighborhood". It has to start somewhere. Like...giving them a good paying job in a thriving industry. You're contradicting yourself and you only wrote 3 sentences. You've being shown the proof of how we can rehabilitate and then going "but IDK, doesn't seem good enough..."
    - heyoni 6y ago
      I’m not being clear. I am sympathizing with OP. Because we know recidivism is higher when you don’t rehabilitate, sitting next to a violate offender carries some risk. However, when you do rehabilitate, even violent offenders can lead mostly normal lives as is the case here. I agree, it has to start somewhere, but because our current system acts as a self fulfilling prophecy, it’s going to be very hard to enact change, though I’m all for it.
downandout 6y ago
People change, especially after being punished for the mistake they made for 13 years. Chances are she would be less likely to engage in violence than the people you currently sit next to, because she has a personal understanding of the harsh punishment it would involve. Edit: The downvotes that this comment is currently receiving actually illustrate the problems outlined in this thread. If you disagree with the idea that people can change, you will never hire someone with a criminal record, and you will perpetuate the problem. The unemployment rate among felons in the US less than 2 years after release is 31.6% [1]. The unemployment rate at the peak of the Great Depression was 24.9% [2]. It is always the Great Depression for the felon population, because of the incorrect belief that people can’t change. Among any population with unemployment this high, there will be a drastically higher crime rate. [1] https://www.esrcheck.com/wordpress/2018/07/16/report-finds-one-four-formerly-incarcerated-ex-offenders-unemployed/ https://www.esrcheck.com/wordpress/2018/07/16/report-finds-o... [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2020/05/19/3-reasons-unemployment-is-already-at-great-depression-levels/#415dc4f9413f https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2020/05/19/3-reasons...
- Meph504 6y ago
  Recidivism statistics would disagree with this statement, nearly have of all violent offenders when released will commit another violent crime. https://www.michigan.gov/documents/corrections/Pew_Report_State_of_Recidivism_350337_7.pdf https://www.michigan.gov/documents/corrections/Pew_Report_St...
  - downandout 6y ago
    First, you did not point out the specific page where it says that “nearly all” violent offenders will commit another violent crime. This is a 42 page report. Second, I could not find any statistic in that report that comes even remotely close to describing that “most” violent offenders will commit another violent crime. Some states have recidivism rates approaching 50% (for ALL offenders, violent and nonviolent) but those numbers include technical parole violations and new non-violent crime. Please indicate the page where the data supports your statement.
codingdave 6y ago
Are you comfortable being judged on the worst thing you've ever done in your life? Sure, a violent crime is worse than some bone-headed mistake made at a college party, or whatever your worst moment is. But how much have you grown up since then? Would you do it again? Or are you older and wiser? Well, they are probably older and wiser, too.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- dx87 6y ago
  I'd be willing to be that the worst thing most people have done isn't murder or manslaughter. You don't have to be "older and wiser" to know that you aren't supposed to murder people.
  - anemoiac 6y ago
    > *You don't have to be "older and wiser" to know that you aren't supposed to murder people. I mean, I'm not sure how relevant "knowing" anything is, but age is an incredibly strong predictor of criminality. Gender is another one. The majority of crime, and the overwhelming majority violent crime, is committed by young men. One factor that likely contributes to this reliable statistical phenomenon is that the prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain responsible for decision-making, self-control, emotional self-regulation, and other aspects of executive function, doesn't fully develop until around 25 years of age. For one example of how executive function relates to criminal behavior, look into the connection between ADHD (a disorder linked to deficiencies in the prefrontal cortex) and crime. I agree that most people haven't killed anyone, but I also don't think that there's any reason for any of us to assume that 'we' would have behaved any differently when placed in the circumstances of those who have.
- Meph504 6y ago
  Put yourself in a companies position, if you hire someone who had a violent past, and they commit a violent crime while at work, or to a coworker or client off the clock, the company will be held liable, no two ways about it, it will come back on the company. Additionally, there are countless contracts that require you specifically not have anyone with criminal convictions, and require full background checks to be awarded the contracts, even more so if it was a violent felony. Those are two very serious liabilities to a company, I understand that people deserve a second chance, but do you put your company at risk to give it to them?
content_sesh 6y ago
If you agree to the conceit that a system of justice is about rehabilitation, then someone needs to sit next to, work next to, live next to a person who committed a "serious, violent crime" that sent them to prison for 13 years.
- bengale 6y ago
  An argument could be made that the justice system should be about rehabilitation but in its current state can't be expected to provide that. I'm not sure I'd make it, but I could see that perspective.
cjalmeida 6y ago
Most of us here had an easy life. But for some born on the wrong neighborhood, gang violence and drug trafficking is part of daily life. A couple of bad decisions made as a teen and you’ll see yourself involved in violent events at a young age.
shawndrost 6y ago
I was a co-creator of The Last Mile's coding program, and taught many classes in San Quentin prison. The students were generally there for a decade plus, for violent crimes. I would sit next to any of them for any length of time. They pose zero threat to anyone. This is for two reasons: 1. Generally, violent crimes are done by very young and poor people. By the time they get out of prison, they aren't very young any more. If they have a good job, they aren't poor either. 2. If a prison lets someone in an educational program, you know the system considers them safe. The system buckets inmates; behavioral offenses are harshly penalized; everyone in a classroom is an angel, and they won't stop being an angel on the outside.
Mvandenbergh 6y ago
>"But this person committed a "serious, violent crime" that sent them to prison for 13 years. Are you comfortable sitting next to someone who is capable of a "serious, violent crime"? Are there certain crimes that cross the line for you? Would you expect your employer to inform you of their record?" I would not feel comfortable sitting next to someone who was substantially more capable of committing a serious, violent crime (which might indeed have been murder if she did 13 years) than an average member of the population and I would expect an employer to take my welfare and safety into account. The question is whether someone who did do that and went to prison for it is so much more likely to commit such a crime than average. I don't know the answer to that but I don't think it's outrageous to think the answer is "no".
- myself248 6y ago
  Some friends and I just happened to watch Trading Places (1983, Eddie Murphy, Dan Aykroyd) last night, and it deals directly with this question, and got us talking about it. I work with a guy who did some time, but I'm not sure what for. Probably drug-related, if I had to guess, but I've never asked. He's a model employee, as long as you include a snarky wit in your model. And I feel perfectly comfortable around him. There are people around who DO creep me out, but that's not even slightly correlated, in my little sample, with the people who've been to prison.
aero142 6y ago
Honestly, I'm more worried about what 13 years in prison did to the person than the original crime. We don't know what the original crime was so it is hard to say in this case. Perhaps they have some deep, anti-social personality flaw and I wouldn't want to sit next to them. I would be concerned about sitting next to an innocent person who spent 13 years in prison, though. For me, that is a root issue. How many criminals are flawed people vs people who made a mistake or reacted badly to an isolated situation or just didn't have the skills or maturity to handle a difficult situation. I'm reminded of a quote I heard once. "Crime is committed by the young but prison is full of old men." People aren't the same their whole lives.
- reader_mode 6y ago
  > Perhaps they have some deep, anti-social personality flaw Like a lot of people in IT ? Not necessarily anti-social but you need to be asocial to some degree to want to spend 8+ hours in front of a screen talking to a computer. It's usually easy to pick out programmers from general population.
  - aero142 6y ago
    You replace my word, "anti-social" with your word, "asocial" which doesn't mean the same thing. Anti-social behavior is a clinical diagnosis. I mean to describe people who react with a lot of violence or anger at situations that might happen at an office. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-social_behaviour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-social_behaviour
- notacoward 6y ago
  > I'm more worried about what 13 years in prison did to the person than the original crime. 100% this. Going to prison is a traumatic experience, and would be even in a country that had a real commitment to safe rehabilitation. In the US, it's all too often multiple traumatic experiences one after the other. Nonetheless, I think former felons absolutely deserve every chance to reintegrate. I just worry about their psychological safety when things get tense and others get combative. This is just one more reason why more people in tech need to grow the hell up and treat people around them with basic respect.
meheleventyone 6y ago
Not to worry you unduly but how many people are you already sitting next to capable of "serious, violent crime"?
abdullahkhalids 6y ago
Let's break this down. Someone commits murder, and gets sent to prison for 13 years. They are out now. How do we deal with them? 1. If everyone says that they will no longer want to work with such a person, especially rich people, who can enforce that want, that person will end up working with poor people. The rich people are making a classist argument. 2. Worse, if that person, cannot even get bad jobs, they will be forced to commit more crimes in order to live. Now, the first crime might have been because they were a bad person, but the second crime is on the people who refuse to work with them. 3. What are other possibilities? You get out of this conundrum by making prison about rehabilitation. Ensuring that people who come out are changed people who are not inclined to commit more crimes. Then you treat them like normal people. And hopefully, that world, while not perfect, will be better than this world.
- devthrowawy 6y ago
  Sure, just not for murders. They can work outside.
- thelean12 6y ago
  After reading everyone's responses and responding myself, I've realized that I'm really caught up on the murder aspect. I think my revised opinion is that if you intentionally murder someone without a damn good reason, you should spend life in prison. This can include second degree murder, which is often not life in prison in the US (And also happens to line up with the OP scenario).
  - abdullahkhalids 6y ago
    Happy that someone changed their mind. You asked a very good question. I don't think there are any easy answers to it. Crime hurts people and creates lots of strong emotions, so our instincts on what is best for society regarding crime are not very reliable. A lot of conversation needs to happen on this, and we need to constantly reevaluate our positions.
  - tomjen3 6y ago
    Suppose the person didn't commit murder, but had intentionally and violently raped a ten year old? We can't make the punishment the same, or he would just murder her, yet I don't think such a person should every be let out.
moate 6y ago
I spent most of my career working in restaurants. We had a server who literally lit someone on fire. I had drug addicts who didn't show up for work, causing a panicked chain reaction among all the other people from their halfway house. Half the cooks were violating some sort of immigration or labor law. It's fine. Most criminals are fine most the time. What's your alternative? If you go to jail it's just for life because creampuffs can't handle sitting near someone who did something bad? Why is society comfortable with white colar criminals working when they cause more damage (both to the companies and to society as a whole)?
sethammons 6y ago
Personal story, fwiw. Wheelchair Tom was a neighbor growing up. Nice guy. Little quirky, but nice. Tom gave out quarters for Halloween, and paid small amounts to neighborhood kids to help out around his property. Why was Tom in a wheelchair? Tom killed his wife years earlier in a crime of passion after catching her with another man in their bed. He grabbed a gun, shot both people. She died. Tom walked out and the lover came behind him and shot him in the back. Tom went to prison for a very violent crime. I raked leafs for him as a kid, and so did my kids. I wouldn't have had second thoughts of asking him to keep an eye on the kids for a while if needed. Tom was a member of our community who had a very violent past that all the adults knew about and were accepting of. Alternatively, there are folks who have sterling records that I would not let my kids do chores for.
manuelabeledo 6y ago
Anyone could be a potential murderer. I had a coworker who committed murder-suicide, and I nobody saw it coming. In the same vein, anyone could be rehabilitated.
- lostlogin 6y ago
  > anyone could be rehabilitated Many systems disagree with this and have sentencing systems which allow a true life sentence. Sometimes this is due to a mental health aspect.
  - manuelabeledo 6y ago
    Putting an ill person in jail for a lifetime sounds extremely wrong.
    - lostlogin 6y ago
      I agree. But letting someone who is dangerous live free in the community isn’t ideal either. The line is thin and blurry and has a ton of examples of being managed poorly.
Igelau 6y ago
We're all capable of it. Humans are hairless apes with neither claws nor tusks who spend more time in helpless, bawling infancy than any other animal. Yet somehow we survived among literal monsters in prehistory. If we are not prey...? Have you never been violent, not even once? With anyone? Were you old enough to be tried as an adult under the right circumstances? Even the slightest physical conflict is only a dice roll away from turning into a horrific accident that does lasting damage. And what is your alternative? Keep offenders in the system forever? Do we believe in the "Correction" of "Correctional Facilities" or not? Forgiveness? Rehabilitation? Redemption? At some point you have to stop passing the buck to someone else to let people back into society, otherwise you're just being a predestinationalist by your deeds. > Would you expect your employer to inform you of their record? No, I would find that offensive. Similarly I wouldn't want to know about their military record, substance habits, childhood, credit score, or the last mean thing their spouse said to them. That's all personal.
stickfigure 6y ago
> Are you comfortable sitting next to someone who is capable of a "serious, violent crime"? As long as it wasn't "murdered coworker over TABS vs SPACES argument". Although, I guess it would depend on their stance?
toomanybeersies 6y ago
I'm capable of committing a "serious, violent crime", so are you, so are any of your colleagues. Yet I never have, and I assume neither you nor your colleagues have either (based on probability).
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
mindcrime 6y ago
But this person committed a "serious, violent crime" that sent them to prison for 13 years. Are you comfortable sitting next to someone who is capable of a "serious, violent crime"? Are there certain crimes that cross the line for you? Would you expect your employer to inform you of their record? TBH, my answer to that is "I don't know." It has never come up, so I haven't given it a lot of thought. But it is a legitimate question, IMO, and I don't see why you're being downvoted for simply raising the question. I gave you an upvote to help offset that, FWIW.
Dahoon 6y ago
>someone who is capable of a "serious, violent crime" That would be 100% of people who isn't either a baby or has somehow no way to move arms and legs enough to wield a knife, gun, poison, etc. It is not a question of capability but the situations you are put in and live through. Otherwise you are saying criminality is in the genes.
ChrisMarshallNY 6y ago
> Are you comfortable sitting next to someone who is capable of a "serious, violent crime"? I do it several times a week (pre-covid, now it's just a couple).

clevergadget 6y ago

If you think the people around you haven't done terrible things over the last 13 years they haven't been caught for I've got some bad news for you about humanity

thelean12 6y ago
13 years for a "serious, violent crime" could very well be referring to second degree murder in many states. No, I don't think my coworkers or friends have committed second degree murder. Context is of course key, but a blanket statement of "hiring someone who spent 13 years in prison for a serious, violent crime is a good thing" seems wild to me, which is the vibe on this thread.
- Apocryphon 6y ago
  So it becomes either a law enforcement issue- does our system properly rehabilitate offenders? or a psychological issue- is someone who commits a violent crime inevitably going to repeat it?- or maybe a moral philosophy question- are people inherently evil and dangerous? Because you’re asking a safety/comfort question, but it’s dependent on the answers to the above.
  - thelean12 6y ago
    I think those questions are distracting to my very simple point: I don't want to work with a person who has murdered someone without a damn good reason (self-defense). I truly can't believe that HN thinks this is some offensive opinion.
    - Apocryphon 6y ago
      They're not distracting, because those underlying questions shape your reaction. Murder is considered one of the worst offenses in any society. But this person was already punished by society, and seen fit by the law to return to it. So what could explain your continue (and very understandable) discomfort? Is it because you believe that the penal system did not properly make this person safe to return to society? Is it because that once someone has committed such a terrible crime that they are inevitably going to be able to do so again, because they have the psychological profile to do it? Such a person is more likely to slip into violence? Finally, does it mean that such a person is forever marked as fundamentally dangerous and unworthy of reintegration? After the visceral recoil that is an instinct that preserves safety, you have to examine why you are so opposed to working with someone who has committed such a crime. Because we claim to live in a free society that gives people the liberty to pull themselves up from the bootstraps no matter their circumstances, yet discriminates against those who have done the time. Because we claim this society is built upon Christian and post-Christian Enlightenment principles, yet we reject the power of redemption and modern methods of recovery. It's fine to have such an opinion, but you have to justify it, because it's an example of how our society operates.
      - thelean12 6y ago
        > Is it because you believe that the penal system did not properly make this person safe to return to society? I absolutely don't believe the penal system makes people safe after they serve their time. > Is it because that once someone has committed such a terrible crime that they are inevitably going to be able to do so again, because they have the psychological profile to do it? If a person killed someone without a damn good reason, why would I think they wouldn't do it again? > Finally, does it mean that such a person is forever marked as fundamentally dangerous and unworthy of reintegration? Correct. And maybe I'm caught up on the murder aspect. Murder isn't a small little crime. It takes a certain type of person to be able to intentionally murder someone. And maybe most of this thread can be summarized by: I think if you intentionally murder someone without a damn good reason you should spend life in prison. Right now, second degree murder can include that and often is not life in prison.
yroc92 6y ago
So by that logic, you’d be as comfortable being entirely surrounded by former violent criminals at your work as you would be seated exclusively by citizens with spotless records?

UncleOxidant 6y ago

> Are you comfortable sitting next to someone who is capable of a "serious, violent crime"? I'd guess pretty much everyone you sit next to currently is capable of committing a serious, violent crime under the right (wrong) circumstances.

sethammons 6y ago
I agree. Given some circumstance or set of them, the overwhelming vast majority of people are capable of extreme violence. What is scary is those who enjoy violence and causing harm. My grandma worked in the next cube over from a guy for years. "Nicest guy ever." He spent his weekends cutting people into parts and mailing the the parts around.
- learc83 6y ago
  > Given some circumstance or set of them, the overwhelming vast majority of people are capable of extreme violence. If you consider circumstances where society would generally consider violence justified then maybe. Historically even in combat only a small percentage of people would intentionally shoot to kill.

ansible 6y ago

I am quite capable of "serious, violent crime". Have I ever done so? No. I've had a relatively easy life, all things considered. I've never been truly desperate. I've never wondered where my next meal will come from. I never made any major mistakes, like messing around with drugs or alcohol. I'm not planning on committing any violent crimes, ever. But I could. You should beware.

themomaster 6y ago
^This is why I use Puppet.

jasonjayr 6y ago

Did they complete a sentence that was decided to be appropriate for the crime they committed? Then I don't mind at all. They can't change their past, but they can control their future. If they are still dangerous after serving their time, then they should be held in prison longer.

Meph504 6y ago
The problem with this line of thinking is that some how people think that serving time in prison does anything to make someone less likely to commit crime. Our prison system doesn't positively reform people, in fact it almost certainly will make things worse. If you make someone spend 13 years in a prison, whose social rules are defined by violent criminals the persons cultural norms change. The person doesn't leave prison ready to productively reenter society, they leave prison indoctrinated into prison culture. If you made a programming error at work, and instead of someone spending time to teach you how you ended up making that mistake, and working to give you the knowledge and tools to not make it again. But instead made you stand in a corner for a fixed duration of time, it would be illogical to assume you would be a better programmer after standing in the corner, its the same with the US prison system.
- jasonjayr 6y ago
  I don't disagree with you, but I cannot fault the individual for the failings of the system. I also support efforts to reform and improve the prison system to focus on reform and improvement, rather than punishment. Society decides that their crimes earns them X years of punishment. After they've done their X years, there should be no need to punish them more. I sympathize with the victims of the convict's crimes which depending on the crime, no value of X would suffice. But we are all human, and sometimes showing a shred of compassion is what motivates the real reform.

vincentmarle 6y ago

So what would be a fitting punishment if sitting for 13 years in prison is not enough, when will she be done with paying her debt to society?

heyoni 6y ago
I think the real issue is that we don’t rehabilitate, so under our current system of justice, I would argue that it’s normal for someone to feel something in proximity of such a convict. The reason being, they were probably treated like an animal for over a decade. Give them hope and some courses to get their shit together and suddenly I’m less worried about the whole situation.
- moate 6y ago
  So a whole lot of "not in my neighborhood". It has to start somewhere. Like...giving them a good paying job in a thriving industry. You're contradicting yourself and you only wrote 3 sentences. You've being shown the proof of how we can rehabilitate and then going "but IDK, doesn't seem good enough..."
  - heyoni 6y ago
    I’m not being clear. I am sympathizing with OP. Because we know recidivism is higher when you don’t rehabilitate, sitting next to a violate offender carries some risk. However, when you do rehabilitate, even violent offenders can lead mostly normal lives as is the case here. I agree, it has to start somewhere, but because our current system acts as a self fulfilling prophecy, it’s going to be very hard to enact change, though I’m all for it.

downandout 6y ago

People change, especially after being punished for the mistake they made for 13 years. Chances are she would be less likely to engage in violence than the people you currently sit next to, because she has a personal understanding of the harsh punishment it would involve. Edit: The downvotes that this comment is currently receiving actually illustrate the problems outlined in this thread. If you disagree with the idea that people can change, you will never hire someone with a criminal record, and you will perpetuate the problem. The unemployment rate among felons in the US less than 2 years after release is 31.6% [1]. The unemployment rate at the peak of the Great Depression was 24.9% [2]. It is always the Great Depression for the felon population, because of the incorrect belief that people can’t change. Among any population with unemployment this high, there will be a drastically higher crime rate. [1] https://www.esrcheck.com/wordpress/2018/07/16/report-finds-one-four-formerly-incarcerated-ex-offenders-unemployed/ https://www.esrcheck.com/wordpress/2018/07/16/report-finds-o... [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2020/05/19/3-reasons-unemployment-is-already-at-great-depression-levels/#415dc4f9413f https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2020/05/19/3-reasons...

Meph504 6y ago
Recidivism statistics would disagree with this statement, nearly have of all violent offenders when released will commit another violent crime. https://www.michigan.gov/documents/corrections/Pew_Report_State_of_Recidivism_350337_7.pdf https://www.michigan.gov/documents/corrections/Pew_Report_St...
- downandout 6y ago
  First, you did not point out the specific page where it says that “nearly all” violent offenders will commit another violent crime. This is a 42 page report. Second, I could not find any statistic in that report that comes even remotely close to describing that “most” violent offenders will commit another violent crime. Some states have recidivism rates approaching 50% (for ALL offenders, violent and nonviolent) but those numbers include technical parole violations and new non-violent crime. Please indicate the page where the data supports your statement.

codingdave 6y ago

Are you comfortable being judged on the worst thing you've ever done in your life? Sure, a violent crime is worse than some bone-headed mistake made at a college party, or whatever your worst moment is. But how much have you grown up since then? Would you do it again? Or are you older and wiser? Well, they are probably older and wiser, too.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dx87 6y ago
I'd be willing to be that the worst thing most people have done isn't murder or manslaughter. You don't have to be "older and wiser" to know that you aren't supposed to murder people.
- anemoiac 6y ago
  > *You don't have to be "older and wiser" to know that you aren't supposed to murder people. I mean, I'm not sure how relevant "knowing" anything is, but age is an incredibly strong predictor of criminality. Gender is another one. The majority of crime, and the overwhelming majority violent crime, is committed by young men. One factor that likely contributes to this reliable statistical phenomenon is that the prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain responsible for decision-making, self-control, emotional self-regulation, and other aspects of executive function, doesn't fully develop until around 25 years of age. For one example of how executive function relates to criminal behavior, look into the connection between ADHD (a disorder linked to deficiencies in the prefrontal cortex) and crime. I agree that most people haven't killed anyone, but I also don't think that there's any reason for any of us to assume that 'we' would have behaved any differently when placed in the circumstances of those who have.
Meph504 6y ago
Put yourself in a companies position, if you hire someone who had a violent past, and they commit a violent crime while at work, or to a coworker or client off the clock, the company will be held liable, no two ways about it, it will come back on the company. Additionally, there are countless contracts that require you specifically not have anyone with criminal convictions, and require full background checks to be awarded the contracts, even more so if it was a violent felony. Those are two very serious liabilities to a company, I understand that people deserve a second chance, but do you put your company at risk to give it to them?

content_sesh 6y ago

If you agree to the conceit that a system of justice is about rehabilitation, then someone needs to sit next to, work next to, live next to a person who committed a "serious, violent crime" that sent them to prison for 13 years.

bengale 6y ago
An argument could be made that the justice system should be about rehabilitation but in its current state can't be expected to provide that. I'm not sure I'd make it, but I could see that perspective.

cjalmeida 6y ago

Most of us here had an easy life. But for some born on the wrong neighborhood, gang violence and drug trafficking is part of daily life. A couple of bad decisions made as a teen and you’ll see yourself involved in violent events at a young age.

shawndrost 6y ago

I was a co-creator of The Last Mile's coding program, and taught many classes in San Quentin prison. The students were generally there for a decade plus, for violent crimes. I would sit next to any of them for any length of time. They pose zero threat to anyone. This is for two reasons: 1. Generally, violent crimes are done by very young and poor people. By the time they get out of prison, they aren't very young any more. If they have a good job, they aren't poor either. 2. If a prison lets someone in an educational program, you know the system considers them safe. The system buckets inmates; behavioral offenses are harshly penalized; everyone in a classroom is an angel, and they won't stop being an angel on the outside.

Mvandenbergh 6y ago

>"But this person committed a "serious, violent crime" that sent them to prison for 13 years. Are you comfortable sitting next to someone who is capable of a "serious, violent crime"? Are there certain crimes that cross the line for you? Would you expect your employer to inform you of their record?" I would not feel comfortable sitting next to someone who was substantially more capable of committing a serious, violent crime (which might indeed have been murder if she did 13 years) than an average member of the population and I would expect an employer to take my welfare and safety into account. The question is whether someone who did do that and went to prison for it is so much more likely to commit such a crime than average. I don't know the answer to that but I don't think it's outrageous to think the answer is "no".

myself248 6y ago
Some friends and I just happened to watch Trading Places (1983, Eddie Murphy, Dan Aykroyd) last night, and it deals directly with this question, and got us talking about it. I work with a guy who did some time, but I'm not sure what for. Probably drug-related, if I had to guess, but I've never asked. He's a model employee, as long as you include a snarky wit in your model. And I feel perfectly comfortable around him. There are people around who DO creep me out, but that's not even slightly correlated, in my little sample, with the people who've been to prison.

aero142 6y ago

Honestly, I'm more worried about what 13 years in prison did to the person than the original crime. We don't know what the original crime was so it is hard to say in this case. Perhaps they have some deep, anti-social personality flaw and I wouldn't want to sit next to them. I would be concerned about sitting next to an innocent person who spent 13 years in prison, though. For me, that is a root issue. How many criminals are flawed people vs people who made a mistake or reacted badly to an isolated situation or just didn't have the skills or maturity to handle a difficult situation. I'm reminded of a quote I heard once. "Crime is committed by the young but prison is full of old men." People aren't the same their whole lives.

reader_mode 6y ago
> Perhaps they have some deep, anti-social personality flaw Like a lot of people in IT ? Not necessarily anti-social but you need to be asocial to some degree to want to spend 8+ hours in front of a screen talking to a computer. It's usually easy to pick out programmers from general population.
- aero142 6y ago
  You replace my word, "anti-social" with your word, "asocial" which doesn't mean the same thing. Anti-social behavior is a clinical diagnosis. I mean to describe people who react with a lot of violence or anger at situations that might happen at an office. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-social_behaviour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-social_behaviour
notacoward 6y ago
> I'm more worried about what 13 years in prison did to the person than the original crime. 100% this. Going to prison is a traumatic experience, and would be even in a country that had a real commitment to safe rehabilitation. In the US, it's all too often multiple traumatic experiences one after the other. Nonetheless, I think former felons absolutely deserve every chance to reintegrate. I just worry about their psychological safety when things get tense and others get combative. This is just one more reason why more people in tech need to grow the hell up and treat people around them with basic respect.

meheleventyone 6y ago

Not to worry you unduly but how many people are you already sitting next to capable of "serious, violent crime"?

abdullahkhalids 6y ago

Let's break this down. Someone commits murder, and gets sent to prison for 13 years. They are out now. How do we deal with them? 1. If everyone says that they will no longer want to work with such a person, especially rich people, who can enforce that want, that person will end up working with poor people. The rich people are making a classist argument. 2. Worse, if that person, cannot even get bad jobs, they will be forced to commit more crimes in order to live. Now, the first crime might have been because they were a bad person, but the second crime is on the people who refuse to work with them. 3. What are other possibilities? You get out of this conundrum by making prison about rehabilitation. Ensuring that people who come out are changed people who are not inclined to commit more crimes. Then you treat them like normal people. And hopefully, that world, while not perfect, will be better than this world.

devthrowawy 6y ago
Sure, just not for murders. They can work outside.
thelean12 6y ago
After reading everyone's responses and responding myself, I've realized that I'm really caught up on the murder aspect. I think my revised opinion is that if you intentionally murder someone without a damn good reason, you should spend life in prison. This can include second degree murder, which is often not life in prison in the US (And also happens to line up with the OP scenario).
- abdullahkhalids 6y ago
  Happy that someone changed their mind. You asked a very good question. I don't think there are any easy answers to it. Crime hurts people and creates lots of strong emotions, so our instincts on what is best for society regarding crime are not very reliable. A lot of conversation needs to happen on this, and we need to constantly reevaluate our positions.
- tomjen3 6y ago
  Suppose the person didn't commit murder, but had intentionally and violently raped a ten year old? We can't make the punishment the same, or he would just murder her, yet I don't think such a person should every be let out.

moate 6y ago

I spent most of my career working in restaurants. We had a server who literally lit someone on fire. I had drug addicts who didn't show up for work, causing a panicked chain reaction among all the other people from their halfway house. Half the cooks were violating some sort of immigration or labor law. It's fine. Most criminals are fine most the time. What's your alternative? If you go to jail it's just for life because creampuffs can't handle sitting near someone who did something bad? Why is society comfortable with white colar criminals working when they cause more damage (both to the companies and to society as a whole)?

sethammons 6y ago

Personal story, fwiw. Wheelchair Tom was a neighbor growing up. Nice guy. Little quirky, but nice. Tom gave out quarters for Halloween, and paid small amounts to neighborhood kids to help out around his property. Why was Tom in a wheelchair? Tom killed his wife years earlier in a crime of passion after catching her with another man in their bed. He grabbed a gun, shot both people. She died. Tom walked out and the lover came behind him and shot him in the back. Tom went to prison for a very violent crime. I raked leafs for him as a kid, and so did my kids. I wouldn't have had second thoughts of asking him to keep an eye on the kids for a while if needed. Tom was a member of our community who had a very violent past that all the adults knew about and were accepting of. Alternatively, there are folks who have sterling records that I would not let my kids do chores for.

manuelabeledo 6y ago

Anyone could be a potential murderer. I had a coworker who committed murder-suicide, and I nobody saw it coming. In the same vein, anyone could be rehabilitated.

lostlogin 6y ago
> anyone could be rehabilitated Many systems disagree with this and have sentencing systems which allow a true life sentence. Sometimes this is due to a mental health aspect.
- manuelabeledo 6y ago
  Putting an ill person in jail for a lifetime sounds extremely wrong.
  - lostlogin 6y ago
    I agree. But letting someone who is dangerous live free in the community isn’t ideal either. The line is thin and blurry and has a ton of examples of being managed poorly.

Igelau 6y ago

We're all capable of it. Humans are hairless apes with neither claws nor tusks who spend more time in helpless, bawling infancy than any other animal. Yet somehow we survived among literal monsters in prehistory. If we are not prey...? Have you never been violent, not even once? With anyone? Were you old enough to be tried as an adult under the right circumstances? Even the slightest physical conflict is only a dice roll away from turning into a horrific accident that does lasting damage. And what is your alternative? Keep offenders in the system forever? Do we believe in the "Correction" of "Correctional Facilities" or not? Forgiveness? Rehabilitation? Redemption? At some point you have to stop passing the buck to someone else to let people back into society, otherwise you're just being a predestinationalist by your deeds. > Would you expect your employer to inform you of their record? No, I would find that offensive. Similarly I wouldn't want to know about their military record, substance habits, childhood, credit score, or the last mean thing their spouse said to them. That's all personal.

stickfigure 6y ago

> Are you comfortable sitting next to someone who is capable of a "serious, violent crime"? As long as it wasn't "murdered coworker over TABS vs SPACES argument". Although, I guess it would depend on their stance?

toomanybeersies 6y ago

I'm capable of committing a "serious, violent crime", so are you, so are any of your colleagues. Yet I never have, and I assume neither you nor your colleagues have either (based on probability).

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

mindcrime 6y ago

But this person committed a "serious, violent crime" that sent them to prison for 13 years. Are you comfortable sitting next to someone who is capable of a "serious, violent crime"? Are there certain crimes that cross the line for you? Would you expect your employer to inform you of their record? TBH, my answer to that is "I don't know." It has never come up, so I haven't given it a lot of thought. But it is a legitimate question, IMO, and I don't see why you're being downvoted for simply raising the question. I gave you an upvote to help offset that, FWIW.

Dahoon 6y ago

>someone who is capable of a "serious, violent crime" That would be 100% of people who isn't either a baby or has somehow no way to move arms and legs enough to wield a knife, gun, poison, etc. It is not a question of capability but the situations you are put in and live through. Otherwise you are saying criminality is in the genes.

ChrisMarshallNY 6y ago

> Are you comfortable sitting next to someone who is capable of a "serious, violent crime"? I do it several times a week (pre-covid, now it's just a couple).