3 ms·

I don't. We have a legal system that doles out punishments for crimes, and then you're free to go about your life. If a person served their punishment, I gene

I don't. We have a legal system that doles out punishments for crimes, and then you're free to go about your life. If a person served their punishment, I generally feel they should be given a chance. This is minus things like joke sentences and repeat offenders, because some people seem beyond saving. If you're going to treat criminals as forever outcasts, you may as well advocate for branding their face or sentencing them to death, IMO.

colechristensen 4y ago
If you’re a registered sex offender, there is clearly a sense that society has decided your prison term ending is not enough and people need to be notified of a risk you still pose. Your debt, as it were, was not repaid. I am perfectly fine with those convicted of sex crimes against children being permanent outcasts. (Level 2 implies that in my state, unsure whether it means the same in the local jurisdiction of the poster)
- silisili 4y ago
  I don't disagree with your conclusion, but the method. Simply put, if we're going to treat them as permanent weirdos, just make the sentence life. Personal view: people who sexually abuse children deserve it. What's the point in letting them out but with asterisks...
  - killingtime74 4y ago
    From the purely legal academic standpoint there is the concept of proportionate sentencing. If abusing and killing children gets the same sentence as abusing them, criminals will be incentivised to kill as well since there is no downside.
    - Doxin 4y ago
      Because child rapists are applying game theory to decide which crimes they are going to commit? Your logic only makes sense theoretically. In the real world people barely ever consider the punishments to decide which crimes to commit, especially with emotionally driven crimes such as rape.
      - killingtime74 4y ago
        It’s not a complicated thought. Criminals see the news and hear from others. They’ll know if they’re going to get life anyway. It’s wrong to underestimate criminals intelligence
      - marton78 4y ago
        This statement is demonstrably false. Yes, people intuitively apply game theory all the time. For example, it is well established that in states with a three strikes law police officers are killed or attempted to be killed by felons having just committed their third strike, because it makes sense from a game theoretical point of view: there is no downside to it (if you're caught, life inprisonment awaits you), but there's a chance to escape.
        webmaven 4y ago
        > This statement is demonstrably false. Yes, people intuitively apply game theory all the time. People do intuitively apply game theory, but they do so in ways that aren't strictly rational. Rationally, deterrence is a function of the penalty adjusted by the odds of being caught and convicted. which means that doubling the penalty should have the same additional deterring effect as doubling the odds of conviction. However, increasing penalties has a relatively small deterring effect, and increasing enforcement a relatively large one. One way to explain this is to assume that getting caught and convicted has large fixed costs that are independent of the length of sentence. This tends to cut against the dominant tough-on-crime narrative that focuses on increasing penalties, BTW, but for some reason hiring more judges, prosecutors, public defenders, detectives, CSIs and other people to solve cases and actually go to trial isn't as popular as just mandating longer sentences (and coercing defendants to agree to a plea deal).
  - michaelmrose 4y ago
    Generally speaking people who want to exclude the rapist aren't in a position to change his sentence after the fact. So the logical solution is unavailable and thus we are left to deal with messy reality as it is. In context it is perfectly reasonable to deal with this by excluding the rapist.
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    So we lived three houses from a registered sex offender when we were raising our kids. We didn't burn his house down. We didn't try to get him fired. We did limit which direction our daughters were permitted to ride their bikes in. It's not all or nothing. He can be out of prison, he can have a house, he can get a job. Other parents on the street can make informed decisions about the risks to their children in whatever fashion they deem appropriate.
GauntletWizard 4y ago
Is life imprisonment a valid punishment? Is it a valid rehabilitation method? Is it, as some others have pointed out, a valid form of protection for society from the ill-behaviors of certain people? I believe that life imprisonment is a valid punishment, but more commonly a valid "Protection for the rest of society". I also believe that other "For life" restrictions can be valid as "Protection for society", too. Felons of certain financial often have their sentences include restrictions on their ability to hold certain kinds of jobs, including serving on boards of public companies or to act as treasurer/accountant/executive. This is not unreasonable. We have a system of rights, and some are absolute. Some are tied to the social contract, and their revocation upon felony is not only valid, but required for society to function.
- freedom2099 4y ago
  Life imprisonment is just plain cruelty! There is no rehabilitation in the scope… just plain revenge. If someone is broken beyond repair (or sick) then it would be unjust and cruel to throw them in jail for the rest of their life! Sure they must be kept away from the rest of society but rotting in a small cell with daily abuse and basically no rights in my opinion makes society as guilty as the criminals it tries to punish!
  - michaelmrose 4y ago
    Justly the loss of freedom is the punishment and we should not try to subject the offender to abusive treatment but this is ridiculous hyperbole. An example of someone who deserves life imprisonment is Gary Ridgeway aka the Green River Killer who was convicted of murdering 49 but probably killed 90+ innocent girls. Rotting in a small cell is better than he deserves and keeping him there is the only way society and indeed he can be safe. He is segregated even in prison not because of extreme risk he presents although he would certainly be a high risk if ever released, but rather because the risk that someone perhaps a relation of one of the many people he murdered would in turn murder him. Keeping society safe by giving Gary a crummy but safe life doesn't make us as guilty as someone who lured and strangled innocent girls.
kazinator 4y ago
> advocate for branding their face A lot of the doofuses make a hobby of this, making the job of the police a tad easier.

colechristensen 4y ago

If you’re a registered sex offender, there is clearly a sense that society has decided your prison term ending is not enough and people need to be notified of a risk you still pose. Your debt, as it were, was not repaid. I am perfectly fine with those convicted of sex crimes against children being permanent outcasts. (Level 2 implies that in my state, unsure whether it means the same in the local jurisdiction of the poster)

silisili 4y ago
I don't disagree with your conclusion, but the method. Simply put, if we're going to treat them as permanent weirdos, just make the sentence life. Personal view: people who sexually abuse children deserve it. What's the point in letting them out but with asterisks...
- killingtime74 4y ago
  From the purely legal academic standpoint there is the concept of proportionate sentencing. If abusing and killing children gets the same sentence as abusing them, criminals will be incentivised to kill as well since there is no downside.
  - Doxin 4y ago
    Because child rapists are applying game theory to decide which crimes they are going to commit? Your logic only makes sense theoretically. In the real world people barely ever consider the punishments to decide which crimes to commit, especially with emotionally driven crimes such as rape.
    - killingtime74 4y ago
      It’s not a complicated thought. Criminals see the news and hear from others. They’ll know if they’re going to get life anyway. It’s wrong to underestimate criminals intelligence
    - marton78 4y ago
      This statement is demonstrably false. Yes, people intuitively apply game theory all the time. For example, it is well established that in states with a three strikes law police officers are killed or attempted to be killed by felons having just committed their third strike, because it makes sense from a game theoretical point of view: there is no downside to it (if you're caught, life inprisonment awaits you), but there's a chance to escape.
      - webmaven 4y ago
        > This statement is demonstrably false. Yes, people intuitively apply game theory all the time. People do intuitively apply game theory, but they do so in ways that aren't strictly rational. Rationally, deterrence is a function of the penalty adjusted by the odds of being caught and convicted. which means that doubling the penalty should have the same additional deterring effect as doubling the odds of conviction. However, increasing penalties has a relatively small deterring effect, and increasing enforcement a relatively large one. One way to explain this is to assume that getting caught and convicted has large fixed costs that are independent of the length of sentence. This tends to cut against the dominant tough-on-crime narrative that focuses on increasing penalties, BTW, but for some reason hiring more judges, prosecutors, public defenders, detectives, CSIs and other people to solve cases and actually go to trial isn't as popular as just mandating longer sentences (and coercing defendants to agree to a plea deal).
- michaelmrose 4y ago
  Generally speaking people who want to exclude the rapist aren't in a position to change his sentence after the fact. So the logical solution is unavailable and thus we are left to deal with messy reality as it is. In context it is perfectly reasonable to deal with this by excluding the rapist.
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  So we lived three houses from a registered sex offender when we were raising our kids. We didn't burn his house down. We didn't try to get him fired. We did limit which direction our daughters were permitted to ride their bikes in. It's not all or nothing. He can be out of prison, he can have a house, he can get a job. Other parents on the street can make informed decisions about the risks to their children in whatever fashion they deem appropriate.

GauntletWizard 4y ago

Is life imprisonment a valid punishment? Is it a valid rehabilitation method? Is it, as some others have pointed out, a valid form of protection for society from the ill-behaviors of certain people? I believe that life imprisonment is a valid punishment, but more commonly a valid "Protection for the rest of society". I also believe that other "For life" restrictions can be valid as "Protection for society", too. Felons of certain financial often have their sentences include restrictions on their ability to hold certain kinds of jobs, including serving on boards of public companies or to act as treasurer/accountant/executive. This is not unreasonable. We have a system of rights, and some are absolute. Some are tied to the social contract, and their revocation upon felony is not only valid, but required for society to function.

freedom2099 4y ago
Life imprisonment is just plain cruelty! There is no rehabilitation in the scope… just plain revenge. If someone is broken beyond repair (or sick) then it would be unjust and cruel to throw them in jail for the rest of their life! Sure they must be kept away from the rest of society but rotting in a small cell with daily abuse and basically no rights in my opinion makes society as guilty as the criminals it tries to punish!
- michaelmrose 4y ago
  Justly the loss of freedom is the punishment and we should not try to subject the offender to abusive treatment but this is ridiculous hyperbole. An example of someone who deserves life imprisonment is Gary Ridgeway aka the Green River Killer who was convicted of murdering 49 but probably killed 90+ innocent girls. Rotting in a small cell is better than he deserves and keeping him there is the only way society and indeed he can be safe. He is segregated even in prison not because of extreme risk he presents although he would certainly be a high risk if ever released, but rather because the risk that someone perhaps a relation of one of the many people he murdered would in turn murder him. Keeping society safe by giving Gary a crummy but safe life doesn't make us as guilty as someone who lured and strangled innocent girls.

kazinator 4y ago

> advocate for branding their face A lot of the doofuses make a hobby of this, making the job of the police a tad easier.