4 ms·

Indeed. Here's a case I happened across recently that go almost no media attention[1]. Got almost no media attention. Guy that stalked and assaulted a woman was

by bnralt 4y ago

Indeed. Here's a case I happened across recently that go almost no media attention[1]. Got almost no media attention. Guy that stalked and assaulted a woman was released early on parole. Proceeds to stalk woman again, is arrested, prosecutors don't press charges. Assaults the woman again, is arrested again, prosecutors don't press charges. Eventually, the man kills the woman. There are dangerous individuals that need to be removed from society, and when they're not, they hurt and kill those around them. If there is a more efficient and effective way to do this, that would be great. But it's hard to have this discussion when people pretend these things aren't important functions that need to be addressed in some way. [1] https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/dc/stalking-murder-dc-sylvia-matthews-southwest-michael-garrett-alleged-homicide/65-4dfabc18-d683-4d67-ba30-12755d65b115 https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/dc/stalking-murder-...

amanaplanacanal 4y ago
Yes, that happens. But what percent of folks in the criminal Justice system are that guy? 5%? 95%? And what do we do to try to change those people so that they don’t do it again when they are released?
- jvanderbot 4y ago
  The false positive vs false negative discussion in criminal justice is the whole problem. You cannot come up with a number that is satisfactory to everyone, and for every person you lock away forever because they will surely reoffend, how many should legitimately be over-punished for their actions? I personally think we should provide more productive activities for prisoners, so that it is not necessarily the end of their lives or contributions to society. But that is so ripe for abuse that it's useless to even start the discussion.
- alex_sf 4y ago
  76.6% of US prisoners are 'that guy'. [1] [1] https://harvardpolitics.com/recidivism-american-progress/ https://harvardpolitics.com/recidivism-american-progress/
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    Weird to cite an article citing the brutal non-rehabilitative nature of the US penal system as the major cause of recidivism in order to make that case.
    - alex_sf 4y ago
      I can disagree with the editorializing while looking at the numbers.
yodsanklai 4y ago
> There are dangerous individuals that need to be removed from society, and when they're not, they hurt and kill those around them. A more insidious problem is that there are some guys who aren't as dangerous as killers/rapists, but who are nuisance to others (e.g. multi-recidivist non violent theft). Putting them away for years doesn't seem like a fair solution.
- Georgelemental 4y ago
  In general, the welfare of law-abiding citizens should be prioritized over that of criminals. But for certain crimes, I do thing short but harsh corporal punishment would be fairer and more effective than prison.
- hermanubis 4y ago
  For privileged people theft is mainly an inconvenience. When my laptop got stolen I just filled out a form at work and got a replacement the next day. But for lots of people it’s more than that. If you work on cars or houses your tools are your livelihood. Getting them stolen means losing your job or replacing them at retail prices which is out of reach for lots of people. Likewise at the community college I go to some people are barely holding on. If their laptop gets stolen they either drop out or don’t pay rent that month. There are lots of people who would rather be violently assaulted than have their stuff stolen so the idea that theft is nonviolent has always seemed like a luxury belief to me.
  - msmenardi 4y ago
    Privileged people also tend to conceptualize theft as "theft from a corporation" as in, stealing clothes from Target or slim jims from a gas station. The idea that their entire livelihood could be taken from them doesn't cross their mind
- homonculus1 4y ago
  Theft isn't a mere nuisance, it's an attack on one of the fundamental buttresses against chaos and violence. The cost of living in a low-trust environment is orders of magnitude greater than the value of the items stolen. Severe penalties for persistent defection against society are absolutely warranted.
goodpoint 4y ago
What are you proposing instead? A) Imprison every stalker for life or kill them B) Focus on rehabilitation and prevention. E.g. relocate the stalker to another city, monitor their movements etc.
- alex_sf 4y ago
  These are intentionally bad choices. A) That's disproportionate. B) This requires an extensive police state. Much more simply: evaluate each crime based on the severity, likelihood of re-offense, and apply a sentence commensurate with the crime. We could make lots of efforts to make this a fair and impartial process. I wonder what we could name that?
  - goodpoint 4y ago
    > B) This requires an extensive police state. If anything it's the contrary.
- thefounder 4y ago
  Unless there is way to test the likeabity for it to do it again I think imprisonment for most of its life is not that harsh if it's a second time recidivist. It's pretty obvious that person is not fit to live in a free society.
  - alasdair_ 4y ago
    If the punishment for stalking a second time is life in prison, then quite a few more stalkers will resort to murder since the punishment is the same.
    - thefounder 4y ago
      I don't think that will happen. However if that's the case then we need close monitoring/full surveilance of first time offenders. Perhaps also additional requirements (i.e 1000 miles restraining order). Breaking the restraining order should put the offender automatically back in jail. I'm pretty sure we have tools to deal with stalkers. It's just that there seems to be no will to re-educate them.
pessimizer 4y ago
> Guy that stalked and assaulted a woman was released early on parole. Proceeds to stalk woman again, is arrested, prosecutors don't press charges. Assaults the woman again, is arrested again, prosecutors don't press charges. Eventually, the man kills the woman. I don't understand what this is supposed to be a case of. Are you suggesting that if he weren't let out on parole and had served his full sentence that he wouldn't have murdered the woman, or that all people who commit crimes should be given a choice between a life sentence or execution to prevent recidivism? And do we make this decision without reference to the statistics, e.g. how many people were released from prison for assaulting a woman failed to go on to murder that same woman? I suspect the proportion would be very high. So is it worth it to imprison or execute any number of offenders who would not go on to commit even worse crimes if it saves just one woman from being killed? Have we looked up the number of released felons who have saved lives, have raised well-adjusted, productive children, have contributed to the world? Are we sure that this number is vastly lower than the number that have gone on to murder women? Could we even boost this number by giving prisoners education and safety, and making sure they can find employment after release, or is that a more onerous prospect than paying $50K/year to keep them caged eternally? In fact, seeing as most women and children are murdered by their (male) loved ones, have we compared the likelihood of a man without a record to murder their partner to men who have a record of abuse? It may not be low enough to justify not imprisoning all men indefinitely, especially if citing a single murdered woman constitutes an argument. > If there is a more efficient and effective way to do this, that would be great. It's not effective at all, we have the worst violent crime rates in the developed world.
- jonahx 4y ago
  > And do we make this decision without reference to the statistics, e.g. how many people were released from prison for assaulting a woman failed to go on to murder that same woman? I suspect the proportion would be very high. No need to suspect, or try to apply universal statistical arguments that _might_ be the case. This has been well studied, and recidivism rates for violent criminals are _extremely_ high, and incarceration is an effective strategy for preventing crime. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of the penal system, but your speculation about its total inefficacy is incorrect. If you are interested in learning more, I found the book "Criminal Injustice" enlightening: https://www.amazon.com/Criminal-Justice-Decarceration-Depolicing-Wrong/dp/B0B29L14BL/ https://www.amazon.com/Criminal-Justice-Decarceration-Depoli... For less of a commitment, the author has done many interviews. Just search podcasts for his name.

by bnralt 4y ago

amanaplanacanal 4y ago

Yes, that happens. But what percent of folks in the criminal Justice system are that guy? 5%? 95%? And what do we do to try to change those people so that they don’t do it again when they are released?

jvanderbot 4y ago
The false positive vs false negative discussion in criminal justice is the whole problem. You cannot come up with a number that is satisfactory to everyone, and for every person you lock away forever because they will surely reoffend, how many should legitimately be over-punished for their actions? I personally think we should provide more productive activities for prisoners, so that it is not necessarily the end of their lives or contributions to society. But that is so ripe for abuse that it's useless to even start the discussion.
alex_sf 4y ago
76.6% of US prisoners are 'that guy'. [1] [1] https://harvardpolitics.com/recidivism-american-progress/ https://harvardpolitics.com/recidivism-american-progress/
- pessimizer 4y ago
  Weird to cite an article citing the brutal non-rehabilitative nature of the US penal system as the major cause of recidivism in order to make that case.
  - alex_sf 4y ago
    I can disagree with the editorializing while looking at the numbers.

yodsanklai 4y ago

> There are dangerous individuals that need to be removed from society, and when they're not, they hurt and kill those around them. A more insidious problem is that there are some guys who aren't as dangerous as killers/rapists, but who are nuisance to others (e.g. multi-recidivist non violent theft). Putting them away for years doesn't seem like a fair solution.

Georgelemental 4y ago
In general, the welfare of law-abiding citizens should be prioritized over that of criminals. But for certain crimes, I do thing short but harsh corporal punishment would be fairer and more effective than prison.
hermanubis 4y ago
For privileged people theft is mainly an inconvenience. When my laptop got stolen I just filled out a form at work and got a replacement the next day. But for lots of people it’s more than that. If you work on cars or houses your tools are your livelihood. Getting them stolen means losing your job or replacing them at retail prices which is out of reach for lots of people. Likewise at the community college I go to some people are barely holding on. If their laptop gets stolen they either drop out or don’t pay rent that month. There are lots of people who would rather be violently assaulted than have their stuff stolen so the idea that theft is nonviolent has always seemed like a luxury belief to me.
- msmenardi 4y ago
  Privileged people also tend to conceptualize theft as "theft from a corporation" as in, stealing clothes from Target or slim jims from a gas station. The idea that their entire livelihood could be taken from them doesn't cross their mind
homonculus1 4y ago
Theft isn't a mere nuisance, it's an attack on one of the fundamental buttresses against chaos and violence. The cost of living in a low-trust environment is orders of magnitude greater than the value of the items stolen. Severe penalties for persistent defection against society are absolutely warranted.

goodpoint 4y ago

What are you proposing instead? A) Imprison every stalker for life or kill them B) Focus on rehabilitation and prevention. E.g. relocate the stalker to another city, monitor their movements etc.

alex_sf 4y ago
These are intentionally bad choices. A) That's disproportionate. B) This requires an extensive police state. Much more simply: evaluate each crime based on the severity, likelihood of re-offense, and apply a sentence commensurate with the crime. We could make lots of efforts to make this a fair and impartial process. I wonder what we could name that?
- goodpoint 4y ago
  > B) This requires an extensive police state. If anything it's the contrary.
thefounder 4y ago
Unless there is way to test the likeabity for it to do it again I think imprisonment for most of its life is not that harsh if it's a second time recidivist. It's pretty obvious that person is not fit to live in a free society.
- alasdair_ 4y ago
  If the punishment for stalking a second time is life in prison, then quite a few more stalkers will resort to murder since the punishment is the same.
  - thefounder 4y ago
    I don't think that will happen. However if that's the case then we need close monitoring/full surveilance of first time offenders. Perhaps also additional requirements (i.e 1000 miles restraining order). Breaking the restraining order should put the offender automatically back in jail. I'm pretty sure we have tools to deal with stalkers. It's just that there seems to be no will to re-educate them.

pessimizer 4y ago

> Guy that stalked and assaulted a woman was released early on parole. Proceeds to stalk woman again, is arrested, prosecutors don't press charges. Assaults the woman again, is arrested again, prosecutors don't press charges. Eventually, the man kills the woman. I don't understand what this is supposed to be a case of. Are you suggesting that if he weren't let out on parole and had served his full sentence that he wouldn't have murdered the woman, or that all people who commit crimes should be given a choice between a life sentence or execution to prevent recidivism? And do we make this decision without reference to the statistics, e.g. how many people were released from prison for assaulting a woman failed to go on to murder that same woman? I suspect the proportion would be very high. So is it worth it to imprison or execute any number of offenders who would not go on to commit even worse crimes if it saves just one woman from being killed? Have we looked up the number of released felons who have saved lives, have raised well-adjusted, productive children, have contributed to the world? Are we sure that this number is vastly lower than the number that have gone on to murder women? Could we even boost this number by giving prisoners education and safety, and making sure they can find employment after release, or is that a more onerous prospect than paying $50K/year to keep them caged eternally? In fact, seeing as most women and children are murdered by their (male) loved ones, have we compared the likelihood of a man without a record to murder their partner to men who have a record of abuse? It may not be low enough to justify not imprisoning all men indefinitely, especially if citing a single murdered woman constitutes an argument. > If there is a more efficient and effective way to do this, that would be great. It's not effective at all, we have the worst violent crime rates in the developed world.

jonahx 4y ago
> And do we make this decision without reference to the statistics, e.g. how many people were released from prison for assaulting a woman failed to go on to murder that same woman? I suspect the proportion would be very high. No need to suspect, or try to apply universal statistical arguments that _might_ be the case. This has been well studied, and recidivism rates for violent criminals are _extremely_ high, and incarceration is an effective strategy for preventing crime. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of the penal system, but your speculation about its total inefficacy is incorrect. If you are interested in learning more, I found the book "Criminal Injustice" enlightening: https://www.amazon.com/Criminal-Justice-Decarceration-Depolicing-Wrong/dp/B0B29L14BL/ https://www.amazon.com/Criminal-Justice-Decarceration-Depoli... For less of a commitment, the author has done many interviews. Just search podcasts for his name.