6 ms·

I'm having trouble understanding if he received an 18 month sentence or an indefinite one: "was jailed for 18 months but is still trapped in prison 18 years lat

by bagels 2y ago

I'm having trouble understanding if he received an 18 month sentence or an indefinite one: "was jailed for 18 months but is still trapped in prison 18 years later under a cruel indefinite jail term". That's in the first paragraph.

throwup238 2y ago
From Wikipedia: > [IPP] was intended to protect the public against criminals whose crimes were not serious enough to merit a normal life sentence but who were regarded as too dangerous to be released when the term of their original sentence had expired. It is composed of a punitive "tariff" intended to be proportionate to the gravity of the crime committed, and an indeterminate period which commences after the expiry of the tariff and lasts until the Parole Board judges the prisoner no longer poses a risk to the public and is fit to be released. [1] That last bit is even worse than it sounds: the burden of proof is on the prisoner to prove that they're no longer a danger to society, instead of requiring the Parole Board to prove that they're still a danger. Between that burden and the rest of the Parole Board's workload, it's taking forever to get anyone released. IPP was eliminated in 2012 because it was unjust and overused, but politicians made the conscious decision to not retroactively undo it because of the bad PR it'd cause if some violent offender was released and killed someone. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprisonment_for_public_protection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprisonment_for_public_protec...
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - mulmen 2y ago
    What about all the people who don’t reoffend that you don’t notice? As a resident of a “coastal city” I’m happy we value liberty over safety.
    - tourmalinetaco 2y ago
      I would much rather be harsher on violent criminals in general. If you even attempted to murder someone once, especially a stranger, I have no reason to assume you are incapable of a second attempt. And sure, I’d be fine with giving people a first pass in some situations, but we’re talking about career criminals. Do you think it’s okay to let people with violent rap sheets 50+ charges long go free because you value their “liberty”?
      - freeopinion 2y ago
        I'm not sure what you consider to be violent or what you consider to be a crime. Do you think speeding through a school zone is violent or criminal? What about drunk driving? What about a fist fight? I am willing to bet that you routinely violate the law. Somehow in your culture that is acceptable. Maybe you ignore a speed limit. Maybe you fail to disclose some income. Maybe you pay a kid to mow your lawn in violation of Child Labor laws. Maybe you take a swing at somebody during a pickup game of basketball. In U.S. culture these are tolerated and even encouraged. If you arrested people for these things and sent them to jail do you think they would re-offend when they got out of jail? If you haven't changed the culture into which you return them, there is a high probability. Is there anything about prison that changes the culture outside prison in a positive way? I don't ask that in a "See how pointless prisons are?" kind of way. Mostly my attention there is on the environment outside prison.
        consteval 2y ago
        > I'm not sure what you consider to be violent or what you consider to be a crime Yes, this right here is the key people are missing. This varies from person to person, from political affiliation to political affiliation. But it also varies within a person. Someone black is not going to be viewed in the same light as someone white. As much as we like to believe this isn't the case, it just is, and we have to account for that. The problem with IPP is that we start with the assumption the violent are violent and they must prove otherwise. When we begin at a baseline of disadvantage, the potential for corruption is strife. Racism is trivial and invisible in such a system.
  - mu53 2y ago
    The data shows that violent crimes are lower today than they've been in decades. Ever recorded, technically in the US. Crime is enormously politicized. Whichever politician is in office can be attacked with any crimes that happened in their jurisdictions. Its easy to see it in alt-right propaganda bringing up horrific stories.... from years ago. As in, they had to go back years to find a story horrific enough of a story to resonate with people. I see this pattern common in European and American conservative news. Between the media's "If it bleeds, it leads". Private prisons ties to politicians. Companies benefiting from slave labor. Many people's personal preference for excessive punishment. The data supports one story, and more and more people feel another one is true.
    - tourmalinetaco 2y ago
      Around 40% of inmates in the US will reoffend, many finding themselves back in prison (and subsequently released) within the year. Violent crimes can be at a low and repeat violent criminals can still be a problem. Most crime in the US is done by a fraction of the population, and we are doing nothing to actually address rehabilitation. We simply let them go and watch as they hurt more people. You can try to hand wave this away as “alt-right propaganda” all you want, but the government’s statistics don’t lie.
      - defrost 2y ago
        > Around 40% of inmates in the US will reoffend, many finding themselves back in prison (and subsequently released) within the year. Why? Having served their time are they dumped without resources and the stigma of a criminal conviction with limited ability for employment and support? The US is outstanding extreme in the per capita imprisonment rate which speaks to some systemic issue, however to be fair the US is about middle of the pack for G20 recidivism rates after (say) four years. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/recidivism-rates-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/recidivis... ~ 40% seems commonplace.
      - underlipton 2y ago
        Reoffend how, specifically? Obligatory context: the monetary value of wage theft alone (not including other types of white-collar crime, like embezzlement, tax fraud, securities fraud, etc.) is greater than that of every type of "violent" theft or burglary. Combined. Priorities.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - AngryData 2y ago
    You got a source for that? Because ive heard it before but never seen any evidence for it and it screams political propaganda to me. The US has not been soft on criminals in a long long time, that is why it has near 25% of the total world prison population.
    - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
      > The US has not been soft on criminals in a long long time You should read more about SF, Portland, Seattle, and LA (while under district attorney George Gascon). Being soft on crime is normal in some parts of the US, and it predictably leads to lots of crime. These soft on crime policies have come so far that my local retail store locks up detergent behind glass now, and this is common on the west coast at this point.
  - nsonha 2y ago
    idk, don't you find jailing people for crimes they have not committed (but likely to I guess) a bit... insane?
- selcuka 2y ago
  > politicians made the conscious decision to not retroactively undo it because of the bad PR it'd cause if some violent offender was released and killed someone. So it's ok if a violent offender jailed after 2012 gets released and kills someone. Typical politican logic.
  - duneisagoodbook 2y ago
    politicians are choosing instead to kill these prisoners via indeterminate detention
    - Hydenty 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - duneisagoodbook 2y ago
        I hope you reflect on why that is.
    - selcuka 2y ago
      To be clear, my comment was sarcastic and I'm not defending the indeterminate detention option. Just pointing out the hypocrisy.
  - sweeter 2y ago
    Isn't it the opposite? They don't want to be blamed if something happens so they uphold a blatantly unjust ruling. To be clear, thats not how any of this works. You can't just imprison someone indefinitely because they "might" do something.
    - selcuka 2y ago
      > Isn't it the opposite? It is. My comment was a (failed) attempt at sarcasm. If the new ruling is thought to be more just, it should be retroactively applied.
- mathieuh 2y ago
  On the point that the prisoners have to prove that they’re no longer a danger: in some cases that means completing courses which are completely inaccessible to the prisoners due to cutbacks.
Spivak 2y ago
He received an indefinite sentence (for a crime that absent this statue doesn't allow for life sentences) with an 18 month minimum where it was later ruled that indefinite sentences were torture and driving prisoners to suicide. But the gov't has been slow to review people's cases and so folks are stuck.
xyst 2y ago
I didn’t understand it as well (not from the UK, but US), so I had to lookup the gist of it in Wikipedia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprisonment_for_public_protection https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprisonment_for_public_prot... Basically, the “18 month sentence” is a minimum sentence for the crime(s). But after that period, a parole board is supposed to rule on whether this person is fit to rejoin society. What I don’t understand: - are parole boards just denying for any reason? Why are people serving such long sentences? - is it a backlog of cases to review to blame? - or is this similar to “cash for kids” scandal in the US? Basically, teenagers were sentenced harshly under the pretense of “zero tolerance” and sent to prison. But, in reality it was motivated primarily by the need for private prison systems to fill the cells and many judges getting kickbacks.
- crooked-v 2y ago
  The onus is put on the prisoner to show they will successfully reintegrate into society, rather than on the parole board to show they will not. Of course, I'm sure the guidance or help given to said prisoner is nonexistent.
- consteval 2y ago
  > are parole boards just denying for any reason? Why are people serving such long sentences? Yes. There's guidelines for parole but they're just guides. Personal bias, as well as potential monetary values, keep prisoners in prison. For example, Georgia, based on statistics, should have a parole rate of 80% for non-violent offenders. The parole rate is 8%. This is for non-violent offenders. That's an order of magnitude of difference. The culture around parole and personal biases fuel this. Ultimately, the community and parole judge can only LOSE by allowing parole. In the best-case scenario, they break even - nothing bad happens if you let someone loose. In the worst case, they commit a crime. They're heavily biased to preserve the interests of themselves, the prisons, and their community. The well-being of the prisoner is least important because they are a criminal. > motivated primarily by the need for private prison systems to fill the cells and many judges getting kickbacks There's some of this as well. Some of these prisoners in (again, Georgia) are being coerced to work. Parole is a carrot above their head. They're paid less than minimum wage to literally flip burgers at McDonald's. It's a win-win situation for everyone involved. The prison makes money (garnishes half the wages), local shops get cheap labor, and "dangerous" people are kept locked up. Only the prisoners lose.

by bagels 2y ago

throwup238 2y ago

From Wikipedia: > [IPP] was intended to protect the public against criminals whose crimes were not serious enough to merit a normal life sentence but who were regarded as too dangerous to be released when the term of their original sentence had expired. It is composed of a punitive "tariff" intended to be proportionate to the gravity of the crime committed, and an indeterminate period which commences after the expiry of the tariff and lasts until the Parole Board judges the prisoner no longer poses a risk to the public and is fit to be released. [1] That last bit is even worse than it sounds: the burden of proof is on the prisoner to prove that they're no longer a danger to society, instead of requiring the Parole Board to prove that they're still a danger. Between that burden and the rest of the Parole Board's workload, it's taking forever to get anyone released. IPP was eliminated in 2012 because it was unjust and overused, but politicians made the conscious decision to not retroactively undo it because of the bad PR it'd cause if some violent offender was released and killed someone. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprisonment_for_public_protection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprisonment_for_public_protec...

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
[flagged]
- mulmen 2y ago
  What about all the people who don’t reoffend that you don’t notice? As a resident of a “coastal city” I’m happy we value liberty over safety.
  - tourmalinetaco 2y ago
    I would much rather be harsher on violent criminals in general. If you even attempted to murder someone once, especially a stranger, I have no reason to assume you are incapable of a second attempt. And sure, I’d be fine with giving people a first pass in some situations, but we’re talking about career criminals. Do you think it’s okay to let people with violent rap sheets 50+ charges long go free because you value their “liberty”?
    - freeopinion 2y ago
      I'm not sure what you consider to be violent or what you consider to be a crime. Do you think speeding through a school zone is violent or criminal? What about drunk driving? What about a fist fight? I am willing to bet that you routinely violate the law. Somehow in your culture that is acceptable. Maybe you ignore a speed limit. Maybe you fail to disclose some income. Maybe you pay a kid to mow your lawn in violation of Child Labor laws. Maybe you take a swing at somebody during a pickup game of basketball. In U.S. culture these are tolerated and even encouraged. If you arrested people for these things and sent them to jail do you think they would re-offend when they got out of jail? If you haven't changed the culture into which you return them, there is a high probability. Is there anything about prison that changes the culture outside prison in a positive way? I don't ask that in a "See how pointless prisons are?" kind of way. Mostly my attention there is on the environment outside prison.
      - consteval 2y ago
        > I'm not sure what you consider to be violent or what you consider to be a crime Yes, this right here is the key people are missing. This varies from person to person, from political affiliation to political affiliation. But it also varies within a person. Someone black is not going to be viewed in the same light as someone white. As much as we like to believe this isn't the case, it just is, and we have to account for that. The problem with IPP is that we start with the assumption the violent are violent and they must prove otherwise. When we begin at a baseline of disadvantage, the potential for corruption is strife. Racism is trivial and invisible in such a system.
- mu53 2y ago
  The data shows that violent crimes are lower today than they've been in decades. Ever recorded, technically in the US. Crime is enormously politicized. Whichever politician is in office can be attacked with any crimes that happened in their jurisdictions. Its easy to see it in alt-right propaganda bringing up horrific stories.... from years ago. As in, they had to go back years to find a story horrific enough of a story to resonate with people. I see this pattern common in European and American conservative news. Between the media's "If it bleeds, it leads". Private prisons ties to politicians. Companies benefiting from slave labor. Many people's personal preference for excessive punishment. The data supports one story, and more and more people feel another one is true.
  - tourmalinetaco 2y ago
    Around 40% of inmates in the US will reoffend, many finding themselves back in prison (and subsequently released) within the year. Violent crimes can be at a low and repeat violent criminals can still be a problem. Most crime in the US is done by a fraction of the population, and we are doing nothing to actually address rehabilitation. We simply let them go and watch as they hurt more people. You can try to hand wave this away as “alt-right propaganda” all you want, but the government’s statistics don’t lie.
    - defrost 2y ago
      > Around 40% of inmates in the US will reoffend, many finding themselves back in prison (and subsequently released) within the year. Why? Having served their time are they dumped without resources and the stigma of a criminal conviction with limited ability for employment and support? The US is outstanding extreme in the per capita imprisonment rate which speaks to some systemic issue, however to be fair the US is about middle of the pack for G20 recidivism rates after (say) four years. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/recidivism-rates-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/recidivis... ~ 40% seems commonplace.
    - underlipton 2y ago
      Reoffend how, specifically? Obligatory context: the monetary value of wage theft alone (not including other types of white-collar crime, like embezzlement, tax fraud, securities fraud, etc.) is greater than that of every type of "violent" theft or burglary. Combined. Priorities.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- AngryData 2y ago
  You got a source for that? Because ive heard it before but never seen any evidence for it and it screams political propaganda to me. The US has not been soft on criminals in a long long time, that is why it has near 25% of the total world prison population.
  - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    > The US has not been soft on criminals in a long long time You should read more about SF, Portland, Seattle, and LA (while under district attorney George Gascon). Being soft on crime is normal in some parts of the US, and it predictably leads to lots of crime. These soft on crime policies have come so far that my local retail store locks up detergent behind glass now, and this is common on the west coast at this point.
- nsonha 2y ago
  idk, don't you find jailing people for crimes they have not committed (but likely to I guess) a bit... insane?
selcuka 2y ago
> politicians made the conscious decision to not retroactively undo it because of the bad PR it'd cause if some violent offender was released and killed someone. So it's ok if a violent offender jailed after 2012 gets released and kills someone. Typical politican logic.
- duneisagoodbook 2y ago
  politicians are choosing instead to kill these prisoners via indeterminate detention
  - Hydenty 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - duneisagoodbook 2y ago
      I hope you reflect on why that is.
  - selcuka 2y ago
    To be clear, my comment was sarcastic and I'm not defending the indeterminate detention option. Just pointing out the hypocrisy.
- sweeter 2y ago
  Isn't it the opposite? They don't want to be blamed if something happens so they uphold a blatantly unjust ruling. To be clear, thats not how any of this works. You can't just imprison someone indefinitely because they "might" do something.
  - selcuka 2y ago
    > Isn't it the opposite? It is. My comment was a (failed) attempt at sarcasm. If the new ruling is thought to be more just, it should be retroactively applied.
mathieuh 2y ago
On the point that the prisoners have to prove that they’re no longer a danger: in some cases that means completing courses which are completely inaccessible to the prisoners due to cutbacks.

Spivak 2y ago

He received an indefinite sentence (for a crime that absent this statue doesn't allow for life sentences) with an 18 month minimum where it was later ruled that indefinite sentences were torture and driving prisoners to suicide. But the gov't has been slow to review people's cases and so folks are stuck.

xyst 2y ago

I didn’t understand it as well (not from the UK, but US), so I had to lookup the gist of it in Wikipedia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprisonment_for_public_protection https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprisonment_for_public_prot... Basically, the “18 month sentence” is a minimum sentence for the crime(s). But after that period, a parole board is supposed to rule on whether this person is fit to rejoin society. What I don’t understand: - are parole boards just denying for any reason? Why are people serving such long sentences? - is it a backlog of cases to review to blame? - or is this similar to “cash for kids” scandal in the US? Basically, teenagers were sentenced harshly under the pretense of “zero tolerance” and sent to prison. But, in reality it was motivated primarily by the need for private prison systems to fill the cells and many judges getting kickbacks.

crooked-v 2y ago
The onus is put on the prisoner to show they will successfully reintegrate into society, rather than on the parole board to show they will not. Of course, I'm sure the guidance or help given to said prisoner is nonexistent.
consteval 2y ago
> are parole boards just denying for any reason? Why are people serving such long sentences? Yes. There's guidelines for parole but they're just guides. Personal bias, as well as potential monetary values, keep prisoners in prison. For example, Georgia, based on statistics, should have a parole rate of 80% for non-violent offenders. The parole rate is 8%. This is for non-violent offenders. That's an order of magnitude of difference. The culture around parole and personal biases fuel this. Ultimately, the community and parole judge can only LOSE by allowing parole. In the best-case scenario, they break even - nothing bad happens if you let someone loose. In the worst case, they commit a crime. They're heavily biased to preserve the interests of themselves, the prisons, and their community. The well-being of the prisoner is least important because they are a criminal. > motivated primarily by the need for private prison systems to fill the cells and many judges getting kickbacks There's some of this as well. Some of these prisoners in (again, Georgia) are being coerced to work. Parole is a carrot above their head. They're paid less than minimum wage to literally flip burgers at McDonald's. It's a win-win situation for everyone involved. The prison makes money (garnishes half the wages), local shops get cheap labor, and "dangerous" people are kept locked up. Only the prisoners lose.