3 ms·

I'm an attorney barred in the US, so I'm not familiar with this kind of sentencing. However, I'm having a hard time understanding commenters trying to add nuanc

I'm an attorney barred in the US, so I'm not familiar with this kind of sentencing. However, I'm having a hard time understanding commenters trying to add nuance to IPP sentences simply by saying that inmates don't get released because they keep committing violent offenses while inside. The reasonable thing to do in such cases is to give the inmate a new trial for each of those alleged offenses. This is very basic due process.

starspangled 2y ago
The fair trial and "due process" was the initial conviction. The punishment for that is imprisonment until they prove to a parole board that they no longer pose a risk to the public. That's the thing about "due process", isn't it? It's just a phrase that basically means "the law", and the law can be changed by legislation and judges, and the law can be unjust. The phrase is nothing more than giving airs of being impartial or some check and balance against the law. This hapless fellow got his "due process".
- birriel 2y ago
  I hear you, but the problem is that the alternative is much worse. These indefinite detentions lend themselves to all manner of corruption. Maybe a prison guard doesn't like you and falsely claims you committed a violent offense, just to keep you inside. Maybe a fellow inmate attacks you, and when you defend yourself, it gets registered as a violent offense. The first element of due process is that a citizen be notified that the State is mobilizing its resources with the intention of depriving them of their life, liberty, and/or property. Another core tenet of due process is that, once notified, you get a chance to submit evidence in your favor before an impartial adjudicator, precisely to avoid the issues in my first paragraph.
  - starspangled 2y ago
    I'm just saying that due process doesn't mean fair or just. Normal parole boards in America with American due process also do not have an obligation to release people unless their guilt for further crimes can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, but they're also part of what is called due process. You can argue this legal punishment is no good, but you can't argue for due process because he got it. In fact that is exactly what people have argued, hence this punishment being removed from the books. But in a cruel and seemingly unjust twist of "due process" of the law, the punishment was not vacated for all of those previously convicted. So if anything you would plead for an exception to normal due process here and ask that the change be retroactively applied, wouldn't you?
sweeter 2y ago
it is truly baffling... My personal theory is that society dehumanizes prisoners and felons constantly, especially through media and through cultural means. So I believe that bias plays a LOT into how people perceive blatant injustice against them. This is inherently denying a human being their basic rights to a trial and basic dignity. Im genuinely repulsed by the general sentiment here (and in general) regarding incarcerated people. It doesn't help that crime based reporting has been flooding social media and news channels at disproportionate rates post 9/11's 24 hour news cycle. Its almost always an obvious attempt to evoke an emotional response too, despite crime steady decreasing over 50+ years by a fairly large margin.
- the_gorilla 2y ago
  Does it really surprise you that normal, law-abiding people don't like criminals? Them being allowed to re-enter society at all should be seen as a privilege.
  - GaryNumanVevo 2y ago
    Wrongful convictions happen, should normal law-abiding citizens that get thrown in jail just suck it up and expect no due process because they are now a "criminal"?
    - the_gorilla 2y ago
      That's completely unrelated. Maybe we should just abolish the law entirely because it gets misapplied sometimes.
      - GaryNumanVevo 2y ago
        That's quite a knee jerk reaction. There are meaningful steps to making sure the law is applied more fairly.
- consteval 2y ago
  Correct, It's trivial to both maintain that humans deserve some rights and the prisoners do not, if you conclude then that prisoners are not human. They must be subhuman, beings of lesser worth. This is particularly evident in American systems of modern slavery. In states like Georgia, prisoners are forced to work 40+ hours a week in places such as fast food establishments (McDonald's etc). They make well under minimum wage, and they're not allowed to miss work. Simple missteps result in punishment, loss of "good time". This means no phone calls, no visits, no venturing outside. Such a system, if employed on everyday people, would be unthinkable. But for prisoners it's not only prevalent, we view it as a privilege. The right to work and earn money is so gracious to give to these dogs, and they should be thankful. Parole, too, is a reward, and they should be so lucky to endure 20+ years of slavery for the mere chance of getting out.

starspangled 2y ago

The fair trial and "due process" was the initial conviction. The punishment for that is imprisonment until they prove to a parole board that they no longer pose a risk to the public. That's the thing about "due process", isn't it? It's just a phrase that basically means "the law", and the law can be changed by legislation and judges, and the law can be unjust. The phrase is nothing more than giving airs of being impartial or some check and balance against the law. This hapless fellow got his "due process".

birriel 2y ago
I hear you, but the problem is that the alternative is much worse. These indefinite detentions lend themselves to all manner of corruption. Maybe a prison guard doesn't like you and falsely claims you committed a violent offense, just to keep you inside. Maybe a fellow inmate attacks you, and when you defend yourself, it gets registered as a violent offense. The first element of due process is that a citizen be notified that the State is mobilizing its resources with the intention of depriving them of their life, liberty, and/or property. Another core tenet of due process is that, once notified, you get a chance to submit evidence in your favor before an impartial adjudicator, precisely to avoid the issues in my first paragraph.
- starspangled 2y ago
  I'm just saying that due process doesn't mean fair or just. Normal parole boards in America with American due process also do not have an obligation to release people unless their guilt for further crimes can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, but they're also part of what is called due process. You can argue this legal punishment is no good, but you can't argue for due process because he got it. In fact that is exactly what people have argued, hence this punishment being removed from the books. But in a cruel and seemingly unjust twist of "due process" of the law, the punishment was not vacated for all of those previously convicted. So if anything you would plead for an exception to normal due process here and ask that the change be retroactively applied, wouldn't you?

sweeter 2y ago

it is truly baffling... My personal theory is that society dehumanizes prisoners and felons constantly, especially through media and through cultural means. So I believe that bias plays a LOT into how people perceive blatant injustice against them. This is inherently denying a human being their basic rights to a trial and basic dignity. Im genuinely repulsed by the general sentiment here (and in general) regarding incarcerated people. It doesn't help that crime based reporting has been flooding social media and news channels at disproportionate rates post 9/11's 24 hour news cycle. Its almost always an obvious attempt to evoke an emotional response too, despite crime steady decreasing over 50+ years by a fairly large margin.

the_gorilla 2y ago
Does it really surprise you that normal, law-abiding people don't like criminals? Them being allowed to re-enter society at all should be seen as a privilege.
- GaryNumanVevo 2y ago
  Wrongful convictions happen, should normal law-abiding citizens that get thrown in jail just suck it up and expect no due process because they are now a "criminal"?
  - the_gorilla 2y ago
    That's completely unrelated. Maybe we should just abolish the law entirely because it gets misapplied sometimes.
    - GaryNumanVevo 2y ago
      That's quite a knee jerk reaction. There are meaningful steps to making sure the law is applied more fairly.
consteval 2y ago
Correct, It's trivial to both maintain that humans deserve some rights and the prisoners do not, if you conclude then that prisoners are not human. They must be subhuman, beings of lesser worth. This is particularly evident in American systems of modern slavery. In states like Georgia, prisoners are forced to work 40+ hours a week in places such as fast food establishments (McDonald's etc). They make well under minimum wage, and they're not allowed to miss work. Simple missteps result in punishment, loss of "good time". This means no phone calls, no visits, no venturing outside. Such a system, if employed on everyday people, would be unthinkable. But for prisoners it's not only prevalent, we view it as a privilege. The right to work and earn money is so gracious to give to these dogs, and they should be thankful. Parole, too, is a reward, and they should be so lucky to endure 20+ years of slavery for the mere chance of getting out.