criminal recidivism-they've paid their debt

[BlaqueKatt]

ok didn't want to take the vigalante thread OT.

But I was very disturbed by all the people saying criminals are worthless scum, that deserve to die-even after I posted the story of the schoolteacher and the teens forced into prostitution.

the reason criminals don't change because we as a society won't let them change.


Allow me to elaborate:

Let's say a teenager makes a bad decision(teenage brains do not work the same as adults this is a proven fact-they don't consider long term consequences of their actions)commits a crime(we'll go with robbery) and goes to prison for 2-5 years.
Gets out has paid his or her debt to society-however society keeps saying in all manner of ways "you're worthless", you're still a criminal etc. Young adult can't get a job anywhere due to past conviction that he or she HAS SERVED THEIR TIME FOR. This now adult still needs money for food, shelter, and clothing, but no one will give them a chance to prove they have changed for the better.

What ends up happening? Depression and desperation kick in-so they get money to survive the only way they can, either through prostitution(a crime) or robbery(another crime), or selling drugs(yet another crime)-then the naysayers can gloat about how they were right the kid was worthless, while never admitting they are part of the problem, and it became a self-fulfilling prophesy. And the kids are thrown away-they now have no real choice but to become a career criminal, they aren't given a choice.

Do you see why I believe in "everyone makes mistakes" and everyone deserves a second chance now?

I can look myself in the mirror and know that I haven't decided to judge someone based on a previous misjudgment, just as no one has the right to judge me.

And don't give me "they made their bed now they have to lie in it" BS either. Yes they made their bed, badly can't we give them a chance to remake it correctly this time, maybe help them do it right instead of telling them how bad of a job they did but not letting the do anything to fix it?

[Teysa]

I agree with the everyone makes mistakes theory. Once this hypothetical teenager has gotten out of jail it isn't fair to keep punishing them. I think jails should be a combination of punishment and rehabilitation. The punishment being locked away from everything and everyone you know. The rehabilation being learning how to make better decisions when the sentence is up, skills training, and basically how to be a decent law abiding member of society.

[boringscreenname]

I agree with both of you. My husband has a criminal record, nothing violent he was just very young and stupid at the time. But he served his time in prison, got a college degree, paid his restitution and is now a law abiding member of society.

But his past still comes back to haunt us, try finding a place to rent, a decent paying job etc... It's not easy but it's doable we've managed to make a decent life for ourselves, we have a nice car, nice house and he has a job, it's not the greatest in the world but we're not doing that bad and he's trying to get his record cleared up so that he can go to college and pursue a better career.

[fireheart17]

While I agree with most of the above, the only crime I disagree with is any sexual-related offence. Exceptions to that are two teens busted for underage sex, homosexual sex etc.
Those crimes are just petty. But things like rape and sexual assault...I once read something about it being for three reasons: 1) control, 2) anger, 3) sadistic. I'm sorry, but those two to me are not right. Those people clearly have issues and some prisons do not do enough for them.

[AFPheonix]

Very often though, sex related crimes have lower recidivism rates than other crimes. Not all sex offenders are going to fall under that of course, especially if they fall under the sociopath category.

Our justice system unfortunately is geared to look good on the outside to voters, which means being "tough on crime" instead of working on preventing the crime in the first place, or preventing it from happening again. Hopefully someday we can get past that. That's going to take some major attitude shifts though, especially to the way we deal with poverty in this country.

[Pedersen]

While I agree with most of the above, the only crime I disagree with is any sexual-related offence.

So, to you, it is impossible for a sex offender to ever repay their debt to society. Taking that to its logical conclusion, you're basically saying that any and all sex offenders can only be punished adequately through life imprisonment or the death penalty.

Interesting take on things. Especially since (as was quite thoroughly discussed in the sex offenders registry thread) sex offenders recidivate at lower rates than the general prison population.

Throw in the cases where false accusations are made, and other cases where underage teens post pictures of themselves and get charged with distribution of kiddie porn, and the sex offenders thing starts to look really really shaky, and those who are wary of sex offenders start to look a bit like knee-jerk reaction type people.

Just some food for thought.

[Slytovhand]

While I certainly do agree with BK and others on this in theory, there are also some other theories/practices that I won't quite go along with... but I should probably say that they fall under 'individual circumstances' types, rather than as just broad sweeping statements. They'd also fall under the 'the law doesn't always get it right' argument as well.

eg - serial rapists, even after they've done their court allotted time. Or say an executioner. Or drug dealer, child smugglers, etc.. the law is allowed to set a certain amount of time on the imprisonment... doesn't mean that the individual will come out all nicely reformed and happy to rejoin society as a wonderful caring human being. For that matter, she could come out angrier than ever.

Personally (as I've already threaded), I don't think that just locking someone up in a cell is actually 'paying their debt' for which they should thereafter be given back full citizen's rights. They've been punished, and society has been kept a little bit safer by their being kept out of it, but to me, that's not 'enough'. There's a presumption that they're just going to be nice little sheeples after they're let out.

Some of those examples you've cited, BK, are excellent examples of past criminals who certainly deserve better than the state and public are likely to offer, but they aren't the majority. BSN's hubby is more the average, and unfortunately, many will re-offend.

So... while I agree in theory, in practice??? Basically, I'll ask the question (similar to the one on the vigilante thread, but from the other angle) "Do we presume all criminals who have done their time deserve to be considered innocent?" (as against having equal rights... cos that was a thread I did up).


(but yeah, it was a bit scary to read how the kid was worthless scum, the pharmacist was a hero!)

[blas87]

I don't care about how teens don't always make the best decisions. Neither do a lot of grown adults, as we have plenty of examples of that as well.

That is why sometimes teens are charged as adults, and sometimes as kids.

My boyfriend has a very bad criminal record, too many DUIs. Now he has a hard time finding a job. What does he expect, not having a valid driver's license and a background in drunk driving?

I feel bad that he's given up at times and gets really sad, but he did it to himself. He cannot blame his ex girlfriend or his family or anyone but himself for the choices he made.

Things have gotten pretty bad for me. I've let some bills slip. I'm not going to go on a rampage when those bad decisions catch up with me. I'm not going to start stealing groceries because it's hard to afford them. I'm not going to rob a gas station to get cigarettes or drive off with gas, just because I'm young and people my age are prone to being stupid and not thinking.

There's a reason a lot of things on a person's record never disappear. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. And the shame and humiliation that comes with a lot of crimes (say drunk driving or sex crimes, and how hard it is for people to redeem themselves afterward) IS part of the punishment. This is what happens when you fuck up. No one is going to forget what you did. You shouldn't have done it in the first place.

[anriana]

When our prison system is focused on punishment and making money instead of rehabilitation, it is hard to see people who come from them as reformed and ready to join society.

[kiwi]

sex offenders recidivate at lower rates than the general prison population.

Yes but their crimes are so henious in my opinion that one offence is already too much (Im talking about serious cases here, rape and child molestation not more minor sex crimes). Even if they don't ever offend again, its already too late.

Their victims get a life sentance, they don't only have to deal with it for a certain amount of years and then they have "served their time". They must deal with that every day of their lives. Why should the criminals get a second chance when their victims dont.

I would think very hard before I hired someone with a criminal record. I would never hire someone with a record of a crim that was violent, or sexual or showed little or no social morals (DUI's for example).

Im of the opinion that there is a very easy way to not have to deal with this in your life. Don't break the law. Don't use the excuse that you were young and stupid or drunk or anything.If you are caught, then own up to the fact you fucked up without trying to blame it on something other than the fact you were selfish and stupid.

I do however believe the minor crimes should be wiped from your record after 5 years (as long as no further crimes have been committed). I believe in NZ its 7 years. That means that if you can prove you are now a law abiding citizen you get a clean slate.

[Pedersen]

Yes but their crimes are so henious in my opinion that one offence is already too much (Im talking about serious cases here, rape and child molestation not more minor sex crimes). Even if they don't ever offend again, its already too late.

In which case, my response is summarized by quoting a piece of my post that you did not quote:

So, to you, it is impossible for a sex offender to ever repay their debt to society. Taking that to its logical conclusion, you're basically saying that any and all sex offenders can only be punished adequately through life imprisonment or the death penalty.

At least be intellectually honest, and call for either life imprisonment or the death penalty for that class of criminals. It's already what you are effectively doing.

[kiwi]

At least be intellectually honest.

I was being intellectually honest, I don't have to arrange my answers according to how you would like me to respond.

Anyone who has raped or molested a child ceases to have the right to a free and easy life in my opinion.

[Pedersen]

I was being intellectually honest, I don't have to arrange my answers according to how you would like me to respond.

You are correct. But being wishy-washy about it lets you be able to avoid having to deal with any harsh realities that might be a by-product of what you say. Hence, my statement about intellectual honesty. Acknowledge what you are requesting and the consequences of it.

I note that, in the remainder of this reply to me, you have yet to actually state that such criminals deserve either life imprisonment or the death penalty. I also quoted your original post in its entirety, which is another place where you have done neither.

In fact, within the context of this thread (which is about whether or not criminals have repaid their debt to society, and how society treats them after the law has judged their debt repaid), you have yet to state that sex offenders should actually be imprisoned for life. The closest is in this statement:

Anyone who has raped or molested a child ceases to have the right to a free and easy life in my opinion.

Taken within the context of this thread, the statement is ambiguous. After all, we are talking about people who have been released from prison after paying their debt. If, in your estimation, these people have not paid their debt, then call your desires what they are, and don't be ambiguous.

Do that, and no one can call you intellectually dishonest. They might not like or agree with your opinions, but they can not call you out for failing to acknowledge the consequences of your opinions.

Yes but their crimes are so henious in my opinion that one offence is already too much (Im talking about serious cases here, rape and child molestation not more minor sex crimes). Even if they don't ever offend again, its already too late.

Their victims get a life sentance, they don't only have to deal with it for a certain amount of years and then they have "served their time". They must deal with that every day of their lives. Why should the criminals get a second chance when their victims dont.

I would think very hard before I hired someone with a criminal record. I would never hire someone with a record of a crim that was violent, or sexual or showed little or no social morals (DUI's for example).

Im of the opinion that there is a very easy way to not have to deal with this in your life. Don't break the law. Don't use the excuse that you were young and stupid or drunk or anything.If you are caught, then own up to the fact you fucked up without trying to blame it on something other than the fact you were selfish and stupid.

I do however believe the minor crimes should be wiped from your record after 5 years (as long as no further crimes have been committed). I believe in NZ its 7 years. That means that if you can prove you are now a law abiding citizen you get a clean slate.

See? No where do you state that sex offenders should either be locked up for life or executed. The closest you get is to state that you wouldn't hire such people.

Of course, that gets into the original question, and the point of my statements: Since these same people are now unable to be hired, and they have been released back into society, they are now forced to resort to a life of crime just to be able to eat. Which produces more victims.

<sarcasm>Sounds like an absolutely marvelous cycle to me. Really. Honest.</sarcasm>

[DesignFox]

<snip>
(but yeah, it was a bit scary to read how the kid was worthless scum, the pharmacist was a hero!)

Personally, I see nothing scary about calling this kid what he was- worthless scum. Perhaps if he had become reformed, (had he had the chance, which given what happened, he won't) my opinion of the kid would be reformed.

If threatening an innocent person with a gun isn't being a complete and utter scumbag, than what is?

And for the love of god, I never said the guy was a hero. I did say that half the country may label him such. I do not. I only said that in my opinion he is not a murderer. He defended himself, and he got carried away. Not the type of person I'm worried about being a repeat offender.

I do not believe that a person who invades someone's home or work place, threatens people with a deadly weapon, then gets killed in the process deserves a lot sympathy.

Sorry. No. You threaten me with deadly force? It's you or me. I choose me. You started it. I'm gonna finish it. You may not like it. Your family may not like it. But tough shit. Don't start it in the first place.

Also-
I do NOT believe that serial rapists, repeat child molesters, serial killers, people who kidnap and torture, or any other severely violent criminals deserve a second chance- they deserve life imprisonment or the death penalty depending on the severity of their crimes.

I do believe that everyone makes mistakes. I do believe in giving people second chances.

So someone who say, got caught with some pot in high school, doesn't deserves to be treated as lowly scum. They made a mistake. And frankly, if they aren't doing pot on my property, if they aren't driving under the influence, or doing any other such thing that could bring others to harm- let them pay their debt and move on.

Same goes for petty theft. If the person can serve their sentence, perhaps be listed on parole for X number of years, then we wipe the slate clean and let them start over.

And yea, when you get caught breaking into someone's home, you are going to be called a scumbag. Fucking deal with it. Do the crime, deal with the consequences- both legally and socially.

But yes, I do wish there was a way to let (particularly) non-violent crimes fade into the background after a certain period of time. It isn't fair to keep someone who say- stole some clothes from the mall when they were 17- from ever getting a job. Especially if their record can show they never did it since.

Significant differences between crimes and I believe the consequences should reflect that.

[BlaqueKatt]

lucky me just found the perfect story to illustrate my point-
Story here


PHOENIX (AP) -- A 51-year-old woman guilted her young sons and their friends into helping her pay bills by committing at least 20 armed robberies in the Phoenix area, authorities said Monday.


Now these kids will have to deal with a criminal record of 20 armed robberies-what kind of chance do they have-her kids are 12 and 14-this was not their choice. Are they "scum" should they have been killed by one of their victims? What if you were the victim that had the chance to take them out-how would you feel knowing the story behind the actions-or would you be so callus that it wouldn't matter?