criminal recidivism-they've paid their debt

[DesignFox]

<snip>
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?

This is indeed a tragic story.

Hypothetically, if one of these children robbed me at gunpoint, and happened to have gotten shot in the process, maybe I would feel badly for them after hearing their story. It wouldn't change what I had done. And it wouldn't change the fact that, too bad, they had a gun- it was me, or them.

I'm not so callous as to not care at all. Different crimes. Different circumstances.

But sorry, I don't think the kids get off free, either. They still did the crimes. They should go and serve their sentences, be given job training, have a parole sentence sent, and then have their records sealed so they have an opportunity to be productive.

If anything, the mother and the other legal adults involved should get the harsher sentencing because of the circumstances.

I suppose since this is all written word, I haven't made it very clear that I do find all these different situations tragic. But I think it's seriously fucked up that the criminals are being given consideration over their victims. I don't care how old you are. If you do the crime, you suffer the consequences. If you attack someone, you'd best be concerned that they may defend themselves. And I truly believe that if you pull a gun or other deadly weapon on someone, you brought injury or death upon yourself.

I seriously hope NEVER to find myself in any of these circumstances. I like to think that if I was unfortunate enough to have this happen, that I wouldn't end up *killing* someone. But the fact is, I just don't know HOW I'd react. And I don't think it's fair to assume or even expect someone to "turn the other cheek" when confronted with something like this. People react in weird and varying ways under stress....especially if they feel that their *life* is being threatened. I may not think that the reaction is the "right" one, but I'm not necessarily going to hold that it was the "wrong" one, either.

And in the case of the pharmacist, didn't the article say his place and been held up before? Wasn't this neighborhood also known to have gang activity? What's the proper response to a hold up if you deal with that on a frequent basis? I'd quite possibly snap and say enough's enough!

[unholypet]

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?

A: Yes, they had a choice. Even a child has a choice in it's actions. Kids aren't as stupid as you'd think.

B: The story isn't in scrupulous detail, but I did catch that one of them used a shotgun?

Would I have taken them out? Hell yes. I don't care why you're doing it, you're threatening me, and I will screw you up.

C: No, I don't care why they were doing it. They were still doing it.

The man stealing food for his starving family is still stealing, and still going to jail.

[Boozy]

But sorry, I don't think the kids get off free, either. They still did the crimes.

I doubt BlaqueKatt is arguing that these kids should be let off the hook. The argument is that they don't deserve to be put down like rabid animals. They are human beings.

I think, like myself, there are several people who didn't agree with the assessment that all robbers are "scum" who deserve to be executed.

[anriana]

The man stealing food for his starving family is still stealing, and still going to jail.

Hey, remember what happens to Javert at the end of Les Miserables? He realizes that a man who stole bread to feed his (sister's) family is not criminal scum and kills himself because he realizes that his system of morality is deeply flawed.

I like that book/musical.

[BlaqueKatt]

B: The story isn't in scrupulous detail, but I did catch that one of them used a shotgun?

nope that was the mother that had the shotgun-while coaching the kids.

A: Yes, they had a choice. Even a child has a choice in it's actions. Kids aren't as stupid as you'd think.

No but they are vulnerable, especially when seeking approval from adults-and can easily be manipulated, how do you think repeat child molesters get away with it?-(hint:child that seeks approval, guilt, and manipulation/threats.)


and actually kids don't have the ability to decide much-society's rules dictate that-and when your mother is "guilting" you into something-it's pretty difficult to say no. For example my own mother guilted me into not reporting her for abandoning me because "she'd go to jail" what kid wants to know they sent their parent to jail-it's not fair to say they had a choice-you have no idea what tactics she used, and a child is not emotionally mature enough to handle things like that-I know I've been there.

More than likely it was something to the effect of "if you don't do this we'll be homeless and you'll be put in a foster home/other bad place" or "if you love me you'll do this"-heck adults fall for that one.

[DesignFox]

<snip>

I think, like myself, there are several people who didn't agree with the assessment that all robbers are "scum" who deserve to be executed.

And I don't think anyone said that at all. Most of us are saying that if a person attacks another person with a deadly weapon, regardless of the reason or circumstance, the victim has the right to defend themselves. And yes, if a criminal attacks another person with a gun, and ends up dead, I'm not going to be sympathetic to the criminal. Fuck that.

I'm not advocating the death penalty for robberies (I think in many of our discussions, I've made it quite clear what my position on the death penalty is, and who it should be reserved for). And I don't think anyone else did, either. But I can only speak for myself. *shrug*

[powerboy]

It all boils down to that person. Just because you did go to jail, does not mean that you had paid your debt. If you did pay your debt, then you would not be doing any more crimes.

[AFPheonix]

^Wait, what?

And I don't think anyone said that at all. Most of us are saying that if a person attacks another person with a deadly weapon, regardless of the reason or circumstance, the victim has the right to defend themselves. And yes, if a criminal attacks another person with a gun, and ends up dead, I'm not going to be sympathetic to the criminal. Fuck that.

But that's not the argument here. The argument in this particular thread is how difficult society makes it for former criminals to reintegrate back into a normal life, and how that can potentially make some re-offend.

Further, the argument also goes into the whys and wherefores behind why some criminals get into trouble in the first place.

[Gravekeeper]

Yar, this subject again.

Society is a vindictive thing which to be honest isn't really that productive. Especially when you wade into a topic like this.

The system of crime and punishment rarely addresses the actual root of the problem. Especially in the US. No offense to Americans, its just you have a "War on x" or "Tough on y"mantra for practically every social problem and it gets taken too far at times. You have an amazing amount of people in jail down there and the majority are for drug offenses. The exact same crime that would get me a fine in Vancouver would net me 5 years minimum if I drove 2 hours south. That's insane. ><

Punishment is, ironically, the problem though. When someone does something wrong, our natural reaction for better or worse is vengeance. We want that person to suffer and pay, so they are punished by taking their freedom away. Than we they get out they have the stigma of a criminal record or the laughable sex registry program. If they get beaten within an inch of their life or better yet killed before that than woohoo! Suck it, scum bag! seems to be the reaction.

But much less is done to address the root cause or trigger for the criminal act. Some kid knocks off a store. Why? Is he stuck in a gang? Is he addicted to drugs? Is he being manipulated or guilted into it? By his mom? What caused him to come to this point?

Well, no one really gives a rat's asshole if the previous discussion is any indication and there in we fail ourselves. He got shot to death. Fuck ya, you go boy! That scum deserved it!

Seriously, can't we be better than that as a species? ><

Yes, take away his freedom in prison, but for christ sakes address the reason he did it to begin with. Does he need counseling? Was he just poor and uneducated? Can we teach him a trade skill or something in prison so he has a chance to make a living when he gets out? So he doesn't fail right back into the same problem or pattern that caused him to commit a crime to begin with.

Nah, lets take the kid stuck in a gang and throw him in prison with a bunch of gang members that will beat, control and buttfuck him for the next 5-10 years. That'll help him return to society! Sure, it works on some people who can be frightened straight. Others will just break down or toughen up and become worse as a survival mechanism.

That said, I am all for second chances. I believe you should get a chance to prove you can become a better person without having a lifetime stigma over your head. However, at the same time I have little patience for career offenders. You get 3 strikes, you shouldn't be allowed to play the game anymore.

Although I have less patience for people that engage the police in high speed chases thus endangering everyone around them. I mean really, where do you think you're going? They have cars, dogs and a helicopter.

As for sociopaths, serial rapists and all those other wonderful types sure, that's a much more difficult problem. Because there is something wrong ( mentally speaking ) with them that's not going to be cured with simple imprisonment. They'll need other avenues of rehabilitation or at the very least some place they can live after prison that they won't be an immediate threat to themselves or others.

[Flyndaran]

...

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....

I hope you realize that that would result in far more murders. If I wished to sexually assault someone for example, and I'm going to get murdered by the state for it anyway, then there is absolutely no incentive not to kill my victim.

I abhor "my" nation's obsession on sex, violence, and revenge. While most individuals may be incapable of rational thought most of the time, I really wish that the government could make decisions based on facts and what's best for the most people.
Executions waste money more money than life imprisonment, are immoral, and suffer the oops we killed an innocent guy problem.
Prison should be completely about rehabilitation. Revenge is an animalistic gut reaction that should hold no say in what civilized nations do.

[DesignFox]

^Wait, what?

But that's not the argument here. The argument in this particular thread is how difficult society makes it for former criminals to reintegrate back into a normal life, and how that can potentially make some re-offend.
<snip>

But it keeps getting brought up, and I'm tired of getting words from a different situation mixed in with the bigger picture. So yes, I feel a need to respond to it.

No one on this board said that all criminals are scum and deserve execution. I don't know where anyone is getting that from, other than the situation with the pharmacist- where a good number of people defended the pharmacist's actions- so all of a sudden we think all criminals deserve to die.

I'm sorry if I'm reading into this wrong, but that's the feeling I'm getting every time someone uses that sentence.

I don't even think most of the population thinks that way. I think most people are slam dunk in the middle. We've just got a noisy media bunch with their "war on [crime]" and the other noisy media bunch with their "awww think of the poor criminal, why would he do that?"

We need a much better middle ground in this country. I think if the media got their noses out of it that it might fix some things...I mean, do any of us really know the former crimes of our neighbors, friends or fellow employees? I sure as hell don't. I don't go looking for it. All I need to know is that they are a good person *now.* If one of them had previously done time for murder, or sexual assault...well, then I might have some concerns...

But if they stole from the candy store when they were a teenager? Nope. Doesn't bother me.

If they ran into some trouble with substance abuse? I might have some sympathy. And as long as they remain clean, I don't see it as anything for *me* to concern myself with.

Honestly, I can understand employers being concerned. I do think they have a right to know- within limits- and depending on the job. Obviously, we're not putting former child molesters into schools. We're not going to have embezzlers handling the money of our company (oops, that happens all too frequently, doesn't it?)

We need a better way of handling petty crimes, simple robbery and assaults, minor drug crimes, etc. Maybe not publicizing *every* little mistake would be one way...or making the information available, but giving people a "clean slate" after a certain period of time has passed... perhaps job training while behind bars...that sort of thing.

[DesignFox]

<snip>I hope you realize that that would result in far more murders.
<snip>

Considering that the people my rant was referring to are usually so sick and demented that they do not consider consequences, no. I don't think that is a problem. Especially because they usually start out "careful" and don't get caught until after they've murdered or raped an astonishing number of people.

Mad dogs get put down. THOSE are the only people who deserve the death penalty.

You killed your wife for the insurance money? Jail.

One case of sexual assault? I still can't decide what the proper punishment for this is. But I don't think it's death.

Those who can be rehabilitated should be. And I think most simple criminals will cease their actions when given something constructive to do. There are some prisons working on this, but far too few. I forget the names of some of the systems I'm thinking of, but I know there were programs about prisons who would use dog training or work on a horse farm...etc.

[Flyndaran]

Considering that the people my rant was referring to are usually so sick and demented that they do not consider consequences, no. I don't think that is a problem. Especially because they usually start out "careful" and don't get caught until after they've murdered or raped an astonishing number of people.

Mad dogs get put down. THOSE are the only people who deserve the death penalty.
....

But we are talking about people not deranged pets.
Serial killers are very rare. Creating plans for such a minority seems like it should be one of the last things to nail down rather than the first.
Just because someone chooses to commit crimes of a nature we consider unthinkable doesn't mean they are mindless beasts. They are still people affected by many different forces.
Besides, most criminals start out incomeptent through inexperience, then get better, then if suffering from certain types of mental illness become sloppy.
But are you seriously suggesting that violent criminals with mental illnesses be executed?
Until convictions are not race, sex, or media hysterics based, I will continue to call the death penalty unbalanced and therefore unjustified.
I admit that even if such a near impossible scenario ocurred, I would still be against the death penalty. But then my possition would be moral alone and therefore neither truly justifiable nor arguable.

[Slytovhand]

DesignFox, I thought I'd pop back to that thread, to see where this thread came from. Here are the results (if I knew how to quote from that thread to this one, I'd do it - it'd look better and probably be easier! )

The thug he killed was no loss to our society.
RK #2

That guy was a piece of crap. He doesn't deserve the same rights as other people.
Dr Farookh #8

And that line about "he didn't have to do that to my baby." Fucking bullshit. Cry me a fucking river. Maybe if your "baby" wasn't a robbing piece of shit
DesignFox #17

This guy sent a message to the local riff-raff that the pharmacy will no longer be an easy target. Maybe the little shits left alive will think twice before committing another crime.
DesignFox # 25

Y'all are awfully forgiving of the shitbags who created the incident.
DrFarookh #35

Anyone who is a in gang, robs is worthless.
Powerboy #39

If some group of dirtbags
DesignFox #44

To me, they translate pretty much into the equivalent of 'worthless scum' (the word 'scum' came from BK... but I'd suggest it's a fair addition to the list, as an example!) And yes, given that pharmacist walked back in to kill the kid, etc etc, I can also see why those who are seen 'approving' (or at least accepting) his actions, would be seen as being ok with executing said persons. Which is why I'm surprised, DesignFox, that if you're against the state executing criminals, why you'd see it ok for him to have done it... that just totally doesn't make sense to me!

(as for the 'hero' tag... more quotes )

Man, what happened to the good old days when the pharmacist would've gotten a commendation from the city and been lauded as a hero?
DrF #14

way this swings, that poor pharmacy clerk is screwed. If he hadn't killed the kid, he probably would have been sued by the family for medical damages. Since he did kill the kid, half the population is crying murder, the other is heralding him as a hero,
DesignFox #17

Like I said before, if he'd shown restraint, then he would have been lauded as a hero.
AFP #28

Sure, they don't actually say he is a hero, but they allude to it... (at least as a perspective possibly shown by others).


There have been other threads done with similar topics, where other strong words were said as well, regarding the worth of a life of a criminal vs an 'innocent'.


Anyway, back to discussing part of the topic itself...

In India, there were 'experiments' done using the Vipassana style of meditation - link (I was going to do more links, but seems they all reference the same thing anyway...).

So, there's one thing to think about.... (well, maybe )

[DesignFox]

<snip> Which is why I'm surprised, DesignFox, that if you're against the state executing criminals, why you'd see it ok for him to have done it... that just totally doesn't make sense to me!

(as for the 'hero' tag... more quotes )


Sure, they don't actually say he is a hero, but they allude to it... (at least as a perspective possibly shown by others).

<snip>

Thank you. At least you acknowledge my perspective. *I* don't laud the guy as a hero. But yes, many do.

Why am I ok with this when I don't feel the death penalty is appropriate? I don't think it's "ok" so much as it just wasn't "wrong." In a life threatening situation, I just don't believe the criminal who caused the incident gets rights over the other person. Afterall, if he hadn't caused the problem, he wouldn't be dead. I don't think the pharmacist ever would have shot anybody if he hadn't felt threatened. And I don't feel people like that deserve to be punished the same way the instigators do.

And yes. I used some strong words. They apply specifically to that situation. Every situation is different. And I feel very strongly about the fact that people have to be afraid to defend themselves. Because others will say "Oh, you didn't need to do that to my baby!" Babies don't pull guns on people. Babies don't show up as part of a gang and threaten "your money or your life." So. No. I am not sympathetic. Doesn't mean I don't wish there was a better way. Or that maybe things hadn't turned out differently. I just say. Well. Good. Maybe others will think twice before attacking innocent people.

My boyfriend put it pretty succinctly- "They had a choice. They didn't have to go in there. Once they were there, they didn't have to pull the gun out. Even after they pulled the gun out, they had a chance to put it away and leave. They didn't do that. So be it."

*shrug*

I do agree. There's got to be a better way to rehabilitate people, though. Obviously, the current system isn't doing it's job.

But I do wish people would accept the fact that some people are just plain evil. Some people will be criminals because they CAN. Not all people are down on their luck and have no other choice in life.

And when that gun comes into play, it doens't matter what type of criminal you are. If you are a good person deep inside, I hope for you that your victim takes pity on you and doesn't kill you. But the fact is, your victim can't know that. Your victim only knows that they are currently a victim. And right, wrong or indifferent, to me that victim's rights come first in a situation like that.

Anyway. Yea. Not everyone who starts out as a douchebag stays that way.