is NOT locking up first time offenders cruel and unusual?

[bitter clinging swiftie]

I know it sounds counterintuitive, but in my estimation, giving first time offenders non-custiodial sentences(IE, probation) is more cruel than locking them up. Look at it like this, a young man has shown he cant follow rules; so rather than confine him to a place that MAKES him follow rules, you let him back out into society and not only expect him to follow the law, but also to follow a bunch of extra rules, pay money, etc.....most of these guys are lacking in structure and discipline at home, have never had a job, etc......all you are doing is putting a prison sentence on lay a way. I strongly feel that almost everybody is redeemable, and doubly so if you catch them young, and i think locking up first time youthful offenders for at least a year will stick with them and go further toward that than all this BS probation.

 

[Coyote]

Locking up gives a person a jail record forever ESPECIALLY when they get caught up in the juvenile justice system. It ends up a spiral that they often can't escape from.

That impacts their ability to get a job, certain careers etc. Everyone deserves a second chance.

 

[bitter clinging swiftie]

Locking up gives a person a jail record forever ESPECIALLY when they get caught up in the juvenile justice system. It ends up a spiral that they often can't escape from.

That impacts their ability to get a job, certain careers etc. Everyone deserves a second chance.

that is so true...however, Im firmly of the belief that once a sentence is served in its entirety, the person gets a clean slate, period

 

[Coyote]

Locking up gives a person a jail record forever ESPECIALLY when they get caught up in the juvenile justice system. It ends up a spiral that they often can't escape from.

That impacts their ability to get a job, certain careers etc. Everyone deserves a second chance.

that is so true...however, Im firmly of the belief that once a sentence is served in its entirety, the person gets a clean slate, period

Unfortunately....that doesn't seem to happen...

 

[SavannahMann]

Locking up gives a person a jail record forever ESPECIALLY when they get caught up in the juvenile justice system. It ends up a spiral that they often can't escape from.

That impacts their ability to get a job, certain careers etc. Everyone deserves a second chance.

that is so true...however, Im firmly of the belief that once a sentence is served in its entirety, the person gets a clean slate, period

That isn't the case. Ever.

 

[bitter clinging swiftie]

Locking up gives a person a jail record forever ESPECIALLY when they get caught up in the juvenile justice system. It ends up a spiral that they often can't escape from.

That impacts their ability to get a job, certain careers etc. Everyone deserves a second chance.

that is so true...however, Im firmly of the belief that once a sentence is served in its entirety, the person gets a clean slate, period

That isn't the case. Ever.

for a lot of American history, that was the case, unfortunately that time has passed and probably will never come back.

 

[Disir]

I know it sounds counterintuitive, but in my estimation, giving first time offenders non-custiodial sentences(IE, probation) is more cruel than locking them up. Look at it like this, a young man has shown he cant follow rules; so rather than confine him to a place that MAKES him follow rules, you let him back out into society and not only expect him to follow the law, but also to follow a bunch of extra rules, pay money, etc.....most of these guys are lacking in structure and discipline at home, have never had a job, etc......all you are doing is putting a prison sentence on lay a way. I strongly feel that almost everybody is redeemable, and doubly so if you catch them young, and i think locking up first time youthful offenders for at least a year will stick with them and go further toward that than all this BS probation.

Shouldn't that whole locky-upy thingy depend on the crime? In reality it does.

 

[bitter clinging swiftie]

I know it sounds counterintuitive, but in my estimation, giving first time offenders non-custiodial sentences(IE, probation) is more cruel than locking them up. Look at it like this, a young man has shown he cant follow rules; so rather than confine him to a place that MAKES him follow rules, you let him back out into society and not only expect him to follow the law, but also to follow a bunch of extra rules, pay money, etc.....most of these guys are lacking in structure and discipline at home, have never had a job, etc......all you are doing is putting a prison sentence on lay a way. I strongly feel that almost everybody is redeemable, and doubly so if you catch them young, and i think locking up first time youthful offenders for at least a year will stick with them and go further toward that than all this BS probation.

Shouldn't that whole locky-upy thingy depend on the crime? In reality it does.

well, other than murder and rape.....nowdays most first time offenders get probation, even for some pretty severe crimes

 

[Wry Catcher]

I know it sounds counterintuitive, but in my estimation, giving first time offenders non-custiodial sentences(IE, probation) is more cruel than locking them up. Look at it like this, a young man has shown he cant follow rules; so rather than confine him to a place that MAKES him follow rules, you let him back out into society and not only expect him to follow the law, but also to follow a bunch of extra rules, pay money, etc.....most of these guys are lacking in structure and discipline at home, have never had a job, etc......all you are doing is putting a prison sentence on lay a way. I strongly feel that almost everybody is redeemable, and doubly so if you catch them young, and i think locking up first time youthful offenders for at least a year will stick with them and go further toward that than all this BS probation.

You're an idiot. County jails are overcrowded and hold Felony and Misdemeanor offenders, parole violators, gang members and career criminals. Putting a first offender into such an environment as policy is stupid. At the time a first time offender is convicted, s/he is interviewed by a Probation Officer who will write a probation report and make a recommendation to the trier of fact.

Factors considered in the sentencing report (PSI) offer a comprehensive history of the defendant, a summary of the crime from the police reports, and a statement by the defendant of the crime; a victim's statement, amount of restitution, if any, and headings that include School History and Adjustment, Work History, Health History, Marital History, Number of Children, if any, History of drugs and alcohol abuse and factors of mitigation and aggravation.

I can write a book on how stupid your idea is, but it's likely you haven't read this far, so why bother.

 

[Disir]

I know it sounds counterintuitive, but in my estimation, giving first time offenders non-custiodial sentences(IE, probation) is more cruel than locking them up. Look at it like this, a young man has shown he cant follow rules; so rather than confine him to a place that MAKES him follow rules, you let him back out into society and not only expect him to follow the law, but also to follow a bunch of extra rules, pay money, etc.....most of these guys are lacking in structure and discipline at home, have never had a job, etc......all you are doing is putting a prison sentence on lay a way. I strongly feel that almost everybody is redeemable, and doubly so if you catch them young, and i think locking up first time youthful offenders for at least a year will stick with them and go further toward that than all this BS probation.

Shouldn't that whole locky-upy thingy depend on the crime? In reality it does.

well, other than murder and rape.....nowdays most first time offenders get probation, even for some pretty severe crimes

Yes. Yes, they do. And that should make the hug a thug crowd warm and fuzzy. I mean what's a little carjacking or armed robbery?

 

[SavannahMann]

Locking up gives a person a jail record forever ESPECIALLY when they get caught up in the juvenile justice system. It ends up a spiral that they often can't escape from.

That impacts their ability to get a job, certain careers etc. Everyone deserves a second chance.

that is so true...however, Im firmly of the belief that once a sentence is served in its entirety, the person gets a clean slate, period

That isn't the case. Ever.

for a lot of American history, that was the case, unfortunately that time has passed and probably will never come back.

Realizing that truth means your argument of "helping" the first time minor offender by incarcerating them is flawed. It is a life sentence.

 

[Coyote]

I know it sounds counterintuitive, but in my estimation, giving first time offenders non-custiodial sentences(IE, probation) is more cruel than locking them up. Look at it like this, a young man has shown he cant follow rules; so rather than confine him to a place that MAKES him follow rules, you let him back out into society and not only expect him to follow the law, but also to follow a bunch of extra rules, pay money, etc.....most of these guys are lacking in structure and discipline at home, have never had a job, etc......all you are doing is putting a prison sentence on lay a way. I strongly feel that almost everybody is redeemable, and doubly so if you catch them young, and i think locking up first time youthful offenders for at least a year will stick with them and go further toward that than all this BS probation.

Shouldn't that whole locky-upy thingy depend on the crime? In reality it does.

It SHOULD but it doesn't necessarily - it depends on the ability of your lawyer or public defender, your economic status, even your race. People get lost in the juvenile justice system, incarcerated without charges. There's been a lot of expose's on that recently.

 

[Disir]

I know it sounds counterintuitive, but in my estimation, giving first time offenders non-custiodial sentences(IE, probation) is more cruel than locking them up. Look at it like this, a young man has shown he cant follow rules; so rather than confine him to a place that MAKES him follow rules, you let him back out into society and not only expect him to follow the law, but also to follow a bunch of extra rules, pay money, etc.....most of these guys are lacking in structure and discipline at home, have never had a job, etc......all you are doing is putting a prison sentence on lay a way. I strongly feel that almost everybody is redeemable, and doubly so if you catch them young, and i think locking up first time youthful offenders for at least a year will stick with them and go further toward that than all this BS probation.

Shouldn't that whole locky-upy thingy depend on the crime? In reality it does.

It SHOULD but it doesn't necessarily - it depends on the ability of your lawyer or public defender, your economic status, even your race. People get lost in the juvenile justice system, incarcerated without charges. There's been a lot of expose's on that recently.

Incarcerated without charges? I would say that is highly unlikely unless this a reference to the private owned detention center and the judges with kick backs in Pennsylvania. But, no.

 

[Coyote]

I know it sounds counterintuitive, but in my estimation, giving first time offenders non-custiodial sentences(IE, probation) is more cruel than locking them up. Look at it like this, a young man has shown he cant follow rules; so rather than confine him to a place that MAKES him follow rules, you let him back out into society and not only expect him to follow the law, but also to follow a bunch of extra rules, pay money, etc.....most of these guys are lacking in structure and discipline at home, have never had a job, etc......all you are doing is putting a prison sentence on lay a way. I strongly feel that almost everybody is redeemable, and doubly so if you catch them young, and i think locking up first time youthful offenders for at least a year will stick with them and go further toward that than all this BS probation.

Shouldn't that whole locky-upy thingy depend on the crime? In reality it does.

It SHOULD but it doesn't necessarily - it depends on the ability of your lawyer or public defender, your economic status, even your race. People get lost in the juvenile justice system, incarcerated without charges. There's been a lot of expose's on that recently.

Incarcerated without charges? I would say that is highly unlikely unless this a reference to the private owned detention center and the judges with kick backs in Pennsylvania. But, no.

I might be wrong about that - I'm trying to think of the article I read but can't find it. It might have been they were charged but they were held an inordinate amount of time before adjudication, in deplorable circumstances. And kids end up in the system for relatively trivial "crimes' under a zero tolerance policy.

There are better ways of handling it unless it's truly violent crimes.

Uncompromising Photos Expose Juvenile Detention in America

 

[Disir]

I know it sounds counterintuitive, but in my estimation, giving first time offenders non-custiodial sentences(IE, probation) is more cruel than locking them up. Look at it like this, a young man has shown he cant follow rules; so rather than confine him to a place that MAKES him follow rules, you let him back out into society and not only expect him to follow the law, but also to follow a bunch of extra rules, pay money, etc.....most of these guys are lacking in structure and discipline at home, have never had a job, etc......all you are doing is putting a prison sentence on lay a way. I strongly feel that almost everybody is redeemable, and doubly so if you catch them young, and i think locking up first time youthful offenders for at least a year will stick with them and go further toward that than all this BS probation.

Shouldn't that whole locky-upy thingy depend on the crime? In reality it does.

It SHOULD but it doesn't necessarily - it depends on the ability of your lawyer or public defender, your economic status, even your race. People get lost in the juvenile justice system, incarcerated without charges. There's been a lot of expose's on that recently.

Incarcerated without charges? I would say that is highly unlikely unless this a reference to the private owned detention center and the judges with kick backs in Pennsylvania. But, no.

I might be wrong about that - I'm trying to think of the article I read but can't find it. It might have been they were charged but they were held an inordinate amount of time before adjudication, in deplorable circumstances. And kids end up in the system for relatively trivial "crimes' under a zero tolerance policy.

There are better ways of handling it unless it's truly violent crimes.

Uncompromising Photos Expose Juvenile Detention in America

Those aren't uncompromising photos. The chair is to keep the kid from hurting himself. The detention officers need to keep the kid safe. If they restrain the kid themselves then they risk injuring the kid. They aren't mental health experts. They can't give the kid a shot. They are acutely aware that they lack the credentials. A kid that is detained that is emotionally disturbed sits in detention as a danger to himself or to others because he is a danger to himself or others and there is no place for him to go.
People have said they don't give a damn about mental health care and until you have a place for him to go then he is pretty well stuck. People have decided that a lack of psych wards or beds for actively suicidal/homicidal and/or psychotic individuals is not important. Yet, they remain a danger to themselves or others. You think momma wants the emotionally disturbed kid at home around her other kids? Usually momma is at her wits end. She can't keep her other children safe and she can't physically control the kid that is in. Nine out of ten times she has begged and pleaded for help from everyone before it got to that point.

And the kicker is that most of your residential treatment facilities will have that kid arrested the moment that he or she does a smack down on the staff there. Because they really want the good kids. You know, with the smiling happy faces on their web pages.

So.....fix that^^^^.

There should never be more than one kid to a room.

Don't want smallish crimes to be an issue? Zero tolerance goes down in your schools. Simple battery charges. Stop having them arrested. That is where a plethora of your cases come from.

In practice you can't detain a kid for runaway although there are exceptions to the rule based on things like a detention order, a pick up order and a BW from an open case.

Juvenile Corrections officer killed during escape | AFSCME Local 1368

Video shows teen inmate luring guard into cell before strangling her, authorities say

Juvenile Detention Officer Attacked by Detainee, Airlifted to Hospital

Detention officers have a really difficult job. Threats should be taken seriously. I ain't doin' that shit. Two days in a cell alone after threatening staff may have been more than appropriate specifically considering any past attacks on staff. There is usually a history of it or something that is escalating.