Trump endorses first step act criminal justice reform measure

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Impossible. Trump is a racist. He hates black people. Bernie Sanders and Don Lemon said so.

 

[MindWars]

Once again MIndwars has attempted to mislead the reader.

Obama cuts sentences of hundreds of drug offenders - CNNPolitics

From the link:

"President Barack Obama on Tuesday reduced or eliminated the sentences for hundreds more non-violent drug offenders.

"The move brings Obama well beyond his most recent predecessors, who used their commutation powers more sparingly. He's now reduced sentences for 1,385 individuals, the vast majority of whom are serving time for crimes related to distribution or production of narcotics."

Does anyone need more examples that Mindwars is a Damn Liar. If so, and if the reader is not willfully ignorant, always check and never trust this ne'er do well.

No you are to fkn stupid to comprehend tell the truth asshole.

 

[MindWars]

Impossible. Trump is a racist. He hates black people. Bernie Sanders and Don Lemon said so.

So what

 

[MindWars]

Exactly the wrong thing to do.

What is needed is that if your first offense is a misdemeanor, you go to jail for 6 months. I don’t care if you steal a candy bar, get caught with a joint, criminal trespass, criminal mischief, PI, whatever. Six months detention. No weekends off, no time off for good behavior, etc.. That would cut down recidivism because what we do now is give them a PR bond and what amounts to a fine.

Not all on Trump though. A lot of democrats have this wrong too.

Yea until it all happens to you or yours. lol

Six months lmfao, you do realize sending someone to prison DESTROYS THEIR LIVES FOREVER, You do realize the average person commits three felonies a day, you do realize when someone goes to prison they LEARN HOW TO BE A BETTER CRIMINAL.........

You do realize you can send someone to prison for yelling at a person, you do realize out of that someone can lose their right to vote, lose their right to own a gun, they lose the ability to find good jobs.


YEAH LETS JUST PUT PPL IN FKN PRISON the minute that CONTROLLED ROBOTIC LINE WALKING DEMAND is broken.

3 felonies a day? Explain.

I’m registered with State Boards. I know that if I violate the rules and regulations associated with those licenses, I will lose my license. So guess what? I don’t do those things that will get my licenses and certs revoked.

The proposition goes like this: If I do __________, I will lose ____________.

The system we have now is broken. I think one of the parts that is an easy fix is that first time offenders are often not penalized for breaking the law outside of a minor inconvenience of a night or two in jail followed by a PR bond followed by little else.

My theory is that if you take them off the street for 6 months or 3 months or 1 month or 2 weeks even for the first offense; that will make an impression and they won’t want to go through it again.

STUDY: The average American inadvertently commits three felonies a day

You Commit Three Felonies a Day

 

[Silhouette]

Impossible. Trump is a racist. He hates black people. Bernie Sanders and Don Lemon said so.

Did you delete my post on this thread? And if so, why?

 

[candycorn]

Exactly the wrong thing to do.

What is needed is that if your first offense is a misdemeanor, you go to jail for 6 months. I don’t care if you steal a candy bar, get caught with a joint, criminal trespass, criminal mischief, PI, whatever. Six months detention. No weekends off, no time off for good behavior, etc.. That would cut down recidivism because what we do now is give them a PR bond and what amounts to a fine.

Not all on Trump though. A lot of democrats have this wrong too.

Cutting off someone's hand for any first offense would likely cut down on recidivism, that doesn't mean it's a good plan.

That would be barbaric. People make mistakes. People should pay for them. I recommend an adequate and appropriate punishment for a misdemeanor.

Mandatory minimum sentences are, IMO, just a sop to the electorate. Politicians trying to look "tough on crime." It ties the hands of the judicial system, making it so cases cannot be judged on an individual basis.


The idea of giving the same sentence for stealing a candy bar, loitering, making a false report, and misdemeanor assault is ludicrous. I prefer the idea that the punishment should fit the crime to that of the same punishment for all crime.

Well, what I meant (and I am probably guilty of not spelling it out) is that the most basic of crimes that hit the court system should get a minimum on first charge. I used “stealing a candy bar” and that was wrong. But if you’re caught with a bag of pot, CT, CM, etc… I say give the offender an inconvenient amount of jail time. Not a 8 hour stay in jail followed by a PR bond and no inconvenience.

It makes an impression. The problem is that there is no penalty in a lot of cases. It’s a night in jail followed by a PR bond that causes no pain to the perpetrator. Taking 6 months out of their life; that’ll get their attention. If you want to make it 3 months. Cool. A month? Maybe. Just some sort of innate bargain that is known to someone thinking about flaunting the law; “If you do _________, you will get ____________”. Today, tomorrow, no exceptions.

I would think it would do the opposite. It would make it easier for the DA, the Judge, the Jury, etc… No debate about what happens on first time offenders….

An 8 hour stay in jail and paying for bond is at least an "inconvenience" for most people. That 8 hour stay could mean not going to work, potentially losing a job. That 8 hour stay could mean someone's children aren't properly cared for. As to the bond, well, that's an example of how the justice system tends to be more debilitating to those without financial means.

6 months in jail, on the other hand, is going to be far more than a mere "inconvenience" for most people. That will mean the loss of a job, and be a barrier to getting a new job when the person gets out. That could mean the loss of a car, or a home and the possessions in it. It could mean loss of custody of a person's children. 6 months in jail could be devastating. The same is true of 3 months, or even 1 month.

Yes, it might make things easier for DAs, judges, and juries, but I'm not concerned about the ease of those jobs if it comes as a consequence of removing the ability to view cases as individual circumstances. Every case of criminal mischief is not the same and is not deserving of the same penalty. If you were calling for mandatory minimums for particular crimes, that would be easier to swallow, but to call for the same mandatory sentencing for an entire class of crimes? I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous, and the sentence you propose is draconian by modern standards.

We'd be far better off with fewer laws than with stricter, non-discretionary sentencing. The idea of the US becoming more authoritarian does not appeal to me.

Ok.

You make some good points. If the penalty isn’t severe, the behavior will continue. I’m ready to ratchet the punishment up. 6 weeks is fine if you think 6 months is too much

 

[Montrovant]

Exactly the wrong thing to do.

What is needed is that if your first offense is a misdemeanor, you go to jail for 6 months. I don’t care if you steal a candy bar, get caught with a joint, criminal trespass, criminal mischief, PI, whatever. Six months detention. No weekends off, no time off for good behavior, etc.. That would cut down recidivism because what we do now is give them a PR bond and what amounts to a fine.

Not all on Trump though. A lot of democrats have this wrong too.

Cutting off someone's hand for any first offense would likely cut down on recidivism, that doesn't mean it's a good plan.

That would be barbaric. People make mistakes. People should pay for them. I recommend an adequate and appropriate punishment for a misdemeanor.

Mandatory minimum sentences are, IMO, just a sop to the electorate. Politicians trying to look "tough on crime." It ties the hands of the judicial system, making it so cases cannot be judged on an individual basis.


The idea of giving the same sentence for stealing a candy bar, loitering, making a false report, and misdemeanor assault is ludicrous. I prefer the idea that the punishment should fit the crime to that of the same punishment for all crime.

Well, what I meant (and I am probably guilty of not spelling it out) is that the most basic of crimes that hit the court system should get a minimum on first charge. I used “stealing a candy bar” and that was wrong. But if you’re caught with a bag of pot, CT, CM, etc… I say give the offender an inconvenient amount of jail time. Not a 8 hour stay in jail followed by a PR bond and no inconvenience.

It makes an impression. The problem is that there is no penalty in a lot of cases. It’s a night in jail followed by a PR bond that causes no pain to the perpetrator. Taking 6 months out of their life; that’ll get their attention. If you want to make it 3 months. Cool. A month? Maybe. Just some sort of innate bargain that is known to someone thinking about flaunting the law; “If you do _________, you will get ____________”. Today, tomorrow, no exceptions.

I would think it would do the opposite. It would make it easier for the DA, the Judge, the Jury, etc… No debate about what happens on first time offenders….

An 8 hour stay in jail and paying for bond is at least an "inconvenience" for most people. That 8 hour stay could mean not going to work, potentially losing a job. That 8 hour stay could mean someone's children aren't properly cared for. As to the bond, well, that's an example of how the justice system tends to be more debilitating to those without financial means.

6 months in jail, on the other hand, is going to be far more than a mere "inconvenience" for most people. That will mean the loss of a job, and be a barrier to getting a new job when the person gets out. That could mean the loss of a car, or a home and the possessions in it. It could mean loss of custody of a person's children. 6 months in jail could be devastating. The same is true of 3 months, or even 1 month.

Yes, it might make things easier for DAs, judges, and juries, but I'm not concerned about the ease of those jobs if it comes as a consequence of removing the ability to view cases as individual circumstances. Every case of criminal mischief is not the same and is not deserving of the same penalty. If you were calling for mandatory minimums for particular crimes, that would be easier to swallow, but to call for the same mandatory sentencing for an entire class of crimes? I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous, and the sentence you propose is draconian by modern standards.

We'd be far better off with fewer laws than with stricter, non-discretionary sentencing. The idea of the US becoming more authoritarian does not appeal to me.

Ok.

You make some good points. If the penalty isn’t severe, the behavior will continue. I’m ready to ratchet the punishment up. 6 weeks is fine if you think 6 months is too much

I think it's entirely dependent on the crime, and the specific circumstances of the crime. I'm not a fan of mandatory sentencing specifically because it prevents judges and juries from making their own judgements based on the facts of the individual case, at least so far as minimum sentences are concerned.

I also consider this country to have far too many laws, which are enforced unevenly. That is yet another reason I want leeway in sentencing.

I understand the desire to find ways to keep people from committing crimes, but I just can't agree with your proposal.

 

[candycorn]

Exactly the wrong thing to do.

What is needed is that if your first offense is a misdemeanor, you go to jail for 6 months. I don’t care if you steal a candy bar, get caught with a joint, criminal trespass, criminal mischief, PI, whatever. Six months detention. No weekends off, no time off for good behavior, etc.. That would cut down recidivism because what we do now is give them a PR bond and what amounts to a fine.

Not all on Trump though. A lot of democrats have this wrong too.

Cutting off someone's hand for any first offense would likely cut down on recidivism, that doesn't mean it's a good plan.

That would be barbaric. People make mistakes. People should pay for them. I recommend an adequate and appropriate punishment for a misdemeanor.

Mandatory minimum sentences are, IMO, just a sop to the electorate. Politicians trying to look "tough on crime." It ties the hands of the judicial system, making it so cases cannot be judged on an individual basis.


The idea of giving the same sentence for stealing a candy bar, loitering, making a false report, and misdemeanor assault is ludicrous. I prefer the idea that the punishment should fit the crime to that of the same punishment for all crime.

Well, what I meant (and I am probably guilty of not spelling it out) is that the most basic of crimes that hit the court system should get a minimum on first charge. I used “stealing a candy bar” and that was wrong. But if you’re caught with a bag of pot, CT, CM, etc… I say give the offender an inconvenient amount of jail time. Not a 8 hour stay in jail followed by a PR bond and no inconvenience.

It makes an impression. The problem is that there is no penalty in a lot of cases. It’s a night in jail followed by a PR bond that causes no pain to the perpetrator. Taking 6 months out of their life; that’ll get their attention. If you want to make it 3 months. Cool. A month? Maybe. Just some sort of innate bargain that is known to someone thinking about flaunting the law; “If you do _________, you will get ____________”. Today, tomorrow, no exceptions.

I would think it would do the opposite. It would make it easier for the DA, the Judge, the Jury, etc… No debate about what happens on first time offenders….

An 8 hour stay in jail and paying for bond is at least an "inconvenience" for most people. That 8 hour stay could mean not going to work, potentially losing a job. That 8 hour stay could mean someone's children aren't properly cared for. As to the bond, well, that's an example of how the justice system tends to be more debilitating to those without financial means.

6 months in jail, on the other hand, is going to be far more than a mere "inconvenience" for most people. That will mean the loss of a job, and be a barrier to getting a new job when the person gets out. That could mean the loss of a car, or a home and the possessions in it. It could mean loss of custody of a person's children. 6 months in jail could be devastating. The same is true of 3 months, or even 1 month.

Yes, it might make things easier for DAs, judges, and juries, but I'm not concerned about the ease of those jobs if it comes as a consequence of removing the ability to view cases as individual circumstances. Every case of criminal mischief is not the same and is not deserving of the same penalty. If you were calling for mandatory minimums for particular crimes, that would be easier to swallow, but to call for the same mandatory sentencing for an entire class of crimes? I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous, and the sentence you propose is draconian by modern standards.

We'd be far better off with fewer laws than with stricter, non-discretionary sentencing. The idea of the US becoming more authoritarian does not appeal to me.

Ok.

You make some good points. If the penalty isn’t severe, the behavior will continue. I’m ready to ratchet the punishment up. 6 weeks is fine if you think 6 months is too much

I think it's entirely dependent on the crime, and the specific circumstances of the crime. I'm not a fan of mandatory sentencing specifically because it prevents judges and juries from making their own judgements based on the facts of the individual case, at least so far as minimum sentences are concerned.

I also consider this country to have far too many laws, which are enforced unevenly. That is yet another reason I want leeway in sentencing.

I understand the desire to find ways to keep people from committing crimes, but I just can't agree with your proposal.

I’m not really for MMS either. However I do favor them for first time offenders as a strong deterrent to becoming a repeat law breaker. Clearly what we’re doing with 1st time offenders isn’t working.

 

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

President Donald Trump reportedly gave an enthusiastic thumbs-up to criminal justice reform legislation that would loosen some mandatory minimum sentencing laws — a measure backed by Senate Republicans and Democrats and opposed by conservatives.

Trump Endorses 'First Step Act' Criminal Justice Reform Measure






Just imagine the black community might not live a life out of prison after Trump's signing. After all Clintons put more blacks in prison than any other when the sob signed that drug war/mandatory min. sentence bs.

Weak on crime

Your ghey escort services will be less of a risk now

 

[BlackFlag]

President Donald Trump reportedly gave an enthusiastic thumbs-up to criminal justice reform legislation that would loosen some mandatory minimum sentencing laws — a measure backed by Senate Republicans and Democrats and opposed by conservatives.

Trump Endorses 'First Step Act' Criminal Justice Reform Measure






Just imagine the black community might not live a life out of prison after Trump's signing. After all Clintons put more blacks in prison than any other when the sob signed that drug war/mandatory min. sentence bs.

Weak on crime

Your ghey escort services will be less of a risk now

^ ghey

 

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

President Donald Trump reportedly gave an enthusiastic thumbs-up to criminal justice reform legislation that would loosen some mandatory minimum sentencing laws — a measure backed by Senate Republicans and Democrats and opposed by conservatives.

Trump Endorses 'First Step Act' Criminal Justice Reform Measure






Just imagine the black community might not live a life out of prison after Trump's signing. After all Clintons put more blacks in prison than any other when the sob signed that drug war/mandatory min. sentence bs.

Weak on crime

Your ghey escort services will be less of a risk now

^ ghey

Thanks for confirming your preference sugar.

 

[Montrovant]

Cutting off someone's hand for any first offense would likely cut down on recidivism, that doesn't mean it's a good plan.

That would be barbaric. People make mistakes. People should pay for them. I recommend an adequate and appropriate punishment for a misdemeanor.

Mandatory minimum sentences are, IMO, just a sop to the electorate. Politicians trying to look "tough on crime." It ties the hands of the judicial system, making it so cases cannot be judged on an individual basis.


The idea of giving the same sentence for stealing a candy bar, loitering, making a false report, and misdemeanor assault is ludicrous. I prefer the idea that the punishment should fit the crime to that of the same punishment for all crime.

Well, what I meant (and I am probably guilty of not spelling it out) is that the most basic of crimes that hit the court system should get a minimum on first charge. I used “stealing a candy bar” and that was wrong. But if you’re caught with a bag of pot, CT, CM, etc… I say give the offender an inconvenient amount of jail time. Not a 8 hour stay in jail followed by a PR bond and no inconvenience.

It makes an impression. The problem is that there is no penalty in a lot of cases. It’s a night in jail followed by a PR bond that causes no pain to the perpetrator. Taking 6 months out of their life; that’ll get their attention. If you want to make it 3 months. Cool. A month? Maybe. Just some sort of innate bargain that is known to someone thinking about flaunting the law; “If you do _________, you will get ____________”. Today, tomorrow, no exceptions.

I would think it would do the opposite. It would make it easier for the DA, the Judge, the Jury, etc… No debate about what happens on first time offenders….

An 8 hour stay in jail and paying for bond is at least an "inconvenience" for most people. That 8 hour stay could mean not going to work, potentially losing a job. That 8 hour stay could mean someone's children aren't properly cared for. As to the bond, well, that's an example of how the justice system tends to be more debilitating to those without financial means.

6 months in jail, on the other hand, is going to be far more than a mere "inconvenience" for most people. That will mean the loss of a job, and be a barrier to getting a new job when the person gets out. That could mean the loss of a car, or a home and the possessions in it. It could mean loss of custody of a person's children. 6 months in jail could be devastating. The same is true of 3 months, or even 1 month.

Yes, it might make things easier for DAs, judges, and juries, but I'm not concerned about the ease of those jobs if it comes as a consequence of removing the ability to view cases as individual circumstances. Every case of criminal mischief is not the same and is not deserving of the same penalty. If you were calling for mandatory minimums for particular crimes, that would be easier to swallow, but to call for the same mandatory sentencing for an entire class of crimes? I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous, and the sentence you propose is draconian by modern standards.

We'd be far better off with fewer laws than with stricter, non-discretionary sentencing. The idea of the US becoming more authoritarian does not appeal to me.

Ok.

You make some good points. If the penalty isn’t severe, the behavior will continue. I’m ready to ratchet the punishment up. 6 weeks is fine if you think 6 months is too much

I think it's entirely dependent on the crime, and the specific circumstances of the crime. I'm not a fan of mandatory sentencing specifically because it prevents judges and juries from making their own judgements based on the facts of the individual case, at least so far as minimum sentences are concerned.

I also consider this country to have far too many laws, which are enforced unevenly. That is yet another reason I want leeway in sentencing.

I understand the desire to find ways to keep people from committing crimes, but I just can't agree with your proposal.

I’m not really for MMS either. However I do favor them for first time offenders as a strong deterrent to becoming a repeat law breaker. Clearly what we’re doing with 1st time offenders isn’t working.

How do you mean? Are recidivism rates for first time misdemeanor offenders going up? Have you compared the recidivism rates of those who get an "8 hour stay in jail followed by a PR bond and no inconvenience" with those who spend 6 months in jail to see if the jail time makes someone less likely to commit a further crime? I'm just not sure what data you are using to determine that this is a needed change.

 

[BlackFlag]

President Donald Trump reportedly gave an enthusiastic thumbs-up to criminal justice reform legislation that would loosen some mandatory minimum sentencing laws — a measure backed by Senate Republicans and Democrats and opposed by conservatives.

Trump Endorses 'First Step Act' Criminal Justice Reform Measure






Just imagine the black community might not live a life out of prison after Trump's signing. After all Clintons put more blacks in prison than any other when the sob signed that drug war/mandatory min. sentence bs.

Weak on crime

Your ghey escort services will be less of a risk now

^ ghey

Thanks for confirming your preference sugar.

^fag

 

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

President Donald Trump reportedly gave an enthusiastic thumbs-up to criminal justice reform legislation that would loosen some mandatory minimum sentencing laws — a measure backed by Senate Republicans and Democrats and opposed by conservatives.

Trump Endorses 'First Step Act' Criminal Justice Reform Measure






Just imagine the black community might not live a life out of prison after Trump's signing. After all Clintons put more blacks in prison than any other when the sob signed that drug war/mandatory min. sentence bs.

Weak on crime

Your ghey escort services will be less of a risk now

^ ghey

Thanks for confirming your preference sugar.

^fag

I understand what you are.

 

[BlackFlag]

Weak on crime

Your ghey escort services will be less of a risk now

^ ghey

Thanks for confirming your preference sugar.

^fag

I understand what you are.

Lie. Your genetics don't let you understand.

 

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

Your ghey escort services will be less of a risk now

^ ghey

Thanks for confirming your preference sugar.

^fag

I understand what you are.

Lie. Your genetics don't let you understand.

I think it is great you are comfortable with being so Ghaye

 

[candycorn]

That would be barbaric. People make mistakes. People should pay for them. I recommend an adequate and appropriate punishment for a misdemeanor.

Well, what I meant (and I am probably guilty of not spelling it out) is that the most basic of crimes that hit the court system should get a minimum on first charge. I used “stealing a candy bar” and that was wrong. But if you’re caught with a bag of pot, CT, CM, etc… I say give the offender an inconvenient amount of jail time. Not a 8 hour stay in jail followed by a PR bond and no inconvenience.

It makes an impression. The problem is that there is no penalty in a lot of cases. It’s a night in jail followed by a PR bond that causes no pain to the perpetrator. Taking 6 months out of their life; that’ll get their attention. If you want to make it 3 months. Cool. A month? Maybe. Just some sort of innate bargain that is known to someone thinking about flaunting the law; “If you do _________, you will get ____________”. Today, tomorrow, no exceptions.

I would think it would do the opposite. It would make it easier for the DA, the Judge, the Jury, etc… No debate about what happens on first time offenders….

An 8 hour stay in jail and paying for bond is at least an "inconvenience" for most people. That 8 hour stay could mean not going to work, potentially losing a job. That 8 hour stay could mean someone's children aren't properly cared for. As to the bond, well, that's an example of how the justice system tends to be more debilitating to those without financial means.

6 months in jail, on the other hand, is going to be far more than a mere "inconvenience" for most people. That will mean the loss of a job, and be a barrier to getting a new job when the person gets out. That could mean the loss of a car, or a home and the possessions in it. It could mean loss of custody of a person's children. 6 months in jail could be devastating. The same is true of 3 months, or even 1 month.

Yes, it might make things easier for DAs, judges, and juries, but I'm not concerned about the ease of those jobs if it comes as a consequence of removing the ability to view cases as individual circumstances. Every case of criminal mischief is not the same and is not deserving of the same penalty. If you were calling for mandatory minimums for particular crimes, that would be easier to swallow, but to call for the same mandatory sentencing for an entire class of crimes? I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous, and the sentence you propose is draconian by modern standards.

We'd be far better off with fewer laws than with stricter, non-discretionary sentencing. The idea of the US becoming more authoritarian does not appeal to me.

Ok.

You make some good points. If the penalty isn’t severe, the behavior will continue. I’m ready to ratchet the punishment up. 6 weeks is fine if you think 6 months is too much

I think it's entirely dependent on the crime, and the specific circumstances of the crime. I'm not a fan of mandatory sentencing specifically because it prevents judges and juries from making their own judgements based on the facts of the individual case, at least so far as minimum sentences are concerned.

I also consider this country to have far too many laws, which are enforced unevenly. That is yet another reason I want leeway in sentencing.

I understand the desire to find ways to keep people from committing crimes, but I just can't agree with your proposal.

I’m not really for MMS either. However I do favor them for first time offenders as a strong deterrent to becoming a repeat law breaker. Clearly what we’re doing with 1st time offenders isn’t working.

How do you mean? Are recidivism rates for first time misdemeanor offenders going up? Have you compared the recidivism rates of those who get an "8 hour stay in jail followed by a PR bond and no inconvenience" with those who spend 6 months in jail to see if the jail time makes someone less likely to commit a further crime? I'm just not sure what data you are using to determine that this is a needed change.

How do I mean? We incarcerate more citizens than almost every other nation on earth. This isn't because there are not a lot of repeat offenders.

Just to repeat my thesis: First time offenders should experience greater punishment. It is my belief that it will make more of an impression than the slap on the wrist we are currently administering and that greater punishment will lead to less repeat offenses. I don't have a wealth of time to drill down as far as this topic deserves but I did find some information from the State of Washington which I would like to share.

The above chart is for felonies; not misdemeanors but it would be a safe bet that the numbers would be greater for misdemeanors since there are more misdemeanor crimes committed than felonies. The 15-24 y/o age range has a 55.2% rate of repeat offenders. White the data doesn't confirm that these are first-time offenders (much less whatever these people did as a juvenile), again, it is a safe bet that if you're 16, you're probably not in possession of a very long history of crimes.

Anyway, over half of those arrested for felonies in the State of Washington between 15 and 24 will break the law and enter the justice system again. . I think the issue is that if you do a crime, you may get jail time. You may get a few days in jail. You may get probation. You may get the full ride. There is a reason that nobody jumps off a tall building twice. You do that and you get a grave. The bargain is explicit. Just like nobody drinks poison twice. Just like nobody tries to dodge cars on the freeway. This should be the same bargain; you do X, you get Y (without the fatal consequences of course). Now, if the argument is that the time should be 2 weeks in jail instead of 2 months, okay. I'm good with that. If the argument is that a Class B Misdemeanor like having possession of pot or driving with invalid license or criminal trespass are 3 different crimes and each should be punished differently; I'm good with that too. What I would like though that if 8 guys are caught all with pot and all 8 are first time offenders, all 8 get the same sentence; whatever that may be. If 8 guys are caught trespassing, all 8 get the same sentence. The punishment should be explicit so that the cops who arrest the perps can tell them on day one that they are going away for a pre-determined amount of time.

 

[Montrovant]

An 8 hour stay in jail and paying for bond is at least an "inconvenience" for most people. That 8 hour stay could mean not going to work, potentially losing a job. That 8 hour stay could mean someone's children aren't properly cared for. As to the bond, well, that's an example of how the justice system tends to be more debilitating to those without financial means.

6 months in jail, on the other hand, is going to be far more than a mere "inconvenience" for most people. That will mean the loss of a job, and be a barrier to getting a new job when the person gets out. That could mean the loss of a car, or a home and the possessions in it. It could mean loss of custody of a person's children. 6 months in jail could be devastating. The same is true of 3 months, or even 1 month.

Yes, it might make things easier for DAs, judges, and juries, but I'm not concerned about the ease of those jobs if it comes as a consequence of removing the ability to view cases as individual circumstances. Every case of criminal mischief is not the same and is not deserving of the same penalty. If you were calling for mandatory minimums for particular crimes, that would be easier to swallow, but to call for the same mandatory sentencing for an entire class of crimes? I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous, and the sentence you propose is draconian by modern standards.

We'd be far better off with fewer laws than with stricter, non-discretionary sentencing. The idea of the US becoming more authoritarian does not appeal to me.

Ok.

You make some good points. If the penalty isn’t severe, the behavior will continue. I’m ready to ratchet the punishment up. 6 weeks is fine if you think 6 months is too much

I think it's entirely dependent on the crime, and the specific circumstances of the crime. I'm not a fan of mandatory sentencing specifically because it prevents judges and juries from making their own judgements based on the facts of the individual case, at least so far as minimum sentences are concerned.

I also consider this country to have far too many laws, which are enforced unevenly. That is yet another reason I want leeway in sentencing.

I understand the desire to find ways to keep people from committing crimes, but I just can't agree with your proposal.

I’m not really for MMS either. However I do favor them for first time offenders as a strong deterrent to becoming a repeat law breaker. Clearly what we’re doing with 1st time offenders isn’t working.

How do you mean? Are recidivism rates for first time misdemeanor offenders going up? Have you compared the recidivism rates of those who get an "8 hour stay in jail followed by a PR bond and no inconvenience" with those who spend 6 months in jail to see if the jail time makes someone less likely to commit a further crime? I'm just not sure what data you are using to determine that this is a needed change.

How do I mean? We incarcerate more citizens than almost every other nation on earth. This isn't because there are not a lot of repeat offenders.

Just to repeat my thesis: First time offenders should experience greater punishment. It is my belief that it will make more of an impression than the slap on the wrist we are currently administering and that greater punishment will lead to less repeat offenses. I don't have a wealth of time to drill down as far as this topic deserves but I did find some information from the State of Washington which I would like to share.

View attachment 229214

The above chart is for felonies; not misdemeanors but it would be a safe bet that the numbers would be greater for misdemeanors since there are more misdemeanor crimes committed than felonies. The 15-24 y/o age range has a 55.2% rate of repeat offenders. White the data doesn't confirm that these are first-time offenders (much less whatever these people did as a juvenile), again, it is a safe bet that if you're 16, you're probably not in possession of a very long history of crimes.

Anyway, over half of those arrested for felonies in the State of Washington between 15 and 24 will break the law and enter the justice system again. . I think the issue is that if you do a crime, you may get jail time. You may get a few days in jail. You may get probation. You may get the full ride. There is a reason that nobody jumps off a tall building twice. You do that and you get a grave. The bargain is explicit. Just like nobody drinks poison twice. Just like nobody tries to dodge cars on the freeway. This should be the same bargain; you do X, you get Y (without the fatal consequences of course). Now, if the argument is that the time should be 2 weeks in jail instead of 2 months, okay. I'm good with that. If the argument is that a Class B Misdemeanor like having possession of pot or driving with invalid license or criminal trespass are 3 different crimes and each should be punished differently; I'm good with that too. What I would like though that if 8 guys are caught all with pot and all 8 are first time offenders, all 8 get the same sentence; whatever that may be. If 8 guys are caught trespassing, all 8 get the same sentence. The punishment should be explicit so that the cops who arrest the perps can tell them on day one that they are going away for a pre-determined amount of time.

The cops shouldn't be able to tell anyone how long they might go away for, as their function is not conviction and sentencing.

Without data on how jail time, particularly jail time for first offenders and jail time of the type being proposed, effects recidivism rates, there's no way to know if what you propose would actually have the intended effect. It might: certainly punishment can be a deterrent. However, it's also possible that exposure to jail, being surrounded by criminals, added to the possibility of losing one's job, having a hard time getting a new job, losing a home, the personal upheaval involved in any jail time, might lead to increases in recidivism.

Comparing felonies to misdemeanors is not a good comparison. The convictions have different effects.

And to reiterate what I've said previously, rather than focusing on harsher punishment, I'd prefer to make fewer things criminal. For example, how many first time offense misdemeanors are drug possession crimes?

Another question: do people who first time offend with misdemeanors tend to move on to felonies? Or do those with multiple convictions often have more misdemeanors? If someone has a few public intoxication convictions over their life, are they the sort of dangerous repeat offender that requires harsher punishment for first time offenders? If someone has a minor vandalism charge for a first offense, will they move on to grand theft, or might they also get a conviction for pot possession, or writing a bad check?

The US already puts people in prison at a FAR higher rate than most other nations. Our judicial system is already overfull; the court system and jails often have a difficult, or even impossible, time trying to keep up. I don't think more incarceration is the best option.