Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by Scamp, Feb 17, 2018.
In my experience the prisons are set up to protect these rapists. Seen it first hand.
Yeah, because in general pop, they'd get killed. This one rapist went up to prison and came back in a wheelchair. Eh, whatcha gonna do?
In state prisons just as many people are in jail for property crimes as drug offenses so it seems we do lock up nonviolent criminals that aren't involved in drug crimes add public order crimes to that and you'll see that nonviolent offenders with no drug charges outnumber those with drug charges
Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2017
You can slice up the pie any way you want. but the fact is, you want to throw a person of color in prison for waiving a gun around so you can let a white collar criminal who bilked pensioners out of their savings go, that's kind of messed up.
While I wholeheartedly empathize with the sentiment of your proposals, I cannot abide the sentence you propose. I am okay with there being harsher, notably more so, consequences for one's abetting one's criminal acts with a gun.
Did the OP-er's proposal preclude any specific criminal act? It seems to me the substance of the proposal is that the commission of any criminal act whereby one in some capacity commits it using a gun results, if one be found guilty, in the sentence s/he noted. I inferred that could include, rape, murder, theft, embezzlement, animal abuse, environmental crimes, vandalism, avoiding arrest, etc...."it's" a crime, one performs "it" while in possession of a gun, hanging be the penalty.
I said "violent crime".
Far too much recidivism with violent criminals. Hanging them would absolutely stop this. Why would anyone want to let them out to commit more violent crime?
Indeed, you did, and I considered that, along with the unspecificity and brevity of your OP (i.e, no complimentary link to a precise definition of "violent crime," and no specific enumeration of what you deem to be violent crimes) in composing my responses in this thread.
Violence has a range of manifestations -- from verbal violence such as yelling to physical violence such as battery or worse -- all of which are nonetheless violent. According to the FBI's site, along with being specifically the crimes of "murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault," violent crime is described broadly as well: "Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force." That broader definition is what I had in mind, and I did because you didn't opt to constrain the scope of your proposal to anything less broad.
Given the existence of both a specific enumeration and a broader definition, a wide variety of acts that might otherwise not be violent can be performed violently.
Murderers, rapists, and robbers have been released from jail, only to murder, rape, and rob again.
Prisoners who have been put to death, have never committed another crime.
Here's the thing. What about the guy who gets put to death for the crime he didn't commit?
In Illinois, we had to end the death penalty because we ended up exonerating more death row inmates than we executed.
That is precisely the thought that led me to respond to the proposal as I did.
It's my belief that bias of myriad sorts -- sexual, racial, law enforcement, gender, etc. -- are too abundant even today for me to feel comfortable that jury's decisions are made overwhelmingly as a result of thoroughly rational consideration of the facts presented at trial. Therefore I'm not at all keen to condone a policy whereby we increase the risk that we execute people who are in fact not guilty of committing a capital crime of which a jury yet found them guilty. I'm not nuts about the risk of wrongfully incarcerating folks, but at least in such instances, there's an opportunity to right the wrong of having done so.
Separate names with a comma.