jclalor 12 #1 August 31, 2011 I was astounded to learn the number of people, from out of the 988 that had been paroled in the last 20 years, after being sentenced to life, turned around and killed again after their release. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/08/29/MNOJ1KSFD6.DTL&type=politics Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DiverMike 5 #2 August 31, 2011 It certainly argues against toughening the parol chances for lifers. For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #3 August 31, 2011 Quote I was astounded to learn the number of people, from out of the 988 that had been paroled in the last 20 years, after being sentenced to life, turned around and killed again after their release. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/08/29/MNOJ1KSFD6.DTL&type=politics Zero is surprising Quote State figures bear that out: According to the California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation, of the 988 murderers released over the past two decades, fewer than 100 have returned to state custody - about 10 percent, compared with California's overall recidivism rate, which hovers around 70 percent. And, Nelson noted, only six of those offenders were sent back to prison for serious or violent crimes such as assault or burglary. None was convicted again of murder or kidnapping. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #4 August 31, 2011 Quote State figures bear that out: According to the California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation, of the 988 murderers released over the past two decades, fewer than 100 have returned to state custody - about 10 percent, compared with California's overall recidivism rate, which hovers around 70 percent. certainly a misleading comparison. What we would want to know is the rate of incarceration of people in the similar age demographics as these parolees. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #5 August 31, 2011 QuoteIt certainly argues against toughening the parol chances for lifers. A 0% recidivism rate for murder or kidnapping and 0.6% serious/violent crimes like burglary combines with California's $47,000 annual cost of incarceration and budget woes to suggest more parolees, especially lifers who'll be aging and be more likely to have medical expenses on the high side of the $12,442 annual average. Those numbers are from 2008; with inflation they should break $50K/year. http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/laomenus/sections/crim_justice/6_cj_inmatecost.aspx?catid=3 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DiverMike 5 #6 August 31, 2011 Quotecertainly a misleading comparison. What we would want to know is the rate of incarceration of people in the similar age demographics as these parolees. I don't believe it to be a misleading comparison. If you are altruistic and believe the purpose of punishment is rehabilitaion, then the measure of success is the recidivism rate. It appears that when criminals are given a life sentence and somehow dodge it via parole, they adjust their behaviour to avoid being put back behind bars. Why in the world would you want to compare them to Joe Sixpack who has never been in jail? For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #7 August 31, 2011 QuoteQuotecertainly a misleading comparison. What we would want to know is the rate of incarceration of people in the similar age demographics as these parolees. I don't believe it to be a misleading comparison. If you are altruistic and believe the purpose of punishment is rehabilitaion, then the measure of success is the recidivism rate. It appears that when criminals are given a life sentence and somehow dodge it via parole, they adjust their behaviour to avoid being put back behind bars. Why in the world would you want to compare them to Joe Sixpack who has never been in jail? It's a false (and intentionally so) comparison to compare the repeat offender rate of 25 year old felons with 50 year old felons. If these people were sentenced to life for murder, it should be life. In the case of the Palley Claus killer, his life sentence in Nevada was only 11 years, as shown in the article. OTOH, I'm not a proponent of mandatory guidelines like 3 strikes. I don't feel sorry for these criminals, but I don't see it as good policy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #8 August 31, 2011 QuoteI'm not a proponent of mandatory guidelines like 3 strikes. I don't feel sorry for these criminals, but I don't see it as good policy. I'm not opposed to sentencing guidelines generally, but I've always thought "3 strikes" laws are idiotic because their arbitrary threshold is determined, quite literally, by the rules of baseball. I hope people realize that if modern baseball had, say, a 5-strike rule rather than a 3-strike rule, those criminal statutes would be "5 strikes and you're out" laws. That's just an idiotic way to set public policy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #9 September 1, 2011 QuoteQuoteI'm not a proponent of mandatory guidelines like 3 strikes. I don't feel sorry for these criminals, but I don't see it as good policy. I'm not opposed to sentencing guidelines generally, but I've always thought "3 strikes" laws are idiotic because their arbitrary threshold is determined, quite literally, by the rules of baseball. They make perfect sense. The 33,000 member California prison guards' union is a significant political force with an $8 million annual lobbying budget which goes into promoting policies that increase the amount of prisoners, prisons, guards, money, and political power they wield. They were the number two contributer to the Three Strikes initiative and spent a million dollars defeating the initiative limiting the crimes considered three strikes offenses. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #10 September 1, 2011 Quote Age usually isn't a factor as to whether or not someone re-offends. young men are the primary source of crime. When we have a demographic bubble in that age range, crime shoots up. When we have a bust, crime drops. Do you have something that supports your assertion that repeat offenders don't follow this pattern as well? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #11 September 1, 2011 QuoteQuoteI'm not a proponent of mandatory guidelines like 3 strikes. I don't feel sorry for these criminals, but I don't see it as good policy. I'm not opposed to sentencing guidelines generally, but I've always thought "3 strikes" laws are idiotic because their arbitrary threshold is determined, quite literally, by the rules of baseball. I hope people realize that if modern baseball had, say, a 5-strike rule rather than a 3-strike rule, those criminal statutes would be "5 strikes and you're out" laws. That's just an idiotic way to set public policy. It's hardly just baseball that uses 3. "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action." I agree that 3 convictions (and we can guess that the burglars often aren't caught, so the number of offenses will average higher) establishes a pattern of disregard for the law. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #12 September 1, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteI'm not a proponent of mandatory guidelines like 3 strikes. I don't feel sorry for these criminals, but I don't see it as good policy. I'm not opposed to sentencing guidelines generally, but I've always thought "3 strikes" laws are idiotic because their arbitrary threshold is determined, quite literally, by the rules of baseball. I hope people realize that if modern baseball had, say, a 5-strike rule rather than a 3-strike rule, those criminal statutes would be "5 strikes and you're out" laws. That's just an idiotic way to set public policy. It's hardly just baseball that uses 3. "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action." I agree that 3 convictions (and we can guess that the burglars often aren't caught, so the number of offenses will average higher) establishes a pattern of disregard for the law. Which is really beside my point. It's called "three strikes" for a reason: the connection is baseball. Had only (American) football existed, criminal laws would now be called "four downs and you're out". Maybe you don't recognize the intellectual laziness, but I do. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #13 September 1, 2011 Quote I was astounded to learn the number of people, from out of the 988 that had been paroled in the last 20 years, after being sentenced to life, turned around and killed again after their release. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/08/29/MNOJ1KSFD6.DTL&type=politics The Article does a great job of taking the personal aspect out of the equation. In something like this, you just can't do that though. 2 examples: Dugard was a sexual predator. They have a high repeat rate. He should not have been let go. Casey Anthony was only a danger to her child. Now that she doesn't have any more kids to harm and probably won't be a danger to anyone else, is that an excuse to let her go free? I guess the real question is, when you let a prisoner go, has justice been served? If not, the system really isn't a deterrent, is it? Each case still needs to be judged on it's own merit."There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #14 September 1, 2011 QuoteDugard was a sexual predator. Jaycee Dugard is not a sexual predator. She was the victim of Phillip Garrido, a career sexual predator."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #15 September 1, 2011 Quote Actually not true. Sex offenders have some of the lowest rates of recidivism. Not saying this person should or shouldn't have been let out though. Do you have a cite for that? And is it broken down by crime type instead of lumped all together? I would not be surprised if you were right for sexual offenders overall but recidivism in, e.g., pedophilia is very, very high."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sacex250 0 #16 September 1, 2011 I think that the major public perception problem here is that most people don't understand what a "Life" sentence really is! There are two types of sentences: definite and indefinite. A definite sentence is one that specifies a specific punishment that can be completed: $300, 30 hours of community service, 5 years, three years probation, etc. An indefinite sentence is one that can't ever be completed: Death Penalty, Life without the Possibility of Parole, and the garden variety "Life" sentences, i.e. "fifteen-to-life". Obviously, the Death Penalty and Life without the Possibility of Parole are fairly easy to grasp. The person sits in prison/custody until they die, whether by the hand of the state or by the hand of the clock. A garden variety life sentence say "fifteen-to-life" doesn't mean the person was sentenced to life in prison. They were actually sentenced to a definite sentence of 15 years in prison with an indefinite term of parole. What it means is that even when the person does their legally required time they will still spend the rest of their lives under the jurisdiction of the parole system and its conditions, which means that any violation of their parole could see them immediately returned to prison for the parole violation. Just because a "lifer" got released doesn't automatically mean that he didn't complete his prison term.It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #17 September 1, 2011 QuoteQuoteDugard was a sexual predator. Jaycee Dugard is not a sexual predator. She was the victim of Phillip Garrido, a career sexual predator. Yes, I made a mistake and got the names mixed up, so pay no attention to my post. One mistake = all relevancy gone and throw the whole thing out. fucking lawyers....."There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #18 September 2, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Dugard was a sexual predator. Jaycee Dugard is not a sexual predator. She was the victim of Phillip Garrido, a career sexual predator. Yes, I made a mistake and got the names mixed up, so pay no attention to my post. One mistake = all relevancy gone and throw the whole thing out. fucking lawyers..... I figured that you just made a mistake. I should had stated that. Oh, don't ever mistaken me for a scumbag lawyerNext time, I'll turn my lawyer loose on you. Shelley can be vicious, but don't worry, she is freaking hot, hot, hot"...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #19 September 2, 2011 QuoteQuote Actually not true. Sex offenders have some of the lowest rates of recidivism. Not saying this person should or shouldn't have been let out though. Do you have a cite for that? And is it broken down by crime type instead of lumped all together? I would not be surprised if you were right for sexual offenders overall but recidivism in, e.g., pedophilia is very, very high. some argue that it's 100% for pedophiles, though we have to be sure we're dealing with a proper definition, not anyone who downloaded a bunch of porn and got some kiddie pics in the mix. Or worse, the granny whose wireless network was open and got blamed for someone else's activity. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #20 September 2, 2011 A more in-depth report concerning recidivism and sexual offenders. http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.html It really does depend on the type of offense. Some offenses are merely teenagers making out. Back in 1977 a guy from my high school did time for having sex with his girlfriend. He just turned 18, she was 16 and about to turn 17. They drove over to the canal near Granite City, Illinois. One of the charges was taking a minor across State line (Missouri to Illinois) for the purpose of sex. He got something like 5 years and did something like 3 years. I'm sure that he eventually had to register as a sex offender. Really unfair as they had been dating for several years before the incident. She testified in his favor. As I remember, even the girls father tried to keep him from being charged. The prosecutor slammed the kid anyways. The spot at the canal was a popular make-out spot back in the 70s."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #21 September 2, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote Dugard was a sexual predator. Jaycee Dugard is not a sexual predator. She was the victim of Phillip Garrido, a career sexual predator. Yes, I made a mistake and got the names mixed up, so pay no attention to my post. One mistake = all relevancy gone and throw the whole thing out. fucking lawyers..... I figured that you just made a mistake. I should had stated that. Oh, don't ever mistaken me for a scumbag lawyerNext time, I'll turn my lawyer loose on you. Shelley can be vicious, but don't worry, she is freaking hot, hot, hot I lost my temper at the computer and that was the most vile thing I could think of to type at the moment. It was uncalled for and I apologize. Mods, thank you for not banning me for life!Lawrocket is still OK though."There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #22 September 2, 2011 Quote Lawrocket is still OK though. I don't think you are qualified to make that assessment... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
