Judaical Reform

[acushla]

Is it time for the Judaical to re evaluate punishment as it relates to crime?

I am firmly convinced that the idea that a person is apprehended, tried in court, and if convicted sentenced to serve X amount of time in jail...and then released as if nothing had happened, is out molded and unrealistic.

I also believe that the Young Offenders Act which presently protects children up to the age of 18 should be lowered to 12. If you are 13 and feel it is ok to kick another child to death...you are an animal...age no longer plays any part...and you need to be put down or at the very least put away the same way we would lock up an adult for the same crime.

I feel that here in Canada when we begin to release prisoners who have committed some of the most heinous of crimes and who were so talented at the art of manipulation that the government itself got conned...who laughed at the notion of 'behaviour modification' while in jail...who is considered by every Doctor who encounters her in jail as 'highly likely to re offend'...why are we releasing them?

We are releasing them because the system is totally outdated for the times we live in.

My sketch for what I think would be a more realistic approach is to have in place stages of 'accountability' which would allow a scenario where the first part of your stay with us is in this jail and then we will let you do this but you will wear this and you cannot do that and you cannot do that...well, here...read the rules for yourself...and if after X amount of time we feel you qualify to join society as a full member...then go forth....but if our qualified Doctors who we train and pay to assess individuals determine that you are at a high risk to re offend (murder, child rapist etc) again then, guess what, no freedom for you.

This should be a fun one. :cheeky:

[Qaz]

then we will let you do this but you will wear this and you cannot do that and you cannot do that
I'm not quite getting whether you intend this to happen in the jail or out of jail?

If in jail, how much it really differs from things as they are today?

If out of jail, isn't that what probation is all about?

[acushla]

I'm not quite getting whether you intend this to happen in the jail or out of jail?

If in jail, how much it really differs from things as they are today?

If out of jail, isn't that what probation is all about?

You got it exactly right...its just that you didn't seem to see the bridge. It's all 'in' if you will...getting 'out' of the jail simply puts you into a different 'level' of the jail, if you understand what I mean.

In it's most basic form one would say that even though you are out of jail in reality you aren't...we are still with you.

Right now we don't have that. We have a woman who was the mastermind behind some very horrible murders with her boyfriend. When the two were apprehended the crown immediately assumed that HE was the culprit who had corrupted his innocent girlfriend. In their eagerness to close their case they made an insane plea bargain, giving her considerably less time than she would have served in exchange for her testimony against her boyfriend.

It was only after the deal had been made that the crown began to realize they had it all backwards...that SHE was the instigator who got her boyfriend to do her dirty work. The crown had been conned...THAT IS HOW GOOD SHE IS.

In jail she simply laughs at any suggestion that she attend therapy sessions, she has not exhibited one grain of salt in terms of remorse...and by ALL accounts she will kill again.

Now...doesn't it seem insane that because the 'rules' say well...she has served her time...so we have to let her go...isn't there something absurd about that?

My guess is that she will not even get her foot down on 'free' earth before she is arrested and hand cuffed and marched right back in. Although right now, in Canada, I am ashamed to tell you that I really don't know that and it wouldn't be a surprise at all if she just walks away. I think July holds the release date.
,

[Shadowraven]

I think I see what you are getting at, and must say I agree, with modifications.

I'm not sure that sentences should be set, but be variable as needed. Far too many people get out of jail now that have no business being in the community at all. There are also times that new evidence comes to light, as in acushla's example, and you still can't alter the sentence or the charge, much less try them again. Felons should be subject to assessment while they are in prison from psychologists and officers to see if they warrant thier normal sentenced release. They already get a review to see if they warrant early release. Why not do it the other way around too?

This is rather delicate though, as potentials for abuse are legion. It would have to be carefully monitored to avoid the inevitable abuse that would occur. It would also need to entail stiff penalties for the abusers. One such being getting to spend time with the people they were screwing over. That ought to give them enough religion to resist temptation.

Murderer's never deserve to see the light of day again, if they committed the crime intentionally. This is irregardless of the motivation, they still meant to do it. Negligence would be a different thing, as it WAS accidental. Deaths without negligence are not murder or manslaughter. If you couldn't avoid it, no matter what you did, it ain't murder. But negligent homicide deserves a stiffer penalty than it now gets.

Intent is the test of the crime. It determines everything when it comes to sentencing and charging a suspect. So many felons intend to do the crime they commit, and will continue to commit for as long as they can do it. But, you can see a pattern with many of them, at about middle age. They are beginning to get tired of the lifestyle they have brought upon themselves and want to get off the ride. Some never do, some never want to, some manage to. All depends on the person.

But this is something you can determine before they are realeased. You can easily tell the ones you will be seeing again cashing in their "frequent flier miles" on their return. You see them again and again. Far easier, and cheaper too, for society to never let them out again. As long as they are going to continue their crap, they don't deserve to get out. Since you see the same ones over and over, if you remove enough of them, your crime rate will probably drop. I can tell you, that is not something that would upset any police officer.

[Willow of Oz]

hmmm, as an aside, has anyone heard about this poor dude:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050519-123521-6916r.htm
http://intellectualize.org/archives/003828.html

Summary: dude stole a black and white tv about 35 years ago, and should be released soon. He has applied for parole about 26 times, once each year, but kept getting knocked back because "Your release at this time would unduly depreciate the seriousness of the crime."

He basically got life, and it's only that the prosecutor happened to look in on his case recently and thought it's a bit of a travesty of justice, and made a submission in writing to get him out (since he wasn't allowed to just go see the Parole Commission).

Can't complain that sentences aren't tough enough.

[jkrzok]

hmmm, as an aside, has anyone heard about this poor dude:He basically got life, and it's only that the prosecutor happened to look in on his case recently and thought it's a bit of a travesty of justice, and made a submission in writing to get him out (since he wasn't allowed to just go see the Parole Commission).

Can't complain that sentences aren't tough enough.

Can't say I'm surprised to find he was black, and in North Carolina.

One question: did he behave in prison?

[Willow of Oz]

Can't say I'm surprised to find he was black, and in North Carolina.

One question: did he behave in prison?

http://quinnware.com/forum/images/emots/laugh.gif sharp.

That was the reason given for him not being parolled. Apparently he'd committed a gazillion infractions of rules etc. He wasn't a 'good' prisoner.
But most of his infractions involved things like gambling. Gambling in prison is bad, but, well, if he was let out and went to Vegas and gambled, well, that's hardly being a danger to society.

[jkrzok]

http://quinnware.com/forum/images/emots/laugh.gif sharp.

That was the reason given for him not being parolled. Apparently he'd committed a gazillion infractions of rules etc. He wasn't a 'good' prisoner.
But most of his infractions involved things like gambling. Gambling in prison is bad, but, well, if he was let out and went to Vegas and gambled, well, that's hardly being a danger to society.

This isn't as simple as I thought it was. If you have a guy freely breaking the rules in a controlled environment of a prison, where the stakes are his freedom, what makes you think he'll obey the rules in the much less controlled outside world?

It seems the exercise of some self control and discipine would have resulted in his freedom years ago. That he couldn't control himself while in prison where the stakes were his own freedom tells me he might not have been ready to control himself in the real world.

[acushla]

I think I see what you are getting at, and must say I agree, with modifications.

I'm not sure that sentences should be set, but be variable as needed. Far too many people get out of jail now that have no business being in the community at all. There are also times that new evidence comes to light, as in acushla's example, and you still can't alter the sentence or the charge, much less try them again. Felons should be subject to assessment while they are in prison from psychologists and officers to see if they warrant their normal sentenced release. They already get a review to see if they warrant early release. Why not do it the other way around too?

This is rather delicate though, as potentials for abuse are legion.

Variable sentencing...I like that. It isn't as if one standard applies now anyway...what we have is a recommendation of not less than and not more than...variable would expand on that and also introduce some wild cards...such as conditions for being on the outside...all open ended.

I know of a case (looks around room slowly) where somebody was up on some very serious charges...but through some intense negotiations and the fact the crown already had an overflowing work-flow...was able to plead guilty and get a two year probation period.

As part of the plea bargain it was agreed that if that individual did not appear in court again, then, at the end of two year probation period, the conviction would disappear from the books and there would be no criminal record.

In exchange for that, it was also agreed that. should that person reappear in court, not only would they have to answer for those charges...but that person would automatically begin serving the maximum time allowed for the charges before the courts that day...which would have been 7 years.

When the person I know took the papers from the courtroom upstairs to have them stamped, the person doing the stamping took one look at the sentence and said 'Whose ass did you kiss to get this deal?' Actually those were not the exact words but we have ladies present.

I'll tell you this...it was a major incentive for my friend (alright...it is me...happy?) to stay out of trouble...and a recent journey across the US border showed me that my Government held up their end of the deal as well.

They already get a review to see if they warrant early release. Why not do it the other way around too?

Exactly...this is precisely what I'm talking about. People often times speak about criminals as not really being bad people, (especially mothers of bad criminals)...they are just sick. Well, we don't let very sick people just walk out of the hospital months before the healing has taken affect (make up your own example here)...why should we let criminals go any sooner.

We're talking those whose actions would bring the most pain and suffering amongst the public...serial killers, child rapists, arsonists, rapists...you can add some more if you would like.

I am not referring to members of Enron or the Liberal Government...that would be in a new thread.

Finally...as many of you know...I have never, ever bought the argument that we shouldn't do or try something because of other negative things that 'might' happen.

I try things for the 'good' that will happen.

[Shadowraven]

He basically got life, and it's only that the prosecutor happened to look in on his case recently and thought it's a bit of a travesty of justice, and made a submission in writing to get him out (since he wasn't allowed to just go see the Parole Commission).

My first question here would be, "What did he do in prison?" Being overcrowded anyway, in most cases that is, they don't hang onto people for no reason. I'd say it probably involved more than just gambling, not everything gets documented you know. Many inmates can be a known problem, but you may not be able to know how much from the paperwork.

Most of us don't consider gambling that bad. It's the crap that goes with it, that is the problem. As in "collecting" or in the fights that are caused by it. These guys don't have a lot of self-control anyway, so it doesn't take much to get them to go after each other. Especially if property, or commissary, is involved.