Let’s hope that he goes back to prison and gets put in General Population. Guys with a short-eyes jackect usually wind up getting shanked, beaten half to death or made the bitch for everyone on the block.
Rehab, my ass. It’s time for us to stop looking at the prison systems as rehab. They are there for punishment and nothing more, and that’s how they should be run. Make them truly be institutions where the phrase “If you don’t wanna do the time, don’t do the crime” really has some meaning. No parole, no “good” time, no nothing. You get sentenced to ten years, you do ten years of hard time. Period.
The only way is to be willing to budget enough money to adequately staff up and provide the needed training to do the job right - seminars, symposiums, continuous learning for those who make the decisions. Recognize the fact that psych evaluations are nothing more than educated guesses, not hard fact. Hire enough cops to be able to watch and keep tabs on released offenders (not harrass, but keep watch discreetly). It takes guts too… the guts to deal effectively with the ones who are repeaters.
However to constantly turn them loose and then turn the “full fury of the law” on the victim’s family for taking vengeance is dead wrong. If you do, you’re saying then that it is OK to prey on the weak and helpless, but no OK to stop the predator. You’re saying the purpose of the law is to protect the criminal. If you can’t watch and control the criminal, then don’t dump him in “our” neightborhood and walk away from the problem.
And when those ten years are up and because there was no parole, they can’t be kept track of? Virtually everyone who goes to prison eventually gets out. Your idea is horribly shortsighted.
This is the whole reason we have a justice system. A f*cked up one, but this is the reason we have it. To set laws, and the penalties for violating those laws. You want to change the law, deal with the courts or the legislature. You want to take someone’s life and consider yourself above the law, then you ought to pay the consequences just like any other criminal. Sorry, folks, but rule of law is too important to let emotions override it.
I agree with the rest of your post, for the most part, but I am not sure I concur with this. The idea of criminals coming out more vicious is not supported. What IS true is that they come out unchanged, except for personal change. In other words, those who want to change, change etc…
As for preventing crime, prisons do as a form of protective incapacitation. Some theorists have argued that for every criminal locked up each year, 80 crimes (I think around there) are prevented. However, I understand the spirit of your argument and I respect it. Just wanted to make some minor points.
Woah woah, hold on there chief. This was NOT a study of recidivism among sex offenders. It was a program that dealt with all offenders besides sex offenders: drug, violent, property etc… So calm down. I was referring to general statements about rehab and I apologize if this was misconstrued since I was guilty of the minor hijack.
Also, until you get the law changed to put every single sex offender away for life (you never will by the way), would you rather corrections professionals do nothing to rehabilitate?
I can understand your emotional anger, most law enforcement professionals feel the same things, believe me. However, they also live by the notion that one rehabilitated is one less victim. They MUST release the offenders. The law says so. Thus, they try to find ways to at least stop some more crime. My husband has spoke many times on these issues and you know who some of his staunchest supporters are? Victims. It is not about “hug a thug”, it is about stopping future victimization.
Many states, like Ohio have truth in sentencing laws. However, the Constitution and federal rulings prevent making the horrifying place you refer to. Remember this, if you want oppressive prisons, you will have to pay for them. Right now, there are 42 people on 3rd shift to deal with 2700 offenders at the prison my husband works at. This is a Level 2 facility and they DO NOT have cells: against popular belief, most prisons do not have cells. These offenders cost about 19 dollars a day to house. To house them in highly restrictive conditions, it costs about 80 dollars a day. If you treat them like animals, they will harm the staff, so unless you take those higher security measures, you will be puttng good, tax-paying citizens in very bad situations.
Thus, if you want to increase the budget of the prison system 300-400% then we can make them punitive hell holes. You also will have to convince SCOTUS and change the Constitution. But, if you are willing to make the sacrifice, about a 50% increase in taxes, then many prison officials will support you.
Once again, I understand your emotional appeal, but please understand that there is more to this issue than “make it harder”. Prison management is an expertise and all experts will tell you that you must balance the carrot and the stick.
A question for the hard-time people; what exactly is the policy when the person you want to punish is seven feet tall, made of muscle, has had combat training, and would cheerfully turn a psedo-anarchtic prison into his own domain? What is the policy when you can’t rely on the other inmates to punish the criminial, because he can punish them back and has also built up an organization? You are comfortable with rewarding the most brutal and powerful of the prisoners?
Either have the moral courage to have whatever you wish done to the inmates done openly, or stop with the extremely stupid assumption that it will only happen to those you consider deserving.
I do not mean this to sound like an attack on you or your husband personally. It is against those you typically have this bleeding heart stance towards these animals. Your Husbands involvement (and by extension, your family’s) in the DOC is commendable. It is an unbelievably difficult task and seemingly unappreciated at times.
I don’t feel there is any excuse for those who promote rehab with these animals and say “Well, it works some of the time.” Not good enough. If a single child dies at the hands of a known offender, there can be no justification to the family. The annual cost of maintaining a dead fucker is considerably low and less in following years. If there were fewer of these animals and repeats then perhaps your husband and his profession could have less populations and more ability to focus limited manpower and funds on those who may benefit and if there is a reoccurance of a lesser crime, so be it.
Thank you, your husband and his co-workers for what they do.
I just heard ealier today that this Couey fuck served 2 years of a 10 year sentence. Sombody please, please tell me this is a case of Fox News lying. I can’t fathom a reason someone would be released after serving 20% of a term.
As far as full sentences and rehab go, is there a way we could do this? (And don’t talk about the cost, this country has more money than we know what to do with.)
The criminal is sent to prison with a sentence. The shitbag serves the full term to take care of the punishment. Then they begin the rehab until it’s determined they can have a second chance at living in society. The most severe crime I’ve ever commited was a DUI, but I have 3 friends who have served time in state pens on felony convictions. (Weapons, theft, drugs) All 3 have told me other than not having the freedom to do what they wanted, it was a cakewalk. Most of the day was spent taking classes and attending group therapy sessions.
2 have since went back (GTA, drugs) and the third is hoping to not get caught. They’re all fundamentally decent guys, but they don’t don’t understand the idea of not breaking the law. (BTW, the assault was a bar fight, not something random)
duffer, I think part of the problem with sentences where the convicted felon serves far less than the time the judge handed down at sentencing comes from a number of factors. First, while you can say this country has the money to pay for prisons of any design, there is a dichotomy between what the population is willing to pay and what is demanded. Until these two conflicting expectations meet, there’s going to be problems. Also, you’ve got some people who’ve come to see early release programs and paroles as rights, not priveleges to be earned: for an egregious example, I don’t know the status of the suit, but one of the Manson Family recently sued California because of the Governor’s decision to forbid parole for all murderers of some stripes - claiming her rights were being violated. (I don’t think that the argument holds water, but it was made.)
And, as always, thanks to Lissa for offering some straight dope.
And maybe that’s the problem. Prison isn’t punishment because people are so damn concerned with “rehabilitating” criminals. Ask yourself this: How come the theft rate is so low in Saudi Arabia? Then draw the obvious conclusions.
duffer: You can’t just dismiss the money issue. This country has a huge deficit, y’know. Couple that with Bush’s mania to wage wars and increase foreign aid, while attempting to make tax cuts permanent and grant amnesty to illegal aliens who send millions of dollars out of this country every year that will never come back, and it’s clear that we’re not likely to have “more money than we know what to do with” for a long time.
One of the reasons we don’t have enough beds to keep guys like Couey in for their full terms is that the prisons are full of people serving minimum mandatories for non-violent drug offenses.
I understand, I really do. There are demons among us who prey on the most innocent, and nothing makes the blood boil more than this-- except maybe those people who don’t seem to understand the pain that the victims and their families have gone through. My husband has told me stories that have made me cry and rage. I’ve heard stories which would give your nightmares-- tales which make me marvel that people could be so evil.
Yet, these demons still are human beings with civil rights which my husband is bound by law to respect. He is bound by law to see to it that they are kept safe from harm and are given all of the necessities of life-- and, yes, release them when their time comes.
All he can do is try to reduce the harm they may do on the outside. Yes, it sometimes fails and people’s lives are shattered. Correctional professionals ache when this happens, but their hands are tied. They all work very, very hard to find the best rehabilitative programs out there and impliment them on slim budgets.
Truth-in-Sentancing took away a lot of the discretion that corrections professionals had in the past. Before TIS, an offender would be given a sentance like “ten to twenty-five years”. If an offender truly worked at bettering himself, behaved himself in prison and seemed to be rehabilitated, corrections professionals could talk to the parole board and let them know they had no objections to the offender being released. Conversely, if an offender preyed on other inmates, was violent or disruptive and had signs of intention to re-offend, the corrections professionals could report this to the board, who might determine that he needed to stay in prison for longer.
With TIF, once a sentance is up, that’s it. He’s released even if his behavior has been deplorable and he shows every sign that he will re-offend. The only way an offender stays in the prison is if he’s convicted of another crime while on the inside, such as murdering another inmate.
Thank you.
The majority of convictions in our justice system are the results of plea-bargains. Most cases do not go to trial-- which helps keep costs down and keeps our courts from being overly-clogged. The system would probably grind to a halt if every case went to trial-- there’s simply too much time involved.
Secondly, sexual assaults against children are very difficult cases to prove. Unless there is DNA evidence present, or a witness, it’s hard to get a conviction. Children are very easily torn down by cross-examination. They get confused. Juries sometimes interpret this as the child being decietful.
Combine these two, and you’ll understand why prosecutors want to plea these sorts of cases as frequently as possible. Sometimes, the case is so weak, evidence-wise, that they just want to get some time out of the offender, so they plead them down to much lesser charges.
Very, very few people would plead if the sentance were death, or even life in prisonment. Most people feel they’ll take their chances with a jury-- they have nothing to lose.
If you get a conviction, you have to add in the extra costs and time associated with the automatic appeals. The offender also has to be housed on Death Row-- not in the general population, which also increases costs. All in all, it has been shown that executing an inmate is several times the cost of keeping one in prison for the rest of their lives.
I’d also add that there are some extremely dangerous men, like Coral Watts and Ed Kemper, who do very well in the structured environment of prison, and who are never violent toward other men, but who are habitual rapists, torturers, and murderers on the outside.
Thank God Coral Watts got a conviction in Michigan, so that Texas didn’t make him the first serial killer to be released. I haven’t had time to look closely into those proceedings, but given the amount, quality, and age of evidence they had against him, I believe the jury said to hell with reasonable doubt on these charges, we know the guy’s a serial killer, he’s staying in jail for life. I’d have done the same.
Take a look at Richard Speck’s prison “home video” sometime, if you can find it, and see if you think he had it so bad on the inside. (No, I don’t know where it can be found on the Web, and wouldn’t link to it here if I did. Sorry.)
Not even close to what I said, and I think you well know it. The fact remains, however, that the criminal justice system works as a deterrence in Saudi Arabia. We could probably have the same here without going to those extremes, if society would stop being so damn worried about the criminals and not their victims.
“If you don’t like it, get out”. There’s a real mature argument there. :rolleyes: