Too Tough On Crime, Or Not?

Great Debates
21

Achernar, I’m not saying that ex-cons are being treated unfairly, I’m saying that the treatment they’re getting in Polk County Oregon IS fair. It’s only what they deserve, which is the responsability (IN ALL FORMS) of their actions. Evictees get the boot for any of a number of reasons, right? Most (to my knowledge) get this because of their own failures to do what is necessary to maintain proper housing (eg, paying rent, upkeep of property, things like that.) That is a failure of their own responsability.

Similarly, criminals failed in their responsability to refrain from (GASP!) criminal behavior and thus are sentenced to prison. Should they, after getting out, get a fair shake at setting their lives straight? Yes, absolutely, I agree with a whole heart. But should they receive assistance to find a place to sleep? No, because LAW ABIDING persons don’t get that type of help without applying for it. Criminals failed in their responsability, and as such, after release have no place to go to lay their heads. Well, evictees have it the same way. The only way it’d be unfair to criminals would be to keep 'em locked up until they could find suitable shelter, which the good folks at Polk County Correctional don’t seem to want to do. Is it nice, or equitable? No. Is it fair? Hell yea.

22

I stand corrected. Oregon is the culprit.

That said, when Texas stops executing kids I’ll consider changing my opinion of it. Stinking hellhole excuse for a state.

23

If you’ve been locked in a cell for nine months, your ability to find shelter may be significantly impaired. That is the state’s responsibility – the state chose to end her ability to make money and it’s stupid to expect her to magically “find something” if she has no friends on the outside. You’re very big on having the woman take responsibility for her actions, Brutus, shouldn’t the state be responsible for its actions?

24

The state has no responsibility past incarceration. The criminal must realize that consequences for their criminal behavior does not end at the prison gates. Crime is the gift that keeps on giving, in that regard. Anyways, she had 9 months of basically free time to figure out what to do.

Guin characterized this womans actions as having ‘messed up’. I counter that since it is so incredibly easy to not ‘mess up’, little thought should be given to leniancy for criminals. Being a law-abiding citizen is a passive act; All you have to do is not commit crimes. Ever so simple, but some people just don’t get the message. (Which is why I find opposition to ‘3-strikes and you’re out’ laws so hilarious. How hard is to not commit 3 felonies?)

25

You and I have very different viewpoints then. I hold the state to a much higher standard of conduct. I think the state’s response should be measured, just and designed to 1) deter repeat occurrences and, where appropriate, punish the offender.

That MEASURED part is where we differ. I don’t think because someone commits a crime they are automatically fair game for a lifetime of having a jackboot on their neck grinding their face into the mud. Your mileage may vary. Her sentence is 9 months, she’s a citizen again, once again deserving of our concern.

26

The sentence for her crime was nine months in jail. The sentence was not nine months in jail, plus some dangerous homelessness for good measure.

However, I don’t know what it’s like in jail, but if, as Brutus seems to think, it’s easy enough to line up housing for when you get released, and she just didn’t do it for whatever reason, I don’t know what else can be done.

27

Brutus: Here Here! I agree with you fully.

Evil Captor: Why do you hold the state to a higher standard? Better yet, where in either the Oregon or United States constitution that the state must be concerned for her well being? The Xth Ammendment to the US Constitution prevents the Federal government from engaging in the giving of welfare (as we now know it, but then again, since when has the LAW stopped touchy-feely liberals from promoting something?) and, although I’m unversed in the ways of the Oregon constitution, I doubt that it makes provisions for criminals. Shouldn’t Ms. Mooneyham-Knowles seek a mutual aid society (around here, a shelter known as United Ministries comes to mind) to give her shelter? The law does not prevent that, nor does it demand that she sleep on the parking lot.

Also, why SHOULD the state hold itself to a higher standard, when the individual in question could not and did not hold themselves to the base standard which is imposed by rule of law? Indeed, the state should simply hold itself to the base standard as is enumerated within its constitution and laws. This should be a level playing field, FAIR AND JUST for all.

28

So you are saying that it is not in the county’s interest to slow down the re-arrest rate, Brutus? What did you think of their previous plan of dumping off the prisoners in the next county? You’re probably right though-why don’t those lazy prisoners just go out and get jobs(when there aren’t enough jobs out there to begin with), and go rent a room or a house(with no money to speak of)? BTW, you should go out and try to get a job when you no phone, no permanent address and a prison record. As far as her having three months to figure out what to do, let me clue you in on a little secret: you don’t spend time in prison making contacts that will help you when you get out. You spend your time surviving. The people that were not there before she was sentenced do not suddenly jump out of the woodwork once she is behind bars. Do we just give up on these people and say to ourselves,“Hell, they’re not worth anything so lets not do anything to stop the downward spiral, cause the sooner these criminals reoffend and get put away, the sooner they’re out of my hair!”?
So tell me, Brutus, what would you have done if you were in her shoes, with nine months of basically “free” time, no family, no local organizations, no money, no home, no hope and a parking lot full of sex offenders to look forward to?

29

That is merely a result of the criminal’s behavior. It was not sentenced, nor is it required. If they hadn’t committed the crime, then they would not have become homeless at the end of their prison term. The CRIMINAL (note the word CRIMINAL, because in the end, the person(s) in question are CRIMINALS) must take responsability for his/her behavior or else their incarceration and rehabilitation (I’d perfer simple punishment, but that’s not the point of prison anymore, is it?) serves no purpose. If the state gave Ms. Mooneyham-Knowles housing, wouldn’t that go against the whole deterrance principle for prison? If you knew that there wouldn’t be any hard or long-reaching consequences of your interrment, would you be as deterred to abstain from criminal behavior? No, I doubt it. IMHO, this is a good thing (not for the individual, but for the state of Oregon, Polk County in particular) because it sends a message that “Crime doesn’t pay, it’ll get you jacked up for a good, long time, even AFTER prison” and as such should deter crime.

As for help from a non-governmental agency perhaps? There have to be mutual aid and welfare societies up in Polk County. If Ms. Mooneyham-Knowles doesn’t like the additional stuff (eg, perhaps a religous sermon) that may come with it, well, there’s always that parking lot. Free home, anyone?

30

Personally, I resent you forcing me to pay higher taxes just because you are too short sighted to do anything to prevent crime. Get your hand out of my pocket, Brutus!

31

Because I think the state should be better than its criminals.

Better yet, where in either the Oregon or United States constitution that the state must be concerned for her well being?

Where did you get the idea that this is a constitutional issue? This is gthe sort of thing that can be regulated by statute. Where in the Constitution does it say the state CANNOT be concerned for her well-being, or for any citizens’?

Shouldn’t Ms. Mooneyham-Knowles seek a mutual aid society (around here, a shelter known as United Ministries comes to mind) to give her shelter? The law does not prevent that, nor does it demand that she sleep on the parking lot.

I suppose she should if there is some way to do so, but I’m not up on what kind of support’s available, or how readily she can access it from prison. Lacking that info, we are only able to speculate, right?

Also, why SHOULD the state hold itself to a higher standard, when the individual in question could not and did not hold themselves to the base standard which is imposed by rule of law?

Because the state should be better than its criminals.

**Indeed, the state should simply hold itself to the base standard as is enumerated within its constitution and laws. This should be a level playing field, FAIR AND JUST for all. **

If the state DOESN’T incarcerate you, it has no responsibiilty to help you recover from the effects of being incarcerated. You seem to be drawing an analogy between prisoners and free peopel with your “level playing field” analogy, but it doesn’t exist.

32

Yeah, I understand that they’re criminals, and that they should undergo their sentences. If you think the sentence isn’t hard enough, that’s one thing. But we’re not talking about replacing a nine-month sentence with a 12-month or three-year or nine-year sentence. There are certain kinds of punishment we can inflict on criminals, and certain kinds we can’t. And even though she wasn’t ordered to stay there, it is possible to inflict a punishment without doing so officially.

Writing “criminal” in capital letters doesn’t allow you to forget that someone is a human being.

Deterrance is important, but it can’t be the only thing you consider. Having every sentence be the death penalty would be the ultimate deterrant, but we can’t do that.

Okay, this is a good point. Is that really an option? Is she aware of it? Do you really think it’s fear of the sermon that kept her in the parking lot? If so, then I have to agree with what you’re saying to a certain extent, but something doesn’t add up, and I have doubts that it’s that simple.

33

Of course it is. But I believe deterrence, of the sort not seen in this country for many decades, is a far better solution than some well-intentioned, but ultimately fruitless, social expieriment. To be fair, I am going to have a look at the DoJ statistics on recidivism, but I seriously doubt that criminal mentality is changed through handouts.

**

This sort of thing goes on all over. I know from experience that officers in one particular (and rather affluent) city push ‘undesirables’ off into a neighboring (and slightly less affluent) city, who then pushes them off into Detroit. (Whose affluence need not be mentioned!)

Still, weren’t the prisoners (ex-prisoners?) being dumped off at some private halfway house? If so, it makes sense that they would be sent their, if they asked to.

**

It sure can be tough out there, no question about that. I don’t see the wisdom in making it tougher on yourself, and others, by commiting crimes.

In a free-market system, adding a criminal background to your resume doen’t do wonders for your marketability. Even so, there are jobs out there that even the worst ex-prisoner can get. It is not my problem for them to find them.

**

Here is the kicker: Thanks to my felony-free lifestyle, I will never have to deal with that problem. If only more people did the same!

**

Here is another place we have a fundamental disagreement. I don’t see it as my problem, or societies’ problem, to deal with. I take care of me and mine. Others? Hey, if you want to help them, great! Otherwise, who cares?

It is not the job of the state to help everyone. It cannot do so, and in trying to do so, simply fucks over those who didn’t need help.

**

Oh, I suppose the stock answer of, “I would find a job and a place to stay” needs an addition: “I would not become a repeat offender”.

The particulars of what she does are well beyond the scope of my caring. She should try my advice, though, and not commit anymore crimes.

34

Brutus: why do people commit crimes in the first place? Perhaps the answer to your apparent confusion over this matter lies there, if only you investigate it.

I’ll give you my opinion: the perceived risks do not outweigh the perceived benefits.

So toss a person in a fucking parking lot with nothing and tell me: what do they have to lose?

35

Besides, she was in jail for drug possession-these guys were convicted sex offenders.

Why should they be mixed together?