Crime is crime

[BlueEyedEllie]

Originally Posted by canthelpbutwait

You are right in the essence of people having trouble obtaining employment after their incarceration. As far as all crimes being equal well, i would have to disagree. YES crime is crime but the severity of the crime does differ.

i agree, those that are a serious threat to children, the helpless, etc. i think for society's safety they SHOULD be kept incarcerated. esp. if they've bragged about doing it again if given a chance. i do not think the 3 strikes law is fair across the board, but i do believe there are certain individual's who should NOT get out.

[BlueEyedEllie]

Originally Posted by kima

I may be wrong, but I think what Albee Damned meant in the original post of this topic is that this whole sentencing thing has gotten out of whack. Name the crime and name the time for that crime, instead of tacking on this and that enhancement, doubling the sentence if it's a 2nd strike (California) or even handing down 25 to life for a third strike (California)...then having all these different types of possible good time credits (again, in California you can get 65%, 50%, 20% or 15% credits depending on how your crime is qualified or if you're a repeat offender - then there's the Life w/possibility of parole, Life without possibility of parole...) and yada yada yada. Top all that off with 3 different term limits that can be imposed by the judge (lower, mid and high term) and that adds a whole other mix into the pot. It is ridiculously confusing! I bet even reading this was confusing
But as far as differentiating between crimes, say on a scale of 1 to 10. Yes, I agree there are HUGE differences in criminal actions. Selling homegrown pot to your buddies versus kidnapping, torturing and sexually abusing a child, and then killing him/her (or even eating the victim). Serial rapists and murders who have no conscious...God, yes, there's a difference in levels of crimes, and some people we do need prisons for to be protected from.

this is what i was trying to say, but you said it way better!!!!!

[BlueEyedEllie]

Originally Posted by xgot420issuesx

I used to look in the paper at the sentences handed down every week to people and I used to wonder, "wow, how did that guy get so much time while the other guy who did the same thing get so little". Then my husband explained it to me. It is all about PRIOR RECORD SCORE. So say the black guy got more time than the white guy for the same thing, you are forgetting one thing, the prior record score. They use it to determine sentencing. So if the black guy had a longer prior record than the white guy, sure he is going top get more time. Now when I look at the sentences in the paper I understand it a lot better. People just look at the sentence without thinking about what the guy did prior to get a sentence that long. Honestly, do you think as fair that my husband got a 6 months to 1 year sentence for a FIRST time DUI, no it wasn't. But the judge more than likely took into account how many times my husband had been locked up in the county and thought, this guy isn't learning his lesson. The judge had seen my husband a few times before. It all comes down to priors and even though he never had a DUI before, it doesn't matter when it all boils down. The judge can go outside guidelines if he chooses to sentence a person. So please take priors into account before making the assumption that it is all about race. It isn't as much about race as you think it is.

you are right about the prior record score. that was a very good point to make. i couldn't understand why a man across the street from me got only 4 years for beating a man into a coma and the dude was on life support for 3 days and marc walked away from work release committed no crimes nor had drugs or anything on him and got 2-5. came down to the first guy had no criminal record at all prior, and mark has 12 charges on his record. 9 are misdemeanors but still, they really took that seriously. so you are totally right!!!!

[Mark2008]

The issue of prior record is a hard one. On the one hand, it is designed to keep people from reoffending, come back through the system again and again and again.

On the other hand, it does prejudice against people who had a conviction at some point earlier in their life.

My solution would be to designate a period of time after which past convictions would no longer be applicable. In my own case, it's been 13 years since my conviction, 9 years since my last release. The fact I haven't had any new cases should demonstrate that I'm not a habitual criminal. And, yet, in some ways, I am still being punished today.

Heaven forbid, should I get a new charge tomorrow, is it right to hold an event that happened 13 years ago against me? At what point should bygones be bygones and not be held over someone's head?

[im his tia]

Originally Posted by Albee Damned

It seems to me that when I was a kid, we would know people that had been to prison and were out and now working and making a go at it. It just doesn't seem that is the case these days. Some companies won't hire due to credit history alone. No wonder why so many people end up back in prison.

While i have never been to prison and hopefully never will this post rang so true with me! I applied for a position at an Insurance company. I made it through 3 interviews, made it through all those stupid computer tests they give you and then they gave me an offer,I accepted. She told me the start date. EVERYTHING! But, she did tell me that it all depended on a background/credit check. I thought...no biggie....I secured daycare...200.00 deposit BTW.......Two weeks later I got a letter telling me that since we owed back taxes (we had a payment plan set up and were paying on time) and we had been paying on it for 2 years it automatically disqualified me for employment with their company! So here lies the question: How in the hell do we get money to pay our debts when no one will give us a job to pay them? So, i can just imagine how convicted felons feel.

[Daywalker]

Originally Posted by Mark2008

The issue of prior record is a hard one. On the one hand, it is designed to keep people from reoffending, come back through the system again and again and again.

On the other hand, it does prejudice against people who had a conviction at some point earlier in their life.

My solution would be to designate a period of time after which past convictions would no longer be applicable. In my own case, it's been 13 years since my conviction, 9 years since my last release. The fact I haven't had any new cases should demonstrate that I'm not a habitual criminal. And, yet, in some ways, I am still being punished today.

Heaven forbid, should I get a new charge tomorrow, is it right to hold an event that happened 13 years ago against me? At what point should bygones be bygones and not be held over someone's head?

I think priors should only apply to priors, ie, the same or the same in an escalating series. For instance, you (not you, personally) had a drug charge at age 18 for possession of marijuana. Went to jail, did some time, got released. Then at age 25, you had a charge for assault. I don't think the first charge should even be considered, because it's not even in the same class of crime. There's a world of difference between carrying a joint and beating the snot out of someone. Now, on the other hand, you have a kid with a juvie record for animal abuse/torture, then assault charges as a young adult, finally a near murder from putting someone into a coma. IN that case, priors should count - the BAU has shown that most serial killers follow a pattern that starts with abusing and torturing animals and escalates from that. But it seems like all the system cares about is whether or not you've been a "guest" before.

And as far as when you're done paying for it, I think when you walk out that gate, on a non violent crime, you should be done. You know, I don't want to work with the guy who has anger issues, a prison record for assaults, and owns firearms. So I'm ok with felons not owning firearms. But I don't have a problem working next to the felon who was driving drunk. He can't own firearms either, and I don't think either should be denied employment or housing because of that 5 letter word attached to their name. Just because I don't want to work or live next to someone who has a habit of handling their anger by getting physical, doesn't mean he shouldn't be able to work and live somewhere, even next door to me.

Of course, when it comes to sex offenses and kids, I agree with keeping them FAR away from children. Don't mean to offend anyone, I know there are some out there who love a sex offender, but to me, allowing a sex offender whose crime involves children, to live near a school, or playground, is like offering a crackhead an apartment in a known drug block.

[Wobabi]

Originally Posted by xgot420issuesx

I used to look in the paper at the sentences handed down every week to people and I used to wonder, "wow, how did that guy get so much time while the other guy who did the same thing get so little". Then my husband explained it to me. It is all about PRIOR RECORD SCORE. So say the black guy got more time than the white guy for the same thing, you are forgetting one thing, the prior record score. . So please take priors into account before making the assumption that it is all about race. It isn't as much about race as you think it is.

NOT TRUE!!!!
Last year the Supreme Court Upheld that Blacks were being un-justly over sentenced based on RACE in Drug Crack Cases.
Hence the thousands of Black men that are now being released from federal prison due to this RACIST actions by Judges and Prosecuting Attornies. And MANY of these Black men were FIRST TIME offenders!

[BlueEyedEllie]

Originally Posted by Wobabi

NOT TRUE!!!!
Last year the Supreme Court Upheld that Blacks were being un-justly over sentenced based on RACE in Drug Crack Cases.
Hence the thousands of Black men that are now being released from federal prison due to this RACIST actions by Judges and Prosecuting Attornies. And MANY of these Black men were FIRST TIME offenders!

wow, i didn't know that. that's really awful. i'm glad you shared that. i honestly didn't know.marc's record score did affect his sentencing but i'm really glad you shared that!!

[Albee Damned]

Originally Posted by canthelpbutwait

You are right in the essence of people having trouble obtaining employment after their incarceration. As far as all crimes being equal well, i would have to disagree. YES crime is crime but the severity of the crime does differ.

Of course the severities differ. But that is why the sentences differ. I am just saying that all these different percentages of "good time credits" are useless. I mean that if a non-violent crime is sentenced to 10 years, and a violent crime is sentenced to 10 years, then they should both be allowed the same amount of "good time credits" because essentially, both are crimes punishable by 10 years in prison. If you want the person who committed the violent crime to serve more time, then increase the punishment for that crime. In the least, it would be a lot less confusing!

[WillzWife4Life]

WWW.HARD2HIRE.COM

[Albee Damned]

Originally Posted by kima

I may be wrong, but I think what Albee Damned meant in the original post of this topic is that this whole sentencing thing has gotten out of whack. Name the crime and name the time for that crime, instead of tacking on this and that enhancement, doubling the sentence if it's a 2nd strike (California) or even handing down 25 to life for a third strike (California)...then having all these different types of possible good time credits (again, in California you can get 65%, 50%, 20% or 15% credits depending on how your crime is qualified or if you're a repeat offender - then there's the Life w/possibility of parole, Life without possibility of parole...) and yada yada yada. Top all that off with 3 different term limits that can be imposed by the judge (lower, mid and high term) and that adds a whole other mix into the pot. It is ridiculously confusing! I bet even reading this was confusing
But as far as differentiating between crimes, say on a scale of 1 to 10. Yes, I agree there are HUGE differences in criminal actions. Selling homegrown pot to your buddies versus kidnapping, torturing and sexually abusing a child, and then killing him/her (or even eating the victim). Serial rapists and murders who have no conscious...God, yes, there's a difference in levels of crimes, and some people we do need prisons for to be protected from.

I never intended to imply all crimes are equal. My point was that crime is crime and let the severity dictate the penalty. Making these different percentages of time to serve, millions of different enhancements, and so on is just useless. Creating all these labels to determine how much of your sentence you must serve is useless. Give the same amount of "good time" credits to everyone, you could always increase the penalty for a "violent" crime to make the offender serve more time anyways. It would be less confusing, at minimum.

[ThatOneChick]

Originally Posted by Grettashouse

At least here in Missouri the stricter sentencing laws and impositions made on parolees exist for the purpose of the economic survival of the prison system. We have twenty nine prisons in our state that create a lot of jobs for a lot of people. Not to mention the fact that the state of Missouri takes in millions of dollars each year by assuming the assets of inmates. For instance if Johnny is doing a twenty year bit and his mother names him as the beneficiary on her life insurance policy the state makes a cool fifty thousand dollars; easy as pie.

Here in Missouri that's one of the reasons why people can't just do their time; get out and live their life. We have one of the highest recidivism rates in the country here and it's based largely upon economic reasons. Wardens; Co's; Parole Officers; Governors...they all have to eat you see. The prisoner furniture industry alone flushes our Missouri Government with an unseemly amount of money.

Finances aren't the only reason but it is part of the reason that at least the men in Missouri can't simply pay their debt to society...the cost of society has risen greatly with inflation. A lot of jobs depend greatly upon prisoners and the assumption that they will reoffend. Somehow we as the Missourian society have to guarantee that assumption as a reality.

Again let me reiterate that finances aren't the only reason for this but does have a large play in the fact that a man can't just go and pay his debt to society.

Actually gretta, do your research and you will find that Missouri is one of a very small number of states whos prison population is actually DECREASING. The recidivism rate is not all that high and they are at least working on trying to come up with some re-entry programs.

[Mark2008]

If you apply a uniform standard as to what percentage of a sentence must be served for ALL crimes, it's going to fall on the high end (85 percent or more). Nothing outrages victims and the public in general more than to see a guy sentenced to a certain amount of time (say, 10 years or whatever) and get back out far earlier than that.

That's the reason some states hand out such outrageously long sentences now: because they don't trust the parole boards and/or prison officials. So the ONLY way they know how to dispense justice is to jack up the sentence so high that even with time off, the guy will have served what he was intended to serve.

[Davids wife]

Of course the rule is you have to get a job, but you can't get Hired as a felon so a double wammy and violation of parole??????????????????
No voting ever hmm now why is that??????????/

Nope double wammys here! Certainly not a fair system!

[Anjewel]

I will be the first to say that research and education are very important when making judgement calls ABOUT ANYTHING in life.

However, I was in a discussion about race versus legal counsel a while back. My stance was and still is...it doesn't matter what color you are, if you don't have the ability to get yourself good legal counsel, you are gonna serve more time than someone that has it.

Now, Babi...hear me out before you knock me upside the head...there ARE an awful, sinful, immoral amount of black men in prison (have no idea about women because I simply don't keep up with it), but...BUT, there are even more poor, ignorant people in prison than black men. Please don't anyone take that as an offense or insult. I say ignorant as in, the things they were accused of was so trumped up they just KNEW the court or jury would see through the charges, to the truth, and he wouldn't even need a paid, street lawyer.

How many folks do ANY of you know in prison who were young when they got caught up in the legal system with parents that thought 'I couldn't get you to act right, now the state will. Maybe some time in prison will settle you down and teach you a lesson.' Or, 'No way I'm putting my house up for you to just come back and get in more trouble.' And, sadly, even the older ones that had a family, grown and gone from mama's house for a while when they get slung up and they are just making it paycheck(s) to paycheck(s) now, they just can not hire an attorney. They had been helping mom here and there when they could so mom sure doesn't have the means to help now. There's no color on those and many other situations.

All this jabber, what the hell am I getting at?

Well, it bothers me that anyone puts very much stock in any report or survey. Second hand information is too easily corrupted or at the least, gathered and compiled, the way the person or organization WANTS it to look. There's not a person on this list that puts very much trust in the criminal justice system, and rightly so. The criminal justice system is governed by the State or Feds (because we have allowed them to for so long), why are we going to believe and put alot of stock into anything they say, positive or negative? Or anything they allow to 'come out'?

I am not denying there's too many black men in prison. But, as long as the government keeps us thinking it's a racial thing, it stays racial. And, that fact alone will keep us divided. And, what do they say about being divided? I'm not being sarcastic, I really can't remember the exact words, but it's a good one for the point I'm trying to make right now.

There are too many PEOPLE in prison right now, period.

Now, as for the original OP, I understand what you are saying. I gotcha. The criminal justice system has went for some many years unsupervised by the people, the government has just buried it in so much red tape, no one can dig themselves out once caught up in it.

But, it's not JUST prior records that kill a person these days. It's not JUST sentencing score sheets or even the idiocracy of the laws these days...you got to get caught up in it before that part of it affects you.

It's the corruption in the investigations and the court PROCESS, also. And, my evidence of that statement is all the men being accused and convicted of wicked, evil criminal acts AND MOST HAVE SERVED DECADES IN PRISON only to find NOW DAYS with DNA...they were innocent.

Now, let me think out loud (or type, whichever) for a minute. Most of the laws and sentencing structure was THOUGHT of and went into effect on someones opinion of the problems with the crime rate as it LOOKED at the time.

Think about those last two paragraphs for a minute.

People were outraged that drugs seemed to be taking over this country. No one, not one single person that had that problem knew ANYTHING about WHY so many were dealing drugs, not to mention the likelihood and troubles with addiction once you get caught up in it.

Then, you have some incarcerated as I type this out who just had decision making problems or anger management issues. Think about that for a minute. When I was growing up, just thirty years ago, even the term 'anger management' was no where in our lives. Just thirty years ago, if you had trouble with someone you either sucked it up and went on or you 'had it out' with them. If you 'had it out', you either hollered and screamed and/or sometimes it would come to blows and twenty minutes later you all were shaking hands and laughing about it with the one you were fighting with...or maybe the next day. Or, maybe it took months or years and sometimes the ones fighting never got over it. BUT NO ONE DIED OR WAS PERMANENTLY MAIMED as a result.

Just in my time on this earth, I've seen it go from America to ME. And, there is power and satisfaction in 'speaking your mind' and 'standing up for yourself', but when it gets to the point of damage, it's not healthy. Not for you, not for anyone.

It seems to me the government has sat back and watched as WE allowed racism to spite our own lives. I am not taking anything away from the real, true issues of racism. To this day, I wonder if America will ever truly grow up...but, I also believe the government has used our sensitivity to that same issue to their advantage, ESPECIALLY in the criminal justice system.

As long as we are divided over racism (or any other issue), we will never get together and fight THEM over the injustice system.