Philosophy of parole...

[Larry Gude]

...I caught a segment on the tube last night that said parole boards have become very reluctant to 'take a chance' (their words) on paroling very many cons these days for fear of critizism when (not if) a con commits another crime.

Of course, this piece was interlaced with 'The Perfect Ex Con'; a guy who spent something like 19 of 26 years in jail and is now doing, they say, very well, out on parole.

A defense attorney decried that people who were good risks for parole, early release, were not getting that second chance and that, of course, it is unfair that a paroloee gone bad (again) could cause worries and reluctance to let out the 'good' parole candidate.

A prominent prosecutor (and politician) said "Look, parole is only good for the parolee. He gets another chance. It is no good for society because it is nothing but a risk and that's not fair to the society."

He also pointed out that it isn't fair when a parolee can set up housekeeping without informing the community.

So, for discusions sake this is simple:

What of a system, parole, that ostensibly offers a carrot, early release, for good behavior?

Vs.

A system, parole, that the only benefit to the society that provides it is the chance of feeling good about offering people carrots?

 

[vraiblonde]

The concept of the carrot and stick:

You would like the donkey to move forward. You put a carrot on a stick, just in front of the donkey, so that it encourages the donkey to move forward toward the carrot. Donkey will do this until you arrive at your destination, then you give the carrot to the donkey.

In this country, we tend to feed the carrot to the donkey, then sit there and wait for the donkey to fulfill their end of the deal.

This is what parole is, in my view - handing a convict the reward, then hoping they'll give you what you want. It doesn't work and it's dumb. I think if you commit a violent crime, you should be a done tom turkey - you've forfeited your right to be part of society.

 

[2ndAmendment]

...I think if you commit a violent crime, you should be a done tom turkey - you've forfeited your right to be part of society.

- including the right to vote. Oh, oh, Democrats wouldn't go for that. That would exclude a major voting block.

 

[Tonio]

In this country, we tend to feed the carrot to the donkey, then sit there and wait for the donkey to fulfill their end of the deal.

This is what parole is, in my view - handing a convict the reward, then hoping they'll give you what you want. It doesn't work and it's dumb.

While that make sense, I don't give a flying rat's azz what the convicts want. "Oh, I'll never do it again." "I'm a changed man." Boo effin' hoo. Don't pizz on my leg and tell me it's raining.

 

[Lenny]

What of a system, parole, that ostensibly offers a carrot, early release, for good behavior?

Vs.

A system, parole, that the only benefit to the society that provides it is the chance of feeling good about offering people carrots?

I still prefer the concept of Devil's Island. Put a thousand violent convicts on an island with sufficient resources for a hundred. The guy who swims the thousand miles into Tampa Bay wins the parole!

 

[rraley]

The concept of parole, especially for violent criminals, completely contradicts the American justice system. We have a jury who decides the guilt of the defendant and the judge sentences the defendant based on the recommendation of the jury (in most cases). There is of course the appeals process and the ability of governors/the president to pardon, which are constitutionally created. Parole boards, meanwhile, are composed of intellectual eggheads who have the ability of being completely removed from the case and who, in most cases, decide that the sentence imposed by the judge and jury was too harsh. It is a process that, in most situations, should be completely abandoned.

 

[ylexot]

Rraley, I can't figure out if you are for or against parole. Most of what you wrote looks like you are against, but that last sentence...

 

[SamSpade]

What exactly is the underlying purpose of the parole board? Is it to evaluate whether or not prison is any longer necessary in the case of some prisoners, or is it, as I suspect, a much vaunted money-saving mechanism because in all practicality, we cannot afford to incarcerate EVERY person who gets sent there?

 

[Tonio]

or is it, as I suspect, a much vaunted money-saving mechanism because in all practicality, we cannot afford to incarcerate EVERY person who gets sent there?

That's why I favor prison only for violent crimes. I admit that it's personally satisfying to see people like Bernard Ebbers and Kenneth Lay do time. But I also believe that sending those guys to prison wouldn't be the best use of our tax dollars. Ebbers isn't a John Wayne Gacy or a David Berkowitz--if he escapes from prison, people's lives wouldn't be in immediate jeopardy.

 

[Larry Gude]

Tonio...

...so what you are suggesting is that if Ken Lay steals your money without a gun throug hdeciet, lying and cheating, it's OK with you from a punishment standpoint?

What about pick pockets? Or burglers who rob your house when you're not home? Steal your empty car? And so forth?

If anything, people in large posiitons of trust should be held to a higher standard.

 

[Tonio]

If anything, people in large posiitons of trust should be held to a higher standard.

I completely agree. Don't get me wrong--I'm not saying that the Ebberses and Lays shouldn't be punished at all. I'm saying that they should get appropriate punishments in cost-effective ways that save tax dollars. It's expensive to maintain a maximum-security prison. I don't know what an appropriate punishment for Ebbers would be. My first idea would be to confiscate everything that Ebbers owns, have him live in a rat-infested tenement and work the graveyard shift at 7-Eleven to support himself. I'm welcome to any suggestions for how we should punish nonviolent offenders.

 

[Bruzilla]

I think we need to differentiate between punishment and public safety. If you're sending a person to prison to punish them for doing something, that's one thing and I don't believe in parole for these folks. If people know what the consequences of their actions will be up front, and we stick to making people pay those consequences instead of accepting excuses, the system works. I once again harken back to Singapore and Saudi Arabia, where the crimes and punishments are clearly understood and the crime rates are very low.

If you're sending a person to prison as a means of protecting the public from violent offenders, sexual predators, etc., then we're in the wrong as we need to be executing these folks, not paying millions of dollars to incarcerate them.

 

[ylexot]

I think we need to differentiate between punishment and public safety. If you're sending a person to prison to punish them for doing something, that's one thing and I don't believe in parole for these folks. If people know what the consequences of their actions will be up front, and we stick to making people pay those consequences instead of accepting excuses, the system works. I once again harken back to Singapore and Saudi Arabia, where the crimes and punishments are clearly understood and the crime rates are very low.

If you're sending a person to prison as a means of protecting the public from violent offenders, sexual predators, etc., then we're in the wrong as we need to be executing these folks, not paying millions of dollars to incarcerate them.

I'm against life imprisonment because it is a waste of resources. Sure, give them an appeal as a safety net. Fail that...

 

[rraley]

Rraley, I can't figure out if you are for or against parole. Most of what you wrote looks like you are against, but that last sentence...

Sorry, I'm against...the inclusion of "not" in the last sentence should not be there.

 

[Larry Gude]

You Are Against Parole????

Say it IS so!

 

[FromTexas]

:closetrepublican:

 

[rraley]

:closetrepublican:

Y'all know that I agree with Republicans on some issues, Democrats on others, and on some both are just full of crap.

If I am a Democrat or a Republican, there will be PLENTY within that party that are upset with me.

 

[Larry Gude]

As it should be...

If I am a Democrat or a Republican, there will be PLENTY within that party that are upset with me.

As it should be.

 

[rraley]

As it should be.

I agree, but sadly the activists and the politicians disagree in most instances...our candidates must agree with us on every single issue and say things exactly as the base wants or they are nothing but Republican-Lite or RINOs.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Y'all know that I agree with Republicans on some issues, Democrats on others, and on some both are just full of crap.

If I am a Democrat or a Republican, there will be PLENTY within that party that are upset with me.

Only one solution - be a strict constructionist - as everyone really should be. If we were, we would not be having this discussion and the country would not be in the mess it is.