Many of us see this differently. First, we can't afford to keep all the bad guys locked up. They seem to expect luxury meals and what not. We also can't just shoot them, however much they seem to need it. Then there comes the issue of equal punishment for the same offenses.

The reality is that we just can't afford to lock folks up for the length of time "mandated" by law. We can't impose "cruel or unusual punishment". However much the perp deserves it. Our laws seem poorly written and not imposed in a way that seems just to most of us. Given all that, I don't see a lot of hope for the near future.

Then we come to the idea of "black lives matter?" If they don't matter to the black criminals, why should they matter to cops? Or citizens?

With the unequal application of punishment, we can't expect anyone to much suggest its fair or equal.

I take issue with the term “felony” at this point in history. Committing a felony used to warrant a pretty severe punishment such as life in prison or death. Now we have a gigantic list of crimes labeled as felonies that might not even net you any actual jail time. So with that in mind I dont really put too much meaning into the term “convicted felon” anymore.
At what point do you stop punishing people for a crime? They do time in jail and still have to be punished for the rest of their life?

I think a big issue is the fair and speedy thing with the judiciary system. It ain't always fair, as people will always juxtapose the non-violent marijuana possessor who got life in prison or the HOA/city ordinance-violator getting some extreme punishment with some child-abuser daycare owner gone murderer who got off with 5 years for some reason or another. But even bigger than that, it's no where near speedy. I still get subpoena'd for cases I worked in 2019. Just recently got warned a subpoena was coming for one of my February 2020 cases. And who the jail will even take is a damn joke. criminals know what offenses will get them a citation vs. hauled off. Even the dude I caught on the 19th of this month, with 5 felony warrants and a slew of new charges, was out by the 22nd. and I was really hoping he would stay in jail for Christmas...

Do I think some felons can be rehab'd and be productive members of society? yes. Despite it being down to the criminal to to decide, do I think nearly enough effort is placed into reducing recidivism through constructive means? no.

so the answer to the poll, as it stands, is no for far too many, but I do believe it's possible.

In one sense I don't think they will ever "pay their debt to society" nor possibly can they, and on the other hand, yes I think they do. By definition (i think) "Pay their debt to society" means they served the time and/or punishment the courts and criminal system deemed they should serve or bear. Right or wrong, fair or not.

The only way a felon doesn't "pay their debt to society" is if they escape ... or get a pardon ... or the law turns a blind eye.

Having "paid that debt" and released from incarceration doesn't grant a felon a clean slate. Often, by law, there are further stipulations and restrictions they must comply with which could be viewed as continuing to pay their debt to society and the debt may never be paid in full as long as they live.

Since "pay their debt to society" isn't a legal term (that I'm aware of), each will have an opinion of what that means ... and not surprisingly. When the actual legal terms and sentences are up to interpretation of those in a position of adjudication within the criminal justice system and punishments for the same crime vary significantly depending on judge and/or jury, how can we adequately define and agree on a slang term or colloquial vernacular.

The only specifics questioned was a phrase in quotes and that's what I tried to limit my comments to.

If you don't mind, I'd like to post this in your thread.

A rather interesting thing happened in Oklahoma a few days ago. President Trump pardoned a guy whose crime was committed in 1952.

The story is behind a paywall so I'll just drop it here:

President Donald Trump on Tuesday granted a full pardon to a man who pleaded guilty in 1952 to helping his wife’s uncle illegally distill moonshine in Oklahoma, the White House announced.

Alfred Lee Crum was 19 when he pleaded guilty; he served three years of probation and paid a $250 fine, the White House said.

“Mr. Crum has maintained a clean record and a strong marriage for nearly 70 years, attended the same church for 60 years, raised four children, and regularly participated in charity fundraising events,” according to a White House statement.

Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Brian Kuester, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, supported Mr. Crum’s request for a pardon, the White House said.

The White House statement did not say where Crum now resides.

Crum’s pardon was one of 15 pardons and five grants of clemency announced on Tuesday evening.

quote:

Originally posted by medic451:
I take issue with the term “felony” at this point in history. Committing a felony used to warrant a pretty severe punishment such as life in prison or death. Now we have a gigantic list of crimes labeled as felonies that might not even net you any actual jail time. So with that in mind I dont really put too much meaning into the term “convicted felon” anymore.
At what point do you stop punishing people for a crime? They do time in jail and still have to be punished for the rest of their life?

I agree with this. I reviewed a criminal history a while back where a guy had been charged with a felony for a false vehicle registration sticker. In my state, it's a traffic ticket. I can't see potentially taking somebody's voting and gun rights over a car registration.

There is also (as evidenced above) quite a bit of inconsistency between states in what is and what is not a felony.

I have no problem with certain felons getting their rights reinstated. The rub is obviously in figuring out who should and who should not.

Take a life.

Pay a life.

s'easy.

quote:

Originally posted by medic451:
I take issue with the term “felony” at this point in history. Committing a felony used to warrant a pretty severe punishment such as life in prison or death. Now we have a gigantic list of crimes labeled as felonies that might not even net you any actual jail time. So with that in mind I dont really put too much meaning into the term “convicted felon” anymore.
At what point do you stop punishing people for a crime? They do time in jail and still have to be punished for the rest of their life?

I also agree with this. I firmly believe that a felonious crime exempts you from protections of the Constitution (speech, bearing arms, cruel and unusual punishment, voting). But I also believe that to hit that threshold must be a truly heinous crime.

As far as the situation specifically in 2020-Boulder County just released a goober on a summons after he was involved in a pursuit with a stolen truck, trailer and a bobcat who already had five "failure to appear" warrants (https://denver.cbslocal.com/2020/12/19/thomas-gaulin-boulder-county-sheriff/). This appears to be pretty typical in Colorado. Deputies tell me about contacting guys with as many as twelve FTA warrants and still having no choice but to write another summons. That's a pretty slim chance of any debt ever getting paid.

Felons are apparently a protected class now and the victims of their crimes get hind titty. I guess the idea here is that the truck/trailer/bobcat thief hopefully had an epiphany due to BoulderCO SO's policy and will never again prey on anyone else while out and about waiting to finally go to one of his many court dates...

Even if he was to go to court and get convicted, Colorado's Division of Adult Parole's policies for parolees is sure in his favor. When the Parole Board began paroling anyone with a body temperature the instances of parole violations spiked dramatically. Their solution was to have the Parole Officers then issue five "warnings" for violations instead of hooking them and taking them to jail. Society undoubtedly has nothing to worry about from these mopes out wandering around due to the severe consequences of a "warning".

Of course if they did get violated and sent back inside, they get three hots and a cot and other assholes to play basketball with while their family puts money on their books so they can buy Honey Buns and soups.

So I wonder why the recidivism rate is so high...?

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
Some do. Others don't. So, the answer is both yes and no.

I agree and it depends on the crime committed based on a case by case offender.

No, they by and large do not.

More often than not, felony cases are pled down to misdemeanors when someone ponies up the cash to hire a negotiator, er, I mean attorney (or fits a demographic that qualifies for rabid intervention from a public defender trying to make their bones). Sometimes this is warranted as in the case of first time offenders that genuinely commit a felony out of ignorance or plain stupidity.

But real deal, hardened criminals? In a way, they pay- they treat their time like currency IMO. If they get caught, they pay up while biding their time visiting old friends and relatives, then head back out to work when they get out. But from the perspective of law abiding folks, they're not paying a debt to society. They're simply taking a loan and making the minimum payments allowed.

I never understood the “pay one’s ‘debt’ to society” expression, and sometimes wonder where and when it came from. In the first place only some crimes are against “society” as a whole, and nothing the criminal can do can “repay” the individual victims of crimes. Even if you give back the money you stole from me, I’ve still suffered from the crime and nothing anyone can do reverses that. And of course if it’s a crime against the person, and that includes something like violating the sanctity of my home by a burglary, the suffering is even worse.

But even if the crime had little effect on any individual, and could even be something like driving while intoxicated that created potential harm rather than actual injury to anyone, suffering punishment does not—and cannot—reverse what was done. There is no “payment” that can change the past, and the idea is similar to the bizarre notion that someone else can atone for my bad deeds, such as putting them off on a goat that we send into the wilderness and now my soul is all clean and shiny.

None of that means that everything a legislature or even the rest of society declares to be a crime or unacceptable act is in fact a bad thing. In fact, as opinion pieces in The Wall Street Journal have pointed out from time to time, one of the problems today is the proliferation of bad laws and regulations that have gotten to the point that if someone is engaged in certain businesses or activities, it’s virtually impossible to avoid breaking some law. According to the Colorado State Patrol (at one time, at least) transporting a long gun in an opaque case violated the statute on concealed firearms. I’d bet a nickel that most of my fellow Colorado residents never knew that, did you? As has been illustrated many times, such as in the old Soviet Union, when it becomes impossible to avoid breaking some of the laws, then people tend to lose their reluctance to avoid breaking any of the laws.

Nor does it mean that someone should necessarily suffer legal burdens for life as punishment for committing all crimes. Just as there are limits on fines and prison sentences, restrictions on what someone can do as a result of being convicted of certain crimes should come to an end as well—but only for certain crimes. And that refers only to the legal burdens. Merely because someone has paid a fine and perhaps been incarcerated for a time doesn’t change what he did, and it certainly doesn’t obligate me to forget what he did. It may be in both our interests for me to act as though I’ve forgotten, but I can remember and may even decide to act based on that memory if I believe it’s appropriate, such as whether I trust someone with money or access to my home.

To more directly answer the original question, though, if paying a debt incurred by committing a crime is impossible, then it’s even less of an atonement if the prescribed punishment isn’t fulfilled, and of course that’s become far too common as well. When horse theft was a capital crime in Britain, someone observed, “We don’t hang men for stealing horses, we hang them that horses not be stolen.” Everyone knows that the threat of punishment isn’t an absolute deterrent to any crime, even the most serious. What we should also know, however, is that the threat of punishment does in fact deter countless crimes and misdeeds. Anyone who seriously believes otherwise is a fool who shouldn’t be allowed to walk the streets by himself without a minder. And the consequence is that the deterrent value of punishment declines at least proportionally with how imperfectly it is applied to those who are convicted of crime. Swift and sure punishment by itself isn’t a guarantee of a civil society, but the lack thereof will guarantee the rise of the crime-ridden societies that are so common in the country today.

No, criminals can't 'pay a debt' and make their crimes go away...it's a silly concept. Some of these societal mistakes do eventually serve out their punishment, but that does nothing to mitigate the consequences of the original crime.

Yes, but on a case by case basis, and only after serving the full sentence , keeping his nose clean (doesn't mean not caught)and being at least somewhat gainfully employed for X number (TBD) of years. If he screws up within that time the debt is not paid. Outside that time the debt starts anew.

I know in Maryland they don't. I handle civil claims in Maryland. If it involves a fatality, severe injury, and disputed facts, I do a criminal background check on the involved parties to see if there are any crimes of moral turpitude that would work against an involved party. These checks are eye-opening in many cases. I see, time and time again, people with rap sheets pages long, with serious crimes like sexual assault, assault and battery, battery on a law enforcement officer, all sorts of gun crimes, possession of narcotics with intent to distribute, home invasions - all nolle prosequi. It goes on and on and on until they kill someone.

Pardon the brief drift- but damn, I wish there was a recidivism for misdemeanors. For example- if you’ve been arrested three times in 12 months, automatic 12 month jail sentence. No “good time “. 365 days and not a minute less.

I’m so sick of dealing with the same public nuisances week in and week out.

19 months & 3 days from retirement as a Prison Guard & I’ll say the answer is No!
They fulfill their obligations set by the courts but that is all.

The judicial and corrections systems are much more about retribution than rehabilitation. On the day of sentencing we know the convicted will return to the dysfunctional hood from which they came with little chance of a different result.

quote:

Originally posted by SHOOTIN BLANKS:
The judicial and corrections systems are much more about retribution than rehabilitation.

But that’s hardly for lack of trying by various governments and individuals. That is not/has not been always true, of course, but countless efforts have been made to “rehabilitate” offenders without much success. Sooner or later, people just give up trying. And one of the primary reasons is because the cultures that most criminals come from these days totally support or at least tolerate their activities. That in turn is ultimately due to the idea that the cultures themselves shouldn’t be so much as criticized. I could go on and on, but again, if anyone doesn’t recognize that already, going on about it would be as productive as trying to rehabilitate the chronic offenders.

quote:

Do you think the felons “pay their debt” to society in 2020?

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
Some do. Others don't. So, the answer is both yes and no.

^^^^^


How can one even answer such a generalized question accurately with specifics?