When does a "Criminal" pay his debt to society??

[timetofight]

When does a criminal "pay his debt to society". Courts used to mete out punishment; Time in jail, probation, parole, etc. Now, with background checks, and the availability of electronic data, a person that has been in no trouble for maybe five years still has to lie on a job application, can't get a really good job, and this person supposedly paid his debt to society. How do we correct this issue? Are we creating a society of second-class Americans by not allowing them to successfully re-enter society? Shouldn't the courts be the one's to mete out the punishment?

I believe that the current situation in grossly unconstitutional - and Civil Libertarians have completely missed the issue. What is your opinion? I have written what I believe is the situation, but was booted from ABC for my efforts. Be a little more careful here... Smile

There is an important article on my site that addresses this important issue; whether you read it or not is up to you. But, PLEASE VOTE on this issue so we may ascertain the will of the people. Thanks.


http://justanothercoverup.myblogsite.com

 

[Fletchette]

I pretty much summed up my opinion on the Japanese courts thread. Basically, I am against creating a caste society where several distinct classes have differing rights. No, I am not being "soft on crime". If you think a person was not punished appropriately for the crime than lobby your lawmakers to change the law for a harsher sentence. It is un-Constitutional to levy an additional punishment retroactively.

 

[Chris Rhines]

"Debt to society" is a stupid concept.

- Chris

 

[WillBrayJr]

Depends on his/her past convictions.

 

[Risasi]

I answered yes, but then I also believe capital punishment should come into play for many crimes. For everything else there is lashing. That also frees up most of the prisons, and marks a guy so you know if he's a "convict" or not...

 

[springfieldmaniac]

I would say it has to be reviewed on a case by case basis.Depending on the crime and criminal history etc.Try not to feel too sympathetic to scumbags,even one's that have served their time.Once a scumbag,means usually alway's a scumbag.In certain instances I'm for having some sort of record cleansing,kinda like your credit report after ten years,except for serious crimes like murder,robbery,sexual crimes against children etc or multiple offenders aka-long A** rapsheet,even with lesser crimes.So yes in most instances the record follows you for the rest of your life.I guess they should have thought of the consequences in advance.Howvever,some crimes shouldn't remove certain rights.Like should Martha Stewart never be allowed to own a gun? There should alway's be exceptions,and they should be able to make those decisions without a long drawn out red-tape imho.

 

[EghtySx]

I think that after serving a prescribed punishment a guy oughta be at zero again. If he continues criminal behavior, sentences weren't enough. If someone can never be trusted again after doing something so heinous, death penalty.

I heard someone talking the other day about that Lunsford thing. He was advocating a national database for child molesters because states are having a hard time keeping up with them. He actually made the statement that this is the st repeated offense. How's come it never dawned on him that maybe the punishemnt we are giving out might not be enough? Why do we even let em out at all if we are so sure they will do it again that we have to keep so very close tabs on em? How much is one human life worth? If you say "not much" I will say "kill these child molesters then." If you say "very much", I will say"kill these child molesters then and protect future victims." Covince me that there is any reason to even keep people like this alive and then LET THEM OUT OF JAIL!!???!!

 

[Standing Wolf]

I think everybody deserves a second chance.

I didn't say third chance. I didn't say seventeenth chance. I didn't say forth-seventeenth chance.

I said a second chance.

 

[WT]

I'm a free choice advocate.

Convicted felons freely chose to become 2nd class citizens. Let them reap the benefits thereunto.

 

[Art Eatman]

You earn respect. You must prove yourself to the folks around you. All that holds for everybody, not just those in trouble with the law.

So, serving your time is paying your societal debt. Okay, fine. Now: You start from scratch earning respect and proving to the folks around you that you can be trusted for more than menial tasks.

Start at the bottom and work up. How fast and how far? That's up to you. But you don't have any right for life itsownself to kiss the ouchie and make it all better. You gotta create a whole new history of actions to earn trust and respect.

Art

 

[nico]

I think it depends on the crime, but I also agree that the death penalty should be applied to more crimes, such as rape and child molestation. I agree that the "debt to society" concept is flawed. Punishments shouldn't be about a debt to society, they should be about punishment. ie: if you hold up a liquor store, you've shown you can't be trusted with firearms and thus give up your right to own them. There's no debt involved. I wouldn't be totally against some ex-cons being able to have their 2nd Amendment rights reinstated if they can demonstrate that they've become productive members of society and can now be trusted with firearms, but the process shouldn't be automatic after XX years out of jail.
That said, I'm completely against the way some states (such as mine ) interpret the law to mean that a person loses their 2A rights if one of the possible penalties for their crime was a year or more in prison when their actual sentence was less than that.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

"Debt to society" is a stupid concept.

Right. This is a misnomer. Given that criminals don't make restitution to their victims and pay the expenses to cover their jail time, they don't ever pay their debt to society.

Just what is it that y'all think is being done by the criminals to pay their debts?

In the case of felonies, what a lot of folks don't seem to understand is that the 'paying of debt to society' is not just composed of time in jail and on parole. That is only part of the punishment. The other part is loss of rights such as gun ownership, voting, etc. Why is this so hard to understand?

I do see one exception. I am willing to let those folks start over that have been put to death in the electric chair, gas chamber, or by lethal injection.

Standing Wolf is willing to give folks a second chance. No doubt that is what is being done when first time tried criminals are given a reduced sentence. Even so, by the time most folks get caught, they are not first time offenders. They have broken many laws (such as drug dealers) and the first trial only represents the first time they were caught.

 

[Fletchette]

In the case of felonies, what a lot of folks don't seem to understand is that the 'paying of debt to society' is not just composed of time in jail and on parole. That is only part of the punishment. The other part is loss of rights such as gun ownership, voting, etc. Why is this so hard to understand?

Well, one reason it is so hard to understand is the fact that so many "felonies" today are ridiculous. Putting the wrong plastic knob on your FN-FAL can get you a felony charge. The prison time is less of a punishment than the loss of 2A rights, in my opinion.

 

[Chris Rhines]

Given that criminals don't make restitution to their victims and pay the expenses to cover their jail time, they don't ever pay their debt to society.

Exactly.

With very few (arguably no) exceptions, crimes are not committed against society. Murder, robbery, rape, theft, all of these crimes have a specific perpetrator and a specific victim. "Society" only comes in to administer the judgment on behalf of the victim.

The entire focus of the aptly-named Criminal Justice System needs to shift - from forcing the convicted criminal to pay their non-existent debt to society, to forcing the convicted criminal to make restitution for his crime.

In the case of felonies, what a lot of folks don't seem to understand is that the 'paying of debt to society' is not just composed of time in jail and on parole. That is only part of the punishment. The other part is loss of rights such as gun ownership, voting, etc. Why is this so hard to understand?

Quite the contrary - it's easy to understand, it's just morally repulsive.

Even so, by the time most folks get caught, they are not first time offenders. They have broken many laws (such as drug dealers) and the first trial only represents the first time they were caught.

You are familiar, Double Naught, with the concept of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, correct?

- Chris

 

[308win]

When full restitution is made to the victim(s) then talk to me about starting over. Obviously murderers, child molesters, rapists, others(?) will never make the grade. I really don't give a tinker's damn about the 'debt to society', the victim(s) are the forgotten in crimes.

 

[Greymoor]

Once you have served your time there should be a period of waiting then your rights should be restored. For minor felonies, and you have to admit they make some pretty stupid stuff felonies, say 5 years with your nose clean then you can own weapons again, etc . . . For mid level felonies, 10 years. For crimes of 2nd degree murder and up then at least 20 years. When you consider that they will be in jail 20+ years they will be very old when they have their rights restored if ever. Repeat offenders go up one category.

The reason I think that rights should be restored is due to the fact that many minor charges can incur a felony penalty. Anything with over 1 year of time served is a felony. Look at the federal/state laws and see what is a felony.
Many of them are not all that violent.

 

[armoredman]

Right. This is a misnomer. Given that criminals don't make restitution to their victims and pay the expenses to cover their jail time, they don't ever pay their debt to society.

We are starting a program called Restorative Justice, that does do exactly that.

Just what is it that y'all think is being done by the criminals to pay their debts?

Ever incarcerated individual in AZ prison who has outstanding fines and/or court ordered resitution has to pay that, and since we require anyone below level 5 to get a prison job, that money comes off the top. Admittedly, it isn't much, but when they see their "paychecks", and relaize where thenmoney's going, they DO understand.

In the case of felonies, what a lot of folks don't seem to understand is that the 'paying of debt to society' is not just composed of time in jail and on parole. That is only part of the punishment. The other part is loss of rights such as gun ownership, voting, etc. Why is this so hard to understand?

They understand - they don't care. I know of one lifer who told me he could have an illegal firearm in his hands before he was out of view of Traffic Control. I believe him. Gun laws make inmates howl with laughter....best joke they heard in years. BUT, this being AZ, they don't laugh to long, with our pro gun status...a few of them sport gunshot scars from private citizens.
As for voting, most lifers and violent felons couldn't care less about it - they couldn't read a ballot, anyway. AZ does offer rights restoration for all civil rights except 2A, which is Federal, and defunded by Congress sometime ago.
Some inmates I know I would trust to stand behind me with a loaded gun - no problem. Some of them, if I ever see them on the street, i will draw and prepare to fire, as they will kill me without hesitation. It definately is a case by case basis...

 

[TimRB]

"Ever incarcerated individual in AZ prison who has outstanding fines and/or court ordered resitution has to pay that, and since we require anyone below level 5 to get a prison job, that money comes off the top."

So the convict does the job he is required to do anyway, and the taxpayers of the State of Arizona pay his fine. There is no downside for the criminal whatsoever.

Tim

 

[Bear Gulch]

My only concern is that to take a persons rights away of say a second DUI ( as can happen in Idaho) is a punishment that hardly fits. Take his ability to drive, sure.

Nonviolent felons who go say 10 years with no legal infractions should receive expungement. Violent felons on a case by case basisonce the 10 years and all fines and restitution are done.

Sex offenders, no dice!

 

[DRZinn]

Once a punishment has been served, the individual should be restored to exactly the same (legal) status as before the crime was committed. If you can't trust him to do that, the punishment wasn't enough. The only time a previous conviction should even matter is the next time that individual is in court.

 

[armoredman]

So the convict does the job he is required to do anyway, and the taxpayers of the State of Arizona pay his fine. There is no downside for the criminal whatsoever.

Not neccesarily so - we have what's called Arizona Correctional industries, or ACI for short. ACI uses inmate labor, contracted with an outside company, for manufacturing, far more than license plates. Chances are, several windows in your home were made in our shop at my unit. Other units make mattresses, doors, and actual construction work, in the case of low custody inmates. These inmates are paid by the company, minimum wage, which resitution, room and board, and electric, is deducted from.
Not to mention - there is this little thing called corrections - we are not the Deprtment of Prisons. We would LIKE to return a productive member of society back to the streets, not a wild animal ready to kill and torture. By enforcing our rules and regulations, such as regular work weeks, we instill that regimen of normalcy to the inmate. If he refuses to work, then he is punished, loass of privledges,(store/telephone/cell restrictions, etc), extra duty (unpaid), plus a few others we don't noise about. Simply put, an escalative avalanche of Bad Things happen to the inmates who refuse to follow our rules.
If you believe that returning any inmate to civilian life is impoassible, and we should just kill them all, well, better check how many friends and family have spent a little time behind bars, even the four hours in a drunk tank! Goofy thing, that pesky 8th Amendment...Sound familiar? Goofy thing that pesky Second Amendment!

 

[TimRB]

"If you believe that returning any inmate to civilian life is impoassible, and we should just kill them all, well, better check how many friends and family have spent a little time behind bars, even the four hours in a drunk tank! Goofy thing, that pesky 8th Amendment...Sound familiar? Goofy thing that pesky Second Amendment!"

Are you talking to me? If so, you're making a rather large, if not tortured, logical leap regarding my thoughts on the eighth and second amendments. Anyway, if prisoners manufactured the windows installed in my house, that would explain a lot.

Tim

 

[The Rabbi]

Most people dont own guns. Most people dont vote. Losing those rights means little or nothing to most people, especially the ones who commit crimes. Even so, a person can go on and have a very good productive life without those things. Look at James Miner.

 

[Waitone]

There is no such thing as "debt to society." There is only the debt the perp owes to his victims.

Restoration would demand bringing the victim back to their condition before the wrong was inflicted.

Restitution begins once restoration is accomplished. Restitution is compensation for the wrong based on the economic utility of the victim's loss.

Don't put perps in prison. Make them work on the outside to pay off their debt to their victims. "What, Mr. Smartypants, if the perp refuses to work restore what he took and refuses to work to restitute the victim?" That's a simple and obvious answer.

So much for my flight of fancy..It'll never happen. As a minimum while we have our current atrocity called criminal justice, just don't tax the victim while the perp is alive and breathing at "society's" expense.

 

[Joejojoba111]

This may sound stupid, but'

Why do we bring criminals back when they leave? It seems to argue against the 'humanity' of the judicial process. If we are really just looking out for society then it is better if a criminal leaves the country. If you have to put them in jail and feed them it costs money, plus they will get out. Why not let them run away?

I know it's fun to punish people, it gives 'closure'. And the threat of several years in a federally funded hellhole is discouraging - but is the threat factor worth the cost?

Lot's of people say 'We just want to get these people off the street.' I think they would agree that deportation or banishment would be more efficient and effective than incarceration.