The Death Penality and Pagans

[CuAnnan]

Aislin Artiers

1. Security. There is always chances of escape or worse, paroll within the prison system.

Is parole different in America than it is in Ireland?
In Ireland; parole is "you have behaved as an exemplar and repaid your debt to society by acting as an exemplar. While your term is not up, we are letting you yout while reserving the right to re-jail you at the drop of a hat".
Why is this bad?

Aislin Artiers

2. Money. Why should Americans provide convicted criminals with three square meals a day, warmth, and lodging all with tax payer money?

Because human life is valuable?
Because it is impossible to redeem someone, to grand the the opportunity to redeem themselves, to let them find redemption through their god(s) or whatever after killing them?  

[Brass Bell Doll]

CuAnnan

Aislin Artiers

1. Security. There is always chances of escape or worse, paroll within the prison system.

Is parole different in America than it is in Ireland?
In Ireland; parole is "you have behaved as an exemplar and repaid your debt to society by acting as an exemplar. While your term is not up, we are letting you yout while reserving the right to re-jail you at the drop of a hat".
Why is this bad?

It may be worth noting that parole is also extended to people who are on probation- they may not even have been convicted, but have a suspended judgment as well.  

[too2sweet]

CuAnnan

Aislin Artiers

1. Security. There is always chances of escape or worse, paroll within the prison system.

Is parole different in America than it is in Ireland?
In Ireland; parole is "you have behaved as an exemplar and repaid your debt to society by acting as an exemplar. While your term is not up, we are letting you yout while reserving the right to re-jail you at the drop of a hat".
Why is this bad?

Not necessarily bad, but the system here is so over-crowded that they have a bad habit of letting people out on parole, that probably would be better off left inside. People who inevitably go out and commit more crimes.

Quote:

Aislin Artiers

2. Money. Why should Americans provide convicted criminals with three square meals a day, warmth, and lodging all with tax payer money?

Because human life is valuable?
Because it is impossible to redeem someone, to grand the the opportunity to redeem themselves, to let them find redemption through their god(s) or whatever after killing them?

Why should a criminal get benefits that many of the poorest (law abiding) citizens do not have? Why is their life more valuable than someone who has never broken the law?  

[Brass Bell Doll]

too2sweet

Not necessarily bad, but the system here is so over-crowded that they have a bad habit of letting people out on parole, that probably would be better off left inside. People who inevitably go out and commit more crimes.

Could you explain this for me further? I'm not sure what is bringing you to this conclusion.

too2sweet

Why should a criminal get benefits that many of the poorest (law abiding) citizens do not have? Why is their life more valuable than someone who has never broken the law?

I apologize if I am missing something- but I'm not seeing how people are claiming that the life of someone who has committed a crime is given more value than the life of someone who has not. I do not feel that one is more valuable than the other, and furnishing those we incarcerate with the means to survive would show that we do.

Our society has government and private programs in place to help the indigent. The public programs have compulsory donations through taxation and the private programs do not, which means it would be up to us to donate our time and money.  

[too2sweet]

Brass Bell Doll

too2sweet

Not necessarily bad, but the system here is so over-crowded that they have a bad habit of letting people out on parole, that probably would be better off left inside. People who inevitably go out and commit more crimes.

Could you explain this for me further? I'm not sure what is bringing you to this conclusion.

Realizing that this is a really old study (and it relates specifically to California), but...

In 1980 there were 11,759 releases to parole, while in
2000 there were 126,117— more than a 10-fold increase. - page 3

A majority of parolees released from California prisons
fail to make the transition back to the community and
are returned to prison. There were nearly 90,000 parolees
returned to prison in 2000 - page 4

So - it seems that (at least in this one state), of the 126,117 prisoners that were placed on parole... almost 90,000 of them ended up back in prison for some sort of parole violation.

If you have more recent stats (or something that is more encompassing of the whole country), I'd be glad to look at it.

edit...

Not really anymore recent, but it's was a national study...

Violators of parole and conditional release made up 206,000 of the 565,000 admissions to state prisons in 1998.7 Even those who complete parole and conditional release supervision ("discharge") return to prison or jail at the rate of 42 percent.8 As worldnetdaily.com editor Joseph Farah points out, criminals under government supervision commit 15 murders a day.

Quote:

too2sweet

Why should a criminal get benefits that many of the poorest (law abiding) citizens do not have? Why is their life more valuable than someone who has never broken the law?

I apologize if I am missing something- but I'm not seeing how people are claiming that the life of someone who has committed a crime is given more value than the life of someone who has not. I do not feel that one is more valuable than the other, and furnishing those we incarcerate with the means to survive would show that we do.

Our society has government and private programs in place to help the indigent. The public programs have compulsory donations through taxation and the private programs do not, which means it would be up to us to donate our time and money.

That's my point criminals are give a free roof over their head, and (admittedly crappy) 3 meals a day, access to educational opportunities, internet, workout facilities, etc... While hard working law abiding citizens are having to struggle on a daily basis just to make ends meet. These people are doing their best and can't provide for their families (and often don't qualify for state/private benefits because their "income" is too high, or other BS requirements - which is a joke because were talking families who make less than $30K a year), they get nothing - but criminals more or less get a free ride. The only thing a criminal doesn't have is freedom, but I'd have to argue that a really poor person isn't really free to do much of anything either (if they lack the resources to make any kind of significant changes in their life).

I've been off and on social services for most of my adult life (in several states) and when you really need help - there isn't any. Social services will give you Food Stamps. Then (if you are a single parent) you can get Work First - which will help with some stuff - but Gods forbid you are married and neither one of you are able to find a job, because then you don't qualify for anything other than medicaid (health insurance is nice, but it's doesn't keep a roof over my kids head). They'll give you electric bill assistance once a year - in Feb (so you don't freeze to death). Most private places will give you up between $100-$500 one time per year, to help with rent/mortg or electric, and quite a few of them require that you be working at least 30+ hours a week, or be disabled (which lets face it, if I was working, then I probably wouldn't need the help).

So what this says to me is that our government values the lives of criminals more than it does it's average citizens.  

[Brass Bell Doll]

too2sweet

Realizing that this is a really old study (and it relates specifically to California), but...

In 1980 there were 11,759 releases to parole, while in
2000 there were 126,117— more than a 10-fold increase. - page 3

A majority of parolees released from California prisons
fail to make the transition back to the community and
are returned to prison. There were nearly 90,000 parolees
returned to prison in 2000 - page 4

So - it seems that (at least in this one state), of the 126,117 prisoners that were placed on parole... almost 90,000 of them ended up back in prison for some sort of parole violation.

If you have more recent stats (or something that is more encompassing of the whole country), I'd be glad to look at it.

edit...

Not really anymore recent, but it's was a national study...

Violators of parole and conditional release made up 206,000 of the 565,000 admissions to state prisons in 1998.7 Even those who complete parole and conditional release supervision ("discharge") return to prison or jail at the rate of 42 percent.8 As worldnetdaily.com editor Joseph Farah points out, criminals under government supervision commit 15 murders a day.

I feel that there should be more information to support the conclusions. Parole violations include inability to pay fees associated with court costs, inability to obtain employment- which due to social stigma can be exceptionally difficult. While some of the recidivism is grossly criminal in nature, not all of it is. It also means that the majority of those discharged are not returned to prison.

too2sweet

That's my point criminals are give a free roof over their head, and (admittedly crappy) 3 meals a day, access to educational opportunities, internet, workout facilities, etc...

I feel the term free is misleading. Not only do our prison systems have compulsorily labor that is garnished to "repay" their debt to society, but being convicted costs them their freedom.

too2sweet

While hard working law abiding citizens are having to struggle on a daily basis just to make ends meet.

The wording here seems to imply that there is a struggle compared to a lack of struggle that exists on the part of the prisoners lives. I'm not sure that this is a fair suggestion given the challenges of prison life, the violence, the internal politics and gang warfare- and a host of other issues.

too2sweet

These people are doing their best and can't provide for their families (and often don't qualify for state/private benefits because their "income" is too high, or other BS requirements - which is a joke because were talking families who make less than $30K a year), they get nothing - but criminals more or less get a free ride.

My family falls into this same strata- but there are numerous private resources for us.

Some things we need to consider is the difference between relative poverty, absolute poverty and extreme poverty.

Relative poverty is what we have in the United States due to social programs both public and private. Relative poverty is set in terms of the median income, and relates to other incomes and the ability to meet minimal standards. When we are able to meet these minimal standards- we are not considered to be in extreme poverty- and this is what the government programs are meant to address. Private programs set their standards as they please- so they may include a different poverty threshold and thus different qualifications (often providing a wider range of acceptable candidates).

I feel one of the major issues with "relative poverty" is that it fosters a desire to live above our means. There are guidelines for what percent of our income should be dedicated to different expenses, and often these guidelines are not observed. Extreme Poverty and most people who are considered part of Absolute poverty have access to government assistance. Those who have enough to meet the minimal needs but choose not to- do not.

too2sweet

The only thing a criminal doesn't have is freedom, but I'd have to argue that a really poor person isn't really free to do much of anything either (if they lack the resources to make any kind of significant changes in their life).

I feel that argument is almost insulting, though I understand it was not intended as such. Until a person is truly deprived of their freedom, they cannot understand how free they truly are and how their choices, rather than their resources, are what stifles them.

The desire to flee a horrific situation without the freedom to do so is psychologically destructive, it can literally break a person's mind. Compare that to someone who is in relative poverty and chooses not to do whatever it takes to move across that gap. I understand that working two or three minimum wage jobs seven days a week is far from ideal- exceptionally unpleasant even, and if one is not careful, it can lead to health problems. But if managed correctly, it can be done safely. To confuse these two situations seems very hurtful.

too2sweet

I've been off and on social services for most of my adult life (in several states) and when you really need help - there isn't any. Social services will give you Food Stamps. Then (if you are a single parent) you can get Work First - which will help with some stuff - but Gods forbid you are married and neither one of you are able to find a job, because then you don't qualify for anything other than medicaid (health insurance is nice, but it's doesn't keep a roof over my kids head). They'll give you electric bill assistance once a year - in Feb (so you don't freeze to death). Most private places will give you up between $100-$500 one time per year, to help with rent/mortg or electric, and quite a few of them require that you be working at least 30+ hours a week, or be disabled (which lets face it, if I was working, then I probably wouldn't need the help).

So what this says to me is that our government values the lives of criminals more than it does it's average citizens.

When addressing these, it looks as though you are speaking about specific programs, and excluding a number of other resources available to you. If you would like, I would happily provide you with other resources if it would help. My experience with these programs is that they do not disqualify you based on marital status, in fact, having an additional family member to provide for actually increases your eligibility in many programs.

Even in situations in my life when I was in absolute poverty, I did not involve myself with either public or private social programs, but I do understand your frustrations- especially in this economy with the job market what it is. Please understand that I do not take your situation lightly. When you examine the violence, rape, threat of bodily harm and even murder that criminals face without the ability to change that situation- do you truly feel that the minimal life sustaining resources given to them can be qualified as a "free ride"?