Jump to content

How long should a stupid person go to jail?


Ms. Spam
 Share

Recommended Posts

Say you got arrested for 3 grams of meth and gun possession and it was your third strike. How long should you stay in jail?

 

This dude in OK has life. A guy who raped a 4 year old has been released for good behavior and a guy who murdered someone. But the dude who was stupid enough to get pulled over with a unregistered gun and "recreational" meth is not even considered for parole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He should definitely do time for gun possession.

 

Life sentence is ridiculous, though, as are "strikes" and "mandatory minimums." Is it really a life sentence, by the way, or is it a "life sentence with possibility parole in x-number-of years?" Either way, it's probably too long.

 

Story time: a friend of mine made the mistake of being brown and getting into an altercation with another kid whose dad was a lawyer. Had to jump through some insane hoops to avoid a ridiculous sentence for what was essentially a shoving/shouting match that had escalated too far -- and still ended up spending several months in prison. Ironically, he had entered the fray trying to break up the fight (it was initially between his brother and the lawyer kid). In summary and conclusion, what Spam describes (and what I described) is a lazy and stupid way to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say probably more drug offenses. It came up at a Christmas party as we were talking about a co-worker who has a son incarcerated in Oklahoma. OK has very harsh drug penalties from some general research I just did. I didn't press it with the teacher friend though. Then tonight as I'm folding laundry CBS or NBC was doing their nightly news cast and they were talking about this topic about how America spends a lot of money storing people who get arrested for drug offenses.

 

I probably could post more but I get so lazy when I do this on my phone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest El Chalupacabra

 

 

Life sentence is ridiculous, though, as are "strikes" and "mandatory minimums." Is it really a life sentence, by the way, or is it a "life sentence with possibility parole in x-number-of years?" Either way, it's probably too long.

 

I agree with 3 strikes if they are violent crimes like serious physical or sexual assault, and mandatory minimums if they are for those type of crimes.

 

But not enough info on this case to say I agree or disagree here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest El Chalupacabra

I don't.

 

Not that I don't support long prison sentences for convicted rapists and the like, of course. Just that I think strikes/minimums, while well-intentioned, cause more problems than they solve.

Well, I agree to disagree then.

 

I don't support blanket 3 strikes laws, and feel the three strikes should be 3 separate incidents of violent crime. If the criminal has two priors for violent crime, then commits a 3rd violent crime, I think society is better off locking that criminal away for the rest of their life. We should keep in mind, however, we are talking about convicted felons, who have been given chance after chance. If a guy is a twice convicted felon, then gets popped for gun possession and meth possession, he is likelyto have broke several laws there.

 

First, the meth possession. If he is using, he is likely a violent POS. If he is dealing, he's still a POS.

 

Second, being a twice convicted felon, he is not allowed to legally own a gun. Ever.

 

So that leads to the third point, how did he get the gun in the first place? He either stole it himself, obtained it from someone else through ill-gotten means, or bought it from someone who shouldn't have sold it to him. No legit gun shop would sell a twice convicted felon a gun. So, that is likely 3 laws he broke.

 

Not to mention why he has a gun in the first place: presumably to intimidate someone, or commit a crime. In this case, maybe the third strike was not a commission of a violent crime, but I think if his other prior crimes were violent, then considering past crimes, and his third one, it is reasonable to assume (in my opinion, anyway) that he is intent on committing a third violent act somewhere down the road.

 

When someone demonstrates a pattern of behavior that shows a threat to society, and continues to do it over and over, at some point you just have to lock them up for good, as far as I am concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm in favor of a 2 strikes policy for certain crimes. Specifically, if you rape or murder someone, and you serve your time, and you either rape or murder someone else, your freedom is forever forfeit. If you murder as say...deal drugs, posess illegal arms, whatever, you serve even more time...more time than a first time offender, but not life in prison.

 

I generally believe in second chances. I don't believe in third chances. More chances equals more victims.

 

In this case, life seems excessive, but honestly rehabilitation is not working for this guy. It's hard to rally behind someone who repeatedly screws up his life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not in favor of any blanket laws at this point. They seem too simplistic and cannot take any circumstances into account.

 

Why did we stop trusting judges to do their jobs, whether it's the SCOTUS or simple local positions?

 

I'd also really like to see this country re-vamp our entire substance/legal system. What we have now is a patched-up raft of crap left over from the Hearst/Anslinger era that

was meant only to oppress minorities and the DARE program was the last, failed remnants of that idiocy. If we treated drug addiction as a health issue, rather than a crime, many of these situations would never get to this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not a blanket law if criteria must be satisfied.

 

Judges are appointed, have biases, and are human. Some people don't feel justice is always served if left entirely in their hands and think parameters should be set. Plus it takes some of the guesswork out, making their jobs easier.

 

 

If we treated drug addiction as a health issue, rather than a crime, many of these situations would never get to this point.

What does that even mean? Legalize everything and have more rehabs? You are going to have more addicts, more overdoses, more deaths...but at least they won't go to jail? Is that really preferable?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not necessarily blanket legalization, though I'm not entirely opposed to that
Remember legalization doesn't mean free or unrestricted. This country has many more problems with legal drugs
right now than we do with illegal substances.
It can mean not jailing first-time offenders if they're simply users and not, like,
selling in bulk or cartel members. It means not taking people's property away for drug offenses. And
it means treatment in place of incarceration. And everywhere this has been done, it actually lowers
the number of addicts, lowers the number of overdoses, greatly reduces prison population, which in itself
has multiple benefits and it lowers crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.