[spdrun]

The problem in the South in the 1960ies was that crime against blacks was punished more leniently or often not prosecuted at all. Recreating this disparity in the opposite direction is just as immoral.

[spdrun]

It’s not a question of loving the underdog. It’s a question of keeping almost 1% of our population in prison not making economic or human-rights sense.

We’re talking something like $70 billion per annum not including costs of litigation. Halving that would reduce the national deficit by 5%. It would pay every American’s health insurance premium for half a month or buy every child under 18 an iPad 🙂

(Yeah, I realize it’s mostly not Fed money, but my point is to make a point.)

[spdrun]

JFK must be rolling over — way to disrespect his memory, Dallas. Yep, that’s what he broke his back for (literally) in WW II, so that Americans can act like Fascist thugs.

[spdrun]

FlyerInHI: The difference is that those groups are often physically and mentally more vulnerable — thus crimes against them are seen as more unfair.

6packscaredy: My point is that ALL random violence should be deterred equally. If someone randomly punches me in the face, I really don’t care if it’s because of my religion, my location, my home town, or the color of my shirt.

[spdrun]

FlyerInHI, speaking for myself, I take exception because punishments in this country are TOO severe as it is, and it costs both taxes and lives. Existing punishments for violent crimes are enough.

Secondly, why establish protected classes? Is it really worse to injure someone because of their orientation or race, than to do so because you don’t like them for other reasons?

Is the Black guy beat up by another Black guy because he was wearing a Red Sox hat after the Yankees lost the Series any less worthy of justice than an Asian guy beat up by a White guy because of his race? I’d think not.

Random violence FOR WHATEVER REASON should in itself be an aggravating factor. If there was provocation or a crime previously committed, as in the case of a man who killed a robber, then that should be taken into account as mitigation. Same goes for a simple assault during (let’s say) a bar-fight.

[spdrun]

“Felony” doesn’t imply “violent crime” — it can be something like “participating in a political demonstration that turns violent” aka “riot.”

So is “stealing a slice of pizza from some kids” apparently…
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Stealing-one-slice-of-pizza-results-in-life-3150629.php

And drug dealing, even to consenting adults. I might agree with “three strikes” laws if the definition of qualifying crimes is upgraded only to offenses that involve death, severe bodily harm, or rape, but that should basically be it.

(EDIT: Looks like CA changed theirs somewhat last year, but that’s not all states.)

[spdrun]

Again, that’s the purpose of a parole board: to determine rehabilitative status. Life without parole is too definitive a punishment to use for someone who may be able to be rehabilitated.

Also, keep in mind that incarceration costs $25-50k/yr per convict. Imagine if that money were spent improving primary and secondary education, or put into the university system to give many more people free rides through college — you may have a lot fewer people entering prison in the first place.

Frankly, keeping almost 1% of this country’s population in prison is a WASTE as well as a disgrace.

[spdrun]

Firstly, the three-strikes laws don’t only apply to violent crimes.

Secondly, that’s what a parole board is for. And despite what the law-and-order Fascist freaks yap about, that’s what educational and vocational programs in prison should be for — so people can be released with opportunities to do right.

I may add that criminal records should be sealed after a certain number of years, except in the most heinous of crimes. Not damaging ex-convicts’ job opportunities will reduce recidivism.

Keeping nearly one per cent of our population locked up is shameful. And expensive. We need to find a better way and move away from a concept of punishment.

[spdrun]

Correlation doesn’t prove causation. Unlike your graph, the lead study actually looked at crime in different states and countries to establish a stronger causal relationship.

(1993 was also about 20 years after leaded fuel started to be phased out.) Things like Three Strikes, at least where there is no possibility of parole, are inhumane in my book, since they don’t take the possibility of rehabilitation into account.

A person is far different at age 45 than at age 20 or 25, and the law should allow for that.

[spdrun]

Who knows? One of the most likely theories for the rise and drop of crime rates in the US involves the introduction and prohibition of leaded gasoline…

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2013/01/03/how-lead-caused-americas-violent-crime-epidemic/

“Three strikes” is the typical American mentality of punishment over prevention and rehabilitation.

[spdrun]

Correct — random assault is pretty bad.

Would it have been better if they sucker-punched him because they didn’t like the color of his shirt, his Rolex watch, or the car he drove? I’m honestly not sure if they were looking for anyone in particular, or just happened to sucker-punch the first poor sod they came upon.

I fail to see the point of additional charges. Punching someone in a bar fight where no one ends up seriously hurt will likely net you a fine and maybe some community service. A year on Rikers Island is quite a step up from that — no need to go overboard.

[spdrun]

.

[spdrun]

If the prospect of a year on Rikers Island doesn’t deter such insane stupidity, nothing will.

I’m strongly for simplification of laws and reduction of overly long sentences — it’s a national shame and disgrace that we keep almost one per cent of our population in prison at any one time. Plus it costs taxpayer money that would be better spent on education and creating career opportunities.

The point is that punching random people in the face is unacceptable, and a year in prison should do well to get that point across without going to excessive measures.

[spdrun]

Would the knockout thing have been any less heinous if it were white-on-white violence — just some good old droogs looking to give a tolchock in the rot in “A Clockwork Orange?” Incidentally, it’s nothing new either — “happy slapping” was a thing in London ten years ago.

The hate crime charges are just stupid — third-degree assault already carries a year in county jail. Where “county jail” likely means Riker’s Island. No personal experience with the place, but I’ve read that it’s not a nice place to spend a day in, let alone a year.

[spdrun]

Justice should be rehabilitative, not based on rage. Or should we go back to midnight lynchings where the victim’s family strings the perp up from the nearest oak tree?

I didn’t say 15 years with a possible reduction for rehab. I said 15-life, meaning fifteen years hard time minimum, with possibility of parole every ten years after that, depending on state of rehabilitation.

Note that possibility of parole doesn’t mean actuality. Look at Charles Manson, who’s been up for parole several times, and each time the pardons board said “no.”

I’m the opposite of heartless. I’m a bleeding-heart, criminal-hugging, pinko liberal in this respect.

[Author]

Posts