Author
|
Topic: Felonies: Is the punishment too harsh? (Read 1024 times) |
|
Bass
Magister
Posts: 196
Reputation: 6.06
Rate Bass
I'm a llama!
|
 |
Felonies: Is the punishment too harsh?
« on: 2006-11-18 16:55:23 » |
 |
In America, I generally understand that there are pretty much two types of crimes, based on the amount of jail-time served. It goes:
Misdemeanor: Less than a year and a day served. (Speeding tickets, petty theft, ect)
Felony: More than a year served.
....but it's more than that. Once you have served time and gotten out, you can no longer....
-Get many jobs, including trucking.
-Vote.
-Get a passport or visa.
-Get into many federal aid programs, such as housing.
The record, once had will haunt you for the rest of your life, even if you change your name and try to honestly start a new life. Is this too much? Does the punishment really fit the crime?
Does a felony have to make you a second-class citizen?
Some felonies seem to deserve it. Murder, rape and the like... but as one character in Con Air said: Most murders are acts of necessity, rather than done for the pure act of killing.
What I suggest is a different system. One that works with families and ex-felons who are willing and keeping tabs and limitation on those who don't and one that truely pays attention to the crime.... and whether a person can get out of the trap of a felony on their record.
....but perhaps I'm wrong and trying to be far too optimistic.
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Felonies: Is the punishment too harsh?
« Reply #1 on: 2006-11-21 07:14:50 » |
|
Need you ask?
As a result of defining only Felons as Incarcerated, Human Rights Watch grotesquely under estimates incarceration in the US.... but say, inter alia, this: In addition to focusing on U.S. counter-terrorism practices, Human Rights Watch in 2005 continued to work on other pressing human rights concerns in the United States, including abysmal prison conditions, continued use of the death penalty, racial disparities (brought to public consciousness in 2005 by Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath), and increasingly restrictive asylum and other immigration policies.
Incarceration
The United States incarcerates people at a greater rate than any other country, 724 per one hundred thousand residents. Seven million people—or one in every thirty-one persons—is in prison, or on probation or parole. Black men between the ages of twenty-five and twenty-nine are seven times more likely than their white counterparts to be in prison or jail. More than six hundred thousand people annually leave prison, most of them to return to distressed minority neighborhoods, facing formidable barriers to successful reentry, including laws that limit their access to education, housing, and jobs.
Prison overcrowding coupled with budget cuts leave prisoners without the programs and services they need and without adequate correctional staff to maintain safety and security. Adult and juvenile inmates confront sexual assaults and violence—by each other as well as by staff. With poor supervision and discipline, staff in many facilities can engage in excessive or malicious use of force with near impunity.
According to a report by the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics, prison officials reported they had received 8,210 allegations of staff or inmate sexual violence in 2004; one-third of those allegations were substantiated following investigations. The number of reported incidents is smaller than the actual number, because distrust of staff, fear of reprisal from perpetrators, personal embarrassment, and a sense of futility keep many prisoners from reporting abuse to correctional authorities. The National Prison Rape Elimination Commission established by Congress held three hearings in 2005, receiving testimony of inmate and staff sexual violence from victims, officials, and advocates.
Across the country, medical and mental health care in prisons ranges from mediocre to terrible. Correctional systems lack adequate funds to hire and retain qualified personnel and fail to institute procedures to ensure proper treatment of inmates. In California, a federal judge placed the entire state prison health-care system under a receivership after determining that the state killed one inmate per week through medical incompetence or neglect. Poor mental health care can also be fatal. For example, a paranoid schizophrenic jail inmate hanged himself in May 2005 after not having received any anti-psychotic or antidepressant medication for seven days.
Bad Enough you might think. When you take into account local prisoners (under 1 year) and those awaiting their "speedy" trial, the number soars to over 2,000 incarcerated people per 100,000 of population. Or 2% of the population. The huge majority of these people are not of European descent, despite their smaller populations. So on a per group basis these numbers become even worse. To gain some further perspective, China, the world's No 2 has a ration of about 600/100,000 and Holland, around 60/100,000. Most of the population of Holland is practically atheist, and many of the Dutch enjoy the occasional toke or something harder. Of course they also have real sex education, so despite an age of consent of 12 and vast quantities of rather nice pornography their STD and teen pregnancy rates are amongst the lowest. Are the Dutch really 200 times better people than Americans?
Despite the fact that the reality is tilted strongly the other way, most Americans will tell you crime rates are increasing. Why do you think that is so?
Before you answer, consider that incarceration may still be the fastest growing industry in the US. We also spend far more on incarceration than any other country, even before taking into account the "War on Drugs" which costs us more than education.
Now answer your own question.
Regards
Hermit* (Caveat, with the exception of the HRW data, the balance is from memory of work done in the 1990s and updated by recollected news stories, so not all of it is likely to be accurate or current, although he broad picture quite probably is).
*Given that investigation and exoneration are stopped by execution (so it is unlikely that all those found not guilty or to be victims of prosecutorial misconduct are identified), and that DP cases receive far more investigation, and possibly better legal involvement, than any other category of case, the fact that an average of around 4 people per year have been released from Death Row in the past 30 some years might be a rather troubling factoid suggesting that a substantial number of people having their lives destroyed in American prisons are likely quite innocent. No matter how terrible these people are alleged to be. A further consideration is that countries that provide comprehensive social services spend far less per year per population unit than the US does on crime should perhaps cause additional thought. Especially when we realize that the US has rather low violent crime rates - and insane levels of policing (meaning that "criminals" are much more likely to be caught in flagrante here than in most parts of the world.)
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Felonies: Is the punishment too harsh?
« Reply #2 on: 2006-12-01 11:02:49 » |
|
Report: 7 million Americans in justice system
One in every 32 U.S. adults behind bars, on probation or on parole in 2005
Source: Associated Press
Authors: Not Credited (AP)
Dated: 2006-11-30
A record 7 million people -- or one in every 32 American adults -- were behind bars, on probation or on parole by the end of last year, according to the Justice Department.
Of those, 2,193,798 were in prison or jail, an increase of 2.7 percent over the previous year.
Even though data show more prison releases, the report said, admissions still exceed releases. More than 4.1 million people were on probation and 784,208 were on parole at the end of 2005.
Men still far outnumber women in prisons and jails, but the female population is growing faster. Over the past year, the population females in state or federal prison increased 2.6 percent while the number of male inmates rose 1.9 percent. By year's end, 7 percent of all inmates were women.
"Today's figures fail to capture incarceration's impact on the thousands of children left behind by mothers in prison," Marc Mauer, the executive director of the Sentencing Project, a Washington-based group supporting criminal justice reform, said in a statement Wednesday. "Misguided policies that create harsher sentences for nonviolent drug offenses are disproportionately responsible for the increasing rates of women in prisons and jails."
From 1995 until 2003, inmates in federal prison for drug offenses have accounted for 49 percent of total prison population growth.
Racial disparities among prisoners persist. In the 25-29 age group, 8.1 percent -- about one in every 13 -- of black men are incarcerated, compared with 2.6 percent of Hispanic men and 1.1 percent of white men. And it is not much different among women. By the end of 2005, black women were more than twice as likely as Hispanics and over three times as white women to be in prison.
Certain states saw more significant changes in prison population. In South Dakota, the number of inmates increased 11 percent over the past year, more than any other state. Montana and Kentucky were next in line with increases of 10.4 percent and 7.9 percent, respectively. Georgia had the biggest decrease, losing 4.6 percent, followed by Maryland with a 2.4 percent decrease and Louisiana with a 2.3 percent drop.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender: 
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.69
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:Felonies: Is the punishment too harsh?
« Reply #3 on: 2006-12-01 11:17:57 » |
|
Texas and most US states permit felons to vote once they have completed their sentence/parole/supervision.
excerpt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement
"Today, only four states continue to impose a life-long denial of the right to vote to all citizens with a felony record, absent some extraordinary intervention by the Governor or State legislature. These are Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia. In July, 2005, Iowa Governor Vilsack issued an executive order restoring the right to vote for all persons who have completed supervision. However, the lifetime prohibition on voting remains Iowa law. Nine other states disenfranchise ex-felons for various lengths of time following the completion of their probation or parole. Almost every state prohibits felons from voting while incarcarated, on probation, or on parole. For a more detailed look, see Ex-offender voting rights by state."
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
Re:Felonies: Is the punishment too harsh?
« Reply #4 on: 2006-12-01 14:08:15 » |
|
Quote from: Mo on 2006-12-01 11:17:57 ...
Texas and most US states permit felons to vote once they have completed their sentence/parole/supervision....
|
[Blunderov] After a heated battle, South African prisoners were given the right to vote.
SA Constitutional Court Decision
"Page 1
IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICAMinister of Home Affairs v NICRO and OthersCase CCT 03/04MEDIA SUMMARYThe following media summary is provided to assist in reporting this case and is notbinding on the Constitutional Court or any member of the Court.The Constitutional Court today upholds an application by the National Institute forCrime Prevention and the Re-Integration of Offenders (Nicro) and two convictedprisoners serving sentences of imprisonment, for an order declaring certainprovisions of the Electoral Act to be inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid.The provisions deprive prisoners serving a sentence of imprisonment without theoption of a fine of the right to register and vote in the upcoming elections.Chaskalson CJ, writing for the majority (Langa DCJ; Mokgoro J; Moseneke J;O’Regan J; Sachs J; Skweyiya J; Van der Westhuizen J and Yacoob J), highlights thefact that, given the history of disenfranchisement in our country, the right to voteoccupies a special place in our democracy. Any limitation of this right must besupported by clear and convincing reasons. If the government seeks to disenfranchisea group of its citizens it must place sufficient information before the Courtdemonstrating what purpose the disenfranchisement is intended to serve and toevaluate the policy considerations on which such decision was based."
[Bl.] Once, very much to my surprise, I had this argument with my normally impeccably liberal parents. To my astonishment they were apparently infected with the virulent meme which causes people to believe that a convicted criminal has automatically forfeited ALL his rights. (Possibly this has something to do with the idea that the prisoner is "removed" from society.) Usually though, the law prescribes only a fine or a period of imprisonment.
It is obvious that prisoners retain various rights; the right to life, the right to medical care, the right to humane treatment, the right to practice religion, access to literature and so on. Of all of these why should it be the the right to vote that magically evaporates? What if a politician managed to systematically imprison most of those persons whom he thought would vote against him? What if that politician made certain that prisoners could not vote against him even after they had been released? How "democratic" would that be?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
