Sentenced to life imprisonment for trying to steal hedge clippers.

[Egomaniac]

he served time ( but not enough apparently )

He served his sentence. That is, according to the law, "enough time"

was caught with stolen items

convicted, sentence served.

robbed a house

convicted, sentence served

forged a check

convicted, sentence served

stole some gardening tools

for which he now must apparently spend the rest of his life in prison.

He is being retroactively punished for crimes which he has already served his sentence for.

[infinit]

for which he now must apparently spend the rest of his life in prison.

no, hes serving the time because hes a repeat offender

[Egomaniac]

no, hes serving the time because hes a repeat offender

Yes, we understand that. but, other than his first conviction...none of his other crimes involved violence of any sort. He is not a threat to society.

[wunksta]

he served time ( but not enough apparently ) as when got out he was caught with stolen items, robbed a house, forged a check, and stole some gardening tools.

Sure, and he should serve time for each of those based on what the law determines is sufficient for those crimes individually. Others and I simply disagree that the three strikes law should apply for this non-violent crime. As I mentioned, the US is in a minority of countries that have these policies and considering that we have such as huge incarceration rate (which is also racially disproportionate), I think we need to reconsider these policies.

[infinit]

Yes, we understand that. but, other than his first conviction...none of his other crimes involved violence of any sort. He is not a threat to society.

someone willing to commit armed robbery is a threat, he was given a chance and fucked it up multiple times.

[Egomaniac]

someone willing to commit armed robbery is a threat, he was given a chance and fucked it up multiple times.

Committed armed robbery in 1987. Hasn't committed armed robbery since then. Not. A. Threat.

Again, if we were talking about multiple violent offences...you might have an argument. But we aren't talking about that...so you do not.

[wunksta]

someone willing to commit armed robbery is a threat, he was given a chance and fucked it up multiple times.

And yet, other countries do not suffer these problems even with repeat offenders. They are able to rehabilitate them and have lower incarceration rates without relying on mandatory minimum sentencing and 3 strikes laws. Why does America need to use these policies and force taxpayers to cover the costs of life sentences of non-violent criminals when other countries are able to handle these issues?

[Saltysquidoon]

someone willing to commit armed robbery is a threat, he was given a chance and fucked it up multiple times.

Bold of you to assume a black man in Louisiana would receive a fair trial in the 80s and 90s. How do we even know he committed the offences charged? How do we know the offences charged match the conduct actually committed?

Remember appeals are done both on the papers and on issues of law, not fact.

[Noxx79]

And you can petition to change that by putting such on a voting ballot.
At which point you'd have to be very convincing for the voter to vote in favor of such a change.
Do you imagine by any stretch that anyone here has been that convincing? Because I hear "armed robbery" as a prior conviction and that vote won't go your way.

Why wasn’t he put in for life in the first offense?

Why do you Insist on paying for criminals’ room and board?

[Shadowferal]

I'm not the one that wants to change the system.
As for the criminal, he didn't do anything that merited a death penalty.

[kamuimac]

Yes, we understand that. but, other than his first conviction...none of his other crimes involved violence of any sort. He is not a threat to society.

so aparently it would be ok if i came and robbed you house in very nice manner

because i would be not a threat to society

thief is a thief. he shoudl rot in prison.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not the one that wants to change the system.
As for the criminal, he didn't do anything that merited a death penalty.

he is effectively wasting taxpayers money for X amount of years.

death penalties for repeated offenders would be cheaper and mean that those $$$$ could co towards other social goals instead being wasted on criminals.

shame west went away from using prisoners for heavy labour jobs so they could earn their living in prison.

[MCMLXXXII]

So a death penalty won't cost the taxpayers money?

[Saltysquidoon]

because i would be not a threat to society

thief is a thief. he shoudl rot in prison.

Do you have stocks in GEO? If the answer is no (and we both know the answer is no) your position is actively working against your own interests. You are literally wasting your own tax dollars on a system that is proven and knowingly ineffective that are going directly to lining the pockets of a corporation.

Neoliberal capitalism isn't for you, it doesn't benefit you. You are not now, nor will you ever be and embarrassed billionaire, you are simply one of the 'poors' who exists to be grit for the mill of your oligarchical masters.

[Egomaniac]

so aparently it would be ok if i came and robbed you house in very nice manner

because i would be not a threat to society

thief is a thief. he shoudl rot in prison.
.

No one is saying thieves should not be punished. Put your strawman away.

Life in prison should be restricted only to violent criminals.

[kamuimac]

Do you have stocks in GEO? If the answer is no (and we both know the answer is no) your position is actively working against your own interests. You are literally wasting your own tax dollars on a system that is proven and knowingly ineffective that are going directly to lining the pockets of a corporation.

Neoliberal capitalism isn't for you, it doesn't benefit you. You are not now, nor will you ever be and embarrassed billionaire, you are simply one of the 'poors' who exists to be grit for the mill of your oligarchical masters.

i do live very happy comfortable life that is possible thanks to that "corrupted unfair capitalism"

you dont need to be bilionaire or even multi-milionaire to be happy in life.

[Deja Thoris]

Ahh, America, land of the free.

FUBAR country on most levels.

[Noxx79]

so aparently it would be ok if i came and robbed you house in very nice manner

because i would be not a threat to society

thief is a thief. he shoudl rot in prison.

- - - Updated - - -



he is effectively wasting taxpayers money for X amount of years.

death penalties for repeated offenders would be cheaper and mean that those $$$$ could co towards other social goals instead being wasted on criminals.

shame west went away from using prisoners for heavy labour jobs so they could earn their living in prison.

By requesting punishment far exceeding the crime, you are a threat to society and should rot in prison, right?

[Mihalik]

It's apparently easier to spend millions punishing someone than to give them a prescription for Prozac.

Socialized medicine!?!? We can't afford that! How could we afford that and give Jeff Bezos and the Waltons another 1 trillion dollar tax cut!

[Shadowferal]

Yeah. The answer to crime is to give away drugs...giving billions to pharms, trading the problem at hand...individuals stealing for...pharms' grand theft.

[Noxx79]

Yeah. The answer to crime is to give away drugs...giving billions to pharms, trading the problem at hand...individuals stealing for...pharms' grand theft.

Yet you’re all in favor of prison companies grand theft. Why do you want to subsidize criminals?

And yes, healing people is better than locking them up. Are you some sort of sociopath who delights in punishing people?