- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Louisiana Supreme Court Will Not Review Life Sentence For Man Who Stole Hedge Clippers
Posted on 8/9/20 at 9:41 am to Jake88
Posted on 8/9/20 at 9:41 am to Jake88
quote:
Why Would a Private Prison Need to Be Publicly Traded?
As a business grows it can make the choice to go public. Essentially, this does a few things for the company that it can’t do as a privately held business.
With most businesses, exposure is the key to growth. The more people that know about the company, the more sales they can do. However, with a private prison, exposure isn’t something they really need. Instead, they need capital boosts for two other reasons.
If a private prison can “mark up” a prisoner $50 per day, that means their prison can theoretically earn $50,000 per day on a prison that houses 1,000 inmates. If they can land another contract with the government to build a prison in the neighboring state, they could start earning an additional $50,000 per day by maxing out that prison. By going public, they can see a sudden influx of money that would allow them to build that second prison.
Still, there is a seedier reason to go public for a private prison. In order to stay in business, these prisons need a constant stream of inmates coming in to replace those that have served their sentence. This means that laws have to be enforced, contracts renewed, and in some cases, laws more strictly enforced. To do so they have to buy politicians. This process is called lobbying and is often frowned upon
LINK
Found some information about private prisons if interested.
0
Posted on 8/9/20 at 9:43 am to OweO
Was the sentence excessive? Yeah 100%.
Do I feel sorry for a habitual thief? No.
Do I feel sorry for a habitual thief? No.
Posted on 8/9/20 at 10:18 am to OweO
I don’t care what your race is, that sentence is ridiculous.
Posted on 8/9/20 at 10:21 am to High C
quote:
I don’t care what your race is, that sentence is ridiculous.
Oh well, blame the politicians you probably voted for
Posted on 8/9/20 at 10:39 am to cave canem
You misspelled beyond. You should be banned for life from posting.
Posted on 8/9/20 at 10:45 am to Jake88
Sure. I get that.
But cumulatively, excessive sentencing isn’t cheap. And I don’t think anyone has run any serious economics on the actual cost versus the benefit.
But cumulatively, excessive sentencing isn’t cheap. And I don’t think anyone has run any serious economics on the actual cost versus the benefit.
Posted on 8/9/20 at 11:00 am to Jimbeaux
America currently warehouses the largest incarcerated population in the history of human civilization. #emotionallycharged
I. The Rise of Incarceration Incarceration in the United States rose at an unprecedented rate for nearly four decades beginning in 1973.3) Research by the National Research Council reveals that, between 1980 and 2010, the 222% increase in the rate of incarceration in state prisons was a function of changes in policy, not changes in crime rates.4)
Those initiatives, under the rubric of “tough on crime,” involved enacting a range of sentencing policies designed to increase admissions to prison and to lengthen the amount of time served on a felony sentence. Such policies were adopted by the federal government and every state to varying degrees.
As a result of these changes, the combined prison and jail population of about 330,000 in 1972 has mushroomed to 2.2 million today.5) This growth has far outpaced the overall increase in the national population and is accompanied by a similar pace of growth in community supervision, with approximately 4.6 million people under probation or parole supervision in 2016.6)
As articulated by the policymakers who enacted these measures, the goal of mass incarceration was to improve public safety outcomes.7) Whether framed as “getting tough,” “sending a message,” “three strikes and you’re out,” or other slogans, the objective was to affect crime rates through a mix of deterrent and incapacitative measures imposed on people convicted of crimes.
There is a growing body of scholarship examining the relationship between incarceration and crime. While it is beyond the scope of this essay to review that work in full, we should note two primary findings of this research.
First, incarceration has an impact on crime, but the scale of that effect is much more modest than many policymakers or members of the public believe. At best, some studies conclude that the rise of incarceration may have produced about a quarter of the decline in crime that has occurred since the early 1990s.8) Other studies have found this effect to be as low as five percent.9) Even if one concludes that one quarter of the decline is the most defensible finding, that means that three quarters of the decline in crime was not due to increased incarceration. Possible factors offered to explain this substantial portion of the crime decline include strategic policing, decline of the crack cocaine drug markets, community-based anti-crime initiatives, and enhanced economic opportunity.
The second primary research finding on the effects of incarceration is that there are diminishing returns to public safety brought about by the prison expansion.10) Two key factors underlying this conclusion are that expanded prison space encourages more substantial incarceration of less serious offenders and that lengthy prison terms keep individuals behind bars long after they present a significant risk to public safety.11)
https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/long-term-sentences-time-reconsider-scale-punishment/
I. The Rise of Incarceration Incarceration in the United States rose at an unprecedented rate for nearly four decades beginning in 1973.3) Research by the National Research Council reveals that, between 1980 and 2010, the 222% increase in the rate of incarceration in state prisons was a function of changes in policy, not changes in crime rates.4)
Those initiatives, under the rubric of “tough on crime,” involved enacting a range of sentencing policies designed to increase admissions to prison and to lengthen the amount of time served on a felony sentence. Such policies were adopted by the federal government and every state to varying degrees.
As a result of these changes, the combined prison and jail population of about 330,000 in 1972 has mushroomed to 2.2 million today.5) This growth has far outpaced the overall increase in the national population and is accompanied by a similar pace of growth in community supervision, with approximately 4.6 million people under probation or parole supervision in 2016.6)
As articulated by the policymakers who enacted these measures, the goal of mass incarceration was to improve public safety outcomes.7) Whether framed as “getting tough,” “sending a message,” “three strikes and you’re out,” or other slogans, the objective was to affect crime rates through a mix of deterrent and incapacitative measures imposed on people convicted of crimes.
There is a growing body of scholarship examining the relationship between incarceration and crime. While it is beyond the scope of this essay to review that work in full, we should note two primary findings of this research.
First, incarceration has an impact on crime, but the scale of that effect is much more modest than many policymakers or members of the public believe. At best, some studies conclude that the rise of incarceration may have produced about a quarter of the decline in crime that has occurred since the early 1990s.8) Other studies have found this effect to be as low as five percent.9) Even if one concludes that one quarter of the decline is the most defensible finding, that means that three quarters of the decline in crime was not due to increased incarceration. Possible factors offered to explain this substantial portion of the crime decline include strategic policing, decline of the crack cocaine drug markets, community-based anti-crime initiatives, and enhanced economic opportunity.
The second primary research finding on the effects of incarceration is that there are diminishing returns to public safety brought about by the prison expansion.10) Two key factors underlying this conclusion are that expanded prison space encourages more substantial incarceration of less serious offenders and that lengthy prison terms keep individuals behind bars long after they present a significant risk to public safety.11)
https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/long-term-sentences-time-reconsider-scale-punishment/
Posted on 8/9/20 at 11:06 am to OweO
quote:
So what do you think about people who commit the same crimes, but have the means to afford a better lawyer which results in them getting off with a slap on the wrist, while people are jail, for the same thing are spending years and years in prison?
Higher chance someone that can afford a lawyer will be able to turn around their ways. Plus the person with a PD continues to prove they are a drain on society right through their court case.
Posted on 8/9/20 at 1:07 pm to OweO
More information on this.
LINK
If you look at the second document it provides more information. Bryant was arrested in 1979 for armed robbery in which he was sentenced 10 years of hard labor. He obviously didn't serve all 10 years because in 1987 he was charged with possession of stolen items.
In 1989 he was charged for forgery of a check worth $150 and then in 1992 stealing the hedge clippers was burglary of an inhabited dwelling.
He served his time for the armed robbery. Then you look at what he had been charged for after serving his time, it was theft. While no one like a theft, I would think because he served his time for armed robbery, the LSC would look at the crime he served time for then the 3 theft charges and see that they could be the result of someone who served prison time and has not been able to get his life back on track because he had been in prison..
IDK, that's just a thought.
LINK
If you look at the second document it provides more information. Bryant was arrested in 1979 for armed robbery in which he was sentenced 10 years of hard labor. He obviously didn't serve all 10 years because in 1987 he was charged with possession of stolen items.
In 1989 he was charged for forgery of a check worth $150 and then in 1992 stealing the hedge clippers was burglary of an inhabited dwelling.
quote:
Mr. Bryant’s sentence is sanctioned under the habitual offender law because of his four prior convictions.
He served his time for the armed robbery. Then you look at what he had been charged for after serving his time, it was theft. While no one like a theft, I would think because he served his time for armed robbery, the LSC would look at the crime he served time for then the 3 theft charges and see that they could be the result of someone who served prison time and has not been able to get his life back on track because he had been in prison..
IDK, that's just a thought.
Posted on 8/9/20 at 1:09 pm to OweO
quote:
If he lives another 20 years, Louisiana taxpayers will have paid almost one million dollars to punish Mr. Bryant for his failed effort to steal a set of hedge clippers.”
I mean honestly who can argue that this is a good thing?
Posted on 8/9/20 at 1:13 pm to JudgeHolden
quote:
And I don’t think anyone has run any serious economics on the actual cost versus the benefit.
Because the benefit would be a made up number. We know the costs, those numbers a tied to actual expenses.
Posted on 8/9/20 at 1:15 pm to Draconian Sanctions
Exactly. Those are some expensive hedge clippers.
Posted on 8/9/20 at 2:05 pm to yellowfin
quote:
the benefit would be a made up number.
That’s true. But if the guy gets bitched for a series of small thefts, then you could at least qualitatively compare it.
Posted on 8/9/20 at 2:13 pm to OweO
Maybe we should start killing killers and cutting hands off of thieves. I find it hard to believe we'd have any habitual offenders if we had punishments that actually deterred anybody.
This post was edited on 8/9/20 at 2:14 pm
Posted on 8/9/20 at 2:19 pm to JudgeHolden
How did people like Alton Sterling not get impacted by this law? Didn't he have like 18 arrests?
Posted on 8/9/20 at 2:20 pm to OweO
quote:
Bryant, who is Black, was sentenced as a habitual offender after three previous convictions.
Oh he's black, that makes a difference.
Posted on 8/9/20 at 2:21 pm to fallguy_1978
quote:
How did people like Alton Sterling not get impacted by this law? Didn't he have like 18 arrests?
Or that fishing trip killer
Posted on 8/9/20 at 2:26 pm to SEClint
I have a second cousin that I know has 5+ felonies. Probably closer to 10 but I'm not entirely sure.
He's been in and out of prison for 30 years. His are pretty much all non violent. Not sure if that matters but I know he's out now.
He's been in and out of prison for 30 years. His are pretty much all non violent. Not sure if that matters but I know he's out now.
Posted on 8/9/20 at 2:29 pm to OweO
quote:
He wouldn't be in this situation if he wouldn't have stole anything, but do you like a life sentence is harsh?
I thought prison is said to rehabilitate. Right?
Posted on 8/9/20 at 8:57 pm to fallguy_1978
quote:
How did people like Alton Sterling not get impacted by this law? Didn't he have like 18 arrests?
Because prosecutors do not have to invoke it. They can use it as leverage (and it is enormous leverage) to force pleas.
Page 7 of 8
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News