- 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
0
Posted on 7/15/14 at 8:29 am to NbamaTiger90
quote:
But to wait 19 years seems to be cruel and unusual punishment. They had their chance 19 years ago. If the state feels like "paying the price" for a dead child is only 2 years then we are messed up anyway.
This guy should not go to prison. This is sending him to prison just for the sake of sending him to prison.
Posted on 7/15/14 at 8:30 am to Scruffy
quote:
The world isn't black and white. We should not address every situation the same because, well, they aren't the same.
Agree 100%
Just pointing out his argument for the guy not being punished now is because "the state fricked up and never came to get him to serve his time".... So does that argument apply to ANYONE?
Again, I don't think prison is right in this case... I think him serving community service is the best option. It is an punishment for him, but doesn't take away from him remaining a productive member of society and it gives back to the community.
Posted on 7/15/14 at 8:30 am to ShortyRob
quote:
Allowing the state to reach back 19 years is absolutely 100% NOT a thing that we should allow from a state.
Agree, but that's the law as it stands. Should be changed IMO.
Posted on 7/15/14 at 8:32 am to SSpaniel
quote:In this case, not.
Yet he still needs to be punished for taking the life of an infant. Or does he not?
As I said, it wasn't a violent crime, he has created a fine life for himself, and he has committed no further crimes.
For what purpose is punishment needed? Is it some sense of societal justice that must be upheld? Is there a point where the punishment becomes as destructive as the crime?
Also, I am one of the more passionate individuals when it comes to crimes committed against children, but I don't see the purpose in this case beyond a sense of societal vengeance.
Posted on 7/15/14 at 8:33 am to Scruffy
quote:
Only punishment?
IMHO, yes.
Should we not attempt rehab as well?
If done properly, punishment can be rehabilitative. For example, your kids fricks up and you punish him/her. The outcome should be both the sanction for the improper conduct, as well as learning the lesson not to repeat the behavior.
Should the punishment or the rehab be the more important of the two?
Punishment. "Rehabilitation" as urged by sociologists (as completely worthless a group of people as there ever was) is a total waste of resources. For every one prisoner that is "rehabilitated" (by their definition), easily 50 remain complete POS and recidivists.
Posted on 7/15/14 at 8:34 am to swampdawg
For me, the fact a life was loss, means there should be a punishment factor associated with the act. Yes, he should go to prison.
There is no reason to believe this man required rehabilitation but he needs to be punished.
There is no reason to believe this man required rehabilitation but he needs to be punished.
Posted on 7/15/14 at 8:34 am to Lsut81
quote:It should. It ALREADY applies when the state can't be bothered to be remotely competent when trying the case. Guilty people go free all the time in such situations.
Just pointing out his argument for the guy not being punished now is because "the state fricked up and never came to get him to serve his time".... So does that argument apply to ANYONE?
That's because, as a society, we have deemed that the state incompetence is not the problem of the citizen.
Posted on 7/15/14 at 8:36 am to Scruffy
quote:
Is it some sense of societal justice that must be upheld?
It is exactly that. The criminal justice system is not 100% pragmatic because that's not what society wants from it.
Posted on 7/15/14 at 8:38 am to C
quote:
I think "punishment" doesn't improve society
I agree, but is a 20 year sentence for an illegal action supposed to be retribution or a deterrent?
I agree with the poster earlier that said everything shouldn't be so black and white all the time.
This post was edited on 7/15/14 at 8:45 am
Posted on 7/15/14 at 8:38 am to udtiger
quote:This is true, but so is the opposite.
If done properly, punishment can be rehabilitative. For example, your kids fricks up and you punish him/her. The outcome should be both the sanction for the improper conduct, as well as learning the lesson not to repeat the behavior.
quote:I don't believe that is an indictment against the idea of "rehabilitation" as much as it is an indictment against our prison system.
Punishment. "Rehabilitation" as urged by sociologists (as completely worthless a group of people as there ever was) is a total waste of resources. For every one prisoner that is "rehabilitated" (by their definition), easily 50 remain complete POS and recidivists.
Posted on 7/15/14 at 8:38 am to Holden Caulfield
quote:Do you people not comprehend the VAST difference for a person between serving time from age 19-21 and serving time from age 38-40? frick, I'd rather go to prison for 5 years starting at age 19 than ONE year starting at age 38.
For me, the fact a life was loss, means there should be a punishment factor associated with the act. Yes, he should go to prison.
There is no reason to believe this man required rehabilitation but he needs to be punished.
For frick's sake. People really need to understand WHY we tell the state it must get shite right or failure is on it in our justice system. I guess the writers of law never really addressed something like this primarily because sometimes, you really can't even come up with all the ways a state can be incompetent.
You people are looking at this "punishment" think like the state is the parent or something. State vs Citizens should be held to a VERY high standard for the state.
Posted on 7/15/14 at 8:40 am to swampdawg
quote:He could serve it in a community service work house where he can get out for work... or substitute 5 years of community service.
should this man have to serve his sentence?
Posted on 7/15/14 at 8:41 am to swampdawg
does anyone still think prison is to rehabilitate?
Prison is a petri dish for pathologies.
Prison is a petri dish for pathologies.
Posted on 7/15/14 at 8:42 am to Holden Caulfield
quote:
There is no reason to believe this man required rehabilitation
You hit the nail on the head. This is not a case where you send someone to prison in hopes of rehabilitation. This man was not a self decided criminal and no rehabilitation is required. He made a very serious mistake and has never paid for it.
He needs to be in prison for punishment's sake and not rehabilitation.
Posted on 7/15/14 at 8:42 am to Tigerlaff
quote:And is that not a problem?
It is exactly that. The criminal justice system is not 100% pragmatic because that's not what society wants from it.
We have such a "fire and brimstone" approach to punishment.
As a country, we have a recidivism rate of ~60%. That is terrible and, IMO, a sign that we are going about this all wrong.
Posted on 7/15/14 at 8:44 am to Jay Quest
quote:
He needs to be in prison for punishment's sake and not rehabilitation.
But WHY?
Should he receive some form of punishment? Sure, but why lock him away? What is the purpose of that?
That is what I want the answer to. In this case, what purpose does locking this man away serve?
This post was edited on 7/15/14 at 8:47 am
Posted on 7/15/14 at 8:46 am to Scruffy
Good Lord this thread saddens me. People genuinely have no understanding of why we demand that the state be held to a high standard in our criminal justice system.
How long can the state reach back if the state screws up? 30 years? 40? 50?
You people saying, "he owes 2 years" seems to COMPLETELY miss that we already let guilty people go free all the time because of the high standard we set for the state. From high demands on rules of evidence to high demands on standards of proof.
Do you thin we do this just for fun? Or, do you comprehend that there's a REASON we don't let the state get a free pass on incompetence?
How long can the state reach back if the state screws up? 30 years? 40? 50?
You people saying, "he owes 2 years" seems to COMPLETELY miss that we already let guilty people go free all the time because of the high standard we set for the state. From high demands on rules of evidence to high demands on standards of proof.
Do you thin we do this just for fun? Or, do you comprehend that there's a REASON we don't let the state get a free pass on incompetence?
Posted on 7/15/14 at 8:46 am to swampdawg
quote:
should this man have to serve his sentence?
I am on the fence on this one. I think you question the family of the victim, and see what they think. its been 19 years for them as well. hopefully by then they have come to terms and no longer want "justice"
I would even be for the guy creating a college fund or something similar in the name of the child that died....
Posted on 7/15/14 at 8:47 am to ShortyRob
quote:
Do you people not comprehend the VAST difference for a person between serving time from age 19-21 and serving time from age 38-40?
No, only you comprehend that difference. Thanks for pointing it out though. Still don't care.
quote:
State vs Citizens should be held to a VERY high standard for the state.
For me, this is not a case study of government incompetence. Its about someone paying for an act that left a child dead.
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News