Mandatory Minimums

I'll let the video do most of the talking. But I have to say that I agree that mandatory minimum sentences on lesser offenses is a problem.

Our (the U.S.'s) justice system is completely broken. This is just one of the many issues that we have to contend with.

Thoughts?

 

We definitely need to fix the justice system.

For the most heinous of crimes, they have 1 year to file an appeal if they believe there was a mistake made and the wrong person convicted. After the year without an appeal or the appeal has been heard and the sentence remains, they should serve a minimum of 5 years under observation in prison. Should they prove to be truly reformed and show no signs of becoming a repeat criminal, they can continue living out the rest of their sentencing. Should any criminals show no reformation, then they should be put to death after the 5 year observation so we're not feeding and housing dangerous criminals all the time, and we wouldn't be releasing those who will just become a repeat criminal. We shouldn't be have this "booming prison population" issue if we would just stop treating heinous repeat criminals like people and start treating them like rabid animals that need to be put down. If they can't learn their lesson the first time they go to prison, then they obviously have no need for the oxygen they breathe, the food they eat, the water they drink, or the life they so desperately want to forfeit. If 6 years isn't enough time for them to change their ways, then no amount of time or compassion will ever change them.

For lesser offenses with violence involved, 1 year to file an appeal and up to 4 years observation. If they prove to be non-violent and show no criminal behavior during the 4 year observation period, they can live out the rest of their sentence or have the possibility of parole.

For lesser offenses without violence involved, 1 year to file an appeal and up to 3 years observation. Again, if they prove to show no criminal behavior, they can have the possibility of parole or early release.

For all repeat offenders of non-heinous crimes. When they return to prison they have 1 year to file an appeal. The sentencing of their first offense will be doubled. There will be no observation period for them to reflect on their actions and prove to have changed for the better. They must work to earn their food and water, housing and any necessities required to live throughout their entire sentence. They try to skip out on working they don't get to sleep on a bed or have a meal. Continued skipping out on work, more necessities should be taken away. Taxpayers should never have to be burdened by free-loading repeat criminals. No more parole and no more compassion. If the first offense didn't give them an opportunity to reflect on their actions and conform to appropriate society behavior, then what good is showing them compassion if they're just going to spit on taxpayers again.

 

Expanding capital punishment isn't the answer. The reason that we have a booming prison population is because of mandatory minimums and harsh sentences for misdemeanors or crimes that really aren't that big of a deal. The majority of our prison population aren't hardened criminals, they're people who have committed low level offenses and are spending an inordinate amount of time in prison because of it.

In addition, capital punishment is actually much more expensive for the state than detaining a prisoner for a life sentence (look it up). And that's not even taking into account the ethical reasons for not expanding capital punishment, it's just not economically sound. (Side note: there is actually a Last Week Tonight episode on this. (I'll add the video at the end of this post.))

That said, I do like your idea of shorter initial sentences to be evaluated at a later date. Perhaps instead of having minimum sentences, we could explore the idea of having maximum initial sentences?

 

It's a shitty system that has a non violent drug offender doing more time than a sex offender. Mandatory minimums are complete bullshit. The punishment should fit the crime. Period...

 

Let's just say that the way States handles executions is the slow and most expensive way, which is quite evident when you look at their preferred method of death sentencing because of this ridiculous ideology and this egotistical need to "be humane" to someone who wasn't humane to their victims. Fuck what the State thinks is humane and "ethical". How can anyone really call it justice served, when taxpayers are burdened with paying for a prisoner's food and housing costs? All this justice system is doing is rewarding all these criminals with free food, housing, and water at taxpayers expense. We also need to really stop being humane to repeat criminals. Force the repeat criminals to work for their food and housing. Each and every law abiding citizen has to work in order to earn a paycheck so they can provide food and shelter for them and their family. Its the least the justice system can do.

First offense was a mistake. Second offense, they're making it a career.

If the justice system keeps that motto in mind, then they can start forming punishments around that ideology.

Maximum initial sentences are great for non-heinous crimes, so long as they are long enough to get a good bit of observation in to make better informed decisions than the prosecutors and defenders when they initially try to make their case. I still think capital punishment is the best way to go for heinous crimes on criminals that have been observed as showing no sign of reformation. Remember, I said a minimum of 5 years of observation for those criminals. Personally I think 5 years is enough to make a better informed decision, but some might take longer, so how about no more than 10 years of observation. Those who have proven to have been reformed can live out the rest of their sentence. Those who have proven to not have been reform should be put to death, preferably something kin to a firing squad. Line 'em up, aim, and fire.

The observation stage of the sentencing is intended to provide the judges, defenders, prosecutors and juries (when applicable) an evaluation of the criminal and whether he/she is likely to commit another crime or not and discuss a fair date for either execution (again, for heinous crimes), parole time or date of release. Consider it the evaluation of whether the criminal has earned a second chance or if the criminal continues to spit in the faces of his/her peers. The death penalty decision would come after the observation based on a better informed decision.

 

We're just going to have to disagree on capital punishment. We clearly have a different idea on ethics, as I feel that we cannot hope to become a prosperous, civil society by stooping to their level through such barbarous methods of criminal justice.

The only proven method for reducing crime is reasonable sentencing, crime prevention (that's a big one), and rehabilitation. Granted, there are those who can't be rehabilitated. And, you are right, in the sense that whether it's a lethal injection or the electric chair, the end result is the same: we are still taking a human life. Personally, I cannot ethically abide anything more than lethal injections, and even that I'm opposed to due to the sheer cost. And, without that, I will admit that I cannot think of another alternative aside from a life sentence.

Personally, I feel that a maximum of 5 years makes for a good initial "observation" period. Even for violent crime and felonies. After that initial period, perhaps criminals should be given a review before a court or a board to determine if they should continue to serve more time and, if so, for how long.l

I think that we should allow more than a year for appeals. There are instances of imprisoning innocent people. Without the appeals process (which is sometimes denied or isn't handled properly) they have no way to contest their guilt.

 

It seems like everything nowadays is broken in the US

The judiciary system, the education system, the healthcare system, etc etc. I wouldn't mind getting rid of mandatory minimums for non-violent offenders. Maybe give them at most 5 years to at least a fair fine to say "don't do this again".

 

More like in the world.

 

You mean a parole hearing?

 

Something similar. =P

 

My dad works for the county, and that involves him doing some work at the local jail. My dad saw an 18 year old in there that was/ is a pedophile. Why? He has a 16 year old girlfriend. Her parents found out about him and her.
This is the kicker. The two have known each other before he turned 18. A week after he turned 18, he was arrested.
That is all I heard. That is all I know.

Wonder how far that will go, if he will be convicted or what will happen.