Political Crossfire Forums

[Harbinger]

I ask because I don't think imprisonment should even be a consideration for non-violent crimes but it doesn't seem as if our legal system has any restriction on the use of imprisonment as punishment for non-violent crimes.

[tim109]

In every crime committed, freedom and rights of those who were affected by the crimial is taken away. If you are speeding, you are violating the right the expect that everybody will obey the rules of the road.
If you embezzel (sp) money from your company, and then claim losses and lay off employees, that person is out of a job, and can no longer support society or feed his family.
And remember, deterrence is one of the goals of the criminal justice system. If a small fine is all that is charged, there is very little deterrence.

[micfranklin]

I say only violent crimes because not all crimes are that bad. For example, do you really think someone should be jailed just because they took a rack of CD's from the local store? It wasn't out of violence, so that shouldn't equal jail time.

Now raping a group of 4-year olds and then proceeding to murder them deserves at least 30 years behind bars.

[Babylon_Horuv]

I don't think prison should be an option period. Also, some violent crimes are not as severe as some property crimes. I would prefer to be punched in the nose over having my vehicle stolen. I thnk that there should be more focus on restitution than punishment.

[inmylineofsight]

your poll question is too general and vague

[MplsBison]

The only problem I have with prison (and jail in general) is that it costs the taxpayers money to basically have someone sit around all day.

[Stygma]

Those two options are insufficient.

[perdidochas]

Harbinger wrote: I ask because I don't think imprisonment should even be a consideration for non-violent crimes but it doesn't seem as if our legal system has any restriction on the use of imprisonment as punishment for non-violent crimes.

Does a corporate criminal who ruins the lives of thousands of people not belong in prison?

[00timh]

Harbinger wrote: I ask because I don't think imprisonment should even be a consideration for non-violent crimes but it doesn't seem as if our legal system has any restriction on the use of imprisonment as punishment for non-violent crimes. Just out of curiosity, for Ceo's and other high profile executives who have illegally bilked the company and cost thousand's of emplyees their life savings, such as Enron. Should they also not have to do prison time as well?

[The Grandmaster]

Some laws when broken do not make true criminals at all. Some laws when broken really have hurt no one, the law is simply unreasonable, or too restrictive. And yes, sometimes, people must be thrown in jail, or eliminated completely, for they are too dangerous to everyone. But almost everyone I’ve seen wants to throw everyone else in prison for the smallest thing. I think prison should be a last resort. One needs to feel safe in society from criminals, but one also needs to feel same from the police. If they want to bad enough, they can put you in jail for almost anything.

perdidochas wrote: Harbinger wrote: I ask because I don't think imprisonment should even be a consideration for non-violent crimes but it doesn't seem as if our legal system has any restriction on the use of imprisonment as punishment for non-violent crimes.

Does a corporate criminal who ruins the lives of thousands of people not belong in prison?

No, he should not.

In that case, he should be executed.

00timh wrote: Harbinger wrote: I ask because I don't think imprisonment should even be a consideration for non-violent crimes but it doesn't seem as if our legal system has any restriction on the use of imprisonment as punishment for non-violent crimes. Just out of curiosity, for Ceo's and other high profile executives who have illegally bilked the company and cost thousand's of emplyees their life savings, such as Enron. Should they also not have to do prison time as well?

As I said above, I would not put them in prison, no. I am not opposed to people like that being put to death.

Stabbing, for example, a person for fun and out of malice can greatly damage their lives. It isn’t the means that are so important, as how badly the life was effected. But there are things worse than stabbing a person. Destroying their life is almost akin to murder. Destroying the lives of thousands, yes, that needs to be paid for with more than jail. I am often quite lenient when I advocate punishment. Many people say I am too easy. Your example however, is a different matter. Here, I would not be so lenient.

[00timh]

The Grandmaster wrote: Some laws when broken do not make true criminals at all. Some laws when broken really have hurt no one, the law is simply unreasonable, or too restrictive. And yes, sometimes, people must be thrown in jail, or eliminated completely, for they are too dangerous to everyone. But almost everyone I’ve seen wants to throw everyone else in prison for the smallest thing. I think prison should be a last resort. One needs to feel safe in society from criminals, but one also needs to feel same from the police. If they want to bad enough, they can put you in jail for almost anything.

perdidochas wrote: Harbinger wrote: I ask because I don't think imprisonment should even be a consideration for non-violent crimes but it doesn't seem as if our legal system has any restriction on the use of imprisonment as punishment for non-violent crimes.

Does a corporate criminal who ruins the lives of thousands of people not belong in prison?

No, he should not.

In that case, he should be executed.

00timh wrote: Harbinger wrote: I ask because I don't think imprisonment should even be a consideration for non-violent crimes but it doesn't seem as if our legal system has any restriction on the use of imprisonment as punishment for non-violent crimes. Just out of curiosity, for Ceo's and other high profile executives who have illegally bilked the company and cost thousand's of emplyees their life savings, such as Enron. Should they also not have to do prison time as well?

As I said above, I would not put them in prison, no. I am not opposed to people like that being put to death.

Stabbing, for example, a person for fun and out of malice can greatly damage their lives. It isn’t the means that are so important, as how badly the life was effected. But there are things worse than stabbing a person. Destroying their life is almost akin to murder. Destroying the lives of thousands, yes, that needs to be paid for with more than jail. I am often quite lenient when I advocate punishment. Many people say I am too easy. Your example however, is a different matter. Here, I would not be so lenient. So any rape or sexual assault would also be worthy of execution since it ruins the lives of those victims. This is just a pure question and not looking for an argument or debate.

[Babylon_Horuv]

perdidochas wrote: Harbinger wrote: I ask because I don't think imprisonment should even be a consideration for non-violent crimes but it doesn't seem as if our legal system has any restriction on the use of imprisonment as punishment for non-violent crimes.

Does a corporate criminal who ruins the lives of thousands of people not belong in prison?

No, he should however have all his posessions confiscated and the majority of his income for a long time to come in order to make restitutions to those he has harmed.

[perdidochas]

Babylon_Horuv wrote: perdidochas wrote: Harbinger wrote: I ask because I don't think imprisonment should even be a consideration for non-violent crimes but it doesn't seem as if our legal system has any restriction on the use of imprisonment as punishment for non-violent crimes.

Does a corporate criminal who ruins the lives of thousands of people not belong in prison?

No, he should however have all his posessions confiscated and the majority of his income for a long time to come in order to make restitutions to those he has harmed.

It's an impossibility. If I steal 100 million dollars, spend most of it, and then ruin the company, I can never pay that money back.

[Babylon_Horuv]

perdidochas wrote: Babylon_Horuv wrote: perdidochas wrote: Harbinger wrote: I ask because I don't think imprisonment should even be a consideration for non-violent crimes but it doesn't seem as if our legal system has any restriction on the use of imprisonment as punishment for non-violent crimes.

Does a corporate criminal who ruins the lives of thousands of people not belong in prison?

No, he should however have all his posessions confiscated and the majority of his income for a long time to come in order to make restitutions to those he has harmed.

It's an impossibility. If I steal 100 million dollars, spend most of it, and then ruin the company, I can never pay that money back.

You spent it on things, those things can be sold to recover a portion of it. You also must have valuable skills if you were in position to steal 100 million dollars and ruin a company. If you don't have valuable skills you probably have valuable organs.

[perdidochas]

Babylon_Horuv wrote: perdidochas wrote: Babylon_Horuv wrote: perdidochas wrote: Harbinger wrote: I ask because I don't think imprisonment should even be a consideration for non-violent crimes but it doesn't seem as if our legal system has any restriction on the use of imprisonment as punishment for non-violent crimes.

Does a corporate criminal who ruins the lives of thousands of people not belong in prison?

No, he should however have all his posessions confiscated and the majority of his income for a long time to come in order to make restitutions to those he has harmed.

It's an impossibility. If I steal 100 million dollars, spend most of it, and then ruin the company, I can never pay that money back.

You spent it on things, those things can be sold to recover a portion of it. You also must have valuable skills if you were in position to steal 100 million dollars and ruin a company. If you don't have valuable skills you probably have valuable organs.

Regardless, there is no way to recover 100 million dollars that has been spent.

[Babylon_Horuv]

perdidochas wrote: Babylon_Horuv wrote: perdidochas wrote: Babylon_Horuv wrote: perdidochas wrote: Harbinger wrote: I ask because I don't think imprisonment should even be a consideration for non-violent crimes but it doesn't seem as if our legal system has any restriction on the use of imprisonment as punishment for non-violent crimes.

Does a corporate criminal who ruins the lives of thousands of people not belong in prison?

No, he should however have all his posessions confiscated and the majority of his income for a long time to come in order to make restitutions to those he has harmed.

It's an impossibility. If I steal 100 million dollars, spend most of it, and then ruin the company, I can never pay that money back.

You spent it on things, those things can be sold to recover a portion of it. You also must have valuable skills if you were in position to steal 100 million dollars and ruin a company. If you don't have valuable skills you probably have valuable organs.

Regardless, there is no way to recover 100 million dollars that has been spent.

Most of it can be recovered, and having his organs removed is a far more effective punishment than prison.

[micfranklin]

Okay, let's try this. If you are arrested for smoking marijuana and thrown in jail, then that seems like a pretty tedious reason and a waste of tax money to me.

I am already aware that marijuana is illegal in the U.S. :wink:

But here's my thing, rather than jail a weed smoker, an alcoholic, or any heavy drug user for that matter, it'd be better if they were sent to rehab, assuming they've harmed no one ever. See, in rehab, a drug user or an alcoholic can actually get help and be with other people suffering from the same problems. As opposed to in jail, were they were around people who have done far worse things than take too many drugs i.e. a serial killer or a convicted child molestor.

[Babylon_Horuv]

micfranklin wrote: Okay, let's try this. If you are arrested for smoking marijuana and thrown in jail, then that seems like a pretty tedious reason and a waste of tax money to me.

I am already aware that marijuana is illegal in the U.S. :wink:

But here's my thing, rather than jail a weed smoker, an alcoholic, or any heavy drug user for that matter, it'd be better if they were sent to rehab, assuming they've harmed no one ever. See, in rehab, a drug user or an alcoholic can actually get help and be with other people suffering from the same problems. As opposed to in jail, were they were around people who have done far worse things than take too many drugs i.e. a serial killer or a convicted child molestor.

If rehab is involuntary and the addict cannot leave it is just a prison exclusively for drug criminals.

[micfranklin]

Babylon_Horuv wrote: micfranklin wrote: Okay, let's try this. If you are arrested for smoking marijuana and thrown in jail, then that seems like a pretty tedious reason and a waste of tax money to me.

I am already aware that marijuana is illegal in the U.S. :wink:

But here's my thing, rather than jail a weed smoker, an alcoholic, or any heavy drug user for that matter, it'd be better if they were sent to rehab, assuming they've harmed no one ever. See, in rehab, a drug user or an alcoholic can actually get help and be with other people suffering from the same problems. As opposed to in jail, were they were around people who have done far worse things than take too many drugs i.e. a serial killer or a convicted child molestor.

If rehab is involuntary and the addict cannot leave it is just a prison exclusively for drug criminals.

Except there are no bars or electric chairs in rehab, and hopefully no convicted rapists or murderers.

[Enoch]

I can't vote in this poll, as it is too black and white.

Do I think that someone busted with pot should be in jail? No.

Do I think that someone busted for corporate embezzlement should be in jail? Yes, even though it isn't a violent crime.