Charles Allen proposes early release for under-25 at time of crime, DC murderers and sex offenders

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If rehabilitation is rare. Why are we keeping violent offenders in jail at all. Why not use the death penalty as our punishment of choice?

There are various justifications for criminal punishment, troll. Specific deterrence is one. That means incarcerating a convict to prevent him or her from committing another crime. DC does not have the death penalty.

You're calling me a troll, but I am asking a serious question. Evidence shows that criminal activity peaks at age 25, then begins to fall precipitously. Evidence also shows that long sentences are not a deterrence for juvenile crime (which is what we are talking about).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If rehabilitation is rare. Why are we keeping violent offenders in jail at all. Why not use the death penalty as our punishment of choice?

There are various justifications for criminal punishment, troll. Specific deterrence is one. That means incarcerating a convict to prevent him or her from committing another crime. DC does not have the death penalty.

You're calling me a troll, but I am asking a serious question. Evidence shows that criminal activity peaks at age 25, then begins to fall precipitously. Evidence also shows that long sentences are not a deterrence for juvenile crime (which is what we are talking about).

Good walk back. That’s what you say now. But your previous post contained an absurd final sentence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If rehabilitation is rare. Why are we keeping violent offenders in jail at all. Why not use the death penalty as our punishment of choice?

Personally I think rehabilitation should be a goal. Even if you don't believe that, though, capital punishment should be banned because people *are* wrongly convicted.

[Anonymous]

It is pure madness to prohibit a judge from considering the nature of the original offense. Basically, this would effectively set a 15 year cap on sentences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If rehabilitation is rare. Why are we keeping violent offenders in jail at all. Why not use the death penalty as our punishment of choice?

Personally I think rehabilitation should be a goal. Even if you don't believe that, though, capital punishment should be banned because people *are* wrongly convicted.

Rehabilitation is a goal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are not given a reduced sentence unless they judge agrees, they have proven to be rehabilitated, had good behavior, have a recommendation from a mental health professional and the victims' families agree.

First, the victims or victims' families are "taken into account" but they absolutely do not get to veto a resentencing. It's entirely up to the judge's discretion.

Second, every time I've heard someone argue in favor of these reduced sentences for rapists and murders, it's the same wording: that they've "proven to be rehabilitated". I'm curious, when someone's in prison for a home invasion and raping a child, how exactly do we prove that felon to be rehabilitated? Is it that they refrained from raping any children while serving their prison sentence?

As far as claims of low recidivism rates for those released, I'd be extremely interested in how that rate is calculated. The arrest rate for rape is something like 1%. The conviction rate is a fraction of that.

Well said. Additionally, they are trumpeting the "success" (re recidivism) of a handful of releases of people who committed crimes before age 18 who have been out a short time, and based on that seeking to expand this to 500+ more who committed crimes before age 25. Seems incredibly "anecdotal".

The recidivism rate for sex crimes nationally is really high. I can see how you might not repeat a gang drive by , but sex abuse or rape take a special someone. Many sex abusers seem to escalate when released.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This month the DC City Council will vote on Allen's proposal to deeply reduce sentencing for the under 25 crowd in DC, including murderers, rapists and child sex offenders. According to the Washington Post editorial board's comments today--both recent mass shooters would have been eligible under this proposal.

This will end well

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The democrat felon fetish needs to end

Free country.
Move to a more conservative area nobody forcing you to live in Montgomery County.

It’s a free country but we still have rule of law and there are (as there should be) consequences for committing a violent crime.

You don’t like it? Then leave. You would fit right in lawless Somalia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If rehabilitation is rare. Why are we keeping violent offenders in jail at all. Why not use the death penalty as our punishment of choice?

There are various justifications for criminal punishment, troll. Specific deterrence is one. That means incarcerating a convict to prevent him or her from committing another crime. DC does not have the death penalty.

You're calling me a troll, but I am asking a serious question. Evidence shows that criminal activity peaks at age 25, then begins to fall precipitously. Evidence also shows that long sentences are not a deterrence for juvenile crime (which is what we are talking about).

Wrong. Juvenile crime is crime committed before age 18.

Furthermore - Deterrence is just one reason for jail. Another point of jail is removing dangerous people from society.

[Anonymous]

I’m more comfortable with this for murder than for rape, although that seems odd. But I think there are lots of stories of young guys who got caught up with the wrong crowd, someone puts a gun in their hand, and they impulsively or out of fear, pull the trigger. Those guys seem like they have a decent chance for rehabilitating, in the right environment and with the right supports.

For someone that commits a violent rape, there is something very broken in them that I don’t think can be fixed, (I would say the same about anyone that commits murder by torture.). When released, they tend to escalate. Maybe they can be released when they are very very old (over 70).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m more comfortable with this for murder than for rape, although that seems odd. But I think there are lots of stories of young guys who got caught up with the wrong crowd, someone puts a gun in their hand, and they impulsively or out of fear, pull the trigger. Those guys seem like they have a decent chance for rehabilitating, in the right environment and with the right supports.

For someone that commits a violent rape, there is something very broken in them that I don’t think can be fixed, (I would say the same about anyone that commits murder by torture.). When released, they tend to escalate. Maybe they can be released when they are very very old (over 70).

Yep, sadism just isnt a good "look"

[Anonymous]

What could possibly go wrong since, you know, the vast majority of crimes are committed by men in this age range? Dum, dum DC. All of the riches in the world placed at its feet and it still manages to fu@k it up!

[Anonymous]

Liberals are utterly bat S insane. Yeah,because by the time you are in you're 20s you haven't learned that killing and raping are wrong.


Just like Baltimore. Zach Sowers had his brains splattered all over the curb by a group of teenagers from a curb stomp. Baltimore let one of the criminals involved in about ten years. Guess what happened? He committed more crime almost right after getting let out.

[Anonymous]

TJ Maskin’s attackers too were young men

[Anonymous]

What's Charles Allen's deal? Will the council support this??