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).
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).
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.
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.
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".
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.
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?
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).
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.