Time for the crime

[YoFuggedaboutit]

OK, because the thread about the Howard Stern called has been locked because the discussion went way off topic, I am going to take CF's suggestion and continue it here where it belongs.

Honestly, even if it's considered a home invasion, I think 15 years is too harsh for Cecil Collins.  Sure he violated his probation and should do some jail time, but this isn't Rae Carruth we're talking about. 

[Brian Fein]

Rae Carruth gets much more than 15 years.

You violate probation, its much more serious.

Here's an idea, how bout you obey the laws like everyone else and not worry about how much time you get?

[JVides]

If I've learned something from Law & Order, it's this:  sexual predators get bolder and intensify their behavior as they go along.  Perhaps Cecil Collins' pattern of home invasions was enough to convince the judge and jury that his next home invasion would result in some real damage.

[Frimp]

Rae Carruth gets much more than 15 years.

You violate probation, its much more serious.

Here's an idea, how bout you obey the laws like everyone else and not worry about how much time you get?

Bingo!

[Dave Gray]

There has to be a balance between law and people.  For each law, there needs to be a fair, reasonable punnishment for society to remain effective.

By thinking that 15 years is too long for breaking and entering, it's not like one is supporting breaking and entering or that they're "soft on crime".   It's just important that the balance constantly remains in check.

If penalties are too lenient, then it will not be a deterrent.
If penalties are too strict, you risk having groups (like gangs and stuff) rise up against the police, feeling that they live in a police state.

It's all about balance.

[bsfins]

Cecil Collins had Prior legal problems
From an Ap wire report from...Dec. 16, 1999
Considered a first-round pick out of McNeese State and Louisiana State, Collins' draft stock fell because of legal problems that included a sex-abuse charge and a failed drug test.

From a different article from CBS...
The alleged burglary is similar to a felony case that placed Collins on probation in Louisiana, where court records portray him as a sexual predator.


It was 2 counts of burglury,and he had the same charge 2 years prior....Finally someone threw the book at him....

A better article on what he did prior...

http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc0.asp?docid=1P1:25154257&refid=ink_tptd_np&skeyword=&teaser=

Links to the CBS Article.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1999/12/16/archive/main140775.shtml

[Frimp]

Why should you worry about the punishment if you aren't going to do the crime?

[run_to_win]

If penalties are too strict, you risk having groups (like gangs and stuff) rise up against the police, feeling that they live in a police state.

Ideally, in that situation, assuming the police are still 99% good guys, you put someone like Joe Arpaio in charge, arm the police to the teeth, maybe give them some military training too, and tell the the gangs to bring it on.  Any gang member who shoots a police officer gets life or more, and any police officer who legally shoots a gang member gets a bonus.

Remember, that's ideally.  Reality may differ.

[Frimp]

^^^

That isnt a "police state." That is having laws that are REAL detourants.

One thing that Jeb Bush did in Florida that I liked was the 10-20-life law.


But, there need to be equally tough laws on other things.

[Dave Gray]

I also question what the purpose of jail is (and I'm being totally serious).

Is it punnishment, to show them that they're wrong?
Rehabilitation, so that they learn skills to function in society without commiting crime?
Protection, keeping the people locked away so that they physically are inable to commit another crime?

I guess it's a combination of the top 3.  Again, these things also need to be in balance.  If you take someone who shoplifts and put them in jail for 5 years, you are going to create a more dangerous person when those five years are up.  They might go in to jail a petty theif, and come out a dangerous criminal.

Again, it's all about balance.  Sentences need to be long enough that they are crime deterrents, but short enough so that the person will return to society changed for the better, so that he/she can then contribute after their debt is served.

The bottom line is that people make mistakes.  People get desperate.  Some people are mental.  People are misguided.  You could lock these people up and throw away the key.  You could rule with an iron fist.  ...and there are countries that do this.

But the bad far outweighs the good.

[Frimp]

I'm not suggesting that we load the jails and prisons down with people who stole a pack of gum from a store. I'm talking about violent criminals(murder, assault and battery, rape, etc.) and cases like home invasion.

Anyone who would cause harm to someone else.

[run_to_win]

The bottom line is that people make mistakes. 

People rarely get incarcerated for their first "mistake".   Hell, in Seattle you can get caught "mistakenly" driving off in someone elses car SIX times without getting incarcerated.

People get desperate. 

The government spends billions a year to help people.  Private charities spend billions more.   

Some people are mental. 

And Reagan let them out and people die every year because of it.  In Seattle an off duty fireman was leaving the Kingdome with his family after a Mariner's game.  Without warning (none of the witnesses noticed any altercation, words spoken or even dirty looks) a former mental patient stabbed him and he died.  Should we put innocent people at risk just to make life "fair"?