Convicted Killers Set Free

[tinybear]

Child Killers Walk Free in Washington

By GENE JOHNSON
SEATTLE (AP) - Yvonne Roberts used to take comfort in knowing that the killer of her 3-year-old son was behind bars. That was before two recent state Supreme Court decisions let him out - four decades early.

And that man, David Crane, isn't alone. Noreen Erlandson served 12 years instead of 40 for killing her own 2-year-old daughter. Keith Whitling was supposed to serve another 15 for his infant's death in 1992. In all, at least two dozen child killers could end up walking after the court found they were improperly convicted.

``I'll never accept it,'' Roberts said. ``These justices need to go. They didn't just create a loophole; they opened the cell door to these killers.''

The court's rulings concerned Washington's law on felony murder, defined as a homicide that occurs - even by accident - during or ``in furtherance of'' another felony, such as robbery. For decades, prosecutors charged defendants with second-degree felony murder if an assault led to someone's death.

In 2003, the court decided the law did not allow for felony murder charges in assault cases. In a 5-4 ruling, justices reasoned that in such cases, the assault and homicide are the same act: The homicide does not occur ``in furtherance of'' assault, it is the assault.

Full Story: http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/sto...48.htm&sc=1110

What sort of legal nonsense is this? When you commit a felony like robbery, you take the risk that death might result and you should be held responsible for it if and when it occurs. That's my common sense view of the situation. What do you think folks?

[castille]

Its called humanitarianism. Under the values of democracy, you must give freedom to everyone, including convicted child molestors/killers.

[tinybear]

Hmm, I call it stupidity and injustice. Nothing whatsoever to do with democracy if you ask me.

[Anna]

Quote by: tinybear Hmm, I call it stupidity and injustice. Nothing whatsoever to do with democracy if you ask me.

Imprisonment has NOTHING to do with "justice", it is simply a form of retribution. Justice demands that the wrong be corrected so as to restore a balance and sense of harmony within society.

It is all too simple to call for a person to be imprisoned for a lengthy period, for them to be sent to a place that few of us understand, even fewer of us want to know about. But, what do we do with them once they are there?

IMHO when society demands that a person be incarcerated the removal from society that should be the only punishment they receive. Being seperated from your friends and family, having your liberty severely restricted is punishment in and of itself. Instead we brutalise and allow a lawless sub culture to flourish behind the prison walls. What effect does this have for society? As is evidenced in most parts of the world, the prison rate increases as does violent crime. Recidivism rates skyrocket. (Speaking from Australia, where our rates of imprisonment for men have increased by 40% in the last decade and women's rates have doubled in the same period. Recidivism rates are around 60% and violent crime is almost the only form of crime on the increase - source, Australian Bureau of Statistics 2004) The end result is a far more violent and dangerous society for us all.

When we incarcerate, we should be obligated to do more with the person than simply punish and brutalise. We have these people controlled in a total institution, an environment where we can exert influence over every aspect of their lives, and yet we do nothing with them. Rehabilitation is offered in an ad hoc manner, and extremely rarely are such programmes carried out in a manner that will have any form of lasting impact or bring about behavioural change. The common justification for delivering rehabilitative services that the service providers themselves know are ineffective is that to provide more effective programmes would cost far too much. What of the cost of recidivism, of imprisonment, of social welfare services to people who are unlikely to be employable in the future? What of the costs to society itself through the increased crime rate?

In many years of research I have been unable to find a single penologist who is brave enough to claim that incarceration reduces crime. Increased use of incarceration through delivering longer sentences only serves to increase the prison population and worsen the demands on the public purse in a myriad of ways.

It is about time that we began to think smarter regarding the so called criminal justice systems we employ, and realise that retributive justice is a luxury we cannot afford both fiscally and through the cost to our own humanity. We cannot simply lock them up and forget about them.... the majority of prisoners will one day return to our communities, and how can we express surprise when they commit further violent crimes after we have subjected them to brutal treatment ourselves?

Throughout the world there have been, and still are, many experiments in alternative forms of punishment and treatment for prisoners. Restorative practices have demonstrated highly effective results in not only satisfying the need for victims of crime to feel vindicated in some way, but in reducing recidivism, and creating productive members of society from those we once labelled as scum. Projects underway in places such as Beligium and the UK have had great success. The criminal justice systems that operate throughout some of the Nordic countries have demonstrated that simply because a person commits a crime it does not mean that they must be written off entirely as never being capable of performing a socially productive role in the future.

What a waste of human potential prisons are, and what a blight they are on our own sense of humanity. During a recent debate among academics and professionals held here in Australia I pointed out research that showed 25% of 18-24 year old males in prison are raped during their incarceration. One person, a prison worker, suggested that as this indicated a minority of prisoners being raped, we should ignore the figure and phenomenon and focus on other areas instead. Imagine if someone said that only a minority of women in society are raped, so lets simply ignore it!

It is time to pull our heads oput of the sand and examine what we are doing through our reliance on imprisonment as a form of so called "justice". Demanding people spend longer periods locked away and brutalised is not going to produce a safer society, but rather, it promises us that our society will decay and become far more violent in the future.

[tinybear]

Impisonment is not rehabilitative in nature. Nobody claims that it is. It is mainly retribution and sometimes (depending on the individual) deterrence. When a person commits a crime, justice demands that he punished according to the gravity of the crime. Imprisonment is severe punishment. Hence it should be reserved for crimes in the higher end of the scale of culpability. Yes, it's a brutal regime, but, by definition, it is meant for the brutal criminal. Of course society is best served by having criminals rehabilitated, but how do we go about doing that in respect of brutal hardened criminals?

[Anna]

Quote by: tinybear Impisonment is not rehabilitative in nature. Nobody claims that it is.

Just where do you get your information from? The voice of ignorance perhaps?

Look up any reliable source on penology and you will most likely find reference to what is commonly called the "3 R's of incarceration", viz - Retribution, Rehabilitation, and Restitution.

At the risk of repeating myself, what exactly is the point of spending vast amounts of taxpayers money in incarcerating people if we do not deliver effective rehabilitation and reintegration programs at the same time?

As regards your question concerning what do we do with the "brutal, hardened criminal"? I will ask a different question first... how did such a person get created in the first place? The short answer is through the process of socialisation, and most likely through previous incarceration. Check the figures on just how many prisoners have previously graduated from juvenile detention centres and you will notice the cyclic nature of incarceration.

Brutal, hardened criminals, as you call them, are not born, we as a society create them. So the answer to what is to be done about them is rather simple, stop using brutal methods to punish. All over the world we have child and animal protection laws in place because we realised long ago that corporal punishment does not work with children and violent handling of animanls will simply produce violent animals. When will we realise the same thing as regards adults who offend against our laws.

[AlmostAlice]

Quote by: Anna Look up any reliable source on penology and you will most likely find reference to what is commonly called the "3 R's of incarceration", viz - Retribution, Rehabilitation, and Restitution.

You seem to have left out a very important addition to that list. It's not just 3 R's; there's an "I" too. A major function of incarceration is Incapacitation. In other words, we are placing criminals in prison simply to disallow them to commit the crimes against society they had been.

Now, of course it can be said that incapacitation simply isn't enough. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. There are a good number of people who would agree with me in saying that some criminals simply cannot be rehabilitated. These people cannot be "made right" and be reintegrated with society. They cannot function appropriately according to the rules society has set forth. This is where incapacitation comes into play, and where it becomes a gravely important goal of imprisonment.

Does keeping the criminals in a building together reduce the crime rate inside of prisons? No, certainly not. But it's keeping that portion of the crime rate off the streets. (For the record, I personally couldn't care less about the crime rate inside of prison walls...) The key to successful rehabilitation is to formulate a means of determining which criminals are most susceptible to such treatment. Through the vast array of scientific avenues we have available to us, this is possible if only we would be so bold as to put forth the effort it requires. In a sense, this is already being done in the form of varied security levels in penetentiaries (ie: min, max, etc...).

When will we realise the same thing as regards adults who offend against our laws.

From the sound of your posts, I suspect that you have your own opinions on how things should be. Aside from the analogies you've already given, why should we not treat our hardest criminals more severely than their less threatening counterparts? (Forgive me if I've misunderstood your point) Would you agree that there are people that simply cannot be brought back?

[Anna]

Debating fools and idiots is always a waste of time, their ignorance does not allow for discussion based on reason. Emotions and emotional responses are a definite bar to effective dialogue.

Incapacitation was not "forgotten", I was simply responding to the point regarding rehabilitation. However, I agree that this is a major function of the prison system, and yet I also remind you of the fact that people are a result of what they learn. Social deviants are extremely rarely born as they are, (I say extremely rarely because there are some who have psychiatric problems that we have not the knowledge to repair that will cause them to display abberant behaviour). For the rest, it is the result of socialisation that creates the deviant personality. In most cases this can be directly attributed to treatment within institutions as a child, such institutions include family, school, and juvenile justice facilities.

It constantly amazes me that when our olympic heroes stand on the podium at the medal ceremony, the nation they represent feels a sense of pride at what they have created in the way of a sporting superstar. Yet when the criminal stands at the dock awaiting sentencing we do not feel a collective sense of shame, but rather blame the criminal entirely for what they have done. In both cases the person is a result of what the society has taught them through various opportunities, or the lack thereof. And, before you jump in and cite cases of people from extremely priveledged backgrounds committing crimes, the lessons are the same. If a white collar person is convicted of an offence it is generally one that involves money, a lesson learned through society where they have been indoctrinated into a competitive mindset and feel the need to make money through any means. For most successful business people there is always a degree of lawlessness in the way in which they make their millions. Some get caught, most don't. On the other hand, there are also white collar professionals who commit acts of violence, and even murder. Again I would be tempted to look more closely at the psychological framework in operation, ego, competition, etc. All of which are results of socialisation.

My point is, that we create these people ourselves. We then have an obligation to repair the damage that we have created, not simply excacerbate it through brutal treatment within a penal setting. It seems that you miss my point as to what result we can expect from such treatment, and that is an increase in violent crime and further reliance on a penal system that is antiquated and under resourced. One only has to take a look at the state of Texas, where over 2% of the adult population is incarcerated or under the control of the criminal justice system. When do we realise it is simply not working? Do we wait until 50% or more of the population is behind bars?

To say that there are some who simply cannot be rehabiulitated and reintegrated into society is a bit of a fallacy. We have never really made the attempt, so how can we know? I have been personally involved with one person who was considered beyond help, and so mean and bad that the government passed a law specifically designed to kepp this person behind bars with no hope of release. The law was even named after him, the Gregory Kable Community Protection Act. It was eventually defeated on constitutional grounds through a High Court appeal and the person who was considered behind rehabilitation has worked as a receptionist for a major printing company for the last 10 years, is regularly called upon to assist others in prison and on release, and is constantly requested to advise parliamentarians on issues of law, order, and civil liberties. He is, quite simply, now a highly respected and productive member of society. It is all too easy to say that some people are beyond help and throw them in the too hard basket to be forgotten and ignored. I prefer to look to ourselves and the lack of ability or motivation we have as a society to direct us into areas of research and learning that might assist us to work with such people in more effective ways. I do not believe that anybody is so far gone down the track of social deviance that they cannot be turned around with the right approach, simply that we have not found the methods as yet, and we need to work harder and smarter in order to do so.

You state that you couldn't care less about the crime rate inside of prison walls demonstrates that you suffer from the same collective ignorance that effects the majority of society. You forget one simple point....THEY GET OUT! When these people are released, if they have been brutalised and such brutality is sanctioned by the society that incarcerated them, how can you blame them for being abgry and violent? Society creates its own violence, and through the prison system it does it in a most effective way. By not caring about what happens to people in prison, we actively promote a far more violent society for our children.

The segregation of prisoners through different security classifications (maximum, medium, minimum) is completely ineffective because it uses methods of classification that have nothing to do with the actual brutality of the person. I do not intend to go into the methods employed as it would take volumes to effectively explain, but is is quite simple for a first time offender to find themself placed in maximum security, and this happens with such regularity as to make a mockery of the security rating system. You also forget the remand section of prisons, a place where people await convivtion or sentence and where they are often held for lengthy periods. In this poart of the prison system there are no such security classifications and it is often the most violent of all sections. Many of the people held in this part of the prison system will be released without conviction...that is to say they are found NOT GUILTY of any crime, and yet they are subjected to treatment that often exceeds the maximum security prison in its brutality.

I repeat, once again, NOT ONE penologist (the scientific experts in the field of prison studies) is willing to suggest that prison works as either a detterant to crime, or in the function of reducing crime in society. That is a strong claim, and a damning indictment on our penal systems.

You make mention of the fact that I have my own opinions.... at least my opinions are based on factual research, study, and evaluation. I am a senior research associate with a major Australian University examining prisons, rehabilitation and reintegration methods. I work with prisons and prisoners every day of my life. I have also spent four and a half years inside prison myself, where I was forced to cry due to what I saw and through the realisation that at our most base level we are no better than animals. I speak of the treatment by the prison staff, the prisoners themselves showed me a level of social structure that I have never seen in a community outside of prison. A society where people work together to endure the most severe hardships through selfless activity. Today I work at developing a social structure in the wider society that embraces what I found in the prisoner population.

Please, when passing comment on the prison system,, base your comments on facts, not bullshit.

[MerlinsByte]

.....Partial quote by Anna..... Emotions and emotional responses are a definite bar to effective dialogue. Incapacitation was not "forgotten", I was simply responding to the point regarding rehabilitation. However........

Merlin writes; .......I happen to agree with you Anna. I will go a bit further by saying that we produce our criminals via a sick society. Its common sense to teach these people (and they are people) skills to cope with society. We couldn't do much worse than the cruel, inhumane, and ineffectual "justice" system of today.

One point. I don't think federal judges should be appointed! Elected would be much better! perhaps our own government does not trust us to elect all of our politicos and power brokers! Damn straight they don't!

mb

[AlmostAlice]

Quote by: Anna Emotions and emotional responses are a definite bar to effective dialogue.

Boy, you're telling me! Reread everything you posted, and tell me there's NO emotion in it...Good luck with that.

A society where people work together to endure the most severe hardships through selfless activity. Today I work at developing a social structure in the wider society that embraces what I found in the prisoner population.

Admittedly, I don't have the faintest idea what Australia's system is like. I don't know what your society is like. But I know mine. What you're proposing here sounds great, ideally. If it were entirely plausible, though, we wouldn't have a crime rate to speak of, or a prison system to repair.

[/quote]Please, when passing comment on the prison system,, base your comments on facts, not bullshit.[quote]

Here we go with the emotion again. Look, I can understand the defense of your profession. Really, I can. But--I presume that your "facts" are coming both from personal experience as well as the education you've received. Mine has as well. Therefore, if my comments are based on bullshit, well then I'd venture to say yours must be as well.

If you'd like to continue the debate, I'm willing. What I won't do, though, is sit here and read pure emotion coming from someone claiming to be a professional on the topic.

[castille]

Simple. Send everyone into a state of fear. Monitor peoples behaviour. Crack down on anything considered dangerous. Set up campaigns to up the fear.

Singapore does that. They have some of the lowest crime rates in the world. In Singapore, walking down the street won't get you killed like New York City.


You want a utopia, you'll have to make sacrifices.