Fugitive Mom Nabbed After 32 Years (Goddamn War on Drugs Again)

[shemp]

Michigan Woman Married And Raised Family In Calif. After Escaping From Prison (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/01/national/main4061142.shtml)

(AP) Marie Walsh kept a low profile for 32 years, trying to escape her past life as Susan LeFevre.

She raised three children with her husband of 23 years, Alan, who never knew she was using an assumed identity. Authorities wanted her for escaping from a Detroit prison a year into a maximum 20-year sentence on heroin charges.

Now, LeFevre, 53, is in jail awaiting extradition from California to Michigan on an escape warrant.

She was arrested April 24 outside her home in San Diego's posh Carmel Valley area, wearing a sweat suit and driving a black Lexus SUV. Authorities say her cover was blown by an anonymous caller who tipped Michigan authorities to her new name.

So basically, she got 10-20 on a drug conviction, escaped after a year, started a new life, reformed, has been a good citizen for 32 years, yet, unless Michigan decides to be lenient, she's going to spend years, maybe the rest of her life, in prison on an ancient drug charge.

The irony, of course, is that had she served her sentence, she might have come out of prison a hardened criminal and committed serious crimes, or she might have spent the rest of her life on the streets homeless. By escaping, she was able to turn her life around, something that the so-called "justice" system can't do. She became a productive member of society instead of a danger and a drain on taxpayers.

I have given up any hope that, during my lifetime, common sense will take over in this country and we will start treating drug "criminals" like the victims they are, with treatment for their addiction rather than punishment.

By the way, thanks to the jackass who turned her in. I'm sure this douchebag thinks he/she is a good patriotic American who's a good soldier in the War on Drugs.

STANDARD DISCLAIMER: Use of the term "goddamn" does not imply belief in a deity; it is used solely as an expression of anger.

[Madalch]

That's one way to retire without worrying about a pension.

[Safe-Keeper]

I have given up any hope that, during my lifetime, common sense will take over in this country and we will start treating drug "criminals" like the victims they are, with treatment for their addiction rather than punishment.[Hugs shemp]

[Fnord]

I have given up any hope that, during my lifetime, common sense will take over in this country and we will start treating drug "criminals" like the victims they are, with treatment for their addiction rather than punishment.


America has a legal system, and not a justice system. Unfortunate for this particular criminal, to be sure, but all she needs now is a good lawyer. Even a so-called 'victim of addiction' can be a criminal.

I wonder what prompted the 'snitch' to turn her in now, instead of previously? Who knew what when?

[Molinaro]

Michigan Woman Married And Raised Family In Calif. After Escaping From Prison (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/01/national/main4061142.shtml)



So basically, she got 10-20 on a drug conviction, escaped after a year, started a new life, reformed, has been a good citizen for 32 years, yet, unless Michigan decides to be lenient, she's going to spend years, maybe the rest of her life, in prison on an ancient drug charge.

The irony, of course, is that had she served her sentence, she might have come out of prison a hardened criminal and committed serious crimes, or she might have spent the rest of her life on the streets homeless. By escaping, she was able to turn her life around, something that the so-called "justice" system can't do. She became a productive member of society instead of a danger and a drain on taxpayers.

I have given up any hope that, during my lifetime, common sense will take over in this country and we will start treating drug "criminals" like the victims they are, with treatment for their addiction rather than punishment.

By the way, thanks to the jackass who turned her in. I'm sure this douchebag thinks he/she is a good patriotic American who's a good soldier in the War on Drugs.

STANDARD DISCLAIMER: Use of the term "goddamn" does not imply belief in a deity; it is used solely as an expression of anger.

Evidence that she didn't commit any other crimes after her escape? And the fact that she wasn't charged with anything is not evidence!

She should finish her original sentence + whatever is typical for jailbreak.

I have no sympathy for her at all.

[Darth Rotor]

Evidence that she didn't commit any other crimes after her escape? And the fact that she wasn't charged with anything is not evidence!

She should finish her original sentence + whatever is typical for jailbreak.

I have no sympathy for her at all.
In all seriousness, what about her children?

[Father Dagon]

"Just say no".

The story sickens me. The snitch is really a pillar of the community. Everybody: Put dead rats in the snitchs mailbox.

[mattdick]

I am for a major overhaul of the drug laws. I think it makes little to no sense to punish users. As such, unless she was making or selling the heroin, I think it doesn't make a lot of sense to have imprisoned her.

But.

She escaped from our prison system. I just can't accept that you're allowed to escape from the prison system as long as you live a good life after that. What if she'd been caught after only ten years out? What if she had a few speeding tickets? How about if she'd been caught a week after escape -- if she'd been *really* good for that week, is a week enough? One year? Four years? That's going to be one heck of a justice system that has to decide just how long you get to be a fugitive before you're allowed to skate.

Does that amount of time differ with the crime?

I agree that she doesn't represent a danger to anyone anymore, but I'm unsure we're served as a public to decide arbitrarily who is allowed to not serve their sentences.

[Segnosaur]

Just wondering... does your idea of allowing escaped criminals to remain in the community apply to ALL criminals? Just those involved in the drug trade? Or perhaps those involved with only certain drugs? Or does the escapee's sex enter into the equation? Is your scorn directed at the fact that someone had 'reformed' themselves, or is it that you think heroin should be legal and that she shouldn't have gone to jail at all?

What if she had been found after only a few days; would it then be fine to send her back to jail then? If it was ok to send her back to jail then, but not fine now, then how long of a delay would you consider reasonable for sending them back to jail? (Caught in a year, back to jail; caught in 2, you're free to go...)

And what if, rather than 'turning her life around', she had decided to go on welfare? Become a street person? Or even continued selling heroin? What if she had cleaned up her act for a year or 2, but then started robbing banks? Should she then be sent back to jail?

What if Jeffry Dahlmer had escaped and lived a 'reformed' life for several decades? Would you say that it was fine because he said "Don't worry, I'm full..."?

As for the snitch... Why single him out for scorn? Was he omnipotent? Could he have truly known she had mended her ways, rather than continue being a criminal (but just not get caught)?

[Segnosaur]

I am for a major overhaul of the drug laws. I think it makes little to no sense to punish users. As such, unless she was making or selling the heroin, I think it doesn't make a lot of sense to have imprisoned her.


She was actually involved in selling. From the article:

Michigan authorities called LeFevre a major drug trafficker who ran a heroin operation that earned about $2,000 a week, reports the San Diego Tribune.

The newspaper reported that undercover officers bought from her at least twice and a search of her apartment turned up $500 to $600, paraphernalia for cutting heroin and photos that showed she was acquainted with the “higher-ups” in the Saginaw drug world.

Of course, that was just the government side of the story. (She did however plead guilty to the charges.)

A couple of other things I noticed in the article:

- She was found driving a Lexus SUV... that's a pretty expensive car. Just wonder how much this person has actually done to 'repent'. Granted, they haven't broken the law, but its not like they dedicated their lives to (for example) caring for the poor orphans in the 3rd world.

- Again, according to the article, her 'fake' drivers license expired years ago. She was driving without one. That in itself is a crime. I do wonder... can you get car insurance in California without a valid driver's permit? If she caused an accident, would whomever she hit be covered by her insurance?

[chulbert]

She escaped from our prison system. I just can't accept that you're allowed to escape from the prison system as long as you live a good life after that.

Isn't the purpose of incarceration to deter criminals from repeating their mistakes? After a year in prison she was apparently deterred enough to simply live a decent life. While I understand your position and I actually agree with it, this is otherwise about as close to a success story as we could hope to see come out of the legal system. I can't ignore that either.

And that's not even touching upon Shemp's excellent point. In my opinion, her sentence was excessive, if not an outright travesty, so it is difficult for me to feel too much outrage.

I'm not saying criminals should be set free, or that we shouldn't pursue escaped inmates, but given the events that have already taken place my sense of justice would be mostly satisfied if she were simply given parole. It is unclear to me what public good would be serviced by throwing her back in prison.

As always, I'm willing to be proven wrong.

[Tony]

I hope she escapes again. She is an innocent person.

[mattdick]

Yeah, I read the article and saw that she was a drug trafficker. So I'm supposed to be unhappy why? Because she was a normal person now? Well maybe I'll get outraged when I get that far down my list of people who are wronged, but for now I just can't spare the time.

Look, she was a bad person at some stage. And she was caught and escaped from prison. I just can't get too worked up by her being caught and put back.

[mattdick]

In my opinion, her sentence was excessive

She was a trafficker in heroin. Heroin is bad stuff. I guess 20 years is a long time, and I could get comfortable with a lower sentence, but I just don't think it's outrageous to demand that an escaped go back to jail.

[Fnord]

I hope she escapes again. She is an innocent person.


She plead guilty in an established court of criminal law. Therefore, by her own admission, she is guilty.

FYI...

"Innocent" means that the woman who was convicted of illegal drug traffic and who escaped from lawful incarceration had actually done nothing illegal.

"Not Guilty" means that the prosecution could not prove its case to the satisfaction of the jury.

"Guilty" means that the prosecution's case could not be adequately refuted to the satisfaction of the jury.

Now, if you know that she's innocent, then either you know who actually dealt the drugs and escaped from prison, or you don't know what you are talking about.

Which is it?

[mattdick]

Isn't the purpose of incarceration to deter criminals from repeating their mistakes?

Yes, but do we have any proof of that at all? It seems people are willing to think it's some major travesty of justice that the government wants to jail a person who escaped from prison. We know the following things:

- She pleaded guilty of selling heroin
- She escaped from prison
- She lied to her husband and children for 30 years
- She lied the government to get official credentials
- She at least lied about her identity and drove for years without a drivers license
- She has a neighbor who thinks she was nice

That's all we know. We don't know she's lived a great life up until now, we don't know she doesn't still deal in heroin. I'm not saying I think it's likely she does, only saying that people getting adamant about how wrong it is to re-jail her is absurd. You know nothing except that she agrees she committed a bunch of illegal acts and that her husband still loves her.

[Fnord]

In all seriousness, what about her children?


What about them? Aren't they now adults?

[Father Dagon]

- She was found driving a Lexus SUV... that's a pretty expensive car. Just wonder how much this person has actually done to 'repent'. Granted, they haven't broken the law, but its not like they dedicated their lives to (for example) caring for the poor orphans in the 3rd world.Why should she? She obviously stayed out of trouble for 32 years. If she had a honest job, she deserved her Lexus SUV. Period.- Again, according to the article, her 'fake' drivers license expired years ago. She was driving without one. That in itself is a crime. I do wonder... can you get car insurance in California without a valid driver's permit? If she caused an accident, would whomever she hit be covered by her insurance?Not a problem. If uninsured drivers causes accidents - just cough up.

[Segnosaur]

Isn't the purpose of incarceration to deter criminals from repeating their mistakes?

Actually, there are are probably a lot of reasons to incarcerate criminals... not only will you deter criminals you actually catch, but you also deter future criminals who might otherwise try to engage in criminal behavior if they were caught. (Granted, most criminals probably don't expect to be caught, but some of the smarter potential criminals might be deterred.)


After a year in prison she was apparently deterred enough to simply live a decent life.

Except of course for the whole forgery thing (or however else you want to label her fake IDs, etc.) As I had asked Shemp before... would you have been as lenient if she had escaped, then gone on to become homeless, or continued selling drugs? What about her life has she done that states that she had any intention of atoning for her past ways? (Her 'decent' life could just be a product of her trying to avoid detection.)


And that's not even touching upon Shemp's excellent point. In my opinion, her sentence was excessive, if not an outright travesty, so it is difficult for me to feel too much outrage.

So, what DO you think is a fair sentence for a multi-time heroin dealer?

[Fnord]

"Just say no".

The story sickens me. The snitch is really a pillar of the community. Everybody: Put dead rats in the snitchs mailbox.


Why reward a pillar of the community with dead rats in the mailbox? If anything, this person should be hailed as a hero.

[quixotecoyote]

Drug crimes in this country are a joke. Good on anyone who beats the rap or escapes. I don't care if you go back to using and selling. Those aren't laws that should exist so I feel absolutely no hostility towards those who break them.

[Segnosaur]

She was found driving a Lexus SUV... that's a pretty expensive car. Just wonder how much this person has actually done to 'repent'.

Why should she? She obviously stayed out of trouble for 32 years.

Well, except for forging documents, driving without a license, etc.

If she had a honest job, she deserved her Lexus SUV. Period.

The article didn't mention whether she had a job (or whether she was supported by her husband).

I guess with all the talk about how much she 'turned her life around', I'd expect something better... However, if she has the cash to spend on such an expensive car, it makes me wonder... is she actually 'reformed'? Or is her life just so easy now that she has no need to resort to criminal behavior?

can you get car insurance in California without a valid driver's permit? If she caused an accident, would whomever she hit be covered by her insurance?

Not a problem. If uninsured drivers causes accidents - just cough up.
Here in Ontario, drivers have to have (I think) a minimum of $1 million in insurance. There's a reason for that... accidents can be very expensive, especially if someone gets injured and requires long term care.

Was this woman a millionaire? If not, what was she doing behind the wheel of a car, where one accident could end up sending someone to the hospital with no way to pay for their medical bills because the insurance company won't pay for an accident from an uninsured driver. Perhaps she should have taken the bus, rather than risk the lives of other people on the street.

[Segnosaur]

Drug crimes in this country are a joke. Good on anyone who beats the rap or escapes. I don't care if you go back to using and selling. Those aren't laws that should exist so I feel absolutely no hostility towards those who break them.

Does that apply to all drugs? Or just certain ones?

[Tony]

She plead guilty in an established court of criminal law. Therefore, by her own admission, she is guilty.


Pleading guilty under pressure from parents to an illegitimate law != actual guilt of wrong doing.

[Tony]

Why reward a pillar of the community with dead rats in the mailbox? If anything, this person should be hailed as a hero...

...in a police state.

But in America, land of the free, such a person should be an outcast.

[Segnosaur]

Pleading guilty under pressure from parents to an illegitimate law != actual guilt of wrong doing.

The woman was over 19... more than old enough to make her own decisions regarding a guilty plea. (And if she were really that interested in what her parents thought, why did she start selling Heroin in the first place?)

In addition, the cops had managed to get her to sell Heroin to them twice. Between that and the other physical evidence there was a pretty good chance that she'd be found guilty had it gone to trial. Her guilty plea was more likely due to a desire to get a lower sentence.

And at any point has she ever said that she was actually innocent?

As for it being an 'illegitimate' law... There are a lot of people who probably agree that drug laws need to be changed. I do suspect however that people would put heroin in a different category than pot.

[Segnosaur]

Why reward a pillar of the community with dead rats in the mailbox? If anything, this person should be hailed as a hero...
...in a police state.

But in America, land of the free, such a person should be an outcast.
Does that apply to all people who talk to police? What about witnesses to assaults? What about someone who knows information about break-ins? Should they also be outcast?

Why should someone, living in a country where government officials elected through democratic means have passed a law regarding heroin trafficking, be blamed for assuming those exact same laws should be applied?

[quixotecoyote]

Does that apply to all people who talk to police? What about witnesses to assaults? What about someone who knows information about break-ins? Should they also be outcast?

Why should someone, living in a country where government officials elected through democratic means have passed a law regarding heroin trafficking, be blamed for assuming those exact same laws should be applied?

In an ideal world, all draconian drug law supporters would be outcasts.

[Segnosaur]

In an ideal world, all draconian drug law supporters would be outcasts.

Well, what do you consider a 'draconian drug law'? Do you think that all drugs should be legal to use and/or sell?

And if so, are you willing to do things like eliminate things like public welfare for hardcore users, if they are physically capable of work but do not because of drug addiction?

Hey, I can certainly understand someone who has the position "its my body, I can use any chemicals I want in it". I might even be willing to support it myself. But its a complex situation; drug use does affect society in more ways than just the direct production and consumption.

[Fnord]

Pleading guilty under pressure from parents to an illegitimate law != actual guilt of wrong doing.

First, the only pressure she was under was the preponderance of evidence and testimony against her.

Second, the laws she violated were enacted by the same process as any other law.

Third, since she actually did what she did, then she is actually guilty of doing it.


Why reward a pillar of the community with dead rats in the mailbox? If anything, this person should be hailed as a hero...


...in a police state.

But in America, land of the free, such a person should be an outcast.

I've turned in drug dealers, car thieves, child abusers, a collector of kiddie porn, and a deadbeat dad or two. The victims of these criminals have all greeted me as a hero, and I receive hospitality from them whenever we meet.

So, if by "Police State" you mean a place where the rule of law reigns, then you are correct. If by "Land of the Free" you mean a place where people exercise their Freedom of speech and expression, Freedom of religion, Freedom to own firearms, Freedom to petition the government for grievance, and enjoy Freedom from want and fear, then you are correct as well.

But if instead you are expressing your hatred of America because this great nation has laws on its books to protect good, honest people from drug dealers, escaped convicts, thieves, pedophiles, and parents who abandon their children, then you are wrong; very, very wrong.

[Darth Rotor]

Folks, she rehabilitated herself on her own dime, not on the government's. Part of the Criminal Justice system is the rehabilitation of the offender.

Seems she's done that. (Then again, living under an assumed identity is fraud, so here we go again. :p )

That effort to go straight ought to count for something.

DR

[Segnosaur]

Folks, she rehabilitated herself on her own dime, not on the government's. Part of the Criminal Justice system is the rehabilitation of the offender.

And as I've pointed out before... while part of the purpose is rehabilitation, it is also meant to be a deterant.

And again, as I have also pointed out, at this point we don't really know if she 'rehabilitated' herself. Rehabilitation (at least to me) implies a person has made efforts to correct problems in the past that have caused them to engage in crime in the first place. But if this person were able to afford expensive cars, etc. then the underlying criminal intent may still be there; its just that they've found an easier way to deal with life.

[mattdick]

I'd like to point out again that we have no idea if she's lived a good life for the last 30 years. The only insight we have into her character is the heroin, the breaking out of prison, the stealing an identity and the 30 years of lying to the closest people in her life.

[PhantomWolf]

Folks, she rehabilitated herself on her own dime, not on the government's. Part of the Criminal Justice system is the rehabilitation of the offender.

Seems she's done that. (Then again, living under an assumed identity is fraud, so here we go again. :p )

That effort to go straight ought to count for something.

DR

Would you feel the same if she was a murderess? Why/Why Not?

Should a person that breaks the law and sells Class-A drugs be allowed to break out of jail and get qaway scott free? Why? What does that tell other criminals?

Also think about who she was selling to. Where did they get the money from? How much did her selling contribute to theft, assaults, robbery, and women resorting to selling themselves for the money to buy her drugs? How many lives did she ruin by creating addicts who resorted to crime to pay for their habbit?

Do you think that Heroin should be legal? How about Cocaine? Crack? P? Why? why not?

[mattdick]

The other question that none of you pro-freedomers has answered is this: what exactly is the cutoff? If she'd been out a week, is that enough to say she's reformed? What if she spent the entire week petting stray cats and being nice to children? I mean the whole week.

And yes, I'm being sarcastic, but it's a serious question, what's the cutoff and why is 30 years different than 30 days? If it is.

[quixotecoyote]

Well, what do you consider a 'draconian drug law'? Do you think that all drugs should be legal to use and/or sell?

And if so, are you willing to do things like eliminate things like public welfare for hardcore users, if they are physically capable of work but do not because of drug addiction?

Hey, I can certainly understand someone who has the position "its my body, I can use any chemicals I want in it". I might even be willing to support it myself. But its a complex situation; drug use does affect society in more ways than just the direct production and consumption.

I am ambivalent as to whether all drugs should be legal to use/sell.

I am firmly convinced that using and selling drugs should not be a crime that warrants prison time. To my mind, the argument that you are hurting yourself through drugs, thus we should hurt you more with prison, is absurd on the face of it.

Pot is no more dangerous than cigarettes and probably a lot less. Other drugs have a range of harm. With some, the harm is increased because the drug trade is not properly regulated (laissez-faire economists take note). However, the commonality is that the damage they do to society is because they are illegal. Drugs are not illegal because they hurt society; they hurt society because they are illegal. I speculate that more lives are ruined through imprisonment of drug users than are ruined through drugs.

[PhantomWolf]

Other drugs have a range of harm. With some, the harm is increased because the drug trade is not properly regulated (laissez-faire economists take note). However, the commonality is that the damage they do to society is because they are illegal. Drugs are not illegal because they hurt society; they hurt society because they are illegal. I speculate that more lives are ruined through imprisonment of drug users than are ruined through drugs.

Please tell that to families of people that have been killed or maimed by people on P (Methamphetamine) or PCB who couldn't control their rage and paranoia. How about members of the families of people that have died or been mentally damaged because of the drugs they were taking (even BZP which is now a Class-C drug here). Drug users cost the health sector billions of dollars a year in our little country down here, I'd hate to know what it costs the US. How is this not harm to society? How is having people so doped out of their tree they can do nothing but lie about on the dole not a harm to society? How is criminal activity such as burglary, mugging, and car theft all in aid of getting more money to smoke, snort or inject not a harm to society?

[shadron]

Seems she's done that. (Then again, living under an assumed identity is fraud, so here we go again. :p )

Small quibble, here, DR. Living under an assumed identity is not against the law, unless your identity is assumed in order to perpetrate fraud (and that doesn't mean lying, it means causing monetary harm to someone), including falsifying official documents. Up until 15 or so years ago that was very possible. About the only official documents anyone had to fill out in a normal lifetime were draft and drivers license forms, and passports. Most people didn't need passports (Canada was our friend back then) and most people permanently lost their SS card within 15 minutes after receiving them in the mail. SS itself didn't care, since they only pay on one of the many numbers a person might have, and the SS was adamant that a social secuity number back them was for the exclusive use of SS, not for any other use, such as universal identification. I still don't think that living under an assumed identity is against the law, its just so much harder to keep the government out of your knickers these days.

[Badger]

Please tell that to families of people that have been killed or maimed by people on P (Methamphetamine) or PCB who couldn't control their rage and paranoia. How about members of the families of people that have died or been mentally damaged because of the drugs they were taking (even BZP which is now a Class-C drug here). Drug users cost the health sector billions of dollars a year in our little country down here, I'd hate to know what it costs the US. How is this not harm to society? How is having people so doped out of their tree they can do nothing but lie about on the dole not a harm to society? How is criminal activity such as burglary, mugging, and car theft all in aid of getting more money to smoke, snort or inject not a harm to society?


Alcohol and cigarettes are legal. Blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda once again, as what can be said against illegal drugs can be said against legal drugs.

Your argument lacks legs.

[shadron]

She escaped from our prison system. I just can't accept that you're allowed to escape from the prison system as long as you live a good life after that. What if she'd been caught after only ten years out? What if she had a few speeding tickets? How about if she'd been caught a week after escape -- if she'd been *really* good for that week, is a week enough? One year? Four years? That's going to be one heck of a justice system that has to decide just how long you get to be a fugitive before you're allowed to skate.

Does that amount of time differ with the crime?

Well, we're certainly arbitrary about assigning the amount of time to be served. If you accept the fact of a sentence weighed by some group of legislators, unversed in law or the real consequences of what they do for purely political reasons, 20 years ago as valid 100% of the time it is applied, then why not the concept of some time off for good behavior - the very best behavior there is, raising a family and being successful in America? Every conservative has got to like that. I would even essay to guess she may have been a church member, but perhaps not in this forum, my lawyer sense tells me.

- She was found driving a Lexus SUV... that's a pretty expensive car. Just wonder how much this person has actually done to 'repent'. Granted, they haven't broken the law, but its not like they dedicated their lives to (for example) caring for the poor orphans in the 3rd world.

And how is that for the cynicism? Hell, living in California is a pretty expensive lifestyle, like for the 40 or so million others that do that. Got some proof of use of ill-gotten gains here? Perhaps you ought to try out "innocent till proven guilty"? I don't see California slapping her with any indictments for her 32 years there. If they haven't then why do you feel entitled to sling innuendo? And how many 3rd world orphans did you rescue last year? Beat your wife much?

Good behavior isn't predicated on being Bill gates wearing his foundation hat; it's based on just being a an person who keeps a clean record, the best that the law can say about anyone. She has, for 32 years. When you've placed 32 years without a scrape with John Law, then you can, maybe, form a useful judgment.

[Fitter]

Evidence that she didn't commit any other crimes after her escape? And the fact that she wasn't charged with anything is not evidence!
<snip>
Why are you asking for something you have qualified out of existence? You ask someone to prove a negative and dismiss the only thing that even approaches evidence. Express your opinion, but have a bit more self-respect than to write something like the above.

[Fnord]

Folks, she rehabilitated herself on her own dime, not on the government's.


Full rehabilitation would have included turning herself in and serving out her sentence.

Part of the Criminal Justice system is the rehabilitation of the offender.


... and another part is punishing the offender. I don't know about you, but living an upper-middle class lifestyle in California just does not seem like enough punishment to me.

Yet another part of the system is in keeping convicted criminals away from more law-abiding citizens.

That effort to go straight ought to count for something.


That effort counts for nothing, as she is still a convicted criminal who has yet to serve out her legally-appointed sentence. To top it off, she now has to deal with the trial, conviction, and sentencing for being a fugitive from justice -- y'know, breaking out of prison? That's an entirely separate crime, which sentence has yet to be determined.

Lock her up.

[shadron]

As long as we're jumping into the depths of the drug war, then lets:

Please tell that to families of people that have been killed or maimed by people on P (Methamphetamine) or PCB who couldn't control their rage and paranoia. How about members of the families of people that have died or been mentally damaged because of the drugs they were taking (even BZP which is now a Class-C drug here). Drug users cost the health sector billions of dollars a year in our little country down here, I'd hate to know what it costs the US. How is this not harm to society? How is having people so doped out of their tree they can do nothing but lie about on the dole not a harm to society?

The same argument applies to guns, to cigarettes, and to alcohol, even to cars. Some are banned, some are regulated, and some are not. We tolerate the abuse of alcohol and allow people to use it as an excuse for loosing control of the resulting rage and bad judgment. IMO, enforce the lack of responsibility, not the way to achieve that lack. Let evolution take care of the stupidness.

How is criminal activity such as burglary, mugging, and car theft all in aid of getting more money to smoke, snort or inject not a harm to society?

And, hey, if these people could get high for 5 bucks rather than 500, would they then be doing burglary, mugging, and car theft? If we didn't make it so profitable for the suppliers, how much less crime would we have to enforce, adjudicate, and incarcerate?

[PhantomWolf]

Alcohol and cigarettes are legal. Blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda once again, as what can be said against illegal drugs can be said against legal drugs.

The same argument applies to guns, to cigarettes, and to alcohol, even to cars.

How many people have ever shot people or hacked them up with Machettes while under the influence of Nicotene?

How many people commit burglerys or muggings to feed their addiction to guns or cars?

On Alcohol you have a point and as a non-drinker it wouldn't worry me if they did ban it (or at least raise the drinking age to 98)

Personally if you want to inject or inhale dangerous and deadly chemicals I'd say go for it, but when people under the effects of those chemicals start killing and maiming innocent people (and we have seen more and more drug related murders, assaults, rapes and worse over here) then I object strongly (just as I do currently about any moron that drinks and drives.)

[Aoidoi]

Personally if you want to inject or inhale dangerous and deadly chemicals I'd say go for it, but when people under the effects of those chemicals start killing and maiming innocent people (and we have seen more and more drug related murders, assaults, rapes and worse over here) then I object strongly (just as I do currently about any moron that drinks and drives.)Didn't realize the moon had such a drug fueled crime-spree going on.

[shemp]

To those who have missed the point: The point isn't that she escaped. The point is that she and hundreds of thousands of other people should never have been in jail in the first place. Instead of wasting millions of dollars per person TO KEEP EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM INCARCERATED, we should instead be treating for what they really are, ill people! They're sick, and it's their sickness that causes them to commit crimes, like dealing, to support their habits.

As for those of you who insinuated that I support drug use, prison escape, murder, rape, child abuse, etc., get some brains, fools.

[shadron]

Alcohol and cigarettes are legal. Blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda once again, as what can be said against illegal drugs can be said against legal drugs.

Point of Order: If you want to quote, then quote. If you want to misquote, then do that, but drop the pretense of putting my arguments up there as a quote after you've hacked them with your sour disregard for what I really said. That's a nasty habit you need to break.

How many people have ever shot people or hacked them up with Machettes while under the influence of Nicotene?

How many people commit burglerys or muggings to feed their addiction to guns or cars?You want to quibble about what constitutes an addiction? If guns or cars have no role in felonies, then your argument applies. Whether people are addicted to anything is not a major concern of mine; if those things aid in the commission of crimes, then they are all equally, a priori, culpable in the crime. Ban one, ban them all; better, treat them with the degree of aid they gave. And please, I want to see some numbers on the machette hacking crimes committed in the country with and without meth addiction. Otherwise, you're just barking at the moon.

On Alcohol you have a point and as a non-drinker it wouldn't worry me if they did ban it (or at least raise the drinking age to 98)

Personally if you want to inject or inhale dangerous and deadly chemicals I'd say go for it, but when people under the effects of those chemicals start killing and maiming innocent people (and we have seen more and more drug related murders, assaults, rapes and worse over here) then I object strongly (just as I do currently about any moron that drinks and drives.)

OK - you're starting to come around. Again, I want to see some stats on the amount of crime that is caused directly by abuse of drugs against that caused by the costs of acquiring the drugs (which, by the way, was a major argument that I gave and you hacked out before "quoting" me). You might also want to look up the amounts that the war itself, as waged against the various cartels that create and control the drug pipelines (military assistance to Columbia, Mexico and Afghanistan, for starters), solely caused by our insistence on making the selling illegal. After you've established that there is as much as a 1:20 ratio in terms of injury to innocents (define it any reasonable way), I'll consider your cited problems to be real. You can even place the crimes against the distributors caused by the buyers being hopped up on your side.

Machette slashers loose on the streets, forsooth.

[chulbert]

Except of course for the whole forgery thing (or however else you want to label her fake IDs, etc.) As I had asked Shemp before... would you have been as lenient if she had escaped, then gone on to become homeless, or continued selling drugs?

As I said before, her apparent rehabilitation is key factor in my position. If she were not leading a happy, productive life my position would probably be different.

What about her life has she done that states that she had any intention of atoning for her past ways? (Her 'decent' life could just be a product of her trying to avoid detection.)

How does that matter? What atonement would she have made if she had served a full sentence?

[chulbert]

And as I've pointed out before... while part of the purpose is rehabilitation, it is also meant to be a deterant.

How would leniency undermine incarceration as a deterrent?

And again, as I have also pointed out, at this point we don't really know if she 'rehabilitated' herself. Rehabilitation (at least to me) implies a person has made efforts to correct problems in the past that have caused them to engage in crime in the first place. But if this person were able to afford expensive cars, etc. then the underlying criminal intent may still be there; its just that they've found an easier way to deal with life.

If she hasn't engaged in crimes then she has by definition corrected those problems that led her astray in the past. I would not argue against restitution in the form of community service.

[Fnord]

As I said before, her apparent rehabilitation is key factor in my position. If she were not leading a happy, productive life my position would probably be different.


She may have been happy; she may have even been productive; but if she were either of these, then it was as a convicted criminal. Her complete and total rehabilitation would have included complete submission to Legal Authority for the entire duration of her sentence. That her arrogance - her hubris, if you will - was her Raison d'être (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raison_d%27%C3%AAtre) for believing that she was above the law, and by that reason alone, she took the law into her own hands, as even the most base of criminals are wont to do.

How does that matter? What atonement would she have made if she had served a full sentence?


Justice demands atonement, and thus the Law provides it. In this case, the provision would have ... no ... should have been met with the service of the full sentence. As it was, the criminal delayed justice solely for her own selfish benefit. And, as even the lowliest of legal interns knows...

"Justice delayed is justice denied!"
(William E. Gladstone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Gladstone), 1809-1898, British Statesman and Prime Minister)


So let us cease whining and bickering about the mere appearance of goodness in her life. Let us instead
Demand That Justice Be Served!

[Tony]

First, the only pressure she was under was the preponderance of evidence and testimony against her.


No she wasnt. Did you read the article?

Second, the laws she violated were enacted by the same process as any other law.

No they weren't. You obviously dont know the history of prohibition in this country.

Third, since she actually did what she did, then she is actually guilty of doing it.

She is "guilty" of doing nothing worse than Budweiser, Phillip Morris or Pfizer.

I've turned in drug dealers, car thieves, child abusers, a collector of kiddie porn, and a deadbeat dad or two. The victims of these criminals have all greeted me as a hero, and I receive hospitality from them whenever we meet.

You've "turned in"? Are you a cop or something?

Drug dealing, in and of itself, is a victimless act.

So, if by "Police State" you mean a place where the rule of law reigns, then you are correct. If by "Land of the Free" you mean a place where people exercise their Freedom of speech and expression, Freedom of religion, Freedom to own firearms, Freedom to petition the government for grievance, and enjoy Freedom from want and fear, then you are correct as well.

Nope. I mean a place where people are free to eat, drink, see, read, say, think, feel and ingest anything they want as long as it doesn't interfere with someone else expressing their rights.

But if instead you are expressing your hatred of America because this great nation has laws on its books to protect good, honest people from drug dealers, escaped convicts, thieves, pedophiles, and parents who abandon their children, then you are wrong; very, very wrong.

Wow. You're really shoveling the BS aren't you?

[Tony]

She may have been happy; she may have even been productive; but if she were either of these, then it was as a convicted criminal. Her complete and total rehabilitation would have included complete submission to Legal Authority for the entire duration of her sentence. That her arrogance - her hubris, if you will - was her Raison d'être (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raison_d%27%C3%AAtre) for believing that she was above the law, and by that reason alone, she took the law into her own hands, as even the most base of criminals are wont to do.

You sure have some unamerican views. Lets take a moment for Fnord to lament the fact that George Washington got away with defying his Majesty the good King George III. Such a crime against the crown is treason and is therefore deserving of death like a common criminal. What do you think about that great miscarriage of justice?

This country was created by criminals Fnord, one of the many things I love about this great country. Its very existence proves people like you wrong.

Justice demands atonement, and thus the Law provides it. In this case, the provision would have ... no ... should have been met with the service of the full sentence. As it was, the criminal delayed justice solely for her own selfish benefit. And, as even the lowliest of legal interns knows...


No. In the case, the law was the agent of injustice. She took her own justice in her hands by seizing her freedom from those who stole it. She, and millions like her are victims of unjust laws and a government campaign of terror (the so-called "war on drugs") against its own citizens. Justice demands their freedom, until they're free, we will be living in an unjust society.

[chulbert]

She may have been happy; she may have even been productive; but if she were either of these, then it was as a convicted criminal. Her complete and total rehabilitation would have included complete submission to Legal Authority for the entire duration of her sentence. That her arrogance - her hubris, if you will - was her Raison d'être (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raison_d%27%C3%AAtre) for believing that she was above the law, and by that reason alone, she took the law into her own hands, as even the most base of criminals are wont to do.

So regardless of her conduct for 30 years, there is still some ineffable smudge of criminality on her very soul that can only be wiped away by hard time in the slammer?

My bottom line is that rehabilitation and restitution should be the only goals. If she's led a decent life then after 30 years I'm willing to concede the former. If she has not made restitution, I would support some form of community service; society, of which her three children are part, is not improved by her incarceration.

[Mycroft]

I was about to write a post saying something about how much it sucks that she's going back to prison but the law requires it, we gotta have rule of law and all that, but then an idea occured to me:

Would it be so terrible to have a law saying a person could be pardoned if they had escaped prison but led an exemplary life since?

[Mycroft]

Full rehabilitation would have included turning herself in and serving out her sentence.


That's your definition. My definition is she no longer uses or sells Heroin.

[Kevin_Lowe]

She may have been happy; she may have even been productive; but if she were either of these, then it was as a convicted criminal. Her complete and total rehabilitation would have included complete submission to Legal Authority for the entire duration of her sentence. That her arrogance - her hubris, if you will - was her Raison d'être (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raison_d%27%C3%AAtre) for believing that she was above the law, and by that reason alone, she took the law into her own hands, as even the most base of criminals are wont to do.


Sometimes we need, for reasons of expediency, to drawn an arbitrary line and enforce it. If the speed limit is 60 we need to fine people who are proven to have been going over 60, even if going at 61 isn't really that much more dangerous than 60. Or even if the person going 61 is a fit, alert racing car driver and the person going 60 is a wobbly grannie who couldn't pass a driving test to save her life if she was forced to take one today.

This is justifiable because the stupidities and injustices such a system creates are less of a problem, overall, than trying to enforce traffic laws on a rational case-by-case basis.

On the other hand if you think that the fit, alert racing car driver is doing anything morally wrong by going 61 you're not fit to be a brain donor for a chimpanzee.

In this case it's absolutely clear than no useful purpose whatsoever would be served by locking her up. This is a clear-cut case where a pardon is morally mandatory.

[fishbob]

Please tell that to families of people that have been killed or maimed by people on P (Methamphetamine) or PCB who couldn't control their rage and paranoia. How about members of the families of people that have died or been mentally damaged because of the drugs they were taking (even BZP which is now a Class-C drug here). Drug users cost the health sector billions of dollars a year in our little country down here, I'd hate to know what it costs the US. How is this not harm to society? How is having people so doped out of their tree they can do nothing but lie about on the dole not a harm to society? How is criminal activity such as burglary, mugging, and car theft all in aid of getting more money to smoke, snort or inject not a harm to society?

All those substances are quite illegal right now, and all that bad stuff is happening right now. So now, as in the 1930s when booze was banned, prohibition laws are about useless. How about legalizing everything and spending our billions on treatment and education.

PS - the 'think of the children' argument doesn't carry much weight here.

[RandFan]

Sometimes we need, for reasons of expediency, to drawn an arbitrary line and enforce it. If the speed limit is 60 we need to fine people who are proven to have been going over 60, even if going at 61 isn't really that much more dangerous than 60. Or even if the person going 61 is a fit, alert racing car driver and the person going 60 is a wobbly grannie who couldn't pass a driving test to save her life if she was forced to take one today.

This is justifiable because the stupidities and injustices such a system creates are less of a problem, overall, than trying to enforce traffic laws on a rational case-by-case basis.

On the other hand if you think that the fit, alert racing car driver is doing anything morally wrong by going 61 you're not fit to be a brain donor for a chimpanzee.

In this case it's absolutely clear than no useful purpose whatsoever would be served by locking her up. This is a clear-cut case where a pardon is morally mandatory.I agree with everything but the last sentence and not so sure about the second to last.

I'm against the stupid drug war. I think we should pardon ALL non-violent offenders now. However I'm torn on this case. The rule of law needs to be equitable. I don't think she should benefit simply because she escaped incarceration and had an opportunity most in her shoes didn't.

I really don't know but morally mandatory doesn't leap to mind.

[Kevin_Lowe]

I agree with everything but the last sentence and not so sure about the second to last.

I'm against the stupid drug war. I think we should pardon ALL non-violent offenders now. However I'm torn on this case. The rule of law needs to be equitable. I don't think she should benefit simply because she escaped incarceration and had an opportunity most in her shoes didn't.

I really don't know but morally mandatory doesn't leap to mind.

As I see it, the only justification for locking people up in the first place is that doing so brings about a better outcome than not doing so. Or at least that it seems a decent bet that things will work out that way.

In this case, I can't possibly see how locking her up again is going to bring about a better outcome.

[Segnosaur]

How would leniency undermine incarceration as a deterrent?

Ummm... because its the complete opposite of being a 'deterrent'?


And again, as I have also pointed out, at this point we don't really know if she 'rehabilitated' herself. Rehabilitation (at least to me) implies a person has made efforts to correct problems in the past that have caused them to engage in crime in the first place.
If she hasn't engaged in crimes then she has by definition corrected those problems that led her astray in the past.

Not necessarily.

As a hypothetical example... lets say there was someone who was totally amoral who decided the easiest way to make a living was by robbing (and beating people). He's captured and sent to prison, escapes, and then wins the lottery. He now no longer has to rob people in order to provide a living. However, the part of his personality (the lack of empathy or remorse for anyone they've affected) is still there, it just no longer needs to be shown.

That's why I have issues about the claims that she's "rehabilitated" herself. The fact that she's wealthy enough to drive an expensive SUV doesn't necessarily mean that whatever factors in her brain made it OK to sell heroin aren't still there; they may just be sublimated because she's found an easier way to make a living.

[Segnosaur]

To those who have missed the point: The point isn't that she escaped. The point is that she and hundreds of thousands of other people should never have been in jail in the first place. Instead of wasting millions of dollars per person TO KEEP EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM INCARCERATED, we should instead be treating for what they really are, ill people! They're sick, and it's their sickness that causes them to commit crimes, like dealing, to support their habits.

Keep in mind that this individual was not arrested for being a user, but for being a dealer. Perhaps she had been using too, but the article doesn't indicate she thought it was necessary to deal in order to support her habit.

And where exactly does personal responsibility come into play? Can every addict point to the drugs and say "I'm not responsible"?

As for those of you who insinuated that I support drug use, prison escape, murder, rape, child abuse, etc., get some brains, fools.

At the risk of sounding like a 'truther', we didn't insinuate, we were just "asking questions".

We asked if your opinions would change had this person been arrested for other crimes (such as robbery) when they escaped. We also asked if it would change your opinion if she had been captured after a few days rather than after a few decades. They're fair questions in my opinion. Since you're complaining, it would be nice to know exactly what you're complaining about.

[chillzero]

I was about to write a post saying something about how much it sucks that she's going back to prison but the law requires it, we gotta have rule of law and all that, but then an idea occured to me:

Would it be so terrible to have a law saying a person could be pardoned if they had escaped prison but led an exemplary life since?

Where is your evidence or this 'exemplary life'?

That's your definition. My definition is she no longer uses or sells Heroin.

How do you know that?

[Segnosaur]

She was found driving a Lexus SUV... that's a pretty expensive car. Just wonder how much this person has actually done to 'repent'. Granted, they haven't broken the law, but its not like they dedicated their lives to (for example) caring for the poor orphans in the 3rd world.

And how is that for the cynicism? Hell, living in California is a pretty expensive lifestyle, like for the 40 or so million others that do that. Got some proof of use of ill-gotten gains here? Perhaps you ought to try out "innocent till proven guilty"? I don't see California slapping her with any indictments for her 32 years there. If they haven't then why do you feel entitled to sling innuendo? And how many 3rd world orphans did you rescue last year? Beat your wife much?

Good behavior isn't predicated on being Bill gates wearing his foundation hat; it's based on just being a an person who keeps a clean record, the best that the law can say about anyone. She has, for 32 years. When you've placed 32 years without a scrape with John Law, then you can, maybe, form a useful judgment.

I never suggested she DID engage in illegal activities (well, other than whatever fraud was she engaged in to keep her identity a secret, and the whole driving illegally thing). In fact, you seem to have missed the part where I specifically state having an SUV doesn't mean they've broken the law in the post involved.

I've already stated why I have an issue with it. I've explained it around post 34, and later in this thread (around post 60).. but I'll state it again...Being 'rehabilitated' (to me) suggests that the person has changed their attitude regarding what's moral and/or allowed in society. If she were wealthy enough to drive an expensive vehicle like that then her attitudes may not have changed, she just may have found an easier (but legal) way to live her life.

If she had been driving around in a 20 year old ford focus, living in a tiny apartment that she shares with a hundred roaches, works at Wal-mart, and finds time on the weekends to help starving orphans, while at the same time avoiding the temptation to create an easy life for herself by dealing drugs again, then I might be more inclined to believe she 'rehabilitated' herself. But if she can afford a Lexus (even if it were purchased legally), her lack of criminal activity may be less due to a reformed nature and more to do with winning the lottery of life.

[chillzero]

But if she can afford a Lexus (even if it were purchased legally), her lack of criminal activity may be less due to a reformed nature and more to do with winning the lottery of life.

Her lack of perceived criminal activity may mean she got better at what she did.

[Fnord]

So regardless of her conduct for 30 years, there is still some ineffable smudge of criminality on her very soul that can only be wiped away by hard time in the slammer?


That's right, but only if you replace the words "very soul" with "criminal record", as her immortal soul is of no concern to the American Legal System.

My bottom line is that rehabilitation and restitution should be the only goals.


Your opinion also is of no concern to the American Legal System - unless, of course, you are both willing and able to do something to change it. Perhaps if you write an Amicus Curiæ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amicus_curiae)brief to the particular Michigan court involved in this criminal's case, they might take notice.

But don't bet the mortgage payment.

The penal system is also about punishment and restitution. Punishment is through the overall prison environment, and restitution is through time served (with time off for good behavior and the possibility of parole).

If she's led a decent life then after 30 years I'm willing to concede the former.


That's a mighty big IF you have there. She has defrauded the federal government for those 30 years by paying taxes under an assumed identity ... that is IF she ever paid taxes, whether by Form 1040 payment or Form W-2 deduction.

If she has not made restitution, I would support some form of community service...


The best community service she could perform would be in prison. Granted, this is my opinion, but it is backed up by her arrests, and her original conviction and sentence.

I'm just backing up the legal system here.

... society, of which her three children are part, is not improved by her incarceration.


Getting a convicted drug dealer and escaped convict back behind bars serves the best interests of the community, of which her children are a very small part.

Anyway, aren't they adults by now? Let them pay for her legal counsel!

[NewtonTrino]

Drug prohibition is a form of WOO people.

This lady should never have been sent to prison to begin with so good on her for escaping. I would have moral problem with helping someone like this stay out of prison.

The cost of the prohibition is much higher than the cost of using the drugs if they are legal. This was clearly shown to be the case during the prohibition era and it seems even more clear with drug prohibition.

In addition to the fact that it's just plain stupid, there is the personal liberty and freedom issue to consider. Frankly even if it were shown that legalization is a net loss to society I still think that the personal freedom argument mandates that drugs be legal to produce and consume.

[mattdick]

Letting her go is an arbitrarily applied standard. You're necessarily applying the law in a non-standard way. This is inherently unequal treatment under the law, and that is an important goal of the law outside of rehabilitation and restitution.

Again, for the third time, explain to me the difference between 30 years free and 30 days free? Where is your line?

[chulbert]

Ummm... because its the complete opposite of being a 'deterrent'?

I'm not trying to be obtuse bit I don't see how. Prison is still a place you don't want to be, and if you try to escape we'll still hunt you down.

Not necessarily.

As a hypothetical example... lets say there was someone who was totally amoral who decided the easiest way to make a living was by robbing (and beating people). He's captured and sent to prison, escapes, and then wins the lottery. He now no longer has to rob people in order to provide a living. However, the part of his personality (the lack of empathy or remorse for anyone they've affected) is still there, it just no longer needs to be shown.

At the end of the day all we can judge are behaviors, not thoughts. Who's to say any criminal is really cured when they leave prison?

[Segnosaur]

Drug prohibition is a form of WOO people.
...
The cost of the prohibition is much higher than the cost of using the drugs if they are legal. This was clearly shown to be the case during the prohibition era and it seems even more clear with drug prohibition.

I might be inclined to believe that (to a point). However, I do believe there is really no way to tell for sure if drug restrictions do have an effect, since there is no real 'baseline'. Certainly it is possible to get pretty much any type of illegal drug you want, but how do we know drug use wouldn't be higher (or even lower) if everything were legalized? This isn't like testing a psychic, where we can calculate what the effects would be if they have no abilities.

We certainly know that there are addicts who steal, ruin their health (thus adding to the cost of public health car), leave needles around (risking the lives of others).


In addition to the fact that it's just plain stupid, there is the personal liberty and freedom issue to consider. Frankly even if it were shown that legalization is a net loss to society I still think that the personal freedom argument mandates that drugs be legal to produce and consume.

Ok, I respect that position... However, as I have asked in this thread before... if we do decide to legalize drugs, and certain drugs (e.g. heroin) end up being a net loss to society (inability for addicts to find jobs, etc.), are you willing to eliminate things like welfare for those who decide they want the 'freedom' to use drugs?

(And before you respond by saying something like pointing out the problems with things like tobacco, alcohol and bad diet also negatively affecting society, I think the issue here is one of degrees... cigarettes, etc. do 'cost' society, but they are less likely to cause people to become unemployable than, for example, being a crack addict.)

[Segnosaur]

Ummm... because its the complete opposite of being a 'deterrent'?
I'm not trying to be obtuse bit I don't see how. Prison is still a place you don't want to be, and if you try to escape we'll still hunt you down.

Yes, but if you decide to let people out early, not return escapees, or give shorter sentences, then that "place you don't want to be" becomes the "place you don't want to be, but don't have to worry about since you won't spend a significant amount of time there".

As a hypothetical example... lets say there was someone who was totally amoral who decided the easiest way to make a living was by robbing (and beating people). He's captured and sent to prison, escapes, and then wins the lottery. He now no longer has to rob people in order to provide a living. However, the part of his personality (the lack of empathy or remorse for anyone they've affected) is still there, it just no longer needs to be shown.
At the end of the day all we can judge are behaviors, not thoughts. Who's to say any criminal is really cured when they leave prison?
You're right, we can't. And I'm sure there are plenty of parolees who lied about being 'remorseful' in order to get early release. However, that doesn't necessarily make it any more likely that the woman in this case is truly cured, rather than just acting good because her life is so easy.

And at least if a person is jailed and serves out their full sentence, they've A) served as an example to others who might want to break the law, and B) undergone the punishment that was required of them. An escapee who is left alone does neither of these.

[chulbert]

Yes, but if you decide to let people out early, not return escapees, or give shorter sentences, then that "place you don't want to be" becomes the "place you don't want to be, but don't have to worry about since you won't spend a significant amount of time there".

I haven't advocated shorter sentences or simply letting people go to see if they behave. All I'm saying is that given what has already happened, I don't think putting this woman back in prison is the best way to proceed. She has harmed society but there is little indication she would do so again so all that remains is the matter of restitution. I do not think her incarceration would enrich society in any way.

You're right, we can't. And I'm sure there are plenty of parolees who lied about being 'remorseful' in order to get early release. However, that doesn't necessarily make it any more likely that the woman in this case is truly cured, rather than just acting good because her life is so easy.

And at least if a person is jailed and serves out their full sentence, they've A) served as an example to others who might want to break the law, and B) undergone the punishment that was required of them. An escapee who is left alone does neither of these.

I think on some level we have a difference of opinion on the philosophy of punishment. In my opinion the bottom line is that the behavior doesn't occur and the cost of rehabilitation is minimized. After 30 years I'm willing to say that the behavior isn't likely to recur so there is no value in further punishment.

Again, I do not see how leniency would imply to future criminals that selling heroin is suddenly worth the risk. Perhaps you can elaborate on this point.

[NewtonTrino]

Ok, I respect that position... However, as I have asked in this thread before... if we do decide to legalize drugs, and certain drugs (e.g. heroin) end up being a net loss to society (inability for addicts to find jobs, etc.), are you willing to eliminate things like welfare for those who decide they want the 'freedom' to use drugs?


Yes, welfare is a generally stupid policy. I do support unemployment INSURANCE but that system pays for itself. Young single people shouldn't be getting a free ride from the rest of society except in exceptional circumstances (e.g. severe mental illness, paraplegic, blind etc).

I also object to your portrayal of drug addicts and heroin addicts in particular. They live on the street and leave needles lying around because the drug is illegal. If you could get enough heroin to get high for a few hundred $$$ a month they would be able to work normal jobs to pay for their habit. This is the same thing as alcoholics who come home every night, get smashed and then go into work the next day. Yeah, some of them can't do it and eventually flame out, but many people can and do make this work for them. Heroin is less hard on you physically than being an alcoholic...

Bottom line, prohibition creates the circumstances that make addicts have to rob people to pay for their habit because the price and availability is way off. Also don't forget the fact that the potency isn't well controlled and you have a recipe for disaster.

Note, that I'm not claiming that these substances are completely free from harm. Being addicted to anything sucks. However, prohibition simply doesn't solve the problem. Banging your head against the wall over and over and over again is stupid.

[Segnosaur]

I haven't advocated shorter sentences or simply letting people go to see if they behave.
Yes you have.

She was sentenced to 20 years. She served 1. You suggested letting her go free. Therefore, you're advocating a shorter sentence for her (and I supposed for other people too.)


I think on some level we have a difference of opinion on the philosophy of punishment. In my opinion the bottom line is that the behavior doesn't occur and the cost of rehabilitation is minimized. After 30 years I'm willing to say that the behavior isn't likely to recur so there is no value in further punishment.

As I had asked much earlier in the thread... does that apply to all criminals? Just the ones involved in the drug trade? And does the length of time they escaped matter? What if she were caught after 1 day? 1 week? 1 year?


Again, I do not see how leniency would imply to future criminals that selling heroin is suddenly worth the risk. Perhaps you can elaborate on this point.

Not sure what there is to elaborate on... if society (through laws passed by an elected body) decides some activity is punishable, then letting anybody off without such punishment is an indication that perhaps their activity isn't as bad. (Not to mention the potential double standard... what if this woman ended up an unemployed welfare mom? Or slipped back into crime? Would she then be expected to serve out the rest of their time?)

[NewtonTrino]

Not sure what there is to elaborate on... if society (through laws passed by an elected body) decides some activity is punishable, then letting anybody off without such punishment is an indication that perhaps their activity isn't as bad. (Not to mention the potential double standard... what if this woman ended up an unemployed welfare mom? Or slipped back into crime? Would she then be expected to serve out the rest of their time?)


This is actually kind of interesting. I would argue that the real problem is that it's too easy to make laws. If 50% of people think that something should be banned, that's not exactly a high barrier to enacting laws. Any law that will require jail time should have to have a much higher percentage of signoff that we currently have (more like making a constitutional amendment). For example I think it would be easy to get 75% of people to agree that murder is bad, but not that smoking a joint is a horrible crime against humanity. Basically we need more societal buyoff on laws that have harsh penalties. Of course IMHO drug laws are unconstitutional on a federal level. Obviously the courts disagree with my reading.

Anyone know why alcohol required a constitutional amendment but drug laws don't?

[Segnosaur]

Yes, welfare is a generally stupid policy. I do support unemployment INSURANCE but that system pays for itself. Young single people shouldn't be getting a free ride from the rest of society except in exceptional circumstances (e.g. severe mental illness, paraplegic, blind etc).

I also object to your portrayal of drug addicts and heroin addicts in particular. They live on the street and leave needles lying around because the drug is illegal.

Alcohol is legal... that hasn't stopped people from leaving beer bottles on the street, etc. Why should we expect drug users to be any tidier?

If you could get enough heroin to get high for a few hundred $$$ a month they would be able to work normal jobs to pay for their habit. This is the same thing as alcoholics who come home every night, get smashed and then go into work the next day. Yeah, some of them can't do it and eventually flame out, but many people can and do make this work for them.... Also don't forget the fact that the potency isn't well controlled and you have a recipe for disaster.

A few points:

- From the looks of things, you are assuming that the high cost of drugs is due only to the price. Not sure if that would be correct. True, drug dealers are wealthy, but if the government were to get involved (with taxation, regulation, etc.) its quite possible that the price wouldn't go down significantly. And if the government made it legal but didn't get involved, then how exactly would that prevent the problem of potency control?

- Not sure how reasonable it is to expect addicts to work. I'm sure some users can be fully functional, but from what I've read withdrawl symptoms can start to show up after only 6 hours. (Not sure how 'productive' an addict will be at a job if they have to shoot up in the middle of their shift.) Plus, users do develop a tolerance and require higher doses.

But you did say that welfare for able-bodied people is a bad idea. So that basically negates any objections i had.

[NewtonTrino]

- From the looks of things, you are assuming that the high cost of drugs is due only to the price. Not sure if that would be correct. True, drug dealers are wealthy, but if the government were to get involved (with taxation, regulation, etc.) its quite possible that the price wouldn't go down significantly. And if the government made it legal but didn't get involved, then how exactly would that prevent the problem of potency control?


The cost to produce is pennies on the dollar compared to what people are paying right now for drugs like heroin. As for as potency I assume it would be branded just like alcohol is (budweiser heroin for example).


- Not sure how reasonable it is to expect addicts to work. I'm sure some users can be fully functional, but from what I've read withdrawl symptoms can start to show up after only 6 hours. (Not sure how 'productive' an addict will be at a job if they have to shoot up in the middle of their shift.) Plus, users do develop a tolerance and require higher doses.


I don't think you give them enough credit. Sure some of them are going to be good for nothing but if you look at some of the experiments done in this area it seems very promising that most of them could easily hold a job. They might not be able to go to the bathroom though ;) Keep in mind this stuff was legal in the 19th century and there were plenty of addicts who managed to live their lives without note (many housewives got addicted to patent medicines containing, unknowingly to them, large amount of opiates).


But you did say that welfare for able-bodied people is a bad idea. So that basically negates any objections i had.


Absolutely. I believe that hand-outs generally speaking hurt people more than they help. Insurance for a true rough patch makes sense. Anything else is counterproductive in the long term.

[RandFan]

As I see it, the only justification for locking people up in the first place is that doing so brings about a better outcome than not doing so. Or at least that it seems a decent bet that things will work out that way.

In this case, I can't possibly see how locking her up again is going to bring about a better outcome.I happen to agree with you in this case but many people have issues with many laws. Do we enforce the laws arbitrarily based on whether one group or another sees any value to a given law? What value is there of ticketing the race car driver?

Some people don't believe in the gun laws. If a person who is normally a good and upstanding citizen is caught carrying a concealed weapon in New York for instance and he or she breaks out of jail upon being incarcerated do we pardon that individual because some people disagree with the propriety of the gun laws?

If this woman does get a pardon I don't at all think it will be a slippery slope but I'm not sure if that is the best way to enforce the law.

It seems to me that the appropriate response is to uphold the rule of law and work to change those laws that we disagree with and to follow the law even when we don't like it or be prepared to suffer the consequences of civil disobedience.

[NewtonTrino]

or be prepared to suffer the consequences of civil disobedience.


Very true. Part of what makes it hard is that the government actively promotes propaganda to make the laws more enforceable. For example anti-drug commercials demonize drug users so that to outsiders it doesn't look like civil disobedience, it just looks like a bunch of druggies addicts who want to get high. The government should not be allowed to create and distribute propaganda of this nature (I would almost through an exception in there for things that are a scientific fact, but I think it's still better to leave these types of things to private organizations).

[Mycroft]

Where is your evidence or this 'exemplary life'?



How do you know that?

The police in the article were quoted as saying she wasn't doing anything that would draw their attention to her, and I think we can infer from that she no longer deals heroin.

[Mycroft]

I might be inclined to believe that (to a point). However, I do believe there is really no way to tell for sure if drug restrictions do have an effect, since there is no real 'baseline'. Certainly it is possible to get pretty much any type of illegal drug you want, but how do we know drug use wouldn't be higher (or even lower) if everything were legalized? This isn't like testing a psychic, where we can calculate what the effects would be if they have no abilities.

That's easy. There are many jurisdictions where drug laws are different. It's a simple matter to compare drug use between these jurisdictions.

I don't think I favor full legalization, but certainly decriminalization along with alternatives to putting people in prison.


We certainly know that there are addicts who steal, ruin their health (thus adding to the cost of public health car), leave needles around (risking the lives of others).

I bet you could pay for a lot of health care with the cost of just one person in prison.

[Kevin_Lowe]

I happen to agree with you in this case but many people have issues with many laws. Do we enforce the laws arbitrarily based on whether one group or another sees any value to a given law? What value is there of ticketing the race car driver?


It shouldn't be about "seeing value", it should be about reasonable expectation of a good outcome. The only value of ticketing the race car driver is that we do have to draw a line somewhere even for race car drivers, and it's better overall to make the line 60 for everyone because any other system would be unenforcable, and an unenforcable traffic code would lead to people getting maimed and killed.


Some people don't believe in the gun laws. If a person who is normally a good and upstanding citizen is caught carrying a concealed weapon in New York for instance and he or she breaks out of jail upon being incarcerated do we pardon that individual because some people disagree with the propriety of the gun laws?

I'll pass on that question because I'm not familiar enough with New York to say whether carrying a concealed weapon is an unreasonable precaution or not.

I see clear differences between the following cases:

1. Bad law, but the best we can do. (One size fits all speed limits).
2. Bad law, and we can do better. (Drug prohibition, badly designed gun control laws).
3. Good law. (Rape prohibition, well designed gun laws).

The woman in question was imprisoned for breaking a bad law, then broke a good law as a consequence of escaping, but then again I've got a fair bit of sympathy for anyone who escapes from jail after being imprisoned for breaking a bad law.

The hypothetical weapon bearer might or might not have broken a bad law, I'm not sure.


If this woman does get a pardon I don't at all think it will be a slippery slope but I'm not sure if that is the best way to enforce the law.

It seems to me that the appropriate response is to uphold the rule of law and work to change those laws that we disagree with and to follow the law even when we don't like it or be prepared to suffer the consequences of civil disobedience.

If I thought that your response would lead to better outcomes than occasionally breaking "the rules" when a good law (case 3 above) would lead to a bad outcome if we enforced it, then I would support that kind of legalism. I don't.

"Upholding the rule of law" is all well and good when people try to skate out of legal punishment for bad reasons, but it doesn't justify doing things that are clearly counterproductive.

[chulbert]

Yes you have.

She was sentenced to 20 years. She served 1. You suggested letting her go free. Therefore, you're advocating a shorter sentence for her (and I supposed for other people too.)

No, I'm saying that in retrospect we can see this woman spent exactly the right amount of time in prison. It's an individual case in which our average sentencing guidelines would have been excessive.

At the time of her sentencing I would not have advocated 1 year and letting her go, and the next offender should get 10-20 just like she did. We can't predict the future and we can't read minds so we can't tailor each and every prisoner's sentence to their personal needs.

But if we could, we would, and this situation is an opportunity for society to recognize the problem has been solved.

You want to go back and fix a roof that hasn't leaked in 30 years because they didn't use the proper amount of materials. While true, the roof hasn't leaked yet and doesn't show any signs of water damage. What's the point of tearing it up?

As I had asked much earlier in the thread... does that apply to all criminals? Just the ones involved in the drug trade? And does the length of time they escaped matter? What if she were caught after 1 day? 1 week? 1 year?

I don't have an answer for you. I would say it depends on the nature of their crime, and the quality and duration of their behavior.

Not sure what there is to elaborate on... if society (through laws passed by an elected body) decides some activity is punishable, then letting anybody off without such punishment is an indication that perhaps their activity isn't as bad. (Not to mention the potential double standard... what if this woman ended up an unemployed welfare mom? Or slipped back into crime? Would she then be expected to serve out the rest of their time?)

If she slipped back into crime, yes she would. And then some.

[RandFan]

It shouldn't be about "seeing value", it should be about reasonable expectation of a good outcome. The only value of ticketing the race car driver is that we do have to draw a line somewhere even for race car drivers, and it's better overall to make the line 60 for everyone because any other system would be unenforcable, and an unenforcable traffic code would lead to people getting maimed and killed.

I'll pass on that question because I'm not familiar enough with New York to say whether carrying a concealed weapon is an unreasonable precaution or not.

I see clear differences between the following cases:

1. Bad law, but the best we can do. (One size fits all speed limits).
2. Bad law, and we can do better. (Drug prohibition, badly designed gun control laws).
3. Good law. (Rape prohibition, well designed gun laws).

The woman in question was imprisoned for breaking a bad law, then broke a good law as a consequence of escaping, but then again I've got a fair bit of sympathy for anyone who escapes from jail after being imprisoned for breaking a bad law.

The hypothetical weapon bearer might or might not have broken a bad law, I'm not sure.

If I thought that your response would lead to better outcomes than occasionally breaking "the rules" when a good law (case 3 above) would lead to a bad outcome if we enforced it, then I would support that kind of legalism. I don't.

"Upholding the rule of law" is all well and good when people try to skate out of legal punishment for bad reasons, but it doesn't justify doing things that are clearly counterproductive.Thanks.

I just don't find your argument compelling. It relies on subjective valuation as to good and bad laws. If we all agreed as to what where good and bad laws then you would have a good argument. Of course, we could then just get rid of the bad laws.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree even though we both agree that most people should not be in jail as a result of non-violent drug offense.

[Mycroft]

The fact that she's wealthy enough to drive an expensive SUV doesn't necessarily mean that whatever factors in her brain made it OK to sell heroin aren't still there; they may just be sublimated because she's found an easier way to make a living.

Hypothetically, how would that make her different from someone else of a similar personality type who had never sold heroin?

[Mycroft]

I happen to agree with you in this case but many people have issues with many laws. Do we enforce the laws arbitrarily based on whether one group or another sees any value to a given law? What value is there of ticketing the race car driver?


Suppose she had committed murder when she was 19, escaped and lived an exemplary life for the next 35 years? Wouldn't she still have a lot of sympathy from people who might recognize that she's no longer that person who committed the crime?

[chillzero]

The police in the article were quoted as saying she wasn't doing anything that would draw their attention to her, and I think we can infer from that she no longer deals heroin.

...or that she was better at not getting caught.

[shemp]

Keep in mind that this individual was not arrested for being a user, but for being a dealer. Perhaps she had been using too, but the article doesn't indicate she thought it was necessary to deal in order to support her habit.

And where exactly does personal responsibility come into play? Can every addict point to the drugs and say "I'm not responsible"?


At the risk of sounding like a 'truther', we didn't insinuate, we were just "asking questions".

We asked if your opinions would change had this person been arrested for other crimes (such as robbery) when they escaped. We also asked if it would change your opinion if she had been captured after a few days rather than after a few decades. They're fair questions in my opinion. Since you're complaining, it would be nice to know exactly what you're complaining about.

I don't think those questions are important. The issue is drugs and the war on drugs, not prison escape. The war on drugs is a failure.

I see no evidence that this woman has committed any felonies since he escape. I see evidence that she has been rehabilitated, a result that our prison system rarely achieves.

[shadron]

Suppose she had committed murder when she was 19, escaped and lived an exemplary life for the next 35 years? Wouldn't she still have a lot of sympathy from people who might recognize that she's no longer that person who committed the crime?

Case in point: Kathryn Ann Power was a freshman at Brandeis in 1967 (age 18) when she fell in with a radical movement, the Black Panthers. She drove the getaway car for a team of bank robbers, one of which shot and killed a policeman in their escape. She was on the FBI's ten most wanted poster for over ten years after she managed to disappear. The killer was caught early on, and is in prison for life.

She reappeared 23 years later in 1993, the part owner of a restaurant, married with one child. She decided, while battling with clinical depression, to turn herself in. She went to trial, apologized to the family of the policeman and was sentenced to 8-12 years. She sought parole after 5 years, but withdrew it when the family of the slain policemen complained. She was released two years later, and is now living in Oregon.

She had a lot of sympathy from those who knew her and her family, including yours truly. We supported her, though most also acknowledge the crime she committed. She also received support from those she knew in Oregon at the time she turned herself in. Since returning from prison she has earned degrees in philosophy and literature, and teaches at Oregon U.

[Beerina]

You know what's hillarious about this?

Fifteen years or so ago, there was a similar case where some black guy who escaped jail in the south was discovered living in Michigan for 20+ years. He had a new family just like her.

And when whatever state wanted to extradite him, Michigan fought it tooth and nail, saying his 20+ years of living respectably showed he didn't need the rest of the sentence.



Politicians should die like pigs in Hell*.







* Not an emotional bleat. Just a logical conclusion.

[Mycroft]

...or that she was better at not getting caught.

Let's go my the evidence then. There is no evidence that she still used or deals heroin.

Given that the police have had her in custody for a while now and have had every opportunity to search whatever they want to search, I'd suggest that's pretty conclusive. You are, of course, free to disagree.

[Mycroft]

Case in point: Kathryn Ann Power...

I remember that case.

And yeah, the arguments are very similar. What was the point of putting her in jail? Why not allow for clemency in such cases?

[shadron]

I remember that case.

And yeah, the arguments are very similar. What was the point of putting her in jail? Why not allow for clemency in such cases?

It was mainly a law-and-order judge (in Massachusetts) and the family of the policeman who protested; they can't let him go (IMHO, of course - don't really know how I'd feel, but 23 years later, and after the killer is in for life and all the accomplices had now finally been arrested? Oh, well...) The judge bitched about the plea bargain (8-12 years, parole in 5 with good behavior) as too light a sentence but couldn't force a change out of the prosecutor, so he kept her from profiting from her story as a condition of probation. I'd say the sentence is about as fair as it could have been. Again, it was the family who complained at her first parole hearing, and she voluntarily withdrew. I believe (don't know for sure) that she tried a personal meeting and apology to them before the trial, but they refused.

[Segnosaur]

I do believe there is really no way to tell for sure if drug restrictions do have an effect, since there is no real 'baseline'.
That's easy. There are many jurisdictions where drug laws are different. It's a simple matter to compare drug use between these jurisdictions.


The only problem with that is that there are a multitude of other factors involved... social, economic, historical, geographic. For example:

- Demographics... country A has an average age of 25 and very strict drug laws. Country B has an average age of 40 with very lenient drug laws. Both have the same rate of drug use. Is it because the drug laws have no effect? Or is it because (on average) younger people are more likely to use drugs, and the harsher drug laws in country A are offset by the fact that older population of country B?

- Economics... lets face it, vices ARE expensive. A country with a less affluent society may have a lower incidence of drug use (despite having more lenient drug laws) because such things are a bit less affordable

I do think some changes to drug laws would be a good thing; I'm just not convinced (either way) of the argument that "all drug laws have failed".

[Segnosaur]

The fact that she's wealthy enough to drive an expensive SUV doesn't necessarily mean that whatever factors in her brain made it OK to sell heroin aren't still there; they may just be sublimated because she's found an easier way to make a living.Hypothetically, how would that make her different from someone else of a similar personality type who had never sold heroin?

Yes, there may be people who are similarly 'bad' (assuming you think dealing drugs is detrimental to society) who might sell heroin if they thought it would be an easy way to make a living, even if they haven't actually dealt drugs yet. There's also the possibility that there are potential serial killers out there who have the desire to kill (and may do so in the future), but who just haven't yet because they haven't had the opportunity.

However, we can't jail people on potential future crimes. (Tom Cruise in Minority Report not withstanding.) The only thing we can do is look at past activities to tell us what they're level of morality is.

The way I see it, there are 3 things that are necessary in order for a person to engage in crime:
- A lack of morality (I'm assuming the 'crime' is something that is detrimental to society, rather than something like being arrested for civil rights protests)
- A need
- An opportunity
I give people the benefit of the doubt and assume most do not lack the morality. However, this individual (by dealing drugs in the first place) indicated that she lacked the morality necessary to prevent her from dealing drugs. (The fact that she was driving without a license kind of re-affirmed my attitude here.)

[Segnosaur]

We asked if your opinions would change had this person been arrested for other crimes (such as robbery) when they escaped. We also asked if it would change your opinion if she had been captured after a few days rather than after a few decades. They're fair questions in my opinion. Since you're complaining, it would be nice to know exactly what you're complaining about.
I don't think those questions are important. The issue is drugs and the war on drugs, not prison escape. The war on drugs is a failure.

In that case, why did you even bring up this case at all? Why don't you bring up any one of a bazillion news reports about drug arrests and say "See, these people are being arrested unfairly!" Why is this case so important?


I see no evidence that this woman has committed any felonies since he escape.

Well, we had asked the question about how long she escaped, and you indicated that such a question was unimportant. Now, you turn around and point out that she hasn't committed any felonies. But that's distinctly related to the questions you were asked... what if it were only 1 week and she didn't commit any felonies? What if it were 1 month and she hadn't committed any felonies? What if it were 1 year and she hadn't committed any felonies?

Earlier you said the issue was the war on drugs... then why should the fact that she hasn't committed any felonies relevant? What if she escaped, then became a drug dealer again? If you think the 'war on drugs' is wrong, then you'd have no objection to her returning to the drug trade.

And need I remind you that she has committed illegal acts (including driving without a license, probably without insurance). Even if such activities were not labeled felonies, they're still against the law.

I see evidence that she has been rehabilitated, a result that our prison system rarely achieves.

No, you just see 'evidence' that she has managed to not return to the drug trade. This doesn't necessarily mean that her morality has changed.

[Segnosaur]

She was sentenced to 20 years. She served 1. You suggested letting her go free. Therefore, you're advocating a shorter sentence for her (and I supposed for other people too.)
No, I'm saying that in retrospect we can see this woman spent exactly the right amount of time in prison. It's an individual case in which our average sentencing guidelines would have been excessive.

As I've pointed out many times before, at this point we don't know whether this person is a truly changed person, or whether her lack of criminal activity is simply due to a lack of need to engage in drug dealing.


At the time of her sentencing I would not have advocated 1 year and letting her go, and the next offender should get 10-20 just like she did. We can't predict the future and we can't read minds so we can't tailor each and every prisoner's sentence to their personal needs.

So what makes her so deserving of special treatment?

What if (for example) one of the Enron executives escaped? Given how famous they are they certainly wouldn't have the opportunity to engage in further scams. Should we then let them off the hook?

You want to go back and fix a roof that hasn't leaked in 30 years because they didn't use the proper amount of materials. While true, the roof hasn't leaked yet and doesn't show any signs of water damage. What's the point of tearing it up?

Well, if I had found out there was a significant problem with my roof, I'd want to get it fixed before it started leaking, rather than wait until my house collapses.


If she slipped back into crime, yes she would. And then some.
But she did 'slip back into crime'. Lying on government forms, driving without a license.

[chulbert]

As I've pointed out many times before, at this point we don't know whether this person is a truly changed person, or whether her lack of criminal activity is simply due to a lack of need to engage in drug dealing.

We've already gone over this. Does it matter? We can never know whether someone is truly changed, we can only know how they behave. Do you have any evidence that people who serve their entire prison sentences are truly changed?

So what makes her so deserving of special treatment?

What if (for example) one of the Enron executives escaped? Given how famous they are they certainly wouldn't have the opportunity to engage in further scams. Should we then let them off the hook?

Famous people don't commit crimes?

Again, I don't know why you keep bringing this up. I am not advocating reduction in sentences based on pre hoc assumptions. I am advocating leniency in a specific case based on post hoc evidence.

Well, if I had found out there was a significant problem with my roof, I'd want to get it fixed before it started leaking, rather than wait until my house collapses.

Except there isn't a significant problem. It hasn't leaked in 30 years and there's no reason to suspect it will start. There's no evidence to suggest the structure of your home has been in any way compromised. The building codes remain unchanged and the next builder will be expected to use the proper materials and techniques.

But she did 'slip back into crime'. Lying on government forms, driving without a license.

Let's not be dramatic. She committed a number of auxiliary crimes in order to establish an identity sufficient for living a normal life. They were wrong and illegal, but let's not pretend she's a pattern criminal parasite on society.

But let's stop going back and forth over the same points. Please explain in detail how leniency in this specific case increases the probability the same offense will occur in the future, committed either by her or another individual.

[Fnord]

The police in the article were quoted as saying she wasn't doing anything that would draw their attention to her, and I think we can infer from that she no longer deals heroin.

You may infer whatever you wish, as is your prerogative.

I think she was being too sneaky to draw the cop's attention to her self. It's kinda like those purple ribbons they give you in the military for "Good Conduct" -- they only indicate that you haven't been caught committing a civil or UCMJ infraction in the last four years.

So, she simply has not been caught doing anything illegal in the last thirty years.

[Segnosaur]

As I've pointed out many times before, at this point we don't know whether this person is a truly changed person, or whether her lack of criminal activity is simply due to a lack of need to engage in drug dealing.
We've already gone over this. Does it matter? We can never know whether someone is truly changed, we can only know how they behave. Do you have any evidence that people who serve their entire prison sentences are truly changed?

I never claimed people who served their full sentence are truly changed. But at least someone who has fully served their sentence has undergone the punishment required of them by law. This woman never did.

You know, I always assumed that justice should apply equally to all. I know we may never get to that particular ideal (what with rich people being able to afford better lawyers, etc.). However, letting someone go free just because they were smart enough to outwit the system for a few years seems like a bit of a step backwards from that ideal.

What if (for example) one of the Enron executives escaped? Given how famous they are they certainly wouldn't have the opportunity to engage in further scams. Should we then let them off the hook?
Famous people don't commit crimes?

That's not what I was pointing out.

A past Enron executive (because their names and images are so well known) will likely never be able to run and/or defraud a corporation again. So if (for example) Jeffrey Skilling managed to escape from jail, he would never be able to engage in his fraud. If he did escape, would you be willing to let him go simply because they're 'safe' and could never engage in similar fraud again?

Again, I don't know why you keep bringing this up. I am not advocating reduction in sentences based on pre hoc assumptions. I am advocating leniency in a specific case based on post hoc evidence.

Even though you're advocating leniency based on after-the-fact evidence, you are STILL advocating a reduction in a sentence.


Let's not be dramatic. She committed a number of auxiliary crimes in order to establish an identity sufficient for living a normal life. They were wrong and illegal, but let's not pretend she's a pattern criminal parasite on society.

Some of those illegal activities went beyond those required in order to establish an identity. Getting an illegal social insurance card? Ok, that would be necessary for identity purposes. But she was driving without a license (and I assume without insurance), putting everyone else at risk. If creating a false identity were the only thing she were concerned about, she could take the bus. But no, this 'reformed' citizen decided that the joy she got driving around in her nice expensive Lexus was worth the chance of severely injuring some innocent person who would be unable to pay for medical bills because of her lack of insurance.


But let's stop going back and forth over the same points. Please explain in detail how leniency in this specific case increases the probability the same offense will occur in the future, committed either by her or another individual.
Already done that a while back.

[shuize]

I don't have a real problem with letting her off on a 30 year old drug charge. But I would expect her to serve additional time for the escape.

[Molinaro]

Why are you asking for something you have qualified out of existence? You ask someone to prove a negative and dismiss the only thing that even approaches evidence. Express your opinion, but have a bit more self-respect than to write something like the above.

Are you kidding me? Anyone who jumps to a conclusion about her behaviour over the past 30 years is the one who's lacking self-respect.

That's the point I was making.

I don't claim she was up to no good and I don't accept claims that she was a law abiding citizen since her escape. The evidence is not availble hence no conclusion should be drawn.

The unarguable facts remain: convicted, escaped, caught = back to jail.

[GreyICE]

Why the hell should this woman be in prison? She committed a consensual crime - no one is force fed drugs, or made to take them (except by our government in mental health wards, ironically). That was three decades ago.

Since then she has lived, if not an exemplary life, at least a reasonably normal one.

So who benefits if she's put back in prison? Is there a deterrent effect? No. Is society protected from a danger? No. Is a criminal rehabilitated? No.

The only reason to stick her back is because people have some absurd notion of fairness - "Did the crime, do the time" etc.

Fairness = woo.

[Vic Vega]

This explains the nature of the crime. She was arrested for selling $250 worth of dope. Not exactly a master criminal.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080503/news_1n3file.html

Today, she'd get probation if this was her first offense and she was able to demonstrate that she had turned her life around. Hopefully a reasonable judge will sentence her to probation and send her home to her family.

Some of you guys are really cold-hearted. :(



BTW, this is what the former prosecutor had to say:

"If he were prosecutor today, Denton said, he wouldn't put LeFevre back in prison. Instead, he would allow her to withdraw her plea, have her replead to the same charges, then sentence her under the new Michigan guidelines, which would factor in a prior record, the severity of the crime and what she has done with her life.

“I'd give her probation and let her go back and be with her family in California.” "

Hopefully, the current prosecutor has as much sense and compassion.

[Fnord]

Some of you guys are really cold-hearted. :(



Better a cold heart than a soft head. :D

(By the way ... nice avatar ... personal statement?)

[Charles Livingston]

That's why I have issues about the claims that she's "rehabilitated" herself. The fact that she's wealthy enough to drive an expensive SUV doesn't necessarily mean that whatever factors in her brain made it OK to sell heroin aren't still there; they may just be sublimated because she's found an easier way to make a living.

Thought Police. If she doesnt act on the factors in her brain that tell her dealing herion is ok then she isnt committing any crime. In fact, it may be an example of why she is rehabilitated, because in the past she would/did act on such "factors".

[Vic Vega]

Better a cold heart than a soft head. :D

(By the way ... nice avatar ... personal statement?)


Maybe, but I wouldn't want them on a jury if I was the accused. ;)


Yes. Unfortunatley, I'm usually the one who gets kicked...

[Vic Vega]

Better a cold heart than a soft head. :D

(By the way ... nice avatar ... personal statement?)


Maybe, but I wouldn't want them on a jury if I was the accused. ;)


Yes. Unfortunatley, I'm usually the one who gets kicked...

[Mark6]

I am for a major overhaul of the drug laws. I think it makes little to no sense to punish users. As such, unless she was making or selling the heroin, I think it doesn't make a lot of sense to have imprisoned her.

But.

She escaped from our prison system. I just can't accept that you're allowed to escape from the prison system as long as you live a good life after that. What if she'd been caught after only ten years out? What if she had a few speeding tickets? How about if she'd been caught a week after escape -- if she'd been *really* good for that week, is a week enough? One year? Four years? That's going to be one heck of a justice system that has to decide just how long you get to be a fugitive before you're allowed to skate.

Does that amount of time differ with the crime?

I agree that she doesn't represent a danger to anyone anymore, but I'm unsure we're served as a public to decide arbitrarily who is allowed to not serve their sentences.

Why are you being sarcastic? Everything you described in your second paragraph is called "statute of limitations". AFAIK, statute of limitations is not used much in US, but it is a valid legal concept. Punishing minor crimes years or decades later is pointless. Whether escaping from a prison is "minor crime" is debatable, but not as absurd as you seem to think.

[Mark6]

And as I've pointed out before... while part of the purpose is rehabilitation, it is also meant to be a deterant.

And again, as I have also pointed out, at this point we don't really know if she 'rehabilitated' herself. Rehabilitation (at least to me) implies a person has made efforts to correct problems in the past that have caused them to engage in crime in the first place. But if this person were able to afford expensive cars, etc. then the underlying criminal intent may still be there; its just that they've found an easier way to deal with life.

Are you saying that no one is rehabilitated without a lifelong vow of poverty?

[RandFan]

Why the hell should this woman be in prison? She committed a consensual crime - no one is force fed drugs, or made to take them (except by our government in mental health wards, ironically). That was three decades ago.

Since then she has lived, if not an exemplary life, at least a reasonably normal one.

So who benefits if she's put back in prison? Is there a deterrent effect? No. Is society protected from a danger? No. Is a criminal rehabilitated? No.

The only reason to stick her back is because people have some absurd notion of fairness - "Did the crime, do the time" etc.

Fairness = woo.So people in prisons should try to escape. It is in their best interest and they will be rewarded for doing so.

[GreyICE]

So people in prisons should try to escape. It is in their best interest and they will be rewarded for doing so.
No. Usually they will be recaptured, and just get extended sentences.

http://www.slate.com/id/1007001/

The last year with more escapees than recaptured prisoners was 1994, when 14,307 prisoners escaped and 13,346 were returned.


However, what is wrong with dealing with THIS situation NOW, instead of some hypothetical that we need to string some woman up in order to answer to some higher ideals? Ideals mean jack **** when people are suffering for no reason for them.

[Mark6]

I see clear differences between the following cases:

1. Bad law, but the best we can do. (One size fits all speed limits).
2. Bad law, and we can do better. (Drug prohibition, badly designed gun control laws).
3. Good law. (Rape prohibition, well designed gun laws).


If a law is bad, it should be repealed or amended. And believe it or not, it does happen. The problem is who defines what is "bad" or "good" law. Obviously, every law that exists, a majority of some legislation at some point thought it was "good". A law gets repealed only if a majority of a given legislation at a given time think that either a) the law is immoral and must be changed regardless of next election, or b) the law is unpopular and retaining it on the books jeopardizes their re-election.

Needless to say, vast majority of legislators, at any level of the government, are guided by (b). And most people cast their votes based on a number of issues, not just on one issue. Which means that laws only get repealed if majority of population is actively hostile to the particular law -- not just "I do not like it, but it is not my deciding voting factor", but "You damn better repeal it or I will vote against you!"

And I am sorry to say it, but with regard to drug laws, you are in the minority. We live in a democracy, and whether law is "bad" or "good" is ultimately up to popular vote. As long as you are outnumbered, existing drug laws are, by definition, "good".

I think part of the reason ballot initiatives, i.e. citizens passing and repealing laws by direct vote, bypassing legislation, have become so popular is that they are isolated. Hardly anyone is going to vote for or against a legislator based on his stand about dog racing. But plenty of people will vote for (or against) a ballot initiative to outlaw or regulate dog racing.

[NewtonTrino]

Laws should automatically expire after 5 years and have to be voted on. No omnibus "revote" bills should be allowed, each law must be decided on it's own merits.

And yes, I think we have way too many laws. They are also needlessly complicated.

[GreyICE]

Laws should automatically expire after 5 years and have to be voted on. No omnibus "revote" bills should be allowed, each law must be decided on it's own merits. Like the assault weapons ban?

This seems like it would be needlessly cumbersome, pork-barrel filled, and vulnerable to grandstanding. It just seems like it would create whole new problems - not only would we have the existing bad laws, they'd change every five years based on how the party in power wanted the pork to run, making them not only bad, but unpredictably bad.

And yes, I think we have way too many laws. They are also needlessly complicated.
Oddly, complicated laws turn out to be less complicated. Simple laws are always the complicated ones.

Remember, simplicity = bigfoot. Anyone who is looking for it is looking for bigfoot.

[RandFan]

No. Usually they will be recaptured, and just get extended sentences. Cool. Then just give her an extended sentence... unless you are inconsistent...

However, what is wrong with dealing with THIS situation NOW, instead of some hypothetical that we need to string some woman up in order to answer to some higher ideals? Ideals mean jack **** when people are suffering for no reason for them. Ideals mean jack**** to every person being sentenced. Everyone wants an exception. Perhaps they are entitled to it. I don't know. I'm not sure how an arbitrary system works in a country that is ostensibly a nation of laws. Just because you and I think the reason for this womans incarceration is based on bad laws is no reason to toss the judicial system. Most people incarcerated disagree with the reason they are incarcerated. Are they right? Who decides?

[quixotecoyote]

Cool. Then just give her an extended sentence... unless you are inconsistent...


My buddy Emerson would like a word with you about that one.

[mattdick]

Why are you being sarcastic? Everything you described in your second paragraph is called "statute of limitations". AFAIK, statute of limitations is not used much in US, but it is a valid legal concept. Punishing minor crimes years or decades later is pointless. Whether escaping from a prison is "minor crime" is debatable, but not as absurd as you seem to think.

Thanks for at least engaging in what I think is actually the only real issue here. My sarcasm was related to no one in the "let her go" camp even addressing my question.

I'm not convinced that I believe in statutes of limitations. I could conceivably be convinced. I think legally that they may not apply to prison escapees, but my only point in bringing up the difference between 32 years and 32 days is just exactly so we can discuss the morality of these kinds of limitations. It seemed to me that the only real reasons people were using to justify letting her go was: A) the drug laws are stupid and B) it's been a long time.

That drug laws are stupid may be true (and I happen to agree that they are), but it is irrelevant unless everyone is allowed to obey only those laws they agree with. You need to change the laws that are bad, not just allwo them not to be enforced. That's an absurd position and no one advocating it should be allowed to go free based on that argument should be allowed at the grown ups' table.

So we're only left with the length of time, and that's actually the interesting question. Are statutes of limitations reasonable? Aren't they mostly to support the idea that if they don't catch you on your primary crime for a long, long time it is no longer relevant? In this case, she *was* caught, and was actually convicted. That would seem to me to invalidate the primary reason statutes of limitations are valid.

msd

[NewtonTrino]

That drug laws are stupid may be true (and I happen to agree that they are), but it is irrelevant unless everyone is allowed to obey only those laws they agree with. You need to change the laws that are bad, not just allwo them not to be enforced. That's an absurd position and no one advocating it should be allowed to go free based on that argument should be allowed at the grown ups' table.



Actually civil disobedience is one way that laws do get changed. Sometimes laws get ignored and don't get enforced as well.

Also I completely disagree with GreyIce, laws can and should be simple. Simple enough that a jury can understand them without having to get 'instructions' or anything else.

Currently we have so much law that any normal person is going to break laws just going about their business. Cut down on the amount and complexity of law please.

[RandFan]

Thanks for at least engaging in what I think is actually the only real issue here. My sarcasm was related to no one in the "let her go" camp even addressing my question.

...

That drug laws are stupid may be true (and I happen to agree that they are), but it is irrelevant unless everyone is allowed to obey only those laws they agree with. You need to change the laws that are bad, not just allwo them not to be enforced. That's an absurd position and no one advocating it should be allowed to go free based on that argument should be allowed at the grown ups' table. Yes.

[GreyICE]

Cool. Then just give her an extended sentence... unless you are inconsistent... I state a fact. You state that I am inconsistent if I don't, what? Agree with that fact? Say that a statistical generalization should be applied in every case? For your statement not to be inconsistent, you need to agree that since the majority of people in this country are white (statistical fact) it would be inconsistent not to think everyone should be white...

Nice. Generalization.

Ideals mean jack**** to every person being sentenced. Everyone wants an exception. Perhaps they are entitled to it. I don't know. I'm not sure how an arbitrary system works in a country that is ostensibly a nation of laws. Just because you and I think the reason for this womans incarceration is based on bad laws is no reason to toss the judicial system. Most people incarcerated disagree with the reason they are incarcerated. Are they right? Who decides?

Fact: Woman was not imprisoned for a violent crime
Fact: If she had served her sentence she would be out now
Fact: There is no evidence that she has been anything other than a normal member of the community.

We are a nation of laws. Hopefully we are not a nation of jack-booted thugs who have forgotten that laws apply to people. People are always more important than the laws, because the laws serve the people.

No one is served by having this woman reimprisoned. Not the state, who will have lost a member of society and will have to pay for her incarceration. Not society, who will be no safer or healthier. Not the woman, and not her family.

No one benefits. But this obscure principle, this obscure point of idealism, this point of principle that helps nobody and hurts several people, it must be obeyed. Why? Because its written in a book!

You follow your book. I'll follow logic.

[RandFan]

I state a fact. You state that I am inconsistent if I don't, what? Apply the law consistently.

Fact: Woman was not imprisoned for a violent crime
Fact: If she had served her sentence she would be out now
Fact: There is no evidence that she has been anything other than a normal member of the community. Meaningless if the law has any relevance. If you don't like the law then change the law. End of story. Like I said, most if not all people would gladly reduce their sentence given the opportunity.

People are always more important than the laws, because the laws serve the people. They don't serve them if they are arbitrary.

No one is served by having this woman reimprisoned. Not the state, who will have lost a member of society and will have to pay for her incarceration. Not society, who will be no safer or healthier. Not the woman, and not her family. Lots and lots of people in prison would likely not commit further crimes if released. That's not how the system works.

You follow your book. I'll follow logic. I am following logic and hundreds of years of legal philosophy and precedent. There's actually reason behind the laws and if we have learned anything its that arbitray application of the law is not justice.

[GreyICE]

Apply the law consistently.Ah, I see. When did I state that I particularly care if the law is applied absolutely fairly and consistently in every situation? Actually I believe I stated that the entire concept of universal fairness is woo, and each situation should be judged on its own merits. You are stating I am not consistent because I do not consistently follow your ideals.

Meaningless if the law has any relevance. If you don't like the law then change the law. End of story. Like I said, most if not all people would gladly reduce their sentence given the opportunity. Do you dispute the facts listed?
They don't serve them if they are arbitrary. Unsupported assertion. Laws were created to serve the people. True or false?
Lots and lots of people in prison would likely not commit further crimes if released. That's not how the system works. Is there anyone who benefits from having this woman reimprisoned? Anyone at all?

I don't particularly care how you think the system should work. Does anyone benefit?

I am following logic and hundreds of years of legal philosophy and precedent. There's actually reason behind the laws and if we have learned anything its that arbitray application of the law is not justice. Right. And a decent definition of arbitrary is applying the written rules even when they clearly benefit no one. Does anyone benefit? The state, society, anyone at all?

[RandFan]

...and each situation should be judged on its own merits. Oversimplification. There is truth to this but there is a limit for judging each situation on its own merits.

You are stating I am not consistent because I do not consistently follow your ideals. Not at all. Just apply the law consistently. That's all.

Unsupported assertion. Laws were created to serve the people. True or false? Is there anyone who benefits from having this woman reimprisoned? Anyone at all? I would say that many incarcerations don't benefit anyone if you simply look at the individual case. That's simply not the way that justice works. We set a punishment and if you break the law you must be held accountable. If the law is wrong then we should simply change the law. It's really not all that difficult.

I don't particularly care how you think the system should work. Does anyone benefit? Actually yes, society does benifit from consistent application of laws.

Right. And a decent definition of arbitrary is applying the written rules even when they clearly benefit no one. Does anyone benefit? The state, society, anyone at all?Yes. Clearly. Justice and society benefit.

We can always find reasons not to adhere to the laws. I've said over and over, but you ignore it, that many people who are incarcerated feel that their sentence is too harsh. Perhaps they are right. So, let's do away with penalties for those who escape from prison so that if they escape and lead a good life for a time they can be forgiven of their crimes. Then again, let's not.

I've got an idea, let's get rid of the drug laws. Novel idea I know but it seems as good as any.

[GreyICE]

Oversimplification. There is truth to this but there is a limit for judging each situation on its own merits. I'm stating my opinion on the matter. Certainly there should be overall consistency, but it must be applied to each situation separately. And, in my humble opinion, the overall consistency is never worth sacrificing an individual situation.

Not at all. Just apply the law consistently. That's all. I don't feel the law needs to be applied 100% consistently, because each situation is different. If it wasn't, each crime would carry exactly the same sentence - which clearly doesn't happen. Is that inconsistent? Is it wrong to judge the merits of a situation when deciding what to do?

I would say that many incarcerations don't benefit anyone if you simply look at the individual case. That's simply not the way that justice works. We set a punishment and if you break the law you must be held accountable. If the law is wrong then we should simply change the law. It's really not all that difficult. But the preventative effect of the punishment prevents many people from breaking the law and (theoretically, at least) prison offers prisoners a chance to rehabilitate themselves.

In this case, the preventative effect is so very distant and so very vague that it offers nothing. No benefit, no principle is served. She escaped, and beat the odds, and was not recaptured. Fine. That was 32 years ago. The situation, to put it mildly, has changed since then.

In fact the law recognizes this very situation. There is a term called statute of limitations! The law itself recognizes that there is no benefit to going after people whose crimes are so old that the prosecution of them is arbitrary and vague.

Actually yes, society does benifit from consistent application of laws. How? How is there benefit to closing our eyes and doing the same thing in every situation despite the fact that every single person and every single entity involve suffers? What benefit does that serve?

Yes. Clearly. Justice and society benefit. Justice? Justice can never benefit. Its a principle. Principles don't benefit from anything. They simply are.

Society? How does society benefit? We remove a member of society who is clearly, if not a model citizen (and we have no evidence regarding whether she is or is not) certainly not, at this point in time, particularly outside the norm. We cause personal suffering to some members of society who are innocent. And society has to pay for an incarceration. Society doesn't benefit. It suffers.

We can always find reasons not to adhere to the laws. I've said over and over, but you ignore it, that many people who are incarcerated feel that their sentence is too harsh. Perhaps they are right. So, let's do away with penalties for those who escape from prison so that if they escape and lead a good life for a time they can be forgiven of their crimes. Then again, let's not. Once again, why are we generalizing from a specific situation? We are discussing this woman, now. Not hypothetical person in hypothetical situation at hypothetical time.

I've got an idea, let's get rid of the drug laws. Novel idea I know but it seems as good as any.
Different discussion. Start a new thread.

[RandFan]

And, in my humble opinion, the overall consistency is never worth sacrificing an individual situation. And this is the point that you are missing. Every individual situation is considered by someone to be a special case. Just because you and I think the laws behind this woman's incarceration is wrong doesn't justify tossing her conviction.

I don't feel the law needs to be applied 100% consistently, because each situation is different. If it wasn't, each crime would carry exactly the same sentence - which clearly doesn't happen. That's exactly right. We let each person have his or her opportunity to go before a judge and she was afforded that right. Now you want to over rule the judge in this case. You are being, oh how can I say it, inconsistent.

In fact the law recognizes this very situation. There is a term called statute of limitations! The law itself recognizes that there is no benefit to going after people whose crimes are so old that the prosecution of them is arbitrary and vague. If the law stipulates that she should go free then I'm fine with that. Does the law so stipulate? BTW, there is no statue of limitations for murder. Again, you are oversimplifying the reason behind a concept in the law.

Justice? Justice can never benefit. Its a principle. Principles don't benefit from anything. They simply are. It's a figure of speech with an historical context. Ever hear of "in the interest of justice"? How can justice have an interest? It would be easy to label you pedantic but given the historical concept of justice that would be wrong.

Different discussion. Start a new thread. No, because it is the single best solution to the problem barring someone in authority commuting her sentence.

Please Note: If a judge or the governor or a board should commute her sentence then that would satisfy both of us though I would not encourage such. That would be fine with me.

ETA: I'm not sure that really hold the position that I would not encourage such. I think I would prefer to be neutral and let prosecutors and this womans defenders make their case to the authority and accept the decision of the ruling authority.

[Deus Ex Machina]

Drug prohibition is a form of WOO people.


so you would support full access to all drugs by anyone regardless of age? Just as one example.


This lady should never have been sent to prison to begin with so good on her for escaping. I would have moral problem with helping someone like this stay out of prison.


See above - or did you think that dealers demand IDs before they sell?


The cost of the prohibition is much higher than the cost of using the drugs if they are legal. This was clearly shown to be the case during the prohibition era and it seems even more clear with drug prohibition.


Care to cite the economic figures and their source? You did have some facts rather than just your statement?


In addition to the fact that it's just plain stupid, there is the personal liberty and freedom issue to consider. Frankly even if it were shown that legalization is a net loss to society I still think that the personal freedom argument mandates that drugs be legal to produce and consume.

I kind of agree with this - up to the point that drug use impacts the society to a point where those who comprise that society pass lawas saying that they do not wish it to happen.

slippery point, I think.

[Deus Ex Machina]

To those who have missed the point: The point isn't that she escaped. The point is that she and hundreds of thousands of other people should never have been in jail in the first place. Instead of wasting millions of dollars per person TO KEEP EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM INCARCERATED, we should instead be treating for what they really are, ill people! They're sick, and it's their sickness that causes them to commit crimes, like dealing, to support their habits.


wow what a shining example of someone who doesn't "get it"

If you are sick - you get treatment, you don't break the law so that you can continue to be sick.

Well at least in a society that wishes to survive.

How about someone who has organ failure? Can they go shoot someone and harvest their organs? After all, it is the illness that is driving the crime and your brilliant system above allows them to do it.

I would probably agree that an adult should be able to do what he or she likes so long as it doesn't harm or impose on anyone else. If someone wants to kill themselves using smack because they like the way it feels - good luck.

The minute they try enticing others into the same deal?

Send them to prison.


As for those of you who insinuated that I support drug use, prison escape, murder, rape, child abuse, etc., get some brains, fools.

didn't see anyone who said that - all I have seen is a lame argument from you, but that's no crime.

[GreyICE]

And this is the point that you are missing. Every individual situation is considered by someone to be a special case. Just because you and I think the laws behind this woman's incarceration is wrong doesn't justify tossing her conviction. The fact that some people might think any given case is special doesn't mean that there are no abnormal cases. Each case deserves to be judged on its own merits. This case is clearly way outside the norm, and blind application of the rules is, in this case especially, very blind.

That's exactly right. We let each person have his or her opportunity to go before a judge and she was afforded that right. Now you want to over rule the judge in this case. You are being, oh how can I say it, inconsistent.
You keep harping on the inconsistency. Why? I'm absolutely consistent. I say each case should be judged on its own merits.

The first charge of inconsistency you brought up, in point of fact, was based on a fact I posted. You charged that I was being inconsistent because I suggested an end result that was outside of a statistical generalization.

Is it possible you have decided I am being inconsistent, and are making the facts fit your judgment?
If the law stipulates that she should go free then I'm fine with that. Does the law so stipulate? BTW, there is no statue of limitations for murder. Again, you are oversimplifying the reason behind a concept in the law.
Okay, who did she murder?

It's a figure of speech with an historical context. Ever hear of "in the interest of justice"? How can justice have an interest? It would be easy to label you pedantic but given the historical concept of justice that would be wrong. So, in other words, no interest is being served, nothing benefits. In the interest of justice is a phrase that means "I am making this decision because I feel it is just." It doesn't mean that justice is interested in anything. Nor does justice benefit from anything. You have stretched a phrase past its meaning, and I pointed it out. It would indeed be injust (but not inconsistent) if you tried to blame me for pointing that out.

No, because it is the single best solution to the problem barring someone in authority commuting her sentence. The problem is I believe the situation would apply even if she had broken another law. I agree with the laws against thievery, but if she stole a TV 32 years ago I'd be inclined to the same judgment in the matter.

Please Note: If a judge or the governor or a board should commute her sentence then that would satisfy both of us though I would not encourage such. That would be fine with me.
I would encourage such simply because this is exactly the situation commution was created for - a situation where blind adherence to the rules serves no ones interest.

[NewtonTrino]

so you would support full access to all drugs by anyone regardless of age? Just as one example.

See above - or did you think that dealers demand IDs before they sell?

Care to cite the economic figures and their source? You did have some facts rather than just your statement?

I kind of agree with this - up to the point that drug use impacts the society to a point where those who comprise that society pass lawas saying that they do not wish it to happen.

slippery point, I think.

Yes, I support people putting whatever they want in their body. Children who take responsibility for themselves should be allowed to do as they please in this regard (most children are under parental supervision so it would be up to the parents).

I certainly don't support checking ID except in very unusual circumstances. Certainly not for buying drugs.

As for statistics, take a look at the cost of drug use pre-prohibition (e.g. pre 1905). Certainly it would take a lot of damage to cost more than we spend on drug prohibition in the US (BILLIONS per YEAR).

[RandFan]

The fact that some people might think any given case is special doesn't mean that there are no abnormal cases. Each case deserves to be judged on its own merits.The case was judged on its own merits. There was a trial, remember? End of story.

You charged that I was being inconsistent because I suggested an end result that was outside of a statistical generalization.That's correct. You want your cake and eat it too. We either apply our laws equally or we don't. Everyone wants to be treated special.

The problem is I believe the situation would apply even if she had broken another law. I agree with the laws against thievery, but if she stole a TV 32 years ago I'd be inclined to the same judgment in the matter. Then we are back to the start.


So people in prisons should try to escape. It is in their best interest and they will be rewarded for doing so.
No. Usually they will be recaptured, and just get extended sentences.
Either that is valid or it is not. Now you are stating that it should be in their best interest in certain circumstances. Could you make up your mind. Should people be rewarded for escaping prison or not?




I would encourage such simply because this is exactly the situation commution was created for - a situation where blind adherence to the rules serves no ones interest.Strawman. No one is arguing for blind adherence to the rules. I'm arguing for following the law period.
She had a trial (due process).
She had a right to appeal.
She broke the law and escaped.
Now you want to reward her for escaping.There is nothing blind about that. To reward her for breaking the law would be inconsistent. There is no getting around that. What good is the rule of law if we discarded whenever we don't like it? It just doesn't work that way.


If a judge, parole board or other person in authority wants to commute any sentence that is in their pervue to do such then I'm fine with that. Hell, if I were in such a position I might do that depending on what was argued before me but I kinda doubt it.

[Blue Mountain]

I haven't read this thread closely, so perhaps this has been brought up already.

One compromise in a situation like this is to return the person to jail for one day. Prison exists for two purposes: punishment and correction. It seems to me that living out of the notice of the police for thirty years and raising a family satisfies the correction part. Returning the person to prison for one day (and adding the offense of escaping lawful custody to her criminal record) should satisfy the punishment part.

I'll argue this person has not really been "free" for thirty years. She could well have spent them looking over her shoulder, fearing knocks on the door, and perhaps afraid to report crimes against her or her property to the police for fear it would cause someone to look into her past.

[GreyICE]

The case was judged on its own merits. There was a trial, remember? End of story. Oh, okay. Her sentence was less than 32 years, she's not in prison, the end.

Wait... you say there's more to the story?

That's correct. You want your cake and eat it too. We either apply our laws equally or we don't. Everyone wants to be treated special. Equal != identical. Why is there even a question of sentencing if the law is rigid and inflexible? Then we are back to the start. No, we are not. Lets say she had broken a law you agreed with (medium-value thievery, for instance, item below $1000 but still reasonably valuable). Should she be reimprisoned?

Turning this woman into a martyr to the lousy drug laws in our country serves nothing. We have enough of those.

Either that is valid or it is not. Now you are stating that it should be in their best interest in certain circumstances. Could you make up your mind. Should people be rewarded for escaping prison or not? Huh? Is it in prisoners best interests to escape prison if they manage to beat the very narrow odds and avoid recapture?

Obviously.




Strawman. No one is arguing for blind adherence to the rules. I'm arguing for following the law period.
She had a trial (due process).
She had a right to appeal.
She broke the law and escaped.
Now you want to reward her for escaping.There is nothing blind about that. To reward her for breaking the law would be inconsistent. There is no getting around that. What good is the rule of law if we discarded whenever we don't like it? It just doesn't work that way. I don't want to reward her for escaping. I want to acknowledge the fact that there is no benefit to society in reimprioning her. The benefit already happened. She beat the very narrow odds, it happens. Now its 32 years later, and we are faced with the choice of applying a punishment that is no longer in any way beneficial to anyone, or letting her live out her life in peace.

Not a hard choice, really. Reward doesn't come into it. Freedom is the default state, and I see no compelling reason to deprive this woman of hers.

[RandFan]

Oh, okay. Her sentence was less than 32 years, she's not in prison, the end. She didn't serve her sentence.

Is it in prisoners best interests to escape prison if they manage to beat the very narrow odds and avoid recapture?If we have it your way, yes, of course.

I don't want to reward her for escaping. I want to acknowledge the fact that there is no benefit to society in reimprioning her. This applies to many people in jail right now. It doesn't work that way. We don't reward people for escaping jail. I don't know how that is so hard for you to understand. We have a system of laws so we don't have to arbitrarily apply the law. She had a trial. She was found guilty. She was sentenced. She didn't serve her sentence.

The benefit already happened. She beat the very narrow odds, it happens. Now its 32 years later, and we are faced with the choice of applying a punishment that is no longer in any way beneficial to anyone, or letting her live out her life in peace. But there is a benifit. It's called justice. That you and I don't agree with the drug laws is not reason to throw out the justice system or apply it arbitrarily.

Not a hard choice, really. Reward doesn't come into it. Freedom is the default state, and I see no compelling reason to deprive this woman of hers. The reason is simple. She was found guilty of a crime and sentenced. Now, we either get rid of the laws or we apply them fairly to everyone and not simply reward those who are willing to further break the law and escape from prison.

[GreyICE]

She didn't serve her sentence. I thought she was tried, end of story. That sounds like there's more to the story. You can't have your cake and eat it to - either we consider circumstances that occurred after the trial, or we don't.

If we have it your way, yes, of course. Wait. Hold on a second.

What is your proposed solution to make it so prisoners don't benefit when they escape and avoid recapture? Poison them with a deadly toxen that requires regular shots of an antidote? Execute their family? What is this strategy to make sure they don't benefit from escaping and avoiding recapture?

This applies to many people in jail right now. It doesn't work that way. We don't reward people for escaping jail. I don't know how that is so hard for you to understand. We have a system of laws so we don't have to arbitrarily apply the law. She had a trial. She was found guilty. She was sentenced. She didn't serve her sentence. It may apply to many people in jail. It may not. There is definitely a deterrent effect to imprisonment, and there is also the issue of re-committing crimes once they leave prison. Of course if we were to imagine an ideal system, they would consider a prisoner's attitude and behavior in prison as well as their crime to determine whether or not it is beneficial to society to leave them in prison.

Unfortunately we don't have any system like that in this country, or I would have to disagree that the law works as rigidly as you describe.

But there is a benifit. It's called justice. That you and I don't agree with the drug laws is not reason to throw out the justice system or apply it arbitrarily. Once again, who benefits? Justice is an abstract. When people start talking about abstract benefits - gods, souls, principles, I get worried. Especially when there's real people being hurt.

What is the real person benefit?

The reason is simple. She was found guilty of a crime and sentenced. Now, we either get rid of the laws or we apply them fairly to everyone and not simply reward those who are willing to further break the law and escape from prison. False dichotomy, here we come!

[RandFan]

...either we consider circumstances that occurred after the trial, or we don't. Don't. To do so is inconsistent and rewarding her for escaping. Those that didn't escape didn't get the same opportunity.

What is your proposed solution to make it so prisoners don't benefit when they escape and avoid recapture?Simple. Extend their sentences. So let's extend her sentence. If you are going to be consistent that is.

Of course if we were to imagine an ideal system, they would consider a prisoner's attitude and behavior in prison as well as their crime to determine whether or not it is beneficial to society to leave them in prison. On the other hand we could simply reduce the sentence of those lucky enough or smart enough to escape.

Once again, who benefits? Justice is an abstract. When people start talking about abstract benefits - gods, souls, principles, I get worried. We've been over this before. Just because you don't like the answer is no reason to keep asking the question. Society benifits. It's in the interest of justice.

Here, let me give you an example. Who benifits by keeping everyone currently incarcerated until their current relase date?

Given the entire prison population there is no evidence that 1 month of incarceration will have any statistically significant effect.
Declare today that everyone in prison will have their sentence reduced by 1 month.
It will save billions of dollars.
Families will be reunited with their loved ones 1 month early.
Real people are being hurt.Especially when there's real people being hurt.Appeal to emotion.

What is the real person benefit? Why not commute the sentence of everyone who escapes?

Everyone has a reason that they want to be treated specially. If the law is bad change the law. Until then follow the law.

[GreyICE]

Don't. To do so is inconsistent and rewarding her for escaping. Those that didn't escape didn't get the same opportunity. Okay, if we're considering nothing that happened after the trial, her sentence was less than 32 years. She's not in prison. I see no problem.

Simple. Extend their sentences. So let's extend her sentence. If you are going to be consistent that is. Don't we have to recapture them to extend their sentence? The cart, it comes AFTER the horse.

On the other hand we could simply reduce the sentence of those lucky enough or smart enough to escape. Sure. Lets reduce the sentence of everyone we don't recapture to zero.

In any case, we have a system, there is no problem with escapes, I really don't see the issue. You're creating an issue that doesn't exist.

We've been over this before. Just because you don't like the answer is no reason to keep asking the question. Society benifits. It's in the interest of justice.

Here, let me give you an example. Who benifits by keeping everyone currently incarcerated until their current relase date?

Given the entire prison population there is no evidence that 1 month of incarceration will have any statistically significant effect.
You are aware that we have a system that more or less does exactly that? You are aware that prisoners get time off for good behavior and that that is frequently used to get prisoners out of the system faster when it seems likely that they will not recommit crimes? You are aware that when I said such a system would be a good idea I was being sarcastic, right?

Declare today that everyone in prison will have their sentence reduced by 1 month.
It will save billions of dollars.
Families will be reunited with their loved ones 1 month early.
Real people are being hurt. Good behavior, again. We do exactly this. The ones we judge a danger to society or unrepentant we make serve their full sentences.


Appeal to emotion.

Why not commute the sentence of everyone who escapes?

Everyone has a reason that they want to be treated specially. If the law is bad change the law. Until then follow the law.
I don't get this. You repeatedly want to make this about some greater cause. Answer this simple question and I think we'll be done: Is it worth making any number of people (one, ten, 1000) suffer for a cause that will not immediately help anyone, but might benefit them in the extreme long term (in 10, 20 years, after they are dead, etc.)?

[RandFan]

Okay, if we're considering nothing that happened after the trial, her sentence was less than 32 years. She's not in prison. I see no problem. I can't make you see what you don't want to see. This woman escaped incarceration and didn't serve out her sentence.

In any case, we have a system, there is no problem with escapes... Let's just make certain the system is consistent.

You are aware that we have a system that more or less does exactly that? You are aware that prisoners get time off for good behavior and that that is frequently used to get prisoners out of the system faster when it seems likely that they will not recommit crimes? You completely miss my point. By a mile. I'm saying give everyone an extra month off. Above and beyond what ever else is in place.

I don't get this. You repeatedly want to make this about some greater cause. Answer this simple question and I think we'll be done: Is it worth making any number of people (one, ten, 1000) suffer for a cause that will not immediately help anyone, but might benefit them in the extreme long term (in 10, 20 years, after they are dead, etc.)? I answered the question you just failed to see the answer. I answered it with a question.

Why NOT give everyone an extra month off beyond all other variables (who does it benefit to keep them all in one month beyond when they will be released based on all other variables)?
Or, why not reduce the time of some people by 1 month? Make it a lottery or simply reward those who escape with a 1 month reduction in sentence.You figure out the answer to those two questions and we will be done.

What you don't get is that there is no way to really incarcerate most if not all people with an exact amount of time that benefits society. The notion is ludicrous. At best we can let legislatures, judges and parole boards hammer out a rough system and then follow that system. When we find a problem with the system then we should change the system. Again, a novel but workable and consistent strategy.

[GreyICE]

I can't make you see what you don't want to see. This woman escaped incarceration and didn't serve out her sentence. Either we consider events that happened after her trial, or we don't. You can't just chose what elements support your conclusion in a given situation and say "Only consider these." It's almost like you prejudged the situation, and have decided to throw out anything that disagrees with you. Either we consider the entire situation, or we don't. Period.

Let's just make certain the system is consistent. What the heck is this with consistency? Is it some deity, that we sacrifice people at the alter of?

Consistency never occurs in the real world. It's not even a great ideal. Doing the same thing every day is consistent. It's also damn boring. Reading the same book is consistent. But after the 50th time, doesn't it get boring?

Why is consistency something worth sacrificing a woman's freedom to?

You completely miss my point. By a mile. I'm saying give everyone an extra month off. Above and beyond what ever else is in place.Sure. With overcrowding in the system and the rate we release prisoners, including violent ones, in order to make room, that would be a damn sight better than the current situation.

I answered the question you just failed to see the answer. I answered it with a question.

Why NOT give everyone an extra month off beyond all other variables (who does it benefit to keep them all in one month beyond when they will be released based on all other variables)?
Or, why not reduce the time of some people by 1 month? Make it a lottery or simply reward those who escape with a 1 month reduction in sentence.You figure out the answer to those two questions and we will be done. So your answer is it is better for 10 people to suffer today, in order for the great cause to move forward. Good enough for me.

As for your questions, we're not considering the body of the prisoners. We never have been. We are considering this woman, right now.

What you don't get is that there is no way to really incarcerate most if not all people with an exact amount of time that benefits society. The notion is ludicrous. At best we can let legislatures, judges and parole boards hammer out a rough system and then follow that system. When we find a problem with the system then we should change the system. Again, a novel but workable and consistent strategy. The system is inconsistent. The system is arbitrary. The system does imprison innocent people.

The problem is the system is also one of the best systems the world has ever seen.

To make a system good, you do not blindly apply it to every situation, and smash people into the system whether they like it or not, whether its the right thing or not, whether its good for them or not. Many, many people have developed far more consistent systems than ours. They have NEVER been an improvement.

Each case is unique, individual, and should be judged without respect to anything other than the benefit of the parties involved and society. To do anything else is to sacrifice people to the altar of blind idealism (and there is no other kind).

[RandFan]

Either we consider events that happened after her trial, or we don't. She escaped incarceration and didn't serve her sentence.

You can't just chose what elements support your conclusion in a given situation and say "Only consider these." It's almost like you prejudged the situation, and have decided to throw out anything that disagrees with you. There's nothing to consider. She had a fair trial. She was convicted. She was sentenced. She had a right to appeal.

Consistency never occurs in the real world. It's not even a great ideal. Doing the same thing every day is consistent. It's also damn boring. Reading the same book is consistent. But after the 50th time, doesn't it get boring? Inconsistency is irrational and it isn't justice.

Why is consistency something worth sacrificing a woman's freedom to? This is nonsense. She was tried. She was convicted. She was sentenced. She had a right of appeal. That is how the system works. It doesn't work by rewarding those who escape. To be fair justice must be equitable. It must be consistent.

As for your questions, we're not considering the body of the prisoners. We never have been. We are considering this woman, right now. Your argument has logical consequences. I'm sorry if you don't like those consequences. If we accept your premise then it is only rational to accept mine.

So, how about 2 months?


To make a system good, you do not blindly apply it to every situation... This is a strawman and I'm getting really tired of it.
This woman was afforded due process.
She had a trial.
She was convicted.
She had a sentencing hearing.
She had an opportunity to present a case for sentencing at that hearing.
In all likelihood the judge considered her situation and any mitigating factors when he sentenced her.I would very much appreciate it if you would drop that strawman. I completely agree with and believe that such variables be considered when a person is sentenced.

Sir, if you continue in this vain then you do so dishonestly.

[GreyICE]

She escaped incarceration and didn't serve her sentence.

There's nothing to consider. She had a fair trial. She was convicted. She was sentenced. She had a right to appeal. And then married, had kids, and lived as a reasonably normal member of society. For 32 years.


Inconsistency is irrational and it isn't justice. Yesterday I was reading a science fiction book. Today I'm reading a nonfiction book about politics. I like science fiction more than non-fiction, as a genre. I'm inconsistent and irrational!

Inconsistency isn't irrational. Is the product of change, which is a constant series of improvements. Systems that are consistent do not change, and ultimately fail. All consistent systems are doomed by their very nature to be inferior, and to fall to more efficient, less consistent systems.

This is nonsense. She was tried. She was convicted. She was sentenced. She had a right of appeal. That is how the system works. It doesn't work by rewarding those who escape. To be fair justice must be equitable. It must be consistent. Once again, we sacrifice a woman's freedom not to make anyone's life better, not to make society safer, not to offer tangible benefits to any party, but on the altar of consistency. Which will apparently reward us better than the last intangible we were sacrificing people on the altar of, or the next, or the one after that.

Your argument has logical consequences. I'm sorry if you don't like those consequences. If we accept your premise then it is only rational to accept mine.
It does have logical consequences. It doesn't have those logical consequences.

So, how about 2 months? Slippery slope. Definition: See above.


This is a strawman and I'm getting really tired of it.
This woman was afforded due process.
She had a trial.
She was convicted.
She had a sentencing hearing.
She had an opportunity to present a case for sentencing at that hearing.
In all likelihood the judge considered her situation and any mitigating factors when he sentenced her.I would very much appreciate it if you would drop that strawman. I completely agree with and believe that such variables be considered when a person is sentenced.

Sir, if you continue in this vain then you do so dishonestly.
And yet we have to consider that was 32 years ago. The reasons for sentencing her - protect the community from drug dealers, discourage other drug dealers, make sure she does not recommit crimes, have all been served. All of the tangible interests involved in her sentencing are long gone. The mitigating circumstances have changed. The nature of the sentence, the nature of her actions, the nature of her life has changed. The nature of society has changed. The drug business, the major players, the users, addicts, and buyers have all changed. Not one thing remains from the day she was sentenced that still applies.

The only thing that remains is a vague principle. Consistency. The benefit of justice. Some greater, unnamed principle. The thought that Crime Never Pays, The Scales of Justice are Fair and Balanced, Justice Never Sleeps, etc.

[RandFan]

And then married, had kids, and lived as a reasonably normal member of society. For 32 years. So tell everyone if they can get out of jail and live as a reasonably normal member of society we will commute their sentence.

Inconsistency isn't irrational. Is the product of change, which is a constant series of improvements. Systems that are consistent do not change, and ultimately fail. All consistent systems are doomed by their very nature to be inferior, and to fall to more efficient, less consistent systems. You haven't a clue what I'm talking about.

Consistent in the application of the law. Of course it can change. Of course it can be flexible. Just apply the law consistently.

It does have logical consequences. It doesn't have those logical consequences. Saying that it doesn't have those logical consequences isn't a valid rebuttal. You are claiming that incarceration must only be in effect when there is a clear benefit. This is nonsense and demonstrably so. I can demonstrate that incarceration often if not usually doesn't offer any clear benefit.

Slippery slope. It has nothing to do with slippery slope.

Why don't we let them out a month earlier? Why can't you answer the question? Yelling slippery slope isn't an answer. Are you suggesting that it is a slippery slope? It sounds like YOU are the one making that argument.

[AWPrime]

She plead guilty in an established court of criminal law. Therefore, by her own admission, she is guilty.
I have a special kind of contempt of the 'plead' system.

[GreyICE]

[QUOTE=RandFan;3711091]So tell everyone if they can get out of jail and live as a reasonably normal member of society we will commute their sentence. Which we already more or less do through good behavior, psychological evaluations, and shortened sentences. We are left with the fact that she is currently not a 'threat to society' in any sense of the word.

You haven't a clue what I'm talking about.

Consistent in the application of the law. Of course it can change. Of course it can be flexible. Just apply the law consistently. Then lets be flexible, and say "Hey, we like our laws (or even if we don't, that's another discussion), but this woman doesn't belong in prison."

Saying that it doesn't have those logical consequences isn't a valid rebuttal. You are claiming that incarceration must only be in effect when there is a clear benefit. This is nonsense and demonstrably so. I can demonstrate that incarceration often if not usually doesn't offer any clear benefit. Right, have at it.

It has nothing to do with slippery slope. Right. Because you totally weren't going to do "Well, if they have one month off, why not two? And if two, why not three? And if three, why not four? Why bother sentencing them at all? Why even have a justice system?!? Anarchy! The collapse of society! Men raping baby kittens on the street!"

Why don't we let them out a month earlier? Why can't you answer the question? Yelling slippery slope isn't an answer. Are you suggesting that it is a slippery slope? It sounds like YOU are the one making that argument. We effectively frequently do. I have no problem lopping a month off every criminal's sentence (Life minus one month is still life, btw, in case you're trying to say I want Ted Bundy out of prison).

[RandFan]

Which we already more or less do through good behavior, psychological evaluations, and shortened sentences. We are left with the fact that she is currently not a 'threat to society' in any sense of the word.As are many if not most people at some point in their incarceration.

...but this woman doesn't belong in prison." But that is just your opinion whether or not she belongs in jail. What is the determingation of who belongs in jail? I thought it was based on a.) The law. b.) Trial. c.) Sentencing.

Now you want to throw that all out in this one case.

Right. Because you totally weren't going to do "Well, if they have one month off, why not two? And if two, why not three? And if three, why not four? Why bother sentencing them at all? Why even have a justice system?!? Anarchy! The collapse of society! Men raping baby kittens on the street!" No not really. I wasn't going to go indefenitly. It's demonstrable that there are people in jail whose incarceration serves no purpose beyond some mathmatical equation some individual or individuals dreamed up. Why do we use that? Because that is our system of justice. It's the best we can do. It works because as well as it does because we apply it consistently. We adjust sentences within a prescribed range based upon pre-chose criteria. We don't first ask, well, is this person serving any purpose by being in jail? No, why? Because that's not our justice system.

You are simply inventing a new system for this person because you don't like the outcome.

We effectively frequently do. I have no problem lopping a month off every criminal's sentence.Then make it 2 or 3. Where is this limit? At what point does it serve justice and is a benifit?

The point is the justice system DOESN'T work that way. Like it or not we have to have a sentence of some length and if we look at those on a case by case basis we will find that some unknown quantity of time ISN'T going to serve any benefit to anyone. Your point is silly and absurd.

[GreyICE]

As are many if not most people at some point in their incarceration. Which is why we developed programs to identify those people and release them early! Which was exactly my point.

But that is just your opinion whether or not she belongs in jail. What is the determingation of who belongs in jail? I thought it was based on a.) The law. b.) Trial. c.) Sentencing.

Now you want to throw that all out in this one case. All of which happened 32 years ago.

No not really. I wasn't going to go indefenitly. It's demonstrable that there are people in jail whose incarceration serves no purpose beyond some mathmatical equation some individual or individuals dreamed up. Why do we use that? Because that is our system of justice. It's the best we can do. It works because as well as it does because we apply it consistently. We adjust sentences within a prescribed range based upon pre-chose criteria. We don't first ask, well, is this person serving any purpose by being in jail? No, why? Because that's not our justice system.

You are simply inventing a new system for this person because you don't like the outcome.That's what the psychological evaluations and good behavior criteria are. They're a systematic way of examining prisoners and asking "is this person serving any purpose by being in jail?"

Its amazing to me that the system is apparently more important than the purpose of the system here.

Then make it 2 or 3. Where is this limit? At what point does it serve justice and is a benifit? I don't know where the limit is. I know it exists. We can demonstrate there are time periods for which it doesn't matter (If someone is released 4 seconds early, I don't think there's anyone who would say justice was not done), similarly there are periods everyone agrees are too short (everyone gets released instantly). You're actually committing a logical fallacy here.

The point is the justice system DOESN'T work that way. Like it or not we have to have a sentence of some length and if we look at those on a case by case basis we will find that some unknown quantity of time ISN'T going to serve any benefit to anyone. Your point is silly and absurd. We have systems in place to adjust sentences and systems in place to change the sentence based on subsequent changes in attitudes and behaviors and even a system in place to get rid of sentences by executive fiat (pardons). We are trying to eliminate the time spent in prison that serves no one as best as possible. The fact that the system is very, very far from perfect doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and just start blindly reading from a book.

[RandFan]

Which is why we developed programs to identify those people and release them early! Which was exactly my point. How early? What is the exact length that benefits society? There's no such thing. So let's rely on the system. If it has any flaws then we should fix the flaws. If sentences are too long then we should shorten them. If laws are likely more harmful than good (see drug laws) then we should get rid of them or significantly change them.

What we shouldn't do is arbitrarily apply the law.

That's what the psychological evaluations and good behavior criteria are. They're a systematic way of examining prisoners and asking "is this person serving any purpose by being in jail?" You are fooling yourself if you think there is any perfect way of determining the exact moment a prisoner no longer serves any purpose by being incarcerated. No such ability exists and our system is not based on any such belief. We simply do the best we can. We establish laws and then follow those laws. If we think the sentences are too long then we adjust them. If you don't like the laws then I suggest that you work to change the laws. I'll happily assist you.

Its amazing to me that the system is apparently more important than the purpose of the system here. Strawman. Since we can't create a perfect system our best strategy is to devise a system that is the most equitable and then apply the laws consistently.

I don't know where the limit is. I know it exists. We can demonstrate there are time periods for which it doesn't matter (If someone is released 4 seconds early, I don't think there's anyone who would say justice was not done), similarly there are periods everyone agrees are too short (everyone gets released instantly). You're actually committing a logical fallacy here. No, I'm not. I'm demonstrating that we can't create a perfect system. Your argument that incarceration should perfectly serve a purpose is obvious nonsense. Since it is obvious nonsense then it is irrelevant in this case. What matters is that this woman broke the law and then escaped incarceration.

We have systems in place to adjust sentences and systems in place to change the sentence based on subsequent changes in attitudes and behaviors and even a system in place to get rid of sentences by executive fiat (pardons). But not one that rewards prisoners for escaping.

Let me reiterate that for you since you don't seem to get it.

We don't have a system in place that rewards prisoners for escaping.

We are trying to eliminate the time spent in prison that serves no one as best as possible. The fact that the system is very, very far from perfect doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and just start blindly reading from a book. Another strawman.


I'm suggesting that:
The woman committed a crime.
She was afforded due process.
She was tried by a judge or jury of her peers.
She was convicted
She was given a sentence hearing where the judge took her situation into account.
She further broke the law when she escaped.This is our system. If there is something about it that you don't like then you should work to change it. I think the laws for drug offenders are ridiculous but I don't think it is appropriate to apply those laws arbitrarily.


I think we are beginning to argue ad nauseam. After your next post I'm going to start limiting my responses. I don't see any point making the same arguments time and again.

[GreyICE]

How early? What is the exact length that benefits society? There's no such thing. So let's rely on the system. If it has any flaws then we should fix the flaws. If sentences are too long then we should shorten them. If laws are likely more harmful than good (see drug laws) then we should get rid of them or significantly change them.

What we shouldn't do is arbitrarily apply the law. Adaptable and arbitrary are two different concepts. I am not arguing for an arbitrary ruling, exactly the opposite. I am arguing for a solution that considers the people involved.

You are fooling yourself if you think there is any perfect way of determining the exact moment a prisoner no longer serves any purpose by being incarcerated. No such ability exists and our system is not based on any such belief. We simply do the best we can. We establish laws and then follow those laws. If we think the sentences are too long then we adjust them. If you don't like the laws then I suggest that you work to change the laws. I'll happily assist you. I like many of the laws. I dislike others. What I am saying is that despite the fact I like the laws against thievery, my judgment would be the same if she had stolen a TV.

We do our best to release people who will integrate into society well, and through parole and alternatives to prison, create options besides imprisonment for those who are judged not a danger to society, and ready to become part of it.

Is the system perfect? No. Does it mean that the position that circumstances outside the trial, sentence, prison model are considered even within our current system, much less an ideal system? Yes.

Strawman. Since we can't create a perfect system our best strategy is to devise a system that is the most equitable and then apply the laws consistently. The purpose of the system is to protect society and rehabilitate criminals. This imprisonment would not be serving the purposes of the system at all. Your claim of strawman is inaccurate, unless you believe there is another purpose to our system.

No, I'm not. I'm demonstrating that we can't create a perfect system. Your argument that incarceration should perfectly serve a purpose is obvious nonsense. Since it is obvious nonsense then it is irrelevant in this case. What matters is that this woman broke the law and then escaped incarceration.
Wow, I don't even know where to begin. Lets start here:
No, I'm not. I'm demonstrating that we can't create a perfect system. No, you're just using the paradox of the heap to claim heaps don't exist.
Your argument that incarceration should perfectly serve a purpose is obvious nonsense. So obvious in fact, that you beg a question. In the original meaning, not the modern one.
Since it is obvious nonsense then it is irrelevant in this case. This isn't a logical fallacy so much as bad logic. Your proposition has not be proven. What matters is that this woman broke the law and then escaped incarceration. There is more that matters to the situation than this.

What a mess of a paragraph. There was at least three separate ideas, logical fallacies, and a very important question that you handwaved.
But not one that rewards prisoners for escaping.

Let me reiterate that for you since you don't seem to get it.

We don't have a system in place that rewards prisoners for escaping. This concept that we are rewarding an escaped prisoner, you keep returning to it. And yet it only occurs if we consider freedom a reward. Is freedom a reward?

Another strawman.
Only if you assume that incarceration serves no purpose. Lets start this over.

I think we are beginning to argue ad nauseam. After your next post I'm going to start limiting my responses. I don't see any point making the same arguments time and again.
I'd agree. And the problem is, I think we have some very basic disagreements that are the roots of our disagreement here. The argument is circular because we do not agree on basic premises. Therefore, let me pose some questions:

Does incarceration, as a punishment, serve any purpose?

If so (and I am not assuming an answer to the question, merely posing a followup if the answer is yes) what is the purpose?

What is your ideal system of justice?

Feel free to pose some back. We need to iron out basic premise if we are to narrow the disagreement to the point where we can have a discussion on it.

[RandFan]

What a mess of a paragraph. There was at least three separate ideas, logical fallacies, and a very important question that you handwaved.No, wrong on all counts but if it makes you feel better by saying so then fine. I'm growing weary of this.

The purpose of the system is to protect society and rehabilitate criminals. Then perhaps you should be scouring the prison logs to find convicts to release. The system clearly and demonstrably fails to do this to the point that you would like it to. I've demonstrated that even though you try, in vain, to dismiss it with accusations of fallacy. The system simply, by and large, does not do this.

So, we are back to reforming the system which I'm not opposed to. However, singling this woman out because she escaped and led an exemplary life would be inconsistent. If this were really a valid basis for commuting a sentence then we should codify it. Let all convicts know that it is a valid option. THAT would be consistent. I wouldn't agree but if you took that position I could accept that you are at least being consistent.

This concept that we are rewarding an escaped prisoner, you keep returning to it. And yet it only occurs if we consider freedom a reward. Is freedom a reward? Why would freedom not be a reward? I can't imagine it not being so. How many people currently incarcerated would take it if offered it? A reward is something of value. Do you value your freedom?

Does incarceration, as a punishment, serve any purpose?

If so (and I am not assuming an answer to the question, merely posing a followup if the answer is yes) what is the purpose? Good question. Though I don't think we need to assume that it does for the purpose of our discussion. To answer your question, I think it does serve a purpose but I'm going to forgo any discussion of that here. If you want to start a new thread (I might myself if you don't) then I will gladly join you.

What is your ideal system of justice? I don't have the time to list all of the things that would encompass an ideal system. I will however address those things that I think are salient to our discussion.

To begin with it needs to be consistent. A rich person needs to be treated the same as a poor person. A minority needs to be treated the same as a person who is in the majority. Such a system would need to avoid being arbitrary. Laws would need to be enforced whether one segment of society agreed with them or not. Sentences would need to be consistent regardless of our empathy, sympathy or affinity for the convicted. We might not want to incarcerate Wesley Snipes because we like him as a person and actor but it would be unfair to give him a shorter sentence than anyone else for that reason.

[GreyICE]

Then perhaps you should be scouring the prison logs to find convicts to release. The system clearly and demonstrably fails to do this to the point that you would like it to. I've demonstrated that even though you try, in vain, to dismiss it with accusations of fallacy. The system simply, by and large, does not do this. The system clearly and demonstrably does do this. Reduced sentences, time off for good behavior, psychological evaluations, hearings to determine if a prisoner should be released, parole, the system does do exactly this. This is ridiculous. I have laid out exactly how it tries to reach this goal time and again. Your demonstrations have been statements that the system isn't perfect. OF COURSE its not perfect. It's in the real world, nothing is perfect in the real world.

So, we are back to reforming the system which I'm not opposed to. However, singling this woman out because she escaped and led an exemplary life would be inconsistent. If this were really a valid basis for commuting a sentence then we should codify it. Let all convicts know that it is a valid option. THAT would be consistent. I wouldn't agree but if you took that position I could accept that you are at least being consistent. What is this with consistency? Consistency, consistency, consistency. Now we have to write it down in a book of laws before we can do it?

I don't think consistency is a virtue. It's a limitation. It's the default option, when we're too lazy or don't have the time to find a better way.

Why would freedom not be a reward? I can't imagine it not being so. How many people currently incarcerated would take it if offered it? A reward is something of value. Do you value your freedom? No, that is not the definition of a reward. A reward is something someone gives to you because you did something for them.

Freedom is not something granted to you. It's the default state. It can be taken away to protect the freedoms of others, because you have violated the laws of the state that protect those freedoms. However, as a default state, it is not something to be granted. It's something that you have to justify taking away.

If freedom is a reward, the following is a valid question: What did you do to deserve your freedom today?

Good question. Though I don't think we need to assume that it does for the purpose of our discussion. To answer your question, I think it does serve a purpose but I'm going to forgo any discussion of that here. If you want to start a new thread (I might myself if you don't) then I will gladly join you. Actually, I do. This one is getting a might overloaded. I vote we wipe the slate clean on this.

I don't have the time to list all of the things that would encompass an ideal system. I will however address those things that I think are salient to our discussion.

To begin with it needs to be consistent. A rich person needs to be treated the same as a poor person. A minority needs to be treated the same as a person who is in the majority. Such a system would need to avoid being arbitrary. Laws would need to be enforced whether one segment of society agreed with them or not. Sentences would need to be consistent regardless of our empathy, sympathy or affinity for the convicted. We might not want to incarcerate Wesley Snipes because we like him as a person and actor but it would be unfair to give him a shorter sentence than anyone else for that reason.Okay. Not my system, but as you said, new thread. We'd be effectively hijacking this if we went into it here.

[RandFan]

The system clearly and demonstrably does do this. Reduced sentences, time off for good behavior, psychological evaluations, hearings to determine if a prisoner should be released, parole, the system does do exactly this. That is not what I mean. I mean that your basis for letting this woman off isn't realistically possible for everyone. So we put into place a system that dispenses justice as well as it can. We try and motivate people to behave in an appropriate fashion while they are in prison by offering them early access to their freedom if they behave in a reasonable fashion. But it's not perfect and it never will be.

No, that is not the definition of a reward. A reward is something someone gives to you because you did something for them. I'll give you my standard spiel. Words are not absolute laws that govern the universe. They are simply a means to transmit ideas from one person to another. Debating the definitions of words is pointless. As James Randi often points out, dictionaries provide usage, not definition.

My usage of the word is by no means unprecedented and supported by a number of sources.

If freedom is a reward, the following is a valid question: What did you do to deserve your freedom today? If I had been incarcerated my answer might be "good behavior"? Given the "definitions" in a number of sources, reward can be something used as an incentive. Clearly prisons use freedom as incentive to get convicts to alter their behavior.

Actually, I do. This one is getting a might overloaded. I vote we wipe the slate clean on this. Agreed. Thanks.

[GreyICE]

That is not what I mean. I mean that your basis for letting this woman off isn't realistically possible for everyone. So we put into place a system that dispenses justice as well as it can. We try and motivate people to behave in an appropriate fashion while they are in prison by offering them early access to their freedom if they behave in a reasonable fashion. But it's not perfect and it never will be. Fair enough. It isn't perfect. It will never be perfect. I wish it could be, but it won't be.

But it can be applied to this woman, now. I mean your ideal of the rich and the poor getting equal justice is never going to happen, but we can still try, right?

I'll give you my standard spiel. Words are not absolute laws that govern the universe. They are simply a means to transmit ideas from one person to another. Debating the definitions of words is pointless. As James Randi often points out, dictionaries provide usage, not definition.

If I had been incarcerated my answer might be "good behavior"? Given the "definitions" in a number of sources, reward can be something used as an incentive. Clearly prisons use freedom as incentive to get convicts to alter their behavior. But if freedom is the default state, then we have to justify depriving this woman of her freedom, now. We have to provide a better reason than "It would reward an escaped prisoner" because she didn't get rewarded. She simply ceased to have her freedom revoked, which worked out fine for society. Now, with all the reasons we revoked her freedom long gone, there's no reason to deprive her of it again.

As for freedom being used as a reward for prisoners, it is much more than that. The good behavior demonstrates that the prisoners are willing to work within the system and function normally. This, when combined with psychological evaluations, is grounds for returning their freedom to them. A reward would be extra hours of TV, the privilege of picking movies or choosing a dessert, or similar, well, rewards.

So it is more than semantics. It is fundamental to the very question.



Agreed. Thanks.

Looking forward to that

[RandFan]

But it can be applied to this woman, now. I can think of lots of things that we can do right now. Perhaps things we should do. We could put together committees and examine every conviction. We could analyze daily each convicts incarceration and put together a comprehensive report to see if and when incarceration is no longer a benefit.

The problem is giving this woman a benefit simply because she broke the law and because you and I don't agree with the laws that put her in jail in the first place. As I've said many times, there are other groups who disagree with other laws. How do we decide which laws we let people out early for? Consistency. To give this woman an exception is to be inconsistent and arbitrary.

But if freedom is the default state, then we have to justify depriving this woman of her freedom, now. We have to provide a better reason than "It would reward an escaped prisoner" because she didn't get rewarded. You can call it anything you want. As an example, let's say that we were to impliment a policy where we would commute the sentence of everyone who escapes prison. What would you call that? I would call it a reward. But hey, I'm not difficult here, you give me a word and we will use that instead.

She simply ceased to have her freedom revoked, which worked out fine for society. Now, with all the reasons we revoked her freedom long gone, there's no reason to deprive her of it again. So, let's follow your argument to its logical conclusion. Everyone who escapes from prison and lives a life free of crime for X years should have their sentence commuted, right?

Grey, this should be a no-brainer for you. Any answer other than yes is irrational.




A reward would be extra hours of TV, the privilege of picking movies or choosing a dessert, or similar, well, rewards. If I had my choice of rewards I would choose freedom. What would you choose?
A dessert.
Extra hours of TV.
Extra phone privileges.
Freedom.I hope you don't agonize over that one.

[GreyICE]

I can think of lots of things that we can do right now. Perhaps things we should do. We could put together committees and examine every conviction. We could analyze daily each convicts incarceration and put together a comprehensive report to see if and when incarceration is no longer a benefit. All good ideas. Obviously there are some logistical hurdles, but I am overall in favor.

The problem is giving this woman a benefit simply because she broke the law and because you and I don't agree with the laws that put her in jail in the first place. As I've said many times, there are other groups who disagree with other laws. How do we decide which laws we let people out early for? Consistency. To give this woman an exception is to be inconsistent and arbitrary. As I said before, I am applying my standards perfectly consistently. I would let anyone out at this point for a non-violent crime committed 32 years ago.

As for making an extraordinary decision, this case is clearly outside the ordinary. There is nothing inconsistent about being flexible in the extraordinary cases.

You can call it anything you want. As an example, let's say that we were to impliment a policy where we would commute the sentence of everyone who escapes prison. What would you call that? I would call it a reward. But hey, I'm not difficult here, you give me a word and we will use that instead. Lets instead call it a punishment. A punishment on the prison guards, who have to handle escape attempts. A punishment on society, who has to deal with the fact that intelligent, hardened criminals never remain in prison for long. What is that, the Batman model of justice (Joker is always out after a few days or weeks)?

I don't think letting one woman keep her freedom, in an extraordinary situation somehow opens the floodgates. Practically, lets say tomorrow the state decides, with no pardon or any other commutation of setence, not to pursue this case. Which one of these negative effects you have outlined occurs?

So, let's follow your argument to its logical conclusion. Everyone who escapes from prison and lives a life free of crime for X years should have their sentence commuted, right?

Grey, this should be a no-brainer for you. Any answer other than yes is irrational. Yar, dem slopes be mighty slippery today.

[RandFan]

As I said before, I am applying my standards perfectly consistently. I would let anyone out at this point for a non-violent crime committed 32 years ago. Fair enough, what about the people not lucky enough to escape? Why do they have to spend more time than she does?

As for making an extraordinary decision, this case is clearly outside the ordinary. There is nothing inconsistent about being flexible in the extraordinary cases. It's only extraordinary because she broke the law and escaped.

Lets instead call it a punishment. A punishment on the prison guards, who have to handle escape attempts. So this woman in effect punished the guards. Earlier you were being consistent. Now you are not.

I don't think letting one woman keep her freedom, in an extraordinary situation somehow opens the floodgates. Practically, lets say tomorrow the state decides, with no pardon or any other commutation of setence, not to pursue this case. Which one of these negative effects you have outlined occurs? This floodgates theory of yours is all in your head. I don't hold any such idea and haven't proffered any. The world didn't come to an end when the murderer OJ Simpson got off. I'm reasonably certain he hasn't murdered again so no big deal, right?

That's not the point. We could likely let thousands of murderers out of jail without much impact to society. However, our system works best when we are not arbitrary and don't make exceptions simply because it appeals to some of us.

[RandFan]

Yar, dem slopes be mighty slippery today. Grey,

Don't assume what my argument is. If you don't know then please ask.It's really not fair to me when you do this. I'm not making a slippery slope argument.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Grey,

Don't assume what my argument is. If you don't know then please ask.It's really not fair to me when you do this. I'm not making a slippery slope argument.

That particular argument did look a bit like a slippery slope argument.

GreyICE stated his position as being that this particular woman under these particular circumstances should be released, and you responded by asserting that it logically followed from his position that all people who escaped from jail and avoided capture for X years should be released.

Now you didn't explain why you thought that this followed, so it's not possible to say for sure what argument you were gesturing towards but a slippery slope argument in some form looks like a plausible candidate.

(An alternative possibility is that you were arguing that to be consistent you would also have to let all sorts of other people out of jail. That wouldn't be a slippery slope argument, but it would be an odd argument to make against someone who has clearly disavowed any strong commitment to consistency in that sense).

[RandFan]

(An alternative possibility is that you were arguing that to be consistent you would also have to let all sorts of other people out of jail. That wouldn't be a slippery slope argument, but it would be an odd argument to make against someone who has clearly disavowed any strong commitment to consistency in that sense). Consistency is the ticket. I'm not sure what his commitment has to do with anything. Commitment doesn't make a view logical. I might be committed to a specious concept but that doesn't change the fact that it is specious.

Thanks Kevin.

[GreyICE]

Fair enough, what about the people not lucky enough to escape? Why do they have to spend more time than she does? Because life isn't fair. And we don't have to hurt people to make it fairer. In an ideal world she would never have escaped (actually in an ideal world there would be no drug laws, drug laws suck, but, well, another thread). We don't live there, we live here. We make decisions here.

It's only extraordinary because she broke the law and escaped.

So this woman in effect punished the guards. Earlier you were being consistent. Now you are not. Huh? She injured a guard while escaping? Made one lose his/her job?

Don't mistake generalizations for specifics. The fact that drunk driving raises the chance of the driver injuring or killing themselves or others doesn't mean every time a drunk person gets in a car somebody gets injured (nor does a single instance of drunken driving that did not end poorly demonstrate any sort of consistent trend or overall safety factor).

This floodgates theory of yours is all in your head. I don't hold any such idea and haven't proffered any. The world didn't come to an end when the murderer OJ Simpson got off. I'm reasonably certain he hasn't murdered again so no big deal, right? I have an amazing theory. OJ was crucified by the media long before we even had the details of the trial. Remember the Atlanta Olympic bombings? The security guard who was a hero, and may have saved people's lives, but the media decided that he absolutely had to be a crazy bomber, despite physical evidence that it was impossible for him to have done it?

OJ may very well have done it. But the 12 people in that courtroom heard far more evidence, in a far less biased manner, then we ever did. And they said that there wasn't enough evidence to convict. The police screwed up the evidence work, the prosecution was unable to put together a solid case, and the entire thing fell apart. Read the Wikipedia summary, which is reasonably accurate and leaves out most of the lurid nonsense the press spouted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_case

The important parts are where the DNA evidence started to make no sense and where OJ Simpson's blood left the chain of evidence around the time it started appearing on various articles. I mislike it when the police can't keep track of things like the DNA sample they took from a suspect.

So yes, its a big deal that OJ got off. But it speaks more to the necessity of the police keeping a proper chain of evidence than to any fundamental flaw with the legal system.

That's not the point. We could likely let thousands of murderers out of jail without much impact to society. However, our system works best when we are not arbitrary and don't make exceptions simply because it appeals to some of us. Statement that I am wrong. Unsupported Assertion. Unsupported assertion.

I don't think the system works best when it works the way you described. I don't think there are thousands of murders we could let out of prison without much impact to society. I don't think you are fairly representing what I said when you say "appeals to some of us" which is in no way descriptive of my arguments.

Consistency is the ticket. I'm not sure what his commitment has to do with anything. Commitment doesn't make a view logical. I might be committed to a specious concept but that doesn't change the fact that it is specious. Oh okay. Consistency.

I think that anyone who escapes from prison and is not recaptured for X number of years should be evaluated on a case by case basis to determine if there is a benefit to society to re-imprisoning the person.

There. Wonderfully consistent now, am I not?

[RandFan]

Because life isn't fair. And we don't have to hurt people to make it fairer. In an ideal world she would never have escaped (actually in an ideal world there would be no drug laws, drug laws suck, but, well, another thread). We don't live there, we live here. We make decisions here. But our system is predicated on the idea that we sincerely try and be consistent and not bend with the wind of fate. If the laws are wrong then change the laws. Treating this woman differently because she benefited from escaping is fundamentally unfair for those who didn't escape.

Huh? She injured a guard while escaping? Made one lose his/her job? The notion of punishment was your idea. I thought it was a silly idea but I was trying to work with you.

The fact that drunk driving raises the chance of the driver injuring or killing themselves or others doesn't mean every time a drunk person gets in a car somebody gets injured (nor does a single instance of drunken driving that did not end poorly demonstrate any sort of consistent trend or overall safety factor). This works against you and not for you. We don't pick people arbitrarily or because there is something special about their case to treat differently.

Each are given a trial. If convicted there is a sentencing hearing. If there is no reversible error then the person must serve his or her sentence.

OJ may very well have done it. But the 12 people in that courtroom heard far more evidence, in a far less biased manner, then we ever did. And they said that there wasn't enough evidence to convict.
And the 12 people in the civil trial said there was enough evidence to find him responsible. There really isn't any controversy as to OJ's guilt. It's been analyzed to death and in the end the evidence only points to one person.

think that anyone who escapes from prison and is not recaptured for X number of years should be evaluated on a case by case basis to determine if there is a benefit to society to re-imprisoning the person.

There. Wonderfully consistent now, am I not? IMO a bad idea but fine, I give you consistency on that. The problem is that now those who are not lucky enough to escape have been treated unfairly for failing to escape.

[GreyICE]

But our system is predicated on the idea that we sincerely try and be consistent and not bend with the wind of fate. If the laws are wrong then change the laws. Treating this woman differently because she benefited from escaping is fundamentally unfair for those who didn't escape. No. Our system is based on the idea that we try to serve the best interests of protecting society and ensuring our freedom and safety. Part of that is certainly trying to have a fair, predictable system, but it's certainly not the overall meaning of the system.

P.S. I used the phrase 'based on' where you used predicated. If you had another meaning, please clarify. I'm not trying to be rude, and I agree with Randi that words convey concepts not straitjacket you into their definition, but whatever concept you were conveying with the word predicated isn't covered by the dictionary definition.

The notion of punishment was your idea. I thought it was a silly idea but I was trying to work with you.And statistically, eventually such a thing would occur. Do you dispute an increased number of escape attempts would result in increased work and risk of physical harm to the guards?

This works against you and not for you. We don't pick people arbitrarily or because there is something special about their case to treat differently.

Each are given a trial. If convicted there is a sentencing hearing. If there is no reversible error then the person must serve his or her sentence. To quote you, that's an oversimplification. Are you assuring me that every criminal serves 100% of the timelaid down during the sentence hearing?

And the 12 people in the civil trial said there was enough evidence to find him responsible. There really isn't any controversy as to OJ's guilt. It's been analyzed to death and in the end the evidence only points to one person. Oh sure, there was. Eventually. But not in the evidence provided at the trial. The problem is that the police decided to contaminate all the DNA evidence with sloppy procedure, so you basically had to throw it all out. It wasn't good enough to convict him.

Note that a civil trial is significantly different from a criminal trial. A criminal trial requires the reasonable doubt criteria. I'll link you to the wiki on it, but I assure you there's bodies of work written on the subject. But basically, Civil Trials have lesser proof. In this case, the standard used against OJ was "Preponderance of Evidence" (i.e. it's more likely that he did it than not, or the 70% chance of rain on Tuesday standard)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof#Balance_of_probabilities

The evidence STILL isn't good enough to convict him at a criminal trial. I assure you, if it was the prosecution would have appealed, been successful, and had another trial. The police fudged up the evidence too badly, he's going to get off in any criminal trial. The government can dream up many different ways to get around a Double Jeopardy problem if they think the evidence is good enough (like they did with the Rodney King trials). IMO a bad idea but fine, I give you consistency on that. The problem is that now those who are not lucky enough to escape have been treated unfairly for failing to escape. Hate to break it to you, but if someone escapes and successfully evades recapture, they're not getting their punishment. That doesn't mean because one criminal escapes and is never recaptured we have to let all the others go to be fair.

If any criminal likes the odds on escape (and the recapture percentage is absurdly high) they will try. I'm sure most have at least thought about it. I doubt that making the sentence go away in this one instance will make them try harder. It could, but I could make an equal argument that by treating her fairly and considering the situation before making a judgment, we are showing the criminals in prison that the system is not just an arbitrary punishment, but an actual attempt to reintegrate them into society, we are demonstrating that the system is not an arbitrary judgment but instead honestly wants to rehabilitate them, thus increasing the likelyhood of rehabilitation.

If I were to stretch that further, I could ask you why you are against prisoner rehabilitation. Tu quoque to you too.

(BTW, Kevin, if you're still reading, thanks for the concise summary)

[RandFan]

No. Our system is based on the idea that we try to serve the best interests of protecting society and ensuring our freedom and safety. Part of that is certainly trying to have a fair, predictable system, but it's certainly not the overall meaning of the system.

P.S. I used the phrase 'based on' where you used predicated. If you had another meaning, please clarify. I'm not trying to be rude, and I agree with Randi that words convey concepts not straitjacket you into their definition, but whatever concept you were conveying with the word predicated isn't covered by the dictionary definition. And statistically, eventually such a thing would occur. Do you dispute an increased number of escape attempts would result in increased work and risk of physical harm to the guards?
To quote you, that's an oversimplification. Are you assuring me that every criminal serves 100% of the timelaid down during the sentence hearing? Oh sure, there was. Eventually. But not in the evidence provided at the trial. The problem is that the police decided to contaminate all the DNA evidence with sloppy procedure, so you basically had to throw it all out. It wasn't good enough to convict him.

Note that a civil trial is significantly different from a criminal trial. A criminal trial requires the reasonable doubt criteria. I'll link you to the wiki on it, but I assure you there's bodies of work written on the subject. But basically, Civil Trials have lesser proof. In this case, the standard used against OJ was "Preponderance of Evidence" (i.e. it's more likely that he did it than not, or the 70% chance of rain on Tuesday standard)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof#Balance_of_probabilities

The evidence STILL isn't good enough to convict him at a criminal trial. I assure you, if it was the prosecution would have appealed, been successful, and had another trial. The police fudged up the evidence too badly, he's going to get off in any criminal trial. The government can dream up many different ways to get around a Double Jeopardy problem if they think the evidence is good enough (like they did with the Rodney King trials). Hate to break it to you, but if someone escapes and successfully evades recapture, they're not getting their punishment. That doesn't mean because one criminal escapes and is never recaptured we have to let all the others go to be fair.

If any criminal likes the odds on escape (and the recapture percentage is absurdly high) they will try. I'm sure most have at least thought about it. I doubt that making the sentence go away in this one instance will make them try harder. It could, but I could make an equal argument that by treating her fairly and considering the situation before making a judgment, we are showing the criminals in prison that the system is not just an arbitrary punishment, but an actual attempt to reintegrate them into society, we are demonstrating that the system is not an arbitrary judgment but instead honestly wants to rehabilitate them, thus increasing the likelyhood of rehabilitation.

If I were to stretch that further, I could ask you why you are against prisoner rehabilitation. Tu quoque to you too.

(BTW, Kevin, if you're still reading, thanks for the concise summary) I think we have come full circle. I've made my arguments and I'm willing to let them stand as they are. I think any further debate would be to argue ad nauseam. A final note about OJ. Having been obsessed with OJ and having read more than a half dozen books on the subject and debated his case many, many times I have zero doubt that if the case were tried today he would be convicted. Further I don't think most legal scholars have any doubt about that either. There is just too much evidence.

But that's another thread.

Thanks.

RandFan

[GreyICE]

I think we have come full circle. I've made my arguments and I'm willing to let them stand as they are. I think any further debate would be to argue ad nauseam. A final note about OJ. Having been obsessed with OJ and having read more than a half dozen books on the subject and debated his case many, many times I have zero doubt that if the case were tried today he would be convicted. Further I don't think most legal scholars have any doubt about that either. There is just too much evidence.

But that's another thread.

Thanks.

RandFan Thread made.

OJ is a different issue, I agree. Lets drop that one where it lies, as I've never been a particular fan of celebrity trials.