Quote (Goomshill @ Aug 6 2020 08:56pm)

what really irks me is yesterday I googled up this story and I never found the explanation in the obviously editorialized and politically motivated reporting by all the MSM
instead I found the details in the PDF of the court's decision upholding his original sentence and striking down his original appeals (not the state supreme court one- it took a bit of digging to find the original)
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1648555/state-v-bryant/



What are you supposed to do with someone who can never make it off parole without committing more dangerous/violent felonies?

Quote (Skinned @ Aug 6 2020 08:00pm)

What interventions have been tried?

Incarceration is the last option in a long line of failure, and there are varying degrees of it.

Its like a plinko chip lol.

Quote (Goomshill @ Aug 6 2020 09:07pm)

well shit maybe people have at least some personal responsibility to rehabilitate themselves and it isn't entirely the responsibility of the state to intervene

Quote (Goomshill @ Aug 6 2020 08:07pm)

well shit maybe people have at least some personal responsibility to rehabilitate themselves and it isn't entirely the responsibility of the state to intervene

Quote (Skinned @ Aug 6 2020 08:11pm)

It seems like doing it in his own wasn't working.

A lot of interventions are cheaper than a $500k incarceration that will now stretch to be a millie.

At some point it is just pragmatic cost-benefit analysis.

Quote (Thor123422 @ Aug 6 2020 08:27pm)

But the state is already intervening, why not take a cheaper route

Quote (Goomshill @ Aug 6 2020 08:42pm)

What's the cost to the public when a recidivist criminal is allowed to prey upon them?
The criminal justice system is supposed to be trying to rehabilitate people during their incarceration and parole. But some people you can't get through to with any reasonable amount of intervention. And those laws set a cap on how many chances someone gets before we give them up as a lost cause. Lost causes, like those who show they can't be out of prison on their 3rd felony term without committing another felony

Quote (Skinned @ Aug 6 2020 09:11pm)

It seems like doing it in his own wasn't working.

A lot of interventions are cheaper than a $500k incarceration that will now stretch to be a millie.

At some point it is just pragmatic cost-benefit analysis.

Quote (Goomshill @ Aug 6 2020 04:43pm)

its basically what the three strikes rule and its variants was envisioned for
the guy spent barely any of his adult life outside of prison. He committed a serious violent crime and nearly murdered someone, he went to prison a long time. He gets out, he very quickly commits another serious felony. He gets out, he commits another felony. On the final occasion, he was burglarizing an occupied home, a home invasion. He only made off with hedge clippers but so what, burglary doesn't care about whether you find their jew gold stash or turn up empty handed, its the thieving intent and willingness to break into a home that counts.
if they had sentenced him to another few years in prison, he'd get released and go out and commit another felony and get arrested again within a few days, weeks or months.
the three strikes laws are designed to put away people who are clear public menaces and can't be rehabilitated, so that the story ends with them in prison instead of some family dead in a home invasion

Quote (Goomshill @ Aug 6 2020 09:42pm)

What's the cost to the public when a recidivist criminal is allowed to prey upon them?
The criminal justice system is supposed to be trying to rehabilitate people during their incarceration and parole. But some people you can't get through to with any reasonable amount of intervention. And those laws set a cap on how many chances someone gets before we give them up as a lost cause. Lost causes, like those who show they can't be out of prison on their 3rd felony term without committing another felony

Quote (duffman316 @ Aug 6 2020 10:27pm)

Death penalty would be cheaper, goom has convinced me that man is not fit for society