Replies

Ridiculous

We don't punish criminals enough in this country. Examples--

Dru Sjodin's murderer had two prior violent rapes, one involved kidnapping at knife point, why is he out? So he could kill his next rape victim?

A guy in Wilmette Illinois recently shot an intruder (and was charged for it, because "guns are bad, ummkay") The intruder had over 30 arrests in his lifetime. Why is he out?

A guy in Hammond, David Maust, was found with three dead juveniles in his basement. He had killed two juveniles and stabbed another prior to that. Why was he out?

The real truth is in spite of the "large" (sob sob) prison population we don't punish criminals enough in this country. Constantly stories arise of evil predators out among us killing and destroying more lives instead of in jail where they belong.

Crimninals need to be put away, and habitual criminals need to be put away forever. If that means building more prisons, then hell yeah, by all friggin means, go for it.

I can only hope that this AP moron is wrong, because if we are going the other way and becoming more lax on criminals, we will all reap the misery that will surely follow with higher violent crime rates in ever category.

The real truth is in spite of the "large" (sob sob) prison population we don't punish criminals enough in this country. Constantly stories arise of evil predators out among us killing and destroying more lives instead of in jail where they belong. Crimninals need to be put away, and habitual criminals need to be put away forever. If that means building more prisons, then hell yeah, by all friggin means, go for it.

The real problem is that we fail to lock up violent criminals permanently. And we should segregate the violent criminals from the non-violent criminals in prisons.

I don't feel safer when they release a murderer or rapist to lock up some drug peddler or a swindler. Or even a former member of the Xlinton regime.

I think we need to focus overwhelmingly on never releasing violent criminals who rape and kill. We need to execute them or at least see to it that there is no more parole for them. They should serve full sentences.

"The real truth is in spite of the "large" (sob sob) prison population we don't punish criminals enough in this country. Constantly stories arise of evil predators out among us killing and destroying more lives instead of in jail where they belong

Many years ago, I visited a prison in Tiawan. I did this after reading about it. What struck me is that there were graded differences in priveleges on the basis of proven cooperation and effort. Further, initially prisoners were submitted to constant (over the loud speaker)references to having been asocial or antisocial and were being incarcerated because of their inability and unwillingness to participate in society. Finally, the graded differences eventually resulted in conjugal visits (a tremendous reinforcer for the age population) that also permitted a gradual entry into real life's pleasures and responsibilities.

Sooner or later (with few exceptions) everyone is released. While three strikes and out seems to be quite popular, I would suggest you speak to a judge. Not rarely, there are gross injustices and excessive sentences by this "one-size-fits all" policy. After all, what are judges for?

Finally, it never hurts to review Mathew 25: 31-46.

We don't punish criminals enough in this country. Examples-- Dru Sjodin's murderer had two prior violent rapes, one involved kidnapping at knife point, why is he out? So he could kill his next rape victim? A guy in Wilmette Illinois recently shot an intruder (and was charged for it, because "guns are bad, ummkay") The intruder had over 30 arrests in his lifetime. Why is he out? A guy in Hammond, David Maust, was found with three dead juveniles in his basement. He had killed two juveniles and stabbed another prior to that. Why was he out?

The proper question is not, "Why were (they) out?"

The right question is, "Why were they alive?"