>
It is cheaper and faster just to ‘violate’ them than charge them with a new crime. No need for a trial and the crime statistics don’t get worse.
Wow. I’ll file that under “Things I never thought about before.”
>
More like: “Our (once) Republic is F*-up worse than I thought”
I worked with juveniles at the state level. In the case of juveniles, at the time, revoking their parole had exactly the same result as charging them with a new crime. Juveniles in my state were sentenced to Youth Centers until “they got better”. Didn’t matter what the crime. Kids who broke school windows (usually rural white kids) actually did more time than urban armed robbers. It’s just the way it was. Urban kids, black or white, had to do a lot more to get sent away than kids from small towns.
Let’s say an adult is paroled after serving 5 years of a 10-year sentence. He shoots some guy in the arm. By the time all is said and done, if you ‘violate’ him, he goes back for the rest of his original sentence. A hearing, not a trial, and away he goes. But if you charge him with a new crime, he goes to trial. We pay for both his defense and the prosecution and a jury may find him not guilty. You trade a sure thing for a maybe.
It doesn’t seem right—I understand your sentiment—but it is how things are done. Same thing with pleading guilty to a lesser charge for less time.