slipondajimmy said:
"As of 2005 in California alone, 2/3 of the convicts released from prison returned within 3 years. 50 % where for parol violations alone. In Florida as of 2005 77% of convicts are arrested within 3 years of release, and 45% are reconvicted."
I would say those statistics are horrendous, almost unbelievable. Not only totally unsustainable for the prison system, but for the community as a whole. Proof that the system doesn't work at all.
slipondajimmy said:
Now one more thing about Reform and I think this is a good example. Charles Manson is up for parol again in 2007. He has spent the last 36 years in prison. His track record is as bad in prison as when he was a petty criminal outside of prison. He just turned 72 years old. Should they release him? I mean lets be real he is a old man what could he do right? or maybe we should have released him 15 years ago. I mean 20 years on death row is along time, he must be all better now?
I think that's a really bad example. There's no reason, in my mind anyway, to assume that he has been rehabilitated during those 36 years in prison.
Just a brief glance at his Wikipedia entry says it all.
"Manson was entitled to a parole hearing in 2002, and was denied early release, in particular due to a "litany" of offenses ranging from drug trafficking to arson to assaulting guards."
No one in their right mind could think that he was in any way suitable for release. I'm not even sure someone with a list of crimes like that should be considered for release.
I think some murderers can be rehabilitated. I'm not saying every murderer should be considered or have a "right", just that 30 years, for example, is a long time. If they've been clean on the inside, been a good prisoner, done work, been educated to a suitable standard, passed their drugs tests and psych tests, etc. etc. and they have been suitably reformed, until it's been proven they're not a threat and that they've been reformed (if the system is able to reform, that is - I don't think it is now). I'm not talking about serial killers or premeditated murderers, serial rapists or child abusers either - there's some people who can never be reformed.
There's no reason why some armed robbers can't be reformed, for example. If the system was in place to be able to do that. Anything above 5 or 10% of released prisoners reoffending is too much IMHO. If prisoners were properly rehabilitated before release, or just not released if they aren't properly reformed or if there's a significant risk of reoffending, then the situation would be greatly improved. It would also take the pressure off services outside the prison service, prison, courts, etc. by cutting out the reoffences and reconviction. But that can only happen if a system is in place to properly reform and determine whether an offender has been reformed.
Going back to Manson, he should've been reformed in prison before the murders or held until he was. Example:
"Manson was finally released March 21, 1967... While either in prison or on probation, he had, among other things, raped another inmate at razor point, stolen cars, pimped inmates, and forged federal checks."
Most criminals start small and work their way up, like Manson. If they're in prison in their early life for petty offences, why can't the majority of them be reformed? If 50 or 60% are reoffending within 3 years, then that cycle will carry on until either they get sick of it in their 40s or 50s, or they die. Not only can the prison system not tolerate such a large number of offenders, the general community can't either, the courts, police, etc.
I'm neither for or against the death penalty, as long as it has a real use as a deterrent. 20 years on death row, with less than 100 executions a year, isn't a deterrent at all, not even for me.
I'm sure a number of the criminals on, or suitable for, death row could've been reformed early on in their criminal careers rather than continually going through the offences/prison cycle, with the offences and threat increasing each time.
Instead, they just go in and out of what are essentially hotels with bars on the windows, not being forced to do work or anything else, whilst being provided with food and shelter.
All-in-all, you commit maybe 10 or 100 "minor" offences, like burglary or fraud, make thousands of dollars or pounds, get caught a number of times before finally being sent to prison, have a few months break with free food and a roof over your head, without having to work for either. It sounds pretty tempting and it's little wonder why so many of our young people get drawn into a life of crime every day, or why convicted offenders go on to reoffend again and again.
