May 13, 2003
Hate crimes.
Oliver at The Liquid List asks Rick Santorum, Are You Listening? He is referring to an article in the New York Daily News about a fifteen-year-old from New Jersey who will not see her sixteenth birthday. It seems Shakia Gunn and her friends had been hanging out in Greenwich Village on Saturday night and they were on their way home. They were waiting for a bus in Newark when they were approached by two men, whom they "rebuffed . . . by telling them they were gay," according to the police. The men became "enraged" and attacked the group. Shakia was stabbed and died at University Hospital.
What is the moral to this story? If you're a woman, don't refuse the unwanted sexual sexual advances of a male stranger? Don't be gay?
I find myself wanting to blame the city of Newark, but I suppose those men may have come from elsewhere. It astounds and sickens me, though, that a girl should be murdered because she indicated that she would rather fuck a woman than some asshole off the street. I oppose the death penalty, but I certainly don't oppose public floggings, if the crime is serious enough. Catch them, flog them publically, run them through a few sensitivity training courses, and let them go. Maybe after tattooing the word "murderer" on their foreheads.
Can you tell that I'm angry?
Posted by Frank at May 13, 2003 11:52 AMJustifiably angry. Too many cretins feel too free to act because too many public figures agree to completely with them.
Posted by: Prometheus 6 at May 13, 2003 7:56 PM"Catch them, flog them publically, run them through a few sensitivity training courses, and let them go. Maybe after tattooing the word 'murderer' on their foreheads. Can you tell that I'm angry?
Angry, and dumb as a post. "Let them go"???
So you're against the death penalty. Fine. You're also against imprisonment?
Since when is imprisonment more than "crime university?" What's the rate of recidivism these days? Eighty percent? Higher? Imprisonment is useless. It's all cost and almost no benefit.
With "MURDERER" tattooed across their foreheads, though, they would be as good as imprisoned. Persona non grata wherever they go.
Posted by: Frank Mayhar at May 15, 2003 10:32 AMThis was a case of 1st- or 2nd-degree murder. A lot of states permit a sentence of life without parole for such crimes. How do you stop recidivism among murderers? You don't let them out.
"Eighty percent or higher" recidivism rates? Depending on the offense and jurisdiction, it's more like 30-50%.
"Imprisonment is useless"? Maybe on your planet, wherever that is. Here on Earth, the opposite's the case. Crime plummeted during the '80s and '90s as imprisonment rates rose significantly.
Heh. I figured that assertion would get the adrenalin pumping. I still think, though, that incarceration, as it is today, is actually worse than useless.
"Crime plummeted?" Really? I think that depends on your definition of "plummet." Rates are down, yeah, but remember that correlation does not imply causation.
The rate of recidivism, according to DOJ statistics was almost seventy percent in 1994, the most recent date they list. So while I overestimated, you underestimated.
I don't know how you define "success" but an over sixty percent recidivism rate doesn't sound too successful to me.
Posted by: Frank at May 15, 2003 1:06 PMI looked up recidivism rates just by Googling and found a bunch of states that reported rates from 30% to 50%.
Saying incarceration is "worse than useless" is, respectfully, beyond the normal bounds of stupidity. If you are worried about recidivism rates, why aren't you worried about repeat offenses that would be committed by criminals who would NEVER get a 'time-out' under your plan?
Why is this so difficult to grasp? A murderer who is locked up will not be committing murders on the street AS LONG AS HE IS IN PRISON.
Your solution to recidivism is: INCREASE CRIMINALS' OPPORTUNITIES TO COMMIT NEW CRIMES.
The irony here is that I've worked as criminal defense attorney, including stints in public defenders offices. I actually know something from personal experience about the subject. What are you doing aside from spouting theory divorced from facts and experience?
Just a quick potshot while I don't have time to address your comment properly:
What's really ironic is that you're taking a throwaway line that wasn't really relevant to the issue at hand so damned seriously.
More later...
Posted by: Frank Mayhar at May 16, 2003 8:01 AM