Should prisoners have a record?
-
Originally posted by Gedanken:
Rokkie in your example has already served six months for the first crime and a year for the second. Are you saying that Rokkie should serve more time than Noah, even though they both committed the same crime?
Let's apply the same principle to a different situation. Nikar is buying his first car, and he pays $10,000 COE on it. Darkknighthuang, on the other hand, has bought and sold two other cars, but has to pay $30,000 COE because it's his third car, even though he's already paid $10,000 COE on each of his previous cars.
Still think it's fair?
not fair but hilarious.
-
Originally posted by Gedanken:
Rokkie in your example has already served six months for the first crime and a year for the second. Are you saying that Rokkie should serve more time than Noah, even though they both committed the same crime?
Let's apply the same principle to a different situation. Nikar is buying his first car, and he pays $10,000 COE on it. Darkknighthuang, on the other hand, has bought and sold two other cars, but has to pay $30,000 COE because it's his third car, even though he's already paid $10,000 COE on each of his previous cars.
Still think it's fair?
What I was trying to point out is, if there is no criminal records, repeat offenders will be able to get away with the same sentence as a new offender, regardless of how many times they commits a crime.
-
in this case, record should have, but not open to public
-
Originally posted by Darkknighthuang:
What I was trying to point out is, if there is no criminal records, repeat offenders will be able to get away with the same sentence as a new offender, regardless of how many times they commits a crime.
Oh, I got precisely what your point was, and the question still stands. You do the crime, you do the time and everything's squared. You pay COE once for each car and everything's squared. Why should something that's already been settled be dragged out again?
Yet another example. As a student, you take out a personal loan and pay it back with 7% interest. Later you take a loan to buy a car and pay that back with 7% interest too. When it comes time to buy a house, the bank tells you that the interest is 21% because you've taken loans from them twice before. It's your fault because you keep borrowing money, and because you're a repeat borrower, you should not be able to get away with the same interest as a new borrower. Does that make sense?
-
Originally posted by Gedanken:
Oh, I got precisely what your point was, and the question still stands. You do the crime, you do the time and everything's squared. You pay COE once for each car and everything's squared. Why should something that's already been settled be dragged out again?
Yet another example. As a student, you take out a personal loan and pay it back with 7% interest. Later you take a loan to buy a car and pay that back with 7% interest too. When it comes time to buy a house, the bank tells you that the interest is 21% because you've taken loans from them twice before. It's your fault because you keep borrowing money, and because you're a repeat borrower, you should not be able to get away with the same interest as a new borrower. Does that make sense?
this is not the point, i think dark's point is, people can mercy you, but you cannot repeatly make mistake, if you repeatly make mistake, that means you probably take that for grant, and abuse people's mercy and tolaronce, most importantly you endanger the society. -
(short ninja)
--------------------------
Lai sit down relac and have a glass of kek huay.Why you got tatto izzit? I wouldnt employ anyone who doesnt know how to hide his tattoos during an interview.By the way, I do have tattoos on my body and If I could turn back the clock I would just stand outside Brass Basah 'Johney 2 thumb' and listen to my classmate's advice against having my first one.Records are like tattoes even if you erase them,the mark is still there.
--------------------------
what's "kek huay"? bean curd? and no lah, i don't have tatoos, but i know and seen people who have, and what happened to them when they find jobs, so i know how they feel.
and if records are erased, nobody except the guy himself will know, so it's good.
also, from what i know, most companies don't even bother to check whether you got prison record or not......on the interview form, under the "Offences" section, there's questions like:
-have you committed any crime before?-have you been in jail before?
-do you have tatoos?
-do you plan to kill, murder or rape in the next 3 years?
if you answer No to all the questions above, who will know the truth, other than yourself?
anyway, regarding tatoos, i wonder why some people want to tatoo the entire body..........if tatoo a dragon on the back or on the arm, i can understand, but entire upper body? that's crazy.
-
Originally posted by rokkie:
this is not the point, i think dark's point is, people can mercy you, but you cannot repeatly make mistake, if you repeatly make mistake, that means you probably take that for grant, and abuse people's mercy and tolaronce, most importantly you endanger the society.So let me get this straight. For someone who commits robbery as a first crime, the sentence is two years for argument's sake. For someone who commits the exact same crime, but has a prior for fraud, the sentence should be four years.
Is that correct? More importantly, is that right?
-
Okay... that is for criminals... but what if wrongly accused?
-
Originally posted by Gedanken:
So let me get this straight. For someone who commits robbery as a first crime, the sentence is two years for argument's sake. For someone who commits the exact same crime, but has a prior for fraud, the sentence should be four years.
Is that correct? More importantly, is that right?
I don't see anything wrong with increasing the length of the jail term if the offender is not a first-timer. A jail term is not only meant as a punishment to the offender, but also a form of deterrence. Simply put, the additional two years is meant as a form of deterrence to ex-offenders from committing a crime again once they return to the society, and NOT because that guy is an ex-offender and thereby deserving a heavier punishment as compared to a first-time offender for the exact same crime.
And why does it matter to the ex-offenders who have turned over a new leaf even if the jail term is quadripled? Not as if they're going to commit a crime again, right?
-
Originally posted by Gedanken:
Well, OBS, that's the problem with maintaining a record, isn't it? Some poor bastard's trying to get back on his feet after serving his time, but nobody's going to give him a break because of his record, and then what? Is the criminal fraternity going to be the only environment that he can turn to just to make a crust? What happens then? Even if he doesn't return to prison, there's always the issue of contamination - he starts off as a burglar and moves on to armed robbery through the influence of the criminal community that the system has forced him to gravitate towards. If he stabs and kills someone in a robbery, is he exclusively to blame?
The problem with records is that they create a self-fulfilling prophecy. Well and good for the sanctimonious to say that it's preventive, but take a step back and you'll see that it's short-sighted. Any good strategy will account for a failure to achieve the ideal outcome, in this case prevention of crime - what happens when the crime is not prevented? It is a failure of the system that the doors to recidivism and further forays into criminal activities are not only opened by the system itself, but that the system gleefully shoves the poor bastard through the doorway.
It leads to the simple question: what kind of uncivilised society treats its people as write-offs? The goody-two-shoes treat citizens as pieces of tissue paper to be scrunched up and thrown away, and the government is encouraging relatives to pull the plug on people on life-support. Just what the fuck is going on? Is this the shape of the promised Swiss / First World standard of living?
eh... i forgot to add this part, my friend in that case actually took home extra incentives amount to more than $20,000 which he "rewarded" himself with at his second job with 2 months and quited when his boss started to suspect him.
and something else ironic the boss didn't know was i was the one stopping him before that till i was sack for insorbordination.
-
Originally posted by LatecomerX:
A jail term is not only meant as a punishment to the offender, but also a form of deterrence. Simply put, the additional two years is meant as a form of deterrence to ex-offenders from committing a crime again once they return to the society
Hey, sounds great! I'll happily support that! Where do I sign up?
Oh, hang on. Where's your proof that a longer jail term is a deterrent?
-
Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:
eh... i forgot to add this part, my friend in that case actually took home extra incentives amount to more than $20,000 which he "rewarded" himself with at his second job with 2 months and quited when his boss started to suspect him.
and something else ironic the boss didn't know was i was the one stopping him before that till i was sack for insorbordination.
Hang on - are you telling me that you abetted theft?
-
Originally posted by Gedanken:
So let me get this straight. For someone who commits robbery as a first crime, the sentence is two years for argument's sake. For someone who commits the exact same crime, but has a prior for fraud, the sentence should be four years.
Is that correct? More importantly, is that right?
probably? but i would prefer to keep it separate because people do get forced by circumstances into crime. unless you're talking about a person who keeps appearing in court for different offenses.
thing is, we judge people by their track records, past achievements before we hire them, whether they did well or poorly. you can't have people doing poorly to be judged the same way as those doing well. i doubt i'll have a favourable review if i quited my last job after walking out shouting "I QUIT"
where past records are concern i definately would not hire my friend to place him with money or something sensitive after what he did. neither would i be comfortable if i find out my banker's someone who commited fraud before and cheated his ex employer out of millions before.
i'm ok if you hire a banker who drew on walls(vandalism) before, knifed someone or even arson but not fraud. just like you wouldn't want a molester/rapist to become a kindergarden teacher even if his ex targets were all grandmothers.
-
Originally posted by Gedanken:
Hang on - are you telling me that you abetted theft?
when i was around i actually stopped him everytime he wanted to do anything funny. i found out the rest when he told me after i left, besides i considered myself ill treated by the employer, wouldn't make sense to do my own friend in for them. its non of my business anyway.
-
Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:
probably? but i would prefer to keep it separate because people do get forced by circumstances into crime. unless you're talking about a person who keeps appearing in court for different offenses.
thing is, we judge people by their track records, past achievements before we hire them, whether they did well or poorly. you can't have people doing poorly to be judged the same way as those doing well. i doubt i'll have a favourable review if i quited my last job after walking out shouting "I QUIT"
where past records are concern i definately would not hire my friend to place him with money or something sensitive after what he did. neither would i be comfortable if i find out my banker's someone who commited fraud before and cheated his ex employer out of millions before.
i'm ok if you hire a banker who drew on walls(vandalism) before, knifed someone or even arson but not fraud. just like you wouldn't want a molester/rapist to become a kindergarden teacher even if his ex targets were all grandmothers.
Well and good, but let's flip things around. If a banker got out of jail after a sentence for fraud, would it be right if he applied to be a waiter and was refused because he had a record?
I'm glad you raised the issue of sensitive positions. It becomes a moot point when someone is convicted of fraud, since the convict becomes a disqualified person. Now, you may ask, given that the person is disqualified by the court, how is this different from a prison record?
Simple. The "disqualified person" status precludes the person from holding a financially-sensitive position, but if the person applies for an unrelated position, he or she is not disadvantaged by the criminal record.
-
Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:
when i was around i actually stopped him everytime he wanted to do anything funny. i found out the rest when he told me after i left, besides i considered myself ill treated by the employer, wouldn't make sense to do my own friend in for them. its non of my business anyway.
I'd be careful of the Singapore judicial system's likelihood to nail people on charges of "failing to do anything about a crime". A good friend of mine got three months in prison from Yong Pung How for just that, stretched to six months when he had the temerity to appeal the sentence.
What say you I do both of us a favour and terminate this line of discussion here and now?
-
Originally posted by Gedanken:
Hey, sounds great! I'll happily support that! Where do I sign up?
Oh, hang on. Where's your proof that a longer jail term is a deterrent?
Well, don't you think that if robbery, stealing, raping and so on gets you just a one-day overnight stay at the prison, there would be a tad less deterrence from committing the crimes?
-
Originally posted by LatecomerX:
Well, don't you think that if robbery, stealing, raping and so on gets you just a one-day overnight stay at the prison, there would be a tad less deterrence from committing the crimes?
Quit ducking. You're the one who claimed that longer sentences are a deterrent. Now back it up, if you'll please, or concede that your proposal has no basis.
-
Must give em Chance...2 Times...First time jail NO recoRD.2nd Time Then blah blah
-
No answer yet, Latecomer? Okay, I'm in a generous mood tonight, so I'll make the first move, even though the onus is usually on the proponent to state the case.
I've just done a quick-and-dirty literature review and in the twenty minutes, I came across two interesting studies. The only reason I took so long to post was the formatting of the references - I've always hated doing that.
Anyway, first, Gendreau, Goggin and Cullen (1999) performed a meta-analysis of 222 studies involving 68,248 cases to examine the relationship between length of prison sentence and recidivism. While weighted samples showed no effect size of sentence length of recidivism, unweighted analyses showed that longer prison sentences had a 7% higher chance of producing repeat offenders.
To be frank, Gendreau, Goggin and Cullen's results were iffy - there's really no point looking at results until you've cleaned your data and created a level playing field. On to the next tidbit.
In a study of prison inmates in Pensylvania, Nadia Frederique (2005) examined the specific research question: “Are offenders who are given longer sentences less likely to recidivate, more likely to recidivate or equally likely to recidivate than those given shorter sentences for violent offenses?”. Examining 206,233 Bureau of Prisons files dating from 1940 to 2004, Frederique found that the likelihood of recidivism increased with sentence length for up to 13 years, holding constant for “sentence length, minimum sentence, 1991, 1994,1997 guidelines and Asian offenders”.
Whoa, hang on a minute - recidivism actually increases with sentence length? Not only that, the case particularly applies to Asian prisoners? What the hell's going on here? Do we have to sentence people to a minimum of 13 years in prison?
Far be it for me to imply perfidy on your part, Latecomer, but I do put it to you that your assumption of an inverse relationship between sentence length and recidivism, while intuitively sensible, is shown by a significant body of data to be incorrect.
Now, your turn. Please convince me that longer prison sentences are a deterrent.
References:
Frederique, N.P., (2005). The impact of sentence length on the recidivism of violent offenders: An exploratory analysis of Pennsylvania data 1997-2001. Submitted as a Masters of Arts theses. University of Maryland, VA.
Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Cullen, F.T., (1999). The effects of prison sentences on recidivism. User Report: 1999-3 for the Department of the Solicitor General Canada. Ontario, Canada.
-
should they have record?
every citizen's background are being recorded by gahmen lo
everything you buy or win through something official is known by the gahmen lo...
-
Originally posted by Gedanken:
Have you actually spent any time in prison? I mean, you must be a pretty tough bugger if it's a walk in the park to you.
So how about it, tough guy? How long were you in for?
Where did i say its a walk in the park? I'm not a person with a record, and i'm tough, not happy with me?
-
let's say you have kids. the kid skipped homework. you punished him next day, the kid skip school. do you think ==> should punish this kid more since he did not learn his mistake the first time. ==> just punish him normally, and try not to remember this is one defiant kid?
-
Originally posted by crimsontactics:
Where did i say its a walk in the park? I'm not a person with a record, and i'm tough, not happy with me?
Oooh, I'm scared. You wanna play prison yard rules, tough guy?
You don't have the slightest idea what tough is, punk. You wanna mix it up with me, make sure you money's where your mouth is. If you really want a dick-swinging contest, feel free to take Short Ninja on - I suggest you do a search for his online conversations with me before getting into anything, okay pumpkin?
You've got the depth of a puddle, so run along and play. The adults are talking serious issues here.
-
Originally posted by Short Ninja:
In the ancient days criminals were forcibly tattoed so anyone could easily identify them.I strongly recommend records for hardcore criminals and the incorrigibles, they should be also given jobs at certain places to be tagged and monitered.For those who can be reformed I say give them a clean slade and welcome them back to society.
Quite true. Though there must still be some form of "reminders" left for those who had reformed to remember their past and to prevent them from committing crime again. A record is a good example..