Police arrest repeat offender suspected in murder of Baltimore tech CEO
nbcnews.com
Authorities have arrested the man suspected of killing of Baltimore tech entrepreneur Pava LaPere, a U.S. Marshal confirmed, as police announced plans to reveal details of the capture following a major manhunt.
Baltimore police said they planned to announce the "arrest of murder suspect Jason Billingsley" in a news conference at 11 a.m. ET Thursday. No further details were released and police did not immediately respond to requests for comment from NBC News early Thursday.
Deputy U.S. Marshal Albert Maresca Jr. confirmed Billingsley's arrest to Baltimore-based NBC affiliate WBAL-TV. He said the suspect, who is 32, was apprehended at a train station in Bowie, Maryland.
You are viewing a single comment
Do you honestly think spending an extra 15 years surrounded by other violent criminals is going to reduce the chance of him re-offending?
Do you even know why people are being let out on parole early in the first place? It's because we've been tougher on crime than any other wealthy nation in the world for the last 50 years, and now we have more prisoners than prison space.
Someone who tortures (including rape) or kills other people should not be allowed back into society, in my opinion. We can't just continue to tell all the victims "Ah well, shit happens!"
That is a more specific stance than "all violent criminal" that op claimed. And if we had a perfect Justice system that could accurately determine guilt with absolute certainty, I would be more likely to agree with you.
However, our penal system has been utilized as weapon to oppression minority and political oppression for around 150 years now, and an indefinite sentence is simply a a worse slower execution.
I don't care about them being rehabilitated. I care about keeping dangerous criminals off the streets.
If that's you're reasoning, why even bother locking them up? Why not argue to execute all criminals, if your only desire is too keep all those dangerous convicts out of society for as long as possible?
What is your plan on how to protect victims?
People disapprove of the death penalty because of the chance innocent men get killed. You can't unkill someone. Thus the most logical solution is to contain them in a place where they can't hurt anybody. You're not calling out a contradiction, not everyone is a utilitarian. The purpose is to keep people on the street safe, how you deal with the criminal is secondary.
Might've taken this in good faith had I not checked your comment history to see you insisting all drag queens are a danger to children, so let's just dress you down and block you real quick, mkay?
The point has been made in another reply to the initial comment that rehabilitation would still yield better results than incarceration for keeping the "people on the street" safe, as the only way incarceration is able to lower the number of "dangerous convicts" is by putting them in a cell for life. When rehabilitation is successful, the number of "dangerous criminals" can actually go down in a way that does not deprive those individuals from seeing trees for the rest of their lives.
Additionally, convicts absolutely can and do hurt people in prison, the people hurt just happen to be other convicts, not to mention the violence they often face from the people who run the place, who have a tendency to enter the field of incarceration with authoritarian personality types and the intent of mistreating or exploiting prisoners. All this disregarded, despite the fact that you acknowledge the possibility that some of those who end up in these facilities are innocents - the only category of person you are supposedly interested in protecting is not protected in these institutions as they currently exist.
There's much more I could say about prisons to make this point, but what I'm saying is that prisons do not provide a neutral experience, they are not just people sitting in empty rooms experiencing nothing - they are places that generally leave people more damaged than when they came in, and often inflict that damage for years, in some cases for something as victimless as a marijuana charge. Thus, while rehabilitation has the potential to concretely improve society and the lives of people (y'know, the thing convicts are), incarceration as it currently exists can only hurt people and send them back out into society worse off than they were before. The only argument for it is to insist it is justified for doing so, by inventing a dynamic where "they," strangers placed into prison, ALL present a danger to "us," the "people on the street," that they either cannot be fixed or we should not bother, and that whatever they get, they deserve. Maybe you can convince someone that's true for a convicted rapist, but I think you'd have a harder time when it comes to victims of addiction, poverty, and/or an imperfect justice system.
What are your thoughts on how to actually prevent crime? What is your plan for the victims? What should happen with the people who have been tortured, raped or killed by the criminals you care so much about? What about the children, parents, friends, loved ones of the victims?
This is a lot of words that doesn't say much to me tbh. It's straight up dishonest to pretend like "rehabilitation" will somehow keep people on the street safer than, ya know, locking up violent criminals where there literally isn't a chance of them getting anyone. I'm talking about violent criminals and you go off on "what about people who got arrested for weed"
Can you please point to me where I said that? I said no such thing.
Don't bother, friend. Attacking someone's character is a logical fallacy. When they go into your post history they have no defense.
There's something very, very odd with the Fediverse because there is a very high concentration of illogical, emotionally charged liberal bigots on this site.
Going through someone's post history is admitting defeat. No one is going to read a paragraph of illogical nonsense about defending criminals.
Get a job.
The best way to keep dangerous criminals off the street is to rehabilitate the criminals....... Or better yet, remove the economic environmental conditions that drive people to crime in the first place.
What's your alternative? Are we just throwing anybody who gets in a bar fight in prison for the rest of their lives?
If your idea of "justice" worked America would already be the safest place on earth. Despite America only making up around 4% of the population we house 20% of the global prison population . If you're ideology actually made us safe, don't you think it would have worked by now?
Which "economic environmental conditions" lead to rape?
Social instability, economic instability, lack of mental and physical healthcare, and a historic lack of agency for women.
No, but how about we don't let the violent rapist, who diddn't even serve 2/3 of his sentence and who clearly hasn't been reformed out into society?
Okay so you don't want all violent criminals to go to jail for long periods..... just this one? How do you tell a bad guy, from a real bad guy.....?
I do want violent criminals to go to jail for a long time.
Can you point out where I stated otherwise?
The fact that they rape and assault people usually helps in identifying them.
And a man who gets in a drunken bar fight is not being violent or doing a crime?
When I asked if a drunk bar fight should land you in a jail cell forever, You said no.
So we established that it's not the assault, as a bar fight involves criminally assaulting someone..... so your argument hinges on rape alone?
So it is of your opinion that any woman who accuses a man of ignoring consent he should be jailed indefinitely?
I think there's an ever so slight difference between punching someone in a bar fight, and murdering someone in cold blood.
Yep, because you shouldn't go to jail forever.
Long time != forever.
Nope, it also hinges on violent assault too. We didn't establish anything, you misread my comment and decided to go off of your own wrong interpretation.
Has the man been convicted of violent rape? Yes? Then yes!
But weren't we talking about violent criminals? I think your shifting your goal post there....
So you're against putting people in prison forever, but you also want people locked away for an indiscriminately long time? Sounds like you don't know what you want....
But a bar fight is a violent assault. You can't have it both ways, you're talking about laws, not vibes.
Ahh, so it has to be violent rape? But, it can't just be violence, or just rape? You're just being pedantic now.
Yep, but there's a difference in the level of violence between punch somebody and murdering somebody. You’re just being pedantic now.
Not really. I want people who are violent to not have the chance to hurt innocent people again.
I can have it both way, by having different punishments for someone who punched somebody and for someone who stabbed somebody to death in cold blood. I see this is a difficult concept to you.
Nope, it can be rape, violent rape, or violence.
I'm talking about laws, not vibes.
Ahh, so you admit your statement was incorrect. Great.
So, now your claim is that violent murderers should be put in prison for long periods...... which is redundant.
By putting them in prison until you personally decide they aren't violent anymore?
I fail to see how that's any different to what were currently doing?
Ahh, so we're walking back our claim now.....how many times have you had to do that now?
Lol and your version of the law is?
Never said otherwise. Given how you're making up every argument instead of actually reading mine, you really don't need me here, you can just continue arguing with yourself. Have fun!
This has always been my claim.
Nope, until/if they're actually not violent anymore.
Well, we're letting them out way too early. Like this case proves.
Exactly 0 times. It's just you can't read and understand simple arguments, so you think they're changing.
Sylvester Stallone in the 1995 movie 'Judge Dredd'.
Lol, you have already admitted to writing knowingly false statements. You've changed your claim like 4-5 times by now.
Directly conflicts with "Never said otherwise.".
So you have a violence predicting precognition? You do know having a clean record while serving is already part of the parole process, right?
You're utilizing a logical fallacy so fucking old the Romans had a name for it "post hoc ergo propter hoc".
How do you determine when they get out, by how violent they are? How do you tell how violent they are?
"Ahh, so you admit your statement was incorrect." "Never said otherwise."
You do know judge dredd was satirical right?
Rape is always violence.
I believe that to be true, but the person I was talking to predicated it differently. I was trying to see if he was preconditioning his claim in a way that would excuse behavior often seen as acceptable by conservative values.