Release all the inmates that are there on nonviolent drug crimes, so the cost of prisons goes way down?
But that's too hard of course.
Ok. What does that have to do with this murder case?
Edit: Since you're so fond of identifying things (even though you have yet to get one right) your answer there was a non sequitur.
Absolutely nothing, but I get the impression they think it's a compelling point.
25 year sentences would not even be considered if rehabilitation was the intention. It is a sign of a sick system when we applaud 25 year sentences. The guy is not going to get better help for his mental illness after year 24 than he will get in the first year.
Are you suggesting that a 1 year sentence is appropriate for murder?
Why is this thread so full of projection? Why do the people here find it so hard to accept that our prison system is broken?
You really don't know what that word means, but dagnabbit you're not going to let that stop you from using it.
I'll make it simple. What do you think is an appropriate response to 2nd degree murder?
The shooter is 65. That means at the end of a 25-year sentence he will be 90. Do you think he'll still be a danger to the public at 80? 85?
I think 15 years would be plenty.
Taxes get spent on all sorts of stuff you don't want or need - that's the purpose of tax, so the country can spend money on things it needs but individuals don't necessarily want. You might as well complain about tax being spent to build roads you're never going to drive on, or social services you don't partake in. It's all the same pool of money.
The US has a for-profit prison problem. 25-year sentences are a symptom of that problem.
I mean, what would you rather happen?
Release all the inmates that are there on nonviolent drug crimes, so the cost of prisons goes way down?
But that's too hard of course.
Ok. What does that have to do with this murder case?
Edit: Since you're so fond of identifying things (even though you have yet to get one right) your answer there was a non sequitur.
Absolutely nothing, but I get the impression they think it's a compelling point.
25 year sentences would not even be considered if rehabilitation was the intention. It is a sign of a sick system when we applaud 25 year sentences. The guy is not going to get better help for his mental illness after year 24 than he will get in the first year.
Are you suggesting that a 1 year sentence is appropriate for murder?
Why is this thread so full of projection? Why do the people here find it so hard to accept that our prison system is broken?
You really don't know what that word means, but dagnabbit you're not going to let that stop you from using it.
I'll make it simple. What do you think is an appropriate response to 2nd degree murder?
The shooter is 65. That means at the end of a 25-year sentence he will be 90. Do you think he'll still be a danger to the public at 80? 85?
I think 15 years would be plenty.
Taxes get spent on all sorts of stuff you don't want or need - that's the purpose of tax, so the country can spend money on things it needs but individuals don't necessarily want. You might as well complain about tax being spent to build roads you're never going to drive on, or social services you don't partake in. It's all the same pool of money.
The US has a for-profit prison problem. 25-year sentences are a symptom of that problem.