Would you commit a felony in this situation?

I would escape, because prison is for criminals.

But if they found the person was innocent and escaped I suppose you have broken the law for escaping havent you ?
....so a light punishment should be put in order.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your assertion in this case relies upon the notion that "once a theft, always a theft". That is, if someone commits, for instance, a murder, he would most likely to commit the same crime again and again. I am, however, of the opinion that humans are capable of changing his life for better.

Indeed, I feel the same way that the equilibrium between the risk to society and the freedom of the convict should be maintained. The reason why I put quotation marks when I said "I suppose a life in prison without the possibility of parole might be more 'humane'", is that I was/am equivocal about which one of the options is more 'humane' within the context of American criminal system - a death penalty or life in prioson. Because neither of the options are available in European system (possibly a life in prison w/o parole but it must be very rare) so I cannot quantify the degree to which one suffers under such extreme circumstances. I think both options should be abolished for the sake of humanity.

Besides, I have yet to see a study that shows the longer a prison sentence, the more a convict gets rehabilitated. The statistics here suggest otherwise (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/8Comparison.htm):

Considering the practical fact that you hardly have any sense of 'freedom' of the convict in the US prison system, what's to be considered be reduced to a mere security to society: If indeed a convict is so dangerous to society, it might be 'safer' to rid of him via death penalty so as to completely abolish the possiblity of him escaping; on the other hand, a life in prison without the possibility of parole would only increase the possibility of him escaping from prison - hence more danger to society.

I am not sure about your presupposition that, again, "one a thefet, always a thefet". Here are some examples that assert otherwise:

http://www.med.umn.edu/fp/phs/sht/shtv1n07.htm#sexoffend
http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/1998/A/199800421.html
http://www.co.clark.wa.us/news/news-release.asp?pkNewsSeq=296
http://www.humanbeing.demon.nl/humanbeingsweb/Library/recidivism.htm

Certainly, by definition a 'given' has no requirement. What prompted me to think otherwise is because of the practical context within which this discussion was brought up. Without the practical context, I highly doubt you can maintain a decent argument for any argument (or law for that matter) is resulted from practical events.

Without heeding to the practical aspect, you always end up with this sentence at the very end of your arguement:

- - -

True, but I have already positioned myself on the fragile circumstance by saying "I could be wrong in saying this . . ." However, considering the relatively high intelligence level in the sciforum community, I highly doubt that "some people would take the risk without the foreknowledge."

I suppose you may start another thread to verify my hypothesis.



Last but not least:

Oh, it was fantastic! Only the downside was that my Italian friend (who is from southern Italy and that he is not used to cold climate) got minor frost bites on his face and hands but other than that, it was a successful ascent. We had a base camp on the new year's eve and attacked on the new year's day, I climb evey new years day but this particular one is very memorable. As we got to the summit at 16:14pm, and 15min later it was all dark! So the entire descending was done in complete darkness (yes, we had headlights so it was not that bad, but dangerous nevertheless).

Also, on the very summit (we only stayed there for 2 mins or so), we saw a line of sun light for 5 seconds while it was snowing hard and everything else was covered by clouds and snow; it was very unreal experience indeed.

I always feel the greatest satisfaction when I am at the top of a mountain, especially in winter. Nothing is there except ice, snow and sky. Air is thin, temperature is cold, and no one is there; yet I feel the greatest degree of freedom - no wonder Nietzsche would associate the degree of freedom to the height, and with mountains in particular.

At any rate, my favourite quote is this:

"Man is only as big as the dreams he dares to live."

My next ascent, therefore, is Mckinley (north America), then Aconcagua (south America), and eventually Everest (Nepal)!

[Disclaimer: However 'motivational' in its sound, I still maintain that I can utter the above without relying upon this sentence:

]
best,

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am of the same opinion, but what humans are capable of is different than what they do. “Once a theft, always a theft” implies a 100% re-offense rate. It’s not 100% but it’s not zero either, and it is closely related to the type of crime and the history of the inmate.

Why would you abolish life in prison w/o parole in cases where the re-offense rate was estimated to be, say, 75% and the crime was murder? I’ve seen interviews with inmates saying that they think they will kill again if released. How could you release them in good conscience, even if they are 70 years old?

Not my belief either. If anything it is the opposite. I’m not suggesting that prison is rehabilitation. It should attempt that with some balance (x number of dollars to ensure inmates have dignity, educational and recreational opportunities, for example). After doing what can be reasonably done in that direction, you determine the re-offense rate and then make the decision about paroling an inmate or altering the length of prison sentences for the newly convicted.

The threat of escape is negligible at the maximum security prisons.

More likely it would increase the danger of him getting paroled by a sympathetic parole board. I think that is why the “life w/o parole” sentence is popular in the US. It is a backlash to the situation where inmates are released by parole boards way earlier on average than the public expected them to be.

I will review those in detail. Took a look at the first one...it does not seem to consider the severity of the crime. A type of crime could have a 1% re-offense rate but still justify a life sentence due to the severity. If there is a 1% chance that a released inmate will murder then every 100 similar inmates that you release results in one murder on average. Undoubtedly a large percentage of the public would feel that that rate is too high to allow, versus the alternative of keeping them in prison.

I will do just that!

Cool! Mt. Washington is on my list of places to see, for its severe climate. Glad you made it and got some good memories.

Go get ‘em. I made it to the top of Mauna Kea in Hawaii, 13800 feet. My car was parked at 13700 feet. It was a grueling hike.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I didn't need to escape because i live in the Netherlands ( and in finland) and neither of these countries will put me in jail for life, or even consider such a lovely thing as deathrow.

Might still escape though if I was in a Dutch prison, because you can always claim emotional stress or something, and they will forgive you. Probably even diminish you sentence. Europe rules.

 

Yet, considering the fact that the US criminal system allows capital punishment, it abides by the notion that "onece a theft, always a theft". Certainly its opposite (i.e., zero% of re-offence rate), can not be achieved practically, thus there are various different degrees of punishment within the frame of 'humane considerations' to the convict (here, I would say capital punishment is 'inhumane' in that it measures human capacity, or lack thereof, to its 100% certainty - I cannot fathom if any one is capable of doing so).

Perhaps those inmates in the States are mentally ill to begin with: for those of us with sever mental conditions, the state should provide a rehabilitation facility rather than keep them in prison.

When I came to Philadelphia, USA for college, I was simply stunned by the high number of homeless people there. I can, btw, blame those homeless people in Norway, Germany or Northern Euro in general for their lasiness. But I cannot possibly blame for the same reason in the States. The majority of homeless in the States are mentally-retarded-poor-black-male (and often time female, too). The reason why I cannot blame them is because they are not on the equal ground to begin with; they have been discriminated since they were born. That is, they are basically sub-human. I beleive that many of convicts in the US have come from such predicament social background. And further treated worse by the US prison system, and by the time one gets out of prison, he is not even sub-human, but more or less an animal. Animals need be kept in cage, or else culled: Accordingly, the US criminal system provides both options.

I don't think this merely reflects a minority report:

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/prison/

Your proposal here suggests a drastic increase in taxes. As far as I understand the US social system (and her superstructure), she is not the kind of type who favours a tax increase of any sort; even if the result would increase overall safety to each individual: Current US president, along with the majority of his constituents, examplifies the ideology.

Correct. But - with your rationale - "it's not zero either."

It depends. By comparing two nations - Norway and the States - one can certainly quantify how much the "1%" chance of re-offence affects their societies. In Norway, the total murder rate is 1.99 person per 100,000 of population (see the statistic given in my previous post). Since the entire population of Norway is 4,154,000, you would get 89.8286 of people killed per year by murder. Provided that the ratio of a victim and the offender per murder crime is 1 to 1, you would get 0.8084574 person gets killed each year by re-offenders. On the contrary to the low figure in Norway (which doesn't even make up a single person), in the US (with the same method), you have 220.3128648 persons get killed each year by re-offenders (as US' murder rate is 8.4 per 100,000 vis-a-vis 291,038,000 of entire population): No wonder "ndoubtedly a large percentage of the [American] public would feel that that rate is too high to allow. . ."

It seems though that the very core of the problem in the US criminal system (and exclusive to her) is not how much prison sentences should be given to offenders in relation to the occurences of crime by re-offenders. But it rests upon the very structure of society. If each individual is treated on the equally recognised level, I expect that the crime rate will be lowered. If indeed that be the key to the low crime ratio, the US unfortunately must abide by the 'tough' measures, for now and perhaps for ever.
best,

 

That number is insignificant compared to the number of people killed by cars annually in the US.

So should you really care?

 

Of couse I should.

No doubt, the number alone is very insignificant in itself (especially when you are measuring the number of deaths without paying heed to the causes of deaths). But what is even more insignificant (or off-topic, for that matter) is the comparison between the number of deaths caused by re-offenders and the numbers of people get killed by car accidents.

Car accidents (yes, it is called "accident" for reasons) cannot be predicted nor regulated in the way murders by re-offenders can. The question here is the scheme of leagality: You cannot ban nor illigalise 'accident' by laws; while you can (and you do) ban or/and illigalise 'murders' by laws. You don't go through a 'criminal' justice system when you get into an accident; instead, you would go through a 'civil' justice system (provided there is no criminal intent on the part of parties involved in an accident).

In our civilised modern society, intentions matter and are valued more than the actual physical consequences. To disregard intentions is demeaning humanity.
best,

 

Fuck the felony escape charges. Go for the fence. What is felonious about escaping from an injustice? The felony escape felony "law" is a contrived addition to the criminal law. Prisoners are naturally of a mind to escape, it is expected that theywill at elast make attempts top flee, guilty or nopt. Why do you think that the convicted felons ae put in prisons in the first place?

Geistkiesel

 

If they caught me... I'd just keep attacking everyone so that they have to put me in my own room with a TV, internet and free food.

That's right, even if the other inmates were stronger than me I'd keep coming at them -ALWAYS. It'd be a real hassel, they'd have to be on their toes cos they'd know killing is my game and I'll be coming.

They'd have to give me my own room and then I could do f*ck all for the rest of my life... bliss

 

Even if I wasn't sure that I would escape prison successfully, nor would I live a better quality life outside bars, I would still make the attempt.

After all, if I don't make the attempt, I am guaranteed a miserable life behind bars.
If I do make the attempt, there is the possibility my life will improve.

 

I've read through this thread, and am surprised that an ethical question such as this can depend on which country you happen to be in.

Ethics must be universal, surely? International interaction depends a great deal on a shared ethical base.

My feeling is whereever I was, I would try to escape, and try not to feel guilty about doing it.

 

I would attempt to escape regardless of guilt. There are circumstances that I would commit a felony. If I did commit a felony I would attempt to avoid harming any one that I did not have to. There are things and people that I value more than pride and country.

 

i wouldn't have to try and not feel guilty about this one

 

"I Would escape because...

I Didn't Do It !!"

Ditto

 

escape:
Yessss. Even if the quality of life (I presume you mean by that the material standard of living) would be lower. I would (and have so in rl) risk my life to get a person who is convicted on bogus charges out of prison.

just-unjust conviction: imprisonment for escape from a sentence that was not deserved is unjust.