# What a felon faces ...



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

A good friend of mine was scheduled to get out of prison a couple of weeks ago. 
They didn’t tell him till five days after his release date that He couldn’t be released to a home with children ,the home he was supposed to be released to had children. 
He has never been convicted of any crime against children. 
We scrambled to find him a new place 
It Has to have water lights electricity and a certain minimum square footage living space in short it Has to be considerably nicer than his present location .
We got a new one set up again five days after the release date they tell him that place is not suitable because it does not have a hard-line phone line. 
We scramble again we find a hard-line phone line
Again he’s not released it turns out there is Internet there he cannot have Internet. (Technically almost any property has Internet access since it can be accessed by cell phone )
It would certainly be nice if they would tell us about the requirements ahead of time but they will not. 
They actually keep adding them after the fact 
We think we have it now a location that has a hard-line phone lime water lights electricity adequate square footage no children on the property No guns or alcohol Hey certain distance away from all schools daycare etc. this means that it is far out of the country
The man will not be allowed to have an automobile nor leave the property 
Yet he must obtain a job without use of the Internet (obviously) attend numerous meetings and pay several different fees .


----------



## Oregon1986 (Apr 25, 2017)

They def stack the cards against them don't they


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Are felons the next protected class?

Maybe if we weren’t so overwhelmed we might do a better job


----------



## hiddensprings (Aug 6, 2009)

I volunteered at a non-profit called Project Return in Nashville when I lived there. Their mission was to help people like your friend who have paid their debt to society but had so many obstacles to overcome to actually be released. It is crazy trying to jump through all of the hoops and then we wonder why so many folks re-offend. We don't give them a chance to be successful.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HDRider said:


> Are felons the next protected class?
> 
> Maybe if we weren’t so overwhelmed we might do a better job


We agree although I suspect for different reasons I think there are far too many crimes that are Felonise and thus 
there are far too many felons

The particular prison my friend is held them is double overcrowded and yet it appears to be that the administration they’re just doing their best to keep him. 
He did everything right he get the maximum good days he could sign the maximum contracts he good and yet here he is still in jail


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

HDRider said:


> Are felons the next protected class?
> 
> Maybe if we weren’t so overwhelmed we might do a better job


On the contrary, they are the prototype for the second-class citizenship that our self-styled patrician would like to impose on the overwhelming majority of us.

Never forget that 60 years ago a released felon had more freedom while on parole than we non-criminals have today in spite of the screaming about advancements in freedom. There is NOT anything coincidental about this. Those who crave power necessarily abhor freedom.


----------



## Fishindude (May 19, 2015)

Like Sheriff Joe says ........ 
_Don't like how you are treated in the system? Then don't come back._


----------



## Tammy1 (Aug 31, 2011)

Its good that you posted this. I had no idea it was so hard. I bet most people don't. Not only does it discourage breaking the law it also shows how hard it is for them succeed. It sure gave me pause for thought.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Sounds like probation, not full release? Is my thinking correct?


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Farmerga said:


> Sounds like probation, not full release? Is my thinking correct?





Fishindude said:


> Like Sheriff Joe says ........
> _Don't like how you are treated in the system? Then don't come back._


The problem is that not coming back isn't an option. You never truly get out in the first place regardless of whether you are on parole/probation or not.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Fishindude said:


> Like Sheriff Joe says ........
> _Don't like how you are treated in the system? Then don't come back._


The "system" is becoming more mainstream systematically.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Has anyone consulted an attorney - the requirements sound "cruel and unusual" to me.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

mreynolds said:


> The "system" is becoming more mainstream systematically.


Exactly. By design it will eventually yield a society in which only a small group are fully enfranchised, just like the Roman division between patricians and and plebeians.


----------



## wy_white_wolf (Oct 14, 2004)

I'm wondering if we are only hearing half the story here. Federal or State? rules vary. Full time spent or by the sounds of it early release? Yes they like to pile on requirements for early release.

Never had this kind of problems when my stepson was released. But then he spent full term so didn't even have to meet parole requirements.

WWW


----------



## ldc (Oct 11, 2006)

I thought the language after serving time was "an ex-felon"???


----------



## wy_white_wolf (Oct 14, 2004)

ldc said:


> I thought the language after serving time was "an ex-felon"???


I think that is only after serving full term and getting all rights reinstated.

WWW


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

In my 27 years working in several prisons and several security levels, I've see a few things.

I've seen far more prisoners refuse parole than most would believe. They'd prefer to stay in prison until their sentence is complete that be watched by a Parole Officer. Mostly this is because they have no intention on giving up their criminal ways.

I have seen prisoners kept in prison due to no family members wanting them and group homes are selective, not taking violent felons. Often, by the time a criminal reaches prison, they have ruined family relationships that never recover.

While it varies by crime, those getting caught and found guilty, within 4 years of release, are in the 2/3 majority. Sort of hard for a Parole Board to release criminals with such a high rate of victimizing the communities again.

Life is tough for the poor, unskilled, poorly socialized citizen, add the anchor of a felony conviction, you begin to see there are difficulties you may never overcome.

There is a whole list of requirements for fostering children. Providing a loving home to get a child from an abusive home, isn't enough. You have to have 144 square feet of 8 foot high bedroom ceiling per child. Then, when there is just a glimmer of hope for a return to their family home, away they go to sleep on the floor behind the couch.

For awhile, Michigan prisons were so far past overcrowded, the Governor was cutting 90 days of every sentence when capacity was reached. Four declarations cut the 2 year sentence in half and away they went. Prisons became a revolving door. Short prison terms did nothing.

Conversely, prisoners that spend 20 or 30 years in the joint, can't accumulate the Social Security credits to support them in their senior years. Being thrown into a world you don't know and obtain transportation, job training, job, living accommodations, wardrobe, furniture, is a lot of plates on a stick to keep spinning.

A mildly mentally disabled inmate admitted to me that with his skills, a job will provide him either a vehicle or an apartment, but not both. But a side "hobby" of snatching purses would provide the income flow to afford both. There was no downside. If he was caught and convicted, his care would be State provided.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

haypoint said:


> In my 27 years working in several prisons and several security levels, I've see a few things.
> 
> I've seen far more prisoners refuse parole than most would believe. They'd prefer to stay in prison until their sentence is complete that be watched by a Parole Officer. Mostly this is because they have no intention on giving up their criminal ways.
> 
> ...


Please note that the numbers could not be maintained without the rate of recidivism you mentioned. Without those numbers, there is less funding, no justification for more income for senior positions, fewer opportunities for upward mobility in the department, and reduced expectation of job security. On short, everyone From a freshly hired officer trainee to the commissioner of the department has a vested interest in seeing that inmates fail upon release. Add to this suppliers and contractors who stand to lose and have a powerful lobbying voice. Take those who benefit financially and those whose political agendas are being furthered, and you will see that we do NOT need a solution for crime but rather for those who gain by sabotaging the system. After, and ONLY after addressing these obstructionist can we start with the process of actually refining the system.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> He has never been convicted of any crime *against* children.


If he can't be around children, and can't have internet, it sounds like he must have been convicted on child pornography charges.

I have a hard time believing he wasn't told of all the conditions of his release though, since if he's on parole they would tell him all that in writing and he would have to sign a copy.

Are you sure you've got the facts right?



AmericanStand said:


> The man will not be allowed to have an automobile nor leave the property
> Yet he must obtain a job without use of the Internet (obviously) attend numerous meetings and pay several different fees .


I think you're just making this up as you go.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Sounds weird to me too. My bil went three times here in Texas for DWI and never had a problem. Even with the license. The license wasn't automatic as he had to retake the test but even after a DWI he got it back. 

He was on parole (what we call it here after prison. Probation is from jail) until the remainder of his sentence then was a free man. Ex-con as someone else said. It's been ten years so I guess he finally grew up in that respect anyway.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If he can't be around children, and can't have internet, it sounds like he must have been convicted on child pornography charges.
> 
> I have a hard time believing he wasn't told of all the conditions of his release though, since if he's on parole they would tell him all that in writing and he would have to sign a copy.
> 
> ...


I know that you are in the habit of discounting the validity of other people's experiences but I have seen examples of such restrictions without there being any crime having anything to do with children.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

wy_white_wolf said:


> I'm wondering if we are only hearing half the story here. Federal or State? rules vary. Full time spent or by the sounds of it early release? Yes they like to pile on requirements for early release.
> 
> Never had this kind of problems when my stepson was released. But then he spent full term so didn't even have to meet parole requirements.
> 
> WWW


Consider the source


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

State of Illinois 
Aparently in Illinois the parol commission can take into account anything a parolee has been accused of. 
So a Correctional officer or other inmate with a grudge can make anonymous accusations. 

They do a lot of weird stuff here like if somebody has an underage child icharge part of the bail is being told he can’t go in a bar. 
The one place where there shouldn’t be any underage children 

It’s a weird place


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> State of Illinois
> Aparently in Illinois the parol commission can take into account anything a parolee has been accused of.
> So a Correctional officer or other inmate with a grudge can make anonymous accusations.
> 
> ...


I can't speak for the issue of underage children because we aren't abreast of the conviction but no bars or alcohol consumption is pretty standard for a parolee in Canada. It's commonly assumed that alcohol consumption can lead to poor choices that can cause further breach of parole. 

Landlines are often required to ensure that a person is in a specific/required location when they call a probation officer.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Sorry I ment the bar thing about a bail situation where the guy has yet to be convicted of anything. 
I understand the logic of no bars for a parolee but I don’t agree with it. Kinda the point of parole to see if they can deal with life.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

haypoint said:


> In my 27 years working in several prisons and several security levels, I've see a few things.
> 
> I've seen far more prisoners refuse parole than most would believe. They'd prefer to stay in prison until their sentence is complete that be watched by a Parole Officer. Mostly this is because they have no intention on giving up their criminal ways.


Yep.
The slang term as you know, is getting out with "no paper". 
And you're right. I would say the majority of the recidivism is a lack of will to change their ways.
But even those that don't plan returning are smart to serve full terms and walk away with no further strings attached.
As hard as it is to simply make a living and comply with all the ordinary laws, having parole payments and appointments, mandatory counseling, electronic monitoring and anything else added to their release, it only takes one missed step to earn a technical violation and lose everything again.
Even if was 5 or 10 years, I wouldn't consider an early release offer, it's more trouble than it's worth compared to having that weight to carry for the same amount of time. You might be in your own home, but it feels like a cell, just bigger.


And you're correct about the rest of your observations too.
Sad, but true.......


> I have seen prisoners kept in prison due to no family members wanting them and group homes are selective, not taking violent felons. Often, by the time a criminal reaches prison, they have ruined family relationships that never recover.
> 
> While it varies by crime, those getting caught and found guilty, within 4 years of release, are in the 2/3 majority. Sort of hard for a Parole Board to release criminals with such a high rate of victimizing the communities again.
> 
> ...


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> Please note that the numbers could not be maintained without the rate of recidivism you mentioned. Without those numbers, there is less funding, no justification for more income for senior positions, fewer opportunities for upward mobility in the department, and reduced expectation of job security. On short, everyone From a freshly hired officer trainee to the commissioner of the department has a vested interest in seeing that inmates fail upon release. Add to this suppliers and contractors who stand to lose and have a powerful lobbying voice. Take those who benefit financially and those whose political agendas are being furthered, and you will see that we do NOT need a solution for crime but rather for those who gain by sabotaging the system. After, and ONLY after addressing these obstructionist can we start with the process of actually refining the system.


Holy Cow, you sound like a convict!
I can't count the number of times a felon indicated that I should be thankful for his criminal activity, otherwise I wouldn't have a job and some of that same crap you wrote.

Most of my career was during rapid prison increases. Generally the legislature was slow to allocate funding to match the increase. Courts send felons to prison and set the sentence length. In the prison system, there isn't any, " Sorry, we're full." We get them and we keep them until the courts say we can kick them out.

Never seeing anyone want an increased prisoner population. Most staff feel prison is too easy and fails to deter returning felons. I never met anyone that wanted any of these idiots to return.

I never felt that there were any pro-prison lobbyists. I never heard of any politician getting elected because they wanted to spend more on prisons. Quite the opposite is true. We went from prison cells to double bunked cells to 6 man cubes. Cramming more and more into less and less space.

Wages and benefits have continues to be cut. State retirement is gone, paid sick leave slashed. Starting pay, lowered. While the requirements increase. Criminal Justice associates degree required. 8 week training. Privatizing segments of the prison to entire facilities managed by corporations, show the focus is not to grow staff members, but to cut costs by any means possible.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> They do a lot of weird stuff here like if somebody has an underage child icharge part of the bail is being told he can’t go in a bar.
> The one place where there shouldn’t be any underage children


Makes sense to me if they were drunk when they had sex with a minor. Clearly, they did stupid stuff while drunk. Staying out of a Bar makes sense to me.

Due to plea bargaining, people go to prison for one of numerous felonies. But the Parole Board gets to see the Pre-sentence investigation. That lists the often life long criminal activities. Parole would be customized based on each individual's needs.

Unskilled and uneducated felons have the toughest time out of prison. It is often suggested, upon intake, that a prisoner get a high school diploma, GED, learn a trade, stay employed within the prison. Far too many start taking that to heart a few weeks before their first Parole Board Hearing. So, it is common for a Parole Board member to ask, "What have you been doing the past 5 years, so you are just starting to test for the GED?" The Parole Board sees that as, " I want to get out, but I really haven't put in the effort."

I think the public has no idea how far out of control a person has to be to get sent to prison. Everyone gets so many chances. I know of one guy that had been charged and convicted 13 times for Drunk Driving. No telling how many times he was driving drunk and didn't get caught.
But all of these convictions resulted in no prison time. Until the time he was drunk driving, ran off the road and his girlfriend passenger was killed. Court determined she knew he was drunk and knowingly took the risk. So, Drunk Driving, 13th time, on a suspended license, causing death and property damage gdets pled down to drunk driving and he gets 5 years in the joint.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Hp I think that might be. County by county. 
Here if a woman say you raped her or domestic abuse. you go to prison. 
No proof required. 
A lot of these rapes and domestics seem to be reported just after the guy moves in with another woman. 
As far as plea deals they know if they throw enough mud some will Stick so the charge 5 or 10then plea it down. 
It’s just crooked politics with peoples lives used as pawns.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

haypoint said:


> Holy Cow, you sound like a convict!
> I can't count the number of times a felon indicated that I should be thankful for his criminal activity, otherwise I wouldn't have a job and some of that same crap you wrote.
> 
> Most of my career was during rapid prison increases. Generally the legislature was slow to allocate funding to match the increase. Courts send felons to prison and set the sentence length. In the prison system, there isn't any, " Sorry, we're full." We get them and we keep them until the courts say we can kick them out.
> ...


Maybe Michigan is different but after the evil I had to deal with over taking a little extra time here and there to offer constructive guidance that would tend to encourage an upright life don't even try to tell me that this is simply a convict fairy story. When I worked as a correctional officer, I was surrounded by some of the most evil and sadistic people I have ever encountered. The previous observations came directly from their behavior and mindset.

Again, I don't know about Michigan, but when Indians turned control of a prison over to a corporation those with the money to buy influence bought their way into a cash cow where the "savings" wad derived from cutting staff numbers and pay and from serving food that was marginally edible while the corporation reaped the savings, a little of which lowered the state's cost and more of which greased politicians.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Here if a woman say you raped her or domestic abuse. you go to prison.
> No proof required.


Do you really expect people to believe that?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Do you really expect people to believe that?


Lives in a one man world...


----------



## Alder (Aug 18, 2014)

Proof positive that getting in trouble with the law is a stupid move. Too bad people are stupid, but...there ya go.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> Hp I think that might be. County by county.
> Here if a woman say you raped her or domestic abuse. you go to prison.
> No proof required.
> A lot of these rapes and domestics seem to be reported just after the guy moves in with another woman.
> ...


In Canada, you can't be sent to prison without being charged and convicted, which involves a trial. 

What’s reported in the news and what the facts are can be very different.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yes and you get a trail in Illinois but Illinois has a very specific law that says in a rape case the testimonial of one person is sufficient for a conviction.
Juries are made abundantly aware that is the standard to the point where they fear to do otherwise .

Oh I’m sorry but in the quote you quoted I should’ve said prison or jail


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Yes and you get a trail in Illinois but Illinois has a very specific law that says in a rape case the testimonial of one person is sufficient for a conviction.


Can you show us that statute?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

wr said:


> In Canada, you can't be sent to prison without being charged and convicted, which involves a trial.
> 
> What’s reported in the news and what the facts are can be very different.


Yep.
And what's "reported" in a trial and what the facts are, can be very different too.

Compare the opinions on jury verdicts in this thread, with say, the Roundup thread.
Some views will be consistent about the verdicts and some...........very inconsistent.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

haypoint said:


> . I know of one guy that had been charged and convicted 13 times for Drunk Driving. No telling how many times he was driving drunk and didn't get caught.
> But all of these convictions resulted in no prison time. Until the time he was drunk driving, ran off the road and his girlfriend passenger was killed. Court determined she knew he was drunk and knowingly took the risk. So, Drunk Driving, 13th time, on a suspended license, causing death and property damage gdets pled down to drunk driving and he gets 5 years in the joint.


I’d like to ask you a favor. 
I know it’s difficult and I don’t have a right to expect it but I would be grateful if you would.
Step back and forget the current laws for a moment 
In light of your background I know that’s difficult but please try. 
Now thinking simply about what’s right and wrong , common law and the constitution please explain why that man should spend s minute in jail ?


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

AmericanStand said:


> I’d like to ask you a favor.
> I know it’s difficult and I don’t have a right to expect it but I would be grateful if you would.
> Step back and forget the current laws for a moment
> In light of your background I know that’s difficult but please try.
> Now thinking simply about what’s right and wrong , common law and the constitution please explain why that man should spend s minute in jail ?


I wasn't the one who posted it, but its pretty obvious to me: (from the post)"Drunk Driving, 13th time, on a suspended license, causing death and property damage"


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

But why should any of that result in jail time any more that you having ham and eggs for breakfast?
That’s what I’m asking you to think about.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

AmericanStand said:


> But why should any of that result in jail time any more that you having ham and eggs for breakfast?
> That’s what I’m asking you to think about.


causing someones death is not worth jail time?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

According to haypoint the court said it wasn’t.
And I agree in this case people should be responsible for their choices


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Beware the dangers of hubris. Most people think that they are light years from any danger of getting crosswise of agents of "the law". Most would be terrified if they realized how thin the separation truly is or that politicians are hard at work every day shrinking that separation.


----------



## ydderf (Dec 15, 2018)

Aren't all US prisons run on a for profit basis. That would explain why they don't want your friend gone.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I don’t think so. This one is a Illinois state pen in Taylorville IL.


----------



## ydderf (Dec 15, 2018)

Are felons allowed into the military in the US? Is someone deliberately creating an under class in order to provide cannon fodder?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

AmericanStand said:


> I’d like to ask you a favor.
> I know it’s difficult and I don’t have a right to expect it but I would be grateful if you would.
> Step back and forget the current laws for a moment
> In light of your background I know that’s difficult but please try.
> Now thinking simply about what’s right and wrong , common law and the constitution please explain why that man should spend s minute in jail ?





mnn2501 said:


> I wasn't the one who posted it, but its pretty obvious to me: (from the post)"Drunk Driving, 13th time, on a suspended license, causing death and property damage"





AmericanStand said:


> But why should any of that result in jail time any more that you having ham and eggs for breakfast?
> That’s what I’m asking you to think about.


Why should he spend “a minute in jail”?

Easy (if you’d take off your “_I’ll argue against anything the establishment has established, simply because it’s been established_” glasses for even one second, you’d see it (your “edgy” unpredictableness has become tiringly predictable, BTW)) 

*Equal parts protection for him and for the father and/or brothers of his girlfriend. *

The justice system is not there to prevent crimes. By definition, it can only address crimes that have already occurred. 

Incarceration protects the convict from vigilante justice (the only kind of justice there would be without a prison system), AND the life and conscience of the would-be vigilante who would otherwise be left to their own moral obligation to avenge their loved ones. 

If someone harms my loved one, my natural instinct is to exact justice by my own hand. The court system provides me a chance to think twice, and the prison system provides the convict protection until I’m really, really sure about my second thought. 


The line may be fine, but there is a definite line between libertarianism and anarchy. 



You’re not even a passable facsimile of @Forerunner and your trying to be is just making you look silly. 
Give it up.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

ydderf said:


> Aren't all US prisons run on a for profit basis.


No, they aren't.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

ydderf said:


> Are felons allowed into the military in the US?


It depends on the crime.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Why should he spend “a minute in jail”?
> 
> Easy (if you’d take off your “_I’ll argue against anything the establishment has established, simply because it’s been established_” glasses for even one second, you’d see it (your “edgy” unpredictableness has become tiringly predictable, BTW))
> 
> ...


So you deny the woman’s right to choice ?
And deny her responsibility in her choice ?
If you accept that the law had a right to insert itself in this case don’t you then logically need to accept its ruling ?

Personally I see no reason for the criminal justice system to be involved at all.


----------



## 1948CaseVAI (May 12, 2014)

hiddensprings said:


> ... We don't give them a chance to be successful.


Not trying to argue but as a retired LEO I feel the need to point out that they had a chance to be successful, and blew it.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

1948CaseVAI said:


> Not trying to argue but as a retired LEO I feel the need to point out that they had a chance to be successful, and blew it.


This brings me right back around to the point that if they are too dangerous to have free exercise of all their rights without big brother watching over their shoulders, they are too dangerous to be roaming loose.


----------



## Tnff319 (May 28, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> So you deny the woman’s right to choice ?
> And deny her responsibility in her choice ?
> If you accept that the law had a right to insert itself in this case don’t you then logically need to accept its ruling ?
> 
> Personally I see no reason for the criminal justice system to be involved at all.


Was she intoxicated? Did she have the mindset to make a choice? I see where you are going. Play stupid games and win stupid prizes. She made a bad choice and paid the price.

Freedom is usually 2 sided. Is his right to be reckless by driving drunk greater than my right to travel safely?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Why should he spend “a minute in jail”?
> 
> Easy (if you’d take off your “_I’ll argue against anything the establishment has established, simply because it’s been established_” glasses for even one second, you’d see it (your “edgy” unpredictableness has become tiringly predictable, BTW))
> 
> ...


Americanstand's question wasn't addressed to me either, but I wouldn't know how to give an answer to it. I'd have to be convinced that he didn't already know.....and if he truly didn't, he's got way bigger problems than I could fix. 

But you brought up an excellent point.
Having lost my little brother in similar circumstances, I came close to giving the driver the justice that the courts did not.
He was good friends with Sean, making a beer run for a big party in the woods and never made it back.
The DA dropped the ball and never charged him with vehicular/DUI manslaughter, just 10 days time served for DUI.

I called the boy about a month later and told him what I thought should happen.
But he had started a family with a wife and a baby.
He also had to live with the fact he killed his best friend at 23.
That alone is a life sentence, with or without a cell.
So I gave him the option of leaving the state and never letting me set eyes on him again.
He was smart enough to take it and I guess I'd forgive him now, but at the time I wanted blood.

But unless AS is a vegan, equating a ham an egg breakfast with taking another's life isn't something that should need explaining.




> You’re not even a passable facsimile of @Forerunner and your trying to be is just making you look silly.
> Give it up.


True.
Forerunner has a firm grasp on right and wrong.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Forerunner has a firm grasp on right and wrong.


As do lots of people.
Some talk the talk but don't always mean what they say.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Tnff319 said:


> Was she intoxicated? Did she have the mindset to make a choice? I see where you are going. Play stupid games and win stupid prizes. She made a bad choice and paid the price.
> 
> Freedom is usually 2 sided. Is his right to be reckless by driving drunk greater than my right to travel safely?


How about we skip drunk driving being a stand alone crime and simply nail someone to the wall when their willful negligence harms someone else, whether they are drunk, sober, asleep, texting, or whatever else may be the circumstances. You wouldn't advocate charging me with rape simply because I have functioning "plumbing", so why do we charge someone simply for representing what we believe a higher risk without any actual harm done to anyone?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> You wouldn't advocate charging me with rape simply because I have functioning "plumbing", so *why do we charge someone simply for representing what we believe a higher risk* without any actual harm done to anyone?


To reduce that *known* risk.
There's no "belief" involved.

Many accidents involve drunks.
They kill more people each year than "assault weapons".

https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving



> *Every day, almost 30 people in the United States die in drunk-driving crashes*—that's one person every 48 minutes in 2017. These deaths have fallen by a third in the last three decades; however, drunk-driving crashes claim more than 10,000 lives per year. In 2010, the most recent year for which cost data is available, these deaths and damages contributed to a cost of $44 billion that year.



It would be ridiculous to say "it's ok to drive drunk as long as you don't have a wreck".


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Tnff319 said:


> Was she intoxicated? Did she have the mindset to make a choice? I see where you are going. Play stupid games and win stupid prizes. She made a bad choice and paid the price.
> 
> Freedom is usually 2 sided. Is his right to be reckless by driving drunk greater than my right to travel safely?


 To be honest the death thing was a sidetrack to where I was going. 
I figured that since the court had ruled on that it would be a moot point. 
The wants more law side should see it as justice as should the wants less side.


What seemed to upset Haypoint was the man hadn’t done time for 13 charges of DWI. 
A charge for a crime that you might commit .
13 think about it 13 times without committing a crime other than dwi. Obviously he has demonstrated ability. 

Where I wanted to go was why should it even be a crime ?
It’s a fake crime set up for a bunch of “ safe Space” cry babies that doesn’t even do what they wanted
They couldn’t find a way to measure ability so they used a different standard. It’s a sorta shoot them all and let God sort it out standard. 
They keep revising it cause it doesn’t work. 
Bad news we all have some alcohol in our system so at some point if they keep going the way they are we will all be DUI felons.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> I’d like to ask you a favor.
> I know it’s difficult and I don’t have a right to expect it but I would be grateful if you would.
> Step back and forget the current laws for a moment
> In light of your background I know that’s difficult but please try.
> Now thinking simply about what’s right and wrong , common law and the constitution please explain why that man should spend s minute in jail ?


In a civilized society we favor safety, security. Most fatal crashes are the result of drunk drivers. Driving is a privilege. Driving drunk puts the rest of us in greater danger, a danger we can reduce by getting drunk away from the steering wheel. I suspect that many of those 13 arrests involved property damage, other people's property. Clearly, suspending his drivers license isn't keeping him from driving drunk. We don't need to wait until he rams a school bus, killing more people, since we know his drunk driving greatly increases the possibility that he will kill or injure others.

Part of prison is to take away freedom, a punishment for harming others. It is expected this would be a deterrent. Another part of prison is to get them away from access to their drug of choice. This happens after repeated examples that drug or alcohol induced stupor resulted in poor choices that put others at risk of harm. Another benefit of prison is that it serves as protection for the community from the person that is apt to harm others while in their drunken state. Often, lengthy prison sentences allow enough of the prisoner's life to slip away to render them less likely to engage in any high energy criminal behavior. Not sure how 20 years would change a drunk.

What's right and wrong? In a very basic civilization, the family of the woman that was killed as a result of this drunk running into a tree gets some sort of justice. Native Americans reaction to such a tragedy might seek out the perpetrator and kill him and his family. A toll of some sort is paid, sort of an eye for an eye.

I am aware of a guy that had caused numerous accidents while drunk driving. He grew up on Mackinac Island. There are no motor vehicles on Mackinac Island. He was paroled to Mackinac Island and not allowed to leave the island for the duration of his parole. His drinking was not the concern. Placing others in danger while he was driving while drunk was the focus. Not a concern in a community without cars.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Tnff319 said:


> Freedom is usually 2 sided. Is his right to be reckless by driving drunk greater than my right to travel safely?


 Of course it is. 
You have no right to safety , never have never will it doesn’t exist. 
Certainly not on the highway.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Why do you think he killed her ?with two drunks in the car any number of things may have happened. 
The judge didn’t think it was his fault and he may have known something we don’t.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I have no problem with him getting life in prison when he kills someone. 
As long as everyone who kills with a vehicle gets the same treatment. 
Remember it’s supposed to be a deterrent


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

That life in person needs to include locomotive engineers and ships capataind and their owners.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> To reduce that *known* risk.
> There's no "belief" involved.
> 
> Many accidents involve drunks.
> ...


I would expect you of all people to understand the core principle of common law that there must be an identifiable harmed victim in order for a crime to have occurred, and also to understand the hazards to freedom posed by the trend over the last century of adapting the highly arbitrary maritime law for use on land.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> Again, I don't know about Michigan, but when Indians turned control of a prison over to a corporation those with the money to buy influence bought their way into a cash cow where the "savings" wad derived from cutting staff numbers and pay and from serving food that was marginally edible while the corporation reaped the savings, a little of which lowered the state's cost and more of which greased politicians


We are drifting a bit. But you deserve a reply.

People complain about the cost of holding prisoners. Time and time again, citizens,, taxpayers and voters favor keeping criminals locked up, the longer the better. But no one wants to pay for it.

Lots of folks think government employees earn too much. Lots of folks seek to cut the cost of housing convicted criminals. This leads to the privatization of prisons. This makes fewer government employees, so politicians can say government is smaller.

Every corporation exists to profit. That's a fact.

Many years ago, Texas privatized their prisons. The bid was too low and after a few years the corporation declined to renew their contract. This left Texas with the costly task of hiring and training a new group of replacement staff. Plus, the private corporation had let the facilities deteriorate. So, in hindsight it cost more than they saved.

A few years later, the lure of private corporation operated prisons returned. This corporation was getting paid per inmate. They expanded the prison industry. They brought in more cotton looms, sewing machines and furniture making machinery. They used inmate labor to build more stone and concrete prison cells. They capitalized on all the free labor. Their profits began to grow. But, the citizens, taxpayers and voters couldn't stand by and see a corporation profit from "their" convicts. Soon, Texas went back to government control.

So, privatization doesn't work well if they lose money and the public won't stand for a corporation making a profit.

A hundred years ago, most prisons and mental hospitals were self supporting. Products produced competed on the open market. As society has progressed, many law suits on humane care have created standards that make self support impossible.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

ydderf said:


> Aren't all US prisons run on a for profit basis. That would explain why they don't want your friend gone.


Very few US prisons are run on a for profit basis. They are all a drain on society. But it is very costly to have criminals in society. 66% of criminals, within 3 years of release are caught, convicted and returned to prison. That reign of terror that leads to a conviction is generally more costly than the cost of keeping the jerk in the joint. Great effort is exerted to sort out the 33% that add to society for release and an equal effort to hold those that are predisposed to return to a life of crime.

The blame isn't on the Parole Board that is fussy about granting a parole. The blame is on those criminals that remain criminals despite society's effort to supply education, therapy and guidance.


Took me awhile before I understood how many career criminals view the world. When asked why they were in prison, the answer often began with "I got caught......" It wasn't their actions that got them in prison, it was the getting caught. Another way, "The Cops broke into my drug house...." or " The guy I shot picked me out of a line up..." It all centers on what others did, never an admission of a crime that they committed. They aren't in prison for killing someone, they are in prison because the witnesses spoke up or the Cops gathered evidence. As long as you don't make a connection between your actions and the punishment, you never change the behavior.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Scary to think some of you drive something as lethal as a big rig.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

haypoint said:


> Very few US prisons are run on a for profit basis. They are all a drain on society. But it is very costly to have criminals in society. 66% of criminals, within 3 years of release are caught, convicted and returned to prison. That reign of terror that leads to a conviction is generally more costly than the cost of keeping the jerk in the joint. Great effort is exerted to sort out the 33% that add to society for release and an equal effort to hold those that are predisposed to return to a life of crime.
> 
> The blame isn't on the Parole Board that is fussy about granting a parole. The blame is on those criminals that remain criminals despite society's effort to supply education, therapy and guidance.
> 
> ...


What you have said sounds remarkably similar with what I heard in training but not what I heard in practice. Most all of my inmates were honest with me about what they did to get where they were in terms that recognized that they were responsible.

I would also point out that my conclusion is that about a third were incorrigible, a third would never do it again, and a third were pliable to the handling they received either at the hands of the staff or st the hands of the incorrigibles. A few of the inmates whose judgment o trusted thought I was a little too optimistic while agreeing with the basic principle of my belief on the subject, but nevertheless, the first thing to slow recidivism is to keep the more impressionable inmates away from the incorrigibles so that prison stops function as Criminal University. No attempt is being made to do this.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> To be honest the death thing was a sidetrack to where I was going.
> I figured that since the court had ruled on that it would be a moot point.
> The wants more law side should see it as justice as should the wants less side.
> 
> ...


I thought that may be the point you were making and not the facetious one, and I get it.
You were trying to get people to use more reason and less emotion in their judgements on others, right?




haypoint said:


> In a civilized society we favor safety, security. Most fatal crashes are the result of drunk drivers. Driving is a privilege. Driving drunk puts the rest of us in greater danger, a danger we can reduce by getting drunk away from the steering wheel. I suspect that many of those 13 arrests involved property damage, other people's property. Clearly, suspending his drivers license isn't keeping him from driving drunk. We don't need to wait until he rams a school bus, killing more people, since we know his drunk driving greatly increases the possibility that he will kill or injure others.
> 
> Part of prison is to take away freedom, a punishment for harming others. It is expected this would be a deterrent. Another part of prison is to get them away from access to their drug of choice. This happens after repeated examples that drug or alcohol induced stupor resulted in poor choices that put others at risk of harm. Another benefit of prison is that it serves as protection for the community from the person that is apt to harm others while in their drunken state. Often, lengthy prison sentences allow enough of the prisoner's life to slip away to render them less likely to engage in any high energy criminal behavior. Not sure how 20 years would change a drunk.
> 
> ...


And this is what I mean.
Unfortunately, you're wrong about the stats.
Drunk driving is 3rd among causes.
#1 and #2 is incompetence in driving ability and keeping control of the vehicle.
IOW, alcohol certainly impairs a driver's ability, but there are far too many that kill others on the road because they are brain damaged WITHOUT the help of alcohol!  

https://www.drivers.com/article/1173/


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> Of course it is.
> You have no right to safety , never have never will it doesn’t exist.
> Certainly not on the highway.



You're right, but far too many don't believe that.
Life is filled with dangers, like a river that has rapids.
There are no guarantees and no matter how safe you try to be, some of us don't make it to the end, or rather the "end" comes unexpectedly.
Human nature looks for a scapegoat, someone to blame, and even when the cause isn't directly related, whoever is the "goat" already tied up in the pen, vengeance for all the wrongs perceived in life takes precedence over being fair and just.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

HDRider said:


> Scary to think some of you drive something as lethal as a big rig.


If it makes you feel any better, although I drive a truck and believe in applying that common law standard which does not allow for punishing pre-crime, I don't drink, ever.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> I would also point out that my conclusion is that about a third were incorrigible, a third would never do it again, and a third were pliable to the handling they received either at the hands of the staff or st the hands of the incorrigibles. A few of the inmates whose judgment o trusted thought I was a little too optimistic while agreeing with the basic principle of my belief on the subject, but nevertheless, the first thing to slow recidivism is to keep the more impressionable inmates away from the incorrigibles so that prison stops function as Criminal University. No attempt is being made to do this.


I came to a similar conclusion.
I think if you took the perhaps, third, that committed one serious crime and regretted it, never going to commit another crime and gave them long supervised probation. Very little cost to the tax payer and no risk to the citizens. Might be a hard sel to those in for the single crime of rape or murder. But if they aren't going to commit another crime, what's the point of prison?

Then take the other, perhaps third, that may have committed a serious crime or not, but have a criminal mindset, came from a life of crime and going back to a life of crime. Could be murders, could be a decades lon string of purse snatching. Long or short sentence, no matter, when released will continue their lawless lifestyle. This group offer nothing to society. Death penalty. No continued drain on taxpayers for their care.

Then take the remaining prisoners that hold some hope of getting their lives back on track. For some it would be Drug or alcohol therapy, ending the crime addiction link. For others it would be to teach a marketable skill, providing an opportunity to earn a living without crime. Boot Camp style prisons have shown to be effective to young offenders.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> I would expect you of all people to understand the core principle of common law that there must be an identifiable harmed victim in order for a crime to have occurred, and also to understand the hazards to freedom posed by the trend over the last century of adapting the highly arbitrary maritime law for use on land.


Are you saying I can shoot at you and as long as I missed, there is no crime?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

haypoint said:


> Are you saying I can shoot at you and as long as I missed, there is no crime?


Some of these self-styled judges of natural laws are nuts.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

haypoint said:


> Are you saying I can shoot at you and as long as I missed, there is no crime?


Of course depends on intent


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HDRider said:


> Scary to think some of you drive something as lethal as a big rig.


Why is that. ?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Why is that. ?


I share the road with you


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Ok but what is it that scared you ?


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> Ok but what is it that scared you ?


You reading and commenting on forums while driving?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Why would that bother you ?


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> Why would that bother you ?


You feeling you need to ask is even scarier.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

coolrunnin said:


> You feeling you need to ask is even scarier.


 Un like you id like to know what we are talking about .
Does it bother you if a driver listens to and talks on the Cb?
That’s pretty much what I do.

You seem intent on convicting me of a crime I didn’t commit.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Of course depends on intent


If I intended to miss and missed, no crime? If I intended to miss, but killed you, no intent, no crime? If I broke the law 35,000 times, by using a personal server that is not allowed (man's laws) and when the court ordered me to turn over thousands of pages of evidence, stored on 9 computers, smart phones and tablets, I destroy the evidence, but I say I have no intent to break the law. Is that a crime?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

If you intended to shoot at someone yes a crime. 
If you were shooting at a target and missed me no crime


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

coolrunnin said:


> You reading and commenting on forums while driving?


Funny that , I would contend it makes me a safer driver. 
You can’t imagine I’m not driving and reading and texting. 
Why not ,? is that what you do ?
I’d contend if that’s what I do it makes me safer , more alert. 
At this moment I’m in a rest area. 
But most times my computer reads to me and types my comments. 
Sorta like talking on the Cb in actual use.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> Un like you id like to know what we are talking about .
> Does it bother you if a driver listens to and talks on the Cb?
> That’s pretty much what I do.
> 
> You seem intent on convicting me of a crime I didn’t commit.


Whatever dude, your a danger whether you choose to recognize it or not.

You have to click on a particular passage, even with voice recognition.

I'm not familiar with any software that will read you a particular post hands free.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> Funny that , I would contend it makes me a safer driver.
> You can’t imagine I’m not driving and reading and texting.
> Why not ,? is that what you do ?
> I’d contend if that’s what I do it makes me safer , more alert.
> ...


I contend it makes you a distracted driver, ie no better than a drunk driver. 

But whatever you'll do what you do regardless.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> You’re not even a passable facsimile of @Forerunner and your trying to be is just making you look silly.
> Give it up.


So.......tell me, again, what I have to do with the price of tea in China ?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

You have a fan club and I don’t live up to their standards!​


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> I would expect you of all people to understand the core principle of common law that there must be an identifiable harmed victim in order for a crime to have occurred, and also to understand the hazards to freedom posed by the trend over the last century of adapting the highly arbitrary maritime law for use on land.


Save all the rhetorical rambling for someone else.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

Oh.

Well......we’ll have to see about that.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Save all the rhetorical rambling for someone else.


There was no rhetorical rambling in the post you referenced.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

coolrunnin said:


> I contend it makes you a distracted driver, ie no better than a drunk driver.
> 
> But whatever you'll do what you do regardless.


 Well yes I will. 
Do you listen to the radio , play music,talk on the phone or talk on the Cb while driving ? Does that make you a distracted driver ?

You see when driving gets boring any one of those “distractions “ can Help keep you alert. 

Buy the way considering. Our conversation about drunk drivers you are making my point if you want to equate me with a drunk driver. 
Millions of safe accident free miles shouldn’t be a crime.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


> *Some* of these self-styled judges of natural laws are nuts.


I think they all are.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Forerunner said:


> There was no rhetorical rambling in the post you referenced.


That's a matter of opinion.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

coolrunnin said:


> Whatever dude, your a danger whether you choose to recognize it or not.
> 
> You have to click on a particular passage, even with voice recognition.
> 
> I'm not familiar with any software that will read you a particular post hands free.


 There seem to be a lot of things that you are not familer with . 
It wouldn’t hurt to educate yourself.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> There seem to be a lot of things that you are not familer with .
> It wouldn’t hurt to educate yourself.


Please educate me, I'm always up for learning.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Lol now that’s funny


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol now that’s funny


That's about what I expected.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

coolrunnin said:


> That's about what I expected.


I am guessing he is using a talk-to-text app


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

HDRider said:


> I am guessing he is using a talk-to-text app


That doesn't work to read forums.

How you going to answer specific posts without reading them


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HDRider said:


> I am guessing he is using a talk-to-text app


 Good guess but it was actually. Created to allow the blind to use computers so it’s stronger on the reading part than the Talking.
It was modified in some airforce labs in Albuquerque so it. Sometimes does funny things with military Terms.
I actually thought someone would have figured it out long ago from the look of my posts.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

coolrunnin said:


> That doesn't work to read forums.
> 
> How you going to answer specific posts without reading them


I don't know


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

haypoint said:


> Are you saying I can shoot at you and as long as I missed, there is no crime?


Deliberately attempting to shoot me is a different issue entirely.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

haypoint said:


> If I intended to miss and missed, no crime? If I intended to miss, but killed you, no intent, no crime? If I broke the law 35,000 times, by using a personal server that is not allowed (man's laws) and when the court ordered me to turn over thousands of pages of evidence, stored on 9 computers, smart phones and tablets, I destroy the evidence, but I say I have no intent to break the law. Is that a crime?


When you are handling information that belongs to we the people in an unauthorized way when on a position of trust, knowing full well that the information in question is legally required to be preserved, bearing in mind that those communications are NOT your personal property, prison is absolutely in order.


----------



## hiddensprings (Aug 6, 2009)

1948CaseVAI said:


> Not trying to argue but as a retired LEO I feel the need to point out that they had a chance to be successful, and blew it.


. Absolutely, they screwed up but they have also paid their debt.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

AmericanStand said:


> Good guess but it was actually. Created to allow the blind to use computers so it’s stronger on the reading part than the Talking.
> It was modified in some airforce labs in Albuquerque so it. Sometimes does funny things with military Terms.
> I actually thought someone would have figured it out long ago from the look of my posts.


Would you mind sharing the name of the app you are using? I am always on the lookout for better technology for my students so any other stuff I can check out is always appreciated.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I don’t 


SLFarmMI said:


> Would you mind sharing the name of the app you are using? I am always on the lookout for better technology for my students so any other stuff I can check out is always appreciated.


I don’t really know. 
About ten years ago I mentioned the problem to my. Uncle who works with puters for the Air Force. 
A few years after that he was helping a coworker write code to improve a program for his blind daughter when he realized it. Might work for me. 
Believe me it’s not perfect but it is considerably better than the original program. 
Good enough I e hung onto this way longer than I would have otherwise. 
If you have any friends involved in blind education you might inquire of them for something state of the art.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> I don’t really know.


If you're using an "app" it's loaded in your phone.
All you have to do is look.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If you're using an "app" it's loaded in your phone.
> All you have to do is look.


He’s not on a phone. He has answered my question to my satisfaction.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

https://www.business.com/categories/best-voice-recognition-software/
https://zapier.com/blog/best-text-dictation-software/

I used to clean up Dragon Naturally Speaking for a psychiatrist years and years ago. It was terrible.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

hiddensprings said:


> . Absolutely, they screwed up but they have also paid their debt.


Poor choices have a way of effecting your whole life. Unplanned pregnancy, marry a drunk, commit a felony are things that alter the direction or your life, set you back, in ways you might not expect.
Sitting in a cell is a crappy chapter in anyone's life, but not sure you are paying a debt.

I know a Christian Iranian that was in the US on a green card or some permitted reason. He came as a teenager. As a young adult, he was arrested and put in prison for operating a Crack House. He did his 5 year prison sentence. Then he opened a chain of tobacco stores and employees 50 people. The terms of him staying in the US is no felony convictions. While he's been out of prison for 10 years, his permit to stay is revoked. He will be sent to Iran. Likely Muslims will murder him.

I'd rather him pay back the State the cost of his incarceration, do something positive for getting people off drugs. Then, I'd say he's paid his debt. But th law says he gets sent home, a home he hasn't seen.

"pay his debt" is not s easy as you might think.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Wolf mom said:


> https://www.business.com/categories/best-voice-recognition-software/
> https://zapier.com/blog/best-text-dictation-software/
> 
> I used to clean up Dragon Naturally Speaking for a psychiatrist years and years ago. It was terrible.


Ugh! I hate Dragon! Not user friendly and worthless if the person using it has speech issues as many of my kids do.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

It never worked for me. 
Then it got worse


----------



## 101pigs (Sep 18, 2018)

haypoint said:


> Poor choices have a way of effecting your whole life. Unplanned pregnancy, marry a drunk, commit a felony are things that alter the direction or your life, set you back, in ways you might not expect.
> Sitting in a cell is a crappy chapter in anyone's life, but not sure you are paying a debt.
> 
> I know a Christian Iranian that was in the US on a green card or some permitted reason. He came as a teenager. As a young adult, he was arrested and put in prison for operating a Crack House. He did his 5 year prison sentence. Then he opened a chain of tobacco stores and employees 50 people. The terms of him staying in the US is no felony convictions. While he's been out of prison for 10 years, his permit to stay is revoked. He will be sent to Iran. Likely Muslims will murder him.
> ...


Did he apply to be a citizen of the U.S. while here?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

haypoint said:


> Poor choices have a way of effecting your whole life. Unplanned pregnancy, marry a drunk, commit a felony are things that alter the direction or your life, set you back, in ways you might not expect.
> Sitting in a cell is a crappy chapter in anyone's life, but not sure you are paying a debt.
> 
> I know a Christian Iranian that was in the US on a green card or some permitted reason. He came as a teenager. As a young adult, he was arrested and put in prison for operating a Crack House. He did his 5 year prison sentence. Then he opened a chain of tobacco stores and employees 50 people. The terms of him staying in the US is no felony convictions. While he's been out of prison for 10 years, his permit to stay is revoked. He will be sent to Iran. Likely Muslims will murder him.
> ...


We have a cookie cutter system.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

HDRider said:


> We have a cookie cutter system.


Indeed! One size fits none all the way!


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

101pigs said:


> Did he apply to be a citizen of the U.S. while here?


I doubt he would be allowed citizenship due to the felony conviction. There are about a thousand Chaldeans in the Detroit area that are in this same situation. On one hand, they knew that a felony would result in their expulsion. Most came here decades ago. They all fear that a return to Iran would result in their death, since they are Christians. Most are abiding by the law, now. Some committed their crimes a decade ago. The Obama administration was not expelling middle eastern criminals, so they assumed they would be able to stay.

Every felon is different. Each case unique. Being fair is a question of perspective. Too often society wants to give criminals help to "get back on track", while the law abiding citizen struggles to earn a living. Giving free education to felons sounds great, except to the guy struggling to earn a living and attend costly classes.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

IndyDave said:


> Indeed! One size fits none all the way!


High volume production.

Convicts are not a artisanal product.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

HDRider said:


> High volume production.
> 
> Convicts are not a artisanal product.


True enough, but more attention to detail could significantly reduce recidivism, and I don't necessarily mean expensive programs.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

IndyDave said:


> True enough, but more attention to detail could significantly reduce recidivism, and I don't necessarily mean expensive programs.


Everything is about money. Government wants bigger budgets. Private industry wants bigger profits.


----------



## Grey Mare (Jun 28, 2013)

Didn't read all 7 pages...I already know AmericanStand's views on rape....will plead the 5th on that.

Simple really...don't want to go to jail or prison, don't break the law. Hard concept for people to understand it seems. 

And I am like a few others, harm or hurt my family, I WILL see you rot in whatever jail or prison I can find and you WILL pay for your crime...I don't care who begs or how much others cry for mercy. Did it once, would do it again.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Grey Mare said:


> Simple really...don't want to go to jail or prison, don't break the law. Hard concept for people to understand it seems.
> 
> And I am like a few others, harm or hurt my family, I WILL see you rot in whatever jail or prison I can find and you WILL pay for your crime...I don't care who begs or how much others cry for mercy. Did it once, would do it again.


Lol yes that’s a simple. Concept. 
The hard concept for a lot of people is understanding you can become a convicted felon WITHOUT breaking a law.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol yes that’s a simple. Concept.
> The hard concept for a lot of people is understanding you can become a convicted felon WITHOUT breaking a law.


Yes, as evidenced by the number of people released after years or decades of wrongful incarceration.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

One too many cleanups.


----------

