I am a bit on the fence about the issue of violent offenders and parole. I feel that something needs to be done to reduce the prison population but am a bit unsure if this should include violent offenders. someone accused of killing an innocent child should not be allowed a chance at freedom, they deserve to serve their entire sentence. I understand that as people age they mellow out and probably will not commit more violent crimes if released into society. But the fact is that they took a life why should they get to enjoy freedom. What about the families who are affected by the acts of the criminal they can never see their loved one again so why should their loved ones killer get the chance to be with their loved one. We all have free will and if one doesn't want to spend a lifetime behind bars perhaps they shouldn't do things that will make that happen. Juveniles that are sentenced to life behind bars I feel is too harsh regardless of the crime committed because they are often times unable to make good choices at young ages and they certainly don't think about the consequences. So in the case of a juvenile I feel they should be given the chance for parole if it can be shown by a professional that they no longer pose a threat to society. I am even okay with a rapist being able to receive parole if they are deemed not a threat to society and still have to register as a sex offender. But murderers to me should serve out what ever sentence is handed down to them. They have taken a life and spending theirs behind bars is justified payment for the crime of murder. If a life sentence is handed down they deserve to die behind bars. I have my own personal experience with this and the man who took my loved one from me got sentenced to 45 years with no possibility of parole and he deserves to spend the entire 45 years at Menard Correctional Facility. Mommy004
I agree with you that the prison population needs to be reduced because overpopulation has caused numerous problems in the criminal justice system, but I think releasing violent offenders is not the answer. Nonviolent drug offenders should be considered for parole before violent offenders. I also see your point that juveniles sentenced to life behind bars is harsh, especially since most of them age out of crime. You are right that murderers should be required to serve their full sentence. Those who kill another human being (not including those who acted in self defense or those charged with involuntary manslaughter) should not be rewarded with early release. Scuba004
It is important to remember that these proposed chances for parole are just that, chances for parole. Serious violent offenders, such as those who murder children, will probably face an extremely hard time in getting granted parole if they are even given the chance. However, someone who made a serious mistake when they were in their twenties and are now in the middle of their forties may have changed and their likely hood of recidivism may have diminished. Ghost004
I agree with the recommendations set forth by the Justice Reinvestment Task Force. I like how it allows for prisoners serving life sentences, excluding first-degree murder, to go in front of the parole board after 30 years or when they reach the age of 50, and prisoners who are serving lengthy sentences for other violent or sex crimes to go in front of the parole board after 20 years or when they reach the age of 45. I think that even though these people have committed some of the most horrible acts that one could ever do to another person, they are still humans. They, one would hope, would have learned their lesson after 20 or 30 years, and would be able to be productive members of society upon release, with help of course. I especially like this when it comes to those sentenced to life as juveniles. Juveniles are not as mature as adults, and while they should know that violent or sexual crimes are wrong, their brains are still developing and this needs to be taken into account. Juveniles do not look at the long term consequences to their actions, they are impulsive and irrational and should not be punished from the time they are 18 until they die. I'm not quite so sure about dropping the eligibility of parole from 75% of their sentence served to 55%. While I do not know what the number should be, I feel like 55% of the sentence served may not be long enough, but I do believe that 75% would be too long in many cases. I feel like taking this on a case by case basis may be a better option. Looking at a prisoners growth while incarcerated and their remorse for their taking part in the actions that landed them in prison I think would be a better measuring tool of when a person is ready to go before a parole board. I also like that the task force wants to give more descression back to judges in cases where felons are caught in possession of a firearm. I believe that the 10 year mandatory minimum is outrageously long for this crime, and I like how the task force wants to allow the judge to look at these cases on an offender by offender basis and allow them to sentence an offender to anywhere between 1 to 20 years for that gun possession. I think overall this task force came up with some great ideas on how to reduce Louisiana's prison population. I hope these plans will be approved by the governor and will, hopefully, be adopted by other states as well in the future. EKT004
I do not agree with all of the recommendations about handling people convicted of violent crimes. Before the government changes the punishment for violent offenders, they need to adjust the punishment for nonviolent drug offenders. The article mentions one of the recommendations that will allow inmates serving long sentences for a violent crime to be eligible after 20 years. Sentencing for some felony drug charges (for nonviolent offenders) can put offenders in prison for 10-20+ years. To me, it is not logical for nonviolent drug offenders to serve the same sentence or even half the sentence as a violent offender, such as a murderer. The article also mentioned the recommendations want to allow some people sentenced to life in prison as juveniles to have the opportunity for parole. These people will not know how to properly function in civilization without the proper materials the prison will have to provide. I do not believe prisons are prepared to give prisoners the knowledge, skills, and help they need to live a productive life in civilization. The insanely high recidivism rate for offenders proves prisons need to fix the tools they offer offenders being released. When the sentencing for nonviolent drug offenders is lessened and the recidivism rates are greatly reduced, then we should consider lessening the sentencing for violent offenders. Scuba004
I agree with you Scuba they need to work on reducing the sentences given to nonviolent offenders. If the concern is dealing with the overcrowding eliminating mandatory sentences for drug offenses will help bring down the prison population. But the violent offenders are a much bigger threat to society so lowering their prison stay by releasing them on parole seems a bit scary and wrong. Even if they are older they did the crime they need to do the time. If people don't want to spend their lives behind bars they shouldn't break laws. mommy004
Louisiana is looking to lower their prison populations through the reformation of laws and regulations to lower penalties around the board. In charge of this operation is the Governors task force of judges, legislators, a district attorney, and a religious leader. This task force has seemed to reach mutual agreements on most non-violent crimes and their reduction in penalties, but the same cannot be said for violent offenders. While many support the idea of opening the possibility of parole for violent offenders, some have voted against it. Those voting against this reformation argue that violent offenders are not up for discussion and should be left to live out the remainder of their sentences because they deserve what justice has deemed just. Some have even said that everyone in prison deserves to be there, however, many people in charge of the prisons such as, Department of Corrections Secretary Jimmy LeBlanc, argue that many of the violent offenders who have been imprisoned for long periods of time are not the same people they were and do not pose a threat to society. Since this comes directly from those in charge of the everyday lives of these prisoners and have first hand experience with these offenders, their statements carry considerable weight. Violent crimes are the most serious forms of crime, but we cannot expect someone to remain violent throughout their life of imprisonment. This progress in character for many inmates is exactly why many people put faith into our justice system, and to not allow some people a second chance could be considered unjust itself. Lowering prison populations and ensuring a better quality of justice must take precedence over holding onto grudges of offenses past. Nevertheless, only those who have exhibited exceptional behavior and motive should be considered for parole. Ghost004
I am a bit on the fence about the issue of violent offenders and parole. I feel that something needs to be done to reduce the prison population but am a bit unsure if this should include violent offenders. someone accused of killing an innocent child should not be allowed a chance at freedom, they deserve to serve their entire sentence. I understand that as people age they mellow out and probably will not commit more violent crimes if released into society. But the fact is that they took a life why should they get to enjoy freedom. What about the families who are affected by the acts of the criminal they can never see their loved one again so why should their loved ones killer get the chance to be with their loved one. We all have free will and if one doesn't want to spend a lifetime behind bars perhaps they shouldn't do things that will make that happen. Juveniles that are sentenced to life behind bars I feel is too harsh regardless of the crime committed because they are often times unable to make good choices at young ages and they certainly don't think about the consequences. So in the case of a juvenile I feel they should be given the chance for parole if it can be shown by a professional that they no longer pose a threat to society. I am even okay with a rapist being able to receive parole if they are deemed not a threat to society and still have to register as a sex offender. But murderers to me should serve out what ever sentence is handed down to them. They have taken a life and spending theirs behind bars is justified payment for the crime of murder. If a life sentence is handed down they deserve to die behind bars. I have my own personal experience with this and the man who took my loved one from me got sentenced to 45 years with no possibility of parole and he deserves to spend the entire 45 years at Menard Correctional Facility. Mommy004
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that the prison population needs to be reduced because overpopulation has caused numerous problems in the criminal justice system, but I think releasing violent offenders is not the answer. Nonviolent drug offenders should be considered for parole before violent offenders. I also see your point that juveniles sentenced to life behind bars is harsh, especially since most of them age out of crime. You are right that murderers should be required to serve their full sentence. Those who kill another human being (not including those who acted in self defense or those charged with involuntary manslaughter) should not be rewarded with early release. Scuba004
DeleteIt is important to remember that these proposed chances for parole are just that, chances for parole. Serious violent offenders, such as those who murder children, will probably face an extremely hard time in getting granted parole if they are even given the chance. However, someone who made a serious mistake when they were in their twenties and are now in the middle of their forties may have changed and their likely hood of recidivism may have diminished. Ghost004
DeleteI agree with the recommendations set forth by the Justice Reinvestment Task Force. I like how it allows for prisoners serving life sentences, excluding first-degree murder, to go in front of the parole board after 30 years or when they reach the age of 50, and prisoners who are serving lengthy sentences for other violent or sex crimes to go in front of the parole board after 20 years or when they reach the age of 45. I think that even though these people have committed some of the most horrible acts that one could ever do to another person, they are still humans. They, one would hope, would have learned their lesson after 20 or 30 years, and would be able to be productive members of society upon release, with help of course. I especially like this when it comes to those sentenced to life as juveniles. Juveniles are not as mature as adults, and while they should know that violent or sexual crimes are wrong, their brains are still developing and this needs to be taken into account. Juveniles do not look at the long term consequences to their actions, they are impulsive and irrational and should not be punished from the time they are 18 until they die. I'm not quite so sure about dropping the eligibility of parole from 75% of their sentence served to 55%. While I do not know what the number should be, I feel like 55% of the sentence served may not be long enough, but I do believe that 75% would be too long in many cases. I feel like taking this on a case by case basis may be a better option. Looking at a prisoners growth while incarcerated and their remorse for their taking part in the actions that landed them in prison I think would be a better measuring tool of when a person is ready to go before a parole board. I also like that the task force wants to give more descression back to judges in cases where felons are caught in possession of a firearm. I believe that the 10 year mandatory minimum is outrageously long for this crime, and I like how the task force wants to allow the judge to look at these cases on an offender by offender basis and allow them to sentence an offender to anywhere between 1 to 20 years for that gun possession. I think overall this task force came up with some great ideas on how to reduce Louisiana's prison population. I hope these plans will be approved by the governor and will, hopefully, be adopted by other states as well in the future. EKT004
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with all of the recommendations about handling people convicted of violent crimes. Before the government changes the punishment for violent offenders, they need to adjust the punishment for nonviolent drug offenders. The article mentions one of the recommendations that will allow inmates serving long sentences for a violent crime to be eligible after 20 years. Sentencing for some felony drug charges (for nonviolent offenders) can put offenders in prison for 10-20+ years. To me, it is not logical for nonviolent drug offenders to serve the same sentence or even half the sentence as a violent offender, such as a murderer. The article also mentioned the recommendations want to allow some people sentenced to life in prison as juveniles to have the opportunity for parole. These people will not know how to properly function in civilization without the proper materials the prison will have to provide. I do not believe prisons are prepared to give prisoners the knowledge, skills, and help they need to live a productive life in civilization. The insanely high recidivism rate for offenders proves prisons need to fix the tools they offer offenders being released. When the sentencing for nonviolent drug offenders is lessened and the recidivism rates are greatly reduced, then we should consider lessening the sentencing for violent offenders. Scuba004
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Scuba they need to work on reducing the sentences given to nonviolent offenders. If the concern is dealing with the overcrowding eliminating mandatory sentences for drug offenses will help bring down the prison population. But the violent offenders are a much bigger threat to society so lowering their prison stay by releasing them on parole seems a bit scary and wrong. Even if they are older they did the crime they need to do the time. If people don't want to spend their lives behind bars they shouldn't break laws. mommy004
DeleteLouisiana is looking to lower their prison populations through the reformation of laws and regulations to lower penalties around the board. In charge of this operation is the Governors task force of judges, legislators, a district attorney, and a religious leader. This task force has seemed to reach mutual agreements on most non-violent crimes and their reduction in penalties, but the same cannot be said for violent offenders. While many support the idea of opening the possibility of parole for violent offenders, some have voted against it. Those voting against this reformation argue that violent offenders are not up for discussion and should be left to live out the remainder of their sentences because they deserve what justice has deemed just. Some have even said that everyone in prison deserves to be there, however, many people in charge of the prisons such as, Department of Corrections Secretary Jimmy LeBlanc, argue that many of the violent offenders who have been imprisoned for long periods of time are not the same people they were and do not pose a threat to society. Since this comes directly from those in charge of the everyday lives of these prisoners and have first hand experience with these offenders, their statements carry considerable weight. Violent crimes are the most serious forms of crime, but we cannot expect someone to remain violent throughout their life of imprisonment. This progress in character for many inmates is exactly why many people put faith into our justice system, and to not allow some people a second chance could be considered unjust itself. Lowering prison populations and ensuring a better quality of justice must take precedence over holding onto grudges of offenses past. Nevertheless, only those who have exhibited exceptional behavior and motive should be considered for parole. Ghost004
ReplyDelete