once a crim

[FlyAway]

In the US, the recidivism rate is extremely high. As of June 2006, 67% of all inmates released from prison will be re-arrested and 53% will be re-incarcerated within 3 years. So what does that tell me? It tells me that for the majority of people who go to jail the statement 'Once a criminal, always a criminal' is not an unfounded one. I'm sorry if that offends people on this board, but the facts are the facts.

Ah the politics of crime statistics. I am surprised the recidivism rate it is not actually higher. Newly released inmates face tough competition these days for any kind of employment. Even if they have in demand skills, employers are still reluctant to hire an ex felon. So I wonder what that comes to mind to make money?"Once a criminal, always a criminal", then that is pretty much what society has doomed that person to be. All that is left for them is societies self fulfilling prophecy. Based on the percentages above why not just lock up everyone for life no mater the crime? After all, why take chances?My opinion on the New Zealander? On Parole so that should have put him under New Zealand control. How did he get out of their country with out a passport? And then how did he get into the Philippines without a passport? On parole means he is still in custody of the state basically a prisoner on the streets. Here in the U.S. a person on parole cannot have a passport. Sounds to me like a case of illegal entry into the Philippines in the first place. You want to deny criminals access to the country to be on the safe side. Well what happens when they come in through other non conventional methods? If someone is being honest on their VISA application, then why not take that into consideration instead of just a denial based on the answer of being an ex felon? There again you just made the person want to break the law because they know an honest answer means denial.

[TheMason]

In the US, the recidivism rate is extremely high. As of June 2006, 67% of all inmates released from prison will be re-arrested and 53% will be re-incarcerated within 3 years. So what does that tell me? It tells me that for the majority of people who go to jail the statement 'Once a criminal, always a criminal' is not an unfounded one. I'm sorry if that offends people on this board, but the facts are the facts.

Ah the politics of crime statistics. I am surprised the recidivism rate it is not actually higher. Newly released inmates face tough competition these days for any kind of employment. Even if they have in demand skills, employers are still reluctant to hire an ex felon. So I wonder what that comes to mind to make money?"Once a criminal, always a criminal", then that is pretty much what society has doomed that person to be. All that is left for them is societies self fulfilling prophecy.

So, its society's fault that they committed a crime in the first place? Personal responsibility needs to come in to play at some point. If 67% are rearrested, that means 33% are not. So, what are those 33% doing differently? My guess is, they've decided that crime doesn't pay and are willing to put in the time and effort to rebuild their lives without crime. Simply getting out of prison means nothing other than the state deemed you served enough time behind bars, it says nothing about your willingness and ability to be a productive member of society. When you break society's rules, you pay a price and that price is always going to be more than just doing the time. You need to rebuild your reputation and earn your place back in society's good graces. That may mean living in poverty and facing adversity until they've proven themselves to be productive members of society again. If that's what they need to do, then that is what they need to do. For those that don't want to work hard to regain their place in society, they'll turn back to crime and repeat the cycle all over again.

Based on the percentages above why not just lock up everyone for life no mater the crime? After all, why take chances?

I wouldn't lock up first offenders for life, but if they re-offend, I'm perfectly fine with locking them up and throwing away the key. How many times do you have to demonstrate you can't function in society as a law-abiding citizen? How many people do you have to hurt before society steps in and stops you from doing it again? If someone repeatedly chooses to be break the law, I have absolutely no sympathy for that person. Locking them up in a cage for the rest of their lives is justified.

You want to deny criminals access to the country to be on the safe side. Well what happens when they come in through other non conventional methods?

Sure, some people will break the law and enter illegally. That's what criminals do. When you catch them, deport them, just as was done in this case. Just because some will sneak in through the back door does not mean you throw up your hands and open the front door for the rest of them.

If someone is being honest on their VISA application, then why not take that into consideration instead of just a denial based on the answer of being an ex felon? There again you just made the person want to break the law because they know an honest answer means denial.

Again, life is about choices and consequences. To me, giving up the right of international travel is a just and fair consequence of being a convicted felon. What makes them want to break the law is their selfish desire to get what they want regardless of what the rules of society are. It is that same selfish desire that likely made them criminals in the first place. Lying on a visa application is simply another manifestation of the self-centered 'I want what I want no matter the rules' attitude that likely got them convicted the first time. Edited March 31, 2010 by TheMason

[Mr Lee]

I believe that one thing that no on seems to be taking into account is that not all crimes are solved right away, if at all, and some criminals get smarter with time in jail and therefore may be harder to catch, so the 33% who do not get rearrested are not necessarily crime free and the percentage of those who commit crimes again may in fact be much higher and all one has to do is look at the serial killers and how long it often takes to catch many of them, if at all. Anyway, there is a process in the US in place for those who have committed non violent crimes and then go on to a life without crime for a certain number of years, and that is asking the governor or proper authority to have their rights restored and records expunged and then I believe they can then answer no to if they have ever been convicted of a crime, but not all states may allow that, and not all countries may allow that type of thing, and in the US a person would have to still be a resident of the state the crimes were committed in for them to get their rights restored, or another route would be to seek a presidential pardon as some high end criminals have done in the past but that is another topic and may start an argument so lets not get into it. So IMO people who do the crime have to suffer the consequences of their former actions and sometimes to the point that many of us may feel it is unjust, but they should seek other remedies if they too feel it is unjust and then live within the law instead of breaking it again by entering a country illegally and then risking another possible lengthy stay in jail.

[Jollygoodfellow]

What is not being considered here is that some people are born into the shit suburbs and family's which go with it,they steal cars or rob old lady's to buy drugs, these are not the type of crim that usually wants to get a new life and move to the Philippines.Lets consider the law abiding people such as the local priest and the school teacher that taught 2 generations of your family,a man to be looked up too,a man that is free to roam the world.Now lets consider every day when I read the news,priest jailed for sex offenses committed 30 years ago,teacher found guilty of abusing boys at an elite collage etc.These people for example have been known to be good citizens but have hidden their crimes for years,there are millions that have never been caught for crimes committed so is it safe to allow anyone to have the privilege of freedom and travel.I am sure there are many skeletons hanging in the closet out there.

[Travis]

What is not being considered here is that some people are born into the sh&t suburbs and family's which go with it,they steal cars or rob old lady's to buy drugs, these are not the type of crim that usually wants to get a new life and move to the Philippines.Lets consider the law abiding people such as the local priest and the school teacher that taught 2 generations of your family,a man to be looked up too,a man that is free to roam the world.Now lets consider every day when I read the news,priest jailed for sex offenses committed 30 years ago,teacher found guilty of abusing boys at an elite collage etc.These people for example have been known to be good citizens but have hidden their crimes for years,there are millions that have never been caught for crimes committed so is it safe to allow anyone to have the privilege of freedom and travel.I am sure there are many skeletons hanging in the closet out there.

good point but those skeletons are not known ones & convicted criminals are a proven breed at least for the 67%

[TheMason]

What is not being considered here is that some people are born into the sh&t suburbs and family's which go with it,they steal cars or rob old lady's to buy drugs, these are not the type of crim that usually wants to get a new life and move to the Philippines.Lets consider the law abiding people such as the local priest and the school teacher that taught 2 generations of your family,a man to be looked up too,a man that is free to roam the world.Now lets consider every day when I read the news,priest jailed for sex offenses committed 30 years ago,teacher found guilty of abusing boys at an elite collage etc.These people for example have been known to be good citizens but have hidden their crimes for years,there are millions that have never been caught for crimes committed so is it safe to allow anyone to have the privilege of freedom and travel.I am sure there are many skeletons hanging in the closet out there.

You know it's ironic that you bring the clergy sex abuse issue up. Back when all those incidents were happening, the prevailing school of thought was that pedophiles could be rehabilitated and safely permitted to retake their position in society after being rehabilitated. They received treatment, therapy, and were considered OK. That wasn't just the Church doing that.....its how pedophiles were treated back then because people didn't know any better. They truly believed that therapy would rehabilitate the pedophile. We now know that was a horrible policy and not the correct way to handle things. Treatment was not sufficient. People said pedos could be cured despite the fact that most of them molested children again. As a society, we now realize that it is virtually impossible to 'cure' a pedophile of his sexual attractions. People's sexual attractions are hard-wired into them and can't be 'cured'. Fast forward 30 years, and you're making the exact same argument about convicted felons. They've been rehabilitated so we should give them another chance and let them back into society. People say this despite evidence that shows a sizable majority of convicted felons will re-offend after they are released from prison. Just because your average convicted felon doesn't victimize children does not change the fact that most felons cannot be rehabilitated. There is something wrong with them on a fundamental level that makes them ill-suited to fit into a civilized society.My guess is that in another 30 years people will look back at the present day and wonder why we permitted convicted felons back into society when it was so obvious that most of them could not be rehabilitated and would continue to commit crimes for the rest of their lives. Maybe the parole boards and probation depts. will be treated with the same derision as the church and govt. officials that permitted pedophiles back into society 30 years ago.

[FlyAway]

In the US, the recidivism rate is extremely high. As of June 2006, 67% of all inmates released from prison will be re-arrested and 53% will be re-incarcerated within 3 years. So what does that tell me? It tells me that for the majority of people who go to jail the statement 'Once a criminal, always a criminal' is not an unfounded one. I'm sorry if that offends people on this board, but the facts are the facts.

Ah the politics of crime statistics. I am surprised the recidivism rate it is not actually higher. Newly released inmates face tough competition these days for any kind of employment. Even if they have in demand skills, employers are still reluctant to hire an ex felon. So I wonder what that comes to mind to make money?"Once a criminal, always a criminal", then that is pretty much what society has doomed that person to be. All that is left for them is societies self fulfilling prophecy.

So, its society's fault that they committed a crime in the first place? Personal responsibility needs to come in to play at some point. If 67% are rearrested, that means 33% are not. So, what are those 33% doing differently? My guess is, they've decided that crime doesn't pay and are willing to put in the time and effort to rebuild their lives without crime. Simply getting out of prison means nothing other than the state deemed you served enough time behind bars, it says nothing about your willingness and ability to be a productive member of society. When you break society's rules, you pay a price and that price is always going to be more than just doing the time. You need to rebuild your reputation and earn your place back in society's good graces. That may mean living in poverty and facing adversity until they've proven themselves to be productive members of society again. If that's what they need to do, then that is what they need to do. For those that don't want to work hard to regain their place in society, they'll turn back to crime and repeat the cycle all over again.

Based on the percentages above why not just lock up everyone for life no mater the crime? After all, why take chances?

I wouldn't lock up first offenders for life, but if they re-offend, I'm perfectly fine with locking them up and throwing away the key. How many times do you have to demonstrate you can't function in society as a law-abiding citizen? How many people do you have to hurt before society steps in and stops you from doing it again? If someone repeatedly chooses to be break the law, I have absolutely no sympathy for that person. Locking them up in a cage for the rest of their lives is justified.

You want to deny criminals access to the country to be on the safe side. Well what happens when they come in through other non conventional methods?

Sure, some people will break the law and enter illegally. That's what criminals do. When you catch them, deport them, just as was done in this case. Just because some will sneak in through the back door does not mean you throw up your hands and open the front door for the rest of them.

If someone is being honest on their VISA application, then why not take that into consideration instead of just a denial based on the answer of being an ex felon? There again you just made the person want to break the law because they know an honest answer means denial.

Again, life is about choices and consequences. To me, giving up the right of international travel is a just and fair consequence of being a convicted felon. What makes them want to break the law is their selfish desire to get what they want regardless of what the rules of society are. It is that same selfish desire that likely made them criminals in the first place. Lying on a visa application is simply another manifestation of the self-centered 'I want what I want no matter the rules' attitude that likely got them convicted the first time.

I am not saying it is societies fault a person committed a crime. What I am saying is if you are going to give someone a second chance then at least give them a chance to prove it. I have seen time and time again people in prison learn a trade, they attend group meetings for AA, NA, and slews of other programs available. Upon release they apply for jobs only to be turned down because of the felony conviction. There are many that just give up and figure the only life they have is in the prison system. Their basic needs are then met, food and shelter. Also they get medical and dental care. This really becomes a philosophical debate. Society sets laws for it's people, when some of the people break the rules then society punishes them. So in essence society takes responsibility for the person who breaks the law. Once society locks that person up in prison, they take on the responsibility for the care and well being of that person. Like it or not.We can play with statistics all day long. My thoughts are it is better to have a person working and paying taxes than it costing me say $20,000 a year to warehouse a potential tax payer. Of course there are pro's and con's to the actual amount saved from a potential dollar amount to the crime committed. I find this to be a fascinating discussion. Lets keep it going, I want to hear all sides.

[brock]

A guy rapes and kills your 10 year old daughter, You kill him, You serve 7 years in prison, Should you be punished the rest of your life for that crime ?.

[FlyAway]

A guy rapes and kills your 10 year old daughter, You kill him, You serve 7 years in prison, Should you be punished the rest of your life for that crime ?.

That would put him in the 33% I would guess.

[Singers]

A guy rapes and kills your 10 year old daughter, You kill him, You serve 7 years in prison, Should you be punished the rest of your life for that crime ?.

Yes.