Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Maldonian t1_iy6hdyn wrote

This is so frustrating. There is absolutely zero reason for anyone to have "a criminal history that dates back more than 30 years."

Based on what the article says, this guy spent his entire adult life, and at least some of his childhood life, being a terrible person and doing terrible things. Being a drug dealer and thief is bad enough, but he raped someone, too.

The system should have been set up so that after he'd proven to be incapable or unwilling to act like a civilized human being, he would have been removed from civilization for life. Instead, the broken catch-and-release system helped him kill at least one person, maybe two. (It seems there's some speculation that he killed the 83 year old man in Lyndeborough; I suppose time will tell on that one.)

12

NHGuy t1_iy6ks92 wrote

What's your proposal to resolve this?

Seriously, what's the solution here? Lock him up forever? Kill him? Put him on an island?

I'm not defending the guy by any stretch of the imagination, but just what exactly do you do about someone like this?

10

Fluid_Kale_5599 t1_iy88tyj wrote

>Seriously, what's the solution here? Lock him up forever?

It seems you're posing a rhetorical question, but yes, locking him up forever is the solution.

6

NHGuy t1_iy8av3a wrote

Who pays for this?

1

Fluid_Kale_5599 t1_iy8dbgr wrote

Obviously taxpayers will be footing much of the bill. Keeping violent people away from the rest of society is a role I'm comfortable with government taking on.

11

Maldonian t1_iy8f728 wrote

Same here. I wish these violent people would stop imposing these unnecessary costs on us, but I’m gladly willing to pay taxes to keep them locked up.

3

Maldonian t1_iy85g2c wrote

No torture, and while everyone has their opinion on the death penalty, no, we certainly shouldn’t be using that for non-murder crimes.

But, the system could have been configured in such a way that habitual offenders must walk the straight and narrow for the rest of their lives, in exchange for being free.

Basically tell the guy: “You’ve served your time and you’re free for now, but this is it. If you so much as steal a stick of gum, you’re coming back here and staying here.”

Maybe some requirements that habitual offenders must maintain employment, attend ongoing classes about good behavior, maybe a requirement for community service?

3

NHGuy t1_iy8atbl wrote

And who pays for this?

−1

Maldonian t1_iy8fe4w wrote

Sadly, you and me. We don’t have forced labor in prison here. It’s a tax I’m willing to pay, to keep you and me and our neighbors safe from monsters like him. As I said above, I sure wish this person would stop imposing these costs on us.

6

HunterShotBear t1_iy74yz6 wrote

I think the island idea wouldn’t be too bad. Coast guard patrols with thermal vision to catch escapees. Make them farm and cultivate the majority of their food. No guards.

2

AMC4x4 t1_iy6w2fe wrote

Exactly. If it's law, then law needs to be changed for special cases. But man, what a line to be crossed if after someone serves their time, someone or some panel can decide to just keep them locked up. I don't know what the answer is.

1

Maldonian t1_iy85k0c wrote

I do agree that if the person has served their time, of course it’s time for them to be free. But see my comment above—perhaps repeat offenders should be on a special list where one more crime and they’re done.

2

itsallbacon t1_iy6k2nd wrote

Frustrating, imagine how it is for the cops who lock him up over and over and over just for judges to let him off. Imagine it makes their whole job seem useless.

8

Maldonian t1_iy8flct wrote

I’m sure all of us, at one point or another, have worked hard at our jobs, and then a co worker comes along and undoes our hard work.

I imagine that’s every day for the cops. Must be very frustrating.

2

NHGuy t1_iy6kxq6 wrote

Same question to you that I put to u/Maldonian

1

itsallbacon t1_iy6o42t wrote

Man I don’t even know. Having them actually serve their sentences to completion may be a good start

6

NHGuy t1_iy6o6mv wrote

Agree with you on that one

3

smartest_kobold t1_iy7jwg6 wrote

No judge let him off. He pled guilty and served the time.

If you want to give repeat minor offenders life, say it.

0

itsallbacon t1_iy7kij4 wrote

He got six months for prostituting a minor instead of 5-7 years.

9

smartest_kobold t1_iy7tbth wrote

Sounds like quite a plea. So either the case was weak or the prosecutor thought he had something better to do.

1

itsallbacon t1_iy80dbx wrote

Or they were too busy from a massive caseload because repeat offenders keep being released early to offend again but regardless a judge had to agree to the terms of sentencing.

4

Maldonian t1_iy85sjn wrote

Exactly. Maybe the courts wouldn’t be so overwhelmed and busy if they’d stop letting the bad guys loose so they can commit more crimes.

5

smartest_kobold t1_iy82hgi wrote

If you think prosecutors have a massive caseload, imagine the public defender this guy almost certainly had. Regardless, if the prosecutor has too much work, what the fuck is taking priority over prostituting a minor?

1

Maldonian t1_iy85p6w wrote

If he plead guilty, it’s likely because the court gave him a really good deal. Not quite the same as a soft judge letting him off, but it’s still another case of soft judges/courts.

2

smartest_kobold t1_iy8c4t2 wrote

Most people plead. That means very little.

Getting a satisfactory plea is most of the prosecutors job and if they can't even do that, that speaks to the quality of the prosecution or the police work collecting evidence.

3

Maldonian t1_iy8eq8z wrote

I might be misinformed, but I imagine that people only plead if they think it’s a good deal for them, like any other negotiation.

“If we go to trial and convict you, you’ll get 10 years. But if you plead guilty today, we’ll agree to give you 5 years.”

I can’t imagine anyone would plead guilty and accept the whole 10 years. That’s just not logical.

Good deal for the suspect. And the prosecutor gets to do less work. But not a good deal for society.

If there’s enough evidence for a conviction, maybe it’s about time we start getting convictions and some real sentences.

2

smartest_kobold t1_iy8jv06 wrote

>I might be misinformed, but I imagine that people only plead if they think it’s a good deal for them, like any other negotiation.

>“If we go to trial and convict you, you’ll get 10 years. But if you plead guilty today, we’ll agree to give you 5 years.”

>I can’t imagine anyone would plead guilty and accept the whole 10 years. That’s just not logical.

>Good deal for the suspect. And the prosecutor gets to do less work. But not a good deal for society.

Yes, but also no. A trial is unpredictable. The defendant doesn't want a trial because there's a chance they'll get the max. The prosecutor doesn't want a trial because the defendant might walk. The lawyers on both sides are guessing at the probability of every outcome and bargaining. That's most of the job these days.

>If there’s enough evidence for a conviction, maybe it’s about time we start getting convictions and some real sentences.

That's the other sticky thing. The jury is not always making a clear factual determination. You're asking a group of twelve amateurs to come to a consensus about some big gray areas, e.g. intent.

2