Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Dangerous felon who took hostage and helped kill student was on parole [Hofstra Univ.]
23 views
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted
Tommy Joe
May 20, 2013, 8:15:30 PM5/20/13
to
"News" wrote:
> "He was on parole for first-degree robbery and had an "extensive" arrest
> history that includes robbery, assault, and promoting prison contraband,
> said police in Nassau County."
I'm not going to lie, I didn't read the entire article. I was more
interested in the headline. Is it really necessary to make the guy
being on parole part of the headline as if it's the main story. It
implies at it's extreme that there should be no parole period, that
those sent to jail should stay there for life. At the least it
implies that all people on parole are dangerous killers. That
headline puts me in mind of headlines such as, "Family of 6 Killed in
Car Wreck, None Wearing Seat Belts." Those types of headlines are ery
obviously biased, even devious. They are disgusting and at the same
time funny because of how obvious they are.
TJ
> "He was on parole for first-degree robbery and had an "extensive" arrest
> history that includes robbery, assault, and promoting prison contraband,
> said police in Nassau County."
I'm not going to lie, I didn't read the entire article. I was more
interested in the headline. Is it really necessary to make the guy
being on parole part of the headline as if it's the main story. It
implies at it's extreme that there should be no parole period, that
those sent to jail should stay there for life. At the least it
implies that all people on parole are dangerous killers. That
headline puts me in mind of headlines such as, "Family of 6 Killed in
Car Wreck, None Wearing Seat Belts." Those types of headlines are ery
obviously biased, even devious. They are disgusting and at the same
time funny because of how obvious they are.
TJ
Message has been deleted
Tommy Joe
May 21, 2013, 1:39:54 AM5/21/13
to
"News" wrote:
> It doesn't have to be a life sentence for those out on parole.
> It could be a 35 year sentence for a DANGEROUS person, and the perp
> serves only 5-10.
> That's outrageous!
> And the judge that let this perp out on parole before his full time
> served should also be held liable in her death.
I won't argue. If the guy gets out early or not is not
important. It's a stupid complaint and I've been hearing it for years
- "The guy was sentenced to 12 years but he got out after only 8", for
example.
It's simple math. Let's assume starting today everyone who is
sentenced to prison has to serve their full term. In time some will
be released. In a longer time the release rate will be the same.
What goes in must come out (unless it's a life sentence or the death
penalty).
So, what I find stupid is the sentiment echoed by many frightened
individuals who complain about felons getting out "too early" is the
assumption that 8 years behind bars was not enough to cure them, but
another 4 years is going to do the trick. That's stupid. And I stick
with my original comment, that the headline, whoever wrote it, was
twisted more toward the parole angle than the crime itself. It
implies that if the guy had done the extra four years it somehow would
have made a difference.
Yeah, you could say it would make a difference - a difference of
4 years. But in time many prisoners who have served their full
sentences will be released and the release rate will be the same as
before. And then what? I think it's stupid to blame early release
for criminal behavior as if 8 years wasn't quite enough time, but that
12 years would have done the trick. But I won't even argue that. I
was only commenting on the obvious biased twist of the headline. It
implies that all parolees are dangerous. It's a headline that is too
obviously devious for any intelligent person to not see it.
TJ
> It doesn't have to be a life sentence for those out on parole.
> It could be a 35 year sentence for a DANGEROUS person, and the perp
> serves only 5-10.
> That's outrageous!
> And the judge that let this perp out on parole before his full time
> served should also be held liable in her death.
I won't argue. If the guy gets out early or not is not
important. It's a stupid complaint and I've been hearing it for years
- "The guy was sentenced to 12 years but he got out after only 8", for
example.
It's simple math. Let's assume starting today everyone who is
sentenced to prison has to serve their full term. In time some will
be released. In a longer time the release rate will be the same.
What goes in must come out (unless it's a life sentence or the death
penalty).
So, what I find stupid is the sentiment echoed by many frightened
individuals who complain about felons getting out "too early" is the
assumption that 8 years behind bars was not enough to cure them, but
another 4 years is going to do the trick. That's stupid. And I stick
with my original comment, that the headline, whoever wrote it, was
twisted more toward the parole angle than the crime itself. It
implies that if the guy had done the extra four years it somehow would
have made a difference.
Yeah, you could say it would make a difference - a difference of
4 years. But in time many prisoners who have served their full
sentences will be released and the release rate will be the same as
before. And then what? I think it's stupid to blame early release
for criminal behavior as if 8 years wasn't quite enough time, but that
12 years would have done the trick. But I won't even argue that. I
was only commenting on the obvious biased twist of the headline. It
implies that all parolees are dangerous. It's a headline that is too
obviously devious for any intelligent person to not see it.
TJ
Sarah Ehrett's Lesbian Love Interest
May 21, 2013, 1:00:42 PM5/21/13
to
On Monday, May 20, 2013 10:39:54 PM UTC-7, Tommy Joe wrote:
>
> I won't argue. If the guy gets out early or not is not
>
> important. It's a stupid complaint and I've been hearing it for years
>
> - "The guy was sentenced to 12 years but he got out after only 8", for
>
> example.
>
>
You miss a very important point about parole and why some cons won't even try for it.
>
> I won't argue. If the guy gets out early or not is not
>
> important. It's a stupid complaint and I've been hearing it for years
>
> - "The guy was sentenced to 12 years but he got out after only 8", for
>
> example.
>
>
To be considered for parole, one must take responsibility for the crime-- a very big step in rehabilitation. One must not only take responsibility, one must show remorse. Remorse can be faked, but it is not an easy task and after years of "faking it", one might find himself actually remorseful.
To be considered for parole one must demonstrate good behavior, which often means having an inside job, furthering education (GED), attending counseling and programs such as AA and religious service. One must not be involved in gangs, drugs or violence.
After one is granted parole, one must continue to meet expectations. They usually live in a group home that requires a curfew, some must return to the home as early as 3 PM. They must have a job or demonstrate looking for a job. They must submit to regular and random drug test as well as individual and group therapy.
The alternative to the parole system is convicts who are released after a time, who are not remorseful, who have not tried to reform themselves, and who will not have any structure in their lives after release.
Kenny McCormack
May 21, 2013, 2:13:45 PM5/21/13
to
In article <7fd86cfa-7ac4-4618...@googlegroups.com>,
give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it is correct.
But, and this is the point of my posting, I don't see how it contradicts
what Tommy Joe wrote. I am assuming that your goal was contradiction; if I
am wrong about that, please let me know.
It sounds like TJ was objecting to the OP's implication that people who get
out on parole are somehow less worthy than those who serve their full term.
(As if serving their full term would have somehow magically cured them...)
That is, TJ thinks that they are not less worthy - effectively (ignoring
the mathematical possibility that they are equal) saying that they are
*more* worthy. And it sounds like you agree with that position.
Have I got it right?
--
A liberal, a moderate, and a conservative walk into a bar...
Bartender says, "Hi, Mitt!"
Sarah Ehrett's Lesbian Love Interest <wilm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, May 20, 2013 10:39:54 PM UTC-7, Tommy Joe wrote:
>> I won't argue. If the guy gets out early or not is not
>> important. It's a stupid complaint and I've been hearing it for years
>> - "The guy was sentenced to 12 years but he got out after only 8", for
>> example.
>
> You miss a very important point about parole and why some cons won't even
> try for it.
>
> To be considered for parole, one must take responsibility for the crime--
You post some interesting information. I haven't fact-checked, but I will
>On Monday, May 20, 2013 10:39:54 PM UTC-7, Tommy Joe wrote:
>> I won't argue. If the guy gets out early or not is not
>> important. It's a stupid complaint and I've been hearing it for years
>> - "The guy was sentenced to 12 years but he got out after only 8", for
>> example.
>
> You miss a very important point about parole and why some cons won't even
> try for it.
>
> To be considered for parole, one must take responsibility for the crime--
give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it is correct.
But, and this is the point of my posting, I don't see how it contradicts
what Tommy Joe wrote. I am assuming that your goal was contradiction; if I
am wrong about that, please let me know.
It sounds like TJ was objecting to the OP's implication that people who get
out on parole are somehow less worthy than those who serve their full term.
(As if serving their full term would have somehow magically cured them...)
That is, TJ thinks that they are not less worthy - effectively (ignoring
the mathematical possibility that they are equal) saying that they are
*more* worthy. And it sounds like you agree with that position.
Have I got it right?
--
A liberal, a moderate, and a conservative walk into a bar...
Bartender says, "Hi, Mitt!"
Tommy Joe
May 21, 2013, 10:37:35 PM5/21/13
to
"Sarah Ehrett's Lesbian Love Interest" wrote:
> You miss a very important point about parole and why some cons won't even try for it.
>
> To be considered for parole, one must take responsibility for the crime-- a very big step in rehabilitation. One must not only take responsibility, one must show remorse. Remorse can be faked, but it is not an easy task and after years of "faking it", one might find himself actually remorseful.
You're damn right remorse can be faked. It doesn't take a prisoner
> You miss a very important point about parole and why some cons won't even try for it.
>
> To be considered for parole, one must take responsibility for the crime-- a very big step in rehabilitation. One must not only take responsibility, one must show remorse. Remorse can be faked, but it is not an easy task and after years of "faking it", one might find himself actually remorseful.
to pull that act off, plenty of people do it on both sides of the
bars. I do not agree that remorse should be a requirement for
parole. It is possible for a person to commit a crime, not feel sorry
about it, and still not have another crime left inside him. The
remorse angle sickens me. Another lynch mob attitude that sickens me
is when the sentencing phase of a murder trial comes up and a hoard of
people who knew and loved the deceased are allowed to parade
themselves before the jury with individual stories of how the deaths
affected them badly. What the hell does that have to with guilt or
innocence? It makes me sick. A person is sent to prison and paroled,
I don't believe remorse should be a requirement. For cases involving
serial killers you're not going to see any of them coming up for
parole anyway. I got your point. My point is, not doing the full
sentence has nothing to do with the amount of future crime. Many
paroled people never commit another crime. And many are forced due to
their status to live under conditions in which many otherwise stalwart
members of society would buckle under the grind, such as not being
able to get a job........blah blah blah. This argument is making me
ill because I'm not here to debate. My point was made and it's not
going to change. The headline of that report posted into this group
was slanted by it's headline to make a statement inferring that parole
is somehow to blame for future crime. Even if that is true, if the
prisoners do their full time and are released, in a short time the
number of released prisoners will be the same as now. It's stupid to
think that 8 years behind bars is not enough, but somehow 12 is the
magic bullet. Stupid.
TJ
Tommy Joe
May 21, 2013, 10:42:47 PM5/21/13
to
Kenny McCormack) wrote:
> It sounds like TJ was objecting to the OP's implication that people who get
> out on parole are somehow less worthy than those who serve their full term.
> (As if serving their full term would have somehow magically cured them...)
>
> That is, TJ thinks that they are not less worthy - effectively (ignoring
> the mathematical possibility that they are equal) saying that they are
> *more* worthy. And it sounds like you agree with that position.
>
> Have I got it right?
Can't speak for anyone else, but I was simply saying the headline
> It sounds like TJ was objecting to the OP's implication that people who get
> out on parole are somehow less worthy than those who serve their full term.
> (As if serving their full term would have somehow magically cured them...)
>
> That is, TJ thinks that they are not less worthy - effectively (ignoring
> the mathematical possibility that they are equal) saying that they are
> *more* worthy. And it sounds like you agree with that position.
>
> Have I got it right?
irked me because it was twisted toward the parole angle more than the
crime itself. It is interesting how headlines can be twisted. If I
ran a paper I'd do the same thing, but not in a political way
necessarily - more for entertainment. For example, let's say someone
famous dies, some famous actor. My headline might read, "California
Millionaire Dies", in which the truth of this individuals life is
reported while ignoring as best as possible any reference to that
person's acting career until the very end of the article where it's
mentioned almost like a footnote. I would enjoy twisting headlines
that way. So I understand the practice of it but do not like when
it's used in a politic way, probably because I don't like politics
period.
Please for vote me on this one
TJ
0 new messages