Rhapsody Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Do you believe that the early release of offenders is a good thing? (Too soft? Progressive and effective?) Should only nonviolent offenders get the opportunity? (Early release as in like- Parole and stuff.) Curious. I'm writing a paper at the moment, and it sparked my hunger for debate. (Oh how I love debates.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kouta Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 (edited) I think it really is a case-by-case thing. I don't think that anyone should get off early for GOOD BEHAVIOR. I think that non-violent offenders should have the right to get out early if they've shown they are truly rehabilitated. Rapists and such count as violent in my book. Edited September 28, 2011 by Kouta Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhapsody Posted September 28, 2011 Author Share Posted September 28, 2011 Mm. I do believe sexual assault is classified as a violent crime officially. What of violent offenders who have shown they are not a rick to society? I mean, they don't normally just 'get out.' Parole offers them a chance to be gradually be rehabilitated into a controlled environment. Do they deserve to be released early? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsu Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 you can go to jail for littering and not paying parking tickets ect, those are soft crimes that arent debilitating to society in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cntrstrk14 Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Real life needs a head admin. But I really just wanted to appreciate your use of the debate subforum. Good jobu! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kouta Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Derailing threads is also considered a violent crime. <.< Honestly, no. I don't think that anyone who commits a violent crime can be proven "not a risk." They fucking hurt/raped/killed somebody! There are rather extremely rare cases where the killing was a one time scenario due to unimaginable circumstance, but so many prisoners would lie and say that was the case with their situation if there was an exception. So no. They don't deserve it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhapsody Posted September 28, 2011 Author Share Posted September 28, 2011 So only people who killed under extreme duress in situations like domestic abuse deserve to have access to early release, and to have steps taken to help them become normal members of society again? What about a man who became enraged at a business partner for, say, embezzlement and killed him as an act of revenge? Or a man who rapes a woman while he is under the effects of ecstasy? I mean, neither would go on to murder anyone else, and steps could be taken to ensure that they are able to deal with what they did and prevent it from happening. There's a case here where a 12 year old girl conspired with her 23 year old boyfriend to kill her family because they did not approve of her dating him. She helped him kill her mother, father and eight year old brother, but is now attending my university in an early release 'youth probation.' She will be free in four years, at the age of 22 after undergoing extensive therapy. Assumign she can be cured of her mental problems, or that they can be managed with medication, I think she deserves a second chance. I really don't think that a murder inherently makes that person an evil menace to society. I don't think crime should define people. As an aside, I'd also rather have an offender serve a term that was mixed between jail time and structured reintegration than be thrown into a pen for 25 years and then suddenly released at year 25 no different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
