Violence is (normally) the only thing that threatens society in such a way where it's necessary to isolate the perpetrator from the rest of society. Blago is a real piece of ****, but his mere presence in society does not harm anyone. Would anyone be afraid to run into him?
Why did you arbitrarily come to the illogical conclusion that the only metric for potentially harming society is inspiring fear in people on the street?
By this same reasoning we could summarily execute everyone convicted of traffic violations, to make sure that they aren't getting away with anything.
Only if one actually ignores the reasoning and replaces it with irrational, emotion-laden idiocy.
If you are going to make claims about my reasoning, you should at least have the decency to read the words I use and understand them first. See, I did not make a general comment, despite your desire to ignore the fact that it was a specific statement. I understand that, since your position has no
logical merit, it's best defense is to
continue to ignore all logic and reason, but that doesn't mean I will simply step back and allow you to make false claims about
my reasoning.
But there is no need to abuse human rights like this, specifically when alternate forms of punishment exist. Locking someone in a cage should be a last resort, when they need to be physically isolated for the protection of everyone else.
Emotional hyperbole may be nice, but it isn't logical. Just because you can arbitrarily
call something a human rights violation, doesn't mean it is
actually a human rights violation. You've done
nothing to demonstrate logically that a human rights violation has occurred.
Also, just because you can use emotional rhetoric to try and trigger an certain reaction from people doesn't mean you've made any valid points. Thus far, you've abandoned all logic in lieu of emotional drivel on this issue.
The fact of the matter is that if someone engages in anti-social behavior that harms society, and they would be able to continue that behavior in the absence of isolation, then isolation is the
only logical thing to do to prevent such anti-social behavior in the future. There's no need to arbitrarily limit this logic to violent anti-social behavior because violent anti-social behavior is not the only kind of anti-social behavior that can harm society.
Community service in
this case does
nothing to prevent the behavior in this case from repeating itself, because of the connections that the person in question has would make community service a simple matter of getting a friend to fill out some paper work.
I know this because I have personally known more than a few corrupt Illinois/Chicago official both before and after their convictions. I personally know a few people who were taken down in the licenses for bribes scandal, for example.
I know how community service works around here when you have political connections, which is why I have absolutely no faith in our justice system's ability to adequately administer any non-prison sentence. His connections aren't going to disappear simply because him serving prison time offends your sensibilities.
This is speculation and it's difficult to see how this would be possible with adequate supervision.
The idea that adequate supervision is actually
possible is the only thing here that is pure speculation. I is not based on anything that actually exists in reality. The nature of this case is such that the assumption that adequate supervision is possible is a terrible one to make.
Whereas the idea that he will simply turn around and commit the same types of crimes in the absence of total removal of his ability to commit those crimes is actually common sense based on his history and the history of those around him (his father-in-law, for example).
On a more theoretical level, I have seen no evidence that prison reduces recidivism more than alternate forms of punishment (particularly for these kinds of crimes).
I fully expect him to engage in the same kinds of behaviors once he gets out of prison. Prison prevents him from engaging in the same behaviors during the duration of his sentence via isolation.
Due to cronyism and his political connections, nothing else can provide that preventative factor for the duration of time equal to his sentence.
When he gets out, he probably
will engage in the same behaviors again. To assume otherwise would be silly. But we are essentially looking at preventing such behaviors for about 12 years or for about 2 years.
The former is superior to the latter as far as preventative measures go. Unless there is any actual demonstration that prison terms for convicted criminals is an
actual human rights violation of some sort, as opposed to it simply being emotional drivel that you have made up to try and bolster a logically weak and irrational argument, I have to conclude that his prison term is the appropriate approach to take here.
But there is plenty of evidence that American prisons and the accompanying abuse that occurs within them are bad for both the convict and for society as a whole.
Actually, if you were being perfectly honest about your argument here, you'd add the possibility that the evidence suggests that
releasing prisoners after their sentences are up is what is bad for society as a whole. The evidence that you speak of can be manipulated to run
both directions, depending on the
emotional approach that the person making the argument chooses to take. Note, I didn't say "logical approach" in that sentence because neither one actually employs logic. This is because the
logical approach that incorporates that particular evidence dictates reaching a conclusion of
prison reform, not
sentencing reform. It is only when logic is essentially abandoned in lieu of emotion-based argument that you get these arguments about sentencing reform in
either direction.
While I
generally agree that in a great many cases of non-violent crime, community service
is an adequate form of punishment to prevent a behavior, I disagree that it would be true in
this case for the reasons I have mentioned that are unique to this case.
One size fits all approaches to sentencing are
always a bad idea. each and every sentence should take into account the person who is being sentenced. We do this already to some degree by having different sentences for repeat offenders and such, but we don't go far enough on this personalization of sentencing.
My argument here takes into account the totality of this
specific situation and what leads to the best outcome for society with
this particular criminal. Isolation from his connections is the best approach available in this case with this criminal. Minimum security imprisonment with monitored visits should be enough to achieve the goal.
It's not revenge, it's not emotionally-charged rhetoric. It's a logical assessment of the specific situation inclusive of all possible variables.
While you appear to have a visceral emotional reaction to imprisonment, the fact that your position is not supported logically means it will not be taken seriously by most. It won't have any effect on the people who disagree with you for equally visceral emotional reasons, and it won't have any effect on those of us who rely on logic to draw our conclusions. It only serves the purpose of causing those who already agree with your emotional reasoning to voice their agreement.
In other words, it's basically pointless to argue your position in the way that you have.