• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Was Blagojevich's sentence too harsh?

Sentence too harsh?

  • I believe the sentence was fair

    Votes: 31 63.3%
  • I believe the sentence was too harsh

    Votes: 12 24.5%
  • I think he should have gotten 10yrs, but no more

    Votes: 3 6.1%
  • I believe he has been humiliated enough, no need for jail, just fine him

    Votes: 3 6.1%

  • Total voters
    49
Prison should be reserved for those who do pose a physical danger, who need to be isolated for the protection of everyone else.
Perhaps the Appeals Court will buy into your philosophy, but I highly doubt it.
 
Perhaps the Appeals Court will buy into your philosophy, but I highly doubt it.

Me too. Once abuses of human rights become expected, it is very difficult for most people to imagine that things could be any other way. Hence the "Don't drop the soap" jokes that inevitably accompany every single thread dealing with someone going to prison.
 
Me too. Once abuses of human rights become expected, it is very difficult for most people to imagine that things could be any other way. Hence the "Don't drop the soap" jokes that inevitably accompany every single thread dealing with someone going to prison.

Sending a corrupt political figure who used his office to pad his own pockets is an "abuse of human rights"? I suppose imprisioning Madoff was an "abuse of human rights", because all he did was operate an illegal pyramid scheme that bankrupted thousands of innocent victims.
 
And "inspired" more than one suicide, including his own child's.
 
And, exactly what good comes from a harsh prison term ?
Yes ! He was corrupt, and those who were corrupted, are they that much better ??

He will learn how to get away with it next time.
 
Sending a corrupt political figure who used his office to pad his own pockets is an "abuse of human rights"? I suppose imprisioning Madoff was an "abuse of human rights", because all he did was operate an illegal pyramid scheme that bankrupted thousands of innocent victims.

Correction Tried to use his office to pad his own pockets. I don't think he actually received any money
 
Sending a corrupt political figure who used his office to pad his own pockets is an "abuse of human rights"?

Yes, it's an abuse of human rights to lock someone in a cage who does not need to be isolated for society's protection. Particularly when it's accompanied by the various other forms of human rights abuses that routinely occur in American prisons.

I suppose imprisioning Madoff was an "abuse of human rights", because all he did was operate an illegal pyramid scheme that bankrupted thousands of innocent victims.

Correct. He poses no physical danger to society either, and therefore does not need to be isolated. The fact that cage-and-rape is the default solution to any crime is detestable. The only people who should be in prison are those who we'd be afraid to interact with, or those who regularly try to avoid other legal punishments.
 
Last edited:
Yes, it's an abuse of human rights to lock someone in a cage who does not need to be isolated for society's protection.
You keep on misrepresenting here. Blago will not be incarcerated at Marion (Marion, Illinois - maximum security). He will probably either go to Rochester, Minnesota (light/medium security) or Terra Haute, Indiana (light/medium security).
 
You keep on misrepresenting here. Blago will not be incarcerated at Marion (Marion, Illinois - maximum security). He will probably either go to Rochester, Minnesota (light/medium security) or Terra Haute, Indiana (light/medium security).

Medium security most definitely involves locking people in cages and exposing them to violent criminals. The US routinely applies this punishment to nonviolent offenders, and it's disgusting.

Low security prisons are not quite that bad, but they still involve separating the inmate from friends and family, for essentially no reason. If the person is not a threat to the people with whom he interacts, why is prison necessary at all? What's wrong with house arrest, fines, public shaming, community service, and restrictions on where/if he can work?
 
Last edited:
Medium security most definitely involves locking people in cages and exposing them to violent criminals. The US routinely applies this punishment to nonviolent offenders, and it's disgusting.
It seems that anything less than pampering and pandering to convicted corrupt officials disgusts you.

At any rate, Judge Sheldon said that he was going to recommend light-security (dormitory facility) for Blago to the US Bureau of Prisons.
 
It seems that anything less than pampering and pandering to convicted corrupt officials disgusts you.

And it seems that anything less than subjecting them to sexual slavery and daily assrapes for the rest of their lives is not enough for you. Isn't hyperbole fun?

I'm sorry that you have been conditioned to believe that some human beings deserve to be raped and locked in cages...but the truth is that no one deserves either (although sometimes the prison bars are unavoidable if a person is truly a threat to society). There is no reason that prison needs to be the default punishment for any and all crimes.
 
Last edited:
A light-security prison is better than the alternative, but if it involves any prison bars, sharpshooters, and/or sodomy then it's barbaric.



Prison should be reserved for those who do pose a physical danger, who need to be isolated for the protection of everyone else. Erosion of the public trust can be punished in ways other than cages. House arrest, ankle bracelet, public shaming, heavy fines, community service, barring him from ever holding office again, etc. Similar to the ways we could/should punish most other crimes. The fact that locking people in cages is the default punishment for any wrongdoing whatsoever is unconscionable.
Written better than my efforts....this makes so much sense, so much, IMO, common sense..
The community service is one of my favorites.....Why should Jimmy Carter be the only well known house builder ??
 
It seems that anything less than pampering and pandering to convicted corrupt officials disgusts you.

At any rate, Judge Sheldon said that he was going to recommend light-security (dormitory facility) for Blago to the US Bureau of Prisons.
Vengefulness of the American people disgusts me.
Blago was simply more corrupt in a corrupt society....and he got cuaght..
I'd make him do 20 years of community service...picking up litter from slobs, as a start..
 
Medium security most definitely involves locking people in cages and exposing them to violent criminals. The US routinely applies this punishment to nonviolent offenders, and it's disgusting.

Low security prisons are not quite that bad, but they still involve separating the inmate from friends and family, for essentially no reason. If the person is not a threat to the people with whom he interacts, why is prison necessary at all? What's wrong with house arrest, fines, public shaming, community service, and restrictions on where/if he can work?
These things involve thinking and reasoning, with a clean mind....Only a new-born baby or a saint has a clean mind and thinking/reasoning are not within every mans ability....
 
Violence is not the only thing that threatens society. If blago was given nothing mroe than community service he would be getting away with it and he would turn around and do more to hurt society.

Look at his douchebag father-in-law. The guy is still crooked as **** and his son-in-law just got locked up for corruption. Cronyism is not something to underestimate.
 
"Give a man a gun, and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank, and he can rob the world."
 
Violence is not the only thing that threatens society.

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?

If blago was given nothing mroe than community service he would be getting away with it

By this same reasoning we could summarily execute everyone convicted of traffic violations, to make sure that they aren't getting away with anything. 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.

and he would turn around and do more to hurt society.

This is speculation and it's difficult to see how this would be possible with adequate supervision. 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). 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.
 
Last edited:
I think the sentence was a bit light.

if he had to make little rocks from big rocks, it would be about the right amount of time though.
 
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.
 
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?

That's not what I said. I said that there's no reason to isolate people unless they harm society in such a way that they NEED to be isolated...and the "inspiring fear in people on the street" test is usually a good (although not perfect) measure of this.

Only if one actually ignores the reasoning and replaces it with irrational, emotion-laden idiocy.

:yawn:

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.

You argued that any sentence other than prison meant that he was "getting away with it." The same reasoning could be applied to ANY crime and calls for the harshest punishment possible. Why do alternate sentences mean that he's "getting away with it"?

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.

The entire US criminal justice system is filled with human rights violations. Let's start with the government-sanctioned sexual slavery. Then there's the physical isolation from friends and family, of individuals who don't need to be locked up for anyone else's protection. And then there's the overall incarceration rate itself, which is by far the highest in the world. The US is worse in this regard than China or Iran.

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.

:yawn:

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.

Who says that they'll be able to continue that behavior in the absence of isolation? House arrest and ankle bracelets can track where he goes. Restrictions on his finances and employment can track his money. And he already lost his governorship, which means that the potential to abuse the public trust has been reduced.

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.

If the judge tells him to show up at Place X at Time Y, there isn't much room for that sort of thing. And in any case community service is only one of many options available, including the ones I have already mentioned.

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.

He was convicted of federal crimes, so his location doesn't really matter because he isn't going through the Illinois justice system anyway.

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.

What makes you think the government is so great at administering prisons and nothing else? What is the distinction?

The idea that adequate supervision is actually possible is the only thing here that is pure speculation.

House arrest and ankle bracelets have been used for years.

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).

You can remove his ability to commit these types of crimes without the cage.

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.

OK, let's assume he wants to go right back to corruption, which is certainly a possibility: What does a man with no money, no political power, with a toxic reputation in his state, and who is confined to his house under constant supervision have to offer a potential crooked business partner?

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.

Note that I didn't say anything about the length of his sentence, just the nature of it.

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,

Visit a prison some time, even if it's just for a couple hours. The conditions in there are barbaric.

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.

This goes back to my point about summarily executing traffic offenders, which you dismissed as "emotional drivel." Presumably most of the people in prison WILL be released at some point, unless you favor executions and/or life sentences for a much wider range of crimes than such sentences are currently permissible. So it's better to prepare for that eventuality.

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.

Prison reform IS sentencing reform. Spending a few years in a work camp is a fundamentally different type of punishment than spending a few years in a sodomy cage.
 
I can't say what the right punishment is.

Just hope he learns his lesson.

:shrug:
 
I can't say what the right punishment is.

Just hope he learns his lesson.

:shrug:

I hope the voters learned their lesson. Don't vote for Lego hair.
 
Back
Top Bottom