Lindsay Lohan gets 90 days in prison

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Rerun

I don't give a crap about Lindsay and whether or not she spent time in prison. Frankly, I think the sentence was a little harsh.

Its the dishonesty (towards the general public who mostly don't know how the system 'works') in sentencing I care about.... and how early, early parole is way too easy to get these days.

There are some crimes where I absolutely agree that the sentencing is too light. Murder is one of them - though I would note that I have first hand experience with the hypothetical you discussed above, and I would suggest you are arguing from ignorance there. Everyone knows from the moment a murder conviction is handed down how long the typical murderer will serve.

In this case though, what is gained from locking Lohan up for a full 90 days aside from the satisfaction of petty media gawkers who need to see someone famous crash, burn and die to feel better about their own petty lives? From a human perspective, giving her a couple weeks in jail and then three months of rehab has a far greater chance of turning this girl's life around. Certainly a greater level of transparency in the sentencing would be nice, if you care that much about her, but the question I ask is whether that is the fault of the legal system or the fault of the media covering it?

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

In this case though, what is gained from locking Lohan up for a full 90 days aside from the satisfaction of petty media gawkers who need to see someone famous crash, burn and die to feel better about their own petty lives? From a human perspective, giving her a couple weeks in jail and then three months of rehab has a far greater chance of turning this girl's life around. Certainly a greater level of transparency in the sentencing would be nice, if you care that much about her, but the question I ask is whether that is the fault of the legal system or the fault of the media covering it?

I totally agree.

... and perhaps both are at fault.

I have to wonder though, here's Fred, a lawyer, and even he didn't fully understand the complexities of the parole system. How is the average Joe on the street to be expected to understand that when a criminal is sentenced to 10 years, it really won't be 10 years in almost all cases. The maximum it will likely be is 6.66 years and there is a good possibility it will even be 3.33 years., or even less if you take into consideration day parole.

An offender must usually serve the first third, or the first seven years, whichever is less, of any sentence of imprisonment before being eligible for full parole.

http://www.npb-cnlc.gc.ca/infocntr/p...arol-eng.shtml

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

T Everyone knows from the moment a murder conviction is handed down how long the typical murderer will serve.

Second degree murder is any murder that is not first degree murder. The sentencing judge determines when people convicted of second degree murder are eligible for consideration for parole, which can be set between 10 and 25 years. The Judicial Review provisions also apply for second degree murder if the parole eligibility date is set beyond 15 years (See: "The Role of Parole" section, Judicial Review question). Inmates incarcerated for second degree murder become eligible for consideration for unescorted temporary absences and day parole three years before their full parole eligibility date.

Judge sentences murderer to 20 years and sets parole eligability at 13 years, and criminal is out on day parole 10 years into his sentence.

Does John Q Public usually know and understand this? I think not.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Judge sentences murderer to 20 years and sets parole eligability at 13 years, and criminal is out on day parole 10 years into his sentence.

Does John Q Public usually know and understand this? I think not.

Why exactly does that matter though? Unless the justice system is about getting a pound of flesh I fail to see how time served actually impacts the public as a whole.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by valo403

Why exactly does that matter though? Unless the justice system is about getting a pound of flesh I fail to see how time served actually impacts the public as a whole.

I guess thats where you and I differ. In a lot of cases I think its exactly about that. They don't call it crime and punishment for nothing. If you do the crime you should have to do the time.... not just 33% of the time.

If someone rapes my wife and is sentenced to 6 years... I would not be a happy camper if he was out in 2 just because he kept his nose clean in prison.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Rerun

I guess thats where you and I differ. In a lot of cases I think its exactly about that. They don't call it crime and punishment for nothing. If you do the crime you should have to do the time.... not just 33% of the time.

If someone rapes my wife and is sentenced to 6 years... I would not be a happy camper if he was out in 2 just because he kept his nose clean in prison.

That's personalizing it though, what's the impact on society as a whole?

Also, why would it be any different if they served a full 2 year sentence? The result is the same, all that changes is the maximum.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by valo403

That's personalizing it though, what's the impact on society as a whole?

Also, why would it be any different if they served a full 2 year sentence? The result is the same, all that changes is the maximum.

People would be up in arms if they knew that all he was getting was 2 years..

Most people believe that the felon will serve at least 4 with the possibility of 6.

Also crime can be a very personal experience. A criminal is not only perpetrating a crime against the individual, he's perpetrating it against society and the laws that society has enacted.

[puckluck]

Originally Posted by valo403

Why exactly does that matter though? Unless the justice system is about getting a pound of flesh I fail to see how time served actually impacts the public as a whole.

Are you serious? You fail to see how someone serving 15 percent of their jail sentence impacts the public?

Would you have a problem if all criminals in prison were released into the public today? Lohan is a criminal and she deserves to be in jail for 77 more days.

Edit: And if society wants to try to rehabilitate her for the 20th time they can wait untill the 90 days are over.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by puckluck

Are you serious? You fail to see how someone serving 15 percent of their jail sentence impacts the prublic?

Would you have a problem if all criminals in prison were released into the public today? Lohan is a criminal and she deserves to be in jail for 77 more days.

Okay, tell me how exactly the public has been impacted by her release. Go ahead. I'm all ears.

[puckluck]

Originally Posted by valo403

Okay, tell me how exactly the public has been impacted by her release. Go ahead. I'm all ears.

She's a poster girl for trouble. Society is stupid. Society sees her get released from jail early. Society thinks people who break the law don't get punished harshly. Society loses some respect for the law.

Now tell me how society would be impacted positively by her release. I'm all ears.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Rerun

People would be up in arms if they knew that all he was getting was 2 years..

Most people believe that the felon will serve at least 4 with the possibility of 6.

Also crime can be a very personal experience. A criminal is not only perpetrating a crime against the individual, he's perpetrating it against society and the laws that society has enacted.

Okay, so that gets back to where this whole thing started. You want people to serve full sentences without those sentences being reduced, so where exactly do you propose we put them? (and save the dump them in the arctic nonsense, we can have a discussion based in reality or we can talk about preposterous theories, I'd prefer the former) Increased prison space is all well and good as an abstract concept, but the majority of people aren't going to back an increase in their taxes to pay for it.

I'm not in disagreement that some crimes should face more severe punishment, but I definitely think that some should face less punishment in the form of incarceration. The lock everyone up approach to justice is not only ineffective, it's incredibly expensive.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by puckluck

She's a poster girl for trouble. Society is stupid. Society sees her get released from jail early. Society thinks people who break the law don't get punished harshly. Society loses some respect for the law.

Now tell me how society would be impacted positively by her release. I'm all ears.

Positively? Not at all. Negatively? Not at all. I applaud your creativity though.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by valo403

Okay, tell me how exactly the public has been impacted by her release. Go ahead. I'm all ears.

Well for one thing, just to chime in, the public probably feels (mistakenly no doubt) that if you are white, female, and quite wealthy, you will probably be treated differently by the correctional system than if you are black, male, and poor.

.... continue on.... you have the floor potluck

Did I say potluck? Sorry .. I meant puckluck.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Well for one thing, just to chime in, the public probably feels (mistakenly no doubt) that if you are white, female, and quite wealthy, you will probably be treated differently by the correctional system than if you are black, male, and poor.

.... continue on.... you have the floor potluck

Did I say potluck? Sorry .. I meant puckluck.

Well that's been the case for oh, I don't know, centuries?? I'm not about to declare Lindsay Lohan the tipping point.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by valo403

Okay, so that gets back to where this whole thing started. You want people to serve full sentences without those sentences being reduced, so where exactly do you propose we put them? (and save the dump them in the arctic nonsense, we can have a discussion based in reality or we can talk about preposterous theories, I'd prefer the former) Increased prison space is all well and good as an abstract concept, but the majority of people aren't going to back an increase in their taxes to pay for it.

I'm not in disagreement that some crimes should face more severe punishment, but I definitely think that some should face less punishment in the form of incarceration. The lock everyone up approach to justice is not only ineffective, it's incredibly expensive.

I for one am quite willing to pay higher taxes to build more prisons.
And I agree, locking up everyone for minor crimes for lengthy periods is silly. Thats where we need to get back to realistic sentences, not sentences that state one thing but in actuality mean something different. I have no problem with the judge giving Lohan 2 weeks in jail, 3 months in rehab and 6 months community service (something to do with drunk drivers or their victims). Lets get realistic and honest in the sentencing....not 90 days and she only serves 13.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by valo403

Well that's been the case for oh, I don't know, centuries?? I'm not about to declare Lindsay Lohan the tipping point.

And it has been blatantly exposed.... again.... in the Lohan case.

[puckluck]

Originally Posted by valo403

Positively? Not at all. Negatively? Not at all. I applaud your creativity though.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. If releasing a criminal to the public has no positive effects then why release them early? Because your jails are overflowing and can't be run properly? Lohan is a negative to society. She deserves to be in jail. She has clearly shown she has no respect for the law multiple times. If there was ever a time to make an example out of somebody this was the time.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Rerun

I for one am quite willing to pay higher taxes to build more prisons.

There are thousands of more useful things to do with tax money than build more prisons. Like you gotta be kidding me..

Is crime that bad in the mean streets of Okotoks?

What, so we can be a prison state like America with more than 3 million people in jail??

How about we pay off some national debt, or improve health care?

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

There are thousands of more useful things to do with tax money than build more prisons. Like you gotta be kidding me..

Is crime that bad in the mean streets of Okotoks?

What, so we can be a prison state like America with more than 3 million people in jail??

How about we pay off some national debt, or improve health care?

What did you do with mikey_the_redneck? How did you manage to hack his cp account?

Crime is brutal out here in Okotoks. Its unsafe to walk the streets at night.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by puckluck

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. If releasing a criminal to the public has no positive effects then why release them early? Because your jails are overflowing and can't be run properly? Lohan is a negative to society. She deserves to be in jail. She has clearly shown she has no respect for the law multiple times. If there was ever a time to make an example out of somebody this was the time.

How exactly is society served by her being in jail? You do get that she was released to rehab right? You know, a place where she can potentially be treated so as to not continuously walk through the justice system like a revolving door.

So what's better? A continuous parade of offenses and costs, or treatment and the potential avoidance of a life long issue?