Lindsay Lohan gets 90 days in prison

[puckluck]

Originally Posted by valo403

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?

Is there a reason she can't be in rehab after the 90 days are over? How many times has she been to rehab now?

So to answer your question...if this happened in Canada as a taxpayer I would gladly support keeping her in jail and then even pay for her rehab after the 90 days are over. Justice needs to be served for breaking the law, and then she can get her rehab after her measly 90 days are over.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Rerun

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.

I can agree with that, I still think you're better off with a 90 day sentence with the possibility of rehab etc. though. All the scenario you've laid out does is remove the motivation for an inmate to be proactive in the process, if you allow people who already don't give a damn to go through the system without at least showing some desire to take the step to a more pleasant/desirable level of the process they'll just coast by knowing that the shackles come off on day x regardless of what they do. A sentence that leaves the ability to transition to rehab or day parole in the hands of the justice system means that those who don't want to change don't get those opportunities until much later in the game.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by puckluck

Is there a reason she can't be in rehab after the 90 days are over? How many times has she been to rehab now?

So to answer your question...if this happened in Canada as a taxpayer I would gladly support keeping her in jail and then even pay for her rehab after the 90 days are over. Justice needs to be served for breaking the law, and then she can get her rehab after her measly 90 days are over.

Justice needs to be served? I hear this term thrown around all the time like it's the be all and end all of an argument but it really means nothing. How is 90 days in place x serving justice more than 13 days in place x and 77 days in place y?

[puckluck]

Originally Posted by valo403

Justice needs to be served? I hear this term thrown around all the time like it's the be all and end all of an argument but it really means nothing. How is 90 days in place x serving justice more than 13 days in place x and 77 days in place y?

Ok now replace x with 1 day and y with 25 years. Would justice be the same? Consequences would never be the same unless you backtraced it.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Rerun

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.

Nope.
This is all me Rerun...

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

Riiiiight.....

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by valo403

I can agree with that, I still think you're better off with a 90 day sentence with the possibility of rehab etc. though. All the scenario you've laid out does is remove the motivation for an inmate to be proactive in the process, if you allow people who already don't give a damn to go through the system without at least showing some desire to take the step to a more pleasant/desirable level of the process they'll just coast by knowing that the shackles come off on day x regardless of what they do. A sentence that leaves the ability to transition to rehab or day parole in the hands of the justice system means that those who don't want to change don't get those opportunities until much later in the game.

That basically happens now. In most cases it is mandated that most offenders (with a few exceptions) be released after serving 2/3rds of their sentence and they are eligeable for full parole at 1/3rd of their sentence as long as they keep their nose fairly clean in prison and say the right things at the parole hearing. ... therefore a 9 year sentence now becomes a 3 year sentence... much too soon for my liking.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Rerun

That basically happens now. In most cases it is mandated that most offenders (with a few exceptions) be released after serving 2/3rds of their sentence and they are eligeable for full parole at 1/3rd of their sentence as long as they keep their nose fairly clean in prison and say the right things at the parole hearing. ... therefore a 9 year sentence now becomes a 3 year sentence... much too soon for my liking.

Eligible and being paroled are different things. Again you're just coming up with your own stats. How many offenders sentenced to actual prison, not local jail, serve only 1/3 of their sentence? You make it out to be the majority, I don't believe that for a second.

[Rerun]

Ok... even though I am enjoying this discussion, I gotta leave. My wife will be home soon and I've gotta clean up the mess I left in the kitchen before she sees it... thus I will be preventing another major crime in this crime ridden metropolis of Okotoks.

[Resolute 14]

Now correct me if I am wrong because I barely care at all about this case, but from what I heard on the radio, the main reason Lohan was let out early was because of overcrowding in the jails in California. So, as a low risk offender, she was released early.

Now, if what I recall is accurate, then she is not an example of the failure of the justice system, but rather an example of the failure of American society. It is interesting to note those in here advocating a preference to keep such offenders in jail for their full terms. But, that "build more prisons" mentality is, quite ironically, the reason she got out early. I would say the problem here isn't that she got off too light. She did, but her case is merely a symptom of a larger problem and focusing on her is about as useful as focusing on Kane when you had Towes and Byfuglien bearing down on you. You still lose.

[Resolute 14]

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.

I will fully admit that I am in a special position given I have been through your exact scenario, but I would be willing to bet most people know the minimum for murder 2 is 10 years. Murder 1 might be a little more difficult to pin down.

[Rathji]

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.

Then most people need to be educated about the corrections system.

Just because they don't feel the need to become educated doesn't mean the prison system is broken it means people are just happy to live in their bubble of ignorance.

Originally Posted by Rerun

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.

See your problem is that you think 90 days means 90 days exactly and never different.

The justice system provides some flexibility depending on how the offender acts. Eligibility for parole after serving a portion of their sentence, or serving the entire thing if they are disruptive or do not follow the treatment etc they are required to by their sentence.

A sentence of 90 days can mean many things. Most often that is jail time of ~30 days followed by parole. Your lack of understanding of the justice system doesn't make the system wrong, it just makes you wrong.

[fredr123]

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by valo403

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?

Society is not being served by her being in jail, the hope is that she will be served.

She's flauted court ordered rehab, she's flauted personal rehab, she's ignored the court ordered ankle bracelet. She's driven drunk and anyone that hears anything about Lohan hears the term next to die.

Jail is suppossed to represent a compassionate rock bottom for her, and a warning of what will happens if she continues to thumb her nose at a justice system that believe it or not was trying to help her.

I think in this case any public satisfaction or smugness while inevitable is not the consideration nor is it meant to protect society.

Chances are if the judge had ordered inhouse rehab for her without the prison time she would have merely found a way to walk away or not lived up to the conditions of it.

Sometimes prison is used for personal deterence as well.

The length of time that she served is fairly irrelevant, she has to know that she's out of breaks now and she's gotten a taste of jail.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Society is not being served by her being in jail, the hope is that she will be served.

She's flauted court ordered rehab, she's flauted personal rehab, she's ignored the court ordered ankle bracelet. She's driven drunk and anyone that hears anything about Lohan hears the term next to die.

Jail is suppossed to represent a compassionate rock bottom for her, and a warning of what will happens if she continues to thumb her nose at a justice system that believe it or not was trying to help her.

I think in this case any public satisfaction or smugness while inevitable is not the consideration nor is it meant to protect society.

Chances are if the judge had ordered inhouse rehab for her without the prison time she would have merely found a way to walk away or not lived up to the conditions of it.

Sometimes prison is used for personal deterence as well.

The length of time that she served is fairly irrelevant, she has to know that she's out of breaks now and she's gotten a taste of jail.

I agree completely, I should have made clear that I was asking what purpose would be served by keeping her in jail for 90 days as opposed to a release to rehab after serving a shorter jail sentence.

[Traditional_Ale]

Nm.