Community Service vs. Jail for Nonviolent Crimes

Hardenbergh

Graduate Poster
Hardenbergh
Joined
Jul 12, 2004
Messages
1,073
I think community service is an excellent way to show inmates that there are more constructive ways of spending their time. It gives them a sense of worth, exercise and fresh air and it's very helpful to the community.

Sunday, October 09, 2005

Doing time by doing good Inmates' work gets them out of jail
By BETTY ADAMS
Staff Writer

ROME -- Kathy Lodge and Cathy Simon paid $325 each to spend last week cleaning cabins at Pine Tree Camp for Crippled Children.

It was that or go to jail.

"I had received a second OUI and was facing 12 days in jail. I researched what I could do to be productive and found the Kennebec County program," said Lodge, who lives in Bangor. Simon, who lives in Vassalboro, was under court order to attend.

The women were among 34 people working at the North Pond camp, readying it for winter and improving the facilities for next year.

The workweek was an alternative to jail, available to people convicted of nonviolent crimes who are willing to perform community service and pay all costs.

Such alternative programs are attempts to reduce jail populations and craft the punishment to fit the crime and the individual.
Click to expand...

http://mainejobs.mainetoday.com/newsresources/051009inmates.shtml
 
Last edited:
Is second offense OUI really "nonviolent crime"?

If I wield a deadly weapon carelessly, but don't injure anyone, is it still non-violent? If it were a loaded gun, would it be so easily overlooked?

I tend to be a little more forgiving of DUI than most people. I understand that people make mistakes and mess up. But that only goes for once. A second offense? Unacceptable, and not something I'd let go easily.
 
I personally feel we should lock them up.

It is much more expensive and it lets them learn from violent and hardened criminals. It costs them their jobs and many of their friends. It makes them almost unemployable. This makes it much more likely we can lock them up again.

CBL
 
pgwenthold said:
Is second offense OUI really "nonviolent crime"?

If I wield a deadly weapon carelessly, but don't injure anyone, is it still non-violent? If it were a loaded gun, would it be so easily overlooked?

I tend to be a little more forgiving of DUI than most people. I understand that people make mistakes and mess up. But that only goes for once. A second offense? Unacceptable, and not something I'd let go easily.
Click to expand...

Is waving a gun while drunk cosidered a violent crime?? Better round up all those hunters!
 
Re: the question of whether second offense drunk driving is necessarily "non-violent"

drkitten said:
Yes.
Click to expand...

Why?

What constitutes violent crime? Isn't armed robbery considered violent regardless of whether the criminal uses the gun?

I don't understand what espionage has to do with it. Does that involve the spy carelessly (i.e. impairedly) wielding a deadly weapon?

I'm not arguing that it is violant because it is serious. I am claiming it is violent because it is careless use of a deadly weapon.
 
pgwenthold said:
What constitutes violent crime?
Click to expand...

The usual definition of "violent crime" is that force or the threat of force is an inherent part of the crime.

So murder is a violent crime, because you can't kill someone without using (broadly defined force). Assault is a violent crime. Rape is generally considered a violent crime, although some jurisdictions distinguish between forcible rape (which is), and statuatory rape (which isn't).

Similarly, robbery is a violent crime because the threat of force is part of the criminal act. If I merely take your stuff without threatening you, it's theft, but not robbery.

Isn't armed robbery considered violent regardless of whether the criminal uses the gun?
Click to expand...

Yes, as above.


I'm not arguing that it is violant because it is serious. I am claiming it is violent because it is careless use of a deadly weapon.
Click to expand...

And mere carelessness isn't sufficient to make a crime a "violent crime." Burglary-while-armed isn't a violent crime until/unless the homeowner is around, which makes it no longer just burglary, but robbery.

Can I commit [some crime] without hurting (or threatening to hurt) any specific person? If so, it's not a violent crime. And DUI falls into that category.
 
One of my objections to the phrase "violent crime" and especially the way it is interpreted in "three strikes" laws is that "violent crime" frequently includes crimes that don't involve violence. Specifically, selling drugs is frequently considered under those laws to be a "violent crime". Sometimes, any shoplifting offense is considered a violent crime under those laws.
 
Meadmaker said:
One of my objections to the phrase "violent crime" and especially the way it is interpreted in "three strikes" laws is that "violent crime" frequently includes crimes that don't involve violence. Specifically, selling drugs is frequently considered under those laws to be a "violent crime". Sometimes, any shoplifting offense is considered a violent crime under those laws.
Click to expand...

Actually, part of the problem is that the "three strikes" laws usually are sold to the public with the idea that the "three strikes" refers only to "violent crimes, " but somehow the phrase "violent crimes" gets mangled in the legislature.

Case in point, from the relevant California statute:

It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting subdivisions
(b) to (i), inclusive, to ensure longer prison sentences and greater
punishment for those who commit a felony and have been previously
convicted of serious and/or violent felony offenses.
Click to expand...

See? "Serious and/or violent."

California actually has a fairly sensible list of "violent felonies." Murder, mayhem, rape, robbery, arson resulting in great bodily harm, kidnapping, &c. However, the "serious felonies" are a more mixed bag, since they include things like selling meth, burglary, or theft-involving-a-firearm.

Notice also that the third strike doesn't even need to be a serious and/or violent felony. If you have two rape convictions, then any felony, including a nonserious and nonviolent crime, will still put you away for life.
 
Just curious, would this proposal also apply to guys like Sam Waksal at Imclone? Or Bernie Ebbers at WorldCom?
 
CBL4 said:
I personally feel we should lock them up.

It is much more expensive and it lets them learn from violent and hardened criminals. It costs them their jobs and many of their friends. It makes them almost unemployable. This makes it much more likely we can lock them up again.

CBL
Click to expand...

Picking up trash for a DUI doesn't make you unemployable, but serving time for a DUI does?

Does a background check tell an employer the arrest and conviction and the sentence?
 
Luke T. said:
Picking up trash for a DUI doesn't make you unemployable, but serving time for a DUI does?
Click to expand...
Going to jail for 6 months guarantees a job loss. After release, the first question from an employer is "What have you been doing for the last 6 months?" The answer "I have been in jail" does not inspire confidence.

Most community service can be done on weekends which does not affect the current job. A week or two of community service can be handled with vacation time. Unless it is a felony, it does not have much of an affect on the next job - unless it requires driving.

CBL
 
I think the focus here should be on preventing future DUIs from occurring. Personally, I can understand making a SINGLE mistake and just the one time. I am not happy to adopt that opinion, but it seems the rest route to follow. I still feel the punishment should be far from a walk in the walk, literally. Allowing people who have been convicted of DUI wander about the community cleaning up litter does not instill the fear of repeating the offense. You see too many stories of drunk drivers killing people on their second, third, or fourth try at it. I understand there are hardcore drinkers out there who are going to drive no matter what, but at least scare those who will be affected by the law into not doing it again.


Santa
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom