Rendell proposes no parole for repeat violent offenders

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

PHILADELPHIA -- Gov. Ed Rendell on Sunday asked the Legislature to end parole for repeat violent offenders and said the state would expand its supervision of such offenders on parole.

The request occurred a day after Rendell said he received the criminal history on a man who had been paroled three times before allegedly killing two people in the Philadelphia suburbs last year.

He cited the deaths of two Philadelphia police officers allegedly killed by parolees in 2008.

"These murders cry out for changes in how we sentence our violent repeat offenders who use deadly weapons," Rendell said. "This is a situation that simply has to change."

Read more: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_605652.html

[bluestateguy]

1. I'd swap that in exchnage for releasing all non-violent drug offenders

nt

[independentpiney]

2. there you go n/t

[DesertFlower]

3. great idea. nt

[sandnsea]

6. Maybe this is the path we have to go

Once people start feeling safe, maybe they will see the common sense in letting these drug offenders out. This would be a good time to fight it, locking them up is too expensive.

[Tempest]

7. When he sees the cost for jailing all the repeat offenders

The state will have no choice but to backtrack or release non-violent offenders.

PA is having the same budget problems as every other state in the nation.

[Rebubula]

4. Speaking...

...only for me.

I have absolutely no problem with keeping violent felons separated from society until they die (though this only provides incarceration until the completion of their sentence - fair enough. I do not support the death penalty - so this would offer me the security that violent offenders would not roam the streets after conviction.

On Edit - I also support the 1st poster - free non-violent political prisoners of the war on drugs.

[sandnsea]

5. I totally support that

These are the people we need to keep in jail. It's about time somebody focused on the very small minority who are really the ones we all fear.

[T Wolf]

8. Why push the fear button of "violent" offenders and ignore the white-collar criminals?

We all know to whom Fast Eddie is referring.

ALL criminals should be treated alike, IMO. A repeat offender, whether "violent" or not, deserves the same treatment. Two bar fights are worse than a serial thief like the Wall Street felons? Not from where I sit.

[Rebubula]

16. As Someone...

..that has lost a family member to violent crime, I respectfully disagree with you.

You can always replace possessions...I cannot replace my sister no matter what I do.

I do, however, understand your point. I just do not agree.

[Jackpine Radical]

18. There are many more victims of white-collar crime than of street crime. Here

is a rerun of something I posted a while back:

The death penalty is for retail killers only. Wholesale killing isn't illegal.
Posted by Jackpine Radical in General Discussion
Fri Jun 27th 2008, 05:31 PM

Case in Point #1: The Ford Pinto Memo.

In the 1970's, Ford put out the Pinto with a defect that caused the car to explode in a ball of flame if rear-ended. They then ran a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether or not to modify the car to eliminate the defect. Here is their calculation (from Wikipedia):

==================================================================
Fatalities Associated with Crash-Induced Fuel Leakage and Fires



Expected Costs of producing the Pinto with fuel tank modifications:

* Expected unit sales: 11 million vehicles (includes utility vehicles built on same chassis)
* Modification costs per unit: $11.00
* Total Cost: $121 million
<= 11,000,000 vehicles x $11.00 per unit>



Expected Costs of producing the Pinto without fuel tank modifications:

* Expected accident results (assuming 2100 accidents):
180 burn deaths
180 serious burn injuries
2100 burned out vehicles
* Unit costs of accident results (assuming out of court settlements):
$200,000 per burn death*
$67,000 per serious injury
$700 per burned out vehicle
* Total Costs: $49.53 million
<= (180 deaths x $200k) + (180 injuries x $67k) + (2100 vehicles x $700 per vehicle)>

Thus, the costs for fixing the Pinto was $121 million, while settling cases where injuries occur was only $50 million. With such a difference in costs, Ford decided to manufacture and market the Pinto without fuel tank modifications.

Nobody was ever held criminally responsible for this decision.

*By the way, the $200k and $67k figures for the average value of a lost or injured adult life is drawn from the NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) calculation of the estimated costs to society of automobile accidents. It is not a low-ball figure fabricated by Ford. (For example, the $200k for death was calculated by adding estimated direct costs of $163k -- such as loss of future earnings, plus $37k of indirect costs -- such as hospital and insurance costs, legal and court costs, victim pain and suffering, funeral costs, and property damage.)

Case # 2: Iraq

The Bush Administration prevaricated their way into an elective war using supposed intelligence information that they knew to be bogus. Total cost, at least 1 million lives, and the ruin of the cultural artifacts of an ancient civilization.

Penalty? None.

[T Wolf]

20. Do you feel the same about a corporate polluter whose actions do kill people?

[superconnected]

19. Violent offenders physically hurt people and that is far worse than stealing.

[tishaLA]

9. Yeah that three strikes law in CA has been working so well

It's good to see Rendell wanting to emulate it. :sarcasm:

[Dogmudgeon]

11. "Three Strikes" means three felonies of any kind

Rendell is talking about violent crimes.

In CA, you can go to prison for life for passing three bad checks totaling less than $100.

What Rendell is proposing is life for a string of violent offenses like assault, rape, manslaughter, arson, etc. I would like to see "commissioned crimes", like mob hits and murder-for-hire, added to that list.

In PA, we actually have a "Life Means Life" law; it's grossly unfair, especially since most lifers are retarded and/or impoverished, while it is unheard of for an organized crime boss to get more than a decade behind bars.

We also have the occasional execution here in PA. Same deal -- it's always life's losers who are put down like crippled dogs. The crime families need not worry about the terminal injection any more than life in prison.

Harsh punishment is for the dregs of society. Appear before a judge dressed in Armani or Hugo Boss, and you have your choice of left-or-right wrist to get slapped upon.

--p!

[tishaLA]

13. Maybe you have more faith that people convicted

of three felonies actually committed them. Unfortunately, we see innocent people convicted all the time, and those are, as you rightly state, the impoverished who cannot afford a competent attorney.

[Dogmudgeon]

15. I think you've misunderstood

I'm not supporting California's Three Strikes law at all. It's a disgrace. So is Pennsylvania's "Life Means Life" law. And more so, are the "justice" systems that administer these laws. Someday, our system of justice-by-wealth will appear as one of the most unjust institutions that has ever been established.

What I'm supporting is at least giving Ed Rendell's idea a hearing, especially in the context of reforming our Prison Industrial Complex. There are actually relatively very few people who cause most of the death and destruction, who need to be kept under permanent supervision. I went into a little more detail in my earlier post.

As for the petty criminals, the status offenders, and (especially) the financial criminals, we can deal with them separately.

With more than 1% of our population behind bars or on supervised parole, a higher percentage than any other nation, we need to make some changes.

--p!

[Still Sensible]

14. Agreed...

I see nothing here that sounds like California's ridiculous three strikes law. I have no problem with making sure repeat violent offenders serve their full sentences... and support the idea that repeat white collar criminals--at a certain level based on the damage they have done--face the same standard.

Perhaps the trade off would be more common sense on non-violent offenders.

[Dogmudgeon]

10. That's actually a pretty small number

If we reformed our "corrections" system to deal with the hard-core pathologically violent members of our society, we could greatly reduce crime, greatly reduce the amount of money we spend on being safe, AND put some serious effort into rehabilitation of these "broken" people.

The fact that over half of our incarcerated population is there on low-level drug and/or "conspiracy" charges is obscene. We talk about "getting off on a technicality" -- most people behind bars are there because of technicalities.

--p!

[KamaAina]

12. Has Rendell proposed to expand the (already bloated) prison system to house them all?

Or is he just going to put up tents like (New) Orleans Parish Prison has? :eyes:

[L0oniX]

17. Check to see if Ed Rendell has connections or investments to/in private prison systems.