Here is another case of paroled “non violent” drug users turning violent with tragic consequences.


Question for the debate:
1. Do stories like this make you reconsider parole and short sentences for multiple “non-violent” offenders. Why or Why not.
2. Is this an example of the practice of short sentences for criminals with multiple offences come back to bite the public?
3. What can we do to prevent this? Should we have progressively longer sentences for repeat offenders of non violent crimes?

I don't get it.

These two men were convicted of non-violent crimes, and served sentences as recommended by the Criminal code for non-violent burglary offenders. Are you suggesting that, because they WOULD later commit violent crimes, the psychic judge should have given them harsher sentences for the non-violent crimes they initially committed? What exactly are you suggesting, getting rid of the concept of 'parole' even for non-violent criminals?

Eliminating Parole would literally overnight multiply the US prison population by almost 300%. Current prison population of the US is about 2 million, with an additional 3.9 million currently on parole. Please recall that there is nowhere near enough room for the prisoners already in jail, so how would you suggest the system deal with an instant TRIPLING of the prison population?

As for 'short sentences' for criminals, these men were convicted of a non-violent crime, as you yourself said. Do you want to impose 30 year sentences for simple, non-violent crime? How about life sentences? Perhaps you should have been born in Soviet Russia, they had a prison system far more to your liking, apparently.


The system cannot read the future, the system cannot predict people's actions, we don't live in the world of 'minority report'. Your ill-thought through post also fails to note the vast MAJORITY of parolees for non-violent crimes who do NOT go on to commit murders.


If you really want to deal with this situation, the issue is not about longer sentences. If these two men had served another 5 years in prison each, or 10 years, and THEN gotten out and committed this horrific crime, would you feel better? The issue should be about prison reform: the US prison system is horrific, referred to by many law-enforcement officials as 'crime school'. Places made as hard and brutal as possible with little or no consideration to rehabilitation or what that kind of environment does to people when released. Thats also why the US has one of the highst recidivism rates in the first world.

Prison, especially for non-violent crimes, should be about rehabilitation, thats how you prevent two non-violent petty thugs, emerging from 'the system' and graduating to rape/murder.


Frankly Ted, I just don't think you bothered to think this thread through before posting.

1. Do stories like this make you reconsider parole and short sentences for multiple “non-violent” offenders. Why or Why not.
That's a far too general and blanket statement.

You neglect to mention that the guy with the long, unpronounceable name was in prison for burglary, not drugs, and had been a criminal since he was 14. And Hayes has been involved in burglary and larceny since 1980. The fact that they both used drugs is kind of irrelevant. Hey, criminals use drugs! Stop the presses! Any criminologist will tell you that criminals’ violence escalates with each crime. These two career criminals had been “minimally violent” (whatever the hell that means) until this crime.

I think your question is disingenuous. I know when I think of non-violent drug offenses, I’m thinking of someone getting popped for possession of a small amount of drugs. Say…like Lindsay Lohan, for example. OK, bad example. Say... the local pothead who gets caught smoking a joint behind the 7-11. These are people I’d consider non-violent (though I’m not too sure about Lohan).

2. Is this an example of the practice of short sentences for criminals with multiple offences come back to bite the public?

To me, it’s an example of bad judgment or incompetence on the part of the prison psychiatrist(s) who performed the evaluation, and the counselors at the halfway house. This kind of pathology doesn’t just pop up out of nowhere. Or maybe prison is what made their violence escalate. Who knows? I just know our prison system is broken - it's nothing more than a warehouse for criminals, and an institute of "lower" learning for every crime imaginable.

3. What can we do to prevent this? Should we have progressively longer sentences for repeat offenders of non violent crimes?

I do think longer sentences are warranted when there is such an obvious pattern of long-term criminal activity as there is in this case. Or maybe they ought to enforce the sentence they were given; K-whatever had been sentenced to 9 years in 2003. I also think this is a tragic side effect of overcrowded prisons. So-called "minimally violent" offenders are probably the first ones to get sprung - to disastrous results like these.

1. No.
2. Not really.
3. We kill all criminals who do anything worse than a traffic violation. Repeat offenses would drop off to nothing. I'm talking all felonies, people. This includes Scooter Libby, by the way. We hang them in the public square, with live hookups on Execution TV. That way, the entire world would know we are civilized. Criminals would realize the futility of committing any crime, and soon, we would all live in the land of Milk and Honey. Mmmmm. I LOVE Milk and Honey. I was born to live on Sugar Mountain. With the barkers and the colored baloons...

1. Do stories like this make you reconsider parole and short sentences for multiple “non-violent” offenders. Why or Why not.

Use of the word "short" is relative. Do I think that prison sentences for multiple non-violent offenders should be lengthened? Yes. Should parole only be considered after a longer time spent in prison? Yes.

2. Is this an example of the practice of short sentences for criminals with multiple offences come back to bite the public?

Yes, by definition. The longer time spent in prison means less opportunity to commit crimes of any kind when out.

3. What can we do to prevent this? Should we have progressively longer sentences for repeat offenders of non violent crimes?

Lengthen the prison sentences for repeat offenders. Separate violent offenders from the non-violent. Scrutinize better the work that prison employees perform. Build more prisons.

I am “suggesting” that criminals with records as long as ones arm should potentially receive longer, and perhaps much longer sentences if they continue to offend – even if the crimes are non violent. As we can see the need for $$ to buy drugs drove theses men and when the need is high the incentive to do whatever it takes to get the $$ is high as well – in this case with tragic concequences.

I guess I really don’t have to even say that if they had been kept in jail longer they may not have been out on the street and the family would still be alive.




My point exactly. They were criminals since youth, paroled again and again and as you say “Any criminologist will tell you that criminals’ violence escalates with each crime” so it was only a mater of time before something like this happened. And drug use adds urgency to the need for larger sums of money to get the drugs and IMO impairs judgment so this is relevant.

My question is how can we do better in anticipating this or do we just keep pusing em back on the street again and again and hope for the best?

Is this good policy?

No, not really. This isn't something that happens very often. In fact, there's something missing from this story. I don't know what it is but there's something that's "off" with this whole affair and the MSM isn't telling us about it... maybe they don't know, maybe they won't tell. I dunno but something isn't right.

So this particular tale, disgusting and horrific as it is isn't really representative of "non-violent" offenders.

No.

Nothing. Psychos like these two useless skin flaps are always going to do things like this at some point or another. How do you stop an Andrea Yates? How do you stop a Jack The Ripper? How do you stop a Lindsey Lohan?

1. Do stories like this make you reconsider parole and short sentences for multiple “non-violent” offenders. Why or Why not.

If we mine the news long enough, we can always find stories that will fit a particular political agenda. This is known as confirmation bias. Public policy should never be based on anecdotal evidence. Public policy must be based on sound statistical evidence.

I will echo what others have said: longer prison terms have not resulted in less crime. I wish this were not the case, actually. But, the evidence is there.

2. Is this an example of the practice of short sentences for criminals with multiple offences come back to bite the public?

This is one possibility (though unlikely). I'd like to see actual evidence demonstrating that shorter sentences for criminals with multiple offenses is the problem. What about prisoners learning to be more criminal while incarcerated?

3. What can we do to prevent this? Should we have progressively longer sentences for repeat offenders of non violent crimes?

Here's something to think about. What do you think happens when the penalty for rape is close to the same penalty for murder? Do you think a rapist is thinking: "Well, I'll only get 20 years if I get caught"? No, the rapist is thinking: "If I murder this person, there won't be a witness AND if I get caught, it's pretty close to the same penalty anyway."

In other words, raising the prison terms for multiple crimes creates an incentive for criminals to do worse crimes.

This story resonates with me very closely because these events took place less than a mile from my own home. I used to go for a jog past Dr. Petit's house.
Unfortunately, many more gruesome details came to light since Courant's story. The cruelty of these two sub-humans is unfanthomable. Two suspects were charged yesterday with 3 counts of felony capital murder each and face the death penalty.

1. The story like that does not make me reconsider parole, however, I would support something along the lines of "three strikes" law, so when a felony is commited, even a non-violent one, for a third time, an automatic long-term sentence is imposed.
2. Yes. Particularly considering that the parole board did not have a full access to Hayes' file when it was considering his parole, so he went through "administrative parole".

Lets consider that the parole board did not have the whole file because other stupid bureaucrats refused to devote time and postage to sending it and of course the parole board idiots just let the guys out not knowing that one of the men was called a dangerous predator” by a judge.

The question here is not just that the parole board let them out but that one was arrested 26 times and the other 20 and still they got light sentences made worse by parole boards that care more about emptying the prisons than public safety.

And the same liberals who condone dumping them back on the street again and again – like the ACLU fight against our rights to keep and bear arms to DEFEND ourselves and our families.

Ya you rare right we will always find such stories – hundreds of them and a few, like this one will even make CNN.



Yes sir I agree and if I were you I would get a good alarm system and a good gun (or two) because if you think the state is going to suddenly start keeping them in you could be dead wrong.