zlacker

>>RBBron+(OP)
State and federal governments do not get as much tax revenue either because these people are not earning at their full potential. So basically, it hurts everyone involved as well as society as a whole.

>>w8rbt+Ij
So I have mixed feelings about this situation. On the one hand, if the sentences were for drug possession, yes, I think its really shitty to incarcerate people for that. But if their felony was due to burglary or something more serious/violent, I do think they deserve the punishment.

I also agree that once the sentence has been served, people should not be punished any further, except where the occupation requires a clean record. e.g. I would be OK with pharmacies requiring no arrest for drugs etc. as a condition for employment, or drivers without DWI convictions etc.

I guess my point is: its not a purely economic decision. Sure you're losing tax revenue, but that's because you're:

1) Protecting society from a person who has demonstrates some lack of understanding/acceptance of its rules.

2) Cause significant discomfort/pain to the perpetrator of the crime so that they realize the consequences of breaking the law and hopefully never do it again.

>>pm90+Po
Yeah same here. On the one hand people deserve a second chance and it just happens that someone can get sucked into a stupid situation.

On the other hand when someone boldly ignored certain moral rules, will the person continue to do so? I think it's pretty serious when someone else had to suffer because of that.

>>blabla+br
> will the person continue to do so?

That is the fundamental question of the sentencing phase of a trial (which is why if you’re unfamiliar with criminal trials, that they’re basically “retrying” a defendant they’ve already found guilty might seem weird), and I agree with the other commenters that it should stop there. Holding people back from regular employment directly causes recidivism. Unemployment and crime are correlated. You can’t just pull people out of society because they erred once, and this is why convictions with priors are worse than without; that question is being answered for you.

You want fewer people in prison and safer communities? Let felons work, fire them when they don’t, or they’ll get the money in other ways. It’s genuinely as simple as that. Beside the DUI crowd, half the minimum security inmates I spent time with were there for check fraud, petty theft, and other crimes to feed themselves or their kids. Many had priors, sometimes several, making one guy I met who had passed a $750 bad check stare down the barrel of a ten stretch.

Think about this: upon my conviction I lost the ability to both vote and leave the country. I have both back now (with effort), but even looking at this situation macroeconomically, what is that saying about even first time offenders?