Post by stefanieoshea on Feb 18, 2016 21:44:54 GMT
I do not believe that Doris should be granted clemency because of the precedent that doing so would have on future cases such as this. If another person feels that they can live a "good and law abiding" life and walks away from their sentence because they know doing so will keep them from being reincarcerated using this example then we begin to create a breakdown of the justice system. The whole idea is that one should live this standard of life in order to avoid arrest and conviction, so we should focus instead on how to help members of society make this decision, instead of how to escape and get off from serving the sentence they get once they do make a bad decision.
This was hard for me; really hard. My entire educational background is in criminal justice (both my BA and my MS) and the first years of my career were spent working in the state and federal prison system. Today, I have strong opinions on where our justice system seems to lack and the different ways in which justice are handed down to people in our society based on race, class, education, etc. Of course there is a part of me that says Doris shouldn't go back because while it serves a purpose to say "you cannot do this and get away with it" and dissuade others from doing the same (and perhaps not being able to keep away from a life of crime) I know that sending her back is not going to do some of the other things that incarceration exists to do. It is not going to keep Doris from committing further crimes because she is probably not going to be doing so; it is not going to send a message to other drug dealers, because she is not an active dealer nor does she seem to have ties in the dealing underground. Is it going to cause damage to her family, friends and herself? Very likely - that is that prison does regardless of the person's guilt, innocence or time that has lapsed between their crime and conviction. So why send her back? Because she broke the law both by committing her original sentence and by escaping (a major felony in itself) and she likely caused many hours and dollars in a search for her, a further burden on our already overextended system. And also PRECEDENT. This is the core of our system - what judges and lawyers ask juries to look upon when making decisions and if Doris can walk away, live a good life and not have to go back, why shouldn't anyone be open to this option?
Finally, we are seeing one part of the story. Many of us have never been arrested but we have certainly broken laws that could have resulted in some interaction with the system, whether driving after too many drinks or some sort of school prank in college, and who is to say Doris has not done this or worse? What if Doris has maintained a well hidden drug addiction to pills (legal) or alcohol or has even been able to get her hands on heroin? What if, what if, that is the baseline of critical thinking and, although it pains me to say so, Doris needs to go back and hopefully she can continue to be a good example inside and when and if she gets out again.
This was hard for me; really hard. My entire educational background is in criminal justice (both my BA and my MS) and the first years of my career were spent working in the state and federal prison system. Today, I have strong opinions on where our justice system seems to lack and the different ways in which justice are handed down to people in our society based on race, class, education, etc. Of course there is a part of me that says Doris shouldn't go back because while it serves a purpose to say "you cannot do this and get away with it" and dissuade others from doing the same (and perhaps not being able to keep away from a life of crime) I know that sending her back is not going to do some of the other things that incarceration exists to do. It is not going to keep Doris from committing further crimes because she is probably not going to be doing so; it is not going to send a message to other drug dealers, because she is not an active dealer nor does she seem to have ties in the dealing underground. Is it going to cause damage to her family, friends and herself? Very likely - that is that prison does regardless of the person's guilt, innocence or time that has lapsed between their crime and conviction. So why send her back? Because she broke the law both by committing her original sentence and by escaping (a major felony in itself) and she likely caused many hours and dollars in a search for her, a further burden on our already overextended system. And also PRECEDENT. This is the core of our system - what judges and lawyers ask juries to look upon when making decisions and if Doris can walk away, live a good life and not have to go back, why shouldn't anyone be open to this option?
Finally, we are seeing one part of the story. Many of us have never been arrested but we have certainly broken laws that could have resulted in some interaction with the system, whether driving after too many drinks or some sort of school prank in college, and who is to say Doris has not done this or worse? What if Doris has maintained a well hidden drug addiction to pills (legal) or alcohol or has even been able to get her hands on heroin? What if, what if, that is the baseline of critical thinking and, although it pains me to say so, Doris needs to go back and hopefully she can continue to be a good example inside and when and if she gets out again.