The man who fatally shot a woman who was in a car that turned into the wrong driveway was sentenced Friday to 25 years to life for his second-degree murder conviction.
Is the government able to take possession of his house/land and personal property, sell it and use that to help fund his incarceration? Is that a thing?
Before I get downvoted to oblivion, I’m not saying they SHOULD. I’m just asking if that’s something they do. Maybe I should have worded it better.
Is the government able to take possession of his house/land and personal property, sell it and use that to help fund his incarceration? Is that a thing?
Yeah, a gateway to even more corruption. We already have Civil Asset Forfeiture, and it’s abused exactly how you think it would be. In all but a few cases, the money goes to law enforcement (local or otherwise). It’s basically legalized theft, though some states have higher thresholds than others.
Emphases mine:
In the United States, civil forfeiture (also called civil asset forfeiture or civil judicial forfeiture)[1] is a process in which law enforcement officers take assets from people who are suspected of involvement with crime or illegal activity without necessarily charging the owners with wrongdoing.
I don’t know the rules in USA but I’d assume only in case of debt they are not able to pay after some time (years, likely). This could be fines or legal fees
25 year sentences would not even be considered if rehabilitation was the intention. It is a sign of a sick system when we applaud 25 year sentences. The guy is not going to get better help for his mental illness after year 24 than he will get in the first year.
Taxes get spent on all sorts of stuff you don’t want or need - that’s the purpose of tax, so the country can spend money on things it needs but individuals don’t necessarily want. You might as well complain about tax being spent to build roads you’re never going to drive on, or social services you don’t partake in. It’s all the same pool of money.
Now taxpayers get to pay for his food and housing for the rest of his life, neat!
Yeah, that’s how prison works. Most people consider it a small price to pay to keep murderers off the streets.
Is the government able to take possession of his house/land and personal property, sell it and use that to help fund his incarceration? Is that a thing?
Before I get downvoted to oblivion, I’m not saying they SHOULD. I’m just asking if that’s something they do. Maybe I should have worded it better.
Yeah, a gateway to even more corruption. We already have Civil Asset Forfeiture, and it’s abused exactly how you think it would be. In all but a few cases, the money goes to law enforcement (local or otherwise). It’s basically legalized theft, though some states have higher thresholds than others.
Emphases mine:
I don’t know the rules in USA but I’d assume only in case of debt they are not able to pay after some time (years, likely). This could be fines or legal fees
His assets will be sold off to pay the victims family and to cover the trauma the other passengers received from the crime.
Like good healthcare. Even good prison food is cheaper due to economies of scale.
We could feed way more homeless with some properly consolidated soup kitchens attached to gov bed-spaces.
So you don’t want him in prison and maybe kill another one that turns up in his driveway?
What you’re doing right now is called projection.
It’s not.
When you assume someone else’s ideas for solutions must be as limited as your own, yes, that’s what projection is.
That’s not even remotely close to what they did. Try again.
I did just fine the first time. Thread full of fascists gonna fascist.
You genuinely sound dumb. I’m sorry you’re like this.
You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
It’s probably closer to a strawman or false dichotomy, than it is projection.
Though, providing basic needs to prisoners seems like a relatively small price to pay to keep them off the streets and hopefully deter other crime.
It’s absolutely a false dichotomy, but when they suggested I must want the other half of the dichotomy, that is projection.
Nah. Just objectification when he uses ‘that’ in place of ‘who’. Different entirely.
I mean, what would you rather happen?
Release all the inmates that are there on nonviolent drug crimes, so the cost of prisons goes way down?
But that’s too hard of course.
Ok. What does that have to do with this murder case?
Edit: Since you’re so fond of identifying things (even though you have yet to get one right) your answer there was a non sequitur.
Absolutely nothing, but I get the impression they think it’s a compelling point.
25 year sentences would not even be considered if rehabilitation was the intention. It is a sign of a sick system when we applaud 25 year sentences. The guy is not going to get better help for his mental illness after year 24 than he will get in the first year.
Are you suggesting that a 1 year sentence is appropriate for murder?
Why is this thread so full of projection? Why do the people here find it so hard to accept that our prison system is broken?
You really don’t know what that word means, but dagnabbit you’re not going to let that stop you from using it.
I’ll make it simple. What do you think is an appropriate response to 2nd degree murder?
The shooter is 65. That means at the end of a 25-year sentence he will be 90. Do you think he’ll still be a danger to the public at 80? 85?
I think 15 years would be plenty.
Taxes get spent on all sorts of stuff you don’t want or need - that’s the purpose of tax, so the country can spend money on things it needs but individuals don’t necessarily want. You might as well complain about tax being spent to build roads you’re never going to drive on, or social services you don’t partake in. It’s all the same pool of money.
The US has a for-profit prison problem. 25-year sentences are a symptom of that problem.
And he gets to sit in a shitty box surrounded by other murderers for the short remainder of his pathetic life. I’m fine with that