RoR: Forum

Post 0

Tuesday, August 26 - 4:58am

Link

Edit

Despite the appearance of the woman (shudder) should she be brought back to Michigan to face charges after 35 years? Apparently the woman had committed a number of crimes back in the 70's. She broke out of prison a couple of times and has been missing for the past 35. Neighbors say that the couple seemed "pleasant."

This reminds me of a Gunsmoke episode where Marshall Dillon was sent to apprehend a man for some crime. The Marshall finds the man and sees that he has adjusted and become a productive member of a small town. He decides to let the man go and reports back to authorities that he can't find him.

Should this woman have to pay for her crimes when it appears she has adjusted and become a productive member?

Woman Arrested After 35 Years On Run

Post 1

Tuesday, August 26 - 7:13am

Link

Edit

Tim,

Yes. Intent to commit armed robbery, check fraud, and suspected in several other unnamed offenses. At a minimum, she certainly should be expected to provide restitution.

The determining factor for answering your question is whether one believes protecting the public, punishment, or rehabilitation is the objective for giving a prison sentence.

In her case she apparently had only two years left on her original sentence when she escaped, with a chance for added time due to an earlier escape (what do they use in Michigan... gingerbread jails?). As far as the issues of protecting the public or rehabilitation, she doesn't seem to need further incarceration. However, as far as punishment, I don't think she should get off so easy.

Economically, it probably doesn't make sense putting her back in prison. Therefore, it might be argued that she be allowed to pay restitution to those she robbed, and to the state for the extra cost in man-hours to look for her after her escapes. In terms of public perception though, buying her way out might - not without some justification - be seen as a form of favoritism that could backfire, encouraging other petitioners to want to buy their way out.

Definitely - one way or the other - this woman should pay for her crimes. Short of knowing more detail about her infractions (and the Michigan legal system), I would hesitate to say which way is best.

jt

Post 2

Tuesday, August 26 - 8:53am

Link

Edit

Economically, it probably doesn't make sense putting her back in prison. Therefore, it might be argued that she be allowed to pay restitution to those she robbed, and to the state for the extra cost in man-hours to look for her after her escapes.

I absolutely agree. Paying restitution is in my mind preferable to putting her back in jail.

Post 3

Tuesday, August 26 - 11:54am

Link

Edit

This might be helpful to read.

Criminal Justice?: The Legal System Versus Individual Responsibility

The fact remains, is she or isn't she responsible for her actions? What does being productive have to do with moral culpability and how does that answer to the people she victimized? I'm productive too, does that mean I can start stealing?

Post 4

Tuesday, August 26 - 12:03pm

Link

Edit

"I'm productive too, does that mean I can start stealing?"

LOL

Post 5

Tuesday, August 26 - 1:36pm

Link

Edit

John,

Sounds like an interesting book. As an longtime fan of tv's Law & Order, would like to see why they can't get around some of the more obtuse obstacles to justice created by case law.

jt

Post 6

Tuesday, August 26 - 4:20pm

Link

Edit

Restitution for all costs involved. Putting her back in the slammer is simply going to add to the federal grant money some backwater town will get (prisons are economic 'sinks'). As for how the restitution could be extracted, there are many ways to go about it. If she has a house, put a lien on it. *shrugs*

Post 7

Tuesday, August 26 - 4:24pm

Link

Edit

Ok fine, then throw her back in prison and make her pay for that too, restitution to the victims and to the taxpayers for having to punish her.

Post 8

Tuesday, August 26 - 4:34pm

Link

Edit

Not to punish her sends the wrong message. It tells criminals who break out of prison that if they can just avoid being apprehended for a certain period of time, they can avoid punishment. In fact, because she broke out of prison, her sentence should be even more severe than if she had remained in prison and served out her time.

- Bill

Post 9

Wednesday, August 27 - 2:47pm

Link

Edit

Tim,

This reminds me of a Gunsmoke episode where Marshall Dillon was sent to apprehend a man for some crime. The Marshall finds the man and sees that he has adjusted and become a productive member of a small town. He decides to let the man go and reports back to authorities that he can't find him.

That reminds me of a very famous novel, one often cited for its political themes, I think. Does anyone know which novel that would be (where a criminal independently reforms while out on the sly, but then is either found or faces a moral dilemma)?

Ed

p.s. I think the guy was offered the job of sheriff or something, and he had to decide if he should be a public servant -- either of the law or otherwise -- considering his own past. If only our current politicians felt the same moral angst when it comes to the deeds they've done and the new opportunities they grab!

Post 10

Saturday, September 6 - 11:43am

Link

Edit

This question invokes the principle of a statute of limitations. I do not think there should be a statute of limitations for any crime, because the mere passage of time does not correct an injustice. This must be true since the moral nature of an act is determined by the nature of the act, ie. whether it is consistent or inconsistent with life. Once an act has been committed, its nature has been thus determined, and since the act is now in the past and not amenable to further alteration, the length of time for which it ages can not change its nature.

The function of the principle of justice is to define how to right wrongful acts, and this is done by reversing the effect of the wrongful acts by punishing the perpetrator to inflict suffering for the unearned happiness he acquired, and by forcing him to make reparation to the victim to return him to his original condition to what extent may be possible. The act of justice must always follow an injustice, and not precede it. If it is not committed, no reversal and thus no justice occurs.

To allow her amnesty denies this fact and essentially implies that an act of evil becomes an act of good with the passage of time, which in turn implies that things in the past change with the passing of time and further that the identity of an act may morally invert itself in this way, ie. that A may become non-A.

Therefore, it may be concluded that this woman should be extradited and imprisoned to serve out the rest of her sentence, and any others that are still pending or may be further imposed, and required to make restitution for her crimes and pay any and all other civil penalities.

(Edited by Robert E. Milenberg on 9/06, 11:45am)

(Edited by Robert E. Milenberg on 9/06, 11:47am)

Post 11

Saturday, September 6 - 1:20pm

Link

Edit

I agree with Robert. The statute of limitations take an act out of jurisdiction by time, yet time, as such does not modify the fact of a crime being committed.

If there is reason to modify the punishment, to decrease it in amount, based on something that has changed with time,that is already available in the sentencing. With this woman, a judge would ordinarily take into account that she is rehabilitated, but in this case, the time spent rehabilitating was acquired by escape which in itself flaunts the very nature of justice.

Law enforcement agencies already have internal procedures for stopping active pursuit of "cold cases" while leaving them on the books. So, they don't need and shouldn't want any statute of limitations.

A different issue exists in civil court. This is the length of time that can lapse between an alleged injury -either the alleged causative action, or the time at which awareness of the injury first appears, and the filing of a civil suit. But this isn't governed by statute of limitations - it is a different thing and referred to as the "prescriptive period". There is good reason for requiring civil plaintiffs to file in a reasonable period of time.

Post 12

Saturday, September 6 - 8:37pm

Link

Edit

I agree. To hell with any statute of limitations. My Slavic ancestors were enslaved by the Romans. I want restitution from Romania, from the Roman Catholic Church, from the Holy Roman Empire, from the estate of Cesar Romero, and from the former realms of the Czars and the Kaisers, as well as form the former Byzantine Empire. A nice round trillion sounds good. And for my Danish blood I want a part of the land formerly known as Vinland. I'll settle for Newfoundland.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 9/07, 3:59am)

Post 13

Saturday, September 6 - 9:18pm

Link

Edit

Okay, just to keep Ted from owning us all...

we shall, hence forth, advocate for a statute of limitations on all crimes that shall exist for as long as any individual perpetrator of the said crime shall live and no longer.

Sorry, Ted, no restitution, no Newfoundland.

And you there, from the British Iles, sit back down, you can't go after Ted because his ancestors might have raped and pillaged yours.