Motives begind criminal actions

[Zierro]

I've only seen prison and the death penalty referred to as a deterrent by people who argue that they fail as a deterrent. Perhaps we should look at them for what they really are. They're a punishment. It's not going to stop someone from committing a crime if they want to or need to commit the crime. Not many things will. It's there so that people can feel safe in knowing that the known killers, rapists, and thieves are locked away far away from society, where they can't impact people's lives. Not sure there are numbers for the peace of mind that would give.

 

It will and it has stopped people from committing crimes. There are many people out there who have the urge to commit the crime but are not willing to throw away years of their life away because they don't want to be away from their family, lose their job, live in a cell, have that data on their personal record, deal with other criminals, etc. There are some people out there who do think they would get caught if they were to commit crime so they don't take the risk. Has anybody ever heard this before: "That's not worth going to jail over."?

 

I do agree about the peace of mind though. Also, I see jail as something that serves to be more of a punishment than a deterrent. Even if it didn't prevent potential crimes on a daily basis, it would still serve to discourage that immoral behavior. In other words, it sets a good precedent for how our society should run. Do a bad deed and a bad thing happens to you. Keep your nose clean and you have nothing to worry about - you're doing things right. *Awaits being called a barbarian for discouraging the killing of the innocent.* O:)

 

It's not therapy either, but they wouldn't be released. One of the ideas put forth by RJ scholars is to have a system that allows the offender to choose whether they'd like to take the traditional courts and prison and all that route, or a RJ route.

 

They wouldn't be released? How would you know if they were "cured" or not until they've proven it? It's not exactly that hard to pretend or even legitimately think that you're fine, then get released back into society and your old habits still surface. Which has happened before. I don't see why criminals who take innocent humans' lives deserve another shot at civilization - another chance to strike. I think if we have the chance to prevent more deaths and rapes, we should take it. And it goes beyond the whole forgiveness thing - we're simply talking about disabling murders from happening.

 

I guess it just comes down to me having a lot of empathy towards innocent people and potential victims, but you have a lot for the serial killers, the people who crossed the line and shown no empathy towards people who have done nothing wrong to them. The right to live in peace VS the right to walk amongst society at the risk of re-offending. I think the innocent have earned their right more.

[obfuscator]

The bottom line here is that jail is effective - somewhat. Like many others, you would prefer to stick to what you know, rather than trying to improve.

 

In Canada, for example, there's a jail farm program - where inmates in high-security penitentiaries have to keep and care for farm animals daily. Despite the fact that this program is proven to lower risk of re-offending in criminals leaving the jail system, our amazing "Tough on Crime" conservative government scrapped it.

 

I took a course last year on criminals, and their motives. My teacher was a correctional officer at maximum security facilities across the country. He too was an advocate of a pro-active solution in terms of crime - he saw every day the failures of our current system.

[Bloodstain]

 

 

It's not therapy either, but they wouldn't be released. One of the ideas put forth by RJ scholars is to have a system that allows the offender to choose whether they'd like to take the traditional courts and prison and all that route, or a RJ route.

 

They wouldn't be released? How would you know if they were "cured" or not until they've proven it? It's not exactly that hard to pretend or even legitimately think that you're fine, then get released back into society and your old habits still surface. Which has happened before. I don't see why criminals who take innocent humans' lives deserve another shot at civilization - another chance to strike. I think if we have the chance to prevent more deaths and rapes, we should take it. And it goes beyond the whole forgiveness thing - we're simply talking about disabling murders from happening.

 

I guess it just comes down to me having a lot of empathy towards innocent people and potential victims, but you have a lot for the serial killers, the people who crossed the line and shown no empathy towards people who have done nothing wrong to them. The right to live in peace VS the right to walk amongst society at the risk of re-offending. I think the innocent have earned their right more.

 

You're just building criminals up as these evil part of the population who don't want a better life and like being criminals. If you have so much empathy for victims, how come you advocate a system where the victim has zero involvement over a system where the primary focus is repairing the harm done and acknowledging that the victim needs to be a big part of the process? Hell, the current system basically just says "naughty offender, you did a bad thing now we punish you", versus a restorative approach that makes the offender actually be accountable for their actions.

 

You're also taking the extreme example of an offender by saying serial killer, which are rare and obviously wouldn't be eligible for restorative approaches. Example: I was shown a short documentary about an alcoholic who finally hit and killed someone while driving home drunk. He was put in prison for a while, and was approached with an offer to take a more restorative approach and meet the family of the person he killed (and he would receive no benefit, like a lessened sentence). He agreed, and in the end the family ended up forgiving him, although he still hated himself for killing the woman and said the only person who hasn't forgiven him yet is himself. The alcoholic and the son of the woman killed ended up making some sort of charity and giving speeches about the dangers of drunk driving and blah blah blah. Now, do you think prison would have had NEAR this effect on anyone involved? The family got to meet with the person and get everything off their chest, and ended up being able to move on. The offender got forgiveness from the family (even though he didn't think he deserved it) and can start moving on as well. Compare that to him sitting in prison for a while and then getting out, probably drinking even more, and the family being bitter, depressed, and full of hate. Restorative justice is about acknowledging that crime = harm to a person, community, etc. and repairing that harm done and trying to prevent it from happening again (or in the first place). Retributive justice is about crime = infraction of the law, and putting people in a cell for a while and hoping that they come to some sort of epiphany.

 

e:

 

They wouldn't be released? How would you know if they were "cured" or not until they've proven it? It's not exactly that hard to pretend or even legitimately think that you're fine, then get released back into society and your old habits still surface. Which has happened before. I don't see why criminals who take innocent humans' lives deserve another shot at civilization - another chance to strike. I think if we have the chance to prevent more deaths and rapes, we should take it. And it goes beyond the whole forgiveness thing - we're simply talking about disabling murders from happening.

 

It's hard to explain how the restorative process works, because there isn't one definitive route. I'll just leave it at it isn't just saying you're sorry and going on your way, it's much more involved and complicated than that

 

 

When I took my first restorative justice course, I thought it sounded like a bunch of hippy crap, but the more you learn about it the greater it seems.

[Zierro]

You're just building criminals up as these evil part of the population who don't want a better life and like being criminals.

 

I'm pretty sure I was just saying some people can never be fixed with your recreational program. Some people will still commit crimes, even after they've been "safely released".

 

If you have so much empathy for victims, how come you advocate a system where the victim has zero involvement over a system where the primary focus is repairing the harm done and acknowledging that the victim needs to be a big part of the process?

 

Firstly, you can never repair the harm done. A woman who gets raped has been raped. No amount of counseling or talking to the perpetrator will change that.

 

Secondly, I am favoring a system that aims to prevent these people from becoming victims in the first place. My focus is to minimize the amount of victims - because we all know it's impossible to stop crime completely.

 

You're also taking the extreme example of an offender by saying serial killer, which are rare and obviously wouldn't be eligible for restorative approaches.

 

That's good to know not everyone would be eligible. This was one of my main grievances. I think a lot of people haven't done anything to deserve the harshness of imprisonment, but those who are a big threat to society should not be given more chances to re-offend. Didn't you say in the last page that these people should get a chance to be cured and safely released though?

 

When I took my first restorative justice course, I thought it sounded like a bunch of hippy crap, but the more you learn about it the greater it seems.

 

Well the more I look into it, the more ridiculous it sounds. You're complaining about spending money to prevent some of these people from ever becoming victims in the first place, and you'd rather use it to give them some psychological closure and make them feel a little more accepting of the fact that they have been raped. You're also using a very extreme example of how the recreational system changed a few people's lives for the better (PS: The drunk driver didn't purposely kill anybody. I think he knew he did wrong as soon as he found out his drunk driving caused a death). But anyways, I could just as easily throw a random story at you about how jail has helped some guy become a better person. I'd like to hear about how those recreational programs typically go.

 

 

 

Also, this is a little off topic but I'd like to bring up the deterrent thing again. Isn't it possible that criminals who have been caught and incarcerated, chose to lessen the severity of their crimes based off of their fear of punishment? For example, some guy wanted to rob a store one day. He didn't want to get into too much trouble in case something did go wrong, so he decided to just point his gun around for intimidation instead of his original plan of shooting and looting. In this case, your statistics only account for the amount of people who have been sent to prison - nothing about how severe the crimes would've been if it wasn't for jail being in the back of their heads.

[Bloodstain]

[

Secondly, I am favoring a system that aims to prevent these people from becoming victims in the first place. My focus is to minimize the amount of victims - because we all know it's impossible to stop crime completely.

 

No you aren't, the retributive system IS a retroactive system. I'll respond to the other stuff later today, I'm going out for a while.

 

It's restorative, not recreational by the way

[Bloodstain]

Firstly, you can never repair the harm done. A woman who gets raped has been raped. No amount of counseling or talking to the perpetrator will change that.

 

Yes, you can't change that she was raped. Harm doesn't necessarily refer to the PHYSICAL harm of the offense. This explains it better than I ever can:

For crimes of severe violence, the push for meeting with the offender must come from the victim, and the process will not go forward if the offender is not taking responsibility for the crime. Victim/offender mediations are sometimes planned for years before they actually take place.

 

“Victims and family members of victims want answers to questions that have been haunting them—that only the offender can answer,” Armour said. “Some want to know exactly what happened.”

 

Victims and family members of victims want answers to questions that have been haunting them--that only the offender can answer. Some want to know exactly what happened. --Dr. Marilyn ArmourFor example, in murder cases, family members can start obsessing about what they think happened, what were their loved one’s last words and other details, she said.

 

“When people have horrible things happen to them, they end up trying to make sense of it.”

 

Armour knows a lot about carrying around pain and vengeance and the power of dialogue and forgiveness. A former family therapist, she learned quickly the importance of healing. Research led her to family members of violent crime victims and how they are victims as well.

 

“You can allow anger to eat you up or do something about it,” she said.

 

Many victims and family members feel that they do not have any rights, Armour said. “The U.S. legal system treats murder as a crime against the state rather than a crime against the victim’s family. Family members are usually just relegated to the role of witness.”

 

Restorative justice dialogue allows for but does not actually promote the possibility for forgiveness—but only if the victim voluntarily chooses that path, she said.

In this regard, forgiveness can release the victim from the negative power of the crime and potentially contribute to the victim’s mental and physical health. It can help raise the offender back to the status of a human being and facilitate the offender’s reintegration into the community, Armour pointed out.

“Forgiveness, however, does not mean that victims excuse what the offender did,” she said.

 

“Victims don’t want offenders just to say they are sorry,” Armour said. “Victims want action. They want offenders to go out and become valued members of society.”

http://www.utexas.edu/features/2005/justice/

 

Again, we were presented an article in one of my courses about two women who were violently raped by the same man on different occasions. While woman A was raped, she looked over at her clock and saw the time was 4:18, and ever since at 4:18 she wakes up in a frenzy. Woman B accidentally knocked over her clock radio during the rape and music started playing, ever since she CANNOT listen to music. They both agreed to contact with the offender, Woman B actually met him and Woman A would only do it over recorded videos. After getting to talk with the offender (who was willing to meet the women and took accountability for what he did), and getting to ask questions like "Why me?", woman a was able to sleep perfectly fine from then on. On the way home from the meeting, Woman B was able to turn on the car radio and enjoy music again. I got some details wrong I'm sure, and I don't remember the names, but that's the gist of it. Compare that with the retributive system where after the reporting of the crime, and possibly a victim impact statement, the victim is left high and dry.

 

 

That's good to know not everyone would be eligible. This was one of my main grievances. I think a lot of people haven't done anything to deserve the harshness of imprisonment, but those who are a big threat to society should not be given more chances to re-offend. Didn't you say in the last page that these people should get a chance to be cured and safely released though?

 

I never mentioned serial killers, and "cured" is a bad word to use. There are instances RJ doesn't work, and one that I know of that it is NEVER tried with is domestic abuse, because of the power imbalances involved.

 

 

 

You're complaining about spending money to prevent some of these people from ever becoming victims in the first place, and you'd rather use it to give them some psychological closure and make them feel a little more accepting of the fact that they have been raped.

 

I'm complaining about spending money on something that isn't proven to be an effective deterrent. Restorative focuses on both the victim and offender to help them move on and to make efforts towards not letting it happen again that doesn't involve writing people off. It also focuses on PROACTIVE methods which would be much more effective than jail. I like how you keep using rapists instead of offenders though.

 

(PS: The drunk driver didn't purposely kill anybody. I think he knew he did wrong as soon as he found out his drunk driving caused a death). But anyways, I could just as easily throw a random story at you about how jail has helped some guy become a better person. I'd like to hear about how those recreational programs typically go.

 

Many murders are committed in the heat of the moment, much more than planned and deliberate ones. Even people who meant to kill people can benefit from this approach, and so can their co-victims. Typically this IS how they go as far as I've seen, it doesn't always end in charities and speech tours, but it is mostly beneficial to the victim and offender (MUCH more so than prison ever can). I feel that you're looking for some huge study stats or something, which unfortunately don't exist because people are unwilling to try new things. Especially on a large scale, although I'd love for one.

 

 

Also, this is a little off topic but I'd like to bring up the deterrent thing again. Isn't it possible that criminals who have been caught and incarcerated, chose to lessen the severity of their crimes based off of their fear of punishment? For example, some guy wanted to rob a store one day. He didn't want to get into too much trouble in case something did go wrong, so he decided to just point his gun around for intimidation instead of his original plan of shooting and looting. In this case, your statistics only account for the amount of people who have been sent to prison - nothing about how severe the crimes would've been if it wasn't for jail being in the back of their heads.

 

A new study described as the "largest recidivism study every conducted in the United States" shows that two out of three inmates are rearrested for serious crimes within three years of their release from state prisons.

A state corrections official said yesterday that the federal study is "conservative" and underestimates the actual recidivism rate.

 

Prepared by the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics, the report tracked for three years 272,111 former inmates who were released in 1994 from prisons in 15 states -- including Maryland. However, the study did not report recidivism rates by state.

 

According to the report, the 1994 rearrest rate was about 5 percent higher than for inmates released in 1983.

 

"Within 3 years from their release in 1994, 67.5 percent of the prisoners were rearrested for a new offense (almost exclusively a felony or serious misdemeanor)," according to the report; "46.9 percent were reconvicted for a new crime, and 25.4 percent were resentenced to prison for a new crime."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4183/is_20020606/ai_n10050905/

 

Doesn't seem likely, you go back to what you know. Even if we assumed what you said is true, they're still committing offenses, so they're not really being deterred.

 

Just open your mind for a bit, ignore all those "I HATE CRIMINALS, KILL ALL VIOLENT OFFENDERS" emotions and thoughts, and read up on restorative justice. It has roots in Aboriginal culture, which is quite an interesting one, and I must say from what I've read, they dealt with things a lot better than we do

 

 

e: I hate the part of arguments/discussions when we start multi quoting in the same post

[Zierro]

Compare that with the retributive system where after the reporting of the crime, and possibly a victim impact statement, the victim is left high and dry.

 

Okay, you've made yourself clear that retributive system has helped people, but seriously, at the cost of getting rid of prisons? It just isn't worth the risk. Why can't we have both systems? Offenders are jailed and kept away from the rest of society, but they can still make amends to their victims?

 

Also, I still maintain my opinion that the restorative system is the easier way out, as an alternative. Of course we're going to disagree on these grounds though.

 

I never mentioned serial killers, and "cured" is a bad word to use.

 

I mentioned threats to society - murderers and rapists. I said they aren't worth the risk of being put on the streets. You said they should be made into useful members of society:

 

So it's worth it to pay more money for a deterrent that hasn't been proven to work?

 

Yes, it's worth money to keep murderers and rapists away from the rest of society. Also, I have said that those programs could be used for petty crimes. But criminals who are a threat shouldn't be pampering around, continuing to do more crime.

 

No, they should be taught how to be a productive member of society

 

 

 

 

I'm complaining about spending money on something that isn't proven to be an effective deterrent.

 

And again, how is it possible to obtain the statistics for all the crimes that have been prevented because of jail's existence?

 

Many murders are committed in the heat of the moment, much more than planned and deliberate ones. Even people who meant to kill people can benefit from this approach, and so can their co-victims.

 

Ha, probably because if you do plan and deliberate one, you're probably going to consider the consequences and realize it's not worth it.

 

but it is mostly beneficial to the victim and offender (MUCH more so than prison ever can

 

What about the rest of society? Your system seems to focus only on specific individuals, whereas jail is there to protect every citizen from being killed, raped, mugged, etc.

 

A new study described as the "largest recidivism study every conducted in the United States" shows that two out of three inmates are rearrested for serious crimes within three years of their release from state prisons.

 

How does that prove that criminals aren't deterred by jail? For all you know, those criminals would have ended up in jail even sooner if they didn't fear the consequence at all. It just shows that some of them aren't fearing it enough to prevent them from doing the crime they were arrested for. You're just showing me that crime is still a big thing. Nothing about how things would be if jail was to not exist. I already know this. Jail does not help as much as we want it to, but it still helps which is worth the lives it saves, at least in my opinion.

 

Let's look at the word DETER: to turn aside, discourage, or prevent from acting.

 

Does jail discourage crime? Does it lock criminals away and prevent them from getting more chances at committing more crimes? Does it scare a lot of potential criminals out of doing what they were thinking about? If you answer yes to any of these, then it looks like jail is a deterrent after all.

 

Just open your mind for a bit

 

You're denying the fact that people decide to go against their urges to fight, steal, sexually harass, drink while drunk, etc. because they don't deem it worth going to jail over - something I have literally heard many people talk about - and you're telling me to open my mind? I think this says everything that needs to be said about our debate.

[Bloodstain]

Compare that with the retributive system where after the reporting of the crime, and possibly a victim impact statement, the victim is left high and dry.

 

Okay, you've made yourself clear that retributive system has helped people, but seriously, at the cost of getting rid of prisons? It just isn't worth the risk. Why can't we have both systems? Offenders are jailed and kept away from the rest of society, but they can still make amends to their victims?

 

 

This would be something I'd support as a way to find out how successful restorative justice would be on a large scale and with a bigger sample. If it proves to be effective as it's thought to be, then additional things can be change.

 

With that I'm going to say this is as far as this is going to get without starting to get stupid and redundant

[Dupin]

Just open your mind for a bit

 

You're denying the fact that people decide to go against their urges to fight, steal, sexually harass, drink while drunk, etc. because they don't deem it worth going to jail over - something I have literally heard many people talk about - and you're telling me to open my mind? I think this says everything that needs to be said about our debate.

You know people who have urges to commit serious crimes, yet decide not to based on fear of prison? I'm sorry, but that't ridiculous. First of all, fear of prison is not a powerful motivation. I can't argue about that with you, seeing as you claim to have firsthand experience that it is, and I that it isn't, but let's keep in mind that there are people in prison, so therefore it is not completely effective.

 

Also, the vast majority of crimes are not cold-blooded. Many people are jailed for minor offences, and a large majority of murders happen unintentionally, or are not premeditated.

 

I'm not sure if you're an atheist, but imagine if I were to claim anyone who doesn't believe in religion is immoral. That would be ridiculous, as there are plenty of other reasons to live a good life without having some irrational fear of an eternity in the pits. The same goes for prison.

[Zierro]

You know people who have urges to commit serious crimes, yet decide not to based on fear of prison? I'm sorry, but that't ridiculous.

 

Serious crimes? No. Stealing from stores, pantsing girls, driving home a little drunk, and jumping people? Yes. I really don't see how this is such a far-fetched thing for you all, especially since I've heard it in school. In fact, many of those people were my friends lol. Do you guys live in the same neighborhood as Mr. Rogers? :blink:

 

First of all, fear of prison is not a powerful motivation. I can't argue about that with you, seeing as you claim to have firsthand experience that it is, and I that it isn't, but let's keep in mind that there are people in prison, so therefore it is not completely effective.

 

Also, the vast majority of crimes are not cold-blooded. Many people are jailed for minor offences, and a large majority of murders happen unintentionally, or are not premeditated.

 

Of course nothing we could ever do could completely eradicate crime. That's a utopia. However, I do think it has been helping - and when it comes to protecting the innocent, I think we need all the help we can get.

 

On a semi-related note (this is an entirely different battle, however it's still relevant to justice), I think that a lot of the reasons people are in jail are bull. The government is more strict with drugs than they are with rapists. If we can get this fixed, there wouldn't be so many people flooding our jails. Only the ones who truly threaten society.

 

I'm not sure if you're an atheist, but imagine if I were to claim anyone who doesn't believe in religion is immoral. That would be ridiculous, as there are plenty of other reasons to live a good life without having some irrational fear of an eternity in the pits. The same goes for prison.

 

Sorry, I don't get your analogy.

[Alg]

I'm not sure if you're an atheist, but imagine if I were to claim anyone who doesn't believe in religion is immoral. That would be ridiculous, as there are plenty of other reasons to live a good life without having some irrational fear of an eternity in the pits. The same goes for prison.

 

Sorry, I don't get your analogy.

I'd think the point is that fear of punishment isn't the only reason that people will be moral.

The thing is, prison's a bit different from the afterlife. It happens within a lifetime, for one, and people know for sure that it exists and if convicted, they'll most likely end up there. Which makes it an entirely rational fear.

 

It gets the message across but isn't exactly a good analogy.

[magekillr]

Found this today:

 

Two states in the union, South Carolina and Alabama, segregate their HIV-positive inmates, a policy that is essentially a compound punishment on top of whatever sentence they've already received. They're forced to wear markers identifying their status, they're denied access to many of the same privileges and programs that inmates who aren't HIV positive have, including those that can contribute eligibility for early release. Being HIV positive means that they're forced to live under maximum-security conditions regardless of the severity of their crimes. A thief and a murderer are treated the same if the thief is HIV positive, where otherwise the thief might have been eligible for imprisonment in say, a medium-security facility. In addition to the individual rights violated by involuntary testing, an individual's status is also involuntarily disclosed to their friends and family members upon their placement in a segregated facility.

 

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/adam_serwer_archive?month=08&year=2010&base_name=more_extremism_from_the_civil

 

I also found this today from my friend Alicia, and I can't help but applaud, especially on the last part ("don't drop the soap LOL!"):

 

People think that anyone wants to be locked up? We spend way too much money & time on the punishment side of incarceration and not near enough on the rehabilitation & reintegration side. This is especially true for the young, first time offenders, and non-violent crimes people.

 

We do little to help these people who have served their time to make their way in the world as regular citizens. We strip away their voting rights, make it near impossible to get a job, and don't address the problems that led them to commit crimes in the first place.

 

Our handling of addicted prisoners is completely lacking.

 

Top that off with our dismissal of violent crimes committed against these prisoners while they are incarcerated, and you create lifelong criminals. "Tee hee, he goes to jail and gets "surprise" sex!" This kind of attitude has to go. Rape is never funny. NEVER.

[Azvareth]

Top that off with our dismissal of violent crimes committed against these prisoners while they are incarcerated, and you create lifelong criminals. "Tee hee, he goes to jail and gets "surprise" sex!" This kind of attitude has to go. Rape is never funny. NEVER.

 

If someone was to make a joke about a person being raped on the streets they'd be ostracized by most, but if the joke is about a prison inmate it'll be in the next Will Ferrell movie.

 

 

 

Chris J. got gang-raped in prison today. He needs surgery to fix his rectum, and probably other medical attention for the rest of his injuries but he's probably not going to get it. He knows this and is thinking about the pain his rectal scarring is going to cause him for the rest of his life. He laid in his bed for a little while covered in semen and his own blood thinking about AIDS. Since shower time has come and gone, he cleaned himself up with the water in the toilet, he also sat on it for a long time trying as hard as he could to evacuate all the semen out of him. His phone card was stolen as punishment for fighting back and he doesn't have any money in his account to call anyone on the outside, so he's just trying to deal with it on his own. Many inmates and guards are already making fun of him and discussing prices for having a go at him within his earshot. After TV time he's going to have to try and sleep in his cell with 2 other guys who ain't trying to hear his sob story and may even have been involved in his attack.

 

The pictures of his wife and kids were taken as punishment with promises to defecate or ejaculate on them while a different man was inside him as further punishment for fighting back. He's been clean for 9 months but that heroin would make all this pain go away for just a little while. Chris is more likely than not to go back to the heroin.

 

Chris will never be able to fully express the pain and rage caused by his rape even to a professional; and he's definitely not getting insurance which covers the help he needs when he gets out. This psychological trauma will have a severe impact on his ability to have healthy relationships on the Outside- out in the World- and will likely lead to bad arguments with his wife resulting in domestic violence. The effects his mental state has on his kids will be profound and probably irreversible. They might grow up in the sort of state in which prison is a very real possibility. When they find out what happened to dad how will they react?

 

His pain and anger will manifest itself in all sorts of ways and he might go off on some taxpayer in a convenience store or seriously injure someone who cuts him off in traffic. When that happens Chris will go back to prison and there will be similar ripple effects on his victims. Even if that doesn't happen remember Chris uses heroin to suppress his pain and will likely be re-arrested on a drug charge or a property crime he did to get heroin money.

 

Since there are no secrets in prison when Chris returns it will already be known he is a [bleep] who likes it in the ass, and he will have to become someone's sex slave. Staff will encourage this. Or he can stab somebody to try get a new rep. If he wins the knife fight & isn't killed outright, the person he kills has loved ones & family members who will become enraged at this, and the violence will continue.

 

What happened to Chris happened to 200 people today if you go by Alberto Gonzales' DOJ. If you go by HRW it happened to more than 400 people. This does not include juveniles in programs like Nihilanthic posts.

 

This is every day, every state. There are no exceptions. Going by HRW's numbers it's one Chris every four minutes.

 

You could be the next Chris, no matter how white you are- no matter how rich your family is. The Machine cares not. It must feed and It will feed.

 

And the Machine will never be satisfied.

[Bloodstain]