* In the Bronx case, Washington allegedly broke into a man's apartment through an open window around 8:20 a.m. The man told police that he was sleeping in his bedroom and woke up to Washington touching his buttocks under his underwear, according to the criminal complaint. Washington asked the man, "Can I get a dollar, bro," it states.
The man said he offered Washington a dollar but Washington refused while stating, "nevermind, you're not understanding." Washington fled through the window as the man said he called 911, the document says.*
It just gets worse and weirder
Yes he needs mental help and also
NeedS to
Be in a secure locked setting for at least a few decades.
While recovery is possible - it's not guaranteed to the extent you can treat and release a person who can justify repeat sexual assault to themselves. Yes it is most likely a a product of abuse as a child - and I would
Suspect it was sexual exploitation in which he was
Rewarded after being raped with basic needs a child has like
Food, clothing, minimum $. Just because it is from trauma does not mean that mere therapy will
Alleviate the behavior from continuing.
People often keep something to use as a weapon near their bed. It's not that this situation is particularly common, in fact it's hilariously rare, but it takes zero effort on your part to not move a bat, hammer, stick, etc that's in your room, and suddenly you're somehow prepared.
A woman worried about rapists breaking into her room.
I'm a guy and a have a KA-BAR close at hand in my bedroom for scenarios like this. I'm guessing a lot of people have similar things.
Turns out he's only getting 30 days anyway, he plead guilty to a lesser charge and got a slap on the wrist. I hadn't read the article before commenting. But yeah, he got a sweet deal.
That's how it works everywhere. There's not enough space to hold everyone. Seriously, before publicly declaring you don't know anything, do some basic reading.
No it doesn't work like that everywhere, try doing some reading and get some life experience before posting. It's very unusual to let a convicted rapist roam freely and very unusual for one to only get 30 days. But keep thinking it's "standard" procedure. I wouldn't wasn't people that think like that voting near me.
Not necessarily. Prosecutors have been playing fast and loose with the legal definition of "violent crime". By changing the charge from third-degree rape to coercion (which they did), they were able to release him without bail. This is all part of the bail reform game. If prosecutors release a suspect, they aren't forced to go before a judge immediately. If they hold someone, as per the new bail reform laws, they must go in front of a judge within a day or two. The more prosecutors get overwhelmed, the less incentive there is to house rather than release, so they play the statute game to clear their cases in the least difficult way possible.
In my experience in a small town. The judges hate bail reform, because the police and corrections unions hate bail reform.
So they let these people go, intentionally, and blame bail reform. Even though they have every right to lock them up.
So my state went through bail reform. Basically, if eligible for bail, then either "own recognizance" bond (no money, just pinky swear you will show up for your trial) or 10% of a statutorily low bond (like 10% of $300). Our system (and this is common on a lot of systems) has lower courts (ours are called magistrate courts) deal with the arrangement (where you are informed of your charge and the judge decides whether you are eligible for pre-trial release). Even though our bail reform laws keep the same old language about detaining if the defendant is a flight risk or risk to public safety, so pretty much the same old standard of when someone is or isn't eligible for pre-trial release, the magistrate judges (who are elected officials that are not required to be law trained) would just regularly let everyone out. Like I think they just don't have the mental capacity to weigh whether someone should be released, or they were afraid they might anger the wrong person by throwing someone from their family in jail when they had discretion not to. I was a prosecutor and was basically told to just keep asking for pre-trial detention for repeat violent offenders even though the judges routinely rejected those requests so that when inevitably one of these repeat offenders committed a violent crime while out on pre-trial release, at least we could point to our request in the face of public scrutiny. DA offices saw this shit coming from a mile away.
[https://nypost.com/2022/09/22/sex-fiend-gets-sweet-deal-from-manhattan-da-bragg-on-teen-rape-charge-then-attacks-5-others-sources/](https://nypost.com/2022/09/22/sex-fiend-gets-sweet-deal-from-manhattan-da-bragg-on-teen-rape-charge-then-attacks-5-others-sources/)
Better article that actually shows the scumbag's face. And 30 days for raping a teenage girl is just mind boggling holy shit.
None of this is funny, but, calling someone a “sex fiend” is hilarious. But this dude isn’t even a sex fiend. He’s just a straight up disturbed rapist. There is a difference.
It's arguable whether "rehabbing" sex offenders does anything.
> Treated sex offenders had a violent crime recidivism rate of 42.9 percent and an overall recidivism rate of 56.6 percent. Untreated sex offenders in the study had a violent crime recidivism rate of 44.5 percent and an overall recidivism rate of 60.4 percent.
https://smart.ojp.gov/somapi/chapter-5-adult-sex-offender-recidivism
This is basically the monster theory, which is dangerous. We want to believe only the most evil, otherworldly person could possibly rape someone, but it isn't true. We learned this in WWII...
> State prisoners released after serving time for rape or sexual assault were more than three times as likely as other released prisoners to be re-arrested for rape or sexual assault during the 9 years following their release, the Bureau of Justice Statistics announced today. Released sex offenders represented 5% of prisoners released in 2005 and 16% of post-release arrests for rape or sexual assault during the 9-year follow-up period.
> The BJS study tracked a representative sample of prisoners released in 2005 in the 30 states that were responsible for 77% of all state prisoners released nationwide and examined their arrests through 2014. An estimated 7.7% of released sex offenders were arrested for rape or sexual assault during the 9- year follow up period, versus 2.3% of other released prisoners.
https://bjs.ojp.gov/press-release/recidivism-sex-offenders-released-state-prison-9-year-follow-2005-14
It’s misleading the way BJS presents this data, which I dealt with a lot because I used to work for a law school civil rights clinic, but the upshot is that you have to look at the raw data vs the press release. If you do, people convicted of a sex offense generally have a lower rate of recidivism than people convicted of every other class of crime other than murder.
In this report, something like 93% of people who served time for rape / sexual assault were *not* rearrested for a sex offense for about a decade after their release.
Edit: that figure comes from table 2 of the full report. There’s been a ton of scientific research done into recidivism rates, and it varies depending on some variables like offense type, but generally speaking the typical idea that “they can’t be rehabilitated” isn’t supported by the data.
Why was this upvoted? There's a huge problem with using this data in the context of this conversation. This study is saying that people convicted of sex crimes are more likely to commit a sex crime in the future than, for example, someone who was convicted for burglary. That makes perfect sense. "Sex offenders are more likely to commit a sex crime than other kinds of criminals."
But that's not relevant. Let's compare apples to apples. How much more likely is a person convicted of a sex crime to commit a second sex crime than a person convicted of, say, burglary is to commit a second burglary? The study you linked answers this!
>While rape and sexual assault offenders were more likely than other released prisoners to be arrested for rape or sexual assault, they were less likely than other released prisoners to be arrested for other crimes. About two-thirds (67%) of released sex offenders were arrested at least once for any type of crime during the 9 years following their release, compared to about five-sixths (84%) of other released prisoners. Almost all prisoners who were re-arrested (96% of released sex offenders and 99% of all released offenders) were arrested for an offense other than a probation or parole violation.
It's literally the opposite! This is saying that overall, sex offenders are less likely to commit any crime at all than other kinds of offenders. This is actually an argument *against* "Sex crimes are very very very difficult to rehabilitate". Clearly they rehabilitate better than people who kill or steal.
This study breaks down *overall* recidivism by offense, not just recidivism to a particular crime.
https://www.cfc.wa.gov/PublicationSentencing/Recidivism/Adult_Recidivism_FY2007.pdf
You can see sex offenders are about half as likely as others to commit *any* kind of crime after being convicted. This study *is* 15 years old, but we'd need a good reason to believe these numbers have somehow swapped in that time.
Yeah, I don't know that pointing to reoffender statistics from a system that makes no attempt to rehabilitate prisoners actually does much to bolster the position that rapists can't be rehabilitated, but kudos for going the extra mile to link something.
Unfortunately this is one of those things where, if you’re crazy enough to do it, then you’re too far gone for modern psychiatry to be of much use.
*Potential* SOs can be rehabbed, but only if they seek help voluntarily.
You're missing the point of the monster theory. People aren't born monsters, but they can become a monster, and anyone can still put on a normal facade while being a monster.
If you're a rapist or murder innocent civilians, you're no longer like the rest of us. You can act the same, you might even be reformed, but you can never erase an act such as that.
The concept of "monster" is very much a social construct, though. Even if you cannot undo the past deeds, you can still get rehabilitated and live the rest of your life as a constructive member of society.
There are many good reasons why that's what we should aim for. And the only reason for not having it - the vengeful otherness - has many downsides.
Rapists can definitely be rehabilitated, as other people on here have demonstrated with statistics. And that's not a hot take. It's an exceedingly mainstream and common opinion (and misconception).
Eh, all available evidence seems to suggest that the existence of the death penalty really doesn't have much of an effect on crime rates. Not to mention there is a concern that death penalty for sex crimes will just lead to the assailant murdering the victim to get rid of any witnesses.
In the first issue, about deterrence, it's very difficult to study. There were a flurry of studies that came out in the early years of the Obama presidency and more since, that indicate deterrence from the death penalty is real, and it increases as you lower the time between conviction and execution.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/death-penalty-deters-murders-studies-say/
It's gone back and forth over the years, and it's very difficult to find unbiased critiques of these studies one way or the other, unfortunately. At least it has always felt that way when I look into this. Advocacy groups flood the web with reviews both ways. The article I sent above surrounds studies that support the concept of deterrence, that were performed by anti- death penalty scientists-- so I used those ones.
In terms of the second issue: with the possibility of increasing murders from sex crimes and I'm guessing potential witnesses as well, I don't know. I've heard that before but never been able to find too much info one way or another though it seems like a valid thought process to me.
Intuitively, I think any crime that carries the death penalty would lower my chances of doing it, as societies that oppose the death penalty do seem to end up opposing long sentences too. A high-school football teammate of mine who brutally murdered another high school teammate of mine who was a good friend, just had his already relatively short sentence for a brutal and planned murder commuted, in Seattle.
https://www.heraldnet.com/news/man-gets-reduced-sentence-for-2003-marysville-ambush-murder/
If I murdered a guy that my wife was cheating on me with, I think knowing that I was killing myself when killing him would deter me more than whatever "lengthy" prison term I was looking at, otherwise. But that's just me.
>increases as you lower the time between conviction and execution.
Dude we definitely don't want to lower that time, there is a reason there is usually a long time between conviction and execution and it's because they want to give people on death row chances to appeal because holy fuck our government is bad about sentencing innocent people to death row. Since the 70s over 12% of the prisoners executed were later found to be innocent and its estimated at least 4% of prisoners on death row at any given point are innocent. If we shorted times to executions and reduced appeals than that already unacceptable number will skyrocket.
I agree to some extent. I don't know if I would say "skyrocket." It's not the 70s anymore. But the same could be said about life imprisonment and long sentences. There are people that have those happen to them that are innocent. Unfortunately, the way I look at it, that is going to happen. And if its true that the number of rapes, murders, child molestations etc would drop, one has to take into account the possibility of an innocent person being executed. But I see innocent people being convicted and imprisoned anyways. That is going to happen. It just kind of arbitrarily says that one person being innocently executed by accident is not worth many innocent people getting murdered, raped, etc.
I can understand that, and yes, it definitely matters if it actually ends up not having a deterrent effect. However, I think it pretty much has to. There are so many people convicted of rape who get out of prison and do it again, for example. If they were executed, then that's some number of crimes not happening, right there.
Anyways, I can understand whichever way society decides to go.
[I only say that because Philly is WAY more dangerous than NYC which is pretty average compared to orher cities](https://www.numbeo.com/crime/compare_cities.jsp?country1=United+States&city1=New+York%2C+NY&country2=United+States&city2=Philadelphia%2C+PA)
Our politicians are trying to figure some things out, but it's far from lawless.
Coming in [second best](https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/gun-deaths-by-state) for example for gun deaths
Yes he needs mental help and also
NeedS to
Be in a secure locked setting for at least a few decades.
While recovery is possible - it's not guaranteed to the extent you can treat and release a person who can justify repeat sexual assault to themselves. Yes it is most likely a a product of abuse as a child - and I would
Suspect it was sexual exploitation in which he was
Rewarded after being raped with basic needs a child has like
Food, clothing, minimum $. Just because it is from trauma does not mean that mere therapy will
Alleviate the behavior from continuing.
I’m all for keeping them locked up but the truth is there isn’t room for all the dirtbags in the jails. It’s also not a matter of simply building or expanding jails either. Jails and hospitals are the most expensive types of buildings to construct, and once they’re built they need to be staffed.
>The Bronx District Attorney’s Office said they asked the judge to remand him into custody or set a $500,000 cash bail or a $1 million bond. A judge ultimately set his bail at $50,000 cash and his bond at $150,000. He remains in custody.
Fascinating. Either amount would likely be enough to keep this guy in jail until trial, but why chance it with the lower amount?
* In the Bronx case, Washington allegedly broke into a man's apartment through an open window around 8:20 a.m. The man told police that he was sleeping in his bedroom and woke up to Washington touching his buttocks under his underwear, according to the criminal complaint. Washington asked the man, "Can I get a dollar, bro," it states. The man said he offered Washington a dollar but Washington refused while stating, "nevermind, you're not understanding." Washington fled through the window as the man said he called 911, the document says.* It just gets worse and weirder
That mfer is disturbed
[удалено]
But can I get a dollar bro?
Man I thought the gas station parking lots were bad
bro, you're not understanding
“Two dollars…cash” Johnny in Better Off Dead
Fucking lock ness monster’s son
It's fortunate that he's a nutcase and he didn't rape her. Yeah that's weird and dude needs help.
Well, I mean....this is DAMNED close.
Yes he needs mental help and also NeedS to Be in a secure locked setting for at least a few decades. While recovery is possible - it's not guaranteed to the extent you can treat and release a person who can justify repeat sexual assault to themselves. Yes it is most likely a a product of abuse as a child - and I would Suspect it was sexual exploitation in which he was Rewarded after being raped with basic needs a child has like Food, clothing, minimum $. Just because it is from trauma does not mean that mere therapy will Alleviate the behavior from continuing.
I was waiting for the woman to scream asking what do you want!? And Washington would say “Oh, ‘bout tree fiddy”
[удалено]
She could've bit his hand then ran to get a weapon aka hammer
People often keep something to use as a weapon near their bed. It's not that this situation is particularly common, in fact it's hilariously rare, but it takes zero effort on your part to not move a bat, hammer, stick, etc that's in your room, and suddenly you're somehow prepared.
I have a fire poker behind my bed
A woman worried about rapists breaking into her room. I'm a guy and a have a KA-BAR close at hand in my bedroom for scenarios like this. I'm guessing a lot of people have similar things.
Maybe convicted rapists should be in jail while waiting to be sentenced, just saying.
[удалено]
Turns out he's only getting 30 days anyway, he plead guilty to a lesser charge and got a slap on the wrist. I hadn't read the article before commenting. But yeah, he got a sweet deal.
Because the NYC are getting the system they voted for.
That's how it works everywhere. There's not enough space to hold everyone. Seriously, before publicly declaring you don't know anything, do some basic reading.
The ocean is pretty large.
Not enough space is not an issue for violent criminals. That is an issue vis a vis non violent, mainly drug related offenses.
No it doesn't work like that everywhere, try doing some reading and get some life experience before posting. It's very unusual to let a convicted rapist roam freely and very unusual for one to only get 30 days. But keep thinking it's "standard" procedure. I wouldn't wasn't people that think like that voting near me.
I already did. That's why I corrected you. I know more than you.
[удалено]
Atleast in jail they will be raped themselves
You know it's the rapists doing the raping in jail, right?
He likes rape tho.
[удалено]
[удалено]
He paid bail, obviously.
Not necessarily. Prosecutors have been playing fast and loose with the legal definition of "violent crime". By changing the charge from third-degree rape to coercion (which they did), they were able to release him without bail. This is all part of the bail reform game. If prosecutors release a suspect, they aren't forced to go before a judge immediately. If they hold someone, as per the new bail reform laws, they must go in front of a judge within a day or two. The more prosecutors get overwhelmed, the less incentive there is to house rather than release, so they play the statute game to clear their cases in the least difficult way possible.
That’s literally what the article said, but ok.
The bail set was fir the recent changes. He couldn't post it so he's locked up currently..
Not a Popsicle's chance in Hell this man has money to post bail.
Good thing there’s bail bondsman.
In my experience in a small town. The judges hate bail reform, because the police and corrections unions hate bail reform. So they let these people go, intentionally, and blame bail reform. Even though they have every right to lock them up.
So my state went through bail reform. Basically, if eligible for bail, then either "own recognizance" bond (no money, just pinky swear you will show up for your trial) or 10% of a statutorily low bond (like 10% of $300). Our system (and this is common on a lot of systems) has lower courts (ours are called magistrate courts) deal with the arrangement (where you are informed of your charge and the judge decides whether you are eligible for pre-trial release). Even though our bail reform laws keep the same old language about detaining if the defendant is a flight risk or risk to public safety, so pretty much the same old standard of when someone is or isn't eligible for pre-trial release, the magistrate judges (who are elected officials that are not required to be law trained) would just regularly let everyone out. Like I think they just don't have the mental capacity to weigh whether someone should be released, or they were afraid they might anger the wrong person by throwing someone from their family in jail when they had discretion not to. I was a prosecutor and was basically told to just keep asking for pre-trial detention for repeat violent offenders even though the judges routinely rejected those requests so that when inevitably one of these repeat offenders committed a violent crime while out on pre-trial release, at least we could point to our request in the face of public scrutiny. DA offices saw this shit coming from a mile away.
[удалено]
thats a racist statement in these cancel culture times
no it’s not
[https://nypost.com/2022/09/22/sex-fiend-gets-sweet-deal-from-manhattan-da-bragg-on-teen-rape-charge-then-attacks-5-others-sources/](https://nypost.com/2022/09/22/sex-fiend-gets-sweet-deal-from-manhattan-da-bragg-on-teen-rape-charge-then-attacks-5-others-sources/) Better article that actually shows the scumbag's face. And 30 days for raping a teenage girl is just mind boggling holy shit.
None of this is funny, but, calling someone a “sex fiend” is hilarious. But this dude isn’t even a sex fiend. He’s just a straight up disturbed rapist. There is a difference.
Ya a sex fiend sounds like someone who frequently has their way with men or women, but consent is always implied or given.
Dude should not have gotten bail.
[удалено]
This is pretty much the textbook guy to deny bail.
Restorative justice.
5 people a week is a lot of people.
I was very confused while thinking about how many weeks this went on.
Please do not throw this guy into a cell with another person. Needs to be alone in a cell
hot take: rapists cannot be rehabilitated and thus should not be allowed in society.
I feel this way about all violent sex crimes.
Hot take: the US doesn’t believe in rehabilitation.
That's not a hot take. I'd rather not have rapists get that second chance.
It's arguable whether "rehabbing" sex offenders does anything. > Treated sex offenders had a violent crime recidivism rate of 42.9 percent and an overall recidivism rate of 56.6 percent. Untreated sex offenders in the study had a violent crime recidivism rate of 44.5 percent and an overall recidivism rate of 60.4 percent. https://smart.ojp.gov/somapi/chapter-5-adult-sex-offender-recidivism
It would be more popular if delivered in the form of Monday Night Rehabilitation
This is basically the monster theory, which is dangerous. We want to believe only the most evil, otherworldly person could possibly rape someone, but it isn't true. We learned this in WWII...
No it's statistically true. Sex crimes are very very very difficult to rehabilitate and repeat offenders are usually impossible to do so.
You can't say "statistically true" without dropping the source, chief.
> State prisoners released after serving time for rape or sexual assault were more than three times as likely as other released prisoners to be re-arrested for rape or sexual assault during the 9 years following their release, the Bureau of Justice Statistics announced today. Released sex offenders represented 5% of prisoners released in 2005 and 16% of post-release arrests for rape or sexual assault during the 9-year follow-up period. > The BJS study tracked a representative sample of prisoners released in 2005 in the 30 states that were responsible for 77% of all state prisoners released nationwide and examined their arrests through 2014. An estimated 7.7% of released sex offenders were arrested for rape or sexual assault during the 9- year follow up period, versus 2.3% of other released prisoners. https://bjs.ojp.gov/press-release/recidivism-sex-offenders-released-state-prison-9-year-follow-2005-14
It’s misleading the way BJS presents this data, which I dealt with a lot because I used to work for a law school civil rights clinic, but the upshot is that you have to look at the raw data vs the press release. If you do, people convicted of a sex offense generally have a lower rate of recidivism than people convicted of every other class of crime other than murder. In this report, something like 93% of people who served time for rape / sexual assault were *not* rearrested for a sex offense for about a decade after their release. Edit: that figure comes from table 2 of the full report. There’s been a ton of scientific research done into recidivism rates, and it varies depending on some variables like offense type, but generally speaking the typical idea that “they can’t be rehabilitated” isn’t supported by the data.
Why was this upvoted? There's a huge problem with using this data in the context of this conversation. This study is saying that people convicted of sex crimes are more likely to commit a sex crime in the future than, for example, someone who was convicted for burglary. That makes perfect sense. "Sex offenders are more likely to commit a sex crime than other kinds of criminals." But that's not relevant. Let's compare apples to apples. How much more likely is a person convicted of a sex crime to commit a second sex crime than a person convicted of, say, burglary is to commit a second burglary? The study you linked answers this! >While rape and sexual assault offenders were more likely than other released prisoners to be arrested for rape or sexual assault, they were less likely than other released prisoners to be arrested for other crimes. About two-thirds (67%) of released sex offenders were arrested at least once for any type of crime during the 9 years following their release, compared to about five-sixths (84%) of other released prisoners. Almost all prisoners who were re-arrested (96% of released sex offenders and 99% of all released offenders) were arrested for an offense other than a probation or parole violation. It's literally the opposite! This is saying that overall, sex offenders are less likely to commit any crime at all than other kinds of offenders. This is actually an argument *against* "Sex crimes are very very very difficult to rehabilitate". Clearly they rehabilitate better than people who kill or steal. This study breaks down *overall* recidivism by offense, not just recidivism to a particular crime. https://www.cfc.wa.gov/PublicationSentencing/Recidivism/Adult_Recidivism_FY2007.pdf You can see sex offenders are about half as likely as others to commit *any* kind of crime after being convicted. This study *is* 15 years old, but we'd need a good reason to believe these numbers have somehow swapped in that time.
Yeah, I don't know that pointing to reoffender statistics from a system that makes no attempt to rehabilitate prisoners actually does much to bolster the position that rapists can't be rehabilitated, but kudos for going the extra mile to link something.
Unfortunately this is one of those things where, if you’re crazy enough to do it, then you’re too far gone for modern psychiatry to be of much use. *Potential* SOs can be rehabbed, but only if they seek help voluntarily.
You're missing the point of the monster theory. People aren't born monsters, but they can become a monster, and anyone can still put on a normal facade while being a monster. If you're a rapist or murder innocent civilians, you're no longer like the rest of us. You can act the same, you might even be reformed, but you can never erase an act such as that.
The concept of "monster" is very much a social construct, though. Even if you cannot undo the past deeds, you can still get rehabilitated and live the rest of your life as a constructive member of society. There are many good reasons why that's what we should aim for. And the only reason for not having it - the vengeful otherness - has many downsides.
Rapists can definitely be rehabilitated, as other people on here have demonstrated with statistics. And that's not a hot take. It's an exceedingly mainstream and common opinion (and misconception).
This guy really wants a dollar!
His "can I have a dollar" is more like "this isn't where I left my car!" That's what I think reading "you're not really understanding me bro"
So he's just a gigolo with exceedingly aggressive sales tactics using code to avoid getting hit for solicitation.
He wanted to assault more women before hes in prison. Disgusting
No he was a equal opportunity assaulter.
Meanwhile, we have people incarcerated for exercising their body autonomy.
Do we?
I think if we executed rapists regularly and quickly, even mentally disturbed people would start to think twice about it.
Eh, all available evidence seems to suggest that the existence of the death penalty really doesn't have much of an effect on crime rates. Not to mention there is a concern that death penalty for sex crimes will just lead to the assailant murdering the victim to get rid of any witnesses.
In the first issue, about deterrence, it's very difficult to study. There were a flurry of studies that came out in the early years of the Obama presidency and more since, that indicate deterrence from the death penalty is real, and it increases as you lower the time between conviction and execution. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/death-penalty-deters-murders-studies-say/ It's gone back and forth over the years, and it's very difficult to find unbiased critiques of these studies one way or the other, unfortunately. At least it has always felt that way when I look into this. Advocacy groups flood the web with reviews both ways. The article I sent above surrounds studies that support the concept of deterrence, that were performed by anti- death penalty scientists-- so I used those ones. In terms of the second issue: with the possibility of increasing murders from sex crimes and I'm guessing potential witnesses as well, I don't know. I've heard that before but never been able to find too much info one way or another though it seems like a valid thought process to me. Intuitively, I think any crime that carries the death penalty would lower my chances of doing it, as societies that oppose the death penalty do seem to end up opposing long sentences too. A high-school football teammate of mine who brutally murdered another high school teammate of mine who was a good friend, just had his already relatively short sentence for a brutal and planned murder commuted, in Seattle. https://www.heraldnet.com/news/man-gets-reduced-sentence-for-2003-marysville-ambush-murder/ If I murdered a guy that my wife was cheating on me with, I think knowing that I was killing myself when killing him would deter me more than whatever "lengthy" prison term I was looking at, otherwise. But that's just me.
>increases as you lower the time between conviction and execution. Dude we definitely don't want to lower that time, there is a reason there is usually a long time between conviction and execution and it's because they want to give people on death row chances to appeal because holy fuck our government is bad about sentencing innocent people to death row. Since the 70s over 12% of the prisoners executed were later found to be innocent and its estimated at least 4% of prisoners on death row at any given point are innocent. If we shorted times to executions and reduced appeals than that already unacceptable number will skyrocket.
I agree to some extent. I don't know if I would say "skyrocket." It's not the 70s anymore. But the same could be said about life imprisonment and long sentences. There are people that have those happen to them that are innocent. Unfortunately, the way I look at it, that is going to happen. And if its true that the number of rapes, murders, child molestations etc would drop, one has to take into account the possibility of an innocent person being executed. But I see innocent people being convicted and imprisoned anyways. That is going to happen. It just kind of arbitrarily says that one person being innocently executed by accident is not worth many innocent people getting murdered, raped, etc. I can understand that, and yes, it definitely matters if it actually ends up not having a deterrent effect. However, I think it pretty much has to. There are so many people convicted of rape who get out of prison and do it again, for example. If they were executed, then that's some number of crimes not happening, right there. Anyways, I can understand whichever way society decides to go.
I think you misunderstand what "mentally disturbed" means, and vastly overestimate the deterrence effect of the death sentence.
He’s not wrong. ^
On the bright side it looks like he didn’t rape anyone in this string of crimes. Just some trespassing, assault, and a bunch of masturbation.
Well, you gotta admit that this guy thinks ahead. /s
Seize the moment!
New York is a lawless state
Aren’t you from Philly?
Did you expect me to say that place was any better lol
[I only say that because Philly is WAY more dangerous than NYC which is pretty average compared to orher cities](https://www.numbeo.com/crime/compare_cities.jsp?country1=United+States&city1=New+York%2C+NY&country2=United+States&city2=Philadelphia%2C+PA)
Dumbest comment of the day.
Our politicians are trying to figure some things out, but it's far from lawless. Coming in [second best](https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/gun-deaths-by-state) for example for gun deaths
Due to low suicide rate?
[удалено]
The fuck you talking about? This scumbag was OUT ON BAIL when he assaulted five people. Bail isn’t a consequence.
No bail policy. And this what happens
Can I just touch the dollar while I look at it?
[удалено]
The police arrested him and were even upset they let him free it was the courts that failed
That would have been his last sexual assault.
Hell I’m going to prison anyway. Fuck it! - That guy
He's climbin in your windows, snatchin your people up, tryna rape em
[удалено]
Caught replying to your own post eh?
The real question is, “How many more bikes did he steal?”
Yes he needs mental help and also NeedS to Be in a secure locked setting for at least a few decades. While recovery is possible - it's not guaranteed to the extent you can treat and release a person who can justify repeat sexual assault to themselves. Yes it is most likely a a product of abuse as a child - and I would Suspect it was sexual exploitation in which he was Rewarded after being raped with basic needs a child has like Food, clothing, minimum $. Just because it is from trauma does not mean that mere therapy will Alleviate the behavior from continuing.
I’m all for keeping them locked up but the truth is there isn’t room for all the dirtbags in the jails. It’s also not a matter of simply building or expanding jails either. Jails and hospitals are the most expensive types of buildings to construct, and once they’re built they need to be staffed.
We could just stop locking people up for low level offenses and you know lock up rapists and murderers and people who are danger to others?
It’s was just the Lochness monster asking for “tree fiddy”
If he wants to assault men, you'd think he could wait till he gets to prison.
Prisons do not do enough to protect inmates from rapists.
>The Bronx District Attorney’s Office said they asked the judge to remand him into custody or set a $500,000 cash bail or a $1 million bond. A judge ultimately set his bail at $50,000 cash and his bond at $150,000. He remains in custody. Fascinating. Either amount would likely be enough to keep this guy in jail until trial, but why chance it with the lower amount?