Rand Paul: Republicans should back California Proposition 47

[jct74]

Rand Paul and B. Wayne Hughes Jr.: Republicans should back Prop. 47

BY RAND PAUL / Contributing writer
Published: Oct. 28, 2014 Updated: 4:49 p.m.

We’re surprised at how many people ask why we, as Republicans, are working to change our criminal justice and prison systems. Why wouldn’t we?

We must change our current system – a system that drains tax dollars, destabilizes families and, worse, isn’t making us any safer. That’s why we have joined other Republicans, law enforcement officials, crime victims and many others in support of Proposition 47, a California ballot initiative that will prioritize incarceration resources for serious and violent crime, while investing savings in proven crime-prevention approaches.

This common-sense measure epitomizes an important trend in our country. There is a growing consensus among Americans from all political persuasions and walks of life that we must replace ineffective, unfair and expensive incarceration practices with new, smarter approaches to keeping communities safe.

The United States has 500 percent more people today in its prisons and jails than 30 years ago. Our general population certainly has not grown at this rate (it rose only 36.3 percent from 1980 to 2010); the real driver has been “tough on crime” laws that sent more people to prison for longer terms.

...

read more:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/c...ia-prison.html

[twomp]

WOW! Senator Paul taking time out to support an issue in my state! I've been critical of him on certain issues but this is really impressive to me! Thanks Senator Paul!

[jmdrake]

WOW! Senator Paul taking time out to support an issue in my state! I've been critical of him on certain issues but this is really impressive to me! Thanks Senator Paul!

Boss move by Rand! He's getting the jump on Hillary and Romney in Cali!

[Brett85]

"That’s where Prop. 47 comes in. Called the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, Prop. 47 will reclassify six nonviolent felonies to misdemeanor punishments. Instead of sending someone to prison for simple drug possession, writing a bad check or petty shoplifting, other forms of accountability – focused on actually changing behavior – will be utilized by prosecutors and judges."

This prop seems good for the most part, since it reduces drug sentences. But is shoplifting really a non violent crime? It's certainly not a victimless crime. I'm not really sure why that's included in the proposition.

[Occam's Banana]

But is shoplifting really a non violent crime?

Yes, it is - or it should be considered so.

If violence is involved, then it shouldn't be "shoplifting" - it should be "strong-arm robbery" or some such.

It's certainly not a victimless crime.

Properly understood, no crime is victimless - "victimless crime" is an oxymoron.

But just because a crime has a victim does not mean the crime was violent.

I'm not really sure why that's included in the proposition.

Probably because the author(s) of the proposition do not think that shoplifting should be a felony.

If so, I agree. Apparently, so does Rand.

[Brett85]

Yes, it is - or it should be considered so.

If violence is involved, then it shouldn't be "shoplifting" - it should be "strong-arm robbery" or some such.

Properly understood, no crime is victimless - "victimless crime" is an oxymoron.

But just because a crime has a victim does not mean the crime was violent.



Probably because the author(s) of the proposition do not think that shoplifting should be a felony.

If so, I agree. Apparently, so does Rand.

It's certainly an act of aggression to steal someone else's possessions, to take from someone what they've worked hard to get. As to whether it should be a felony or not, it probably depends on the amount stolen. If a kid steals a candy bar at a local store, obviously they shouldn't be punished with a felony. But if an adult goes to a clothing store and steals $300 worth of clothes, they should absolutely receive a felony for doing that.

[juleswin]

It's certainly an act of aggression to steal someone else's possessions, to take from someone what they've worked hard to get. As to whether it should be a felony or not, it probably depends on the amount stolen. If a kid steals a candy bar at a local store, obviously they shouldn't be punished with a felony. But if an adult goes to a clothing store and steals $300 worth of clothes, they should absolutely receive a felony for doing that.

Words should have meaning and the post you were replying to was trying to differentiate between shoplifting which he considered stealing without aggression and strong arm robbery which is one with aggression and you seem to have dismissed his post with your first sentence.

So no, its not an act of aggression if no violence or threat of violence was involved which he believed should be considered shoplifting and therefore should not be a felony. Then again, I kinda agree with you, if someone were to emptied my bank account tomorrow, I will be better off if they physically attacked me cos I would be in far worse condition if they attack my account instead and that in my book should receive a far worse charge than strong arm robbery where just my wallet was stolen even though stealing from my bank account did not involve any act of aggression against me.

Aggression -

hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another; readiness to attack or confront.
the action of attacking without provocation, especially in beginning a quarrel or war.

[Weston White]

The problem I have with this proposition is the mingling of acts of fraud and theft along with non-serious drug offenses, and it is or that reason I will most likely vote no on it. Being that individuals involved in theft and fraud are often habitual offenders, as they can easily commit their crimes at little risk to themselves or without the need for personal confrontation; and that California, to add even further insult, had recently increased the qualifier for grand-theft to $900 or more (with certain exceptions to be noted: vehicles, firearms, high-end retailer thefts, robberies, etc.)

I fear this proposition to be a storm waiting on the horizon—and it will only aid in further expanding the police state, by merely sending thousands of more inmates into the street, further justifying police “stop and frisks”, parole and probation “show me your papers” checks, and the like. Should it pass watch for mass hiring for state parole and probation agents, increased local police multi-agency-tac-patrols, and pay increases and promotions abound.

The consequence of letting habitual criminals pour back onto the streets is that in the eyes of the police, they become justified in treating everybody as a would-be-criminal, until proven otherwise, and in reality their justification is not too far off. …Because most likely every other person on the street is likely a newly released criminal.

Serious reform is needed in the area of drug enforcement and prosecution, this proposition is not it. (Also, reform in petty-thefts is needed, where exception is lent to those stealing merely for personal subsistence, but not for profit or gain.)

[LawnWake]

"That’s where Prop. 47 comes in. Called the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, Prop. 47 will reclassify six nonviolent felonies to misdemeanor punishments. Instead of sending someone to prison for simple drug possession, writing a bad check or petty shoplifting, other forms of accountability – focused on actually changing behavior – will be utilized by prosecutors and judges."

This prop seems good for the most part, since it reduces drug sentences. But is shoplifting really a non violent crime? It's certainly not a victimless crime. I'm not really sure why that's included in the proposition.

I agree with you that this is an innitiation of force, since shoplifting violates property rights. And that is what aggression is (aggression against the person also violates their property, namely their body). But I believe within the context of this law, it is not viewed as a violent enough crime that is fixed in the long term by only putting mildly violent people (shoplifters) in a very violent environment (the American prison system).

Its inclusion makes sense. Whether I agree is a different story.

[Occam's Banana]

It's certainly an act of aggression to steal someone else's possessions, to take from someone what they've worked hard to get.

Now you are changing the terms involved - "aggression" and "violence" are often correlative, but they are not the same thing. Shoplifting may be an "act of aggression" (depending on what, exactly, one means by "aggression") - but it is not an act of violence. There is a difference (e.g., making a threat is "aggressive" - but merely making a threat is not "violent.")

There is an important distinction to be made between violent crimes and non-violent crimes. AFAIK, there is no actual legal definition of "shoplifting" - it is an informal, colloquial term. And as the term is almost universally used, "shoplifting" denotes a particular form of non-violent larceny. Violent acts of larceny are generally referred to as something other than "shoplifting" (such as "strong-arm robbery" or whatnot).

As to whether it should be a felony or not, it probably depends on the amount stolen.

Whether an act of larceny is considered felonious or not does indeed depend of the value of what was stolen (see below).

If a kid steals a candy bar at a local store, obviously they shouldn't be punished with a felony. But if an adult goes to a clothing store and steals $300 worth of clothes, they should absolutely receive a felony for doing that.

The dividing line can vary from one jurisdiction to another, but IIRC $400-$500 or so is usually the line between "petty" larceny (a misdemeanor) and "grand" larceny (a felony). While the existence of such dividing lines might not be unreasonable, the particular values at which such lines are set are inherently arbitrary and can vary from one venue to another - thus, it cannot be said that any particular value is "absolutely" felonious.

[nobody's_hero]

I once heard a case as a juror involving a college kid lying to a campus cop about being beat up as some sort of fraternity initiation.

He probably lied to the cop. Since the campus cop was mandated, and had full arresting powers, it went to court.

Well, in my state, lying to a cop is apparently a felony if somehow it misleads an investigation. (not so sure what exactly the law was, but it was ridiculous nonetheless for it to have been worthy of a felony punishment)

We couldn't imagine putting this kid away on felony charges. A felony will haunt you for life. In fact, we were all sitting there wondering why this kid was being charged when he was the one who was attacked. or initiated. To us it sounded more like a gang initiation than a fraternity initiation, but college has come a long way.

The whole matter should have never progressed beyond the college expelling all involved—which they didn't even do, as far as I am aware.

Yet, there we were. Listening to a felony case because some kid was trying to cover for his buddies (who beat the crap out of him so he could join Alpha Zeta Beta Sony Sega or whatever it was called) and afterwards lied to a glorified rent-a-cop about not having the crap beat out of him when he was the victim.

It's no fooking wonder we have expanded our prison population by 500%.

There are a lot of things that are felonies which should be misdemeanors, at worst.

For example, I learned that if you steal an item worth $1,499 or less in my state, it is a misdemeanor. But don't steal a $1,500 item or more. That's a felony. Not a lot of difference there, except jail-time. If you live in a state with mandatory minimums for sentencing, that could be a huge difference in time behind bars.

[presence]

This prop seems good for the most part, since it reduces drug sentences.

But is shoplifting really a non violent crime?
It's certainly not a victimless crime.

I'm not really sure why that's included in the proposition.

Yes "shoplifting" is, by definition, non-violent crime as opposed to "robbery":

Robbery is the crime of taking or attempting to take something of value by force or threat of force or by putting the victim in fear. At common law, robbery is defined as taking the property of another, with the intent to permanently deprive the person of that property,

by means of force or fear.<sup>[2]

[]</sup>

Robbery is differentiated from other forms of theft (such as burglary, shoplifting or car theft) by its inherently violent nature (a violent crime); whereas many lesser forms of theft are punished as misdemeanors, robbery is always a felony for this reason.

Just because you are a victim of theft does not mean you are a victim of violent theft. There is a distinct difference between someone snatching your lunch and someone putting a gun to your head and demanding your lunch.



Robbery (Felony) is to take with overt violence or threat of violence; it is a crime against person and property.
Theft (generally a Misdemeanor unless compounded by statutory regulation) is to take covertly without confrontation; it is a only a property crime.

But just because a crime has a victim does not mean the crime was violent.

Agreed.


Further, in most jurisdictions it is illegal to shoot a fleeing thief, while perfectly acceptable to defend yourself with deadly force against an (active) strong armed robbery.

you need to realize an important issue: In the American court system, life is normally given priority over property.


This is why, in most states, you cannot shoot a thief running away with your property. Nor will you be allowed -- again in most states -- to shoot a person who has just robbed you and is running away. The immediate threat to your person has passed.

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/lethalforce.html


This said, I would expect one to be well within their rights to detain a thief (citizen's arrest) if the theft or attemped theft occured "in your presence". If you then felt your life was endangered while detaining that thief... $#@! happens.

[twomp]

The problem I have with this proposition is the mingling of acts of fraud and theft along with non-serious drug offenses, and it is or that reason I will most likely vote no on it. Being that individuals involved in theft and fraud are often habitual offenders, as they can easily commit their crimes at little risk to themselves or without the need for personal confrontation; and that California, to add even further insult, had recently increased the qualifier for grand-theft to $900 or more (with certain exceptions to be noted: vehicles, firearms, high-end retailer thefts, robberies, etc.)

I fear this proposition to be a storm waiting on the horizon—and it will only aid in further expanding the police state, by merely sending thousands of more inmates into the street, further justifying police “stop and frisks”, parole and probation “show me your papers” checks, and the like. Should it pass watch for mass hiring for state parole and probation agents, increased local police multi-agency-tac-patrols, and pay increases and promotions abound.

The consequence of letting habitual criminals pour back onto the streets is that in the eyes of the police, they become justified in treating everybody as a would-be-criminal, until proven otherwise, and in reality their justification is not too far off. …Because most likely every other person on the street is likely a newly released criminal.

Serious reform is needed in the area of drug enforcement and prosecution, this proposition is not it. (Also, reform in petty-thefts is needed, where exception is lent to those stealing merely for personal subsistence, but not for profit or gain.)

Oh please, that is some absurd reasoning you have there. Freeing non-violent criminals will cause more "stop and frisk" laws to put in place? That is kind of like saying legalizing marijuana will cause everyone to smoke marijuana or bombing countries for peace or having sex for virginity. If you want to vote no, that is fine but to say that you want to vote no because it would further the police state is just being dishonest.

[surf]

Good move Senator. it's pretty easy to quibble over bull$#@! provisions in just about every bill/initiative/prop (see my state's marijuana clusterf#ck) but this prop seems like a step in the right direction

The California Legislative Analyst’s Office projects the Act saving taxpayers $150 million to $250 million every year

"savings" is a bit of a stretch, but slower debt growth is better than the alternative.

[Weston White]

Oh please, that is some absurd reasoning you have there. Freeing non-violent criminals will cause more "stop and frisk" laws to put in place? That is kind of like saying legalizing marijuana will cause everyone to smoke marijuana or bombing countries for peace or having sex for virginity. If you want to vote no, that is fine but to say that you want to vote no because it would further the police state is just being dishonest.

Well, not entirely, but it would be like saying that legalizing marijuana would increase the likelihood of requiring mandatory and repeated testing for certain occupations and employments as well as a need for additional employee background checks, including by non-state employers (e.g., through new public statutes supportive to the concerns of private employers as the expense of their employee’s rights to privacy). And isn’t your second retort the very justification used by our own military, that we bomb countries because of their instability in the realm of peace? And so is that not comparative to American law enforcement’s own justification for ever-expanding its budgets, employments, inventories, missions, and methods, because of instability in the realm of the street—which is to become the ultimate result of merely smacking habitual offenders on their wrists? They cannot be made to compensate the losses of their victims, next they cannot be punished much for nothing, so why not just make all such non-violent act statutorily legal? Hence a mere sampling of what is likely to come: the result of AB- 109—Assembly Bill, Most Wanted Car Theft Suspect Arrested By Fresno Police.

Sgt. Tietjen says Luna has been stealing five to eight cars nightly for the past two months. Since the start of the year he's been arrested five times but released each time. This case is different. "He's gonna stay in jail in custody until he goes thru the process. We know that we will see a substantial decrease in auto thefts because he's in one of those beds."

Hence, what the move for Proposition 47 is very likely all about (i.e., a 2011 federal court ordered prison overcrowding mandate upon California): What is Public Safety Realignment?

Now, what is one of the first things frequently uttered by LEO whenever challenged by “civilians” to either produce their documents or the reason as them being stopped while about in public? That is right: “I have to ensure that you are not on parole or probation.” …Which is then inevitably followed by their reasoning number two: “I have to search you and/or your vehicle to make sure you are not in possession of any firearms or narcotics.” So is it really all of what you assert now?

Again, if passed, this proposition is going to impose mass-hiring and funding incentives for state LEO agents and case workers to oversee all out and about criminals now living life under court orders and rules (which will further include local LEO expansion of joint-tac-op apprehension teams). This translates into increased and more aggressive street operations, campaigns, and tactics by LEO—including increased likelihood of confrontation with LEO personnel as per capita ratios are decreased. This is the very same justification used by LEO in known area of high-crime—the very tact openly used by the tyrannical NYPD and supported by state adjudication. Additionally, this is the very tactic used by metro LEO’ setting up at speed traps and DUI checkpoints, and the like.

I cannot locate any stats, but it is highly likely Proposition 36 (2000) had this very same effect on law enforcement agencies across California. (Recalling that in the following years local law enforcement did ongoing hiring of law enforcement personnel, though likely also a result of the 9/11 aftermath.)

* Another concern is how this proposition is going to play with Proposition 36 (2012) and the ‘three-strikes’ law as amended.

[Christian Liberty]

It's certainly an act of aggression to steal someone else's possessions, to take from someone what they've worked hard to get. As to whether it should be a felony or not, it probably depends on the amount stolen. If a kid steals a candy bar at a local store, obviously they shouldn't be punished with a felony. But if an adult goes to a clothing store and steals $300 worth of clothes, they should absolutely receive a felony for doing that.

I think the distinction between "felony" and "not felony" is flawed. For what its worth, in New York State it reaches felony level when the amount stolen is 1,000 dollars or more.

But here's the bottom line, the punishment is locking the thief in a cage, or a fine paid to the State. Never is the victim actually compensated.

In the Bible, the penalty was double or quadruple restitution (depending on what was stolen.) So, instead of locking someone in a cage for months or years, forcing the victim to contribute to it, and putting stuff on someone's government record, the perpetrator would be forced to pay the victim. In this case, it would be somewhere between $600 and $1200, plus any court costs.

To me this is just blatantly obvious. No "felonies" and no "misdemeanors." Both of those things deal with how harmed the STATE feels. We should care about the victim.

[Christian Liberty]

The dividing line can vary from one jurisdiction to another, but IIRC $400-$500 or so is usually the line between "petty" larceny (a misdemeanor) and "grand" larceny (a felony). While the existence of such dividing lines might not be unreasonable, the particular values at which such lines are set are inherently arbitrary and can vary from one venue to another - thus, it cannot be said that any particular value is "absolutely" felonious.

There's no reason for any such distinction. Again, the punishment should be some form of restitution to the victim (I'm OK with two times, four times, or anything in between), plus payment for any court costs.

In this case its NOT arbitrary. If we require, say, threefold restitution (in other words, thieves must pay three dollars to the victim for every dollar they stole), a thief who steals $500 worth of merchandise would owe $1500, a thief who steals $499 would owe $1497, and a thief who steals $50 would owe $150. No stupid arbitrary amounts of money that make the difference between a short time in a cage and a long time in a cage. Just restitution for the person who was robbed.

[Brett85]

I think the distinction between "felony" and "not felony" is flawed. For what its worth, in New York State it reaches felony level when the amount stolen is 1,000 dollars or more.

But here's the bottom line, the punishment is locking the thief in a cage, or a fine paid to the State. Never is the victim actually compensated.

In the Bible, the penalty was double or quadruple restitution (depending on what was stolen.) So, instead of locking someone in a cage for months or years, forcing the victim to contribute to it, and putting stuff on someone's government record, the perpetrator would be forced to pay the victim. In this case, it would be somewhere between $600 and $1200, plus any court costs.

To me this is just blatantly obvious. No "felonies" and no "misdemeanors." Both of those things deal with how harmed the STATE feels. We should care about the victim.

That's not a bad idea. But if the thief didn't have any money and couldn't afford the restitution, then the thief would have to go to prison. The thief would have a choice between paying something like triple restitution, or facing several years in prison.

[Brett85]

And I think that can only apply to shop lifting and "non violent theft" in general and not to armed robbery. Someone who engages in armed robbery is too dangerous to be out among the general public.

[Christian Liberty]

That's not a bad idea. But if the thief didn't have any money and couldn't afford the restitution, then the thief would have to go to prison. The thief would have a choice between paying something like triple restitution, or facing several years in prison.

Not necessarily. Mind you, that may be the last resort. But it wouldn't be necessary simply because he didn't have money. The thief could still work for the money, if he had a job. If he didn't, he could go into debt and look for a job. Or, if necessary, become an indentured servant of the victim (yes, that's illegal in our current society. Our society is so evil that it considers allowing people to go into indentured servitude to pay their debts wrong but it doesn't consider locking people in cages for minor crimes* to be wrong.)

Mind you, if a thief absolutely refused to take any measures to pay his debt, than he may well have to go to prison. I'm not saying it would never come to that. But I think it rarely would, in a free society. Just because a thief is poor doesn't automatically mean he would have to go to prison. I don't know exactly how it works with current fines, but I'm guessing with modern fines one would be able to go into debt before going to prison if you can't afford to pay them. Mind you, I don't agree with modern bankruptcy laws, but that's a different matter.

*Note that by "minor crimes" in this instance I do mean actual crimes with victims, as opposed to victimless non-crimes that are punished anyway such as drug use. Under modern American law a felony is punishable by a year in prison or more. Unless a gun was involved in some way, the idea of locking someone up for a year or more for stealing $300 seems not just wrong to me, but downright prepostrous and unthinkable. Consider that the "minimum wage** in America is over 7 dollars an hour. You're literally locking someone up for over a day per dollar taken, in that instance. I don't think there's a person in the United States that could not earn 300 dollars more quickly than that, in any situation ever.

** And no, I don't agree with the minimum wage. Just an illustration of how insane it is.

[Christian Liberty]

And I think that can only apply to shop lifting and "non violent theft" in general and not to armed robbery. Someone who engages in armed robbery is too dangerous to be out among the general public.

I understand why you would think this, and I thought this way for a long time, but I can't really agree with this any more. The Bible made no such distinction, and I think its pretty pompous of us to say that we should be harsher than the OT Law. That said, I really see the only people being involved as being the victim, the perpetrator, and whoever the person arbitrating between them is. I don't really like the modern idea where the State has some kind of vested interest in these kinds of affairs. Its a completely modern concept and its unnecessary.

[Brett85]

I understand why you would think this, and I thought this way for a long time, but I can't really agree with this any more. The Bible made no such distinction, and I think its pretty pompous of us to say that we should be harsher than the OT Law. That said, I really see the only people being involved as being the victim, the perpetrator, and whoever the person arbitrating between them is. I don't really like the modern idea where the State has some kind of vested interest in these kinds of affairs. Its a completely modern concept and its unnecessary.

But in the Bible, didn't they have public beatings of people who committed these kind of crimes? That would certainly be more harsh than prison time, and it would probably put a stop to just about all theft.

[Occam's Banana]

There's no reason for any such distinction.

I agree. I was merely describing the situation under current circumstances. I was not trying to defend it.

Again, the punishment should be some form of restitution to the victim (I'm OK with two times, four times, or anything in between), plus payment for any court costs.

In this case its NOT arbitrary. If we require, say, threefold restitution (in other words, thieves must pay three dollars to the victim for every dollar they stole), a thief who steals $500 worth of merchandise would owe $1500, a thief who steals $499 would owe $1497, and a thief who steals $50 would owe $150. No stupid arbitrary amounts of money that make the difference between a short time in a cage and a long time in a cage. Just restitution for the person who was robbed.

Actually, this still contains an element of arbitrariness. Where before the arbitrariness manifested in where the line was drawn between petty larceny and grand larceny, now the arbitrariness would come in at what "multiple" (2x, 3x, 4x, etc.) is to be used to factor the restitution figure. But we do not really need such arbitrarily fixed elements, even under a system that promotes victim restitution.

What we really need is a system that strives first and foremmost to achieve "conciliation" between victim and convict whenever possible. For example, in cases such as theft, when someone has been convicted of stealing, the victim and convict should be allowed to negotiate a figure for restitution that both can agree upon.

If the victim and the convict (or their duly-appointed representatives) are unable to arrive at such an agreement, the matter could be resolved in any number of other ways - the judge or judges who moderated the case could decide - or the jury (if there was one) - or you could even have something like professional "restitution arbitrators" who don't even have any involvement in criminal cases at all unless or until their services are needed. Any or all of these (and other) methods could be available. There is no need for a single "one size fits all" solution.

The only reason we have the "one size fits all" situation we're in today is because the State lusts to control everything - and always for its own benefit (NOT for the benefit of the victims of crimes, or of "society" at large, or what-have-you). That's why fines are collected and kept by the State. And it's why convicts are (so often inefficiently, unproductively, and pointlessly) stuffed into buildings filled with cages. The whole system is designed to provide power, money, control, and jobs & career advancement opportunities for police, judges, prosecutors, parole officers, wardens, guards and all the other appurtenances of the "prison-industrial complex" ...

That's not a bad idea. But if the thief didn't have any money and couldn't afford the restitution, then the thief would have to go to prison. The thief would have a choice between paying something like triple restitution, or facing several years in prison.

Not necessarily. Mind you, that may be the last resort. But it wouldn't be necessary simply because he didn't have money. The thief could still work for the money, if he had a job. If he didn't, he could go into debt and look for a job. Or, if necessary, become an indentured servant of the victim (yes, that's illegal in our current society. Our society is so evil that it considers allowing people to go into indentured servitude to pay their debts wrong but it doesn't consider locking people in cages for minor crimes* to be wrong.)

Another possibility is that once a restitution amount is settled upon (by whatever means - see my remarks above), the convict could be taken on as an "inmate" employee at a "restitution company" that specializes in assisting convicts in paying their restitutions. The convict works for the company and his wages are divided among himself, the company, and the victim. This continues until the convict has paid the restitution agreed upon between himself and his victim, at which point he is released from obligation. Entering such a arrangement would be entirely voluntary on the part of the convict, and may or may not involve him being restricted to certain places or areas. Again, there are many possibilities for handling this kind of thing - possibilities that are far better left to the "free market" to sort out and settle, rather than power-lusting State institutions ...

Mind you, if a thief absolutely refused to take any measures to pay his debt, than he may well have to go to prison.

Even then, there would be no need for the use of "prisons" as they are currently conceived or operated ...

For example, if a convict refuses to abide by a sentence of restitution - or agrees to a restitution arrangement and then willfully refuses to hold up his end of the deal - then the he could be duly declared an "outlaw" and will no longer enjoy any legal protections at all. He may then be robbed, beaten, killed, etc. with impunity (and this will have been a consequence of his own choices - NOT something unilaterally imposed upon him by a fallible and necessarily imperfect legal system). Given such "outlaw" status, the victim may then seek "satisfaction" from the convict by whatever means the victim cares to employ.

[Christian Liberty]

But in the Bible, didn't they have public beatings of people who committed these kind of crimes? That would certainly be more harsh than prison time, and it would probably put a stop to just about all theft.

I'm not actually certain. But, even if that is true, I would say that a beating that can be done in a day is less cruel than locking someone up for years. Mind you, I'm not a theonomist, but I don't think our law should be harsher than the Bible's.

I agree. I was merely describing the situation under current circumstances. I was not trying to defend it.

OK.

Actually, this still contains an element of arbitrariness. Where before the arbitrariness manifested in where the line was drawn between petty larceny and grand larceny, now the arbitrariness would come in at what "multiple" (2x, 3x, 4x, etc.) is to be used to factor the restitution figure. But we do not really need such arbitrarily fixed elements, even under a system that promotes victim restitution.

What we really need is a system that strives first and foremmost to achieve "conciliation" between victim and convict whenever possible. For example, in cases such as theft, when someone has been convicted of stealing, the victim and convict should be allowed to negotiate a figure for restitution that both can agree upon.

OK, that's a valid point. I agree. Even if it was set, however, there still wouldn't be nearly as much arbitrariness as today. But I agree, it wouldn't need to be set.

If the victim and the convict (or their duly-appointed representatives) are unable to arrive at such an agreement, the matter could be resolved in any number of other ways - the judge or judges who moderated the case could decide - or the jury (if there was one) - or you could even have something like professional "restitution arbitrators" who don't even have any involvement in criminal cases at all unless or until their services are needed. Any or all of these (and other) methods could be available. There is no need for a single "one size fits all" solution.

The only reason we have the "one size fits all" situation we're in today is because the State lusts to control everything - and always for its own benefit (NOT for the benefit of the victims of crimes, or of "society" at large, or what-have-you). That's why fines are collected and kept by the State. And it's why convicts are (so often inefficiently, unproductively, and pointlessly) stuffed into buildings filled with cages. The whole system is designed to provide power, money, control, and jobs & career advancement opportunities for police, judges, prosecutors, parole officers, wardens, guards and all the other appurtenances of the "prison-industrial complex" ...



Another possibility is that once a restitution amount is settled upon (by whatever means - see my remarks above), the convict could be taken on as an "inmate" employee at a "restitution company" that specializes in assisting convicts in paying their restitutions. The convict works for the company and his wages are divided among himself, the company, and the victim. This continues until the convict has paid the restitution agreed upon between himself and his victim, at which point he is released from obligation. Entering such a arrangement would be entirely voluntary on the part of the convict, and may or may not involve him being restricted to certain places or areas. Again, there are many possibilities for handling this kind of thing - possibilities that are far better left to the "free market" to sort out and settle, rather than power-lusting State institutions ...



Even then, there would be no need for the use of "prisons" as they are currently conceived or operated ...

For example, if a convict refuses to abide by a sentence of restitution - or agrees to a restitution arrangement and then willfully refuses to hold up his end of the deal - then the he could be duly declared an "outlaw" and will no longer enjoy any legal protections at all. He may then be robbed, beaten, killed, etc. with impunity (and this will have been a consequence of his own choices - NOT something unilaterally imposed upon him by a fallible and necessarily imperfect legal system). Given such "outlaw" status, the victim may then seek "satisfaction" from the convict by whatever means the victim cares to employ.

I agree with this.

[Brian4Liberty]

And it passed. Another step in the right direction.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...r-level-crimes

[phill4paul]

That's not a bad idea. But if the thief didn't have any money and couldn't afford the restitution, then the thief would have to go to prison. The thief would have a choice between paying something like triple restitution, or facing several years in prison.

Or... those in prison doing prison labor for corporations should be paid a wage suitable to pay off both the victims and the taxpayers or prison labor should cease to exist.

"All told, nearly a million prisoners are now making office furniture, working in call centers, fabricating body armor, taking hotel reservations, working in slaughterhouses, or manufacturing textiles, shoes, and clothing, while getting paid somewhere between 93 cents and $4.73 per day,"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2272036.html

[Occam's Banana]

THREAD: California reduces penalty for lower-level crimes

The California legislature sabotaged Proposition 47 after it passed by redefining various violent felonies as non-violent misdemeanors.

Because of course they did.

Gavin Newsom CRUSHES Democracy
https://odysee.com/@actualjusticewar...es-democracy:a
{Actual Justice Warrior | 28 June 2024}

In this video I discuss the recent leaked emails obtained by a California CBS local affiliate that show that Gavin Newsom has been trying to kill a ballot initiative on Prop 47 in order to preserve his legacy for a potential 2028 presidential run.

Sources:

Local News Segment Before Emails: https://youtu.be/-oQHyvsFjJ4
News Segment After Emails: https://youtu.be/N9CleIT43sw
Article On Emails: https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/n...iate-with-das/