Interesting Question

 

1. In another story I read about this last night, there were more facts on his criminal past.
   1989 he was convicted of Attempted Rape, for Life, which he was almost done serving.
   He had previous convictions of Rape, Attempted Rape, and something like Indecent Assault.
   now the worst part IMHO.
   He was staying in a low security prison that allows weekends OFF?!?!?!

   4 time convicted Sex Offender wins lottery on a furlough from PRISON!
   thats the headline we should see, followed by:
   British revolt, goverment all but wiped out as the people demand “Gun Rights” and “Criminal Justice”

   I screamed a lot about this story last night....

   Posted by Cinomed       08/12/2004  at  09:48 AM  



2. The danger here is one of retroactivly changing a sentence after the fact. It certainly might feel good to stick it to a rapist, but in doing so, the sanctity of the justice system is undermined. This man was sentenced, most would argue appropriately, for his crime and met that obligation. Having done so, he must be regarded as a full fledged member of society. That is what paying a debt to society is all about.

   By retroactively augmenting his punishment through the garnishing of his winnings, the government is setting a dangerous precedent that a sentence, once imposed, can be arbitrarily increased at a beaurocrat’s whim. Imagine that any offense could always be revisited, even after a judge/jury imposed sentence had been carried out.

   Posted by Daniel       08/12/2004  at  09:49 AM  



3. Hold on a sec’ He has not YET paid off his debt to society.  He is still serving a sentence (albeit with weekends off.)

   How about paying restitution to his victims?

   Posted by Vilmar       08/12/2004  at  10:00 AM  



4. He’s still in prison although on day release.  So, that means he still is a ward of the state and under their control.  Since he is still technically a prisoner, all his winnings should be confiscated and given to the state to pay for his stay in prison.  Some of the money should be given to his victim, if she is still alive.

   Posted by Bob       08/12/2004  at  10:08 AM  



5. Well since he now has the funds I got not no problem with sending him a bill for the court costs, victims compensation costs and the cost of his for room, board, medical and security cost incurred.

   This is also one time I’d give a nod to some enterprising attorney who sued on the behalf of the victims for violation of rights, pain suffering, etc.

   If he has anything left he can pay for his own castration and to set himself up on a deserted hilltop in the middle of no where.

   I think that’s fair....

   Posted by Ric Brandt       08/12/2004  at  10:10 AM  



6. It’s not like he got out of prison fully reformed got a good job and made something for himself. He spent a buck and won the lottery...I agree with Ric. Then if he’s really on a lucky streak he will have enough left to buy a new suit.

   Posted by Roy       08/12/2004  at  10:23 AM  



7. Pay him in cash, small bills, in the presence of his victims.

   Posted by Walter E. Wallis       08/12/2004  at  10:32 AM  



8. I have to go with Daniel.  Ex post facto rules here, as much as I hate to say it for this mook, who BTW should be castrated with a mallet.

   I surely don’t want to be arrested at a bureaucrat’s whim after I’ve done something he personally doesn’t like that previously was legal.

   The Brits have blown it in not having a law in place that confiscates earnings while a ward of the state.  In the US, there are laws that prevent cons from profiting from their notoriety while in prison by book or movie deals, and I think, call for restitution for the victims.

   Posted by dick       08/12/2004  at  11:46 AM  



9. Need more facts here, but once they are in hand, it should be pretty simple to decide. If his current status, i.e. “day release”, comes with conditions that require that some amount of his earnings go to this fund, he has to contribute. End of story. However, it sounds as if someone is trying to pass this law; that it does not yet apply. If that’s the case, it doesn’t matter whether or not it seems right to anyone else that he keep the money. It’s even more wrong to confiscate it ex post facto. It’s not a good idea to impose conditions that were not part of the original “contract” that landed him in jail. Where, if ever, would it stop? If you don’t stop punishing a felon at some point, you might as well keep him locked up for life, or kill him.  Some might argue that that should have been the case here, but that’s not what was happening.

   BTW, i believe dick’s last sentence is a bit off topic: this guy is not profiting from his crime, he’s simply profiting.

   Posted by alanstorm       08/12/2004  at  12:10 PM  



10. He’s a ward of the State.  I don’t believe in that much...I think he should have been turned over to the victim’s family, for them to do whatever they wanted to him.  But since he is a ward of the state, let’s play along.....

    He cannot earn money of his own, since he’s a ward of the State.  So take all the dough and give it to the victims. 

    Give him his buck back.

    Posted by Rockets       08/12/2004  at  12:28 PM  



11. Fine point there Alan.  Book or movies deals are the most likely sources of substantial windfalls for cons, hence my statement.  This guy hit the lottery, a mighty long odds source of income.

    The key IMHO is that income goes for restitution for victims and the state’s cost of prosecuting and jailing the criminal, before the criminal sees a dime.  Only problem is restitution is bound to be somewhat arbitrary, like most civil suits involving tort lawyers and jury awards. 

    For some victims of some crimes, no amount of money could make them whole, while on the other hand, some could get exhorbitant amounts from a sympathetic (or stupid) jury or court.

    If restitution were codified, much like sentencing guidelines, then perhaps restitution might be an important component of justice and punishment.

    In any case, adhering to ex post facto is the most important part of this particular instance.

    Posted by dick       08/12/2004  at  05:12 PM  



12. Ex-post facto. Let ‘em make the law. Then get the next guy.

    Posted by Sean       08/13/2004  at  01:08 AM  



13. I have to agree with Daniel.  As much as it grates at our sense of “right and wrong”, the fact remains that he has paid (or is paying) his debt to society and to retroactively make him pay financially is just wrong.  If they want to make a new law saying that “if you later receive a windfall, then you must repay some of the costs for your incarceration”, then so be it, but that doesn’t sound like how things are now.  People are just galled at the fact that it’s a convicted rapist that won. 

    Life’s not fair.  Nobody said any different.

    Posted by Skerdog       08/13/2004  at  12:49 PM  

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.