At what point does a person stop "paying" for a crime?

[brycejones]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/0...-behind-professor-who-murdered-family-in-167/

Cliffs:

Teen killed his family in 1967 found not guilty by Texas jury by reason of insanity. Treated for 6 years then released as cured. Changed his name, got an education has been employed as a professor for years. Now there are calls for him to be basically be fired or forced to step down from his position due to his crime 46 years ago.

Regardless of what you think of the "fairness" of the original verdict and I doubt he would get a similar verdict today from a Texas jury. At what point do we stop looking to punish people for their crimes? I think that calls for this guy to have to resign or be placed on leave are out of line given the amount of time that has passed and that he did what society demanded of him. I don't see where he has been accused of committing any new crimes since his treatment.

 

[chucky2]

I think you punish people for their crimes, and then they're free to go. I just wish we had progressively far harsher punishments for crime, that's all. I don't want a first offender thief to lose his hand. I want a 3rd offender thief to lose his hand. I don't view this as barbaric but rather very fair. It is barbaric to keep society paying for someone who has chosen to be a societal predator.

Chuck

 

[Fern]

I think there are exceptions (when aren't there?), but in general if you do the crime I don't care if your record follows you around. It's the single best deterrent there is. If committing a crime can't follow you around then neither can being a good citizen with a clean record.

This case is complicated because he had a mental illness. I'm willing to trust the opinion of those who have known him for the past 46 years. If they say he's 'fine', it's alright by me.

Fern

 

[Anarchist420]

The short answer is: You don't in this country.

The USG is way too tough on all crime... 1 in 25 Americans were arrested in 2001.

 

[sourn]

Maybe his punishment wasn't harsh enough, but that's irrelevant now. He did what was ordered and it worked.

I personally think they should leave this guy alone. Unless he's going around killing people secretly; I don't think there's to much to worry about.

 

[Geosurface]

Any time you kill your family there is a "mental illness" involved of some variety or another.

Or at least a propensity to enter mental states which are not compatible with society.

He should have been executed in 1967, but he served the time he was sentenced to and shouldn't be fired from his job.

 

[Doppel]

Based only on me reading OP description I say let him be. I guess somewhere in my heart I still believe that the word correction in the correctional system at least once had some meaning, though.

Too many people are blood thirsty and they want vengeance, they want almighty righteous revenge.

I imagine somewhere inside the guy is still partially nuts, but we all are. Look at the violence that so many in history are capable of given the wrong circumstances.

 

[Kadarin]

What if he happened to be a pedophile who has not abused any children for the past 46 years?

 

[EagleKeeper]

<snip>
The USG is way too tough on all crime... 1 in 25 Americans were arrested in 2001.

So crime should be ignored?

Note you said arrested, not tried or convicted.
Each more stringent requirement, reduces that percentage.

 

[Anarchist420]

So crime should be ignored? Note you said arrested, not tried or convicted. Each more stringent requirement, reduces that percentage.

Most crimes these days don't involve a victim, so generally speaking crime should be ignored in Virginia, where I live. Crimes where property rights are violated shouldn't be ignored by VA, but those are exceptions to the rule.

 

[brycejones]

What if he happened to be a pedophile who has not abused any children for the past 46 years?

Interesting question. If he was teaching in an elementary school I think most people would still be concerned. But since he is teaching at the college level I wouldn't have the same concern.

 

[Zaap]

The thing that bothers me (at least going by the OP's description, I'm not familiar with anything else about this) is that he changed his name in order to seek employment as a professor, and didn't disclose his true ID to the school. That's what's not right in all of this.

It's not that he should be re-punished for his original crime, but there's a separate issue here if the person used fraud in his acquiring a job as a professor in the first place.

I just don't buy that anyone who once murdered their family (either found guilty or acquitted by reason of insanity) should be able to avoid disclosing that in any sort of public profession where parents/students etc. should have a right to know his true history. That's not something you should get to just sweep under the rug by changing your identity.

In that light, I think he should be removed from his job, not for his original crime.

 

[Strk]

The thing that bothers me (at least going by the OP's description, I'm not familiar with anything else about this) is that he changed his name in order to seek employment as a professor, and didn't disclose his true ID to the school. That's what's not right in all of this.

It's not that he should be re-punished for his original crime, but there's a separate issue here if the person used fraud in his acquiring a job as a professor in the first place.

I just don't buy that anyone who once murdered their family (either found guilty or acquitted by reason of insanity) should be able to avoid disclosing that in any sort of public profession where parents/students etc. should have a right to know his true history. That's not something you should get to just sweep under the rug by changing your identity.

In that light, I think he should be removed from his job, not for his original crime.

Yeah, I would have to agree. It's not that it would have to be public knowledge, but something he should have discussed with HR.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

The man served his time and has lived a respectable crime free life since he was released. I say leave him alone.

 

[unokitty]

Teen killed his family in 1967 found not guilty by Texas jury by reason of insanity. Treated for 6 years then released as cured. Changed his name, got an education has been employed as a professor for years. Now there are calls for him to be basically be fired or forced to step down from his position due to his crime 46 years ago..

A 16 year old with no history of mental illness successfully plans to murder his parents and his sister. He murders them all with a rifle that he had hidden the week before...

He convinces a court that he is crazy. He is sentenced to treatment rather than jail.

Six years later, he convinces the treatment center that he is sane.

He lives off of payments from the estate of the father that he murdered.

He obtains a Ph D in psychology.

The man is an admitted murderer. He concealed that from his employer.

And he concealed the fact that he changed his name to St. James.

You are free to believe that he is 'not guilty.' You are also free to believe that he committed the perfect crime. He was however never found innocent.

Not someone I would want educating my children.

Uno

 

[brycejones]

A 16 year old with no history of mental illness successfully plans to murder his parents and his sister. He murders them all with a rifle that he had hidden the week before...

He convinces a court that he is crazy. He is sentenced to treatment rather than jail.

Six years later, he convinces the treatment center that he is sane.

He lives off of payments from the estate of the father that he murdered.

He obtains a Ph D in psychology.

The man is an admitted murderer. He concealed that from his employer.

And he concealed the fact that he changed his name to St. James.

You are free to believe that he is 'not guilty.' You are also free to believe that he committed the perfect crime. He was however never found innocent.

Not someone I would want educating my children.

Uno

No one has argued he was found "innocent" however he was found "not guilty by reason of insanity". I am not a lawyer but I would think that by definition "not guilty" for any reason would mean that he has not in fact been convicted of any crime hence he would NOT have an obligation to report it when applying for the type of job he was applying for. A quick search on the requirements to report a not guilty by reason of insanity finding only turned up requirements to report when applying at care facilities. It would also depend upon what the requirement was at the time he applied for the position.

 

[Sonikku]

The biggest issue I see with unending "punishment" after the time is served is that if people don't see a path to redemption or a chance at making a better life for themselves that won't forever be overshadowed by their past, they tend to lose hope or get desperate and go from being an asset to society to a liability, often from a sense of having nothing to lose that turns into a downward burning spiral.

 

[rudder]

What if he happened to be a pedophile who has not abused any children for the past 46 years?

Let's ask the pedophile's victims what they think.

 

[unokitty]

No one has argued he was found "innocent" however he was found "not guilty by reason of insanity". I am not a lawyer but I would think that by definition "not guilty" for any reason would mean that he has not in fact been convicted of any crime hence he would NOT have an obligation to report it when applying for the type of job he was applying for. A quick search on the requirements to report a not guilty by reason of insanity finding only turned up requirements to report when applying at care facilities. It would also depend upon what the requirement was at the time he applied for the position.

No one called him a criminal. And no one asked him to change his name and hide his past.

If you want to send you children be educated by a person that shot and killed their immediate family, that is your prerogative.

Me, I'd rather not.

Uno

 

[brycejones]

Where was he found to be a criminal? Not guilty by reason of insanity ultimately means not criminally libel therefore not a criminal. He did a horrible thing and I doubt anyone would debate otherwise but a jury (a Texas jury no less) determined that he was not guilty by reason of insanity.

As to his role as a college educator now that his past is known potential students can decide if they want to take his class or not.

 

[brycejones]

No one called him a criminal. And no one asked him to change his name and hide his past.

If you want to send you children be educated by a person that shot and killed their immediate family, that is your prerogative.

Me, I'd rather not.

Uno

So what jobs should he be allowed to have in your opinion now?

 

[Wreckem]

Y'all are aware that changing your name requires a court order and that your criminal history follows you around no matter what your new name is. A simple background check would pull up your record even if you change your name.

 

[crownjules]

Our penal system is supposed to be one based on rehabilitation. A person locked up in jail guilty of a crime is supposed to re-emerge as a productive member of society. Unfortunately, statistics tell us that isn't the case. A 2011 Pew study states that 40% of released criminals or those on parole/probation will end up back in jail within 3 years.

So until that number can be made statistically irrelevant, society has little choice but to assume that if you've committed a crime that you will commit one again.

The deeper question is of course what can be done to break this. Not only is it an incredibly poor reflection on society but it's a fiscal drain if you can not help people to stop acting as criminals and have to keep them locked away at the taxpayer's expense.

 

[Xellos2099]

Our penal system is supposed to be one based on rehabilitation. A person locked up in jail guilty of a crime is supposed to re-emerge as a productive member of society. Unfortunately, statistics tell us that isn't the case. A 2011 Pew study states that 40% of released criminals or those on parole/probation will end up back in jail within 3 years.

So until that number can be made statistically irrelevant, society has little choice but to assume that if you've committed a crime that you will commit one again.

The deeper question is of course what can be done to break this. Not only is it an incredibly poor reflection on society but it's a fiscal drain if you can not help people to stop acting as criminals and have to keep them locked away at the taxpayer's expense.

Well, in a sense they do not have much of a choice. Even if they complete their sentence, they will have a very hard time seeking jobs. With no jobs to support them, what choice do they have?

 

[unokitty]

So what jobs should he be allowed to have in your opinion now?

Any job that is suitable for someone that has shot and killed his immediate family...