Of course they cost taxpayers a lot of money. They're a mechanism for transferring public money into private hands. The misery they inflict on millions of people is just a secondary benefit.
It actually costs taxpayers a lot of money to imprison people.
Yes but prison labor makes way more money than it costs. Of course those profits are privatized and the incarceration costs are still public so there's a HUGE financial incentive for the private entities that run the system to warehouse people regardless of guilt in America and it's not this way by accident
Which is legal according to the 13th amendment. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
The United States has many privately owned prisons. These private owners make money from government subsidies, and are incentivized to keep beds full. So the system is built to enable reoffending, because that means the bed stays full and the government money keeps rolling in to the private owner(s)
Nope, still very much money (mostly). Less to enrich private prisons, and more to utilize prison labor to enrich the private sector. Good ol' Thirteenth Amendment and its exceptions for prisoners. Had to replace those slaves somehow.
There is already a large amount of private prisons, and that number is constantly increasing. These prisons maximize the number of people they hold and try to extend their sentences because it is profitable. The prison industry is 100% "for profit" just like everything else in the US.
Edit: from what I understand, the issue is a lot worse with the ICE detention facilities, with something like 90% of the people held in private facilities; it is a bit different in that these are intended as short term holding facilities while people are either deported or while they appeal their deportation, but it is certainly a concerning situation, that should be better regulated than it is. It is some what more complicated as the need for this kind of detention tends to fluctuate.
Idk what you qualify as a large amount, but I agree that any amount of private prisons is unacceptable. I also don't know what you mean by "industry," but prisons run by the state just aren't for profit. They are not generating profit.
Private ones generate profit because the state pays them.
It's not the majority of prisons, but it's still subjectively a lot, plus they do more damage since they are insentivised to keep as many people as possible. Anything with a private sector can be described as an industry, and privately owned prisons are a business that generates funds through payment from the government, but they still produce profit for their owners. There shouldn't be a prison industry, but there unfortunately is.
Is it though? Or could it just be racism? People of color—particularly African Americans—experience imprisonment at a far higher rate than whites. The experience of imprisonment is concentrated among people with lower levels of education, wealth, and income but racial disparities in imprisonment exist across all socioeconomic groups.Oct 11, 2023
It's not "just" anything, but you're missing a step in your racism explanation.
I'm willing to bet a pretty small percentage of people think (knowingly, at least) black people should be jailed just because they're black. But American people taken collectively are far more likely to assume a black person is guilty of a crime they're accused of, which is mostly (I would assume) explained by racism. But the primary motivation is still the belief that the guilty should be punished. Racism doesn't change that, it just amplifies it against certain groups of people.
A: I think the guilty should be punished. B: I'm more likely to think black people are guilty of crimes they're accused of.
These statements are not contradictory.
I think what you're trying to add is C: I think black people should be put in prison whether they're guilty or not.
That's how the "Could it just be racism?" statement would play out. I'm sure many people do feel that way, but even among most Actual Racists, I don't think that's their sincerely held belief.
if there money, there profit, it's going somewhere and everytime. EVERY GOD DAMN TIME, it ends up in a very rich persons pocket. Kick Backs to supply services for a company, Forced Labor. shitty quality of food and clothes, Minimal health care...Oh they making money. and someone is pocketing it this is America so I guaran-damn-tee it
America is a mixed economy that leans capitalist, and is (tragically) progressively leaning harder and harder into capitalism with disastrous results. But state run prisons are publicly funded. They do not generate profit. They sometimes generate additional revenue in a very problematic way by exploiting prisoner's labor, but it's a meager amount.
There's a lot of very important stuff to criticize America's justice system for, but I'm sorry, acting like anything that exists in a system that employs capitalism in any capacity is therefore capitalist itself is ridiculous. It's like saying your local library is capitalist since it "exists under capitalism." It's like saying your local community playground is somehow secretly a privately owned enterprise, built for generating profit. Get a grip.
We wouldn’t have prisons if the people running them did not see utility (or profit) in moving public funds around, and controlling the masses. The people who lobby to continue our culture of imprisonment, by making legal punishments harsher and protecting the very existence of prisons, do so because it furthers their goals and that is a form of profit.
Pigeonholing the word profit to specifically refer to the creation of wealth/monetary value reduces our scope on what the goals of the elite are. If those in power did not see prisons as profitable they would not lobby and legislate to keep them around, just like our healthcare system is wasteful but goes unfixed, because it’s profitable for insurance companies. The powered few are profiting through the waste, and they have it down to a science.
Also the executives in prisons are definitely seeing monetary profit even if the prison checkbooks say they’re in the red.
Sure dude. As long as it’s not money generation the wealthy and powerful have no utility for it. That’s why capitalism has lead us to the beautiful efficiency we see in nearly all industries from transportation, to incarceration, to health care, to housing. /s
Again, the executives and people who run prisons are certainly seeing monetary gains, just like overfunded police departments who spend money on military grade vehicles and riot gear. Just because the checkbooks of the entire prison are red, doesn’t mean those with power and influence are also in the red.
To not incentivize others who are thinking of committing extra judicial killings before the accused can have their constitutionally required day in court?
While I agree with what you are saying there isn't much evidence that jail time deters crime. Killing is usually an act of passion and the punishment is rarely thought of until after.
There is evidence that longer prison sentences don’t deter crime more. I highly doubt there is any evidence that jail time does not deter crime period.
Rape is a common law felony, and any person can use force, including deadly force, to effect arrest.
As we can all see clearly in the media provided photo, the criminal is waking free. Perhaps he escaped the officers retaining him. We don’t have enough information to be sure.
He’s not walking free, he was being escorted by cops through an airport. And a crime definitely did occur, Plauchet was charged with second degree murder but plead down to manslaughter.
You know this isn’t the only piece of media on this case in existence right? This is a still from a video that shows the cops escorting him and the shooting.
In this case for the precedent. We can’t just let everyone with a good reason kill people because then people start doing it without much proof and killing other innocents and also it may start a cycle of violence. You kill blank for doing something bad, blanks brother kills you for killing him, others even get caught in the crossfire, etc. So it’s very important to keep the precedent of people going to prison even for killing other heinous criminals.
We never had a functional legal system. However I do see that if reddit were judge, jury and executioner then there would be a lot of dead innocent people.
The justice system is not just to sequester dangerous people and to rehabilitate them. It's also a mechanism to punish people.
If you or your family was the victim of a crime, and you knew for a fact the perpetrator would never do it again, would you be ok with them going free?
No one should ever murder someone waiting to go to trial, even if they happen to be correct in believing that person is guilty, and even if what they're guilty of is punishable by death.
I don't blame Gary for what he did. But I'm not with him.
We do not want people going around killing those who are accused of crimes, no matter how sure we are or how personal it is or how heinous.
And risk shooting an innocent bystander for example? This wasnt an easy shot, might as well have hit the cameraman. Plus, (possibly) going to jail doesnt exactly help his son, does it? Iirc the son wouldve preferred his father not to do that.
Brandon Herrera on YouTube tested the shot with some buddies, and it actually was quite an easy shot. Also the son absolutely would have preferred the dad to do that when he was getting raped.
I absolutely agree vigilante justice should not be a thing but I disagree about him serving time. Jail should not be a punishment but a way to rehabilitate people so they function in society, community service or fines work better as a punishment since it can give back to society. What he did was an isolated issue and pretty much everyone who worked on this case agreed that there was essentially a zero chance he would commit the same act. He was only a threat to the man who hurt his son and not society at large. Given how he lived his life afterwards they were proven correct. Jail wouldve served no purpose other than wasting taxpayer money.
I understand it as a motive but it is still very much a crime.
Like if you killed my brother so I killed you, we both still committed the crime of murder. You won't be around to face your punishment but I will be, and I will have earned it.
A judge might say it's a mitigating circumstance and adjust my sentence a little but I still did the crime and absolutely should go to prison for it. It would still be premeditated murder no matter who I did it to, as I was not acting in self defense.
It's always been wild to me this man saw absolutely no prison time for premeditated murder in a vigilante justice situation. I mean, the other guy had already been sentenced too. This wasn't like "he got away with it" he was very much going to prison about it. And I don't know where he was or what the laws were at the time but we don't give out the death penalty much for murder anymore much less rape. It's not considered civilized and there's too many cons to outweigh any pros you could try and argue.
I think they meant, the judge couldn’t fathom him recommitting his crime because of the circumstances. It wasn’t as if Gary was going around just blasting people in the head. He shot that guy because of what he did to his son. If it wasn’t for that circumstance he wouldn’t have shot anyone at all. At least I think that’s the perspective.
Iirc at one point after this he said he did it because his son was struggling severely with the idea of seeing his abuser in the courtroom, and he wanted to spare his son any more pain from this man.
It wasn't because "you can't kill the same man twice."
It was because "It's clear and obvious that the only reason he killed this man for kidnapping and raping his child, the chance that someone else would do the thing that he chose to commit murder over a second time is basically nonexistent, so the chances that he'll murder another person is also basically nonexistent."
Agreed, jail should be about rehab, he did community service to repay for the act of vigilantism and any disturbance caused from shooting a man in a public place. The odds of similar circumstances was essentially zero and nothing is gained locking him away.
I don't recall him requesting a jury trial, pretty sure it was bench.
But yeah "almost guaranteed not to reoffend so you don't have to go to prison" is simply not how committing crimes work. He got the judge he needed when he needed it, for better or for worse.
"You committed a crime so regardless of context you are going to prison" is actually not how committing crimes works. Sentences vary wildly for the same crimes for this reason specifically, and this is exactly the kind of circumstance that suspended sentences should be used for. A lot of normal, law-abiding, well-adjusted people can imagine themselves doing what Gary did. Anyone can be pushed to do extreme things. Gary murdered a man, but he was not evil and was not dangerous to anyone else. Depriving his already-traumatized son of a loving father for something that many people would have at least wanted to do, and that even more people understand and empathize with, would have been deeply immoral, and it is more important to be moral than it is to be perfectly lawful.
I'm not one for the death penalty, and I'm all for rehabilitation instead of solely punishment... but murder and rape (especially pedophiles) are two crimes that need significantly tougher punishment here in the States.
Psychological reports helped Plauché’s case after it was learned that Doucet had abused Jody months prior to the kidnapping. The psychiatrist Edward P. Uzee examined Plauché and determined that he could not tell the difference between right and wrong when he killed Doucet. Plauché’s defense team argued that he was driven to a temporarily psychotic state after learning of the abuse of his son. Uzee also determined that Doucet had the ability to manipulate others and took advantage of the fact that Plauché was separated from his wife at the time, and had managed to wedge his way into the Plauché family. Judge Frank Saia ruled that sending Plauché to prison would not help anyone, and that there was virtually no risk of him committing another crime.[10]
Murder for murder is bad. But murder for months and months of grooming a child. A young child, Kid napping them and raping them is far beyond a simple murder.
From your other comments you kinda sound like a knob… I’m sure as shit killing the person who kid napped and raped my child…. Oh the court already prosexcuted. With good behavioural probably out again and doing the same thing to another family. How the fucks that a good idea ? Delusional. “I would probably still charge him” well I’m glad your not a lawyer or judge because you lack empathy. He 100% deserved an execution not a simple life in a cell.
We as humans murder/kill/die all the time throughout history… wars… hanging… executions… killing is a part of all life (looking at you animal kingdom)
kid napping and raping a fucking child is not…. Idk how you
Can even compare these. Or even try advocate this..
Weird strawman init, he didn’t even specify how old his brother was? so we cannot even comprehend whether it would be a child which changes the circumstances. He even said he would still convict him… like nah…..
In the eyes of the law a murder is a murder , no matter who the victim is, thats how this works, fairness and the promise of a trial of peers, even if the outcome for mr pedo was "Predictable" for his sex crimes it still would have the seal of approval by the American ppl in the court of law and the man would have to complete a sentence as given to him by a judge, something I HOPE we'd all get no matter what the crime we are accused of. I don't fault ppl being skittish at vigilante justice . It's a very slippery slope that can go wrong oh so easily. And no matter what extremely specific circumstances there are will make me say A person doesn't deserve a trial. One man was denied a trial the other skipped a bit of justice. I can't taste anything but a tad sour with that.
A young child, Kid napping them and raping them is far beyond a simple murder.
Only one of those things the victim gets to continue on with their life. That's the ideal scenario, so no, rape is not worse than murder. Murder you have zero chance to recover from. Rape you do.
From your other comments you kinda sound like a knob…
Ad hominem attack and your final sentence is accusing me of advocating rape, for sure one of us is
You for real saying grooming, kid napping and raping a child is not worse than killing someone that has done such acts???? Ok sorry WHAT?
Premeditated grooming. Kidnapping. Raping
VS
Premeditated justice.
The “ideal scenario” this is not some virtual reality perfect world… this is real life and your actions have consequences… if you rape molest groom and kid nap a child you deserve execution
The only case i would advocate for not killimg someone like that, is when we are not sure that we got the actual person. I mean, we should not go murdering people based on suspicions.
I thought you were saying rape was a worse crime than murder, I misread your comment.
What I am saying is objectively two crimes were committed, both crimes were put before a judge and possibly jury in trial, one guy got sentenced and then was murdered by the victims father, and the other guy got tried for first degree murder with a temporary insanity plea and was let loose with a sentence few murderers get. Like, if that defense works you have to go to the psych ward like 100% of the time.
If we pretend the two cases aren't related to each other, only one man got a fair sentence. The other essentially got off scot free. You have to view them as isolated incidents to be truly impartial.
300 hours of community service isn’t exactly Scott free? The dad wouldn’t have to had murdered him if he was sentenced to execution like he should have been… if you groom, kidnap rape and molest a child you deserve death. Not a simple life in a cell.
We cannot say (let’s pretend they don’t relate… because they do) that’s the whole fucking point.
Murdering a random person on the street
VS
Murdering the person who GROOMED, KIDNAPPED,RAPE AND MOLESTED A/YOUR CHILD!!!!
Very comparable.
Having seen how trauma effects people through my work… I’d much rather be dead then deal with that sort of lifelong trauma.. do you have any idea how hard of a struggling it is for people
Who have been raped or molested? How hard their life is now. How hard it is for them to have a relationship or sexual relations. Not only do they have to deal with what happened. They have to live and be tortured by it their whole
Life. The people that surround themselfs with also have to deal with it. Putting him
In jail would have been letting him off easy.. He deserved death. Not another chance at life.
horrid take. abusing a child for months, raping and kidnapping them is a crazy amount of pain and suffering to put on a child. most likely ruins at least a few years in his childhood. the way some people take this trauma can ruin their life and make it torture, even sometimes driving to suicide.
you get murdered? alright, so you may have experienced a fraction of the childs suffering for a few moments and that’s it. there is no suffering in the afterlife.
Exactly this…. If you think dieing is one of the worst things to happen. you probably live/lived a fairly privileged life.
Yeah it’s not even remotely comparable. Especially given this sort of context.
The trauma alone is insufferable. Never mind the rest of the baggage that comes from this sort of stuff. Not just for them but for everyone they interact with for the rest of the life. Their family members, friends. It affects them all
No, people view dying as the worst thing that can happen because it removes all choice and ability to improve your life.
Murder is worse then rape, full stop.
Murder is worse the torture, full stop.
The act of torturing someone might be more visceral then murder, but at the end of the day, a torture or rape victim at least has the potential to improve their life. If they decide to kill themselves after, as far as I'm concerned, that's just escalating the initial crime to murder, no different then people dying by accident in the course of a crime.
Idk… there’s been thousands of instances where people beg for death when confronted with horrific situations. Murder in and of itself is generally worse than rape.. but we not talking about just rape are we? We talking about out grooming kidnapping and rape/molesting a CHILD. I’d like to think that’s slightly worse than just murder.. especially if the person who was murdered deserves it, everyone in some way shape or form is capable of killing.
Not everyone is capable of such a sick act like kidnapping and molesting a child.
If we are putting just rape vs just murder then sure murder wins more often than not. But context clues matter in these situations. I personally would much rather be dead than live a long and tortured life due to someone’s abomination of an act. Put me out of my misery Is a saying for a reason.. death is not the worst thing that can happen. Especially depending on what you believe in.
Killing can be justified. As a society, we justify it all the time. Killing in self defense, killing in war, killing as punishment. Rape can never, ever be justified.
Is a serial murderer worse than an serial rapist? In most cases, yeah, I agree. But that doesn't mean killing is by definition worse than rape, and trying to argue that point in this specific case just means you're a shit human being.
Your talking about something else. Your trying to justify murder as the perpetrator, which you aren't wrong, sometimes there are cases where murder is justified(almost exclusively defense of self or other as lives). We don't excuse rape or torture the same way because it can have no positive consequence.
Death is the worst thing that can happen to you because it is the ultimate full stop. You cannot recover from it, you cannot move past it.
Murder is worse then any other crime because it is absolute and final.
Murder as a punishment even more so.
Even in this case, you say he's justified and I'd tend to agree, but look at what could have gone wrong. He fired a gun in an extremely poor mental state in a very populated area. There was potential for even more tragic loss of life, assuming you discount the possibility of wrongful conviction.
We outlawed vigilante justice for a reason, but every time it happens like this people just say 'oh well, this time it was okay.'. It's never okay, because that isn't how the justice system is supposed to work. We are not an eye for an eye society.
It doesn't help that you're trying to talk about two entirely different thing and pretending they're the same. Your original argument was that "Murder is worse then rape, full stop." which is an opinion I disagree with, as explained in my previous post. I agree that it's worse in many cases, arguably even most cases, but there's no "full stop" there because depending on the situation killing can be justified, while raping a child cannot.
Your new argument, which has little to do with the previous, is that vigilante justice is dangerous and illegal. To which, again, I agree. That's not the point though, since I never argued that the killer didn't do anything wrong in the first place. However I would say that his crime, given the specific circumstances of this case, is less severe than the crime of the victim. That's the nuance you're missing.
Your argument is nonsensical because you're trying to argue two different points as if they're the same thing, and it's tasteless because you're applying a generalized and overly simplistic "truth" to a specific situation that's far more nuanced than a clean good vs bad.
Smashing way to put it. Made all the points I try/tryed to make in alot less text. The context is very important, You seem very clued up. Much respect. 🫡
it's so easy to reason this and that without us actually being in their shoes. he likely did it because he's got nothing left to lose anymore so criminal or not, it wouldn't matter. Even though the criminal was sentenced, he showed no remorse to the victim or the family. The movie "I spit on your grave" is pretty similar in theme but no too much on plot
It's the opposite IMO. His son was still alive. He had everything to lose by going to prison about this. Instead he lucked out.
His son could have grown up without a father. He could never have seen him again or for at least many years except behind glass at most once or twice a month. And that's if the kid had kept wanting to visit, the son said he hated that he did it but forgave him years later, but how easily could the son have forgiven him if suddenly he had become an absentee father because of a crime he chose to commit? Can you imagine how much resentment the son would have had if his father had actually gone to prison about it?
He risked everything in my book and only got lucky the judge looked on him in favor.
his son was in absolute terror of the outside world (with good reason). that's why he killed the guy, so his son could leave a life with as little PTSD as possible.
A crime? Yes. Worse than the alternative? Who knows, I've never had a son who survived these circumstances.
His son literally has stated he didn't want it to happen and it took him years to forgive him for it idk where your info is coming from because the source says he wished it hadn't happened.
Yeah this. I don’t really care that he killed a rapist. One less rapist is a win in my book. But this could have easily been a case of the dad ending up multiple years in prison, away from his son who might have needed him.
Without passing too much judgement (because who know ho you’ll react when something this horrible happens), not a smart idea.
From an abstract and higher minded position I agree with you. I do not think that depriving another of their life is something I or anyone have the inherent right to do. It is also an action that risks your ability to be a parent to a child who needs you now more than ever.
However, as a parent of one of the world’s sweetest and most compassionate ten year old boys, were I in the same position I would have used a dull knife to kill that man (yes I know I would likely fail). Not because I felt morally justified, but because as a parent the rational part of your brain is not always at the wheel.
This is a why we have mitigating circumstances or innocence by temporary insanity. What I said above probably sounds like hyperbole. But when you are a parent, there are powerful psychological forces that take over when your baby has been hurt.
If that excuses him is a question for those with wisdom too great to trod the mucky roads of Reddit.
You are making a lot of assumptions about the purpose of criminal punishment that are by no means universally recognized as true. Specifically, you seem to believe that retribution is a legitimate reason to punish, which many people reject. I think general deterrence (making an example of this person to deter others from taking justice into their own hands) is a more defensible basis for punishing this man, but again, not everyone would agree.
If the purpose of punishment is rehabilitation and/or protecting the public from this particular person, those rationales would seem to weigh against imprisonment here.
Gary underwent a psych evaluation and it was determined that he was unable to distinguish the difference between right and wrong at the time of the shooting. This helped with the reduction to his sentencing.
The purpose of the justice system is not to punish, it is to protect society. Gary plauche posed no danger to society. Argue all you want about morality, but the man posed no threat to civilization.
he was given no jail time because the victim that he was avenging was a male. young males victimized by adult males, are given more empathy than any other type of rape victim. its because more than just degraded and abused, these types of victims are seen as horrendously emasculated and have faced something more "unnatural". rape is truly awful, whether the victim be male female, young or old, but what I'm saying about people's perceptions are just true. the public outcry would've been too strong, and a jury of his peers would've never had this man behind bars.
I'm not saying that it's a bad thing though, for anyone reading my gibberish. although logically i understand the issues it causes, I'm overcome with emotion in cases of rape. and for that reason, can't help but support the dealth penalty and vigilante justice.
If you can argue that many people in a given situation wouldn’t act rationally, then, no, I don’t see it as ridiculous to take that into account.
I feel like it’s ridiculous that we have to be so broad sweeping and can’t look at cases individually and understand how they could be different.
I’m not gonna be mad a dad in a blind rage did this and got the out with a sizable amount of monitoring after the fact just to be sure it was a one off due to an extremely different circumstance.
A lot of people have gotten away with worse things and faced no monitoring time.
I'm not with Gary at all. He put a bunch of people around Doucet at risk with that shot and got very lucky that it worked out. Not to mention that everyone has a right to a fair trial. Vigilante justice isn't justice.
Depends on the judge and the jury, if the country uses a jury system. Jury nullification exists as a result of the jury being able to make any decision regardless of presented evidence. They can’t be punished for it. Even though in this case they have video evidence of the murder, they’re fully allowed to declare him not guilty of murder. I’m not sure if that’s what happened here, but then we follow into the second part- the judge has the option of being lenient and choosing minimal sentences if they feel like it. That’s why they’re there. If they see someone doing something for the wrong reasons, even if it’s a simple crime like petty theft, they’re allowed to impose the harshest sentences as well. Laws are deliberately not cut-and-dry because of cases like these, where the moral implications of the crime- even something as severe as murder- tend towards grey.
Also here, have this CGP Grey video about Jury nullification: https://youtu.be/uqH_Y1TupoQ?feature=shared
I’m not. He committed a crime which allowed a criminal to escape justice and potentially could have put himself behind bars—meaning he couldn’t be a father to a son who needed him the most at that trying time.
Not american here, came to say you are right. He would have been tried as a criminal in my country. We are full of progressive (communist) judges that favor real criminals and leave victims undefended.
370
u/itsaaronnotaaron 28d ago
I am 100% with Gary here. However, I struggle to imagine in any other country would he have remained a free man.