Schiff Gets Extra 11 Months

[SteveSy]

Your focus on whether imprisonment cures a problem is narrow-minded; there are a multitude of reasons for prisons, of hich rehabilitation is only one.

Yes that works so well. How many have seen the light after prison?

You keep bringing up the issue of cost as another argument, but the truth remains that if we want to deal with criminals, there is going to be a cost. If we kept only your arguments that deterrence has failed and that it is costly, we might as well release every prisoner.

It's not only cost but when the criminal is a criminal because of a nonviolent act then we need to look at the pros and cons of housing them in prison vs. alternatives. Prison as a deterrent isn't working in a lot of cases, we have the largest inmate population in the world to prove it doesn't.

But you correctly point out another reason for having prisons: so that people who are a danger to society can be kept away from society. And Irwin Schiff was a danger to society in that he was peddling bad information and inducing them to commit tax crimes. He took their money and gave them the potential to end up in prison themselves.

Give me a break....

Well then people who don't pay their credit card bills and who tell people they shouldn't pay them need to be imprisoned for years too, they are also a "danger".

My other problem with house arrest is that there is little the government can do to prevent Irwin from having contact with the outside world. Leaving Irwin in his house means the risk of Irwin starting his nonsese again either directy or through proxies. The government would have to put an armed guard in front of his house, monitor his phone conversations and inspect his mail. Do you want to argue that kind of house arrest is going to be cheaper than prison?

Yes I believe it would install cameras if needed. If he uses the phone or method of communication to promote again take them away. Schiff might still do it anyway, if he does stick him in prison. The vast majority wouldn't risk it though.

The fact of the matter is the problem is growing, prison isn't a big enough deterrent to tax crimes. Prison is expensive, we aren't accomplishing anything by throwing these guys in prison for years and years except to defeat the purpose and spend money instead of collecting it.

Most who have the option to work under house arrest and forcibly made to pay their taxes would prefer that to prison. They would be a contributing member to society and the burden on the taxpayers would be minimized.

[Famspear]

The Observer has astutely observed three of the reasons that society punishes people who commit crimes by locking them up. The terminology I learned in law school is as follows:

1. Deterrence - Example: "Ooohh, I'd love to commit that crime, but I saw what happened to that guy over there - he's in prison for the rest of his life for doing that. I don't want to end up in prison, so I'm not gonna do that crime." This obviously has not worked for Irwin Schiff. He has been convicted over and over and had already served federal prison time years ago. The fear of prison is no "deterrent" for Irwin Schiff (at least, with respect to inducing his compliance with federal income tax laws).

2. Rehabilitation. Essentially, education. While the prisoner is locked up, we afford him the chance to learn why we have a law against what he did (if he doesn't already know), why we punished him for it (if he doesn't already know), how he can better himself, find a better job when he gets out, etc., etc. This won't work for Irwin Schiff; he probably cannot be rehabilitated, as he has demonstrated over and over that no matter how much accurate information is throw at him, he will persist in his delusions and that he will persist in disobeying the federal income tax laws.

3. Incapacitation/restraint - For most crimes, the criminal simply cannot physically commit the crime if he is locked up (or is put to death, in the applicable cases) -- even if he wants to keep doing the crime or not. In the case of Irwin Schiff, this is the strongest argument for punishing him, since it is obvious, as a third-time loser, that he probably will never "voluntarily" obey the federal income tax laws. In other words, where deterrence does not work, incapacitation/restraint is often the best reason to impose jail time.

[SteveSy]

The Observer has astutely observed three of the reasons that society punishes people who commit crimes by locking them up. The terminology I learned in law school is as follows:

1. Deterrence - Example: "Ooohh, I'd love to commit that crime, but I saw what happened to that guy over there - he's in prison for the rest of his life for doing that. I don't want to end up in prison, so I'm not gonna do that crime." This obviously has not worked for Irwin Schiff. He has been convicted over and over and had already served federal prison time years ago. The fear of prison is no "deterrent" for Irwin Schiff (at least, with respect to inducing his compliance with federal income tax laws).

2. Rehabilitation. Essentially, education. While the prisoner is locked up, we afford him the chance to learn why we have a law against what he did (if he doesn't already know), why we punished him for it (if he doesn't already know), how he can better himself, find a better job when he gets out, etc., etc. This won't work for Irwin Schiff; he probably cannot be rehabilitated, as he has demonstrated over and over that no matter how much accurate information is throw at him, he will persist in his delusions and that he will persist in disobeying the federal income tax laws.

3. Incapacitation/restraint - For most crimes, the criminal simply cannot physically commit the crime if he is locked up (or is put to death, in the applicable cases) -- even if he wants to keep doing the crime or not. In the case of Irwin Schiff, this is the strongest argument for punishing him, since it is obvious, as a third-time loser, that he probably will never "voluntarily" obey the federal income tax laws. In other words, where deterrence does not work, incapacitation/restraint is often the best reason to impose jail time.

Then please explain why we have the largest inmate population in the world if all of those theories of imprisonment are valid?

[The Observer]

Your focus on whether imprisonment cures a problem is narrow-minded; there are a multitude of reasons for prisons, of which rehabilitation is only one.

Yes that works so well. How many have seen the light after prison?

That is why I said "only one." I didn't say rehabilitation would work in every single case - which is why reason prison is a multi-strategy at dealing with criminals.

It's not only cost but when the criminal is a criminal because of a nonviolent act then we need to look at the pros and cons of housing them in prison vs. alternatives. Prison as a deterrent isn't working in a lot of cases, we have the largest inmate population in the world to prove it doesn't.

So you want to release a bunch of hardened criminals to the streets? How would you feel if we released them all to...say Houston?

Give me a break....

Well then people who don't pay their credit card bills and who tell people they shouldn't pay them need to be imprisoned for years too, they are also a "danger".

Uh, can you say "TUC?" Or do you think people who encourage other people to commit crimes and fraud should be left alone?

Yes I believe it would install cameras if needed. If he uses the phone or method of communication to promote again take them away. Schiff might still do it anyway, if he does stick him in prison. The vast majority wouldn't risk it though

I think you are being over optimistic about the cost and its effectiveness. Interesting that you have to admit that even you would send Irwin back to prison.

[Famspear]

The Observer has astutely observed three of the reasons that society punishes people who commit crimes by locking them up. The terminology I learned in law school is as follows:

1. Deterrence - Example: "Ooohh, I'd love to commit that crime, but I saw what happened to that guy over there - he's in prison for the rest of his life for doing that. I don't want to end up in prison, so I'm not gonna do that crime." This obviously has not worked for Irwin Schiff. He has been convicted over and over and had already served federal prison time years ago. The fear of prison is no "deterrent" for Irwin Schiff (at least, with respect to inducing his compliance with federal income tax laws).

2. Rehabilitation. Essentially, education. While the prisoner is locked up, we afford him the chance to learn why we have a law against what he did (if he doesn't already know), why we punished him for it (if he doesn't already know), how he can better himself, find a better job when he gets out, etc., etc. This won't work for Irwin Schiff; he probably cannot be rehabilitated, as he has demonstrated over and over that no matter how much accurate information is throw at him, he will persist in his delusions and that he will persist in disobeying the federal income tax laws.

3. Incapacitation/restraint - For most crimes, the criminal simply cannot physically commit the crime if he is locked up (or is put to death, in the applicable cases) -- even if he wants to keep doing the crime or not. In the case of Irwin Schiff, this is the strongest argument for punishing him, since it is obvious, as a third-time loser, that he probably will never "voluntarily" obey the federal income tax laws. In other words, where deterrence does not work, incapacitation/restraint is often the best reason to impose jail time.

Then please explain why we have the largest inmate population in the world if all of those theories of imprisonment are valid?

Because the theories work. Obviously, the only way to make it work is to put lots of people in prison.

Seriously, Steve, one of the problems with your argument is that it proves too much. Obviously, many, many people are deterred from committing crimes. Many, many others are NOT deterred. And many, many people (e.g., people in prison) are physically incapacitated (restrained) from committing crimes. But many people COMMIT crimes even while in prison. A few people are rehabilitated. But maybe most people are not rehabilitated.

So what?

NONE of these three reasons work in every single case.

The reason each of the three reasons is "valid" is that each works in SOME cases.

[Demosthenes]

Then please explain why we have the largest inmate population in the world if all of those theories of imprisonment are valid?

Our numbers are artificially inflated by stupid drug laws.

[Famspear]

Our numbers are artificially inflated by stupid drug laws.

I second that.

[SteveSy]

NONE of these three reasons work in every single case.

The reason each of the three reasons is "valid" is that each works in SOME cases.

Lots of things "work", doesn't mean its the most efficient or that it solves the problems it was designed to solve. I'm sure forcibly drugging people would produce results, it would "work" to some degree, and lower crime, doesn't we would should do it. I would argue the statistics show its not working. There's a hell of a lot of money being spent to house the largest inmate population in the world. I would argue that money could be spent more wisely to accomplish the same mission. Obviously what we're doing isn't working that well.

[Famspear]

Lots of things "work", doesn't mean its the most efficient or that it solves the problems it was designed to solve. I'm sure forcibly drugging people would produce results, it would "work" to some degree, and lower crime, doesn't we would should do it. I would argue the statistics show its not working. There's a hell of a lot of money being spent to house the largest inmate population in the world. I would argue that money could be spent more wisely to accomplish the same mission. Obviously what we're doing isn't working that well.

You might be right.

Although, I like the idea of the forcible drugging.

juusssst kidding.....

[webhick]

I'm sure forcibly drugging people would produce results, it would "work" to some degree, and lower crime, doesn't we would should do it.

Reminds me of the movie, Equilibrium. Yeah, um, it didn't work out so well for the people in charge.

It had everything, government oppression, cool action sequences, good-looking lead, decent acting, and an adorable puppy. Everything a girl could ask for.

[Nikki]

No he may not be very happy there, but then the DOJ isn't doing the taxpayers any favors by sticking him there either. A million hours of community service confined to house arrest for the rest of his life would have served the taxpayers better IMO. Let him eat up all his hidden offshore funds on taking care of his own butt.

And what do you recommend should happen when Schiff refuses to do his community service? It is a likely scenario give then fact that Schiff does not agree with his conviction and sentencing and has demonstrated his contempt for the court system.

Well, he's still confined to house arrest being supervised. Take away his phone, limit his quality of food etc. If longer prison sentences were a deterrent to tax issues then the problem wouldn't be growing, yet it is.

What is the purpose of putting him there anyway? Isn't it ultimately to make sure the government collects taxes? If we're spending money instead of collecting it how did we accomplish the mission? People who have no money pose no threat to the government coffers so sticking them in prison because they didn't pay accomplishes nothing except to show how big of a stick you have and to waste tax dollars housing them. People who have money do pose a threat to tax collection and those people would find the fact that they have everything taken from them a serious deterrent. Sticking them in prison only costs everyone money, they don't pose a danger to society. Just my opinion of course.

Just like Elaine: house of Brown was? It worked really well for her.

[Evil Squirrel Overlord]

NONE of these three reasons work in every single case.

The reason each of the three reasons is "valid" is that each works in SOME cases.

Lots of things "work", doesn't mean its the most efficient or that it solves the problems it was designed to solve. I'm sure forcibly drugging people would produce results, it would "work" to some degree, and lower crime, doesn't we would should do it. I would argue the statistics show its not working. There's a hell of a lot of money being spent to house the largest inmate population in the world. I would argue that money could be spent more wisely to accomplish the same mission. Obviously what we're doing isn't working that well.

Maybe the problem isn't solely how we store our Negro males. Er... I mean the overcrowding of prisons... maybe something else is fundamentally wrong. Such as missing fathers or lack of honorable opportunities.

[Burzmali]

You monitor the guy, put frigging cameras in his house....come on it still far cheaper. I mean if he still violates it after than then I guess stick his butt in prison. Maybe Schiff would still violate and end up there anyway, but the vast majority would prefer to be home bound rather than in a cell and it would save the taxpayers a crap load.

Without too much math, you would have to have at least one person devoting his full attention to Schiff 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. At $15/hr, that comes out to $131,400. Basically, it is cheaper to bring him to prison, than it is to bring the prison to him.

[grixit]

Then please explain why we have the largest inmate population in the world if all of those theories of imprisonment are valid?

Our numbers are artificially inflated by stupid drug laws.

Agrred.

[grixit]

Are there no salt mines?

[aitchel]

The surest way to reduce the prison population is to make fewer things illegal.

[Melted Rabbit]

Are there no salt mines?

Well yes there are salt mines, but an incident occured a few years back:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Peigneur

[LPC]

The Observer has astutely observed three of the reasons that society punishes people who commit crimes by locking them up. The terminology I learned in law school is as follows:

1. Deterrence - Example: "Ooohh, I'd love to commit that crime, but I saw what happened to that guy over there - he's in prison for the rest of his life for doing that. I don't want to end up in prison, so I'm not gonna do that crime." [...]

2. Rehabilitation. Essentially, education. While the prisoner is locked up, we afford him the chance to learn why we have a law against what he did (if he doesn't already know), why we punished him for it (if he doesn't already know), how he can better himself, find a better job when he gets out, etc., etc.

Unfortunately, goals #1 and 2 and somewhat conflicting. In goal #1, we want the potential felon to fear prison and inflict pain of some kind, while in goal #2 we want to help the felon and make his/her life better.

So, for example, New York once had a great program that allowed prisoners to get college degrees while in prison. Recidivism plummeted because ex-cons with college degrees were much more likely to get jobs and so unlikely to commit new crimes and return to prison.

However, eventually the politicians figured out that the state was giving law-breakers something that it wasn't giving law-abiders: a free college education. So the program was ended, recividism returned to normal levels, and everyone was "happy."

We should be making clearer decisions about whether we are punishing people or rehabilitating them, because I don't think you can do both at the same time.

[Judge Roy Bean]

The surest way to reduce the prison population is to make fewer things illegal.

Actually, that's not true. It's a matter of investigatory and prosecution focus.

Decisions made about who gets investigated and prosecuted are the control points.

Businesses get a free pass.

[SteveSy]

Without too much math, you would have to have at least one person devoting his full attention to Schiff 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. At $15/hr, that comes out to $131,400. Basically, it is cheaper to bring him to prison, than it is to bring the prison to him.

Why would you need a person devoted to him 24 hours a day, 365 days a year? That's just silly. He's not a mass murderer, at most he's a tax evader jeesh.... He refused to pay a debt and told others they didn't have to pay their debts, that's his crime. It just happens to be a debt owed to the government is all.

Install some cameras in his home, forbid computers and cell phones and monitor his phone calls. Better yet, limit his inbound and outbound calls to approved people only. It would be obvious if he was promoting anything. They could monitor many people like this. If a frigging casino can catch people cheating with thousands of cameras and thousands of patrons surely they can monitor white collar criminals with the same equipment. Make the younger one's get a job and start contributing to society instead of being dead weight. Sure there would be some that STILL screw up and would be cell bound, but then I'm sure a lot of them would prefer this than to a cell. We win as a nation because we save money and have contributing members they win because they get a chance to get to work off their debt while paying for their crimes and remain to some degree free.