Believe it or not, I'm okay with killing the fuck out of someone who IS indeed a real menace to society; who causes harm to other members of the society and is a REAL danger to them.

However, these people - people like this Santos Reyes guy - have not proven that they are THAT much a danger to society.

Of course you don't want to sit around and wait for them to actually kill somebody before you go "Yep. They're a bad seed. Lock'em up.", but I also think the punishment people like him are receiving does not fit the crime.

Every human is product of his society.

Yeah. I wouldn't entirely disagree with this.

Therefore, if he is mistaken and acts "badly", it's not his individual fault - but the fault of whole society.

Yep. Wouldn't disagree with this either.

It takes a whole village to raise a child.

Individual should not be punished but rehabiliated and educated.

Fair enough. I guess it also depends upon the circumstances of the crime, the background of the individual, etc, etc. I do agree with your sentiment, however.

Instead society, every member of it, should take a look into mirror and ask why one of us acted this way.

Absolutely.

And how to prevent it from happening again.

An entire, wholesale, restructuring of our civilization is needed in order to address this and many other problems. I for one am in favor of restructuring things accordingly (dramatic and revolutionary as that change would have to be) . . . but I'm not sure how likely this change would be on this planet, in this civilization.

Yes. Therein lies the key. We have to learn to literally let go of everything we've been taught and conditioned to "hold dear", as many of them are things that are ultimately holding us back from unity and peace.

I wouldn't put him away for life for that, especially considering that there have been many, many individuals - many of which are white collar elites in positions of societal influence and power - that have done far worse and have either gotten entirely away with it, or have been minimally admonished.

Relevant

Arguing that "others" have gotten away, isn't actually an argument for leniency, if anything, it is an argument for better enforcement.

It's not an argument for leniency that was made. It was a simple acknowledging that the time and energy that is wasted on people like this guy should be (but, of course, isn't) more wisely used on others that are even worse.

The whole point of the 3 strikes was an attempt to stop chronic offenders.

The problem with this is that some offenses, even if committed twenty times over, still aren't justified reasons for imprisoning someone for life. I'm the first person to advocate strict disciplinary action, but I'm also the first person to advocate stopping what some might think is discipline if there, in fact, are other, better ways to help.

I guess someone, at some point, has to learn to stop breaking serious laws. This wasn't a speeding ticket. This was identity theft and an attempt at lying on a drivers test. How, in any way, is that justifiable? It isn't.

No one is saying it's not justifiable. As I already said elsewhere here, punitive punishment and discipline should indeed happen and take place for crimes like these and others. The point here is that putting someone away for LIFE does not - repeat NOT - seem like the appropriate response in this type of scenario.

Read the Social Contract.

lol. Hell, the very first sentence involves an inaccuracy. Anarchism isn't unorganized. It, in fact, can actually be the most organized form of government under certain circumstances.

Fail 1.

Sentence 2: "In order for this to work, we give up certain rights and powers to the government for the overall benefit of us all."

But the fact of the matter is that this is pure and simply a lie and a fabrication. There are many individuals within the confines of this society that don't give up their rights and powers to the government for the benefit of all.

Also - newsflash here - the government is not in charge of the country.

Fail 2.

Additionally, what was mentioned about Africa is ENTIRELY inaccurate, as the conditions there are a direct result of the atrocities perpetrated across the globe by Western chicanery and manipulative domination. Places like Somalia would look nowhere NEAR the way they do if this planet was one where clandestine inequality wasn't instigated and perpetuated by places like the West.

My point. We band together, create law and civic order to prevent anarchy and the hell it creates.

Agreed. That's certainly not done optimally right now, and there are forces making sure that this doesn't happen, unfortunately.

Therefore, those who violate the civic code endager us all and a society has the right to punish them as we see fit.

Agreed, but you're failing to understand that it is, in all reality, often those who, again, are in positions of societal power that are the grossest perpetrators of this public endangerment you talk about.

Don't like it? Fucking move to Somalia and see, just how better it is.

You're getting more and more ignorant by the sentence.

I pay my taxes. I vote. I am involved in helping create a better life for my children.

lol. And you don't realize, unfortunately, how paradoxical and incompatible the things in this sentence you typed are. You're actually doing worse for your children - not better - by going along with the farce which is called voting (a completely proven farce) and paying your taxes (taken from you by the rich to make themselves richer).

Your indignation only makes you look like an ignorant dog beginning to snarl more and more in defensiveness as it gets more and more cornered up against a wall.

I try to make society move forward for everyone.

Yet you're making sure and ensuring that it moves backward by acting the way you do. It's unfortunate that you haven't woken up and realized that much of what you've been indoctrinated to believe is true and the case is actually anything but.

When you steal. When you lie. When you appear to show 0 regard for even the dumbest of laws, then fuck off.

I don't disagree with this. But what is wrong with society that it will indefinitely imprison someone who steals $50-$1,000, yet let free one who steals untold billions?

A society is ALLOWED to determine what is considers legitimate punishment.

But if that society is actually incorrect, erred, misguided, ignorant, and misled in various fundamental ways, then it is doing nothing but the greatest, most self-defeating disservice to itself by moving forward with certain types of actions.

He was found guilty, under a duefully passed law.

Duefully? Is that crazy talk for "Law which was passed without thinking about what is better for society in general, and without accounting for the massive discrepancies involved in even greater perpetrators?"

If so, then yes. It was certainly "duefully" passed.

He has shown to have no regard of civic order... so, he no longer deserves the protection of that society.

See above comments in reference to the proper response here.

In olden days, one was executed or banished for life to the badlands.

Not for the types of things this individual is being indefinitely imprisoned for, no.

. . . Overall, the general response to your rant is: Fail.

There were, I think, three guys that got what are considered to be "harsh sentences". I thought the same things you mentioned here about one of the other guys - whose name I forget. The other guys' offenses were a bit more severe. However, this Santos Reyes guy doesn't entirely seem like the type that would have necessarily resorted to the type of criminal activity that would end in someone's death. I would think that there would be another way to rehabilitate someone like that without giving him a life sentence.

I understand that logic behind preemptive discipline, and I don't entirely disagree with it, but I also think that the more severe the punishment you plan to impose, the more justification one should have for imposing it - and I can't quite bring myself to feel that imprisoning someone for life based upon Santos Reyes' actions is the only choice available.

I'd give him a HARSH-ass warning and let him know what's in store for him if he decides to fuck up again and monitor him. And if he commits some petty shit, then punish him a bit more harshly than their equivalent - but I still wouldn't imprison him for life. Like if he stole a pair of shoes, I'd put him in the pen for a few months or some shit - or maybe even a year or something . . . but for LIFE? for lying on a driving test? That's not what I would entirely call a bonafide sign that he's going to commit a series of brutal slayings in the not too distant future and should, therefore, be permanently/indefinitely incarcerated.

I guess it's a slippery subject, perhaps, but I don't think the method the state's using to address the issue is at all the proper or correct or most effective one by any stretch of the imagination.

btw I didn't downvote you. I disagree w/you somewhat, but do see your point as well.

this man didn't go to prison for life because he falsified his driver's license data.

That is correct. However, the reason he did go to prison is still quite a bit sketchy to put it very mildly.

He went to prison for life because he was a three-time loser.

Yes. He was a three time loser. Correct. He wasn't a three time sadist/raper, however. It's one thing to be a three time petty piece of shit stupid asshole - which it seems one can make a decent argument that this guy indeed was/is. However, even THAT still doesn't seem like it justifies imprisoning him for life especially in the face of the kind of sentences that people get who have done much, much darker and more barbaric things. There does not seem to be a justified balance there.

He knew what would happen to him when he committed that third crime

I wonder. His not knowing is not necessarily any excuse for his committing the drivers' test forgery, but I'm not super sure he was all that aware. Maybe he was though. I don't know.

I'm sure the judge made it very clear after the second conviction -- yet he did it anyway.

I think that might not be a bad point. If the judge DID make it clear . . . Hmmm. Maybe he didn't think that forging a drivers license was that heinous a crime. I think it's a justifiable presupposition. Still no reason to have done it on his part, to be sure, but perhaps he was thinking that although he'd go to the pen for life if he STOLE something again, forging a drivers test wouldn't be the same thing. Again, no excuse for having done it, and I agree that he should have been heavily punished, but I don't know if I'd put him in jail for life because of those things.

What we know is that he is an habitual criminal who will almost certainly commit more crimes.

I wouldn't disagree with this. However, I would punish the FUCK out of him without giving him life. I think there's quite a bit of punishing you can do to someone like that withOUT locking him up for life. I say this in light of the things he DID do. If, for example, the crimes he committed involved torturing animals? then okay. Some might say he didn't kill a human, but torturing non human animals, for example, is a very indicative sign that he might habitually increase his harm to people. Not sure that would entirely apply to him, however.

At least we know that now he won't be free to commit more crimes.

Fair enough. But this entire penal system is entirely missing the point of correctly punishing the real criminals - including, but not limited to those white collar criminals that indirectly kill hundreds, if not thousands or more.

I digress, however.