>...Gagnon was released from a Manchester jail, where he had been held since Oct. 25 for violating a protective order. Gagnon pleaded guilty to violating that order.
>
>Court documents show that Gagnon has been in and out of the court system since 1989. He has been convicted on a number of charges, including felonious sexual assault, receiving stolen property and drug possession.

Seems like a good bet for rehabilitation, we should definitely have given him this chance to shine. /s

"He was just turning his life around"

He was a good boy

The time for rehabilitation would have been around 1989 it seems. The goal of reform being to avoid cases like this one.

This is so frustrating. There is absolutely zero reason for anyone to have "a criminal history that dates back more than 30 years."

Based on what the article says, this guy spent his entire adult life, and at least some of his childhood life, being a terrible person and doing terrible things. Being a drug dealer and thief is bad enough, but he raped someone, too.

The system should have been set up so that after he'd proven to be incapable or unwilling to act like a civilized human being, he would have been removed from civilization for life. Instead, the broken catch-and-release system helped him kill at least one person, maybe two. (It seems there's some speculation that he killed the 83 year old man in Lyndeborough; I suppose time will tell on that one.)

Frustrating, imagine how it is for the cops who lock him up over and over and over just for judges to let him off. Imagine it makes their whole job seem useless.

What's your proposal to resolve this?

Seriously, what's the solution here? Lock him up forever? Kill him? Put him on an island?

I'm not defending the guy by any stretch of the imagination, but just what exactly do you do about someone like this?

Same question to you that I put to u/Maldonian

/s means "sarcasm."

"He never did nuthin to no one!"

Last 6 months, we’ve had a person stabbed, a grandfather murdered on a walk, and a woman raped in public; all of which were avoidable. And now this. I’m honestly at a loss for words. The system is broken.

Man I don’t even know. Having them actually serve their sentences to completion may be a good start

Agree with you on that one

Like Gagnon, I'm 45 too. In 1989 we were 12. Just wow.

Exactly. If it's law, then law needs to be changed for special cases. But man, what a line to be crossed if after someone serves their time, someone or some panel can decide to just keep them locked up. I don't know what the answer is.

I think the island idea wouldn’t be too bad. Coast guard patrols with thermal vision to catch escapees. Make them farm and cultivate the majority of their food. No guards.

Maybe we should have our justice system focus on actually rehabilitating inmates instead of treating them like animals and expecting them to behave like people upon release.

No judge let him off. He pled guilty and served the time.

If you want to give repeat minor offenders life, say it.

He got six months for prostituting a minor instead of 5-7 years.

Sounds like quite a plea. So either the case was weak or the prosecutor thought he had something better to do.

Three strike laws are at times abused but there is logic behind keeping repeat offenders out of the public, some people are simply evil.

Bro what?

Yeah

Or they were too busy from a massive caseload because repeat offenders keep being released early to offend again but regardless a judge had to agree to the terms of sentencing.

If you think prosecutors have a massive caseload, imagine the public defender this guy almost certainly had. Regardless, if the prosecutor has too much work, what the fuck is taking priority over prostituting a minor?

Or, the first dozen times this guy got away with doing bad stuff, he could have decided to not act like an animal. He’s had many chances to act like a human, and has evidently refused to do so, many times. If he’s being treated like an animal, maybe it’s because he acts like one.

No torture, and while everyone has their opinion on the death penalty, no, we certainly shouldn’t be using that for non-murder crimes.

But, the system could have been configured in such a way that habitual offenders must walk the straight and narrow for the rest of their lives, in exchange for being free.

Basically tell the guy: “You’ve served your time and you’re free for now, but this is it. If you so much as steal a stick of gum, you’re coming back here and staying here.”

Maybe some requirements that habitual offenders must maintain employment, attend ongoing classes about good behavior, maybe a requirement for community service?

I do agree that if the person has served their time, of course it’s time for them to be free. But see my comment above—perhaps repeat offenders should be on a special list where one more crime and they’re done.

If he plead guilty, it’s likely because the court gave him a really good deal. Not quite the same as a soft judge letting him off, but it’s still another case of soft judges/courts.

Exactly. Maybe the courts wouldn’t be so overwhelmed and busy if they’d stop letting the bad guys loose so they can commit more crimes.

>Seriously, what's the solution here? Lock him up forever?

It seems you're posing a rhetorical question, but yes, locking him up forever is the solution.

Not as serious but the two cretins who stole the car in concord this past weekend had a ridiculous amount of priors. There are too many of these situations to count where legitimate pieces of shit are free to re-offend.

And who pays for this?

Who pays for this?

Most people plead. That means very little.

Getting a satisfactory plea is most of the prosecutors job and if they can't even do that, that speaks to the quality of the prosecution or the police work collecting evidence.

Obviously taxpayers will be footing much of the bill. Keeping violent people away from the rest of society is a role I'm comfortable with government taking on.

I might be misinformed, but I imagine that people only plead if they think it’s a good deal for them, like any other negotiation.

“If we go to trial and convict you, you’ll get 10 years. But if you plead guilty today, we’ll agree to give you 5 years.”

I can’t imagine anyone would plead guilty and accept the whole 10 years. That’s just not logical.

Good deal for the suspect. And the prosecutor gets to do less work. But not a good deal for society.

If there’s enough evidence for a conviction, maybe it’s about time we start getting convictions and some real sentences.

Not much, all

Agreed. The car theft is a minor crime, but Google her. She not only tried to attack police officers, but she tried to interfere into the investigation of a man who was beaten to death. (And it seems that his murder is still unsolved.) If she’d been kept locked up, she wouldn’t have been able to steal the car.

Same here. I wish these violent people would stop imposing these unnecessary costs on us, but I’m gladly willing to pay taxes to keep them locked up.

Sadly, you and me. We don’t have forced labor in prison here. It’s a tax I’m willing to pay, to keep you and me and our neighbors safe from monsters like him. As I said above, I sure wish this person would stop imposing these costs on us.

I’m sure all of us, at one point or another, have worked hard at our jobs, and then a co worker comes along and undoes our hard work.

I imagine that’s every day for the cops. Must be very frustrating.

[deleted]

>I might be misinformed, but I imagine that people only plead if they think it’s a good deal for them, like any other negotiation.

>“If we go to trial and convict you, you’ll get 10 years. But if you plead guilty today, we’ll agree to give you 5 years.”

>I can’t imagine anyone would plead guilty and accept the whole 10 years. That’s just not logical.

>Good deal for the suspect. And the prosecutor gets to do less work. But not a good deal for society.

Yes, but also no. A trial is unpredictable. The defendant doesn't want a trial because there's a chance they'll get the max. The prosecutor doesn't want a trial because the defendant might walk. The lawyers on both sides are guessing at the probability of every outcome and bargaining. That's most of the job these days.

>If there’s enough evidence for a conviction, maybe it’s about time we start getting convictions and some real sentences.

That's the other sticky thing. The jury is not always making a clear factual determination. You're asking a group of twelve amateurs to come to a consensus about some big gray areas, e.g. intent.

fair enough

What the fuck man

It's pretty well proven by data that people like him are made, not born. It doesn't excuse his crimes, but it's a pretty obvious thing that his behavior shows he doesn't know any other way to be. I mean you could know more than I do about criminal reform. I only have 12 years spent as a case manager and support worker for homeless people, addicts, and Job Corps enrollees.

Right, it's not HIS fault, it's our justice system's for not properly rehabilitating him. Animals aren't allowed to take college courses and earn a degree. Cry me a river.

[deleted]

I previously posted this reply: It's pretty well proven by data that people like him are made, not born. It doesn't excuse his crimes, but it's a pretty obvious thing that his behavior shows he doesn't know any other way to be. I mean you could know more than I do about criminal reform. I only have 12 years spent as a case manager and support worker for homeless people, addicts, and Job Corps enrollees.

College courses are mostly available in federal prisons and even then are correspondence courses paid for out of pocket by prisoners and/or their outside contacts.

Not letting him out would have prevented it too

Stock answer: It's pretty well proven by data that people like him are made, not born. It doesn't excuse his crimes, but it's a pretty obvious thing that his behavior shows he doesn't know any other way to be. I mean you could know more than I do about criminal reform. I only have 12 years spent as a case manager and support worker for homeless people, addicts, and Job Corps enrollees.

Antisocial behavior is a necessity in the current prison system. Violence is the only means of survival on a daily basis for inmates. After a good amount of time that behavior becomes normalized to people and I believe we all know that old habits die hard.

You already mentioned that in the thread. Stopping him at year 10 forever prevents years 20-30 of criminal behavior in public.

Incarceration is very expensive. I guess we could all lobby to raise taxes and fund the extra prisons or we could pay significantly less to create a better system which reduces problem behavior and, conversely, recidivism.

Apparently I haven't mentioned that enough, since a bunch of people with no real experience dealing with these issues on a professional level keep armchair quarterbacking the issue.

Is it really arm chairing if you are consistent in your belief that people that show they can't be trusted in society should remain out of society?