Jeff Gladney arrested

[allday1991]

Unfortunately the way our society works when a case like this happens it usually is a unfair process. Sentencing disparities exist heavily in North America. The funny part about sentencing disparity is whenever it’s mentioned it’s almost always regarding race however when comparing disparities, sex is the biggest factor. Court has always favoured woman, arguing that is just idiotic the stats are all there. My experience domestic violence is almost always 50/50 however usually only the man is punished.

[VikingsVictorious]

Unfortunately the way our society works when a case like this happens it usually is a unfair process. Sentencing disparities exist heavily in North America. The funny part about sentencing disparity is whenever it’s mentioned it’s almost always regarding race however when comparing disparities, sex is the biggest factor. Court has always favoured woman, arguing that is just idiotic the stats are all there. My experience domestic violence is almost always 50/50 however usually only the man is punished.

I've personally witnessed an all out attack by a woman against a man who was just blocking her blows. Police came and she had a scratch so they arrested the man.
When my wife became an alcoholic and was verbally assaulting me daily and physically assaulting me periodically I decided I needed to get out of the house. Our daughter was 17 at the time and felt abandoned. Maybe I should have got the police involved, but as a man it's hard to say you're a victim of domestic abuse.

[allday1991]

Unfortunately the way our society works when a case like this happens it usually is a unfair process. Sentencing disparities exist heavily in North America. The funny part about sentencing disparity is whenever it’s mentioned it’s almost always regarding race however when comparing disparities, sex is the biggest factor. Court has always favoured woman, arguing that is just idiotic the stats are all there. My experience domestic violence is almost always 50/50 however usually only the man is punished.

I've personally witnessed an all out attack by a woman against a man who was just blocking her blows. Police came and she had a scratch so they arrested the man.
When my wife became an alcoholic and was verbally assaulting me daily and physically assaulting me periodically I decided I needed to get out of the house. Our daughter was 17 at the time and felt abandoned. Maybe I should have got the police involved, but as a man it's hard to say you're a victim of domestic abuse.

I fully understand. I had a friend call the police multiple times on his wife for assault, however the police never did anything about it and suggested after numerous calls to move out. Due to money issues he couldn’t afford another place and the 15 abuse shelters in the area only accepted woman. When the situation continued to escalate with his wife he snapped once and hit her back. He spent 6 months in jail, lost his job, and his right to see his children,” Justice”. Even worse the government adds him to the list of men vs woman domestic violence cases and flaunts there stat around that men cause more domestic abuse than woman.

[VikingsVictorious]

I've personally witnessed an all out attack by a woman against a man who was just blocking her blows. Police came and she had a scratch so they arrested the man.
When my wife became an alcoholic and was verbally assaulting me daily and physically assaulting me periodically I decided I needed to get out of the house. Our daughter was 17 at the time and felt abandoned. Maybe I should have got the police involved, but as a man it's hard to say you're a victim of domestic abuse.

I fully understand. I had a friend call the police multiple times on his wife for assault, however the police never did anything about it and suggested after numerous calls to move out. Due to money issues he couldn’t afford another place and the 15 abuse shelters in the area only accepted woman. When the situation continued to escalate with his wife he snapped once and hit her back. He spent 6 months in jail, lost his job, and his right to see his children,” Justice”. Even worse the government adds him to the list of men vs woman domestic violence cases and flaunts there stat around that men cause more domestic abuse than woman.

Incidents like these aren't uncommon. They just don't fit into our modern society view that all evil is due to White, Male Christians.

[VikingsVictorious]

I've personally witnessed an all out attack by a woman against a man who was just blocking her blows. Police came and she had a scratch so they arrested the man.
When my wife became an alcoholic and was verbally assaulting me daily and physically assaulting me periodically I decided I needed to get out of the house. Our daughter was 17 at the time and felt abandoned. Maybe I should have got the police involved, but as a man it's hard to say you're a victim of domestic abuse.

I fully understand. I had a friend call the police multiple times on his wife for assault, however the police never did anything about it and suggested after numerous calls to move out. Due to money issues he couldn’t afford another place and the 15 abuse shelters in the area only accepted woman. When the situation continued to escalate with his wife he snapped once and hit her back. He spent 6 months in jail, lost his job, and his right to see his children,” Justice”. Even worse the government adds him to the list of men vs woman domestic violence cases and flaunts there stat around that men cause more domestic abuse than woman.

Incidents like these aren't uncommon. They just don't fit into our modern society view that all evil is due to White, Male Christians..

[Dmizzle0]

I fully understand. I had a friend call the police multiple times on his wife for assault, however the police never did anything about it and suggested after numerous calls to move out. Due to money issues he couldn’t afford another place and the 15 abuse shelters in the area only accepted woman. When the situation continued to escalate with his wife he snapped once and hit her back. He spent 6 months in jail, lost his job, and his right to see his children,” Justice”. Even worse the government adds him to the list of men vs woman domestic violence cases and flaunts there stat around that men cause more domestic abuse than woman.

Incidents like these aren't uncommon. They just don't fit into our modern society view that all evil is due to White, Male Christians..

[J. Kapp 11]

My graduate level research was on employment and recidivism. Some results were that finding employment made recidivism far less likely which should be rather obvious. I don't remember the numbers exactly now but it was huge. Once a person reaches 5 years clean they are no more likely to commit a crime than a person with no record at all. I'm in favor of a system that liberally expunges all criminal background over time with certain criterion met. Canada has a very successful expungement system.

Something IMO kind of sad about our country is we have the highest rate of imprisonment of all countries on Earth.

Doesn’t recidivism rate depend on the crime?

I’m not as studied as you are, for sure. But even a cursory check shows that violent offenders are re-arrested at a much higher rate than non-violent offenders. The number for violent offenders is close to 65%.

Please don’t question my intelligence based on the fact that I disagree with you on a topic such as this. I am a pragmatist. I live in the world of what is, not what might be. You say that offenders won’t re-offend if they get the right treatment. I say that’s nice for the classroom, but people aren’t numbers and data in a computer. There are a million reasons a person turns to crime. You want to treat them, and you apparently want my tax dollars to pay for it. Meanwhile millions of others who don’t commit crimes also need treatment for many of the same psychological issues as the criminals, but they can’t afford it. Why should I prioritize the criminals? The most common issue among the homeless is mental illness, yet you want to treat drug dealers and wife beaters?

You say if someone kills someone you love, punishing the murderer won’t bring your loved one back. I say baloney. I say if you were ever actually in that situation, you wouldn’t be so generous. That’s not revenge. That’s paying for one’s crime. That’s saying, “You killed my child. I forgive you, but you don’t get to walk around free, and receive free treatment.”

There’s a difference between forgiveness and restoration of relationship. If you’re convicted of embezzlement and pay your debt to society, you should be able to get a job. But don’t ask me to hire you to a position that gives you access to my money. Not gonna happen. I’m not a grad-level scholar, but I’m also not stupid.

As Cliff said, the greatest good isn’t necessarily the same as the most good for the offender. The greatest good, as it applies to the Minnesota Vikings, is served by letting Jeff Gladney go.

[J. Kapp 11]

Unfortunately the way our society works when a case like this happens it usually is a unfair process. Sentencing disparities exist heavily in North America. The funny part about sentencing disparity is whenever it’s mentioned it’s almost always regarding race however when comparing disparities, sex is the biggest factor. Court has always favoured woman, arguing that is just idiotic the stats are all there. My experience domestic violence is almost always 50/50 however usually only the man is punished.

Sentencing reform … now that is something I can support.

Here’s an example. In the 80s, crack cocaine was a real issue. The impurity was causing a lot of deaths. So Congress tried to take action. They made penalties for possession or distribution of crack cocaine far more severe than that of pure white cocaine.

Perhaps Congress meant well, but the solution was flawed. The problem was that crack cocaine was also a lot cheaper than the pure stuff, which meant that people of little means (particularly African Americans) were being sent away for much longer terms than their wealthy counterparts who could afford the good stuff — for the same crime. Not only that, if you can afford pure cocaine, chances are good you can also afford a powerful, expensive legal defense. Even though this disparity has been well documented over the past 40 years, nobody is doing anything about it.

I’m not in favor of going easy on crime. But I’m all for sentencing reform.

[allday1991]

My graduate level research was on employment and recidivism. Some results were that finding employment made recidivism far less likely which should be rather obvious. I don't remember the numbers exactly now but it was huge. Once a person reaches 5 years clean they are no more likely to commit a crime than a person with no record at all. I'm in favor of a system that liberally expunges all criminal background over time with certain criterion met. Canada has a very successful expungement system.

Something IMO kind of sad about our country is we have the highest rate of imprisonment of all countries on Earth.

Doesn’t recidivism rate depend on the crime?

I’m not as studied as you are, for sure. But even a cursory check shows that violent offenders are re-arrested at a much higher rate than non-violent offenders. The number for violent offenders is close to 65%.

Please don’t question my intelligence based on the fact that I disagree with you on a topic such as this. I am a pragmatist. I live in the world of what is, not what might be. You say that offenders won’t re-offend if they get the right treatment. I say that’s nice for the classroom, but people aren’t numbers and data in a computer. There are a million reasons a person turns to crime. You want to treat them, and you apparently want my tax dollars to pay for it. Meanwhile millions of others who don’t commit crimes also need treatment for many of the same psychological issues as the criminals, but they can’t afford it. Why should I prioritize the criminals? The most common issue among the homeless is mental illness, yet you want to treat drug dealers and wife beaters?

You say if someone kills someone you love, punishing the murderer won’t bring your loved one back. I say baloney. I say if you were ever actually in that situation, you wouldn’t be so generous. That’s not revenge. That’s paying for one’s crime. That’s saying, “You killed my child. I forgive you, but you don’t get to walk around free, and receive free treatment.”

There’s a difference between forgiveness and restoration of relationship. If you’re convicted of embezzlement and pay your debt to society, you should be able to get a job. But don’t ask me to hire you to a position that gives you access to my money. Not gonna happen. I’m not a grad-level scholar, but I’m also not stupid.

As Cliff said, the greatest good isn’t necessarily the same as the most good for the offender. The greatest good, as it applies to the Minnesota Vikings, is served by letting Jeff Gladney go.

The Canadian justice system has always gone off the idea of punishment and reform. The first go to opinion is “I don’t want to waste tax money reforming criminals” however the states spends 80 billion a year housing people in jail. In Canada they estimate it cost 80k a year for one inmate. A punishment is always required and no country in the world is going to let someone off for murder, as I mentioned the goal is punishment and reform. The reason you want to reform is because keeping people in jail is expensive(exactly what you don’t want) if you can reform a person with 400k over 5 years its cheaper than the alternative of someone spending 12+ years in jail at 80k a year. Attempting to reform criminal can only be beneficial in the long run. Simply put if you can reform a criminal you save money, not only that they contribute to society and pay taxes. Having the highest incarceration rates in the world and having jails filled with non violent criminals is costing more money than trying to support and reform.

[VikingsVictorious]

My graduate level research was on employment and recidivism. Some results were that finding employment made recidivism far less likely which should be rather obvious. I don't remember the numbers exactly now but it was huge. Once a person reaches 5 years clean they are no more likely to commit a crime than a person with no record at all. I'm in favor of a system that liberally expunges all criminal background over time with certain criterion met. Canada has a very successful expungement system.

Something IMO kind of sad about our country is we have the highest rate of imprisonment of all countries on Earth.

Doesn’t recidivism rate depend on the crime?

I’m not as studied as you are, for sure. But even a cursory check shows that violent offenders are re-arrested at a much higher rate than non-violent offenders. The number for violent offenders is close to 65%.

Please don’t question my intelligence based on the fact that I disagree with you on a topic such as this. I am a pragmatist. I live in the world of what is, not what might be. You say that offenders won’t re-offend if they get the right treatment. I say that’s nice for the classroom, but people aren’t numbers and data in a computer. There are a million reasons a person turns to crime. You want to treat them, and you apparently want my tax dollars to pay for it. Meanwhile millions of others who don’t commit crimes also need treatment for many of the same psychological issues as the criminals, but they can’t afford it. Why should I prioritize the criminals? The most common issue among the homeless is mental illness, yet you want to treat drug dealers and wife beaters?

You say if someone kills someone you love, punishing the murderer won’t bring your loved one back. I say baloney. I say if you were ever actually in that situation, you wouldn’t be so generous. That’s not revenge. That’s paying for one’s crime. That’s saying, “You killed my child. I forgive you, but you don’t get to walk around free, and receive free treatment.”

There’s a difference between forgiveness and restoration of relationship. If you’re convicted of embezzlement and pay your debt to society, you should be able to get a job. But don’t ask me to hire you to a position that gives you access to my money. Not gonna happen. I’m not a grad-level scholar, but I’m also not stupid.

As Cliff said, the greatest good isn’t necessarily the same as the most good for the offender. The greatest good, as it applies to the Minnesota Vikings, is served by letting Jeff Gladney go.

I'm trying to make this response as non-confrontational as possible. I have edited it a couple times and I'm still working on it. My initial response was to strike back at you and that is not productive. I was by no means questioning your intelligence. I said I thought you are quite intelligent and still do. Yes some crimes have higher recidivism than other crimes. Whatever the crime is I'm in favor of getting the recidivism rate as low as possible. I don't say that with the right treatment that recidivism won't happen, but I do say it will be less saving you and I from crime and losing our tax dollars on sending them back to prison. Also people out of prison with jobs can usually do a better job parenting their kids meaning less problems for our society as these kids grow up. Helping Ex Cons back into employment is not only the right thing to do IMO it also makes Dollars and Sense.

As for people needing mental health assistance I don't know about your state, but in Arizona any poor person (without a record) can get state health insurance that pays for 100% of their mental health and other health needs. Persons with felonies don't qualify and can't get the treatment they need.

I feel your reply indicates that for whatever reason you think I'm saying things I never said. I said punishment is called for. I just think long prison sentences don't do any good for anyone. I don't want your tax dollars paying for much of anything. Note my preference to the death penalty vs long term incarceration. Now we do pay a lot to kill somebody, but a lot less than life in prison. I only want the death penalty though for persons who just seem to be too dangerous to set free. This may apply to someone who killed my child as in your example. I believe in punishment for that, but I don't think more than 5 years in prison is going to do anybody any good. So set them free after five years if deemed safe to do so. Death penalty if not.

My thoughts on this subject have clearly been expanded to cover far more than Jeff Gladney. As for him my preference is to let the courts determine his punishment rather than you/me and the Vikings. I never once proposed that if he's guilty he shouldn't be punished. I request you read what I posted carefully and not attribute any beliefs to me that weren't expressly stated in my post.

[VikingsVictorious]

Doesn’t recidivism rate depend on the crime?

I’m not as studied as you are, for sure. But even a cursory check shows that violent offenders are re-arrested at a much higher rate than non-violent offenders. The number for violent offenders is close to 65%.

Please don’t question my intelligence based on the fact that I disagree with you on a topic such as this. I am a pragmatist. I live in the world of what is, not what might be. You say that offenders won’t re-offend if they get the right treatment. I say that’s nice for the classroom, but people aren’t numbers and data in a computer. There are a million reasons a person turns to crime. You want to treat them, and you apparently want my tax dollars to pay for it. Meanwhile millions of others who don’t commit crimes also need treatment for many of the same psychological issues as the criminals, but they can’t afford it. Why should I prioritize the criminals? The most common issue among the homeless is mental illness, yet you want to treat drug dealers and wife beaters?

You say if someone kills someone you love, punishing the murderer won’t bring your loved one back. I say baloney. I say if you were ever actually in that situation, you wouldn’t be so generous. That’s not revenge. That’s paying for one’s crime. That’s saying, “You killed my child. I forgive you, but you don’t get to walk around free, and receive free treatment.”

There’s a difference between forgiveness and restoration of relationship. If you’re convicted of embezzlement and pay your debt to society, you should be able to get a job. But don’t ask me to hire you to a position that gives you access to my money. Not gonna happen. I’m not a grad-level scholar, but I’m also not stupid.

As Cliff said, the greatest good isn’t necessarily the same as the most good for the offender. The greatest good, as it applies to the Minnesota Vikings, is served by letting Jeff Gladney go.

The Canadian justice system has always gone off the idea of punishment and reform. The first go to opinion is “I don’t want to waste tax money reforming criminals” however the states spends 80 billion a year housing people in jail. In Canada they estimate it cost 80k a year for one inmate. A punishment is always required and no country in the world is going to let someone off for murder, as I mentioned the goal is punishment and reform. The reason you want to reform is because keeping people in jail is expensive(exactly what you don’t want) if you can reform a person with 400k over 5 years its cheaper than the alternative of someone spending 12+ years in jail at 80k a year. Attempting to reform criminal can only be beneficial in the long run. Simply put if you can reform a criminal you save money, not only that they contribute to society and pay taxes. Having the highest incarceration rates in the world and having jails filled with non violent criminals is costing more money than trying to support and reform.

Very well stated Allday.

[allday1991]

Unfortunately the way our society works when a case like this happens it usually is a unfair process. Sentencing disparities exist heavily in North America. The funny part about sentencing disparity is whenever it’s mentioned it’s almost always regarding race however when comparing disparities, sex is the biggest factor. Court has always favoured woman, arguing that is just idiotic the stats are all there. My experience domestic violence is almost always 50/50 however usually only the man is punished.

Sentencing reform … now that is something I can support.

Here’s an example. In the 80s, crack cocaine was a real issue. The impurity was causing a lot of deaths. So Congress tried to take action. They made penalties for possession or distribution of crack cocaine far more severe than that of pure white cocaine.

Perhaps Congress meant well, but the solution was flawed. The problem was that crack cocaine was also a lot cheaper than the pure stuff, which meant that people of little means (particularly African Americans) were being sent away for much longer terms than their wealthy counterparts who could afford the good stuff — for the same crime. Not only that, if you can afford pure cocaine, chances are good you can also afford a powerful, expensive legal defense. Even though this disparity has been well documented over the past 40 years, nobody is doing anything about it.

I’m not in favor of going easy on crime. But I’m all for sentencing reform.

We agree on this one. Sentencing disparity is undeniable, it’s racist and sexist and there is years of evidence to prove it.

[VikingsVictorious]

Unfortunately the way our society works when a case like this happens it usually is a unfair process. Sentencing disparities exist heavily in North America. The funny part about sentencing disparity is whenever it’s mentioned it’s almost always regarding race however when comparing disparities, sex is the biggest factor. Court has always favoured woman, arguing that is just idiotic the stats are all there. My experience domestic violence is almost always 50/50 however usually only the man is punished.

Sentencing reform … now that is something I can support.

Here’s an example. In the 80s, crack cocaine was a real issue. The impurity was causing a lot of deaths. So Congress tried to take action. They made penalties for possession or distribution of crack cocaine far more severe than that of pure white cocaine.

Perhaps Congress meant well, but the solution was flawed. The problem was that crack cocaine was also a lot cheaper than the pure stuff, which meant that people of little means (particularly African Americans) were being sent away for much longer terms than their wealthy counterparts who could afford the good stuff — for the same crime. Not only that, if you can afford pure cocaine, chances are good you can also afford a powerful, expensive legal defense. Even though this disparity has been well documented over the past 40 years, nobody is doing anything about it.

I’m not in favor of going easy on crime. But I’m all for sentencing reform.

I don't think anyone here is in favor of going easy on crime.
Sentencing reform is good.

[VikingsVictorious]

Sentencing reform … now that is something I can support.

Here’s an example. In the 80s, crack cocaine was a real issue. The impurity was causing a lot of deaths. So Congress tried to take action. They made penalties for possession or distribution of crack cocaine far more severe than that of pure white cocaine.

Perhaps Congress meant well, but the solution was flawed. The problem was that crack cocaine was also a lot cheaper than the pure stuff, which meant that people of little means (particularly African Americans) were being sent away for much longer terms than their wealthy counterparts who could afford the good stuff — for the same crime. Not only that, if you can afford pure cocaine, chances are good you can also afford a powerful, expensive legal defense. Even though this disparity has been well documented over the past 40 years, nobody is doing anything about it.

I’m not in favor of going easy on crime. But I’m all for sentencing reform.

We agree on this one. Sentencing disparity is undeniable, it’s racist and sexist and there is years of evidence to prove it.

From what I have seen the courts are very sexist favoring women over men. I have not researched it however.

[J. Kapp 11]

Doesn’t recidivism rate depend on the crime?

I’m not as studied as you are, for sure. But even a cursory check shows that violent offenders are re-arrested at a much higher rate than non-violent offenders. The number for violent offenders is close to 65%.

Please don’t question my intelligence based on the fact that I disagree with you on a topic such as this. I am a pragmatist. I live in the world of what is, not what might be. You say that offenders won’t re-offend if they get the right treatment. I say that’s nice for the classroom, but people aren’t numbers and data in a computer. There are a million reasons a person turns to crime. You want to treat them, and you apparently want my tax dollars to pay for it. Meanwhile millions of others who don’t commit crimes also need treatment for many of the same psychological issues as the criminals, but they can’t afford it. Why should I prioritize the criminals? The most common issue among the homeless is mental illness, yet you want to treat drug dealers and wife beaters?

You say if someone kills someone you love, punishing the murderer won’t bring your loved one back. I say baloney. I say if you were ever actually in that situation, you wouldn’t be so generous. That’s not revenge. That’s paying for one’s crime. That’s saying, “You killed my child. I forgive you, but you don’t get to walk around free, and receive free treatment.”

There’s a difference between forgiveness and restoration of relationship. If you’re convicted of embezzlement and pay your debt to society, you should be able to get a job. But don’t ask me to hire you to a position that gives you access to my money. Not gonna happen. I’m not a grad-level scholar, but I’m also not stupid.

As Cliff said, the greatest good isn’t necessarily the same as the most good for the offender. The greatest good, as it applies to the Minnesota Vikings, is served by letting Jeff Gladney go.

I'm trying to make this response as non-confrontational as possible. I have edited it a couple times and I'm still working on it. My initial response was to strike back at you and that is not productive. I was by no means questioning your intelligence. I said I thought you are quite intelligent and still do. Yes some crimes have higher recidivism than other crimes. Whatever the crime is I'm in favor of getting the recidivism rate as low as possible. I don't say that with the right treatment that recidivism won't happen, but I do say it will be less saving you and I from crime and losing our tax dollars on sending them back to prison. Also people out of prison with jobs can usually do a better job parenting their kids meaning less problems for our society as these kids grow up. Helping Ex Cons back into employment is not only the right thing to do IMO it also makes Dollars and Sense.

As for people needing mental health assistance I don't know about your state, but in Arizona any poor person (without a record) can get state health insurance that pays for 100% of their mental health and other health needs. Persons with felonies don't qualify and can't get the treatment they need.

I feel your reply indicates that for whatever reason you think I'm saying things I never said. I said punishment is called for. I just think long prison sentences don't do any good for anyone. I don't want your tax dollars paying for much of anything. Note my preference to the death penalty vs long term incarceration. Now we do pay a lot to kill somebody, but a lot less than life in prison. I only want the death penalty though for persons who just seem to be too dangerous to set free. This may apply to someone who killed my child as in your example. I believe in punishment for that, but I don't think more than 5 years in prison is going to do anybody any good. So set them free after five years if deemed safe to do so. Death penalty if not.

My thoughts on this subject have clearly been expanded to cover far more than Jeff Gladney. As for him my preference is to let the courts determine his punishment rather than you/me and the Vikings. I never once proposed that if he's guilty he shouldn't be punished. I request you read what I posted carefully and not attribute any beliefs to me that weren't expressly stated in my post.

We simply have differing views on this. I don't hold anything against you, and I hope you don't against me. I have read your statements, and I'm simply expressing my views on them. We differ in a lot of areas. It's that simple. For me, it's OK.

As it pertains to this thread, I disagree with you regarding Jeff Gladney. It is not the responsibility of the Minnesota Vikings to help him get his life right. He has a contract, and that contract is an agreement between two sides. Each side has things they must do. One of those things Jeff Gladney must do is to conduct himself in a manner that does not bring embarrassment to the organization. Neither you nor I not know what the Vikings know. We don't know how much they've researched it, investigated it, etc. It's a pretty big deal to release a first-round draft pick, not something that an organization takes lightly. For the Vikings to take the drastic step of releasing someone they invested in so heavily, both in financial resources and people/time resources, they must have felt Gladney's actions warranted it. I, for one, am fine with that.