Kent Hovind - US Gov't pull another string to try keep him in prison for 10-20 yrs.

[AgeofKnowledge]

Not exactly Maxwell. She stated in post 36 that "the punishment should fit the crime...but the punishment should also fit the level of remorse..."

I don't believe she's arguing that every crime anyone ever commits warrants a life sentence in prison if they are unrepentant.

She is arguing; however, that tax evasion warrants a life sentence if the person convicted of it is unrepentant (and happens to be Kent Hovind). And that's a totalitarian viewpoint.

 

[maxwel]

Not exactly Maxwell. She stated in post 36 that "the punishment should fit the crime...but the punishment should also fit the level of remorse..."

I don't believe she's arguing that every crime anyone ever commits warrants a life sentence in prison if they are unrepentant.

She is arguing; however, that tax evasion warrants a life sentence if the person convicted of it is unrepentant (and happens to be Kent Hovind). And that's a totalitarian viewpoint.

Actually, I think that whether she meant that or not, it is the NECESSARY and LOGICAL CONCLUSION of EXACTLY WHAT SHE SAID.

i simply don't agree that the criminal justice system has a legal or constitutional duty to put unreformed criminals back on the street...

If we don't put unreformed criminals back on the street, then every crime carries a perpetual (life) sentence...
up until some point at which they prove to SOMEONE'S satisfaction they are reformed.

That IS the logical conclusion of what she said.

That is a perpetual sentence for each crime until such time as the criminal can prove he's reformed.

Don't get mad at me.
I didn't say it.
This is something Rachel dreamed up.
I'm just not going to pretend she didn't say something that she DID say.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Despite all the crossed wires in this thread, I respect you both and like you both. *smile*. So I'm just going to say that in my opinion, nobody should sit in prison decade after decade for the rest of their natural life because they didn't pay their income taxes and were disingenuous about it.

If Kent Hovind had been smart, he would have pulled an L Ron Hubbard and bought a big ship and named it "Noah's Ark" and turned it into his floating dinosaur park and sailed around international waters hosting an internet show respite with periodic fund raisers. Lol.

 

[maxwel]

Maybe I just get cranky when I haven't had enough sleep.
: )

The Noah's Ark thing is a great idea. I'm writing that down.

 

[SoulWeaver]

People like to justify themselves, to quickly dissociate when someone they associate with is under attack, even if unjust accusation.
Until this happened he was appreciated by many. Then, suddenly, he is a false teacher, an ungodly person, and whatnot... people just rave against him in righteous indignation. It's actually insane.
But this is regular human behavior. Just like the disciples even scattered from Jesus when He was accused and brought before authorities. Peter even denied knowing Him. Many lost even their best friends in difficult times. People just dont want to be part of the trough and they dissociate themselves, quickly condemn their best-friends-until-yesterday and flee.
I dont claim to know the exact truth on this, but it is pretty sure that there's a lot of propaganda on this case.

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

Rachel, that is just a silly and illogical statement.

"Punishment should fit the level of remorse."


So if chop somebody up with an axe, but I FEEL REALLY BAD ABOUT IT...
I should get a lighter sentence?

God never put caveats on the 10 Commandments, stating that offenders could all be rated by their level of remorse.

God never said "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God... unless they feel really sorry."

That's just silly.

It's just silly.

Things like remorse and rehabilitation actually ARE dealt with, TO A DEGREE, but usually AFTER the sentencing. Remorse is usually taken into account at parole hearings. But even this is often just a bizarre endeavor.

If you've ever worked in a prison ministry for 10 seconds, you'd find there are lots of people who aren't remorseful at all, but who admit they're going to FAKE REMORSE in front of the parole board so they can get out early.

Remorse is often just words.
Nobody can tell if someone else is really remorseful anyway... so it' a silly thing to base justice upon.

If you don't like Kent Hovind that's fine.
It's fine to dislike him all you want.
But you don't need to wander off into absurdity to support your opinions.

your first argument that you put in bold text is a 'straw man' argument...because i don't think sentences should be lightened for a person who expresses remorse...there should still be a reasonable minimum sentence for whatever crime has been committed...but i think sentences should be -extended- for those who show no evidence of remorse or rehabilitation...

for example...if someone burglarizes your house and after serving their sentence they -still- think burglarizing houses is a perfectly legitimate thing to do and they -still- can't understand why everyone got so upset over them breaking into your house and carrying off your stuff...then that person shouldn't be released from prison only to become a repeat offender at the earliest opportunity...

now i didn't express this clearly in the post you responded to...so i am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume that your 'straw man' argument was unintentional and caused by miscommunication...

now your second argument on the other hand is clearly wrong...because God -does- forgive those who repent...for example nineveh in the time of jonah...

in response to your third argument...i realize that some convicts will fake remorse in front of parole boards in order to get out of prison early...but in kent hovind's case this point is academic...because he isn't even -trying- to fake it...he -still- thinks not paying his income taxes is a perfectly legal thing to do...and he -still- thinks he is in prison just because he is a christian who is too good at opposing evolution and not because he spent decades in flagrant violation of the law...

 

[maxwel]

your first argument that you put in bold text is a 'straw man' argument...because i don't think sentences should be lightened for a person who expresses remorse...there should still be a reasonable minimum sentence for whatever crime has been committed...but i think sentences should be -extended- for those who show no evidence of remorse or rehabilitation...

for example...if someone burglarizes your house and after serving their sentence they -still- think burglarizing houses is a perfectly legitimate thing to do and they -still- can't understand why everyone got so upset over them breaking into your house and carrying off your stuff...then that person shouldn't be released from prison only to become a repeat offender at the earliest opportunity...

now i didn't express this clearly in the post you responded to...so i am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume that your 'straw man' argument was unintentional and caused by miscommunication...

now your second argument on the other hand is clearly wrong...because God -does- forgive those who repent...for example nineveh in the time of jonah...

in response to your third argument...i realize that some convicts will fake remorse in front of parole boards in order to get out of prison early...but in kent hovind's case this point is academic...because he isn't even -trying- to fake it...he -still- thinks not paying his income taxes is a perfectly legal thing to do...and he -still- thinks he is in prison just because he is a christian who is too good at opposing evolution and not because he spent decades in flagrant violation of the law...

Let me just cut out the extranaeos material from the above passages.

"i think sentences should be -extended- for those who show no evidence of remorse or rehabilitation..."

"...that person shouldn't be released from prison... "

According to your methodology, if a person doesn't seem remorseful, then he doesn't get out of prison. That is an indefinite prison sentence.
Deflect all you want, those are your words, and your ideas... not mine.



I can't believe you accused me of misunderstanding you, and then you restated all the things you just said you didn't say. Need coffee?

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

I suppose an argument can be made that violent criminals and those who serially and materially defaud/steal the savings of others in society of their goods could be kept incarcerated until such time as they are truly reformed.

However, Kent is not a violent criminal and he's directly defrauded no one of their property. He failed to pay taxes and engaged in disingenuous activites with respect to structuring and the federal mail system around his failure to pay taxes. This should not constitute a life sentence.

You advocate lifetime sentences for every American citizen in a federal prison that fails to pay their taxes and is unrepentant about it. That's totalitarianism and there's nothing just about totalitarianism.

So while you're right that "the system deals with many other criminals unjustly by showing them favoritism and giving them lighter sentences than they deserve," you're wrong that people who fail to pay taxes and are unrepentant about it should all receive life sentences in a federal prison.

i want to point out that there is a good reason why many convicts in prison are denied parole every year...it is because those who show no signs of rehabilitation...including remorse...are extremely likely to become repeat offenders...

although hovind is or was simply scheduled to be released instead of being up for parole...the same fact applies...he has expressed absolutely no remorse and therefore is likely to become a repeat offender...

keeping unreformed criminals in prison is not totalitarianism...it is just something that needs to be done in order to fix the current 'revolving door' state of our prison system...

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

People like to justify themselves, to quickly dissociate when someone they associate with is under attack, even if unjust accusation.
Until this happened he was appreciated by many. Then, suddenly, he is a false teacher, an ungodly person, and whatnot... people just rave against him in righteous indignation. It's actually insane.
But this is regular human behavior. Just like the disciples even scattered from Jesus when He was accused and brought before authorities. Peter even denied knowing Him. Many lost even their best friends in difficult times. People just dont want to be part of the trough and they dissociate themselves, quickly condemn their best-friends-until-yesterday and flee.
I dont claim to know the exact truth on this, but it is pretty sure that there's a lot of propaganda on this case.

for the record i never 'appreciated' kent hovind so my view of him has stayed basically the same...

when i first heard of him and saw some of his material i recognized that he was a lousy apologist and a potential embarrassment to the biblical creation movement... i was not the only person to hold this opinion because credible creation ministries such as answers in genesis were also critical of his lousy creation arguments...

it also didn't take long for me to find out that his 'doctorate' wasn't legitimate and that he had no business calling himself 'dr.' anything...

when i looked further into his work i found that he was also a false teacher...deceiving many people with false conspiracy theories...

then i found out he had been put in prison for tax evasion...i figured that at least in prison he would be less able to spread false teaching and less able to waste credible creationists' time with faulty and ultimately faith damaging arguments...

i continued to check for updates on his status occasionally...and i was disappointed to find that he showed absolutely no sign whatsoever of repentance or remorse for his actions...

then he predicted that jesus christ will return in 2028...which just emphasized him as a false teacher as far as i am concerned...

so to summarize...kent hovind is one of those people i never supported in the first place...and in fact the more i found out about him the less i liked him...which brings me to today where i place him somewhere between harold camping and joseph smith...

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

Let me just cut out the extranaeos material from the above passages.

"i think sentences should be -extended- for those who show no evidence of remorse or rehabilitation..."

"...that person shouldn't be released from prison... "

According to your methodology, if a person doesn't seem remorseful, then he doesn't get out of prison. That is an indefinite prison sentence.
Deflect all you want, those are your words, and your ideas... not mine.



I can't believe you accused me of misunderstanding you, and then you restated all the things you just said you didn't say. Need coffee?

it isn't an indefinite prison sentence just because release is conditional...any more than me getting a new job and then getting promotions if i do my job well is a guaranteed series of promotions from the date i was hired...

 

[maxwel]

it isn't an indefinite prison sentence just because release is conditional...any more than me getting a new job and then getting promotions if i do my job well is a guaranteed series of promotions from the date i was hired...

"It isn't an indefinite sentence because release is conditional."

What do you think "indefinite" means?

Let's play a little game.
You go to prison... CONDITIONALLY.
you stay there till you agree with ME about everything I've said in this thread.

Conditional doesn't mean indefinite.
You said so yourself.
So... how long will you be in prison?

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

"It isn't an indefinite sentence because release is conditional."

What do you think "indefinite" means?

Let's play a little game.
You go to prison... CONDITIONALLY.
you stay there till you agree with ME about everything I've said in this thread.

Conditional doesn't mean indefinite.
You said so yourself.
So... how long will you be in prison?

until i met the condition of course...the difference between my point of view and your analogy is that rehabilitation is a reasonable condition and agreeing with you on everything is an unreasonable condition...

and again...by your logic everyone is a future CEO the day they are hired...just because they could go that far if certain things happen...

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

anyway this is becoming a debate over semantics and attempts to trip people up in their words...

which is moving the topic away from the real question at hand...namely...should our criminal justice system be releasing tomorrow's repeat offenders?

and therefore...why should unreformed future repeat offender kent hovind be released?

 

[Angela53510]

It seems weird to me that some people think they have the power to re-write the criminal justice system. The fact is, sentences have a length. That sentence comes to an end, they get released, hardened criminal or not!

It would be nice to imagine a world where all criminals repented of their sins. Where they all got saved, and/or reformed. But that is not the real world. Some psychopathic or sociopathic criminals don't have a conscience to reform. So that would mean clogging up the prison system even more than it is today.

I don't know anything about this man, just what I read on here. But the fact remains, if he serves his sentence, he is done. That is American law, if I am not mistaken, and Canadian, too. Based on the British justice system.

Pay your dues, no real reference to demonstrating a change of heart! I wonder why some people think their opinions on justice are more important than what the facts actually are in the law?

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

It seems weird to me that some people think they have the power to re-write the criminal justice system. The fact is, sentences have a length. That sentence comes to an end, they get released, hardened criminal or not!

It would be nice to imagine a world where all criminals repented of their sins. Where they all got saved, and/or reformed. But that is not the real world. Some psychopathic or sociopathic criminals don't have a conscience to reform. So that would mean clogging up the prison system even more than it is today.

I don't know anything about this man, just what I read on here. But the fact remains, if he serves his sentence, he is done. That is American law, if I am not mistaken, and Canadian, too. Based on the British justice system.

Pay your dues, no real reference to demonstrating a change of heart! I wonder why some people think their opinions on justice are more important than what the facts actually are in the law?

well from about halfway through page one the discussion of kent hovind became mostly a theoretical debate over how criminal law 'should' handle cases of unreformed criminals...

i acknowledge that the law as written says that hovind has served his sentence and is scheduled to be released...and i agree that is the way it is supposed to be...at least until the government starts listening to my suggestions...

-however- something that has gotten lost in the debate is the original fact that hovind is currently going on trial for two -additional- criminal counts...namely mail fraud which is a charge i haven't looked into and that resulted in a hung jury and an upcoming retrial...and contempt of court based on hovind's constant stream of frivolous court filings contesting already settled issues...

the response here has tended to be...'poor persecuted kent hovind...his original sentence was already too harsh and these new charges are just too much!'

whereas i just have no such sympathy for an unreformed criminal who is also a fraud and a false teacher...if he did other crimes then let him do his time for those crimes too...

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Yes, Rachel keeping people in prison for refusing to pay their taxes decade after decade is an attribute of totalitarianism. A political policy of incarcerating people for refusing to pay their taxes for extremely long periods of time (in what amounts to life sentences for many of them) aligns with political totalitarianism.

And because it does, that means it's unjust and a negative deviation from the principles of liberty enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution/Bill of Rights, the early founder's documentation, and scripture itself. Even under the Mosaic Law in ancient Israel, people were not imprisoned for lengthy periods (much less given life sentences or executed) for refusing to pay their taxes. And while the New Testament exhorts people to pay their taxes, it does not advocate for what you do either.

Rachel, you're wrong. Building a sprawling enslavement state by imprisoning enormous numbers of non-violent low grade offenders for decades, or the rest of their life, is unjust totalitarian behavior unsupported by scripture or the principles the U.S. was founded on. But, because of people like yourself, that's what's increasingly occurring.

Rough justice in America: Too many laws, too many prisoners | The Economist

The U.S. now incarcerates about 22% of the world's known prisoners despite comprising about 4.4% of the global population. Too many people locked up for too long for too little. Life sentences for first time offender non-violent low grade convictions is totalitarian. This is true, whether or not, the government misuses laws passed to stop drug cartels on everyday citizens that want to build dinosaur parks. Continue to delude yourself otherwise but know that you're an enemy of liberty, truth, and justice for all.

And that's in the case of moral law. In the case of immoral laws that violate God's morality, such as existed over much of the world under state atheism in the 20th century in which millions and millions of people were interned in gulags simply for professing Christianity for "tenners" (e.g. ten year sentences); this is exponentially true.

People like yourself Rachel lend credence to non-Christian accusations that Christians are totalitarian.

i want to point out that there is a good reason why many convicts in prison are denied parole every year...it is because those who show no signs of rehabilitation...including remorse...are extremely likely to become repeat offenders...

although hovind is or was simply scheduled to be released instead of being up for parole...the same fact applies...he has expressed absolutely no remorse and therefore is likely to become a repeat offender...

keeping unreformed criminals in prison is not totalitarianism...it is just something that needs to be done in order to fix the current 'revolving door' state of our prison system...

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

In the case of non-violent low grade offenders: yes. After they've served a reasonable sentence, they should be free to go. It's unjust to lock such people up forever and throw away the key because you're afraid they might not pay their taxes again and when challenged structure deposits and send money in the mail.

Of course, if they do, then they get a longer sentence as a repeat offender. That's how the criminal justice system should work for non-violent low grade offenders Rachel. Not just lock them up and throw away the key until Rachel decides they can go back to their families.

which is moving the topic away from the real question at hand...namely...should our criminal justice system be releasing tomorrow's repeat offenders?

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

Yes, Rachel keeping people in prison for refusing to pay their taxes decade after decade is an attribute of totalitarianism. A political policy of incarcerating people for refusing to pay their taxes for extremely long periods of time (in what amounts to life sentences for many of them) aligns with political totalitarianism.

And because it does, that means it's unjust and a negative deviation from the principles of liberty enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution/Bill of Rights, the early founder's documentation, and scripture itself. Even under the Mosaic Law in ancient Israel, people were not imprisoned for lengthy periods (much less given life sentences or executed) for refusing to pay their taxes. And while the New Testament exhorts people to pay their taxes, it does not advocate for what you do either.

Rachel, you're wrong. Building a sprawling enslavement state by imprisoning enormous numbers of non-violent low grade offenders for decades, or the rest of their life, is unjust totalitarian behavior unsupported by scripture or the principles the U.S. was founded on. But, because of people like yourself, that's what's increasingly occurring.

Rough justice in America: Too many laws, too many prisoners | The Economist

The U.S. now incarcerates about 22% of the world's known prisoners despite comprising about 4.4% of the global population. Too many people locked up for too long for too little. Life sentences for first time offender non-violent low grade convictions is totalitarian. This is true, whether or not, the government misuses laws passed to stop drug cartels on everyday citizens that want to build dinosaur parks. Continue to delude yourself otherwise but know that you're an enemy of liberty, truth, and justice for all.

And that's in the case of moral law. In the case of immoral laws that violate God's morality, such as existed over much of the world under state atheism in the 20th century in which millions and millions of people were interned in gulags simply for professing Christianity for "tenners" (e.g. ten year sentences); this is exponentially true.

People like yourself Rachel lend credence to non-Christian accusations that Christians are totalitarian.

your argument is basically that it is unjust that the prison system is so full and that we should fix that by getting rid of all those pesky laws that criminals can't seem to follow and those sentences that are 'more than they can bear'...to borrow the words of cain... in other words don't expect people to be responsible citizens and instead legislate to the least common denominator...

it is people like -you- who lend credence to the suspicion that anyone concerned about criminal justice reform is really just interested in legalizing stuff willy nilly...

 

[Desdichado]

If I had known we were shooting at straw men this evening, I would have brought my bow.

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

In the case of non-violent low grade offenders: yes. After they've served a reasonable sentence, they should be free to go. It's unjust to lock such people up forever and throw away the key because you're afraid they might not pay their taxes again and when challenged structure deposits and send money in the mail.

Of course, if they do, then they get a longer sentence as a repeat offender. That's how the criminal justice system should work for non-violent low grade offenders Rachel. Not just lock them up and throw away the key until Rachel decides they can go back to their families.

ok this thread needs to get back to the facts...

regardless of any points you did or didn't make in this thread...you have either intentionally or unintentionally misrepresented the issue at hand for the last three pages...and most of the related discussion has been profitable enough that you weren't called on it...but it has not been directly substantial to the legalities of kent hovind's case...

the fact is that hovind is -not- in jeopardy of getting any hypothetical extended prison sentence for tax evasion...he is going on trial for -new- counts of mail fraud and contempt of court...separate crimes that will get separate sentences...

by the way...these new charges stem from things hovind did -while he was already in prison-

so if he really wanted to 'go back to his family' as you put it...he should have -stopped committing crimes- even while he was being punished for his original crime!