January 6, 2012
"Criminal serving his sentence with monks pleads to be sent back to prison... because monastery life is too hard"
The title of this post is the headline of this amusing article from the UK, which was sent my way by a kind reader. Here is how the piece starts:
A convicted criminal who was serving out his sentence in a monastery has escaped for the second time and asked to be sent back to prison because life was too tough.
Thief David Catalano, 31, was sent to a Santa Maria degli Angeli community run by Capuchin monks in Sicily last November. But he found their austere lifetstyle too tough to handle and soon escaped. After a short while on the run he was caught by police and sent back.
On Monday he fled for the second time in six weeks, only to swiftly turn himself in at a police station and beg officers to send him back to jail in the nearby town of Nicosia. He told the stunned policemen: 'Prison is better than being at that hostel run by monks.'
A police spokesman said: 'Catalano arrived out of the blue and said there was no way he could stay on with the monks. He said it was too tough and he wanted to go back to prison, so we happily obliged and he is now back behind bars serving the rest of his sentence.'
January 6, 2012 at 01:09 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Criminal serving his sentence with monks pleads to be sent back to prison... because monastery life is too hard":
As befalls most alternative sentences, this experiment failed because the offender had neither the character nor the will to change his behavior.
Recidivism is prevalent because most offenders have no desire to go straight.
Posted by: mjs | Jan 6, 2012 2:56:59 PM
One reason they have no desire to go straight is that so many people, including quite a few right here, tell them there wasn't that much wrong with their behavior to begin with -- and, to the extent there was, the Big Bad System was the thing really at fault anyway, not their way of thinking.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jan 6, 2012 3:15:11 PM
maybe so bill. But there is also a lot of truth in the fact that the people and govt REFUSE to let them move on either!
not much incentive to go straight and be nice if the public and govt is gonna treat you as SLIME for life now is there!
Posted by: rodsmith | Jan 6, 2012 3:23:32 PM
We don't disagree that much. I am all in favor of giving people a chance after they have served their sentence, and have done so. But how a person is received depends principally on how he presents himself.
The fellow I know had a chip on his shoulder as a young man, got into a fistfight with a state trooper, and went to prison for it. But he has become an honest and thoroughly responsible man, and I am proud to count him as a friend.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jan 6, 2012 4:22:48 PM
Does this mean if we really want to get tough on crime, we should put monks in charge of running our prisons? ;)
Posted by: virginia | Jan 6, 2012 5:24:02 PM
You know, this gives me an idea for dealing with icky pervs - presumably these monastaries are isolated away from children - why not, give icky pervs the choice to become monks and thus get them away from children by living in monastaries out in the middle of nowhere. They could raise their own food and live in a place where there is no stigma - they could go and live in peace and avoid having to deal with societal disapproval of their icky perv ways.
Posted by: virginia | Jan 6, 2012 5:48:40 PM
LOL sorry virginia i think the catholic church already tried that for a long long long long time over 100 years or more....seems to have been a MISERABLE failure! based on the lawsuits!
Posted by: rodsmith | Jan 7, 2012 1:37:32 AM
"We don't disagree that much. I am all in favor of giving people a chance after they have served their sentence, and have done so. But how a person is received depends principally on how he presents himself."
Which is one reason i think we spent too much time and money on non-violent and first time offenders.
i have no problem hammering those who commit real as aposed to statuatary violent crimes and those who have done any type of felony and had a conviction and now have went back and done it again.
Of course to make it all work we would need to prohibit any discloser of criminal history EXCEPT in risky areas, like child care, schools, banks and the like.
now once you have been dumb enough to get a 2nd conviction then i would have no problem with releasing the history on that individual to indicate they are a REPEAT felony offender.
Posted by: rodsmith | Jan 7, 2012 1:41:28 AM
It's very common for DWI defendants in Texas to choose incarceration over probation because successfully completing probation, particularly when it includes mandatory treatment, may require changing one's habits and lifestyle, while completing a jail sentence requires only waiting till the state tires of punishing you. This is no different.
Bill, I'm amazed you never tire of inventing straw men to debate. What a ridiculous comment.
Posted by: Gritsforbreakfast | Jan 7, 2012 12:15:56 PM
rodsmith, obviously the CAtholic Church made the mistake of making icky pervs priests which allowed continued access to children. Had they tried to make them monks instead, they could have gone off to isolated monestaries which would protect society from them and them from society.
But I suppose if you don't like the monk idea, we can return to the idea of Sex Offender Island - think of it, there are thousands of islands around the world - we find one and make it Sex Offender Island where the icky pervs can go live away from any sort of children. Because I'm not completely cruel, I would even allow them to have an inhabitable island which we hasn't used for nuclear tests (even though it would seem an easy sell to convince rapists to go to Bikini Atoll, my understanding is that Bikini is still uninhabitable). Also because the banishment would still have to be voluntary because of those legal restrictions.
Erika's Icky Perv Island has a nice ring to it, don't you think? Maybe I can even find a way to make money off of it because keeping America (and of course, Erikas) safe from icky pervs is so popular that people will pay huge money to operate such sex offender options. At least a girl can dream :)
Posted by: virginia | Jan 7, 2012 1:00:07 PM
ahh virginia but that's ANOTHER ideal that has done been tried. remember Australia! and of course AMERICAN also got part of it's beginning citizens who started out as DEPORTED criminals from England.
if i remember correctly the last time good old ENGLAND had a war they had to BORROW warships from Australia!
Posted by: rodsmith | Jan 7, 2012 3:26:56 PM
rodsmith, I think that you misunderstand - Erika's Icky Perv Island will not be a prison colony like Georgia whose purpose was to make lots of money by shipping people England didn't like to an undesirable location (before anyone complains, I spent a substantial portion of my childhood in Georgia) to serve as a barrier between the desirable colonists furthern north and the Spanish in Florida. It will not be like Austrailia where the purpose was to make lots of money by shipping people England didn't like to claim an entire continent for the crown. No, Erika's Icky Perv Island has much higher ideals - rather than seeking to make lots of money by forcibly deporting the undesirable, Erika's Icky Perv Island will make lots of money by providing a safe shelter for the undesirable to escape society's wrath, it will protect the children of America.
That is unless the voluntary sex offender retreat formula doesn't work despite Erika's Icky Perv Solutions, Inc. best lobbying efforts to get Congress and state legislatures to pass increasingly draconian laws against icky pervs with the centerpeace of our lobbying efforts being Erika's Law which would require the castration of icky pervs living in the community. Then, we will have to go with Scheme B which is for Erika to find a rich guy to marry. No wait, wrong scheme ;)
Scheme B is to use Erika's Icky Perv Solutions, Inc. slick lobbyists to convince states to provide an alternative for costly civil commitment programs - namely banishment to Erika's Icky Perv Island (and if Erika's Icky Perv Solutions, Inc. is really successful hopefully an entire chain of Erika's Icky Perv Islands will develop).
Thus, whether the money comes from icky pervs themselves or from desperate states, Erika's Icky Perv Solutions, Inc. has a solid business model (maybe not as solid as the business model of Erika marrying a rich guy) guaranteed to mke my investors rich.
Interested investors should contact the underwriters of Erika's Icky Perv Solutions, Inc. at Ponzi & Madoff to receive the complete prosepective.
Posted by: virginia | Jan 8, 2012 9:16:12 AM
oh i understand. it's a half baked ideal in DIRECT violation of the U.S. CONSTUTION'S prohibition on banishment!
plus if i remember my history in both of the previous cases NEITHER was intended to on day become a REAL country and bypass the mother nation. Isn't it funny how in BOTH cases the groups of ICKY PERV'S manged to catch up and surpass the so-called goodie goodies and leave em in the dustbin of history if i can borrow from one of our past presidents! LOL
which brings to mind another nasty old saying
"those who fail to LEARN from history are DOOMED to REPEAT IT!"
and i see all too many direct examples in this country's last 10-30 years of history that directly paralle older countrys stupidty that DESTROYED THEM! unfortunatly only AFTER 100's of thousands if not MILLIONS of innocent people INCLUDING children were DEAD!
Posted by: rodsmith | Jan 8, 2012 12:31:56 PM
rodsmith, its not nice to try crush a girl's dreams with your claim that icky pervs somehow have Constitutional rights, but you can avoid a lot of hurt feelings through a generous donation to Erika's Law School Loan Fund :)
Anyway, its not banishment if Erika's Icky Perv Solutions, Inc. is able to find a suitable island in the U.S. In the unforeseen event that our island search fails, its not banishment to provide a safe off shore treatment center where icky pervs could voluntarily go.
Personally, I am much more worried worry about the competiting proposal from Swift Sex Offender Treatment, Ltd., whose proposal is to turn icky pervs into a cheap food source for the British than I am about Constitutional violations derailing Erika's Icky Perv Solutions, Inc.
Posted by: virginia | Jan 8, 2012 2:59:15 PM
does it even need saying that the upfront costs of Swift Sex Offender Treatment's proposal are much more modest?
Posted by: virginia | Jan 8, 2012 3:26:10 PM
"Anyway, its not banishment if Erika's Icky Perv Solutions, Inc. is able to find a suitable island in the U.S. In the unforeseen event that our island search fails, its not banishment to provide a safe off shore treatment center where icky pervs could voluntarily go."
sorry about the crushed dreams. but telling someone go here or die is hardly voluntary!
Posted by: rodsmith | Jan 8, 2012 5:09:48 PM
as for the cheaper plan.
i have an even cheaper one. can all the sex offender laws and replace them with a simple one
"Any second conviction for a violent crime without extenuating conditions like self-defense will result in an AUTOMATIC EXECUTION within 24hrs!" "accused will have thier choice of exectution method between firing squad, hanging, gas, or injection"
there we go i just solved the violent crime problem, prison overpopulation and exploding budgets! Unfortunatley i won't have solved the SEX OFFENDER problem since 85-90% of those crimes are FIRST TIMERS! which no sex crimes law in the UNIVERSE will solve!
DAMN i'm GOOD!
Posted by: rodsmith | Jan 8, 2012 5:13:40 PM
rodsmith: "sorry about the crushed dreams."
me: are you saying I need to go with Plan B? Do you happen to know any rich, single guys who are looking for a beautiful, charming, and intelligent woman who needs friends now that her business dreams to make millions by performing a valuable public service have been crushed? If so, tell them they can request Erika's Dating Prospective from the investment managers at Ponzi & Madoff ;)
rodsmith: "but telling someone go here or die is hardly voluntary!"
me: you obviously misunderstand because Erika's Icky Perv Solutions, Inc. is not interested in killing our potential profit centers. Not only is it immoral to kill icky pervs, it is highly wasteful. Not when they can pay a lifetime of inflated room and board charges to live on the island paradise that is Erika's Icky Perv Island. Yes, Erika's Law would provide for castration of icky pervs who refuse to move to Erika's Icky Perv Island, but the choice on whether to move to the island paradise that is Erika's Icky Perv Island is totally voluntary.
Erika's Icky Perv Solutions is totally opposed to executing sex offenders and serving them as food. It is those evil folks at Swift Sex Offender Treatment that supports that.
And if Erika's Icky Perv Island doesn't work, there is still the monestary idea for icky pervs, you haven't shown any reasonable objections to the idea of convicted sex offenders becoming monks.
Posted by: virginia | Jan 9, 2012 7:18:04 AM