This is my first politicial post. Probably not my last. Over the years, more and more americans have made America a "Safer" place. Or so they seem. People like PETA and Wildlife protectors are going around spreding lies and defending what they belive in, so why do I think thats rubbish? I think its complete rubbish because since the enviromentalists want to save the animals so damn much, people die in floods because they dont want us to drench rivers and dig out the loose sand that is elevating our water levels. This regards the Washington flood. So please Wildlife protectors out there, go shoot your self if you think we are hurting the enviroment, because all your doing is killing us.

Now for prisons, and why they are full. SO you all know about Death Row right? Well its escelating through huge emounts of people in line to be killed. So why aint they going through them faster to shorten the row? Well for one thing, we Americans think for some god damn reason that Lethal injection and other tourcher devices are "inhumane". All I have to say is, you or them? Do you want a murderer to live a siphon a bunch of the governments money just to keep a guy who killed your family or knifed a random person walking down the street alive? Thats inhumane if you ask me. And also, if your 50 years old for example, and are sentenced to life in prison or 50+ years in prison, then why arnt you on death row? Why siphon my, our tax payers money to keep these MFers alive. Letting someone rot, imo is inhumane, kill them where they stand and end there, and our pain.

Do you agree?

Lol yeah. Remindes me of the Shuttle's Fule tank. the Glue was changed to protect the Ozone and seven astronaughts are dead. Nice one people.

Prisons aren't full because of inmates on death row. There's only a small percent actually on death row.

Bureau of Justice stats:

---

At yearend 2007, 35 states and the federal prison system held 3,220 prisoners under sentence of death, 13 fewer than at yearend 2006.

---

I don't call 3,220 inmates the cause of full prisons especially out of:

---

Summary findings
On June 30, 2008 —

– 2,310,984 prisoners were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails – an increase of 0.8% from yearend 2007, less than the average annual growth of 2.4% from 2000-2007.
– 1,540,805 sentenced prisoners were under state or federal jurisdiction.
– there were an estimated 509 sentenced prisoners per 100,000 U.S. residents – up from 506 at yearend 2007.
– the number of women under the jurisdiction of state or federal prison authorities increased 1.2% from yearend 2007, reaching 115,779, and the number of men rose 0.7%, totaling 1,494,805.

---

Drugs have a lot to do with prisons being full nowadays. Considering you're talking about Washington, I'm sure you realize the rampant methamphetimine problem up there.

Originally posted by Azzthuras

 This is my first politicial post. Probably not my last. Over the years, more and more americans have made America a "Safer" place. Or so they seem. People like PETA and Wildlife protectors are going around spreding lies and defending what they belive in, so why do I think thats rubbish? I think its complete rubbish because since the enviromentalists want to save the animals so damn much, people die in floods because they dont want us to drench rivers and dig out the loose sand that is elevating our water levels. This regards the Washington flood. So please Wildlife protectors out there, go shoot your self if you think we are hurting the enviroment, because all your doing is killing us.

Now for prisons, and why they are full. SO you all know about Death Row right? Well its escelating through huge emounts of people in line to be killed. So why aint they going through them faster to shorten the row? Well for one thing, we Americans think for some god damn reason that Lethal injection and other tourcher devices are "inhumane". All I have to say is, you or them? Do you want a murderer to live a siphon a bunch of the governments money just to keep a guy who killed your family or knifed a random person walking down the street alive? Thats inhumane if you ask me. And also, if your 50 years old for example, and are sentenced to life in prison or 50+ years in prison, then why arnt you on death row? Why siphon my, our tax payers money to keep these MFers alive. Letting someone rot, imo is inhumane, kill them where they stand and end there, and our pain.

 

Do you agree?

Yeah eye for an eye kill all the murdering bastards. They shouldn't be drawing breath and eating on our dime.

For the most part, prisons are full because of the war on drugs.

The American legal system was orginally founded on the modest and simple opinion that we'd rather see 50 murders walk than have 1 innocent man killed by the state.

Now since then a lot of things have changed but stigmas based on that system like avoiding the death penalty even when a state has it remain even if the people who hold those views don't know why they do.

Concerning flooding have you heard of Flood defences? Perhaps those chosing to live in a flood risk area should invest in some. Or you could move out of the flood risk zone.

Concerning Prison overcrowding like its been stated in a previouse post  Death row inmates make up only a tiny fraction of inmates, the real cause of overcrowding is a mix of not enough prisons and the war on drugs.

www.addictinggames.com

 Stop incarcerating people for simple possession and we'll be fine.  Giving someone 10 years for having an 8 ball of coke is insane.  Dangerous people belong in prisons, those who simply use drugs don't.  The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Originally posted by popinjay

 

Drugs have a lot to do with prisons being full nowadays.

QFT.

If we just legalized the prisons would be more vacant, saving money for tax payers and giving more money to the govt through drug taxes. Although everyone still has that mentality of "drugs are bad, people shouldnt decide for themselves if they want to put what they want in their body."

Crime has dropped dramatically since we pursued an incarceration policy.  Rehabilitation has limited impact, perhaps drug rehabilitation has greater success but it must be coerced.

In the 70s, murder rates were 40% higher.  Today, New York is America's safest big city.  We had people walking down the street and rolex watches being ripped off their wrists and sold down the street.

Incarceration works.  Decriminalizing drugs is not a solution.  People are already too doped-up.  We need less of it.

---

Originally posted by declaredemer

 
Incarceration works.  Decriminalizing drugs is not a solution.  People are already too doped-up.  We need less of it.

---

Disagree with the characterization, as well as the idea. Those people who are in jail for drugs are not all in jail for stealing rolexes off people's arms. Every situation is different. You seem to be mixing the two together and branding them all.

Drug rehab is way cheaper than housing people for drug offenses so that should be the way to go instead of incarceration. Locking people with drug problems up with hardened criminals only makes more harder criminals that now have the benefit of also being a drug addict.

Originally posted by popinjay

 

 

Disagree with the characterization, as well as the idea. Those people who are in jail for drugs are not all in jail for stealing rolexes off people's arms. Every situation is different. You seem to be mixing the two together and branding them all.

 

Drug rehab is way cheaper than housing people for drug offenses so that should be the way to go instead of incarceration. Locking people with drug problems up with hardened criminals only makes more harder criminals that now have the benefit of also being a drug addict.

I am not mixing them together at all; they are already fully together like Ozzie and Harriet.  If they could not afford to sustain and feed their habits, guess whose house they rob?  Guess what store they rob?  

Incarceration does, and has been, working. 

---

Originally posted by declaredemer

---

Originally posted by popinjay

 
 
Disagree with the characterization, as well as the idea. Those people who are in jail for drugs are not all in jail for stealing rolexes off people's arms. Every situation is different. You seem to be mixing the two together and branding them all.
 

Drug rehab is way cheaper than housing people for drug offenses so that should be the way to go instead of incarceration. Locking people with drug problems up with hardened criminals only makes more harder criminals that now have the benefit of also being a drug addict.

---

 
I am not mixing them together at all; they are already fully together like Ozzie and Harriet.  If they could not afford to sustain and feed their habits, guess whose house they rob?  Guess what store they rob?  
 
Incarceration does, and has been, working. 

---

Bureau of Justice:

---

Recidivism

Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense –– 43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders.

Sex offenders were about four times more likely than non-sex offenders to be arrested for another sex crime after their discharge from prison –– 5.3 percent of sex offenders versus 1.3 percent of non-sex offenders.

---

When 43% of sex offenders go back to prison for ANY crimes and 68 percent of non-sex offenders go back to prison for ANY crimes, exactly how is incarceration working?

Again, we are just making BETTER criminals.

Originally posted by popinjay

 

---

Originally posted by declaredemer

---

Originally posted by popinjay

 

 
 
Disagree with the characterization, as well as the idea. Those people who are in jail for drugs are not all in jail for stealing rolexes off people's arms. Every situation is different. You seem to be mixing the two together and branding them all.
 

Drug rehab is way cheaper than housing people for drug offenses so that should be the way to go instead of incarceration. Locking people with drug problems up with hardened criminals only makes more harder criminals that now have the benefit of also being a drug addict.

---

 
I am not mixing them together at all; they are already fully together like Ozzie and Harriet.  If they could not afford to sustain and feed their habits, guess whose house they rob?  Guess what store they rob?  
 
Incarceration does, and has been, working. 

---

 

 

Bureau of Justice:

 

---

Recidivism

 

Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense –– 43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders.

Sex offenders were about four times more likely than non-sex offenders to be arrested for another sex crime after their discharge from prison –– 5.3 percent of sex offenders versus 1.3 percent of non-sex offenders.

---

 

When 43% of sex offenders go back to prison for ANY crimes and 68 percent of non-sex offenders go back to prison for ANY crimes, exactly how is incarceration working?

 

Again, we are just making BETTER criminals.

I am not sure I comprehend your analysis.  You seem to support my premise, viz. that criminals ought not to be released to preclude their opportunities (motive, means) to commit ANY crimes.

---

Originally posted by declaredemer

I am not sure I comprehend your analysis.  You seem to support my premise, viz. that criminals ought not to be released to preclude their opportunities (motive, means) to commit ANY crimes.

---

Sorry let me try to explain it better.

Recidivism happens when these criminals are released from prison after their time is served, through parole or "maxing out", which is a full completion of all time given by the judge.

According to the data, when this happens with sex offenders, they come back to jail again on NEW crimes at a rate of 43%.

When its a NON-sex offender, they come back even more often... at a rate of 68 percent. Recidivism happens for a variety of reasons, not the least is after spending time in jail with nothing but other criminals, there is a mindset that happens where criminals accept the incareration. This is not good because eventually, 90% of inmates are released back into the nation at some point.

This data is a little older, but you'll get the idea I hope:

Characteristics of State Prison inmates

Women were 6.6% of the State prison inmates in 2001, up from 6% in 1995.
Sixty-four percent of prison inmates belonged to racial or ethnic minorities in 2001.
An estimated 57% of inmates were under age 35 in 2001.
About 4% of State prison inmates were not U.S. citizens at yearend 2001.
About 6% of State prison inmates were held in private facilities at yearend 2001.
Altogether, an estimated 57% of inmates had a high school diploma or its equivalent.
Among the State prison inmates in 2000:
-- nearly half were sentenced for a violent crime (49%)
-- a fifth were sentenced for a property crime (20%)
-- about a fifth were sentenced for a drug crime (21%)

My contention is that we are making better criminals, or professional ones. Now given a fifth (20%) at least are in for drug crimes that should be dealt with in a non-criminal capacity. If certain drugs were legalized, that would lessen the amount of criminals. Certainly in the short term, but probably in the long term.

Originally posted by popinjay

 

 

Sorry let me try to explain it better.

 

Recidivism happens when these criminals are released from prison after their time is served, through parole or "maxing out", which is a full completion of all time given by the judge.

 

According to the data, when this happens with sex offenders, they come back to jail again on NEW crimes at a rate of 43%.

 

When its a NON-sex offender, they come back even more often... at a rate of 68 percent. Recidivism happens for a variety of reasons, not the least is after spending time in jail with nothing but other criminals, there is a mindset that happens where criminals accept the incareration. This is not good because eventually, 90% of inmates are released back into the nation at some point.

 

This data is a little older, but you'll get the idea I hope:

Characteristics of State Prison inmates

Women were 6.6% of the State prison inmates in 2001, up from 6% in 1995.
Sixty-four percent of prison inmates belonged to racial or ethnic minorities in 2001.
An estimated 57% of inmates were under age 35 in 2001.
About 4% of State prison inmates were not U.S. citizens at yearend 2001.
About 6% of State prison inmates were held in private facilities at yearend 2001.
Altogether, an estimated 57% of inmates had a high school diploma or its equivalent.
Among the State prison inmates in 2000:
-- nearly half were sentenced for a violent crime (49%)
-- a fifth were sentenced for a property crime (20%)
-- about a fifth were sentenced for a drug crime (21%)

 

My contention is that we are making better criminals, or professional ones. Now given a fifth (20%) at least are in for drug crimes that should be dealt with in a non-criminal capacity. If certain drugs were legalized, that would lessen the amount of criminals. Certainly in the short term, but probably in the long term.

Your point is that our incarceration strategy is producing "better criminals" or "professional" crimes?   Why do you assume that 20% of drug crimes "should be dealt with in a non-criminal capacity"? 

"If certain drugs were legalized, that would lessen the amount of criminals."  I am not comfortable with this argument because, e.g., if we legalized retail theft, there would be less thieves.  You say "probably" for the long term, but I think it is a groundless theory because it is based on decriminalization and not reform.  People will still need, since we are talking about drugs, to find sources for their habit. 

Drugs . . . once you have had it, you can not get enough of the stuff. EDIT:  And by the way we already have alternative programs for drug offenders to avoid jail time.  Many offenders just have to satisfactorily complete probation to avoid a drug offense even being entered against their record.  The system and programs are already in place today.

---

Originally posted by declaredemer

---

Originally posted by popinjay

My contention is that we are making better criminals, or professional ones.

---

 
Your point is that our incarceration strategy is producing "better criminals" or "professional" crimes?   Why do you assume that 20% of drug crimes "should be dealt with in a non-criminal capacity"? 
 
"If certain drugs were legalized, that would lessen the amount of criminals."  I am not comfortable with this argument because, e.g., if we legalized retail theft, there would be less thieves.  You say "probably" for the long term, but I think it is a groundless theory because it is based on decriminalization and not reform.  People will still need, since we are talking about drugs, to find sources for their habit. 
 
Drugs . . . once you have had it, you can not get enough of the stuff. 

---

How can you produce a "professional crime"?

I can only assume you are skimming my post, because above I clearly say "better criminals" and the other post I said the same thing I believe. "We are creating better CRIMINALS".

I say that because if certain drugs like marijuana were legalized, then you wouldn't have those criminals, or the residual crimes that come from them. If other crimes involving drugs were treated with treatment (say burglary) for addicts and less time, we might have an opportunity to lessen the amount. Now that doesn't go for a "kingpin drugsmuggler", but mainly for drug abusers.

Inmates typically go into jail and they are there for months before they get into a drug program inside the facility, sometimes longer due to overcrowding. The waiting lists for some of them are insane. There simply isn't enough instructors or money for the classes in most jails, and some are cancelled. The quality of them are poor and lacking also, and because the inmates are released right back into population after a class, where drugs are readily available the "results" are short lived. You want an inmate to be completing a drug program as he's leaving jail, not going back to his cell for another five years. That does no good.

We don't need jails were we lock drug users up with hardened criminals. We need facilities where they can be weeded out and treated away from those people.

Not all people who use drugs return to using them, that's a pretty blanket statement for you declared. That kind of utterance usually comes from the people you usually argue with, so I'm surprised to hear you say something like that, when you know it certainly isn't true.

Originally posted by popinjay

 

 

How can you produce a "professional crime"?

 

I can only assume you are skimming my post, because above I clearly say "better criminals" and the other post I said the same thing I believe. "We are creating better CRIMINALS".

 

I say that because if certain drugs like marijuana were legalized, then you wouldn't have those criminals, or the residual crimes that come from them. If other crimes involving drugs were treated with treatment (say burglary) for addicts and less time, we might have an opportunity to lessen the amount. Now that doesn't go for a "kingpin drugsmuggler", but mainly for drug abusers.

 

Inmates typically go into jail and they are there for months before they get into a drug program inside the facility, sometimes longer due to overcrowding. The waiting lists for some of them are insane. There simply isn't enough instructors or money for the classes in most jails, and some are cancelled. The quality of them are poor and lacking also, and because the inmates are released right back into population after a class, where drugs are readily available the "results" are short lived. You want an inmate to be completing a drug program as he's leaving jail, not going back to his cell for another five years. That does no good.

 

We don't need jails were we lock drug users up with hardened criminals. We need facilities where they can be weeded out and treated away from those people.

 

Not all people who use drugs return to using them, that's a pretty blanket statement for you declared. That kind of utterance usually comes from the people you usually argue with, so I'm surprised to hear you say something like that, when you know it certainly isn't true.

1. How can you "produce" a "professional crime"?  What?
2. What?  First, do not assume anything about me.  Whatever you assume about me is far beyond your wildest imagination.  Second, who is "creating BETTER CRIMINALS"?  ME?  YOU?  Whom?  Our "system" is now responsible?
3. I am not sure I understand your logic.  I think it is:  decriminalize certain activity and, bingo, we solved crime; it fails to address the underlying social problems with the crime itself:  addiction, intoxication, physiological and psychological damage, and so forth.
4. There is absolutely nothing "typical" about any inmate.  It is county and state based, Sir.  Not all drug programs are poorly funded, either. 
5. Yes.  We absolutely need jails because certain people need to be removed from society.  We need jails to deter crime, rehabilitate, provide some form of restitution, and incarcerate offenders. 
6. I will not address the last paragraph.

---

Originally posted by declaredemer

1. How can you "produce" a "professional crime"?  What?

2. What?  First, do not assume anything about me.  Whatever you assume about me is far beyond your wildest imagination.  Second, who is "creating BETTER CRIMINALS"?  ME?  YOU?  Whom?  Our "system" is now responsible?

3. I am not sure I understand your logic.  I think it is:  decriminalize certain activity and, bingo, we solved crime; it fails to address the underlying social problems with the crime itself:  addiction, intoxication, physiological and psychological damage, and so forth.

4. There is absolutely nothing "typical" about any inmate.  It is county and state based, Sir.  Not all drug programs are poorly funded, either. 

5. Yes.  We absolutely need jails because certain people need to be removed from society.  We need jails to deter crime, rehabilitate, provide some form of restitution, and incarcerate offenders. 

---

Hmmm.. You asked this:

---

Originally posted by declaredemer:

Your point is that our incarceration strategy is producing "better criminals" or "professional" crimes?

---

1 and 2. You asked that question after I already had said TWICE in two separate posts earlier in this thread that "we" are producing "better criminals". Do you not see there that you asked me are "our" strategy is producing "better criminals or professional crimes" there?

I was pretty plain about what I felt, but you seemed confused even though I stated it twice. That's why I asked what are you talking about "professional crimes". I had no idea why you'd ask that after it was clear what I stated other than to "assume" you hadn't read the posts.

Now, I am also not sure you don't understand that is a collective "we" as in the United States prison system, since that's what I assume we (you and I) are talking about as well as your "our" pronoun. That was where my data on those charts came from (U.S. data) and I thought you read it. I'm not sure why I had to clarify that simple term in a "I don't mean You and I personally, but our system" way. But I'll take your advice and not assume anything about you again, and clarify my pronouns to that small degree in the future.

3. I'll try and say this part plainly because I'm not trying to give the wrong meaning.

Incarceration results in recidivism at a high rate, which I gave numbers for. When you lock up "drug abusers" along with hardened criminals simply because they do drugs you don't get better citizens later, you get better criminals. Those people involved with drug crimes that have been classified as having drug problems should NOT be locked up with the general population, but should be in a treatment facility; preferably minimum security where they can be treated at a much lower cost than a maximum prison. Since they will return to society a LOT sooner than the average murderer or violent felon, it makes no sense to me to have them bunked along side those. They won't get anything out of that other than to return to jail for something else.

4. Most drug programs are poorly funded. A lot are run by people who shouldn't even be doing them in the first place. The drug programs I have seen run in prisons are a joke. The people giving them don't take it seriously and the inmates look at it as something to get out of regular work assignments, because you just sit there. I really don't think you know much about those programs.

Officers just have to make the inmates sit in the classes; they don't have to learn anything and most other inmates discourage the few that want to learn. This is because it's in a PRISON setting where machismo is dripping and learning is frowned upon. There IS a "typical inmate" and if you looked at governmental studies, you'd be able to realize that from a profile. Age, race, sex, education level, crimes, etc.. what do you mean there's no "typical" inmate? Of course there is.

5. Certainly we need jails. This is not a point of debate from any logical person I don't think.

In any event, something has gotten you pissed off and I am not sure exactly what. The "assumption" I made was that you didn't read or see my two previous statements about "better criminals".

It was no assumption about your personal life, habits, or whatever so I'm not sure why you took that so to heart and I apologize for your misunderstanding of it. But I don't think I can clarify anything further other than to say you feel all "druggies" should go to prison, and I do not so we'll leave it at that because it's not my intention to anger you and I still have no idea why you got so.

Actually both environmental and prison overcrowding issues can be successfully resolved if we will just allow BuReLoc (Bureau of Relocation) to do their job.

That job is to ship persons convicted of a crime outbound to a colony world immediately upon passage of sentence.

It makes the cities on this planet safer, mitigates increasing demands upon the planetary eco-system, and provides a source of labor for colonial expansion.

In exchange the convicted felon receives the opportunity to rehabilitate themself and get in on the ground floor of an emerging society by establishing a vested interest in the survival of the colony world.

Originally posted by olddaddy

Actually both environmental and prison overcrowding issues can be successfully resolved if we will just allow BuReLoc (Bureau of Relocation) to do their job.

That job is to ship persons convicted of a crime outbound to a colony world immediately upon passage of sentence.

It makes the cities on this planet safer, mitigates increasing demands upon the planetary eco-system, and provides a source of labor for colonial expansion.

In exchange the convicted felon receives the opportunity to rehabilitate themself and get in on the ground floor of an emerging society by establishing a vested interest in the survival of the colony world.

 

G'day mate.

Originally posted by Munki

Originally posted by olddaddy

Actually both environmental and prison overcrowding issues can be successfully resolved if we will just allow BuReLoc (Bureau of Relocation) to do their job.

That job is to ship persons convicted of a crime outbound to a colony world immediately upon passage of sentence.

It makes the cities on this planet safer, mitigates increasing demands upon the planetary eco-system, and provides a source of labor for colonial expansion.

In exchange the convicted felon receives the opportunity to rehabilitate themself and get in on the ground floor of an emerging society by establishing a vested interest in the survival of the colony world.

 

 

G'day mate.

G'day.....