Those are some great quotes, Bitter, but you do think it would work? Would you be eager to join such an organization, or view it as a bother/unnecessary? Would it be something you could tolerate, at least?
I suppose it would depend on how one is defining militias. I disagree with the ADL that all militias must be government controlled. I am in favor of people getting together for personal and mutual defense. Some people would consider that a gang of a terrorist threat. I wouldn't rule it out, per se, but I'm deeply suspicious of government control. I haven't ever been a member of a private militia group, but I've known folks who have, and I didn't have a problem with them with a couple of exceptions. Many of these groups minimize things like record keeping and membership in the interest of decentralized structure.
On the other hand a state volunteer militia with more local control might be of interest to me, but I tend to doubt it. I'm well prepared and I have an emergency response background, but at this point in my life I'm more interested in looking out for me and mine closer to home.
EDIT: ADL/militia
Those are some great quotes, Bitter, but you do think it would work? Would you be eager to join such an organization, or view it as a bother/unnecessary? Would it be something you could tolerate, at least?I suppose it would depend on how one is defining militias. I disagree with the ADL that all militias must be government controlled. I am in favor of people getting together for personal and mutual defense. Some people would consider that a gang of a terrorist threat. I wouldn't rule it out, per se, but I'm deeply suspicious of government control. I haven't ever been a member of a private militia group, but I've known folks who have, and I didn't have a problem with them with a couple of exceptions. Many of these groups minimize things like record keeping and membership in the interest of decentralized structure.
On the other hand a state volunteer militia with more local control might be of interest to me, but I tend to doubt it. I'm well prepared and I have an emergency response background, but at this point in my life I'm more interested in looking out for me and mine closer to home.
EDIT: ADL/militia
Federal government provides framework and a few hard laws/rules(to keep down the threat of actually creating a homegrown terrorist network or a group of people to fight the police when they show up), local law determines how its implimented(perhaps working closely with the SPD, a nod to your state volunteer militia idea).
I) As an american, born and raised, i'm offended actually. We are a great country, no doubt. But looking back on history, seeing your country as the best ever has always seemed to lead to disaster for others @_@ this belief must be tread lightly. I watch news now and then and once in a GREAT while read newspapers but it seems to me the conservatives are the biggest flag wavers of all. So I agree that conservatives believe that much. And thats what worries me :O tone it down, sir.
You're at an 11, we need you at a 5.
Being patriotic is one thing ^^ i love my country sincerely, but I think a lot of people get showing your patriotism mixed up with actually just being patriotic.
Those are some great quotes, Bitter, but you do think it would work? Would you be eager to join such an organization, or view it as a bother/unnecessary? Would it be something you could tolerate, at least?
Basically, I would like tostart my own militia just in case of emergencies such as nuclear war or rifts opening like in the game, RIFTS. :P
Actually, I have been somewhat interested in such an idea for real. Also, I would like to get the full sweet of available arms dealer permits and begin to conduct my own testing and report writing regarding such equipment. Of course, that would mainly involve inviting my friends over to shoot a few hundred rounds of ammunition. :P
Those are some great quotes, Bitter, but you do think it would work? Would you be eager to join such an organization, or view it as a bother/unnecessary? Would it be something you could tolerate, at least?Basically, I would like tostart my own militia just in case of emergencies such as nuclear war
The smaller the organization, the easier it is to be organized and to minimize waste. Thus I believe in militia sizes of one person each. :P
"The secret of steel has always carried with it a mystery. You must learn its riddle, Conan. You must learn its discipline. For no one - no one in this world can you trust. Not men, not women, not beasts."
*points at weapon*
"This you can trust."
Those are some great quotes, Bitter, but you do think it would work? Would you be eager to join such an organization, or view it as a bother/unnecessary? Would it be something you could tolerate, at least?Basically, I would like tostart my own militia just in case of emergencies such as nuclear warThe smaller the organization, the easier it is to be organized and to minimize waste. Thus I believe in militia sizes of one person each. :P
That actually works perfectly if everyone follows The Thing from Beyond the Edge's plan, and starts their own militia :)
That actually works perfectly if everyone follows The Thing from Beyond the Edge's plan, and starts their own militia :)
Is this a bad time to mention my desire to bring back formal dueling? :-D
Of course I believe the treatment of Native Americans and freedmen to be strong arguments in favor of self defense.Or actually given that the native Americans were ARMED, it's a testimonial of the inevitable results when individuals with arms think they can take on a country with an army.
I dunno. This is a weird one. It entirely depends on what time period and tribe you're looking at. Also, since he added freedmen in there, he may be going in a different direction than either of us think on the topic- can you explain further, Bitter?
Article I is jingoistic rheotric and devalues the rest of the articles.
By what metric? America is top dog militarily but by other social/economic metrics like education, health care, and a bunch of others, America isn't even in the top ten and in other cases, not even in the top 25. Not the soundest baseline to claim 'the greatest country'. Statements like article I reek of arrogance and is one of the reasons America is not liked in the most places in the world.
Article V is a dangerous thinking and is one of the reasons for some of the ongoing and past conflicts that can be layed at America's feet. America has propped up regimes and governments that were unpopular, brutal and self serving all in the name of defending freedom from the communist scourge and which 'freedom' was mere lip service and the very concept was mocked by the governments and leaders which America supported.
Article XII needs to be reworked as it could be better couched. The last sentence needs to go because it can be considered confrontational rhetoric.
Of course I believe the treatment of Native Americans and freedmen to be strong arguments in favor of self defense.Or actually given that the native Americans were ARMED, it's a testimonial of the inevitable results when individuals with arms think they can take on a country with an army.
I would argue that native American nations operating at a lower tech level had more to do with their violent assimilation. Armed people are not by no means imposable to oppress or annihilate, but it's more difficult.
If you truly believe defeat is inevitable when armed and loosely organized people resist nations with armies (and navies and air forces) you are ignoring the history of asymmetrical warfare. The USSR lost in Afghanistan. The Mujaheddin didn't posses a navy or air force. The US lost in Viet Nam primarily to light infantry and insurgents. The Taliban is doing quite well in Africa, Afghanistan and Pakistan with out an army, navy or air force in spite of the massive resources of the most powerful military in the world spending hundreds of billions of dollars to eradicate them.
I dunno. This is a weird one. It entirely depends on what time period and tribe you're looking at. Also, since he added freedmen in there, he may be going in a different direction than either of us think on the topic- can you explain further, Bitter?Of course I believe the treatment of Native Americans and freedmen to be strong arguments in favor of self defense.Or actually given that the native Americans were ARMED, it's a testimonial of the inevitable results when individuals with arms think they can take on a country with an army.
You make an excellent point that Native American nations were incredibly diverse, and broad generalizations about them tend not to be very useful.
My argument is that the rights of native American and other indigenous peoples and freed slave were violated. Disarming the target group makes it easier to target them.
The right to self defense and means to self defense is not a panacea any more than other fundamental human rights such as free speech or press.
On the other hand I think we can agree that an armed citizenry (as well as a well informed and educated one) is harder to control and oppress.
Saw this while bumping around the web:
"The difference between a thief and congress is that a thief will take your money and go away, congress will take your money and then bore you with the reasons why they took your money."
;)
Which is why Congress is the opposite of Progress. ;)
All of the Old West towns cited had draconian gun control, compared with that of the current day. Dodge City's "Dead Line" was so-named because, if you crossed the line into town wearing a gun, the local law enforcement could make you dead.Like I said for any given area, the "Wild West" period lasted a maximum of four years on average before two things happened. The town lost it's economic base and became a ghost town, or a strong police force imposed order and put strict controls on the bearing of firearms in town.Do you include mining towns in this assertion?
How widespread do you assert the pattern to be?
Absolutely.. most mining towns were of the "Gold Rush" variety, based on some outpouring of mineral wealth, and for the most part dried up and blew away when the mines tapped out, unless they found another economic base for example, becoming a strategic railroad connection.
The "Wild West" pattern varied considerably, the 4 years statement I gave was an average figure. the faster the area developed and was settled, the faster the Wild West period came to an end in that given region, usually with the imposition of heavy gun controls along with organised law enforcement.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32
|
I) AGREE
II) AGREE
III) HALF-AGREE. I think the government can provide security, infrastructure, and can help pool resources. Government is intended to be of, by, and for the people, and the people should have the final say in their government.
IV) AGREE
V) MOSTLY AGREE. I strongly believe democracy can only be exported peacefully. A moral example and high ideals are essential to this.
VI) MOSTLY AGREE. Sometimes the government is best that governs most effectively, particularly in times of crisis. There is also a need to guarantee the rights endowed on all people: life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.
VII) HALF AGREE. I don't believe it is "inspired" by any divine being, and I think it is more perfect now than it was when it was written. The bill of rights and the amendments abolishing slavery and allowing women's suffrage, in particular, improved upon the original document.
VII) AGREE
IX) HALF AGREE. I believe in a progressive tax code.
X) AGREE.
XI) AGREE.
XII) AGREE.
Many of your articles are just American values, not conservative. I'm a liberal and I agree with most of them. And I'm aware of many nationally-known conservatives who wouldn't agree with several of these points.
Interesting post.
The Articles of Confederation was more a document to establish an organization, rather than a statement of simple(and mostly American) beliefs. Indeed, this is a statement of basic morality, and many of the ideas far pre-date the Articles(i.e. the USA) to which you refer. Furthermore, the Articles of Confederation were written before "The Constitution".
I, V, VII, X, XII - (because "beliefs" in this instance is implied to refer to holding a set of beliefs that is not "conservative", and the christian God is indicated as the only way to go or not) Some of these show an egocentric world view, a plague on current American foreign policy.
VII - The Constitution is not a perfect document(hence why it has been amended 27 times), but it is a good document, and it is Our document.
I agree with many of these, as they apply to personal responsibility, morality, and freedom. I do not agree that we should force 'freedom', but certainly offering oppressed people another way of life is admirable and necessary. I do not believe that most people are capable of the common sense necessary to solve many of their problems, but neither is a large government the solution to stupidity.
We have reached a critical impasse in our nation's journey. In the age of information, most people are more concerned with what our leaders are saying and how, rather than what they are doing and when. This is not new, but has been taken to an unprecedented extreme. Additionally, at no time in our history have there been so many threats to our future, and so many decisions to be made to avoid them. The idea of "conservative vs. liberals" only serves to further confuse our purpose, and divide a nation that should be working, not to ease the egos of our politicians, not to satisfy the beliefs of the majority, or the vocal, or the downtrodden, but to find the most efficient and safest course for the future of our country. That means looking at numbers and figures, not the opinions of pundits or interest groups. That means looking at the past, at other nations, and for sources of untapped creativity and wisdom. That means swallowing ego, pride, belief, identity, party membership, etc., and doing what is right.
The idea of "conservative vs. liberals" only serves to further confuse our purpose, and divide a nation that should be working, not to ease the egos of our politicians, not to satisfy the beliefs of the majority, or the vocal, or the downtrodden, but to find the most efficient and safest course for the future of our country. That means looking at numbers and figures, not the opinions of pundits or interest groups.
THANK YOU!!!
Okay. Sorry to resurrect the prison subtopic, but methinks I got it.
The prison system and the rehabilitation system should be separated. There is just way too much crossing of wires that results in a system with marginally good intentions and an excess of apathy. People who are serving a prison sentence should have their sentence be half prison time(with an eye towards increased solitary confinement for violent crimes, perhaps this as an alternative to execution altogether), and the other half of the time spent in rehabilitation. The prison time should be harsh and lack outlets for socialization, recreation- even exercise beyond making sure one does not expire from lack of locomotion. In short, it should be a punishment. Once the person has served their time in this phase, the rehabilition phase should come in and take over completely- no questions asked. Sure, someone could lose their rights to this aspect of their sentence due to violence, insubordination, or what have you, but this is when someone should get their education, weight lifting, roleplaying or whatever, AFTER the punishment phase is complete.
Would this work? Is this a good idea? Should I cut down on the Red Bull?
[EDIT]And thank YOU, caith, for getting Kirth back into this thread! ;-)
Freehold,
I've got to admit that I don't understand what practical purpose punishment is meant to fill. We punish kids so as to set up an aversion reaction to certain behaviors -- but once they're adults, it's too late for that to work. And judging from the statistics, punishment (no matter how harsh) isn't really much of a deterrent. Finally, it seems to serve no rehabilitation purpose (quite the opposite, in many cases -- juvenile detention centers are often referred to as "training camps" for career criminals).
Emotionally, I understand that people like to think that punishing wrongdoers somehow "makes up" for what they did. But from a hard pragmatic standpoint, I'm not sure it does anything. I'd almost rather get rid of prisons as a means of "justice" and instead do something like this:
1. Murder, rape -> Execution.
2. Theft, embezzlement, fraud -> Seizure of assets and/or forced labor, with profits directly going to pay off the amount stolen.
This are grossly oversimplified, but the root intent is (1) prevention of recurrence and (2) restoration of property, respectively. These may be lofty goals, but they're more realistic, to my mind, than Biblical notions of cosmic justice or whatever.
Freehold,
I've got to admit that I don't understand what practical purpose punishment is meant to fill. We punish kids so as to set up an aversion reaction to certain behaviors -- but once they're adults, it's too late for that to work. And judging from the statistics, punishment (no matter how harsh) isn't really much of a deterrent. Finally, it seems to serve no rehabilitation purpose (quite the opposite, in many cases -- juvenile detention centers are often referred to as "training camps" for career criminals).
Emotionally, I understand that people like to think that punishing wrongdoers somehow "makes up" for what they did. But from a hard pragmatic standpoint, I'm not sure it does anything. I'd almost rather get rid of prisons as a means of "justice" and instead do something like this:
1. Murder, rape -> Execution.
2. Theft, embezzlement, fraud -> Seizure of assets and/or forced labor, with profits directly going to pay off the amount stolen.This are grossly oversimplified, but the root intent is (1) prevention of recurrence and (2) restoration of property, respectively. These may be lofty goals, but they're more realistic, to my mind, than Biblical notions of cosmic justice or whatever.
I understand where you are coming from, and we may have to agree to disagree on this. I think it may be my Afro-Caribbean/pseudo-brit/psuedo-hispanic/etc. background, but prison time is supposed to be a punishment, NOT a place to go to to reconnoiter or make criminal connections for use on the outside. Decreased chances for socialization should cut down on this dramatically, while making prison a thoroughly unpleasant and antiseptic place might ensure people not want to go back there in the first place(as opposed to encouraging a Shawshank Redemption-esque "this is the only place things make sense" philosophy).
Sure, your ideas are a little simple, but I'd like to see you go into more detail with them. I REALLY like #2, although it would make life hell for the kleptomaniacs out there. What would you do in terms of mistakes make with #1? Maybe would could even go so far as to merge our ideas somehow.
making prison a thoroughly unpleasant and antiseptic place might ensure people not want to go back there in the first place
Everyone I've ever met who's done time has always said, "I'm never going back! No matter what!" -- and all but one, so far, has ended up back in. Roughly 90% of them show little or no ability to distinguish cause and effect or to plan ahead, which explains how they get there in the first place, and why they keep going back.
If the punishment for spitting on the sidewalk were death by hideous torture, there would still be a large number of people who just couldn't make the connection relevent to themselves. They'll see someone else do it, and cheer when that person is mangled... and then turn around and spit on the sidewalk in front of a cop without even thinking twice about it. Hell, we all do things like that to some extent -- like speeding when we know full well people get tickets for that. Even if the penalty for speeding were death, I think most people would still do it.
making prison a thoroughly unpleasant and antiseptic place might ensure people not want to go back there in the first placeEveryone I've ever met who's done time has always said, "I'm never going back! No matter what!" -- and all but one, so far, has ended up back in. Roughly 90% of them show little or no ability to distinguish cause and effect or to plan ahead, which explains how they get there in the first place, and why they keep going back.
If the punishment for spitting on the sidewalk were death by hideous torture, there would still be a large number of people who just couldn't make the connection relevent to themselves. They'll see someone else do it, and cheer when that person is mangled... and then turn around and spit on the sidewalk in front of a cop without even thinking twice about it. Hell, we all do things like that to some extent -- like speeding when we know full well people get tickets for that. Even if the penalty for speeding were death, I think most people would still do it.
It's interesting- we were just talking about the self-preservation instinct and its lack among some people on our caseloads at work today. There are always going to be people who are messed up in this way, which is really, really sad.
There are always going to be people who are messed up in this way, which is really, really sad.
Actually, I'd go so far as to say that EVERYONE exhibits some amount of that type of thinking/lack thereof -- if not, no one would ever drive anywhere, given the fatality rates for automobile transit. Some people are more risk-averse than others, but overall, appealing to potential negative consequences in the future -- in order to influence long-term adult behavior in the present -- is a losing proposition.
People kept smoking long after they knew it caused cancer; it declined only when smoking became actively "uncool" and smokers starting experiencing a lot of immediate abuse from sanctimonious bystanders whenever they lit up. The severity of the consequences matters a lot less than the frequency and immediacy.
I'm not sure what the answers are in terms of punishment, rehabilitation, and behavior modification, but I see this issue as an example of government run amok.
I think a big part of the problem is size and scope. The system is too big, and we have way too many people in it. IIRC the US has something to the tune of 3,000,000 incarcerated and around 10,000,000 people in the system including parole, probation etc. About 1 in 3 prisoners are non violent offenders, and I think most of those are what I would call victimless crimes.
The scope has become so large and costly that we have started contracting corrections and social work to the private sector. Now we have an industry that lobbies a bloated and corrupt government to put more people into the bloated and corrupt criminal justice system.
Where ever one stands on crime and punishment or the size and scope of government can we agree that the system is an abysmal failure? It may get something right from time to time, but by and large we warehouse people who weren't violent offenders and make it far more likely that they will become violent offenders. In some cases they become extremely violent offenders. We release some of the worst violent offenders early due to overcrowding, and we do a generally terrible job on the probation and parole side with an absurdly overworked system.
I think our whole criminal justice system has turned into a cancerous bureaucracy that wants to grow at any cost, and I think that many or all US government bureaucracies fit this kind of pattern.
I think our whole criminal justice system has turned into a cancerous bureaucracy that wants to grow at any cost.
Yup. I see no other way to describe it. But this one scares me a bit more than most, because its growth requires more lives to be destroyed, regardless of reasons, logic, or ethics of any kind.
I found this part of # 10 interesting.
"45 federal agencies conducting federal criminal investigations;"
Bitter, you strike me as a particularly well read and intelligent chap- which is why I don't buy that you don't know what the solutions are. You've got to have something- even a malformed theory is better than nothing at this point. The system IS a failure currently. Give me something to replace it with, even if it's just downsizing the prison population. Note that I think this is a GREAT idea, and that it works very well with my idea posted earlier in terms of getting the rehabilitation system OUT of the prison system. Also, give me a few examples of what you think are victimless crimes.
Also, Kirth- your thoughts on what should happen if mistakes are made in terms of your #1 posted above? Or did you already answer that?
|
making prison a thoroughly unpleasant and antiseptic place might ensure people not want to go back there in the first placeEveryone I've ever met who's done time has always said, "I'm never going back! No matter what!" -- and all but one, so far, has ended up back in. Roughly 90% of them show little or no ability to distinguish cause and effect or to plan ahead, which explains how they get there in the first place, and why they keep going back.
If the punishment for spitting on the sidewalk were death by hideous torture, there would still be a large number of people who just couldn't make the connection relevent to themselves. They'll see someone else do it, and cheer when that person is mangled... and then turn around and spit on the sidewalk in front of a cop without even thinking twice about it. Hell, we all do things like that to some extent -- like speeding when we know full well people get tickets for that. Even if the penalty for speeding were death, I think most people would still do it.
I'm the one, btw. So far.
|
|
I think our whole criminal justice system has turned into a cancerous bureaucracy that wants to grow at any cost.Yup. I see no other way to describe it. But this one scares me a bit more than most, because its growth requires more lives to be destroyed, regardless of reasons, logic, or ethics of any kind.
Drug prohibition exists for one reason: job security for morons who find saying "Welcome to Walmart" taxing. If we just locked up violent criminals and thieves, our prison population would be a quarter of what it is now, and a bunch of prison guards would be sitting at home drunk beating their wives.
Sorry, I really hate prison guards. They're shining examples of the Stanford experiments. Trust me, it was no shock to any inmate in America that the Abu Ghraib ring leader was a correctional officer from Pennsylvania. Apparently Americans only care if terrorists are treated poorly by prison guards, not domestic weed dealers.
Prison OFFICIALS, on the other hand, tend to be pretty sharp, but even they really don't give a crap about inmates' well being for the most part.
Bitter, you strike me as a particularly well read and intelligent chap- which is why I don't buy that you don't know what the solutions are. You've got to have something- even a malformed theory is better than nothing at this point. The system IS a failure currently. Give me something to replace it with, even if it's just downsizing the prison population. Note that I think this is a GREAT idea, and that it works very well with my idea posted earlier in terms of getting the rehabilitation system OUT of the prison system. Also, give me a few examples of what you think are victimless crimes.
Also, Kirth- your thoughts on what should happen if mistakes are made in terms of your #1 posted above? Or did you already answer that?
That's kind of you to say, so I'll give it a shot.
My number one priority would be to eliminate victimless crimes. I consider all adult vice crimes (gambling, drug use/possession/trafficking, prostitution, porn, sodomy, polygamy, etc) to be victimless, and I would include anything adults do with their own bodies and property that doesn't harm others such as suicide, unlawful medical treatment, some zoning violation, needle exchange, and most fire arms laws. In short any action that doesn't initiate violence against others or their property.
We waste a truly staggering amount of resources basically regulating victimless behaviors. However the criminal justice system is structured it must be more focused on first violent then property crimes.
Secondly we need to reevaluate how we handle violent and non violent offenders. Obviously some violent offenders must never be free ever again, and many non violent offenders (theft and fraud) could have much shorter sentences and eventually make full restitution. A big part of the current problem is housing some non violent pot head with rapists and serial murderers where he is brutalized and gets HIV to use an extreme example. What does a guy like this have to loose? The government has basically given this guy a death sentence for trafficking pot.
This brings us to human rights in the system. Incarcerated persons are supposed to be in the care of the government. It's not a hotel, but an inmate should be able to do their time without being terrorized, assaulted, raped or murdered. It's easy to say some people have it coming, but when the system lets it happen it's about one step away from the government doing it itself. I would say it's roughly equivalent to turning a terror suspect over to a state that we know will torture them. We can say we didn't do it, but we certainly facilitated it.
I am also of the mind that once someone has done their time including parole, probation, restitution etc they should be a full citizen again. Many of my conservative friends in the NRA would disagree, but once someone has paid their dept to society why can't they vote or protect their family? If they are too dangerous to have a firearm for self defense or hunting why are they out of the system.
I truly don't know how to address some of the issues of public safety and rehabilitation. The extremes are easy. Serial rapists, pedophiles, mass murderers and the like can basically never be allowed to be free again. I don't think anybody wants some 18 year old shoplifter doing hard time. It's the huge middle ground covering millions of people that I simply don't know the answers for.
However we choose to run the US criminal justice system though, I'm convinced that it would be far more manageable at a fraction of its current scope.
I think our whole criminal justice system has turned into a cancerous bureaucracy that wants to grow at any cost.Yup. I see no other way to describe it. But this one scares me a bit more than most, because its growth requires more lives to be destroyed, regardless of reasons, logic, or ethics of any kind.Drug prohibition exists for one reason: job security for morons who find saying "Welcome to Walmart" taxing. If we just locked up violent criminals and thieves, our prison population would be a quarter of what it is now, and a bunch of prison guards would be sitting at home drunk beating their wives.
Sorry, I really hate prison guards. They're shining examples of the Stanford experiments. Trust me, it was no shock to any inmate in America that the Abu Ghraib ring leader was a correctional officer from Pennsylvania. Apparently Americans only care if terrorists are treated poorly by prison guards, not domestic weed dealers.
Prison OFFICIALS, on the other hand, tend to be pretty sharp, but even they really don't give a crap about inmates' well being for the most part.
HD, that first line almost made me spew fruit punch all over the monitor at work. Post a warning before you post something funny, dammit!
Still, I agree with that first paragraph, and I am dishearted by the latter two. I have also heard several reports of sexual relations between female staff and inmates. How would you change prison staffing? What kind of people should we be looking for?
I'm the one, btw. So far.making prison a thoroughly unpleasant and antiseptic place might ensure people not want to go back there in the first placeEveryone I've ever met who's done time has always said, "I'm never going back! No matter what!" -- and all but one, so far, has ended up back in. Roughly 90% of them show little or no ability to distinguish cause and effect or to plan ahead, which explains how they get there in the first place, and why they keep going back.
If the punishment for spitting on the sidewalk were death by hideous torture, there would still be a large number of people who just couldn't make the connection relevent to themselves. They'll see someone else do it, and cheer when that person is mangled... and then turn around and spit on the sidewalk in front of a cop without even thinking twice about it. Hell, we all do things like that to some extent -- like speeding when we know full well people get tickets for that. Even if the penalty for speeding were death, I think most people would still do it.
My experience with guys who have done hard time is quite a bit different. The iron workers, HAZMAT guys and high steel painters I've worked with are running better than half at staying out of the system for five years or more. I think a lot of that has to do with finding a trade and being able to make a decent living.
That's kind of you to say, so I'll give it a shot.
My number one priority would be to eliminate victimless crimes. I consider all adult vice crimes (gambling, drug use/possession/trafficking, prostitution, porn, sodomy, polygamy, etc) to be victimless, and I would include anything adults do with their own bodies and property that doesn't harm others such as suicide, unlawful medical treatment, some zoning violation, needle exchange, and most fire arms laws. In short any action that doesn't initiate violence against others or their property.
I'm all over everything except for drug trafficking and the firearms laws. I think that most illegal drugs are illegal for a reason, and that the dealers are the ones who should be prosecuted, not the users. Ditto with firearms laws, but I don't think we're going to agree on that one. For now, let's just say we need some serious reform of the laws covering firearms and other weapons.
We waste a truly staggering amount of resources basically regulating victimless behaviors. However the criminal justice system is structured it must be more focused on first violent then property crimes.
Agreed.
Secondly we need to reevaluate how we handle violent and non violent offenders. Obviously some violent offenders must never be free ever again, and many non violent offenders (theft and fraud) could have much shorter sentences and eventually make full restitution. A big part of the current problem is housing some non violent pot head with rapists and serial murderers where he is brutalized and gets HIV to use an extreme example. What does a guy like this have to loose? The government has basically given this guy a death sentence for trafficking pot.
Again, agreed. Prisons currently little more than spawning pools for worse and worse criminals. What happens inside the big house needs to change. Once again, I'm in favor of more liberal use of solitary confinement. Networking is too much of an issue when it comes to non-violent crimes, primarily gun running and drug trafficking.
This brings us to human rights in the system. Incarcerated persons are supposed to be in the care of the government. It's not a hotel, but an inmate should be able to do their time without being terrorized, assaulted, raped or murdered. It's easy to say some people have it coming, but when the system lets it happen it's about one step away from the government doing it itself. I would say it's roughly equivalent to turning a terror suspect over to a state that we know will torture them. We can say we didn't do it, but we certainly facilitated it.
This. A lot.
I am also of the mind that once someone has done their time including parole, probation, restitution etc they should be a full citizen again. Many of my conservative friends in the NRA would disagree, but once someone has paid their dept to society why can't they vote or protect their family? If they are too dangerous to have a firearm for self defense or hunting why are they out of the system.
I'd say this is what leads a lot of people back into prison. Enemies are made quite easily the way things are today, and when one gets out scores are often zealously settled in blood. Sure, a guy who can't seem to stop robbing people shouldn't be able to handle a firearm, but someone picked up for a dimebag of coke or weed shouldn't be tossed outside to meet a grisly end because he can't defend himself from the guy he bought from, was holding for, ratted out or what have you.
I truly don't know how to address some of the issues of public safety and rehabilitation. The extremes are easy. Serial rapists, pedophiles, mass murderers and the like can basically never be allowed to be free again. I don't think anybody wants some 18 year old shoplifter doing hard time. It's the huge middle ground covering millions of people that I simply don't know the answers for.
I'm in favor of everything you said although I think some exceptions should be made for "pedophiles". No, I am not in favor of letting someone do whatever they wish with a minor, but I am in favor of taking a hard look at the law when it comes to getting someone registered as a sex offender- just because you did something stupid when you were in high school with another WILLING high school student does not mean you are going to molest a child.
However we choose to run the US criminal justice system though, I'm convinced that it would be far more manageable at a fraction of its current scope.
Again, agreed.
I hear what you're saying on the sex offender front. The national sex offender data base is a great example of a good idea that the government drove off the cliff.
The fact that convicted predatory sex offenders could jump from state to state to avoid being flagged on background checks was an idiotic state of affairs.
On the other hand we now have a situation where trivial and completely non predatory offenses basically ruin someones life. I had friend who was doing her post graduate work in education, and showed her breasts in public (on private property) at a drunken college party, and she wound up on the data base for public lewdness or some such nonsense. The last time we talked she still wasn't able to sort it out even after a couple of years of legal work. I'm sure there are a lot more examples.
|
|
Freehold DM, #1 cause of violent crime? Alcohol abuse. #1 drug related cause of death? Cigarettes. #1 Abused controlled substances these days? Prescription drugs.
So, basically, R.J. Reynolds, Anheiser Busch and Roche should all be shut down and their employees incarcerated.
Drug crimes happen, by and large, because drugs are illegal, not because of the effects they have on the body. Alcohol crimes happen because alcohol makes you retarded.
Just sayin'
;)
Also, Kirth- your thoughts on what should happen if mistakes are made in terms of your #1 posted above? Or did you already answer that?
Thought I had, but that's quite a few pages back now. Mostly, we need to distinguish between the best result possible and the best possible result. Until we realize that there's a large gap between the two, some very hard choices become impossible to face, instead of hard.
Insightful post got eaten. Argh.
I'm the one, btw. So far.
Yup. You need to stay out, so as not to totally destroy any glimmer of faith in the system I might have! ;)
On the other hand we now have a situation where trivial and completely non predatory offenses basically ruin someones life.
It's the new war on drugs. When they started classifying roots and stems as drug mass, for marijuana possession? We're seeing that sort of broadening of definitons with respect to what's a "sex offense" now.
On the other hand we now have a situation where trivial and completely non predatory offenses basically ruin someones life.It's the new war on drugs. When they started classifying roots and stems as drug mass, for marijuana possession? We're seeing that sort of broadening of definitons with respect to what's a "sex offense" now.
It kind of reminds me of how traffic and DUI enforcement in particular have turned into a revenue generation system rather than a public safety system. Here in Colorado I've known guys who got DUIs for sleeping it off in a motor home with no motor on private property. He spent about seven grand fighting it in court and still lost. I know a guy who got a DUI for carrying a bike on the side walk while drunk. He spent about three grand on layers and still lost. I've also know several guys who got DUIs for sleeping off a drunk in their vehicles in the bar parking lot. I've talked with friends in law enforcement who have admitted that they look for fogged up windows in vehicles parked in bar parking lots after closing time for this purpose.
I'm all in favor of vigorous DUI enforcement on the roads, but sticking it to a guy who got hammered and then tried to sleep it off or walk home is completely counter productive to public safety. People start to think they are less likely to get in trouble if they just drive home quickly.
I hear what you're saying on the sex offender front. The national sex offender data base is a great example of a good idea that the government drove off the cliff.
The fact that convicted predatory sex offenders could jump from state to state to avoid being flagged on background checks was an idiotic state of affairs.
On the other hand we now have a situation where trivial and completely non predatory offenses basically ruin someones life. I had friend who was doing her post graduate work in education, and showed her breasts in public (on private property) at a drunken college party, and she wound up on the data base for public lewdness or some such nonsense. The last time we talked she still wasn't able to sort it out even after a couple of years of legal work. I'm sure there are a lot more examples.
Hokay, remember the gist of what I was going to say.
I'd be a little slower to blame the government. There are a lot of angry parents-cum-lobbyists that have made the list what it is for both good and bad reasons alike. With a list that bloated, everyone is going to attempt to run for the border- predatory folk and relatively innocent people who had sex in the wrong house alike.
I feel for your friend, and really hope she is able to get her situation straightened out one day. I have a few friends who are into the fetish scene that work in public education and have to step VERY lightly, and my best man, who is one of the best math (ick!) teachers I know, slings H at conventions for his own company. It gets weird when students show up at his booth, but it's fun when he can say, "Dammit, come back after graduation!" and they actually DO.
he slings H at conventions, sometimes with me in tow. It gets weird when students show up at his booth
Wait... the dude deals horse to kids? He should be locked up!
Or do "sling" and "H" mean something different than they used to?
he slings H at conventions, sometimes with me in tow. It gets weird when students show up at his boothWait... the dude deals horse to kids? He should be locked up!
Or do "sling" and "H" mean something different than they used to?
H means hentai. But I think he would sell horse if he could, mainly because it would be funnier.
H means hentai.
H = "Horse" = Heroin.
Nothing at all funny about that $h!+.
H means hentai.H = "Horse" = Heroin.
Nothing at all funny about that $h!+.
Oh man. I thought heroin was "sweet lady H", not Horse. I meant the animal, not the brick!
I'm all in favor of vigorous DUI enforcement on the roads, but sticking it to a guy who got hammered and then tried to sleep it off or walk home is completely counter productive to public safety. People start to think they are less likely to get in trouble if they just drive home quickly.
Punishing responsible behavior is a great way to make sure everyone becomes a criminal.
I thought heroin was "sweet lady H", not Horse.
Stuff's got about a zillion names. "Scag" and "smack" are others.