[Silver]

incarceration as rehab doesn't work.
the current process of capital punishment is so caught up in red tape that it isn't even close to a deterrent because criminals know they can just keep appealing for years, sucking up more of our money.
i'm all for immediate public execution/beating following a jury trial conviction. those that aren't deterred by the swift and violent punishment probably just need to be dead anyway.

I'm with the first sentence. The second sentence is a little jarring...reminds me of that David Cross bit where he gets to the end of his act and throws out the N-word just to see who's paying attention.

(Narlus, I believe, would be familiar with that one...)

 

[Plummit]

incarceration as rehab doesn't work.
the current process of capital punishment is so caught up in red tape that it isn't even close to a deterrent because criminals know they can just keep appealing for years, sucking up more of our money.
i'm all for immediate public execution/beating following a jury trial conviction. those that aren't deterred by the swift and violent punishment probably just need to be dead anyway.

And the third sentence.... Because no innocents have been convicted and executed for crimes they didn't commit? I'd like to see any data supporting the efficacy of the death penalty as a deterrent. Seems to me keeping violent criminals off the streets for life serves and protects the publics interest equally well w/o involving the state in deciding who lives and who dies. Execution always seems more about revenge than justice.

 

[$tinkle]

Execution always seems more about revenge than justice.

y'know, there is an overlap there.
for every example of "justice" being meted out, there are those who savor in it, just like revenge.

for justice to approach perfection, all criminals would be caught.

 

[JohnE]

.... Because no innocents have been convicted and executed for crimes they didn't commit? I'd like to see any data supporting the efficacy of the death penalty as a deterrent. Seems to me keeping violent criminals off the streets for life serves and protects the publics interest equally well w/o involving the state in deciding who lives and who dies. Execution always seems more about revenge than justice.

I have avoided this thread...but I gotta ask, how many guilty men have gotten away with horrible crimes and never been punished? We will never know, just as we will never know how many have been deterred by the threat of a noose or needle.
What are the $$ figures on how much a life spent in jail costs the general public? And where does that $$ come from? You and me.

Meanwhile, a good bullet, chemical cocktail, rope or jolt of electricity costs less than $15. And is relatively painless compared to what the victims and their families have gone through.

I say give them one appeal, and then string em up. On pay per view. Give the $$ to the victims families, after you pay for the cost of housing and feeding the criminal.

 

[JohnE]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/bizarre/article949484.ece

BTW, this link was better then the eyeball tatt...

 

[valve bouncer]

I have avoided this thread...but I gotta ask, how many guilty men have gotten away with horrible crimes and never been punished? We will never know, just as we will never know how many have been deterred by the threat of a noose or needle.
What are the $$ figures on how much a life spent in jail costs the general public? And where does that $$ come from? You and me.

Meanwhile, a good bullet, chemical cocktail, rope or jolt of electricity costs less than $15. And is relatively painless compared to what the victims and their families have gone through.

I say give them one appeal, and then string em up. On pay per view. Give the $$ to the victims families, after you pay for the cost of housing and feeding the criminal.

Literally hundreds of people have been released from death row after new evidence comes to light or old evidence is reviewed. If we go with your plan, can we then, if a person is subsequently found to be not guilty, charge the prosecutors/executioners with murder? The justice system is too far from perfect to be giving the power of life and death to any one person or even group of people, which is one of the reasons the death penalty should be abolished.

 

[Changleen]

Meanwhile, a good bullet, chemical cocktail, rope or jolt of electricity costs less than $15. And is relatively painless compared to what the victims and their families have gone through.

FYI the way things are done in the US it costs quite a bit more (in legal costs etc) to kill someone than it costs to keep someone locked up for their entire adult life. There are a few old threads about this in this forum I think.

 

[bohorec]

and since we have the world's highest incarceration rate, i guess good ol' law and order just ain't working to change this. what's the next step?

Can anyone explain why does the incarceration rate in US continue to rise despite falling crime rates? Is this sad achievement just a result of the retarded anti-drug war?

 

[MikeD]

Why is a rising incarceration rate inherently 'sad?' Maybe we're catching and imprisoning more criminals, and that's why the crime rate is dropping. Maybe more criminals stay in prison instead of being released, and that's why the crime rate is dropping.

Not saying that is the case, but the point is that you can make the situation into whatever you want it to be based on your viewpoint.

However, I think the best thing we can do for our country and our society is foster economic growth in poor areas. This will curb crime and the incarceration rate, and is actually effective, unlike psychological band-aids and political haymaking like gun control. When someone's best opportunity to make a living is crime, society is ****ed.

 

[DaveW]

When someone's best opportunity to make a living is crime, society is ****ed.

But isn't that how many (most?) large Corp's and large govenments/economys do things?
The business model of "If ya can get away with it, it's legit" irate2:

 

[$tinkle]

Can anyone explain why does the incarceration rate in US continue to rise despite falling crime rates?

bwa-HA-HA-HAAAAA......

are you serious? do you think the falling crime rate is cause by....mmmm....i don't know....higher incarceration rates?


fox butterfield reported for the NYTimes on this topic a few times. even he was too smart to see that the more criminals there are behind bars, the less crime there is on the streets. he even went so far as to call it a paradox.

 

[valve bouncer]

Without seeing detailed crime and sentencing statistics it's impossible to really work out trends and the reasons behind the trend.

Now I don't know what the median custodial sentence is in America but I'd be willing to bet it's less than 2 years. That would suggest to me far more ex-crims on the street than crims in custody. Given that no-one is really sggesting that the prison system rehabilitates more than a small minority you'd have to suggest that the drop in the crime rate is due to something more than just a high incarceration rate, although it is likely to be a factor.
Whether it is the most likely factor is something none of us here can answer and I'd suggest even criminolgists would battle to find an answer so broad is the topic.

 

[bohorec]

$tinkle, things are never as simple as they seem. Your answer comes to mind first but is quickly abolished after some reading is done. For example, it was said that since 1980 number of the drug offenders in state prisons has increased by 1200 percent.

However MikeD and VB hinted that problem is probably too complicated for easy explanation and I agree with them. I personally think that ridiculous incarceration rate is the result of various factors, including war on drugs, poverty, historical and other social aspects and has very little to do with successful legal system. But I might be wrong...

 

[Silver]

Why is a rising incarceration rate inherently 'sad?'

All you have to do is look at the company we're keeping in the top 10 for your answer...

 

[$tinkle]

$tinkle, things are never as simple as they seem. Your answer comes to mind first but is quickly abolished after some reading is done. For example, it was said that since 1980 number of the drug offenders in state prisons has increased by 1200 percent.

this number means nothing if you don't also factor in the rate of change of availability of drugs, and legislation/enforcement changes since.

from the below list of 4, there are 2 realistic ways to reduce incarceration rates for (in your example) drug use & distribution:
- drain the drug swamps
- legalize & regulate all drugs
- mandate treatment for non-recidivist offenders
- remove users from the market with ruinously long prison sentences

the first 2 are impossible. the next one is defacto incarceration for it to be effective, yet appeases the war on drug bean counters. the last one is the current method, championed by everyone except those who have first-hand experience of drug addictions.

finally, let's remember people who get locked up for drug-related convictions are rarely limited to just that in their career. violence & property crimes are usually present as well.

 

[manimal]

finally, let's remember people who get locked up for drug-related convictions are rarely limited to just that in their career. violence & property crimes are usually present as well.

well said. the problem with hardcore drugs (crack,cocaine,meth, prescription abuse) is that the low level local dealers are a danger to society in that they're indiscriminate in their sales and means of self preservation (ie: random shootouts with other dealers)
the problem with the addicts is that they'll do ANYTHING to get their hands on their drug of choice, and trust me...i mean ANYTHING. It's tragic that they're addicted but should they be treated less harshly for breaking into an occupied dwelling just because they're addicted? i say no, they are still responsible for their actions and i believe there should be mandatory rehab included in their sentence (which is usually the case but they're right back on the sauce when they get out )
yes, i said "hardcore drugs" earlier so now i'll address the weed issue. i would personally rather deal with someone who is stoned than a drunk, however, it isn't the users that bother me, it's the dealers who cause the problems. (we've had 2 homicides this month that were over dealer to dealer robberies of weed ) if you want to waste your life away smoking pot than by all means, go ahead, but don't expect any government benefits for unemployment when your lazy butt can't get a job. (well, that's the case in my little world )

 

[Silver]

How many times has the Budweiser delivery truck been shot up in your area by the Miller brewing company? No many, I'm guessing.

Every single problem you listed can be solved by legalizing and regulating drugs.

 

[manimal]

Every single problem you listed can be solved by legalizing and regulating drugs.

i know and i don't have much of a problem with it but that alone won't solve the crime issue because those making money off of illicit drug sales will be forced to find another source of income, that yields similar returns, and it will more than likely be in the form of property crimes and/or extortion. i would actually love to see marijuana legalized for the sole purpose of watching my local thug dealers wig out over lack of income....until they find something new of course

 

[Silver]

i know and i don't have much of a problem with it but that alone won't solve the crime issue because those making money off of illicit drug sales will be forced to find another source of income, that yields similar returns, and it will more than likely be in the form of property crimes and/or extortion. i would actually love to see marijuana legalized for the sole purpose of watching my local thug dealers wig out over lack of income....until they find something new of course

Property crimes and extortion are both much harder to carry out, and much less profitable. They are also crimes with actual victims, which makes them less troublesome to prosecute from both a philosophical and legal perspective.

I'm not making the claim that legalizing drugs would solve crime. I'm making the claim that the reason for the crime that surrounds illegal drugs has more to do with the fact that substances are illegal than the substances themselves, much like the violence that surrounded alcohol in the prohibition era.

 

[$tinkle]

I'm not making the claim that legalizing drugs would solve crime. I'm making the claim that the reason for the crime that surrounds illegal drugs has more to do with the fact that substances are illegal than the substances themselves, much like the violence that surrounded alcohol in the prohibition era.

i'm going to go ahead a lay a big fat sloppy one on you right here & agree.

i would imagine if drugs were legalized they would be no more problematic than pharms. to the best of my knowledge, there's not a huge train of oxycontin & dilaudid crossing the border. drug cartels would be replaced with the ants in the grass, just doing their own thing, like oppenauer oxidation

 

[MikeD]

'Cuz, yeah, the people who think the government is peddling them drugs to 'keep them down' are going to react really well to a federal tax stamp on the crack vials littering their streets. Nope, no exploitation of the poor here...

Or are we really libertarian enough to say "**** the poor?" Or will we just make legal drugs so expensive that only the rich can ruin their lives with them? And if so, well, then we'll still have an illegal drug problem.

Where will we get these legal drugs...do we start a domestic opium and coca crop, or do we just pay the cartels and the Taliban? Or do we just synthesize them in an American factory?

The details of this great step forward always elude me.

 

[ATOMICFIREBALL]

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/119/the-dc-gun-ban/
by Ron Paul, Dr. March 12, 2007

March 12, 2007

Last Friday a federal appeals court in Washington DC issued a ruling that hopefully will result in the restoration of 2nd Amendment rights in the nation's capital. It appears the Court rejected the District of Columbia 's nonsensical argument that the 2nd Amendment confers only a "collective right," something gun control advocates have asserted for years.
Of course we should not have too much faith in our federal courts to protect gun rights, considering they routinely rubber stamp egregious violations of the 1 st, 4th, and 5th Amendments, and allow Congress to legislate wildly outside the bounds of its enumerated powers. Furthermore, the DC case will be appealed to the Supreme Court with no guarantees. But it is very important nonetheless for a federal court only one step below the highest court in the land to recognize that gun rights adhere to the American people, not to government-sanctioned groups. Rights, by definition, are individual. "Group rights" is an oxymoron.

Can anyone seriously contend that the Founders, who had just expelled their British rulers mostly by use of light arms, did not want the individual farmer, blacksmith, or merchant to be armed? Those individuals would have been killed or imprisoned by the King's soldiers if they had relied on a federal armed force to protect them.

In the 1700s, militias were local groups made up of ordinary citizens. They were not under federal control! As a practical matter, many of them were barely under the control of colonial or state authorities. When the 2nd Amendment speaks of a "well-regulated militia," it means local groups of individuals operating to protect their own families, homes, and communities. They regulated themselves because it was necessary and in their own interest to do so.
The Founders themselves wrote in the Federalist papers about the need for individuals to be armed. In fact, James Madison argued in Federalist paper 46 that common citizens should be armed to guard against the threat posed by the newly proposed standing federal army.
Today, gun control makes people demonstrably less safe-- as any honest examination of criminal statistics reveals. In his book "More Guns, Less Crime," scholar John Lott demolishes the myth that gun control reduces crime. On the contrary, Lott shows that cities with strict gun control--like Washington DC--experience higher rates of murder and violent crime. It is no coincidence that violent crime flourishes in the nation's capital, where the individual's right to defend himself has been most severely curtailed.
Understand that residents of DC can be convicted of a felony and put in prison simply for having a gun in their home, even if they live in a very dangerous neighborhood. The DC gun ban is no joke, and the legal challenges to the ban are not simply academic exercises. People's lives and safety are at stake.
Gun control historically serves as a gateway to tyranny. Tyrants from Hitler to Mao to Stalin have sought to disarm their own citizens, for the simple reason that unarmed people are easier to control. Our Founders, having just expelled the British army, knew that the right to bear arms serves as the guardian of every other right. This is the principle so often ignored by both sides in the gun control debate. Only armed citizens can resist tyrannical government.

 

[valve bouncer]

'Cuz, yeah, the people who think the government is peddling them drugs to 'keep them down' are going to react really well to a federal tax stamp on the crack vials littering their streets. Nope, no exploitation of the poor here...

Or are we really libertarian enough to say "**** the poor?" Or will we just make legal drugs so expensive that only the rich can ruin their lives with them? And if so, well, then we'll still have an illegal drug problem.

Where will we get these legal drugs...do we start a domestic opium and coca crop, or do we just pay the cartels and the Taliban? Or do we just synthesize them in an American factory?

The details of this great step forward always elude me.

Are you really asking whether we'll be able to produce the drugs? Where do you think they get morphine from?
Why would legal drugs be any more expensive than now, availability tends to reduce the price if anything. Do you think the price of beer went up or down after prohibition ended
The most probelamatic part of the whole exercise would be on the medical side, providing enough support for addicts.
No-one suggests legalisation will be a panacea just that the overall situation will be better than now. Something must be done, the present moronic situation has to end that's for sure.

 

[Silver]

'Cuz, yeah, the people who think the government is peddling them drugs to 'keep them down' are going to react really well to a federal tax stamp on the crack vials littering their streets. Nope, no exploitation of the poor here...

Or are we really libertarian enough to say "**** the poor?" Or will we just make legal drugs so expensive that only the rich can ruin their lives with them? And if so, well, then we'll still have an illegal drug problem.

Where will we get these legal drugs...do we start a domestic opium and coca crop, or do we just pay the cartels and the Taliban? Or do we just synthesize them in an American factory?

The details of this great step forward always elude me.

Why would you buy crack from a dealer on the street when you can get it at Walgreens?

I don't buy Bourbon from a guy with a still hidden on his property, I go to Bevmo...and if drugs are legal, the cartels and the Taliban can become respectable. Like the Kennedy family...

 

[MikeD]

Why would you buy crack from a dealer on the street when you can get it at Walgreens?

I don't buy Bourbon from a guy with a still hidden on his property, I go to Bevmo...and if drugs are legal, the cartels and the Taliban can become respectable. Like the Kennedy family...

Again--if we make the drugs cheap enough (I don't know what the free-market price would be, but I'm assuming cheap unless taxed heavily) we are basically victimizing the poor. So the poor go to Walgreen's and get exploited for what little money they have, and addicts to the legal drugs do indeed drag their communities down. If you're morally OK with that, I guess that's your prerogative. The plus side would be putting the corner crack dealer out of business, but that also disregards whatever deterrent or minimizing effect results from illegality...I know you and VB don't see any whatsoever.

Or else we tax it so heavily as a luxury good that it's not readily available to the poor legally, in which case we still have an illegal drug problem, which doesn't help the situation, either.

I don't hold exact analogies to Prohibition to be necessarily true, because while alcohol can be a dangerous and destructive drug, it isn't for most people, and certainly doesn't have the same addictive properties. (Again, VB cites cases of casual non-addicted heroin users, but these people are certainly a minority compared to those whom the drug destroys.)

 

[MikeD]

Are you really asking whether we'll be able to produce the drugs? Where do you think they get morphine from?
Why would legal drugs be any more expensive than now, availability tends to reduce the price if anything. Do you think the price of beer went up or down after prohibition ended
The most probelamatic part of the whole exercise would be on the medical side, providing enough support for addicts.
No-one suggests legalisation will be a panacea just that the overall situation will be better than now. Something must be done, the present moronic situation has to end that's for sure.

If we legalize drugs, I can't see how we could logically continue medical support for addicts at any public expense. If we make it so people can have a free choice, we'd sure as **** better show people the consequences of their actions (death and/or expensive rehab out of their pocket, not on medical insurance) and not sponge off my ****ing tax dollars or insurance premiums to fix their issues.

 

[dan-o]

Why would you buy crack from a dealer on the street when you can get it at Walgreens?

Because Walgreens doesn't accept blowjobs as payment?

 

[ohio]

If we legalize drugs, I can't see how we could logically continue medical support for addicts at any public expense.

Good point. How do we currently deal with alcohol? Does medicaid pay for alcohol rehab? What about court required treatments... who pays for that?

 

[ohio]

I don't hold exact analogies to Prohibition to be necessarily true, because while alcohol can be a dangerous and destructive drug, it isn't for most people, and certainly doesn't have the same addictive properties.

So you're for legalizing MJ?

 

[Silver]

Again--if we make the drugs cheap enough (I don't know what the free-market price would be, but I'm assuming cheap unless taxed heavily) we are basically victimizing the poor. So the poor go to Walgreen's and get exploited for what little money they have, and addicts to the legal drugs do indeed drag their communities down. If you're morally OK with that, I guess that's your prerogative.

I'm morally ok with it because the alternative that we have going now is so much worse. The same people are still getting victimized, but they aren't being exposed to a criminal underworld where protections of the legal system are non-existent.

They also don't have the treat of a prison sentence hanging over their heads for usage...

 

[MikeD]

So you're for legalizing MJ?

Yeah, I think MJ is a mountain out of a molehill--the problems with MJ are due to its illegality--bad things happen smuggling and dealing. Got no real issues with stoners one way or the other. Not my thing, but I don't see why it freaks people out so much.

 

[MikeD]

I'm morally ok with it because the alternative that we have going now is so much worse. The same people are still getting victimized, but they aren't being exposed to a criminal underworld where protections of the legal system are non-existent.

They also don't have the treat of a prison sentence hanging over their heads for usage...

You might be OK with it, but I think many people who live in drug-scourged areas might disagree with you.

Seriously, can you imagine the backlash? "First, the government sends us drugs and dealers and addicts and imprisons our youth!! This was not enough, so they made the drugs cheaper and kicked out the dealers so they could take a direct cut of the profits!! They don't need to imprison us anymore, just dope us into oblivion!!!!"

 

[MikeD]

Good point. How do we currently deal with alcohol? Does medicaid pay for alcohol rehab? What about court required treatments... who pays for that?

Don't particularly like public money and insurance going to alcohol treatment, either--but just because the situation with alcohol is jacked up doesn't mean we should do the same with drugs...if anything, it should show us where things have gone wrong.

 

[$tinkle]

i can just see it: lots of trendy hooka pubs called "28th amendment"

 

[Silver]

Don't particularly like public money and insurance going to alcohol treatment, either--but just because the situation with alcohol is jacked up doesn't mean we should do the same with drugs...if anything, it should show us where things have gone wrong.

It did.

Chicago in the 30's...

 

[ericca]

All right, one of my best friend lives in Jacksonville, Arkansas. She has already agreed to the prospect of treatment, but she never gets around to finding an alcohol rehab for herself. I figured I might as well help, even though I'm many miles away. I am looking for an alcohol rehab. Are there any suggestions to find that? Thank you so much in advance.

 

[MikeD]

Is she hot?

 

[ATOMICFIREBALL]

You don't know what constitutional interpretation is, do you? Law's written under different social and environmental contexts hold little to no literal value hundreds of years later. It's up to the supreme court to try and figure out what the underlying basis and goal was when it was drafted. Things were a little different in 1787.

So to put it simply (in your words), tons of legislation that took place back then is simply "jibberish" now. There is a reason there has been 27 amendments. In fact, your precious right to bear arms was one of them.

Oh,uh huh !! Hmm. I believe recent events from the supreme court in DC has proved you wrong you donkey butt!

Now you go back take photos of your friends ghey porn sessions.

 

[MMike]

Oh,uh huh !! Hmm. I believe recent events from the supreme court in DC has proved you wrong you donkey butt!

Now you go back take photos of your friends ghey porn sessions.

Why don't you go blow yourself up with some fireworks....or at least blow your hands off so you can't type anymore, you inbred hick.....

 

[ATOMICFIREBALL]

Why don't you go blow yourself up with some fireworks....or at least blow your hands off so you can't type anymore, you inbred hick.....

Far from that !
You have a good day now !