# What To Do With The Prison Population



## MJS (Apr 2, 2007)

This is sort of a spin-off of a thread that TOD started regarding cable TV in prison cells.  Now, reading thru that thread, there were mixed views.  So, my question is:  What should we have the inmates do?  I mean, sitting around watching tv, playing a board game or lifting weights, IMO, is not too productive.  Instead, I think having them work would be much more productive.  Something along the lines of a chain gang IMO is much more beneficial.  Personally, I see nothing wrong with them going out in small groups, along the highway, picking up trash.  They're giving something back to the community, by helping to keep it clean and they're also getting out of the prison for a few hours.

Of course, I'm sure there are other assorted 'jobs' that they could do, so the above was only a start.

Any other thoughts?


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 2, 2007)

I think one must consider what caused the offender to be incarcerated.

In the past couple of decades, mandatory sentencing has been implemented across the country. One of the first things we as a society should do, is release those criminals who are serving mandatory minimum sentences based on non-violent offenses. 

The 'War on Drugs' has lead to many low-level, or personal user incarcerations that do little to stop the trade of contraban, or protect society. 


Education services and Trade training should also be offered to those offenders that remain behind bars. 


We should be embarassed by the percentage of our population that is behind bars.


----------



## MJS (Apr 2, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I think one must consider what caused the offender to be incarcerated.
> 
> In the past couple of decades, mandatory sentencing has been implemented across the country. One of the first things we as a society should do, is release those criminals who are serving mandatory minimum sentences based on non-violent offenses.
> 
> ...


 
So, for example.  Take a low level drug dealer, who is in prison for 5 yrs.  Release him and do what with him?  I'm assuming you're suggesting a job, community work, etc.

IMO, it would be worth a shot.  If it changes someone, then hey, why not try it right?  Hopefully it would work.  However, if it doesn't, I think another second chance should not be an option.

Just want to make sure I'm on the same page as you here. 

Mike


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 2, 2007)

MJS said:


> So, for example. Take a low level drug dealer, who is in prison for 5 yrs. Release him and do what with him? I'm assuming you're suggesting a job, community work, etc.
> 
> IMO, it would be worth a shot. If it changes someone, then hey, why not try it right? Hopefully it would work. However, if it doesn't, I think another second chance should not be an option.
> 
> ...


 
Not necessarily 'drug dealer'. That term is not interchangable with drug user. But many laws do not discriminate. How do you define a 'dealer'? 

Assuming a convict is serving a mandatory minimum for having a plastic bag full of marijuanna - let's say the size restricted by the TSA for your toothpast - (a 1 quart bag) - Release him and allow him to do what he chooses. If he wants to work, great. If he wants to surf, great. If he wants to live in a van, down by the river, great. Release him. Repeal the mandatory minimum sentence laws. Decriminilize possession of contraband for personal use.

A 1 quart bag will probably hold a couple of ounces of pot. That is sufficient for a week or two of smoke. What is the minimum allowable purchase of alcohol? 

Seems to me, we tried once a 'Grand Experiment' (18th Amendment to the Constitution) and it failed (21st Amendment to the Constitution). 


Today, I believe we incarcerate many people to benefit the 'Prison Industrial Complex'.


----------



## Cryozombie (Apr 2, 2007)

I think we should eat them.

Actually, I had this idea... see... we could use them as a source of clean energy.

Basically what we do is get them to spend several hours of each of their days walking on treadmills/hamster wheels that turn a generator and create electricty.   It is clean, renewable, non-nuclear, no strip mining involved,  just a basic punishment for their crime, hell, it could be volluntary, and offer them "day for day" for the work.

I will say, supprisingly, I'm in agreement with Mike about the number of people incarcerated for ******** reasons.  Many of us do drugs, whether its caffiene, or alcohol, tobacco, or some other fun OTC legal substance... Certain drugs really are no worse.  Of course, some are and should NOT be allowed, but I think we over regulate some, and under regulate others, and it always comes down to the allmighty dollar, and who's payin who in the government.

I wonder how many of our "overburdened" tax dollars would be saved if we just lightened up a bit.​


----------



## MJS (Apr 2, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Not necessarily 'drug dealer'. That term is not interchangable with drug user. But many laws do not discriminate. How do you define a 'dealer'?
> 
> Assuming a convict is serving a mandatory minimum for having a plastic bag full of marijuanna - let's say the size restricted by the TSA for your toothpast - (a 1 quart bag) - Release him and allow him to do what he chooses. If he wants to work, great. If he wants to surf, great. If he wants to live in a van, down by the river, great. Release him. Repeal the mandatory minimum sentence laws. Decriminilize possession of contraband for personal use.
> 
> ...


 
Hmmm..yeah, I could go along with what you're saying.  But, wouldn't you think that, rather than release him, letting him do as he chooses, possibly to go back to doing what he did to get in him jail in the first place, that it'd make more sense to help him find something productive to do?  

IMO, if we're going to talk about releasing people, and helping the prison population, I think it'd be good for them to give something back.


----------



## mrhnau (Apr 2, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> A 1 quart bag will probably hold a couple of ounces of pot. That is sufficient for a week or two of smoke. What is the minimum allowable purchase of alcohol?


Alcohol is not an illegal substance. However, try getting caught by a cop if you are under 18, or driving in your car with an empty beer can in your hand. BTW, pot is not the -only- substance people get thrown into jail for.



> Seems to me, we tried once a 'Grand Experiment' (18th Amendment to the Constitution) and it failed (21st Amendment to the Constitution).
> 
> Today, I believe we incarcerate many people to benefit the 'Prison Industrial Complex'.


We incarcerate people because they break the law. I don't find alot of law abiding people stuck in jail.

Regarding illegal substances, I think its a bit hypocritical that some substances are banned and others not. It seems odd that pot is banned while alcohol is legal. Both can affect your interactions with others, and it seems alcohol is potentially more dangerous (drunk driving, and I don't hear of people beating up others when smoking too much pot). Cigarettes are bad for you too, but I don't see them banned. Second hand smoke is potentially bad (at least likely for your relatives). Shoot, caffeine is bad for you and addictive, but I don't see alot of people breaking into caffeine stores to get their "fix"... I might not agree with it, but I think in time pot will be legalized. Might take a few decades, but I think its coming...


----------



## MA-Caver (Apr 2, 2007)

MJS said:


> This is sort of a spin-off of a thread that TOD started regarding cable TV in prison cells.  Now, reading thru that thread, there were mixed views.  So, my question is:  What should we have the inmates do?  I mean, sitting around watching tv, playing a board game or lifting weights, IMO, is not too productive.  Instead, I think having them work would be much more productive.  Something along the lines of a chain gang IMO is much more beneficial.  Personally, I see nothing wrong with them going out in small groups, along the highway, picking up trash.  They're giving something back to the community, by helping to keep it clean and they're also getting out of the prison for a few hours.
> 
> Of course, I'm sure there are other assorted 'jobs' that they could do, so the above was only a start.
> 
> Any other thoughts?





> "... this isn't a free ride. But rather a progressive advance to prison rehabilitation... at miminal cost to Mr. & Mrs. John Q Taxpayer...." --- the Warden in a press confrence from Shawshank Redemption


Some states I believe do have "outside" work for those trustees and prisoners who are low escape risks and well behaved. But the most violent criminals and those prone for taking a walk when nobody is looking... umm nope! Sitting on their butts and waiting for their parole (if eligible)  to come in is all they get to do. 

What irks me is having hundreds of prisoners sitting on death row for YEARS (Ted Bundy sat for a good 15+ years) waiting for their DOE.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 2, 2007)

MJS said:


> Hmmm..yeah, I could go along with what you're saying. But, wouldn't you think that, rather than release him, letting him do as he chooses, possibly to go back to doing what he did to get in him jail in the first place, that it'd make more sense to help him find something productive to do?
> 
> IMO, if we're going to talk about releasing people, and helping the prison population, I think it'd be good for them to give something back.


 
If what got him in prison in the first place is a misguided 'mandatory minimum drug sentence for a non-violent offender' ... let him out and able to go back and do it again. But fix the stupid law. 

In some states - husbands and wives can not have oral sex - It's a stupid law, but people don't go to jail for it. And it should be fixed, too.

And trying to mandate 'productivity' by members of society is just wrong. If someone chooses to be unproductive, let him enjoy the rewards of that unproductivity. e.g. If I don't want to pay any taxes, the easiest legal way to do that, is to not have any income or property. And there is nothing illegal with that (yet).


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 2, 2007)

MJS said:


> So, for example. Take a low level drug dealer, who is in prison for 5 yrs. Release him and do what with him? I'm assuming you're suggesting a job, community work, etc.
> 
> IMO, it would be worth a shot. If it changes someone, then hey, why not try it right? Hopefully it would work. However, if it doesn't, I think another second chance should not be an option.
> 
> ...


Do you even realize how many low level drug dealers there are? We could build a new prison in every city and still not have room.
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 2, 2007)

MJS said:


> This is sort of a spin-off of a thread that TOD started regarding cable TV in prison cells. Now, reading thru that thread, there were mixed views. So, my question is: What should we have the inmates do? I mean, sitting around watching tv, playing a board game or lifting weights, IMO, is not too productive. Instead, I think having them work would be much more productive. Something along the lines of a chain gang IMO is much more beneficial. Personally, I see nothing wrong with them going out in small groups, along the highway, picking up trash. They're giving something back to the community, by helping to keep it clean and they're also getting out of the prison for a few hours.
> 
> Of course, I'm sure there are other assorted 'jobs' that they could do, so the above was only a start.
> 
> Any other thoughts?


Prison labor is big in this town. The job I do is related. I coat the metal, they put it together and make clip thingies for mountain climers.
Sean


----------



## tellner (Apr 2, 2007)

If the goal is to reduce crime I'm afraid there's bad news. Education and job training are the two things that have been shown consistently, even by studies during the Bush I years, to reduce recidivism. The Maricopa County way of humiliation, mild torture and sub-human conditions doesn't work.


----------



## Drac (Apr 2, 2007)

mrhnau said:


> I might not agree with it, but I think in time pot will be legalized. Might take a few decades, but I think its coming...


 
Here's my 2 cents: Of all the arrests I've made over the years I have NEVER had anyone that had been smoking "reef" ever attempt to resist arrest or fight..There are people that I will not drink to this day with because of way alcohol affects them..I've ssen these same people smoke a bowl and become relaxed and friendly...


----------



## tellner (Apr 2, 2007)

Nobody ever smoked pot and went home and beat up his wife in a ganja-induced rage. Shoplifted from 7-11 maybe. It's also infinitely less addictive and destructive than alcohol or the hardest monkey to get off your back - tobacco. Because of the idiocy of Anslinger, Hearst and a bunch of law enforcement types who would have been out of a job after Prohibition we've made a very important industrial crop illegal and put harmless people by the thousands in jail.


----------



## MJS (Apr 2, 2007)

MA-Caver said:


> Some states I believe do have "outside" work for those trustees and prisoners who are low escape risks and well behaved. But the most violent criminals and those prone for taking a walk when nobody is looking... umm nope! Sitting on their butts and waiting for their parole (if eligible) to come in is all they get to do.


 
Yes, I think it should be for the offenders who have a minor offense.  If someone killed 10 people I think the odds of escape would be something to take into consideration.



> What irks me is having hundreds of prisoners sitting on death row for YEARS (Ted Bundy sat for a good 15+ years) waiting for their DOE.


 
Good point.  Appeal after appeal after appeal.  Granted there are some who are in prison for a crime they didn't commit, and it would suck to kill someone who really was innocent.  But I hear ya.  

Mike


----------



## MJS (Apr 2, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> If what got him in prison in the first place is a misguided 'mandatory minimum drug sentence for a non-violent offender' ... let him out and able to go back and do it again. But fix the stupid law.


 
But we're not coming up with a solution.  Instead it'll be a revolving door.



> In some states - husbands and wives can not have oral sex - It's a stupid law, but people don't go to jail for it. And it should be fixed, too.


 
You're kidding right?



> And trying to mandate 'productivity' by members of society is just wrong. If someone chooses to be unproductive, let him enjoy the rewards of that unproductivity. e.g. If I don't want to pay any taxes, the easiest legal way to do that, is to not have any income or property. And there is nothing illegal with that (yet).


 
So if the person has no income and no property, where are they going to live, on the street?  If thats the case, they're better off in prison.  At least they'll get 3 meals, showers, a roof over their head, etc.  

And I'm sorry, but I don't like paying for people that milk the system.  I mean, we hear all the time about 13 yr old girls having a baby.  Who pays for that??  We do.  Why should I pay for someone who isn't even done being a child herself??  Funny though...I've seen people with food stamps but when they walk to the parking lot, they're getting into a Caddy.  Whats wrong with that picture?

Mike


----------



## stickarts (Apr 2, 2007)

After taking some classes on the whole justice system it is much more complicated than I realized.
My viewpoint with what little I have learned is that they should be doing something productive. I think it is better for everyone.
There are a number of jobs that can be assigned. Simply jailing someone doesn't seem to work anyway. Changing the persons behavior and attitude needs to happen.
The reality is that these are not simple matters to solve.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 2, 2007)

I think providing some skills training/basic education support in prison is fine -- but doesn't really address the problem.  Addicts need rehab, and support once their out.  Similarly -- you release a convict, and he goes where?  Right back to the same environment that supported his criminal choices.  How long do you think it is before he's right back there...

Prisons need to crack down hard on prison gangs.  Probation/parole offices need realistic case loads, and proper support.  Then you'll actually begin to fight recidivism...

And many of the prisoners need to be made to understand and accept their own responsibility for their own development and their own choices...

And I personally see absolutely nothing wrong with requiring a prisoner to work in reasonable conditions and hours...  After all, if I decide I don't want to go to work, my mortgage company isn't exactly going to be sympathetic to leaving me alone in my house...


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 2, 2007)

MJS said:


> B
> 
> 
> > Quote:
> ...



It's off topic... but it's true.  For example, in VA, there is still a law prohibiting "crimes against nature."  (18.2-361)  It's a felony.  No -- it's not often prosecuted in the case of consenting adults that aren't causing problems.
It reads in part "If any person carnally knows in any manner any brute animal, or carnally knows any male or female person by the anus or by or with the mouth, or voluntarily submits to such carnal knowledge, he or she shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony,..."  (The omission is basically covering some very sick stuff not involving consenting adults.)http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-361


----------



## tellner (Apr 3, 2007)

Yes, people wait for years on Death Row. And do you know, a hell of a lot of them are innocent. DAs with political ambitions love kill people. It makes them look all tough and manly when they can brag about how many more they've had poisoned than their opponents. But if you actually take a close look it turns out that a plurality if not a majority are innocent or didn't have any kind of competent counsel - a public defender who is paid quite literally $100 for all his work on the case does not count as competent - or were convicted based on "jailhouse confessions" to inmates who (surprise) got reduced sentences. And so on. 

Remember how the Republican governor of Illinois was so disgusted with the system that he commuted all of their sentences? There was a reason. The supreme sanction is given out so unjustly and so capriciously that it's murder as often as it's justice. 

There may be good reasons to keep the death penalty. I certainly think so. But keeping someone in prison until you're sure you're killing someone who really did what he was supposed to and making sure he has every chance at a fair trial is the lower limit of human decency. Justice is not there to sate the bloodlust of the Walter Mittys and those with undirected hostility and death fetishes. It's there to punish, deter or reform the guilty and protect the innocent. You can always kill someone. You can't bring the innocent back to life if you make a mistake. And there are too damned many mistakes.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 3, 2007)

MJS said:


> But we're not coming up with a solution. Instead it'll be a revolving door.
> 
> You're kidding right?
> 
> ...


 
It would not be a revovling door, if we followed your premise further upstream. If possessing and using an intoxicant was not against the law, then people would not be going to jail for possessing and using that substance. The door would not revolve - it would open.

Concerning the sentence that I highlighted ... who makes the determination that living in prison is "better off" than living on the street? It reads, to me, that you are making that determination on the behalf of the street person.

Consering sex laws - I am not kidding. There have been many discussions on this board about the police officers having a measure of discretion when issuing, or not issuing a citation. When writing laws, over the past two decades, our legislators have removed the "Order" side of 'Law and Order' from being able to also practice a measure of discretion when dealing with violators. Mandatory Sentencing Laws are the culprit concerning non-violent drug offenses. What if there were 'Mandatory Minimum Sentences' for oral sex? 

And your last paragraph may be inspired by an idea you have not given thought to before ... Why must people be productive in society? 

How do you mandate that? 
If government forces a member of society to productivity, can the country claim to be the beacon of "freedom"?
Is a structure of society that has some mandate on productivity moving toward a communist philosophy? All members must work for the good of the whole.

Your paragraph, incidently, does not talk about productivity of members of society, but rather, social programs that society has established. They are two very different topics.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 3, 2007)

In this country the first thing that should be done is check the mental heealth of all prison inmates.Nearly all hospitals where mentally ill people could stay and be treated have been closed in favour of "care in the community". This hasn't worked and dangerly mental ill people have been aloowed to wander the streets untreated and a danger to themselves and others. The solution for the main part has been to give them prison sentences and put them in the country's prisons.this is so wrong from many points of view.
Next thing would be to check how many under 16's there are. Again there are now few facilities for juveniles who offend.
And last not least stop sending women to prison for the same crimes that if commited by men would be a non custodial sentence!
Then perhaps we could address the problems caused by and faced by the real criminals.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 3, 2007)

Forgive the thread gak ... 

But, I found this headline over at RawStory. I post it here as a reminder for those arguing against appeal after appeal. 



> *Monday April 2, 2007 10:01 PM*
> 
> [FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]
> *By CAROLYN THOMPSON*
> ...




And, while the rapes discussed here, are not capital offenses, it may be helpful to recall that our system of jurisprudence is called the 'criminal *justice*' system. 

Would it be justice if a similar conviction led to the execution of person 10 years after conviction, only to find out 12 years after that, it was the wrong convict that was executed.

And, would we even look to correct the oversight, if the person was executed already? And where does that answer lie on the 'ethics' spectrum.
[/FONT]


----------



## MJS (Apr 3, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> It would not be a revovling door, if we followed your premise further upstream. If possessing and using an intoxicant was not against the law, then people would not be going to jail for possessing and using that substance. The door would not revolve - it would open.


 
Hmm..but I would think that its going to depend on what narcotic is in question.  If Marijuana offenders are freed, what about the crack offenders or the meth offenders, or the cocaine offenders?  



> Concerning the sentence that I highlighted ... who makes the determination that living in prison is "better off" than living on the street? It reads, to me, that you are making that determination on the behalf of the street person.


 
In another post, you said this:



> And trying to mandate 'productivity' by members of society is just wrong. If someone chooses to be unproductive, let him enjoy the rewards of that unproductivity. e.g. If I don't want to pay any taxes, the easiest legal way to do that, is to not have any income or property. And there is nothing illegal with that (yet).


 
So...if someone has no money, and no property, where you do propose they live?  If I lost my job today, lost my cars, and my condo, eventually my money is going to run out.  Now, where am I going to end up?  A shelter?  Sure, but thats not a permanent solution.  On the street?  Ok..so I'm going to huddle up with my wife in a corner on a cold windy day.  No thanks.  I'd rather be in jail.  Where would you rather be?  Please show me how living on the street has more benefits than being in jail.




> And your last paragraph may be inspired by an idea you have not given thought to before ... Why must people be productive in society?


 
So you support people being deadbeats?


On another note:  I think this thread may be getting off track.  In my OP, I was looking for ways to productively help offenders.  It seems like some people think prison is not good, so I'm looking to discuss ways to find things for these people to do.

Thanks,

Mike


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 3, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> And, while the rapes discussed here, are not capital offenses, it may be helpful to recall that our system of jurisprudence is called the 'criminal *justice*' system.
> 
> Would it be justice if a similar conviction led to the execution of person 10 years after conviction, only to find out 12 years after that, it was the wrong convict that was executed.
> 
> ...



Sadly, this is a more common occurence than you may think. I have read studies from a few years ago indicating that, statistically speaking, roughly 20 to 30% of convicted rapists are actually innocent. This came to light when DNA evidence and other forms of forensic evidence were applied to cases in which they were previously unavailable.

On a related note, a spokesman for a certain legal organization was on The Colbert Report several months back. His organization is dedicated to exonerating innocent deathrow prisoners by a similar methodology, examining their cases and applying new forensic data. Oddly enough, according to this person, a similar number --- around 25 to 30% ---
 of the people they try to help have actually been found innocent.

_If_ it is true that a full one-fourth of our "violent criminals" (i.e., rapists and deathrow prisoners) are in fact innocent, I think we need to seriously rethink the nuts and bolts of our legal system. Our system operates upon the assumption that it is better for 10 guilty men to go free than for 1 innocent man to face wrongful incarceration (Innocent Until Proven Guilty). We are obviously failing to live up to this principle.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 3, 2007)

MJS said:


> Hmm..but I would think that its going to depend on what narcotic is in question. If Marijuana offenders are freed, what about the crack offenders or the meth offenders, or the cocaine offenders?


 
Are they non-violent offenses?  If so, same-same. What people put into their bodies should be none of the concern of the State.

And the idea that marijuana is a gateway drug relies on belief that corralation is causation. A premise that has not been shown true. If B follows A, it does not follow that A caused B.





			
				MJS said:
			
		

> So...if someone has no money, and no property, where you do propose they live? If I lost my job today, lost my cars, and my condo, eventually my money is going to run out. Now, where am I going to end up? A shelter? Sure, but thats not a permanent solution. On the street? Ok..so I'm going to huddle up with my wife in a corner on a cold windy day. No thanks. I'd rather be in jail. Where would you rather be? Please show me how living on the street has more benefits than being in jail.


 
When living on the street, one can decide when to eat, when to sleep, and where to walk. When living in jail, those decisions are made by the State.



			
				MJS said:
			
		

> So you support people being deadbeats?


 
I support people being free to choose. If their choice is to be a deadbeat, I support it.



			
				MJS said:
			
		

> On another note: I think this thread may be getting off track. In my OP, I was looking for ways to productively help offenders. It seems like some people think prison is not good, so I'm looking to discuss ways to find things for these people to do.


 
This goes back to our age old discussion ... what is the purpose of prison. If the purpose is to PUNISH, then don't do anything with them. Productivity is a reward in itself. At the end of the day, a convict can look with pride on what he has accomplished. If we are attempting to PUNISH, we do not want prisoners experiencing PRIDE, as that is a reward.

If the purpose is to REHABILITATE, then activities should be geared toward rehabilitation. Picking up the side of the highway, does very little along the path of rehabilitation. School and Trade should be the order of the day. Teach convicts skills that can be applied once they are discharged from custody; reading, writing, interviewing, cooking, cleaning, fixing, and any skill that allows them to participate in society once released. 

If when released, they choose not to use those skills, that remains their right.


----------



## MJS (Apr 3, 2007)

> This is sort of a spin-off of a thread that TOD started regarding cable TV in prison cells. Now, reading thru that thread, there were mixed views. So, my question is: What should we have the inmates do? I mean, sitting around watching tv, playing a board game or lifting weights, IMO, is not too productive. Instead, I think having them work would be much more productive. Something along the lines of a chain gang IMO is much more beneficial. Personally, I see nothing wrong with them going out in small groups, along the highway, picking up trash. They're giving something back to the community, by helping to keep it clean and they're also getting out of the prison for a few hours.
> 
> Of course, I'm sure there are other assorted 'jobs' that they could do, so the above was only a start.
> 
> Any other thoughts?


 
The goal is to help people, if people determine that the 'system' isn't doing that.  This is what I would like to discuss....how to help people.  I'm sorry, but letting them out of prison, to roam the streets, is not helping someone.  So....before we get any further off topic...lets discuss how to help someone.  People say that prison isn't an answer.  Ok..well what is?


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 3, 2007)

MJS said:


> The goal is to help people, if people determine that the 'system' isn't doing that. This is what I would like to discuss....how to help people. I'm sorry, but letting them out of prison, to roam the streets, is not helping someone. So....before we get any further off topic...lets discuss how to help someone. People say that prison isn't an answer. Ok..well what is?


 
First "sort out" who should be there and who shouldn't! Have different types of prison, why put firstimers in with the old lags just so they can learn to be better criminals? Take out the mentally ill and homeless (they get put in out of 'kindness" sometimes as there is nowhere else for the magistrates to put them especially in winter - sorry I don't know the equivilant of magistrate for you - it's the court where small charges are heard) We don't have the death penalty so death row is not an issue. We do send to prison people who don't pay their fines which does no good at all, the fines still don't get paid and we end up paying for their keep. 
 Looking at prisoners and seeing what their needs are would be a start, many in prison are there because they don't know any better, seperate them from the career criminals and give them an education and a chance to do something with their lives. 
Over here, we need to recruit more prison officers and start paying them properly!


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 3, 2007)

MJS said:


> The goal is to help people, if people determine that the 'system' isn't doing that. This is what I would like to discuss....how to help people. I'm sorry, but letting them out of prison, to roam the streets, is not helping someone. So....before we get any further off topic...lets discuss how to help someone. People say that prison isn't an answer. Ok..well what is?


 
I am wondering if having a prisoner pick up trash off the side of the road qualifies as "helping them". It certainly is helping society, we benefit from having clean streets, but does that help the prisoner? 

If we wish to help the prisoner, how about bringing technical vocation schools to the prison. There is a shortage of autobody technicians in the workplace. Many resturants hire released convicts (having prisoners behind the closed doors of the kitchen is apparently one of the places that is acceptable to have an ex-convict working). Heating and Air Conditioning skills. And of course, all that training is useless if the convict is unable to complete a job application or present himself appropriately at an interview; so basic schooling is also required. 

Of course, these discussions run smack into the idea that prisons are for punishing offenses. 

Prisoners should not be indentured servants, made to do work for our benefit.


----------



## mrhnau (Apr 3, 2007)

Maybe we should teach them to fight and train? They can get out early that way...

Thai fighter hoping for early release


----------



## MJS (Apr 3, 2007)

Well, now we're getting somewhere. 

See, in my OP, the last line, I stated that:



> Of course, I'm sure there are other assorted 'jobs' that they could do, so the above was only a start.


 
So yes, getting them help, giving them someone to talk to about an addiction problem, a job, etc.  These are the types of things I'm looking for.  I do wonder though...would this be available to just the minor offenses or are we willing to rehab a person who walked in the local shopping mall and blew away 30 people?  Then again, if they're showing signs of illness prior to that, that IMO, is the time to get them help.  

So..we have some good suggestions...ie: teaching them a trade, helping to find them a job.  All fantastic ideas!  

I suppose the big issue though is, trying to convince people that this is a better choice than prison.

Mike


----------



## Andrew Green (Apr 3, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> If we wish to help the prisoner, how about bringing technical vocation schools to the prison. There is a shortage of autobody technicians in the workplace. Many resturants hire released convicts (having prisoners behind the closed doors of the kitchen is apparently one of the places that is acceptable to have an ex-convict working). Heating and Air Conditioning skills. And of course, all that training is useless if the convict is unable to complete a job application or present himself appropriately at an interview; so basic schooling is also required.



It might go against punishing, but not against rehabilitating.  But, in the "real world" people have to work there way through school, they do so in order to be able to get better opportunities.

How about the same thing?  Prisoners that take on work while in jail, whether it is picking up garbage or whatever, could make themselves elidgible for training as well. They work to "pay" for the training, those that do well maybe even getting the chance for parole on the condition that they find and retain employment.

Of course that will at least be partially dependent on the person.  Everyone is locked up as a punishment, but some are also locked up for public safety.  Those that can be trained and made productive members of society should IMO.

Might cost a little more up front, but in the end if they are working and paying taxes in 5 years, rather then back in jail I think the trade off would be worth it.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 3, 2007)

stickarts said:


> After taking some classes on the whole justice system it is much more complicated than I realized.
> My viewpoint with what little I have learned is that they should be doing something productive. I think it is better for everyone.
> There are a number of jobs that can be assigned. Simply jailing someone doesn't seem to work anyway. Changing the persons behavior and attitude needs to happen.
> The reality is that these are not simple matters to solve.


Actualy slavery is alive and well in the form of the prison system. They work for a small wage and get overchareged for just about any luxury item. They are being worked. The death row problem can simply be solved by elimnating the death penalty.
Sean


----------



## stickarts (Apr 3, 2007)

Touch Of Death said:


> Actualy slavery is alive and well in the form of the prison system. They work for a small wage and get overchareged for just about any luxury item. They are being worked. The death row problem can simply be solved by elimnating the death penalty.
> Sean


 
I understand your points. I do have a question: How will this lessen crime? What is your viewpoint on successfully reducing crime?


----------



## Ray (Apr 3, 2007)

heretic888 said:


> I have read studies from a few years ago indicating that, statistically speaking, roughly 20 to 30% of convicted rapists are actually innocent.
> 
> Oddly enough, according to this person, a similar number --- around 25 to 30% ---of the people they try to help have actually been found innocent.
> 
> _If_ it is true that a full one-fourth of our "violent criminals" (i.e., rapists and deathrow prisoners) are in fact innocent...


It is a shame.  And it is a shame for people to be victims of crimminals.  Changing human behavior is a tough nut to crack.  I don't know if rehab, punishment or a year with BF Skinner can change us for sure.

I may be wrong but I don't think the criminal justice system has "innocent" as an outcome.  I've only heard of "guilty" and "not guilty."


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 3, 2007)

stickarts said:


> I understand your points. I do have a question: How will this lessen crime? What is your viewpoint on successfully reducing crime?


Thats like asking how do we unscramble all these eggs. The best thing to do is be pro-active with problem kids.
Sean


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Apr 3, 2007)

A large blender and a drain.


----------



## Cryozombie (Apr 3, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> I in the "real world" people have to work there way through school, they do so in order to be able to get better opportunities.



This is what I was thinking... if they start giving away free college in Prison, I might have to kill someone, and save myself a ton of money.

:wink:


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Apr 3, 2007)

I knew a guy in high school. Got arrested for stealing a car, went to jail and got college paid for by the state. I, on the other hand, never got arrested in my life and Im still paying for school. While I can see the benefit in educating criminals in hopes of them not re-offending, it still smells of unfairness.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 3, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> I knew a guy in high school. Got arrested for stealing a car, went to jail and got college paid for by the state. I, on the other hand, never got arrested in my life and Im still paying for school. While I can see the benefit in educating criminals in hopes of them not re-offending, it still smells of unfairness.


Whats un-fair is that in the richest country in the world you are getting soaked for an education.
Sean


----------



## MJS (Apr 3, 2007)

I came across this.



> AUSTIN, Texas - Texas' troubled juvenile prison system plans to release more than 550 inmates who have completed their minimum sentences and haven't caused any trouble behind bars, officials announced Monday.
> The inmates will be released in the coming week, as soon as agency officials are able to line up the services they will need in the community, including parole supervision and counseling, Texas Youth Commission spokesman Jim Hurley said.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 4, 2007)

MJS said:


> I came across this.


 
From the same article



> Jay Kimbrough, whom Gov. Rick Perry appointed to fix the troubled agency, on Friday decided to suspend an agency policy requiring inmates to reach a series of academic, behavioral and therapeutic benchmarks before they can be released. The suspension came amid questions over whether the program was effective.


 
This article is a bit unusual, in that it is dealing with mostly juvenile prisoners ~ ages 10 to 21. Of course, this represents a tiny portion of the United States Prison population. 

But, it would seem to me, that the exact wrong thing to do, would be to release these convicts before they reach the benchmarks established by the system. I am making the assumption that these benchmarks were set up by people with proficient knowledge in adolescent development. 

If those benchmarks are not arbitrary numbers, but instead social minimums, this is a certain way to prove recidivism. The convicts have not learned, or matured enough to be in society, according to the benchmarks, but the State is going to release them anyway, because, they are the best behaved among the badly behaving.


----------



## Ray (Apr 4, 2007)

Touch Of Death said:


> Actualy slavery is alive and well in the form of the prison system.


Real and actual slavery is alive and well in the form of actual slavery in other places...However, there are radomly infrequent accounts of real albeit illegal slavery within the US.  The prison system is not slavery.


----------



## Nomad (Apr 4, 2007)

Human batteries a la the Matrix!


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 4, 2007)

Ray said:


> Real and actual slavery is alive and well in the form of actual slavery in other places...However, there are radomly infrequent accounts of real albeit illegal slavery within the US. The prison system is not slavery.


Just like the mining corporations werent enslaving their employees before the Unions. Yes we pay them a wage but they have to buy prison products. These products are intentionaly over priced. They tell the prisoners were the proceeds go. They are given no choice in the matter. The only reason they are payed at all is increase the incentive to do labor. However, it is slavery in a nutshell.
Sean


----------



## Ray (Apr 4, 2007)

Touch Of Death said:


> Just like the miming corporations werent enslaving their employees before the Unions.


Free the mimes.  I'll speak for them since they can't [or won't] speak for themselves.



Touch Of Death said:


> Yes we pay them a wage but they have to buy prison products. These products are intentionaly over priced. They tell the prisoners were the proceeds go. They are given no choice in the matter. The only reason they are payed at all is increase the incentive to do labor. However, it is slavery in a nutshell.


Come on, you can't seriously compare slavery to the American prison scene.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 4, 2007)

Ray said:


> Free the mimes. I'll speak for them since they can't [or won't] speak for themselves.
> 
> Come on, you can't seriously compare slavery to the American prison scene.


Watch me.:ultracool 
Sean


----------



## MJS (Apr 4, 2007)

Hmmm...what does slavery have to do with the thread topic??


----------



## Lisa (Apr 4, 2007)

MJS said:


> Hmmm...what does slavery have to do with the thread topic??



That is a good question.  I think the topic was "What to do with the Prison Population"  If you wanna discuss slavery and the likes there of, please feel free to start a new thread. 

Thanks, gentlemen.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 4, 2007)

Lisa said:


> That is a good question. I think the topic was "What to do with the Prison Population" If you wanna discuss slavery and the likes there of, please feel free to start a new thread.
> 
> Thanks, gentlemen.


It is if you consider, "What to do with the current prison population?"
Sean


----------



## MJS (Apr 4, 2007)

Touch Of Death said:


> It is if you consider, "What to do with the current prison population?"
> Sean


 
Do you enjoy hijacking threads Sean??  Seriously, if you want to talk about slavery, start another thread.  Here is the OP once again, in case you missed it.  Slavery has nothing to do with what I'm looking to discuss.



> This is sort of a spin-off of a thread that TOD started regarding cable TV in prison cells. Now, reading thru that thread, there were mixed views. So, my question is: What should we have the inmates do? I mean, sitting around watching tv, playing a board game or lifting weights, IMO, is not too productive. Instead, I think having them work would be much more productive. Something along the lines of a chain gang IMO is much more beneficial. Personally, I see nothing wrong with them going out in small groups, along the highway, picking up trash. They're giving something back to the community, by helping to keep it clean and they're also getting out of the prison for a few hours.
> 
> Of course, I'm sure there are other assorted 'jobs' that they could do, so the above was only a start.
> 
> Any other thoughts?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 4, 2007)

MJS said:


> Do you enjoy hijacking threads Sean?? Seriously, if you want to talk about slavery, start another thread. Here is the OP once again, in case you missed it. Slavery has nothing to do with what I'm looking to discuss.


Sorry, I won't post on this one again.


----------



## Grenadier (Apr 5, 2007)

_*ATTENTION ALL USERS:*
_Please, return to the original topic.

-Ronald Shin
-MT Moderator-


----------



## Cryozombie (Apr 5, 2007)

I think we should use the prison population as slaves.

Hey look, we are talking about slavery, and back on topic!

​


----------



## MJS (Apr 5, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> I think we should use the prison population as slaves.​
> 
> Hey look, we are talking about slavery, and back on topic!​
> ​


 
IMO, it'd be more productive to help them find a job, trade, etc., and attempt to better themselves.  Problem is, is that they're most likely going to be limited as to what they can do for work, due to the fact that many places frown upon a criminal record.

Mike


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 5, 2007)

This week, National Public Radio is running a five-part story entitled 'The Forgotten War'. This article discusses the 'War on Drugs'. Currently, the United States is spending about forty billion dollars a year on this 'war'. 

Part four of the series - focuses on crime and punishment. 

There are approximately 500,000 prisoners in the United States on drug offenses. One-Half a Million of our fellow citizens in jail based on drug offenses. That is more than many other countries total prison populations.

While certainly not all of these convicts are not 'non-violent offenders', it would be interesting to see just how many are non-violent, non-dealing offenders. (according to the link below - that number is more than 70%)

I return to the premise that what we should do with these convicts is release them. Restore them to their families. What is the cost on a young child to have a parent in prison? 

http://www.sentencingproject.org/Admin/Documents/publications/inc_federalprisonpop.pdf

Imagine, just by changing that one policy - (release non-violent drug offenders) we could reduce the prison population by 350,000. 

What savings would that be to our tax dollars? 
What impact would that have on families?


----------



## Cryozombie (Apr 5, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Imagine, just by changing that one policy - (release non-violent drug offenders) we could reduce the prison population by 350,000.
> 
> What savings would that be to our tax dollars?
> What impact would that have on families?



A question I posed earlier, at least as far as the Tax dollars go... but you also raise a good point about impact on families...

IMO A non violent offender who happens to like recreational pot on the weekends or what have you, would probably be a better role model at home, than a the stuff a kid left to his own devices cuz Daddy is in jail and mommy is working 3 jobs will find himself up to... and I bet the kid with dad at home would turn out better...


----------



## Ray (Apr 5, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> IMO A non violent offender who happens to like recreational pot on the weekends or what have you, would probably be a better role model at home, than a the stuff a kid left to his own devices cuz Daddy is in jail and mommy is working 3 jobs will find himself up to... and I bet the kid with dad at home would turn out better...


All things being equal, I've never found my bros who were jailed several times (more for the "what have you") to be better role models than my mother who worked to keep us kids fed.  A strong, honest, involved and law-abiding father would have been a big plus in our lives.  My pop, the non-violent offender probably had the worst impact on our lives.


----------



## Cryozombie (Apr 5, 2007)

Ray said:


> All things being equal, I've never found my bros who were jailed several times (more for the "what have you") to be better role models than my mother who worked to keep us kids fed.  A strong, honest, involved and law-abiding father would have been a big plus in our lives.  My pop, the non-violent offender probably had the worst impact on our lives.



I'm not talking about being a better role model than a working mom... I'm talking about being a better role model than Street Gangs, or TV, or Playstation, whatever the kid does when no one is around to give him guidance, know what I am sayin?


----------



## Ray (Apr 5, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> I'm not talking about being a better role model than a working mom... I'm talking about being a better role model than Street Gangs, or TV, or Playstation, whatever the kid does when no one is around to give him guidance, know what I am sayin?


I guess I misunderstood...I thought you said that a dope smoking dad was a good role model.  Obviously the not the kind of guy to produce law abiding citizens, especially since he isn't one himself.


----------



## Cryozombie (Apr 5, 2007)

Ray said:


> I guess I misunderstood...I thought you said that a dope smoking dad was a good role model.  Obviously the not the kind of guy to produce law abiding citizens, especially since he isn't one himself.



Well, what I am saying is that Given a choice between having a kid raise him/ herself and develop whatever morals they might learn from the streets, or having a guy whos pretty decent and stand up, who just happens to be a criminal because he smokes some weed occasionally (and despite the Reefer Madness image, I know several people like that) I think they would turn out better in the latter situation.

I mean, Hell... I know "Potheads" that are much better fathers and rolemodels than most alcoholics, but... alcohol is legal, so I guess that's ok, somehow.


----------



## Ray (Apr 5, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> Well, what I am saying is that Given a choice between having a kid raise him/ herself and develop whatever morals they might learn from the streets, or having a guy whos pretty decent and stand up, who just happens to be a criminal because he smokes some weed occasionally (and despite the Reefer Madness image, I know several people like that) I think they would turn out better in the latter situation.
> 
> I mean, Hell... I know "Potheads" that are much better fathers and rolemodels than most alcoholics, but... alcohol is legal, so I guess that's ok, somehow.


For me personally, alcohol is not okay; but neither is weed.

However, one of the things we might agree on is that we can reduce the prison population by desisting from participating in criminal acts.  If there is a criminal behavior that we think should be decriminalized, the we should work through legal means to legalize it.  The means which we use to rationalize "victimless" criminal behavior is the same means we will use to rationalize anything that we wish to do.  Look at the wife-beaters who justify their violence by claiming "she made me hit her."


----------



## Cryozombie (Apr 5, 2007)

Ray said:


> Look at the wife-beaters who justify their violence by claiming "she made me hit her."



There is a huge difference between Wife beating, which is a crime with a Vicitm, and Smoking a Marajuana cigarette in your livingroom on a saturday afternoon.

Personally, I think that its Hypocritical that Alcohol is Ok (and, yes, I understand you don't feel that way, but its legal, so it IS ok, by the only standard we use to judge pot) and pot isn't.  I think its hypocritical that Ciggarettes full of chemical toxins, additives and poisions are ok, but natural Pot isn't.  I think its hypocritical that we feed drugs, in the form of caffiene to our KIDS, but pot isn't legal.

I don't smoke pot, mind you, but as a beer brewer, and a coffee snob, I see the _hypocracy_ we set up as a system, by banning pot for purley political reasons... and, oh yes, it was banned for political reasons when it was banned... but it has been so villified over the years and so much FAKE or MISLEADING information about it has been put out that changing that decision is monumental... so meanwhile, Purists who think all substances should be banned, even tho all they REALLY need to do is not use them themselves instead of trying to control or dictate other peoples beliefs, morals or lives cost us BILLIONS of dollars, us being you, me, our families, etc etc to imprison people because they are not like minded.  Think about that for a second...

We are imprisoning people for they do to themselves, because we disagree... what happens when some whacko in power decides Masturbation is as bad as pot and we *ALL* go to jail for that one?  Its the SAME thing.  

I agree that it IS the law, and the people breaking that law are getting arrested... but, its a stupid law, that was enacted for stupid reasons, that really is as victimless as Coffee, Ciggarettes, Caffiene, SUGAR or masterbation. 

No, wait, I just had a realization...

Marijuana is NOT a victimless crime...  Who is the Victim?  The taxpayers getting nailed with the cost of keeping  pot smokers in jail.


----------



## Ray (Apr 5, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> There is a huge difference between Wife beating, which is a crime with a Vicitm, and Smoking a Marajuana cigarette in your livingroom on a saturday afternoon.


I didn't say they were the same.   The point is that people can justify anything they do.  I'm not going to argue that point further because you do it so eloquently in the rest of your post.



Cryozombie said:


> Personally, I think that its Hypocritical that Alcohol is Ok (and, yes, I understand you don't feel that way, but its legal, so it IS ok, by the only standard we use to judge pot) and pot isn't. I think its hypocritical that Ciggarettes full of chemical toxins, additives and poisions are ok, but natural Pot isn't. I think its hypocritical that we feed drugs, in the form of caffiene to our KIDS, but pot isn't legal.
> 
> I don't smoke pot, mind you, but as a beer brewer, and a coffee snob, I see the _hypocracy_ we set up as a system, by banning pot for purley political reasons... and, oh yes, it was banned for political reasons when it was banned... but it has been so villified over the years and so much FAKE or MISLEADING information about it has been put out that changing that decision is monumental... so meanwhile, Purists who think all substances should be banned, even tho all they REALLY need to do is not use them themselves instead of trying to control or dictate other peoples beliefs, morals or lives cost us BILLIONS of dollars, us being you, me, our families, etc etc to imprison people because they are not like minded. Think about that for a second...
> 
> ...


So what are you doing to get pot legalized and/or coffee, ciggs, caffene and sugar outlawed?


----------



## Cryozombie (Apr 5, 2007)

Ray said:


> So what are you doing to get pot legalized and/or coffee, ciggs, caffene and sugar outlawed?



Mainly, now, Refusing to support the political "leaders" who support the issue of wasting my money on pot arrests.


----------



## modarnis (Apr 12, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> If what got him in prison in the first place is a misguided 'mandatory minimum drug sentence for a non-violent offender' ... .


 
Big assuption that drug users are non violent.  While they may not be murderers or rapists, large percentages of them fund their habits through burglary, larceny, prostitution, forgery and a variety of other things that might not be violent, but are clearly intrusive and violate average hard working citizens.  Other crimes like drunk driving are not per se violent, but they have externalities that unchecked have the potential for loss of human life. 

In many cities, including the one where I work as a prosecutor, the activities of these non-violent offenders make the city patently unliveable for the majority.  The unfortunate truth is that this majority is struggling working poor who try to live the american dream, but face impedements from these non violent criminals and those who seeek to let criminals roam the streets unchecked.  

At what point do we lock people up when they can't behave.  5 convictions, 20, 40 ?  The harsh truth is that if convicted persons don't get their acts together after the first 2 or 3 diversionary programs, followed by 3 or 4 convictions with probations that they violate, locking them up is the only option left, otherwise they learn quickly that the system has no teeth.

I urge anyone to spend a few days at their local criminal court and see how few people are locked up realtive to the amount of crimes committed


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Apr 12, 2007)

modarnis said:


> Big assuption that drug users are non violent. While they may not be murderers or rapists, large percentages of them fund their habits through burglary, larceny, prostitution, forgery and a variety of other things that might not be violent, but are clearly intrusive and violate average hard working citizens. Other crimes like drunk driving are not per se violent, but they have externalities that unchecked have the potential for loss of human life.


 
Which leads me to wonder.

If drugs were legalized, would these people stop using violence to fund their habit? I mean if they need them so bad that they will use violence to get them now... its still gonna cost money to buy legal drugs...where will the get the cash to by the legal stuff?


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 12, 2007)

modarnis said:


> Big assuption that drug users are non violent.


 
It is not an assuption at all. 

The evidence available shows that approximately 70% of the 500,000 current inmates behind bars on drug offenses were not charged with any violence.

I do not make the claim that all drug offenders are non-violent.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 12, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> It is not an assuption at all.
> 
> The evidence available shows that approximately 70% of the 500,000 current inmates behind bars on drug offenses were not charged with any violence.
> 
> I do not make the claim that all drug offenders are non-violent.


It's a rather big leap that someone who simply wasn't charged with a violent offense didn't commit one -- or any other more serious offense.

As a practical matter, we often don't charge people with every possible offense.  Depending on how cooperative a victim will be (or how credible), I may not charge a drug user with anything but the possession and/or distribution.

But even ignoring that issue -- the simple fact is that unless you have access to *all * of the arrest documents, knowing what someone was convicted and sentenced for is not the same as knowing what they were charged with.  There may have been other offenses charged, but witnesses didn't come to court.  Or a plea deal resulted in only a conviction of a drug offense, and not a battery or assault on an officer that accompanied it.  Or they were found with lots of "stolen" property that had never been reported... or they were strongly tied to, but not so strongly as "beyond a reasonable doubt", robberies or burglaries or even simple larcenies like shoplifting.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 12, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> It's a rather big leap that someone who simply wasn't charged with a violent offense didn't commit one -- or any other more serious offense.
> 
> As a practical matter, we often don't charge people with every possible offense. Depending on how cooperative a victim will be (or how credible), I may not charge a drug user with anything but the possession and/or distribution.
> 
> But even ignoring that issue -- the simple fact is that unless you have access to *all *of the arrest documents, knowing what someone was convicted and sentenced for is not the same as knowing what they were charged with. There may have been other offenses charged, but witnesses didn't come to court. Or a plea deal resulted in only a conviction of a drug offense, and not a battery or assault on an officer that accompanied it. Or they were found with lots of "stolen" property that had never been reported... or they were strongly tied to, but not so strongly as "beyond a reasonable doubt", robberies or burglaries or even simple larcenies like shoplifting.


 
And the fact that I have never been convicted as a rapist doesn't mean I'm not one. But, it is absolutely irrelevant to the point. You can use this type of attack to intimate anything.

Is the next question supposed to be "When did you stop beating your wife?"


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Apr 12, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> It's a rather big leap that someone who simply wasn't charged with a violent offense didn't commit one -- or any other more serious offense.
> 
> As a practical matter, we often don't charge people with every possible offense. Depending on how cooperative a victim will be (or how credible), I may not charge a drug user with anything but the possession and/or distribution.
> 
> But even ignoring that issue -- the simple fact is that unless you have access to *all *of the arrest documents, knowing what someone was convicted and sentenced for is not the same as knowing what they were charged with. There may have been other offenses charged, but witnesses didn't come to court. Or a plea deal resulted in only a conviction of a drug offense, and not a battery or assault on an officer that accompanied it. Or they were found with lots of "stolen" property that had never been reported... or they were strongly tied to, but not so strongly as "beyond a reasonable doubt", robberies or burglaries or even simple larcenies like shoplifting.


 
You make a good point about crime statistics. What people are convicted or in jail for is NOT a good indicator of what they really did. And for all those "nonviolent" incarcerated people, what does their criminal record look like? Im willing to bet they are not "good guys" who happened to get locked up for a little blow or weed.


----------



## Ray (Apr 13, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> The evidence available shows that approximately 70% of the 500,000 current inmates behind bars on drug offenses were not charged with any violence.


All I know is that two of my brothers who abused drugs were indeed violent...and although they spent time behind bars they were never charged with a violent offense. 

Another postivie point to drug abuse (including alcohol) is the addiction that can lead to the death of people like my two brothers who happened to die homeless...


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 13, 2007)

Ray said:


> All I know is that two of my brothers who abused drugs were indeed violent...and although they spent time behind bars they were never charged with a violent offense.
> 
> Another postivie point to drug abuse (including alcohol) is the addiction that can lead to the death of people like my two brothers who happened to die homeless...


 
Personal anecdotes aside, we all know that correlation does not equal causation. 

That your brothers were violent, does not mean that the drug use caused their violence, in fact, it could be the other way around. I think you would be hard pressed to show a causation between drug use and homelessness. Do we find all drug users homeless? 

Additionally, alcohol creates a chemical dependence, whereas some other drugs - marijuana, for instance - do not create chemical dependency. 

I am an alcoholic. I have been sober for close to 15 years. And I recently saw the Penn & Teller ******** episode on Alcoholism and 12 step programs. There is a lot of wisdom in that half hour of television.


----------



## IWishToLearn (Apr 15, 2007)

Personally I believe life in prison or multiple life sentences is cruel and unusual in and of itself. Just execute them and be done with it, and quit making me pay tax dollars - for those kind of offenders I really don't give a crap about their "rights" any more.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 15, 2007)

IWishToLearn said:


> Personally I believe life in prison or multiple life sentences is cruel and unusual in and of itself. Just execute them and be done with it, and quit making me pay tax dollars - for those kind of offenders I really don't give a crap about their "rights" any more.


 
While I disagree with this thought in many ways, I can understand it as being a position one reaches when measuring a cost/benefit analysis in dollar terms. 

Sometimes, it seems the second part of your premise - the 'just execute them and be done with it' part - is the position that many hold. And while you are describing some sub-set of offenders - "those kind of offenders" - I believe that many wouldn't mind expanding that sub-set to all offenders.

Of course, this type of thinking, followed to its a logical extention, leads us to public hangings for adultry, and the like.

And, if you don't give a crap about their rights, who will look after your rights, if you are wrongfully charged, convicted and imprisoned? 

http://cwslnews.wordpress.com/2007/02/23/california-innocence-project-frees-fith-innocent-man/


----------

