On May 4, 1:11 am, Capt.R...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Captain Rock) wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:48:20 -0700 (PDT), M_P <m...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
> >On Mar 28, 1:22 pm, Gunner <gun...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:13:34 -0700 (PDT), destroyfbicia
> >> <gsos...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> >On Mar 28, 5:11 am, Anonymous <cri...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> >> Excellent post.
>
> >> >> > The higest rate of incarceration in the entire world? In the
land =
of
> >> >> > the free?
>
> >> >> Incarceration Nation
>
> >> >> Not only are the prisons full but the majority of inmates have
been
> >> >> convicted of victimless crimes or "conspiracy" without having done
> >> >> anything while murderers, rapists, and robbers are still on the
> >> >> loose. It's clearly not about crime at all. It's just what this
post=
er
> >> >> explained so well. It's about butt****ing the citizenry and
creating=
an
> >> >> incarceration nation where everyone lives in fear of the fascist
> >> >> pigs.
>
> >> >excellent posts, folks; the law is indeed used by the fbi and their
> >> >punk police associates (and judges) across the nation as an
instrument=
> >> >of torture, false imprisonment and murder. The only law one can now
> >> >trust is the law of the street where each man deals with the other
in
> >> >a language they understand and respect. The punks in the fbi/cia and
> >> >police agencies across the nation now begin to realize that the
> >> >enlightened citizenry has no regard for the so called 'brave' men
in
> >> >blue, but instead view the badge toting armed thugs as threats to
> >> >individual liberties, freedom of movement, and Human Rights. Thank
> >> >you.geral sosbee
>
> >> So perhaps you prefer the Chinese model? They have very low
> >> incarceration rates.
>
> >> They simply shoot their criminals.
>
> >> Keeps the prisons empty
>
> >I prefer the liberty-loving model in which laws against victimless
> >"crimes" like drug sale and use are repealed.
>
> Now, an argument could be made that, as to the nearly half of crimes
> that fall into other categories (property crime, drug crime, etc.), we
> should be incarcerating fewer prisoners. That argument has less force
> when you start looking at the actual people who are serving these
> sentences. In virtually all cases, their records are lengthy,
Evidence?
> sometimes containing violent offenses in their past. The drug seller
> may have a record including felony assaults. The guy serving 32 months
> for car theft may have a carjacking on his record within the last ten
> years.
>
> And there are almost no pure users in prison. Here in California, the
> vast majority of state prisoners incarcerated for simple possession
> are in prison because, within the last five years, they have a serious
> or violent felony on their record =97 crimes like arson, kidnapping, and
> rape. Therefore, they don=92t qualify for the Proposition 36 drug
> treatment program, as virtually all other defendants with possession
> cases do.
>
> So yeah, you could set free the property or drug criminals, but in
> many cases you=92d be setting free potentially violent people.
Almost everybody is "potentially violent;" free societies don't punish
people for what they might do.
> But even
> if you didn=92t care and you kicked every last one of them out of
> prison, you=92d still be left with over 600,000 state prisoners in
> prison for violent crimes. That would still be a high number compared
> to other countries.
>
> That doesn=92t mean we have an incarceration problem. We have a violent
> crime problem.
>
> Exactly which violent criminals should we not be incarcerating?
None -- incarcerate them all.
|
