How Many of you are Moving Out of California due to PROP 47 (Santa Ana: violent crime, homes)

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by LJS1993

Separating residential burglary from drug use is a little misguided as they are both really related. Why? Because a desperate meth head will do anything to score some money for drugs. So why not break into a home? A business? Or other private property. Ultra liberal politics has killed California.

You watch too much TV or something. Most drug users who commit crimes commit petty offenses like shoplifting or car burglaries, very few drug users commit violent crimes. Meth has gotten so cheap that you can pretty much feed a habit just by dumpster diving, recycling metal or panhandling.

And what "ultra liberal politics" are you talking about? Do you mean the liberal politics that resulted in California put so many people in prison and treated them so poorly that the Supreme Court of the United States had to intervene and mandate changes including a population cap. Or the "ultra liberal politics" that created the three strikes law which cost so much money that we ended up spending more on prisons than higher education?

[Finper]

why do you defend criminals so much?? Are you a defense attorney or something??

[LJS1993]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

You watch too much TV or something. Most drug users who commit crimes commit petty offenses like shoplifting or car burglaries, very few drug users commit violent crimes. Meth has gotten so cheap that you can pretty much feed a habit just by dumpster diving, recycling metal or panhandling.

And what "ultra liberal politics" are you talking about? Do you mean the liberal politics that resulted in California put so many people in prison and treated them so poorly that the Supreme Court of the United States had to intervene and mandate changes including a population cap. Or the "ultra liberal politics" that created the three strikes law which cost so much money that we ended up spending more on prisons than higher education?

Heh...........just wait until a meth head steals from you.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by Finper

why do you defend criminals so much?? Are you a defense attorney or something??

I assume that was directed at me? I don't defend criminals, I just refuse to buy into all the BS that is thrown around claiming that if we just lock more people up for longer and longer periods of time that we will all be safe, it's just not true.

There is not enough money to continue to lock people up for long periods for relatively minor crimes. It's horribly expensive and it does absolutely no good. The average recidivism rate for people sent to prison is 50%-65%. If prison worked then why would that many people commit another crime when they get out? The crime rate rises and falls independent of tough laws and long prison terms (please feel free to research that on your own) so, even though we know that tough sentencing laws don't cause a drop in the crime rate we continue doing it...why? The threat of incarceration does not deter most people from committing crimes, because people who are inclined to break the law lack the ability to even consider that they might get caught, or they simply don't care, so the potential punishment means nothing.

So, what do we accomplish with these insane sentencing laws? Well, we feed the insatiable appetites of law enforcement, district attorneys and the courts whose ultimate goal is to grow their organizations and become more powerful.

Prison should be reserved for people we are afraid of, for violent predators who have demonstrated that they have no regard for other people, and they should spend a very long time in prison because they are unlikely to change if we let them out. But for non-violent petty crimes, put the offender on probation, require them to do community service to pay back their victim, require them to wear an ankle monitor and restrict where they can go and what they can do for a few years, but for craps sake don't spend more and more money thinking that if we continue the failed criminal justice policies of the last 40 years that at some point they will magically start to work.

Take the money wasted on incarcerating low level offenders and put it into job training and education for first time offenders, spend it on head start so that maybe we can create a better outcome for kids who aren't yet getting into trouble.

[LJS1993]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

I assume that was directed at me? I don't defend criminals, I just refuse to buy into all the BS that is thrown around claiming that if we just lock more people up for longer and longer periods of time that we will all be safe, it's just not true.

There is not enough money to continue to lock people up for long periods for relatively minor crimes. It's horribly expensive and it does absolutely no good. The average recidivism rate for people sent to prison is 50%-65%. If prison worked then why would that many people commit another crime when they get out? The crime rate rises and falls independent of tough laws and long prison terms (please feel free to research that on your own) so, even though we know that tough sentencing laws don't cause a drop in the crime rate we continue doing it...why? The threat of incarceration does not deter most people from committing crimes, because people who are inclined to break the law lack the ability to even consider that they might get caught, or they simply don't care, so the potential punishment means nothing.

So, what do we accomplish with these insane sentencing laws? Well, we feed the insatiable appetites of law enforcement, district attorneys and the courts whose ultimate goal is to grow their organizations and become more powerful.

Prison should be reserved for people we are afraid of, for violent predators who have demonstrated that they have no regard for other people, and they should spend a very long time in prison because they are unlikely to change if we let them out. But for non-violent petty crimes, put the offender on probation, require them to do community service to pay back their victim, require them to wear an ankle monitor and restrict where they can go and what they can do for a few years, but for craps sake don't spend more and more money thinking that if we continue the failed criminal justice policies of the last 40 years that at some point they will magically start to work.

Take the money wasted on incarcerating low level offenders and put it into job training and education for first time offenders, spend it on head start so that maybe we can create a better outcome for kids who aren't yet getting into trouble.

Sadly the experiment of reform and re-education hasn't worked.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by LJS1993

Sadly the experiment of reform and re-education hasn't worked.

When was that ever practiced in California?

[LuvSouthOC]

[quote=2sleepy;44175426]I assume that was directed at me? I don't defend criminals, I just refuse to buy into all the BS that is thrown around claiming that if we just lock more people up for longer and longer periods of time that we will all be safe, it's just not true.

There is not enough money to continue to lock people up for long periods for relatively minor crimes. It's horribly expensive and it does absolutely no good. The average recidivism rate for people sent to prison is 50%-65%. If prison worked then why would that many people commit another crime when they get out? The crime rate rises and falls independent of tough laws and long prison terms (please feel free to research that on your own) so, even though we know that tough sentencing laws don't cause a drop in the crime rate we continue doing it...why? The threat of incarceration does not deter most people from committing crimes, because people who are inclined to break the law lack the ability to even consider that they might get caught, or they simply don't care, so the potential punishment means nothing.

So, what do we accomplish with these insane sentencing laws? Well, we feed the insatiable appetites of law enforcement, district attorneys and the courts whose ultimate goal is to grow their organizations and become more powerful.

Prison should be reserved for people we are afraid of, for violent predators who have demonstrated that they have no regard for other people, and they should spend a very long time in prison because they are unlikely to change if we let them out. But for non-violent petty crimes, put the offender on probation, require them to do community service to pay back their victim, require them to wear an ankle monitor and restrict where they can go and what they can do for a few years, but for craps sake don't spend more and more money thinking that if we continue the failed criminal justice policies of the last 40 years that at some point they will magically start to work.

Take the money wasted on incarcerating low level offenders and put it into job training and education for first time offenders, spend it on head start so that maybe we can create a better outcome for kids who aren't yet getting into trouble.[/quote]

Like the GI bill, only to qualify, you have to commit a crime. Cute Sleepy.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

Like the GI program only to qualify, you have to commit a crime. Cute Sleepy.

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and I'm not sure that you do either.

[LuvSouthOC]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and I'm not sure that you do either.

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

I assume that was directed at me? I don't defend criminals, I just refuse to buy into all the BS that is thrown around claiming that if we just lock more people up for longer and longer periods of time that we will all be safe, it's just not true.

There is not enough money to continue to lock people up for long periods for relatively minor crimes. It's horribly expensive and it does absolutely no good. The average recidivism rate for people sent to prison is 50%-65%. If prison worked then why would that many people commit another crime when they get out? The crime rate rises and falls independent of tough laws and long prison terms (please feel free to research that on your own) so, even though we know that tough sentencing laws don't cause a drop in the crime rate we continue doing it...why? The threat of incarceration does not deter most people from committing crimes, because people who are inclined to break the law lack the ability to even consider that they might get caught, or they simply don't care, so the potential punishment means nothing.

So, what do we accomplish with these insane sentencing laws? Well, we feed the insatiable appetites of law enforcement, district attorneys and the courts whose ultimate goal is to grow their organizations and become more powerful.

Prison should be reserved for people we are afraid of, for violent predators who have demonstrated that they have no regard for other people, and they should spend a very long time in prison because they are unlikely to change if we let them out. But for non-violent petty crimes, put the offender on probation, require them to do community service to pay back their victim, require them to wear an ankle monitor and restrict where they can go and what they can do for a few years, but for craps sake don't spend more and more money thinking that if we continue the failed criminal justice policies of the last 40 years that at some point they will magically start to work.

Take the money wasted on incarcerating low level offenders and put it into job training and education for first time offenders, spend it on head start so that maybe we can create a better outcome for kids who aren't yet getting into trouble.

I will spell it out for you. You want a GI bill for criminals. How does one qualify? By serving his nation? Oh no, by committing a crime Sleepy considers to be low level. Thereafter, one gets job training and/or education.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

I will spell it out for you. You want a GI bill for criminals. How does one qualify? By serving his nation? Oh no, by committing a crime Sleepy considers to be low level. Thereafter, one gets job training and/or education.

Let me spell a few things out for you....Sleepy does not determine what a low level offense is, the State of California does. How you can equate my suggestion that we use prison as a last resort rather than the first choice for non-violent offenders with the GI Bill is absolutely outlandish and quite honestly it doesn't even make sense.