Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree that prisons need not be resorts nor dungeons. Prisons are closer to dungeons despite what everybody wants to screech about.
Aren't the majority of people in prison for drugs?
Quote:
Originally Posted by djacques
The number of people in prison for murder or rape is a relatively small percent of the prison population. I would estimate (speaking as someone with a degree in criminal justice) that a good 40-60% of people now inhabiting our prison systems could safely be managed on community supervision, with or without such monitoring as electronic tether, for a fraction of the cost of incarceration.
As for the rest, there is no reason prisons need to be either resorts or dungeons. It seems we never can get to a happy medium in this country.
The number of people in prison for murder or rape is a relatively small percent of the prison population. I would estimate (speaking as someone with a degree in criminal justice) that a good 40-60% of people now inhabiting our prison systems could safely be managed on community supervision, with or without such monitoring as electronic tether, for a fraction of the cost of incarceration.
As for the rest, there is no reason prisons need to be either resorts or dungeons. It seems we never can get to a happy medium in this country.
Firstly, a large portion are there for non-violent crimes, such as pot possession related charges.
Eliminating those silly laws would empty out our prisons in a hurry.
Secondly, I don't by "rehabilitation" for a NY minute. Prison is suppsoed to be a punihsment, let's make it one. Let's make sure it acts as a deterent again, and provide some colsure for victims and/or the survivors, IMHO.
I agree that prisons need not be resorts nor dungeons. Prisons are closer to dungeons despite what everybody wants to screech about.
Aren't the majority of people in prison for drugs?
In my state, drug and other non-assaultive crimes represented 65% of new inmate admissions in 1990, 59% in 2002. Additionally it's unclear whether such crimes as non-forcible 'statutory' rape are included as "assaultive".
Firstly, a large portion are there for non-violent crimes, such as pot possession related charges.
Eliminating those silly laws would empty out our prisons in a hurry.
That's exactly what I said.
Quote:
Secondly, I don't by "rehabilitation" for a NY minute. Prison is suppsoed to be a punihsment
According to whom?
Don't go off and tell me why you think it should be used as a punishment. I'd like you to point out an actual mission statement in any Department of Corrections website or manual anywhere in the country that specifies moral retaliation (i.e. punishment) as one of the purposes of the department. (Remember, I have a degree in the field and I can detect bs from a mile away.) You certainly won't find any such statement in Michigan nor in Indiana, as memory serves.
Quote:
let's make it one. Let's make sure it acts as a deterent again, and provide some colsure for victims and/or the survivors, IMHO.
It's a fallacy that marinating in the joy of someone else's suffering ever provides "closure". Plenty of victims and survivors can tell you so.
Don't go off and tell me why you think it should be used as a punishment. I'd like you to point out an actual mission statement in any Department of Corrections website or manual anywhere in the country that specifies moral retaliation (i.e. punishment) as one of the purposes of the department. (Remember, I have a degree in the field and I can detect bs from a mile away.) You certainly won't find any such statement in Michigan nor in Indiana, as memory serves.
It's a fallacy that marinating in the joy of someone else's suffering ever provides "closure". Plenty of victims and survivors can tell you so.
As a victim of crimes, I can tell you personally that jail offers no closure for many.
Secondly, centuries of prison history show it is supposed to be a punishment. Otherwise it does not act as a deterent to crime. Rehabilitation is a relatively new development in the history of incarceration, and certainly acts as no deterent. It attempts to take convicts, after they have committed the crime, and "make them good citizens".
Jail is used as an initiation for many, specifically LA and NYC gangs. A portion of inmates become institutionalized and commit crimes upon release to get back in.
As you claimsome authority on the matter, compare recidivism and crime rates prior to rehabitlitation and after as well.
Also, turing all prisons into super-max styles would eliminate prison gang violence, drug and alchohol use, the ability for gang lords to run their gangs from behind the walls, and, with the elimination of non-violent drug related crimes, in the end would be cheaper.
The current, failed system simple does not impact crime rates in any manner. Rehabilitation is a failed policy.
No, it is a non sequitur like those you introduced above.
while you're discussing non-sequiturs back up and consider the most basic -- that gay marriage is a federal civil right today. As much as you want to hold your breath and stomp your feet; it's not a current federal civil right. That's why you can't find a SCOTUS ruling stating it is and have to reference unrelated cases. Not only that but the Defense of Marriage Act forbids feds from recognizing gay marriage.
That said, the topic has had conflicting results in various individual state courts -- but no success on a federal level.
while you're discussing non-sequiturs back up and consider the most basic -- that gay marriage is a federal civil right today. As much as you want to hold your breath and stomp your feet; it's not a current federal civil right. That's why you can't find a SCOTUS ruling stating it is and have to reference unrelated cases. Not only that but the Defense of Marriage Act forbids feds from recognizing gay marriage.
That said, the topic has had conflicting results in various individual state courts -- but no success on a federal level.
Firstly, there is no such thing as "gay marriage".
Secondly, give it time. SOMA will be repealled for the unconstitutional mess it is, and equality of amrriage will be awarded.
BTW, I noticed you offered no rebuttle for the manner in which I dismantled your non sequituers. Am I to assume you recognize them as such?
Firstly, there is no such thing as "gay marriage".
Secondly, give it time. SOMA will be repealled for the unconstitutional mess it is, and equality of amrriage will be awarded.
BTW, I noticed you offered no rebuttle for the manner in which I dismantled your non sequituers. Am I to assume you recognize them as such?
Firstly, there is no such thing as "SOMA"
You should recognize I see when I'm wasting my time. There are clear limitations to federally defined "marriage." Age, number of partners, blood relatives and currently, same sex. Regardless of the outcome, I would enjoy seeing the SCOTUS wrestle with the issue today. Times are changing.
You should recognize I see when I'm wasting my time. There are clear limitations to federally defined "marriage." Age, number of partners, blood relatives and currently, same sex. Regardless of the outcome, I would enjoy seeing the SCOTUS wrestle with the issue today. Times are changing.
Firstly, excuse my typo, and my arthritis. I of course meant DOMA.
Secondly, I have already addressed your strawmen, and knocked them down thoroughly.
And considering that the present SCOTUS has upheld Roe vs Wade, but have also upheld "In God We Trust", it should be an interesting battle to be sure, considering the current reistance to Equality of Marriage is largly religiously based.
If you knew anything about NJ's financial straits and why we're in such straits, then you would know that allowing marriages between gays, polys, children, siblings and pets wouldn't help in the least.
A report released just last week sees things differently:
"Extending marriage to same-sex couples in New Jersey would boost the state economy by $200 million and create over 1,400 jobs."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are clear limitations to federally defined "marriage." Age, number of partners, blood relatives and currently, same sex. Regardless of the outcome, I would enjoy seeing the SCOTUS wrestle with the issue today. Times are changing.
