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.
Reappropriation of funds. No new taxes are needed. In fact, reappropriation would solve many of this nations fiscal ills, but i'll save that for another thread.
Reappropriation from where?
From welfare? All these people will need welfare after getting out and not being able to find a job. Without social support, there wouldn't be much reason not to keep committing crimes...at least in prison you get a warm meal. With hard time for all crimes, why try and do a lesser crime?
From Social Security and Medicare? Hell why not, kill the old people to imprison the young. Without all those workers we can't afford people over 65 anyways. I hope if you push forward this idea you are not a senior.
From the military? Maybe, if we stop starting wars all over the world. However, we may need them at home with a massive group of disenfranchised people who have nothing to lose.
Sure our nation is going through an economic crisis and we currently have the largest documented prison population in the entire world, but going over all those laws and seeing which ones are fair and which ones aren't is such a BORE.
Instead, we should spend billions of dollars, build more prisons, and throw everyone we can get our hands on in. What a great idea!
Why can't we build more prisons and readjust arcane laws at the same time? Businesses readjust for efficiency all the time. Why can't government?
From welfare? All these people will need welfare after getting out and not being able to find a job. Without social support, there wouldn't be much reason not to keep committing crimes...at least in prison you get a warm meal. With hard time for all crimes, why try and do a lesser crime?
From Social Security and Medicare? Hell why not, kill the old people to imprison the young. Without all those workers we can't afford people over 65 anyways.
From the military? Maybe, if we stop starting wars all over the world. However, we may need them at home with a massive group of disenfranchised people who have nothing to lose.
Sounds like a fantastic idea.
It's late. I know you're not thinking deep. But come on. Social programs are not discretionary. Therefore, funds would not come from those. Funds would come from discretionary funds. The funds that your legislators love to have a field day with. The ones that everybody and their brother gets a stab at as long as they have the right influence. Those funds. There are plenty.
Why can't we build more prisons and readjust arcane laws at the same time? Businesses readjust for efficiency all the time. Why can't government?
If we changed our laws, there would be no need for new prisons, so that makes no sense.
Your overwhelming desire for more prisons is pretty disturbing, and your idea of where the funding would come for these prisons is downright ridiculous.
Deterrance would be a side benefit, not the primary benefit. The primary benefit would be keeping those people off the streets for longer. Prison violence is no consequence to me. Don't want to get raped? Don't go to prison. The emphasis on protecting the individual in prison could be remedied by individual cells, 23 hours per day. Solitary confinement. Don't like that idea? Don't commit a felony, and all will be well. It's really pretty simple. I've managed to stay out of prison my entire life. It's not hard to do.
If deterrence is truly a benefit, as you claim, why are those "scary" (your words, not mine) South American prisons filled? Why do most South American countries have such a crime problem?
Its funny how the less government right wing only wants new laws and laws strengthened that allow them to sit in judgement of others...
If we changed our laws, there would be no need for new prisons, so that makes no sense.
Your overwhelming desire for more prisons is pretty disturbing, and your idea of where the funding would come for these prisons is downright ridiculous.
I'm talking about arcane laws, such as those that put joint smokers in the prison. I'm no advocate for pot smokers, but I can see the lopsidedness of some laws that put them in prison. Laws like that could be reevaluated.
We do need to incarcerate criminals who pose a threat to society for as long as we possibly can.
I hate to say it but the lost war on drugs should be revisited to reduce criminality by giving a pass on the proclivities of pot heads. I do not see a distinction between someone who drinks themselves stupid and another guy that gets there smoking weed. It would take some of the funding out of the hands of dangerous criminal organizations and free up space in prisons for more of the worst kinds of criminals.
We should also reduce or burden by having Mexico house in their prisons all their nationals we currently have in ours and at bargain prices because otherwise they are happy to keep this garbage north of the border. This would be a good source of income for Mexico.
If deterrence is truly a benefit, as you claim, why are those "scary" (your words, not mine) South American prisons filled? Why do most South American countries have such a crime problem?
Its funny how the less government right wing only wants new laws and laws strengthened that allow them to sit in judgement of others...
I have no qualms about the judicial branch of government interpreting the laws on the books, including the penalty phase. I have a problem with the legislative branch having a field day with the freedoms of law abiding citizens. There's a difference.
For the record, I said deterrance would be a secondary benefit, not the primary benefit. The primary benefit would be the scourge of society off the streets for longer periods of time. I'm not concerned about the feelings of those who happen to find themselves in prison. No sympathy from me at all.
I have no qualms about the judicial branch of government interpreting the laws on the books, including the penalty phase. I have a problem with the legislative branch having a field day with the freedoms of law abiding citizens. There's a difference.
For the record, I said deterrance would be a secondary benefit, not the primary benefit. The primary benefit would be the scourge of society off the streets for longer periods of time. I'm not concerned about the feelings of those who happen to find themselves in prison. No sympathy from me at all.
Yes, it's quite evident you have no sympathy. I hope I am never so angry and jaded that I lack sympathy.
Can you please describe exactly what freedoms you have that have been effected recently by the legislative branch?
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.
