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.
Interesting comment concerning the cost to the state concerning dealing with serious criminals. Maybe I am a bit tired and misread, but I sure hope we don't get the attitude that because it costs so much incarcerate an individual we need to keep playing the game of catch and release. Over the course of my career before retiring I effected several hundred felony arrests, many for repeat offenders of violent crimes. I know I really did not want to be in the DA's or judges shoes when a repeat offender who should have been locked up victimized another individual or family. I did my job, then the ball got passed on. Regarding arrests, I don't know how it goes in Vermont, but where I was I surely could not inflate or embellish a criminal charge at the time of arrest, i.e. charging somebody with a Class A Felony when in reality it could have been a lesser offense. Prior to pre-trial remand and the setting of bail conditions when a person is arrested I had to appear before a magistrate and the elements of the offense had to satisfy the criteria of the statute under the law. Hence, I could not "trump" up or "stack" excessive and baloney charges. I will check with the officers I know here in Vermont, but my hunch is that even though we may be a bit more less structured, the basic premise from arrest, charging, to remand will be very similar.
You didn't misread, I was making a point that few people consider. The United States has the highest rate of incarceration of any country. Think about that for a while and ask yourself why. Are people in the U.S. inherently more criminal? Is there something that makes people more violent here than in Spain or Mexico or China? Locking more and more people up obviously isn't solving a lot of the problem. I don't have the answers, but I do know that there has to be judicial common sense rather than a "lock 'em up and throw away the key" attitude.
You might not have been able to inflate charges at the time of arrest, but I'm very aware of it happening elsewhere, particularly in connection with "hate" crimes and assault. I was foreman on a jury in Florida. The criminal charge against the defendant was that he had physically assaulted a business associate that he was having an argument with. The defense eloquently pointed out how the testimony of the accuser was not credible, and that in fact the accuser was a rather irreputable character. The felony assault being brought by the state? Supposedly, the defendant had touched (not held, not broken, not grabbed, but touched) the arm of the accuser when that person went to use the phone. He didn't hold him against his will or kidnap him, he didn't threaten, he TOUCHED him. THAT was the supposed assault.
Since the supposed event happened in a closed room with no witnesses, and the accuser was proven to be unreliable in his account of the action, we had no choice but to find the defendant not guilty of touching his arm. For this, the time of twelve jurors, a judge and court reporter and baliff, and two sets of attorneys were wasted. "Mommy! Jimmy touched me!!" If we had ruled the other way, the defendant would have gone to jail. Do you think the SA could have used some discretion? I mean what do we need, a new charge for misdemeanor touching? Are we that crazy?
The cost of incarceration should be a wake-up call to people afraid of their own shadows. If you want to lock up half the population, be prepared to be part of that half that is locked up, and if you aren't, be prepared to pay for their upkeep.
With vermonts divorce laws you're most likely to get robbed by your ex-spouse, but your not allowed to use deadly force to protect yourself no matter how tempting. Joking aside I lived in vermont for over 50 years and while I knew hundreds of people that owned guns including myself, I never knew of anyone who carried one for self protection. I'd be more afraid of someone so paranoid that they carry a concealed weapon in a rural state like Vermont. Regrettably vermont is an extremely liberal state in it's laws and politicians but I don't think vermont is any different from other states with all the stories I've read about people who commit crimes and they've been in and out of jail all their lives and have just been released again, but as someone else commented it cost a lot of money to keep them incarcerated. I'm not a drug user but until this country decides a war on drugs was lost 40 years ago and is a waste of assets our prisons will continue to be overwhelmed and dangerous criminals allowed back onto the streets. One last note, if you carry a concealed weapon the one your most likely to shoot is yourself.
If you do the crime you should do the time. Lock them all up damn the expense. Gov't has 3 valid purposes- Cops for criminals, Soldiers for foreign enemies, and enforcing private free market contracts. All reasonable uses of tax money. Everything else is a waste of money and if the gov't stuck to those three things there would be plenty of money for locking up those that need to be locked up.
Joking aside I lived in vermont for over 50 years and while I knew hundreds of people that owned guns including myself, I never knew of anyone who carried one for self protection.
Me. Oh yeah, the police. Why do you thionk they carry guns?
Quote:
One last note, if you carry a concealed weapon the one your most likely to shoot is yourself.
When I hear the line that the United States incarcerates more of it's population than the nations X, Y, Z, etc, it does not make me feel that oh my gosh we had better not lock up criminals after they have been adjudicated through the system. I have had numerous opportunities to meet with and discuss legal and social issues with foreign law enforcement authorities. What it does tell me is that perhaps, yes, the United States for whatever reasons does maybe have a higher percentage of the population that is predisposed to committing unlawful behavior. In slightly over twenty years working in the justice field I can with a clear conscience say that neither I nor my colleagues were involved in hunting down otherwise innocent citizens, trumping up charges based upon vague innuendo, or witnessing DAs circumventing the law in order to fill the jails and bolster their conviction rates. Quite the contrary, I have seen serious offenders basically cycle through the revolving door and cause more financial and emotional loss to society than if they had been forced to complete their time. Now I realize that some people will forever believe that the cops, DAs, judges, lawmakers, promote a fascist police state and that literally tens of thousand souls are languishing in US prisons and even though I know from personal experience that that is wrong I don't worry about it. I take care of myself and my family and practice the basic fundamentals of weapons safety so I will not shoot myself, ie treat all weapons as if they are loaded at ALL TIMES, finger off the trigger, and barrel only pointed at an object you intend to destroy. With that in mind I fully understand many people choose not to use or own firearms and I commend them for that because they are uncomfortable, or just are honest enough to acknowledge they don't have mental and emotional capability to possibly use the weapon. Imagine if we could get driver's to act this way?
Vermont has become a liberal enclave due to the influx of New Yorkers and Bostonites. I'm surprised the relative lenient gun laws have survived. Law abiding citizens obey the law. Criminals don't. Restricitve gun laws for law abiding citizens are irrelevant.
Another point concerning serious and violent crime in the United States that is very well documented and substantiated is that when such incidents escalate and begin to dominate a neighborhood, city, or county, then there is a negative economic fallout when people begin to move out along with businesses. I don't personally know any individuals and families who would intentionally move into such a community, but I know plenty who did everything they could to get out of such communities which in part explains why many are willing to take dramatic cuts in pay or change jobs and careers to live in Vermont. A major part of our quality of life which we market here in Vermont involves the relative safety from crime and in the long run it would be damaging to begin to have virtually daily reports of incidents. It's one thing to have your mailbox smashed, but entirely another when shootings, stabbings, robberies, and other serious crimes begin happening on a consistent basis. Granted, the recent uptick in such incidents is still statistically small, but so much of human nature is based upon perceptions and caution that a community like Burlington for instance can ill afford to begin to develop a pattern of such crimes.
A friend of mine knows someone who is a Burlington cop. He said that the Burlington police is severly short staffed with over a dozen officers leaving this year alone. He also has a friend who is a VT state trooper and they are severly short staffed as well as facing major budget issues. He says many of the officers he knows who have left have done so because of the low pay of officers here.
An older article on the topic.
Public Safety: Money, troopers in short supply
February 21, 2008
MONTPELIER – The Vermont State Police may soon be in tough shape, without more money and more troopers, some state officials worry.
Although its funding has been increased, the Department of Public Safety – which includes the state police – has discovered there is more than $2.5 million less in the budget proposed by the governor for the upcoming fiscal year than it will likely need.
And there are 27 vacancies within the ranks of the troopers and no new officers among the class now being trained at the Vermont Police Academy.
Meanwhile, the demands on the state police have been growing. From the search for a missing Middlebury College student to recent drug violence in Rutland and the anti-narcotics raid called "Operation Granite Streets" in Barre in 2006, troopers have been called on to work with local police around Vermont. Dozens of vacancies in local police forces also put demands on the troopers, officials said.
At the same time, the Vermont State Police and local agencies – like forces across the country – have had a hard time recruiting and keeping officers.
My friend is a CHP and misses the NE. We spoke of the VSP and he would come here in a heartbeat. He has dealt with all the gangs and drugs in CA, the murder of his partner, etc. but Vermont does not take lateral transfers.
I would wager that there are enough LEOs from other states who would take the job in VT in an instant, eliminating the need for rookie training. The cost would be reduced to training in VT's law and handling procedures.
Bringing in trained officers from other states, particularly officers who have had specialized training in gangs, trafficking, terrorism, etc., would be a bonus for the people of the State of Vermont.
Vermont has become a liberal enclave due to the influx of New Yorkers and Bostonites. I'm surprised the relative lenient gun laws have survived. Law abiding citizens obey the law. Criminals don't. Restricitve gun laws for law abiding citizens are irrelevant.
My that's a pretty broad brush you paint with. Not all NYers are liberals. I was brought up in a very conservative household, and was raised amongst many similar families.
I will agree that the laws are for the law abiding. Criminals don't give one hoot what the law is.
My that's a pretty broad brush you paint with. Not all NYers are liberals. I was brought up in a very conservative household, and was raised amongst many similar families.
I will agree that the laws are for the law abiding. Criminals don't give one hoot what the law is.
Both above statements are right on point. However, I can understand the the NY and Mass linkage to liberals and why so many feel the way they do. I remember very well the mass exodus out of NYC in the 70s and 80s by decent and hardworking people who became fed up. Many early on saw the handwriting on the wall and moved out to points on the Island just to see the cancer follow them out there as well. I know my folks mulled that decision for quite some time and spent countless days checking out communities. In the end they chose New Hampshire which worked out well for them back in the day.
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.
Do you think the SA could have used some discretion? I mean what do we need, a new charge for misdemeanor touching? Are we that crazy?
