Good thing for those tight gun laws

Bobzilla wrote: In reply to Xceler8x: But they're not. 77% of all felons released are re-arrested within 3 years of release. So if it makes no difference how they're treated, then why are we coddling them? They are the ones that chose to ignore the rules of society, they should have to pay the price.

I'll restate what I typed out earlier. If you have any questions after this please read the articles I posted.

Our re-incarceration (aka recidivism) rate in the US is 60% while in Nordic countries, that have much more humane prisons, the re-incarceration rate is barely out of the single digits. If you don't want people committing crimes once they're out you treat them better while they're in.

In reply to Xceler8x:

Last I checked these nordic nations have very very low crime rates to begin with, and no real issues of gangs.

I'm not saying to mistreat them as human beings, but be firm, fair, consistant, and for once, make them have to earn something if they want it. Little rewards here or there are going to have a much more profound impact than what you're suggesting.

Xceler8x wrote: I'll restate what I typed out earlier. If you have any questions after this please read the articles I posted. Our re-incarceration (aka recidivism) rate in the US is 60% while in Nordic countries, that have much more humane prisons, the re-incarceration rate is barely out of the single digits. If you don't want people committing crimes once they're out you treat them better while they're in.

Causation and correlation. I don't think you can say they have low recidivism because prisons are nicer. Nordic society as a whole is very different than ours. They have a sense of personal responsibility that is lacking in mainstream US culture, I would expect that is reflected even in their prison population.

Flynlow wrote:

Xceler8x wrote: I'll restate what I typed out earlier. If you have any questions after this please read the articles I posted. Our re-incarceration (aka recidivism) rate in the US is 60% while in Nordic countries, that have much more humane prisons, the re-incarceration rate is barely out of the single digits. If you don't want people committing crimes once they're out you treat them better while they're in.

Causation and correlation. I don't think you can say they have low recidivism because prisons are nicer. Nordic society as a whole is very different than ours. They have a sense of personal responsibility that is lacking in mainstream US culture, I would expect that is reflected even in their prison population.

This. Apples and bowling balls. They don't compare well.

Bobzilla wrote:

dculberson wrote:

Bobzilla wrote:

dculberson wrote:

Bobzilla wrote:

dculberson wrote: Great, bring back the chain gangs and work camps. That went so well in the past. There's no way that will go wrong.

So the alternative is to offer them every convienence they didn't have outside the prisons?

Did I even remotely imply that? Is it any wonder I don't like having conversations with you?

You didn't imply ANYTHING, that's the problem. It's easier to just throw out one liners mocking whatever idea is set out there than it is to discuss WHY it's aproblem or if there are better options. THAT is why I don't like having "conversations" with you. You don't actually CONVERSE.

Honestly, I was merely mocking the idea of forcing prisoners to work. If you really think that's a workable idea that could in any way be put into place without rampant abuse and potentially horrible effects on our society as a whole then you haven't learned anything from history. There is no way to force someone to work if they don't want to, and attempts to have and will lead to nothing but torture. I do not think it's okay to torture someone for any reason and anyone doing so should be locked up in prison. Even if they're told to torture by someone in power over them. You want to call it a one liner, I call it pointing out the problem with what was suggested. The details seemed so obvious to me that it wasn't necessary to fill them in.

THAT is a workable response. Your previous was not. This is something we can discuss and work out ideas/issues. The other was not. In response, prisoners are already paid for each day they are imprisoned by the state. Since we're already doing that, you make it an incentive to spend 5 days a week working (they get $2/day instead of one to spend on stupid E36 M3 like cigs and magazines).

Yamaha said "require EVERY berkeleying one of them to work for their "rent." require not give them an incentive. that is why I brought up chain gangs.

They already have incentives for prisoners that work while in prison. They make furniture, do telemarketing, even do car body work in some states.

For less violent crimes I say bring back the stocks to the town square. Then, subsidize the tomato farmers. Free tomatoes for everyone!

Xceler8x wrote:

Bobzilla wrote: In reply to Xceler8x: But they're not. 77% of all felons released are re-arrested within 3 years of release. So if it makes no difference how they're treated, then why are we coddling them? They are the ones that chose to ignore the rules of society, they should have to pay the price.

I'll restate what I typed out earlier. If you have any questions after this please read the articles I posted. Our re-incarceration (aka recidivism) rate in the US is 60% while in Nordic countries, that have much more humane prisons, the re-incarceration rate is barely out of the single digits. If you don't want people committing crimes once they're out you treat them better while they're in.

I think this has more to with Nordic countries not sending people to prison over stupid E36 M3.

Semi related, nice guy I went to high school with rear ended a guy a few days ago at a stop sign, pushed him in front of a semi running down the crossroad and killed him. No word on him being intoxicated or anything like that, could have even been brake failure being an old Alero. The "tough on crime" county prosecuter has charged him with second degree murder.

dculberson wrote: Xceler8x had a reasoned thoughtful post with sources about why our recidivism rate is so high: we are not coddling them. Then you respond with this. Pay attention! We're not coddling them! We're "punishing" them and getting nothing for it!

Oh give me a break! My wife is an Administrator at our county jail... ect... Good at what she does... Her job in large part is all about taking steps to lower recidivism.. Putting inmates to work without choice in the matter would be a HUGE step in the right direction IMO.. All to often it is the sense of entitlement which landed their ass's in jail in the first place... Anything you can do to correct that would serve them very well..

If anyone is 'punishing' the incarcerated it is the other inmates... and the only way it seems to really prevent that would be a far more punishing environment.

Some of ya'll should really take the time and tour a federal or even your county facilities.. You would be shocked both at how horrible and how nice it is all at the same time.

I could care less if a realatively high percentage of the population is in prison. In my opinion, the percentage is too low. When the percentage of people committing crimes = the percent of population in prison, then I'd say we are on the right track. The people in prison are there by CHOICE. They CHOSE to not play nice in society. I don't care if their Mommy didn't love them. Or if Daddy left. Or their school had older books. Or they were disadvantaged, "victims" of drugs, etc. etc. Boo berkeleying hoo. Everyone in this county has more opportunity that 99.99% of people throughout human history could have ever dreamed of. And they still take short cuts or refuse to play by the rules. The fact that the recidivism rate is so high should tell you about the mentality of these people. Some people will never learn, and don't have a place in a society that doesn't include bars. Do you know how bad you need to screw up to commit a crime, get caught, get convicted, and actually serve time? More then once!?! How many crimes would you guess an inmate actually commits before they get locked up? Before you cry for all of the "victims of the system," give a thought for their victims. You want to put more people to work, build more prisons. It's one of the few things that I don't mind spending my tax dollars on.

In reply to Boost_Crazy:

You know this right?

We have a higher incarceration rate than Russia, and roughly the same prison population as the USSR under Stalin, do you not find that odd? Perhaps even reminiscent of police state type behavior?

bgkast wrote:

Kenny_McCormic wrote: In reply to aircooled: Yeah, as much as I agree with OP, closing the first post with "Zips on flame suit..." is kinda instigational.

I thought I would draw some fire away from the Harley thread. Actually the discussion is civilized like I expected, other than the gay slur by yamaha. Nobody has even mentioned Hitler yet. In reply to Pinchvalve: I was wondering the same thing. Since they put so many cops on the street it must be typical for violence to spike.

It made it to page 5 I can't help myself.

Germany had strict gun laws and all it got them was Hitler.

There I did it. :p

In reply to Kenny_McCormic:

We have a higher incarceration rate than Russia, and roughly the same prison population as the USSR under Stalin, do you not find that odd? Perhaps even reminiscent of police state type behavior?

Yea, that's entirely the same thing. I'm sure that under Stalin, the same due process was followed that we afford our citizens. I'm sure they were all convicted by a jury of their peers. I'll tell you what, I'll meet you half way. I'm okay with releasing all of our political prisoners, but the criminals stay. Less like Stalin now?

It's also reassuring to know that many of those listed countries take such care with accurate record keeping. That fits right in with their records on civil rights. I'm sure all are accounted for, and no one went "missing" on their watch.

In reply to Boost_Crazy:

I think you highly overestimate how much your government actually cares about you.

Boost_Crazy wrote: Yea, that's entirely the same thing. I'm sure that under Stalin, the same due process was followed that we afford our citizens. I'm sure they were all convicted by a jury of their peers. I'll tell you what, I'll meet you half way. I'm okay with releasing all of our political prisoners, but the criminals stay. Less like Stalin now? It's also reassuring to know that many of those listed countries take such care with accurate record keeping. That fits right in with their records on civil rights. I'm sure all are accounted for, and no one went "missing" on their watch.

Not every charge makes it to the "jury of your peers" type court room trial. Most are convicted via a plea bargain these days. I'm also not sure if you're joking about the political prisoners thing. We definitely have our share of those. In regards to record keeping, Most of the countries with lower incarceration rates than us are First World countries with excellent civil rights records.

Now let's also consider how many people are convicted of non-violent drug crime in the US. Let's also think about things like mandatory sentencing and the like. That's how we get here.

From an economics perspective, let's think about how much productivity and tax revenue we're losing when we imprison the most people in the world. Then you might want to also consider how much we pay to incarcerate that many. It's a high cost in other words. At a time when we supposedly can't pay to maintain our roads, send our kids to college, or help much with other society priorities. We still have crime much higher than other nations who don't have those high costs to contend with since they don't imprison at the rate we do. To me that means that our prison system while vast and packed to capacity isn't that great a deterrent to crime nor is helping to stop people from re-offending. In other words, it's expensive and doesn't work.

My point is there is a hidden cost to how we handle crime and punishment. I'm all for the crime fitting the punishment. I'm not for hobbling our economy while it happens.

So, mandatory minimum sentencing can get tossed and decriminalize low level drug offences. But throw the book at more serious crime and use a punishment system that actually works as a deterrent rather than a revolving door training ground for better criminals.

That sounds easy enough. One thing I think would help is that very few people in the US have any "skin in the game". They were born into a soft system of entitlement and have no concept that someone gave that to them on a battlefield. I'd like to see compulsory federal service for everyone between 18 and 21. Not necessarily the military but 3 years of doing something for your country (building roads, dams, schools, etc)

I think if everyone had a greater sense of ownership in the whole thing rather than an entitled renter we would see some improvements.

In reply to Xceler8x:

Plea bargaining? Plea bargaining helps the criminal. It is an admittance to guilt of a lesser charge, in exchange for lighter punishment. Plea bargaining reduces sentences. Are you implying that are prisons are full of innocent people who agreed to plead guilty?

Name one U.S. citizen who is being held as a political prisoner.

We are not imprisoning the productive members of society. They are the people who do more harm then good. Drugs are both a cause and a symptom. The same personality type that does drugs is the same that would underachieve without them, or find some other way to make bad decisions. They key word is decision. They decided to go down that route, which had a clear destination. People make that choice because they want to, and will not change unless they want to. We have countless rehabilitation programs, and they do not work unless the person chooses to change. A very large portion of our crime is directly related to drugs (legal and illegal.)

I can understand the argument that non violent offenders should not be grouped with violent offenders in prison. But I'm all for locking people up that choose to be a drain on our society and break the laws.

Our "high" incarceration rate does work. Our crime rates are at all time lows. Three Strikes has been very successful in removing repeat offenders off the streets. Those in prison are not out continuing to commit crimes. Is that not the definition of success? Sure some will continue to offend when they are released- I guess you would consider that unsuccessful. They way I see it, that person would have continued to commit crimes anyway had they not been locked up. So we got a nice break while they were behind bars.

If you really want to help criminals get back on their feet, no one is stopping you. Why don't you hire them? Or maybe start an "adopt an ex-con" program, and invite them into your home. Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot- it's only a good idea if you spend other people's money and put others at risk. How compassionate of you.

KyAllroad wrote: So, mandatory minimum sentencing can get tossed and decriminalize low level drug offences. But throw the book at more serious crime and use a punishment system that actually works as a deterrent rather than a revolving door training ground for better criminals. That sounds easy enough. One thing I think would help is that very few people in the US have any "skin in the game". They were born into a soft system of entitlement and have no concept that someone gave that to them on a battlefield. I'd like to see compulsory federal service for everyone between 18 and 21. Not necessarily the military but 3 years of doing something for your country (building roads, dams, schools, etc) I think if everyone had a greater sense of ownership in the whole thing rather than an entitled renter we would see some improvements.

I really can't find much fault with this.

Boost_Crazy wrote: ...Name one U.S. citizen who is being held as a political prisoner...

Based on the number of t-shirts I have seen, I am pretty sure this guys is one of them:

In reply to Boost_Crazy:

Define "political prisoner". I'd say the bulk of nonviolent crimes only exist out of politics in the first place.

Bobzilla wrote:

KyAllroad wrote: So, mandatory minimum sentencing can get tossed and decriminalize low level drug offences. But throw the book at more serious crime and use a punishment system that actually works as a deterrent rather than a revolving door training ground for better criminals. That sounds easy enough. One thing I think would help is that very few people in the US have any "skin in the game". They were born into a soft system of entitlement and have no concept that someone gave that to them on a battlefield. I'd like to see compulsory federal service for everyone between 18 and 21. Not necessarily the military but 3 years of doing something for your country (building roads, dams, schools, etc) I think if everyone had a greater sense of ownership in the whole thing rather than an entitled renter we would see some improvements.

I really can't find much fault with this.

Me either. I think a lot of the attitude of the 'Greatest Generation' had to do with growing up in hard times during the Depression and how many of them worked on all the WPA projects that were undertaken at the time such as the Blue Ridge Parkway, the Tennessee Valley Authority etc. Now the challenges are growing video game calluses on the thumbs and seeing how many 'friends' you can tote up on Facebook.

In reply to Kenny_McCormic:

political prisoner n. A person who has been imprisoned for holding or advocating dissenting political views.

An example would be if Tea Partyers were rounded up and jailed for expressing their displeasure with the current administration. We don't have our jails filled with political prisoners. Even if you stretched the definition way past the breaking point, you would have a hard time finding political prisoners in this country today. On the other end, you have North Korea. A good chunk of those incarcerated there are political prisoners. Say the wrong think about Dennis Rodman's best friend, and your whole family goes to jail. Or worse.

Breaking a law that was passed by elected officials, or voted into law by the citizens, that you disagree with, does not make you a political prisoner. I know you are concerned about drugs laws, but let's tie this example into the original topic. If someone strongly believes on their 2nd amendment rights, and walks into an airport with a machine gun, they would not be considered a political prisoner when they are hauled off to jail. If they simply said that they think the law should allow for machine guns as carry-ons, and were jailed for championing their cause without violating law, then they would be a political prisoner.

Curmudgeon wrote:

Bobzilla wrote:

KyAllroad wrote: So, mandatory minimum sentencing can get tossed and decriminalize low level drug offences. But throw the book at more serious crime and use a punishment system that actually works as a deterrent rather than a revolving door training ground for better criminals. That sounds easy enough. One thing I think would help is that very few people in the US have any "skin in the game". They were born into a soft system of entitlement and have no concept that someone gave that to them on a battlefield. I'd like to see compulsory federal service for everyone between 18 and 21. Not necessarily the military but 3 years of doing something for your country (building roads, dams, schools, etc) I think if everyone had a greater sense of ownership in the whole thing rather than an entitled renter we would see some improvements.

I really can't find much fault with this.

Me either. I think a lot of the attitude of the 'Greatest Generation' had to do with growing up in hard times during the Depression and how many of them worked on all the WPA projects that were undertaken at the time such as the Blue Ridge Parkway, the Tennessee Valley Authority etc. Now the challenges are growing video game calluses on the thumbs and seeing how many 'friends' you can tote up on Facebook.

Here is the problem with it now... As a Marine Vet I'll just go ahead and say some Vets often are the among the worst of the 'entitlement' offenders.. They are the exceptions... but there is a drastic shift that direction... How do you think the kids who signed up for the College money are acting??

so the way i see it... You mandate Federal service in this environment and the Dumb E36 M3 Fed's are bound to figure out some backwards way to create a bunch of dependents...

Trust me, I see that too. I'm just talking averages here. I feel that the average citizen will be improved by doing something greater than him or her self.

Even a class in high school demonstrating the basic concepts of economics where they can be shown how many workers have to pay in so that one can freeload off the system.

There will always be E36 M3bags trying to get over. The way I see it though is what percentage of dead weight can we support before our national ship starts to founder.

dculberson wrote: Yamaha said "require EVERY berkeleying one of them to work for their "rent." **require** not give them an incentive. *that* is why I brought up chain gangs. They already have incentives for prisoners that work while in prison. They make furniture, do telemarketing, even do car body work in some states.

If you take away enough things/restrict enough activities, they will work for them. You don't work, you don't get the extra benifits/luxuries like A/C, Cable television, subsidized education, etc. I am a firm believer of making them all work to pay for the expenses caused by THEIR actions. Its a two pronged attempt to instill a strong work ethic and personal responsibility.

I'm also a believer of the profit(after the facility expenses) being put into a working offenders "Get out" fund for when they get out. As I stated earlier, $50 and a bus pass is by and large a huge problem that leads to them going back to doing what they were doing and getting thrown back in prison.

I fail to see what is so hard to understand here, and I question if you even bothered to read my explaination of "Why they should be made to work"

The weekend is here - let's see how Chicago does and how the chief of police survives. They burned out the last one.