US prison population hits 2 million.

[atlantabiolab]

A lot of the laws is this land are based on

1. Our Puritan founders

gambling laws
alcohol purchsing and bar closing laws AKA blue laws
anti-prostitution laws

They are, but the Founders allowed the states the right to pass laws on such issues, based on local beliefs. The rights of the states control over local issues was superior to a strong central government, because one still remained the right to leave his state and reside in one that reflects his beliefs, whereas federal laws impose restrictions equally on all states and therefore against the wishes of many.

 

[Warik]

Spoken like a boy who has never seen the inside of a jail.

I don't see why the fact that I've never seen the inside of a jail (as if that's not something to be proud of, given the society we live in today) somehow makes my point any less valid. It's a well-known fact that many of the people who will commit a crime over the next week are repeat offenders whose past offenses were not as minor as we'd like them to be. Why are these people still out on the street?

Because, as I said, society treats them like royalty.

Want proof? Fine: How much time are you going to do for your DUI?

-Warik

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Because, as I said, society treats them like royalty.

Want proof? Fine: How much time are you going to do for your DUI?

-Warik

I'm probably going to be acquitted. No crime no time. However, If I were convicted of DUI I could be sentenced to up to 6 months, and there was zero property damage and no injuries.

You're right about the repeat offenders, wrong about the royalty comment. Except for the occasional celebrated criminal "2Pac, etc.", we treat them like absolute shit. I know you're exaggerating but it kills your point.

The modern jail culture contributes mightily to the development of repeat offenders. Do you know what a huge loss to society it is to have over a million adults in jail, and a bunch of others who have to watch them?

Incarceraton is big business. As long as we can keep jailing the poor to give the lower middle class jobs, we're going to.

 

[Testosterone boy]

I don't see why the fact that I've never seen the inside of a jail (as if that's not something to be proud of, given the society we live in today) somehow makes my point any less valid. It's a well-known fact that many of the people who will commit a crime over the next week are repeat offenders whose past offenses were not as minor as we'd like them to be. Why are these people still out on the street?

Because, as I said, society treats them like royalty.

Want proof? Fine: How much time are you going to do for your DUI?

-Warik

He was saying that anyone who believes that prisoners get treated like royalty has never been to prison.

 

[Warik]

He was saying that anyone who believes that prisoners get treated like royalty has never been to prison.

Walking the streets after committing a crime sounds like royalty to me... but what do I know? I'm just a kid who's never been to jail.

 

[Warik]

I'm probably going to be acquitted. No crime no time.

But you did commit a crime. See my point?

However, If I were convicted of DUI I could be sentenced to up to 6 months, and there was zero property damage and no injuries.

Wow. Sounds real fair, doesn't it? You could have killed somebody, but the impact on your life would be minimal in comparison to what it would have been to a victim.

You're right about the repeat offenders, wrong about the royalty comment. Except for the occasional celebrated criminal "2Pac, etc.", we treat them like absolute shit. I know you're exaggerating but it kills your point.

OK, but saying "we treat them like shit" doesn't reinforce my point either. My point is that, in comparison to how they SHOULD be treated, they are treated like royalty. Shit gets thrown in jail with punishment equitable to that which the victim and his family received, suffers in there, and doesn't get out for a while... or never if he raped or murdered somebody. Royalty gets back on the street in a few months/years and does it again. That's my point - a fact - which is a problem.

The modern jail culture contributes mightily to the development of repeat offenders. Do you know what a huge loss to society it is to have over a million adults in jail, and a bunch of others who have to watch them?

Hence my support for the death penalty.

Incarceraton is big business. As long as we can keep jailing the poor to give the lower middle class jobs, we're going to.

Oh no... you were making sense up until now. Do you honestly think that the poor would be making a meaningful contribution to society if they weren't sitting in a jail cell? Do you forget how they got into the jail cell in the first place? We don't go door to door in poor neighborhoods arresting people when no crime has been committed.

Do they get treated differently from lower middle class when they DO commit crimes? Possibly... but they're only being treated how everyone should be treated. The problem (if it is true) is not that the poor are treated worse - it's that the lower middle is treated better.

The fact is that when close to 1% of the population is in jail and you can walk around in a mall for 10 minutes and almost certainly see somebody who has been to jail at least one time in his life, you know we're living in a shitty world.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

But you did commit a crime. See my point?

Not according to the law in the United States (or Florida) I didn't. The US justice system stipulates that you are innocent of crime until proven guilty in a court of law. As I have not been convicted, you're speculating. Are you suggesting we change the system to a speculative one??

Wow. Sounds real fair, doesn't it? You could have killed somebody, but the impact on your life would be minimal in comparison to what it would have been to a victim.

The same is true every time you, I, or anyone else gets behind the wheel. We could kill someone. Typically, though, we only charge people based on what actually DID occur, not what "could have". Additionally, we punish people based on what they were convicted of, not what they "could have been" convicted of. I don't really see your point.

OK, but saying "we treat them like shit" doesn't reinforce my point either. My point is that, in comparison to how they SHOULD be treated, they are treated like royalty. Shit gets thrown in jail with punishment equitable to that which the victim and his family received, suffers in there, and doesn't get out for a while... or never if he raped or murdered somebody. Royalty gets back on the street in a few months/years and does it again. That's my point - a fact - which is a problem.

Your characterization of the incarceration process is quite narrow. If we used the sentencing guideline of "equal to the victim's suffering", there would be far fewer incarcerations. Many crimes do not even have victim, and theft type crimes could be resolved with financial judgments.

Additionally, are you familiar with any aspects of prison life? Any guards in your family or among your friends? It is not easy or pleasant, except maybe for minimum security inmates. I am not sure what kind of treatment you are advocating...

Oh no... you were making sense up until now. Do you honestly think that the poor would be making a meaningful contribution to society if they weren't sitting in a jail cell?

So should we just execute them? Achievement is equal to your opportunity, not just ability.

Do you forget how they got into the jail cell in the first place? We don't go door to door in poor neighborhoods arresting people when no crime has been committed.

If you think that police presence is equal in poor neighborhoods as it is in rich neighborhhoods, you're just wrong.

Cops are crawling the streets in poor neighborhhoods, looking for dealers and street people. Crime, particularly drug use, is equally prevalent in rich neighborhoods, but if the cops started hanging out there, homeowners would bitch. It lowers property value.
When rich people complain, politicians listen, so cops don't hang out in those neighborhoods. When poor people complain, no one cares. Pick up a rich kid for drugs, his dad may know people. Pick up a poor kid, you got yourself a conviction.

I live in a very exclusive area. You NEVER (and I mean NEVER) see a police car. Before this I lived in a modest apartment while the house was being built, in a very average part of the city. Cops were around all the time.

Do they get treated differently from lower middle class when they DO commit crimes? Possibly... but they're only being treated how everyone should be treated. The problem (if it is true) is not that the poor are treated worse - it's that the lower middle is treated better.
[/quoet]

I like how you just brush aside an inequity that you discounted above as non-existent. Inequity is inequity. Justice should be blind, right?

The fact is that when close to 1% of the population is in jail and you can walk around in a mall for 10 minutes and almost certainly see somebody who has been to jail at least one time in his life, you know we're living in a shitty world.

Come to my house and you can be in the same room as someone who has been arrested 3 times.

 

[Fonz]

SO ARE YOU READY TO ADMIT THAT BABYDOC IS A BETTER PERSON THAN YOU??? GOING BY YOUR CRITERIA OF COURSE.

GENERALLY, IF A PERSON IS OLDER THAN YOU, MORE EDUCATED THAN YOU, AND MORE EXPERIENCED THAN YOU.......THEY ARE OLDER, MORE EDUCATED, AND MORE EXPERIENCED. NOT A BETTER PERSON.

NONE OF THAT CRITERIA HAS SHIT TO DO WITH BEING A GOOD PERSON.





KAYNE

Babydoc is not in my field. But I do repect his education. He's just very colourful w/ his insults.

"Good" Person? What the hell are you talking about?

We aren't mormons. We are talking about "Better" not "good".

Please tell me you're not this naive.

If there weren't BETTER people than you....then how do you measure your success...in your own socio/economic/academic world?

There is no such things as Equality in life. Its a constant struggle to see who can win. It really is that simple. Civility is the only thying that keeps everything from crumbling down.

Fonz

 

[Warik]

Not according to the law in the United States (or Florida) I didn't. The US justice system stipulates that you are innocent of crime until proven guilty in a court of law. As I have not been convicted, you're speculating. Are you suggesting we change the system to a speculative one??

Oh please... don't give me this legal technicality bullshit. You committed a crime and there's plenty of evidence to convict you. Were you behind the wheel? Yes. Did a breath test show you to be above the legal limit? Yes. That's it - case closed. We're not "speculating" here. The fact that you're getting off despite the evidence suggests that there's a problem in the legal system. If you deny that, then show me why.

The same is true every time you, I, or anyone else gets behind the wheel. We could kill someone.

It's not illegal to get behind the wheel sober. It is, however, illegal to get behind the wheel with your blood-alcohol level above the legal limit. That's even though "we" could kill someone, "I" did not commit any crime.

Typically, though, we only charge people based on what actually DID occur, not what "could have". Additionally, we punish people based on what they were convicted of, not what they "could have been" convicted of. I don't really see your point.

So I suppose if I take a golf club to someone's head and he recovers fully somehow, battery+aggravated assault and not attempted murder, right?

My point is the following:
1) Was a crime committed? Yes.
2) Should the person committing the crime be punished? Yes.
3) Was/will the person be punished? No.

That presents an indisputable fault in our legal system.

Of course, I don't want to see you behind bars, but for the sake of this argument, you're the perfect target. =)

Your characterization of the incarceration process is quite narrow. If we used the sentencing guideline of "equal to the victim's suffering", there would be far fewer incarcerations. Many crimes do not even have victim, and theft type crimes could be resolved with financial judgments.

And that'd be a bad thing? Don't tell me you've never seen me rambling on about victimless crimes. An act without a victim other than oneself cannot logically be classified as a crime.

A financial judgment would be equitable to a victim's suffering. The victim had something taken from him by someone it didn't belong to. Vice-versa for the criminal. Sounds fair to me.

Additionally, are you familiar with any aspects of prison life? Any guards in your family or among your friends? It is not easy or pleasant, except maybe for minimum security inmates. I am not sure what kind of treatment you are advocating...

I am not familiar with prison life whatsoever, which is why my discussion has nothing to do with prison life. I'm talking about criminals on the street, not criminals in prison. If someone commits a crime, he shouldn't be on the street. Keep your red herrings to yourself.

So should we just execute them? Achievement is equal to your opportunity, not just ability.

Only the murderers and, possibly, the brutal rapists. No reason to execute drunk drivers, burglars, muggers, etc.

If you think that police presence is equal in poor neighborhoods as it is in rich neighborhhoods, you're just wrong.

Cops are crawling the streets in poor neighborhhoods, looking for dealers and street people. Crime, particularly drug use, is equally prevalent in rich neighborhoods, but if the cops started hanging out there, homeowners would bitch. It lowers property value.

Oh yea... that's why neighborhoods within 1 mile of a golf course is a dangerous warzone and poor neighborhoods are so clean and safe. I walk around in poor neighborhoods with a suit and briefcase all the time but I just dread getting out of the car around a golf course for fear that someone will "jack ma' shoes."

Did it ever occur to you that there's less need for a police presence in a wealthier neighborhood because there's less violent crime going on? Get real man.

When was the last time you got mugged in your neighborhood?

How about your house being robbed? If there are so many cops in poor neighborhoods and so few in rich neighborhoods, well, you know the story.

When rich people complain, politicians listen, so cops don't hang out in those neighborhoods.

The customer is always right. If the engine fell out of your new car after you paid for it, you'd have a right to complain. Likewise, if the police service you pay the bulk of (you know, since the rich DO pay 90850923842089432x more in taxes than the poor) do not perform to your liking, you have a right to complain.

Come on, you don't honestly think that someone should be forced to pay taxes to pay cops to arrest the people who pay for them, do you?

When poor people complain, no one cares. Pick up a rich kid for drugs, his dad may know people. Pick up a poor kid, you got yourself a conviction.

Think about this for a minute:

Compare where the rich kid got his money for the drugs to where the poor kid got the money for his drugs. Compare the rich kid's performance in school to the poor kid's performance in school. Compare the impact on society that the rich kid could have in the future to the impact the poor kid could have in the future.

I live in a very exclusive area. You NEVER (and I mean NEVER) see a police car.

OK - and how often do you hear about a brutal murder or a burglarly in your exclusive area on the news? rofl dude... your counterargument has strengthened my point beyond bulletproof.

Let me finish off this retort with a simple question that you won't be able to answer without completely destroying your point.

If there are so many cops preying on poor people in poor neighborhoods, and there are so few cops preying on rich people in rich neighborhoods, why is there still so much violent crime in poor neighborhoods compared to police-free rich neighborhoods?

Have fun.

-Warik

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Oh please... don't give me this legal technicality bullshit. You committed a crime and there's plenty of evidence to convict you. Were you behind the wheel? Yes. Did a breath test show you to be above the legal limit? Yes. That's it - case closed. We're not "speculating" here. The fact that you're getting off despite the evidence suggests that there's a problem in the legal system. If you deny that, then show me why.

Referring to the right to a trial by jury as a "legal technicality" is bizarre. It's straight out of the Constitution.

Anyway: The charge is "driving under the Influence", not "driving with a BAC above .08". Free law note for you: There are states where being above .08 is itself a crime. Florida is not one of them.

Do you know what a partition ratio is? It's the ratio between alcohol on the breath and in the blood. The machine calculates it based on a partition ratio of 2100:1. However, this is an average and is not indicative of the person taking the test. Parittion ratios range from 700:1 to 3500:1. Florida allows the partition ratio defense, some states don't.

Another interesting note about the standard breathalyzer: Manuifacturers do not warrant that the readings will be accurate. Some states bar this defense at trial. Florida does not. The inaccuracy of the breathalyzer is well-documented. In fact, I had to undergo a second round of breathalyzer tests because my scores were outsideof teh acceptable range.

There are also other tests given at the scene. In each of those I performed "accetpably". In order to determine if I was in fact "under the influence" a jury must review all the evidence and make a conclusion. Exceeding .08 does not equal "DUI".

It's not illegal to get behind the wheel sober. It is, however, illegal to get behind the wheel with your blood-alcohol level above the legal limit. That's even though "we" could kill someone, "I" did not commit any crime.

You said I could have killed someone. So can you when you drive to the store. Your response above is a non-sequitur.

So I suppose if I take a golf club to someone's head and he recovers fully somehow, battery+aggravated assault and not attempted murder, right?

For the DA to decide. Intent would play a big role. What does that have to do with anything?

My point is the following:
1) Was a crime committed? Yes.
2) Should the person committing the crime be punished? Yes.
3) Was/will the person be punished? No.

That presents an indisputable fault in our legal system.

Of course, I don't want to see you behind bars, but for the sake of this argument, you're the perfect target. =)

1. If you support the Constitution, then the answer is "pending jury trial"
2. If a guilty verdict is rendered by a jury, the defendant is punished.
3. Irrelevant until convicted. BTW in my example I have already spent several thousand dollars.

And that'd be a bad thing? Don't tell me you've never seen me rambling on about victimless crimes. An act without a victim other than oneself cannot logically be classified as a crime.

Tell it to a legislator.

A financial judgment would be equitable to a victim's suffering. The victim had something taken from him by someone it didn't belong to. Vice-versa for the criminal. Sounds fair to me.

Tell it to a legislator.

I am not familiar with prison life whatsoever, which is why my discussion has nothing to do with prison life. I'm talking about criminals on the street, not criminals in prison. If someone commits a crime, he shouldn't be on the street. Keep your red herrings to yourself.

You can't incarcerate everyopne convicted of a crime forever. Convicted criminals pay their debt to society and then what? The cost of that debt is determined through legislation, it is not randomly assigned.

Only the murderers and, possibly, the brutal rapists. No reason to execute drunk drivers, burglars, muggers, etc.

I'll agree to the death penalty for murder convictions with a standard of absolute certainty: videotape, DNA etc.

OK - and how often do you hear about a brutal murder or a burglarly in your exclusive area on the news? rofl dude... your counterargument has strengthened my point beyond bulletproof.

Why can't the cops stop the crime, if they know where it is going to happen?

If there are so many cops preying on poor people in poor neighborhoods, and there are so few cops preying on rich people in rich neighborhoods, why is there still so much violent crime in poor neighborhoods compared to police-free rich neighborhoods?

Seems to me like the police aren't making a difference in either neighborhood. If they don't stop crime in poor areas, and there is so little in rich areas, why have cops at all, except to jail the poor people away? It;s a great mouthpiece for politicians to say they are "tough on crime" yet crime has not gone down an iota in decades.

This is the bottom line:

COPS ARE THE WAY THAT THE STATE DEALS WITH POOR PEOPLE, SINCE THEY ARE THE MOST LIKELY TOENGAGE IN VIOLENT REVOLUTION AND KICK OUT THOSE IN POWER. IT GOES ABOUT LIKE THIS:


KEEP THE RICH WEALTHY.

PLACATE THE MIDDLE CLASS WITH RHETORIC, PROPAGANDA, THE TWO PARTY "BLAME THE OTEHR GUY" SYSTEM, TV, AND DREAMS OF WEALTH THEY CAN NEVER HAVE. (KEEPS THEM SLAVING AWAY UNTIL RETIREMENT AT 65)

JAIL THE POOR.

THE AMERICAN WAY