Rampant crime, and LENIENT JUDGES

[Section10]

I have a friend who spent three years on a Florida chain gang. Hasn't been in trouble with the law since.

 

[deanglen]

We don't have chain gangs here in Australia, so they were a rather controversial topic when the Australian Sixty Minutes TV program aired a segment about them in the U.S. a couple of years ago.

To me, they seem like a good idea in that prisons are costly to run, and having convicts work on road maintenance schemes seems like a good way to use their energies effectively. (They always seem to have plenty of energy to burn lifting weights in the exercise yards on TV shows, anyway lol ). Am I being a bit Draconian here? There was a time when hard labour meant just that.

Deanglen, I enjoyed what you've had to say in this thread, I think it'd be great to explore the thoughts you've raised in a thread all of their own.

Benny, the more I get into some of these threads I have to realize that my vocation can easily become difficult to incorporate into certain discussions because I usually proceed in the discussion, other than about hats, from an established position, on a topic such as religion, for example. This can weigh down a lively give and take, giving my position a fixed, dogmatic persistence from a set of presumptions. I therefore must be careful to join a discussion, not deliberately promote an agenda. If a topic will bear some input of mine, I always try to monitor that input. Consider Paul before Felix in Acts, or Jesus with Nicodemus in the Gospel of John. I don't want to smother a flame, but offer new fuel, fresh air; more light than heat.

I've been thinking that I would gladly receive PMs from any loungers with any topic or concern, even receive prayer requests, provide an unofficial "chaplaincy" for any who wish to use it.
You never know when you might need someone to PM for some peace of mind. As is the case in my daily ministry, absolute confidentiality is always maintained. Always available.


dean

 

[Lincsong]

3 Strikes and throw away the key.

I happen to support the 3 Strikes Law in California and I voted for it when it was on the ballot. Sure there are a lot of druggies in the prison system. So what? Don't use drugs. Someone who has had 3 offences is going to do more. For instance, there was that sicko who kidnapped that Steven Stainer (sp)? or something back in the 1970's. Well, anyway the scumbag was out of jail and was arrested for wanting to "buy" a 4 year old black boy in Berkeley.:rage: Because of the 3 Strikes Law this piece of filth will rot in San Quentin where he belongs.:eusa_clap

 

[Benny Holiday]

Benny, the more I get into some of these threads I have to realize that my vocation can easily become difficult to incorporate into certain discussions because I usually proceed in the discussion, other than about hats, from an established position, on a topic such as religion, for example. This can weigh down a lively give and take, giving my position a fixed, dogmatic persistence from a set of presumptions. I therefore must be careful to join a discussion, not deliberately promote an agenda. If a topic will bear some input of mine, I always try to monitor that input. Consider Paul before Felix in Acts, or Jesus with Nicodemus in the Gospel of John. I don't want to smother a flame, but offer new fuel, fresh air; more light than heat.

I've been thinking that I would gladly receive PMs from any loungers with any topic or concern, even receive prayer requests, provide an unofficial "chaplaincy" for any who wish to use it.
You never know when you might need someone to PM for some peace of mind. As is the case in my daily ministry, absolute confidentiality is alwaysmaintained. Always available.
dean

Most thoughtfully put, Dean. Your kind offer of chaplaincy will be remembered and is much appreciated.

 

[Roger]

We need to get all those ACLU members off of the judiciary. Morons and devients every last one.:rage: Especially Ruth Ginsburg. She never, NEVER should have been allowed on the Supreme Court.

 

[Daisy Buchanan]

I happen to support the 3 Strikes Law in California and I voted for it when it was on the ballot. Sure there are a lot of druggies in the prison system. So what? Don't use drugs. Someone who has had 3 offences is going to do more. For instance, there was that sicko who kidnapped that Steven Stainer (sp)? or something back in the 1970's. Well, anyway the scumbag was out of jail and was arrested for wanting to "buy" a 4 year old black boy in Berkeley.:rage: Because of the 3 Strikes Law this piece of filth will rot in San Quentin where he belongs.:eusa_clap

I support the 3 Strikes law too. I don't think we have such a thing here in Massachusetts. MA is notorious for it's lenient punishment for hardened criminals. Just one example. A few years back, a judge let a guy go with probation (I'm not sure how long, but I know it wasn't much) for child molestation. Only a few weeks later, he molested a young boy at a rest stop and killed him. The judge was investigated, and found to have made many rulings in favor of offenders. Especially offenders who were defended by a certain group of lawyers. They could not find any other connections between these lawyers and the judge, but she was de-robed. This is just one example of the many criminals who have been given either probation or time served sentences. It's no wonder that our murder rate has more than doubled, and the year isn't over yet. The all too liberal judges in Massachusetts make it much too easy for criminals to commit crimes of all natures. I get tired of hearing about how we need to help drug dealers, molesterers and murderers. That therapy would be so much more helpful to them than sending them to do hard time. To me, this is bull. Too many judges are way too liberal in their sentencing. It's almost as if they feel worse for the criminals, and have an inherent need to help them. Instead of admitting the truth, and realizing that no therapy is going to help a repeat offender of any kind. I truly believe that a 3 strikes law would help lower both the crime rate and the murder rate. Just my opinion.

 

[Harp]

Justice

The Law ultimately reflects the society it serves. And, notwithstanding
the Model Penal Code, criminal trials quite often hinge on innate bias,
be it the prejudice of a juror, or judge. Then too, US Supreme Court
justices and their lower-bench Federal brethern all too frequently
gambol over and ignore constitutional stricture, and common law precedent,
to favor inane penumbra berift of legal foundation. However, the Founders
understood this scenario, which is why the states are given all necessary legislative latitude, while the federal system divides three equal branches. Unfortunately, the common law does not, in-and-of itself, guarantee common sense, nor is a jury always collectively wise. Justice holds aloft her scales,
though nestles a sword by her side; without which she would have neither
meaning nor purpose. But for Justice to exist, there must by necessity
also exist a measure of injustice. And it is in this that the proletariat must
hold itself responsible; blaming neither judge nor juror, only itself for the
society it maintains and the true measure of justice it deserves.

 

[Roger]

New England is crawling with liberal judges who are corrupt, incompetent and should be off the bench. Judges should be elected every two years in order to weed out the fools.

 

[The D.A.]

For what it's worth, heres my take.

I don't believe that illegal drug use is truly a "victimless" crime. I know that it's very progressive and fashionable to advocate for the legalization of currently illegal drugs, but the effects of drug addiction on society are widespread. Viola mentioned the guy who just bashed the old lady on the head and stole her purse. Guess why he needs the money, and why he's so desperate to get it that he violently victimizes a vulnerable person? Yep, he needs the money to get his drug fix, and he needs it now. I don't have any statistics for you, but I would conservatively estimate that at least half of the criminals that I prosecute committed their crimes to get money to fund their drug habit. House burglaries, shopliftings, robberies--often committed to get money for drugs.

Even if you're not the direct victim of crime, if you're a taxpayer then you're helping to support quite a few drug addicts, those who draw unemployment and disability.

When I first started as a prosecutor, I worked child in need of care cases. My job was to protect children, and in some cases that involved severing parental rights and getting the children adopted by good people who would make them a priority. Illegal drug addiction was often the reason why the kids were neglected and abused in the first place. Those kids were certainly victims (and if you're the financial type, I can tell you that taking care of those kids cost the taxpayers of the state a fortune--money well-spent, as it was for kids, but money that shouldn't have to be spent in the first place).

I can't speak for other jurisdictions, but in Kansas simple drug users don't go to prison unless they try to. By law, they are sentenced to probation and mandatory intensive drug treatment. In-patient, out-patient, whatever--they get it. Even if drug treatment repeatedly fails, they don't go to prison unless it's found that they are deliberately sabotaging their treatment. Some people just can't be helped no matter how much you try, and if treatment doesn't work then the only two choices the state has is to simply let them go or to punish them by putting them in prison. I've only sent a handful of people to prison after repeated drug treatment failures. Even in prison, they received yet more drug treatment, vocational training, etc.

The problems seem to be mostly with the so-called "hard drugs," not so much with marijuana. Cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, etc.--bad news. Until recently, meth was a huge problem in this state.

In Kansas, and in many other states, judges are appointed. It's an imperfect system, and we have a mixture of good and bad judges. The public votes to retain them, and they can also be recalled or removed by the Supreme Court for misconduct. I think that a system of elected judges would be a disaster, as many would pander to the voters just like other politicians do. The appointment system is seriously flawed, but I don't know of a better one.

As I said at the start, just my two cents.

 

[Daisy Buchanan]

The Law ultimately reflects the society it serves. And, notwithstanding
the Model Penal Code, criminal trials quite often hinge on innate bias,
be it the prejudice of a juror, or judge. Then too, US Supreme Court
justices and their lower-bench Federal brethern all too frequently
gambol over and ignore constitutional stricture, and common law precedent,
to favor inane penumbra berift of legal foundation. However, the Founders
understood this scenario, which is why the states are given all necessary legislative latitude, while the federal system divides three equal branches. Unfortunately, the common law does not, in-and-of itself, guarantee common sense, nor is a jury always collectively wise. Justice holds aloft her scales,
though nestles a sword by her side; without which she would have neither
meaning nor purpose. But for Justice to exist, there must by necessity
also exist a measure of injustice. And it is in this that the proletariat must
hold itself responsible; blaming neither judge nor juror, only itself for the
society it maintains and the true measure of justice it deserves.

Well, your points are very well stated! "Unfortunately, the common law does not, in-and-of itself, guarantee common sense, nor is a jury always collectively wise." I have a big issue with the lack of common sense I see in so much of the world. I don't care how many books a person reads, how many PhD's or MPh's or MBA's or law degrees someone has. Yes, these certainly are useful but cannot be fully put into play without a simple knowledge of common sense. A lack of common sense in the greater population is a huge pet peeve of mine. I have noticed, especially as of late, that there is a major lack of common sense running rampant through all parts of society. From the person at the red light in front of me, up to the judges who are making completely insane decisions that I don't understand, yet will make an impact on my life. As an example, possibly not related to bad decision making by judges. I have a brother who is a PhD in physics and is now a patent lawyer. I will admit, the guy is quite smart, and he has an incredible career ahead of him. But, I don't think I'd let him cross the street without holding his hand, and no, he's not a child. It's so frustrating to me that a lot of people who make decisions that affect the lives of many innocent people think that they are able to make these decisions because they can read big books with big words, and memorize part of these books. They live their lives by memorization, and never delve into the deeper meanings of much of what they are reading. They simply lack common sense, which to me, is just as important as the knowledge gained from any book. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for education. I love to read, and I've enjoyed going to university more than once. I like to think that I am educated in the field that I have chosen. But, I also like to think that I know a little about the world outside of what I have studied. A lot of people, and this is just my personal opinion and experience with friends with higher educations (graduate and doctorate), who have had higher educations don't know anything else outside of what they have been taught at school. They don't even try to learn anything outside their fields. One can go to the highest level of education, but still be un-educated, because they don't know anything outside of their fields. This is frustrating to me, for in my experience with these people, they can be stuck up and snotty because they have a bunch of letters next to their names. I think it's wonderful when people go for it, and get an education. But, if common sense isn't there, these people can have all the letters next to their names, and still not know anything. Like my brother, talk to him about law or physics, and it's amazing, almost bewildering. Talk to him about anything going on in the world. Try to talk to him about a subject like history, and he know's nothing. Which to me is funny, for a person who is a lawyer should know a lot about history. OK, as a small example. If I have to get on the Mass pike to drive west, do I take the road west that has more lights but is only two mile from the pike entrance. Or do I drive east 4 miles down a road with a few less lights. Well, common sense would tell me, even with a few more lights, it makes sense for me to drive west if that is the direction I need to go. My brother would make a big deal about counting the lights and timing them, and then choose to drive the extra 2 miles east because of less lights. No common sense. I know there are more lights, but there's 2 less miles!!!! By the time he figured out which road to take, I'd be on the pike already! Hmmm, can you tell little things like this are a huge pet peeve of mine? I wish I had a better example, one that had to do with the ridiculous judiciary system we have here in Mass. But, I think my point has gotten across. One can have all the knowledge in the world, and still lack common sense. I think the judges, at least the ones that I've heard about here in Massachusetts, haven't any common sense. They quote from their books and precedents, but do they really know what it means. And no, I'm not saying all people are like this. But, there is a major lack of common sense in the world at the moment.

 

[Dixon Cannon]

Absolutely!

I would edit that slightly and say: All law and government is legislating somebody's morality..... Whether it's yours or not depends upon which side of the issue you're on. Prohibition was somebody's morality, too.
I agree though, anarchy is not the answer.

This is a good point. Prohibitions just do not work - especially where there is a profit incentive at work. The key is "victimless" crime - and I mean objective victims, not some obscure moving target abstract like 'society' - and the elimination of criminality for victimless activities that involve one's own self and other concenting adults. That is probably half of the jail/prison population right there!

-dixon cannon

 

[Daisy Buchanan]

This is a good point. Prohibitions just do not work - especially where there is a profit incentive at work. The key is "victimless" crime - and I mean objective victims, not some obscure moving target abstract like 'society' - and the elimination of criminality for victimless activities that involve one's own self and other concenting adults. That is probably half of the jail/prison population right there!

-dixon cannon

I don't want you to think I'm starting anything, because I'm not. I just can't think of a victim-less crime, and would like to know what these consist of.
I agree, prohibition does not work. I think, and this is just my opinion, that whatever is prohibited just becomes more popular. Maybe because it is associated with some sort of danger. I don't really get it. I don't think allowing certain illegal practices would make the rate of their use lessen. Just an example: Drug addicts are going to do drugs wheter they are illegal or not. I don't know of any statistics for the rate of people who would start using drugs just because they are legal. It'd be interesting to know. I do understand that their are certain illegal acts, that if done in the privacy of ones own home don't hurt anyone but the consenting adults doing them. But, I can't imagine that half the prison population is made up of such people, lets say, smoking marijauna in the privacy of their own home. I guess I always thought that all crime leaves behind a victim. Can you please give me an example of the victimless crime that you are talking about, aside from the one I mentioned above? Are half the population of prisons really made up of criminals who don't affect anyone?

 

[Daisy Buchanan]

New England is crawling with liberal judges who are corrupt, incompetent and should be off the bench. Judges should be elected every two years in order to weed out the fools.

Well said, I couldn't agree more.
I too grew up in Little Rhody ( I know, nobody calls it that). Talk about a corrupt state, but a great place to live. Let's just say I had a lot of fun being friends with Nicole Cianci, Buddy's daughter. Oh, the things I heard going on in that house

 

[Dixon Cannon]

Victimless Crimes

I don't want you to think I'm starting anything, because I'm not. I just can't think of a victim-less crime, and would like to know what these consist of....
I guess I always thought that all crime leaves behind a victim. Can you please give me an example of the victimless crime that you are talking about, aside from the one I mentioned above? Are half the population of prisons really made up of criminals who don't affect anyone?[/QUOTE]

In response let me say that there are obvious, objective criminal activities that most civilized citizens would agree are anti-social and unacceptable – murder, rape, robbery, fraud, arson, etc, - most all would agree that these are felonious activities that require punishment (after due process of law).

Victimless crimes are regarded as crimes where no other individual is harmed or aggrieved. These are activities such as drug use, prostitution, seat belt laws, motorcycle helmet laws, pornography, gun restrictions, etc.

Granted, there are activities surrounding these activities that ARE objective crimes, all of which involve either the use of force, fraud – robbery, for instance is most closely associated with drug use – it’s the robbery that warrants strict punishment and incarceration.

Most of the prohibitions that are designed to protect individuals from either themselves or “society” at large end up being catalysts for larger more violent crimes. The current war on drugs in the most illustrative example as so much of urban violence is related to the protection of turf and obtaining inventory – all of which would evaporate if drugs sale, possession and use were legalized and conducted in the legitimate marketplace (just like their cousins alcohol and tobacco). Is that advocating drug use –NO, not at all. But, is my opinion about drug use affecting that market in anyway, anyhow? Not at all. Legal or illegal, there have always been people who wish to participate in drug activities and no amount of legislation has changed that – except for filling jails and prisons with these “victimless criminals”.

Add to that incarcerated prostitutes, pornographers, weapons violators, tax offenders and all the others where there is no aggrieved party and you have a pretty hefty percentage of the jail/prison population. Now factor that against the number of murderers, rapists, sex offenders, pedophiles and other real law breaking criminals that are out on the streets amongst us, preying on the innocent and repeatedly offending. One begins to see the waste of effort and limited resources spent in chasing, prosecuting and incarcerating those who have harmed no one but themselves.

That what I mean by victimless crimes.

-dixon cannon

 

[Daisy Buchanan]

Ok, I see your side of the point. I just don't necessarily agree with it. In every criminal act you have mentioned, I can come up with a victim. Just an example, I'm not going to bore you with the entire list. Prostitutes. Yes, I know prostitution is the worlds oldest profession. But what about prostitutes that don't get tested for diseases. Or a prostitute who tells a John that she's not infected with anything and actually is. She is knowingly spreading that disease, and doing nothing to protect her partner from it. Yes, the john is an idiot to go to one in the first place, but does he deserve to be told that all will be fine and then end up sick six months later? Although I'm not a fan of John, he is now a victim. What if the prostitute gets pregnant and she doesn't know who the baby's father is. She now has a kid on the way, but still works. Exposing that fetus to diseases, and all other sorts of stuff that will hinder her proper development. How will this child be raised. By a prostitute for a mother, probably not. she'll get put inot the system and bounce from foster home to foster home. If she is lucky, someone will adopt her, but other than that it's group homes, public education, and the boot on you 18th birthday with a few hundred bucks. No, I don't see any victims of prostitution. Would you want prostitutes on your street corner day in and day out looking for johns and maybe also looking for some smack or other drug. And if drugs were legal, these pros and all of their johns would gladly spend the day high. They probably go home to an apartment we, as the taxpayers are paying for. One of their un cared for children sees white powder on the table, thinks it's sugar and starts to eat it. Before anyone know's it, the child is on the floor and not breathing. She dies of an overdose because her drugged out parents don't have enough brains to hide the stuff from a curious toddler.
Just my opinion on legalizing drugs. This will not stop the turf wars that go on between dealers. They will still be out there, only in droves now. I also think that legalization of drugs will only raise the drug abuse problem. Drugs like ecstacy and marijuana are addictive, most illegal drugs are illegal because of the ireprable harm that they cause, and having an even easier source of it will mean more use of it. The families of these drug addicts are victims. Many have families, young children. I don't see how having a drug addict father either in prison or in a rehabilitation facility is a good thing. This type of situation can ruin a child and his or her childhood.
Oh, I could go on and on about the victims of crimes. There really isn't such a thing as victimless crime. The people doing the acts like to think, that since they are doing it to only there own body, that nobody else gets hurt. This is not true.
Oh, and your taxpayer comment. As law abiding citizens, we pay our taxes. These taxes are used for many different things, yes I know we all don't agree on where our money goes, but, they have to be paid. One person who doesn't pay them might not make a huge impact, but he has broken the law. His few tax dollars could have bought a book for a childrens library. It could have been helping after school programs for kids who's parents work late. It could have done a lot, so in this sense, there are victims.
I can go on and on. We obviously see things differently. The first college degree I received was a BA in Psychology and Sociology. Although I'm not in the field any longer, I still remember spending a lot of time studying criminals. I also worked for two years at a crisis center and met with frineds, family, and loved ones of people who were incarcerated for many different reasons. To me, these people I worked with were all victims.

So, my opinion, given the list you gave me, I still see victims in it. I guess the one thing we do agree on is the right to bare firearms. That is different than shooting up on the street of your neighborhood with it's brand new crack cocaine and exctasy mini mart. I am for the right to bare arms the legal way, especially if drug minimarts are coming to my neighborhood.
I would really like to see some factual based data in regards to your comment that half our prisons are filled with people who did victimless crimes. Regardless of that, they did a crime, they shouldn't be let free because there's a slim possibility that this particular person didn't hurt anyone but himself. I can't imagine a world with legalized drug use. I know alcohol is a drug and so is smoking. But these drugs are severly mindaltering, they actually do very bad things to your brain(simply put).

I wish I could explain the dynamic better, I think it would be a bad idea. We have too many victims of crimes out there already. I think legal drug use would raise that rate. Remember a few years back pharmacies were robbed for oxycontin. Oxy is a longlasting narcotic. If taken properly it will give you steady pain control for 10-12 hours. They have a coating on them to make them release into the system very slowly. Kids decided it was more fun to crush up the pills, sometimes 5 at a time and either freebase them or snort them. Pharmacies were robbed at gun point for the stuff. Now, when I need to get my prescription filled for it I have to wait 2 entire days, for they don't keep it in the store, and then when they get it in they hold it for one day while they verify the script with my doctor and report the script to the FDA. HM, I guess I'm a victim of stupid kids taking prescription narcotics under the table. It's because of them, I have to jump through hoops to get my monthly script filled.

Yup, I could go on, but I'll stop here because I think you get what I'm trying to say. I just don't believe that there are no victemless crimes. In the grand scheme of anything illegal or bad, someone usually ends up a victim in one way or another.

 

[Section10]

All that you've said Daisy is true. There are in fact no victimless crimes. Everyone who does wrong suffers for it and honestly, in this society, I don't really know if legalizing drugs is the way to go. In a perfect society all such things would be legal, but people would have the wisdom to voluntarily abstain. We certainly don't have that, but what we do have is a giant mess and there is no end in sight unless something constructive is done. If locking people up worked, I'd say go ahead, but the conditions of society seems to breed these problems faster than they can be controlled. The immediate issue I see is: Keep the criminally minded people off the streets. That means making individual choices as to who is a public threat and who isn't.
It seems counterproductive to fill our jails with people who are practicing something that doesn't constitute a danger to the general public. If we are going to arrest drug users we should also arrest all users of alcohol since alcohol is just as destructive as some of the other drugs. When prohibition was in place we had a crime wave similar to what is going on now with other addictions. We should close all gambling casinos and public lotteries as well since they simply profit by the weaknesses and gulllibility of people who think they can get something for nothing. Everyone is a victim and an accomplice in some way. Where do we draw the line? Children picking on each other in a playground is a moral evil as well. What can be done? In a country with a deteriorating moral standard all that can be relied on is a tough legal system and I'm convinced that in the long run that system will fail us since it is only addressing symptoms and not causes.

 

[scotrace]

Say there Mr. D.A

I was hoping you would weigh in on this. Thanks for making some points many of us may not have considered.

 

[raiderrescuer]

Oregon...

First the DA files all the different charges they can think of that they can connected to the crime, then threaten the longest jail time possible if it goes to trial, hoping for a plea agreement, with plea agreements no Juries are needed. Besides it's tough finding enough people for a Jury.

We have a grid system and for the most part it's out of the Judges hands.

Once convicted then the Inmate complains that he/she got "Upwards Departure" when the Judge actually sentences on the higher end of the grid scale for repeat offenders, heinous actions, etc.

Unfortunately I think we are running into the what the T-shirt says: "Build it and they will come." We can't build prisons fast enough to keep up...the State ends up renting Counties bedspace.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Viola mentioned the guy who just bashed the old lady on the head and stole her purse. Guess why he needs the money, and why he's so desperate to get it that he violently victimizes a vulnerable person? Yep, he needs the money to get his drug fix, and he needs it now. I don't have any statistics for you, but I would conservatively estimate that at least half of the criminals that I prosecute committed their crimes to get money to fund their drug habit.

Illegal drugs cost what they cost because they are illegal. If legal, they would cost less. Lower prices would mean that addicts, even jobless ones, could more easily afford them (via panhandling, for example). They'd be much less likely to steal money for drugs, because they wouldn't "need" to resort to such measures.

Take the case of liquor. It's legal. Do we see severe alcoholics snatching purses, robbing homes, or holding up stores, in order to get an alcohol fix? No. Liquour is cheap enough to buy without anyone needing to rob for it. Legalize drugs, and they become cheaper.

... if you're a taxpayer then you're helping to support quite a few drug addicts, those who draw unemployment and disability.

Isn't it possible (dare I say very possible) that this particular kind of drug addict -- the one who draws unemployment and disability -- would be on unemployment and disability even if he/she weren't an addict? We'd be supporting such an individual regardless.

Illegal drug addiction was often the reason why the kids were neglected and abused in the first place.

And legal alcoholism is also a big reason why kids are neglected and abused by their supposed caretakers. Do you feel, then, that we should return to a nationwide prohibition of liquor and beer? Just wondering.




.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

A lack of common sense in the greater population is a huge pet peeve of mine.

The problem is that opinions on what exactly constitutes common sense can differ from culture to culture, or even between men and women.
(That which I might think to be common sense, you might think to be biased judgement, and vice-versa.)

.