Rampant crime, and LENIENT JUDGES

[Twitch]

I only support the 3 strikes law to the extent that common sense must be used to decide the outcome of each on an individual basis. There have been examples where misdemeanors were counted as the 3rd violation and it compounded the sentence to an abnormally long one. Shoplifting a $12 item with 2 prior marajuana possession arrests that results in a 20 year sentence is unrealistic. It doesn't serve justice in the true sense or in any esoteric one. If the idea is to arbitrarily punish people then it is valid.

This is where the expense versus crime reduction is lopsided. The cost of housing prisoners is immense and will only escalate. We have to weigh the proportionate cost against our society's tax base if we desire to imprison low threat criminals. Can we continue afford it? Who will vote for raising their taxes to build more facilities to keep low risk offenders like possessors of casual drugs or commiters of misdemeanors?

I feel not only justice but common sense demands that the severity of the offenses need to be addressed before we as a society scream "lock 'em up!" Make no mistake, I believe those deserving of punishment relative to the gravity of their crimes should continue to receive strong sentences but arbitrarily branding petty crooks with the same rules is wrong and costly.

 

[The Captain]

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.

Oh, come on now Roger, don't beat around the bush, tell us how you really feel! lol

 

[Viola]

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.

Then jail THAT GUY for THAT; i.e. mugging. Don't fill up the jails with the huge percentage of druggies who finance their habits through their jobs, which also happens. Plenty of people who smoke marijuana or do coke or X or K are as harmless as guys who go out and get drunk.

Or more harmless; hardly anyone takes a whole bunch of X and then beats the crap out of their girlfriend, unlike a drunk.

If the drugs were legal they'd cost less, and more users could hold down jobs.

 

[The D.A.]

"Then jail THAT GUY for THAT; i.e. mugging. Don't fill up the jails with the huge percentage of druggies who finance their habits through their jobs, which also happens. Plenty of people who smoke marijuana or do coke or X or K are as harmless as guys who go out and get drunk."

I can't speak for any other state, but in Kansas I don't believe our jails/prisons ARE filled-up with a huge percentage of working druggies. It certainly hasn't been my experience. Casual drug users who happen to get caught usually go on diversion or probation and we never see them again. Like I pointed-out in my last post, a person really has to be trying to actually get into prison on drug charges.

"Or more harmless; hardly anyone takes a whole bunch of X and then beats the crap out of their girlfriend, unlike a drunk."

I would agree that in terms of domestic violence crimes, alcohol is a more common problem than illegal drug use. In other crimes, like robberies and thefts, illegal drug use is the root of the problem. That's not to say that illegal drug is never a factor in domestic violence cases. Not too long ago I had a particularly nasty case where a neo-Nazi on meth beat his girlfriend to a pulp.

"If the drugs were legal they'd cost less, and more users could hold down jobs."

I don't think that's true. A lot of drugs don't cost that much now. The problem is that people become addicted to them and need them more and more frequently. In addition, a lot of addicts reach the point where they can't hold down jobs any more. Once they lose their jobs, it really doesn't matter how cheap the drugs are.

Persons seeking to justify the legalization of drugs almost always argue that a person sitting at home smoking weed is not harming anyone but himself or herself. That may or may not be true, and your experience may vary. The problem is with people who smoke things like crack and meth. Those drugs destroy lives, and I don't think that legalization of them will be a miraculous cure to anything.

Like I said before, this is just my two cents worth. I can only speak from my own experience, and I'm really not looking to change anybody's opinion. I'm not even sure why I'm reading this thread, since I go to the Lounge to get away from work.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

D.A., I think you may not have seen my response to your post: http://www.thefedoralounge.com/showpost.php?p=173186&postcount=59


.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

A lot of drugs don't cost that much now.

Doesn't this depend on what drugs, and on where they're sold? Can you give us some numbers?

.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Once they lose their jobs, it really doesn't matter how cheap the drugs are.

Sure it does. The unemployed still receive money via welfare, not to mention panhandling (which can pay quite well). Cheaper drugs can be bought with that money.

.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Persons seeking to justify the legalization of drugs almost always argue that a person sitting at home smoking weed is not harming anyone but himself or herself. That may or may not be true, and your experience may vary.

Give us an example of someone criminally harming someone else by sitting at home smoking weed.


.

 

[The D.A.]

Give us an example of someone criminally harming someone else by sitting at home smoking weed.

My point was that the "lone dope smoker sitting at home minding his own business and not harming anyone" is not what the legalization argument should be about, unless you're talking about just legalizing marijuana. That example isn't really on point if you're talking about legalizing drugs like crack and meth.

I will say again, my reason for posting was not to engage in a debate about the merits of drug legalization. In fact, I really can't engage in such a debate. My purpose instead was to provide some insight into the criminal justice system from someone who has been involved with it in one capacity or another for the last 10 years. I hope that people on both sides of the argument will find it useful.

 

[Viola]

Thanks for your viewpoint, DA.

Viola

 

[deanglen]

Thanks for your viewpoint, DA.

Viola

I second that!

dean

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Definitely. Very good food for thought, no matter how one stands. Thank you!

.

 

[Roger]

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

At least you weren't corrupted.:eusa_clap

 

[Roger]

Drugs aren't a victimless crime. The addict requires more and more. His hits soon don't suffice and he wants more and more potent drugs. Look at Rush Limbaugh. One painkiller wasn't enough, he had to engulf more and more.

 

[Viola]

Drugs aren't a victimless crime. The addict requires more and more. His hits soon don't suffice and he wants more and more potent drugs. Look at Rush Limbaugh. One painkiller wasn't enough, he had to engulf more and more.

So? Are you telling me Rush was out knifing people in the park?

 

[Daisy Buchanan]

Very well said DA. I think the point that was being made is the lone person smoking dope in the privacy of his own home, who still holds down a job and is going on quietly through his life, isn't a threat. It's the people using more serious drugs, like meth and heroine, that are a threat.
Just my opinion, I don't think legalizing these drugs, even if it did make them cheaper, would lower the crime rate. These drugs, from what I've learned, are notorious for increasing rage in people. So, even if they could afford to buy these cheap drugs, the rage in them provided by taking said drugs, will still cause violence.
I see the point about alcohol as well. I honestly don't know what to do about it. I have 2 very good friends who were raised by alcoholics. They had terrible childhoods filled with abuse. Lucky for them they both were strong minded and wanted more for themselves. I know it doesn't always turn out well for such people.
This is a good debate, both sides have convincing arguments. On the point of victimless crimes. There aren't any. Even the hard working man who smokes a joint in the privacy of his own home is hurting someone. I know this might be a stretch, but he is buying his dope from somewhere, and the history of how that dope came to his doorstep is filled with violence. It doesn't matter how little he buys, he is supporting the illegal drug trade that is linked to major violence. I don't want to tell people what to do in the privacy of their own homes. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it. And no, this is just my opinion, legalizing drugs will not make the actual drug trade any better. It will always be filled with violence that affects many innocent people.
Now, on the point of Rush and his addiction to pain killers. It is people like him that abuse the system, that ruin it for people like me. I have both Crohn's disease and Rheumatoid arthritis. With this come uncontrollable pain. I am very lucky that I have doctors who thoroughly believe in pain management. I take oxycontin 4 times a day and percocet, as much as needed, for breakthrough pain. I can't function without it. This is not because I am addicted ( I might just be after being on this regimen for four years), it is because it is the only way I can control the pain I have. Every month, thanks to people who can't control themselves, I go through hell trying to get my scripts filled. I have to show ID and give my social security number, and the DEA is contacted with every script for narcotics I fill. I have been taking the same dose for four years, and it still works. I have taken more than recommended, and it made me very sick. When I take these drugs, my pain goes away, I in no way feel "wasted", I function like a normal person when I take them. Without them, I wouldn't be able to deal with the pain, and couldn't get out of bed. This is the difference between someone who is taking these drugs for pain, and someone who is taking them for recreational purposes. I have pain, so the narcotic has something to work on. These drugs only make people feel wasted when they don't have pain to combat. That's just my 2 cents about legally prescribed narcotics. There are some people who take them because they need them, they don't abuse them and take them as they are prescribed. They are not like, for most people taking them, doing heroine or meth. There are people who are abusing them, and will sometime make it very hard for people who need them to access them. I do not think that people who take them recreationally, them or any other mind altering drug, have any other reason to take them but to feel messed up. As I said earlier I don't think legalizing drugs like meth and heroine is a good idea and will bring the crime rate down. Out on a limb here, but if we legalize murder, would the murder rate go down?

 

[Viola]

Daisy, you raise some good points, but I'm going to have to take issue with a couple.

On the point of victimless crimes. There aren't any. Even the hard working man who smokes a joint in the privacy of his own home is hurting someone. I know this might be a stretch, but he is buying his dope from somewhere, and the history of how that dope came to his doorstep is filled with violence. It doesn't matter how little he buys, he is supporting the illegal drug trade that is linked to major violence.

But that's an argument for legalization, isn't it? To take it out of the hands of the dealers? Rather like comparing the funding of Al Capone's liquor empire to Jack Daniels' distillery - we all know who dropped more folks in rivers.

It's the people using more serious drugs, like meth and heroine, that are a threat.
Just my opinion, I don't think legalizing these drugs, even if it did make them cheaper, would lower the crime rate. These drugs, from what I've learned, are notorious for increasing rage in people.

Heroin doesn't fill anyone with rage and homicidal urges. Mostly it makes you lazy and emaciated because you forget to eat. Its not an upper.

As far as meth goes, I certainly have no problem with long hard jail terms for those who get violent. But really, other people on meth just get slightly nutsy about housecleaning. Lets jail the violent offenders and not worry about what others just do to damage their bodies.

Yeah, I knew a guy who tried meth and didn't love it; he said he cleaned his house, and all his friends houses, scrubbing woodwork with a toothbrush, and said that while he was trying to get romantic with his girlfriend, all he could think about was his ceiling needed painting. lol

 

[Daisy Buchanan]

Daisy, you raise some good points, but I'm going to have to take issue with a couple.



But that's an argument for legalization, isn't it? To take it out of the hands of the dealers? Rather like comparing the funding of Al Capone's liquor empire to Jack Daniels' distillery - we all know who dropped more folks in rivers.

Viola, you do raise a good point. However I see it very differently. If the drug trade was kept the way it is now, there will still be violent gorwer, curators, and sellers of said drugs. This is a very scary business, and would not be completely wiped out due to it's legalization. All I'm saying is that making it more accessible would not necessarily put an end to the drug market. I also don't believe that making drugs more accessible will lower the rate of drug users, nor there dependency upon them. Also, we legalize drugs, then the next step is these people feel their right to purchase them will inevitibly lead to their right to get them for free. I don't want my hard earned money paying for some guy, with no illness no pain, to get free drugs because their ailment is dependency. Our society is messed up as it is, we don't need higher amounts of people walking around in a doped up stooper. Wheter they clean the streets, paint houses or beat up old people or store clerks. I just think its a bad idea. Yes, according to my views it would mean that alcohol and all smoking products would be banned. I don't know how I feel about that, and I understand I can't have a true belief in one cause and not another. It's something I'd have to contemplate more.

Ok, your friend tried meth once and cleaned house. He didn't like it. What would have happened if he had. I may be wrong about the effect meth has on ones personality but I do know this: It is more than likely that a person using meth on a regular basis will end up using more and more, until the complete destruction of his life. I know alcohol can do this too, but I think hard drugs lead to much higher rate of destruction. I can't see how legalizing such a destructive thing will do the world any good. Here is a good article that discusse the rate of homelessness to drug addiction. Alcoholism is also a factor in the rates, and once again, that is something I need to consider. But, this talks about welfare reform and the need to deny addicts money and give them substantial treatment with at least 12 months after-care to make sure the individual is on the correct path. This of course has it's down sides, one being that it's very expensive. But my point, legalizing drugs will not improve the life of these people. If anything, making them more readily accesible can make matters much worse. When it comes down to it, bottom line, we as taxpayers will be supporting those who have destroyed their lives due to illegal drug use and alcohol abuse as well. I would much rather not support these people at all, that is just my opinion. I have 2 incurable illnesses that cost me thousands of dollars a year. My insurance premiums are through the roof. They are my problem and I don't expect anyone to pay any of my medical bills. I know other's feel differently about this, but that is a entirely different conversation. Anyway, at some point, to get control of the major drug addicts we are either going to give them free drugs and support their habit, or your hard earned tax dollars will help to put them through the long term therapy that they need. I wish I could get my point across better. The above mentioned article has some points as well as statistics on the rate of homelessness and addiction, which is more alarming than I realized.

 

[Daisy Buchanan]

There is a lot of information on the web about the effects of illegal drugs, alcohol, and smoking. I did just come across this, which has some numbers. They may or may not be useful or interesting to you. They don't offer up any proof that is convincing for either side of the argument of legalizing or not legalizing illicit drugs. But, I found them interesting, and thought they might be good to share with you.

 

[Dixon Cannon]

Taxpayer comment...

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.

Law abiding citizens know and follow the law. Their voluntary and lawful activiities pay taxes. These taxes are the Constitutional taxes such as excises, tariffs, imposts and all of taxes on transactions and purchases. Those taxes buy the books and pay for the libraries and help the after school programs.

Somehow I don't think we're talking the same taxes here. A person doesn't go to prison for not paying the excise taxes on his snowtires! So there are victims here, but it's not the kid reading his library book at the after school program!

Respectfully,
Dixon Cannon