Cue-Ball
Regular Member
imported post
Blackthorne is the first thing I thought of as well.
Blackthorne is the first thing I thought of as well.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
What's your idea's about crime control
- Thread starter stephpd
- Start date
Jim675
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Exactly. This argument goes to very heart of individual liberty.
Suppressing the actions of others because they may be risky (according to the currently elected majority) is prejudice.
Actions that actually harm others, on the other hand, should be punished swiftly, consistantly, and firmly.
Perhaps our entire library of laws could be replaced with "If its not yours don't touch it."
Exactly. This argument goes to very heart of individual liberty.
Suppressing the actions of others because they may be risky (according to the currently elected majority) is prejudice.
Actions that actually harm others, on the other hand, should be punished swiftly, consistantly, and firmly.
Perhaps our entire library of laws could be replaced with "If its not yours don't touch it."
stephpd
Regular Member
imported post
Jim675 wrote:
As far as the drunk diving goes I think that doing so DOES show irresposibilities that should have your priveledge to drive revoked.
Thanks!
Jim675 wrote:
Great discussion Guys! This is what I was looking for!
As far as the drunk diving goes I think that doing so DOES show irresposibilities that should have your priveledge to drive revoked.
Thanks!
Wynder
State Researcher
imported post
Hawker wrote:
Just bear in mind that he's not from DE (nor are most of the people chiming in on this)... this is more of a general discussion topic that probably should've been posted elsewhere.
That being said, corrections in America is still in a sad state -- over-run prison population, poorly trained and poorly paid corrections officers, and the lack of consistent sentencing significantly contribute to the state of crime in Delaware/America.
More community-based sentencing options for non-violent, first time offenders need to utilized because, face it, political and socioeconomic circumstances will lead to recidivism for a good number of the prison population. At this point it all becomes a vicious circle that becomes very hard to escape... Assuming that a statistically significant portion of criminals on the streets are re-offenders, then it would seem a natural conclusion that a focus on the ex-convicts' reintegration into society is going to play a large part on reducing future crime.
Hawker wrote:
Just bear in mind that he's not from DE (nor are most of the people chiming in on this)... this is more of a general discussion topic that probably should've been posted elsewhere.
That being said, corrections in America is still in a sad state -- over-run prison population, poorly trained and poorly paid corrections officers, and the lack of consistent sentencing significantly contribute to the state of crime in Delaware/America.
More community-based sentencing options for non-violent, first time offenders need to utilized because, face it, political and socioeconomic circumstances will lead to recidivism for a good number of the prison population. At this point it all becomes a vicious circle that becomes very hard to escape... Assuming that a statistically significant portion of criminals on the streets are re-offenders, then it would seem a natural conclusion that a focus on the ex-convicts' reintegration into society is going to play a large part on reducing future crime.
PT111
Regular Member
imported post
Jim675 wrote:
But what if rather than the one innocent not suffer the one innocent dies. You argument right there is contradictory in that allowing those ten to go free will just as easily result in the one innocent suffereing as it will in one innocent not suffering.
Or are you saying that it is OK to allow people to drive drunk and kill someone as long as we don't stop any innocent non-drunks.
Jim675 wrote:
But what if rather than the one innocent not suffer the one innocent dies. You argument right there is contradictory in that allowing those ten to go free will just as easily result in the one innocent suffereing as it will in one innocent not suffering.
Or are you saying that it is OK to allow people to drive drunk and kill someone as long as we don't stop any innocent non-drunks.
asforme
Campaign Veteran
imported post
PT111 wrote:
PT111 wrote:
I would rather be at risk of dieing at the hand of an individual whom I can cautiously avoid or defend myself against then try to defend myself against the government who is willing to give up my freedom as collateral damage in insuring public safety.
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
PT111 wrote:
PT111 wrote:
Most of us will suffer death, indeed we suffer life (as in endure) and others illiteracy. Suffering is not limited to unnecessarily prolonged pain.
Wynder
State Researcher
imported post
Doug Huffman wrote:
freeeeeeddoooooooom!
Sorry, had to be done.
Doug Huffman wrote:
Every man dies... Not every man truly lives.
freeeeeeddoooooooom!
Sorry, had to be done.
Hawker
Regular Member
imported post
.
.
Jim675
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Hawker wrote:
I chose to be in the Army for 12 years, including deployment to Desert Storm (OK - it was the only war going while I was in
). I do not feel that gov. service should ever be coerced via a draft.
I've never accepted a handout from anyone. I am middle-aged, a parent and a grand-parent. I've been employed and financially independant since I was 14.
I welcome you to espouse your principles. I just hope they're something more than "if you disagree with me you're scum".
Any other personal complaints or does that now make it valid for me to have an opinion?
Hawker wrote:
I am NOT government-bashing. I am suggesting improvements, or rather corrections to return us to a course closer to that of what the founding fathers envisioned.
I chose to be in the Army for 12 years, including deployment to Desert Storm (OK - it was the only war going while I was in
). I do not feel that gov. service should ever be coerced via a draft.I've never accepted a handout from anyone. I am middle-aged, a parent and a grand-parent. I've been employed and financially independant since I was 14.
I welcome you to espouse your principles. I just hope they're something more than "if you disagree with me you're scum".
Any other personal complaints or does that now make it valid for me to have an opinion?
Hawker
Regular Member
imported post
.
.
stephpd
Regular Member
imported post
Jim675 wrote:
Same here, all I had was a hostage situation in Iran.
This thread is about the problem of crime control.
Personnel attacks are just childish and are best left in the bar.
Thanks
Jim675 wrote:
+100Hawker wrote:I am NOT government-bashing. I am suggesting improvements, or rather corrections to return us to a course closer to that of what the founding fathers envisioned.
I chose to be in the Army for 12 years, including deployment to Desert Storm (OK - it was the only war going while I was in
I've never accepted a handout from anyone. I am middle-aged, a parent and a grand-parent. I've been employed and financially independant since I was 14.
I welcome you to espouse your principles. I just hope they're something more than "if you disagree with me you're scum".
Any other personal complaints or does that now make it valid for me to have an opinion?
Same here, all I had was a hostage situation in Iran.
This thread is about the problem of crime control.
Personnel attacks are just childish and are best left in the bar.
Thanks
asforme
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Hawker wrote:
I have separated your question asking if I would serve in the military from your question asking if I would die for freedom because I believe they right now they are not the same thing. The biggest threat to our freedoms is not in the middle east, it is in Washington.
I do not know you Hawker, I have no reason to believe that you are anything but an upstanding citizen who loves his country. We simply have different ideas on how it should be managed. Let's discuss those ides in a civil manner without resorting to personal attacks on each others backgrounds, experiences and personal values.
This thread has great potential to be a great intellectual discussion of the role of government, but instead it has become an attack on my personal life. Please try to leave your emotions at the door and discuss the issues.
Hawker wrote:
I feel that it is a great cause for those willing to do it.
Currently the missions that the current administration has our military involved in have little to do with defending our country. I have no interest in military service under the current administration.
If I was willing to die for the freedoms that the founding fathers fought for I would be staging a second American revolutions. Obviously I am not because I have decided that staying alive to provide for my wife and son are more important to me than any political principles.
I have separated your question asking if I would serve in the military from your question asking if I would die for freedom because I believe they right now they are not the same thing. The biggest threat to our freedoms is not in the middle east, it is in Washington.
Yes, I have very little trust or respect for the current American government. While it is still the best in the world, it is a far cry from what the founding fathers created 200 years ago.
What principles? I have not read any articulation of values or ideas for what you think the system of government should be, only attacks against those who favor a Constitutional limited government. I would love to debate principles with you, but you have not presented any, instead you have simply continued with personal attacks, the latest of which seems to be a baseless, typical neo-conservative attack on my patriotism.
I do not know you Hawker, I have no reason to believe that you are anything but an upstanding citizen who loves his country. We simply have different ideas on how it should be managed. Let's discuss those ides in a civil manner without resorting to personal attacks on each others backgrounds, experiences and personal values.
This thread has great potential to be a great intellectual discussion of the role of government, but instead it has become an attack on my personal life. Please try to leave your emotions at the door and discuss the issues.
Hawker
Regular Member
imported post
.
.
Cue-Ball
Regular Member
imported post
Hawker wrote:
I don't care if my neighbors smoke a weed or inject themselves with a foreign substance. I don't care whether or not they are licensed by the state to operate a vehicle. I don't care if they exchange sex for money, bet on every sporting event that ever takes place, or own three dozen full-auto rifles. As long as they don't harm me, steal from me, or recklessly endanger me I could care less how they spend their time.
"Harm none, do as ye will".
Hawker wrote:
Libertarian's do not advocate a "free-for-all" society. We simply advocate limited government. The government should prevent use of force against unconsenting others - nothing more, nothing less.
I don't care if my neighbors smoke a weed or inject themselves with a foreign substance. I don't care whether or not they are licensed by the state to operate a vehicle. I don't care if they exchange sex for money, bet on every sporting event that ever takes place, or own three dozen full-auto rifles. As long as they don't harm me, steal from me, or recklessly endanger me I could care less how they spend their time.
"Harm none, do as ye will".
dave_in_delaware
Regular Member
imported post
I believe the system is totally messed up. Criminals aren't afraid of the consequences of their actions. Heck, even after years in prison, many are released and commit another (the same) crime right away. Wait. Wasn't he just rehabilitated? NOT.
Imagine this:I'm at the lowest point of my life, and maybe on the brink of homelessness or starvation, why wouldn't I commit a crime and get sent to jail? Desperation causes bad decisions. Face it: maybe I think it can't get any worse, and I have nothing to lose (I've already lost it all). Actually, maybe it would be seen as a good decision: for some individuals, jail is probably better than what they have now! I mean, free room and board, entertainment, exercise, TV, library, etc. It's allprovided to inmates. Andhaven't some inmates sued for better conditions, and won?
Perhaps making jail a less positive place would be a good start? Maybe having inmates WORK their butts off instead of freeloading off the system would be a good start? No TV for entertainment. No weight rooms to get stronger to inflict more pain onto victims later. Maybe they have to work to earn their meals. Maybe they have to take some classes and earn a degree before they can get out....
I don't know what would help. But something has to change inside the "system" or else nothing will change outside the system.
Sorry, but I've gotta say:
Hawker wrote:
You could have ended your post w/ the first sentence.... It's obvious you disagree.
So according to you:anyone who is younger than 58, didn't join the military, doesn't have a spouse and/or kids, and hasn't had a career for as long as you is automatically immature and wrong in their thinking? That's what your post said to me.
Keep in mind: Your posts say a lot about you, too, Sir. Many of your posts comment on age and experience. Shall I take that as meaning you are the only one here that is qualified to have an opinion because you think you have the highest age and most experience? I guess the rest of us don't deserve to post here then.
I'm sure we'll be hearing from you soon....
I believe the system is totally messed up. Criminals aren't afraid of the consequences of their actions. Heck, even after years in prison, many are released and commit another (the same) crime right away. Wait. Wasn't he just rehabilitated? NOT.
Imagine this:I'm at the lowest point of my life, and maybe on the brink of homelessness or starvation, why wouldn't I commit a crime and get sent to jail? Desperation causes bad decisions. Face it: maybe I think it can't get any worse, and I have nothing to lose (I've already lost it all). Actually, maybe it would be seen as a good decision: for some individuals, jail is probably better than what they have now! I mean, free room and board, entertainment, exercise, TV, library, etc. It's allprovided to inmates. Andhaven't some inmates sued for better conditions, and won?
Perhaps making jail a less positive place would be a good start? Maybe having inmates WORK their butts off instead of freeloading off the system would be a good start? No TV for entertainment. No weight rooms to get stronger to inflict more pain onto victims later. Maybe they have to work to earn their meals. Maybe they have to take some classes and earn a degree before they can get out....
I don't know what would help. But something has to change inside the "system" or else nothing will change outside the system.
Sorry, but I've gotta say:
Hawker wrote:
You could have ended your post w/ the first sentence.... It's obvious you disagree.
So according to you:anyone who is younger than 58, didn't join the military, doesn't have a spouse and/or kids, and hasn't had a career for as long as you is automatically immature and wrong in their thinking? That's what your post said to me.
Keep in mind: Your posts say a lot about you, too, Sir. Many of your posts comment on age and experience. Shall I take that as meaning you are the only one here that is qualified to have an opinion because you think you have the highest age and most experience? I guess the rest of us don't deserve to post here then.
I'm sure we'll be hearing from you soon....
PT111
Regular Member
imported post
There was a great study that I read a few years ago about the effect of increased punishment on crime reduction and rehabilitation. I have no idea who did the study but I remember they interview prisoners serving time for everything from minor offenses to murder trying to determine if the length of the possible sentence had any effect on whether they comminted the crime or not.
What they found was that the length of the possible sentence had little effect as 87% of all prisoners said that they had no idea that they would ever be caught. Whether it was 3 month, 3 years or 30 years had no effect on the decision to commit the crime as getting caught was the last thing on their mind.
Now keeping someone in jail 30 years vs. 3 months will keep them from committing a crime against the public for an addidtional 29+ years but when they get out if they aren't worried about getting caught then there hasn't been much rehabilitation. What this study basically said was that about 13% of prisoners can be rehabilitated but the rest might as well stay locked up forever.
There was a great study that I read a few years ago about the effect of increased punishment on crime reduction and rehabilitation. I have no idea who did the study but I remember they interview prisoners serving time for everything from minor offenses to murder trying to determine if the length of the possible sentence had any effect on whether they comminted the crime or not.
What they found was that the length of the possible sentence had little effect as 87% of all prisoners said that they had no idea that they would ever be caught. Whether it was 3 month, 3 years or 30 years had no effect on the decision to commit the crime as getting caught was the last thing on their mind.
Now keeping someone in jail 30 years vs. 3 months will keep them from committing a crime against the public for an addidtional 29+ years but when they get out if they aren't worried about getting caught then there hasn't been much rehabilitation. What this study basically said was that about 13% of prisoners can be rehabilitated but the rest might as well stay locked up forever.
stephpd
Regular Member
imported post
dave_in_delaware wrote:
Thanks
dave_in_delaware wrote:
Good post. My thought exactly. I'd make them work!. Got a Skill? Any bussiness can come pick you up like day workers. Pay the system a fair wage but none goes to the criminal. Buy him a bag lunch. End of the day, back to jail. No tv!. Lights out at sunset. Lock down!
Thanks
asforme
Campaign Veteran
imported post
PT111 wrote:
I think the only truly effective deterrent for criminals is an armed population that is not afraid (or prohibited by law from) protecting their lives and property. Most criminals only understand and are intimidated by the thought of immediate consequences. They don't think into the future of what may happen if they get caught later, it is all about the here and now.
PT111 wrote:
That's why I find so much of the discussion of prison sentences irrelevant. I support the death penalty not as a deterrent, but because it removes that person from society permanently.
I think the only truly effective deterrent for criminals is an armed population that is not afraid (or prohibited by law from) protecting their lives and property. Most criminals only understand and are intimidated by the thought of immediate consequences. They don't think into the future of what may happen if they get caught later, it is all about the here and now.
Wynder
State Researcher
imported post
stephpd wrote:
I'll conceed that not all offenders need this -- murder is usually a one-time deal, whether it be a crime of passion, but drug and theft offenses take up about 30% each of felons that are habitual offenders, which blights the third highest, Assault, at around 14%.
I think we've come a long way to get to where we are today with regards to corrections policies. Reverting those to harsher punishments in the facilities would set us back 40 years -- I highly recommend a movie from 1980 called "Brubaker"... Robert Redford film about a work farm in Alabama, it's a fairly accurate representation of corrections in the 70's... Hell, there was a story last week that an Alabama Sheriff was feeding his prisoners on a 30-year old budget of $1.75 a day per inmate!
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should coddle the general inmate population, though the deprivations that currently exist are a good start. I'm all for no TV, performing skilled labor to which the inmate is suited to subsidize his incarceration, and also very much for educating the inmate and providing other counciling to curb the chances of his reoffending, but throughout history, people have tried the brutal, harsh and cruel punishment and it has done nothing for the criminal after he's back in the real world.
stephpd wrote:
I'd have to disagree with Dave here... Encarceration does not equal rehabilitation -- that's just 'paying their debt to society.' Unless there are social and counciling programs available inside of the institution aimed towards correcting the behavior and preparing them for reintegration into society, the added stigma of being a convict, in conjunction with whatever socioeconomic situation they have at home has a strong possibility of leading to recidivism.
I'll conceed that not all offenders need this -- murder is usually a one-time deal, whether it be a crime of passion, but drug and theft offenses take up about 30% each of felons that are habitual offenders, which blights the third highest, Assault, at around 14%.
I think we've come a long way to get to where we are today with regards to corrections policies. Reverting those to harsher punishments in the facilities would set us back 40 years -- I highly recommend a movie from 1980 called "Brubaker"... Robert Redford film about a work farm in Alabama, it's a fairly accurate representation of corrections in the 70's... Hell, there was a story last week that an Alabama Sheriff was feeding his prisoners on a 30-year old budget of $1.75 a day per inmate!
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should coddle the general inmate population, though the deprivations that currently exist are a good start. I'm all for no TV, performing skilled labor to which the inmate is suited to subsidize his incarceration, and also very much for educating the inmate and providing other counciling to curb the chances of his reoffending, but throughout history, people have tried the brutal, harsh and cruel punishment and it has done nothing for the criminal after he's back in the real world.