|
|
|
So what do we do about the violence wave that seems to be washing over this nation? Do we legalize drugs just to get people to stop shooting at each other? It worked for alcohol, because now, people only die from getting hit by drunk drivers, not by getting shot by gangs of bootleggers driving ancient cadillacs. And what is to be done about kidnapping and repeat offenders? From what I have heard on the news, the people of California are now pushing for a law that would put "three time losers" away for life, and the Feds want death (in ten years) for anyone convicted of kidnapping and or child murder,ala Polly Klaas? What can be done? Will tougher laws REALLY reduce crime or are we just farting in the wind?
34 responses total.
Tougher laws won't do much, but tougher sentencing will.
Why is it that our society tends to accept 'putting down' or
'euthanizing' non-human animals after they simply bite a human (without
regard for whether or not the animal acted properly), yet 'euthanizing' a
criminal human who understood the repercussions of their actions is thought
of as being barbaric, or cruel & unusual?
There's a much better chance that you could reform a mean pit-bull (which
in most cases, have been trained to be mean by humans...) that likes to
bite than there is in reforming a human who likes to hurt or kill.
To date, the federal death penalty has been a joke. Imposed about two dozen times, upheld once, and never carried out. Meant for murderous drug kingpins, only minor players received it. And now the ever-efficient Congress is expanding it to a host of other crimes.... Everybody wants a "three time loser" law. Texas has long had one. Michigan has one. The feds are about to impose one. Lots of good they have done in Texas and Michigan.... We used to have the death penalty for kidnapping -- the "Lindbergh law." Kidnappers responded by consistently killing their victims -- they had nothing to lose.
Re 1. Tougher sentencing? Where have you been for the last 20 years? The public has cried out for stiffer prison terms, and the U.S. criminal justice system has responded. Parole and "good time" have been abolished or restricted in many jurisdictions. Mandatory minimums and sentencing guidelines have had an impact as well. The penalties have also been increased in many penal codes. So what result? The number of people in prison has doubled in ten years. I believe it also doubled in the preceding ten years. The number of women in prison has tripled in the last ten years. The cost of keeping prisons running has skyrocketed, forcing many states and localities to cut back on all other services to feed the prisons and jails. Okay, Tim, we have the tougher sentences you wanted. I'd be interested to hear your explanation of how this has improved matters. (I'm not saying, btw, that these developments are necessarily a bad thing, but the reflexive, automatic cries for "tougher sentences" sound just the same in 1993 as they did in 1973. Going further in this direction will require enormously higher levels of public expenditure.)
Not to detract from the discussion, but I think that the courts/penal system have to be revamped. 1. Establish a special appellate court system solely to certify/overturn sentences of death. This court would deal only with the death penalty, and the only appeal from this court would be the Supreme Court who could either pick the case up, or refuse to hear the case, in which case, the criminal would then be executed no later than 30 days after the decision to hear it or not. This, in my opinion would put the deterant back into the death penalty. 2. Publicize the Executions more than they are now. I know that this has been discussed before, but IMHO, the only way you will obtain a deterrant effect is to illustrate it to your target audience. Mentioning as a footnote that John Smith was executed today in the gas chamber, on the evening news, as opposed to being put on the first item or in the headlines. There was a movie about a woman who was a murderess, (I forget her name) but the movie DID show the execution. So I don't think that it's any more graphic than your basic R rated movie. We see this stuff all the time. If Justice was Swift and sure once more, I sincerly believe that there would be a lot more thinking going on than there is now.
re #4: Put what deterrant "back" in the death penalty? The deterrent
that so scared pickpockets in England that they worked the crowds
watching the public hangings of thieves? And how does your
system mesh with (a) state sovereignty issues, or (b) the fact
that there simply aren't that many death penalty cases to hear.
I guess I inadvertantly covered the "publicity" question in my
response to your first point....
From your commentary, Jim, you seem much more concerned with the
swiftness of justice than either the sureness or effectiveness.
I'll try to make this easier for you to understand, Larry...
Tougher sentencing = longer sentencing, less parole opportunities,
chain-gangs, less prisoner rights, more prisons, more executions.
Re 6. More executions? What percentage of people in prison now are there for capital crimes? Maybe 1%? Less? Providing work for prisoners, as opposed to warehousing them in cells, is enormously expensive. The idea that they would create a "product" or "profit" that would offset the cost of confinement is pure fantasy. Like I said above, since you didn't read it the first time, sentences have been vastly lengthened (including actual time served), parole opportunities have been greatly restricted. I don't see you arguing that this has worked. More prisons? You mean, vastly higher tax rates to pay for an even bigger expansion of the prison system than we've already seen in the last ten years? Sounds real popular, doesn't it? Less prisoner rights? How do we do that? Amend the Constitution to say "prisoners have no rights"? If you want to cut the cost of prisons, what we really need is an amendment that says "prisoners get no health care." (And long sentences have created an aging prison population.) I thought you were a practical, realistic man, Tim. Your recent responses have tarnished that impression. This fanciful, wishful thinking of yours is even less realistic than Marxism.
Waaa waaa waaa....
I'll just waste time responding to your silly Constitution amendment.
You don't amend it at all, you just reevaluate what is considered
to be 'cruel & unusual' punishment.
Visit Jackson Prison, Tim. Or visit Marquette and ask if you can join in the dining experience of "food loaf." Go to clean-looking, new, Standish Prison, and hear a prisoner complain that the small space under the walls between cells, meant to facilitate cleaning, allows one's neighbor to share his bodily waste products.... Oh, how cushy.... It isn't the "comfort" of prisons that leads people to commit crimes. And criminals almost universally don't think they are going to be caught, so the discomfort isn't much of a disincentive.
Thanks, but I've been to Jacktown, FCI Milan, & Washtenaw County Jail. I don't think I ever stated that current prisons are comfortable, just that they aren't nasty enough, compared to the normal living conditions of many of the violent criminals on the streets. The prisons & jails are much cleaner than all of the 3 or 4 crack houses that I've been in.
As if the residents of crack houses care about their surroundings.... What are you suggesting, Tim? That guards periodically spread dirt, garbage, and bodily waste producs in prisoners' cells?
No, but since I enjoy see you do what you do best, you're welcome to keep guessing!
Dirt in a prison is a sign of a security problem. The most secure prisons are kept very clean.
Methinks Aaron was watching some of those movies depicting POWs at the Hanoi Hilton or something.
Methinks Tim isn't applying much thought to this matter, beyond his (as of yet, unsubstantiated) claim that prisons are too cushy. If, on the other hand, he has thought about this issue, and has some ideas he would like to share, I would like to see them.
regarding prisoners rights:
I recently saw a newscast on ch 7 in which Bill Bonds read a part
of a letter from a convict in the Michigan penal system. According to this
letter, Prisoners have access to color tv, cassettes, money, cigarettes,
in short, they lead a pretty cushy life. This person went on to say that
this amounted to more of a vacation than a punishment, that being in prison
was seen more as a "badge of honor" rather than being a black mark.
This, in my opinion MUST be changed.
How about going back to having a rock pile, and letting the prisoners
make little ones out of big ones. In other words, hard labor, no pay.
How about taking away the cassettes and the tv's and all the niceites
and using the money that is saved to build more prisons and hiring more
guards? Certainly this practice does not violate the 8th amendment.
Prisoners that swing a sledge for 12 hours, don't have time to file
lawsuits that clog the dockets of our courts.
The full text of the letter appeared in one of the local detroit papers that I perused briefly at work this morning, unfortunately, I forget which. Did Bill mention that this offender was in Camp Brighton, and exactly the place where murderers go to stay? Certainly the practice you advocate does break the 8th, otherwise the prisoners wouldn't have the amenites they have. Unfortunately, again.
I don't think so, Erik. When has it become a right to have a TV set while incarcerated? When has hard labor become unconstutional? I think that society is really skewed on this one. I'll ask a lawyer about this.
If there is one single amenity which I believe prisoners should *not* have,
it is television. Let them have access to all the books they want, but
we owe incarcerated criminals no entertainment, save that which they can
create for themselves. By limiting their entertainment to books, I think we
increase the odds that they will spend their time in prison productively, and
possible come out of prison with some of the education that they might have
missed earlier. Even in minimum security prisons, perhaps especially in those,
we ought not to allow prisoners to conduct business or maintain daily contact
with those ouside, with the possible exception of their attorneys. Prison
should be rehabilitative, but that does not mean that it should not also be
punitive. This applies to convicted criminals, but I think there should be a
separate and different way of handling those who are awaiting trial, or who
have otherwise not been proven guilty by standard processes. Let the concept
of innocence until proven guilty be practiced in the way we deal with these
folks.
Another thing: punishment as a deterrent only works until too many
people decide that the (necessarily increasing) severity of the punishment is
too great. The only real solution is to deal with the root causes. Putting
a band-aid on a deep, uncleansed wound only delays the inevitable until it
is too severe to be ignored, and possibly too severe to be cured. I don't
like the idea of 'amputating' portions of our society, but that's the way
we currently approach our crime problem.
Jim; I guess I meant to say that it must be considered a defacto violation, or some cases have been litigated in some state's penal system, where the decision from the judge found it to be cruel and unusual to lock somebody up and deny them 'real-world' contact. After all, when inmates can file law suits about not being given strawberry ice cream with dinner (an actual l (argh.) an actual law suit), who knows what else has been filed on. Also, you do have these people locked up for a large portion of time, which cannot be used productively, for example bewteen chow and lights out. It is much easier to put a tube in the dayroom for them to stare at, and hopeful reduce tensions somewhat and distract them from doing soemthing to each other. Personally I do feel that the whole correctional concept is flawed, and that we should have a more penal oriented system, perhaps with rehabilitation elements.
re #16: That sounds like Bonds, alright....
Prisons aren't "cushy," Jim.
re #19: Prisoners stay out of trouble when they are watching TV.
Many prisoners are illiterate, and many who can read have no
use for books.
If you want to engage in social engineering, how about doing
so *before* your proposed subjects end up in jail.
re #20: Anybody can file suit about anything, Erik.
What "correctional" elements do you see as flawed, within the
present system? Please be specific. And what is the difference
between a "correctional concept" and a "rehabilitation element"?
I don't think any one of us knows about corrections theory ; so we only see it on the surface, and not a whole representation of the system. But, on the other hand, I don't favor more freedoms for prisoners. Do we owe a prisoner a TV? Not in my opinion. What will be next? Voting rights? I believe that voting rights are suspended when a person is convicted and while the prisoner is still incarcerated. When prisons become institutions of corrections, instead of what they are now, only then will we be able to get convicts back on track.
You don't need a qualifier on your initial statement. Prisons may have a TV in a common area, Jim, with emphasis on "may." That is not the same thing as providing prisoners with TV's. "What will be next? Voting rights?" Boy -- you sure took the fast track down the slippery slope....
The warden at FCI Milan told me that state prisons may allow the prisoners to have personal TVs. Federal institutions do not, but will have a TV in a common, 'TV area' which the cretins have access to for a certain # of hours a day. The Tv often has some of the 'premium' CATV channels, like HBO & Showtime.
Oh, gee. Here I was, thinking it wouldn't be too nice being locked in a cell most of the day, having no privacy, eating really bad prison food... but now that I know I might be able to see HBO in the common area, I can't wait to go to prison. :*
Well, this one is pretty old, but let's see if I can get a response anyway. First of all, congratulations to all of you for buying into the idea that we are all aboutot be overwhelmed by a menacing tidal wave of crime. I agree with other (#19) and aaron (#21) if there really is a problem, let's correct it _before_ people get into jail. Okay, the no tv way to saving money is great, but do you really want to have more jails? And anyway, after you lock up all the Blacks and Latinos, who's going to do most of the "shitjobs" (excuse my language)? just a thought.
The women?
Actually, that's a good question, but there are plenty of white
("White," to follow your syntax) people who, by fault of their own or
not, won't have the mental or physical necessities to hold one of the
better jobs...
So you're saying that the reason someone doesn't have a better job is because that perosn doesn't have the "mental or physical necessities"? C'mon, at least give them teh benefit of saying they just don't have te training! Personally, though, I think that the reason a lot of people of color are in less, ah, respected fields is because it is harder for them to achieve in a society that is geared for their failure.
Great! Let's start 'helping them' by removing 'assistance' programs like
welfare, ADC/WIC, subsidized housing, etc. That will undoubtably allow
people of ALL colors to improve themselves!
It is a lot easier to just get a job at Burger King, or become a
B0100000027fed4
criminal, then it is to stay in skool & apply yourself. Is that failure
notion pre-conceived, or it simply intruistic and an honest evaluation of
motivation & performance?
I don't look at a 1 year old baby (white or black) & think "That little
runt will never amount to anything!" but I do reserve the right to look
at some 40 year old with 10 children (oldest is 15...) who flips burgers &
cleans toilets at Burker King" as being *somewhat* of a failure.
In a way, I give a lot of people more credit than you do. If they are
'failures,' *I* credit the majority of them with being responsible for
their lives, whereas you apparently view them as puppets subject to the
whims (& pre-conceived notions...) of others (notably, us white males, who
of course control everything -- perhaps one day you'll enlighten me as to
what led us white males to become so powerful. SUrely, in your opinion,
it was through some sort of dastardly means, & not just some sort of
Darwinistic [Oops, sorry, he was a white male too!] evolution).
First of all, I think we're getting really far off topic but to respond to at least a few of your ideas: Sure it's harder to stay in school than to just drop out, but I think that there is ample evidence to show that its even harder to stay in school if that school is in a poorer neighborhood (usually there's little incentive to active to achieve) and/or if you don't speak Engilsh at all or very well than if you attend schools with a lot of money (usually private or in teh suburbs) and there is money adn interest to encourage most if not all students. Don't tell me that you don't think that makes a difference. So is that person flipping burgers at Burger King a failure? You claearly say yes, but I have to say that I need more information to be able to make a judgement. Maybe this person didn't "make it" but he/she is alive, has kept 10 kids alive(in a no doubt hostile environment), I don't know how the kids are diong, since this is, after all, your example. BUt I think that it's important to take a larger perspective on the idea of failure. As a woman or color, I can't deny that from here it sure looks like it's easier being a man, and easier still being a white one. I don't buy into any conspiracy notions about conspiracy plots or anything so ridiculous, but I have noticed that in the course of normal interaction, whenever you meet someone or look at them for the first time, consciously or subconsciously a judgement is made, a categorization mbased on that persons skin color, gender, dress, hairstyle, e, etc. By "you" I don't mean to say that it is only you white males who engage in this "categorization", I think that edverybody does it. But this has little to do with the topic of the discussion, on reading the previous entries again, I am struck by one idea, there is an assumption being made that all the people in prison are guilty and that a good number of those that commit the cribes are in jail, or at least a representative number of these "criminals" Would you agree?
I think that *most* incarcerated convicts (convicts, short for *convicted*)
are guilty. I'm not sure I understand the 2nd part of the question
correctly. I don't think that most people who commit/committed crimes
are in jail.
I would agree that in many ways, it is 'easier' to be a white male
in this world. Would you agree that it is also 'easier' in 'black culture'
to be darker skinned rather than light skinned?
But now you're bringing in our "culture" discussion, and I havent been able to go back to that one yet to read it and respond! (I'll do that right after I answer here) Let me try to rephrase my question, or rather state what I was leading up to Since a lot of this discussion has been focusing on making the prison system work better, with an eye, of course, to "making our streets safer" (something our buddies who are running for various offices here seem very concerned about) it only makes sense to try and put those who actually commit the crimes in jail rather than thos who did not. I think it si a very bad thing to put someone who did not commit a crime in jail, don't you? Certainly, without larger facilities, or a new type of system (all topics that have been discussed before here), not all criminals can be caught and convicted. But I think it is a sign of a system that works to have a representative group in the prison system. IN other words, the people *in* jail should be an appropriate percentage of those who commit crimes in the fist place, otherwise just expanding the system won't get you that far (hence my comment about putting all the Blacks and Latinos in jail) because 1) you're letting people off who actually commited crimes (if you want, I can give you examples) 2) people who acutally didn't do anything and in jail 3) some people get higher penalties for doing lesser crimes (again, I can provide examples) What do you think (also, if there is anyone else out there listening, feel free to respond)?
I forgot to mention, about the "black culture"/skin color question. It depends on if you're male or female.
i can't do it
Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.
|
|
|
- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss