RE: Are the times really 'a' changin'? Prison.

RE: Are the times really 'a' changin'? Prison. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

DomImus -> RE: Are the times really 'a' changin'? Prison. (7/30/2009 7:03:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou We lock up over 2 million. Out of a population of approximately 300 million. That's not even one percent. With such compelling statistics I am amazed that I have made it through almost a half century without being incarcerated.

Lorr47 -> RE: Are the times really 'a' changin'? Prison. (7/30/2009 9:00:56 AM)
quote: Three years ago I shot a man who was holding a gun to a 4year olds head in the hope of getting far enough away to avoid capture. Unfortunatly, I did not kill the bastard. He lived and went to prison, where he still sits to this day. When I was 24, I killed a man holding a pregnant woman hostage. His 4 accomplices were lucky enough to just get arrested and sent to prison. Over the years, in the course of my 'career', I have the dubious pleasure of making the decision who should die and who should just go to prison. Honestly...I would rather each and every one that has ever been in my sights...they should have been shot and killed on the spot. It would have saved every taxpayer a bundle over having to keep them in cable tv and steaks in prison. I can't stand it when someone sits here on their high and mighty horse complaining about how unfair the justice/prison system is. Tell you what...let's go talk to the families of victims of those in prison and see what they have to say. Forgiveness? Fuck that. They are in prison for a reason. Let them rot there. A law enforcement officer once said that his job was to see that the guilty were convicted and the not guilty were not convicted. You obviously saw some guilty fellows caught red handed and they should be dealt with as you said. But, I will guess that you fought to free those who were not guilty as well. The key is being even handed.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Are the times really 'a' changin'? Prison. (7/30/2009 9:58:22 AM)
quote: Consequences teach I wish I could take credit for this idea; however is was the thought of one of the guests over at the house for WyldHrt's birthday party. He had an interesting suggestion along these lines that maybe would address both the issues of consequence, cost, and the overcrowded prisons. He said that all convicted criminals be sentences for the exact same term - 2 weeks. During there stay at the prison, each day there would be a lottery with all the prisoner's names. If you name comes up - you are executed. Do you think there would be much recidivism? Now granted, capitol punishment seems a bit excessive for someone doing a B&E; but considering all the people who wanted to see Bernie Maddoff killed for his crime this may be the appropriate 'final solution'. Maybe there could be a tiered system; same sentence, but for the two week period the lottery 'winner' would have a hand cut off in the 'thieves prison'. Rapists - the 'winner' gets castrated. A flogging, in the style of Mel Gibson's S&M snuff film, Passion of the Christ, for DUI convictions. The PC correct will appreciate the Bible / Koran influence. Make it through the two weeks and go free. As a sadist - I can really appreciate the 'Mind Fuck' value such a system would provide. Combine the concept with a fixed 30 day time frame from arrest to trial - regardless of the crime or the high priced legal team to be assembled and you'll clear up the current backlog, and reduce the costs for the entire process, very quickly. Obviously - we have to start thinking outside the box.

Loki45 -> RE: Are the times really 'a' changin'? Prison. (7/30/2009 10:59:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth He said that all convicted criminals be sentences for the exact same term - 2 weeks. During there stay at the prison, each day there would be a lottery with all the prisoner's names. If you name comes up - you are executed. Do you think there would be much recidivism? Now granted, capitol punishment seems a bit excessive for someone doing a B&E; but considering all the people who wanted to see Bernie Maddoff killed for his crime this may be the appropriate 'final solution'. Maybe there could be a tiered system; same sentence, but for the two week period the lottery 'winner' would have a hand cut off in the 'thieves prison'. Rapists - the 'winner' gets castrated. A flogging, in the style of Mel Gibson's S&M snuff film, Passion of the Christ, for DUI convictions. The PC correct will appreciate the Bible / Koran influence. Make it through the two weeks and go free. As a sadist - I can really appreciate the 'Mind Fuck' value such a system would provide. Combine the concept with a fixed 30 day time frame from arrest to trial - regardless of the crime or the high priced legal team to be assembled and you'll clear up the current backlog, and reduce the costs for the entire process, very quickly. Obviously - we have to start thinking outside the box. I have to say, that's not bad at all. It'll never even be considered by the powers that be, but I like it. However I have one change. For DUI's, the criminal is cuffed to the steering wheel of a non-drivable car on the side of the road while another driver is given a larger vehicle ala "Death Proof" (reinforced everywhere and nigh-indestructable) as well as about 4 shots of vodka. Maybe there's a collision. Maybe there's not. But that's about the same chance as a drunk driver gives his would-be victims.

Loki45 -> RE: Are the times really 'a' changin'? Prison. (7/30/2009 11:09:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hizgeorgiapeach When you start looking at numbers, don't Just look at the Overall numbers. Look at the numbers of first time convictions vs resitivism rates - the rate of those Returning because they've been caught a second... third... Tenth or Twelth.. time, doing the same things over and over again. Even those "non-violent" types that you advocate for - if they're in prison Again, after having been in previously and given a chance to shape up, then they obviously Aren't doing so. Excellent point. When some states enacted their "three-strikes" rule, there were people up in arms over criminals being given 25-year sentences for stealing a pack of gum. Those same people failed to take into account the fact that it was the guy's THIRD crime and he showed no signs of reform, stopping or caring.....that is until he was lockd up for 25 years for a pack of gum. I just can't understand the problem. I mean sure, on the surface...no one wants a 25 year sentence for stealing gum. However, if that's your third strike.....you've had THREE chances to prove the first time was "a mistake" and you blew it. You have no one to blame but yourself. You have to sit in prison with the knowledge that because you didn't learn your lesson the first two times, you now have a 25-year sentence for stealing gum quote: ORIGINAL: hizgeorgiapeach I'm not huge on Revenge - it seldom actually Works, and most frequently simply lowers us to the same dispicable level as those whom we would avenge ourselves against. I AM huge on the Permanent removal from society of those who repeated prove themselves incapable of living by the same rules as the rest of us. Not removal at my continued expense... Permanent Removal. I'd like to say I'm not big on revenge, but I suppose I am. I am comfy using any justification for it (Biblical or otherwise). Just think about it. We see stories in the news every day about a crime so horrific, we'd swear we're hearing the plot for a new horror movie. What is the appropriate punishment for that? When a man comes home and finds his wife and children murdered...but sees the youngest of them barely clinging to life......only to die en route to the hospital. How do you punish for something like that? How do you ensure it won't happen to another person (at least by the guy who did it to you)? I know of only one way. The scenario I just related came from one of those "TruTV" shows called "Most Shocking" and it was about courtroom moments. Number 20 on their list of courtroom moments was a father who, at the trial of the man who confessed to that crime simply lost it when they began to recount exactly what happened to his family. He was the one who walked into the home and found his family like that. He was the one who sat with his 4-year-old daughter as she was clinging to life. An ARMY of Baliffs had to stop the guy. He later said to the murderer that "The only reason you're breathing today is because I couldn't get to you. I've failed my family because of that." The judge found the man guilty of contempt of court for rushing the murderer, but didn't punish him. There's a proverb I once heard (but don't know where it comes from) that says: When a man begins a quest for revenge, he must first dig two graves." I'm alright with that, because in order (in my mind) to need to seek revenge, something so horrible has to have happened already that makes the person not want to be here anyway.

blacksword404 -> RE: Are the times really 'a' changin'? Prison. (7/30/2009 11:23:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Are you aware that states with the death penalty have higher murder rates than those without? There is absolutely no evidence that the death penalty acts as a deterrent. It is simply murder carried out in all of our names for revenge. You can call it murder all you like. But I can assure you of one thing. A dead murderer cannot repeat his crime. A living one can, and in many cases has. You forget that we are all murderers. Given the right circumstances.

Loki45 -> RE: Are the times really 'a' changin'? Prison. (7/30/2009 11:26:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blacksword404 You forget that we are all murderers. Given the right circumstances. Perhaps, but that largely depends on your point of view. And 'the right circumstances' rarely result in the types of murder cases I've seen.

blacksword404 -> RE: Are the times really 'a' changin'? Prison. (7/30/2009 11:38:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 Excellent point. When some states enacted their "three-strikes" rule, there were people up in arms over criminals being given 25-year sentences for stealing a pack of gum. Those same people failed to take into account the fact that it was the guy's THIRD crime and he showed no signs of reform, stopping or caring.....that is until he was lockd up for 25 years for a pack of gum. I just can't understand the problem. I mean sure, on the surface...no one wants a 25 year sentence for stealing gum. However, if that's your third strike.....you've had THREE chances to prove the first time was "a mistake" and you blew it. You have no one to blame but yourself. You have to sit in prison with the knowledge that because you didn't learn your lesson the first two times, you now have a 25-year sentence for stealing gum This wouldn't be the same California that has it's prison so overcrowded that inmates are likely to kill each other just so the can stretch out their legs is it? Or the same state that releases inmates early because they need the space for new ones? Or the broke ass state of California? You could start killing people for stealing gum and it would not stop gum stealing. Instead they would start stealing gum and killing too. If they catch you stealing gum, they kill you. If they catch you after stealing gum and killing 50 people trying to get away, they kill you. Whats the difference? If you kill enough people at least you might possibly get away.

Loki45 -> RE: Are the times really 'a' changin'? Prison. (7/30/2009 12:22:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blacksword404 This wouldn't be the same California that has it's prison so overcrowded that inmates are likely to kill each other just so the can stretch out their legs is it? Or the same state that releases inmates early because they need the space for new ones? Or the broke ass state of California? You could start killing people for stealing gum and it would not stop gum stealing. Instead they would start stealing gum and killing too. If they catch you stealing gum, they kill you. If they catch you after stealing gum and killing 50 people trying to get away, they kill you. Whats the difference? If you kill enough people at least you might possibly get away. It would be the same. Apparently there are increasing numbers of people who just won't learn to obey the rules and that's why you have quickly-filling prisons there. I like your idea, though. Just start killin' for minor shit. Talk about sending a message. That'd be a 3-strikes law with some TEETH. "Do it a third time and we KILL you." Would you risk it?

popeye1250 -> RE: Are the times really 'a' changin'? Prison. (7/30/2009 12:24:36 PM)
Slaveboy, true, exhibit A, Ted Kennedy. "DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?"

Arpig -> RE: Are the times really 'a' changin'? Prison. (7/30/2009 12:48:03 PM)
quote: Search me. I have no clue. However what concerns me more than the deterrent to murder, is the fact that giving a murderer life gives him more chances to repeat his offense via escape, murdering another inmate, or even murdering a guard. quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig Good, I really was hoping i had misunderstood [:)]. But onto your point if the death penalty is the only deterrent that has any weight, then why isn't the murder rate much higher in countries without the death penalty? Or even in states without the death penalty for that matter? Search me. I have no clue. However what concerns me more than the deterrent to murder, is the fact that giving a murderer life gives him more chances to repeat his offense via escape, murdering another inmate, or even murdering a guard. So there is no deterrent effect of capital punishment, but we should kill these people on the off chance that they may kill again?

Loki45 -> RE: Are the times really 'a' changin'? Prison. (7/30/2009 12:55:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig So there is no deterrent effect of capital punishment, but we should kill these people on the off chance that they may kill again? In some cases, yes. In other cases, the killing is simply an equal and opposite response to what they've done. If a dog attacks someone, it's quarantined. It lives in a cage for 10 days to be sure it's not rabid or a viscious threat. When a dog kills someone, it is destroyed. Some who have killed did so under just "the right circumstances." For others who have killed, it's sport. It's fun. It's their idea of a good time. For a guy who punches a guy in a fight and the guy busts his head open and dies....OK, mistake...lock him up, give him a chance to show he's not a monster and then let him get back to society. But for the guy who goes on a spree. For the gang member who does an 'initiation killing' for the man who has the bodies of 9 children buried beneath his home. KILL HIM. He will obviously be of no use to society, he will obvious do something similar or worse, given the chance. Just take him out of the collective societal equation. For he has already proven (like the dog in the second example) that he can't be allowed around the rest of us, be it in a cage or not.

calamitysandra -> RE: Are the times really 'a' changin'? Prison. (7/30/2009 3:44:27 PM)
Loki, which measures do you propose, to make sure only the really guilty are executed? Which changes to the system would it take in your opinion?

blacksword404 -> RE: Are the times really 'a' changin'? Prison. (7/30/2009 6:34:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 quote: ORIGINAL: blacksword404 This wouldn't be the same California that has it's prison so overcrowded that inmates are likely to kill each other just so the can stretch out their legs is it? Or the same state that releases inmates early because they need the space for new ones? Or the broke ass state of California? You could start killing people for stealing gum and it would not stop gum stealing. Instead they would start stealing gum and killing too. If they catch you stealing gum, they kill you. If they catch you after stealing gum and killing 50 people trying to get away, they kill you. Whats the difference? If you kill enough people at least you might possibly get away. It would be the same. Apparently there are increasing numbers of people who just won't learn to obey the rules and that's why you have quickly-filling prisons there. I like your idea, though. Just start killin' for minor shit. Talk about sending a message. That'd be a 3-strikes law with some TEETH. "Do it a third time and we KILL you." Would you risk it? [:D] I would kill you. Then not have to worry.

Loki45 -> RE: Are the times really 'a' changin'? Prison. (7/30/2009 7:32:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: calamitysandra Loki, which measures do you propose, to make sure only the really guilty are executed? Which changes to the system would it take in your opinion? The easiest one of all, I'm afraid, is also the one no one seems to want to take. Cameras on every corner. Look at cities where they have such widespread surveilance in place. Any crime, no matter how minor, is on a screen somewhere. They can even catch vandals and other random 'minor' crimes. But try and put cameras up here....people go ape shit. If you're on camera committing the crime, it would be kinda hard to refute in court. That would solve a good portion of the problems of innocent people being convicted.

Loki45 -> RE: Are the times really 'a' changin'? Prison. (7/30/2009 7:33:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blacksword404 [:D] I would kill you. Then not have to worry. That would still be your 'third strike' and you would go down just the same.

Arpig -> RE: Are the times really 'a' changin'? Prison. (7/30/2009 10:18:34 PM)
quote: In some cases, yes. In other cases, the killing is simply an equal and opposite response to what they've done. If a dog attacks someone, it's quarantined. It lives in a cage for 10 days to be sure it's not rabid or a viscious threat. When a dog kills someone, it is destroyed. Some who have killed did so under just "the right circumstances." For others who have killed, it's sport. It's fun. It's their idea of a good time. For a guy who punches a guy in a fight and the guy busts his head open and dies....OK, mistake...lock him up, give him a chance to show he's not a monster and then let him get back to society. But for the guy who goes on a spree. For the gang member who does an 'initiation killing' for the man who has the bodies of 9 children buried beneath his home. KILL HIM. He will obviously be of no use to society, he will obvious do something similar or worse, given the chance. Just take him out of the collective societal equation. For he has already proven (like the dog in the second example) that he can't be allowed around the rest of us, be it in a cage or not. But I don't want his blood on my hands.

Arpig -> RE: Are the times really 'a' changin'? Prison. (7/30/2009 10:20:03 PM)
quote: The easiest one of all, I'm afraid, is also the one no one seems to want to take. Cameras on every corner. Look at cities where they have such widespread surveilance in place. Any crime, no matter how minor, is on a screen somewhere. They can even catch vandals and other random 'minor' crimes. But try and put cameras up here....people go ape shit. Big Brother is watching you..........

Loki45 -> RE: Are the times really 'a' changin'? Prison. (7/30/2009 11:48:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig Big Brother is watching you.......... Big brother's been watching all of us for a long time. I don't feel any different now then I did when I didn't know that. A few more cameras won't hurt that one way or the other.

Loki45 -> RE: Are the times really 'a' changin'? Prison. (7/30/2009 11:49:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig But I don't want his blood on my hands. Your objection is noted. If you don't consider it so, it shall not be so. I'm perfectly fine with the level of blood my hands have on them. Any time I am not 'ok' with it, I think about the crime scenes the convicted created. I have a few bookmarks that talk about murderers and their crimes. Then I feel better knowing my state has "an express lane" to the chamber for people who do things like that.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.09375