RE: Paying For Inmates or Helping the Poor.

RE: Paying For Inmates or Helping the Poor. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity

[Poll]

Paying For Inmates or Helping the Poor.

Pay for Immates at their current budget

2% (1)

Pay for the elderly and others in financial hardship

48% (17)

Other.

48% (17)

Total Votes : 35

(last vote on : 8/15/2011 9:55:44 AM)
(Poll will run till: -- )

Message

kalikshama -> RE: Paying For Inmates or Helping the Poor. (7/20/2011 5:35:40 AM)
quote: I say force those who are criminals to work within the prison system its self. In PA, our prisons are staffed with people who do the cooking, the cleaning, the upkeep the maintenance. So elect people who will institute work programs. Look, prison is BORING. Working breaks up the monotony. It's your legislature you'll need to force, not the inmates. My county's minimum-security facility: http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=eopsterminal&L=4&L0=Home&L1=Law+Enforcement+%26+Criminal+Justice&L2=Prisons&L3=State+Correctional+Facilities&sid=Eeops&b=terminalcontent&f=doc_facility_plymouth&csid=Eeops All inmates work in a variety of job assignments at the facility and in the community on supervised work crews. Job assignments are intended to provide the offender with opportunities for positive behavioral change while developing work skills and dependable work ethics. Through the work crew program, inmates provide community reparation through agreements with local towns and State agencies such as the MA Highway Department and the Department of Conservation and Recreation. Federal: http://www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/5251_006.pdf

kykitten41 -> RE: Paying For Inmates or Helping the Poor. (7/20/2011 5:38:03 AM)
Only 49 percent of sentenced state inmates were held for violent offenses. really..this looks like a huge amount of violent offenders to me...

lockedaway -> RE: Paying For Inmates or Helping the Poor. (7/20/2011 5:42:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpiritedRadiance Instead of derailing the mental health thread even further as well as trying to keep the opinions on both topics seperate. I figured a new thread was in order. If given the magical choice of choosing where your tax dollars are spent would you choose to pay it to the 23,500 a year budget per inmate in America or would you use it to help the sick, elderly and poor in America. This is mostly based on the USA because we do not have universal healthcare. If you live outside of America please TRY to keep to the topic of whats going on there, while Your country might be superfantastical, its not the topic of the OP. Edited to correct average across the US cost of prisoner (Some states such as pa are higher some such as Alabama are lower) This is an odd poll. You have to do both to a certain degree. If you closed the borders, stopped the flow of illegal aliens, you would also reduce the drug trade. We have a large number of criminal illegal aliens moving through the system everyday. There is no choosing between criminals and the sick/elderly/poor. The criminals have to be segregated from society. They should have to be more productive in supporting themselves in the manner that the penal farms of the south consumed a great deal of what they grew. Chain gangs are a very acceptable way of reducing the cost of inmate housing. The death penalty is an absolute deterrent to crime even if it is only on the individual level. More importantly, it vindicates the victim and society. There are probably 5 other crimes that should be capital offenses. As far as the U.S. not having universal health care, that is an over used tirade. Anyone can walk into a hospital and get treatment. The emergency room in the hospital down the street in my city is filled with illegals everyday. I'm sure those people get billed and I'm also pretty certain they don't pay. But, given the transient nature of the population and that you can't get blood from a stone, I don't think their medical bills impose too much in the way of hardship. Any American can walk into a hospital's emergency room and get treatment. The problem is that the person is going to be expected to pay for the service. Sure...that makes sense but people seem to believe that because the service they need is required for their health that it should be on the government's tab. I think that's kind of funny. My health insurance premium is now $548.00 per month for a cadillac health care plan. It has gone up since Obama has been president. Fifteen years ago, it was $200.00. I don't question whether or not I have to pay for health insurance just like I don't question whether or not I have to pay automobile insurance. Should automobile insurance be paid for by the government too? What about malpractice insurance? What about homeowner's insurance. People will say "hey, man, it is for our health!" Well...there is nothing healthier than having 3 square meals per day, right? Based on that line of reasoning, should the government provide you with three square meals per day? All of the problems in the U.S. are inter-related. It is a country in its death throes. How much do you want to tax people to feed the PSE's (poor, sick and elderly)? Someone come up with a percentage. Private sector employment has been shrinking since the 1950's. The government has been growing ever since WWII. Anyone see a problem with that? With the government growing and the private sector shrinking, we have a growing number of PSE's. And...it is going to grow a great deal more in only the next two years.

kalikshama -> RE: Paying For Inmates or Helping the Poor. (7/20/2011 5:45:09 AM)
quote: However we spend less then 3 million yearly on feeding assistance programs. I couldn't find any stats on the link you provided, http://www.welfareinfo.org/ Food assistance programs are managed through the FDA, which says "Federal expenditures for USDA’s food assistance programs totaled $78.8 billion in fiscal 2009..." Bit of a difference. Given the discrepancy, I'd like to see your source for this as well. quote: america on average 1 in 8 people go hungry daily, 1 in 3 elderly people have to make the choice between feeding themselves and buying their medication.

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Paying For Inmates or Helping the Poor. (7/20/2011 5:58:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kykitten41 well since a huge percentage of our prison population is made up of murderers...why not send them to fight our wars? they already have experience and are more than qualified for the job. it empties our prisons...leaving shelter for those less fortunate to have a home..and the money that had been used to house..feed and provide medical..can go to the elderly and homeless. it frees up money spent in training our military...and gives prisoners an opportunity to do what they do best..kill. thats my opinion. Would you really want your wars fought by someone who is being forced to do it? It would seem they might lack some of the patriotic fervor that a true soldier should have.

kykitten41 -> RE: Paying For Inmates or Helping the Poor. (7/20/2011 6:12:03 AM)
on second thought..i probably wouldnt..the murderes in prison would do it out of hate...our soilders do it out of duty and love of their country.

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Paying For Inmates or Helping the Poor. (7/20/2011 6:33:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt How about all those nasty jobs no one else wants to do: sanitation work, sewage treatment, online Who says people don't want to do those jobs? At this point I think there are a lot of people who will do just about anything to keep a roof over their heads. Short of going to prison, of course. If I were employed as a sewage treatment worker, I would hate the thought of losing my job to a criminal. That's been the problem with prison industries, they unfairly compete with private industries. In a situation like fire fighting, which is short term and a case where the more help the better, it works. For anything longer term, like the jobs you mention, it is unfair competition. As for the care for the elderly thing, what are we talking about here? I certainly don't agree that there should be some sort of additional national pension entitlement, for instance, other than SS. I do think there should be a safety net, of course, as there should be for everyone. So when you talk about caring for the elderly, what does that mean to you?

rawtape -> RE: Paying For Inmates or Helping the Poor. (7/20/2011 6:43:45 AM)
Spirit, Why is it an exclusive either/or situation? Don't you lot (Americans, that is) tend to have the highest incarceration rate among all the nations in the world? And isn't one of the biggest contributors to the US prison population the so-called "War on Drugs", particularly for non-violent offenses after Reagan passed the rather draconian Anti-Drug Abuse Act in 1986? So, why not change the laws to focus more on rehabilitation of say, first-time offenders rather than incarceration? And why not legalize and tax many of the soft drugs, putting them under the purview of say, the FDA? You end up eliminating a source of crime and thus a fraction of the prison population (thus saving money which can be used for helping the sick, elderly and poor), and generate a new source of revenue (which too can be used for helping the sick, elderly and poor).

LadyConstanze -> RE: Paying For Inmates or Helping the Poor. (7/20/2011 7:05:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpiritedRadiance Instead of derailing the mental health thread even further as well as trying to keep the opinions on both topics seperate. I figured a new thread was in order. If given the magical choice of choosing where your tax dollars are spent would you choose to pay it to the 23,500 a year budget per inmate in America or would you use it to help the sick, elderly and poor in America. This is mostly based on the USA because we do not have universal healthcare. If you live outside of America please TRY to keep to the topic of whats going on there, while Your country might be superfantastical, its not the topic of the OP. Edited to correct average across the US cost of prisoner (Some states such as pa are higher some such as Alabama are lower) Is this magical choice from the same magical reality where prisons are luxury accommodations with 60" plasma screens, fantastic gourmet food and snazzy clothes? Apart from that, rawtape makes a hell lot of sense. And last time I checked, wasn't Obama trying to make sure that everybody would have healthcare and weren't a lot of people predicting that it would be the end of the US, as people should be free to chose if they want health care or not?

kalikshama -> RE: Paying For Inmates or Helping the Poor. (7/20/2011 7:18:13 AM)
quote: Is this magical choice from the same magical reality where prisons are luxury accommodations with 60" plasma screens, fantastic gourmet food and snazzy clothes? Apart from that, rawtape makes a hell lot of sense. The rawtape reference completely eludes me - please elaborate.

LillyBoPeep -> RE: Paying For Inmates or Helping the Poor. (7/20/2011 7:31:58 AM)
oh my... prisons dont' have to be luxurious to still represent a "better" way of life for some people. 3 meals a day is more than a lot of school children can hope for and they've done nothing wrong. once again, rampant hyperbole is taking away any sense of reality in a conversation... it gets irritating. no one said prisons were luxury accomodations, but they have a lot of amenities that many people on the outside have no affordable access to. many people can't afford television, which isn't even a need. many people can't afford 3 balanced meals a day. many people can't afford decent footwear. many MANY people can't afford healthcare. so still, in many ways, prison life is "better" than outside life, depending on who you are.

kalikshama -> RE: Paying For Inmates or Helping the Poor. (7/20/2011 7:56:07 AM)
quote: so still, in many ways, prison life is "better" than outside life, depending on who you are. For all you people with this viewpoint, how many current or former inmates do you know personally who share this view?

LillyBoPeep -> RE: Paying For Inmates or Helping the Poor. (7/20/2011 8:05:17 AM)
seems to be the way my cousin is living his life. haha =p in the other prison thread, i posted links to stories about people who do -- anecdotal, sure, but still, it's worth something.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Paying For Inmates or Helping the Poor. (7/20/2011 8:12:59 AM)
If prison is that bad, why do so many people go back again and again? Less on prisons. Take the savings and help the poor. This will result in fewer people in prison. Keep the feedback going. Also, for fucks SAKE, ditch the laws that put someone in jail longer for a bag of weed than for murder.

EmilyRocks -> RE: Paying For Inmates or Helping the Poor. (7/20/2011 8:22:43 AM)
Giving murderers and other violent criminals automatic weapons doesn't seem like such a bright idea to me, just saying. Rulemylife, I thiink, mentioned reducing the number of people imprisoned for non violent crimes. I think this is a good idea.

kykitten41 -> RE: Paying For Inmates or Helping the Poor. (7/20/2011 8:31:52 AM)
dont have to give them anything..odds are they already have them.. just saying

Punkt -> RE: Paying For Inmates or Helping the Poor. (7/20/2011 8:43:46 AM)
These are the words of a law professor. He said these in his class. He told that he has known lots of people convicted of crimes such as battery, assault, domestic violence, sex offender when they were actually the victims. Recently in Oklahoma, a pharmacy employee was sentenced to life in prison for killing a robber who tried to rob the pharmacy. I don't know anything about the case; I don't know the pharmacist, I don't know the robber; all I know is when you shoot somebody who came to your store to harm people and rob the store; you would be convicted for murder and life in prison. I studied "Paralegal Studies" and have been to courts lots of times. An example; A guy gets arrested with 20 bags of drugs. He has several convictions of possession and sales before and he has 2 strikes for sales. He has been offered the minimum sentence of 16 months x 2 because of his strikes. He doesn't take the deal and he is at his last court before trial. Judge: You are eligible for 25 years to life in prison, but no judge will give you that. Are you sure you are going to trial? The guy: Not for 32 months. (That is the minimum sentence, no one can offer him any less). Why the judge is not going to give a guy 25 years to life if he is eligible for it and if the guy has a criminal history of several crimes and arrests for lots of times? Look at the justice system or ask anyone who works for Department of Justice in the courts level. They will tell you the same thing. Every arrest and release, makes money for lots of people, both in the Department of Justice and both in the city and state level. That is why everybody is getting arrested and then released after some time and put on parole or probation, because the more a criminal person gets arrested, the more money they make, and the only chance they will get arrested and convicted is putting them back on the street (You can also get convicted inside too, but it is harder). Let's say you are making money in some illegal and immoral way and in years of time, you have made quite of money, and you got arrested some day. You will be able to pay your bail because you made that money illegally, but someone who is working for minimum wage or twice the minimum wage wouldn't be able bail himself/herself out. That criminal person will be able to expunge his records by paying to the Department of Justice, but the person who is just working for twice the minimum wage or less wouldn't be able to pay the Department of Justice, and he/she wouldn't be able to expunge it. While you are working for a little money, and pay your taxes and pay for your health from that little money; some other unemployed drug addict and alcoholic would be getting paid to be lazy, crazy, junkie, and alcoholic (Lots of people got paid by Social Security just by being alcoholic); and that person wouldn't pay taxes or health care. Why would we be releasing a person who is committing the same crime (When I say crime, I mean giving harm to somebody; I don't mean weed - I don't smoke weed, I just wanted to clarify the difference-) over and over again? Why would we putting somebody in prison because he shot somebody who came to his/her store to rob the store? Why would be putting somebody in prison who was just trying to defend himself/herself or loved ones from a drunk or high guy on the street, who belongs to a jungle instead of a civilization? It is not about paying the inmates or helping the poor. It is about the whole civilization we live in, or the whole Department of Justice. Most of us know that they can spend years in prison just for defending themselves or their loved ones, but we are still talking about Party A is better than Party B or Party B is better than Party A, instead of talking about changing (and maybe destroying) the chairs that both of those party's representatives sit on! Because under the rule of both parties, you and your loved ones are getting mugged, robbed, raped, and murdered and the representatives of both parties couldn't care less.

rulemylife -> RE: Paying For Inmates or Helping the Poor. (7/20/2011 8:44:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LillyBoPeep oh my... prisons dont' have to be luxurious to still represent a "better" way of life for some people. 3 meals a day is more than a lot of school children can hope for and they've done nothing wrong. once again, rampant hyperbole is taking away any sense of reality in a conversation... it gets irritating. no one said prisons were luxury accomodations, but they have a lot of amenities that many people on the outside have no affordable access to. many people can't afford television, which isn't even a need. many people can't afford 3 balanced meals a day. many people can't afford decent footwear. many MANY people can't afford healthcare. so still, in many ways, prison life is "better" than outside life, depending on who you are. I guess that must be why so many people want to go there. [sm=whoa.gif]

EmilyRocks -> RE: Paying For Inmates or Helping the Poor. (7/20/2011 8:57:56 AM)
FR I don't think this is intended to be a sensible or serious poll. I think it was made so the OP could rant about luxury prisons that don't exist and imaginary minimal welfare budgets. I think she got all butt hurt when somebody a lot smarter than her was the first person to post and posted the obvious answer to her dumb poll. She only replied by continuing her rants and to whine about how horrible heather is for daring to say she is wrong. So here's my contribution to the OP's little ego fest SpiritedRadiance, you are wrong. There, you can add me to your list of people you hate unreasonably.

RqrCompanionS -> RE: Paying For Inmates or Helping the Poor. (7/20/2011 9:02:54 AM)
Well, I had a lovely thing typed up, for "other" all about who to release from prison, why, how much it would affect the economy, in a good way; putting a cap on the spending of government officials, budgeting, etc. Then, something glitchy happened and it all disappeared. Suffice it to say, I believe truly dangerous criminals still need to be locked away, I believe people truly in need still need to be helped, but, there are a lot of criminals who shouldn't be criminals in the first place, a lot who are not dangerous to society at large even though they dd something quite wrong at some point in their life; activities that people do that should not be illegal, and, should be legitimate work that garners taxes and allows them to make honest employees out of others; too much overspending in the government, and, a lot of crime associated with that, which goes unpunished; and, if we were all given a PFD check, like they do in Alaska, for the entire country, where we'd have to prove citizenship to get it, and, where we'd have to prove spending of it occurred within America, it would do far more for the economy and honesty of the government, than bailing out banks and car companies does. And, just to be snarky, let me add that I believe they should pay people to vote. After all, the government officials get paid to vote, even when they don't show up, so, why not make voting a paying proposition. Show up with your ID, register on the spot, place your vote, earn $20, tax free, not counted as income by the DES Office.

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

Spam Policy

0.046875