84 replies to this topic

[Radspakr Wolfbane]

Third Strike is more than a bit iffy it's complete bullshit.
It ties the hands of judges to decide the best judgement for a case instead they are obligated to give out substantial jail time which is helping no one when it comes to petty crime.

The poor in America really do get a raw deal first you have the broken legal system then there's the backdoor draft, failing education and weak healthcare.

[Ash]

It's not so much I'm against three strikes, the problem is the huge rate of people re-offending. I think this is largely due us locking up anybody and everyone committing any kind of crime, which puts them in with the prisoner culture, which is pretty brutal. He'll have to adapt to survive, and leave a worse person than he came in, rather than better. This is where I admire Norway's system, it works with the prisoner, and the results show. I realize we'll never get that low, but even if we get our rate down to 40% from 67%, that'll be a big improvement.

By all means do the rehabilitation thing. Who gives a shit about re-offending if we keep these animals out of the system for longer, in a place where they could do no harm? Want to save even more money? Shove them in the deepest, darkest corners of Alaska or something. Maybe a work camp. Russian gulags kept reoffending rates down...

I only half-joke. I really do have this idea that society would be much improved by the removal of its recidivist bottom-feeder criminal element. They're unemployable, don't want to work and in fact only want to continue doing what crime it is they do. They see arrest, trial and imprisonment as occupational hazards, not deterrents, and in the absence of a solution they will fester, breed (as they invariably do, in larger quantities than people who actually have to be able to afford their kids on a working wage) and propagate that existence-style. They will only ever make society worse. Yes, they're the fault of society, and it's up to society to sort them out. But mollycoddling them and giving them free money isn't the way to do it.

It's still lower than ours, though

Uh, yeah, but so's our population. I would hope less people do commit less crimes. We still under-report, though, in spite of what our over-regulation would have us do. Reason: if we recorded everything and investigated everything we recorded, we'd never have any time to do anything else because we'd be so bogged down in the quagmire. We fight a daily losing battle against bureaucracy as it is!

Well yes, but if it took deterrent to stop crime they would still have a higher rate, and we would have a small rate, especially in Texas, where we execute ~100 people a year. In fact, Texas has a higher crime rate than the national average.

Well clearly they're not executing enough. How long have those ~100 people waiting to be executed? They've appealed four million times to the end result that they've cost the taxpayer millions, are still alive and have lived for three decades longer than the original sentence said they should've. Hmm.

Norway has a maximum sentence of 21 years. That's a lot less than death What I really like about it though is the review process, if the prisoner is deemed not safe, he will stay for another 5 years. This is something I would really like to see done here.

Whereas that sort of attitude is where I despair. What justice is there for a murder victim for their murderer to be freed at some point? It's one of the biggest bug-bears of police: The law courts just don't offer justice anymore.

That is something that confuses me about our prisons here (and I assume there). We spend so much money making the prisons nice, but little to none to actually make the prisoners behave. So basically I think we should flip that, spend less on making the prisons nice, but more on rehabilitation.

I don't disagree with that. Prison should be hell, to make the criminal bastards never want to come back. But there should be some sort of purgatory available, to give them some outroads to make sure they never have to.

Pretty much, yeah. Keep them away from actual criminals though. That's pretty much the basis of my argument, stop putting small time boys in with murderers, rapists, etc and actually help them reform themselves instead of just locking them up, turning them into worse criminals, releasing them, and them committing more crime, and repeating the cycle. An interesting tidbit I remember reading somewhere is something like 7% of heroin users first tried it in jail.

That only proves that there's a leak in the system that needs plugging.

You sir...has never ever been into a third world country to know exactly what is a high crime rate. If you are talking about New York crime rate... man... that's ridiculously low compared to a lot of cities in my country (including where I live [Rio de Janeiro]). And there are worse countries than Brazil.

Perhaps your government would like to do something about it? I appreciate and fully agree with what you're saying that crime rates are relative, but then pretty much everything except death is relative. Relative to complete anarchy, yeah sure our crime rate is absurdly low. But it's higher than it should be.

My biggest objection to the third strike is it doesn't matter what it is you go to jail and end up in that system.
Once you are in the system everything gets harder once you leave jail employment, housing etc ultimately making it more difficult to reform people.
A massive amount of people are in US jails for possession (22% of the total Federal and State) usually marijuana decriminalising it would go to save a lot of money on jails which are rather hefty burden on taxes.

Sure, we could save jail money that way. But where do we draw the line on decriminalising things just because they're crimes and as such undesirably fuck up the crime statistics? Hey, know what else will lower the jail budgets? Decriminalising fucking burglary...

Sorry. That argument really aggravates me. While I don't give a shit what people put into their own bodies, I do give a shit what that habit makes 'em do. They know cannabis is illegal. They do it anyway. So yes, toss 'em in jail for as long as you like. Just make it cost less to get them there by making court hearings cheaper.

The US military could probably lose half of it's military and still be the strongest in the world.
But a part of it is actually that a lot of people are unemployed in making the tanks and guns for the military.

A part of it, yes. But another large part is the stuff you already have but don't really have a use for.

Third Strike is more than a bit iffy it's complete bullshit.
It ties the hands of judges to decide the best judgement for a case instead they are obligated to give out substantial jail time which is helping no one when it comes to petty crime.

Sure it is. It's helping the victims of petty crime, because that's one less criminal on the streets. If they didn't learn by being hit the first two times, they aren't ever going to learn. Rather than try to help the lost causes the way the British system does, the American system just extricates them from circulation for a bit. If that isn't a deterrent, then you guys just aren't publicising it enough. Because shit, a decent bit of porridge would curtail a good 70% of British crims.

The poor in America really do get a raw deal first you have the broken legal system then there's the backdoor draft, failing education and weak healthcare.

Which apply just as much to the wealthy?

[Elvenlord]

I only half-joke. I really do have this idea that society would be much improved by the removal of its recidivist bottom-feeder criminal element. They're unemployable, don't want to work and in fact only want to continue doing what crime it is they do. They see arrest, trial and imprisonment as occupational hazards, not deterrents, and in the absence of a solution they will fester, breed (as they invariably do, in larger quantities than people who actually have to be able to afford their kids on a working wage) and propagate that existence-style. They will only ever make society worse. Yes, they're the fault of society, and it's up to society to sort them out. But mollycoddling them and giving them free money isn't the way to do it.]

I half-agree. For those that are actually like that, sure. But sending kids who screw up once in with harden criminals is only going to turn them into hardened criminals, which will just make the problem worse. Things like that.

Uh, yeah, but so's our population. I would hope less people do commit less crimes. We still under-report, though, in spite of what our over-regulation would have us do. Reason: if we recorded everything and investigated everything we recorded, we'd never have any time to do anything else because we'd be so bogged down in the quagmire. We fight a daily losing battle against bureaucracy as it is!]

I was referring to crime per capita, not total crime.

Well clearly they're not executing enough. How long have those ~100 people waiting to be executed? They've appealed four million times to the end result that they've cost the taxpayer millions, are still alive and have lived for three decades longer than the original sentence said they should've. Hmm.

Yes, because the answer is if something isn't working more of it is needed. There's not many appeals here in Texas, actually, as all cases involving the death penalty are directly appealed to the Criminal Court of Appeals, which has final say. So once for most cases? This has also resulted in quite a few innocents being executed, only to be found out after the fact or Rick Perry decided to rush the execution process.

Whereas that sort of attitude is where I despair. What justice is there for a murder victim for their murderer to be freed at some point? It's one of the biggest bug-bears of police: The law courts just don't offer justice anymore.

It is something I've wrestled with for awhile, but I think offering a path to redemption is better than 'justice'. If that person does not reform, then yes, keep them in until the end of their life.

Sure, we could save jail money that way. But where do we draw the line on decriminalising things just because they're crimes and as such undesirably fuck up the crime statistics? Hey, know what else will lower the jail budgets? Decriminalising fucking burglary...

Sorry. That argument really aggravates me. While I don't give a shit what people put into their own bodies, I do give a shit what that habit makes 'em do. They know cannabis is illegal. They do it anyway. So yes, toss 'em in jail for as long as you like. Just make it cost less to get them there by making court hearings cheaper.

We decriminalize things that don't harm other people. That's a pretty easy line. If a person uses cannabis but commits no other crime, who cares? If he steals to fuel it, however, get him for the theft. Pretty easy.

Which apply just as much to the wealthy?

Not really, the rich can afford private schools (even if they can't, public schools are always better in richer area, as funding is usually linked to property taxes) and actually afford healthcare, at least until Affordable Care Act takes a bigger effect.

[Radspakr Wolfbane]

Ash we aren't talking about murderers, rapists when we talk about third strikers in this case we are talking about petty shit like shoplifting, vandalism, possession and the like the first 2 can be fixed with a good behaviour bond and restitution.
2 states in the US have already decriminalised Marijuana and more states allow it for medial reasons yet federally it's illegal which only complicates things.

Marijuana is the third most used drug after tobacco and alcohol and compared them it's a lot safer.
There are no reported deaths from Marijuana, it doesn't contribute to crime and when's the last time you've heard of someone sucking dick for weed?
People use it regardless of whether it's legal because it shouldn't be illegal.

As for executions: of course people are appealing as many times as possible they are trying to stay alive as long as possible.

Who said all criminals don't want to work?
I'd imagine most would but being a ex-criminal is a huge disadvantage when trying to find work which makes them unemployable.

The War on Drugs has failed and is only costing vast amounts of money and making things worse.

For me on the matter of Marijuana legalisation I don't smoke it but I also don't smoke and rarely drink (I used to be a teetotaller for 8 years) and considering Marijuana is safer than the other 2 it doesn't make sense for it to be illegal.
My way is thinking legalise 1 on criminalise all 3.

Legalise Marijuana release those in prison on (and only) Marijuana possession charges (save money on jails, less money being wasted on prosecution, court time and arresting), tax it (more money) use that money to improve education in the at risk neighbourhoods, put it into health care.
Stop making pennies and use the money you save on that for better projects.

Reform the tax system reduce the overall amount of taxes and better distribute them stop large companies and the rich from hiding their taxes.
By reforming the tax system it can be made simpler and you could remove a lot of the offsets.
Remove the bullshit tax changes that were made for interest groups.
Remove the inheritance tax the government shouldn't take half of what you own after you die after taking up to 40% of what you earn when you live.


Where are you guys on the Condom referendum in California?
Should porn stars use condoms by law in porn?

[duke_Qa]

This thread turned into every political thread that we got in here. But I guess an US election usually brings up the Status Quo and what we can expect.

Pretty much agree with Rad on it all, no point in re-iterating. I'll just prose a bit on WOD:
War on drugs is a crusade based on emotions and head-in-sand opinions about how the world works. There will always be those who will want to drown their sorrows or live their lives through the influence of narcotics, at the very least don't create a market for the criminals where they produce, courier, secure, sell and profit on it themselves. Make it a public business where farmers can earn cash producing, businesses can make money selling it, governments can earn money taxing it and health-services can help people out of trouble with those taxes.

On the topic of California porn referendum, I'm a bit against intervening between consenting adults, but I can also see the logic of making a good example. Porn has drastically reduced rape crime the last decades, who's to say it won't reduce STDs as well.