Hear That Sound? It's Feces Hitting the Fan.

[kandrathe]

...
Civic virtue should indeed be both "its own rewarded" and rewarded by being granted primacy of consideration.

Occhi
[right][snapback]100609[/snapback][/right]

First in reflection on federalism, the State I am refering to is the United States. Over time the federalist compact which allowed the individual states self governance has been eroded in favor of more central authority. Some of that has been good, and essential for the progress of our nation, but in other ways the freedom of citizens to self determination has also been sacrificed. Also, I see year after year, law by law, the same erosion of individual liberties and stricter control over individuals by governments. As the purpose of government expands, therefore also their sphere of control, regulation, and interference. If we are talking about the USA, then defense is mostly constrained to the military. However, these days increasingly, the FBI, ATF, DHS, CIA, NSA, & DIA are becoming inwardly focused on domestic threats. In many ways I'm glad they are, since it would be a pain for me to fight Al Queda alone, then again at times we get nearer and nearer to "jack booted thugs" and "brown shirts" ruling by invasions of privacy, intimidations and threat.

So, to bring as an example in one of our recent discussions. Citizens can be in violation of the law by simply using their home computers to make a copy of a song. Each infraction can be punished by up to a $10,000 fine. Each day there are myriads of laws that we citizens blythely violate and ignore, until that day when the State decides it is time to disapprove of us, and they "throw the book at us". How much of our prison population is made up of individuals who committed victimless crimes? How many "law abiding citizens" are there really?

When it comes to defending self, family and property, local and state governments try to provide adequate protections, but far from encourage self sufficiency are more afraid of that able citizen and I find the government uses the type of coercion I described above to legalistically harass individuals into conformity. I think what they want are sheep, and if you are not a sheep then they assume you must be a wolf.

When you say,

It is my belief that citizens, and particularly law abiding citizens, whom "The State" allegedly is constructed to benefit, must accrue and be granted primacy of consideration, and that scofflaws and criminals be relegated to a lesser priority.

I see a danger in the identification of who might be labeled "scofflaws and criminals". Consider that the very founding fathers who crafted that document were considered traitors, criminals and probably the terrorist ring leaders of their day.

Another consideration is redemption. Once an offender has paid for their crime, the society needs to allow that former offender room for redemption and a place back into society. Should the slate be wiped clean? I'd say "yes" after an adequate period of good citizenship has passed. Otherwise, the scofflaws would be forever branded with their past transgressions, with no hope of improving their position in society by doing the very things we would desire them to do as good citizens.

In identifying the prison populations of our times; I would release all drug offenders and other victimless criminals and give them an alternative rehabilitative sentence. For me, the primary purpose of incarceration is to remove violent and potentially dangerous elements from society temporarily with the remote hope that some rehabilitation is possible. I see that rather than mandatory minimum sentences in our justice system, quite the opposite is needed. We need more sentencing lattitude to attempt to redirect a criminal, or potential criminal from their own bad choices. And, yes, I believe the extremely dangerous and unredeemable violent offenders should be given a quick and painless execution (regardless of whether they are insane, or mentally retarded).

If you are merely implying that our society should not mollycoddle offenders at the expense of "good citizens", then I agree to a point. What it comes down to then is the expense. Can we afford to redeem all the offenders? If not, then what? I don't think building more and more prisons is the right answer.

[BruceGod]

To those who claim that there is no evidence that the death penalty actually deters crime:

http://www.royalty.nu/Europe/Balkan/Dracula.html

Of course, this is an extreme example, but I believe it makes its point rather well. Also, please note that the text of the admendment prohibits cruel AND unusual punishment, not cruel OR unusual punishment. If that were the case, then that guy who raped that girl for 4 years starting when she was 7 wouldn't have gotten a mere 60 days. That is unusual punishment. But the second you think some hardcore criminal might possibly be not catered to in every imaginable way plausible, you get your knickers twisted up almost too tight to breathe.

Heaven forbid that prison resemble some kind of punishment! Heaven forbid that we expect our criminals to WANT to work for a living, since they get everything they could possibly want at the hands of the justice system. Ok, imagine that you're Billy the Kid Killer. After 8 years of serving your so-called "life-sentence", you get off for good behavior. Now, since you're out on the street with practically zero hireable skills, no means of getting a job (since businesses don't like hiring kid killers), and no X-Box/cable/XM radio/ warm hot meals, what do you do? You do what you're good at and go right back to your nice comfortable jail cell.

Thank you for your time in reading m little rant, but you have to admit that your stance is exceedingly ridiculous. The death penalty DOES deter crime. So does a harsh cell with nothing but the basics. You want to rehabilitate criminals? That's fine. Teach them how to do something useful. But don't give them frekking millions of ways to be distracted from why they're there. Make them want to rejoin society. Make them wish they hadn't done what they did. And fairly pay those who were wrongly accused. What happens if the state makes a mistake? "Oh, sorry Mr. Billy, but you didn't kill those kids after all. Oops. Sorry. Here, we'll let you out, but your record still says you were convicted, so nobody's going to trust you since you were suspicious enough to be put in jail for the last 8 years. Have a nice life."

[Doc]

To those who claim that there is no evidence that the death penalty actually deters crime:

http://www.royalty.nu/Europe/Balkan/Dracula.html

Of course, this is an extreme example, but I believe it makes its point rather well. Also, please note that the text of the admendment prohibits cruel AND unusual punishment, not cruel OR unusual punishment. If that were the case, then that guy who raped that girl for 4 years starting when she was 7 wouldn't have gotten a mere 60 days. That is unusual punishment. But the second you think some hardcore criminal might possibly be not catered to in every imaginable way plausible, you get your knickers twisted up almost too tight to breathe.

Heaven forbid that prison resemble some kind of punishment! Heaven forbid that we expect our criminals to WANT to work for a living, since they get everything they could possibly want at the hands of the justice system. Ok, imagine that you're Billy the Kid Killer. After 8 years of serving your so-called "life-sentence", you get off for good behavior. Now, since you're out on the street with practically zero hireable skills, no means of getting a job (since businesses don't like hiring kid killers), and no X-Box/cable/XM radio/ warm hot meals, what do you do? You do what you're good at and go right back to your nice comfortable jail cell.

Thank you for your time in reading m little rant, but you have to admit that your stance is exceedingly ridiculous. The death penalty DOES deter crime. So does a harsh cell with nothing but the basics. You want to rehabilitate criminals? That's fine. Teach them how to do something useful. But don't give them frekking millions of ways to be distracted from why they're there. Make them want to rejoin society. Make them wish they hadn't done what they did. And fairly pay those who were wrongly accused. What happens if the state makes a mistake? "Oh, sorry Mr. Billy, but you didn't kill those kids after all. Oops. Sorry. Here, we'll let you out, but your record still says you were convicted, so nobody's going to trust you since you were suspicious enough to be put in jail for the last 8 years. Have a nice life."
[right][snapback]100662[/snapback][/right]

To many jailbirds want to return to their cage. This is true. People do stupid stuff to return to prisons for the free health care, and all the other good things.

Right now in my state there is a big debate about the Perry Correctional Facility and if it would be cruel or not to get rid of the air conditioning for the prison. They keep the prison at a comfortable 68 degrees in the summer. It's poorly insulated, so the energy bills skyrocket when the heat index rises.

My solution to deal with the rising cost of energy is simple. Get rid of the air conditioning. And while you are at it, the hot water heaters for the showers.

That's a lot of money saved. And ice water coming through the pipes might reduce shower rapes a bit. It's hard to get your pecker up when it's freezing.

[kandrathe]

...
Thank you for your time in reading m little rant, but you have to admit that your stance is exceedingly ridiculous. The death penalty DOES deter crime. So does a harsh cell with nothing but the basics. You want to rehabilitate criminals? That's fine. Teach them how to do something useful. But don't give them frekking millions of ways to be distracted from why they're there. Make them want to rejoin society. Make them wish they hadn't done what they did. And fairly pay those who were wrongly accused. What happens if the state makes a mistake? "Oh, sorry Mr. Billy, but you didn't kill those kids after all. Oops. Sorry. Here, we'll let you out, but your record still says you were convicted, so nobody's going to trust you since you were suspicious enough to be put in jail for the last 8 years. Have a nice life."
[right][snapback]100662[/snapback][/right]

I think if you re-read my post you will see that I'm not disagreeing with you.

[Occhidiangela]

To those who claim that there is no evidence that the death penalty actually deters crime:

http://www.royalty.nu/Europe/Balkan/Dracula.html

You want to rehabilitate criminals? That's fine. Teach them how to do something useful. But don't give them frekking millions of ways to be distracted from why they're there. Make them want to rejoin society. Make them wish they hadn't done what they did. And fairly pay those who were wrongly accused. What happens if the state makes a mistake? "Oh, sorry Mr. Billy, but you didn't kill those kids after all. Oops. Sorry. Here, we'll let you out, but your record still says you were convicted, so nobody's going to trust you since you were suspicious enough to be put in jail for the last 8 years. Have a nice life."
[right][snapback]100662[/snapback][/right]

Short term thinking is part of the institutional problem. Running on a year to year budget horizon, guards come cheaper than psychologists, socialogists, psychiatrists, and counsellors. Likewise such a mentality avoids the costs of continual system churn as lawsuits and fallacious arguments force overhead expenses through the roof for whatever program is designed and implemented for robust rehabilitation.

Looking at a long term budget, recidivism costs the same amount of money again and again, and court costs expended again and again, and police costs expended again and again.

From a total systems perspective, I wonder where the recidivism and associated costs break even point arrives, where it becomes more cost effective to establish a prison system with robust rehabilitation and attitude reformation focus rather than the present cross betwen "Hell on Earth" and "Limbo on Earth."

Occhi

[kandrathe]

...
From a total systems perspective, I wonder where the recidivism and associated costs break even point arrives, where it becomes more cost effective to establish a prison system with robust rehabilitation and attitude reformation focus rather than the present cross betwen "Hell on Earth" and "Limbo on Earth."

Occhi
[right][snapback]100676[/snapback][/right]

I just would like to believe that some of our societal human refuse is recyclable. I think we can agree that the better investment is in education, sound families and preventing crime through creating a society with opportunities for the poor to improve their lot.

[Occhidiangela]

I just would like to believe that some of our societal human refuse is recyclable.  I think we can agree that the better investment is in education, sound families and preventing crime through creating a society with opportunities for the poor to improve their lot.
[right][snapback]100686[/snapback][/right]

John Hinkley came from a reasonaby stable family. My anecdote attacks your Ivory Tower approach. :D Cultural reform in changing the attitude against materialism is not a trivial pursuit Getting buy in to the the system's norms and credibility is up against the social balkanization of the Information Age and the requirement for the ruling elites to divide and conquer lesser mortals. The aristocracy of the rich, called by some a plutocracy, by some a hidden oligarchy, or whatever, have no incentive to share power. When "it's great to be king," why not try to be a king in fact, if not in title? The antics of the royalty's offspring, be they English Royals, Saudi Royals, or Hilton moneyed Royals, are part of the circus that goes with bread and circus policies. Harlan Ellison's Glass Teat seems more prophetic with every day that goes by.

If you want to reduce the size of the criminal class, get foolish laws off of the books, but build a social framework where the assumption of the law abiding citizen is closer to fact than it is now.

Win the war of ideas. That is the next war. Losing it means America devolves into a navel gazing amalgam of increasingly polarized "communities of interest." Armed polarized communities of interest. That should make for some good blood sport, I imagine, for whoever is left to run the global media empires.

Occhi

[kandrathe]

John Hinkley came from a reasonaby stable family.  ...
[right][snapback]100737[/snapback][/right]

Yes, I concur that "insane" killers can come from any social strata. The failure in those cases (ala Columbine) is in society (parents/teachers) identifying and intervening in psychosis rather than waiting to stop a psychopath until after there is a body count. For the criminally insane and dangerous, we should not wait for the expression of their insanity.

I have some personal experience with this one. A real psychopath was intent on killing my sister when we were in high school. Our experience was that the juvenile, justice and school systems were totally ineffective at getting that boy the help he needed. He was eventually prosecuted for B&E, and stealing an antique 18" medieval dagger and did juvenile time until he was 18 years old. He was released, record wiped clean (due to him being an adult now :blink: ), put back into the same high school, in the same classes as my sister, and even seated in the chair directly behind her. The stuff of teen slasher films.

If you want to reduce the size of the criminal class, get foolish laws off of the books, but build a social framework where the assumption of the law abiding citizen is closer to fact than it is now.

Win the war of ideas.  That is the next war.  Losing it means America devolves into a navel gazing amalgam of increasingly polarized "communities of interest."  Armed polarized communities of interest.  That should make for some good blood sport, I imagine, for whoever is left to run the global media empires.

Occhi
[right][snapback]100737[/snapback][/right]

I wholeheartedly agree. But, I still refuse to permanently condemn the redeemable. We must be a society that helps to turn losers into winners and ultimately that means that each of us must concern ourselves, directly or indirectly, with the success of others. Even if they are scofflaws and criminals.

[WarLocke]

If you don't want to die... DON'T KILL PEOPLE JACKASS! Duh. [right][snapback]100178[/snapback][/right]

If a hypothetical killer doesn't feel that his victim has a right to live, then as far as I'm concerned he's just waived his right to life.

"Do unto others..." and all. :whistling:

And personally, I don't think this 'cruel and unusual' crap flies if we're talking about a murderer. Us killing him is cruel & unusual, but him killing the victim isn't? Bah.

[Doc]

If a hypothetical killer doesn't feel that his victim has a right to live, then as far as I'm concerned he's just waived his right to life.

"Do unto others..." and all.  :whistling:

And personally, I don't think this 'cruel and unusual' crap flies if we're talking about a murderer.  Us killing him is cruel & unusual, but him killing the victim isn't?  Bah.
[right][snapback]102205[/snapback][/right]

Well crap, I have been trying to tell people this all along.

[WarLocke]

Well crap, I have been trying to tell people this all along.
[right][snapback]102207[/snapback][/right]