That worked well

[cheri1122]

Limiting prisoners to "the bare minimums to get by" won't do a thing to reduce crime, because criminals don't expect to get caught. What part of "it's been done already, and proven ineffective" do you not understand?
Wanting to further penalize criminals is just like wanting to penalize the poor: it won't change their behavior, it just makes some people feel better to know the "undeserving" aren't enjoying a single moment of their miserable existence.
But hey: if you think law enforcement could do a better job of preventing crime, here's an interesting thought: the Southern Poverty Law Center just released the results of a 2 year study, showing that more deaths have been caused by right wing fanatics than Muslims since 9/11. The breeding grounds for them are certain websites, like "Stormfront", which spawns and foments hate, and encourages violence as a solution. If LEOs simply jailed the active members of those right wing sites, it would undoubtedly save innocent lives, because some of them will kill others, one day. Is that worth giving up the presumption of innocence?

 

[LDB]

Or we could eliminate the weight rooms, gyms, cable tv and make the prisoners work to produce their own food and clothes and goods to be sold for profit if they want full credit for their jail time. We could go back to 100% occupancy rather than idiotic 95% occupancy dictated by some dumber than dirt liberal moron possibly lacking sense to come out of the rain and definitely lacking sense to be a judge.

Whoosh. Anyway, the point is the costs could be greatly reduced. Three generations ago the Texas prison system was basically self sufficient. That was when the prisoners worked full time growing cotton and food crops and doing other things that contained costs. Prisoners don't need luxuries. They don't need to be limited to bread and water but they only need the bare minimums to get by if one thinks only with one's "thinker".

Limiting prisoners to "the bare minimums to get by" won't do a thing to reduce crime, because criminals don't expect to get caught. What part of "it's been done already, and proven ineffective" do you not understand?
Wanting to further penalize criminals is just like wanting to penalize the poor: it won't change their behavior, it just makes some people feel better to know the "undeserving" aren't enjoying a single moment of their miserable existence.
But hey: if you think law enforcement could do a better job of preventing crime, here's an interesting thought: the Southern Poverty Law Center just released the results of a 2 year study, showing that more deaths have been caused by right wing fanatics than Muslims since 9/11. The breeding grounds for them are certain websites, like "Stormfront", which spawns and foments hate, and encourages violence as a solution. If LEOs simply jailed the active members of those right wing sites, it would undoubtedly save innocent lives, because some of them will kill others, one day. Is that worth giving up the presumption of innocence?

I'll concede the first group of comments about cost cutting didn't specifically mention cost cutting but even the blind squirrel would have found the nut in the second one. The SPLC? I'd have as much faith in anything they offer as in anything the PRO's or Wright offer.

 

[Turtle]

As for the "can't wait to hear the liberal excuses" comment, I think the conservatives have some soul searching to do, because the 'cut taxes and regulations' mantra only makes it harder to apprehend and monitor criminals. Less income for government means less resources to get the job done, and that includes monitoring parolees with GPS trackers. Less regulation means parole agents are overburdened with cases, and vendors of GPS units & associated software that provide frequent false alerts [encouraging agents to disregard them] aren't required to solve the problem.

I'm not sure what you are referencing when you say cutting regulations, at least with respect to conservatives, since conservatives tend to increase regulations on criminals and ex-criminals. As for GPS monitoring, and parole, both are inherently liberal concepts. The US government abolished parole for all federal crimes in the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, a bill authored and sponsored by Strom Thurmond and signed into law by President Reagan. Sixteen states, all conservative, have abolished parole completely, and four others have abolished it for certain violent crimes. The idea of GSP monitoring was developed by Kirkland and Robert Gabel (both psychology majors and currently psychology professors at universities), and William Hurd, while they were research grad students at Harvard in the 1960s. The first judicial order of GPS tracking was made, famously, in 1977 by Albuquerque, NM District Court Judge Jack Love after reading a Spiderman comic where a tracking bracelet was used. Jack Love is a card carrying liberal and his bench record proves it. He wanted to use GPS bracelets to get people out of prisons sooner, both to reduce prison populations (but all it did was free up room for more prisoners) and because getting people out of prison sooner is more humane.

Cutting taxes and regulations have consequences, and this is an example of what can happen.

Cutting taxes rarely results in cutting prison budgets. Increased use of ankle bracelets without the money to pay for them is a problem, though. Liberals want more money for ankle bracelet monitoring, but conservatives don't want to spend more on it because the stats show that ankle bracelets have no effect on deterring crime and are largely ineffective in all but certain situations, like, ironically, sex offenders, where the monitors alert authorities if the offender comes within 100 feet of a school, for example.

 

[layoutshooter]

Prisons are full, even overflowing, for a couple of reasons. One we have far too many "fake crimes", and two, a lot of people commit real crimes and deserve to be locked up.

Child molesters fall in the the "deserve to be locked up" category. I can think of few reasons to ever release anyone who would molest a child, at least not as long as he/she/it is still capable of repeating their acts.

The easiest way to cut down on prison populations if for people to stop committing crimes. Criminal actions are a choice. There are consequences for ones actions, be they good or bad.

The majority of people do not engage in criminal activity and are entitled to a life as free from other's criminal activity as is possible in a free society. Right now, that is not the case.

 

[layoutshooter]

Here is a GOOD example of criminal activity that resulted in the deaths of 4 innocent people. The people who committed these crimes are charged with a total of 28 felonies in this case. There is no doubt that they committed the crimes, once convicted they DESERVE to be locked up. Given their total disregard for the lives and welfare of anyone else they DESERVE to be locked up for a VERY long time.

Boyfriend, girlfriend charged after 4 killed in I-94 crash

Read more: Boyfriend, girlfriend charged after 4 killed in I-94 crash - Fox 2 News Headlines

 

[layoutshooter]

Then there is this fine example of sub-human detritus. His fun includes murder(S) and rape. If I remember correctly he has been arrested on 36(?) felony counts since 2003. Let's put a GPS tracker on this guy and let him free. It's more humane. I know, he just made a few mistakes.


Man charged for 3 murders in Detroit


Man charged for 3 murders in Detroit - Fox 2 News Headlines

 

[Turtle]

And then there was that guy who was released on parole and didn't kill or rape anybody, didn't commit any further crimes at all.

 

[layoutshooter]

And then there was that guy who was released on parole and didn't kill or rape anybody, didn't commit any further crimes at all.

Yes, but where do you make the cut? What we have today is NOT working. There has to be an answer. People MUST be held accountable for their actions. There MUST be consequences for their crimes. We must have a way to insure that these kinds of people will NEVER repeat their crimes. 36 felony arrests in 10 years SHOULD be a clue that he belongs in jail, or better yet a deep, dark, damp, dungeon, until the sun stops shinning. FAR too many people are DEAD, or their lives ruined, by garbage that we won't throw away. There is just no excuse for what is going on.

IF you have a better idea, I am all ears. You and I BOTH have a RIGHT to a life safe from these kinds of people. Make the streets safer with a different plan, or lock them up and keep them there. What we have cannot continue.

 

[layoutshooter]

Don't forget about the ones that didn't do it.

74-year-old woman freed after serving 32 years for murder she did not commit

Mistakes are made. How would YOU solve what is going on? It's EASY to say that things such as above should not happen. It's "nice" to say that it's better for 100 guilty people should go free than have one locked up wrongly. Tell that to those who lose their lives, or have their lives ruined by the 100. Got a better way? Let's hear it. Slogans ain't it.

 

[layoutshooter]

Then, when people DO step up to stop a crime, disarm a criminal, they lose their job. People SHOULD stop crimes when they are taking place. The fine person, who just has made a few mistakes in his life?

"The alleged shoplifter is 51-year-old Claude Medlock. According to KDFW, Arlington Police say that Mr. Medlock has a, “lengthy criminal history that includes theft and robbery convictions.”

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/oddnews/kroger-manager-fired-after-he-slams-a-knife-wielding-shoplifter-to-the-ground-175837651.html

 

[Ragman]

Mistakes are made. How would YOU solve what is going on? It's EASY to say that things such as above should not happen. It's "nice" to say that it's better for 100 guilty people should go free than have one locked up wrongly. Tell that to those who lose their lives, or have their lives ruined by the 100. Got a better way? Let's hear it. Slogans ain't it.

Then, when people DO step up to stop a crime, disarm a criminal, they lose their job. People SHOULD stop crimes when they are taking place. The fine person, who just has made a few mistakes in his life?

"The alleged shoplifter is 51-year-old Claude Medlock. According to KDFW, Arlington Police say that Mr. Medlock has a, “lengthy criminal history that includes theft and robbery convictions.”

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/oddnews/kroger-manager-fired-after-he-slams-a-knife-wielding-shoplifter-to-the-ground-175837651.html

I took my post down. It was a brain fart at the time of posting. However, I still feel the issue of the people in prison that did not do it, needs to be addressed also.

 

[layoutshooter]

I took my post down. It was a brain fart at the time of posting. However, I still feel the issue of the people in prison that did not do it, needs to be addressed also.

I did not look at it as a "brain fart", it was a good post that fits this thread. It is a real problem. There NEEDS to be a solution. The other side of that coin needs fixed more in my opinion. As I said, I am willing to listen to and consider ANY plan that can cut down, drastically, on the crime we have out there. No 1 or 2%, more like 80-90%.

 

[Turtle]

Yes, but where do you make the cut? What we have today is NOT working.

Of course it is working. It's just not 100 percent, is all. Violent crime is at a 42 year low, down 49 percent since 1991. Listening to you and someone would think violent crime is up about a thousand percent and out of control.

There has to be an answer. People MUST be held accountable for their actions. There MUST be consequences for their crimes.

People are held accountable and there are consequences.

We must have a way to insure that these kinds of people will NEVER repeat their crimes.

Just kill them. That'll do it.

36 felony arrests in 10 years SHOULD be a clue that he belongs in jail, or better yet a deep, dark, damp, dungeon, until the sun stops shinning. FAR too many people are DEAD, or their lives ruined, by garbage that we won't throw away. There is just no excuse for what is going on.

Well, the excuse is that we're dealing with actual people, not garbage.

IF you have a better idea, I am all ears. You and I BOTH have a RIGHT to a life safe from these kinds of people. Make the streets safer with a different plan, or lock them up and keep them there. What we have cannot continue.

Like I said, let's just kill 'em. Kill e'm all. Make one penalty for ALL crimes - death. Rape someone? Death. Kill someone? Death. Steal a Snickers bar? Death. HoS violation? You betcha. And let's not stop there. We need to go ahead and kill anyone who we think MIGHT commit a crime at some time in their lives. That's how we can ensure we can feel safe from these kinds of people.

 

[Turtle]

As I said, I am willing to listen to and consider ANY plan that can cut down, drastically, on the crime we have out there. No 1 or 2%, more like 80-90%.

Well, it's down 49%. The only way to cut it down to the level you want is to just eliminate people. Doing that will also have the beneficial side effect of making the tree huggers very happy.

There has never been a time in all of human history, before governments or after they were invented, where people didn't do bad things to other people. To think it can be eliminated is pure folly. Even squirrels steal each others' nuts.

 

[layoutshooter]

It is NOT working. The 42 year low is FAR too high. It is not safe to walk down a street in places like Detroit, Chicago or Monroe, MI.

As I said, I am ALL ears, come up with some better answers. Just use Michigan for now, that takes that death penalty off the table, we don't have it here. How would YOU keep a 36 time loser off the streets? Is it even reasonable to have a 36 time felon on the streets at all? Is it reasonable to have a two time convicted felon on the streets? What is YOUR plan to keep these kinds of "people" off the streets? Do you not believe that the general public has a reasonable expectation of safe streets? Should there EVER be a need for armed guards at the Kroger in Monroe because of all the heroin dealers?

Everyday people are NOT safe. We should not have to alter our lives for criminals. It is the criminal who must change. IF they cannot, it is our responsibility to segregate them from society.

 

[layoutshooter]

Well, it's down 49%. The only way to cut it down to the level you want is to just eliminate people. Doing that will also have the beneficial side effect of making the tree huggers very happy.

There has never been a time in all of human history, before governments or after they were invented, where people didn't do bad things to other people. To think it can be eliminated is pure folly. Even squirrels steal each others' nuts.

I never said eliminate crime, not possible. It IS possible to eliminate repeaters. Crime rates are FAR too high. 42 or 49% lower of outrageous is still outrageous. No person should have to live in the conditions we have today. There is no excuse.

 

[layoutshooter]

There are basically three schools of thought when it comes to crime. Restrict the movement of those convicted of crime, restrict the movement of those who had NOT committed crimes, eliminate the causes of crime.

Most reasonable people want the same thing, safer streets, less crime. The only argument is how. It would seem that eliminating the causes would be the best bet, but that is impossible, since there is no end to the causes of crime. It may be possible to mitigate SOME of the causes of crime, but they well never be eliminated. That only leaves restriction of movement, as in restricting freedom.

Now, I have to use a term or terms, because that is what we have. The "liberal" or "progressive leans towards restricting the freedoms of the law abiding citizen. The "conservative" leans towards restricting the freedom of the convict. A bit simplified to be sure, just trying to have a conversation.

It is my belief that the more you restrict the rights and freedoms of law abiding citizens the higher the crime rates will be. The "drug war" and Prohibition bear that out. It is also my belief that, for the most part, violent crime rates are down because we ARE locking up offenders for longer periods of time, or not allowing them out at all. I could be wrong, just my opinion.

 

[jamom123]

The thing that baffles me is how they want to disarm law abiding citizens. Ok so take away our ability to defend ourselves, do you honestly think criminals will abide by that law? All they see is gun free zone which means it's a free-for-all for them.

Sent from my SCH-I510 using EO Forums mobile app

 

[layoutshooter]

The thing that baffles me is how they want to disarm law abiding citizens. Ok so take away our ability to defend ourselves, do you honestly think criminals will abide by that law? All they see is gun free zone which means it's a free-for-all for them.

Sent from my SCH-I510 using EO Forums mobile app

The thing is that the move to disarm law abiding citizens has NOTHING to do with controlling crime. That is the "excuse" they use for their actions.

 

[RLENT]

42 or 49% lower of outrageous is still outrageous.

Actually, I think that, technically speaking, it would slightly less than half outrageous ...