- Messages
- 3,390
- Reactions
- 3,094
JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Here's an interesting anti-crime strategy
- Thread Starter Dave Workman
- Start date
- Status
- Messages
- 11,840
- Reactions
- 11,103
The only thing he forgot was 'with access to a wide array of weapons ,in my home,in the form of household goods' or to say access to my knife set in the kitchen,my pans that could crush my skull,my teen's bats,tennis racquet,hockey stick...etc,etc,etc
Plenty of weapons lying around the house.
- Messages
- 474
- Reactions
- 160
Im doing a report that jail and prison actually may cause more crime than it prevents. Also I would never advertise that I have guns in a house, as someone whos lived in a house that was burglarized while everyone was outside of the house for the purpose of stealing the firearms. All firearms were recovered, but since the person who did it was under 18, I don't think he was charged as an adult.
Crime has been decreasing since the mid 1990's, but our prison population has exploded. Also with the vast increase in penalties that mandate jailtime between ages 17 and 18, there doesn't seem to be any effect that increased penalties causes less crime since crime is still high between ages 18 and 17.
America also has a whole industry based around giving Americans a negative life experience, and thats the private prison industry.
I think the problem with America's crime strategy is the American voters go with stupid simplistic slogans for our criminal justice systems such as "get tough on crime" (as opposed to "get smart") and "3 strikes and you're out" this nation would rather send its young people to jail than get an education and a job, if you go off of public tax dollars going towards prison building and prisoners instead of community colleges and state universities.
Crime has been decreasing since the mid 1990's, but our prison population has exploded. Also with the vast increase in penalties that mandate jailtime between ages 17 and 18, there doesn't seem to be any effect that increased penalties causes less crime since crime is still high between ages 18 and 17.
America also has a whole industry based around giving Americans a negative life experience, and thats the private prison industry.
I think the problem with America's crime strategy is the American voters go with stupid simplistic slogans for our criminal justice systems such as "get tough on crime" (as opposed to "get smart") and "3 strikes and you're out" this nation would rather send its young people to jail than get an education and a job, if you go off of public tax dollars going towards prison building and prisoners instead of community colleges and state universities.
Don't you refute the premise of the report you're working on?
- Messages
- 5,049
- Reactions
- 1,356
I'm not even going to post what I think about that!!!!!
I don't even know how to respond, to such an ignorant statement.
- Messages
- 1,985
- Reactions
- 185
Instead of placing blame on America why don't you counsel your friends about their actions and what happens when you break the law.
I could debate this forever with you but you need to think a little harder.
Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2
- Messages
- 474
- Reactions
- 160
Well thats the thing, the jail population should lower, as crime rate lowers, but crime rate lowers and jail population goes up. America has a higher incarceration rate than almost any other country. I dont know what N. Korea's incarceration rate is, but compared to Britain, Japan, France, Germany, Iran etc. America blows them out of the water.
The thing is most of our prison inmates are in for non-violent crimes. They aren't even a violent threat to society and find themselves in the same cells as murderers and rapists. As the prison pecking order goes, being locked up with those kind of people, over say being caught with 5 grams of crack-cocaine, can turn an otherwise non-violent person, into a violent person. Most offenders get released from prison, even if you make the sentences long, so you just turned a non-violent person, into a violent person by sending them to prison, and since they didn't commit an offense that jails them for life, now you have to live next to them as your neighbor in society.
If you want to lower the crime rate, people who have social and economic opportunities, such as finding a wife and kids, or landing a good middle class job, are less likely to commit crime. Being labeled a felon eliminates or drastically reduces the chances of a person finding a wife and kids, or landing a good middle class job, so its kind of a self perpetuating problem.
Currently, higher education is a good way to offer someone a higher chance of economic and social opportunity, but as it sits, we spend billions more on incarcerating young people, than we do on higher education. So our own get tough on crime policies, creates an underclass that is incapable of getting out of its predicament, since a felony can't be expunged from a record easily. This encourages them to commit more crime, in which case they get incarcerated and are fed, housed, and clothed all on the tax payers dole for a very high cost.
California spends $35,000 to incarcerate a person for one year. You can waste your tax dollars, feeding, housing, clothing the person, but Id rather put it towards something more productive. I think you can agree with me though that you are far from a fiscal conservative if you think high cost, low reward incarceration is the only option for non-violent offenders as it does very little in actually lowering the crime rate. This can easily be proven in that I noted that while 18 year olds have a much higher incarceration rate than 17 year olds for crime, there is no reduction in crime for that age of offender, despite stiffer penalties.
Do you like to incarcerate people because it makes you feel good? Or because you have no concern about policies that actually lower the crime rate? BTW, if you are against "big government" you should be against incarcerating people willy nilly since nothing makes government feel bigger than locking someone up 24/7 365 days a year for smoking weed while on parole. That is about as big and in your face government can possibly get short of execution.
edit: I think our disagreement on criminal justice policies stem from this. You support the ideologues who set criminal justice policy in this country, who think that they can legislate morality onto people. Im a "realist" on the other hand, I just want to live and let live, letting self-determinism be the guiding hand of fate.
If you need any more proof that Prison doesn't work at reducing crime rate, look up recidivism rates. More than half wind up back behind bars within a short period of time, proving that their stint in jail only prevented crime in society while they were behind bars, but did nothing to prevent it once they were released.
The thing is most of our prison inmates are in for non-violent crimes. They aren't even a violent threat to society and find themselves in the same cells as murderers and rapists. As the prison pecking order goes, being locked up with those kind of people, over say being caught with 5 grams of crack-cocaine, can turn an otherwise non-violent person, into a violent person. Most offenders get released from prison, even if you make the sentences long, so you just turned a non-violent person, into a violent person by sending them to prison, and since they didn't commit an offense that jails them for life, now you have to live next to them as your neighbor in society.
If you want to lower the crime rate, people who have social and economic opportunities, such as finding a wife and kids, or landing a good middle class job, are less likely to commit crime. Being labeled a felon eliminates or drastically reduces the chances of a person finding a wife and kids, or landing a good middle class job, so its kind of a self perpetuating problem.
Currently, higher education is a good way to offer someone a higher chance of economic and social opportunity, but as it sits, we spend billions more on incarcerating young people, than we do on higher education. So our own get tough on crime policies, creates an underclass that is incapable of getting out of its predicament, since a felony can't be expunged from a record easily. This encourages them to commit more crime, in which case they get incarcerated and are fed, housed, and clothed all on the tax payers dole for a very high cost.
California spends $35,000 to incarcerate a person for one year. You can waste your tax dollars, feeding, housing, clothing the person, but Id rather put it towards something more productive. I think you can agree with me though that you are far from a fiscal conservative if you think high cost, low reward incarceration is the only option for non-violent offenders as it does very little in actually lowering the crime rate. This can easily be proven in that I noted that while 18 year olds have a much higher incarceration rate than 17 year olds for crime, there is no reduction in crime for that age of offender, despite stiffer penalties.
Do you like to incarcerate people because it makes you feel good? Or because you have no concern about policies that actually lower the crime rate? BTW, if you are against "big government" you should be against incarcerating people willy nilly since nothing makes government feel bigger than locking someone up 24/7 365 days a year for smoking weed while on parole. That is about as big and in your face government can possibly get short of execution.
edit: I think our disagreement on criminal justice policies stem from this. You support the ideologues who set criminal justice policy in this country, who think that they can legislate morality onto people. Im a "realist" on the other hand, I just want to live and let live, letting self-determinism be the guiding hand of fate.
If you need any more proof that Prison doesn't work at reducing crime rate, look up recidivism rates. More than half wind up back behind bars within a short period of time, proving that their stint in jail only prevented crime in society while they were behind bars, but did nothing to prevent it once they were released.
What, i really don't like dogs.
Look, I'm a very firm believer in EVERYONES right to have arms.
However, I am very sick of hearing of " self defence" shootings where peoples justification is that they were scared and didn't know what was happening.
I don't care about your feelings. If you're scared, get a blanky, not a gun.
There are responsibilities with gun ownership, which include that you be damn sure what's happening BEFORE you pull the trigger.
Just to add.... When I say " you" I mean you in general, not you specific.
- Messages
- 1,985
- Reactions
- 185
When I wad finishing my masters in psychology and mental health I interned in CA at a couple of jails and prisons for a year. You have a lot to learn and this not a place to get in a debate but there is a lot of points and information you are leaving out.
If you want to have lunch and discuss this that's fine but my fingers can't type 20 pages on my phone. But you have your opinion and I have mine.
It would be a fun debate
Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2
- Messages
- 474
- Reactions
- 160
Well I guess I can appreciate you having a different opinion than me.
Right now my basement is filled with books on the mass incarceration problem in this country though so thats where Im getting my information from.
Right now my basement is filled with books on the mass incarceration problem in this country though so thats where Im getting my information from.
- Messages
- 1,837
- Reactions
- 4,348
You can send them to school pay their bills, buy them a house, a car and at the end of the day its all about the individual and you can't legislate ambition and attitude.
- Messages
- 14,902
- Reactions
- 27,422
But first you have to get them off the drugs they are addicted to. Deschutes Co. recently reported approximately 80% of crime in the county is drug related.
There seems to be a direct correlation to increased incarceration levels as opposed to lower crime levels most likely due to non violent drug offenses - something we did not have near as much, say 20 years ago.
- Messages
- 474
- Reactions
- 160
If you were caught with 5 grams of crack between 1986 and 2010, you would face 5 years in prison. Crack is popular in poor communities I.E. Black, because of its reduced cost to powder cocaine (its kinda like a watered down version of powder cocaine). BTW, while 5 grams of crack, lets just say its $25-$50 in street value, 500 grams of cocaine, which according to druggies on google, goes for around $25,000 in street value, is punished at the same level. At $35,000 a year in California, the taxpayer spends $175,000 to imprison a single crack offender. bubblegum Id rather buy a Ferrari than lock up some schmuck for a victimless non-violent crime, but the politicians feel that it is imperative that they spend our tax dollars this way on those people. I don't even go to communities where crack is a popular drug, so whether they are out on the streets doing it, or locked up in jail, it makes no difference to me, however in the interest of lowering my taxes, Id rather let them catch their buzz of choice than shell out $billions of tax dollars to feed, house, clothe and make sure they don't stab each other.
Then you look at the 3 strikes laws, lets suppose in California, I use them as my example since they are having severe budget problems in part due to their drug laws and their 3 strikes laws, the person commits 3 felonies between 20 and 30. Now the tax payer has to shell out $1.4-$1.75 million to incarcerate a single 3 strikes offender if they live to 70 or 80 years old, even if the offender only committed 3 class-d felonies. Also the older an offender gets, the higher their medical costs, and guess who has to pay for that? You the tax payer. Its well known in criminal justice that by the time people are having major health issues from old age, they have pretty much aged out of crime. A lot of people are sent to prison over administrative offenses such as a dirty pee test, or leaving their house when they are suppose to be confined to it. America may be a land, but its far from free.
Look up the old man who robbed a bank for $1 so he could get looked at by a doctor. I guess its better to have some medical care and be in prison than to be dead or living in constant pain from lack of medical care.
Then you look at the 3 strikes laws, lets suppose in California, I use them as my example since they are having severe budget problems in part due to their drug laws and their 3 strikes laws, the person commits 3 felonies between 20 and 30. Now the tax payer has to shell out $1.4-$1.75 million to incarcerate a single 3 strikes offender if they live to 70 or 80 years old, even if the offender only committed 3 class-d felonies. Also the older an offender gets, the higher their medical costs, and guess who has to pay for that? You the tax payer. Its well known in criminal justice that by the time people are having major health issues from old age, they have pretty much aged out of crime. A lot of people are sent to prison over administrative offenses such as a dirty pee test, or leaving their house when they are suppose to be confined to it. America may be a land, but its far from free.
Look up the old man who robbed a bank for $1 so he could get looked at by a doctor. I guess its better to have some medical care and be in prison than to be dead or living in constant pain from lack of medical care.
- Messages
- 619
- Reactions
- 249
A lot more executions would send a very clear message to the less then desireable crowd. The prision system in this country pamper the crimminals. Laws are made to protect the criminal, not us the potential victum.
Got screwed by the system a couple of times. Creep laught all the way out of the court house.
Got screwed by the system a couple of times. Creep laught all the way out of the court house.
- Messages
- 474
- Reactions
- 160
Executions are usually much more costly to the tax payer due to all the appeals.
According to my text book, the southern states have drastically increased executions, a large portion of which were black, after the federal government heavily legislated against lynchings. As lynchings went down, executions went up, mainly of black people. You are highly likely to be sentenced to capital punishment if your victim is both white and a woman.
A lot of criminals don't think two steps ahead or about the potential consequences of their actions. We have drastically harsher penalties for jail time between ages 17 and 18, but there is no major reduction in crime between these ages, so harsher penalties doesn't seem to do much at all in terms of reducing crime.
Crime hasn't increased so much as there has been a large increase in crimes that mandate jail time now then there was 30 years ago. Things that were legal or penalized with simply a ticket, now mandate jail time. Thats why our prison population is so high in this country.
We have definitely criminalized a lot of stuff thanks to the rightward shift this country has taken in the last 30 years. Now we have a huge inmate population the world has never seen. Was the main goal to imprison more Americans, or reduce crime? Jail doesn't appear to be a pleasant experience as well, and its kind of like a crime college. A bunch of criminals getting together, talking about how they would do things differently. Then there is a ton of lost rights once you have a felony or a drug crime on your record, that creates a permanent underclass in this country.
THis country has a caste system similar to India thanks to the War on Drugs and other failed policies and "get tough on crime" initiatives in this country.
According to my text book, the southern states have drastically increased executions, a large portion of which were black, after the federal government heavily legislated against lynchings. As lynchings went down, executions went up, mainly of black people. You are highly likely to be sentenced to capital punishment if your victim is both white and a woman.
A lot of criminals don't think two steps ahead or about the potential consequences of their actions. We have drastically harsher penalties for jail time between ages 17 and 18, but there is no major reduction in crime between these ages, so harsher penalties doesn't seem to do much at all in terms of reducing crime.
Crime hasn't increased so much as there has been a large increase in crimes that mandate jail time now then there was 30 years ago. Things that were legal or penalized with simply a ticket, now mandate jail time. Thats why our prison population is so high in this country.
We have definitely criminalized a lot of stuff thanks to the rightward shift this country has taken in the last 30 years. Now we have a huge inmate population the world has never seen. Was the main goal to imprison more Americans, or reduce crime? Jail doesn't appear to be a pleasant experience as well, and its kind of like a crime college. A bunch of criminals getting together, talking about how they would do things differently. Then there is a ton of lost rights once you have a felony or a drug crime on your record, that creates a permanent underclass in this country.
THis country has a caste system similar to India thanks to the War on Drugs and other failed policies and "get tough on crime" initiatives in this country.
- Messages
- 139
- Reactions
- 96
No one is arguing that individuals should not be held accountable for their actions.
However, one would be blind or severely undereducated to not see that there is a huge problem with America's prison-industrial complex.
The "War on Drugs" is an epic failure. I agree with JimmyS that it is incredibly hypocritical when folks who pitch and whine about government spending, socialism and all that jazz have no qualms about our hemorrhaging (for the state, not for the private prison contractors) industrial prison systems.
However, one would be blind or severely undereducated to not see that there is a huge problem with America's prison-industrial complex.
The "War on Drugs" is an epic failure. I agree with JimmyS that it is incredibly hypocritical when folks who pitch and whine about government spending, socialism and all that jazz have no qualms about our hemorrhaging (for the state, not for the private prison contractors) industrial prison systems.
- Status
Similar threads
