Here's an interesting anti-crime strategy

[WhyteCheddar]

"It is sad how many people are anti-self-defense. They speak of how horrible it would be to take a bad guy’s life with no regard for their life or their families. They hope that a call to 911 will get the police there quick enough. Some hope to use pepper spray as the only means to defend themselves and their family. Some think that by being good neighbors and knowing who your neighbors are will somehow stop the stranger lurking outside. I will protect my family with any and all means available, including firearms. If a bad guy trying to do me or mine harm dies, so be it. I will not subscribe to the sheep’s theory that I will be saved by someone in “authority”. I am the protector of my family and my life and I will determine what means I need to do so. You can keep your pepper spray, I prefer lead.—‘Scott’"

This +1

 

[Burt Gummer]

I am as squeaky clean as a person can be but I pity SOME people that are in prison. I know that prisons are a business and many who are there do not deserve to be. It is however profitable to have them there.

Crazy sentences for minor crimes, framed by cops, etc, etc. A minor few, but still.

I often wonder what will happen to them when SHTF; in a Planet of the Apes scenario; no rule of law, etc. Do they still get room and board or FEMA with others, executed, or turned loose? I think about such things LOL.

 

[JimmyS1985]

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.

Thank you, I am a criminal justice major.

Since the policies for dealing with crime are made by law-makers, Republican and conservative law makers tend to subscribe to deterrence theory for handling criminal offenders. A large portion of the public also, especially in the 80's and 90's, thought that if we made prison sentences longer, or prison more harsh, and a combination of both, that this would reduce crime. Despite the drastically harsher penalties on drug crimes, there has been a five fold increase in drug crime in the years between 1978 and 2004.

There have been studies on recidivism rates of parolees and probationers, and in terms of reducing arrest rates and being sent to prison, probation has the upperhand. Probation is usually thought of as a lighter, less harsh sentence since it still allows the person to live in society. This would entirely refute deterrence theory as a way of reducing crime.

There is another social scientist that also made a defiance theory, if the punishment is overly harsh or seen as unfair, this can generate defiance of the law and result in more breaking of the law, even if the punishment is harsher.

As for the death penalty, we are one of the few death penalty countries that is also industrialized. Yet it appears at face value that the death penalty does little in terms of reducing crime except for the one individual receiving it. It doesn't appear to do much in deterring crime for large swaths of individuals.

As someone mentioned we need to execute more offenders, I had to counter that with death penalty cases consuming the most tax dollars and a capital punishment should not be taken lightly and given out as a one-size-fits-all sentence to offenders, much the same prison is a one-size-fits-all to a large portion of very different crimes.

I find it hypocritcal that they claim to be the party of personal freedom, but want to send people off to prison for offenses they have deemed immoral such as using illicit drugs, women having abortions, and other things. To me thats a party that wants to limit your personal freedom, almost hypocritcal when they claim to support personal freedom.

There are lots of ways that we can reduce crime in this country, that doesn't involve sending people off to prison. The book I'm reading, "Imprisoning Communities" seems to harshly criticize deterrence theorists and disproves their theory on crime as the end all be all of reducing crime in this country, particularly if you just look at the recidivism rates of people who go to jail, and those that are allowed to serve probation.

 

[JimmyS1985]

Also lets assume you're homeless on the streets. Is prison really much of a step downward? I read an article a few years ago, as we all know Detroit has faced Great Depression levels of unemployment and poverty for decades. Well the citizens of Detroit, a lot commit crime on purpose, so they can get their "3 hots and a cot" on the states dollar. The rule of law breaks down when prison is seen as a step up from day to day living, and people purposefully commit crime in hopes to go to jail. The unusually long sentences for otherwise minor or victimless non-violent crimes, would play into the hands of the people you are trying to convince not to commit crime. You are essentially doing them a favor, and the law-makers who enact the policy are too stupid to see that because they don't understand criminal justice or how the human mind works.

There was a story, I mentioned earlier, where this man needed medical care, absolutely could not get it on his own dollar, so he went to a bank, robbed it for a dollar, and waited in the bank's lobby for police to arrive. Blame the 8th amendment if you don't like the idea of people purposefully going to prison so they can live a better life than the crappy life they live on the outside.

 

[bikejunkie]

Maybe I'm just old school- I feel people should be accountable for their actions/decisions. If you choose to commit crimes, non-violent or otherwise, you assume the risk of ending up in jail. I feel no pity whatsoever for criminals that have chosen to harm others in order to better their own life situation and then end up in the slam. I will never feel sorry for some crackhead that gets busted and sent to jail- sure maybe they got pinched for possession- how many other crimes did they commit (crackheads likely aren't supporting their habit by working) to purchase that drug they got caught with?

 

[JimmyS1985]

Obviously you believe in a government that services people from cradle to grave, since thats essentially what the criminal justice, prison, probation and parole system does. Personally I'm against forms of socialism, even punitive forms of it. I might even suspect you of being a socialist since you think certain people in the community who you disapprove of need constant guidance and supervision from the guberment.

Don't ever make a dumbass statement to a person getting out of prison to "go get a job" when they are asking for handouts, when the felony your system has put on their record for a victimless non-violent crime in and of itself has barred them from doing jobs across the board. Then you will say "Well you should of thought about that before you did the crime" to which they reply "Ill make sure not to make the same mistake in my next lifetime, now that I'm a convicted felon for the rest of this one"

Why did arrests for drug crimes go up in the 80's and 90's while punishments got harsher? Why do more than half of people released from prison get re-arrested? Because prison doesn't deter crime? That would seem to be a logical explanation of it. If they are out stealing and breaking into cars for their drugs, bust them for that, gambling is legal in and of itself, but a lot of bank robberies are because people with gambling problems run out of money so they can go out and gamble it away. It also has an effect on peoples mind similar to that of drugs. Smoking, gambling and drinking are all legal and lead to higher crime or negative health effects, but other things such as marijuana possession is deemed immoral and the only solution is to imprison the person? Your strategy to solving the nations crime problem is like trying to do brain surgery with a baseball bat instead of a scalpel.

Your old-school mentality is why this nation wasted $55,000,000,000 a year incarcerating its own people when no other country even comes close to this nations incarceration rate, not by half or even 1/3. Instead of getting tough on crime, we need to get smart. People who don't understand how criminals think, or how to set policy that actually reduces crime, is the main problem with our criminal justice system. We need to throw out the old-school thinking and go with policy changes that actually work.

edit: I think the old-school and the new-school thinkers can agree on one thing, that prison, or lengthy jail sentences, definitely does not communicate to the offender to conform to this nation's laws. Some offenders see it more as a personal rejection of them than an actual consequence for their actions. In inner-city high crime areas, prison is seen as a rite of passage for the young people in the community, since they will probably be tougher and more hardened in their criminal ways upon re-entering society. I don't know the exact percentages but somewhere around 95+% of people are released from prison since a lot of crimes don't involve a life sentence in and of itself.

 

[bikejunkie]

I believe a criminal chooses to commit crime, therefore they are responsible. I have had many opportunities in my life to commit crimes, I have chosen not to, and thus never been incarcerated. The laws really are pretty straightforward most of the time and if people choose to break them and happen to get caught, then they should be appropriately punished. I disagree that by expecting people to be held accountable for their choices I somehow "believe in a government that services people from cradle to grave" Jimmy the great thing about being a student is the idealism you are able to display because of a profound lack of perspective. This is generally why people trend more conservative as they age in my opinion. I recognize your opinion, and I respectfully disagree with it. Are there stupid laws that have sent people to jail that don't make sense? of course there are. I think a 55mph speed limit is stupid, but it's the law and you can choose to violate at your own peril and it's nobodies fault but your own if you get caught and have to pay the price. It's just like all the morons crying about the interest rates on their home or student loans. Nobody made you take out those loans for a home or education you couldn't afford, and it's nobodies responsibility to help you pay them back or let you off the hook but your own. To cry otherwise is absolutely ridiculous. I'd love to own a Ferrari, however I can't afford one. Should I go buy one and then cry about how someone needs to help me make the payments for that terrible choice? To me this is the single biggest reason for the decline of this fading republic is the inability of people to take personal responsibility for their own actions. Everybody wants to blame someone else, because that's so much easier than looking yourself in the mirror, accepting who and what you are- both good and bad, and working hard to make yourself a better person. I don't believe keeping dangerous criminals off the streets is a waste of money- they made their choices and they should have to live with them.

 

[ArgyleAdams]

Of course the decision to commit a crime is a choice. However, sometimes it's a choice to do-or-not-do something that has no business being legislated in the first place. In most jurisdictions, for example, oral sex is specifically prohibited (criminally punishable). What do you think would happen if suddenly everyone who ever participated in oral sex were to be arrested and tried for it. Then one would have the choice between obeying a ridiculous law or perhaps improving an interpersonal relationship without harming any other interpersonal relationship. Will I obey a law like that? Does a responsible citizen have a responsibility to disobey an unjust or harmful law? Does any law regulating an act that has no direct negative effect on any parties who are not willing participants have any business being a law?

Robert Heinlein: "I will accept any rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."

Edit: Also, sorry for contributing to the massive thread drift here.

 

[JimmyS1985]

Thats the thing though, you felt people who simply possessed 5 grams of crack, a crime that is neither violent or has a victim in and of itself, deserves being locked up for 5 years. Maybe they mowed a lawn to get the money to get the crack, I work a 9-5 job to get my alcohol. its no more addictive than regular forms of cocaine, its only cheaper. They both have the exact same active ingredient, but crack-cocaine is a schedule 1 drug and powder cocaine is a schedule 2 drug because it has some medical value.

The religious right want to criminalize women who seek abortion, women have gotten abortions since the dawn of man and a woman thought to herself "I don't want to birth this pregnancy". The conservatives are opposed to the Lawrence v. Texas which allowed gay men to play their version of hide the pickle in their own private homes and own private bedrooms.

You can't legislate morality, it doesn't work. And the criminal justice system shouldn't be used as a tool for advancing a morality based agenda such as that coming from the religious right in the Republican party but thats exactly what they have used it for between the drug laws, obscenity laws against videos of two adults having sex and other faith based initiatives. The criminal justice system is for stopping crime, not advancing a political or religious agenda.

 

[bikejunkie]

The religious right want to criminalize women who seek abortion, women have gotten abortions since the dawn of man and a woman thought to herself "I don't want to birth this pregnancy". The conservatives are opposed to the Lawrence v. Texas which allowed gay men to play their version of hide the pickle in their own private homes and own private bedrooms.

You can't legislate morality, it doesn't work. And the criminal justice system shouldn't be used as a tool for advancing a morality based agenda such as that coming from the religious right in the Republican party but thats exactly what they have used it for between the drug laws, obscenity laws against videos of two adults having sex and other faith based initiatives. The criminal justice system is for stopping crime, not advancing a political or religious agenda.

All of this I couldn't agree with more. The liberal agenda of government having some kind of program or federal assistance for every single person is equally absurd. Some people aren't going to make it, and sometimes a loser is a loser, and that's just how it is. People need to be responsible for themselves and stop looking for the government to hold their hand because eventually the government won't be holding it- it'll be restricting it, and then controlling it. I find both Democrats and Republicans equally awful in this regard.

I'm going to further recuse myself from this thread, as it has gone far, far away from the OP...

 

[Gunner3456]

Well thats the thing, the jail population should lower, as crime rate lowers, but crime rate lowers and jail population goes up...

Well now, if you lock them up they won't be committing as many crimes, will they? Isn't that why we lock them up?

Let's see. Lock up more criminals and you get fewer crimes and that confuses you?

I appreciate your Pollyanna outlook, but criminals are what they are by choice. Many of them have college degrees. Many of them came from wealthy homes. Many of them chose to do drugs and messed themselves up. Many, such as that wealthy movie star who was arrested for shoplifting are just plain thieves.

There are many reasons people are in prison, BUT LETS' GET ONE THING STRAIGHT. IT ISN'T MY FAULT - IT'S THEIRS.

 

[JimmyS1985]

When you send them off to prison you are essentially sending them off to crime college where they go learn about how to do crime. Probationers get arrested at lower rates than people who are sent to prison. This country has about 1 in 100 adults in jail or prison these days. Even countries with well known crime problems, such as Mexico, don't have anywhere near the incarceration rate as this country.

This country locks up more victimless non-violent criminals than any other country.

Eventually you have to release them, and when they get out they are more likely to reoffend if they have been sent to prison. So in terms of deterring crime, it would seem that the last place you want to send a victimless non-violent offender is prison. Also if they are out in society on probation, they can still hold a job and pay taxes.

Crime rates seem to be unaffected by incarceration rates, as when you take one offender off the streets, he is soon replaced by another.

Under your theory, there would be a vast decrease in crime between ages 17 and 18 because the penalties get harsher, but the offending rate between 17 and 18 is virtually unchanged. Lets just say gunner, your theory on how to deal with criminals does nothing in terms of preventing crime, wastes tax dollars, and may even encourage more crime to be committed.

If you look at this country's incarceration rates, this country is not the land of the free by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Gunner3456]

When you send them off to prison you are essentially sending them off to crime college where they go learn about how to do crime. Probationers get arrested at lower rates than people who are sent to prison. This country has about 1 in 100 adults in jail or prison these days. Even countries with well known crime problems, such as Mexico, don't have anywhere near the incarceration rate as this country.

No, Mexico lets its cartels run loose and that's why sane people are afraid to go there. Even the police and government are afraid of them. The government is on the take and the whole system is corrupt.

Do you really want a society such as Mexico's?

This country locks up more victimless non-violent criminals than any other country.

How do you define victimless? Some of us think that our whole society is the victim of gangs who deal drugs, for instance. If no one used the drugs, the cartels and gangs would starve to death.

Eventually you have to release them, and when they get out they are more likely to reoffend if they have been sent to prison. So in terms of deterring crime, it would seem that the last place you want to send a victimless non-violent offender is prison. Also if they are out in society on probation, they can still hold a job and pay taxes.

There is no proof that sending them to jail causes them to re-offend. They are already an offender, right? By definition they are already a criminal. What prison were they in which caused them to offend the first time?

Crime rates seem to be unaffected by incarceration rates, as when you take one offender off the streets, he is soon replaced by another.

Then we have a problem which goes beyond incarceration if we are producing all of these criminals. You and I could never agree on what that is, but I have a belief.

Under your theory, there would be a vast decrease in crime between ages 17 and 18 because the penalties get harsher, but the offending rate between 17 and 18 is virtually unchanged. Lets just say gunner, your theory on how to deal with criminals does nothing in terms of preventing crime, wastes tax dollars, and may even encourage more crime to be committed.

I gave no such theory and I never said that our system cures offenders. I never said they could be cured. I believe that some are destined to a life of crime. We would differ on why that is.

I don't believe that jail or prison is for rehabilitation. I believe it is for punishment, and to protect society at least for a time from offenders.

If you look at this country's incarceration rates, this country is not the land of the free by any stretch of the imagination.

Regarding incarceration, it mostly is free for those who obey the law.

 

[jjackffrost]

For the tycoons who have invested in the prison industry, it has been like finding a pot of gold. They don't have to worry about strikes or paying unemployment, health or worker's comp insurance, vacation or comp time. All of their workers are full time, and never arrive late or are absent because of family problems; moreover, if prisoners refuse to work, they are moved to disciplinary housing and lose canteen privileges. Most importantly, they lose "good time" credit that reduces their sentence.
You do not get the point of Prisons today in the US it is about money

Today, there are over 2 million people incarcerated in the U.S., more than any other industrialized country. They are disproportionately African-American and Latino. The nation's prison industry now employees nearly three quarters of a million people, more than any Fortune 500 corporation, other than General Motors. Mushrooming construction has turned the industry into the main employer in scores of depressed cities and towns. A host of firms are profiting from private prisons, prison labor and services like transportation, farming and manufacturing.

 

[Dave Workman]

As the original OP, it's pretty clear that some respondents here have their own agendas to grind.

Bikejunkie and Gunner seem to have cracked the code, and fully understand what I wrote in my column. With all due respect to criminal justice majors and socio-political analysts, the bottom line in West Seattle is that a neighborhood has reached a far simpler approach: Commit a crime, risk getting shot dead in your tracks.

If we have an inordinate percentage of certain ethnic people behind bars, we don't need to be blubbering about the societal failures that got them there. These fools made bad judgment calls, and they're the ones to blame for that. Maybe they had lousy parents, absentee fathers, crummy mothers; lots of people had that and they haven't committed crimes that got them tossed in the clink.

Early in my career, I encountered all manner of scumbags who always had someone else to blame. I met and more often listened to (on television) or read about family and friends of this or that dead goober who invariably claimed he was "just beginning to turn his life around."

It's Bushwa...all Bushwa..and deep down inside, we all know it. Some of us just can't get over this guilt trip we began taking in public school and from reading too much (pick an appropriate vulgarism) from Utopian finger pointers who never understood that they were enablers; people who provided the lame excuses to legions of swine looking for an excuse for screwing up their own lives. We're not responsible for their bad deeds or tough breaks. Get over it.

I've seen the damage these people create, to property and people. I've seen the dead they leave behind. You want to blame industry and the judicial system, be my guest. People wouldn't be part of that if they didn't do a host of crimes, and we wouldn't have the kinds of laws we have if we didn't keep electing the twits who write such statutes.

Do we have too many people in prison? Yep, but they got there on their own bad deeds. Warning them they just might get plugged isn't a threat. Its not paranoia.. Just consider it a public service. We're giving them a chance to turn their lives around, and telling them what could happen if they don't.

 

[michaels]

Hey Dave,

Drink the for profit prison koolaid.

People commit crime, they should be punished.

Appropriatley.

Not for profit.

Keep drinking cowboy

 

[Gunner3456]

Hey Dave,

Drink the for profit prison koolaid.

People commit crime, they should be punished.

Appropriatley.

Not for profit.

Keep drinking cowboy

It doesn't sound to me as if there is any Kool Aid left for the rest of us.

 

[Dave Workman]

Hey Dave,

Drink the for profit prison koolaid.

People commit crime, they should be punished.

Appropriatley.

Not for profit.

Keep drinking cowboy

Nice try, "buckaroo" but trying to make me the subject does not erase the obvious: The folks responsible for that sign in West Seattle sent a warning to the criminal element.
They did that for a reason you and I had nothing to do with. Well, at least I didn't.

And prisons are full of people who actually do belong there. This evidently comes as something of a cultural shock to some folks, yet looking at this forum, one must ask the obvious: If you're not convinced that some people are bad, and just *might* belong in jail, why have a gun in your house? If you don't own a firearm, what are you doing here? Just trolling for a reaction?
Go wet a line in West Seattle.
:winkkiss:

 

[michaels]

You say they sent a warning.

I think they are a potential criminal element.

Nothing scares me more than "righteous" anger.

I'm not arguing that prisons don't have people that belong there.

I'm saying when someone can profit from another's incarceration, it makes the whole system questionable.

I have guns cause I like 'em, don't need your approval.

 

[Dave Workman]

You say they sent a warning.

I think they are a potential criminal element.

Nothing scares me more than "righteous" anger.

I'm not arguing that prisons don't have people that belong there.

I'm saying when someone can profit from another's incarceration, it makes the whole system questionable.

I have guns cause I like 'em, don't need your approval.

Well, what you *think* about them being a "potential criminal element" is irrelevant. Nobody has become a crime victim because of the sign. Indeed, it just might be that a few crimes have NOT been committed, at least in that neighborhood. I'll have to check with the cops Monday.

Righteous anger is sometimes less annoying than righteous indignation, which brings us around to this contention that we've got industry profiting off keeping people penned up. What on earth does that have to do with the West Seattle residents who want creeps out of their neighborhood? That seems like a Trojan horse argument to me. The people in West Seattle aren't expecting to profit from keeping criminals out of their neighborhood, they're simply trying to avoid losses.

I wasn't offering my approval for your guns, and I suspect you know it. You can have as many guns as you want.