The general decline in standards today

Discussion in 'The Observation Bar' started by STEVIEBOY1, Jun 18, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. As the Harvard Magazine said, more than two-thirds will be re-arrested after they get out and half go right back to prison. Insurance analysts also say that keeping a person in prison is cheaper than letting them run amok in society as it costs us twice as much when they are out destroying property, stealing things and making people's lives Hell because they had their identity stolen, relatives killed or property stolen that is irreplaceable.
    In short, the people in prison aren't angels who stole a loaf of bread for their families----they are murderers, rapists, thieves and all around incorrigibles. You don't go to jail for nothing and you don't keep going back through the revolving door for not committing crimes. My avice for them is to go straight and become a productive member of society.
     
  2. Blackthorn

    Blackthorn I'll Lock Up

    Messages:
    4,224
    Location:
    Oroville
    How archaic of you. :)

    That idea will never catch on.
     
  3. LizzieMaine

    LizzieMaine Bartender

    If recreational drugs and alcohol were deleted from existance -- not just banned, but cosmically abolished -- crime would almost entirely disappear. Unfortunately, that's impossible.
     
  4. Atticus Finch

    Atticus Finch Call Me a Cab

    Messages:
    2,716
    Location:
    Coastal North Carolina, USA
    Not so much EOH...but, yes, most of the crime I prosecute is secondary to the illegal drug trade. And you're absolutely correct. Drugs can't be cosmically abolished. But a realistic option is to legalize them and regulate them. There would still be drug addicts....plenty of them, for a little while. But the secondary crime rate would fall immediately and amazingly.

    AF
     
  5. LizzieMaine

    LizzieMaine Bartender

    We've had this conversation before, I think, but my view hasn't changed. I'm more concerned with getting people to *stop using drugs* and preventing them from ever starting to use drugs, than I am in worrying about the rights of the people who push them. I do not support legalization. At all. Ever. Too many people I care about have been damaged by drug use and the drug culture that promotes drug use -- not drug *laws*, drug *use.* That *culture* needs to be annihilated, by any means necessary.

    As for alcohol, around here it's *the* big cause of crime. Look at a mug shot in the local paper, and you're looking at a drunk.
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2014
  6. vintageTink

    vintageTink One Too Many

    Messages:
    1,321
    Location:
    An Okie in SoCal
    I debated on whether or not to post this re: prisoners but decided to speak my mind.

    I do not consider criminals to be a marginalized and misfortunate segment of society. You don't want to end up in prison, don't commit crimes.
    Being a corrections officer is not an easy job. My husband did it for over a year; I worried every time he left the house. CO's are often attacked, some killed by these poor widdle babies.
    Most of these criminals are not someone who wrote a bad check to feed a starving family. These are murderers, rapists, thieves, and drug dealers. They aren't in there because of some big bad institutional plot toget them.

    Those aren't kindergarteners in there, and most have earned their cells.
     
  7. sheeplady

    sheeplady I'll Lock Up Bartender

    I will not support taking an entire person's life freedom away for a single non-violent single crime based upon the (poor) justification that it costs me less money to take away their freedom than take the chance they may commit another non-violent crime.

    I feel that locking someone up for life because of a non-violent crime because it is cheaper to do so violates so many of my morals that I am not sure where to start in arguing this.

    I feel the argument that someone who stole property should receive a life sentence similar to a rapist or murder purely to cut costs is also severely undercutting the serious hurt that violent crimes like rape and murder cause to individuals, families, friends, and communities. Having your pocketbook or TV stolen is no where near the life changing experience of having someone hold a knife to your throat while you are raped or going to the morgue to identify your loved one's body.
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2014
  8. LizzieMaine

    LizzieMaine Bartender

    The problem is, a lot of "non violent" crimes aren't so non-violent. A drug dealer sells a kid something, the kid uses it, and suffers lasting brain damage. Raping someone's mind, to me, is as violent, and as loathsome a crime as a physical assault on their body, and deserves as severe a punishment.
     
  9. vintageTink

    vintageTink One Too Many

    Messages:
    1,321
    Location:
    An Okie in SoCal
    I agree with you for the most part. Selling drugs isn't a non-violent crime. Besides causing damage to someone, there are often times turf wars between dealers. Innocent people die.

    Why not imprison for a non-violent crime? Does Bernie Madoff not deserve prison time? His crime didn't physically hurt anyone.
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2014
  10. LizzieMaine

    LizzieMaine Bartender

    Bernie isn't all that different from the filthiest drug dealer in the gutter. His motivations, at least, were identical.
     
  11. sheeplady

    sheeplady I'll Lock Up Bartender

    Has anyone suggested not imprisoning people for non-violent crimes in this discussion?
     
  12. vintageTink

    vintageTink One Too Many

    Messages:
    1,321
    Location:
    An Okie in SoCal
    I believe you did. ;)

    "I feel that locking someone up for life because of a non-violent crime because it is cheaper to do so violates so many of my morals that I am not sure where to start in arguing this."
     
  13. sheeplady

    sheeplady I'll Lock Up Bartender

    I disagree with life sentences for individuals who commit non-violent crime. I am particularly uncomfortable with life sentences for non-violent crimes based solely on the fact that it is cheaper to keep someone locked up than deal with the potential of them committing another crime after their sentence is completed.

    I don't think that the majority of non-violent crimes justify losing freedom for the rest of your life.

    I have never suggested not locking up non-violent offenders, but I am STRONGLY against life sentences for non-violent crimes for financial reasons for a matter of course. I find the idea to be rather revolting.

    I am being seriously misunderstood here, or the value base of this group is very far off from my own.

    ETA: I want to make this seriously clear here. If you are caught doing a single non-violent crime (a single offense) I don't think you should go to jail for life simply because there is a risk you can do it again upon release. Now, if you are a repeat offender of non-violent crimes, I can see scenarios where you could serve a very long time in prison, but those sentences should be additive, and NOT a life sentence based upon a single event.
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2014
  14. dh66

    dh66

    Messages:
    12,374
    Location:
    down south
    Wow! What a can of worms. I just have a problem (a pretty big one) with somebody making a PROFIT at the taxpayers expense, and at the expense of c.o.s not receiving the benefits they deserve for dealing with the **** they have to deal with, in the privatized prison system. Same with "for profit" healthcare. I 100% believe in equal access to treatment, or punishment, regardless of your economic status.
     
  15. vintageTink

    vintageTink One Too Many

    Messages:
    1,321
    Location:
    An Okie in SoCal
    No, thank you for clarifying. I'm glad you weren't suggesting not punishing them at all. :)
     
  16. Retro Spectator

    Retro Spectator Practically Family

    Messages:
    830
    Location:
    Connecticut
    It is quite possible that I said this before, but it seems that 95% of comments on Youtube are either immature, irrelevant, rude, nonsensical, or all of the above.
     
  17. vintageTink

    vintageTink One Too Many

    Messages:
    1,321
    Location:
    An Okie in SoCal
    Youtube is a vortex of ridiculousness.
    I watch some old videos like The Andrews Sisters or watch tutorials. The rest is patent nonsense and people trying for their 15 minutes.
     
  18. You forgot the morons trying to imitate Jackass...... :doh: The epic fails might be worth it though. :p
     
  19. LizzieMaine

    LizzieMaine Bartender

    With few exceptions, internet comment sections in general are the worst accumulation of worthless bunk in the history of popular media. In the Era you could find plenty of anonymous inanity in the "Voice of the People" column in the New York Daily News, or the "Vox Pop" pages in Liberty magazine, but even at their most ridiculous such columns didn't approach the concentrated raw stupidity of the average online news site comment sections, where even a feel-good story about kittens or puppies or baby pandas will degenerate, within five posts, into a sub-moronic "wingnuts vs. moonbats" political argument.
     

  20. And people fighting at Denny's. :p
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.