|
Post by akamai on Sept 8, 2011 3:06:51 GMT -5
Why do we insist upon incarcerating so many people whollyu unnecessarily? Is prison really the best way to deal with criminal behaviour? The sad reality is that it is totally inefffective. Let us consider those, for instance, who are serving genuine whole life terms. What kind of incentive do they have NOT to commit other crimes? If they are doomed to remain in prison for ever no matter what they do why should they not simply cause mayhem? Or if a prisoner knows that he or she will be released then it is abundantly clear that their crime was not one that made them sufficiently dangerous to lock them up for the whole of their life. That being the case, non-custodial sentences would be a better way of dealing with them. I am going to post a link in a moment as a follow-up to this post. Hi Mike... The basic problem here, is that prisons, like executions, are seen as simply "vengence" actions. When they are looked upon as tools to defend the public, which IMHO is what they are.... then they become totally understandable & indespensible. If a prisoner causes "meyhem" in prison.....then go to plan #2....execute him, or her. Turning them loose on the innocent public, HAS been tried....with obvious, and horrific results. Hi arizonavet, I agree with you, but still, we should put more efforts in crime prevention rather than law enforcement. If we can keep most from committing crimes in the first place, we wouldn't need the amount of prison space. Ak
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2011 10:34:59 GMT -5
Perhaps one way to eliminate a good deal of crime, and thereby the need for prisons, is to eliminate the nanny-state laws that criminalize things in our daily lives.
Like not wearing a motorcycle helmet, or a seat belt in your car (good ideas, true, but a matter of personal adult choice).
Like smoking in your own car, or home.
Or eating salt in a restaurant.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2011 16:35:20 GMT -5
Perhaps one way to eliminate a good deal of crime, and thereby the need for prisons, is to eliminate the nanny-state laws that criminalize things in our daily lives. Like not wearing a motorcycle helmet, or a seat belt in your car (good ideas, true, but a matter of personal adult choice). Like smoking in your own car, or home. Or eating salt in a restaurant. Yet none of these violations result in a prison sentence. The majority of inmates are there for drug-related crimes, and should be. What they all have in common is a bad attitude, which requires correction. Most of them never learn.
|
|
arizonavet
Journeyman
Protect the Innocent & Drink Belgian Ale
Posts: 351
|
Post by arizonavet on Sept 9, 2011 8:18:05 GMT -5
Perhaps one way to eliminate a good deal of crime, and thereby the need for prisons, is to eliminate the nanny-state laws that criminalize things in our daily lives. Like not wearing a motorcycle helmet, or a seat belt in your car (good ideas, true, but a matter of personal adult choice). Like smoking in your own car, or home. Or eating salt in a restaurant. Yet none of these violations result in a prison sentence. The majority of inmates are there for drug-related crimes, and should be. What they all have in common is a bad attitude, which requires correction. Most of them never learn. Well I'll be darned.....how you doin Joe? "bad attitudes" are somewhat subject to personal opinion.... "Grass"....far less dangerous than whiskey or vodka, should be made legal. Your point about the other "crimes" mentioned, I agree with.....they don't put people in jail for them as a rule. Putting more emphasis & funds into "shrinks" & social workers to decrease crime is good money after bad in my opinion. Sweet sounding idea that has very limited "returns". At least, while a criminal is in prison, he is far less likely to prey on the public. And I personally believe that it has a far more beneficial effect on the criminals mind, than trying to reason with them, or just giving them what they want. More prisons & executions....less shrinks....
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Sept 9, 2011 9:42:36 GMT -5
do we need more prisons....mmmm...what we need is less criminality..greed ..more honesty and higher personal standards
|
|
arizonavet
Journeyman
Protect the Innocent & Drink Belgian Ale
Posts: 351
|
Post by arizonavet on Sept 13, 2011 11:04:21 GMT -5
do we need more prisons....mmmm...what we need is less criminality..greed ..more honesty and higher personal standards Of course...and while we're "dreaming".....how about a sweet personality for everyone? Perhaps we could just outlaw "sin"? Until then, prisons & death chambers will have to do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2011 9:47:23 GMT -5
there are many criminals who need and should be locked up and never let loose upon us again.
I don't want the likes of serial killers to be on the loose to continue to prey upon people nor those liike Ng or Bittaker who pleasured themselves with torture......how about the child rapists and murderers of children?
We need prisons, plain and simple
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Sept 30, 2011 10:39:50 GMT -5
Hi Chefmate, I agree with you that more should be spent on crime prevention rather than law enforcement. However, do you have any suggestions as to how we should go about it? Spending money on it alone will not help. Akamai
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Sept 30, 2011 10:44:12 GMT -5
there are many criminals who need and should be locked up and never let loose upon us again. I don't want the likes of serial killers to be on the loose to continue to prey upon people nor those liike Ng or Bittaker who pleasured themselves with torture......how about the child rapists and murderers of children? We need prisons, plain and simple with you 100% but we need prisons to go back[at least in the uk] to being what they were built to be..places of incarceration and punishment...where prisonerrs actually pay for the crimes they commit one of our notorious killers,,rose west is and i quote ""smarter dressed than she used to be"" ???other prisoners are complaining they dont get sky sport.. .. gimme a break...
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Sept 30, 2011 10:45:43 GMT -5
Hi arizonavet, I agree with you, but still, we should put more efforts in crime prevention rather than law enforcement. If we can keep most from committing crimes in the first place, we wouldn't need the amount of prison space. Ak[/quote]i[/quote]crime prevention ?? in what way ??
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2011 10:57:10 GMT -5
What would we do with all the crooks, WITHOUT prisons?
Even under the most "progressive" of liberal administrations, there isn't enough room in government for all of them.
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Sept 30, 2011 11:33:31 GMT -5
What would we do with all the crooks, WITHOUT prisons? Even under the most "progressive" of liberal administrations, there isn't enough room in government for all of them. Hi Lewis, If we could get all the guns from the gangbangers, our murder rate would fall by more than 50%. But to do that, we would have to take the guns away from everyone, and so far, gun ownership is one of our freedoms. We could cut crime in more than half, if we, the free law abiding citizens would be willing to sacrifice some of our freedoms, such as our guns, and agreeing to make drug trafficking a capital crime, punishible by a death sentence and execution. Are we willing to do that? I don't think so. Akamai
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2011 11:39:23 GMT -5
What would we do with all the crooks, WITHOUT prisons? Even under the most "progressive" of liberal administrations, there isn't enough room in government for all of them. Hi Lewis, If we could get all the guns from the gangbangers, our murder rate would fall by more than 50%. But to do that, we would have to take the guns away from everyone, and so far, gun ownership is one of our freedoms. We could cut crime in more than half, if we, the free law abiding citizens would be willing to sacrifice some of our freedoms, such as our guns, and agreeing to make drug trafficking a capital crime, punishible by a death sentence and execution. Are we willing to do that? I don't think so.Akamai And IF a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his butt when he jumped. The only people who would obey your restrictive laws on gun ownership are those honest people whom you don't have to worry about in the first place. Look at New York/New Jersey, home of some of the most restrictive laws in the world. The honest people obey the laws, And yet there's enough firepower there to fight a small war . . . Oddly enough, in those areas where restrictions on gun ownership by upright citizens have been eased - violent crime dropped precipitously.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2011 11:43:07 GMT -5
Perhaps one way to eliminate a good deal of crime, and thereby the need for prisons, is to eliminate the nanny-state laws that criminalize things in our daily lives. Like not wearing a motorcycle helmet, or a seat belt in your car (good ideas, true, but a matter of personal adult choice). Like smoking in your own car, or home. Or eating salt in a restaurant. Yet none of these violations result in a prison sentence. The majority of inmates are there for drug-related crimes, and should be. What they all have in common is a bad attitude, which requires correction. Most of them never learn. Ah, but some of those crimes - like smoking in the wrong place - indeed CAN buy you free room and board for a while. As to the others - it's just a matter of time, until the "nanny state" grows just a bit more.
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Sept 30, 2011 12:18:01 GMT -5
Hi Lewis, If we could get all the guns from the gangbangers, our murder rate would fall by more than 50%. But to do that, we would have to take the guns away from everyone, and so far, gun ownership is one of our freedoms. We could cut crime in more than half, if we, the free law abiding citizens would be willing to sacrifice some of our freedoms, such as our guns, and agreeing to make drug trafficking a capital crime, punishible by a death sentence and execution. Are we willing to do that? I don't think so.Akamai And IF a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his butt when he jumped. The only people who would obey your restrictive laws on gun ownership are those honest people whom you don't have to worry about in the first place. Look at New York/New Jersey, home of some of the most restrictive laws in the world. The honest people obey the laws, And yet there's enough firepower there to fight a small war . . . Oddly enough, in those areas where restrictions on gun ownership by upright citizens have been eased - violent crime dropped precipitously. Lewis, You missed my point completely. My point is if we take the guns away from the gangbangers, the nation's homicide rate would fall by about 50%. In order to do that, we would have to deprive our honest, law abiding citizens of their freedom to own firearms. Are we honest, law abiding citizens willing to sacrifice our freedoms in that area in order to cut our homicide rate in half? Again, I don't think so. There is no doubt, that more than 99% of the 200+ million privately owned guns in our society are legal, and owned by our law abiding citizens. If you had just a half of a percent of our society being gang bangers, that would still amount to 1.5 million gangbangers. I don't think the problem is that bad yet. Akamai
|
|