![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mxsmanic wrote:
Morgans writes: Prisoners in the US are there for good reason, and most all are multiple offenders, or else major felony offenders. Eighty percent of U.S. prisoners are in prison on drug charges. That 80% number while technically either true or close to true also include a metric-butt load of people that the drug offense was secondary to another offense non-drug related offense. Which pretty much proves the point that that drugs cause crime in general. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Gig601XLBuilder wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote: Morgans writes: Prisoners in the US are there for good reason, and most all are multiple offenders, or else major felony offenders. Eighty percent of U.S. prisoners are in prison on drug charges. That 80% number while technically either true or close to true also include a metric-butt load of people that the drug offense was secondary to another offense non-drug related offense. Which pretty much proves the point that that drugs cause crime in general. Hardly. Keep repeating this mantra: correlation does not prove causation. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Rich Ahrens wrote:
Gig601XLBuilder wrote: Mxsmanic wrote: Morgans writes: Prisoners in the US are there for good reason, and most all are multiple offenders, or else major felony offenders. Eighty percent of U.S. prisoners are in prison on drug charges. That 80% number while technically either true or close to true also include a metric-butt load of people that the drug offense was secondary to another offense non-drug related offense. Which pretty much proves the point that that drugs cause crime in general. Hardly. Keep repeating this mantra: correlation does not prove causation. But it doesn't disprove it either. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Gig601XLBuilder wrote in
: Rich Ahrens wrote: Gig601XLBuilder wrote: Mxsmanic wrote: Morgans writes: Prisoners in the US are there for good reason, and most all are multiple offenders, or else major felony offenders. Eighty percent of U.S. prisoners are in prison on drug charges. That 80% number while technically either true or close to true also include a metric-butt load of people that the drug offense was secondary to another offense non-drug related offense. Which pretty much proves the point that that drugs cause crime in general. Hardly. Keep repeating this mantra: correlation does not prove causation. But it doesn't disprove it either. You can't disprove that there isn't a giant walnut shell full of aliens who all look like Barney Fife circling the earth with an eye towards conquest either. They couldn't do a worse job than Bush, BTW. Bertie |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Rich Ahrens" wrote in message use.com... Gig601XLBuilder wrote: Mxsmanic wrote: Morgans writes: Prisoners in the US are there for good reason, and most all are multiple offenders, or else major felony offenders. Eighty percent of U.S. prisoners are in prison on drug charges. That 80% number while technically either true or close to true also include a metric-butt load of people that the drug offense was secondary to another offense non-drug related offense. Which pretty much proves the point that that drugs cause crime in general. Hardly. Keep repeating this mantra: correlation does not prove causation. A significant portion of the drug offenders who got prison time were the result of the "tough on crime and drugs" movement of the 1980s and the ensuing mandatory sentencing laws. Addicts whose only crime was possession (and maybe a count of petty larceny) got the book thrown at them, as if that would help them or scare drug abusers into stopping. We're wasting millions by incarcerating people who neither deserve such harsh sentences nor will benefit from them. Meanwhile, many prisons are bulging beyond capacity which in turn means that they don't have the resources to provide internal security against crime, clamp down on criminal gangs, or provide meaningful rehabilitation. They've become warehouses keeping their inmates in cesspool conditions, much like the "insane asylums" of the past. This in turn opened the door for private enterprise prisons because the goal no longer is justice and rehabilitation, but warehousing all those perps at the lowest unit cost. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"John Mazor" wrote
Addicts whose only crime was possession (and maybe a count of petty larceny) got the book thrown at them, If it was my house they robbed to feed their habit you're darn tootin the book should be thrown at them! as if that would help them While locked up they would not be able to rob my place. Eventually they'd get the idea that stealing is a bad idea. Too simplistic? David -- It doesn't matter what temperature a room is; it's *always* room temperature. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"dVaridel" wrote in
u: "John Mazor" wrote Addicts whose only crime was possession (and maybe a count of petty larceny) got the book thrown at them, If it was my house they robbed to feed their habit you're darn tootin the book should be thrown at them! as if that would help them While locked up they would not be able to rob my place. Eventually they'd get the idea that stealing is a bad idea. Too simplistic? Well, the first is true, the second is pretty unlikely.. Bertie |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
While locked up they would not be able to rob my place. Eventually they'd
get the idea that stealing is a bad idea. Too simplistic? Makes sense to me -- but I'd take it further. How's this for criminal justice?: Can we all agree that anyone convicted of four (4) felony crimes isn't getting the message? Or maybe three? Perhaps five? I don't really care where the threshold is set -- but it needs to be set. Sentences double after each felony. Thus, if you're dumb enough to commit the same crime twice, your 5 year sentence becomes 10 years. Third time? It's 20. Do it again? Anyone convicted of four felonies is executed. Call it four strikes and you're out. Recidivism is a terrible problem in our society. The majority of criminals in federal prisons aren't there for the first time. Studies have shown that the majority of serious crimes are being committed by repeat offenders. We can quibble about the details, but I think this simple set of rules would make our streets a lot safer, and solve prison over-crowding at the same time. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:gKQgj.26990$Ux2.711@attbi_s22: While locked up they would not be able to rob my place. Eventually they'd get the idea that stealing is a bad idea. Too simplistic? Makes sense to me -- but I'd take it further. How's this for criminal justice?: Can we all agree that anyone convicted of four (4) felony crimes isn't getting the message? Or maybe three? Perhaps five? I don't really care where the threshold is set -- but it needs to be set. To extend this argument, how many times do you have to be told that your off topic posting is hypocritical when you whine about others doing it? 3? 4? 5? 6? 7? 8? I propose a UDP for anyone dumb enough not to get this. Bertie |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Skycatcher IFR? | Matt Whiting | Owning | 57 | November 26th 07 11:59 PM |
Cessna's new LSA: "Skycatcher" | Jim Logajan | Piloting | 107 | September 23rd 07 01:18 AM |
Cessna's new LSA: "Skycatcher" | Jim Logajan | Owning | 110 | September 23rd 07 01:18 AM |
Cessna's new LSA: "Skycatcher" | miffich | Piloting | 1 | July 24th 07 12:04 AM |
how to cope with negative g´s? | Markus | Aerobatics | 6 | July 2nd 05 12:00 AM |