We're talking about a legislature that can find time to debate whether the Fluffernutter should be the official state something, but saw fit to end the 2009 session last night without acting on important pieces of legislation. How can we expect them to possibly find time to consider your well-founded concerns?
This is yet another argument for a part-time legislature. We have only 6 million people. We do not have a huge geographical area to be concerned with. If legislators knew that they had only x amount of time to make appropriations and address the other core concerns of state government, my bet is that we would would have less discussion of ridiculous issues. An additional benefit would be that costs associated with the legislature would be reduced, and legislators could resume their real careers and go back to being legislators on the side, which was what the (state and federal) Framers intended. They might also then be a bit more in tune with the issues facing their all of their constituents, not just those who have time to lobby them (as opposed to the vast majority of consitutents who are so busy just trying to keep their heads above water that they do not have time to research issues and write letters).
"If legislators knew that they had only x amount of time to make appropriations and address the other core concerns of state government, my bet is that we would would have less discussion of ridiculous issues."
it's a good idea in principle, but I'm afraid you'd lose that bet. They still would do just as they please, because we re-elect them en masse every time around.
I am especially in favor of the pay-reduction aspect of making them part time. Many of us in MA are getting our pay cut, losing our jobs altogether. It wouldn't hurt to have them feel the same pain. That is, until they vote themselves a pay increase.
-----------------------------------------
who and the what now?
I believe we all benefit from being able to originate postings on uhub. On the other hand, I'd rather not give forum to those who would prefer to return us to burning heretics at the stake.
The way this poll is very narrowly constructed, and is biased in the original posters opinion on the subject at hand.
Fry people period
Fry people because prisons cost a lot and are over crowded
Don't fry them and let them waste taxpayers dollars.
Those might be choices in a loony separate reality, but like most Republican opinions, they're not a viable governing philosophy and are deconstructive and very un-serious.
No talk about reform, no distinction between violent offenders and petty crimes and drug abusers. Jaywalk? your a dirt bag and deserve death!
If the OP wants to have a serious dialogue on (badly needed) prison reform I suggest he Google Jim Webb Prison Reform and read up on the topic, rather then post a knee jerk political biased straw poll.
what the hell the death penalty has to do with prison overcrowding? Really? Statistics please?
Also, a death penalty would mean building specialized facilities and that cost vastly outstrips the "savings" of not incarcerating for life. Why the heck does the poster think that NH doesn't have a death penalty?
Aside from the dismal record that every jurisdiction in the US has when it comes to actually convicting the right people ...
Thank you for taking this post/poll on SwirlyGrrl with good questions instead of crying to Adam that it offends your point of view, and as such should be removed from your view.
The poll frames a question on hot button issue and provides no information for the debate to ensue.
Maybe that's why the boo-birds come out crying for relief from the editor. Comment or don't comment, ask questions, demand answers but turning to Adam to solve your problem, the implied expression of an unpopular opinion, is a failure on your part.
Make an argument. SwirlyGrrl does. And its a damn good one too.
I would be happy to post articles on the senate race but it appears my articles on the senate race are also unwelcome by boo-birds who want less unpopular speech on this site, not more.
When you see a topic (article) you don't care for, move on. Spend your time engaging in topics you do care for.
It's my understanding that Adam doesn't ok all topics that get posted and pushed to the front page.
I'm fine if he does, and am fine if you post to your own subsection at will. But unless it's the political opinion ok'ed by UH's "editor", I think it be nice to get his blessings before pushing it out.
If I have how it works wrong, please correct me. I just remember a rash of nonsensical ZAK front page postings that got to me for what i deducted as the same reason.
The poll and debate are framed in a way where everyone on one side loses by virtue of the authors opinion.
In other words, it's not good faith attempt to figure out a solution. It's a troll posting by a tea bagger that already is armed with preconceived notions and is forcing his hand by asking questions that anyone who has a real interest in fixing the prison system wouldn't even bother with if they're smart.
that's the problem with the base of the GOP controlling that party; they're deeply un-serious about every single issue that effects American's. They especially like any idea or topic that pisses off libruls.
Come back to the table when you [GOP] can grow up.
And just for the record, this is coming from someone who does believes in the death penalty. My reservation is I can never put it past others to take advantage of the situation, knowingly or not, and make the right calls on something so important.
All human institutions are flawed by their very nature; as are we.
And it frankly surprises me that the GOP is so pro death penalty when their current policy stance is: The government does no right, it is incompetent, and frequently makes costly mistakes.
Ask them how, then, they can be so sure that they'll get capital punishment right, and watch them go slack jawed, stammer, and change the subject.
Getting rid of capital punishment should be a deeply conservative policy position; but the populist thread running through the GOP's base is too strong. Tough vengeance and posturing is overriding what should be a core conservative position.
According to the Institute of Faith-Based Economics, the death penalty is cost-effective if you pray hard enough. The outcome of equations can be determined by polling the righteous. The righteous can be identified by their correct answers to the poll. QED.
whether or not we institute the death penalty should never be based purely on economics, which is why i won't answer your obviously biased and flawed "poll". there are larger issues involved which you seem determined to ingore.
none the less, for now, there will be no death penalty in massachusetts.
site the cost issue so it's fair to allow the death penalty proponents cite it (we should probably fact check it though.) Making cost one part of a one fact argument is stunningly superficial treatment of a complex issue though. I'm sure you agree.
Using the word "than" instead of "then" in this question would be more English-effective. This bizarre troll made the same mistake the last time he/she/it posted this dung.
I refuse to participate. Where is my "other" choice?
It is a proven fact that it costs more money to put someone to death then it does to jail them for life. It has also been proven to not be a deterrent. Anyone who commits a crime that is worthy of the Death Penalty is not sitting down figuring out what his possible jail sentence will be. If someone is deranged enough to rape and kill a child the presence of a Death Penalty would not stop him in the least.
Also the numbers would be so low (even Texas only puts a small percentage of their inmates to death a year)to not even come close to clearing out the prisons. In fact death row inmates take up more space on average because they must be treated differently then even lifers (if your putting someone to death you need more security because he now has nothing to lose.)
Those are the logical and financial reasons. My third is simply human error. If you put someone in jail for life and it comes out 20 years later they were framed then they can at least have a chance to enter the world again (still sucks to be them but what can you do.) The Death Penalty on the other hand is permanent.
Wrongful convictions is a strong argument against the death penalty as you can see at this website, Meet the Exonerated, or in this video: "It Could Happen to Anyone: The Wrongful Conviction of Alan Beaman" link
Martha Coakley reversed her position on the death penalty specifically because of wrongful convictions.
Up until 2002 Martha Coakley favored the death penalty in cases of first degree murder of law enforcement officers. I don't know too many liberals in favor of the death penalty but she is on the right side of this issue now. Whether that makes her more liberal or not is another question altogether. I think not. I think she values government and law enforcement authority over Constitutional and civil rights of the individual but perhaps I should say she strikes a "balance" that might be better described as conservative than liberal as compared to future would be liberal Senate colleagues.
Wasn't this posted awhile ago? Plus, a poll should ask people about opinions, not something that has an answer in fact. It costs more to execute a prisoner than to have them serve life in prison. A poll may ask whether death penalty proponents care about this fact.
It's like having the debate about the death penalty, but not allowing any valid viewpoints at all. The death penalty and prison overcrowding? We going to start having mass executions firing squad style to keep numbers down and save on new construction costs?
This may be the stupidest thing I've ever seen on the Universal Hub front page. It's kind of jarring, it's so out of place. I'm compelled to boo you. Booooooooo, billings. Booooooooo!!!
They have no scientific or sociological/criminological reason behind them as currently constituted.
Take the safe drugs and put them under the same constraints as alcohol. Decriminalizing pot was a very good start. But I'd like to see it more highly controlled and producing revenue like alcohol does.
Since you brought it up and it factors into prison issues, here's a chart everyone needs to take a long, hard look at.
We really need to rethink just where we need to apply prohibition and punishment in regards to legal and illegal drugs. We also need to keep media coverage in perspective; something we rarely do.
But Massachusetts is different from other states for the most part. I would bet my life savings that there is not one person in the MA prison system right now that is doing time for a drug possession that isn't a 5th offense or after AND has at least 10 other criminal charges on top of that. And before weed possession was "decriminalized", people never went to jail (or did time) for possession of weed anyway.
I do think its important to keep weed away from kids (5th grade-12 grade) though (duh). I think if you legalize it, you will see weed use in this age group go up, just for the same reason drunk driving crashes went way down when the drinking age went up.
Adults should be able to smoke weed in their own house if there are no kids around. But then you have to ask where these people are legally going to get the weed, and (how) can we tax it?
Then do we have the right to know who is buying and smoking the weed? MBTA drivers? Teachers? Cops? School Bus drivers? City Workers?
Pete I agree, but it can also be said it's most likely a majority of them committed non violent crime to pay for their addictions.
Wouldn't it have been much easier and cheaper for the state to force them into drug rehabilitation after the second offense, then drag them through the court systems and jail them multiple times?
the problem you do run into is the habitual offenders that will never change, but like Welfare queens, it's a small minority that truly wants to be there and not change.
Still, there's the problem of how to weed out that minority, what to do with them, and how to change our own preconceived notions.
We've slowly been drifting back toward the dark age view of imprisonment as punishment and revenge. They're intrinsically part of it; but not the main purpose or what our enlightened forefathers set out to promote in our legal system.
And the court system is the one that has to decide who gets the treatment or not. Believe it or not, everyone gets multiple chances from the court system when it comes to drug usage.
Now I don't think people should do serious time for drug possession, but, these are people that are had 99 chances to fuck up 99 times already. Those in jail already had 10 chances to go to rehab, and another 10 to go to a committed rehab.
I mean, what do you do with the person who gets arrested for their 50th larceny crime? How about the 75th? How about the 175th? You might laugh, but people with that many arraignments on their record is not uncommon among the drug community.
I think it was implied that drug law reform would go hand in hand with prison reform.
Anyone who's read up on the issue and knows the numbers knows that much of the overcrowding is due to the war on drugs, drug addiction, and harsher laws three strike laws.
Prevention and rehabilitation and changing the laws that only serve our sense of vengeance need to be considered. Otherwise we'll all need to come to terms with paying the much higher bills (and taxes) to care for prisoners.
It's game theory economics in action. We feel better about punishing those we perceive to be delinquents and are needlessly hurting ourselves instead of implementing the more cost effect solution that benefits everyone, socially and economically.
One might cry that drug offenders are typical the bad guys anyways. But why not tie longer and harsher sentences and penalties to act committed while intoxicated.
Violent crime with drug use, or sales, or dealing should be totally different then nonviolent crime of drug use, or sales.
Right now, in most states, there's barely no difference. Drugs are drugs, and violent crime is violent crime. Both of which have very harsh penalties that don;t make any distinction.
Comments
Debate
By billings - 11/19/09 - 9:12 am
http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/local/death-penalty-debate-in-massachusetts
That's it? Cost effectiveness?
By adamg - 11/19/09 - 9:14 am
No concerns over morality, prosecutorial mistakes, bad defense counsel? Just whether it costs less to kill somebody?
Yes, that's really it, Adam.
By issacg - 11/19/09 - 9:41 am
We're talking about a legislature that can find time to debate whether the Fluffernutter should be the official state something, but saw fit to end the 2009 session last night without acting on important pieces of legislation. How can we expect them to possibly find time to consider your well-founded concerns?
This is yet another argument for a part-time legislature. We have only 6 million people. We do not have a huge geographical area to be concerned with. If legislators knew that they had only x amount of time to make appropriations and address the other core concerns of state government, my bet is that we would would have less discussion of ridiculous issues. An additional benefit would be that costs associated with the legislature would be reduced, and legislators could resume their real careers and go back to being legislators on the side, which was what the (state and federal) Framers intended. They might also then be a bit more in tune with the issues facing their all of their constituents, not just those who have time to lobby them (as opposed to the vast majority of consitutents who are so busy just trying to keep their heads above water that they do not have time to research issues and write letters).
Give them x amount of time....and they still won't do squat.
By Sarcastic Sam - 11/19/09 - 3:18 pm
"If legislators knew that they had only x amount of time to make appropriations and address the other core concerns of state government, my bet is that we would would have less discussion of ridiculous issues."
it's a good idea in principle, but I'm afraid you'd lose that bet. They still would do just as they please, because we re-elect them en masse every time around.
I am especially in favor of the pay-reduction aspect of making them part time. Many of us in MA are getting our pay cut, losing our jobs altogether. It wouldn't hurt to have them feel the same pain. That is, until they vote themselves a pay increase.
-----------------------------------------
who and the what now?
Adam, is this really what you want on your front page?
By Ron Newman - 11/19/09 - 9:42 am
Sure, let's have polls, but polls constructed by literate and intelligent people.
Seconded
By MadMax - 11/19/09 - 9:59 am
I believe we all benefit from being able to originate postings on uhub. On the other hand, I'd rather not give forum to those who would prefer to return us to burning heretics at the stake.
I agree with Max. The way
By anon (not verified) - 11/19/09 - 12:08 pm
I agree with Max.
The way this poll is very narrowly constructed, and is biased in the original posters opinion on the subject at hand.
Fry people period
Fry people because prisons cost a lot and are over crowded
Don't fry them and let them waste taxpayers dollars.
Those might be choices in a loony separate reality, but like most Republican opinions, they're not a viable governing philosophy and are deconstructive and very un-serious.
No talk about reform, no distinction between violent offenders and petty crimes and drug abusers. Jaywalk? your a dirt bag and deserve death!
If the OP wants to have a serious dialogue on (badly needed) prison reform I suggest he Google Jim Webb Prison Reform and read up on the topic, rather then post a knee jerk political biased straw poll.
I'm just wondering ...
By SwirlyGrrl - 11/19/09 - 10:16 am
what the hell the death penalty has to do with prison overcrowding? Really? Statistics please?
Also, a death penalty would mean building specialized facilities and that cost vastly outstrips the "savings" of not incarcerating for life. Why the heck does the poster think that NH doesn't have a death penalty?
Aside from the dismal record that every jurisdiction in the US has when it comes to actually convicting the right people ...
Clue-free post.
SwirlyGrrl engages in the debate
By Anonymous - 11/19/09 - 10:46 am
Thank you for taking this post/poll on SwirlyGrrl with good questions instead of crying to Adam that it offends your point of view, and as such should be removed from your view.
The poll frames a question on hot button issue and provides no information for the debate to ensue.
Maybe that's why the boo-birds come out crying for relief from the editor. Comment or don't comment, ask questions, demand answers but turning to Adam to solve your problem, the implied expression of an unpopular opinion, is a failure on your part.
Make an argument. SwirlyGrrl does. And its a damn good one too.
Another subject please
By MadMax - 11/19/09 - 11:50 am
I'm all for debate. Its just that we have a senate race on, and I'd like to see people debate subjects other than this.
The death penalty and abortion are not subject that intersect the lives of the majority of the population.
Max
By Anonymous - 11/19/09 - 12:41 pm
I would be happy to post articles on the senate race but it appears my articles on the senate race are also unwelcome by boo-birds who want less unpopular speech on this site, not more.
When you see a topic (article) you don't care for, move on. Spend your time engaging in topics you do care for.
That's not an issue. It's my
By anon (not verified) - 11/19/09 - 1:01 pm
That's not an issue.
It's my understanding that Adam doesn't ok all topics that get posted and pushed to the front page.
I'm fine if he does, and am fine if you post to your own subsection at will. But unless it's the political opinion ok'ed by UH's "editor", I think it be nice to get his blessings before pushing it out.
If I have how it works wrong, please correct me. I just remember a rash of nonsensical ZAK front page postings that got to me for what i deducted as the same reason.
Polls are set to go on the home page automatically
By adamg - 11/19/09 - 1:19 pm
Maybe they shouldn't be; hasn't been much of an issue up until now.
Thats not the issue. The
By anon (not verified) - 11/19/09 - 12:15 pm
Thats not the issue.
The poll and debate are framed in a way where everyone on one side loses by virtue of the authors opinion.
In other words, it's not good faith attempt to figure out a solution. It's a troll posting by a tea bagger that already is armed with preconceived notions and is forcing his hand by asking questions that anyone who has a real interest in fixing the prison system wouldn't even bother with if they're smart.
that's the problem with the base of the GOP controlling that party; they're deeply un-serious about every single issue that effects American's. They especially like any idea or topic that pisses off libruls.
Come back to the table when you [GOP] can grow up.
no "good faith attempt to figure out a solution"
By Anonymous - 11/19/09 - 12:35 pm
You make a great argument.
And just for the record,
By anon (not verified) - 11/19/09 - 12:37 pm
And just for the record, this is coming from someone who does believes in the death penalty. My reservation is I can never put it past others to take advantage of the situation, knowingly or not, and make the right calls on something so important.
All human institutions are flawed by their very nature; as are we.
And it frankly surprises me that the GOP is so pro death penalty when their current policy stance is: The government does no right, it is incompetent, and frequently makes costly mistakes.
Ask them how, then, they can be so sure that they'll get capital punishment right, and watch them go slack jawed, stammer, and change the subject.
Getting rid of capital punishment should be a deeply conservative policy position; but the populist thread running through the GOP's base is too strong. Tough vengeance and posturing is overriding what should be a core conservative position.
So, like I said. Deeply unserious.
Sentiments influence math
By Sock_Puppet - 11/19/09 - 11:18 am
According to the Institute of Faith-Based Economics, the death penalty is cost-effective if you pray hard enough. The outcome of equations can be determined by polling the righteous. The righteous can be identified by their correct answers to the poll. QED.
LMAO
By Anonymous - 11/19/09 - 12:41 pm
www.COLOR OF CHANGE.org Sign the petition!
And ...
By SwirlyGrrl - 11/19/09 - 12:49 pm
... by making up stuff and lying when it doesn't magically go your way.
the bill didn't pass in 2005...
By bandit - 11/19/09 - 10:50 am
... when mitt romney suggested it, and it didn't pass today. heck, it didn't even make it to debate.
whether or not we institute the death penalty should never be based purely on economics, which is why i won't answer your obviously biased and flawed "poll". there are larger issues involved which you seem determined to ingore.
none the less, for now, there will be no death penalty in massachusetts.
death penalty opponents
By Anonymous - 11/19/09 - 12:44 pm
site the cost issue so it's fair to allow the death penalty proponents cite it (we should probably fact check it though.) Making cost one part of a one fact argument is stunningly superficial treatment of a complex issue though. I'm sure you agree.
Using the word "than"
By anon (not verified) - 11/19/09 - 9:25 am
Using the word "than" instead of "then" in this question would be more English-effective. This bizarre troll made the same mistake the last time he/she/it posted this dung.
I refuse to participate.
By ShadyMilkMan - 11/19/09 - 9:30 am
I refuse to participate. Where is my "other" choice?
It is a proven fact that it costs more money to put someone to death then it does to jail them for life. It has also been proven to not be a deterrent. Anyone who commits a crime that is worthy of the Death Penalty is not sitting down figuring out what his possible jail sentence will be. If someone is deranged enough to rape and kill a child the presence of a Death Penalty would not stop him in the least.
Also the numbers would be so low (even Texas only puts a small percentage of their inmates to death a year)to not even come close to clearing out the prisons. In fact death row inmates take up more space on average because they must be treated differently then even lifers (if your putting someone to death you need more security because he now has nothing to lose.)
Those are the logical and financial reasons. My third is simply human error. If you put someone in jail for life and it comes out 20 years later they were framed then they can at least have a chance to enter the world again (still sucks to be them but what can you do.) The Death Penalty on the other hand is permanent.
Twitter me this!
Wrongful convictions
By Anonymous - 11/19/09 - 1:05 pm
Wrongful convictions is a strong argument against the death penalty as you can see at this website, Meet the Exonerated, or in this video: "It Could Happen to Anyone: The Wrongful Conviction of Alan Beaman" link
Martha Coakley reversed her position on the death penalty specifically because of wrongful convictions.
Up until 2002 Martha Coakley favored the death penalty in cases of first degree murder of law enforcement officers. I don't know too many liberals in favor of the death penalty but she is on the right side of this issue now. Whether that makes her more liberal or not is another question altogether. I think not. I think she values government and law enforcement authority over Constitutional and civil rights of the individual but perhaps I should say she strikes a "balance" that might be better described as conservative than liberal as compared to future would be liberal Senate colleagues.
MA
By Anonymous - 11/19/09 - 1:12 pm
(year of arrest, year of exoneration (or year of release if it occurred before the exoneration), the principal crime charged, and the sentence)
Anthony Powell
George A. Reissfelder (1966, 1982, Murder, Life)
Santos Rodriguez (1954, 1957, Murder, Life)
Joseph Salvati (1965, 2001, Murder, Life)
Louis Santos (1983, 1988, Murder, Life)
Eric Sarsfield (1987, 2000, Rape, 10 Years)
Harold Sullivan (1985, 1989, Murder, Life)
Henry Tameleo (1965, 1985, Murder, Life)
Peter Vaughn (1983, 19xx, Armed Robbery, xx)
Eduardo Velasquez
Joseph Ward (1895, 1896, Robbery, 5 Years)
Kenneth Waters (1982, 2001, Murder, Life)
Wasn't this posted awhile
By hoolese - 11/19/09 - 10:15 am
Wasn't this posted awhile ago? Plus, a poll should ask people about opinions, not something that has an answer in fact. It costs more to execute a prisoner than to have them serve life in prison. A poll may ask whether death penalty proponents care about this fact.
Yes
By Allstonian - 11/19/09 - 10:33 am
Yes, a similar poll with only two lame shoices was posted in August: http://www.universalhub.com/node/27168#new
billings didn't know the difference between "then" and "than" then, either.
It's like an unfunny joke.
By 02132 - 11/19/09 - 10:50 am
It's like having the debate about the death penalty, but not allowing any valid viewpoints at all. The death penalty and prison overcrowding? We going to start having mass executions firing squad style to keep numbers down and save on new construction costs?
This may be the stupidest thing I've ever seen on the Universal Hub front page. It's kind of jarring, it's so out of place. I'm compelled to boo you. Booooooooo, billings. Booooooooo!!!
Seriously. Stop arresting
By Andy (not verified) - 11/19/09 - 12:12 pm
Seriously.
Stop arresting nonviolent drug offenders and that would cut the prison population roughly in half.
But see, paying the much
By anon (not verified) - 11/19/09 - 12:26 pm
But see, paying the much cheaper price of rehabilitation doesn't give you the same sense of vengeance and bravado as locking them away does.
Can't use our tax dollars to technically "help" them, since they broke the law. They must be punished, scorned, and left to their own.
It's the way of the Jesus (The baptists, not that sissy catholic one!).
andy you mean
By Pete Nice - 11/19/09 - 12:31 pm
you want to ignore the laws you dont want to enforce? Or change the laws (or sentences) for crimes you dont think are criminal?
Change the laws
By SwirlyGrrl - 11/19/09 - 12:47 pm
They have no scientific or sociological/criminological reason behind them as currently constituted.
Take the safe drugs and put them under the same constraints as alcohol. Decriminalizing pot was a very good start. But I'd like to see it more highly controlled and producing revenue like alcohol does.
Since you brought it up and
By anon (not verified) - 11/19/09 - 12:57 pm
Since you brought it up and it factors into prison issues, here's a chart everyone needs to take a long, hard look at.
We really need to rethink just where we need to apply prohibition and punishment in regards to legal and illegal drugs. We also need to keep media coverage in perspective; something we rarely do.
I'm in agreement with
By Anonymous - 11/19/09 - 1:09 pm
I'm in agreement with SwirlyGrrl. How about you Pete?
Yea I dont really care either way
By Pete Nice - 11/19/09 - 2:05 pm
But Massachusetts is different from other states for the most part. I would bet my life savings that there is not one person in the MA prison system right now that is doing time for a drug possession that isn't a 5th offense or after AND has at least 10 other criminal charges on top of that. And before weed possession was "decriminalized", people never went to jail (or did time) for possession of weed anyway.
I do think its important to keep weed away from kids (5th grade-12 grade) though (duh). I think if you legalize it, you will see weed use in this age group go up, just for the same reason drunk driving crashes went way down when the drinking age went up.
Adults should be able to smoke weed in their own house if there are no kids around. But then you have to ask where these people are legally going to get the weed, and (how) can we tax it?
Then do we have the right to know who is buying and smoking the weed? MBTA drivers? Teachers? Cops? School Bus drivers? City Workers?
Can we test them? Should we test them?
who is "using" on the job
By Anonymous - 11/19/09 - 2:27 pm
Then do we have the right to know who is "using" on the job?
I would restrict testing to public safety officials (even as use by others is illegal.)
Can they smoke off duty?
By Pete Nice - 11/19/09 - 6:23 pm
How do you test for it? What are the implications? What about the "I was at a party with people smoking" excuse?
Tobacco use is already illegal for cops that got on the job after 2005 I think.
Pete I agree, but it can
By anon (not verified) - 11/19/09 - 2:54 pm
Pete I agree, but it can also be said it's most likely a majority of them committed non violent crime to pay for their addictions.
Wouldn't it have been much easier and cheaper for the state to force them into drug rehabilitation after the second offense, then drag them through the court systems and jail them multiple times?
the problem you do run into is the habitual offenders that will never change, but like Welfare queens, it's a small minority that truly wants to be there and not change.
Still, there's the problem of how to weed out that minority, what to do with them, and how to change our own preconceived notions.
We've slowly been drifting back toward the dark age view of imprisonment as punishment and revenge. They're intrinsically part of it; but not the main purpose or what our enlightened forefathers set out to promote in our legal system.
that already happens anon.
By Pete Nice - 11/19/09 - 6:31 pm
And the court system is the one that has to decide who gets the treatment or not. Believe it or not, everyone gets multiple chances from the court system when it comes to drug usage.
Now I don't think people should do serious time for drug possession, but, these are people that are had 99 chances to fuck up 99 times already. Those in jail already had 10 chances to go to rehab, and another 10 to go to a committed rehab.
I mean, what do you do with the person who gets arrested for their 50th larceny crime? How about the 75th? How about the 175th? You might laugh, but people with that many arraignments on their record is not uncommon among the drug community.
There is no easy answer.
I think it was implied that
By anon (not verified) - 11/19/09 - 12:49 pm
I think it was implied that drug law reform would go hand in hand with prison reform.
Anyone who's read up on the issue and knows the numbers knows that much of the overcrowding is due to the war on drugs, drug addiction, and harsher laws three strike laws.
Prevention and rehabilitation and changing the laws that only serve our sense of vengeance need to be considered. Otherwise we'll all need to come to terms with paying the much higher bills (and taxes) to care for prisoners.
It's game theory economics in action. We feel better about punishing those we perceive to be delinquents and are needlessly hurting ourselves instead of implementing the more cost effect solution that benefits everyone, socially and economically.
One might cry that drug offenders are typical the bad guys anyways. But why not tie longer and harsher sentences and penalties to act committed while intoxicated.
Violent crime with drug use, or sales, or dealing should be totally different then nonviolent crime of drug use, or sales.
Right now, in most states, there's barely no difference. Drugs are drugs, and violent crime is violent crime. Both of which have very harsh penalties that don;t make any distinction.