What's your idea's about crime control

[stephpd]

imported post

UTOC-45-44 wrote:

GJD wrote:

Gun Control = Using Both Hands.

Just saw this right AFTER I had posted. Great minds.....:celebrate

TJ

Gun control is being dicussed here:


http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum15/11120-2.html

Thanks,

Steve:lol:

 

[UTOC-45-44]

imported post

stephpd wrote:

UTOC-45-44 wrote:

GJD wrote:

Gun Control = Using Both Hands.

Just saw this right AFTER I had posted. Great minds.....:celebrate

TJ

Gun control is being dicussed here:


http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum15/11120-2.html

Thanks,

Steve:lol:

So what you mean is that "Gun-control" and crime-control goes hand in hand???:lol:

TJ

 

[stephpd]

imported post

UTOC-45-44 wrote:

stephpd wrote:

UTOC-45-44 wrote:

GJD wrote:

Gun Control = Using Both Hands.

Just saw this right AFTER I had posted. Great minds.....:celebrate

TJ

Gun control is being dicussed here:


http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum15/11120-2.html

Thanks,

Steve:lol:

So what you mean is that "Gun-control" and crime-control goes hand in hand???:lol:

TJ

Two different but related topics.

My theme right now is

Crime control. not gun control.

Politicians think by controling our guns that they can control crime.

My proposal for crime control is keep the multiple felons in jail. Make them work to earn their keep.

 

[dave_in_delaware]

imported post

stephpd wrote:

My theme right now is Crime control. not gun control.

Politicians think by controling our guns that they can control crime.

Politicians don't yet understand the simple directrelationship between these two issues:

More gun control = More crime ... Less gun control = Less crime

You take away law-abiding citizens'guns, then the only people who will have them are the ones who DON'T abide by the law. They'll still manage to get their evil hands on guns.

 

[UTOC-45-44]

imported post

dave_in_delaware wrote:

stephpd wrote:

My theme right now is Crime control. not gun control.

Politicians think by controling our guns that they can control crime.

Politicians don't yet understand the simple directrelationship between these two issues:

More gun control = More crime ... Less gun control = Less crime

You take away law-abiding citizens'guns, then the only people who will have them are the ones who DON'T abide by the law. They'll still manage to get their evil hands on guns.

Dave, you understood what I meant and did put it in better words than I.

stephpd, although they are 2 seperate topics they go hand-in-hand unfortunately

Ask a woman that was raped if she would have a gun to make a difference and I bet she would say...YES

Thanks,

TJ

 

[Wynder]

imported post

There are five reasons for punishing criminals in America:

1. Deterrence: To discourage future criminal acts.
2. Incapacitation: To separate the criminal from the general public.
3. Rehabilitation: To provide the inmate with the skills, norms and attitude to be a productive member of society.
4. Retribution: Just and adequate punishment.
5. Restoration: To restore the victim, community and convict through accountability, respect for the law, the legal process and attention to the victims needs.

Now, an excellent point was made a few posts up that a large problem is that we, playing individual parts in this process, cannot agree on a punishment.

For example, Susan shoplifts from a store. Susan's fear (and thus an excellent deterrent) is of people finding out about her crime, so she is sentenced to walk out front of a populated area wearing a sandwich board stating her crime for 4 hours each day for two weeks.

The shopkeeper (victim) feels that incarceration would be better suited, while observers in the general public think that community service would be more appropraite for a low-risk first-time offender.

So, the question comes down to should we tailor sentences to the offender with the hopes of making them realize their fears will come true of they offend or should we simply deal the harshest penalties possible regardless of the case?

To me, that harkens too much towards a Zero-Tolerance style punishment system which I, personally, abhor in the school system; however, depending on the severity of a sentence, while a two month stint in a local county jail for shoplifting will scare the bejeezus out of Susan, it'll be a cake walk for a career criminal and only reinforce to him that crime does pay.

 

[stephpd]

imported post

Wynder wrote:

There are five reasons for punishing criminals in America:

1. Deterrence: To discourage future criminal acts.
2. Incapacitation: To separate the criminal from the general public.
3. Rehabilitation: To provide the inmate with the skills, norms and attitude to be a productive member of society.
4. Retribution: Just and adequate punishment.
5. Restoration: To restore the victim, community and convict through accountability, respect for the law, the legal process and attention to the victims needs.

Now, an excellent point was made a few posts up that a large problem is that we, playing individual parts in this process, cannot agree on a punishment.

For example, Susan shoplifts from a store. Susan's fear (and thus an excellent deterrent) is of people finding out about her crime, so she is sentenced to walk out front of a populated area wearing a sandwich board stating her crime for 4 hours each day for two weeks.

The shopkeeper (victim) feels that incarceration would be better suited, while observers in the general public think that community service would be more appropraite for a low-risk first-time offender.

So, the question comes down to should we tailor sentences to the offender with the hopes of making them realize their fears will come true of they offend or should we simply deal the harshest penalties possible regardless of the case?

To me, that harkens too much towards a Zero-Tolerance style punishment system which I, personally, abhor in the school system; however, depending on the severity of a sentence, while a two month stint in a local county jail for shoplifting will scare the bejeezus out of Susan, it'll be a cake walk for a career criminal and only reinforce to him that crime does pay.

I see shoplifting as simple theft. First offence would be retribution. 200% of all costs involved; loss + lawyers fee + court costs. If unable to pay yhen community service with proceeds to cover all costs.
Second offence would be 200% of all costs and detention, work release. Work all day to pay off debt, back in jail at night.

Having to pay back everything twice over would make most stop doing these crimes. Incarceration with having to pay off debt would be worse and should keep second offenders from doing it a third time.

If you look at my posts I've been pretty consistent that jail time should include restitution by work release, back in jail at night. The prisoner recieves no money. It all goes to paying off the debt to society.

For the most vicious and those unwilling to work we'd have to make prison less enjoyable. Chain gang type stuff. Supervised hard manual labor.

That or solitary confinement until a change of heart occurs.

As far as victimless crimes there should only be a fine. No jail time and no rehab. From what I've read rehab has at best a 20% chance of working. The other 80% will go back to doing drugs or visiting prostitutes or whatever victimless crime they are charged with.

Personnally I'd like that there be no victimless crimes. Legislating and criminalizing morals and behavior that hurts nobody is wrong.



Thanks,

Steve

 

[Wynder]

imported post

In your shoplifting scenario, you hit four of the five points -- what about rehabilitation? How do you instill the moral that their crime was wrong and what's going to be the incentive not to re-offend on a personal level?

Someone may not care about a bit of jail time or working, but what about sentences tailor to truely strike at someone's worst punishment fear to honestly make them say, "I'm never doing that &$*#! again!"

Straight financial restitution or reclaimation of the product is a given -- I don't believe in making a criminal act a money-making venture for the victim... leave that for civil/tort courts, otherwise you'll see a massive jump in accusations and arrests by victims looking to make a buck on the off-chance they can make someone pay.

But if someone truly fears public exposure, then expose them -- find something that affects them on a personal level and use that as part of the punishment.

 

[stephpd]

imported post

Wynder wrote:

In your shoplifting scenario, you hit four of the five points -- what about rehabilitation? How do you instill the moral that their crime was wrong and what's going to be the incentive not to re-offend on a personal level?

Someone may not care about a bit of jail time or working, but what about sentences tailor to truely strike at someone's worst punishment fear to honestly make them say, "I'm never doing that &$*#! again!"

Straight financial restitution or reclaimation of the product is a given -- I don't believe in making a criminal act a money-making venture for the victim... leave that for civil/tort courts, otherwise you'll see a massive jump in accusations and arrests by victims looking to make a buck on the off-chance they can make someone pay.

But if someone truly fears public exposure, then expose them -- find something that affects them on a personal level and use that as part of the punishment.

That's probably why I've never applied for a management position. I know what motavates me, but I seldom see that trait in others. And that's pride in what you do. Doing your best at everything you do.

And personnally I don't think the Justice system need concern itself with rehabilitaion. To me it's about crime and punishment. Do something wrong and get a smack. Do it again and the beating gets worse. Rehabilitation or trying to instill morals is rewarding bad behavior. And I have very little compassion for those who repeatedly do harm to society. I'd rather they just be removed from society. And work them to death.

Never being free to harm society. Working to pay his debt.

Oh, and I do believe in the death penalty.



Thanks,

Steve

 

[Wynder]

imported post

stephpd wrote:

And personnally I don't think the Justice system need concern itself with rehabilitaion. To me it's about crime and punishment. Do something wrong and get a smack. Do it again and the beating gets worse. Rehabilitation or trying to instill morals is rewarding bad behavior. And I have very little compassion for those who repeatedly do harm to society. I'd rather they just be removed from society. And work them to death.

Oh, and I do believe in the death penalty.

I believe in it as well, but the bottom line is this... the convicted felons are going to be injected back into society at some point. If we don't rehabiliatate they'll trend towards recidivism.

The first reaction is, "Oh well, that's more prison time for them," but it's at the State's cost... OUR cost -- $25,000 an inmate per year is the cost for housing, feeding and medical care of an inmate.

If we invest a little time and effort into the rehabilitation process, we can turn that potential recidivist into a contributing member of society who pays his taxes, distributing our burden.

 

[asforme]

imported post

Wynder wrote:

How do you instill the moral that their crime was wrong and what's going to be the incentive not to re-offend on a personal level?

I don't want the government teaching morals, I want them dealing consequences. If you violate someone else's rights this is what will happen to you. Furthermore, once we in America have a nice polite armed society, if you violate someone else's rights you stand a good chance of being killed. I support the right to use lethal force to protect property. This country was founded on the principle of being secure in your life, liberty and property. That as I see it is the only way to have a successful deterrent. Criminals are not afraid of consequences down the road because they don't think they'll get caught, however CC statistics show that criminals are afraid of an armed public.

Morals, right and wrong, in my opinion are a religious issue. Only God can say whats right or wrong. To say that the government can dictate morals, in my opinion, is to say that the Government is God, a dangerous, Communist idea.

 

[Wynder]

imported post

asforme wrote:

To say that the government can dictate morals, in my opinion, is to say that the Government is God, a dangerous, Communist idea.

We're talking about instilling societal norms (aka DON'T STEAL) into convicts, because people still seem to miss the point that, once their time is served, they're released back into the general population.

If *all* the justice system does is punish, we'll only be spinning our tires in Mississippi mud... dating back to the 1700's (at the very least, in my reading), rehabilitation has been a concept of punishment.

Once a convict has served his time and is released, the better prepared he is to integrate himself back into society without reoffending is a double bonus for us because:

1. We don't have to pay the $25,000 a year to encarcerate him; and
2. He's paying taxes, taking some of the burden off of us.

If you can't look past the punishment, the mire we're in with regards to corrections and recidivism in America isn't going to improve.

 

[dave_in_delaware]

imported post

Perhaps we should look at different Countries for solutions.

Where is it? India? That if someone steals somethingthey cut off your hand? That way you can't do it again, and it's a deterrent to losing your other hand.... :shock:

You intentionally kill someone (for fun, to rob them ,etc), you get the lethal injection.Period. No HotelHard Timeto watch TV and read up on the loop holes in the law. :shock:

And as far as prostitution goes, IMHO that could very well be a victim-full crime (not victimless). Many "visitors" to prostitutes are married, so they take any diseases back to their spouses, maybe spread it to their unborn child, etc. Nevermind the financial problems for a family when an unhappy spouse is spending the rent money to get laid. And all the lies, etc... It all helps our divorce and AIDS rates go up.

I like what DE does w/ prostitution problems. They post your photo on their website and tell the world what you did.

 

[Wynder]

imported post

dave_in_delaware wrote:

I like what DE does w/ prostitution problems. They post your photo on their website and tell the world what you did.

Which website is that? I can always use a good laugh.

 

[dave_in_delaware]

imported post

Wynder wrote:

Which website is that? I can always use a good laugh.

http://dsp.delaware.gov/pio/Whitmarsh/Tric%20Tics.htm

WARNING: Some of these people are freakin' NASTY! Why you'd pay to even look at them is beyond me. Although YMMV. LOL.

 

[asforme]

imported post

dave_in_delaware wrote:

And as far as prostitution goes, IMHO that could very well be a victim-full crime (not victimless). Many "visitors" to prostitutes are married, so they take any diseases back to their spouses, maybe spread it to their unborn child, etc.

So maybe we should make spreading a communicable disease a crime. Something like illegal contamination either negligent or intentional. Also think about this: If prostution is legalized I don't think it will be managed by your street pimps, there could be reputible whore houses with regular testing and safety measures. I'm NOT saying that these measures should be government regulated, but the fact that they're legitimate businesses means that they will have to have some sort of integrity to stay in business.

Nevermind the financial problems for a family when an unhappy spouse is spending the rent money to get laid.

So the government should be dictating our budget and what we should be spending money on? That's a really scary thought.

And all the lies, etc... It all helps our divorce and AIDS rates go up.

So many people seem to think that the ends justify the means in terms of legislating behavior. That is not the role of government. People have moral choices to make, and those choices are their own, not governments. I as a Christian believe that patronizing a prostitute is wrong, but I also believe that once the government puts a gun to your head and enforces that morality it is meaningless. You aren't being a good person out of moral conviction, you simply obey your daddy government. Without the choice to do wrong, no one can do good.

 

[dave_in_delaware]

imported post

asforme wrote:

So the government should be dictating our budget and what we should be spending money on? That's a really scary thought.

I never said that. I'm just stating that there are victims with regards to prostitution.

Your idea of legalizing prostitution is interesting, with the regulation of establishments, and testing, etc...but there would still be "victims" (spouses and children), but nowit would NOT be a crime. It would then fall into the gambling establishmentcategory (perfectly legal, but still destroys many people in some way, and could even be considered an addiction).

 

[swillden]

imported post

dave_in_delaware wrote:

Wynder wrote:

Which website is that? I can always use a good laugh.

http://dsp.delaware.gov/pio/Whitmarsh/Tric%20Tics.htm

WARNING: Some of these people are freakin' NASTY! Why you'd pay to even look at them is beyond me. Although YMMV. LOL.

That's funny, but it concerns me that the post pictures of anyone who's been arrested, convicted or not.

 

[asforme]

imported post

dave_in_delaware wrote:

asforme wrote:

So the government should be dictating our budget and what we should be spending money on? That's a really scary thought.

I never said that. I'm just stating that there are victims with regards to prostitution.

Your idea of legalizing prostitution is interesting, with the regulation of establishments, and testing, etc...but there would still be "victims" (spouses and children), but nowit would NOT be a crime. It would then fall into the gambling establishmentcategory (perfectly legal, but still destroys many people in some way, and could even be considered an addiction).

Well you missed the NOT government part on the regulations, but even decriminalized with regulations would be a huge step in the right direction. I however still have confidence in the invisible hand of economics to keep legitimate businesses safe. And if a business wants to cut corners on safety to bring lower prices, than people have the right to take a risk.

As for the "victims", unless they're contaminated with a disease (should be illegal), then their only problem is having a scumbag husband or father. While it is a sucky situation, I don't see how that is a violation of any rights. I don't recall a right to a loving husband or a responsibility on the government to keep him faithful. Adultery isn't even a crime in most states that I'm aware, prostitution is just adultery, but instead of gifts, you giver her the money directly.

 

[asforme]

imported post

swillden wrote:

dave_in_delaware wrote:

Wynder wrote:

Which website is that? I can always use a good laugh.

http://dsp.delaware.gov/pio/Whitmarsh/Tric%20Tics.htm

WARNING: Some of these people are freakin' NASTY! Why you'd pay to even look at them is beyond me. Although YMMV. LOL.

That's funny, but it concerns me that the post pictures of anyone who's been arrested, convicted or not.

Definitely time for a lawsuit. I always said that if I had the time and money after a false arrest I would sue to have my fingerprints removed from all police databases. Totally BS that even after being acquitted you're still cataloged as a criminal.