What's your idea's about crime control

[Wynder]

imported post

asforme wrote:

swillden wrote:

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.

And what would the lawsuit be for? Police records are a matter of public record and anyone could obtain them with a FOIA request -- the same thing that allows us to use that information in complaints against police misconduct.

So, do you want a closed government or an open government?

 

[asforme]

imported post

Wynder wrote:

asforme wrote:

swillden wrote:

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.

And what would the lawsuit be for? Police records are a matter of public record and anyone could obtain them with a FOIA request -- the same thing that allows us to use that information in complaints against police misconduct.

So, do you want a closed government or an open government?

I didn't say that records shouldn't be public, but if I'm acquitted, my fingerprints and dna shouldn't be part of those records, and at my request my name should be removed and left anonymous. And when I say removed, I don't just mean removed from public viewing, I mean permanently deleted so that when a police officer looks up my name in a database they have the same amount of information they had before I was ever arrested.

The fact that I was wrongfully arrested in the past should not be a flag that pops up to cops when I am pulled over, and does not justify my fingerprints being already available for investigation of future crimes without my consent.

If I am shown in court to not be a criminal, I want the same status as anyone else who is not a criminal. If the government wanted to, all they would need to do is start arresting people weather or not they committed a crime and they can get the fingerprints and have a national database of almost every American. No more need for a national ID, they would have every bit of information they could ever want.

 

[Hawker]

imported post

.

 

[Wynder]

imported post

Then where did all of this 'wrongful arrest' stuff come from?

As it stands, these people are arrested, suspected of a crime or are otherwise in the system and the records are public -- it's a doubled-edged sword. I just have no idea from where you're getting the material for your responses.

 

[swillden]

imported post

Wynder wrote:

And what would the lawsuit be for? Police records are a matter of public record and anyone could obtain them with a FOIA request -- the same thing that allows us to use that information in complaints against police misconduct.

There's a little difference between making the information available pursuant to an information request and posting it on the Internet.

 

[Wynder]

imported post

swillden wrote:

Wynder wrote:

And what would the lawsuit be for? Police records are a matter of public record and anyone could obtain them with a FOIA request -- the same thing that allows us to use that information in complaints against police misconduct.

There's a little difference between making the information available pursuant to an information request and posting it on the Internet.

What's the difference?

The only one I can see is I don't have to ask for it -- I can go right to a public access site and view it. I wish this was the case for all government records... open and transparent government is not a bad thing!

 

[Overtaxed]

imported post

I think the surety of getting caught is a bigger deterrent than the severity of the sentence.
Back in my school days, when the "penalty" for being in the hallway without a pass was increased from a warning note or lunch detention to after-school suspension, the amount of unauthorized "walking" did not decline.
I think that people who commit any infraction think far less about "what can happen to me" as a result than "will I get away with it?"

The problem is that increasing the severity of penalties takes only the stroke of a legislative pen... voila! The people sponsoring or signing off are "crime fighters."
Making it harder to get away with stuff is far, far harder and more complicated. As a non-LEO, I'm guessing it takes increased law enforcement manpower and training, more efficient resource deployment, better forensics, and the enlistment of a supportive public.

In fact, I think that if a rule or law is being ignored/not enforced, it should be taken off the books, because when people see other people getting away something, it makes them feel they can do it to, and perhaps other things, as well. It creates a breakdown of law andorder.

A big to-do was made over driving without a cell-phone headset in my home state. I rarely see people get stopped for this sort of violation, and in fact see many, many people flagrantly chatting away on their handheld cell phones.
Clearly, not enough people are getting tagged for this, because word has gotten out that the chances are low of getting caught. Perhaps it's time to repeal the law... merely making the penalty severe won't be enough of a deterrent.

 

[stephpd]

imported post

Wynder wrote:

swillden wrote:

Wynder wrote:

And what would the lawsuit be for? Police records are a matter of public record and anyone could obtain them with a FOIA request -- the same thing that allows us to use that information in complaints against police misconduct.

There's a little difference between making the information available pursuant to an information request and posting it on the Internet.

What's the difference?

The only one I can see is I don't have to ask for it -- I can go right to a public access site and view it. I wish this was the case for all government records... open and transparent government is not a bad thing!

Do they have a similar page for all the DUI arrests? I'd love to see that page! I bet they'd look worse then the ones for prostitution.

Something about mug shots that makes everyone look like a criminal. I know I look much more dangerous just from looking at my drivers license.


I'd also like to go over rehabilitation. From what I've seen in the last 40 years there has been more attempts at rehab but recidivism has actually gone up. Now we have a 70% recidivism. We also have many more felons.

The soft on criminals just doesn't seem to be working. They have a better life in prison then on the streets. Free room and board. Free medical. Free cable TV. All at taxpayers expense. And what do we as society get out of all this? More hardened criminals.

This experiment has been an utter failure. Continuing to do the same thing and expecting different results is called insanity. It's not working and we need to try somthing else.

Before this trying to treat the brain of prisoners and change there mind we had a system that was working much better. They use to work the animals. Hard labor. Didn't give the prisoners much time or energy for thinking up new crimes. And knowing that you'd be worked hard did have an effect on keeping felons from repeating their crimes. Recidivism was much lower.

Same thing for capital punishment. Not having to fear death from the state enboldens some to continue in a life of crime. And a recent study has shown that it does decrease crime. First for the multiple felon that gets the death sentence. He's done as far as commiting any more crimes. And as a deterrent to those that may consider doing something deserving the death penalty. If nothing else they will commit that crime somewhere that doesn't execute them.


Thanks'

Steve

 

[Wynder]

imported post

stephpd wrote:

I'd also like to go over rehabilitation. From what I've seen in the last 40 years there has been more attempts at rehab but recidivism has actually gone up. Now we have a 70% recidivism. We also have many more felons.

Where's that statistic from?

With regards to having more felons, bear in mind that, over the past 40 years, the world's population has exploded. In this day in age, 3% of Americans are encarcerated -- I'm not sure how that compares to previous years, but you'll find that recidivism is based upon the offense, the highest of those being drug related offenses which also happens to carry a substantial psycological dependency as well.

The fact is that we don't do much these days in terms of rehabilitation -- prisons are basically encarceration-only facilities. Delaware has a few locations that are a part of the Crest Program which does honestly work... I don't think this should be an option for repeat or violent offenders, (it's mostly supervision and work based) as I'd rather see them in higher security facilities with more intense counselling.

But until rehabilitation is well-established and given a chance, it's crystal clear that you're going to have ex-convicts who can't cope with the outside once they're released and, remember, at some point, no matter how harsh the punishment, they're going to be released.

Prisons have a culture all of their own and the more a person is removed from society, the more difficult it will be to reintegrate. Now, I'm not saying that we should take it easy on criminals... not in the least, but it is a responsibility to make sure they're suited to live and work in the general population.

 

[dave_in_delaware]

imported post

I think my brain is going to explode soon....

 

[stephpd]

imported post

Wynder wrote:

stephpd wrote:

I'd also like to go over rehabilitation. From what I've seen in the last 40 years there has been more attempts at rehab but recidivism has actually gone up. Now we have a 70% recidivism. We also have many more felons.

Where's that statistic from?

With regards to having more felons, bear in mind that, over the past 40 years, the world's population has exploded. In this day in age, 3% of Americans are encarcerated -- I'm not sure how that compares to previous years, but you'll find that recidivism is based upon the offense, the highest of those being drug related offenses which also happens to carry a substantial psycological dependency as well.

The fact is that we don't do much these days in terms of rehabilitation -- prisons are basically encarceration-only facilities. Delaware has a few locations that are a part of the Crest Program which does honestly work... I don't think this should be an option for repeat or violent offenders, (it's mostly supervision and work based) as I'd rather see them in higher security facilities with more intense counselling.

But until rehabilitation is well-established and given a chance, it's crystal clear that you're going to have ex-convicts who can't cope with the outside once they're released and, remember, at some point, no matter how harsh the punishment, they're going to be released.

Prisons have a culture all of their own and the more a person is removed from society, the more difficult it will be to reintegrate. Now, I'm not saying that we should take it easy on criminals... not in the least, but it is a responsibility to make sure they're suited to live and work in the general population.

Take a trip to any rehab facility and you'll find over 50% of the people in there are prisoners. And they get a full 30 day treatment, more then most companies will pay for. Several of the people I met there were on their third or fourth treatment. My wife works at a few as well. Same results. And all rehab facilities will only give you a 20% chance of staying off drugs. That's an 80% failure rate. Not very good in my book.

And I still believe that drug abuse, either of legal or illegal drugs should have no jail time. Leave the prisons for violent prioners.

Just look in the paper about drunk driving. I worked with someone that had 4 arrests for DUI. He went to jail for skipping bail and not showing up to court. They found him while still driving a car. With license revoked, and drunk again.

Or the idiots that drive on prescriptions that warn to not operate heavy machinery, yet they still drive. The best they can come up with is: I didn't know it would have this affect on me.

More people die from auto accidents then most anything else. But people believe they are intitled to drive, no matter what.

If society took half as much interest in auto safety as they go in gun control we'd be much better off.


Thanks,

Steve

 

[swillden]

imported post

Wynder wrote:

swillden wrote:

Wynder wrote:

And what would the lawsuit be for? Police records are a matter of public record and anyone could obtain them with a FOIA request -- the same thing that allows us to use that information in complaints against police misconduct.

There's a little difference between making the information available pursuant to an information request and posting it on the Internet.

What's the difference?

The only one I can see is I don't have to ask for it -- I can go right to a public access site and view it. I wish this was the case for all government records... open and transparent government is not a bad thing!

Should they put up a similar page for pictures of CCW holders?

 

[dave_in_delaware]

imported post

Why not? In DE, they already have our names and addresses(for CCDW) in the local paper!

:cuss:



(I'm just kidding about wanting the pictures published, too!!!)

 

[Wynder]

imported post

swillden wrote:

Should they put up a similar page for pictures of CCW holders?

Now, why would they do that? Would you want a copy of your tax returns posted for the world to see? How about the information on your driver's license?

These are things that we have submitted to the government based on statutory requirements and to which we are entitled a reasonable expectation of privacy. Such a consideration is not afforded to criminal proceedings which have been well-established as a matter of public record.

 

[Hawker]

imported post

.

 

[Wynder]

imported post

The News Journal -- that's statutorily required, though I suppose it could be interpreted to not include the address; however, taken to court, I think the intent would be clear.

The Prothonotary of the county in which any applicant for a license files the same shall cause notice of every such application to be published once, at least 10 days before the next term of the Superior Court. The publication shall be made in a newspaper of general circulation published in the county. In making such publication it shall be sufficient for the Prothonotary to do the same as a list in alphabetical form stating therein simply the name and residence of each applicant respectively.

 

[Wynder]

imported post

This is also furthered by the 'official' instructions from the prothonotary:

Be sure to use your whole name - no initials - and your home address.

http://courts.delaware.gov/forms/download.aspx?id=6208

 

[Hawker]

imported post

.

 

[Wynder]

imported post

Hawker wrote:

That form is written withsome ambiguity. Although instruction section 1 refers to the newspaper, the true (IMO) intent was the CCDW application when referring to name, address, etc. Look at it closely, I think you'll see that too.

We'll probably disagree on this then... the last sentence is saying (to me) make sure the paper has 35% of the circulation and the ad has your name and address. I'm also taking into account that the original statute is using the news paper notification as an alternative to the prothonotary keeping its own public record of names and addresses.

 

[Hawker]

imported post

.