Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Status:
"Democracies tend to decline into despotism. (Aristotle)"
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Berwick, Penna.
16,226 posts, read 11,437,549 times
Reputation: 20845
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by pittsflyer
Actually the govt can if it’s in the public’s best interest.
And what if a gang of misanthropes decide that mass murder is "in the public's best interest" someday??
The workings of a reasonably free and open economy (backed up with a modest and well-policed "safety net") are how a rational society makes sure that no one goes hungry, or freezes to death; but it can't work if too many of us expect too much for too little, or refuse to carry our fair share of the load.
The entertainment industry and its media allies have labored for years to turn California into a ditz-magnet for overgrown children; and it's time to reap the results.
It really is just that simple.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 05-06-2018 at 10:42 AM..
Brown is obviously not responsible in this case, but the Dems have done everything possible to prevent as many people as possible from going to jail due to overcrowding, a situation they have no interest in alleviating.
that is absolutely not true. This has been discussed ad nauseum in these forums. In 2011 SCOTUS capped the California prison population at 137.5 of design capacity. At the time the prison population was around 40,000 more than allowed. SCOTUS told the court that if they could not present a plan that would reduce the prison population then the court would arbitrarily start releasing inmates.
In order to comply the state decided to have low risk inmates serve their prison term in county jails, they also shifted the responsibility for post release supervision for non violent offenders to the counties rather than the state, that was all part of AB109. CDCR was still not in compliance in 2013 when the State asked SCOTUS for an extension which was partially granted with the stipulation that they would increase releases and grant non violent inmates enhanced credits for education & work participation.
The partial waiver was set to expire in 2016. Unable to comply the State drafted Prop 47 which would change the status for some non violent non serious offenses from felony to misdemeanor in order to decrease the number of people being sent to prison in the future.
After reviewing the data it was found that Prop 47 would not adequately reduce the prison population so that was followed by Prop 57 which would allow certain inmates to be considered for parole after serving their entire primary sentence but not charges which were to be served consecutive to the primary charge.
Crimes like arson which is the one under discussion here, robbery, misdemeanor, child abuse, homicide, assault with a deadly weapon etc were not impacted by any of this and the sentences remain as they always were and are all still subject to 3 strikes if the offender has committed multiple serious/violent crimes.
You're not going to get anyone to pay attention if you keep putting down those who happen to disagree with you.
I could care less who agrees with me. That poster has called me so many names that his posts were deleted. He is a total excuse maker and his suggestions are nothing but enabler mentality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CA4Now
That is not AT ALL what that poster wrote. Scroll back.
I don't need to scroll back. I get that posters stance.
that is absolutely not true. This has been discussed ad nauseum in these forums. In 2011 SCOTUS capped the California prison population at 137.5 of design capacity. At the time the prison population was around 40,000 more than allowed. SCOTUS told the court that if they could not present a plan that would reduce the prison population then the court would arbitrarily start releasing inmates.
In order to comply the state decided to have low risk inmates serve their prison term in county jails, they also shifted the responsibility for post release supervision for non violent offenders to the counties rather than the state, that was all part of AB109. CDCR was still not in compliance in 2013 when the State asked SCOTUS for an extension which was partially granted with the stipulation that they would increase releases and grant non violent inmates enhanced credits for education & work participation.
The partial waiver was set to expire in 2016. Unable to comply the State drafted Prop 47 which would change the status for some non violent non serious offenses from felony to misdemeanor in order to decrease the number of people being sent to prison in the future.
After reviewing the data it was found that Prop 47 would not adequately reduce the prison population so that was followed by Prop 57 which would allow certain inmates to be considered for parole after serving their entire primary sentence but not charges which were to be served consecutive to the primary charge.
Crimes like arson which is the one under discussion here, robbery, misdemeanor, child abuse, homicide, assault with a deadly weapon etc were not impacted by any of this and the sentences remain as they always were and are all still subject to 3 strikes if the offender has committed multiple serious/violent crimes.
Now why don't you share your expertise on the matter and tell us how you would have handled this differently?
I would build more jails and prisons. Deeming groups "low risk" simply increases our crime rates all over the state. Every Democratic initiatize listed above (as well as many others not listed) has the below aims to varying degrees:
To change the system from punishment to rehabilitation;
To secretly view offenders as victims of "the system" and sociological victims and thus "spare" them from the system;
To deem more and more crimes as "not serious" by lessening sentences (or eliminating them entirely) all the while using the excuse that the stated purpose of doing so is to make space in our overflowing prisons; and
To push back against punishment and encourage diversion so as to spare offenders from the system under the mistaken belief that they will not be recidivists and instead will "grow up".
The social engineers pushing these initiatives then make crime rates look artificially low using a variety of methods.
Status:
"Democracies tend to decline into despotism. (Aristotle)"
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Berwick, Penna.
16,226 posts, read 11,437,549 times
Reputation: 20845
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC
I would build more jails and prisons. Deeming groups "low risk" simply increases our crime rates all over the state. Every Democratic initiatize listed above (as well as many others not listed) has the below aims to varying degrees:
To change the system from punishment to rehabilitation;
To secretly view offenders as victims of "the system" and sociological victims and thus "spare" them from the system;
To deem more and more crimes as "not serious" by lessening sentences (or eliminating them entirely) all the while using the excuse that the stated purpose of doing so it so make space in our overflowing prisons; and
To push back against punishment and encourage diversion so as to spare offenders from the system under the mistaken belief that they will not be recidivists and instead will "grow up".
The social engineers pushing these initiatives then make crime rates look artificially low using a variety of methods.
I would build more jails and prisons. Deeming groups "low risk" simply increases our crime rates all over the state. Every Democratic initiatize listed above (as well as many others not listed) has the below aims to varying degrees:
To change the system from punishment to rehabilitation;
To secretly view offenders as victims of "the system" and sociological victims and thus "spare" them from the system;
To deem more and more crimes as "not serious" by lessening sentences (or eliminating them entirely) all the while using the excuse that the stated purpose of doing so it so make space in our overflowing prisons; and
To push back against punishment and encourage diversion so as to spare offenders from the system under the mistaken belief that they will not be recidivists and instead will "grow up".
The social engineers pushing these initiatives then make crime rates look artificially low using a variety of methods.
It's truly not partisan, this problem was exacerbated by the Republican "tough on crime" Pete Wilson as well as the idiot Democrat Gray Davis who spent his time pandering to the prison guards union for donations. They both pushed for longer prison terms and it was Pete Wilson who mandated that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation eliminate "rehabilitation" from the title of the agency. The result was 177000 people in California Prisons with guards entertaining themselves by staging gladiator fights and some of the guards acquiring a new part time job, taking drugs and/or cellphones into the prisons and selling them to inmates.
Locking more people up for longer times does not reduce crime, that is an indisputable fact. There is the effect of incapacitation which means that while a person is in custody they can't commit a crime but that ends as soon as they are released and 99% of all prisoners are ultimately released and at a cost of $75,000 per inmate per year just locking them up and throwing the key away is an absurdly expensive "solution".
Lengthy punishments are not a deterrent to crime because most offenders do not think about the consequences of their actions. Young inmates who are sent to prison have a far worse outcome than they do if they are managed in local jails or through probation, house arrest programs. Most MS-13 gang members are 18-22 years old and are recruited in California prisons.
If you want source data for any of that let me know.
It's truly not partisan, this problem was exacerbated by the Republican "tough on crime" Pete Wilson as well as the idiot Democrat Gray Davis who spent his time pandering to the prison guards union for donations. They both pushed for longer prison terms and it was Pete Wilson who mandated that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation eliminate "rehabilitation" from the title of the agency. The result was 177000 people in California Prisons with guards entertaining themselves by staging gladiator fights and some of the guards acquiring a new part time job, taking drugs and/or cellphones into the prisons and selling them to inmates.
Locking more people up for longer times does not reduce crime, that is an indisputable fact. There is the effect of incapacitation which means that while a person is in custody they can't commit a crime but that ends as soon as they are released and 99% of all prisoners are ultimately released and at a cost of $75,000 per inmate per year just locking them up and throwing the key away is an absurdly expensive "solution".
Lengthy punishments are not a deterrent to crime because most offenders do not think about the consequences of their actions. Young inmates who are sent to prison have a far worse outcome than they do if they are managed in local jails or through probation, house arrest programs. Most MS-13 gang members are 18-22 years old and are recruited in California prisons.
If you want source data for any of that let me know.
Claim: Eliminating rehabilition led to California Prison guards entertaining themslves by staging gladiator fights.
That is a non sequitir. It simply does not follow that eliminating rehablilitation from the Department of Corrections leads to California Prison guards engaging in crimes involving inmates.
Claim: Locking more people up for longer times does not reduce crime and offenders don't think about the consequences of the crime.
Please inform officials in places such as Singapore, Thailand and Saudi Arabia about this. I am sure they would love to be enlightened (/sarc). It fact, people are very fearful of harsh penalties and avoid crimes that lead to a certain harsh result.
Claim: Eliminating rehabilition led to California Prison guards entertaining themslves by staging gladiator fights. That is a non sequitir. It simply does not follow that eliminating rehablilitation from the Department of Corrections leads to California Prison guards engaging in crimes involving inmates.
It happened at the same time, I'm surprised that I had to clarify that for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC
Claim: Locking more people up for longer times does not reduce crime and offenders don't think about the consequences of the crime. Please inform officials in places such as Singapore, Thailand and Saudi Arabia about this. I am sure they would love to be enlightened (/sarc). It fact, people are very fearful of harsh penalties and avoid crimes that lead to a certain harsh result.
Those countries have different cultures and the reasons for having a lower crime rate is more complex than just claiming that it is due to harsh punishments.
Saudi Arabia -
Sharia law
relatively low population
Good quality of life and low poverty rate.
Cultural belief that if you commit a crime you shame your entire family
Singapore
Crime started to drop in Singapore 18 years after they legalized abortion, that same phenomenon occurred in the US after the passage of Roe V Wade
An ever growing network of tens of thousands of surveillance cameras that will eventually cover all public housing blocks and car parks
Huge police presence
Insanely harsh punishments even for minor crimes such as chewing gum
Thailand? Public corruption is rampant in Thailand, the US has labeled them as one of the worst countries for human trafficking. Thailand ranks 46th in the world out of 115 in crime rate Moderator cut: link removed, competitor site
It happened at the same time, I'm surprised that I had to clarify that for you.
Those countries have different cultures and the reasons for having a lower crime rate is more complex than just claiming that it is due to harsh punishments.
Saudi Arabia -
Sharia law
relatively low population
Good quality of life and low poverty rate.
Cultural belief that if you commit a crime you shame your entire family
Singapore
Crime started to drop in Singapore 18 years after they legalized abortion, that same phenomenon occurred in the US after the passage of Roe V Wade
An ever growing network of tens of thousands of surveillance cameras that will eventually cover all public housing blocks and car parks
Huge police presence
Insanely harsh punishments even for minor crimes such as chewing gum
Thailand? Public corruption is rampant in Thailand, the US has labeled them as one of the worst countries for human trafficking. Thailand ranks 46th in the world out of 115 in crime rate Moderator cut: link removed, competitor site
What's wrong with Sharia law? I thought all leftists fully embrace its "diverse" beauty as all cultures/religions are equal, etc.
I found this rich:[*]Cultural belief that if you commit a crime you shame your entire family
There was a time when this was the case in the United States too. I wonder what happened.
You also had to include abortion to throw smoke in there, didn't you? Did I say I opposed a woman's right to choose? But obfuscation is best.
Then another rich entry:[*]An ever growing network of tens of thousands of surveillance cameras that will eventually cover all public housing blocks and car parks
Have you been to London lately?!??!?! London is a disaster and has cameras everywhere. The cameras no doubt deter a lot of crime, but cameras alone don't do the job. I used to go very often but now find London (south and east London being mainly no-go zones) to be more and more a ceasepool. I'd prefer to go to wonderful, cleaner, friendlier, Ireland any day.
What's wrong with Sharia law? I thought all leftists fully embrace its "diverse" beauty as all cultures/religions are equal, etc.
I found this rich:
[*]Cultural belief that if you commit a crime you shame your entire family
There was a time when this was the case in the United States too. I wonder what happened.
You also had to include abortion to throw smoke in there, didn't you? Did I say I opposed a woman's right to choose? But obfuscation is best.
Then another rich entry:
[*]An ever growing network of tens of thousands of surveillance cameras that will eventually cover all public housing blocks and car parks
Have you been to London lately?!??!?! London is a disaster and has cameras everywhere. The cameras no doubt deter a lot of crime, but cameras alone don't do the job. I used to go very often but now find London (south and east London especially) to be more and more a ceasepool. I'd prefer to go to Ireland any day.
now you just want to argue, don't you?
I've been to London a number of times and surveillance cameras definitely deter crime if they are monitored. The timing of the legalization of abortion and a decrease in the crime rate is a fact, whether it's a cause or just correlation is certainly arguable. Scientists have also speculated that the elimination of lead from paint and plumbing may also have contributed to a lower crime rate. What is indisputable is that the crime rate started dropping before all the tough on crime laws were passed. Here's a good article on the subject. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ecline/477408/
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
