But in the end gun control is not the answer it’s crime control.

[Master Blaster]

Federalist Weasal, you have been in the bad neighborhoods right?

Folks there dont like the police and they dont want to talk to the police or cooperate. We have that problem in Wilmington DE right now. In some of these neighbor hoods crime is a way of life. Everyone is involved in the drug trade, or has a friend or relative involved. Unemployment is high, education is low. Everyone has either been to jail, or has a friend or relative who is in jail, or is going to be in jail. The policeman is not their friend. The police, there just are not enough of them, so you have a virtual Beiruit in the middle of a relatively decent area, with affluent suburbs only a few miles away.

OK so now we implement your plan and we get the police to really crackdown. what is the posibility that the gang bangers, the excons, and the dealers in the hood simply decide, "hey I'm going to jail forever now or I'm as good as dead. So I will just kill any policeman that I see. Me or my hommies see a cop we kill him no questions asked or hostages taken.

What do think the result will be??? How likely is this???? There are some parts of LA where this is the case now pretty much. Do the police have the ability to handle this manpower wise?? How about the national Guard with orders to shoot to kill????

Do you think society has the stomach to handle what amounts to urban warfare??????

 

[middy]

But in the end gun control is not the answer...

This is so blatantly obvious one wonders what the gun grabbers are really trying to accomplish.

99.999% of the antis are just well-meaning "useful fools". The rest are Comintern, crypto-fascists, et al.
Totalitarian aspirations begin with civilian disarmament.

 

[TheFederalistWeasel]

Having worked in and around Atlanta as well as Macon Georgia I have worked in some of the highest crime hoods in the Southeast.

As it stands now we already have folks out there who want to kill us, MS-13 its part of their initiation. The Folk and People Nation have always had that as the crossing over point from the outer to their inner circle.

We have the Dixieland Mafia a bunch of extraordinarily stupid rednecks that think they were all born and raised in Italy, drive convertible corvettes and deal in METH.

We also have a huge click of Black Gangster Disciples, Vice Lords, Five Percenters ( a prison gang which runs with the Vice Lords when they get out of jail) and the Latin Kings.

All are violent all will kill you at the drop of a hat.

I work now for a county Sheriffs Department, which has three city jurisdictions, located inside its lines, one of which is approaching 80% black and has a very disproportionaly high crime rate for its size.

The problem is that now the criminal justice system is absolutely no deterrence to them; there dope dealing and stealing or robbing.

 

[femoralis]

I suppose it is not practical, but I have come to believe that all serious violent crimes deserve to carry the death penalty.

 

[RevDisk]

Some things I agree with you, others I don't.

Legalizing weed is probably a good idea. It's hardly worse than cigarettes, and a lot better than alcohol.

Non-violent crimes can definitely be handled in a better manner. Obviously criminal sources of income should be returned to their original owner in case of fraud, or to the state in case of drugs. However, we start going down the slippy slope known as Asset Seizure. The accounting for asset seizure is horrible. Usually the seized funds or objects are split between law enforcement and the prosecutors. I recommend reading "Dark Rivers of the Heart" by Dean Koontz, for a fictional story that does involve a lot of search and seizure laws.

Obviously legalizing shooting people over any infraction of the law is not going to happen. If it does... This isn't the US anymore. And those that enforce such executions are indeed the Enemy, worse than any possible external threat. I remember my oath against all Enemies, foreign and domestic.

Manditory sentences are not a good idea in general. Extremely long manditory sentences are flat out insane. A case should be tried on its merits, and punishment dictated according. Zero tolerance usually results in the stupidity like arresting kids in school for nail clippers, drawing a picture of a firearm or even making a play gun with their fingers.


While prisons shouldn't be luxary resorts, they are not concentration camps. I know quite a few prison guards, including ones at max security prisons. It's generally a good idea to keep the prisoners occupied doing something constructive. Most prisons have a system were the prisoner is compensated for doing work. (It's incredibly low 'pay'.) This allows them to buy (from the jail store) small things like cigarettes or whatever. The profit generated from work obviously goes to the prison system. Most prison "perks" are funded by money generated by work done by inmates. It keeps them occupied.



I remember attending a lecture. It was on using statistical analysis of programs to see if they are worth being funded. In other words, fund the programs that work, and don't fund the programs that do not work. Common sense, right? Far from it. He listed plenty of "popular programs" that fail miserably. DARE was amoung the worst programs, with an insane failure rate. "Boot camp" style programs also generally did not do well.

Prison education programs did work well. Ditto vocation training. Fancy that, teaching people a skill so they can get a job instead of committing crime. According to the statistics presented at lecture, it's cheaper to provide the training then not provide the training. Why? Inmates going through the programs were less likely to back to prison. Thus saving money for the prison system by having less future inmates. It might not make tax payers happy to fund some ghetto hood getting his GED, but statistically it makes it less likely that ghetto hood will go back to prison.

I don't believe in giving people a free ride. I do believe in going with what works, and stopping that which doesn't work. There is something deeply wrong with someone getting 12 months in jail for possession of weed less than one ounce and Enron's CEO not serving a day in prison.


To those screaming for no appeals, max sentencing for everything, manditory sentencing guidelines, expanding asset seizure laws, etc. Careful what you wish for, my friends. You might wake up in a nightmare of your own making.

 

[Too Many Choices!?]

If they legalize/decriminalize MJ

I believe it would come with as much fan-fare as the New $20 dollar bills......
People would go ,"Is this real?", then the media would inform the rest of the country......and the world would keep spinnin' !

 

[Zundfolge]

I just don't understand why it is so hard a concept to grasp. Punish criminals, leave honest citizens alone. It seems so simple. It works, has been proven many times in various places around the world at various times in history.

Read my signature (then, if you haven't read it yet, go read the rest of the book)

 

[mbs357]

RevDisk: I wouldn't be suprised if cigarettes turned out to be worse than marijuana.
I've always heard it's harder to kick the nicotine.

 

[Firethorn]

I like it, TheFederalistWeasel, I like it a lot.

I would just step back on a couple of points:

Just like basic training, have SOME perks that the TI's/prison guards can take away. Carrot to the stick

Limit parole/early release to something like 10% of the sentence. Go in for 10, be a good boy and you can get out a year early. That's it. No getting out in half or less. Again, it's a carrot for the prison staff.

But think about it people, for the guy getting his 8th burglary conviction, you have to ask yourself, what with us having to pay for: A police officer to arrest him, officer to book him, prosecuter($$$), defense lawyer($$$), judge($$$), court recorder, baliff, and a jury of 12. Wouldn't just be cheaper, especially considering the expense caused by his actions to the innocent public, to just lock his ass away for life?

Sure, the crook will take more action to not get caught, but under this model, he only gets a few chances to try. And the people have the recourse of lethal defense. But I hope that with the legalization of the cause of much of the stealing and funding source for violent gangs, there just won't be as much reward for crime either.

As for confiscating a person's entire net wealth over illegal financial dealings, I would like to point out that Martha was only convicted of lying to the court, there wasn't much beyond that they could convict her of. Even then, the most she was accused of was insider trading. I've read a few of those rules, they're complex and ugly. Besides, depending on where the money goes, it creates a great incentive to try to convict the wealthiest, most productive americans. Look at the asset forfeiture laws, and think that they have already been used by people to try to seize property that they want.

edit:mbs357 - I wouldn't either. I've seen the general addictivness charts. 90% of illegal drugs are less addictive than nicotine.
Relative Addictiveness Alchohol and Nicotine garner an awfull lot of 1&2's. MJ has nothing over a 4, mostly 5&6's. (Higher numbers mean it's less addictive).

 

[Master Blaster]

The problem is that our system is set up to work based upon THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED, The people delegate power to the government.

The Legal and the court system is designed that way to control how much power the government has. What that means in practical terms is:

A small weak police force that is reliant on the cooperation of citizens in preventing crime and catching crimminals. A court system that depends upon citizens comming forward to testify. That means the citizens have to be on the side of the police and they have to approve of the laws being enforced and how the laws are enforced. Other wise the system does not work.

You could eliminate these roadblocks to the government imposing its will, but then you would have a police state.
So you either need to win the hearts and minds of folks in the hood (community policing with much more manpower), or you need to change the laws, and legalize drugs which are providing the cash and the jobs to those outside the system.

The politicians dont seem to be willing to do either so you have areas where you cannot enforce the law because you lack the CONSENT of THE GOVERNED

 

[Master Blaster]

As it stands now we already have folks out there who want to kill us, MS-13 its part of their initiation. The Folk and People Nation have always had that as the crossing over point from the outer to their inner circle.

We have the Dixieland Mafia a bunch of extraordinarily stupid rednecks that think they were all born and raised in Italy, drive convertible corvettes and deal in METH.

We also have a huge click of Black Gangster Disciples, Vice Lords, Five Percenters ( a prison gang which runs with the Vice Lords when they get out of jail) and the Latin Kings.

All are violent all will kill you at the drop of a hat.

So the question is do we stay with the consent of the governed as our model or do we declare martial law in some neighborhoods. If we stay with the consent of the governed per my last post, do we legalize drugs? How do we get the community to trust THE MAN, when all he wants to do is take away their bling and send them to jail.??????

I work in the Delaware Children's Department, and we have all of the juvenile justice system under our control except for the courts and the police, we have detention, ferris school, boot camp/ Father Flannagan programs (boys town) Secure and therapeutic group homes, probation officers, psychiatric therapy, social workers, all fall under our department. WE try a systemic comprehensive approach that works with the community, and starts at the first signs of trouble, but about half or those we see eventually end up in the adult system. It seems we cant get the HOOD out of the boy even if we take the boy out of the HOOD.

3 years ago the mayor of Wilmington decided to ignore petty crimes like theft, and vandalism, to save money and manpower, as I predicted at the time, this would only encourage minor offenders 10-14 years old, to offend again. And as a result serious crimes, armed robbery, shootings, commited by 15-20 year olds is way up three years later.

 

[Esky]

OOH, I know! Pick Me, Pick ME!!!

Surprised no one's said this already--

We just send those bad boys to Van Diemen's Land!

They can't get into any more trouble there... after all, the Aussies banned guns, so it must be safe as houses!

Seriously, though, it amazes me that our society insists on having TV & other "mind-numbing" recreational facilities in prison. I realize that people in jail have got to do something with their time, but seems to me that there should be plenty of opportunities for education, lots of books to read, classes for those who want to take them... as well as opportunities to do paid work, learn trades, that kind of thing. That's for those who have some hope of rehabilitation.

For those convicted of really serious crimes-- well, they'll just have to stay locked up, or look forward to dying. Personally, I'd much rather be executed for whatever crime I committed than be in prison for the rest of my life. To me, being locked up forever would be "a fate worse than death"-- which is part of the reason I am in favour of the death sentence when appropriate.

And as Zundfolge pointed out in his sig, we have WAY TOO MANY laws now, and where the law used to be "something everyone knows"- now it has morphed into "something expensive lawyers argue about," and lots of things that used to be legal, or minor crimes like misdemeanors, have changed into felonies.

<sigh> But how do we put this genie back into the bottle?

I wish I knew.

Esky