jail as it should be

[OntarioVanMan]

I'd also set a requirement they wouldn't be released until passing, with acceptable grades, either the next higher level of education than they had when they went in or a trade school.

Yes Leo...I would say that in some way they'd have to prove that they have bettered themselves either thru education /trade and social skills/decision making.....If they associate with the same gang inside like out on the street they'll be the same when released....Parole wouldn't be automatic but earned and on serious crimes no parole...full sentences.

 

[greg334]

Hey, I got a great idea - make prison a punishment and something to avoid at all cost.

Screw this idea of earning anything, we need to think the way we used to, prison is not a place to be educated or a health spa but a place for serious punishment.

Our society is so screwed up, we worry about the criminal but forget the victim. We see victim's rights organizations fighting all the time to get people help, at the same time there is an entire industry for prisoner's rights.

The one thing that some of you are missing is that a lot of criminals do what they do because there is no real punishment. The death penalty is not a punishment and many don't think about it. It used to be that a lot of states had it, they limited the appeals and many feared it but now it is like they don't even want to bring it up as a charge because of all the work involved. As for the criminal, they don't lack confidence, many don't lack self-esteem and the surely don't lack problem solving abilities.

Maybe for some stupid reason we see an increase in people in prison is because of our poorly run very poor education system, maybe?

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Maybe for some stupid reason we see an increase in people in prison is because of our poorly run very poor education system, maybe?

Hence young offenders must be educated....what does it matter if it's in jail or out in the street taxpayer pays? yes?

In like an animal, out like an animal....

 

[greg334]

Hence young offenders must be educated....what does it matter if it's in jail or out in the street taxpayer pays? yes?

NO, we already made the investment as a society into the young, the schools fail at instilling a sense of responsibility and has for a long time.

Every excuse is made for the failures of these students and we have pretty much dumb down the entire system where achievement is now looked at as a bad thing. Achievement goes along with responsiblity, responsibility makes a better person, when we tell kids that it is alright that they made a mistake or take in account that they have a supposed disadvantage because of a parent or parents who are underachievers themselves, then we set in motion the failure we see.

The 'juvenile justice' system itself has become an institution in itself where kids are shuttled back and forth with no real punishment or real solutions and most end up going onto bigger crimes. As I mentioned before, where is the justice for the victims, especially in crimes committed by a kid at 15 for example, you can't release his name, you can't even know who he is as a victim, I am limited to what I can do in the way of seeing justice done.

 

[tallcal101]

I believe I was the first to repond to Leo's delightful but completly bogus post about puppies and kitties and Shariff Joe. Now that the entire story has been told ( it never needed to go beyond my comments, thank you Turtle,excellent critiqe), this thread has turned into a completly different conversation. Even a bit of intellegence from all parties (most from the non supporters of Shariff Joe) but never the less flash's of Constitutional law. Missing is the record setting (fortunanlty not trend setting)actions of butcher block head boy while serving as head hentchman for that bastion of constitutional law and wisdom,Texas.
Hangem' high george broke all national records for executions on his watch. Now,knowing what we know about blinkie after our observations of his lack of ,well some call it the ability to get out of the way of a moving bus,I'm sure glad he was not concerned with DNA match's etc. Some believe there have been 30 or 40 innocent men and woman snuffed.Any body wanna bet on how many of these case's will eventually be reversed (too late for most)?
There I go,bashing again,but it's just sooooo much fun,paticularly on this thread where I was RIGHT!!
Take two pills with your humble pie Leo,and give the puppy one for Joe. LOL

 

[greg334]

Hangem' high george broke all national records for executions on his watch.

I don't think so, Lincoln comes to mind, oh so does Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt and of course FDR - who had more military executions happen on his watch than any other president.

WHO really cares, the states have the right to execute or not, the federal government has no rights to tell the states what they can and can not do. This entire idea that the supreme court has to rule on a state right cheapens our rights as citizens and mocks the constitution. The idea that executions (hanging, electrocution, shooting in the head, drawing and quartering and so on) are cruel and unusual does not seem to fit the world today, if we use the global standard of government because until executions are eliminated worldwide with an agreement from every country, then it is not cruel or unusual. Stoning for that matter is also a good method.

 

[tallcal101]

States rights Greg? States rights? What a load of phoony balony that is!!
California passed a medical Marijuana bill 10 years ago and said hands off to the feds.Now I know none of you have ever smoked any,or touched it,or sold an ounce to a frieind,or had some other relationship with the devil weed. And I have a big orange bridge for sale too.
I know, kemo patiants that feel better after treatment when they smoke are a bunch of California brain dead Koolaid drinkers,right ? Pat Nixon is open about how it helped her in her battle with cancer, and openly voted for legalization. and endorses Feds out of the state.

I think I may have had a swig or two of Bluebarry Moonshine the last time I was in Memphis,one of my favorite cities.It's a hell of alot stronger concoction then even the best Mendacino green.My point is,it's a regional question. If the state of Tennesee chooses to look the other way regarding moonshine,why are the Feds crashing into people homes and knocking walls down in Cali when suspects are acting within the laws of the good state of California? It's why we sometimes look at Cops and scratch our heads and have to ask "Is that America"? I think the feds have plenty do,like finding the bad guys,rather then invoking Nazi tactics on law abiding citizens of our great state.

 

[always confused]

state rights have been tromped on by the feds for years, and fed 'law enforcement officers' have so many 'ooops' concerning individual 'rights' it often makes one wonder. yes federal law trumps state law. but when which laws are going to be enforced becomes a 'crap-shoot' it leaves everybody with a bad taste in their mouths. when someone in the process develops a 'personal agenda' you end up with gross injustices, and a justice system that doesn't function very well.

 

[greg334]

States rights Greg? States rights? What a load of phoony balony that is!!
California passed a medical Marijuana bill 10 years ago and said hands off to the feds.Now I know none of you have ever smoked any,or touched it,or sold an ounce to a frieind,or had some other relationship with the devil weed. And I have a big orange bridge for sale too.

No it is not baloney, and this is where you fail to get it.

You example is a perfect one, there are no constitutional issue with drug use, that is not a federal government issue, it is a states issue outside of the controlling it interstate. There was a court case, a bizarre one at that having to do with agriculture price controls and the interstate clause; Wickard v. Filburn which set the stage for the Gonzales v. Raich. The Wickard v. Filburn decision gave these people the power through the courts and they have been grabbing more and more all along. In the first case, a farmer grew more wheat than he was allowed to grow under the agricultural act of 1938, he grew it for his own use. The feds came in and mtold him that he has to destroy the wheat and not plant any more than what he is allotted. This went to the courts and it was decided that because the farmer was undermining the wheat market in such a way that the feds can’t control the price, he is in violation of the interstate clause of the consitutiuon. The same argument was used with medical cannabis in Gonzales v. Raich, the undermining of the medical cannabis market would happen and the interstate clause is in effect the overall way the feds circumvent the states.

As for using, selling or otherwise doing anything with cannabis, sorry dude, I am not one of the many who have done anything with it – honestly.

I know, kemo patiants that feel better after treatment when they smoke are a bunch of California brain dead Koolaid drinkers,right ? Pat Nixon is open about how it helped her in her battle with cancer, and openly voted for legalization. and endorses Feds out of the state.

I am all for it, sorry to burst your bubble and you expecting some anti-drug thing but hey if it helps, and it is not just legalized for all (until we get some accoutnablity back) – I can get behind it.

I think I may have had a swig or two of Bluebarry Moonshine the last time I was in Memphis,one of my favorite cities.It's a hell of alot stronger concoction then even the best Mendacino green.My point is,it's a regional question. If the state of Tennesee chooses to look the other way regarding moonshine,why are the Feds crashing into people homes and knocking walls down in Cali when suspects are acting within the laws of the good state of California? It's why we sometimes look at Cops and scratch our heads and have to ask "Is that America"? I think the feds have plenty do,like finding the bad guys,rather then invoking Nazi tactics on law abiding citizens of our great state.

Now see there is another thing I am p*ssed about, the federal regulation of liquor, sorry but I agree with you again 100%. It is a regional thing, it is not a fed thing. As for the Nazi thing, I remember reading a lot of fed moves made in democrat administrations that were like the stormtroopers having a good old time – these included spying, breaking into newspapers, controlling the media and so on. I am talking about 20th century dems by the way and not Clinton.

OH you do know that the Supreme Court and the lower courts have to listen to the other two branches of the federal government. They can instruct the courts not to listen to certain cases as a matter of our constitution and they could have told the courts not to allow any cases from ‘detainees’ to be heard.

 

[LDB]

You're right. I've never used any drug of any sort that wasn't prescribed by a doctor and even then only after discussing it with my dad and getting his approval of it (because he's as good as if not probably a better doctor). I've never smoked one puff of cigarette. I've had 4 drinks in my lifetime but they do nothing for you except drain your wallet a lot faster than non-alcoholic drinks so I never bothered with those again either.

I'd have no problem with medical marijuana under strict controls and supervision. Combine that with capital punishment for being a drug pusher on the street and random drug poison and release programs and we'd have a virtually drug free society outside the medically required usage.