Four more years!

pokermind wrote:Ugh,

JimHacker wrote:[SNIP]
Protection of the community (ie, putting criminals in prison prevents them from committing other crimes because they are not at large) is more complicated. Obviously a person in prison is not committing crimes against society whilst they are in prison so it works to that extent. [SNIP]

There is a lot of criminal on criminal crime in prison, murder, assaults, rapes (yep same sex rape), and even internet crime on the public at large. Prison computers should be read only, but NO thanks to liberal courts.

Poker

Was the 'ugh' at the length of the post or my liberal-ness?

Yes, people commit crimes in prison, but generally on each other or occasionally guards rather than on society (which is the point of the protection aspect). As to on prison computers, I've seen things where prisoners broke the rules or even attmpted to co-ordinate an escape attempt but there aren't many cases i've seen where they were committing more crimes (internet scams etc) without being caught very quickly.

I'm not sure what you mean by read-only. If you mean inmates shouldn't be permitted to create documents then that defeats one of the points of giving an inmate access to a computer. If you mean they shouldn't be able to email people or participate in online discussions then that's something else.

JimHacker wrote:

pokermind wrote:Ugh,

quote "JimHacker
[SNIP]
Protection of the community (ie, putting criminals in prison prevents them from committing other crimes because they are not at large) is more complicated. Obviously a person in prison is not committing crimes against society whilst they are in prison so it works to that extent. [SNIP]"

There is a lot of criminal on criminal crime in prison, murder, assaults, rapes (yep same sex rape), and even internet crime on the public at large. Prison computers should be read only, but NO thanks to liberal courts.

Poker

Was the 'ugh' at the length of the post or my liberal-ness?

Yes, people commit crimes in prison, but generally on each other or occasionally guards rather than on society (which is the point of the protection aspect). As to on prison computers, I've seen things where prisoners broke the rules or even attmpted to co-ordinate an escape attempt but there aren't many cases i've seen where they were committing more crimes (internet scams etc) without being caught very quickly.

I'm not sure what you mean by read-only. If you mean inmates shouldn't be permitted to create documents then that defeats one of the points of giving an inmate access to a computer. If you mean they shouldn't be able to email people or participate in online discussions then that's something else.

"Was the 'ugh' at the length of the post or my liberal-ness?" Neither actually I just quoted the portion I wanted to deal with.

I mean NO uncensored communications by prisoners to prevent crime. Odd the courts allow uncensored criminal communication with the outside world as a right, but uphold the Sullivan Act in New York that violates the second amendment right to bare arms denying citizens the right of self defense. Consistency would be nice. Don't get me started on Congress exempting itself from the laws that we lowly peons have to live under.

The biggest problem IMHO is the war on drugs. Legalize the shit and allow the idiots to kill themselves winning the Darwin Award for taking their jeans [? sp.] out of the jean pool, and lower prison population by a half. The 'war on drugs' brought military storm trooper tactics, no knock warrants, and other Governmental atrocities. Then we get the Homeland Security Bill. All the clowns want is to shred the Constitution and enslave us in appears. "He who trades a little freedom for security soon finds he has neither," Ben Franklin IIRC.

As to your politics I'd guess middle of the road Any more it's like that line from the Karate Kid "Walk one side road, safe. Walk other side of road, safe. Walk middle of road squish like grape." Unfortunately politics in this country have so polarized us, that I fear compromise is an illusive dream anymore. Politics is getting more bare knuckle, so can the knives and guns be far behind?

Perhaps we should bring back dueling to let the scumbag politicians kill each other off leaving We the People alone

Poker

@Tenshinai

I don't know, perhaps shedding the Berlusconi influence is the biggest practical difference they could make. Italy's corruption problem is very bad: Italy currently wouldn't qualify to join the EU due to its corruption and Berlusconi's influence.

That he´s allowed the influence he is, yeah that is rather pathetic.
The really sad part of that however is the fact that he really HAS the support he´s getting from elections, his propaganda has created a clique of people vehemently loyal and being absurdly "oh he can do no such wrong!" protective and "it´s all evil lies from the horrible opposition" blinded.

But it´s really just a manifestation of the corruption as a whole... And i sort of crunched that up a bit too much with the mafia influence, as i think their influence is behind much of the culture of corruption in general.



*****

KNick, another way to illustrate your point is to look at road fatalities and speeding. On a good road posted at a low 100kms per hr there will be an accident that kills five drunk teenagers driving at 200kms per hr at 3am. The authorities will then reduce the speed limit to 80kms per hr as it has been proven on that road that speed kills, even though those who died paid no attention to any posted speed and it will have no effect.

Just as a little comment on this and other stupidities, i wanted to add this little quote about a completely logical but equally idiotic idea:

"In 1927, the British Earl of Seagrave proposed a law by which he wanted to reduce the number of accidents at traffic intersections. The proposal was based on probability, that is, by keeping the presence of each traffic participant within the actual intersection at the absolute minimum time required, he argued that the likelyhood of two vehicles meeting in the same spot would decrease with increasing speed. He therefore proposed that the minimum speed at intersections should be raised to about 50 mph."



*****

What's the political quote, "Bad examples make for bad laws," or some such. Can't remember who said it.

Poker

Very true. Sometimes it´s just not so easy to determine which examples are bad.

but NO thanks to liberal courts.

Poker

Well, on the one hand, i don´t want criminals go unpunished, but on the other hand, it is VERY well known that harsh sentencing/worse conditions in jail overall makes for repeat criminality.

You need to avoid causing those that would not be repeat offenders, to be influenced by jail to become repeat offenders.
You also need to make sure that after jail, people CAN have some sort of chance outside of criminality.

USA fails miserably in both those and also in other things causing issue.

One of the better ideas to come out on the protection of the public side is three strikes laws. The motive behind the laws is based upon studies showing that a small percentage of the criminal population commits a disproportionate share of the serious crimes. So with the three strikes law, upon conviction of their 3rd serious felony a criminal is sentenced to life in prison. The idea is to maximize public protection but minimize cost by just locking up these professional criminals rather than extend sentences for everyone. The impact has been diluted over the years by the expansion of the definition of the term serious (impacting individuals it wasn't intended for, increasing costs etc) but the original idea is a good one.

biochem wrote:One of the better ideas to come out on the protection of the public side is three strikes laws. The motive behind the laws is based upon studies showing that a small percentage of the criminal population commits a disproportionate share of the serious crimes. So with the three strikes law, upon conviction of their 3rd serious felony a criminal is sentenced to life in prison. The idea is to maximize public protection but minimize cost by just locking up these professional criminals rather than extend sentences for everyone. The impact has been diluted over the years by the expansion of the definition of the term serious (impacting individuals it wasn't intended for, increasing costs etc) but the original idea is a good one.

Just goes to show whatever the politicians touch gets fucked up by the numbers Our 'criminal,' (quotes because the scumbag politicians make the laws exempting themselves), politicians caused the current economic mess by forcing banks to make loans to those who could not pay, thus forcing up price, and now the common man sits in a home worth less than he paid for it. Thank Barney Frank and his ilk. Not to mention the conservative free traders who did away with our tariffs that sucked away the jobs of the American people, China thanks you. Save the country eat a politician! Steps off soap box.

Poker