Posted on 05/25/2006 6:51:03 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback
I agree with the above, except for the part about three strikes. Three strikes laws based on violent offenses take incorrigible practitioners of violence off the streets. They aren't ruining anybody's lives for them, and letting those thugs do regular time sure isn't going to help their kids any.
There are links to further information at the source document.
If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
BreakPoint/Chuck Colson Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
I completely agree, because until men are sent to prison, they are model fathers. Perhaps we can just set up prison childcare, where the cons can nurture our young?
Drive some of CA's San Jouquin Valley back roads and you will find its other harvest: prisons. They appear to be the new crop for many valley towns.
We do need to reform our justice system. Not to become more lenient, but to make it more difficult on those that commit crimes. Prisons should not be a place to sit out their time, but a hard place to forget, and to teach their children not to go there.
I feel that some think of prison as 3 square meals and a roof over their heads. Better than many on the street, and a way for illegals to be secure in America.
Thanks for the heads up on weird laws.
I will make sure that neither my pinkie nor the pinkies of my loved ones will ever touch the nice police officers. I want the police to know that I and all my loved ones respect all police officers. I am not being sarcastic.
It is troubling that prisons are great cash cows around the world. Those who can't believe me ,repeat after me China...
Thanks for the ping. Good read. I need to chew on this one for a while, though. ;)
Yes, but is the problem three strikes, or including too many crimes in three strikes? Earley comes out against three strikes. I believe that if the three felonies are all serious violent crimes, three strikes is exactly what needs to be done. The fact that some idiotswant to include crimes that don't belong just means the laws need to be reformed, not done away with.
Study after study after study shows there is a vast difference in the likelihood of criminal involvement between kids who have a Dad in jail and those who don't. Try getting a grip on the nature of the problem being discussed before you post again. Maybe there's an American Idol thread you can get in on.
Agreed. In fact, the only problem I had with Earley's entire column was his blanket rejection of three strikes.
I don't have a problem with three strikes in general, but I think far too many crimes are "violent felonies" that shouldn't be. As I wrote, The State considers mere possession of a gun that's 1/8" too short, or more than x oz of pot a "violent felony," even though no one, not even a fly, is hurt by such possession. I agree with the need to reform laws - let's start by throwing out some gun control laws.
"Three strikes laws based on violent offenses take incorrigible practitioners of violence off the streets."
Uh, last two stories I read about had men going to prison for life for stealing food from Walmart and bouncing a check. Not my idea of taking violent crime off the streets.
Nature of problem: Dirt bags procreating.
You think the problem is that the dirt bags are in jail. I think the problem is that they are dirt bags. Your studies show nothing more than that criminals in prison have children that don't fair as well as children that have law-abiding, involved fathers. You needed to studies to know that?
Your answer is what? Release criminals back on society for the sake of their children (what about my children?), or should the state take away their children and raise them in a better environment? The latter could be tough as not many of these men are married to the children's mothers, so they don't have custody rights to take. Take them out of jail and they remain dirt bags. They do not morph into wonderful fathers. How do the studies compare between jailed dads and violent, drugged out dads?
Want to work on the problem? Try promoting what is known to almost eliminate poverty and crime: Marriage, school, & work.
Finally, what is "American Idol", Is that what's on down at the social workers office?
Lack of mercy? With recidivism at 95%, it is a lack of mercy to the innocent to let these perps back on the street for another chance. How many innocent people are you willing to see victimized, so that you can be merciful to the unrepentant?
There is nothing about being poor or uneducated that makes a person a criminal, and its an insult to those who are poor and honest to say so. On the other hand, the exact traits that make a person a criminal, also lead to them being poor and uneducated.
So you don't consider nonviolent criminals a problem for society, or their continued victimization of people to be worth stopping?
I do. And I think its laughable to think that con men, drug dealers, and crack heads are otherwise decent, loving parents that will provide positive formative years for their children if only society would let them.
Is this a DU thread?
So you don't consider nonviolent criminals a problem for society
I am able to distinguish those "crimes" that harm others, from those which do not. Theft, fraud, etc., harm others. Owning a short gun, some pot, or other such things do not. I admit that writing bad checks does harm others, but locking someone away forever for doing it seems harsh, especially compared to killing someone.
or their continued victimization of people to be worth stopping?
I didn't say I opposed all laws, and so long as laws continue to exist, there will be enforcement mechanisms in perpetuity.
And I think its laughable to think that con men, drug dealers, and crack heads are otherwise decent, loving parents that will provide positive formative years for their children if only society would let them.
I didn't say that either. Incidentally, criminals don't have a lock on bad parenting. Would you support nanny-state laws against bad parenting, whatever that is?
I find it sad that criminals have children, I do not, however, find it abusive to keep those criminals away from my children.
And if you don't agree with the pot laws, then you can work to have them overturned, after which it won't be a crime.
Is it your position that disagreeing with a law or its punishment makes it permissible to break it? I would only agree if the law violated basic human rights. I don't concur that drug laws do that.
Incidentally, criminals don't have a lock on bad parenting.
Yea, so what's your point? That because not everyone else is a perfect parent we should give criminals a pass?
Would you support nanny-state laws against bad parenting, whatever that is?
Well if "whatever that is" is beating a child into a coma, abandonment, constant abuse, nonsupport, or exposing the child to a constant chain of criminal activity? YES!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.