Posted on 05/25/2006 6:51:03 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback
Note: This commentary was delivered by Prison Fellowship President Mark Earley.
When Joe’s dad went to prison, Joe went to prison too—a prison of shame and anger. Responding to his father’s incarceration, Joe fought, drank, and smoked dope. And while Joe’s prison was figurative, he was on a path leading to a real prison with bars and barbed wire.
Joe is not a unique case. As a recent article in the National Journal claimed, “The next generation of prisoners is going to come from the current generation of prisoners.”
Sadly, society stands idly by as the children of prisoners become the unintentional casualties of the “war on crime.” With more than 2.3 million individuals currently behind bars in America, our incarceration rate quadruples that of previous decades. And the children of these prisoners are five to seven times more likely than the average child to end up in prison one day. Even more shocking, the American Correctional Association concluded that 52 percent of female juvenile offenders had an incarcerated parent.
Tragically, intergenerational punishment extends even beyond the United States.
On a recent trip to Bolivia, I had the opportunity to visit San Pedro prison in La Paz. As I watched throngs of prisoners shove each other out of the way for their daily bowl of gruel, I noticed a little girl with matted hair and grubby face lift up her own bowl among the ranks of hardened criminals. Although innocent of any crime, she had no other choice but to join her parents behind bars.
She doesn’t deserve prison. And neither do the 2 million American children with an incarcerated parent. But that’s exactly where we will send them one day if we do not begin to reform the criminal justice system.
We must reevaluate who we lock up, why we lock them up, and how we lock them up. Prisons are for people we are afraid of, not mad at. In other words, prisons are for dangerous offenders who pose a threat to society. We need to challenge “three-strikes-and-you’re-out” laws and mandatory minimum sentencing, responsible for filling 60 percent of our federal prisons with drug offenders, many of whom have no prior criminal record for a violent offense and many of whom are not drug dealers. On top of that, we need to consider the ramifications of separating families by incarcerating prisoners far from their homes.
But we can do more than influence public policy. Jesus said in Matthew 18:5 that “whoever welcomes a little child like this in My name welcomes Me.” The Church has always heeded the call to care for at-risk children—forgotten children. And these children are the most at-risk and forgotten children in America. God has a bias toward those who do not have advocates. As His followers, we should too.
Thanks to a caring Prison Fellowship mentor and a local church, Joe has embraced Christ and now spends his free time participating in mission trips and playing football with friends from the church youth group. Through Prison Fellowship’s Angel Tree program, we have watched thousands of children of prisoners like Joe escape the vicious cycle of crime and come to Christ.
Would you consider helping us reach the unintended casualties of the war on crime? Help us by mentoring a prisoner’s child or buying a child a Christmas gift on behalf of their incarcerated parent. Help us to send a child to a week of Christian summer camping. Call us at BreakPoint (1-877-322-5527), and we’ll tell you how you can help and make a difference.
This is part seven in the “War on the Weak” series.
Why do you ignore the fact that a lot of things that are defined as "violent felonies" don't involve harm to as much as a gnat? Carrying a gun in some states and home towns (the Second Amendment notwithstanding), owning one round of AP or tracer ammo in CA, owning an "assault weapon" in Denver, CA, or half a dozen other states, most drug possession offenses, especially if you own a gun or ammo as well ... these are "violent felonies" by definition. For honestly violent crimes, I basically agree with you, but be sure you understand the law before you state your support for the law.
First, that's a straw man, because I don't support replacing all uniform laws, e.g. against murder. So take that dog elsewhere. Second, it's already the case with crimes involving negligence or recklessness. You support those laws, don't you? Or do you?
What other violations should be left up to a policeman and a judge to decide on a case-by-case basis?
Oh, oh, oh. Tsk, tsk, tsk! Did we forget that it takes convincing a jury of one's peers to obtain a criminal conviction? As is the case with other crimes of negligence and recklessness? Too bad.... well, let me remind you. Because you used to know it, earlier in the thread.
I still can't believe you are actually advocating breaking the country up into legal fiefdoms. You whine that the laws on pot smoking and speeding just exist to harass people, and then you want to reinstate the Sheriff of Nottingham system. I'll take a uniform law that applies to everyone equally.
So, I guess you oppose laws against negligence and recklessness then. Or maybe you just can't remember about the jury system. Maybe your brain is fried.
I forget does that make me a tyrant or a bigot in your world?
Do you have dictionaries in your world? You can look it up and see whether you are or not.
As opposed to prison, as you would prefer? Wow, your compassionate authoritarianism really shines.
Or is it that you think they aren't capable of doing anything else?
I'd let them do what they wish, so long as they don't harm others. (Which of sex or contracts between consenting adults do you oppose?) You are the one who would prohibit them from doing ANYTHING else, putting them in jail to while away their years. Hypocrite. (Do you know what that word means?)
I didn't say anything of the sort. Only your lack of imagination keeps you from realizing that these women have other options beyond prostitution and prison.
You are the one who would prohibit them from doing ANYTHING else, putting them in jail to while away their years. Hypocrite. (Do you know what that word means?)
Because if brothels didn't exist they couldn't get the same jobs as other women? So that IS what you think. Thanks again for clarifying. I'm sure one of us knows what "hypocrite" means, but I wouldn't bet on your batting average so far. Go look up "intellectually bankrupt", and then write it backwards on your forehead, so that others will be saved from your banal hedonism.
Well you certainly forgot that you aren't given a jury for traffic court. You couldn't reason your way out of a wet paper bag.
Just looked it up. Says I'm a "winner".
So your entire argument is a straw man, as I don't support banning all drugs. Can't say I follow your logic, but as long as you're punching yourself...
In such criteria, the officer must list specifics, such as swerving at pedestrians, driving on sidewalks, etc. Items that are in the law as "illegal". Now in your world you would do this with speeding. Fine, so how do you prove it was speeding? Well you examine the roadway and determine the highest safe speed. Sounds great. The difference is that I would post that speed for all to see, while you want to keep it a secret or forgo the scientific approach altogether and let Officer Bob wing it. Yep, you're a real civil rights advocate.
Your opposition to posted speed limits to be replaced with subjective limits, has got to be the pinnacle of your ludicrousness. Please keep expanding on it. The entertainment value is enormous.
And you certainly forgot that we're talking about hypothetical changes to the traffic laws. I have already stated that speed limits, at least, are openly admitted to being revenue enhancement efforts, and that if the state profits directly from violation of laws, it becomes in their interest to prohibit as many things as they can. So, someone with some modicum of intellectual capacity might conclude that I don't support the present ticketing system, and would support something else. But, that apparently eludes you.
You couldn't reason your way out of a wet paper bag.
Do you even know what a wet paper bag is? (I know, it's a rhetorical question, don't bother answering.)
Every bigot has his story. From this, you made a stereotyping generalization, and have never looked back. Probably, there were others who did so but weren't otherwise criminal, but you didn't know about them and so they didn't influence your stereotype.
There are (as usual) remarkable parallels between your story, and the KKK and Brady bunch. There are certainly white supremacists, who the only black people they knew (or read about in the local paper) were criminals, hence, they concluded that all blacks were criminals, and that they should be sent away, separated, or otherwise controlled; they won't listen to arguments about non-criminal blacks, because they simply weren't a part of their formative experience.
Similarly, there are undoubtedly people, e.g. in New York City, who never hear of, nor know about, gun ownership except in the context of criminal activity. They too conclude that guns are solely a domain of crime, and that there is simply no reason for non-criminal people to own them, or even to want them, and that the only people who argue otherwise must therefore have murder on their minds, e.g., NRA members.
One of these years, you might realize that bigotry is a badge of shame, not honor, and that laws enacted out of bigotry are net detriments (even though a blacks put away by Jim Crow laws were criminal, and a few people put away for gun control violations too).
But probably not.
I also believe rocks are too hard for pillows - Rock bigot.
I don't let my children play with Rattlesnakes - Venomous snake bigot.
Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and take your butt down to what bigots call "the bad part of town". Go at about 2 AM and walk around in a business suit. You know that not everyone there is bad, so you'll be OK. You're not a bigot are you?
Truly? This is it? The limit of your argument is calling me a bigot? OMG this funny.
You can state it a few more times and it still won't make it true. Incidently your genius idea of making up speed limits on a moment-to-moment basis is going to be hand out what for violators, decoder rings?
It may have escaped some of you, but treating crack heads as criminals just because they are, is exactly the same as burning a black church and/or belonging to the Klan.
Fortunatly, I'm immune to the PC virus.
It's punishing criminals because they are criminals...nothing more.
Well, you only say that because its so obviously true. If you were more enlightened, you'd understand you are a bigot. ;-)
Sometimes I'm annoyed, but this is really funny stuff.
Well, you only say that because its so obviously true. If you were more enlightened, you'd understand you are a bigot. ;-)
Sometimes I'm annoyed, but this is really funny stuff.
Duh.
Most people pretty much grasp the concept real quick...a hot object will burn you. They don't even need to contemplate and agonize over that little fact of life...they just avoid handling hot objects.
It's not nonsense, it's your badge. Wear it with pride!
I also believe rocks are too hard for pillows - Rock bigot.
I don't let my children play with Rattlesnakes - Venomous snake bigot.
Yup, it's official, you can't comprehend written words.
Let's try this again:
big·ot n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Are there groups, religions, races, or political parties associated with using rocks for pillows? Are there groups, religions, races, or political parties associated with rattlesnakes?
Nope.
Then bigotry doesn't apply.
Truly? This is it? The limit of your argument is calling me a bigot? OMG this funny.
Yes, your grasp of the written word is funny indeed. You can't understand what bigotry is and have proved it here; you don't understand what the difference between "potential to do harm" and "potential energy" is, and have proved it here, even going to the remarkable length of denying dictionary definitions posted for your benefit; and you have repeatedly cited examples of violent crime, when asked about what harms drug possession directly cause - even when I first stipulated the possession was the result of one's own growing effort. And you're proud of all of the above, apparently, trumpeting your ignorance around and trying to use it to taunt me.
Truly remarkable!
(So, is the Encyclopaedia Britannica wrong too? Just another meaningless website?)
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.