AG Ashcroft Announces Nationwide Effort To Reintegrate Offenders Back Into Communities

US Newswire ^ | July 15th, 2002

[He Rides A White Horse]

bump for "Christian charity" (i.e., "sucker mentality")

Sometimes. Not always.

[He Rides A White Horse]

bump for "Christian charity" (i.e., "sucker mentality")

Let me guess.....you are here to represent the "non-Christian" wing of the Republican Party.

[general_re]

I speak only for me, and not for the whole "non-Christian wing", but I think it's a good idea. Seeing as how Australia is no longer accepting convicts, and seeing as how we don't really have the will to lock people up for life for every offense, we need to figure out some way to get convicts back into society. That's as opposed to what we're doing now - caging them for a few years, dumping them back on the streets, and then acting all surprised when they re-offend.

[He Rides A White Horse]

With all due respect general, I am pointing out a certain type of convoluted thinking......and it's this.

Mr Ashcroft (a fellow Christian mind you, that's how I see him) likes an initiative to reinstate violent criminals into society. Somehow certain non-violent law breakers are lost in the mix.

I firmly believe that there is a difference between violent and non violent criminals. Anybody who thinks otherwise lives in a place I've never been to.

I don't feel bound by ideological statements that say, "If you don't want to hang the potheads with us, you are a lousy Christian, Conservative", or whatever.

It's nonsense.

[He Rides A White Horse]

.....and I want to clarify another thing. To be for turning a non-violent drug addict out of prison (who has committed no other crime than the drug offense itself) doesn't equate to an endorsement of drug usage. I loathe the WWJD type debating points, but I have to say this: Jesus always dealt with problems of a spiritual nature with a spiritual solution. Not the local centurions.

[general_re]

And I'm with you all the way there. I merely suggest that we have neither the will nor the resources to house everyone that we could possibly convict, in large part because we have this fetish about handing out ten year sentences like they were candy to thousands of college kids busted with a few ounces of pot.

In any case, such are the choices we have made. I think they're a rather stupid set of priorities myself, but I'll try to make lemonaide here ;)

[general_re]

...lemonade, whatever ;)

[He Rides A White Horse]

I'm not referring to folks who coldly murder somebody. For the fourth time.

What I'm describing is "The Woman by the Well" types, you get the idea. It's no surprise that they flocked to Him. Not at all.

[general_re]

Mmmm, I follow you, but I'm not sure I'd impute those abilites to John Ashcroft. I know that's not really what you meant, but there you go ;)

Anyway, the way I see it, we have three choices. One, lock everyone up and throw away the key. But it's increasingly clear that, as I said, we have neither the will nor the resources to really do that.

Two, your suggestion (and my preferred choice), that we reconsider exactly who should be released in order to make a little room. But that would require a government made up of leaders with courage and vision and a willingness to temporarily buck the conventional mindset in order to change it, and such men are in notably short supply these days. Bush could do it - only a conservative could do it, really, since nobody on the left would have the law-and-order credibility it would require to be taken seriously - but he won't because he's spending his political capital elsewhere. Nobody will do it because it's a major effort for little political gain - where's the convict constituency?

Finally, we can keep doing what we're doing and try to band-aid and duct-tape the system together, which is largely what Ashcroft's doing here. In the long run, it's no solution at all, but it'll keep the system chugging along for a few more years, which is all it really is intended to do - by the time the failures of the system become overwhelmingly obvious, it'll be someone else's problem anyway.

Given that the first two options are currently impossible, IMO, what else can Ashcroft do but go for the baling wire and spit approach to try to keep the system from bursting at the seams? Sure, in the long run, reconsidering priorities is the best way to go, but there's no groundswell of support for that. When the duct tape fails and we have murderers roaming the streets so we can lock up potheads by the bushelful, then you'll see a change in popular opinion, and not until then...

[He Rides A White Horse]

Two, your suggestion (and my preferred choice), that we reconsider exactly who should be released in order to make a little room. But that would require a government made up of leaders with courage and vision and a willingness to temporarily buck the conventional mindset in order to change it, and such men are in notably short supply these days.

Start bucking.

Nobody will do it because it's a major effort for little political gain - where's the convict constituency?

There are always those with conviction.

When the duct tape fails and we have murderers roaming the streets so we can lock up potheads by the bushelful, then you'll see a change in popular opinion, and not until then...

I don't think so. Lt. White Horse reporting, General.

[He Rides A White Horse]

Bush could do it -

Bush should do it--------It seems to me that he floated a few "faith based initiative" trial balloons that met with the same fate as a zeppelin filled with hydrogen. Brought down with phosphor bullets fired by other conservatives.

[general_re]

Hey, like I said, I'm with you, and I'm waiting for pols with the spine to call it as they see it, but even when we have one, you still have the problem of all the folks out there who have bought into the notion that a drug is a drug is a drug, and that there's no moral or practical difference between the kid who has a joint in his shoe and the Medellin cartel.

Look right here on FR for proof - there've been a number of threads lately about moves in the UK and Canada to decrim pot altogether, and proposals like that generate a tremendous amount of hostility among folks right here. Ultimately, IMO, it's the conservative version of perfectionism - if we just lock up enough people, we can make the world a happy, shiny place where nobody ever gets hurt. And that might even be so, but we have to ask ourselves if the cost of getting there is worth it. It's just foolish hardheadedness, IMO, that keeps folks from looking at the issue pragmatically. But I've observed that many people, perhaps most people, have to learn things the hard way.

So, what can I say, other than arm yourself, because it's going to get worse before it gets better. We're going to keep releasing murderers and child-molesters and rapists and the like, all so that we can Do Something About Drugs. Hopefully Ashcroft's proposal will mitigate it at least a little bit, but in the end, that's what you'll have - 10 million non-violent drug offenders doing hard time, with no room for folks who have a taste for violence.

[general_re]

Bush should do it

He should, but he won't. There's no immediate payoff for him in it - any benefits that arise are vague and deferred until some unspecified future date. As much as I like Bush, he's sill a politician, and I don't fool myself about how politicians think and work. If he proposed such a thing, how long do you think it would take before some folks dragged out the "soft on crime" label? I'd bet about 45 seconds, myself, and he knows it too...

[He Rides A White Horse]

Hey, like I said, I'm with you

My posts were not directed at you.

[general_re]

I gathered, but I find it useful to make sure that everyone's on the same page - the folks who you are directing your posts at aren't paying attention anyway. You've joined the ranks of pro-junkie anarchist hedonists now, at least in the minds of some ;)

[He Rides A White Horse]

but in the end, that's what you'll have - 10 million non-violent drug offenders doing hard time, with no room for folks who have a taste for violence.

For my part, let me go on record as saying I reject that.

(and yes, I know you aren't espousing such solutions)

Oh, I was just called a bad Christian, a lousy conservative, etc. by someody somewhere. My ears ring. Doesn't hurt. Others should try it sometime.

[He Rides A White Horse]

You've joined the ranks of pro-junkie anarchist hedonists now, at least in the minds of some ;)

I suppose it's a good thing I don't care. Good night, general_re. Take care.

[general_re]

For my part, let me go on record as saying I reject that.

And it seems almost self-evident to anyone with an iota of common sense that that's the inevitable outcome, doesn't it? But this is what happens when ideology clashes with reality - the results are often ugly.

Oh, I was just called a bad Christian, a lousy conservative, etc. by someody somewhere. My ears ring. Doesn't hurt. Others should try it sometime.

Sure, I agree - I could care less about such things myself. But then again, the point isn't really to hurt your feelings, the point is to marginalize your point of view and remove it from the debate. "You're a bad conservative and a horrible Christian" may not affect your self-esteem much, but it causes others to look upon you suspiciously - "he's a lousy Christian - we can't trust him".

Too bad more people don't have your fortitude when it comes to attempts to shame you into silence. It'll work itself out one way or another, but I'm pessimistic about how it'll go. So be it.

Good night, and best to you ;)

[Sonny M]

I think to many people have missed a point here. Violent criminals do not nesessarily spend there entire lives in prison or get executed, this may shock some, but eventually most of them, do get released. Wether they do 5 years, 10 years, 15 years, 20 or 25 years, alot of these people do get out. This program looks more to me like damage control. Sort of, I can't keep them in prison, maybe I can supervise them, and try and make them integrate into society. If not, then they hurt somone else, and go back. You have to be pragmatic, if a guy is going to get out of prison, he is going to get out, period. You can either let him out and do nothing and deal with the high recidivism rate, or you can let him out, but before he leaves and after, try and work with helping him make something of himself.

[TN Republican]

I try to ignore religious influences on politics. What one's religion has to do with their choice of parties is no concern of mine.

There certainly ought to be plenty of non-Christians who identify as Republicans, as upwards of 30% of the voting-age population identifies as such. There are certainly many Christian Democrats as well. No party could possibly win if it was composed entirely of agnostics, or entirely of members of one of the major world religions.

Be that as it may, I think the altruists in the Democratic party probably have a better handle on the Christian message. I don't know how rational people can believe all that stuff, but hey, whatever floats your boat.