BillDBastard

Federal Prison Reform

Recommended Posts

So? What do you illuminatus think?

I have long thought that prison is a huge waste of time. Not that criminals should not be punished, they should, but the time spent behind bars needs to be productive. Incarceration must be more than warehousing churning out more capable and more damaged individuals. This merry-go-round needs real reform. It needs to seek a way to make those we deem not fit to walk the streets ready for re-introduction to civilized society.

* First, commission of a crime where a firearm is used needs to carry very stiff penalties.

* Second, discharging a firearm during the commission of a crime, callous disregard for life of others, needs to be swift and certain.

* Third, those convicted need a pathway back to re-integration into society.

* Fourth, inmates need to be encouraged to turn their lives around to be productive members of society.

So with the above in mind, minimum sentencing rules must carry an additional penalty for crimes committed involving a firearm. My take on this would be +5 if you display a weapon while conducting a criminal act. An additional +5 if you fire that weapon without actually shooting anybody. Make it so someone thinking about using a gun during the commission of a crime thinks twice about carrying and using a firearm.

Next I think a pathway necessary for those being found guilty and incarcerated. I think this need be comprehensive to the extent that a prisoner can actually be reformed. I think we need to set conditions for release. Meeting those conditions, you get to go free. Failing to meet them would see the criminal remain in prison until they can demonstrate they are worthy of release.As such I would like to see the following.

* Full drug rehabilitation

* Required to complete a boot camp style of personal rehabilitation. This would include code of conduct and civics training.

* Required to complete and attain a GED.

* Required to complete job training.

* Job placement services.

Say we set a minimum sentence of 5 years. If you complete the above in that timeframe, you are free to re-enter society. If not, 3 hots and a cot until you do. Clear path to release, carrot and stick.

 

What do you all think? What would you add as conditions to be released?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a good thing that Trump really doesn’t care about but will take credit for.  I’m OK with that.  

First thing that should be done is eliminate private prisons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, BillDBastard said:

* First, commission of a crime where a firearm is used needs to carry very stiff penalties.

In the backward state of Michigan, if you have a gun in possession (not used) when you commit or attempt to commit a felony, it is an automatic 2yrs tacked on to any other penalty.   Stiff enough?

I don't understand why you want to make this a federal reform issue.  States have long set their own laws, why do you advocate change on a federal level?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point we need to focus on the states as well. Has the contirutionality of private prisons been established by the SC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All good points but how bout we start with the non violent offenders who make up a larger %?  Let's start with the woman who just got sentenced to 8 years because she is an ex con and didn't know she was not allowed to vote.  And a 2nd to eliminating private prisons, that's some fucked up shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Seems like good ol Mitch doesn’t want to bring anything to the floor of the Senate for a vote. Such an iguana dick 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well WRT Federal Prison Reform. Not disagreeing state prisons are not also in need of reform, just that it is topical currently at the federal level with pending legislation.

WRT Michigan, 2 years ain't all that much for committing a felony with a handgun. My take is it has to be enough time tacked on that it is not worth the risk. So say in my above scenario you get 3 years for B&E (or whatever, the term fitting) if that then becomes 8 years, well suddenly the consequences of gun/no gun more than 2 1/2 times as great.

Not sure why you folks think privatization of prisons is bad but admittedly have not studied the subject. In a free market style approach and using private prisons you could certainly attach conditions to the enterprise that is charged with running those institutions. By this I mean say you have a 5 year program to fully rehabilitate and pay on the order of say 100k, or 500k to rehab and release. If that former inmate does not return to a life of crime/run afoul of the law for say another 5 years (whatever based on stats) then a bonus could be paid to that private entity, like maybe an additional 150k or some such. Thus a private prison has incentive to see that they fully rehabilitate those in their charge rather than just going through the motions, ticking the boxes without any real accountability.

D, see I get that there is a mindset that if you are a two or three time loser, additional penalties apply regardless of the severity of any subsequent criminal activity. Looks good on paper and all that. Not sure it works and as you point out can be grossly misapplied. In my above I am looking to change the criminal mindset so they do not regress. Give 'em  the skills to make it lawfully. I should think that restoration of voting rights could certainly be part of the carrot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

I think 3 strikes is one too many.

Which is a very good point. What if you go through the proposed rehab and check all the boxes but then spiral back into a life of crime? Do we give you a second shot at it or does sentencing then revert back to more of how it now stands.... "we gave you a shot and you blew it" kind of mindset?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, d'ranger said:

All good points but how bout we start with the non violent offenders who make up a larger %?  Let's start with the woman who just got sentenced to 8 years because she is an ex con and didn't know she was not allowed to vote.  And a 2nd to eliminating private prisons, that's some fucked up shit.

And yeah, non-violent offenders should take a priority. No doubt. Someone who steals to put food on the table, as opposed to just being a violent asshole who feels empowered by taking what is not theirs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I have learned deterrence is mostly a myth - someone committing a violent crime is not considering the consequences so basing sentencing on that alone is not a good answer - needs to be more of a selective the punishment fits the crime.  The 3 strikes law was so abused it has been struck down, the only thing worse was the war on drugs. In Texas grow a pot plant a you are a felon forever.  Drug reform is badly needed.  The death penalty does not deter murder.  Am opposed to it only because of the inequities i.e. poor people get it more than rich ones.  On a personal level would be more than willing to do it myself for those committing heinous crimes. 

Private Prisons? Bad on so many levels, with the top 2: Incentives to fill them up (cases of judges being found to receiving kickbacks) and cost cutting to the point that rehab and decent accommodations are a joke. 

Violent crime is a tougher nut to address and without wading into deep dogballs making dogballs harder to get has to be part of the equation. When I was young you got beat up not shot.  Shootings are now a daily occurrence.  IMO shooting someone is just so much easier and efficient than using a club, hammer, brass knuckles or fists.  The people using dogballs just aren't thinking about getting caught.  Somehow have to address the culture that has us in this spot.  Don't know the solution and refuse to go down that rabbit hole, so will let the usual suspects do that.

In summary - I see lots to work on and not many easy solutions.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was hoping to avoid the usual in favor of something more contemplative.

I will agree with you that violent offenders are a far tougher nut to crack, if worth cracking at all. Not condemning them out of hand. Just think we have to start with those more readily  rehabilitatable . Or perhaps more aptly, those that we stand a shot at fixing before them become unfixable. With that in mind, all sentencing could be the same or offer the same alternative, "The Program". The Program could look a good deal like twelve step that AA uses, plus the boot camp aspect.... something definitive with structure and attainable goals. Doesn't matter what you are in for. Drug possession, grand theft auto, shop lifting B&E, telephone marketing.... whatever. The "punishment" is to get the person right..... not really punishment at all except you don't get to come and go as you please.

Way too many people in jail and with a 40-50k a year price tag with not a damn thing being done to, as Grady from The Shinning put it," need to be Cor-rec-ted".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

46 minutes ago, BillDBastard said:

Which is a very good point. What if you go through the proposed rehab and check all the boxes but then spiral back into a life of crime? Do we give you a second shot at it or does sentencing then revert back to more of how it now stands.... "we gave you a shot and you blew it" kind of mindset?

As a senior I've watched these issues go from bad to worse. Now that the jailers are crooked/intimidated to allow the bad guys to control the inner workings of prisons I'm even less "progressive" than ever.

First, we've got it totally wrong upfront. First offenders who haven't killed anyone should be sent to a farm that produces their own food. Work farm hours for a year providing for others. Have a monthly meeting at the local prison, a come to Jesus meeting with the dumb asses who didn't appreciate the first chance, also attended by the local AAs and NAs, anyone with a current restraining order, and everyone on parole.

That 2nd offense can be one year in solitary, except for the monthly meetings that they attend in irons.The idea is immersion with fuck ups for all concerned.

Someone crossing the line that third time doesn't deserve living on my dime anymore. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BillDBastard said:

Which is a very good point. What if you go through the proposed rehab and check all the boxes but then spiral back into a life of crime? Do we give you a second shot at it or does sentencing then revert back to more of how it now stands.... "we gave you a shot and you blew it" kind of mindset?

I think we should ask @Jocal what he and Slutkin would propose as obviously a lot of these people are there for violence offences. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Bill, rather than hand a private outfit 100k or 500k with zero acct, how about they pay the freight for time incarcerated, and we pay them by time without arrest after "treatment. " let's stop being suckers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, BillDBastard said:

 

What do you all think? What would you add as conditions to be released?

 

 

230 grains of lead applied to the cranium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prison reform? start with judicial reform.

How can one replete offending pedo plea bargain away a crime to 18 months in a luxury "cell" with 12 hours a day outside leave, yet another get life?

How is anyone supposed to respect and obey such a corrupt system?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Navig8tor said:

Surprised donald is not all over this, he might be offering a first hand perspective shortly.:D

Orange doesn't suit him, how about something in a nice navy, maybe with a couple of unearned badges on the shoulders?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

And Bill, rather than hand a private outfit 100k or 500k with zero acct, how about they pay the freight for time incarcerated, and we pay them by time without arrest after "treatment. " let's stop being suckers.

Boy wouldn't that be nice. Make the offender pay for their time in prison.

Hand money over with no accountability? Isn't that what we do now?

Listen, my take is this sir or ma'am, we pay 40-50K per year to warehouse criminals. Was trying to find length of average felony conviction term of incarceration..... couldn't interestingly. But say it is 5 years and something like 75% are repeat offenders. So for each criminal were are "housing" them for what 8-9 years? At 50K per? Plus court expenses? Fair to say we are spending like a million dollars per crook? Seriously? Can we not do better by spending 500k and actually "fix" them?

See I am right there with you on costs and sentencing and an annoyance about how much criminals cost society. Which is precisely why I think we have to do something more than just tossing them in jail without any requirements for them to gain their release. Just do the time and go out and fall right back into the same lifestyle, same stupid shit, and eventually get tossed back in jail. It has to stop. It isn't working and I for one am sick and tired of footing the bill.

Interestingly I have been doing some reading on jail versus prison, and about a third of all convicted do not go to jail. Our prison/jails are a joke. We do not do a damn thing to turn lives around. Being a thug has become ghetto chic, just like packing a gun!and all sorts of abhorrent behavior. AND WE DO NOT DO A DAMN THING TO STOP IT! That has to change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. I'd change a lot of things starting with much shorter sentences with much harsher prison conditions for repeaters after a year on the farm. All solitary confinement. Shower and exercise in your cell. No sex possible. I'd say being raped in prison is cruel and unusual punishment. And a situation where groups of inmates are actually running the show, apparently have access to drugs, can kill folks at will suggests we're going about this all wrong.

Prisoners are not regular folks. We need to acknowledge that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

That prisoners are better off than homeless people is a disgrace.

And that homeless people are forced to commit crimes in order to escape the streets for prison in the winter months in many so called 1st world countries  is a sad reflection on humanity.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No argument on that point Mad and BC. I live in a fairly affluent neighborhood. Mornings when the recyclables go out there are a number of people who wander from bin to bin in search of refundable bottles and cans. I think it terribly sad. I applaud them for their efforts and it is clear they are willing to get their hands dirty for a nickel per beverage container....but terribly sad that that is the best they can hope for to supplement whatever income they have.

On the other hand, I am not so sure welfare reform and dealing with the homeless crisis is all that much different than dealing with first time, non-violent offenders. Rehab, boot camp, GED, job training and career placement services. The root problem for each category is likely very similar and crossover amongst these three groups probably well over 75%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes indeed. My year on the farm with farm chores would include night school on the 3rs. Not that they are all stupid but just because most were lousy students with no motivation 

Indeed, I'd let kids drop out of high school whenever they choose and double up on GED classes at 2 year schools for free for when they're ready to rejoin the human race cuz they need a job, hopefully.

TV time would be world news each night followed by Jeopardy, Nat Geo, arty stuff. These folks have almost zero experience in the worlds we live in. Maybe an old Oscar-winning movie on Sat nights. Silly sitcoms? Certainly not.

Sunday mornings, after chores, you attend AA, religious services, or yoga class with the rest of the day off for good behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/8/2018 at 12:23 PM, BillDBastard said:

So with the above in mind, minimum sentencing rules must carry an additional penalty for crimes committed involving a firearm.

What if the crime is possession of a firearm and the firearm penalty enhancement, on top of the normal penalty for the crime, is for possession of a firearm?

I know it sounds silly, but that's what happens in places like New Jersey. Gun possession can't be punished enough in that state, it seems. The federal court did overturn it this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/8/2018 at 10:03 AM, Fakenews said:

Good point we need to focus on the states as well.

You can check California off the list... with Props 41 and 51 and AB109, we have just decided to lower the bar on crime and are keeping the jails empty.. now there is some fuckwitt in San Fran that wants to do away with prisons all together...  like the prison guard union is going to let that happen..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, nacradriver said:

You can check California off the list... with Props 41 and 51 and AB109, we have just decided to lower the bar on crime and are keeping the jails empty.. now there is some fuckwitt in San Fran that wants to do away with prisons all together...  like the prison guard union is going to let that happen..

Good to hear.

The US has 21% of the worlds incarcerated people but only 4% of the population.  Our next door neighbor Canada has 114 people incarcerated per 100,000. Our number is 685. I blame legal guns and illegal drugs.

California rocks.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_United_States_incarceration_rate_with_other_countries

PS the prison guard union if it exist is hopelessly outmatched.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

The US has 21% of the worlds incarcerated people but only 4% of the population.  Our next door neighbor Canada has 114 people incarcerated per 100,000. Our number is 685. I blame legal guns and illegal drugs.

You're half right and half hoplophobic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ll leave the discussion of hoplophobia to Jocelyn.  I find the subject boring as are all of your gun threads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

Good to hear.

 

Do you want to ask me about the rise in crime in California before you make that statement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

I’ll leave the discussion I started because I find myself boring.

OK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dogballs Tom said:

OK

Not nice to edit my posts and no I’m not leaving the conversation just not discussing it on your hoblopile terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/8/2018 at 2:42 PM, d'ranger said:

From what I have learned deterrence is mostly a myth - someone committing a violent crime is not considering the consequences so basing sentencing on that alone is not a good answer - needs to be more of a selective the punishment fits the crime.  The 3 strikes law was so abused it has been struck down, the only thing worse was the war on drugs. In Texas grow a pot plant a you are a felon forever.  Drug reform is badly needed.  The death penalty does not deter murder.  Am opposed to it only because of the inequities i.e. poor people get it more than rich ones.  On a personal level would be more than willing to do it myself for those committing heinous crimes. 

The death penalty is wrong because the killing is never necessary and unnecessary killing is wrong.

On 12/8/2018 at 2:42 PM, d'ranger said:

Private Prisons? Bad on so many levels, with the top 2: Incentives to fill them up (cases of judges being found to receiving kickbacks) and cost cutting to the point that rehab and decent accommodations are a joke. 

I think the second one applies to state run prisons too. The first one is the real reason. A business should not have that incentive any more than the cops should have the incentive to loot that they do in the drug war.

 

On 12/8/2018 at 2:42 PM, d'ranger said:

Violent crime is a tougher nut to address and without wading into deep dogballs making dogballs harder to get has to be part of the equation. When I was young you got beat up not shot.  Shootings are now a daily occurrence.  IMO shooting someone is just so much easier and efficient than using a club, hammer, brass knuckles or fists.  The people using dogballs just aren't thinking about getting caught.  Somehow have to address the culture that has us in this spot.  Don't know the solution and refuse to go down that rabbit hole, so will let the usual suspects do that. 

In summary - I see lots to work on and not many easy solutions.

I still agree with your previous position on this issue:

On 3/26/2018 at 4:58 AM, dogballs Tom said:

I'm just still in agreement with this post, except the part calling me a liar for noting that all the "assault weapon" bans include our dogballs's.

On 2/15/2018 at 12:03 PM, d'ranger said:

Dear Clueless Tom - I don't know any reasonable person advocating banning anything More Dogballs.  That you use it makes you just as big a disingenuous fucktard as Jack.  


And yes, D'Ranger, when you go out of your way to call me a liar for telling the truth, you might just see that post a few more times.


Don't worry, people like Jocal and DiFi are ably representing the opposition to my elk and are constantly trying to make ordinary guns harder to get by banning them. Your voice isn't needed and since all you seem to offer is name calling directed at people who present the facts about gun bans, we have plenty of people here to take up the slack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

What if the crime is possession of a firearm and the firearm penalty enhancement, on top of the normal penalty for the crime, is for possession of a firearm?

I know it sounds silly, but that's what happens in places like New Jersey. Gun possession can't be punished enough in that state, it seems. The federal court did overturn it this time.

Mr. Tom, Big supporter of the Second Amendment. I do not wish to see additional restrictions on The Right to Bear Arms of the law abiding citizen. The trade-off is that we need to remove guns from those who would commit crime  using a firearm. Thus additional penalties for having such a weapon during the commission of a felony serves to protect our Second Amendment Rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, BillDBastard said:

Mr. Tom, Big supporter of the Second Amendment. I do not wish to see additional restrictions on The Right to Bear Arms of the law abiding citizen. The trade-off is that we need to remove guns from those who would commit crime  using a firearm. Thus additional penalties for having such a weapon during the commission of a felony serves to protect our Second Amendment Rights.

Having read your thoughts in this thread, you are lucky that ignorance is not a Capital Offense.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/9/2018 at 4:48 AM, Fakenews said:

This is a good thing that Trump really doesn’t care about but will take credit for.  I’m OK with that.  

First thing that should be done is eliminate private prisons.

At this point, any effort to improve federal prisons by Trump will be entirely self serving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

How fucking nuts do you have to be to keep a file of others' posts?

What part of 'this thread' did you not understand.  I guess Michener's Chesapeake extended to the Outer Banks, say hi to dad/uncle/cousin.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

At this point, any effort to improve federal prisons by Trump will be entirely self serving.

What fraction of inmates in the US are in Federal prisons?  I seriously don't know but I would bet it's less than 10%.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cal20sailor said:
5 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

At this point, any effort to improve federal prisons by Trump will be entirely self serving.

What fraction of inmates in the US are in Federal prisons?  I seriously don't know but I would bet it's less than 10%.  

As far as Trump is concerned, that's irrelevant. I'm sure he want to get a golf course built at whichever one he's going to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

What part of 'this thread' did you not understand.  I guess Michener's Chesapeake extended to the Outer Banks, say hi to dad/uncle/cousin.  

I don't think he was talking about you. More likely the psycho who was popping in 10 month old posts to argue about guns.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, B.J. Porter said:

As far as Trump is concerned, that's irrelevant. I'm sure he want to get a golf course built at whichever one he's going to.

Hey, his time will be torture.  If I'm long, I'll be in the sand trap, if I'm short, I'll be in the pond.  Put me down for a four.  :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

I don't think he was talking about you. More likely the psycho who was popping in 10 month old posts to argue about guns.....

Oops, apologies if they are in order.  Not usually this sensitive but a few bad days.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoa Tom.  

Whats with injecting quotes from another thread that are six months old so you can talk about your dogballs?  You are seriously demented.  If anything bad ever happened people are going to say “yup he was a strange one always mumbling about guns”.

I think you’re 

SAD!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

I don't think he was talking about you. More likely the psycho who was popping in 10 month old posts to argue about guns.....

Thanks. I was talking dogballs quoting d'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

I was replying to TeamD Ranger's evolving views and citing them.

Which is obviously way worse than bringing up a 5 year old shitfight about guns in a thread unrelated to guns. That's just normal behavior and won't draw any kind of comment from the gungrabby chorus.

Ya know, the nutty part is "a 5 year old shitfight." And it's not just you and Joe, unfortunately. But you two are genuine crusaders, and not in a good way. If you two would have the same fight with PMs, no one would know ... or care.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Fakenews said:

We have to deincarcerate.

Does that include Moped DUI's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, nacradriver said:

Does that include Moped DUI's?

Of course that was not Fakenews, cough, cough, cough.  I did have access to the Police Report from KW and it turns out that Gator had a well known male prostitute on the back of the vespa when he was pulled over.  Turns out Gator liked it up the ass from a strap-on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

The death penalty is wrong because the killing is never necessary and unnecessary killing is wrong.

In general I agree, however in the case of mass shooters and terrorists, serial killers and paedophiles, I see no reason to keep them alive. Those that are beyond rehabilitationn are no use to society, only a drain. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

How fucking nuts do you have to be to keep a file of others' posts?

It’s a practice that’s happened here more than once, by more then one of the seriously deluded posters. Along with stalking, tampering with forum code, threats of embedded tracking etc, etc

Its probably a signal that these posters should be banned until they seek medical advice and treatment........ or we can just carry on as normal in this little cesspool of SA. An asylum made by the Ed to keep them voluntarily incarcerated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Cal20sailor said:

Of course that was not Fakenews, cough, cough, cough.  I did have access to the Police Report from KW and it turns out that Gator had a well known male prostitute on the back of the vespa when he was pulled over.  Turns out Gator liked it up the ass from a strap-on.

A male prostitute and strap ons!  I’m not sure where this is going, but I don’t need to hear anymore  :o

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, mad said:

In general I agree, however in the case of mass shooters and terrorists, serial killers and paedophiles, I see no reason to keep them alive. Those that are beyond rehabilitationn are no use to society, only a drain. 

I’d have to agree. Just to throw an odd perspective into the mix, my brother is currently serving 4 years in prison with an additional year of jail waiting for him. He’s had some “interesting” cell mates. He said the guy who snapped and killed his wife with a hatchet was actually a really nice guy, he just went off his meds and bad things happened. Now he’s stuck with a peddo. He’s pretty sure that guy will never change his ways. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Dogballs, I have had you on ignore since your little bitchfest to our mutual friend so there is no Team D Ranger evolving or otherwise. If you weren't quoted I would not even know about it.

So once again, fuck off and carry on without me.

edit: just a heads up,  our friend has said he is taking a year off from SA so you will have to contact him directly.  Team D Ranger out, even though I have no team and avoid dogballs/tools threads like the plague.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/9/2018 at 8:54 PM, Fakenews said:

Good to hear.

The US has 21% of the worlds incarcerated people but only 4% of the population.  Our next door neighbor Canada has 114 people incarcerated per 100,000. Our number is 685. I blame legal guns and illegal drugs.

California rocks.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_United_States_incarceration_rate_with_other_countries

PS the prison guard union if it exist is hopelessly outmatched.

FFS Gator, use units uniformly.  You want to talk percentages, fine, but don't give me the 114 out of 100,000 bullshit. Percent comes from Latin and means per one hundred.  In your case, it would be .114%.  You've been better behaved but are still an asshole.  

And being next to Canada and having spent a good portion of my life there, women in Canada can go topless.  We are so behind the times.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, d'ranger said:

edit: just a heads up,  our friend has said he is taking a year off from SA so you will have to contact him directly.  Team D Ranger out, even though I have no team and avoid dogballs/tools threads like the plague.

I have a friend?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

FFS Gator, use units uniformly.  You want to talk percentages, fine, but don't give me the 114 out of 100,000 bullshit. Percent comes from Latin and means per one hundred.  In your case, it would be .114%.  You've been better behaved but are still an asshole.  

And being next to Canada and having spent a good portion of my life there, women in Canada can go topless.  We are so behind the times.  

I am fakenews.  I am sorry you are confused but I am able to discuss many metric or units of measure in one paragraph. Centigrade, Fahrenheit,  kilograms, pounds, rate per thousand etc. Please try to keep up. 

Edit the words world and Canada should have been a clue to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BillDBastard said:

And a perfectly good thread turns to shite.

Bitch McConnell is doing his best to see it turns to shit in DC

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

I am fakenews.  I am sorry you are confused but I am able to discuss many metric or units of measure in one paragraph. Centigrade, Fahrenheit,  kilograms, pounds, rate per thousand etc. Please try to keep up. 

Edit the words world and Canada should have been a clue to you.

Gator, how many rods does your car get for each hogs head of fuel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Blue Crab said:
19 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

I was replying to TeamD Ranger's evolving views and citing them.

Which is obviously way worse than bringing up a 5 year old shitfight about guns in a thread unrelated to guns. That's just normal behavior and won't draw any kind of comment from the gungrabby chorus.

Ya know, the nutty part is "a 5 year old shitfight." And it's not just you and Joe, unfortunately. But you two are genuine crusaders, and not in a good way.

The difference being, you can avoid my gun posts for the most part by simply not visiting gun threads in PA. It's true that people like Ishmael and Sloop can't leave it alone and will reference my views in Cruising Anarchy, but I don't do it and can't control how triggered they are by my opposition to gun bans.

There's no avoiding Joe. He follows me around to non-gun threads that I have started to continue his bleating. Yesterday, he was saying he will continue to do it.

Despite the lies of the gungrabby chorus, I don't do that. If facts mattered, I can produce lots of examples and they can produce none. But much like the School Shootings That Weren't, it doesn't matter if something really happens, as long as it's a useful propaganda point that you can get the mindless chorus to chant.

11 hours ago, mad said:
23 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

The death penalty is wrong because the killing is never necessary and unnecessary killing is wrong.

In general I agree, however in the case of mass shooters and terrorists, serial killers and paedophiles, I see no reason to keep them alive. Those that are beyond rehabilitationn are no use to society, only a drain. 

That's another commonly held belief that turns out to be at odds with the facts.

On 11/16/2018 at 6:35 AM, dogballs Tom said:

Sex Offender Recidivism and Kennedy's Legacy
 

Quote

 

Last May the Arizona Supreme Court overturned a state ban on bail for people accused of sexual assault "when the proof is evident or the presumption great," concluding that the categorical exclusion violated the constitutional right to due process. Critics of that decision are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the case, Arizona v. Goodman, and their arguments highlight the continuing influence of misconceptions about the "frightening and high risk of recidivism" among sex offenders.

That phrase comes from Justice Anthony Kennedy's plurality opinion in the 2002 Supreme Court case McKune v. Lile, where he claimed "the rate of recidivism of untreated offenders has been estimated to be as high as 80%." Kennedy's characterization of the recidivism risk as "frightening and high" has been echoed in scores of decisions upholding restrictions on sex offenders. But the original source for his recidivism estimate was an uncorroborated assertion in a 1986 Psychology Today article by a therapist who has repudiated the number, saying he is "appalled" at its lingering impact.

...

The AVCV brief quotes a 2013 Supreme Court decision that said "there is evidence that recidivism rates among sex offenders are higher than the average for other types of criminals." Yet data cited by the brief contradict that contention.

"An analysis of 400,000 state prisoners," AVCV says, "found that 21 percent of sex offenders were rearrested for a crime within six months of release, 31 percent were rearrested within one year, 44 percent within two years, 51 percent within three years, and 60 percent within five years." Those numbers, which apply to people convicted of rape or sexual assault, are for any type of new crime, as opposed to a sex offense specifically. Even so, the five-year recidivism rate for these sex offenders was lower than the rates for people convicted of robbery, assault, burglary, larceny, fraud, drug offenses, and "public order" offenses. The only group with a lower five-year recidivism rate (51 percent vs. 60 percent) was people convicted of homicide.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, d'ranger said:

Team D Ranger out, even though I have no team and avoid dogballs/tools threads like the plague.

You visited this thread to call me names.

You call me names for telling the truth about which guns TeamD wants to ban.

Sorry but there are two teams: those who want to ban our guns and those who don't. Both of the above tell me which team you are on, even if you won't admit it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:
11 hours ago, mad said:
23 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

The death penalty is wrong because the killing is never necessary and unnecessary killing is wrong.

In general I agree, however in the case of mass shooters and terrorists, serial killers and paedophiles, I see no reason to keep them alive. Those that are beyond rehabilitationn are no use to society, only a drain. 

That's another commonly held belief that turns out to be at odds with the facts.

On 11/16/2018 at 11:35 AM, dogballs Tom said:

Sex Offender Recidivism and Kennedy's Legacy
 

Quote

 

Last May the Arizona Supreme Court overturned a state ban on bail for people accused of sexual assault "when the proof is evident or the presumption great," concluding that the categorical exclusion violated the constitutional right to due process. Critics of that decision are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the case, Arizona v. Goodman, and their arguments highlight the continuing influence of misconceptions about the "frightening and high risk of recidivism" among sex offenders.

That phrase comes from Justice Anthony Kennedy's plurality opinion in the 2002 Supreme Court case McKune v. Lile, where he claimed "the rate of recidivism of untreated offenders has been estimated to be as high as 80%." Kennedy's characterization of the recidivism risk as "frightening and high" has been echoed in scores of decisions upholding restrictions on sex offenders. But the original source for his recidivism estimate was an uncorroborated assertion in a 1986 Psychology Today article by a therapist who has repudiated the number, saying he is "appalled" at its lingering impact.

...

The AVCV brief quotes a 2013 Supreme Court decision that said "there is evidence that recidivism rates among sex offenders are higher than the average for other types of criminals." Yet data cited by the brief contradict that contention.

"An analysis of 400,000 state prisoners," AVCV says, "found that 21 percent of sex offenders were rearrested for a crime within six months of release, 31 percent were rearrested within one year, 44 percent within two years, 51 percent within three years, and 60 percent within five years." Those numbers, which apply to people convicted of rape or sexual assault, are for any type of new crime, as opposed to a sex offense specifically. Even so, the five-year recidivism rate for these sex offenders was lower than the rates for people convicted of robbery, assault, burglary, larceny, fraud, drug offenses, and "public order" offenses. The only group with a lower five-year recidivism rate (51 percent vs. 60 percent) was people convicted of homicide.

There's a difference between sexual assault and paedophilia, but you knew that right? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, mad said:

There's a difference between sexual assault and paedophilia, but you knew that right? 

The 1986 study at the root of the myth was on "sex offenders" which seems to me to include both.

The other types you mentioned are different flavors of murderers. Mostly men, because we commit most of the murders. And we get a LOT less violent as we age, so I'm not sure your assertion that they can never be rehabilitated is true. Even if it is true, it doesn't make the killing necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dogballs Tom said:

The 1986 study at the root of the myth was on "sex offenders" which seems to me to include both.

The other types you mentioned are different flavors of murderers. Mostly men, because we commit most of the murders. And we get a LOT less violent as we age, so I'm not sure your assertion that they can never be rehabilitated is true. Even if it is true, it doesn't make the killing necessary.

I'll just agree that we disagree, i'm really not in the mood for argument about the semantics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mad said:

I'll just agree that we disagree, i'm really not in the mood for argument about the semantics.

Killing someone whether or not it is necessary isn't semantic, it's kinda fundamental.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

Killing someone whether or not it is necessary isn't semantic, it's kinda fundamental.

You want to defend and rehabilitate this piece of shit?

Quote

A convicted paedophile has been found guilty of murdering two schoolgirls who were found strangled and sexually assaulted near Brighton 32 years ago.

Russell Bishop, 52, had protested his innocence since the bodies of Nicola Fellows and Karen Hadaway were found.

Cleared of their murders in 1987, Bishop went on to attack a seven-year-old girl within three years, leaving her for dead in 1990, but she survived.

He was convicted of the double murder in a second trial at the Old Bailey.

After Nicola and Karen were found dead, the case became known as the Babes in the Wood.

The guilty verdicts came exactly 31 years to the day of Bishop's original acquittal in 1987.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46512496

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mad said:
19 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

Killing someone whether or not it is necessary isn't semantic, it's kinda fundamental.

You want to defend and rehabilitate this piece of shit? 

Or, failing that, lock him up for life.

You want to kill someone when it's not necessary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

Or, failing that, lock him up for life.

You want to kill someone when it's not necessary?

Why should the tax payer fund his welfare? Would his dispatch by dogballs be ok?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, mad said:
15 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

Or, failing that, lock him up for life.

You want to kill someone when it's not necessary?

Why should the tax payer fund his welfare?

Because the alternative is answering my question?

8 minutes ago, mad said:

Would his dispatch by dogballs be ok?

Hell no. Some state like Oklahoma would blast four at once and the Gun Grabby Archive would have yet another "mass" shooting to report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:
12 minutes ago, mad said:
20 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

Or, failing that, lock him up for life.

You want to kill someone when it's not necessary?

Why should the tax payer fund his welfare?

Because the alternative is answering my question?

You and I obviously have different ideas as to what is necessary.  Much like a rabid dog, it won't ever cease to be dangerous and should be put down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mad said:

You and I obviously have different ideas as to what is necessary.  Much like a rabid dog, it won't ever cease to be dangerous and should be put down.

Yeah, I think we're pretty good at keeping dangerous people locked up.

Also, the "it" indicates we have different ideas about humanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

Yeah, I think we're pretty good at keeping dangerous people locked up.

Also, the "it" indicates we have different ideas about humanity.

He gave up any right for humanity by killing killing and sexually assaulting 3 young girls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, mad said:

He gave up any right for humanity by killing killing and sexually assaulting 3 young girls.

A very dangerous attitude. It would apply upon conviction, I assume?

No appeals then, those are for humans.

Like the ones who we occasionally release from death row when it turns out the government got something wrong and DNA proves it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

A very dangerous attitude. It would apply upon conviction, I assume?

No appeals then, those are for humans.

Like the ones who we occasionally release from death row when it turns out the government got something wrong and DNA proves it.

To apply in cases where there is absolutely no doubt. As in the case of these two.

image.jpeg.2c5e0d2bf1020cff7e57df295eff8dbf.jpeg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, mad said:

To apply in cases where there is absolutely no doubt. As in the case of these two.

So no appeals? Those would be for humans.

The problem is, the lack of doubt could then excuse most any prosecutorial misbehavior. That's why I think it's a dangerous road.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

So no appeals? Those would be for humans.

The problem is, the lack of doubt could then excuse most any prosecutorial misbehavior. That's why I think it's a dangerous road.

What can they possibly appeal against? there can be absolutely no doubt of their guilt.

How could the prosecution 'misbehave' in this case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, mad said:

What can they possibly appeal against? there can be absolutely no doubt of their guilt.

How could the prosecution 'misbehave' in this case?

Appeals often make the case that the government did not follow the rules in getting the conviction. They should have to follow the rules, even in the cases of the egregiously guilty. If they don't, they should have the conviction thrown out on appeal. Yes, even in the cases of the egregiously guilty. Especially in those cases, since it is often the least sympathetic characters who end up defining the contours of our rights.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

Appeals often make the case that the government did not follow the rules in getting the conviction. They should have to follow the rules, even in the cases of the egregiously guilty. If they don't, they should have the conviction thrown out on appeal. Yes, even in the cases of the egregiously guilty. Especially in those cases, since it is often the least sympathetic characters who end up defining the contours of our rights.

 

and specifically to the 2 mentioned above?

Or

Image result for mass shooter us

Or

Image result for mass shooter us

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're not covered under "egregiously guilty" above? I guess we disagree on the meaning of those words too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

They're not covered under "egregiously guilty" above? I guess we disagree on the meaning of those words too.

They most definitely are.  I just fail to see the point of a prolonged court case and life imprisonment in such cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, mad said:

They most definitely are.  I just fail to see the point of a prolonged court case and life imprisonment in such cases.

The prolonged court case is important because government should follow the rules.

The life imprisonment thing is making a similar point about human life. My wife is on your side on that one, so I'm OK with disagreement but haven't changed my mind. I'd rather pay the taxes and keep the wretch than kill unnecessarily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

The prolonged court case is important because government should follow the rules.

The life imprisonment thing is making a similar point about human life. My wife is on your side on that one, so I'm OK with disagreement but haven't changed my mind. I'd rather pay the taxes and keep the wretch than kill unnecessarily.

Fair enough, and I respect your point of view.  We can just agree to disagree on this one.

Its a shame that so many of these cases tie up courts and and resources that would be better utilised in other ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

Ya know, the nutty part is "a 5 year old shitfight." And it's not just you and Joe, unfortunately. But you two are genuine crusaders, and not in a good way. If you two would have the same fight with PMs, no one would know ... or care.

To whom it may concern. Tom declined PM's long ago.

We are a community. Tom smeared me with rape innuendo, and denied it.  Other smears invoved  four years of race-baitng. Mr. Ray and others will face his pattern of behavior in this close community. 

Peer pressure will clean this up. I'm all in, for better forums in 2019. You can count on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wandering into the weeds of mentally ill offenders I see. So I'll stick my oar into this quagmire as Mad and Tom disagree here. 

To me, by definition, anyone who willfully takes another's life must be mentally ill. Here is why I say that. No sane person thinks killing another person is justifiable. No I am not talking about self defense, whole other subject matter.... although it could be argued that when someone is trying to harm you, your family, your co-workers, whatever, you momentarily snap and think there is no other resolve than to use deadly force. Never faced such a circumstance and ran through that process.

Back to my initial, if someone thinks it appropriate to take another's life, either in a mass shooting, commission of a felony, or one's lovers' lover, I think by the very definition it is an insane act. Now it may be temporary insanity, such as a rage of passion and shooting the S.O.B.in you bed with your wife, but it is none the less insane. If you are robbing the local bodega, and the clerk is moving a bit slow and you plunk him or her, is that a sane response? My take is it is not. Anytime one person thinks their life and actions supersede another persons life and actions by the very definition of the word, insanity, you have crossed that line from sane to insane. 

My point, insanity is not a defense. Every person committing murder is insane at the time of that homicide.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, mad said:

Fair enough, and I respect your point of view.  We can just agree to disagree on this one.

Its a shame that so many of these cases tie up courts and and resources that would be better utilised in other ways.

That is a whole other subject in US courts Mad. The process is designed to drag on.Courts are not about justice, they are about a negotiated settlement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, mad said:

Fair enough, and I respect your point of view.  We can just agree to disagree on this one.

Its a shame that so many of these cases tie up courts and and resources that would be better utilised in other ways.

I'm fine with dragging things out with appeals and such because it's the only practical way to ensure that governments play by the rules.

But as a taxpayer, I do note that the whole process costs a lot more than locking them up for life. As it should. Those appeals are going to cost money. Not having them costs rights.

And when one of those people cleared by DNA walks out of death row and out into public and we've avoided unnecessarily killing a person for a crime he did not commit, that's a worthy, if expensive, result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites