America Hits Unfortunate Imprisonment Landmark

[vyo476]

I suggest the solution can be found by answering this question: Why do immigrants try to come here illegally, rather than legally? Answer: Because it works. Amnesty proves that it works. So the only solutions is to make it not work, as in, deportation.

Consider this: Thousands are spent every year to get illegals across our boarder. Why not spend those thousands to apply for legal citizenship? Because doing it the illegal way, works. Why take the time, and the the extra cash to do it legally, when doing it illegally is faster and cheaper and more importantly, works with a higher success rate? Now on the other hand, if they were deported, and all the money spent was lost... you'd see a quick shift toward legal immigration. Again, not 100%, there will always be some amount, but that is the only way to minimize illegal immigration.

I don't believe that the only solution is to make it not work. Another solution would be to make them not want or need to come, or rather, make them want to stay where they are. For a lot of illegal immigrants, coming here was the only way to keep their children out of poverty. Showing that coming here illegally doesn't always work wouldn't deter those people from trying anyway.

It really comes down to the baseline question: Why are they coming here in the first place? Is it just because they desire the better life that can be had in United States, or is it because they need that increased affluence? Looking at Mexico's economy can be decieving. While it may look like they're in great shape, there is a huge disparity between rich and poor. They're really proud of the fact that the percentage of people living in extreme poverty has gone down over the last few years (42% to 27.9% in rural areas). Here's a wake-up call to the Mexican government: That's because they've all come here! Mexican reform is necessary to putting a relative stop to illegal immigration.

I have no problem with this. Scratch waterboarding. How about 100 lashes? Stocks? I only suggested water boarding because it leaves far less long term effects that other forms of punishment, yet will clearly cause enough discomfort to deter future criminal activity. Of course, I'm still in favor of thieves losing their hands. If you can't use your hands without violating law, you lose them, one at a time. Just like if you can't use your life without taking innocent life, you lose it.

Lashes are a tough sell. Maybe as a punishment for repeat offenders who commit their crimes multiple times. I still favor rehabilitation for repeat offenders, since in many cases repeated violoation of a law is caused by some form of psychosis which, with proper psychiatric attention, is curable.

To be honest, I'd prefer a more, shall we say, in depth version of community service. Working for my town's government I've dealt with people assigned community service from the courts before. A lot of them have come in expecting it to be a joke, and depending on who they get as a supervisor sometimes it is. Making it less of a joke was, in a sadistic way, rather pleasing - they weeded the Town Hall's garden and used sandpaper and spray paint to remove grafiti from one of our public parks, all in 90 degree heat. If I'd had the jurisdiction from the Town to do so I'd have had them weed out every public garden in town and scrub the sidewalks, but those types of tasks fall under the purview of Public Works, and they take forever to do anything that isn't part of their set routine, so it wasn't even worth my time to ask.

Still, there's plenty of things out there that can be done as community service that are quite ardent and visible. I'm not talking about walking around with a bag and one of those spear things picking up garbage off the side of the road, I'm talking about washing every one of the local courthouse's windows to a shine or mowing the town football field's lawn. These are highly visible actions - people in the community going about their daily business see them at it and, if the supervisor is doing his job properly, understand that it is a punishment, it is not easy, and it is certainly not desirable.

Difficult, yes, nearly impossible. Serving longer time merely rewards them with what they wanted to begin with, and leads to the over crowed, blooming cost issues we have already. I'm afraid you lost my vote on that one. Which of course leads me to the main suggestion of my original post, that being we need to make prisons worse, either by forced labor or physical punishment.

I wasn't suggesting longer sentences for people who are trying to get back into prison. I think stocks would make an ironic punishment for something like that.

Honestly, I don't know. I didn't think about it till you brought it up. Seem to me that federal prisons are already far worse than state ones. Perhaps no change is needed. I could be wrong. Had not really researched that.

I haven't really researched it either. Looks generally like federal prison populations have been going down while state prison populations have been going up. Still, the report I'm looking at is a little out of date, shows heavy fluctuation in growth trends from year to year, and doesn't show enough data back through the years (a 2006 report, the graph only extends back to 2000) to give a very firm idea of how federal and state prison populations have been changing. Still, in a highly localized sense, over the last few years federal prison populations have been decreasing while state prison populations have been increasing.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/p06.pdf

I understand your view... I doubt it though. I think if prison was harsh enough, repeat offenders would drop. Eliminate? No, likely not. But drop? yes. There was a prison interview with an inmate, who indicated when he did his crime, he had assumed that he was going to a different prison. The one he ended up at was much worse, and much more dangerous. He said if he had known, he would not have done it.

It almost certainly would drop. You're right about that.

Otherwise, you have a great point about making them take care of themselves. There is that prison where the inmates have to sleep in tents, no A/C in the heat of the day, fix and eat their own meals, all canned food. It has one of the lowest rate of return inmates in the US if I remember right. I need to find that article again.

I think I've read that article too, actually. Somewhere down in the Southwest? Prison commandant said something how if our troops in Iraq can deal with hundred degree weather in full gear the inmates should have to deal with the same? Probably a different article but I'd imagine the idea remains the same.

Making prisons harsh as a deterrent works. I like the idea of making people understand that going to prison does not equate to getting taken care of too, though. Make them compete for better jobs inside the prison (working the library has to be preferable to the laundry or waste management). A lot of prisons require work, but it must be understood that they work in order to eat. Prisons shouldn't look like Communist blocs, where the mentality is, "They're going to feed me, and oh yeah, I might have to do some work."

I'm not totally sure of how to bring off that idealistic change, but I think it'd kill anyone's notions of wanting to go to prison to get taken care of. It'd be helpful for the inmates, too, in that being a part of a capitalist-style society while in prison would make it easier to assimilate back into our own capitalist society once they're out.

The more I think about it the more I like the idea.

 

[wm009]

I hate to tell you, but it's our society too.

No, it's not.

 

[Andy]

The moral argument is basically that taking a life, any life, is wrong, even as punishment for the crime of taking a life. Basically, the argument is that capital punishment is hypocritical. "Killing is wrong, and if you kill someone, we'll kill you." It's a rather simplistic argument, and can be taken apart using more complex reasoning, however that reasoning enters a few different topics, including the nature of political association and how its actions differ from individual actions in a moral sense.

Of course I've heard this before. But actions taken for justice are outside of this. Otherwise, all actions in justice are morally wrong. It's morally wrong to hold people captive, either by kidnapping or enslaving... so it's also morally wrong to hold them captive in prison. It's morally wrong to steal, so it's also morally wrong to fine or confiscate property.

Think about it, everything done in the administration of justice, from taking money from your check in the form of a speeding ticket, all the way to imprisonment, is morally wrong external to justice.

The logical end to that line of thinking is no punishment to anyone for any crime ever. So there must be something wrong with that line of thinking, yes?

I've known people who have believed just that, that in order to maintain our innocence the innocents must continue to be the victims, instead of making the transgressors the victims and ruining our innocence.

I toyed with the idea myself once upon a time (even on this board somewhere, I think) but in the end I've come out more or less on the side of capital punishment - only for the worst crimes, comitted by those beyond rehabilitation, and only when it is proven beyond a doubt that the punishee in question is guilty.

Even now I do have qualms about the whole thing, especially since the "proven beyond a doubt" thing can be misused horribly. Still, better to punish those who misuse the justice system than to cripple the justice system to prevent its misuse, right?

I suggest that being the transgressor and being the victim, are mutually exclusive as it relates to a single issue. You can be the transgressor of a crime, and be the victim of a completely unrelated matter.

But as it relates to a single event, you can never be a victim of something brought on only by my own transgressions. If I speed 100 in a 35 school zone, and lose my license, am I a victim? Should I sue the government for victimizing me?

I knew a woman that was beaten by her husband. She eventually got rid of him after she found out he beat his last girl friend. He got another girl friend after the divorce, and was beating her. On a night, he went to her house and found her with a gun. After he started to pursue her violently, she shot him. The theory above, if I am reading it correctly would say in order to remain innocent, she should willingly continue to be beaten. Surely that theory can not be correct. Is she innocent?

Beyond a reasonable doubt. No there is no perfect system. We either give up on justice and embrace anarchy, or do the best we can with what we have. Nothing is perfect this side of heaven as they say.

Selective enforcability is a tough one. For instance, it is illegal for a US citizen to kill another, but it is legal for a US citizen to kill another in self defense. The action is the same, the justification is different. Still, I'm not sure selective enforcability is pertinent here, since, unless I'm much mistaken, the act of entering the US illegally and the act of remaining in the US illegally are two seperate crimes, both of which are committed by illegal immigrants. Is it possible, then, for a person who is in this country illegally to commit a legal act? If the answer is "no" then there's no further point in discussing illegal immigrants who steal since stealing is as much a crime for them as walking down the sidewalk.

I would support this. There is no point in talking about violations of law from those already illegal as it relates to deportation. The only purpose in talking about it is from the stand point of where do we put our effort. Ultimately all illegals are violating law and should be deported. But since we have limited resources to do this, it's important to focus on the most obvious and easy to deal with illegals, namely those in prison for breaking other laws.

This is where I would suggest trying to help Mexico sort out its issues. There are three things they need: more abundant jobs, more helpful labor laws, and better healthcare. The first and the last we could help with fairly easily (tax breaks for corporations that expand into Mexico - for some reason that looks illegal now that I've typed it, but I'm not sure), but the one in the middle is more or less up to them. Better education would be good too - it'd get their birthrate down, making it easier for individuals to provide for themselves and their families in Mexico rather than having to come here to find a job with high enough wages to keep the kids clothed and fed.

Sounds to me like more rewards for breaking laws. So they break our laws and we help them with education and jobs? Then just have an open boarder and give everyone citizenship. That would be far cheaper than making schools and businesses down there so they don't even have to make the effort to cross the boarder to get it.

How about personal responsibility? They are responsible for their life, and we ours. If they want education, they should work toward that end in their country, not come to ours, break our laws, so we have to help them.

Still, yes, illegal immigration will never be completely solved. I'm sure we probably have a few Canadians enter this country illegally every year for one reason or another. No one gives a **** about them getting deported, though, since there are only a few. If we could get the numbers down on the southern border the same indifference to deportation would set in. I'm all right with that scenario - the few that would still be entering illegally would be doing so for entirely personal reasons, not reasons caused by a massive social problem (like is happening now).

Well I guess my point was, even if the boarder was 'secure' there would still be a large enough mass of illegals making it in. Historical examples would be Soviet Bloc, The Berlin wall, even the underground railroad that allowed slaves into the northern states. I was privilege to meet a little asian woman, now in her late 40s, who escaped from Laos after the Communist got control. She detailed running through the woods with her sister under her arm, cutting through a fence just as the military started shooting.

Point being, that no boarder security is going to be enough to stop people, if the reward is there. Take the reward away for doing it the wrong way, is the only solution in my humble opinion.

 

[TruthAboveAll]

Originally written by vyo476

I hate to tell you, but it's our society too.

Originally written by wm009

No, it's not.

I'm Conservative. Everyone here knows I am. But I gotta tell you, you are one sorry chump, and an absolute insult to Conservatism. Your rhetoric is exactly the type of garbage so often wrongly attributed to Conservatism in general, and it's nothing less than idiotic, hate-filled drivel.

I very often disagree with vyo, but your brainless attacks are beyond the pale. Please go back to whatever rock fell on you and damaged your brain, and crawl under it.

 

[Andy]

I don't believe that the only solution is to make it not work. Another solution would be to make them not want or need to come, or rather, make them want to stay where they are. For a lot of illegal immigrants, coming here was the only way to keep their children out of poverty. Showing that coming here illegally doesn't always work wouldn't deter those people from trying anyway.

Allow me to explain the logic. To come here illegal, is not like just standing up and start walking to the US. It costs money. No matter how you go about it, there is a cost involved. Most hire a guide to go through the desert, while many pay someone to hide in their van or truck. Either way, money in required.

I don't have actual numbers, but lets say that it costs $100 to get across the boarder. If you are shipped back, you lost that money and have to pay another $100. How many times will that have to happen before simply paying an application fee starts to look like a better option?

Most drivers charge more because they can lose their vehicle if caught. As such most use an IOU system. This is where the illegals gets taken across with the understanding that the driver will get paid after the illegal gets pay in the US their first time. Now if they are shipped back, perhaps the driver will give that person a second chance, but after the 3nd time, do you think that driver is still going to run them across the boarder for free when he didn't get paid the first 2 times?

Let's a say a driver charges $200. After being deported back twice, that's $600 to get across the boarder. That legal application fee looks better and better, yes?

It really comes down to the baseline question: Why are they coming here in the first place? Is it just because they desire the better life that can be had in United States, or is it because they need that increased affluence? Looking at Mexico's economy can be decieving. While it may look like they're in great shape, there is a huge disparity between rich and poor. They're really proud of the fact that the percentage of people living in extreme poverty has gone down over the last few years (42% to 27.9% in rural areas). Here's a wake-up call to the Mexican government: That's because they've all come here! Mexican reform is necessary to putting a relative stop to illegal immigration.

If the drug war and AIDs has taught us anything, it's that we can't force people to act responsibly. It hasn't worked in our own country, and it certainly will not in another country. We can not make Mexico into what it could be. Only Mexicans can choose to improve Mexico.

The only thing we can do is send more of our jobs there, and if you hadn't noticed, we kinda need them here. If our economy loses all of it's non-service based business, national economic collapse is in our future.

The only way we can directly help make Mexico better would be a literal hostile take over, and as a Capitalist, honestly, that's a bad investment

Lashes are a tough sell. Maybe as a punishment for repeat offenders who commit their crimes multiple times. I still favor rehabilitation for repeat offenders, since in many cases repeated violoation of a law is caused by some form of psychosis which, with proper psychiatric attention, is curable.

To be honest, I'd prefer a more, shall we say, in depth version of community service. Working for my town's government I've dealt with people assigned community service from the courts before. A lot of them have come in expecting it to be a joke, and depending on who they get as a supervisor sometimes it is. Making it less of a joke was, in a sadistic way, rather pleasing - they weeded the Town Hall's garden and used sandpaper and spray paint to remove grafiti from one of our public parks, all in 90 degree heat. If I'd had the jurisdiction from the Town to do so I'd have had them weed out every public garden in town and scrub the sidewalks, but those types of tasks fall under the purview of Public Works, and they take forever to do anything that isn't part of their set routine, so it wasn't even worth my time to ask.

Still, there's plenty of things out there that can be done as community service that are quite ardent and visible. I'm not talking about walking around with a bag and one of those spear things picking up garbage off the side of the road, I'm talking about washing every one of the local courthouse's windows to a shine or mowing the town football field's lawn. These are highly visible actions - people in the community going about their daily business see them at it and, if the supervisor is doing his job properly, understand that it is a punishment, it is not easy, and it is certainly not desirable.

I'm still in favor physical punishment simply because I know how effective it is. People learn amazingly quick when pain is inflicted on them. Also, as you stated, community service can be ambiguous. Lashes is pretty hard to not get right.

Plus, I think that punishment should have as little cost socially as possible. The crime itself is a cost to society, then it costs us more to deal with the criminal after being caught. That is shameful. The criminal is costing society twice.

I would rather pay one person one full time wage to give out 100 lashes to 8 to 10 criminals a day, and be done with it, than have to pay 20 people full time salaries to oversight hundreds of community service projects.

I wasn't suggesting longer sentences for people who are trying to get back into prison. I think stocks would make an ironic punishment for something like that.

You have my vote back.

I think I've read that article too, actually. Somewhere down in the Southwest? Prison commandant said something how if our troops in Iraq can deal with hundred degree weather in full gear the inmates should have to deal with the same? Probably a different article but I'd imagine the idea remains the same.

Making prisons harsh as a deterrent works. I like the idea of making people understand that going to prison does not equate to getting taken care of too, though. Make them compete for better jobs inside the prison (working the library has to be preferable to the laundry or waste management). A lot of prisons require work, but it must be understood that they work in order to eat. Prisons shouldn't look like Communist blocs, where the mentality is, "They're going to feed me, and oh yeah, I might have to do some work."

I'm not totally sure of how to bring off that idealistic change, but I think it'd kill anyone's notions of wanting to go to prison to get taken care of. It'd be helpful for the inmates, too, in that being a part of a capitalist-style society while in prison would make it easier to assimilate back into our own capitalist society once they're out.

The more I think about it the more I like the idea.

That is exactly the article I was talking about. Everyone sleep in tents, tents they make and tend themselves. Everyone eats from out door pots and fire pits. Soup every day. If they want a basket ball court, they make it themselves. If they want their cloths clean, they wash them. Supplies are delivered, but beyond that, if the meal is served it's on them. They screw it up, they don't eat.

That is exactly what I support. The only problem is, that will not work the exact same way, in every state. In that location, they don't need to watch the inmates so closely, and have as much security as other prisons because it's 80 miles in every direction with no where to get water. If a prisoner escapes, it's only to his death. Much like Russian prisons that are located in the middle of sub zero woods where it's a 100 miles to the nearest out house. That won't work in Ohio for sure.

 

[vindicator786]

You know there is a logical course we could take that could lighten the load on prisons. Yet I think some of you may think it controversial. What if we take the first time offenders that are fit and capable and give them the option of entering military service in the case of those who did not commit violent crime. Now I know some of you would be saying that would be like having the fox guard the hen house but if you think about it some of these criminals are criminals simply because they do not have any discipline.

The military could instill in them what they desperately lack and at the same time we would be able to help recruiters find a few good men and women. Now I know this may seem like a insane idea but if you take someone who is a first time offender and is of legal age and they haven't committed a violent crime then they would make a very good candidate for military service. Just a thought.

 

[9sublime]

I don't think its that radical at all as long as its an option and not compulsory.

 

[TruthAboveAll]

You've Got Something Here!

You know there is a logical course we could take that could lighten the load on prisons. Yet I think some of you may think it controversial. What if we take the first time offenders that are fit and capable and give them the option of entering military service in the case of those who did not commit violent crime. Now I know some of you would be saying that would be like having the fox guard the hen house but if you think about it some of these criminals are criminals simply because they do not have any discipline.

The military could instill in them what they desperately lack and at the same time we would be able to help recruiters find a few good men and women. Now I know this may seem like a insane idea but if you take someone who is a first time offender and is of legal age and they haven't committed a violent crime then they would make a very good candidate for military service. Just a thought.

Actually, I think that is a very good idea, and one that needs exploring. Traditionally, some branches of the Armed Services have become quite picky with their recruitment candidates. In no way intended to denigrate ANYONE in our military services, the Army and Marines have more opportunities for "less desirables". All branches are requiring more high-tech and high-skilled candidates, or those with capability of filling those.

You are 100% correct that many low-level criminals and/or first time offenders have a common denominator of lack of applied discipline. It is a given that it is typical for someone to need external discipline to learn self-discipline. And on the opposite side, sometimes it is those who are OVER-disciplined as youth and upon late-adolescence or adulthood come to reject ALL discipline, including self-discipline.

Consistent, self-esteem building discipline, coupled with expanded skills and self-improvement possibilities could be an excellent answer to what has to be a significant portion of those in the prison system today.

Another option, along with military service, could be prolonged commitments to other service programs: Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, US Freedom Corps, etc. I'm sure there could be other religious-based and sponsored programs that might fit the bill, as well as other international groups. A comprehensive listing of the programs, their opportunities and requirements as well as availability of positions... Hmmm... Really gets you thinking.

Great idea! I think you should start a new thread just for discussion on this prospect, so as not to hijack the whole discussion about the prison problems et al.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Guess we could save money and make the country better if we (A) kill the worst of the worst and/or (B) Americans stop breaking the law.

Yeah.....we wouldn't want to risk something like developing an economy that'd keep people (too) busy working to consider crime (as an income-option).

*

Lowest Crime Rates in a Generation. When President Clinton and Vice President Gore took office in 1993, the violent crime rate in America had more than quadrupled during the previous three decades. Since then, America has experienced the longest continuous drop in crime on record. Overall crime rates has dropped every year under President Clinton and Vice President Gore, the longest continuous drop on record and crime is now at a 26-year low. The violent crime rate fell 30 percent since 1993 and is at the lowest level in two decades. Since 1993, the murder rate is down more than 38 percent to its lowest point since 1966, and gun violence has declined by 40 percent.

http://clinton5.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/additional.html​

 

[Andy]

Yeah.....we wouldn't want to risk something like developing an economy that'd keep people (too) busy working to consider crime (as an income-option).

You forgot sun rises. There were more than 2,920 sun rises during Clintons 8 years. Thank goodness he stopped those evil Repugs from de-funding the sun. Oh and Enron too, he accepted money from Enron to prevent the Enron collapse during his term.

Btw, vindicator786, great idea. The only issue might be that at this point, it seems prison isn't bad enough to not break parole, why would anyone choose Military service over hanging out in Prison with the homies?

I still think we need to make Prison less desirable. Then the Military service option may be more effective.

 

[9sublime]

If you stop paying people a wage in prison, but pay them a wage in the armed forces?

 

[heyjude]

Stop putting people in prison who have not commited violent crimes. It works in Europe. Get rid of the drug laws. What you ingest or smoke should be your own business. Alcohol is the most dangerous and distructive of all drugs. It didn't work to outlaw it. We punish the abuse and criminal activity of the users. Not the drinking itself.

IMO, the drug laws in this country are basicall bigotry. We have 1 in every 15 blacks in prison. Yes, some whites go down, but the laws are fundamently to opress blacks.

 

[Andy]

Stop putting people in prison who have not commited violent crimes. It works in Europe. Get rid of the drug laws. What you ingest or smoke should be your own business. Alcohol is the most dangerous and distructive of all drugs. It didn't work to outlaw it. We punish the abuse and criminal activity of the users. Not the drinking itself.

IMO, the drug laws in this country are basicall bigotry. We have 1 in every 15 blacks in prison. Yes, some whites go down, but the laws are fundamently to opress blacks.

Hrm... well... actually... I hate to even bring this up, but... When alcohol was banned, drunk driving accidents were minimal, domestic abuse dropped, marriages stayed together and so on. Not 100% by any stretch, but many good things came from it.

Yes, granted legalizing drugs does reduce the number of people jailed for doing drugs... but go talk to the now millions of people and children who have/had to grow up in a home of a drug addicted parent, and tell me that it "works". Just like go talk to a child that had to grow up with alcoholic parent and tell me how well legalizing alcohol 'worked'.

Further, the laws have nothing to do with color. Laws oppress crime. The criminals color is not relevant to the discussion.

 

[9sublime]

Andy, are you really that dense? legalization doesn't ever make a situation perfect, but it can make it better.

 

[vyo476]

Hrm... well... actually... I hate to even bring this up, but... When alcohol was banned, drunk driving accidents were minimal, domestic abuse dropped, marriages stayed together and so on. Not 100% by any stretch, but many good things came from it.

Yes, many good things came from it, but many bad things did, as well.

Here's what Rockefeller had to say in 1932:

"When Prohibition was introduced, I hoped that it would be widely supported by public opinion and the day would soon come when the evil effects of alcohol would be recognized. I have slowly and reluctantly come to believe that this has not been the result. Instead, drinking has generally increased; the speakeasy has replaced the saloon; a vast army of lawbreakers has appeared; many of our best citizens have openly ignored Prohibition; respect for the law has been greatly lessened; and crime has increased to a level never seen before."

Yes, granted legalizing drugs does reduce the number of people jailed for doing drugs... but go talk to the now millions of people and children who have/had to grow up in a home of a drug addicted parent, and tell me that it "works". Just like go talk to a child that had to grow up with alcoholic parent and tell me how well legalizing alcohol 'worked'.

I grew up with an alcoholic parent. In retrospect, I realize that being the principle breadwinner as well as trying to take care of an infant child and his sick, disabled wife pushed my father (back) to alcohol. I doubt that making it illegal would have helped much. If that had stopped him from drinking, he'd either have found something else to dull his mind from our rather unfortunate situation, or he'd probably have offed himself.

Mind, when I was in high school I was a violent prohibitionist. I hated everything to do with alcohol and more or less anyone who chose to enjoy it. My views on the subject have moderated since then, although I'm still committed to never drinking myself.

As for illegal drugs...well. I believe in full legalization of marijuana accompanied by marijuana-related crimes (driving under the influence, etc) and an age limit (probably 18, 12 if w/ a parent and in private). Age limits just beg to be broken, but they also open avenues to lighter, more appropriate punishments for minors who are just being kids.