Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 LordofHats wrote:

Was it? US police tactics of that nature peaked in the 70s, and it didn't stop the rising crime wave. In fact the crime wave decrease in the 90s coincided with a general scaling back of "where and who" street policing (assuming of course that you and I are thinking of the same kinds of police tactics mind you). I think reducing crime is infinitely more complex than anything the police can/should do. Even now, why crime in the US started to rise in the late 60s and started to drop in the 90s is not understood. There's dozens of credible arguments (and dozens of uncredible ones) posting why it happened. Police are a last line in law and order. Not the beginning. Their presence makes us feel safer, and it certain gratifies us when we see them perp walking the accused, and heavily patrolling crime heavy neighborhoods etc etc. But I think that over the past century, there's no real evidence that the police are as effective at reducing crime as we liked to think.

One article that we read in my last Poli-sci class gave decent "evidence" for one positive police tactic that the author believed helped to lower crime in NYC.... in the late 80s, early 90s, NYC was viewed as a real hell hole, a godless sort of criminal wasteland (now, whether that's true or not is not really for me to say... I've never been there)

NYC got a new police commissioner who began instituting policies to combat crime at its lowest levels... Basically, traffic cops were told to enforce EVERY gate jumper in the subway. The MTA was told to scrub graffiti off of subway cars, even if it meant doing the same car multiple times in 12 hour shifts (the cars were to be inspected and fixed as soon as they got into the storage/transfer HQ yard), warehouses with broken windows were to have their windows repaired, broken streetlamps were to be fixed, etc. etc. etc. On top of this, NYPD were to make notes of where crimes happened more often and patrol there. Apparently all of these things combined to create an image that the government "cared" about the people, and that the police were there to actually enforce laws, and crime dropped.


Personally, I've also seen credible arguments that we could "solve" a large number of crimes by dealing with our economic issues more appropriately. Economic despair has been linked as a driving force for a number of types of crime. Obviously something like discussing wages, welfare and the like are really OT for this topic, but I think that that, going hand in hand with better drug policy could go a fair distance to helping on a lot of fronts.

 cuda1179 wrote:
This is about the reason I loose respect for the youth of today and the people that support them.

Ah yes, 'the youth of today'. As opposed to 'the youth of yesterday'.... who always took personal responsibility for their own choices, and always accepted authority

It's called growing up, mate. It's always been difficult to know how much or how little responsibility a person should have as they move from childhood to adulthood.

Then why do you think someone that's 14 is old enough to get an abortion without parental consent, as they are old enough to know what they want?

Medical procedures like abortion almost universally require parental consent and heavy involvement. Abortion is exempted because there is concern that some children would be in danger if they had to tell their parents they were pregnant. It's a really bad situation, but quite irrelevant as a comparison to this issue.

Why can a child that is grade school unilaterally decide they are transgender?

They can't. There's a long and in-depth psychological review, in which many kids are actually denied.

Why can no one question you when you want to get married at 18?

Lots of people do question it. They can't stop it, because it's a right we grant early in life for the simple reason that we are more lenient in passing on decision making to people when those decisions are more easily undone.

The only real response was "but that's different".

Because they are different things. You seem to be working on the assumption that once you hit a certain point of maturity then all decision making should come to you. If that were true then age for voting, for driving, for drinking, for joining the army would all be the same. But they aren't because things are actually different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cuda1179 wrote:
I'm not calling out all youth. You have to admit that many of them want this rather unique double standard. So, what do you honestly think? Is someone "mature" enough at 7 to be transgender and decide to have an abortion at 12? If they are, why are they not mature enough to be an informant at 20?

I think you're confusing the individual with the collective. Individual kids pretty much never say 'don't make me responsible, I'm not mature enough!'

Instead what you see is kids arguing for more responsibility, and at the same time many adults will be looking at when kids have done bad or irresponsible things and saying 'he's just a kid, let him make some mistakes without punishing him forever over it'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DutchWinsAll wrote:
Couple that with all the outright lies from the government and mass media about all sorts of drugs from ketamine being a date-rape drug, to LSD causing to genetic defects, MDMA putting holes in your brain, MDPV causing people to eat people, etc. and the average member of the public is woefully misinformed about drugs. Then when you find out cannabis is harmless but you can buy liquid death at any corner store, its no wonder people are more willing to try substances that may not be right with them.

Definitely this. If government and greater society wants to have an authority that is actually heard and respected by kids, then it needs to make what it says about drugs accurate and honest. Scare campaigns work on 10 year olds, but are laughed at by 15 year olds because they're so far from the reality they can see around them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
NYC got a new police commissioner who began instituting policies to combat crime at its lowest levels... Basically, traffic cops were told to enforce EVERY gate jumper in the subway. The MTA was told to scrub graffiti off of subway cars, even if it meant doing the same car multiple times in 12 hour shifts (the cars were to be inspected and fixed as soon as they got into the storage/transfer HQ yard), warehouses with broken windows were to have their windows repaired, broken streetlamps were to be fixed, etc. etc. etc. On top of this, NYPD were to make notes of where crimes happened more often and patrol there. Apparently all of these things combined to create an image that the government "cared" about the people, and that the police were there to actually enforce laws, and crime dropped.

Yeah, it was the 'broken window' theory. This is the idea that if an area looks neglected, ie has broken windows, then people think it's okay to commit crime there. Whether that's because people think it's more acceptable morally, or because they're less likely to ge caught I can't remember. Anyhow, there was an effort to remove the signs of crime around NY, so graffiti and stuff like that, and it had an amazingly positive effect.

There were also lots of other factors. NY was in a significant economic upswing. There was a huge amount of federal, state and city money put in to more policing. Penalties for crimes were increased. Technology was changing (immobilisers came in and just smashed quickly smashed the rate of car theft). And the centre of NY was radically transformed, the old XXX movie houses were forced out in favour of legit but very boring corporate stores.

The problem with the broken windows theory is that crime fell everywhere over that timeframe, and to a greater degree in some places - places which did not utilize broken windows style policing.

 Ouze wrote:
The problem with the broken windows theory is that crime fell everywhere over that timeframe, and to a greater degree in some places - places which did not utilize broken windows style policing.

Yeah, I think it probably played a part, but was far from the major driver. But I know a lot of criminologists have made pretty decent arguments that it had no effect, with the studies you've referenced above. It probably does have an effect though. But if you want a really big effect just spend the money on more cops.

Does anyone remember which city it was where the police department and city were facing two simultaneous lawsuits?

On one hand one person was suing them because they didn't have enough police presence in their minority community, so crime was bad.

In the other lawsuit someone was suing them because there was too much police presence, because a disproportionate number of minorities were being arrested.

Frazzled wrote:
A 20 year old can fly a drone that drops the missile that takes out 20 people in a building...

WWII was won by 19 and 20 year olds.


And America never made mistakes, right? Right, Vietnam?

Irrelevant. Also, those “mistakes” weren’t caused by 20 year olds firing for effect, but Democratic Presidents.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
cuda1179 wrote:
This is about the reason I loose respect for the youth of today and the people that support them. They demand the respect and privileges of adulthood, yet when the downsides hit, they demand the kid-gloves because of their youth.

I work with someone that I get along with, we just have totally opposite political views. While we debate the topics it never turns hostile. I asked her about this topic. She agrees that a person of 20 is too young to decide to be an informant.

My rebuttal: Then why do you think someone that's 14 is old enough to get an abortion without parental consent, as they are old enough to know what they want? Why can a child that is grade school unilaterally decide they are transgender? Why can no one question you when you want to get married at 18? The only real response was "but that's different".


In that case: I think anyone not born after 1989 should be locked up for being a crotchety old fart. Aren't generalizations fun?

You’re the one claiming special status because of his age.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:

 kronk wrote:
60 shootings in chicago over the weekend, 4 fatal.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/07/05/more-than-60-shot-chicago-over-july-4th-weekend/86707218/

Almost all is drug-related, gang violence. I read these crazy numbers in every Sunday paper. "What's the total for this weekend?" It's a sick fething game I play. I guess the number of shootings and deaths from the previous 2 nights. The nation should be outraged. We should all be sick of it.

I am sick of it!

So, how do you change that sickness into action? That is something we all should be asking.

Thunderdome? Quit voting for the same party over and over and over with nothing changing?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mario wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
A 20 year old can fly a drone that drops the missile that takes out 20 people in a building...

What's your point? A ten year old can kill you with a car/knife/gun, intentional or accidentally. Just because somebody can talk a life they suddenly are a responsible person? .

No, its that they can be legally empowered by the US government to do that. The 10 year old, not so much.
20 is adult, deal you spoiled younglings.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

If purely wealth drove the issue then the criminal groups in the US would just cut out the middle man and produce in the US. Or other developed countries would start up their own drug creation industries.

They have. meth, and bath salts (now thats crazy stuff), and a variety of other drugs are done here). Weed is grown here.
Cartels have been pushing out much of the home made stuff.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Does anyone remember which city it was where the police department and city were facing two simultaneous lawsuits?

On one hand one person was suing them because they didn't have enough police presence in their minority community, so crime was bad.

In the other lawsuit someone was suing them because there was too much police presence, because a disproportionate number of minorities were being arrested.

And, in all but the smallest cities, that could be absolutely true on both counts. While that seems like a logical contradiction that you can't have too many police and not enough police, once you add in that police presence will not be evenly distributed across any given geographic area it can be readily apparent that they could be lots of police in the "nice" neighborhood where minorities are being hassled and next to none in the "ghetto" where crime is rampant and the police don't go for a variety of reasons (safety, lack of community cooperation, etc.).

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
NYC got a new police commissioner who began instituting policies to combat crime at its lowest levels... Basically, traffic cops were told to enforce EVERY gate jumper in the subway. The MTA was told to scrub graffiti off of subway cars, even if it meant doing the same car multiple times in 12 hour shifts (the cars were to be inspected and fixed as soon as they got into the storage/transfer HQ yard), warehouses with broken windows were to have their windows repaired, broken streetlamps were to be fixed, etc. etc. etc. On top of this, NYPD were to make notes of where crimes happened more often and patrol there. Apparently all of these things combined to create an image that the government "cared" about the people, and that the police were there to actually enforce laws, and crime dropped.

I'm aware of this. I'm also aware of the argument that these strategies didn't really reduce crime. They simply shifted where it was happening which worked out to make statistics look better, but didn't actually reduce crime as much as was thought. When the same police commissioner went to Chicago, he tried the same strategies and they didn't have the same results as they did in NYC.

Which is kind of my point. I don't think we understand crime nearly as well as we like to think we do, especially not with regard to law enforcement.

Personally, I've also seen credible arguments that we could "solve" a large number of crimes by dealing with our economic issues more appropriately.

I think that's fair too. Poverty is something police can do absolutely nothing about. In many ways, they can't even do much about the Drug War. So much about what is wrong with the Drug War is outside their hands and in the hands of politicians who use it as a campaign platform, and administrators who use anti-drug programs to boost their credentials which I don't say to demonize politicians and administrators. I think the Drug War has radically spiraled out of anyone's control. All parties are just passengers on a runaway train that this point imo. It's a mess.

 LordofHats wrote:

I'm aware of this. I'm also aware of the argument that these strategies didn't really reduce crime. They simply shifted where it was happening which worked out to make statistics look better, but didn't actually reduce crime as much as was thought. When the same police commissioner went to Chicago, he tried the same strategies and they didn't have the same results as they did in NYC.

Which is kind of my point. I don't think we understand crime nearly as well as we like to think we do, especially not with regard to law enforcement.

This was pretty much the argument I made in that class as well (I generally loved to play the devil's advocate in that one, professor loved it, not sure about other people )


Personally, I think that while something like the broken window theory may help the people and the police, it cannot be done in a vacuum. When you have situations like we constantly see today, when a white person does largely the same crime under the "same" circumstances as a minority, but the minority receives double or more punishment for it, many people are going to become disenfranchised with the whole thing, which certainly doesn't help with public order. Obviously, I absolutely hate the private prison industry that we have, and I know most of us have seen the newspaper articles about how that's already having some backlash (see: maryland or virginia juvenile courts judge who was receiving kickbacks from a privately owned juvenile prison for sending kids there)

Broken Windows is a 1Up Mushroom excuse to profile, rack-up ticket revenue, and violate the Constitution's intent whenever possible.

As you guys say, crime is not a black and white issue. There are many factors that influence a crime/arrest rate.

 Easy E wrote:

 kronk wrote:
60 shootings in chicago over the weekend, 4 fatal.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/07/05/more-than-60-shot-chicago-over-july-4th-weekend/86707218/

Almost all is drug-related, gang violence. I read these crazy numbers in every Sunday paper. "What's the total for this weekend?" It's a sick fething game I play. I guess the number of shootings and deaths from the previous 2 nights. The nation should be outraged. We should all be sick of it.

I am sick of it!

So, how do you change that sickness into action? That is something we all should be asking.

I don't have the first damn clue.

Blackmailed, untrained informants is probably not it, though.

House to house raids isn't it.

It has to start with the community, though. It can't be top down through strong-armed enforcement. That will never work.

Education is a starting point. About the violence in general, the dangers that slinging drugs and joining gangs entail, and also basic education. My wife works with the truancy department in northern IL. The stories of kids missing tons of school days and their parents not giving a flying feth are sad.

 kronk wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

 kronk wrote:
60 shootings in chicago over the weekend, 4 fatal.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/07/05/more-than-60-shot-chicago-over-july-4th-weekend/86707218/

Almost all is drug-related, gang violence. I read these crazy numbers in every Sunday paper. "What's the total for this weekend?" It's a sick fething game I play. I guess the number of shootings and deaths from the previous 2 nights. The nation should be outraged. We should all be sick of it.

I am sick of it!

So, how do you change that sickness into action? That is something we all should be asking.

I don't have the first damn clue.

Blackmailed, untrained informants is probably not it, though.

House to house raids isn't it.

It has to start with the community, though. It can't be top down through strong-armed enforcement. That will never work.

Education is a starting point. About the violence in general, the dangers that slinging drugs and joining gangs entail, and also basic education. My wife works with the truancy department in northern IL. The stories of kids missing tons of school days and their parents not giving a flying feth are sad.

That's the key problem right there. It's not that difficult to provide people with information and education on a subject and I think for the most part people understand the violence and tragedy inherent in gangs and criminal behavior. The real problem is that no matter what information we know, no matter how we try to desseminate it to the public, no matter what programs are offered to people, it's really really hard to convince apathetic people to actually start giving a feth. The truancy dept cares more about those kids' education and well being than their parents. That's sad and gakky. The dept can do what it can to push the kids back into schools but the dept can do very little to push the parents to start caring and getting involved with their kids' education. Once the problem becomes generational it becomes very ingrained in the culture and the environment and that makes it very difficult for somebody from the outside to create a catalyst that breaks the cycle. Increasing law enforcement, prosecuting more crimes, locking people up in prison for longer sentences, it treats a symptom but it doesn't make the schools better, make the parents more involved, or make the community more committed to giving their kids a brighter future. Those underlying problms remain and then we add an acrimonious distrustful relationship with police and authority on top of it.

People always like to point to Europe as the model on how to do things here in the States. Well I'm going to point to India. Over there addicts don't get handled with kiddie gloves. They get ex-communicated and disowned. The shame the addict brings upon the family is not tolerated. I've been to plenty of Indian weddings with open bar. Not once has anyone gotten stupid, because they fear their own. At every white people wedding I've been to someone always makes a scene. Maybe hugging it out isn't the answer.

 Monkey Tamer wrote:
People always like to point to Europe as the model on how to do things here in the States. Well I'm going to point to India. Over there addicts don't get handled with kiddie gloves. They get ex-communicated and disowned. The shame the addict brings upon the family is not tolerated. I've been to plenty of Indian weddings with open bar. Not once has anyone gotten stupid, because they fear their own. At every white people wedding I've been to someone always makes a scene. Maybe hugging it out isn't the answer.

Ah yes, someone has a problem? Shame them and disown them. That worked for the Japanese.

 Monkey Tamer wrote:
People always like to point to Europe as the model on how to do things here in the States. Well I'm going to point to India. Over there addicts don't get handled with kiddie gloves. They get ex-communicated and disowned. The shame the addict brings upon the family is not tolerated. I've been to plenty of Indian weddings with open bar. Not once has anyone gotten stupid, because they fear their own. At every white people wedding I've been to someone always makes a scene. Maybe hugging it out isn't the answer.

Why stop with addicts? We should also disown and excommunicate LGBT, people that have had abortions, people that have had premarital sex, people that masturbate, people that don't go to church every Sunday, people that don't root for the Goddam Houston Texans, people that don't vote Republican, etc.

a condition called hikikomori, a type of acute social withdrawal.

Good read till this part and then it got really interesting afterwards. Though from my experience in Asian countries, South Korea, Thailand, Japan, and other side hops I've done, drugs were not the major issue but alcohol is a major culprit.

Ghost TBone advises that we disown all cat lovers. They're not even real people anyway.

 kronk wrote:

 Monkey Tamer wrote:
People always like to point to Europe as the model on how to do things here in the States. Well I'm going to point to India. Over there addicts don't get handled with kiddie gloves. They get ex-communicated and disowned. The shame the addict brings upon the family is not tolerated. I've been to plenty of Indian weddings with open bar. Not once has anyone gotten stupid, because they fear their own. At every white people wedding I've been to someone always makes a scene. Maybe hugging it out isn't the answer.

Why stop with addicts? We should also disown and excommunicate LGBT, people that have had abortions, people that have had premarital sex, people that masturbate, people that don't go to church every Sunday, people that don't root for the Goddam Houston Texans, people that don't vote Republican, etc.

Thankfully, we don't follow India's dumbass laws and practices.

It's a sign of good fortune if cross dressers show up at your wedding there. They've got to be whacking off like mad men because they don't get married until they're done with school, which means late 20s for most of them. Most are Hindu, so they don't go to church. Have we been to the same India? We indulge crime in this country and wonder why we get the results we continually get.

 kronk wrote:

 Monkey Tamer wrote:
People always like to point to Europe as the model on how to do things here in the States. Well I'm going to point to India. Over there addicts don't get handled with kiddie gloves. They get ex-communicated and disowned. The shame the addict brings upon the family is not tolerated. I've been to plenty of Indian weddings with open bar. Not once has anyone gotten stupid, because they fear their own. At every white people wedding I've been to someone always makes a scene. Maybe hugging it out isn't the answer.

Why stop with addicts? We should also disown and excommunicate LGBT, people that have had abortions, people that have had premarital sex, people that masturbate, people that don't go to church every Sunday, people that don't root for the Goddam Houston Texans, people that don't vote Republican, etc.

Thankfully, we don't follow India's dumbass laws and practices.

The current generation of young adults are fighting the old establishment for change. "Honor Killing" was the spark for the drive to do away with old cultural grip to current society of today

 Monkey Tamer wrote:
We indulge crime in this country and wonder why we get the results we continually get.

This is a very uneducated sentence, and you should feel bad for posting it.

We have more people incarcerated than any country in the world. We have zero tolerance for crime here. I have no idea how much Limbaugh and Glenn Beck you're listening to on a daily basis, but you should reduce it.

We are the prison nation.

We have corporate run, federal prisons. We have more people in jail (2,239,751) than there are people in 60 other countries.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/07/07/yes-u-s-locks-people-up-at-a-higher-rate-than-any-other-country/

Though only 5 percent of the world’s population lives in the United States, it is home to 25 percent of the world’s prison population.

Educate yourself.

 kronk wrote:

 Monkey Tamer wrote:
We indulge crime in this country and wonder why we get the results we continually get.

This is a very uneducated sentence, and you should feel bad for posting it.

We have more people incarcerated than any country in the world. We have zero tolerance for crime here. I have no idea how much Limbaugh and Glenn Beck you're listening to on a daily basis, but you should reduce it.

We are the prison nation.

We have corporate run, federal prisons. We have more people in jail (2,239,751) than there are people in 60 other countries.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/07/07/yes-u-s-locks-people-up-at-a-higher-rate-than-any-other-country/

Though only 5 percent of the world’s population lives in the United States, it is home to 25 percent of the world’s prison population.

Educate yourself.

How many felony sentencing hearings have you done? I read all these "studies" and "research articles" that tell me how it is, but I see the exact opposite being the guy in the trenches. Perhaps you shouldn't believe everything you read, and should fail ashamed for being so easily swayed and feel bad for posting about something you have no first hand experience with.

And I don't listen to the radio or watch any cable tv news shows. Nice attempt at trying to paint me as a right wing sycophant, but no points for you.

 Monkey Tamer wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 Monkey Tamer wrote:
We indulge crime in this country and wonder why we get the results we continually get.

This is a very uneducated sentence, and you should feel bad for posting it.

We have more people incarcerated than any country in the world. We have zero tolerance for crime here. I have no idea how much Limbaugh and Glenn Beck you're listening to on a daily basis, but you should reduce it.

We are the prison nation.

We have corporate run, federal prisons. We have more people in jail (2,239,751) than there are people in 60 other countries.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/07/07/yes-u-s-locks-people-up-at-a-higher-rate-than-any-other-country/

Though only 5 percent of the world’s population lives in the United States, it is home to 25 percent of the world’s prison population.

Educate yourself.

How many felony sentencing hearings have you done? I read all these "studies" and "research articles" that tell me how it is, but I see the exact opposite being the guy in the trenches. Perhaps you shouldn't believe everything you read, and should fail ashamed for being so easily swayed and feel bad for posting about something you have no first hand experience with.

And I don't listen to the radio or watch any cable tv news shows. Nice attempt at trying to paint me as a right wing sycophant, but no points for you.

Ofcourse. Your 1% of experiences outweighs everyone else in the United States. Good show.

Anecdotal > Studies, statistics, etc.

This is a fact.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Monkey Tamer wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 Monkey Tamer wrote:
We indulge crime in this country and wonder why we get the results we continually get.

This is a very uneducated sentence, and you should feel bad for posting it.

We have more people incarcerated than any country in the world. We have zero tolerance for crime here. I have no idea how much Limbaugh and Glenn Beck you're listening to on a daily basis, but you should reduce it.

We are the prison nation.

We have corporate run, federal prisons. We have more people in jail (2,239,751) than there are people in 60 other countries.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/07/07/yes-u-s-locks-people-up-at-a-higher-rate-than-any-other-country/

Though only 5 percent of the world’s population lives in the United States, it is home to 25 percent of the world’s prison population.

Educate yourself.

How many felony sentencing hearings have you done? I read all these "studies" and "research articles" that tell me how it is, but I see the exact opposite being the guy in the trenches. Perhaps you shouldn't believe everything you read, and should fail ashamed for being so easily swayed and feel bad for posting about something you have no first hand experience with.

And I don't listen to the radio or watch any cable tv news shows. Nice attempt at trying to paint me as a right wing sycophant, but no points for you.

Ofcourse. Your 1% of experiences outweighs everyone else in the United States. Good show.

My first hand experience tells me the articles are slanted bullsh!t.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Don't believe the guy that's actually working in the field, guys. The Vox and Huffington post will lead you to the path of righteousness. We lock people up in DOC all the time for personal use amounts of pot and public defenders are utterly useless because articles told you so. I've been in multiple counties within Illinois, and even the most draconian right wing judge I've been in front of rarely incarcerates.

Without wanting to get too drawn in here, arguing for the validity of personal anecdotal evidence over statistical data and research studies is generally a flawed approach.

Ultimately, the US does send a lot more people (both in absolute and relative terms) to prison, and for generally longer sentences, than other developed nations.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Without wanting to get too drawn in here, arguing for the validity of personal anecdotal evidence over statistical data and research studies is generally a flawed approach.

Ultimately, the US does send a lot more people (both in absolute and relative terms) to prison, and for generally longer sentences, than other developed nations.

I'm not denying that at all. My concern is the why. Why do we need to? Are we too soft compared to other countries? Is it because we have so many rehab programs that simply prolong the eventual sentence for incarceration? We hand out second chances here (and third, fourth, fifth . . .) all the time. It is statutorily mandated that a court sentence an offender to supervision, probation, or conditional discharge as the default in Illinois (730 ILCS 5/5-6-1). But all I hear is how mean we are constantly locking people up for small amounts of pot, which is a legal impossibility. The media is full of bullsh!t when it comes to the legal industry. Every time I read some journalist reporting on a recent Supreme Court Decision they screw it up royally, which results in people thinking they can do things they can't, or that the cops have gestapo power to seize them with impunity. I can't speak for other professions, but mine is constantly being portrayed flat out wrong.

 Monkey Tamer wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Without wanting to get too drawn in here, arguing for the validity of personal anecdotal evidence over statistical data and research studies is generally a flawed approach.

Ultimately, the US does send a lot more people (both in absolute and relative terms) to prison, and for generally longer sentences, than other developed nations.

I'm not denying that at all. My concern is the why. Why do we need to? Are we too soft compared to other countries? Is it because we have so many rehab programs that simply prolong the eventual sentence for incarceration? We hand out second chances here (and third, fourth, fifth . . .) all the time. It is statutorily mandated that a court sentence an offender to supervision, probation, or conditional discharge as the default in Illinois (730 ILCS 5/5-6-1). But all I hear is how mean we are constantly locking people up for small amounts of pot, which is a legal impossibility. The media is full of bullsh!t when it comes to the legal industry. Every time I read some journalist reporting on a recent Supreme Court Decision they screw it up royally, which results in people thinking they can do things they can't, or that the cops have gestapo power to seize them with impunity. I can't speak for other professions, but mine is constantly being portrayed flat out wrong.

Why? Because America's justice system is for profit. Look at our prisons, follow the money trail.

Do we need cops? Hell yes. But our justice system as a whole needs a revamp. Too many criminals get locked up, get out, see there's no opportunities other than crime, and go back to crime. How many criminals actually are able to rebuild their life in prison?

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Monkey Tamer wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Without wanting to get too drawn in here, arguing for the validity of personal anecdotal evidence over statistical data and research studies is generally a flawed approach.

Ultimately, the US does send a lot more people (both in absolute and relative terms) to prison, and for generally longer sentences, than other developed nations.

I'm not denying that at all. My concern is the why. Why do we need to? Are we too soft compared to other countries? Is it because we have so many rehab programs that simply prolong the eventual sentence for incarceration? We hand out second chances here (and third, fourth, fifth . . .) all the time. It is statutorily mandated that a court sentence an offender to supervision, probation, or conditional discharge as the default in Illinois (730 ILCS 5/5-6-1). But all I hear is how mean we are constantly locking people up for small amounts of pot, which is a legal impossibility. The media is full of bullsh!t when it comes to the legal industry. Every time I read some journalist reporting on a recent Supreme Court Decision they screw it up royally, which results in people thinking they can do things they can't, or that the cops have gestapo power to seize them with impunity. I can't speak for other professions, but mine is constantly being portrayed flat out wrong.

Why? Because America's justice system is for profit. Look at our prisons, follow the money trail.

Do we need cops? Hell yes. But our justice system as a whole needs a revamp. Too many criminals get locked up, get out, see there's no opportunities other than crime, and go back to crime. How many criminals actually are able to rebuild their life in prison?

At last we are in agreement about something. Some states offer tax rebates for hiring felons. Several felons in the area now work as roofers or do manual labor for contracting companies. It is difficult, yes, but not impossible. Some of these people had bad parenting, and would have been better served going to the military to escape their life and start a career, but many of them are dragged down by their fellows and wallow in the same filth until they catch a case. But it isn't all bad even if you have a felony charge. First offender probation is a popular disposition for first time offenders with felony drugs. But as I've said before you can lead a horse to water but can't make them drink. Many of them re-offend, don't indulge in the free treatment, or pop on a urinalysis. I'm sorry I get worked up about this, but I've had way too many meetings with victims where I have to tell them what they found on the internet just isn't true. The guy that broke into their house isn't going to prison. Yes, he has a criminal history, but their version of bad and the judge's version of bad history is different. Sometimes we quite literally have to wait until they kill or try to kill someone. It's often a thankless profession and the media's false information certainly isn't helping. Some people just can't get right, and there is no other way to deal with them other than remove them from society. Others take the second chance they're given and are thankful for it.

 Monkey Tamer wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Monkey Tamer wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Without wanting to get too drawn in here, arguing for the validity of personal anecdotal evidence over statistical data and research studies is generally a flawed approach.

Ultimately, the US does send a lot more people (both in absolute and relative terms) to prison, and for generally longer sentences, than other developed nations.

I'm not denying that at all. My concern is the why. Why do we need to? Are we too soft compared to other countries? Is it because we have so many rehab programs that simply prolong the eventual sentence for incarceration? We hand out second chances here (and third, fourth, fifth . . .) all the time. It is statutorily mandated that a court sentence an offender to supervision, probation, or conditional discharge as the default in Illinois (730 ILCS 5/5-6-1). But all I hear is how mean we are constantly locking people up for small amounts of pot, which is a legal impossibility. The media is full of bullsh!t when it comes to the legal industry. Every time I read some journalist reporting on a recent Supreme Court Decision they screw it up royally, which results in people thinking they can do things they can't, or that the cops have gestapo power to seize them with impunity. I can't speak for other professions, but mine is constantly being portrayed flat out wrong.

Why? Because America's justice system is for profit. Look at our prisons, follow the money trail.

Do we need cops? Hell yes. But our justice system as a whole needs a revamp. Too many criminals get locked up, get out, see there's no opportunities other than crime, and go back to crime. How many criminals actually are able to rebuild their life in prison?

At last we are in agreement about something. Some states offer tax rebates for hiring felons. Several felons in the area now work as roofers or do manual labor for contracting companies. It is difficult, yes, but not impossible. Some of these people had bad parenting, and would have been better served going to the military to escape their life and start a career, but many of them are dragged down by their fellows and wallow in the same filth until they catch a case. But it isn't all bad even if you have a felony charge. First offender probation is a popular disposition for first time offenders with felony drugs. But as I've said before you can lead a horse to water but can't make them drink. Many of them re-offend, don't indulge in the free treatment, or pop on a urinalysis. I'm sorry I get worked up about this, but I've had way too many meetings with victims where I have to tell them what they found on the internet just isn't true. The guy that broke into their house isn't going to prison. Yes, he has a criminal history, but their version of bad and the judge's version of bad history is different. Sometimes we quite literally have to wait until they kill or try to kill someone. It's often a thankless profession and the media's false information certainly isn't helping. Some people just can't get right, and there is no other way to deal with them other than remove them from society. Others take the second chance they're given and are thankful for it.

The military can be a good choice for some but it's really not geared towards teaching useful job skills or civics. The veterans that I know got their jobs based off of going to college on the GI Bill or having been in a MOS that happened to be easily translatable into a good job, and there's no guarantee of the later happening.

The states need to do a better job of getting people who want to get out of the ghetto out of the ghetto. Nobody should have to live in that kind of detrimental environment. I'm against the govt forcibly relocating people but if we're going to give people housing assistance we should do all we can to move the ones that care about their kids' education and future into neighborhoods that don't promote and condone truancy and crime.

Am I the only one who has trouble taking serious the guy with the name with racist connotations?