Cop shots cyclist in back

[Londo_Jowo]

Its weird, because you keep putting words in his mouth instead of asking him.

I believe it called creating a strawman to fight. They can't help themselves as they must have something evil to fight even if it's made up.

He seems pretty rational to me.

Thanks

 

[werepossum]

You are again making an assumption.

If you want to argue that any data point is enough to say that he is making a claim about rate, then go ahead, but it would be dumb if you did. The reason I asked you if you thought punishment was a deterrent was to prove this next statement. You believe that prison conditions deter some from from doing things. You clearly said that taking away freedom should be the only thing needed as punishment, but you agree that punishments deter people from doing things. Londo in the previous thread did not claim that it was good or bad, but simply that conditions had an impact on people. You and he agree on this.

He has yet to claim that his view and the view of people that others might have a statistical significance.

Its weird, because you keep putting words in his mouth instead of asking him. He seems pretty rational to me.

Kudos for being the voice of reason - albeit it weird that it's between two generally reasonable people.

I'll throw two more things into the mix - culture and environment. We have a significant number of people who live in an environment that colors their view of the world to the extent that they do not feel they can succeed in corporate/white/Anglo America (the exact reasoning depends on the person and his background) AND who live in an environment that, well, frankly most of us would prefer prison. Prison is just safer, cleaner and nicer than, say, Cabrini Green and the like. Growing up with an expectation of doing time at some point as a normal part of life, combined with a prison environment more pleasant than that they leave behind, has built a subculture that awards points for being convicted and imprisoned - it's street cred. That combination is a powerful force against prison as a deterrent, and when that's gone all that is left is locking them away for as long as possible to minimize their threat to civilization. My own ideological preference is for prison to be generally shorter except for violent crime, more focussed on restitution, and much less pleasant, so that when a criminal is released he says "Holy crap, I'm never doing that again!" But I can recognize that for a significant portion of the criminal population, it's almost impossible to produce a prison that is harsh enough for effect and yet not inhuman.

And one third thing - drugs. Many illegal drugs such as crack and meth and PCP are dirt cheap but seriously mess up one's mind. Were marijuana legal and cheap - as it would be unless artificially inflated - then we might see fewer violent crimes and property crimes as stoners could get high without needing a lot of money and without getting violent tendencies in the bargain.

 

[dank69]

You are again making an assumption.



If you want to argue that any data point is enough to say that he is making a claim about rate, then go ahead, but it would be dumb if you did. The reason I asked you if you thought punishment was a deterrent was to prove this next statement. You believe that prison conditions deter some from from doing things.

I didn't say I believe that. Who is making assumptions now?

You clearly said that taking away freedom should be the only thing needed as punishment, but you agree that punishments deter people from doing things. Londo in the previous thread did not claim that it was good or bad, but simply that conditions had an impact on people. You and he agree on this.

I didn't say I agreed about conditions. Who is making assumptions now?

He has yet to claim that his view and the view of people that others might have a statistical significance.

Who said anything about statistical significance? He said he suspects that other people are deterred from committing crimes by the bad conditions they would face in prison the way he is. How could this not have an effect on crime rates if it were true?

Its weird, because you keep putting words in his mouth instead of asking him. He seems pretty rational to me.

This is the full text of the post you quoted:

Then go ahead and ask him if you don't believe me.

EDIT: Actually, we have these statements:
<direct quote from Londo>

Nope, never said that. I will say that I think loss of freedom is the biggest deterrent and all that I think is needed.

There is nothing in that text where I put any words in his mouth except for a direct quote of his post.

 

[dank69]

I believe it called creating a strawman to fight. They can't help themselves as they must have something evil to fight even if it's made up.



Thanks

In the interest of not making assumptions, can I ask you to list out some crimes you would commit if you knew there would be no prison sentence?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

In the interest of not making assumptions, can I ask you to list out some crimes you would commit if you knew there would be no prison sentence?

Maybe steal a Lexus LFA from Paris Hilton or Jay Leno they wouldn't miss the money. I could have a blast driving it as fast as I felt without having to worry about being arrested for grand theft or reckless driving.

 

[Darwin333]

Of course not. Many in here have posted concerning the fact the US has more in incarceration than other countries. This is true though it could be partially due to the justice system and partially due to the US not treating their prisoners as badly as other countries do.

While I agree with your remedies for the re-incarceration (I can't remember the term) rate, the reason we have so many prisoners is quite clear and if anyone does a little reading on the subject will come to the same conclusion.

We have 5 times the prison population of Great Britain, 7 times that of France and 12 times that of India (I bet India's jails sucks more than ours). Looking at the numbers per capita they get even worse, you can pursue them on Wiki if you care to.

Our prison population remained rather steady up until the 1980's. From the mid 80's to now the prison population exploded from roughly 300K to more than 2 million. Now we know when the problem started, what happened in the mid 80's that caused this explosion in prisoners? The anti-drug-abuse act happened and it caused two issues. One was the increased prosecution of non-violent and mostly non-threats to society and it implemented draconian mandatory minimum sentencing. People like to blame the increasing privatization of prisons but that is just one of the symptoms of the disease. Police departments get more funding, including federal funds and property, the more arrests they make and arresting poor people for low level drug offenses is the "low hanging fruit". Seizure laws added jet fuel to the already growing fire. Then still riding on the "tough on crime" push in the 90's states started passing 3 strike rules so a guy caught 3 times with an ounce of weed was mandated by law to get a minimum of 25 years in prison. Local governments have increasingly used the justice system as a major source of funding, some even their primary source of funding, creating debtors prisons. Federal prisons are no better, half of all prisoners in federal prison are there for non-violent drug offenses.

Fun fact: 1 in 32 Americans are currently incarcerated, on probation or on parole. That is just insane and proves that our system is seriously broken.

 

[nickqt]

While I agree with your remedies for the re-incarceration (I can't remember the term) rate, the reason we have so many prisoners is quite clear and if anyone does a little reading on the subject will come to the same conclusion.

We have 5 times the prison population of Great Britain, 7 times that of France and 12 times that of India (I bet India's jails sucks more than ours). Looking at the numbers per capita they get even worse, you can pursue them on Wiki if you care to.

Our prison population remained rather steady up until the 1980's. From the mid 80's to now the prison population exploded from roughly 300K to more than 2 million. Now we know when the problem started, what happened in the mid 80's that caused this explosion in prisoners? The anti-drug-abuse act happened and it caused two issues. One was the increased prosecution of non-violent and mostly non-threats to society and it implemented draconian mandatory minimum sentencing. People like to blame the increasing privatization of prisons but that is just one of the symptoms of the disease. Police departments get more funding, including federal funds and property, the more arrests they make and arresting poor people for low level drug offenses is the "low hanging fruit". Seizure laws added jet fuel to the already growing fire. Then still riding on the "tough on crime" push in the 90's states started passing 3 strike rules so a guy caught 3 times with an ounce of weed was mandated by law to get a minimum of 25 years in prison. Local governments have increasingly used the justice system as a major source of funding, some even their primary source of funding, creating debtors prisons. Federal prisons are no better, half of all prisoners in federal prison are there for non-violent drug offenses.

Fun fact: 1 in 32 Americans are currently incarcerated, on probation or on parole. That is just insane and proves that our system is seriously broken.

Don't forget the privatization of prisons. If it's profitable to run a prison, you can be sure that FreeMarket will find you some prisoners to make more profit.

Just ask the judges who receive campaign contributions from people who operate privatized prisons. Or don't.

 

[lotus503]

Jeez man, its kind of crazy logging on here and seeing I am a member of a very hated group.

I may have to petition SCOTUS for protected status for riding my bike

 

[realibrad]

I didn't say I believe that. Who is making assumptions now?

I asked if you thought that punishment is a deterrent and you said yes.
Are you saying that conditions of prison are not a form of punishment? I think its rational to think that if a person had to choose a prison with good conditions vs bad, they would choose the good conditions. That would make the worse conditions a harsher punishment, so its logical to conclude that you see conditions as a deterrent to crime. Are you disagreeing with this?

I didn't say I agreed about conditions. Who is making assumptions now?

Again, if you think that punishments are a deterrent, then putting people in conditions they do not like is a form of punishment and thus would deter people from crime. Its not making an assumption, its drawing a logical conclusion. Are you arguing that conditions are not a form of punishment? I am not asking if they should be a form, but are they a form.

Who said anything about statistical significance? He said he suspects that other people are deterred from committing crimes by the bad conditions they would face in prison the way he is. How could this not have an effect on crime rates if it were true?

He claimed it was a deterrent for him and figured it would be for others as well. He did not say how many this would be true for. If he thought it was a significant number, he would be making a casual argument and he did not do that. He also did not claim that his rational was popular enough to impact the rate in a significant way aka statistical significance. If he does not believe his viewpoint is popular enough, the it would not be picked up in the data aka the rate. So, it has an effect on the rate, but it may not be statistically significant enough to be seen in the rate unless you go way to the right of the decimal. I hope this is clear enough, but it should have been already, so the fact that you did not get it means you might not get this either.

This is the full text of the post you quoted:

There is nothing in that text where I put any words in his mouth except for a direct quote of his post.

He is claiming there is possibly a direct link between prison conditions and crime rate which translates to incarceration rate.

He never claimed there was a link between conditions and crime rates. If he did, prove it. I could not find it in this thread, or the other thread. This is where you are putting words in his mouth. He claimed that conditions might change incarceration rates, not crime rates. People can commit crimes and not go to jail, so one does not always tie to the other.

 

[werepossum]

Jeez man, its kind of crazy logging on here and seeing I am a member of a very hated group.

I may have to petition SCOTUS for protected status for riding my bike

Personally I don't mind slowing down to pass you without catching you with a mirror. As a motorcyclist I don't see it as fundamentally different from asking four-wheelers to not merge into me simply because I'm not a threat.

Oddly I had pretty much concluded that gays had largely replaced Jews as THE hated minority group blamed for pretty much everything. This thread shows that I was wrong. It's bicyclists. Personally I blame the Spandex - ain't but three people in America at any given time that can pull off the Spandex biking shorts look without making people want to hit them with cars.

Incidentally I was passed by a bicycle earlier this week; I was going roughly thirty-five miles an hour down Missionary Ridge on Third Street, downtown. I would have bet money there was no way in the world he got safely stopped at the bottom of the ridge, but he got slowed down enough to turn and merge. I won't say safely turn and merge since he blew through a red light going maybe fifteen. Had the tourists been a little slower crossing, would have been some very unhappy people.

 

[Darwin333]

Don't forget the privatization of prisons. If it's profitable to run a prison, you can be sure that FreeMarket will find you some prisoners to make more profit.

Just ask the judges who receive campaign contributions from people who operate privatized prisons. Or don't.

Reread my unedited post, I didn't forget them. On the subject though, the same goes for local and county jails that get funding per person per day from the state. It's a well known fact that in some places that even if you pay your bail today you won't get out until after midnight because at 12:01 they (they being the local sheriffs office) get paid for housing you for an entire day.

When you get down to the local level, and even the state level, profit drives both the private and public sector in this specific instance.

 

[MatSm]

They are so out of control. I do not wish to have an encounter with the police right now. Am I free to leave? They are people, who have to protect us. But they are more dangerous than terrorists.