Hello Crime Fighters:

I've been harping for lots of years on these very pages about prison reform. We put TOO many people behind bars for TOO long. Of course, nobody cares much about what an excon has to say on the matter. People expect it.

Most elected officials, afraid of being tarred as soft on crime, ignore these problems. Sen. Jim Webb, a Democrat from Virginia, is now courageously stepping into the void, calling for a national commission to re-assess criminal justice policy.

This country has the world's highest incarceration rate. Although we have less than 5 percent of the world's population, we have almost one-quarter of the world's prisoners. And for the first time in history, more than 1 in 100 American adults are behind bars.

Many convicts are serving long mandatory sentences for nonviolent crimes, including minor drug offenses. Mandatory sentences are just plain stupid on their face. They take power OUT of the judge's hands, who has a job for LIFE, and puts it directly INTO the prosecutor's hands, who have political ambitions….

The system is also extraordinarily expensive. Billions of dollars now being spent on prisons each year could be used in far more socially productive ways.

The time could be right. The economic downturn should make both federal and state lawmakers receptive to the idea of reforming a prison system that is as wasteful as it is inhumane.

Or, are you right wingers happy with the "lock 'em up and throw away the key" philosophy of old?

excon

I don't think it serves any purpose for putting non-violent drug users in cages.

I can't see anything changing, though. "Getting tough on crime" is a political tool that has been used for ages.

I can't see anything changing, though. "Getting tough on crime" is a political tool that has been used for ages.Hello Em:

Nobody could foresee a young inexperienced black man being elected president, either.

To quote an old Dylan song, "the times, they are a changing".

excon

I think the system needs to be revamped.
We put a drug user in jail and let pedophiles walk the street. Makes no sense to me.
I think there should be more rehabilitation for some crimes nonviolent ones) this would allow those people to go back out and be productive and I think there are some crimes where there should be life imprisonment.

How about this?
Reinstate corporal punishment for certain non-violent crimes instead of incarceration. The money saved could be used toward vocational training for those offenders that would be willing to participate in the program.

Legalize weed and watch as incarcerations drop by 80%

Tax it like they do cigarettes and watch as the national debt disappears.

Do you see where I'm going with this?

How about this?
Reinstate corporal punishment for certain non-violent crimes instead of incarceration. The money saved could be used toward vocational training for those offenders that would be willing to participate in the program.

LOL! Good one Gal..
Oh, your not joking are you??

Hoo-ray Jimmy! :)

I'm glad my usually red-blooded state is gaining some middle ground with Webb and Kaine.

Oh, and gal - I'm really, really glad you don't run my city, county, state, or country. Scary stuff you have there. :eek:

How about rehabilitation for non-violent offenders. Teach these people a real trade or skill and provide business's incentives for hiring them. Also, after they've served their time there criminal record should be erased.

Furthermore, I would like to see non-violent criminals doing more community work rather than spending time behind bars. Heck, let the government employ them at a reduced rate, they could learn a usable skill, reduce payroll for our government agencies, etc.

Let's help give these people the means to be productive law abiding citizens rather than practically forcing them to resort to crime because they can't get a job and/or skills to succeed. It would cost us less in the long run.

Furthermore, I would like to see non-violent criminals doing more community work rather than spending time behind bars. Heck, let the government employ them at a reduced rate, they could learn a usable skill, reduce payroll for our government agencies, etc.

Let's help give these people the means to be productive law abiding citizens rather than practically forcing them to resort to crime because they can't get a job and/or skills to succeed. It would cost us less in the long run.

What??

So your telling me you wouldn't rather see these people hung like Gal does??

What????

So your telling me you wouldn't rather see these people hung like Gal does???

Gal said corporal punishment, not hanging. I imagine he means something like 20 lashes plus a dose of education. I agree on the education part, unsure on the corporal punishment; I will have to think about that more and address it tomorrow.

I would like to add though that I knew some old school cops from the 60's and 70's when community policing was possible. They used to tell me that the best way to keep a youngster from turning to a life of crime was to give him a beating to scare the crap out of him. Turns out that according to them, many of those kids never got into trouble again. I wonder if that is where Gal is coming from in suggesting corporal punishment?

I would like to add though that I knew some old school cops from the 60's and 70's when community policing was possible. They used to tell me that the best way to keep a youngster from turning to a life of crime was to give him a beating to scare the crap out of him. Hello Tex:

Used to?? They haven't changed their ways. They're still trying that crap - with ADULTS too...

However, I have to challenge their reasoning... They don't beat up kids to HELP them... They beat up kids because they're bastards.

excon

How about rehabilitation for non-violent offenders. Teach these people a real trade or skill and provide business's incentives for hiring them. Also, after they've served their time there criminal record should be erased.

Furthermore, I would like to see non-violent criminals doing more community work rather than spending time behind bars. Heck, let the government employ them at a reduced rate, they could learn a usable skill, reduce payroll for our government agencies, etc.

Let's help give these people the means to be productive law abiding citizens rather than practically forcing them to resort to crime because they can't get a job and/or skills to succeed. It would cost us less in the long run.

I'm with you on rehabilitation (though I think it's possible for certain violent offenders too), but I don't think one's criminal record should be erased. Imagine you own a company and are looking for a director of finance. You hire someone who you think is a great fit, only he embezzled a million dollars from his last company and was just released. No criminal record means there's no way you can know about this history and protect your business. Bad idea.

I'm with you on rehabilitation (though I think it's possible for certain violent offenders too), but I don't think one's criminal record should be erased. Imagine you own a company and are looking for a director of finance. You hire someone who you think is a great fit, only he embezzled a million dollars from his last company and was just released. No criminal record means there's no way you can know about this history and protect your business. Bad idea.

Yet on the other hand these people have paid their debt to society and hopefully have been rehabilitated. If they have a criminal record nobody will touch them, even if the job they are applying for has nothing to do with their past offenses. It's discrimination, warranted perhaps, but discrimination just the same.

My point is, how do you give these people the hand up they need rather than keep them in a perpetual state of having a hand out or paying for their incarceration if you don't remove the impediments from gaining useful employment.

Employers aren't protected from people who steal from them for the first time who don't have a record and where is the data that suggests that rehabilitated criminals who are employed represent a greater risk to an employer than someone who doesn't have a record?

How about rehabilitation for non-violent offenders. Teach these people a real trade or skill and provide business's incentives for hiring them. Also, after they've served their time there criminal record should be erased.

Furthermore, I would like to see non-violent criminals doing more community work rather than spending time behind bars. Heck, let the government employ them at a reduced rate, they could learn a usable skill, reduce payroll for our government agencies, etc.

Let's help give these people the means to be productive law abiding citizens rather than practically forcing them to resort to crime because they can't get a job and/or skills to succeed. It would cost us less in the long run.

Sounds sensible and right to me.

Yet on the other hand these people have paid their debt to society and hopefully have been rehabilitated. If they have a criminal record nobody will touch them, even if the job they are applying for has nothing to do with their past offenses. It's discrimination, warranted perhaps, but discrimination just the same.

Key word there is "hopefully". Our current prison system does very little to rehabilitate criminals - that's part of the problem. There is employment out there for people who have criminal records, it may not be the type of job they want, but there are opportunities out there. And until SOCTUS decides criminals are a protected class - it's not discrimination.


My point is, how do you give these people the hand up they need rather than keep them in a perpetual state of having a hand out or paying for their incarceration if you don't remove the impediments from gaining useful employment.

Well you certainly don't do it by removing the rights of the employer! I'm all for rehabilitation, for teaching a trade, for educating people in our prisons so they have a better chance later in life. I'm all for work programs, and for the prison system working with certain employers to help released criminals transition into the "real" world. But I'm NOT for erasing one's criminal record, since that means as an employer, I can't protect MY interests.


Employers aren't protected from people who steal from them for the first time who don't have a record and where is the data that suggests that rehabilitated criminals who are employed represent a greater risk to an employer than someone who doesn't have a record?

I guess you've never looked up recidivism rates... But let's go with your "rehabilitated criminals" qualifier - who deems them rehabilitated? The prison system? Pardon me, but I don't know if I trust their judgement. Going back to my finance example, let's say this guy went to prison, did whatever rehabilitation one would do for that type of crime, got out, and secured a job stocking shelves at a grocery store. He works his way up to cashier, and maybe eventually floor manager. Ten years have passed with no incidents. He applies at my company as a budget analyst - I'm a lot more likely to hire him after ten years of no incidents than hire him fresh out of prison. But if I know about his history, I can take steps to keep an eye on him until I fully trust him. Now he's got a job, and I've protected my company. No erasing of criminal records necessary.

I guess you've never looked up recidivism rates... But let's go with your "rehabilitated criminals" qualifier - who deems them rehabilitated? The prison system? Pardon me, but I don't know if I trust their judgement. Going back to my finance example, let's say this guy went to prison, did whatever rehabilitation one would do for that type of crime, got out, and secured a job stocking shelves at a grocery store. He works his way up to cashier, and maybe eventually floor manager. Ten years have passed with no incidents. He applies at my company as a budget analyst - I'm a lot more likely to hire him after ten years of no incidents than hire him fresh out of prison. But if I know about his history, I can take steps to keep an eye on him until I fully trust him. Now he's got a job, and I've protected my company. No erasing of criminal records necessary.

However, given a choice a candidates the person with the record is much less likely to be hired even though there is no incident for 10 years. Perhaps you are on to something; how about after being released from prison you keep your nose clean for 10 years your record is then erased? That is an incentive for the former criminal and for the employer they know that any potential employee either has never committed a crime or has been clean for 10 years?

It's also incentive to commit a crime in the first place. It removes consequences - if you do that, what's the point in punishing in the first place?

It's like telling your kid they can't have dessert after lunch, but they can have dessert after dinner. Some kids will learn to behave - other will learn to do without until dinner.

Beyond that, you're still taking away the right of the employer to be properly informed about their employees.

How about rehabilitation for non-violent offenders. Teach these people a real trade or skill and provide business's incentives for hiring them. Also, after they've served their time there criminal record should be erased.

Furthermore, I would like to see non-violent criminals doing more community work rather than spending time behind bars. Heck, let the government employ them at a reduced rate, they could learn a usable skill, reduce payroll for our government agencies, etc.

Let's help give these people the means to be productive law abiding citizens rather than practically forcing them to resort to crime because they can't get a job and/or skills to succeed. It would cost us less in the long run.

The ONLY reason I have a problem with this is that there are plenty of NON-offenders that would love to be in a position to have a trade learned for free, with businesses having incentives to hire them.

Why should the criminals get a privilege for free that others have to pay for? That's almost incentive for people of low income to commit crimes to be able to get into said program.

It's also incentive to commit a crime in the first place. It removes consequences - if you do that, what's the point in punishing in the first place?

It's like telling your kid they can't have dessert after lunch, but they can have dessert after dinner. Some kids will learn to behave - other will learn to do without until dinner.

Beyond that, you're still taking away the right of the employer to be properly informed about their employees.

A 19 year old boy does something stupid and gets caught selling an ounce of marijuana. He has a criminal record for life; he may as well had murdered someone as a criminal record will disqualify him from almost the same opportunities as a murderer.

The ongoing punishment of having a criminal record on the books long after he has served his sentence does not fit the crime.

Then what happens is that this person will likely only have menial jobs and likely give up or revert to a life of crime.

My point is, carrot or stick? The stick didn't work as a deterent and to keep beating them with that stick for the rest of their lives doesn't sound like it will produce a productive law abiding citizen. Instead let's offer them a carrot. Carrots motivate much more than sticks do in the long run.

I would like to have EXCON weight in on this, since he is an excon.

The ONLY reason I have a problem with this is that there are plenty of NON-offenders that would love to be in a position to have a trade learned for free, with businesses having incentives to hire them.

Why should the criminals get a privilege for free that others have to pay for? That's almost incentive for people of low income to commit crimes to be able to get into said program.

Would you rather have the state pay the 10 to 20k to teach them a trade or 70k per year to keep them locked up and then through them back into society with no skills with a greater chance to reoffend and cost the taxpayers multiple 70k's?

A 19 year old boy does something stupid and gets caught selling an ounce of marijuana. He has a criminal record for life; he may as well had murdered someone as a criminal record will disqualify him from almost the same opportunities as a murderer.

The ongoing punishment of having a criminal record on the books long after he has served his sentence does not fit the crime.

Then what happens is that this person will likely only have menial jobs and likely give up or revert to a life of crime.

My point is, carrot or stick? The stick didn't work as a deterent and to keep beating them with that stick for the rest of their lives doesn't sound like it will produce a productive law abiding citizen. Instead let's offer them a carrot. Carrots motivate much more than sticks do in the long run.

I would like to have EXCON weight in on this, since he is an excon.

You're still esentially rewarding the bad behavior in the first place. If you know you can get caught and it will go away in the future, it takes away part of the consequence. If there are fewer consequences, why not engage in the riskier behavior?

Your drug example illustrates one of the reasons I think pot should be decriminalized - especially in the cases of small amounts. But for now, it's not, so it's up to parents to make sure their kids understand the consequences of their actions. That being said, I disagree that in your example the kid might as well have murdered someone; maybe you're just being dramatic, but it's simply not true. Employers frequently look over stupid mistakes. The company I work for requires a government security clearance - we were able to hire someone who, many years ago, was arrested for assault. We were NOT able to hire someone who several years ago had been charged with murder. And, by the way, those hiring decisions were made based on security clearance approval - not corporate policy.

The punishment is the time served, why does everyone have to have a life sentence of a label constantly being applied to them?

It's like if I tried marijuana once and for the rest of my life someone says I have to carry around the label 'drug user'. One deed or experience in my life does not define me. If they insist on labelling people with negatives then they should enforce the same labels when someone successfully rehabilitates, or donates their time to charity, or gives back the community in some way.

I'm all for punishment that fits the crime, but no more than that.

Would you rather have the state pay the 10 to 20k to teach them a trade or 70k per year to keep them locked up and then through them back into society with no skills with a greater chance to reoffend and cost the taxpayers multiple 70k's?

I'd rather see prisons go back to having no cable TV, better libraries, and the opportunities to get student loans through the government for those willing to study in online programs.

LOANS. That they pay BACK.

I would like to see kids see that the consequence of crime isn't three free meals a day, a roof over your head, and free cable, with the only real loss being that they can't have sex unless they're gay.

Stop making prison look appetizing to the kid starving on the street and willing to risk drugs to stay alive. Make opportunities BEFORE someone commits crimes.

And make serious crimes have punishments---I like the idea of community service. There's a lot of community service you can do on a chain gang, really. And think of how great our public areas could be if they were taken care of by prisoners! We would certainly have plenty of workers!

I'd like punishment that fits the crime too. Let's castrate rapists, and keep them sedated, since rape is more often a power thing than it is a sex thing. Let's kill murderers.

Let's put those who steal from others--embezzlers, fraud, petty theft, grand theft auto, whatever-- become indentured servants to the state until the money is paid back, including legal fees. At minimum wage, of course.

Let's take people who abuse welfare by constantly having more kids and sterilize them.

Let's do chinese water torture, only with acid, on the heads of those who molest children and screw up those kids' heads for the rest of their lives.

Let's take drug offenders and make them work in rehab clinics.

Let's take those who committed a crime of passion and drug them so that they no longer are allowed to have emotions that might get out of hand.

Vandals should have to clean public restrooms with toothbrushes.

Drunk drivers should be made to work in a morgue for a period of 10 years per victim.

Only the WORST of those crimes would actually be punishment. The rest of them learn a skill by having to see the results of their actions against others.

And out of curiosity--since you want records wiped, do you want those laws that make sex offenders register wiped out after 10 years too? Do you want it so that, since they already served their time, that sex offenders do not HAVE to register? I mean--they served their time! They paid for their crime! Who CARES that parents of little kids should know that the guy down the street raped his 7 year old daughter 30 years ago? He paid for his crime already!

And if you do NOT believe that people should be allowed to be protected by criminals having a permanent record---well, you'd better be all for the privacy of pedophiles, too.

And really--if it really WAS just a stupid mistake, there is the possibility of having that crime expunged from your record, once you prove you HAVE learned from it, HAVE given back to your community, and have basically proven that you will not be committing any such crime again.

The punishment is the time served, why does everyone have to have a life sentence of a label constantly being applied to them?

It's like if I tried marijuana once and for the rest of my life someone says I have to carry around the label 'drug user'. One deed or experience in my life does not define me. If they insist on labelling people with negatives then they should enforce the same labels when someone successfully rehabilitates, or donates their time to charity, or gives back the community in some way.

I'm all for punishment that fits the crime, but no more than that.

Former drug user. If you smoked pot, you are a former drug user - you can't deny that. That's why we call them excons.

Part of the punishment is the lifetime label - it sends the message that you screwed up and there are consequences to your actions.

Hello again:

I see that my counsel is being sought...

Before we can decide how to punish somebody, we ought to make sure that the people we punish are bad people. Today, LOTS of people being punished by the system, AREN'T bad people.

If THAT problem doesn't get fixed, then we're not going to get anywhere.

So, THAT'S where we need to start. Once we determine who the bad guys are, I don't think anybody would deny that they should be punished, and for a long time. Plus, I don't think anybody would object to them being labeled for life.

That being said, and even if we only imprisoned people who NEED to be imprisoned, there ARE laws in place, such as expungment, that provides for a record to be hidden from the public, IF an offender has PROVEN he's worthy. We have laws that provide for pardons too.

So, a felon ISN'T required to carry his label for his entire lifetime... The problem is those laws aren't being used enough.

The next problem is our attitude towards incarceration. We still CALL it "corrections", but we've long abandoned correcting anybody. It should be called "warehousing", because THAT'S what it is.

And, here's what's changed... In times past, when the word corrections MEANT something, we sentenced people to prison AS their punishment. BEING there WAS the punishment... Corrections meant rehabilitation. Rehabilitation meant school, training, help adjusting to the outside..

Today, we sentence people to prison FOR punishment. It's NOW up to the prison administration to ADMINISTER that punishment - and they DO. Boy, do they!

And, we generally LOVE it.

The problem is, as I said above, we're PUNISHING the WRONG people. And, we're punishing them for the WRONG reasons. IF we decided to punish the RIGHT people, then loving how miserably they're treated has, at least, SOME semblance to reality...

But, to love punishing somebody who likes to get high, is just very, very wrong. It ISN'T what the system was designed for.

OK, I'm getting off my soapbox now.

excon

Attica! Attica! Attica!

A major problem is that it's a law and order auction played out by politicians seeking "punishment one-upmanship". If politicians spent more time addressing the real issues of crime and justice things wouldn't have got as bad as they are. I'm sick to death of hearing the words "tough on crime" uttered from the mouths of our so called leaders.

The article below makes some great points.

Being 'tough on crime' does not pay - Opinion - smh.com.au (http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/being-tough-on-crime-does-not-pay/2009/01/08/1231004192761.html)

I know a boy who recently spent his 18th birthday in court who is a good friend of my son and has often sat at our dinner table.

There's no doubt he was in the wrong place at the wrong time where a series of serious and life threatening mistakes were made deserving and warranting severe punishment. A few of the other boys involved in this incident may be charged with attempted murder... not sure at this stage. Still, in spite of the seriousness of the crime, my instincts tell me this particular boy could be damaged for life if sent to prison and would be far better off on a program of close supervision and community work. In fact, that seems to be how the authorities are treating his case so far, thankfully, as he actually tried to help the victim get away in the end.

He's in a refuge at the moment with few privileges. He's allowed to go to work (has now saved quite of bit of money since he's not been allowed to spend much of what he earns) and can talk to friends for around 10 minutes after work before having to return to the refuge. His friends can also visit him, which my son occasionally does.

It seems the authorities are watching this boy closely to judge how sincere he is about staying clear of trouble and getting his life in order. This boy whose father is a pilot in the airforce is unusually intelligent and has good parents. He has enormous potential and was all set to join the army before starting to get in trouble with the police. His ambition was to eventually to be part of the special forces (SAS). Now with a criminal record, that's no longer possible.

I might add that I'm very proud of how my son has handled all of this who is possibly one of the few people this boy genuinely trusts and respects.

As expensive and cumbersome as it might be (I have not idea what it costs or what's involved), I much prefer the idea of a case-by-case judgement to prevent unnecessary harm being done to people who may still have the potential to turn their situation around.

I honestly see the whole "judgement by precedent" and "mandatory punishments" as the worst problems with our justice system.

And I hate the fact that a judge was overturned in his/her decision in WI a few years back when she ordered a man with 8 children by 5 women to be sterilized as part of his punishment for his case, which I believe was about child support.

I feel that that punishment fit the crime of producing more children than he could support, or even TRIED to support.

Unfortunately, it was deemed "cruel and unusual punishment" and the sentence was overturned.

Why not have more judgments like THAT, sentences that keep people out of jail and punish the actual thing they did wrong, or are doing wrong, to prevent them from doing it again?

There are some cases where they need to throw out the "cruel and unusual" clause and substitute "cruel and creative" like for the guy that broke into the old lady's house and rapes her with her cane then shoves it down her throat and kills her.

I could think up some really good stuff for guys like that.

There are some cases where they need to throw out the "cruel and unusual" clause and substitute "cruel and creative" like for the guy that broke into the old lady's house and rapes her with her cane then shoves it down her throat and kills her.

I could think up some really good stuff for guys like that.

Will that satisfy your bloodlust? Does that not make the same as the criminal wanting to inflict pain and suffering? I'll bet you think that he deserves the same as she received, that somehow it will serve to remind him the horror he has inflicted. I doubt it, just like I doubt that these sick individuals will be any more detered from committing heinous crimes because the guy before him was tortured in some way.

Rather than prison time wait for death row, I say take the emotion out of it and give a family member a gun shortly after sentencing and allow them (if they choose) to put a bullet in the guys head. Over, done with, gone. This scum will no longer be a drain on society and he forfeited his right to live when he took another life.

Actually, I honestly have a really good idea for death row inmates--but one that would be called inhumane by do-gooders.

Give them the option of becoming "non-people" for the sake of medical research. If their crime is heinous enough, then they don't even get the choice--that's their sentence.

We constantly seem to have to fight animal rights activists on animal testing--which I don't believe should go away, as long as it's not done cruelly. Let's give medical researchers the much needed human bodies for medical testing. If you already have a disease when you get there, that's what they test. If you don't have a disease, they can't GIVE you a disease, but they CAN test other things on you, like makeup and tampons and new systems for enemas.

But--you're a non-person. You have no name, only a number. You don't exist anymore in the system except as that number. And you're there until you die.

THAT is where I'd rather spend my $70k per person tax dollars on death row inmates. Rather than killing them literally, kill them figuratively by taking away their identity and giving them to the medical facilities for testing.

But--that would fall under "cruel and unusual", so it will never happen.

Actually, I honestly have a really good idea for death row inmates--but one that would be called inhumane by do-gooders.

Give them the option of becoming "non-people" for the sake of medical research. If their crime is heinous enough, then they don't even get the choice--that's their sentence.

We constantly seem to have to fight animal rights activists on animal testing--which I don't believe should go away, as long as it's not done cruelly. Let's give medical researchers the much needed human bodies for medical testing. If you already have a disease when you get there, that's what they test. If you don't have a disease, they can't GIVE you a disease, but they CAN test other things on you, like makeup and tampons and new systems for enemas.

But--you're a non-person. You have no name, only a number. You don't exist anymore in the system except as that number. And you're there until you die.

THAT is where I'd rather spend my $70k per person tax dollars on death row inmates. Rather than killing them literally, kill them figuratively by taking away their identity and giving them to the medical facilities for testing.

But--that would fall under "cruel and unusual", so it will never happen.

But that is creative! I'd vote for that.

Actually, I honestly have a really good idea for death row inmates--but one that would be called inhumane by do-gooders.

Give them the option of becoming "non-people" for the sake of medical research. If their crime is heinous enough, then they don't even get the choice--that's their sentence.

We constantly seem to have to fight animal rights activists on animal testing--which I don't believe should go away, as long as it's not done cruelly. Let's give medical researchers the much needed human bodies for medical testing. If you already have a disease when you get there, that's what they test. If you don't have a disease, they can't GIVE you a disease, but they CAN test other things on you, like makeup and tampons and new systems for enemas.

But--you're a non-person. You have no name, only a number. You don't exist anymore in the system except as that number. And you're there until you die.

THAT is where I'd rather spend my $70k per person tax dollars on death row inmates. Rather than killing them literally, kill them figuratively by taking away their identity and giving them to the medical facilities for testing.

But--that would fall under "cruel and unusual", so it will never happen.

Provided corporations pay for the use of these inmates. I doubt they would want to house them permanently only long enough to complete a round of testing. I would be a revolving door of inmates coming in and then going back to prison. However if they paid for the time the inmate was away from prision to do tests volunteers can't because of legalites that might be worth some serious dollars and since the drug companies are rich, they might be able to pay for the entire incarceration of some inmates.

Ex,

I'm all for a little prison reform, just don't throw out that stuff about blacks being "disproportionately represented" as an excuse. Dangerous criminals still need to be locked up, people still need to pay the price for their crimes, we still need to be protected from violent criminals and we still have a drug problem to deal with. But I see no need to lock up every pot smoker.

By the way, judges here are elected, they don't have a job for life and I'm still not sure if that's good or bad. We do have too many prisons in Texas and we can't afford to run them or keep enough guards, and if all of my dealings with Texas prisons at work are any indication I don't put a whole lot of faith in the system. What DOES work here is Christian faith-based outreach in prisons and most wardens know this and encourage it.

Our penal system is outdated ,has a proven record of being ineffective,in a rehabilitative sense and is a financial burden with no end in sight.

Will we see change?
I'm hopeful because the last thing we need is more of the same.

Does the pot head belong with the pedophile,or the killer? No way.

You lock someone up as a pot smoking pacifist who should have a right to choose and when he returns to society he is an embittered person,with a record ,chances of gainful employment greatly decreased.What is he going to do now?

What is he going to do now?

He's going to get himself a computer and post questions like this ;)

Hello Crime Fighters:

I’ve been harping for lots of years on these very pages about prison reform. We put TOO many people behind bars for TOO long. Of course, nobody cares much about what an excon has to say on the matter. People expect it.

Most elected officials, afraid of being tarred as soft on crime, ignore these problems. Sen. Jim Webb, a Democrat from Virginia, is now courageously stepping into the void, calling for a national commission to re-assess criminal justice policy.

This country has the world’s highest incarceration rate. Although we have less than 5 percent of the world’s population, we have almost one-quarter of the world’s prisoners. And for the first time in history, more than 1 in 100 American adults are behind bars.

Many convicts are serving long mandatory sentences for nonviolent crimes, including minor drug offenses. Mandatory sentences are just plain stupid on their face. They take power OUT of the judge’s hands, who has a job for LIFE, and puts it directly INTO the prosecutor’s hands, who have political ambitions….

The system is also extraordinarily expensive. Billions of dollars now being spent on prisons each year could be used in far more socially productive ways.

The time could be right. The economic downturn should make both federal and state lawmakers receptive to the idea of reforming a prison system that is as wasteful as it is inhumane.

Or, are you right wingers happy with the "lock 'em up and throw away the key" philosophy of old?

excon


I would


1] decriminalize weed - regulate, tax it.

2] prostitution - decriminalize, regulate , tax. Treat the drug addicts, treat and prevent std[s], and cut out the pimps that prey on these women.

3] deport illegal criminals! Like, Duhhhh :rolleyes:

4] put all the gang bangers on one island, guarded so no one can escape - [ like "Escape from New York " ] ;)







G&P

You lock someone up as a pot smoking pacifist who should have a right to choose and when he returns to society he is an embittered person,with a record ,chances of gainful employment greatly decreased.What is he going to do now?

Well, Martha Stewart is still pretty successful.

There are several celebrities that have drug charges against them that are still doing movies/music/whatever.

More than one writer has had a felony--O. Henry (drugs), Henry David Thoreau (refusing to pay taxes), Oscar Wilde had a perjury conviction but I'm not sure on whether perjury is a felony. Theodore Geisel (Dr. Seuss) was arrested for breaking Prohibition in college, but I can't confirm whether he was prosecuted for it (so I confirm whether he is an ex-felon).

I'm sure there are others.

While I agree that it's harder for ex-felons to get jobs, that is seriously part of the punishment. It's SUPPOSED to be a deterrant.

If a person is TRULY not the same person as they were when they committed the crime, then they can appeal to have their record expunged, or can talk to a lawyer about what it would take to get a pardon.

But--the job thing is part of realizing how freaking STUPID you were to commit the crime in the first place. It's part of taking accountability for your actions. And it's part of having to give back to others through community service to PROVE that you learned your lesson.

I agree, however, that prostitution and marijuana use are two of the stupidest reasons to arrest someone. Legalize 'em, tax the hell out of them, and regulate them.