Prison Bans Books and Disco Pickle Learns a Lesson

[Disco Pickle]

You logic quoted above clearly shows that you feel if someone is in jail, they made a choice to break the law.

Combine this with your "no random actions", and you draw a straight line from "choose crime" to "incarcerated".

Ergo, your position = if you are incarcerated, you made that choice.




They're your words.  Maybe you should be better about choosing them. 

not everyone in jail should be there, and increasingly incarcerating people for non-violent offenses serves no value to society.  I thought I was clear about that early on. 

No, that was not at all clear. Even so, you still sound like you're saying "well, so long as their in prison, they might as well be useful". And if you are, your statement applies just as much to the people currently in prison unfairly and/or on stupid charges as it does to murders and rapists. The system is full of drug offenders and non-violent criminals, as well as innocent people. The bulk of your slave labor comes from people who are not "Criminals" under your definition. And you keep purporting to be okay with this.

For a subject you seem to have so much passion for you should have some ideas on how we might help get those people out of the system without also releasing the ones who would just as soon put a bullet in you as look at you.  I'd love to hear them.  I'd start by getting rid of mandatory minimums for drug possession and disproportionate sentences for possession of crack vs powdered cocaine.  It's the same god damn thing and targets minorities while being more lenient on the upper class white's who use powder rather than rock.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

UPSHOT:  anyone who thinks this is all "fine" and being in prison is "a choice"...they just haven't made it THERE yet.

Yet.

Saying that being incarcerated is a choice has terrible implications. For one thing, it assumes the infallibility of the system - that no one is sent to prison by mistake or receives an unfair trial.
Or, at the very least it assumes that such mistakes have to be accepted as "inevitable" glitches in the system.

It's one thing wax philosophical about causality and choice, but it's another thing to use such abstract concepts to justify something as real and heartbreaking about a life ruined by an unfair and unjust system.

never, not even once did I ever even come close to suggesting that being incarcerated was a choice. 

Actually, you said "It is a decision".

[Phox]

You logic quoted above clearly shows that you feel if someone is in jail, they made a choice to break the law.

Combine this with your "no random actions", and you draw a straight line from "choose crime" to "incarcerated".

Ergo, your position = if you are incarcerated, you made that choice.




They're your words.  Maybe you should be better about choosing them. 

not everyone in jail should be there, and increasingly incarcerating people for non-violent offenses serves no value to society.  I thought I was clear about that early on. 

No, that was not at all clear. Even so, you still sound like you're saying "well, so long as their in prison, they might as well be useful". And if you are, your statement applies just as much to the people currently in prison unfairly and/or on stupid charges as it does to murders and rapists. The system is full of drug offenders and non-violent criminals, as well as innocent people. The bulk of your slave labor comes from people who are not "Criminals" under your definition. And you keep purporting to be okay with this.

For a subject you seem to have so much passion for you should have some ideas on how we might help get those people out of the system without also releasing the ones who would just as soon put a bullet in you as look at you.  I'd love to hear them.  I'd start by getting rid of mandatory minimums for drug possession and disproportionate sentences for possession of crack vs powdered cocaine.  It's the same god damn thing and targets minorities while being more lenient on the upper class white's who use powder rather than rock.

There you go again, avoiding the issue by demanding alternatives. First of all, I've got bills to pay and papers to write, so I don't spend my time thinking about how to improve a busted system when I am in no position to act upon it. Second, your entire position is divorced from reality. Sure eliminating mandatory minimums and equalizing sentencing for rock vs. powder would be a decent place to start, but I hate to break it to you, but it's not happening in my lifetime. Why? Because equalizing sentencing is a pipe dream, and mandatory minimums have precedent. The way the legal system works, even if the laws are passed, it wont make a difference in the grand scheme of things. Crack will be punished more harshly than powder. There will be "recommended"  minimum sentences. And nothing gets solved.

[Triple Zero]

**what does a prisoner do with themselves all day if they have nothing with which to occupy their minds?

**if a mind that is surrounded with other idle minds is put in frustration in the midst of similar minds, what happens?

Hey I think this is a great idea. We should put big screen TVs in prisons, showing only the mindnumbing TV-junk that is sitcoms, celebrity gossip, reality TV and talent shows.

It's definitely a form of punishment, plus it keeps those dangerous criminal minds from idling, keeping them nicely pacified with the finest fluff America has to offer.

I'm only a littlebit kidding

**how is it that almost every other "Westernized" society has understood the above as a plan to follow logically for eventual rehabilitation, but the US, in all its "infinite wisdom" (read: arrogant bastardry) still has not?

The US doesn't have any reintegration projects? Damn ...

[Triple Zero]

The only difference between here and a place like Mexico is that in the good old US of A, you need to add an extra zero or three to the bribe amount.

I pretty much said the exact same thing to the Thai guy I was working with the other night, when we were discussing the FIFA World Cup corruption on the news.

I'm not adverse to a little corruption (hell, I seriously considered a job offer in Taiwan, which was technically illegal but because of bribes I could safely do for a few years without hassle.  Taiwan runs on bribery as a way of life) but it has to be affordable.  The amazing thing about advanced post-industrial nations is how they have raised the barrier for low level corruption, while turning high level corruption into a form of big business.  Whereas I believe in corruption for the masses.  Every worker slipping every low paid cop a few bills to avoid a parking ticket!

It's true. As far as I understand, in a lot of countries, it's basically the grease of society.

Our grease of society, here, as far as I understand, is based on always giving a littlebit more, if you can spare it. Also nice, but it's not very universal/popular and less powerful, anyway.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

The US doesn't have any reintegration projects? Damn ...

Yeah.  As you're walking out the gate, the guards says, "See you real soon".

[The Good Reverend Roger]

You logic quoted above clearly shows that you feel if someone is in jail, they made a choice to break the law.

Combine this with your "no random actions", and you draw a straight line from "choose crime" to "incarcerated".

Ergo, your position = if you are incarcerated, you made that choice.




They're your words.  Maybe you should be better about choosing them. 

not everyone in jail should be there, and increasingly incarcerating people for non-violent offenses serves no value to society.  I thought I was clear about that early on. 

No, that was not at all clear. Even so, you still sound like you're saying "well, so long as their in prison, they might as well be useful". And if you are, your statement applies just as much to the people currently in prison unfairly and/or on stupid charges as it does to murders and rapists. The system is full of drug offenders and non-violent criminals, as well as innocent people. The bulk of your slave labor comes from people who are not "Criminals" under your definition. And you keep purporting to be okay with this.

For a subject you seem to have so much passion for you should have some ideas on how we might help get those people out of the system without also releasing the ones who would just as soon put a bullet in you as look at you.  I'd love to hear them.  I'd start by getting rid of mandatory minimums for drug possession and disproportionate sentences for possession of crack vs powdered cocaine.  It's the same god damn thing and targets minorities while being more lenient on the upper class white's who use powder rather than rock.

Oh, hi!  I'm TGRR, and I live in the real world, the one that's, you know, actually happening.  In your world, you can get rid of those things.  In mine, they can't even decriminalize pot without 55% of the population (and ALL of the government) throwing a fucking wobbler.

[Triple Zero]

The US doesn't have any reintegration projects? Damn ...

Yeah.  As you're walking out the gate, the guards says, "See you real soon".

Ah, so it's like positive reinforcement therapy where they are taught they are in fact a very valuable and important part of a complex group dynamic, communicated by expressing wishes for their speedy return.

[Disco Pickle]

You logic quoted above clearly shows that you feel if someone is in jail, they made a choice to break the law.

Combine this with your "no random actions", and you draw a straight line from "choose crime" to "incarcerated".

Ergo, your position = if you are incarcerated, you made that choice.




They're your words.  Maybe you should be better about choosing them. 

not everyone in jail should be there, and increasingly incarcerating people for non-violent offenses serves no value to society.  I thought I was clear about that early on. 

No, that was not at all clear. Even so, you still sound like you're saying "well, so long as their in prison, they might as well be useful". And if you are, your statement applies just as much to the people currently in prison unfairly and/or on stupid charges as it does to murders and rapists. The system is full of drug offenders and non-violent criminals, as well as innocent people. The bulk of your slave labor comes from people who are not "Criminals" under your definition. And you keep purporting to be okay with this.

For a subject you seem to have so much passion for you should have some ideas on how we might help get those people out of the system without also releasing the ones who would just as soon put a bullet in you as look at you.  I'd love to hear them.  I'd start by getting rid of mandatory minimums for drug possession and disproportionate sentences for possession of crack vs powdered cocaine.  It's the same god damn thing and targets minorities while being more lenient on the upper class white's who use powder rather than rock.

Oh, hi!  I'm TGRR, and I live in the real world, the one that's, you know, actually happening.  In your world, you can get rid of those things.  In mine, they can't even decriminalize pot without 55% of the population (and ALL of the government) throwing a fucking wobbler.

It's already occurring.  Currently there's only 13 states that still have a disparity in the ratio between how they sentence for crack vs cocaine.  The fair sentencing act, signed by this President, dropped the federal ratio down to 18:1.  Congress, of course, rejected moving it to 1:1.  It also removed the mandatory minimum 5 years for first possession.

But hey, it's easier just throw our hands up and say it's hopeless.  It's much more fun to gnash our teeth and say that nothing ever changes, even when there's evidence that things can be changed and are being changed.  

[The Good Reverend Roger]

You logic quoted above clearly shows that you feel if someone is in jail, they made a choice to break the law.

Combine this with your "no random actions", and you draw a straight line from "choose crime" to "incarcerated".

Ergo, your position = if you are incarcerated, you made that choice.




They're your words.  Maybe you should be better about choosing them.  

not everyone in jail should be there, and increasingly incarcerating people for non-violent offenses serves no value to society.  I thought I was clear about that early on.  

No, that was not at all clear. Even so, you still sound like you're saying "well, so long as their in prison, they might as well be useful". And if you are, your statement applies just as much to the people currently in prison unfairly and/or on stupid charges as it does to murders and rapists. The system is full of drug offenders and non-violent criminals, as well as innocent people. The bulk of your slave labor comes from people who are not "Criminals" under your definition. And you keep purporting to be okay with this.

For a subject you seem to have so much passion for you should have some ideas on how we might help get those people out of the system without also releasing the ones who would just as soon put a bullet in you as look at you.  I'd love to hear them.  I'd start by getting rid of mandatory minimums for drug possession and disproportionate sentences for possession of crack vs powdered cocaine.  It's the same god damn thing and targets minorities while being more lenient on the upper class white's who use powder rather than rock.

Oh, hi!  I'm TGRR, and I live in the real world, the one that's, you know, actually happening.  In your world, you can get rid of those things.  In mine, they can't even decriminalize pot without 55% of the population (and ALL of the government) throwing a fucking wobbler.

It's already occurring.  Currently there's only 13 states that still have a disparity in the ratio between how they sentence for crack vs cocaine.  The fair sentencing act, signed by this President, dropped the federal ratio down to 18:1.  Congress, of course, rejected moving it to 1:1.  It also removed the mandatory minimum 5 years for first possession.

But hey, it's easier just throw our hands up and say it's hopeless.  It's much more fun to gnash our teeth and say that nothing ever changes, even when there's evidence that things can be changed and are being changed.  

Oh, well then, we should see those prisons emptying out now, right?

[Phox]

even when there's evidence that things can be changed and are being changed.  

Last I checked, there weren't mass releases of prisoners, crack is STILL punished more harshly than powder (18:1 is still a very disproportionate, no?), and living in the ghetto gets you free police harassment. Did this change since last week?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

You logic quoted above clearly shows that you feel if someone is in jail, they made a choice to break the law.

Combine this with your "no random actions", and you draw a straight line from "choose crime" to "incarcerated".

Ergo, your position = if you are incarcerated, you made that choice.




They're your words.  Maybe you should be better about choosing them. 

not everyone in jail should be there, and increasingly incarcerating people for non-violent offenses serves no value to society.  I thought I was clear about that early on. 

No, that was not at all clear. Even so, you still sound like you're saying "well, so long as their in prison, they might as well be useful". And if you are, your statement applies just as much to the people currently in prison unfairly and/or on stupid charges as it does to murders and rapists. The system is full of drug offenders and non-violent criminals, as well as innocent people. The bulk of your slave labor comes from people who are not "Criminals" under your definition. And you keep purporting to be okay with this.

For a subject you seem to have so much passion for you should have some ideas on how we might help get those people out of the system without also releasing the ones who would just as soon put a bullet in you as look at you.  I'd love to hear them.  I'd start by getting rid of mandatory minimums for drug possession and disproportionate sentences for possession of crack vs powdered cocaine.  It's the same god damn thing and targets minorities while being more lenient on the upper class white's who use powder rather than rock.

Oh, hi!  I'm TGRR, and I live in the real world, the one that's, you know, actually happening.  In your world, you can get rid of those things.  In mine, they can't even decriminalize pot without 55% of the population (and ALL of the government) throwing a fucking wobbler.

It's already occurring.  Currently there's only 13 states that still have a disparity in the ratio between how they sentence for crack vs cocaine.  The fair sentencing act, signed by this President, dropped the federal ratio down to 18:1.  Congress, of course, rejected moving it to 1:1.  It also removed the mandatory minimum 5 years for first possession.

But hey, it's easier just throw our hands up and say it's hopeless.  It's much more fun to gnash our teeth and say that nothing ever changes, even when there's evidence that things can be changed and are being changed.  

Throwing our hands up? What? Complaining about the system is the opposite of giving up. And we pretty much all vote, derp.

[Disco Pickle]

even when there's evidence that things can be changed and are being changed.  

Last I checked, there weren't mass releases of prisoners, crack is STILL punished more harshly than powder (18:1 is still a very disproportionate, no?), and living in the ghetto gets you free police harassment. Did this change since last week?

http://www.sentencingproject.org/CRACKREFORM/

You're actually expecting instant gratification in the form or reform to the legal system.  And I'm being told I'm the one not living in reality.

To the post I haven't replied to, I'm not ignoring them I just have a project deadline to keep that I'm still putting off even as I type this.  I'll try and come back to this thread later today after I get these drawings off of my desk.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

You logic quoted above clearly shows that you feel if someone is in jail, they made a choice to break the law.

Combine this with your "no random actions", and you draw a straight line from "choose crime" to "incarcerated".

Ergo, your position = if you are incarcerated, you made that choice.




They're your words.  Maybe you should be better about choosing them. 

not everyone in jail should be there, and increasingly incarcerating people for non-violent offenses serves no value to society.  I thought I was clear about that early on. 

No, that was not at all clear. Even so, you still sound like you're saying "well, so long as their in prison, they might as well be useful". And if you are, your statement applies just as much to the people currently in prison unfairly and/or on stupid charges as it does to murders and rapists. The system is full of drug offenders and non-violent criminals, as well as innocent people. The bulk of your slave labor comes from people who are not "Criminals" under your definition. And you keep purporting to be okay with this.

For a subject you seem to have so much passion for you should have some ideas on how we might help get those people out of the system without also releasing the ones who would just as soon put a bullet in you as look at you.  I'd love to hear them.  I'd start by getting rid of mandatory minimums for drug possession and disproportionate sentences for possession of crack vs powdered cocaine.  It's the same god damn thing and targets minorities while being more lenient on the upper class white's who use powder rather than rock.

The alternatives are so bloody blatantly obvious. Do you need them spelled out aloud for you? What grade are you in?

[Phox]

even when there's evidence that things can be changed and are being changed.  

Last I checked, there weren't mass releases of prisoners, crack is STILL punished more harshly than powder (18:1 is still a very disproportionate, no?), and living in the ghetto gets you free police harassment. Did this change since last week?

http://www.sentencingproject.org/CRACKREFORM/

You're actually expecting instant gratification in the form or reform to the legal system.  And I'm being told I'm the one not living in reality.

To the post I haven't replied to, I'm not ignoring them I just have a project deadline to keep that I'm still putting off even as I type this.  I'll try and come back to this thread later today after I get these drawings off of my desk.

No, I'm expecting you to take into account that 18:1 is still a goddamn disparity, people who were sentenced under harsher laws are STILL IN PRISON, and that sentencing laws have no effect whatsoever on the behavior of police. Sorry, I know that I shouldn't expect the facts of the matter to interfere with my jubilation over the fact that six months ago judges were advised not to be so obvious in their sentencing disparities, but hey, what can I say? I'm kinda set in my ways.