Political Crossfire Forums

[LostSoul3412]

zentrait wrote: I think the issue is very clouded here. Like many have stated, the current US prison system is neither rehabilitation or punishment. When you begin to look at the percentages of drug addicts incarcerated by the US justice system, they comprise nearly 40% of the prison population, while blacks represent about 13% of the US population, there is nearly 50% that comprise the prison population... so what is really going on here? Think that murder, theft, rape and drug abuse can only happen in the streets, and is curbed at the gates of some penal facility is wrong. Over 40% of the prison population is there for non-violent crimes, yet learn quickly. While there is almost 800,000 "criminals" in for drug offenses, 65 million other US citizens use drugs on a normal basis, over 6 million are heavy drug users, want to incarcerate them all? Good luck paying your taxes...

...and what percentage of these inmates are just plain mentally deficient? ...good thing we closed all those mental facilities...

...something is just plain wrong with the current prison system, it obviously is flawed and isn't at all working FOR US.

Should we now use racial quotas for prison inmates?

If you want to look at demographics, the highest demographic within United States prisons is criminals. Justice is colorblind.

[zentrait]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Justice is colorblind.

...and not to fond of blackies either...
not that I wanted to turn this into a racial thing...but to think that there are not prejudices when it comes to the judicial system is a good sense of false hope...

[LostSoul3412]

zentrait wrote: ...and not to fond of blackies either...
not that I wanted to turn this into a racial thing...but to think that there are not prejudices when it comes to the judicial system is a good sense of false hope...

The justice system is not fond of those who break the law. The statistics showing that most individuals in American prisons are African-American has no bearing when you consider that the reason they are there in the first place is because they broke the law. Their racial background is merely inconsequential evidence that proves nothing, unless you're attempting to make an argument that the judicial system should now enforce racial quotas for their prisons in an attempt to make a "more diverse" cell block.

[Revenant]

LostSoul3412 wrote: zentrait wrote: ...and not to fond of blackies either...
not that I wanted to turn this into a racial thing...but to think that there are not prejudices when it comes to the judicial system is a good sense of false hope...

The justice system is not fond of those who break the law. The statistics showing that most individuals in American prisons are African-American has no bearing when you consider that the reason they are there in the first place is because they broke the law. Their racial background is merely inconsequential evidence that proves nothing, unless you're attempting to make an argument that the judicial system should now enforce racial quotas for their prisons in an attempt to make a "more diverse" cell block.

Affirmative Action....for prisons! :lol:

[LostSoul3412]

Revenant wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: zentrait wrote: ...and not to fond of blackies either...
not that I wanted to turn this into a racial thing...but to think that there are not prejudices when it comes to the judicial system is a good sense of false hope...

The justice system is not fond of those who break the law. The statistics showing that most individuals in American prisons are African-American has no bearing when you consider that the reason they are there in the first place is because they broke the law. Their racial background is merely inconsequential evidence that proves nothing, unless you're attempting to make an argument that the judicial system should now enforce racial quotas for their prisons in an attempt to make a "more diverse" cell block.

Affirmative Action....for prisons! :lol:

Unfortunately, I think that's exactly what is being argued here; which is also why I made the comment of a "'more diverse' cell block".

If affirmative action grant employment to individuals based on race, and not merit, then are we to grant incarceration to individuals based on race, and not on conviction?

[British boy]

Quote: not that I wanted to turn this into a racial thing...but to think that there are not prejudices when it comes to the judicial system is a good sense of false hope...
Has anyone considered mandatory minimums?
The majority of drug users in America are white, majority of crack cocaine users are African-American, crack cocaine receives one of the highest custodial sentencing of all drugs. Im not saying that this means that prison incarceration should be based on a racial qoutas, I do however think people should realise that personal prejudices are not exempt from the law.
Law is made by man and so will have the same faults and mistakes that make us human.

As to whether the American system is too soft, have any of you considered that maybe it is way to hard?
you have one of the highest prison incarceration rates in the world, second only to china.
Or that instead of wanting to seem hard on crime, which in my opinion is a very populist approach, you should attempt to look at causes of crime instead?

[zentrait]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Unfortunately, I think that's exactly what is being argued here;

LOL...no... I'm just stating the obvious. If I was only trying argue about racial equality in prisons...lol... I probably wouldn't of mentioned the stupidity behind locking up drug users...

but that's a good idea... let's make sure there is equal amount of different drug useres... if there is 10 people in for smoking pot, then there should be ten people in there for smoking crack...10 people for snorting coke... so on and so forth... hehehe ....

but you read into it what you want, it's ok

...how bout mental equality in prisons to? LOL no mention about that?... just straight to the racial thing... anyone else seeing this.... LOL

...there's no prejudices here... wink wink

[LostSoul3412]

British boy wrote: Or that instead of wanting to seem hard on crime, which in my opinion is a very populist approach, you should attempt to look at causes of crime instead?

Crime is caused by criminal behavior.

[LostSoul3412]

zentrait wrote: ...there's no prejudices here... wink wink

The only prejudice is against criminals.

[British boy]

Quote: Crime is caused by criminal behavior.
I think that many sociologists would argue with you there. Crime is not just caused by criminal behaviour. what about social exclusion, poverty and other factors caused by society which can lead people into crime.

Would you seriously argue that a poor mother who needed food for her children is automatically predisposed to criminal behaviour instead of her circumstances leading her to steal?

[Howe]

British boy wrote: Quote: Crime is caused by criminal behavior.
I think that many sociologists would argue with you there. Crime is not just caused by criminal behaviour. what about social exclusion, poverty and other factors caused by society which can lead people into crime.

Would you seriously argue that a poor mother who needed food for her children is automatically predisposed to criminal behaviour instead of her circumstances leading her to steal?

Crime is very often (but far from always) too hard on the poor, and very often (but less far from always) too easy on the rich.

20 years for smoking crack for the 5th time, but 6 years for deceiving investors and reaping $7 million? Give me a break!

Stick a poor man on the defense witness stand for murder, and he is far, far more likely to receive a more severe sentence than a rich man who committed the same crime. The "people" - because it's sure not the law - often give brownie points for the money or intelligence a person displays. This hidden "approval rating" is common.

[LostSoul3412]

British boy wrote: I think that many sociologists would argue with you there.

Then I think that many sociologists are idiots. How can anyone argue that crime isn't caused by criminal behavior?

British boy wrote: Crime is not just caused by criminal behaviour. what about social exclusion, poverty and other factors caused by society which can lead people into crime.

Social exclusion, poverty, and other social factors are not crimes. It becomes a crime once someone engages in criminal behavior, nothing more, nothing less.

British boy wrote: Would you seriously argue that a poor mother who needed food for her children is automatically predisposed to criminal behaviour instead of her circumstances leading her to steal?

I would argue that it's irrelevant. She stole, and therefore committed a crime, bottom line.

[LostSoul3412]

Howe wrote: Crime is very often (but far from always) too hard on the poor, and very often (but less far from always) too easy on the rich.

20 years for smoking crack for the 5th time, but 6 years for deceiving investors and reaping $7 million? Give me a break!

Stick a poor man on the defense witness stand for murder, and he is far, far more likely to receive a more severe sentence than a rich man who committed the same crime. The "people" - because it's sure not the law - often give brownie points for the money or intelligence a person displays. This hidden "approval rating" is common.

I would agree. The punishment should fit the crime, and "white collar crime" is a joke.

[norulers]

LostSoul3412 wrote: British boy wrote: Or that instead of wanting to seem hard on crime, which in my opinion is a very populist approach, you should attempt to look at causes of crime instead?

Crime is caused by criminal behavior.

You really got a grasp on it. How profoundly insightful. Your all heart too. Bet you was born the right color and from the "better" social class.

Over simplification of complex issues seems to be your specialty LostSoul.

[norulers]

LostSoul3412 wrote: zentrait wrote: ...there's no prejudices here... wink wink

The only prejudice is against criminals.

You should head up the NAACP. I'm sure you know more about Black issues then blacks do. With your ability to overly simplify issues; you probably figure a grossly large population of "people of color" incarcerated when compared to dominate society is not a Black issue or concern. Certainly, social condition and institutionalized racism has no correlation with this reality.

[norulers]

LostSoul wrote: Then I think that many sociologists are idiots. How can anyone argue that crime isn't caused by criminal behavior?

Just so you know; it is't that sociologist can't see the obvious. It's that they think beyond the box. It is called, "deconstruction". Your overly simplifications only serves to justify not having to think nor have a heart or take a coarse of action.

LostSoul wrote: I would argue that it's irrelevant. She stole, and therefore committed a crime, bottom line.

Your inflexible rules are irrational, unnatural and cruel. That a starving woman with a child is a criminal if she seeks out the natural needs, yearnings and desire (self preservation by what ever means necessary) to feed her child but it's not a criminal if she lets her child and herself starves.

How twisted is that?

Creating a social system where by it becomes illegal to provide for one children and one's self (unless your born of privilege) is by far the worst criminal behavior that a human can inflict on another. This is "class war" at its finest.

You who support the rich ruling class elitist make me want to puke.

Typical republican crap you expressed LostSoul; no different then the Nazi's. I'd suggest instead of expressing the republican - corporate view you get in touch with your own humanity and express an original perspective.

[British boy]

Quote: LostSoul wrote
I would argue that it's irrelevant. She stole, and therefore committed a crime, bottom line.

I didn't say that she didn't commit a crime. I was arguing that you should seek to address the social causes that made her turn to crime in the 1st place. surely if you could negate the reason that led to people committing crimes then there will be less crime, allowing you to focus on the social outcasts that will cause crime regardless.

[LostSoul3412]

norulers wrote: You really got a grasp on it. How profoundly insightful. Your all heart too.

Thanks for your compliments, I'll be sure to stay the course.

norulers wrote: Bet you was born the right color and from the "better" social class.

What the hell are you talking about? There is no "right" color, and there is no "better" social class.

norulers wrote: Over simplification of complex issues seems to be your specialty LostSoul.

Not really. You're just making the situation more complex than it needs to be.

[LostSoul3412]

norulers wrote: With your ability to overly simplify issues; you probably figure a grossly large population of "people of color" incarcerated when compared to dominate society is not a Black issue or concern.

What? More African-American's being incarcerated means that there are more African-American's committing crimes. Nothing more, nothing less.

norulers wrote: Certainly, social condition and institutionalized racism has no correlation with this reality.

No, it doesn't. If a crime was not committed, there would be no cause for incarceration. There are millions of Americans living in poverty whom are not guilty of any crime. If they can do it, so can you. Don't want to be incarcerated, then don't break the law.

[LostSoul3412]

norulers wrote: Just so you know; it is't that sociologist can't see the obvious. It's that they think beyond the box. It is called, "deconstruction".

Then it's a good thing I'm not a sociologist.

norulers wrote: Your overly simplifications only serves to justify not having to think nor have a heart or take a coarse of action.

So far I haven't heard any recommendations for any actions. I merely make the issue simple whenever possible, and boil it down to the basic common denominator. Crime is caused by people who commit crimes. It doesn't get any easier than that.

norulers wrote: Your inflexible rules are irrational,

Irrational? How is saying stealing = stealing, "irrational"?

norulers wrote: unnatural

Unnatural? Ha!

norulers wrote: and cruel.

Cry me a river. Don't like it? Don't break the law.

norulers wrote: That a starving woman with a child is a criminal if she seeks out the natural needs, yearnings and desire (self preservation by what ever means necessary) to feed her child but it's not a criminal if she lets her child and herself starves.

She's only criminal if she seeks to fulfill those needs through criminal means.

norulers wrote: How twisted is that?

I'm not the one saying that the ends justify the means, you are.

norulers wrote: Creating a social system where by it becomes illegal to provide for one children and one's self (unless your born of privilege) is by far the worst criminal behavior that a human can inflict on another.

Only if the means of providing are criminal in nature, and that applies to everyone.

norulers wrote: This is "class war" at its finest.

Now you're turning this into a class war?

:rotf:

Read the Fourteenth Amendment, all people, regardless of income, are equal under the law.

norulers wrote: You who support the rich ruling class elitist make me want to puke.

:rotf:

That's hilarious! I'm merely supporting the law; I could care less about people's income.

norulers wrote: Typical republican crap you expressed LostSoul;

:rotf: :rotf: :rotf:

A Republican? You're calling me a Republican?!

:rotf:

Oh wow, are you a comedian in real life? Cause that's some funny stuff!

norulers wrote: no different then the Nazi's.

Ah, yes, because any who support rule of law are fascists.

:roll:

norulers wrote: I'd suggest instead of expressing the republican - corporate view you get in touch with your own humanity and express an original perspective.

:rotf: