• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New Hampshire House Votes To Prohibit Private Prisons

apdst said:
Then, why do you keep trying to convince me that privatized prisons are a bad idea? I already agree that it's a bad idea. So why keep harping on it?
Click to expand...

I just follow your lead on attacking my posts and defend my position.
 
Grant said:
There were plenty of laws against drugs long before privately run prisons came about,
Click to expand...

Ah, yes, but there were NOT the 3-Strike laws that Dad Bush pushed to make more prisoners for the newly formed Private prisons.
 
Muddy Creek said:
I just follow your lead on attacking my posts and defend my position.
Click to expand...

But, I never said that prisons should be privatized...LOL!!! And, that seems to be the only thing you're arguing against.
 
Muddy Creek said:
Ah, yes, but there were NOT the 3-Strike laws that Dad Bush pushed to make more prisoners for the newly formed Private prisons.
Click to expand...

You see why leftists have such a dismal reputation?

The first three strike law was in Washington State, the second in California. These are States laws, as is the one under discussion, and has nothing to do with George Bush, his father, or global warming for that matter. Sheesh!
 
Grant said:
You see why leftists have such a dismal reputation?

The first three strike law was in Washington State, the second in California. These are States laws, as is the one under discussion, and has nothing to do with George Bush, his father, or global warming for that matter. Sheesh!
Click to expand...

Republican presidents are personally responsible for everything. Democrat presidents are responsible for nothing...in Libbo Land.
 
apdst said:
Right! You're saying that there isn't a law you oppose? Everyone of them is just fine by you? No bitches, gripes, or complaints?
Click to expand...

No. But I do respect them as the law of the land.
 
Hicup said:
I generally think that you take a reasonable approach to most issues, What if.., however, not so much on this point. A loss of freedom is NOT merely enough for some crimes, although, I'll grant you that lessor, victimless crimes would garner that sentiment. Violent crimes, crimes where material harm (which all and I mean ALL laws should be based on) has taken place require a more severe punitive measure, IMO. Society demands it, frankly, and so they should. Jamesrage is correct. Crime is punishable, and the punishment should fit the crime. Sounds easy enough, you'd think, but clearly we have a lot of disagreement about what punishment we should dole out for what crimes. Someone is Colorado {As an example) breaking into a home and stealing a TV shouldn't receive more time as that of someone raping a child, IMO, but alas, that seems to be the way it is there. I don't want violent criminals rehabilitated. I want them punished, and very hard! No TV, a cold bed, a toilet, and three meals a day. During the day I want them doing hard labor. I want it so BAD that any thought of committing the same offense when they get out is the last thing on their minds. I certainly do NOT want them to feel as though if they do it again, all they'll have to endure is a nice warm comfy bed, Sat TV, steak dinner, and smokes. Sorry, I don't see it that way. The criminal mind is rarely rehabilitable, and rehabilitation is only successful statistically if the criminal is younger between the ages of 18 to 25. Older criminals have shown to be less successful in rehabilitation programs, and violent criminals are almost statistically sure to re-commit after being released. Plus, how the hell does someone know if someone has been rehabilitated anyway?

There is some data that shows success, so I'll grant you that, but the devil is in the details. The success rates depend greatly on the age of the offender, and amount of time spent rehabilitating, and the age at which they are released. The age at which the crime was committed, the term spent in confinement, and the type of crime, tends to point to a predictable pattern of recidivism. To me this is one of those topics that really needs a national referendum. The pinheaded psychologists, and researchers and do-gooders have been experimenting with crime and punishment far to long, IMO. We as a society not only have the right to set these standard, we are obligated to. We are also responsible for the consequences, however positive, and or negative they come to be reconciled.


Tim-
Click to expand...

The punishment model for imprisonment has been tried and found to fail, as shown in the high recidivism rates. Rehabilitation has never been tried on a wide scale, ongoing, comprehensive basis, but there's plenty of research on the programs that have been tried showing that it can be effective.
 
Hard Truth said:
The punishment model for imprisonment has been tried and found to fail, as shown in the high recidivism rates. Rehabilitation has never been tried on a wide scale, ongoing, comprehensive basis, but there's plenty of research on the programs that have been tried showing that it can be effective.
Click to expand...

The success of rehabilitation applies to a very narrow metric. younger, non-violent crimes have a statistically significant chance of success, however, all other categories, including non-violent crime where the person was older have none or virtually no effect. I'd welcome data that shows otherwise if you have any.


Tim-
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom