• 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!

Supreme Court orders California to release tens of thousands of prison inmates

Boo Radley said:
Oh, the mandate in health care reform was a republian idea, back when they cited personal responsibility. They lost that idea now. And republicans have bailed out ceos often. It wasn't doen for the first time under Obama. Republicans usually just gave them the money without any expectation of being paid back.
Click to expand...

Oh lawd! I'm sick to death of that talking point, already.

Who are the cats that want to give out more welfare and unemployment and bail out people who bought houses they can't afford and created another 15 million stamp collectors? Was that the Republicans, too?
 
Kandahar said:
You mean for nonviolent crimes? Well, I wouldn't want to be confined to house arrest, pay a big fine, have to do community service, or be embarrassed with my picture in the paper. Would you?
Click to expand...

No, but some folks just ain't as smart as you and I.

What's the point of locking someone in a cage and sodomizing them for, say, stealing a car? They aren't a danger to society.
Click to expand...

They're a danger to society when they violate my property rights, by say, stealing my car. Public Safety doesn't just concern physical safety.



Be sure and let me know if you actually want to discuss the issue rather than reciting moronic talking points. :roll:
Click to expand...

It was a response to a moronic post.
 
xpiher said:
The people on here arguing that "you get arrested and therefore guilty" have no idea what they are talking about and have never done any research on the issue and should never serve on a jury.



Same crime, more time - seattlepi.com
Chapter Three: Race, Sentencing and the "Tough Crime" Movement

And host of others. I studied this **** in college and its my job. Its not BS, its a national fact. For instance, a person who smokes crack can receive 25 years for procession compared to 10years (max sentences) for someone who has cocaine



The same way we do now. Most people in prison aren't there for violent offenses.



Deterrence has a mixed bag of working, you do know that right? Zero-tolerance for instance has been more successful than any other type of anti-crime program.
Click to expand...

There should be greater deterrences. Such as, the death penalty for drug possession and property theft.
 
apdst said:
There should be greater deterrences. Such as, the death penalty for drug possession and property theft.
Click to expand...

The death penalty is not a deterrent for crime. Never has been and never will be.

While the murder rate has declined in states both with and without the death penalty, state without the death penalty have - EVERY YEAR and consistently - had a lower murder rate.

Were your theory that the death penalty were a deterrent to crime true, one would expect that states with the death penalty would have a lower murder rate. It hasn't happened that way.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
The death penalty is not a deterrent for crime. Never has been and never will be.

While the murder rate has declined in states both with and without the death penalty, state without the death penalty have - EVERY YEAR and consistently - had a lower murder rate.
Click to expand...


Compare the crime rate 100 years ago--when the death penalty was widely and swiftly used--to the crime rate now--when the death penalty is used far less.

Were your theory that the death penalty were a deterrent to crime true, one would expect that states with the death penalty would have a lower murder rate. It hasn't happened that way.
Click to expand...

You're comparing apples to oranges when the only factor that you use to come up with your conclusion, is the frequency of the death peanlty. You're totally leaving out demographics.
 
apdst said:
Who are the cats that want to give out more welfare and unemployment and bail out people who bought houses they can't afford and created another 15 million stamp collectors? Was that the Republicans, too?
Click to expand...

I would say yes.
 
apdst said:
Oh lawd! I'm sick to death of that talking point, already.

Who are the cats that want to give out more welfare and unemployment and bail out people who bought houses they can't afford and created another 15 million stamp collectors? Was that the Republicans, too?
Click to expand...

1 out of 7 Americans lived in poverty by the end of the last administration.
 
liblady said:
what a silly statement. good lawyers cost money. poor people don't have money, they get legal aid. no one is "impuning" anything as "bigotted", that's how the system works in a capitalistic society.
Click to expand...

Then why don't you go live in China? Hmmmm? No doubt they'll treat you better, and take the poor with you so they can no longer be victims of capitalism.
 
apdst said:
Compare the crime rate 100 years ago--when the death penalty was widely and swiftly used--to the crime rate now--when the death penalty is used far less.



You're comparing apples to oranges when the only factor that you use to come up with your conclusion, is the frequency of the death peanlty. You're totally leaving out demographics.
Click to expand...

There is no accurate way of having a "crime rate" from 100 years ago, because statistics like that weren't kept then.

We have, however, been keeping those statistics from 1960 forward.

1960: - Overall: 1.8% - Violent: .1% - Murder - .005%
1972 (the year the death penalty was declared unconstitutional): Overall: 3.9% - Violent: .4% - Murder - .008%
1977 (the year the death penalty returns): Overall: 5.0% - Violent: .5% - Murder - .008%
1988 (considered to be the peak year of the crack epidemic): Overall: 5.6% - Violent: .6% - Murder - .008%
2009 (most recent year on the source): 3.4% - Violent: .4% - Murder - .004%

Indeed, the murder rate rose from .008% to .010% between 1977 and the peak year for murder, which was 1991 (the tale end of the worst of the crack epidemic). Under your argument, it should have begun it's decline much earlier. You'll note that the rate had dropped from 1991 (again, .010%) to .005% in 2000 - during the economic boom years of the 1990s.

I would argue that a better economy leads to a lower murder rate - much more so than does the existence of a death penalty or not.

Indeed, http://davecoop.net/2007.htm
these number bear that out. Poorer states (death penalty or no) have higher murder rates than do wealthier states. Compare

The murder rate is actually lower than it was in 1960 (when the death penalty was pretty prevalent) and is half of what it was in the year the death penalty became legal again and what it was during the peak of the crack epidemic.

Crime is down. But, since the murder rate didn't change at all between the times the death penalty was made illegal or when it was restored, is shows that the death penalty has absolutely no causal relationship to the murder rate.

Again, to declare a deterrent effect, you'd need to prove that the existence of the death penalty has at least a correlation to the murder rate. The numbers don't bear that out either at a state level or at a national level.
 
American said:
Then why don't you go live in China? Hmmmm? No doubt they'll treat you better, and take the poor with you so they can no longer be victims of capitalism.
Click to expand...

Are you permanently stuck in the 70's? Why would you consider that someone who wants their country to be better, should instead love it the way it is or leave it?

"Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope... and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance." ~ Robert F. Kennedy
 
apdst said:
And, it's unfortunate that the SC looks at it that way. If convicts don't like the way they're being treated, then they shouldn't break the law.
Click to expand...

Bull****! I have seen countless posts from you, defending the constitution and what it stands for. Now you are saying that we should straight up ignore a the 8th Amendment, specifically barring cruel and unusual punishment. You don't get to pick and choose with the Constitution. It does not matter if they are scumbags or not. Criminals have rights.
 
Here is a look at who is actually locked up in California's prisons:
full_1306274460prison_chart_004_new.png


That looks like there's plenty of room to cut the prison population without posing any significant threat to society. All those drug crimes would be a good place to start. Jerry Brown should pardon every single person in California's prison who has been convicted of a nonviolent drug crime. The next places to look would be at all of those people in prison for burglary or theft. Seriously? Why are we locking people in cages for property crimes anyway? Make them do community service, make them wear a tracking bracelet (if necessary), and make them pay a fine. If they did something particularly egregious, put them under house arrest or in a halfway home.

Then we get down to the harder stuff. I'm not sure what "other crimes" entails, but I'm guessing it's stuff like possession of weapons. Some of those people can undoubtedly be released too, especially if their weapon wasn't used in the commission of some other crime. Similarly, "assault and battery" and "sex crimes" are pretty broad categories. Not everyone who falls into those categories is necessarily a dangerous thug, although many are. The state should look to see which of them can be released as well.

Ultimately, locking someone in a cage is a horrifying abuse of human rights unless you have a damn good reason to do it. Protecting society from vicious criminals is a good reason; protecting society from potheads and shoplifters is not.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
The death penalty is not a deterrent for crime. Never has been and never will be.

While the murder rate has declined in states both with and without the death penalty, state without the death penalty have - EVERY YEAR and consistently - had a lower murder rate.

Were your theory that the death penalty were a deterrent to crime true, one would expect that states with the death penalty would have a lower murder rate. It hasn't happened that way.
Click to expand...

Prison should be about punishment, period.

It should be miserable. Not violate human rights miserable, we as a country are better than that, but miserable enough that common ****ing sense dictates you never want to go back. Yet we are full of frequent flyers...those doing life on the installmant plan.

Prison is like studying at a crime graduate school. Teach the younger ones getting out how to best steal, deal and kill...toss in some weights so when they get out they are a nightmare to deal with in the street and voila, instant super ****ing ****head. This is because some still hold onto rehabilitation even though the cons themselves will laugh at the liberals that suggest it.

On Capital punishment. Its simple.... deterrence. It is about retribution, plain and simple. Some people, by their very actions, have forfeited their right to live in a civilized society. They have cashed in their human being card. It gives the families and loved ones of the victims some much needed finality and closure to a horrific event.
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
Bull****! I have seen countless posts from you, defending the constitution and what it stands for. Now you are saying that we should straight up ignore a the 8th Amendment, specifically barring cruel and unusual punishment. You don't get to pick and choose with the Constitution. It does not matter if they are scumbags or not. Criminals have rights.
Click to expand...

It's only judicial activism if you don't like it.
 
Kandahar said:
Here is a look at who is actually locked up in California's prisons:
full_1306274460prison_chart_004_new.png


That looks like there's plenty of room to cut the prison population without posing any significant threat to society. All those drug crimes would be a good place to start. Jerry Brown should pardon every single person in California's prison who has been convicted of a nonviolent drug crime. The next places to look would be at all of those people in prison for burglary or theft. Seriously? Why are we locking people in cages for property crimes anyway? Make them do community service, make them wear a tracking bracelet (if necessary), and make them pay a fine. If they did something particularly egregious, put them under house arrest or in a halfway home.

Then we get down to the harder stuff. I'm not sure what "other crimes" entails, but I'm guessing it's stuff like possession of weapons. Some of those people can undoubtedly be released too, especially if their weapon wasn't used in the commission of some other crime. Similarly, "assault and battery" and "sex crimes" are pretty broad categories. Not everyone who falls into those categories is necessarily a dangerous thug, although many are. The state should look to see which of them can be released as well.

Ultimately, locking someone in a cage is a horrifying abuse of human rights unless you have a damn good reason to do it. Protecting society from vicious criminals is a good reason; protecting society from potheads and shoplifters is not.
Click to expand...

I agree with what you're saying.

But I'd like to see a breakdown of 'drug crimes'.... Trafficking, especially to minors, is more serious in my book.

Pot should be legalized already.
 
apdst said:
There should be greater deterrences. Such as, the death penalty for drug possession and property theft.
Click to expand...

Deterrence doesn't work as well as you think.

apdst said:
Compare the crime rate 100 years ago--when the death penalty was widely and swiftly used--to the crime rate now--when the death penalty is used far less.
Click to expand...

This proves that you have no clue. Crime rates have declined across the board (per-capa) for the last 100 years regardless of what type of anti-crime measures have been used. The reason has been the increase in the standard of living. If you can feed yourself, you aren't likely to commit a crime. Learn history.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
Yeah? All I have to say to that is...buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuul****!

I've never been acosted by the cops. Wanna take a guess as to why that is??
Click to expand...

Because you have a job where you cannot be laid off?
 
apdst said:
And, it's unfortunate that the SC looks at it that way. If convicts don't like the way they're being treated, then they shouldn't break the law.
Click to expand...

The upper third of the penal population are repeat offenders because they can't make it on the outside. They are the toughest in prison, yet cower at the thought of trying to provide food and shelter for themselves. In the joint they are the big men and get respect from the other inmates. Outside, they are nothing. They will commit an even more horrendous crime whenever they are released to get pen cred and to make sure that they get their 3 hots and a cot. The white supremists that dragged James Earl Byrd behind a pickup in Jasper, Texas fit this mold to a tee. The atrocity of their racist crime probably gave them greater gang status when they returned to their inside womb.
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
Bull****! I have seen countless posts from you, defending the constitution and what it stands for. Now you are saying that we should straight up ignore a the 8th Amendment, specifically barring cruel and unusual punishment. You don't get to pick and choose with the Constitution. It does not matter if they are scumbags or not. Criminals have rights.
Click to expand...

what specifically is cruel and unusual about putting a person who breaks the law into prison?
 
Mickey Shane said:
The upper third of the penal population are repeat offenders because they can't make it on the outside. They are the toughest in prison, yet cower at the thought of trying to provide food and shelter for themselves. In the joint they are the big men and get respect from the other inmates. Outside, they are nothing. They will commit an even more horrendous crime whenever they are released to get pen cred and to make sure that they get their 3 hots and a cot.
Click to expand...

In that case, they're not worth keeping alive.


The white supremists that dragged James Earl Byrd behind a pickup in Jasper, Texas fit this mold to a tee. The atrocity of their racist crime probably gave them greater gang status when they returned to their inside womb.
Click to expand...

You had to make it a race thing, huh? Couldn't resist.
 
xpiher said:
Deterrence doesn't work as well as you think.



This proves that you have no clue. Crime rates have declined across the board (per-capa) for the last 100 years regardless of what type of anti-crime measures have been used. The reason has been the increase in the standard of living. If you can feed yourself, you aren't likely to commit a crime. Learn history.
Click to expand...

Because there are more criminals in prison, perhaps? Learn common sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom