Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

US weighs clemency for inmates jailed for 10 years

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • beachcop05
    replied
    Originally posted by RIVERSMVP11
    I'd rather have cells available for rapists than pot users.
    A pretty good chunk of crime in this country revolves around marijuana, whether direct or indirect.

    Leave a comment:


  • Erasthenes
    replied
    Originally posted by Aerohead View Post
    Either way the taxpayers will be forced to pay for the medical care of drug addicts - at least while incarcerated, they won't be committing crimes to feed their addiction. And if we'd use prisoners for manual labor, they'd actually be accomplishing something.
    This argument is wrong, because it is circular.

    Leave a comment:


  • NYCTNT
    replied
    Release them!

    More job security!

    Leave a comment:


  • codemanski
    replied
    Sure...the Leopard will change their spots.

    What do you think these crack-pot heads are going to do once they get out, work at Mickie D's? People forget these clowns are incarcerated because they cannot conform to society's rules, and repeatedly offend. I know of none that are sentenced to prison unless they have worked real hard to get there. I think it would be a mistake to grant clemency, at least not until the majority of their sentence was served. I agree the crime rate would definitely increase. But what do I know?

    Ski

    Leave a comment:


  • JustAJ
    replied
    Originally posted by mdrdep View Post
    Let's see, we've had very stiff penalties that have allowed us to keep crooks off the street for a long time. We have been seeing that pay dividends in some of the lowest crime rates in over 50 years, but now we want to give everyone a hug and let them go,,,,,,guess what's next.....

    The supposed intent is to clear out all the low level offenders who, because of zero tolerance policies or mandatory minimums, even for lesser crimes, have spent years and years in the can. Of course, this is the .gov, and they don't have a great track record of accomplishing their goals, unless it is related to removing more freedom from the average taxpayer.

    Leave a comment:


  • beachcop05
    replied
    Originally posted by mdrdep View Post
    Let's see, we've had very stiff penalties that have allowed us to keep crooks off the street for a long time. We have been seeing that pay dividends in some of the lowest crime rates in over 50 years, but now we want to give everyone a hug and let them go,,,,,,guess what's next.....
    Bingo ^^^^^^

    Leave a comment:


  • mdrdep
    replied
    Let's see, we've had very stiff penalties that have allowed us to keep crooks off the street for a long time. We have been seeing that pay dividends in some of the lowest crime rates in over 50 years, but now we want to give everyone a hug and let them go,,,,,,guess what's next.....

    Leave a comment:


  • Carbonfiberfoot
    replied
    Originally posted by Chomp View Post
    Found your problem right here. They aren't going to do that. Perhaps you've met a few of these folks, and perhaps they weren't committing crimes during the few minutes that you were interacting with them. I stop these turds every night, and I run them, and I see what their priors are.

    There are no junkies without priors.. and those represent just the few times that A. they actually got caught and B. the victims were willing to press charges. You can generally take any prior for burglary, petit or grand larceny and multiply it by 100 to get an idea of how many crimes these people actually commit.
    I certainly can't argue with your experience. I'm sure you've met far more addicts than me. The crack\coke head I knew had held down a sales job for quite a few years though, and consistently made good money. The anecdotal examples I referenced may very well be the exceptions, but I can't help but wonder how many more like them there are out there. I was surprised to learn what they were into when I found out. Those would be the extreme substances though, as I've met countless financially successful cocaine\alcohol\pot\painkiller users (I used to be in the sales industry, and it can be a crazy place).

    I'd like to see the penalties for theft\robbery drastically increased.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chomp
    replied
    Originally posted by Carbonfiberfoot View Post
    I have no desire to associate with them, but as long as they leave other people and their property alone, it's their stupid choice to make. I don't want to see tax dollars spent to house them in a cell and feed them anymore than I want to see those dollars spent on their medical care.
    Found your problem right here. They aren't going to do that. Perhaps you've met a few of these folks, and perhaps they weren't committing crimes during the few minutes that you were interacting with them. I stop these turds every night, and I run them, and I see what their priors are.

    There are no junkies without priors.. and those represent just the few times that A. they actually got caught and B. the victims were willing to press charges. You can generally take any prior for burglary, petit or grand larceny and multiply it by 100 to get an idea of how many crimes these people actually commit.

    Leave a comment:


  • Carbonfiberfoot
    replied
    Originally posted by Aerohead View Post
    You're implying that heroin and crack addicts are hardworking, tax paying citizens.
    As crazy as it sounds, I've actually met functioning examples of each. They certainly weren't the best examples humanity has to offer, but society would not benefit from their incarceration in any way. It isn't healthy, and it isn't advisable, but if someone wants to toast their brain in the land of the free, they should be able to burn it to a crisp.

    I have no desire to associate with them, but as long as they leave other people and their property alone, it's their stupid choice to make. I don't want to see tax dollars spent to house them in a cell and feed them anymore than I want to see those dollars spent on their medical care.
    Last edited by Carbonfiberfoot; 04-24-2014, 11:49 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aerohead
    replied
    Originally posted by Carbonfiberfoot View Post
    A functioning tax payer benefits society far more than a prisoner running a weedeater. Prisons should house those who are a danger to society. If someone steals to feed their addiction, prison is the place for them. But, if someone wants to get wasted in their house, and they don't infringe upon their fellow man's pursuit of happiness in the process, then who cares. Why spend all that money to throw them in a cage and take them out of the workforce?
    You're implying that heroin and crack addicts are hardworking, tax paying citizens.

    Leave a comment:


  • Carbonfiberfoot
    replied
    Originally posted by Aerohead View Post
    Either way the taxpayers will be forced to pay for the medical care of drug addicts - at least while incarcerated, they won't be committing crimes to feed their addiction. And if we'd use prisoners for manual labor, they'd actually be accomplishing something.
    A functioning tax payer benefits society far more than a prisoner running a weedeater. Prisons should house those who are a danger to society. If someone steals to feed their addiction, prison is the place for them. But, if someone wants to get wasted in their house, and they don't infringe upon their fellow man's pursuit of happiness in the process, then who cares. Why spend all that money to throw them in a cage and take them out of the workforce?

    Leave a comment:


  • Aerohead
    replied
    Either way the taxpayers will be forced to pay for the medical care of drug addicts - at least while incarcerated, they won't be committing crimes to feed their addiction. And if we'd use prisoners for manual labor, they'd actually be accomplishing something.

    Leave a comment:


  • Carbonfiberfoot
    replied
    Originally posted by Aerohead View Post
    So you want to make drugs legal but require that drug users buy medical insurance? You don't see FAIL written all over that? And what's the penalty for NOT buying medical insurance with the heroin, crack, and cocaine riders - jail? So now instead of putting drug users in jail for using drugs, you're going to put them in jail for not buying medical insurance. And when they don't buy the insurance and somehow avoid jail, but continue to OD, guess who is going to pay for that medical care. Please tell me that you're joking or that I misunderstand what you're saying.
    Well, if the powers that be hadn't decided to involve the federal government with medical insurance coverage, it would be much more cut and dry. I can't stand the idea of taxpayer dollars subsidizing a junkie's medical care.

    To me, Obamacare and prohibition are both completely unconstitutional. The cheapest, simplest option would be to abolish both.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aerohead
    replied
    Originally posted by Carbonfiberfoot View Post
    Drug policy is going to see some major changes over the next 20 years. Free people should be able to ingest whatever toxic substance they choose. However, with the government now involving itself with health insurance, I think drug users (including cigarettes and alcohol) should be required to purchase additional riders on top of their medical insurance policies. Market competition would drive out the true calculated risk of various substances, and prices would adjust in accordance with these actual risk levels (pot insurance would be cheap, heroin insurance would be expensive). As long as someone can avoid forcing other taxpayers to help shoulder the risk that they choose to expose themselves to, I have no problem with them doing whatever they want.

    It is a medical problem, and LE\corrections will never be able to solve it (exhibit A: US drug policy history).
    So you want to make drugs legal but require that drug users buy medical insurance? You don't see FAIL written all over that? And what's the penalty for NOT buying medical insurance with the heroin, crack, and cocaine riders - jail? So now instead of putting drug users in jail for using drugs, you're going to put them in jail for not buying medical insurance. And when they don't buy the insurance and somehow avoid jail, but continue to OD, guess who is going to pay for that medical care. Please tell me that you're joking or that I misunderstand what you're saying.

    Leave a comment:

MR300x250 Tablet

Collapse

What's Going On

Collapse

There are currently 3608 users online. 238 members and 3370 guests.

Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

Welcome Ad

Collapse
Working...
X