miamizsun wrote: 
if you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding...

 sirdroseph wrote: 
watch Cevin Soling's "The War on Kids"

some great stuff in there

 miamizsun wrote: 

You know they really do.  I always call the new schools I see that are constructed prisons because they really do look just like them, it is scary!

a lot of public schools look (and act) like prisons

conform or be drugged!

 meower wrote: 
money money money...

http://www.alternet.org/philly-closes-23-public-schools-generously-builds-400-million-prison-where-kids-can-hang-instead#_methods=onPlusOne%2C_ready%2C_close%2C_open%2C_resizeMe%2C_renderstart%2Concircled&id=I0_1370618254551&parent=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alternet.org&rpctoken=51411951

See how GREAT privatizing (or PROFIT-izing) the Commons is?  

Over 18 Months, Nation’s First Privately Owned State Prison Has Declined Rapidly

By Aviva Shen on Apr 10, 2013 at 9:00 am

In an unprecedented experiment fueled by budget concerns, Ohio sold a state prison to Corrections Corporation of America, one of the largest private prison corporations in the country, in 2011. Within a year, a state audit of Lake Erie Correctional Institute, the nation’s first privately owned state prison, found rampant abuse and abysmal conditions well below state standards. The CCA prison was given another chance to pass, but flunked another inspection four months later.Independent reports continue to illuminate filthy, broken facilities, as well as much higher rates of crime and violence in and around the prison. On Tuesday, the ACLU of Ohio sent Ohio lawmakers a comprehensive timeline of the prison’s decline since CCA took over.

The Lake Erie prison is now reportedly overcrowded at 130 percent capacity, with single-person cells holding 3 inmates each, according to internal documents obtained by the ACLU. Assaults on guards and other inmates have skyrocketed by 40 percent.

In fact, on the same day the ACLU released their timeline, the Lake Erie prison had to tamp down a series of inmate fights that lead to the confinement of 500 inmates.

Private prison companies have been repeatedly caught cutting corners on space, sanitation, and staff in order to maximize their profits. As a result, deadly riots frequently break out at these facilities, sparked by poor food quality, lack of health care access, and unsanitary conditions.....................................................

  sirdroseph wrote:  





*laughing* like I said, I'm retired. Go for it, I gave at the office.

 RASPUTIN wrote: 
Trust me, you don't want that. I may solve the Marijuana criminal problem, but it is what else I would do that you gotta worry about!

 RASPUTIN wrote: 
Thanks for your candid reply.  I know I certainly don't have any easy answers, either.

I think there are definitely incorrigibles who are past any hope of reform.  So for them I guess jail is a relatively humane way of preventing them from committing any further crimes, be it robbery, assault, murder, or whatever that they would be undoubtedly committing if out in society.

You say you don't think the prisons should have the job of teaching morals to convicts who were not taught right from wrong by their parents (assuming they had parents).  I would agree that most of them are probably not well suited for this job.  But look at it from another perspective; let's say a person's moral character is based on equal parts nature and nurture.  Is it really fair to punish someone for their parents or legal guardians' failure to provide a nurturing environment in which they were taught right from wrong, and given an incentive to pursue a job instead of turning to crime?  Should the sins of the father be visited upon the son? Don't they deserve a chance? Is our sense of justice so rigid and draconian that it cannot conceive of someone who received a bad upbringing being capable of changing into a worthwhile member of the community? Heck, we have entire organizations based on the concept of humans' innate potential for redemption.  See CURE, Lampstand Foundation to name just two.  It's hardly surprising, as our culture has a strong tradition of redemption, dating back to biblical times.  I would say that people who were raised by horrible parents and end up incarcerated should be given a chance to turn their lives around. If we don't offer that chance while people are in prison, we should figure out some other way to do it.

I also think the problem of overcrowded prisons could be alleviated, at least in part, by  trying to limit incarceration primarily to those who truly need to be there, i.e. who represent a potential danger to society or have proven incapable of reform.  Probably a lot of front end changes we could try to make to help keep people from turning to crime in the first place (an ounce of prevention).

  sirdroseph wrote:  





*poof* You're in charge.

 RASPUTIN wrote: 
Surely you must see you answered your own question. How many gangs selling alcohol are there on the streets causing trouble with their criminal enterprise? If decriminalized, the sellers are no longer the criminals, they become your local quickie mart. Problem solved. Of course I am not talking about illicit drugs like Cocaine, Meth, Heroin and so forth.  These types of drugs are so harmful to the individuals and society that they should not be tolerated at any level.  However, Marijuana quite frankly is not even as illicit as alcohol as far as negative health effects on the individual or societal effects due to the behavior created when ingesting.  Surely as a law enforcer on the streets you have direct experience as to what I am talking about. When was the last time you got a disturbance call caused by someone who smoked a joint?  Now compare that to all the calls received by over intoxicated individuals. If I were in charge, I could guarantee you that I could put all marijuana cartels out of business overnight by making marijuana completely legal, boom, gone!  How many issues do you have such a clear cut solution for? Not many.

 aflanigan wrote: 
I have some trouble figuring out the numbers.  251,200 prisoners in 1999 incarcerated in state prisons for drug offenses for instance.  In Ohio the prison population was about 50,000.  53% was for violent crimes.  By the time you add up the thieves, child support, and felony DUIs, and drug charges that makes up the other 47%.  However, from 2000 to 2008 due to changes in sentencing laws the drug population did rise quite a bit.  A byproduct of people wanting to feel safe in their neighborhoods and calling for stiffer sentencing.  The problem is the working class wants the bad guys in jail but nobody wants to pay the taxes to keep them there so the prisons are short staffed and dangerous for the staff, and the prisoners.

What is the purpose of these prisons?  In my humble opinion, to get violent offenders off the streets. To put thieves behind bars where they can't steal your stuff.  I hate a thief.  People work too hard to have the stuff they paid hard earned money for taken from them.  Working people's tools stolen and pawned for a fraction of what they cost so some dirtbag can buy a rock of crack.   Priceless family heirlooms taken and sold for dope or whatever.  These shitbags come IN TO YOUR HOME AND TAKE YOUR THINGS. I think the purpose should be punishment.  Why should it be to try and do what a parent should have done in the first place? To teach their kids the difference between right and wrong.  

I'm pretty sure there is such a problem with drugs in this country because the people in this country DO ALL THE DRUGS!  I can't see one good thing that will come out decriminalizing drugs.  They're illegal now and you can get them on any street corner from the hood to the big houses on the hills.  I have to wonder sometimes who's really causing the problems, the gangs in Chicago whacking each other like crazy over drug turf, or the users who make the sellers rich? 

I'm also like most Americans, I don't have any REAL answers.  Just complaints.     

 

 RASPUTIN wrote: 

That's an interesting perspective.  I can see how the pragmatic aspects of being a law enforcement professional in a community that one lives in and cares about can totally get lost when policy experts wade in; at a gut level I would probably agree that trying to bring justice in the case of a pernicious and resourceful scourge by using whatever potential charges are available might make sense if you've been frustrated in trying to get enough for an arrest based on more serious crimes. I know that many, many police departments are seriously underfunded, understaffed, etc. which can make it hard to put dangerous criminals in jail based on arrests for their actual crimes.

I do really think that we need to take a long hard look at incarceration in this country, and ask the basic questions once again. What is the purpose of these prisons? Does clogging them too full make it more difficult for the prison system to do its job? (for example, if we want prisons to offer a chance of reform and reduce recidivism, does overcrowding make this less likely to happen?) I think we also should take a look at sentencing and drug laws with an eye to possible reform. If we're moving in the direction of viewing simple addiction as a medical problem rather than a criminal one, I think that's a good thing.

 aflanigan wrote: 
I'm not having any luck Al.  All I get it a prisoner's legs with a ball and chain but no text. 
Around here F4 and F5 non violent felonies (much of the drug charges) are supposed to do their time in jail, not prison.  A huge burden on the county sheriff's.  I will admit to being lazy when it comes to following up on any arrests I made.  With the "Let's make a deal" court system in 21.5 years I only testified in trials twice.  Both murder cases...that involved drugs.   After I got my first few court packets back when I started and people got time served for staying overnight, or a small fine, or the case just got dismissed, I quit looking at court packets and just dropped them in the shredder on my way out of roll call.  
I don't think most of the cases for simply possession started out that way as far as how contact was made though.  I can only speak from my own, and the guys that worked for me's experiences,  but first contact with somebody isn't usually because you think they are in possession of drugs. It's usually because of a traffic stop or a call that came in about another kind of problem.  Prowler, loud neighbor, suspicious person, domestic violence.  Something brought us to the person usually.  After records checks, pat downs, talking to them, sometimes you get dope of some kind.  Sometimes they go to jail.  In my experience it's almost always something else that got you in  contact with the person who winds up getting arrested for drug possession.  Like, you know he's the guy that's been breaking into garages but you can't catch him at it, but when you do bump into him out of a prowler call he has a crack pipe or a rock or two in his pocket.  He doesn't go for the B&Es you couldn't catch him doing, but for the crack.  Eighteen month sentences usually are pled to probation. Some are sentenced to complete a work release program at a community based correctional facility.  

 

 RASPUTIN wrote: 
Reminds me of my divorce; ex decided against the no-contest route and lawyered-up, which forced me to do the same. A year later what did that get her? Exactly what I had promised her to begin with; but it also made several thousand dollars for a couple of lawyers who laughed all the way to the bank.

 aflanigan wrote: 
This is becoming an issue on both sides of the aisle in politics. More and more support is coming to legalize marijuana (surprise! Republicans get high too!) and I am hoping that we will see this by the end of Obama's, or at least Hillary's terms. 

Chicago has made a choice to stop busting people for possession, in part because the cops are needed elsewhere, and it's a waste of their time.

You know how it works, right? This is the government's job program: poverty>possession>prison. Then they use the prisoners for slave labor (they no longer just make license plates).

Like everything else, it's all broken.  

 RASPUTIN wrote: 

Yea and I have more than a sneaky suspicion that the number of addicts in this country has absolutely nothing to do with legality of the substances they are addicted to.  So..... no I don't see it that way.

 RASPUTIN wrote: 

That in itself is a good enough reason to legalize.

 RASPUTIN wrote:  

 
Here, let me google that for you, so we can try to discuss this based on fact:


Distorted Priorities: Drug Offenders in State Prisons
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe almost every PWI (possession with intent) conviction is based on possession of some arbitrary amount deemed to constitute dispositive proof that the person is a dealer.

I haven't been able to find data on incarceration more recent than the above (the drugwarfacts.org site seemed promising but it is not working right now), but I seriously doubt that the situation has changed profoundly in a decade or so.  Perhaps a few progressive locales or states have eased off on arrests and prosecutions, but a significant national trend in this direction seems unlikely: