From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Fri Aug 02 2002 - 14:30:03 MDT
Michael Wiik wrote:
>Mike Lorrey <mlorrey@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Most serious offense Percent of sentenced State
>>inmates
>>- -----------------------
>> 1990 2000
>>- -----------------------
>>Total 100 % 100 %
>>Violent 46 49
>>Property 25 20
>>Drug 22 21
>>Public-order 7 10
>>
>>end quote.
>>
>>
>
>Ok, I'm for relocating the 49% to the bottom of an ocean, making the 20%
>pay restitution, letting the 21% go free and making the 10% sit thru a
>class in how to behave.
>
>Prisons get emptied, $billions are saved. Who's with me?
>
> -Mike
>--
>
>
Presuming that we agree the convictions are accurate, then it pretty much how you define your terms. I don't really have any problems with removing permanently people who were visciously assaulting those weaker than themselves, and who hadn't done anything to provoke the action. But I'm not really to sure that this fits the description of those who have been labelled "violent". Some of them, certainly, but others...
Remember, those who are compiling the statistics are generally doing so in order to prove some point or other. They may be honest, but they may not. Certainly, we have reason to know that some of them were less than forthright. There have been people who were jumped on the street by policemen, and then convicted of assault. And this with a clear video-tape of the event for which they were supposedly being tried. This doesn't prove anything about the frequency of such events, but it is an existence proof.
Property is another stickler. Frequently restitution is a reasonable
choice. In fact, frequently restitution with a rather large penalty is
a reasonable choice. But some of these people were charged with things
that are just silly. (Usually these won't be in long enough to show on
the statistics, I grant.) Others have no conceivable way to make
restitution. And many are actually themselves the victims of Faginry,
though this is rarely brought out in the court records.
Drugs we pretty much agree on. People should be able to kill themselves
as they choose, as long as they don't involve others. But I do wonder
how many of these are in for DUI. (And it not, where do they file the
DUI cases?)
Public order. Another dubious one. I don't know what that means. The
people that I've encountered who might reasonably be put in that
category have largely been vagrants, and I do wonder just how much good
a class would do. Another overlapping segment could more properly be
called mentally deranged. I don't see a class helping this. Another
group that has historically been put into this group is prostitutes (the
pimps are rarely caught, or even chased). Again, I don't see a class as
helpin here. Perhaps it includes a group that I'm not thinking of? If
so, I have no idea of what. As far as I can tell from the description,
these are basically the people that have already been discarded by society.
-- -- Charles Hixson Gnu software that is free, The best is yet to be.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:52 MST