In the 1980s a lot of politicians wanted to get tough on crime, and with the crack epidemic and what not, a lot of crims got trumped up sentences. As a result, the prison population exploded. And that is why it would cost $70 a day to detain this guy. If it wasn't for a bunch of greedy politicians, it might only cost $20 a day.
<div class="quote_poster">Playmaker15 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I know a lot of poeple on this site are opposed to the war on drugs as well. Would you guys like only marijuana to be legalized or other things as well?</div> I'm for the legalization of all drugs, although the strongest argument can be made for marijuana. Most of America's knowledge of drugs comes from government propaganda and not any actual factual basis. Sure, most drugs have a negative effect on your health, but so does junk food, coffee, and millions of other things we come across every day. The health effects of marijuana are also grossly exaggerated to the point where it's never even been proven to cause lung cancer. Rather, it's been shown to be an effective preventative of Alzheimer's disease. It's not even addictive physically, just psychologically. There are "harder" drugs out there, like heroin, cocaine, crystal meth, and so on, which can severely harm your body and pull you into a painful addiction, but drugs like marijuana, LSD, mescaline, psilocybin, etc. aren't that physically taxing. I actually think that if you legalized the "softer" drugs, then less people would abuse the "harder" ones. The only reason that a lot of "hard" drug users found themselves in those situations is because they started off by smoking marijuana, doing acid, or something along those lines, and were therefore looped into the infrastructure of the black market drug trade. If you legalize all drugs, then you not only get safer, cleaner drugs, but prices go down, and kids aren't as exposed to heroin, cocaine, etc. as if they were to buy their weed from a dealer who also dealt crack. That's not even mentioning the money that the government would save, the growth the lower class of society would probably experience, and the burden that would be shifted off of our overcrowded prisons. Ultimately though, it's an unrealistic goal, because as shape said, the pharmaceutical conglomerates, who are strong political lobbyists, wouldn't stand to make a profit.
<div class="quote_poster">phunDamentalz Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">In the 1980s a lot of politicians wanted to get tough on crime, and with the crack epidemic and what not, a lot of crims got trumped up sentences. As a result, the prison population exploded. And that is why it would cost $70 a day to detain this guy. If it wasn't for a bunch of greedy politicians, it might only cost $20 a day.</div> I really don't follow this example. The average dollar spent on an inmate wouldn't fluctuate that much. It might actually become cheaper the more inmates you have. Economies of scale would dictate it would become less per person to feed and detain in prison. The total cost would increase, but on average it should actually lower. Note: I added a little more to my post above.
<div class="quote_poster">shapecity Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I'm very much opposed to the war on drugs, it's all a political farce for pharmaceutical conglomerates to push their own drugs on people and profit 1000% times over. In my opinion, mary jane isn't any different than drinking a glass of whiskey. I just don't view raping a 9 year old girl as an irresponsible decision. In your friend's case, he didn't get coked up with the idea was going to go out and murder an officer. It's horrible what happened, but it wasn't something premiditated. The pedophile went out and made the decision to rape this 9 year old. It wasn't by accident, it was a preconceived act on his part. He deserves to be held accountable for his actions and punished to the full extent.</div> I don't think that it was premeditated at all. In the initial "raping," I'm sure that he found himself in a situation where he was spending a lot of time with her, felt the attraction, and was just overwhelmed with emotions and hormones. However, that's just an assumption on my part, of what most likely happened, as the article didn't say how the initial encounter happened. Also, tne of the more confusing parts of this article is how they keep referring to it as a rape. Granted, at nine years old, a child certainly does not know what they're getting into when they enter a sexual relationship, and therefore the child is being taken advantage of, but wouldn't that be statuatory rape and not just plain rape? The importance of distinguishing that is because if it was a situation where he overpowered her and forced himself on her, then it makes the crime a lot more malicious, whereas if the nine year old gave her consent, in his head, he may have thought that he was in a loving relationship with this girl. I understand that it wasn't an accident, and as I said before, he should probably be kept behind bars for life, but why deprive him of his human dignity because of his psychological disorder? He was born that way, and while he should have exhibited more self control, he's probably a very moral, intelligent, and rational man who would be no harm to society behind bars.
<div class="quote_poster">Voodoo Child Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I don't think that it was premeditated at all. In the initial "raping," I'm sure that he found himself in a situation where he was spending a lot of time with her, felt the attraction, and was just overwhelmed with emotions and hormones. However, that's just an assumption on my part, of what most likely happened, as the article didn't say how the initial encounter happened. Also, tne of the more confusing parts of this article is how they keep referring to it as a rape. Granted, at nine years old, a child certainly does not know what they're getting into when they enter a sexual relationship, and therefore the child is being taken advantage of, but wouldn't that be statuatory rape and not just plain rape? The importance of distinguishing that is because if it was a situation where he overpowered her and forced himself on her, then it makes the crime a lot more malicious, whereas if the nine year old gave her consent, in his head, he may have thought that he was in a loving relationship with this girl. I understand that it wasn't an accident, and as I said before, he should probably be kept behind bars for life, but why deprive him of his human dignity because of his psychological disorder? He was born that way, and while he should have exhibited more self control, he's probably a very moral, intelligent, and rational man who would be no harm to society behind bars.</div> I don't think you can just say he was born like that. More than likely it's a predisposition (in which case you can't use mental illness as a pretext to fully exonerate him); or he could just be an evil bastard.
<div class="quote_poster">huevonkiller Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I don't think you can just say he was born like that. More than likely it's a predisposition (in which case you can't use mental illness as a pretext to full exonerate him); or he could just be an evil bastard.</div> It's an orientation, according to Dr. Fred S. Berlin. Just like you can be born heterosexual or homosexual, you can be born a pedophile. However, it's been shown that it can be learned through abuse. Either way, the point is that the guy has a problem that he doesn't have that much control over.
<div class="quote_poster">Voodoo Child Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I understand that it wasn't an accident, and as I said before, he should probably be kept behind bars for life, but why deprive him of his human dignity because of his psychological disorder? He was born that way, and while he should have exhibited more self control, he's probably a very moral, intelligent, and rational man who would be no harm to society behind bars. It's an orientation, according to Dr. Fred S. Berlin. Just like you can be born heterosexual or homosexual, you can be born a pedophile. However, it's been shown that it can be learned through abuse. Either way, the point is that the guy has a problem that he doesn't have that much control over.</div> I understand what you are saying and it's something that I thought about as well. I thought that pedophiles can be born with that attraction just like heterosexuals and homosexuals. But what about murderers, serial killers, necrophiliacs, rapists, etc etc? Aren't some of them born like that? Born just sick in the head? So you are against all death penalties? Noone should be deprived of their human dignity?
<div class="quote_poster">Marbire Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I understand what you are saying and it's something that I thought about as well. I thought that pedophiles can be born with that attraction just like heterosexuals and homosexuals. But what about murderers, serial killers, necrophiliacs, rapists, etc etc? Aren't some of them born like that? Born just sick in the head? So you are against all death penalties? Noone should be deprived of their human dignity?</div> Yeah, I'm against all death penalty. If someone commits a violent crime or if they're a danger to society, then simply detain them. There's no need to eliminate them if you have faith in prison security.
<div class="quote_poster">Voodoo Child Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Yeah, I'm against all death penalty. If someone commits a violent crime or if they're a danger to society, then simply detain them. There's no need to eliminate them if you have faith in prison security.</div> The reason to eliminate a criminal, IMO, is because there comes a point where some deviants don't deserve to live (eg serial killers). <div class="quote_poster">Voodoo Child Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">It's an orientation, according to Dr. Fred S. Berlin. Just like you can be born heterosexual or homosexual, you can be born a pedophile. However, it's been shown that it can be learned through abuse. Either way, the point is that the guy has a problem that he doesn't have that much control over. </div> People are born with predispositions towards Homosexuality; it's not genetic.
