This is where we are at. We care more about repeat criminals rights than those they do crimes against and the future safety of their next potential victim. Where did we get so turned around???
I didn't say they shouldn't be expected to work. I said they shouldn't be forced to work to the benefit of the people keeping them locked up. That is absolutely wrong. And it absolutely does not help anybody except the person profiting off of their labor. It absolutely hurts everyone else. Including the prisoner and society.
It's not about working on specific prisoners. It's about it working on a higher percentage of prisoners and reducing the number who wind up back in jail. Nobody suggested anything would turn a murderer into somebody you'd want to be your neighbor. And nobody suggested that dangerous felons like that should be released.
This is hilarious...., I asked you multiple times to show evidence that your "solution" was working on dangerous felons/repeat offenders and THAT is what I've pointed to since this first started...and now you're saying it's only for certain convicts?...c'mon.
Yeah? You know what everyone in the world thinks and says? this “nobody said, “nobody did” comments you regularly make don't do any good. Just sayin. Lots of people think there is a singular answer. there are some who think all criminals should just be locked up. Period. There are some who think all just need mental help/ treatment. Then there are the rational ones who believe the punishment should fit the crime and repeat offenses should be taken into a count, up until the individual proves they cannot coexist with society in a peaceful manner. Funy thing is I'm pretty sure you agree with me, but will find something to dissect and argue over. Lol.
if the people keeping them locked up is society, then it absolutely is a benefit. Nothing is 100% and there are positives and negatives to most everything in life. To say there is absolutely no benefit, is simply not true. I do not think you are giving enough value to peace of mind of law abiding citizens, that a repeat criminal is not on the street. As evidenced by our history. Most would prefer to pay more to keep these ilk off the streets, than pay less and have the potential for more cRime to continue to more people. so once locked up, they can then do some civil duty work that benefits those they committed crimes against. Society. Now dont misconstrue my opinion on this as thinking its the only thing that should be done. All convicts should also have access to rehabilitation needs. Like mental help, etc. I was in jail once. For almost a month. South King County. For breaking a law that has since been made legal. It was super laxed. Got to play basketball everyday. Play games and watch tv. It was almost like an adult summer camp. Large room with bunks and tables and board games, etc. jail is not as intimidating as it should be. I was busted with less than a gram of pot and i was in the same room as a rapist and two robbers at gun point. We had the same routine. To me, this is the breakdown. Yes, thier sentence may have been longer, but we were being punished the same for completely different crimes. There should be a complete breakdown of every convict as to the nature of their crime, their mental headspace, their history, etc, to determine what they need. This doesn't happen near to the scale it should if we actually want to be successful at rehabbing criminals. But some criminals will be deemed sadistic regardless. Some people believe in only anarchy and or self gratification at all costs. And those folks can weed eat the highway shoulders for all i care.
Nobody has suggested letting dangerous people out on the streets. What I have suggested makes streets safer. Thereby more peace of mind.
We aren't talking to everyone in the world. We are currently having a conversation, and nobody in this conversation has made these claims you are applying to this position. I am not here to debate or defend every position in the world, so when I say "nobody" I'm not talking about everyone in the world.
Then what are you referring to? I was under the impression we were having a conversation in this thread about a topic. Apparently you disagree with the suggested policies in this thread because of a different policy or position? I guess I should rephrase. Your argument isn't applicable to the German/Nordic/Scandinavian models which have been suggested.
This is a bigger discussion than just this board. People refer to news entities and people outside of the forum as some who have views all the time. But if you want to discuss what you specifically said, even though i didn't quote you or wasnt directly refering to you, then I would say this: to suggest certain programs will work for us because it worked for some European countries, is in essense sayong one plan will work for all. You continually dismiss anyones counter that the dynamics both politically and culturally are much different, yet keep pushing programs as if they will work here. That is saying one answer will work for all. Or you would answer @yankeesince59 specific question with specific answers thst fot within THIS country, which you have yet to do. To put it a way you may understand, nobody is talking about Norway. Nobody said anything about Norway. We are talking about the states and the dynamics within and what will work for US. Not what works for a country with vastly different dynamics, population and geography, in relation to population centers. Olso is the largest city in Norway and has less than a million people. I mean the whole country has less people than several of our largest cities individually. Less than 6 million people compared to almost half a billion? This is like comparing five star restaurants to fast foods. Nothing about the environment, people, services, amenities, menus, etc will be the same.
No, it doesn't."Dangerous people" are exactly the type people I've referred to over and over, & keeping them in jail, not your solution, is what makes the "streets safer". And your "model" is not "applicable" to the type inmates I've been referring to. Even your copied and pasted links outline the stark differences between US crime and crime in many European countries. TAH DAH !...And thanks, but I doubt I'll get a straight answer.
The straight answer is to adopt policies like Camden NJ. Which had terrible crime rates and has greatly reduced them via focusing more on education and recovery than retribution. They aren't releasing dangerous criminals, so I don't know why that keeps being brought up. Once again, nobody in this thread has suggested releasing dangerous criminals. You're arguing against policies that have not been proposed.
Camden NJ is in the US and has seen nearly identical results as the other countries I've referenced. Sorry, but all available evidence suggests it's just a superior policy to anything else.
Wow, that's not at all what you originally asserted. I did, but you did not differentiate what type criminals, not at all. Go back and count the times I did, but you did not. You could have ended this argument long ago if you had been clearer as to who or what kind of criminals you were referencing...I did, but you clearly did not, until relatively recently. So why in hell have you been arguing with me about "dangerous criminals" when that the only thing I've been talking about in this thread is dangerous criminals and repeat offenders? All you've done is point to a practice from Europe that you finally admitted does not apply to these type prisoners, and interjected over-dramatic terms "slavery" and "revenge" into the equation. And exactly how and what "policies" am I arguing against that have not been proposed? The only thing I have argued was your "Scandinavian model" not being applied to dangerous prisoners.
Please stop putting words into my mouth. The models I've referenced absolutely deal with dangerous criminals. They do not deal with them by letting them out on the streets. I'm not sure where you got that from.
OK, I'll bite ...what words did I put in your mouth? Sorry, but shoplifters are not dangerous criminals...but again, I'll bite, how does your "models" deal with dangerous criminals?
People who are dangerous aren't released until they have served out any sentence they've been given, just like here. The model is focused on education and rehabilitation, which includes dangerous people as well. But dangerous people are determined on a case by case basis, mostly like any other model. The thing about these models is they are designed to prevent the system from CREATING dangerous people. They prevent more low level criminals from becoming higher level criminals, and as such, they get more of them back to being productive members of society permanently. So the system has less to worry about and can focus on keeping the real dangerous criminals off the streets.
