• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Example of What's Wrong with America

I agree that the system needs to be fixed. I know a lot of people who abuse it, and get hundreds for food assistance and medical. And then there are people who are trying to work, and support themselves who could really use the help up if only for a month who get nothing. Thankfully here Welfare is pretty strict about what you have to do to get help, however food and medical programs not so much.
 
starsevol said:
Statistically, the welfare/food stamp entitlement thing is much less of a percentage of the federal budget than other things are that are abused and can be cut....but this wasteful spending is something that we can see everytime we shop for groceries, so it does tend to get us angrier than things we can't actually see. And there is nothing like working a 60 hour week (like I do) and being dog tired and stopping for a few things and seeing this kind of blatent abuse going on to really roast my heinie.
Yeah, I want to see it end.
If I were Queen I would tie entitlements to drug testing and police records.
Anyone caught with drugs in their system, or arrested for anything more than a misdemenor is cut off for life, along with their immediate family.
That's how I would START.
Click to expand...

I understand and somewhat agree, but what happens to the children of these people? How are they fed and cared for? We can go back to the state run orphanages, but then that too becomes an expense to the tax payers.

Nova_C said:
I'm genuinely curious, though. Like, this has bothered me for a long time. If the idea is that prison is supposed to reform people who break the law, and re-introduce them as productive members of society, ensuring that they are unemployed, homeless and have no support whatsoever actively works against that goal.

Is the intention that once someone breaks the law once, they are done for good? No one ever is redeemed and is not deserving of rights?

The biggest thing that I just cannot wrap my head around is this notion that prison is supposed to be harsh and brutal and prison terms should be very long and then when that person who now has a chip on their shoulder and view society as an oppressor can't get a job, or shelter or food.

And this is somehow the ideal outcome? Of course they're going to go back to crime.
Click to expand...

My honest thoughts, Don't break the law and this isn't a concern. That said, people can overcome their situations and to say they can't is wrong and weak minded. I know of people that have overcome convictions to be productive members of society. I just do not see where I should have to worry over their well being when they made the bad choise. It's called being an adult and responsible for your actions. But hey, I am just not wired to be so soft hearted and overly sympathetic to others because I HAVE worked hard all my life and made good decisions regarding my life and supporting my family. If I didn't, I have no one to blame except myself. To me this is one of the bigger underlying problems of the US and many other countries like Canada. We are too soft. I'll give the middle east one thing, punishment for crime is harsh and swift and it is what ist should be, a major deterent for others when making their decisions. Blame my Dad I guess, or maybe thank him for influencing me to think the way I do. BTW, that is not an apology, I am proud that I think as a responsible person rather than wondering how in the world a person who was a criminal will get a fair shake in life now.

Daryl L. Camby

dc
 
Camby said:
I understand and somewhat agree, but what happens to the children of these people? How are they fed and cared for? We can go back to the state run orphanages, but then that too becomes an expense to the tax payers.

dc
Click to expand...

I think if taxpayers stop supporting people who break the law, it would go a long way to supporting the children of these people very nicely. Taxpayers are already feeding and clothing these kids as it is, take the lawbreakers out of the equation and it's a good start.
 
The way I see it, if you can feed yourself, and pay your own bills, do what ever you want.
If you can't meet your needs, and need help from taxpayers, then don't you dare break the law. Sort of like living in your parents house. They pay your bills they dictate the rules.
 
It really makes me angry to see this. I have worked every day since I was legally able to do so. Yet, when I did find myself needing public aid due to not being able to find work I was only eligible for $4 per MONTH in food stamps. WHAT?!?! All because I chose not to create little mini-me's.
 
My point has less to do with advocating humane treatment of other human beings, and more to do with reducing crime. If what you propose brutalizes criminals, but also increases violent crime, then what have you achieved? I cannot believe the I take on this board for looking at ways of reducing crime instead of focusing entirely on punishment. Punishment is great, but it'd be even better if there was no victim in the first place, and no need for punishment at all.
 
Nova_C said:
I'm genuinely curious, though. Like, this has bothered me for a long time. If the idea is that prison is supposed to reform people who break the law, and re-introduce them as productive members of society, ensuring that they are unemployed, homeless and have no support whatsoever actively works against that goal.

Is the intention that once someone breaks the law once, they are done for good? No one ever is redeemed and is not deserving of rights?

The biggest thing that I just cannot wrap my head around is this notion that prison is supposed to be harsh and brutal and prison terms should be very long and then when that person who now has a chip on their shoulder and view society as an oppressor can't get a job, or shelter or food.

And this is somehow the ideal outcome? Of course they're going to go back to crime.
Click to expand...
... Never mind , I'm too tired.
 
I did a quick look at the videos.
Seem like they are not breaking the law. It might not be morally right but legal. So who do you blame them or the politicians, who drafted the laws, and who do the same thing!

But yes, it’s time to close the barn doors.
 
Last edited:
Nova_C said:
Also, people with criminal records already have huge barriers to employment due to having a record. Is the idea to make sure they have no choice but to go back to crime if they don't want to starve? Not exactly conducive to lowering recidivism.
Click to expand...

Here's an idea! Don't be a criminal and you won't have to worry about it!
 
You guys realize that people don't live in vacuums, right? Like, what one person does can affect another. In this case, crimes usually result in a victim.

Is the only thing we can do to wait until someone becomes a victim and then care about them? Or perhaps is there a way to prevent that victimization in the first place?

If someone proposed legislation that had a proven track record of lowering crime, but part of it was relaxing the penalties for crime, would you oppose it out of principle?
 
Nova_C said:
You guys realize that people don't live in vacuums, right?
Click to expand...

Of course...
The only thing that lives in our vacuum is dust and dirt and things of that nature, where would they even make a vacuum that could fit a human in it to live?
And our ideas are somehow off the mark...
 
Some things are less stringently enforced, particularly pot, and judges have a lot of discretion for sentencing. However, even though our violent crime rates have been on the decline for 20 years, the Conservatives have been really pushing the propaganda to talk about how much 'unreported' violent crime there was (Seriously. When asked how much the government declined to answer. >.>) Anyway, they're trying to push through longer sentences even though study after study shows that has little to no effect on recidivism.

I think the biggest different is that our prisons aren't private, for profit companies with a powerful lobby that pushes for longer sentences and mandatory minimums. I honestly don't know how you guys stand it. Talk about a conflict of interest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top