04 Oct 10
Originally posted by zeeblebot"I'm going to start eating grass."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161319,00.html
Calif. Ban on Tobacco in Prison Begins
Friday, July 01, 2005
FOLSOM, Calif. — Randel Davis fidgeted in his prison blues, savoring one of his final hand-rolled cigarettes for some time before a ban on tobacco in California (search) prisons kicked in Friday.
"I don't know what I'm going to do," ...[text shortened]... ld and prisoners and employees alike will be jittery as they try to quit cold turkey.
05 Oct 10
2 edits
Originally posted by sh76Only because I didn't know anything but South Africa. Australia quickly opened my eyes as to how a fair system could work, where unions were not villified at every corner, as pinko, commie scum.
We each have some good points and some not such good points; but over-all, it's about a wash.
Now we can all be judged by the same standard.
In fact in quick order as Ronnie took the reigns, I found a plethora of objections to this new strident American way and instead of being carried away by his well delivered adresses, what I instead mused was, could it possibly be that America had only the potential to be something new. That the best movies were not necesarily art imitates life, but in fact the harder push of getting life to imitate art, but as Ollie North and Fawn Hall packed out the contents of their little black bags it became increasingly evident that another America existed, one where might was right, one where money was the only thing that mattered.
05 Oct 10
1 edit
Originally posted by kmax87Did he steal the smokes because he couldn't afford them? If he was given free cigarettes, would he not steal anything else?
what's more expensive: lock someone up for a very long time or start a program that provides them with a pack a day. Anyone care to provide reasonable numbers that show the difference in cost?
As for your cost comparison, I am sure the person who got assaulted would have gladly given the man free smokes to avoid the assault if he knew that was all there was too it. But he probably knew that if you give a man free smokes for intimidating you, then he will want all the cash in your till too.
We are not told (in this thread at least) what all his other offences were. We are told that they had a bearing on the judgement. So how can we honestly make an assessment?
05 Oct 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadwhy shouldn't the punishment be proportional with the gravity of the crime? sure, a guy who stole 10 million dollars won't get a billion years in prison given the fragile mortal shell he has. but there should be brackets. in this case 99 years for a box of cigarettes, a bruised head and a bruised ego is kind of 95 years too many. i would say the one who stopped him wasn't injured as in "soldier shot 10 times, bleeding to death injured".
Incarceration has very little to do with punishing proportionately to the value of goods stolen - else certain white collar criminals would end up with billions of years sentences.
Clearly this case is not about what he stole or its value, but the fact that he is a repeat offender (we are not told in this thread what his previous offenses actually are), ...[text shortened]... op keepers to get a pack of smokes then I too would support locking him up - at least for a bit.
05 Oct 10
Originally posted by kmax87its probably the 3 strikes you're out cretin american idea. guy shoplifting 3 times ends up with more years in camp than a dude killing his wife over not wanting to go through a divorce.
I always laugh when people talk about the barbarism of Sharia law, but in their own back yard they are as civilized as cut snakes
the evidence your honor:
[quote]
Texan gets 99 years for stealing smokes
by Associated Press
Associated Press
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 6:58 AM
Updated Friday, Sep 10 at 6:58 AM
WACO (AP) — A central ...[text shortened]... gly tells the rest of us, which way is up.
Somebody tell me this report got it wrong. Please!
05 Oct 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadA 55 yr old stealing smokes sounds like a homeless addict if truth be told. I don't know but it sounds like a sad story.
.....Did he steal the smokes because he couldn't afford them? If he was given free cigarettes, would he not steal anything else?
..........We are not told (in this thread at least) what all his other offences were. We are told that they had a bearing on the judgement. So how can we honestly make an assessment?
I know people would say if this sort of action is allowed, America would run out of smokes the next day (which probably would be all the surgeon general could ever hope for)
05 Oct 10
Originally posted by ZahlanziBecause we do not incarcerate people purely as a means of punishment. Many people mistakenly think that is what prison is all about, but it isn't. Sure, punishment (as in both revenge and deterrent) is part of it, but a large part of incarceration is physical protection against future transgressions.
why shouldn't the punishment be proportional with the gravity of the crime?
I have already pointed out that white collar criminals typically do not serve sentences in proportion to the value of their crime.
But consider this: an old lady kills her husband. I think you will find that in many cases she would either not go to jail, or would get a minimal sentence - because the risk of repeat offence is minimal.
05 Oct 10
1 edit
Originally posted by kmax87Sure it sounds that way when the newspaper reporter wants a headline. But the article states quite clearly that he didn't steal the smokes, he took them through violence ie robbery - quite a different thing altogether.
A 55 yr old stealing smokes sounds like a homeless addict if truth be told. I don't know but it sounds like a sad story.
Is the man homeless?
If you judge a case based on what it 'sounds like' you are hardly going to get justice.
05 Oct 10
1 edit
http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/statsbrief/cost.html
link says inmates cost the state around 55 bux a day ~ 20K per year.
Packets of cigs can cost around 5.5 bux per packet, so you can easily see how treating a recidivist to a stay inside is hardly of any benefit.
This is where the state has to be smart and say this guy on 2 counts may do something silly. Lets interview him and find out what makes him tick. If his big moment in crime is to steal 10% of what it costs to house him in in prison, they should maybe supply him with a card that allows him to get his smokes without any drama.
Either that or he's tired waking up cold, and looks forward to being imprisoned.
05 Oct 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm all at sea with American justice. The lines between stealing and robbery with the disproportionate sentencing. Never quite get it. Like the jaywalking incident where at different times the girls under the law were categorized differently.
Sure it sounds that way when the newspaper reporter wants a headline. But the article states quite clearly that he didn't steal the smokes, he took them through violence ie robbery - quite a different thing altogether.......
If you judge a case based on what it 'sounds like' you are hardly going to get justice.
In someways both of these incidents serve to highlight one thing.
Freeom is dead in the land of the free.
05 Oct 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadthe old lady gets a minimal sentence for many reasons. she will croak before the sentence is passed, people getting pitty for an elder woman, the elder woman's brain is mush so she had not much of say in the killing and so on.
Because we do not incarcerate people purely as a means of punishment. Many people mistakenly think that is what prison is all about, but it isn't. Sure, punishment (as in both revenge and deterrent) is part of it, but a large part of incarceration is physical protection against future transgressions.
I have already pointed out that white collar criminals ...[text shortened]... ot go to jail, or would get a minimal sentence - because the risk of repeat offence is minimal.
if i murder my wife because i want to inherit her money, should i get a minimal sentence because i got my money and so i probably won't need to kill anyone again? should i get parole if i never get married again?
if a person takes a dump on the stairs of the white house, is imprisoned again, then takes a dump again after serving his sentence and vows to keep going number two in front of it, should he be put in jail for 99 years because the risk of repeat offence is maximum? or should he simply be punished for what he did?
05 Oct 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadI fail to see what circumstances could be so aggravating to make it far worse than a normal rape sentence.
I have no idea what is suitable because I do not have all the facts. What I do know is that the value of the goods stolen has very little to do with the case.
But maybe that's just me.