NationStates Jolt Archive

because it doesn't work. 1st minorities and the poor get incarcerated more than others which covers up the problem instead of fixing it which is poverty and racial inequality though most middle class white citizens and the goverment pretend these things don't exist.

2nd, when people get out of prison they lose rights like voting making them disenfranchised and are unable to find work. Meaning to revert to things that will land them in prison again as they have no other options. And then people scratch their head at why there's prison over crowding and high reoffending rates.

Is this fairly accurate or am I just out of touch or something?

Yeah, pretty much.

true, unfortunately people find it acceptable to think of criminals as garbage

Well, what can you do? If they've been thrown into prison by all rights they've failed to become a useful, productive member of society, so why should they become accepted again the moment they come out of Generi-prison?

As for the 'minorities' bit, they are the ones who commit the crimes. I'm a conspiracy nut, and even *I* don't buy that its all racist. Skin color, heritage, and where you were born have jack-all to do with if you rob a liquor store or not. You make a choice when you do that, and you reap what you sow. You want a scape goat? The criminals are a nice place to start.

Well, what can you do? If they've been thrown into prison by all rights they've failed to become a useful, productive member of society, so why should they become accepted again the moment they come out of Generi-prison?

As for the 'minorities' bit, they are the ones who commit the crimes. I'm a conspiracy nut, and even *I* don't buy that its all racist. Skin color, heritage, and where you were born have jack-all to do with if you rob a liquor store or not. You make a choice when you do that, and you reap what you sow. You want a scape goat? The criminals are a nice place to start.

I've noticed that some of the most productive members of society are pretty much criminals, anyway.

I've noticed that some of the most productive members of society are pretty much criminals, anyway.

Here, here, QFT, etc. etc.

Well, what can you do? If they've been thrown into prison by all rights they've failed to become a useful, productive member of society,

unless they have kids or something, course you're usefulness as a person should have no place in the justice system

so why should they become accepted again the moment they come out of Generi-prison?

because people change and because there human beings

As for the 'minorities' bit, they are the ones who commit the crimes. I'm a conspiracy nut, and even *I* don't buy that its all racist.

actually its an indicator, if minorities still form the bottom of society that means social mobility is failing

Skin color, heritage, and where you were born have jack-all to do with if you rob a liquor store or not. You make a choice when you do that, and you reap what you sow. You want a scape goat? The criminals are a nice place to start.

yeah when a kid gets swept up in thug culture its all his fault and nothing to do with growing up in a bad neighborhood :rolleyes:

unless they have kids or something, course you're usefulness as a person should have no place in the justice system

So having a child should make you exempt from improving society as a whole? Nice.

Furthermore, by saying nobody has a place in the justice system, this includes the judges, lawyers, jury, attournies, and various other staff I missed.

No. You are productive when you CONTRIBUTE to society, not add to society's population.

because people change and because there human beings

No. When they enter prison, they are no longer worth sympathizing with in any way. The failures and rejects get sent to prison for a reason. Furthermore, people don't "change" after their sentence. That logic only exists in fairy tales and fantasy land. Come back to reality, please.

actually its an indicator, if minorities still form the bottom of society that means social mobility is failing

Its an indicator? Nice. If they didn't have a persecution complex maybe they could rise above their current, below-average living, but they're too busy whining and yanking on the heartstrings of the world so they don't have to.

yeah when a kid gets swept up in thug culture its all his fault and nothing to do with growing up in a bad neighborhood :rolleyes:

Yes, it is. Because he made a choice. Accept that it is HIS fault for making a choice and move on.

On a slightly unrelated note, why the child analogies? If you're trying to get an emotional appeal, you may as well try squeezing blood out of a rock, just as a fair warning.

You can't fix the justice system until you fix the educational system. That is the first step in changing the socio-economic position of most minorities. And as recent studies tell us, education plays a big role in whether or not you are likely to commit a crime. Of course, that is not an absolute, but it is a major aspect of the system.

Furthermore, the reason poorer people are more likely to be placed in prison, rather than on a work defferement program, probation, things of that nature, is because they cannot afford to pay for private counsel. Public defenders, for the most part, do their best at offering a legitimate chance for the lower spectrum of society. However, they are swamped, poorly paid (in comparison to private attorneys, avg public defender is 90k, where as a 1st year associate in a firm can make nearly 150k), and usually younger than private attorneys.

There has been a recent change however. Many states are now offering law students paid tuition (I believe only at public universities), and a stipened if they sign a contract that says they will become either a DA or PD of a certain period of time. By doing this, the system will gradually change because more qualified people will enter into that side of the legal field rather than working for a big firm.

No. When they enter prison, they are no longer worth sympathizing with in any way. The failures and rejects get sent to prison for a reason.
And judges and lawyers are infallible supermen, and nobody could ever possibly be innocent and get sent to jail anyway. Nope, that would never ever happen, not in a million years.
Furthermore, people don't "change" after their sentence. That logic only exists in fairy tales and fantasy land. Come back to reality, please.

What makes you so sure they don't? After all, there simply has to one person who has ever gone to jail once and not re-offended for this to be wrong.

Bah. Criminals deserve scorn, contempt, and nothing more. Bleating about society does not exculpate one froma crime; thousands of others in similar situations did not resort to illegal activities.

Actually, the best way to lower prison populations, lower crime, reduce hideous educational inequality, raise living standards, raise life expectancy etc etc is to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor.

This has been borne out by study after study; feel free to look it up. Reduce the wealth gap and you improve society. It's the single biggest contributory factor to improving or worsening almost everything in society.

the US could use with a bit of Socialism...So that your poor, aren't so poor...

because it doesn't work. 1st minorities and the poor get incarcerated more than others which covers up the problem instead of fixing it which is poverty and racial inequality though most middle class white citizens and the goverment pretend these things don't exist.

2nd, when people get out of prison they lose rights like voting making them disenfranchised and are unable to find work. Meaning to revert to things that will land them in prison again as they have no other options. And then people scratch their head at why there's prison over crowding and high reoffending rates.

Is this fairly accurate or am I just out of touch or something?

it is a very accurate depiction of the problem.(and this is leaving out the good ole boy aspect of which i am too familiar with)
i think the situation of hopelessness leads to heavy substance abuse as well,let alone the only way a convicted minority or poor persons chance at making a real income,one that someone can actually live off of..is thru the trafficing of drugs.
not to condone drug trafficking or debating whether it should be legal or not,but i bet the prisons would be damn near empty without the so called war on drugs.
which if one is cynical..one could surmise that things are just the way the established people in positions of power want it.
trust me on the ole boys club thing,which is fed and fueled by the drug war mostly.

And judges and lawyers are infallible supermen, and nobody could ever possibly be innocent and get sent to jail anyway. Nope, that would never ever happen, not in a million years.

Cute, but no. Nowhere did I imply they were. Humans are fallible, its why crime even happens. They can, however, make good decisions as often as humanly able.

Yes, there may be innocents framed, and again, that is to be expected. However, it is very, very unlikely that evidence is so stacked that someone framed can't dig their way out of it.

What makes you so sure they don't? After all, there simply has to one person who has ever gone to jail once and not re-offended for this to be wrong.

Because once you commit the act, the possibility is always there to do it again. You can suppress the desire, but you cannot make yourself willfully ignorant of the possibility, no matter how hard you try. Its why reformation ultimately fails, because it just lies there dormant until push comes to shove, then you're right back in the liquor store telling the shop keep to put the money in the bag once again.

I personally think anybody guilty of any crime should be executed on the spot.

This solves a number of problems, including overpopulation, oil supply, pollution, water consumption, and a whole slew of social problems.
If we could convience the whole world to follow the system, why, we could live in a utopia!
of the Orewellian sort. BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOUR HIDDEN TEXT

Cute, but no. Nowhere did I imply they were. Humans are fallible, its why crime even happens. They can, however, make good decisions as often as humanly able.
But you said only that people aren't worth sympathising with once they're in prison. How was I to know you weren't referring to the unfortunate innocent people in prison
Yes, there may be innocents framed, and again, that is to be expected. However, it is very, very unlikely that evidence is so stacked that someone framed can't dig their way out of it.
Yeah, I mean, where in America are you going to find someone who can't hire a private investigator. :rolleyes:



Because once you commit the act, the possibility is always there to do it again.
The possibility is there that you'll do it before you do. That's sort of how reality works.
You can suppress the desire, but you cannot make yourself willfully ignorant of the possibility, no matter how hard you try.
And why would anyone want to do this?
Its why reformation ultimately fails, because it just lies there dormant until push comes to shove, then you're right back in the liquor store telling the shop keep to put the money in the bag once again.
This is ridiculous. Trying to reform prisoners is pointless because it's possible they'll offend again? By that reasoning we should just put everyone who's found guilty on death row.

Because once you commit the act, the possibility is always there to do it again. You can suppress the desire, but you cannot make yourself willfully ignorant of the possibility, no matter how hard you try. Its why reformation ultimately fails, because it just lies there dormant until push comes to shove, then you're right back in the liquor store telling the shop keep to put the money in the bag once again.

Once you commit the act it only then becomes a recurring possibility?

What's preventing this possibility from afflicting those who have not yet performed said possibility?

Tenuous logic there. Are you saying you can never do something only once, but that it must be repeated because... somehow you are no more than one or two of your actions?

because it doesn't work. 1st minorities and the poor get incarcerated more than others which covers up the problem instead of fixing it which is poverty and racial inequality though most middle class white citizens and the goverment pretend these things don't exist.

2nd, when people get out of prison they lose rights like voting making them disenfranchised and are unable to find work. Meaning to revert to things that will land them in prison again as they have no other options. And then people scratch their head at why there's prison over crowding and high reoffending rates.

Is this fairly accurate or am I just out of touch or something?

Yeah. They're more concerned with where you can stick it.

But you said only that people aren't worth sympathising with once they're in prison. How was I to know you weren't referring to the unfortunate innocent people in prison

Point taken. I made a mistake, then. Sorry for the confusion.

Yeah, I mean, where in America are you going to find someone who can't hire a private investigator. :rolleyes:

They shouldn't be that hard to find, though thankfully I've never needed one. And as for if they can't afford one, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it possible to get one if you make a claim of being framed? I'm not entirely sure but it sounds right to me.

The possibility is there that you'll do it before you do. That's sort of how reality works.

That was never debated. But making it a "real" possibility, namely a, "I've done this before" sort of possibility is what I'm referring to.

And why would anyone want to do this?

That's a part of reformation, trying to correct the mind and make it see that crime isn't an option.

This is ridiculous. Trying to reform prisoners is pointless because it's possible they'll offend again? By that reasoning we should just put everyone who's found guilty on death row.

It comes across as that extreme to you? Interesting. Though what you suggested isn't necessarily a BAD idea, its a rather unfeasible one.

More to the point, you probably should, yes. It would solve a lot of problems.

Once you commit the act it only then becomes a recurring possibility?

What's preventing this possibility from afflicting those who have not yet performed said possibility?

Tenuous logic there. Are you saying you can never do something only once, but that it must be repeated because... somehow you are no more than one or two of your actions?

Sorry for the double post but I just noticed this. In the order of points:

It IS a recurring possibility, yes. More detail below.

The fact that a part of your humanity dies when you cross the line and commit the crime. Then it doesn't seem like a bad thing any more, and you become desensitized to it and make the possibility much more real.

No, it was never meant for logic outside of the criminal mentality, and I'm sorry if I conveyed it as otherwise.

So having a child should make you exempt from improving society as a whole? Nice.

Furthermore, by saying nobody has a place in the justice system, this includes the judges, lawyers, jury, attournies, and various other staff I missed.

No. You are productive when you CONTRIBUTE to society, not add to society's population.



No. When they enter prison, they are no longer worth sympathizing with in any way. The failures and rejects get sent to prison for a reason. Furthermore, people don't "change" after their sentence. That logic only exists in fairy tales and fantasy land. Come back to reality, please.



Its an indicator? Nice. If they didn't have a persecution complex maybe they could rise above their current, below-average living, but they're too busy whining and yanking on the heartstrings of the world so they don't have to.



Yes, it is. Because he made a choice. Accept that it is HIS fault for making a choice and move on.

On a slightly unrelated note, why the child analogies? If you're trying to get an emotional appeal, you may as well try squeezing blood out of a rock, just as a fair warning.


No. When they enter prison, they are no longer worth sympathizing with in any way. The failures and rejects get sent to prison for a reason. Furthermore, people don't "change" after their sentence. That logic only exists in fairy tales and fantasy land. Come back to reality, please.


nice attitude.
i have been in jail a few times..so i guess i am worthless in your all knowing eyes.
and ummmm..how about those unfairly convicted,happens all the time except in your fairy tale world.
i dont think a day passes when i dont hear about new dna evidence freeing someone from a 20 year sentence.
i wont get into details but i know for a fact that i would be doing 10-20 year sentence right now if i did not have 15,000.00 dollars for an attorny,and he was an ex prosecutor..lol,walked away with a 100.00 fine.
as i sat in the courtroom(superiour court)hearing after hearing,i would see people paraded in front of the judge,in chains and jumpsuits..plead pretty compelling arguments(sure most were lying..but)and no attorny or a public pretender trying to get on the d/a's staff,then i get to go before the judge,in a 3 piece suit,with a high powered attorney(ex prosecutor)and i get the kid gloves,he actually had give and take with me,listened to me,but the guys in jumpsuits...they got to say their piece,then that was that..go back to jail.
hell one guy before me charged with only one of the 6 things i was charged with,no prior record,got 5 years..i got a 100.00 fine?

you are dangerously close to being blind!i have decided to bite my tongue and not get to visous with dumb people or dumb comments(lifes to short)i have decided to try and point out obvious errors in your thought process,try to help you see the truth,other then that,a closed mind is just that,and i aint beating my head against a wall anymore.

your very wrong is all i can say...and trust me,been there done that.
the times i was in jail,lets just say,i was pretty much innocent,and the ONLY reason i got out was because i had or my family had money.
to not see that is being blind.

oh,and i despise crimminals and they belong in jail!

The fact that a part of your humanity dies when you cross the line and commit the crime.

What crime? Any crime? Some crimes? One crime?

That guy who said we should execute criminals is out to lunch if he is serious. I suspect he is joking though, no one should be executed for a minor crime such as smoking pot or shoplifting. This is the Free World not a Dictatorship like Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Colombia, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Kazakstan, Russia, China, Zimbabwe, or Somalia. You don't kill people for minor crimes. For major crimes like rape, murder, and aggravated assault people should not be relased. These type of individuals are dangerous and should be kept off the street.

nice attitude.

Thank you, though I'm more detached than anything.

i have been in jail a few times..so i guess i am worthless in your all knowing eyes.

If you believed that you wouldn't have said anything, sadly. And never did I claim I was all-knowing, please don't put words in my mouth.

and ummmm..how about those unfairly convicted,happens all the time except in your fairy tale world.

i dont think a day passes when i dont hear about new dna evidence freeing someone from a 20 year sentence.

I never claimed it didn't happened, that's the problem. Should I refer you to an earlier post where I covered this?

i wont get into details but... -snip-

Interesting anecdote. Unfortunately I'm going to have to ask what point you were trying to convey, because I didn't understand it if you were, indeed, trying to make one.

you are dangerously close to being blind!i have decided to bite my tongue and not get to visous with dumb people or dumb comments(lifes to short)i have decided to try and point out obvious errors in your thought process,try to help you see the truth,other then that,a closed mind is just that,and i aint beating my head against a wall anymore.

I'm sorry you feel that way, as I'm trying my best to remain civil as I feel rather strongly about this issue. I'm not completely unreasonable, and I strive to remain open minded. Again, though, I'm sorry you feel that way.

your very wrong is all i can say...and trust me,been there done that.
the times i was in jail,lets just say,i was pretty much innocent,and the ONLY reason i got out was because i had or my family had money.
to not see that is being blind.

I'll agree with you on one point: Money shouldn't be a favor in justice. Otherwise, I'm afraid I disagree.

oh,and i despise crimminals and they belong in jail!

Agreed.

To factor in another post:

What crime? Any crime? Some crimes? One crime?

Theft, murder, extortion, and such crimes where your very humanity comes under question. Not, for example, speeding or littering, though both tend to adopt a similar mentality of, "I've done this before and gotten away with it, its no big deal."

Theft, murder, extortion, and such crimes where your very humanity comes under question. Not, for example, speeding or littering, though both tend to adopt a similar mentality of, "I've done this before and gotten away with it, its no big deal."

So in other words we should be shooting our governments and most corporations then...

Taxes = theft
Murder = murder (police killings, war, crap safety in the workplace etc)
Extortion = taxes, insurance

Glad to see you agree with me comrade! :D

So in other words we should be shooting our governments and most corporations then...

Taxes = theft
Murder = murder (police killings, war, crap safety in the workplace etc)
Extortion = taxes, insurance

Glad to see you agree with me comrade! :D

I must say, I chuckled at this. :)

Taxes pay for the upkeep and running of the nation. What WOULD if not taxes?

Murder I'll more or less concur with.

Extortion is related to insurance? Perhaps. And again, taxes are meant for upkeep and running of the nation.

Thank you, though I'm more detached than anything.



If you believed that you wouldn't have said anything, sadly. And never did I claim I was all-knowing, please don't put words in my mouth.



I never claimed it didn't happened, that's the problem. Should I refer you to an earlier post where I covered this?



Interesting anecdote. Unfortunately I'm going to have to ask what point you were trying to convey, because I didn't understand it if you were, indeed, trying to make one.



I'm sorry you feel that way, as I'm trying my best to remain civil as I feel rather strongly about this issue. I'm not completely unreasonable, and I strive to remain open minded. Again, though, I'm sorry you feel that way.



I'll agree with you on one point: Money shouldn't be a favor in justice. Otherwise, I'm afraid I disagree.



Agreed.

To factor in another post:



Theft, murder, extortion, and such crimes where your very humanity comes under question. Not, for example, speeding or littering, though both tend to adopt a similar mentality of, "I've done this before and gotten away with it, its no big deal."


sorry,i had responded but it said i could not for some reason,and i actually had pointed out that you showed a modicum of openmindedness replying to a poster about innocent people in jail.
it was actually a pretty lucid and concise responce,but i dont want to try and re type it,broke my wrists so it hurts to type muck.
if you have a specific problem or want a specific response,let me know,i would be more then happy to talk to you,you do seem kinda reasonable.

sorry,i had responded but it said i could not for some reason,and i actually had pointed out that you showed a modicum of openmindedness replying to a poster about innocent people in jail.

Jolt likes doing that, I think. If you make another post, I'd advise making a copy of it before you post just incase Jolt eats it. More on-topic, thank you.

it was actually a pretty lucid and concise responce,but i dont want to try and re type it,broke my wrists so it hurts to type muck.
if you have a specific problem or want a specific response,let me know,i would be more then happy to talk to you,you do seem kinda reasonable.

I'm sorry to hear that, though I appreciate the gesture. Thank you. :)

As for the 'minorities' bit, they are the ones who commit the crimes.

Isn't there a higher ratio of non-minorities getting not guilty verdicts than minorities. Especially in areas where prejudices against the victim are abound? Like, oh say, in rape cases?

Isn't there a higher ratio of non-minorities getting not guilty verdicts than minorities. Especially in areas where prejudices against the victim are abound? Like, oh say, in rape cases?

Its possible, I won't deny that, but I would appreciate you citing a source on it if at all possible.

As for rape cases... it comes down to human fallibility. I've never made the claim the justice system is perfect. It is, after all, run by humans. However, I'm not really sure of what you mean by prejudice against the victim of a rape case?

So having a child should make you exempt from improving society as a whole? Nice.

Furthermore, by saying nobody has a place in the justice system, this includes the judges, lawyers, jury, attournies, and various other staff I missed.

No. You are productive when you CONTRIBUTE to society, not add to society's population.

Its hard to contribute to society when society won't let you.

No. When they enter prison, they are no longer worth sympathizing with in any way. The failures and rejects get sent to prison for a reason. Furthermore, people don't "change" after their sentence. That logic only exists in fairy tales and fantasy land. Come back to reality, please.
I've spent a lot of time on the streets with charity work over past few months, I suggest you do the same. I've met a lot of people who have changed, I also met people who have no other options but to do what they need to survive. Prisons should really be a place where people can learn trades and skills that they can use when they get out. And society must change to allow people to re-enter society without the stigmas you express here. Prisons where are just about punishment and further harden offenders have shown not to work.


Its an indicator? Nice. If they didn't have a persecution complex maybe they could rise above their current, below-average living, but they're too busy whining and yanking on the heartstrings of the world so they don't have to.
Its hard to rise above when there is a ceiling that the institutions of society have placed on minorities and the poor preventing the rise above. Don't forget the US is less than a generation away from legalized oppression and segregation.


Yes, it is. Because he made a choice. Accept that it is HIS fault for making a choice and move on.

On a slightly unrelated note, why the child analogies? If you're trying to get an emotional appeal, you may as well try squeezing blood out of a rock, just as a fair warning.

Is it really a choice when he isn't given any other choices?

Its hard to contribute to society when society won't let you.

How so?

I've spent a lot of time on the streets with charity work over past few months, I suggest you do the same. I've met a lot of people who have changed, I also met people who have no other options but to do what they need to survive. Prisons should really be a place where people can learn trades and skills that they can use when they get out. And society must change to allow people to re-enter society without the stigmas you express here. Prisons where are just about punishment and further harden offenders have shown not to work.

They haven't changed, that is the problem. The possibility is still there, they still can, and no amount of rehabilitation will cure this. Put in the same situation as prior to rehab, they will still commit a crime, because that is how their thought process works.

Once a murderer, you will always be a murderer. Why shouldn't they be punished? If you can't pay the time...

Also, interesting description of your ideal prison... sounds remarkably like school, don't you think?

Its hard to rise above when there is a ceiling that the institutions of society have placed on minorities and the poor preventing the rise above. Don't forget the US is less than a generation away from legalized oppression and segregation.

I'm unsure of the tense in your last sentence, but I disagree. The only ceiling is an imaginary one, created by man because of intolerance. Not everyone needs to be a CEO to rise above what they grew up with, nor a celebrity.

Is it really a choice when he isn't given any other choices?

School is a choice. Making an effort is a choice. Giving up on both and joining a gang is also a choice. We make choices every day, and must live with the consequences of them. Why is this any different?

because it doesn't work. 1st minorities and the poor get incarcerated more than others which covers up the problem instead of fixing it which is poverty and racial inequality though most middle class white citizens and the goverment pretend these things don't exist.

The more imporverished you are, the more likely you are to commit crime. That's been a well known fact since the start. However, I do feel there is a great prejudice against minorities in this country which spreads throughout all spectrums of society, not just Criminal Justice.


2nd, when people get out of prison they lose rights like voting making them disenfranchised and are unable to find work. Meaning to revert to things that will land them in prison again as they have no other options. And then people scratch their head at why there's prison over crowding and high reoffending rates.

So let's burn all records of convicted felons and sex offenders!? Way to abolish background checks.

Is this fairly accurate or am I just out of touch or something?

Meh. You make it sound like White Middle Class America, I love the way you automatically assumed everyone in the middle class is white, hates the poor. Why is we LOVE to see the CEOs of Enron, Paris Hilton, and Martha Stewart get nailed to fucking wall?

It's the UPPER CLASS that get away with murder, OJ, and try to keep the poor poor. Not every white person as it seems you are insinuating.

Sorry for the double post but I just noticed this. In the order of points:

It IS a recurring possibility, yes. More detail below.

The fact that a part of your humanity dies when you cross the line and commit the crime. Then it doesn't seem like a bad thing any more, and you become desensitized to it and make the possibility much more real.

No, it was never meant for logic outside of the criminal mentality, and I'm sorry if I conveyed it as otherwise.

Either you know more about criminal mentality than anyone else on the planet, or you're making this up. Unless you can back up such ridiculous statements, I'm going to go with the latter.

Socialization won't help crime, and it is almost pointless to explain to you why, because you have already came to the conclusion that everyone has to be equal for the world to work.

The fact of the matter is everyone is equal in their pursuit of a better situation. However, many people don't have the capacity to do so. You will make the argument that this is because of wealth, which it is not. Of course, wealthier people have more options from an earlier age, but rather it is the education one receives or more importantly seeks that helps him/her move up. Mobility is still there, regardless of what Lou Dobbs might say.

Many wealthy children fail because they assume everything comes to them, but there is only so much parents can do to bail out their children (especially when the money is gone).

Whereas many poorer children excel because they value their education, and continue it at any means necessary. Survival of the fittest, as coined by Herbert Spencer, is the only way in which a good economy will survive.

I will only say this briefly, as I do not wish to hijack this thread. European socialism will fail in the next 20-30 years because the group paying will become much smaller than the group receiving the benefits. Picture an upside down pyramid, which will tumble. Same will happen in the US in the next 50 years. Just some economic tidbits, better get on it soon.

So overall, education is the key for social mobility, lowering the crime rate, lowering the gap between rich and poor, expanding the middle class. All the things that occurred as the bourgeoisie rose in the middle ages, no thanks to socialism.

I should have listened more in law school, but I'll relate the findings from a study by a famous liberal defense lawyer to which my Criminal Procedure professor often referred.

Basically, for the average defendant, hiring a private attorney makes no difference at all in the probability of conviction or harshness of a sentence. Whereas private attorneys have many fewer cases and therefore much more time to spend on each one, public defenders build a rapport with the prosecutors and are much more likely to get favorable plea deals b/c the prosecutors know they can trust them. Basically, it is a bunch of game-theory type stuff, where the number of times the prosecutors and public defenders 'play the game' leads to a more efficient (and fair?) outcome. The bad side of this arrangement is that people are basically presumed guilty, despite the American theory of 'innocent until proven guilty'. The good side is that it is very likely that those who end up serving sentences are actually guilty of the crimes they commit.

I think that the only time that hiring expensive counsel actually 'helps', is when the defendant is actually guilty but the law enforcement investigation or the prosecution is faulty, thus leading to an acquittal on technical grounds. If you did it and everybody in the system did their jobs right, you will serve some time regardless of who your attorney is. Another good thing about this cynical version of the system is that an actually innocent defendant is unlikely to be convicted of a crime whether represented by a public or private defense attorney.

Most people's image of a broken system come from high profile cases... Paris Hilton, O.J. Simpson, etc. These are anecdotal cases, and in no way represent the treatment that the average 'rich' person gets. Even still, I would imagine that any public defender could have gotten somebody off with all the screwups that the LAPD made in the OJ case. And while Paris may have gotten out of jail early, she was sent right back. And even though I think she is a spoiled brat who contributes nothing to society, she may have gotten a sentence harsher than many others as a lesson. I've yet to see any numbers on what the average sentence is for violating probation for reckless driving in California. But here in Florida, I used to work in social services before going to law school, and I saw MANY people violate probation with their only punishment being the extension of their probation. What kind of sense does that make?

I'm not trying to argue that the system isn't broken. It definitely is. The system obviously isn't performing a rehabilitation function. And it obviously isn't performing a deterrent function. And it really isn't performing the function of isolating criminals from the rest of the population. All I'm arguing is that the problem is NOT that the rich come out on top because of their high paid counsel.

(As an aside, I think a big problem is the fact that there are so many people incarcerated on possession of narcotics charges. And while the law obviously isn't written to be discriminatory, there is some pretty good evidence that it is enforced in a discriminatory manner. I'm all for legalization or at least decriminilization, despite having never taken an illegal drug in my life. Must be the libertarian in me. If you wanna kill yourself, go right ahead. I think that the $ that would be saved from decriminilization of drugs would be very well spent on a truly workable justice system.)

Very true, but also many private attorneys offer many more years of experience than the average PD. Additionally, when it comes to trial I would prefer a private attorney rather than a PD just from experience and skill.

Anyway, what school are you in? and are you clerking anywhere this summer?

Either you know more about criminal mentality than anyone else on the planet, or you're making this up. Unless you can back up such ridiculous statements, I'm going to go with the latter.

I have never professed to, as you put it, "know more about criminal mentality than anyone else on the planet". To clarify, it is based upon my experiences as a person, and not on anything empirical.

If you have any evidence to the contrary, please provide some, as I would appreciate the opportunity to correct my opinion if it is, in fact, incorrect.

I have never professed to, as you put it, "know more about criminal mentality than anyone else on the planet". To clarify, it is based upon my experiences as a person, and not on anything empirical.

If you have any evidence to the contrary, please provide some, as I would appreciate the opportunity to correct my opinion if it is, in fact, incorrect.

Right, so based on one or two bad experiences you claim to have had, we should automatically give up on anyone who commits a crime? Bob stole fifty dollars, so now he's an evil criminal for the rest of his life? Your notion that once you lose a piece of humanity for breaking the law is preposterous.

And surely I don't need to provide links to all the people in the world who served time in jail, and still managed to live a crime-free life after getting out?

Right, so based on one or two bad experiences you claim to have had, we should automatically give up on anyone who commits a crime? Bob stole fifty dollars, so now he's an evil criminal for the rest of his life? Your notion that once you lose a piece of humanity for breaking the law is preposterous.

That's a bit of a minimalistic mock-up, and honestly not that true. Do you need anything clarified? Also, I'm idly wondering why you're acting with such hostility. (at least, I perceive, anyway.)

And surely I don't need to provide links to all the people in the world who served time in jail, and still managed to live a crime-free life after getting out?

You don't NEED to, but without some example then I'm afraid your claim is a fairly hypocritical one.

because it doesn't work. 1st minorities and the poor get incarcerated more than others which covers up the problem instead of fixing it which is poverty and racial inequality though most middle class white citizens and the goverment pretend these things don't exist.


You have to think probabilistically. Minorities are still big percents of the populations. Correlation's between race and crime rate do not imply causations.

That's a bit of a minimalistic mock-up, and honestly not that true. Do you need anything clarified? Also, I'm idly wondering why you're acting with such hostility. (at least, I perceive, anyway.)

You don't NEED to, but without some example then I'm afraid your claim is a fairly hypocritical one.

Hostility? I merely disagree with you. You can call it a minimalistic mock up all you like, but where would you draw the line on such criminals? If I steal fifty dollars, I'm alright, but what if I stole five-hundred? One thousand? Ten Thousand?

And I didn't bother citing sources because I thought it was common knowledge that plenty of people get out of prison and still manage to lead crime-free lives. If you really want to disagree, then I'll see what I can scrounge up.

Hostility? I merely disagree with you. You can call it a minimalistic mock up all you like, but where would you draw the line on such criminals? If I steal fifty dollars, I'm alright, but what if I stole five-hundred? One thousand? Ten Thousand?

Grand Theft, Murder, Treason... not the "trivial" crimes, such speeding or, in your example, stealing 50 dollars.

And I guess I simply misperceived. Thank you for the clarification.

And I didn't bother citing sources because I thought it was common knowledge that plenty of people get out of prison and still manage to lead crime-free lives. If you really want to disagree, then I'll see what I can scrounge up.

Thank you.

Vectrova:- do you have any proof for your statements? Any at all? Because I say Bullshit. And as you made this ridiculous claim, the burden of proof is on you. So prove it.

Vectrova:- do you have any proof for your statements? Any at all? Because I say Bullshit. And as you made this ridiculous claim, the burden of proof is on you. So prove it.

I have already confessed that it is not empirical and therefore not credible, and is probably incorrect, which is why I wanted it clarified.

Its possible, I won't deny that, but I would appreciate you citing a source on it if at all possible.


I'm lazy, but I'll do what I can. Just don't hold your breath. :p


As for rape cases... it comes down to human fallibility. I've never made the claim the justice system is perfect. It is, after all, run by humans. However, I'm not really sure of what you mean by prejudice against the victim of a rape case?

The whole "It's the woman's fault she was raped cause of the way she was dressed/is a prostitute/is an exotic dancer/was drugged up/didn't put up a fight/out of her house/was a woman" argument.

Almost every single time the rape case comes up in court, the defendant pulls the whole "It's her fault she was raped" argument. And more often than not, the perp walks. Unless racial sentiments come into play i.e. black man rapes white woman.

There was even a time when a cop was caught red handed sexually abusing an exotic dancer, and didn't deny the charge. He walked cause he claimed "She can't say abuse cause she's an exotic dancer."

Don't tell me that isn't that prejudice.

I'm lazy, but I'll do what I can. Just don't hold your breath. :p

lol. I won't, then. :p

The whole "It's the woman's fault she was raped cause of the way she was dressed/is a prostitute/is an exotic dancer/was drugged up/didn't put up a fight/out of her house/was a woman" argument.

Almost every single time the rape case comes up in court, the defendant pulls the whole "It's her fault she was raped" argument. And more often than not, the perp walks. Unless racial sentiments come into play i.e. black man rapes white woman.

There was even a time when a cop was caught red handed sexually abusing an exotic dancer, and didn't deny the charge. He walked cause he claimed "She can't say abuse cause she's an exotic dancer."

Don't tell me that isn't that prejudice.

... Wow. That's... yeah, that's prejudice, I'll agree.

Right, so based on one or two bad experiences you claim to have had, we should automatically give up on anyone who commits a crime? Bob stole fifty dollars, so now he's an evil criminal for the rest of his life? Your notion that once you lose a piece of humanity for breaking the law is preposterous.

And surely I don't need to provide links to all the people in the world who served time in jail, and still managed to live a crime-free life after getting out?

can i kiss you?

i actually gained more morality in jail.
the system is unjust,and i had some huge black guy,thinking he wanted to hurt or rape me...offer me some food,why is that?
cause he wanted favors down the road,or was he just a decent human being caught up in an untenable situation?
well i have the answer..this is how it is,we have to stick together...i was beaten unconscious by law enforcement,broken orbital bone,ribs and a fractured vert,i was put on the violent felon cell block,you know the ones we love to hate.
vulnerable is not a big enough word to describe how i was...and yes..most were crimminals that belonged there,but this guy said to me..you dont belong here,he gave me cookies..lol..cause i was broken,defensiless and hungry.
he did not belong there but he was thank god.
he got my food for me,he protected me from the predators,i could barely walk and was tossed in with the felons...you know.to make me make a deal...lol,if not for this guy..i would have caved or played ball,and thats what they want.
fuck them,it is really easy to sell out when your tossed into a cell block of animals,and if you dont know that your stupid.

but you know all..i keep forgetting..my bad.

Very true, but also many private attorneys offer many more years of experience than the average PD. Additionally, when it comes to trial I would prefer a private attorney rather than a PD just from experience and skill.

Anyway, what school are you in? and are you clerking anywhere this summer?


As far as the trial stuff goes, one of the main points of the study is how something like 90% of cases that are arraigned end in some form of punishment, but less than 10% of those are after a trial. I would tend to agree with you that a private attorney would be better if it actually got to trial, but I think that the public defender has an edge in the plea negotiations, and it is probably a wash in the pre-trial motion portion of a case. Don't get me wrong, there are some rogue prosecutors out there that will take a case to trial despite not having a very good case. And of course there are those high-profile cases, where typically everybody's mind is made up about guilt regardless of the evidence. But if a defendant actually goes to trial, the overwhelming probability is that he did it and is hoping to prevail upon the ignorance of a jury or on strategic jury nullification.

I graduated from the Florida State University in December and passed the bar exam in February. And I'm working in commercial real estate and business law, nothing remotely criminal. But since all the stuff I had to take to graduate law school and pass the bar is still fresh in my head, I decided to opine.

(Of course, you could probably tell that I was a business lawyer and not an idealistic criminal defense attorney by the fact that I keep referring to probabilities and efficiency. I'm not trying to be a pollyanna, none of what I say is any consolation to those that are wrongly accused, but at least we're not AS screwed up as we thought.)

The US criminal justice system needs no revolution, but just a tweaking. "Revolution" implies rewriting parts of the US constitution, and thus making our justice system more akin to Singapore's or the USSR's.