• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Barack Obama cuts short jail sentences of 214 prisoners

That presumes a lot not in evidence.

All I was pointing out:
"Federal grassroots campaign for Federal prisons" & sentencing for that matter.
"State grassroots campaign for State prisons" & sentencing for that matter.

That, and the observation that it is only due to the criminal's own decisions which landed them in prison. On the road to get there, there are lots of wake up calls, which all would have to go unheeded in order to land in prison.

Do you believe in rehabilitation or not?
 
I thought Obama wanted to give felons the right to vote.

Push to restore voting rights for felons gathers momentum | MSNBC

The article you linked to deals with giving ex-felons the right to vote, and you apparently are unable to distinguish between Obama and other people.

Many state restrictions on felon voting were imposed in the wake of Reconstruction, as the South looked for ways to suppress black political power. But now, the falling crime rates of the last two decades have prompted a broader reassessment of tough-on-crime policies. Meanwhile, the ongoing Republican-led assault on voting has triggered a backlash that aims to expand, rather than contract, voting rights.

On Wednesday, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), backed by an array of civil- and voting-rights groups, introduced a bill that would restore voting rights for federal elections to Americans with past criminal convictions upon their release from incarceration. That came on the heels of a similar but more limited bill introduced last month by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) that would apply only to non-violent offenders.

Returning the right to vote to people who've served out their sentences is an idea gaining traction across the political spectrum.
 
Do you believe in rehabilitation or not?

I believe that some who've run afoul of the laws can rehabilitation themselves, yes. But I don't think that it's universal.
 
I believe that some who've run afoul of the laws can rehabilitation themselves, yes. But I don't think that it's universal.

But if it recidivism is high and education programs result in less recidivism, would you support more universal efforts to apply that success?
 
But if it recidivism is high and education programs result in less recidivism, would you support more universal efforts to apply that success?

I would.

However, I'd insist on a carefully graduated and measured progress for each individual. If they start black sliding, lacking discipline, disrespecting authority, not completing their assigned classwork, as examples, I believe they should forfeit their opportunity that education would have granted them, in favor of someone else who will take advantage of the opportunity. Let's face it. This is the school of absolute last resort.
 
I would.

However, I'd insist on a carefully graduated and measured progress for each individual. If they start black sliding, lacking discipline, disrespecting authority, not completing their assigned classwork, as examples, I believe they should forfeit their opportunity that education would have granted them, in favor of someone else who will take advantage of the opportunity. Let's face it. This is the school of absolute last resort.

Okay, so what's the problem here? Since education programs absolutely work, why not press to implement them universally?

I think it's absolutely nuts that there would be any disagreement over the idea of implementing a program that is known to lessen the likelihood that a criminal will transgress and return to crime. Rationally speaking, this is such a "gimme" that it should transcend political differences.
 
Okay, so what's the problem here? Since education programs absolutely work, why not press to implement them universally?
Within the bounds and constraints of states rights, sure.

I think it's absolutely nuts that there would be any disagreement over the idea of implementing a program that is known to lessen the likelihood that a criminal will transgress and return to crime. Rationally speaking, this is such a "gimme" that it should transcend political differences.

Not sure, but I don't think I took that position, that I was disagreeing with education and rehabilitation for the incarcerated. None the less, stepping through the thought process with you here has been worthwhile, I think.
 
Within the bounds and constraints of states rights, sure.



Not sure, but I don't think I took that position, that I was disagreeing with education and rehabilitation for the incarcerated. None the less, stepping through the thought process with you here has been worthwhile, I think.

The disagreement, it would seem, is over whether the rehabilitation programs are State or Federally implemented. My position is that that differentiation is utterly irrelevant to implementing a program that reduces transgression of criminals. Since there are State and Federal prisons, then State and Federal governments should implement such policies. However, there is a strong "tough on crime" principle that makes grassroots support for such policies extremely difficult, and therefore implementation of rehabilitation programs will be extremely inconsistently applied.
 
The disagreement, it would seem, is over whether the rehabilitation programs are State or Federally implemented. My position is that that differentiation is utterly irrelevant to implementing a program that reduces transgression of criminals. Since there are State and Federal prisons, then State and Federal governments should implement such policies. However, there is a strong "tough on crime" principle that makes grassroots support for such policies extremely difficult, and therefore implementation of rehabilitation programs will be extremely inconsistently applied.

Well, that kinda like how it is in the real world, through no fault of either you or me, nor probably anyone on this forum.
 
Well, that kinda like how it is in the real world, through no fault of either you or me, nor probably anyone on this forum.

Actually, it's the fault of the American voters. Every time a candidate who runs on a "tough on crime" platform is elected, it's us who vote for him. We're the reason why we have things like minimum sentencing, asset forfeiture, disparate applications of successful rehabilitation programs and the War on Drugs. If we didn't vote out of fear, we would not get the leaders who create such policy.

Next time, don't vote for the guy who brags that he's tough on crime, and if enough of us do that you'll see a difference.
 
Actually, it's the fault of the American voters. Every time a candidate who runs on a "tough on crime" platform is elected, it's us who vote for him. We're the reason why we have things like minimum sentencing, asset forfeiture, disparate applications of successful rehabilitation programs and the War on Drugs. If we didn't vote out of fear, we would not get the leaders who create such policy.

Next time, don't vote for the guy who brags that he's tough on crime, and if enough of us do that you'll see a difference.

Vote for the guy runs on a "soft on crime platform"?
Problem is, they'll probably have a bunch of other planks in their platform which isn't going to gain traction with the electorate.
 
Vote for the guy runs on a "soft on crime platform"?
Problem is, they'll probably have a bunch of other planks in their platform which isn't going to gain traction with the electorate.

Your "Vote for the guy runs on a "soft on crime platform" comment makes my point. If it comes down to hard vs soft platforms, and you vote for the tough on crime guy, then you're going to get the minimum sentencing, asset forfeiture, disparate applications of successful rehabilitation programs and the War on Drugs. You can't put that on any leader but yourself.
 
Simpleχity;1066163518 said:
While technically a nonviolent crime, the trafficking/distribution of illegal narcotics is insidious nonetheless

Eh, it's just supply meeting demand. The only insidious parts of the trade result from the illegality, and therefore high value, of what is being traded.
 
It's been a long time coming. Political platforms have been shills for the prison industrial complex long enough. Imagine if candidacy for public office required wearing your sponsors like NASCAR drivers. You might not see for profit prisons, but clemency doesn't seem to be a selling point, either.
RSlj4.jpg


Remember the Clinton administration and being "tough on crime?"

Although Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan are largely responsible for the drug-war policies that caused the prison population to skyrocket, Bill Clinton was a “tough on crime” president who continued their ideas. And Vice President Joe Biden was a principal player in the Clinton era’s crime policies—he wrote the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which, among other things, called for $9.7 billion in increased funding for prisons and stiffer penalties for drug offenders.

Though the US prison population is shrinking slightly, the number of inmates in federal lockup is increasing, and while Obama keeps saying he’s ending the war on drugs, he’s also proposed budgets that call for increasing the amount of money spent on the Bureau of Prisons. So it’s not such a stretch that a Democratic donor would also be in the men-in-cages industry.

It would be nice to see a comparison of the front-runners of today's campaign. Trump keeps saying that he's self funded, but he has private donors just like HRC. I wonder who is bankrolling them and how that will influence the state.
 
Quite possibly. If I recall, the over all trend for people who've been in prison is to re-offend with more serious crimes than the last times. So while these people may have been in prison for non-violence crimes, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that they'd re-offend with violence crimes? And if so, on whom are would they be inflicting their violent crimes? Innocent citizens?

If all that adds up and follows, wouldn't a reasonable conclusion be that Obama has enabled the death and injury on innocent US citizens?

Using that logic no one should be released from prison. Ever. What's wrong with you?
 
Using that logic no one should be released from prison. Ever. What's wrong with you?

I hear a volunteer for resettling all the released rapists, murders, drug dealers and pedophiles into your neighborhood.
Just have to buy a few houses and convert them into 1/2 way houses, and you'll be happy then, right?
 
Quite possibly. If I recall, the over all trend for people who've been in prison is to re-offend with more serious crimes than the last times. So while these people may have been in prison for non-violence crimes, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that they'd re-offend with violence crimes? And if so, on whom are would they be inflicting their violent crimes? Innocent citizens?

If all that adds up and follows, wouldn't a reasonable conclusion be that Obama has enabled the death and injury on innocent US citizens?

lol... And here folks we have vocal support for a "Minority Report" society where one can be detained for what they are told they will do in the future.
 
I thought that we had programs for that already. Yet somehow a 30% recidivism rate, IIRC, is still the case.

No, because republicans are for "tough on crime" stupidity that treats prisons as "out of sight out of mind" and then sit back and point fingers at those in prison rather than trying to foster a system that realized that they will one day be released back among us.
 
I praise Obama on this based on my limited knowledge. I am well aware of one case where the man was given a life sentence. I sat through his trial, I had prosecuted a forfeiture case against property found in his possession-property he did not claim so we won on summary judgment. He had two minor state court convictions that resulted in a total of about 18 months of actual prison time. A mule flipped on him and the jury was convinced the mule was truthful. The man got life without parole for attempted possession of trafficking weight cocaine. about the same time this case was being tried, two guys were being tried for armed bank robbery where one of the criminals blew off the breast of a 21 year old or so lady teller -apparently because his gun was in such poor condition he had to physically hold the hammer back with his thumb and he slipped. he only got 18 or so years for permanently maiming a young lady. So I am glad Obama commuted the drug dealer's sentence to what is essentially 20 years. If I had been judge, I would have given the guy maybe five years. He never killed anyone, never threatened anyone, never carried a weapon.

This is why I respect libetarians far far more than I do the GOP.
 
lol... And here folks we have vocal support for a "Minority Report" society where one can be detained for what they are told they will do in the future.

Barack would never let that happen! Unless it was the surveillance state and it was in order to prevent terrorism during a time of war.

tmw2013-06-12colorlarge.jpg
 
No, because republicans are for "tough on crime" stupidity that treats prisons as "out of sight out of mind" and then sit back and point fingers at those in prison rather than trying to foster a system that realized that they will one day be released back among us.

Republicans, eh?
The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, H.R. 3355, Pub.L. 103–322 is an Act of Congress dealing with crime and law enforcement; it became law in 1994. It is the largest crime bill in the history of the United States and consisted of 356 pages that provided for 100,000 new police officers, $9.7 billion in funding for prisons and $6.1 billion in funding for prevention programs, which were designed with significant input from experienced police officers.[SUP][1][/SUP] Sponsored by Representative Jack Brooks of Texas, the bill was originally written by Senator Joe Biden of Delaware and then was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_Crime_Control_and_Law_Enforcement_Act

Who signed this into law?

Now Rob, why not read the rather good conversation that Cardinal and I had no the topic. K?

Or are you also volunteering to resettling all the released rapists, murders, drug dealers and pedophiles into your neighborhood.
Just have to buy a few houses and convert them into 1/2 way houses, and you'll be happy then, right?
 
The article you linked to deals with giving ex-felons the right to vote, and you apparently are unable to distinguish between Obama and other people.

Clearly the poster to which you're responding wants nothing more than to celebrate Fox News and hate on Obama. That's the extent of it.
 
Back
Top Bottom