• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Liberal,Middle, Conservative, NeoConservative.

CaptainCourtesy said:
No, actually it's kinda like saying, 'I don't agree with your position, but I will defend your right to say/have it.'
Click to expand...

No I'm not defending the OP's position on anything and neither is the OP. There's nothing left to say about it.
 
Originally posted by Morty:
Well, now we have a nice jump point to continue my agruments against the War on Drugs. The reason many violent criminals are serving such low sentences is that the prisons simply don't have room for them. Why? Because of the amount of people in jail for non-violent crime that pose no threat to the community - by far the largest of these groups is drug-related offenders. The amount of drug-related offenders in prison in the United States right now is more than all the people in prison for any crime in all of the EU. And guess what, Europe's population is much higher (about 200 million more). And what are we doing by putting non-violent criminals in jail? We are creating violent criminals. You said it yourself, once people go to jail their chance of going back is greatly increased. We are basically training the next wave of criminals. I've never been to jail, so I can't speak from personal experience. But from what I've heard, once you go to jail for an extended period of time, even just a year, you will come out changed. You have a whole new set of morals, because you would have never survived without creating a new mentality. And it isn't some light switch that you can just turn back off as soon as you are out of the big house. Are there cases of people coming out of jail and then leading successful lives? Absolutely. But the government sure doesn't make it easy on them. Think about this: You are one of the millions of non-violent criminals sent to jail. Let's say you were in possession of pot, a good amount, and you got 2 years. Now fast-forward. You are out of prison. Somehow, through it all, you kept a good attitude and used your time in the slammer as a learning experience. But now you have to rebuild your life in the real world. Going to find a new job? Yeah, not so easy when you have to put "felon" on your application. Maybe you live in a bad neighbor, can't afford anything better with the terrible job you have now (because no one else would accept you). Wanna buy a weapon to protect yourself? Sorry - felons not allowed. Well now you have to live in fear of robbery or worse all the time. Jeez, things aren't really looking up for you now. But you remember something that a friend you made in jail told you about. A gang of his in your area. You could have protection, opportunity to rise up economically, etc. Or you can be stuck in the dangerous, run down area you live for the rest of your days. Now crime is looking a bit more like the ONLY choice, isn't it?
I agree that murderers getting such lenient sentences is ridiculous. I agree that violent criminals should be locked away. But non-violent criminals should have alternate forms of punishment that don't put further strain on the society they have already burdened with their criminal activity. Fines, loss of property, community service, etc would be a much better way of dealing with non-violent criminals than the current system of locking them up. Especially considering that it won't lead them to greater crime in most cases.
Also, although I know that liberal judges can often be a problem, placing too many minimums on sentences is dangerous as well. Judges are there to look at the circumstances surrounding the crime and make judgments on how long that particular offense deserves in punishment. Too high of minimums defeats the purpose of judges, and so should be avoided in all cases, as a legislator off in Washington cannot possibly predict every possible circumstance when setting a minimum.
Click to expand...
I have been to jail. One night here, a weekend there. Nothing major, but it gave me some insight to how the system works. And you pretty much are hitting the nail on the head. The biggest problem with over-crowding are these mandatory sentencing drug laws. So you got these non-violent people that have to do time, and it seems like the whole world has been turned upside down. Everything is broken up according to race. Hispanics with hispanics, blacks with blacks, woods with woods. Each group has certain dudes called shot-callers (usually because their big enough to kick someone's a.s.s) that the guards depend on to keep order within the groups. Believe it or not, one of the safest places to do time, at least in the county jail, is the gang modules. There, things are based on respect. But if you diss someone, there will be consequences. The Level 3 yard is where you got a lot of young punks trying to make a name for themselves by acting all bad and trying to start fights so they can get a reputation. But their not fooling anyone. I guess that's the same with young people in any situation. They just don't seem to realize, their not news!

I always found it funny they call it Dept. of Corrections.

What are they correcting?

We have more people incarcerated than any nation on earth. If they want to stop crime, stop making so many god-damn laws!
 
Originally Posted by disneydude
Once again....you are only seeing what you want to see.
Click to expand...
It's called Stingervision!

Or more commonly known as The Republican Matrix. Where reality is only what you can get people to believe.

storyvw9.jpg



http://www.consortiumnews.com/2003/060103a.html
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
pstdkid he asked you which one you were...he didnt ask you to bitch about liberals.
Click to expand...

I don't see anywhere in his original post where he asks a damn thing...the entire post was just a list of BS definitions. Just where in that post did he ask which one you were?

BubbaBob
 
BubbaBob said:
I don't see anywhere in his original post where he asks a damn thing...the entire post was just a list of BS definitions. Just where in that post did he ask which one you were?

BubbaBob
Click to expand...

The title wasn't explanatory enough for you?
Plus, the fact that he gave definitions, and just definitions, pretty much implied that you should tell which one you are and what part of that philosphy you agree/disagree with. At least that's what I inferred... :neutral:
 
Morty said:
The title wasn't explanatory enough for you?
Plus, the fact that he gave definitions, and just definitions, pretty much implied that you should tell which one you are and what part of that philosphy you agree/disagree with. At least that's what I inferred... :neutral:
Click to expand...

No...that is what you ASSUMED...and we all know about assuming. There was no question asked and if the thread would have been about what you were, wouldn't it have been in the "Poll" section? As for the thread title, just where does it ask a question? On my computer there is no question mark in the title...just a list of group names/titles.

BubbaBob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom