Mandatory minimum sentencing

[FUCK THE POLICE]

A mother of two, with one on the way, she moved from Oregon into her cousins' house in Nebraska to escape an abusive boyfriend. At the time, she was aware that her cousins were selling drugs but she did not take part, except when they asked her to wire money for them a few times. The house was busted and all adults were arrested. Because Hamedah was not really involved in the drug smuggling, she had no information to trade for a reduced sentence and was given a longer sentence than the conspiricy leaders, a natural life sentence of 27 years. After 10 years Hamedah was able to get her sentence reduced to 10 years, but the ruling was overturned because her judge did not follow the rules set out by Congress.

 

[uscitizen]

She particaped in the crime. This is a shame, but she apparently knowingly particiapted in illegal drug trade.
Which party has pushed hardest for mandatory drug sentencing laws ?

I even read somewhere that a politico was pushing for a 2 strike drug law.

 

[ib1yysguy]

There should be only one mandatory sentence - capital punishment for voting for Bush twice.

Everything else is unjust.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

She particaped in the crime. This is a shame, but she apparently knowingly particiapted in illegal drug trade.
Which party has pushed hardest for mandatory drug sentencing laws ?

I even read somewhere that a politico was pushing for a 2 strike drug law.

Of course she participated in the crime. That's obvious. But it's kind of silly that our laws gave her life for wiring money, and a few years for the guys that were out there shooting people and dealing the drugs. The laws are luckily starting to fall out of favor because of the many clear miscarriages of justice. Judges should decide sentences, not senseless politicians who are looking for a good slogan to say on their TV ad.

My thought is that we should give the criminal a month long stay in solitary confinement, then five years of probation in which they have to participate in group therapy. Solitary confinement is a very extreme punishment - a month of it would be very tough. Any longer than that and it may very well be considered torture. But the idea is to do something very harsh, as well as keeping them away from the general prison population (prisons have earned a nickname, "Crime training facilities"), for a short period of time. A month of reflection. And no matter how many times conservative fools say, "itsa common sense you canit refome no crimiinal", group therapy is proven to be the most effective way to prevent recividism. For sex offenders it cuts recividism rates more than in half. The group therapy for an extended period of time would further wean them back into normal society.

Hey, it's better than locking them up for 10 years, then throwing them out back into an alien society with a lot more criminal knowledge. Try to explain to me how that's going to reduce recividism. That just dumps them deeper into criminal society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprisonment#Psychiatric

"Programs that specifically target criminogenic needs (causal needs and problems), see a 19% reduction in reoffending.[7]

In support of the Responsivity Principle:
There is a 23% reduction in reoffending after participating in programs that use cognitive-behavioural methods to bring about changes in behaviour, thinking, and relationships.[8]

When all three of these principles are effectively applied, the impact on offending is a 26-32% reduction.[9][10] This is in comparison to a 3-7% increase in offending that is found with imprisonment."

 

[Beefy]

I even read somewhere that a politico was pushing for a 2 strike drug law.

Both parties are highly complicit in placing non violent drug offenders in prison, to the tune that we have more of our population in prison than any other country on the planet. And we put them in with violent offenders. The Republicans are a disgusting bunch, and the Democrats are about 95% as disgusting on this issue.

If the Republicans are Nazis, then the Democrats are Nazis too, but maybe they are about 5% less Nazi. I won't give their heartless, power hungry, whoring asses a fucking dimes worth of credit for it though. Both parties are diligently working very, very hard to continually serve these gross miscarriages of justice to the American people. We live in a goddamned police state.

Land of the Free? I guess that's all relative. The only two parties that have any say about it are trying to one-up eachother in the drug war. They can all burn in hell. Fuck em.

 

[ib1yysguy]

Both parties are highly complicit in placing non violent drug offenders in prison, to the tune that we have more of our population in prison than any other country on the planet. And we put them in with violent offenders. The Republicans are a disgusting bunch, and the Democrats are about 95% as disgusting on this issue.

If the Republicans are Nazis, then the Democrats are Nazis too, but maybe they are about 5% less Nazi. I won't give their heartless, power hungry, whoring asses a fucking dimes worth of credit for it though. Both parties are diligently working very, very hard to continually serve these gross miscarriages of justice to the American people. We live in a goddamned police state.

Land of the Free? I guess that's all relative. The only two parties that have any say about it are trying to one-up eachother in the drug war. They can all burn in hell. Fuck em.

Seriously, I just got back from walking to a favorite Mexican restaurant downtown with a friend there were 9-10 patrol cars parked in front with the lights going. They jumped out, grabbed a black guy, threw him on the hood, twisted his arm until he screamed, then took him away. Then they stood around looking tough for about 20 minutes.

It looked to me like a bar fight. But I tell ya, 10 patrol cars? Police state indeed.

 

[Beefy]

Seriously, I just got back from walking to a favorite Mexican restaurant downtown with a friend there were 9-10 patrol cars parked in front with the lights going. They jumped out, grabbed a black guy, threw him on the hood, twisted his arm until he screamed, then took him away. Then they stood around looking tough for about 20 minutes.

It looked to me like a bar fight. But I tell ya, 10 patrol cars? Police state indeed.

Its a show of force. The people that are supposed to "Protect and Serve" the community, actually become robot goons for the power brokers.

They become tax collectors, first and foremost, issuing tickets for stupid infractions, enforcing codes such as registration violations and "safety violations" like a busted taillight, then they become soldiers for the state. They come into people's homes for non-violent, victimless crimes and put guns in their faces. They raid and steal, impound and seize... They have all the power they need. They can use violence legally and we can't.

Now, its not to be said that they're completely corrupt, as all one has to do is go to Mexico to get a taste of that, but the fact remains that they are no longer "protectors and servers" of the community, but mere robotic operatives of the state.

But the sad truth is that any society needs a police force, and ultimately, the power they have, as with any authority, whether its the police, the judicial, the legislative, or the executive, the power becomes the end, rather than the means.

Imprisoning the amount of people we do, for non-violent, victimless "crimes", that is, things the government has decided we are not allowed to do, is a crime in and of itself.

The injustice this government does to its own people far, far outweights any justice it does acheive.

And you, wise guy, want it to have more power. You, wise guy, scoff at us libertarians who merely wish to have the government play the role it was Constitutionally empowered to do. You feign shock at abuses of power, when you want to give them MORE and MORE power. But, you're till a pretty cool guy, so don't start hatin on me.

 

[ib1yysguy]

Its a show of force. The people that are supposed to "Protect and Serve" the community, actually become robot goons for the power brokers.

They become tax collectors, first and foremost, issuing tickets for stupid infractions, enforcing codes such as registration violations and "safety violations" like a busted taillight, then they become soldiers for the state. They come into people's homes for non-violent, victimless crimes and put guns in their faces. They raid and steal, impound and seize... They have all the power they need. They can use violence legally and we can't.

Now, its not to be said that they're completely corrupt, as all one has to do is go to Mexico to get a taste of that, but the fact remains that they are no longer "protectors and servers" of the community, but mere robotic operatives of the state.

But the sad truth is that any society needs a police force, and ultimately, the power they have, as with any authority, whether its the police, the judicial, the legislative, or the executive, the power becomes the end, rather than the means.

Imprisoning the amount of people we do, for non-violent, victimless "crimes", that is, things the government has decided we are not allowed to do, is a crime in and of itself.

The injustice this government does to its own people far, far outweights any justice it does acheive.

And you, wise guy, want it to have more power. You, wise guy, scoff at us libertarians who merely wish to have the government play the role it was Constitutionally empowered to do. You feign shock at abuses of power, when you want to give them MORE and MORE power. But, you're till a pretty cool guy, so don't start hatin on me.

Government isn't corrupt by virtue of being government. Government is corrupt (in certain areas, not all) because of who is in charge (of those areas) and who runs those parts of government.

Can you tell me what the thing is that keeps the US police force from turning into the Mexican police force? It aint the constitution, brutha.

 

[Beefy]

Government isn't corrupt by virtue of being government. Government is corrupt (in certain areas, not all) because of who is in charge (of those areas) and who runs those parts of government.

Can you tell me what the thing is that keeps the US police force from turning into the Mexican police force? It aint the constitution, brutha.

Its corrupt in all areas friend. Its just a matter of to what degree it is corrupt. Power corrupts. that's pretty well a given. And that's why I'm on the side of less power rather than more.

 

[ib1yysguy]

Its corrupt in all areas friend. Its just a matter of to what degree it is corrupt. Power corrupts. that's pretty well a given. And that's why I'm on the side of less power rather than more.

That's a very simple way of making a choice between cutting health care for kids or giving guns to felons. It makes you come down on the wrong side of conscience sometimes.

Government can do bad, but it can do good. And it does a lot of good (scoff though you may initially, think about it then clean the spit off your monitor).

Rousseau would agree with you about the natural state of man and the ideallic nature of human society in the natural state of man (which, his critics point out, never actually existed). But like Rousseau, you're just holding up progress. We've made a lot of advances since the French revolution by way of government helping people and by gumbet, wouldn't you know that we're even more free than Rousseau was when he had his work blacklisted? Amazing.

Progress.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

You're just like Escobar IB1!

 

[ib1yysguy]

Viva la revilución.

 

[Beefy]

That's a very simple way of making a choice between cutting health care for kids or giving guns to felons. It makes you come down on the wrong side of conscience sometimes.

Lets get down to the root of the problem. I'm all for government assistance and even full coverage on healthcare for kids, and disabled people and folks who need it. I believe that this is a fundamental need and right, yes, you heard it from a libertarian, a right. However, I wholesale disagree with the way it has been implemented, suggested, proposed and the very infrastructue on which it is built. You see, the way it is, the government and the healthcare industry (from pharm companies, to the AMA) is akin to the fascist government ofItaly in the 1940's. There is a complete circumvention of people's interest at heart, until you go to the overall issue, then the government/corporation/medical industry claims to want to be some sort of altruistic, benevolent caregiver that the mean old ulgy libertarians don't want to do.

In a utshell, the state of healthcare in this country is a mess, mostly at the behest of the marriage between big government and big business. I don't wish to solve the problem by throwing fuel on the fire.

Government can do bad, but it can do good. And it does a lot of good (scoff though you may initially, think about it then clean the spit off your monitor).

I agree completely. However, i tend to believe that government, which has checks and balances primarily within itself, and that operates and lobbies primarily on large money, has shown a large propensity to act in its own self interests, as well as the interests of those funding it, and not the interest of the constituents it claims to represent.

Rousseau would agree with you about the natural state of man and the ideallic nature of human society in the natural state of man (which, his critics point out, never actually existed). But like Rousseau, you're just holding up progress. We've made a lot of advances since the French revolution by way of government helping people and by gumbet, wouldn't you know that we're even more free than Rousseau was when he had his work blacklisted? Amazing.

Progress.

Progress comes from within the human spirit, not from some authoritarian entity that has hijacked our collective souls. We have made progressive advances via the government, but more importantly, we have also given them power of attourney over our rights, our freedoms, and our inherent personal humanity.

You said it yourself. We live in a police state. You can praise the government that put us there, and wish for more of it, but don't expect me to follow suit.

 

[ib1yysguy]

Lets get down to the root of the problem. I'm all for government assistance and even full coverage on healthcare for kids, and disabled people and folks who need it. I believe that this is a fundamental need and right, yes, you heard it from a libertarian, a right. However, I wholesale disagree with the way it has been implemented, suggested, proposed and the very infrastructue on which it is built. You see, the way it is, the government and the healthcare industry (from pharm companies, to the AMA) is akin to the fascist government ofItaly in the 1940's. There is a complete circumvention of people's interest at heart, until you go to the overall issue, then the government/corporation/medical industry claims to want to be some sort of altruistic, benevolent caregiver that the mean old ulgy libertarians don't want to do.

In a utshell, the state of healthcare in this country is a mess, mostly at the behest of the marriage between big government and big business. I don't wish to solve the problem by throwing fuel on the fire.





I agree completely. However, i tend to believe that government, which has checks and balances primarily within itself, and that operates and lobbies primarily on large money, has shown a large propensity to act in its own self interests, as well as the interests of those funding it, and not the interest of the constituents it claims to represent.



Progress comes from within the human spirit, not from some authoritarian entity that has hijacked our collective souls. We have made progressive advances via the government, but more importantly, we have also given them power of attourney over our rights, our freedoms, and our inherent personal humanity.

You said it yourself. We live in a police state. You can praise the government that put us there, and wish for more of it, but don't expect me to follow suit.

I think very clearly we have an issue of fundamental disagreement here. While you accept the fact that government can do good for its people, you're reluctant to give power to it because of the bad it can also do. Where I, on the other hand, see the government doing good and want to see the government do more good and wish to see them have more power to do so.

It comes down to whether or not you think the government is fundamentally good or bad. Libertarians, like Reagan, are simpletons who think the government is bad by virtue of being the government. Any government is bad government and Rousseau and Locke had it right when they thought we should all be living in the woods without the impediments of society. However, the rest of the world is on board in the idea that government has problems but it's more good than bad and can be improved and strengthened at the same time for the benefit of all.

And for a guy who supposedly supports libertarian economics, why are you trying to subvert the free market by getting me to reveal where to steal some very expensive software? Seems like you should be calling the ghost of Milton Freedman.

 

[Beefy]

I think very clearly we have an issue of fundamental disagreement here. While you accept the fact that government can do good for its people, you're reluctant to give power to it because of the bad it can also do. Where I, on the other hand, see the government doing good and want to see the government do more good and wish to see them have more power to do so.

You're not reluctant? If you're really not reluctant, then you had better reexamine your place. The government, surprisingly enough, worlks for us, not themselves, not some big company, not a special interest, but for us, you and me. And yes, I'm not ashamed to admit that I am reluctant to give them more power, because in a sense, it is a zero sum game. Whatever power I give them, is a power I relinquish myself. So yes, I am reluctant, and I think andone who isn't reluctant is a complacent fool, even if they're a nice enough guy with good advice on bit torrents and such.

It comes down to whether or not you think the government is fundamentally good or bad. Libertarians, like Reagan, are simpletons who think the government is bad by virtue of being the government. Any government is bad government and Rousseau and Locke had it right when they thought we should all be living in the woods without the impediments of society. However, the rest of the world is on board in the idea that government has problems but it's more good than bad and can be improved and strengthened at the same time for the benefit of all.

That's a completely fallacious argument. And it is exactly what is wrong with your side of the aisle. In this very thread I have shown that I believe that government is necessary, and that it serves its purpose. I am not an anarchist, and I understand that government has its role. The very fact that you must rearrange my words suggests that you must construct straw men to compete with in order to win.

Government is what it is. It has acheived many good and necessary objectives that have helped society progress. But that isn't going to cause me to give them carte blanch in every endeavor they decide to do. I'm going to look at them with distrust, and you're going to look the other way. You tell me which is better. At least I'm looking at them.

And for a guy who supposedly supports libertarian economics, why are you trying to subvert the free market by getting me to reveal where to steal some very expensive software? Seems like you should be calling the ghost of Milton Freedman.

I don't know what you're talking about. But if I did, I would merely say that I was exploring every avenue within my reach. And since I don't know what you're talking about I haven't acted upon anything.

 

[ib1yysguy]

Since I'm going to bed, I feel the need only to reply to the idea that I'm constructing a "straw man" to refute you PERSONALLY. You are a self described libertarian. That puts you in the camp of folks who are, in effect, anarchists. Whatever personal nuances you have to weasel your way out of this are fine and immaterial to the fact that libertarians are by and large collectively anarchists (though each one individually will argue otherwise - watch what happens later in this thread: [...] ) at heart. At the core of libertarian philosophy is anarchy via Locke and Rousseau. Sorry, personal excuses aside.

Apart from that that, I see a lot of "blah blah blah" about the government having too much power and shouldn't I be ashamed for wanting to give them more since they're already helping so many people. We should take it away and continue to take power away until they're hurting too many people then we should start all over again and rebuild society because you dont agree with "even the framework."

Fuck off dude. Come up with workable solutions and find a way to make it work within our current societal construct or just fuck off and drown yourself in a hot tub because you're not helping anything. Coming along and saying that both parties are wrong and we should scrap everything because the "framework" as you put it (you did say it, look again) is wrong is totally useless. Sorry.

 

[ib1yysguy]

Sorry, you didn't say "framework" according to my find feature but you did say something so similar that I conflated it in my head and therefore you are guilty of saying the same thing.

 

[Beefy]

Since I'm going to bed, I feel the need only to reply to the idea that I'm constructing a "straw man" to refute you PERSONALLY. You are a self described libertarian. That puts you in the camp of folks who are, in effect, anarchists. Whatever personal nuances you have to weasel your way out of this are fine and immaterial to the fact that libertarians are by and large collectively anarchists (though each one individually will argue otherwise - watch what happens later in this thread: [...] ) at heart. At the core of libertarian philosophy is anarchy via Locke and Rousseau. Sorry, personal excuses aside.

Apart from that that, I see a lot of "blah blah blah" about the government having too much power and shouldn't I be ashamed for wanting to give them more since they're already helping so many people. We should take it away and continue to take power away until they're hurting too many people then we should start all over again and rebuild society because you dont agree with "even the framework."

Fuck off dude. Come up with workable solutions and find a way to make it work within our current societal construct or just fuck off and drown yourself in a hot tub because you're not helping anything. Coming along and saying that both parties are wrong and we should scrap everything because the "framework" as you put it (you did say it, look again) is wrong is totally useless. Sorry.

I'm afraid I cannot simply "fuck off". The fact that you, Mr Wiseguy, have resorted to such a monumentally powerful argument as "fuck off", leaves me wishing I had a rebuttal. But those words sum it up. How can I possibly retort to such a powerful, conclusive argument? It simply can't be done. Perhaps I could co-author a book on reason and argument with you called "Mr. Wiseguy says 'Fuck off'"?

Anyhow, you ought to trade in that broad brush you wave around for a little bit of objectivity. Impugning the integrity and opinion of everyone who identifies themselves as a libertarian by suggesting that 100% of us are anarchistic lunatics begs the question: Does Mr Wiseguy know what he's talking about?

You seem to think that if the government were to get just a little more power in certain arenas, then certain problems would be solved. I say that they have enough power, and that it should be redirected, it should be used more wisely.

Anyhow, I bought a car yesterday. And its a decent ride.

 

[ib1yysguy]

I win.

 

[Beefy]

I win.

Dammit.