Peterson "Death Penalty, OT. Options

[dmenche914]

I believe prison can be for re-hab, for first offense of minor crimes. But after a chain of crimes, or one very bad crime, re-had is not the thing. The purpose of prison or death is to remove that bad person from society, hence no more crime can be committed by that person. There is also deterent value. Prison or death has got to be a deterent, if we had no jails, nor exectutions, the crime rate would go up. Punishment does reduce crime, and punishment can in some cases lead to re-hab.

I am for short, but hard labour jail times for first offenders of minor crimes. A short term, means that person can get out and hopefully get on with life. The term should not be pleasent, no TV, only educational books, and work for 12 hours a day. They could all live in tents in the desert, cheap, and hopefully effective in preventing future crime.

for repeat, or very bad crimes, look them up, again in not a plesant place, but keep them in longer.

It would be cheap, break the prison gaurd union (which the former deposed govenor was on the take with, giving them expensive pensions) and I believe highly effective. The hard work , and tent life would make preison bad enough that the bad guys realy won't want to come back to it. and it will cost very little to house those that repeat offend or are really bad to start with.

Screw billion dollar new prisons, can't afford them, and I believe they are NOT effective at preventing crime like a tent and 12 hour labour day woud be, all for less cost. Win, win.


PS what was all the fasination with peterson (more like peter repository now!!!!). Hell there are many murders every day. The press really ran with this one. I could see all the press coverage with OJ, he had fame before the trial, but perterson, and with wife were average folks, no diofferent than other killers/victums.

Amazing the media hype on this case, amazing.

peterson was niether black, southern, nor indigent, If some groups of folks seem to be convicted more than others groups of folks does not mean that there is an injustice, maybe some groups commit more crimes than others, or live in states that have a higher prosecution rate. I suspect indigents might be more likely to commit a crime, than an average person with a job, and house. Street people often have drug or drink problems that help lead to crime at a higher rate than those with homes. For southerners, maybe the D.A. in those areas do a better job at prosectuion, and the cops might be better (hell out here the cops spend too much time in transgender awarness classes and crap like that, when they should be busting up criminals, doubt there is that much BS for the cops to deal with in the South, at least in rural areas. maybe southerners commit more crimes??? As far as black folks (stepping on a landmine here) could it be that maybe as a general group, there is more crime with them? (I am not stating this as a fact, just offering it as an explaination for the higher incarceration rate for one group, I in no way would single out an individual, and suspect them of crime just because of race) maybe the high level of fatherless children in that group (and that is a fact) leads to more crime as the kids grow up? I have read that a fatherless kid is more likely to engage in crime, drugs, drink than one with a dad, regardless of race. With more black kids fatherless than say oriental kids, does it not makes sense that maybe more black kids as a general statistic get into trouble? It has nothing to do with race, but a lot to do with the enviroment that they are raised in.

At any rate, no system is perfect, but i do not think is right to blame the courts for the supposed un-even incarceration of certain groups, by race, wealth, or location. There maybe some problems, but then again, maybe more homeless folks actually do commit more crimes than folks that own homes.

[dmenche914]

for suicide bombers, the threat of nuking mecca and that god damn rock them monkeys ride the merry go round chanting death to America would be a good deterent. Islamic terrorists do not fear death (ask peterson if he fears death. He commited his crime thinking he wouldn't be caught no doubt) The lslamic thugs do fear being killed in an unclean state, so toss pig lard on the corpses, that was used as a deterent in the mid east by British colonists, and it worked.

Islamics do not care about there own life (suicide bomb) they do not care about there own children (lets strap a bomb on a 13 year old, and send her out to die)

They care about nothing except there rotten murderous religion, and the holy cities that they pray too, hence threaten to nuke all their holy cities. That is the only way to deter islamic mad men. (or just kill them and be done with it)

For most of the rest of us, we fear loss of life, and loss of freedom, hence those things are used to deter crime here.

[wheelo]

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/spank.gif)
Do the Crime Do the Time !

Society Demands-It.... Life is too precious to waste !

These "Animals" should be in a cage... I don't want them anywhere near my daughters... And, I am willing to pay $$$, for their safety !!!

Evil people do exist .... and the good people need to deal with them harshly....
preventing the worst of outcomes...

No-one wants to be the BAD-Guy.... yet, we must punish wrong-doer's !

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/spank.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/spank.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/spank.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/spank.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/spank.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/spank.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/spank.gif)

[Alison Baker]

I have been studying Criminal Justice .majoring in Forensic's and YES they had enough evidence for him to go down....I had been watching the case for 2 yrs.now thats finished I am watching the Robert Blakes Murder Case.....
"Rot in Hell Peterson" even though its on the Tax PAyers money

[Downunderman]

It made the press down here this morning:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Photos-cl...2787084607.html

[Robert21]

just because you write 10.000 words . does not make your
points right its over and i don't need to go over the case again

[Alison Baker]

just because you write 10.000 words . does not make your
points right its over and i don't need to go over the case again

I feel the anger in these words

[Robert21]

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif) no anger just not the right place for this

[Rgreen914]

Peterson is being sent to CMF in Vacaville till the 25th February when he gets his sentenced served...

Sorry Alison...Peterson can't be transported to "Wacky-ville" or any other state facility because technicallly, he has not yet been sentenced to the Department of Corrections; until the "body" arrives at San Quentin with an "Abstract of Judgement" (indicating his sentence), he still belongs to San Mateo County!

Ron

[Rgreen914]

CA has an alarming felon recidivism rate:

Jeff

I have to admit, that I myself did much to increase those recidivism rates during my 15 years as a Parole Agent for the California Department of Corrections! If a convicted felon who is on parole continues to commit crime...he needs to go back to prison!!! The advantage Parole Agents have (and the reason that most cops "love" working with agents) is that the agent can lock up the parolee based only on a "reasonable suspicion" that a crime has been committed; no trial, no judge and no expense for the county! That is because the parolee is considered to still be in the custody of the state while he is on the streets/parole; arresting the parolee, is simply "elevating his custody status". And since the parolee is still in the custody of the state, he and his property is subject to a search at any time without the need for a warrant; think of this power as a "cell search" on a more extensive basis. When you lock them up for minor things, like drug use, sometimes, you catch them before they "get on a roll" and do something really horrendous. The unfortunate reality is that most of these people are "career criminals" and nothing you do, to them or for them, will alter their lifestyle appreciably!

Ron

[dmenche914]

hasn't the three stikes law reduced repeat crimminal in CA? Hell if they are locked up, they can't continue crime outside. Only problem is the big cost, cause the politicians want big expensive prisons, and give huge benifits to the prison guards, whose union is a big campaign contributor.

Barbed wire, land mines,a nd tents, all could cheaply be had from military surplus, and would make a great prison. Give teh few gaurds needed a decent pay, but stop this pension crap, taxpayers shouldn't be giving money to folks that are no longer working, ecspecially when the pension deals are made by crooked politicains that recieve money from the prison guard union.

I submit our crime problem, and high cost of prisons is the direct result of politicians failing to do the right thing, but instead doing what benifits the politician.

Bunch of crap I thinks

[phantom914]

Without bothering to address why there is not supposed to be a role of revenge in the justice department, let alone the fact that the criminal justice system is not even intended to punish or warehouse convicts but to rehabilitate them, or for that matter, that execution does not deter others from comitting heinous crimes, let's just look at this one particular matter.

Scott P might have killed his wife. He very likely did, for all the little facts I know (I sure as hell did not follow the case because I did not know the family and the media circus was unattractive when we are embroiled in two wars); but then lots of peoples' behavior looks bad and there are now literally hundreds of people convicted to die who were later found to be factually innocent of their crimes. (Many of them even confessed; educated people do amazing things under duress.) So if you think that the trial proved it, you are kidding yourselves. He is, as we say, "guilty" of killing his wife but that is just a finding from the jury. It does not mean he did so.

When it is the state versus you, the playing field is anything but level and the state typically does a very, very poor job; it is only their resources that permit them to win. OJ had resources to match and you saw what happened.

Rehabilitation is not the "purpose" of imprisonment, although it has been the often misguided intention and assumption of many policy makers. If rehabilitation is possible, and it is not always, fine, but the only sure thing imprisonment accomplishes is protecting the rest of the population from further crime while the perpetrator is in jail.

As far as the death penalty, I am certainly not against it in cases when there is no doubt about guilt. As far as other cases, I don't want to debate it here.


Andrew

[Rgreen914]

demenche914

The "Three Strikes" law was enacted to deal with criminals who repeatedly commit violent or "serious" felonies; who have a prior history of same. Some of us feel it indeed does an admirable job of dealing with habitual violent offenders; by the way, there are many states which also have these "habitual criminal" laws, California's version just happens to be the most famous. Unfortunately, the "less serious" offenders (petty thieves, drug users and dealers, car thieves, etc.), make up a large majority of the prison population and they are painfully aware of the Three Strikes Law and steer well clear of involvement with it. They are, as we say, "doing life on the installment plan". For this group, the Three Strikes Law has no importance as they will never commit a crime that draws them into it's realm of application. In 1977, the California State Legislature passed the Determinate Sentence Law (DSL) which mandates, that except for some serious crimes, the bulk of felony behavior will be punished with a determinate sentence; that means that the punishment for most felonies is a "base-term" of 16 months (possibly 2 years or 3 years depending on other factors). In addition, the state enacted the "work incentive program" ("good time/work time" credit provision), which means that if you work full-time or go to school full-time, stay discliplinary "free" during your incarceration, you will get half-time off your sentence! The number of felony cases continues to flood the court system and with the criminals pretty much knowing the length of the sentence they are facing, plea bargaining is rampant in the system, allowing the criminals to "get away with murder", or more pricisely, a much lighter sentence, but saving countless taxpayer dollars by foregoing a full-blown trial.

Just for your information, outside of every prison in this state, there is a (PLO) Prison Law Office that is manned by a bevy of anxious ACLU attorneys just waiting to sue the state for any- and every-thing that a prisoner says happens! You cannot begin to imagine how many law suits are generated by inmates; many of them are filed by the inmates themselves because they are allowed, by law, almost unlimited access to the prison "law library". If you pay taxes in California, you would be appalled by how much of you taxes go to fighting inmates' law suits, most of them frivolous!

As for the Department of Corrections' retirement plan [more precisely, California Public Employees' Retirement System (CALPERS)], the rate of payment is based on at least 20 years' service and being at least age 55 at time of retirement. For every year of service, you will receive 3% of your salary (at time of retirement) X the number of years of service up to a maximum of 85% of you salary; if less than 55 at time of retirement, you receive less than the 3%. This is same retirement formula used by almost every law enforcement agency in this state!

Ron

[rhodyguy]

i avoided this one so there would be a few pages of entertainment. re "cushy retirement", i wish you could explain that to my cousin who is currently a CO for the state of new york. the test of fire fire for him was duty at attica when he was fresh out of the academy. you know, they don't pack firearms, they walk the corridors surrounded by the enemy, they too are in prison while at work. it takes a strong individual to handle the job and the turn over rate is fairly high during the first years on the job. an under paid profession, that few people want, and fewer can handle. i applaud them for keeping the mutts knuckled under. i once asked my cousin about the potential for retribution from a parolee. he pulled the truck over and showed me his 38 cal revolver, "i would just introduce them to the pup cuz". (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

kevin

[dmenche914]

Tell your cousin this:
I respect your work, and risk you take but,
Keep the prison guard union out of politics.

Our govenor accepted a big "donation" from the union right after he increased their pension. It was plainly a payoff, the Govenor got his money, by giving away mine, and the future generations.

The public employee pension plan is costing my state more and more every year. Many of the state unions are big "donators" to the politicians that give them my money.

The pension thing is a scam in my opinion. the reason why is thus: (bare with me on this)

The state unlike a private company need make no profit, and can increase income by raising taxes, and floating bonds (which is in itself another issue of stealing from future generations, except in the case of using bond money for long term projects that will benefit people the term of the bond (20-30 years0 something like a damn, or roadway)

If the State was a company, and the politcian the CEO, it would be like the rank and file employees getting the union to pay off the CEO to get a better pension deal. That would be warped, and in the business world, might lead to prison time for the CEO.

Also since the state need not make a profit, the "CEO" does not care how much he spends, or wastes, and besides, If the deal with the uniion is for increased pension, rather than salary (most private sector jobs do not have pensions), the "CEO" can still claim a "balanced" budget, until the employees start to retire, many years after the CEO has left office, thus the "share holders" (taxpayers) won't get screwed right away, at least not until the CEO is retired.


One of the big excuses my city has for cutting city services, is the overwhelming pension costs now coming due, thanks to some rotten politicians years ago that took bribes, and then figures a way to payback the union in installments with a pension system, thus avoiding busting the budget while that politician is still in office.

The Pension system is not right, give the employess the money up front, and allow them to invest and save for retirement. Be honest with the taxpayers by having the true cost of paying the employees be upfront, not left for a future generation to have to deal with. The pensions just allow politicians to shift the budget on the future.

Few if any private sector jobs have a 55 year retirement age. for the rest of us not fourtunate to have a CEO, that can be bribed by unions for benifits, and with no regard for the future debt of the "company" All we get is our own savings, and oh yes, that bankrupted, unconstitutional pyrimid scheme called socialist security (retirement age expected to be 72 years by the time I get to it, if there is any left at all).

For what I got (and I am exposed to deadly risk daily at my work) with social security as my only pension, a 55 year old retirement at 85% pay (with cost of living adjustments no doubt) sounds pretty damn cushy, seeing as I will have to work an additional 17 years, and recieve considerably less than half my salary, if even that much

Pay a fair wage for a days work, and rid the world of publis employee pension plans, they are scams.