(Close Window)
Topic: 1 In Every 99 Americans Now Behind Bars
Message: Posted by: balducci (Feb 28, 2008 04:54PM)
http://wcbstv.com/national/prison.americans.prison.2.665053.html

So the question I have is, which of you off topic forum posters is a jailbird posting from inside some correctional facility?

Do I need to include a smiley face?

Here you go: :)
Message: Posted by: MitchMagic (Feb 28, 2008 05:10PM)
Another fun fact! 900,000 Americans are on the USA watch list.

Mitch
Message: Posted by: state (Feb 28, 2008 05:11PM)
Just Visiting
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Feb 28, 2008 05:31PM)
I only live in the same town as Sing Sing ... but have been told I'm a prisoner of my job. :(
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 28, 2008 06:13PM)
[quote]
Preliminary figures indicate that, as a whole, law enforcement agencies throughout the Nation reported a decrease of 1.8 percent in the number of violent crimes brought to their attention in the first half of 2007 when compared with figures reported for the first six months of 2006. The violent crime category includes murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. The number of property crimes in the United States from January to June of 2007 decreased 2.6 percent when compared with data from the same time period in 2006. Property crimes include burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. Arson is also a property crime, but data for arson are not included in property crime totals. Figures for 2007 indicate that arson decreased 9.7 percent in the first half of the year when compared to 2006 figures for the same time period.
[/quote]


Posted: Feb 28, 2008 7:14pm
--------------------------------
Sorry, that last was from the annual FBI crime statistics report.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Feb 28, 2008 06:17PM)
Think how many more should be in jail....

is there a point to this or just another chance to take a stab at the US?

27% of prisoners in the Federal system are from outside the US, can't find numbers for the states but I would think it is the same if not higher....so we get rid of them (send them to the country of their birth or some kind country that wants them) and that would be a major reduction. I also think we can release nonviolent prisoners with the understanding that if they f' up again they are done, back to the gray walls for 'em.

Here is another thing. 7 out of every 1000 African Americans is in prison. Here is the question, do we allow African Americans to get away with more crimes to reduce that percentage or do we take Asians and white guys, who make up a smaller percentage, and lock them up with no reason other than a quest for equality?

I blame the lawyers. So many bad ones are out there.
Message: Posted by: Justin Style (Feb 28, 2008 06:21PM)
I live in NJ. Never had the pleasure of being behind bars, though. Although we do have the most violent prison in the country -[b]RAHWAY[/b] State prison!!! A nice place to visit but I wouldn't want to get killed there...

J.T. What about Atica...Atica...Atica!!!
Message: Posted by: Josh Chaikin (Feb 28, 2008 08:33PM)
I used to get my haircut at Leavenworth.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Feb 28, 2008 08:58PM)
[quote]
On 2008-02-28 19:17, MagicSanta wrote:

is there a point to this or just another chance to take a stab at the US?
[/quote]
You seem ready to take offense just a little too easily, any time anyone posts anything in any shape or form related to the U.S. ... I don't know what one would call that sort of behaviour, perhaps right-wing 'political correctness' for want of a better term?

You know, sometimes a joke is just a joke. Hence the smiley in my original post, in case you missed it.

:)
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Feb 28, 2008 09:06PM)
I believe the smiley was directed to those you thought might be convicts. So what do you do all day, type into google "Rapes in United States" "Prisoners in United States" "Number of baby seals beaten to death then excused as a cultural expression", oh wait.....
Message: Posted by: The Drake (Feb 28, 2008 09:30PM)
[quote]
On 2008-02-28 22:06, MagicSanta wrote:
I believe the smiley was directed to those you thought might be convicts. So what do you do all day, type into google "Rapes in United States" "Prisoners in United States" "Number of baby seals beaten to death then excused as a cultural expression", oh wait.....
[/quote]

More Fishing Santa? You're running out of fresh bait and are now into re-runs. How do you expect to catch new "trout" with that old stuff? LOL

Best,

Tim
Message: Posted by: Margarette (Feb 28, 2008 10:11PM)
I think I've been inside a total of about six jails.

Margarette
Message: Posted by: The Drake (Feb 28, 2008 10:12PM)
[quote]
On 2008-02-28 23:11, Margarette wrote:
I think I've been inside a total of about six jails.

Margarette
[/quote]

Don't leave us hanging Margarette.. tell us more. LOL

Best,

Tim
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Feb 28, 2008 10:29PM)
Sorry Timothy, there is so little there to discuss...perma frost maybe....

As for jails I'm proud to say I've never been to one other than to visit my brother and that because my mother asked me too.
Message: Posted by: The Drake (Feb 28, 2008 10:34PM)
[quote]
On 2008-02-28 23:29, MagicSanta wrote:
Sorry Timothy, there is so little there to discuss...perma frost maybe....

As for jails I'm proud to say I've never been to one other than to visit my brother and that because my mother asked me too.
[/quote]

What aboot health care....oops already did that one too. LOL

Jails? Glad to say I share your good fortune of only seeing the free side of the bars. Visiting someone in Jail is enough to keep most out of them. LOL

Best,

Tim
Message: Posted by: rossmacrae (Feb 28, 2008 10:45PM)
I'm quoting from the blog of one of my family's dearest friends, an attorney in Arlington, Virginia:

For over 20 years I've represented criminal defendants in the Virginia courts. Most of my clients have been lower income, minority, under-educated individuals with drug and alcohol problems. Some have significant mental health issues and are referred to as dual diagnosis.

Criminal defendants do not exist in a vacuum. Many have at least one child, at least one significant other (some have an impressive array of significant others, but I digress), and one or more parents or grandparents whose lives will be affected by their incarceration. Few things are more disheartening than watching a mother of young children go to prison for two or three years because her drug addiction is out of control and she steals to support it. It's difficult to tell distraught parents and dependents of such people that they may have to do without them for a few years. An extraordinary number of grandparents are raising their children's children or even their grandchildren's children. In these fractured families the children are at extremely high risk for early involvement in drugs, sex, and alcohol...

Diversion programs ... are a better alternative. Diversion programs require the inmates to engage in counseling, critical self-analysis, job training, and proper management of their finances. Participants are required to pay their child support, address their addictions, learn new behaviors and take personal responsibility for their actions. Does anyone think warehousing people for years is even equal to the positive aspects of a diversion program?

Not everyone in a diversion program succeeds. Sometimes my clients are brought back before the court - it may be years after their diversion - for probation violations. Sometimes life's problems catch up with them and they decompensate, fall of the wagon, and re-offend. Mental health professionals understand this, that recovery from addiction is often a two steps forward/one step back type of process.

I could spend the next two hours highlighting my pet peeves with the criminal justice system. There are far too many offenses which have been labeled felonies, and far too many offenses which are actually symptomatic of social diseases or mental health disorders but which are aggressively prosecuted. There are few resources available for defendants who are genuinely mentally ill. Most diversion programs will not take dual diagnosis inmates. If they are bipolar, schizophrenic, suffering from other disorders requiring medication, then they are SOL when it comes to getting any help. We warehouse our mentally ill inmates and then kick them out into society to re-offend. Still, however, inmates who are eligible for diversion programs more often than not benefit from them. There are some good outpatient treatment programs and some good alternative diversion programs which gradually release inmates onto probation and into society. Some of my clients have gone through such programs, and years later I encounter them in the role of counselor to another inmate seeking diversion.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Feb 28, 2008 11:37PM)
Amen, rossmacrae. A very good point to post. Sometimes people just need a bit of hope and direction. We focus too much on incarceration and not enough on rehabilitation.

Then again, I've also probably read too much about criminal psychotics. There's a difficult issue for you- they've got a mental disorder- an acute lack of conscience, but they're intelligent and logical, so it's not a good excuse. What do you do with them? There's no cure for the disorder, but it's often too dangerous to let them back onto the streets, even after they've done their time...
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Feb 29, 2008 12:16AM)
Well Tim, I'd say that Balducci trolled the bait this time, and MagicSanta bit.

The incarceration rates are curious, but it is hard to see just what they mean. The web is full of partisan explanations, but the world is rarely so simple.

I do find it odd that Canada and the US--which are very similar in very many ways--are so different in regard to incarceration. The US has about 7 times the incarceration rate of Canada--and that seems very strange to me

John
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Feb 29, 2008 12:22AM)
I'm sorry, you are correct, Canada has 'Free!' medical for all, no cost, nada, perfect in all ways... It cost the people of Canada only the time it takes them to get to their favorite doctors office where they are treated quickly to the level the doctor feels is required and then, as a joke, the patient is told they will get a bill in the mail, then the doctor winks and doctor and patient laugh as the doctor tells the latest "America sucks" joke. Free medical...FREE!

Please do not consider that 22% of the taxes collected in Canada go to pay for this health service as well as 7% of the GNP. Still it is FREE! It's okay because no one who is a professor from a major university in Quebec will make a statement like:

"Canadian public health insurance is not only compulsory, it is also monopolistic. The system is administered by provincial governments under strict guidelines imposed by federal law and federal subsidies. Private insurance covering publicly insured services is illegal. Physicians are forbidden to accept private payments above the fees billed to the government. Hospitals are public or non-profit, and tightly regulated. Physicians’ fees are determined—or “negotiated”—by provincial agencies. Prices of drugs are controlled. In short, the public supply of medical services is rationed, and there is little private alternative. Hence the apparent low cost of the system."

No way, the people of Canada get the service the doctor feels is needed and cost be darned because it is free! This same prof would also not say, most likely in French originally:

The hidden costs include the poor quality of services, and the costs imposed on customers (aptly called “patients” in this case) who have to wait in queues.

"Quality is subjective and can only be evaluated through consumer choices, but the government won’t let consumers make choices and vote with their feet if they are not satisfied. Anecdotal evidence of questionable quality is everywhere. In a recent piece in Montreal’s Gazette, a Canadian related her own experience, and contrasted the “kindness, discretion and professionalism” of staff in U.S. hospitals, with the frequent rudeness of unionized personnel in the Canadian system."

Or

"Long waiting lines are a fixture of the system. The Fraser Institute, a Vancouver think tank, has calculated that in 2003, the average waiting time from referral by a general practitioner to actual treatment was more than four months. Waiting times vary among specialties (and, less wildly, among provinces), but remain high even for critical diseases: The shortest median wait is 6.1 weeks for oncology treatment; excluding radiation, which is longer. Extreme cases include more than a year’s median wait for neurosurgery in New Brunswick. The median wait for an MRI is three months. Since 1993, waiting times have increased by 90%.

Waiting lines impose a real cost, which is approximated by what individuals would be willing to pay to avoid them. Waiting costs include health risk, lost time (especially for individuals whose time is most valuable), pain and anguish. Socialist systems are notoriously oblivious to anguish, discomfort, humiliation and other subjective factors which bureaucrats cannot measure or don’t value the same way as the patient does."

I'm certain the people in Quebec don't mind waiting the eight weeks for post surgical radiation treatment after breast cancer surgery. Heck, they likely set there, some 10,000 of them Oct of 1997, thinking "I may not be getting the treatment I need but, by golly, I'm not paying for it!"

I can't figure out why the indians in Canada (that barbaric term used by that professor, racist he is) would be building hospitals and clinics on their land in defiance of the law, which you second nationers (I made that up) can't use...neener neener, but then again why would you?

In all seriousness the US is too big to put together a real universal health plan. The problem is the assumption will be that companies will continue to cover those already covered (which isn't me at the moment, I pay over $800 a month for health insurance plus have a $2200 deductable so basically I'm paying a fortune and I'm not employed). They won't. Companies look for anyway to make more profits which is kind of why people invest in them. The only reason they offer medical is because they have to in order to draw in talent and it may only cost the employee a couple hundred a month. Not bad. If they can stop it and have it picked up by the feds they would drop it in a hot second. Sure some of the big guys would still do it just because they want to but my old employer has sliced away the benefits for the last few years, then sliced away people, like me. That being said there should be no one in the United States that is denied medical treatment. My brother owes Valley Medical Center of San Jose California in excess of three million dollars....no kidding. They won't ever get it and if he showed up there tonight he would be treated, if you showed up there with no insurance you would be treated and you would likely be able to have the cost written off. No one should die because they don't have insurance, no one should go to prison solely because they don't have the money for a good lawyer. I think that it is wonderful that Canada has their system but I think that companies like Celestica and RIM and SCS should be allowed to provide insurance to their employees and their families and that those without insurance can then get the service provided by the govt. This would reduce the cost to the 20,032 people living in Canada and let private practices treat those with insurance if they want and reduce the load on the govt paid doctors so hopefully the people would get better treatment. Govt treatment bothers me and I'll tell you why. My father retired with a pension and that pension included insurance for himself and my mother. At 65 this insurance ended because, surprise, that is when medical or whatever the govt paid social plan in the US is called. My mother was being treated for an illness when she turned 65 in October of 2000. She had to switch doctors to those that accepted the social security medical because General Electric didn't have to pay for medical any longer, they knew the feds would pick it up. My mother tried to get tests done and the new govt doctors had to get permission, this permission took two months, or December of 2000. She died sitting on a toilet on January 11th, 2001 of a cause that would have been detected in the test. On January 14th my father got a call from the doctor saying they scheduled the tests for two weeks later, the ones requested in October. This was quite disturbing to my elderly father who just lost his wife of 48 years. Two weeks later the same office called to tell my mother that because she missed the tests she wouldn't be allowed to take them again. Good thing she was dead huh? There is your govt managed medical, free free free.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Feb 29, 2008 12:23AM)
John, the reason we have more in prison is because we have more criminals.
Message: Posted by: Rupert Bair (Feb 29, 2008 05:15AM)
I am prisoner in my own mind and body. 1 in a 10000000000.
Message: Posted by: Margarette (Feb 29, 2008 07:15AM)
[quote]
On 2008-02-28 23:12, Timothy Drake wrote:
Don't leave us hanging Margarette.. tell us more. LOL

[/quote]

Well, let's just say that when one works for the company that is doing the re-design/renovation of the current jail, one has to look at the current facilities to see what needs to be improved.

Margarette
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Feb 29, 2008 07:33AM)
I have two things to say.
1. Margarette is my first choice for a cell mate.
2. How many of those poor unfortunet prisoners are doing time for victimless crimes?????
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Feb 29, 2008 09:07AM)
[quote]
On 2008-02-29 01:22, MagicSanta wrote:
I'm sorry, you are correct, Canada has 'Free!' medical for all, no cost, nada, perfect in all ways... Blah blah blah.
[/quote]

Sorry, I don't see the relevance to the incarceration thread.

[quote] John, the reason we have more in prison is because we have more criminals.[/quote]

Uh. Isn't that the thing that we're trying to explain?

John

PS Some time ago, I did post my health care premiums. They are relatively modest. And as for the expense, that is currently the greatest challenge to the imperfect health care system in this imperfect country. Perhaps one day we'll have things a perfectly worked out as you seem to have...
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 29, 2008 11:44AM)
[quote]
On 2008-02-28 23:45, rossmacrae wrote:
I'm quoting from the blog of one of my family's dearest friends, an attorney in Arlington, Virginia:

For over 20 years I've represented criminal defendants in the Virginia courts. Most of my clients have been lower income, minority, under-educated individuals with drug and alcohol problems. Some have significant mental health issues and are referred to as dual diagnosis.

Criminal defendants do not exist in a vacuum. Many have at least one child, at least one significant other (some have an impressive array of significant others, but I digress), and one or more parents or grandparents whose lives will be affected by their incarceration. Few things are more disheartening than watching a mother of young children go to prison for two or three years because her drug addiction is out of control and she steals to support it. It's difficult to tell distraught parents and dependents of such people that they may have to do without them for a few years. An extraordinary number of grandparents are raising their children's children or even their grandchildren's children. In these fractured families the children are at extremely high risk for early involvement in drugs, sex, and alcohol...

Diversion programs ... are a better alternative. Diversion programs require the inmates to engage in counseling, critical self-analysis, job training, and proper management of their finances. Participants are required to pay their child support, address their addictions, learn new behaviors and take personal responsibility for their actions. Does anyone think warehousing people for years is even equal to the positive aspects of a diversion program?

Not everyone in a diversion program succeeds. Sometimes my clients are brought back before the court - it may be years after their diversion - for probation violations. Sometimes life's problems catch up with them and they decompensate, fall of the wagon, and re-offend. Mental health professionals understand this, that recovery from addiction is often a two steps forward/one step back type of process.

I could spend the next two hours highlighting my pet peeves with the criminal justice system. There are far too many offenses which have been labeled felonies, and far too many offenses which are actually symptomatic of social diseases or mental health disorders but which are aggressively prosecuted. There are few resources available for defendants who are genuinely mentally ill. Most diversion programs will not take dual diagnosis inmates. If they are bipolar, schizophrenic, suffering from other disorders requiring medication, then they are SOL when it comes to getting any help. We warehouse our mentally ill inmates and then kick them out into society to re-offend. Still, however, inmates who are eligible for diversion programs more often than not benefit from them. There are some good outpatient treatment programs and some good alternative diversion programs which gradually release inmates onto probation and into society. Some of my clients have gone through such programs, and years later I encounter them in the role of counselor to another inmate seeking diversion.
[/quote]

Anything on the blog about his take on when he tries to ensure that the non-mentally-ill rapists, murders, armed robbers, assault-with-deadly-weaponers, etc. spend no time segregated from the rest of us?
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Feb 29, 2008 04:18PM)
I'm an escape artist; any response from me would skew the results. :handcuffs:
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Mar 1, 2008 12:43AM)
John, Mr. Drake asked about the pride of Canada, health care. Oh, 1 in 99 Americans are not behind bars, a great many of them are not Americans. Say, if I went to Canada on vacation, god knows why I would but lets pretend, and I needed a doctor would I also receive treatment at no cost or is it only for card carrying members of the Canada party?
Message: Posted by: The Drake (Mar 1, 2008 01:05AM)
[quote]
On 2008-03-01 01:43, MagicSanta wrote:
John, Mr. Drake asked about the pride of Canada, health care. Oh, 1 in 99 Americans are not behind bars, a great many of them are not Americans. Say, if I went to Canada on vacation, god knows why I would but lets pretend, and I needed a doctor would I also receive treatment at no cost or is it only for card carrying members of the Canada party?
[/quote]

Actually MagicSanta,

I didn't ask about Health Care. I was commenting on your past trolling of the topic and the fact that you'd already used that topic as bait.

Since you asked...and its a good question. To my knowledge you'd be treated and later billed for the service. As you pointed out earlier our taxes pay for the service and that's why we don't pay medical bills for treatment. Visitors to the country do not paying into the system with their taxes so they are not entitled to payment free service. Its sort of a mandatory insurance program. We think of it as similar to the Social Security program found in the US. We contribute and later use it when we need to.

If an American is visiting Canada I'd recommend they do the same thing I do when I visit the US. I purchase medical insurance for the duration of my trip.

Best,

Tim

Day 1 http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=248016&forum=32&3
Message: Posted by: balducci (Mar 1, 2008 10:20AM)
[quote]
On 2008-02-29 01:16, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Well Tim, I'd say that Balducci trolled the bait this time, and MagicSanta bit.
[/quote]
Honestly, there was no intentional trolling on my part.

I simply saw an interesting news story ... and figured that with "34,213 registered members" on the Café ... well, you do the math.

I must say, I am surprised at the turns this thread has taken.

---
Day 1
Message: Posted by: vinsmagic (Mar 1, 2008 10:34AM)
I'M A PRISONER OF LOVE.......
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Mar 1, 2008 12:42PM)
Here in the US we let even illigal aliens have free medical... even if they were ex prisoners.
Message: Posted by: Big Jeff (Mar 1, 2008 02:18PM)
I saw on Fox News that some prisoner in Massechusetts(sp) is getting a free SEX CHANGE and he is going to be one UGLY woman. Sounds like he is really being punished. WHAT A COUNTRY!
Message: Posted by: balducci (Mar 1, 2008 02:26PM)
[quote]
On 2008-03-01 15:22, Al Angello wrote:

"Fox and news is an oxymoron."
[/quote]
Al, how can you say that. Without a doubt, Fox reports the News that Matters!

"Web Site Offers Free Breast Implants
Friday, February 29, 2008
By Sara Bonisteel
Fox NEWS"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,334168,00.html

(Still only Day 1)
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Mar 1, 2008 02:37PM)
Interestingly, Big Jeff, my niece was one ugly woman and had a sex change and now he is one ugly dude.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Mar 1, 2008 02:48PM)
Balducci
I deleted my post because I did not want to be too controversial, but the cat is out of the bag now.

The Fox anchors all have long blond hair and evening gowns on. How could you call that news? Roger Ales wouldn't know a news story if he fell over it.
Message: Posted by: Bill Nuvo (Mar 1, 2008 02:53PM)
Prisons are often a refuge for some. As magicsanta pointed out, they give free medical (US). They also give you free food. They also give you free counseling services, job prep, education/training (often just minimal levels, but it still is there) and for some...err...networking opportunities. Don't forget, the rent is also free.

The study is actually a little flawed not taking in account the time of year (start of 2008). Many homeless and poor peoples will commit minor crimes to get a 2-3 month sentence to be somewhere out of the cold winter. The numbers may be correct (or nearly), but the reasoning may not.

It's been known for a while that prison is not necessarily a deterrent. I believe that the above reason's I give are part of that problem (how big or small a part I can't begin to speculate).

Day 1
http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=248016&forum=32&3
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Mar 1, 2008 03:02PM)
[quote]
On 2008-03-01 15:53, mrbilldentertainer wrote:
Prisons are often a refuge for some. As magicsanta pointed out, they give free medical (US). They also give you free food. They also give you free counseling services, job prep, education/training (often just minimal levels, but it still is there) and for some...err...networking opportunities. Don't forget, the rent is also free.

The study is actually a little flawed not taking in account the time of year (start of 2008). Many homeless and poor peoples will commit minor crimes to get a 2-3 month sentence to be somewhere out of the cold winter. The numbers may be correct (or nearly), but the reasoning may not.

It's been known for a while that prison is not necessarily a deterrent. I believe that the above reason's I give are part of that problem (how big or small a part I can't begin to speculate).

Day 1
http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=248016&forum=32&3
[/quote]

Hard to argue with "necessarily," but prison is, in fact, a deterrent. What usually happens, though, is that stiffer sentences for one type of crime result in a decrease in incidents of that crime, and not a switch to law-abiding behavior, but rather a switch to another type of crime.
Message: Posted by: The Drake (Mar 1, 2008 03:04PM)
I'd be curious to see a " Scared Straight" 20 years later tv special to see how many of the troubled youth avoided future trouble. Anyone remember that show that created such a still so long ago?

Best,

Tim

Day 1
Message: Posted by: balducci (Mar 1, 2008 03:09PM)
Well, since several of you are discussing this article in such seriousness, you can find the full report here:

http://stage.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/One%20in%20100.pdf

http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/initiatives_detail.aspx?initiativeID=31336

http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/news_room_detail.aspx?id=35912

The State by State and International Comparisons in the Appendices are especially interesting.

(Still only Day 1)
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Mar 1, 2008 03:09PM)
I do...that was a good idea for a show.
Message: Posted by: Bill Nuvo (Mar 1, 2008 03:24PM)
[quote]
On 2008-03-01 16:02, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-03-01 15:53, mrbilldentertainer wrote:
Prisons are often a refuge for some. As magicsanta pointed out, they give free medical (US). They also give you free food. They also give you free counseling services, job prep, education/training (often just minimal levels, but it still is there) and for some...err...networking opportunities. Don't forget, the rent is also free.

The study is actually a little flawed not taking in account the time of year (start of 2008). Many homeless and poor peoples will commit minor crimes to get a 2-3 month sentence to be somewhere out of the cold winter. The numbers may be correct (or nearly), but the reasoning may not.

It's been known for a while that prison is not necessarily a deterrent. I believe that the above reason's I give are part of that problem (how big or small a part I can't begin to speculate).

Day 1
http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=248016&forum=32&3
[/quote]

Hard to argue with "necessarily," but prison is, in fact, a deterrent. What usually happens, though, is that stiffer sentences for one type of crime result in a decrease in incidents of that crime, and not a switch to law-abiding behavior, but rather a switch to another type of crime.
[/quote]

I agree that it has a deterrent effect to some degree. A lot of crimes though do happen because of circumstances one has put oneself into and are ill-equipped to get oneself out. There is a great big gray area with limits of self-defense that has put some people behind bars. Law is not an exact science.

Day 1
http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=248016&forum=32&29
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Mar 1, 2008 06:38PM)
Tim, they did do a follow up to Scared Straight. I don't remember the details but they had one story where one of the kids was in prison and his buddy is one of the scared straight 'instructors' who was released only to become an instant criminal again. A number of the kids were either dead or in prison, some were arrested within days of the visit to the prison. Some of the kids went straight but that happens with or without intervention, some turn 18 and quit because it means real jail. Of course they claim the ones who didn't go to prison were victories due to the prison thing and the other ones needed just another visit to straighten out etc.. The only thing I liked was seeing them drop character. One of the toughest cons is out and he came across as a very nice guy who was the only one who really seemed to take part as an effort to really help kids. The rest kind of were just looking for something to do (of the instructors). Oh, they did bring other kids in for the newer version which is more politically correct and softer and less effective. I think the kids were thinking of raping the convicts.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Mar 1, 2008 06:52PM)
[quote]
On 2008-03-01 16:04, Timothy Drake wrote:
I'd be curious to see a " Scared Straight" 20 years later tv special to see how many of the troubled youth avoided future trouble. Anyone remember that show that created such a still so long ago?
[/quote]
Apparently there were 3 sequels:

Scared Straight! Another Story (1980), Scared Straight! 10 Years Later (1987), and (on MTV and UPN) Scared Straight! 20 Years Later (1999).

I suppose you can google them all to find out more.

(Day 1)
Message: Posted by: The Drake (Mar 1, 2008 07:14PM)
Thanks for the update guys. I'll see if I can locate them.

Best,

Tim

Day 1
Message: Posted by: balducci (Mar 3, 2008 11:07PM)
Former Canadian Lord Conrad Black signed into U.S. prison on Monday.

[url]http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080302/black_jail_080303/20080303?hub=CTVNewsAt11[/url]

Even if he was (for the sake of argument) railroaded, I suspect most of Canada said 'Good Riddance'.

(Day 3)
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Mar 3, 2008 11:42PM)
He's only going to prison cuz he's Black.
Message: Posted by: abercrombe (Apr 16, 2008 08:02PM)
I don't know what all this has to do with magic but, I had a son that was in the wrong place at the wrong time,with a poorchoice of friend. He did nothing wrong but was guilty by association. He spent 12 years in various prisons before his death at 34.I can't tell you how many miles we drove, hours we spent visiting and fighting for his release and I can't tell you how much our hearts were broken. Politicians trying to improve their careers will convict innocent people and not feel any compassion.
Best
Abe
Message: Posted by: balducci (Apr 16, 2008 08:16PM)
[quote]
On 2008-04-16 21:02, abercrombe wrote:

Politicians trying to improve their careers will convict innocent people and not feel any compassion.
[/quote]
Very true, and I'm very sorry to hear about your son's misfortune.

Many, but of course not all, politicians also love to mouth the words that they are 'tough on crime' as it is an easy way to win friends and votes.

Then, when and if their friends are ever convicted, they can always pardon and / or make excuses for them. This happens with many politicians of all stripes.

Anyway, I'm also sorry to hear that your son passed away at such a young age. How long ago was that?
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Apr 16, 2008 09:23PM)
The recidivism rate in this country is off the charts. how many people are in jail for so called victim-less crimes? And please don't get me started on the death penalty. I know that I am from california, but I have always disagreed with capitol punishment. we are the only "civilized" nation that still puts people to death! I do not want my state, or country, to kill people in my name. I am a citizen, I pay taxes, and its done in my name.


Dostoevsky once said, "The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons."


kevin
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Apr 16, 2008 11:22PM)
[quote]
On 2008-04-16 22:23, kcg5 wrote:
And please don't get me started on the death penalty. I know that I am from california, but I have always disagreed with capitol punishment. we are the only "civilized" nation that still puts people to death! I do not want my state, or country, to kill people in my name. I am a citizen, I pay taxes, and its done in my name.
[/quote]

As another California taxpayer, I wish they'd use the death penalty more often.

We could always pass a law that before tax dollars were spent, 100% of the people in the taxed jurisdiction approve of it...that would drop the tax rate to about 0%...
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Apr 17, 2008 01:44AM)
So kill everyone on death row to save money? not much saved. and I think so taxes would be spent, taxes, schools,ect.
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Apr 17, 2008 01:53AM)
With 669 death row inmates, out of 173,000, it isn't much. highest prison pop. in the nation, with also highest recidivism rate. the death penalty does not deter people.

kevin

lobo, good comment on the movie thing.
Message: Posted by: boynextdoor (Apr 17, 2008 02:07AM)
My community is supposed to have the highest concentration of sex offenders in California. Or maybe the nation. And the same for meth labs. And child/domestic abuse.

*shrugs* But maybe they're just trying to attract tourists.
Message: Posted by: kregg (Apr 17, 2008 08:06AM)
3 Million criminals behind bars means 3 million less crimes on the street.
Message: Posted by: JRob (Apr 17, 2008 09:05AM)
I can think of at least one more who should be, but they are not going to search Puerto Rico and go through the extradition process over a felony DUI
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Apr 17, 2008 11:06AM)
[quote]
On 2008-04-17 03:07, boynextdoor wrote:
My community is supposed to have the highest concentration of sex offenders in California. Or maybe the nation. And the same for meth labs. And child/domestic abuse.

*shrugs* But maybe they're just trying to attract tourists.
[/quote]


norcal?
Message: Posted by: abercrombe (Apr 17, 2008 03:29PM)
It will be 4 years come May 22nd and no parent should ever outlive their children. What I think about DAs, Public Defenders and Judges is there are a lot of good honest ones but they sometimes work together to to accomplish their agenda. Most people don't realize If you fire your attorney he can talk to the DA about everything you said in confidence to him. The law isn't equal for everyone. The DA went on to be elected State Assembyman. He ran on a platform of 100% conviction rate. He never lost a case because he could usually scare people into taking a plea bargin. The interrogating officers badgered him for hours a a time and when he asked to see an attorney, the DA came in and said he was an attorney. He left out the fact he was the prosecutor. The law says that whatever my son told him could not be used in courtbut whatever he learned from that information is admissable in court. They know how to get around the system. Well, that's more than I wanted to get into and if you are guilty by association, then you will share in the punishment and I have seen enough of the insides of prisons to know that people suffer at the hands of others. You do whatever it takes to survive.
I think the real inmates are running the asylum.
Abe
Message: Posted by: Ken Northridge (Apr 17, 2008 03:50PM)
Abe,

I'm so sorry to hear this horrible story. I've always thought our legal system was fair and was designed to keep this type of thing from happening. I guess I would look at it differently if I were in your shoes. You hear a story like that and you think, "and they let OJ go free?" :worry:
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Apr 17, 2008 06:30PM)
[quote]
On 2008-04-17 02:53, kcg5 wrote:
With 669 death row inmates, out of 173,000, it isn't much. highest prison pop. in the nation, with also highest recidivism rate. the death penalty does not deter people.

kevin

lobo, good comment on the movie thing.
[/quote]

I didn't say, and didn't mean to imply, that my opinion on the issue has anything to do with saving money.

I think referring to any current crime statistics to claim that the death penalty doesn't have a deterrent effect is specious, at best. Hundreds of murders are committed just in Los Angeles each year, yet very few executions take place statewide, and those that do take place years, often decades, after the crimes were committed. No consequence would show a measurable deterrent effect if it only applied to 1 out of 500 people who committed the crime, and was applied 20 years later.

To assess a detterent effect, there would have be a reasonable probability that the potential criminal would actually be given the proposed punishment, and within a reasonable timeframe. That being said, I think there's actually strong circumstantial evidence that captial punishment can/does have a deterrent effect.

First, when the death penalty finally does roll around for those few who receive it as a setence, the vast majority of them do everything in their power to avoid execution, including filing every conceivable motion, telling the police about other crimes and locations of other bodies, etc. It's also a regular course of action for murder suspects to plead to life in prison without parole in exchange for no death penalty. This strongly suggests that the death penalty is considered a greater punishment than life in prison, and it's fairly clear (and obvious and intuitive) from analysis of crime statistics that stronger punishments have greater deterrent effects (for example, raising a sentence of maximum imprisonment to 10 years from 5 years has a measurable deterrent effect on lesser crimes, though what usually happens is that the criminals switch to OTHER crimes, i.e. carjackers become burglars). The reason you may not see an apparent deterrent effect is because people who commit murder don't really think they're going to get the death penalty, and so it doesn't weigh into their considerations, and 99.9% of the time they're right.

A second piece of evidence that suggests to me that the death penalty has or could have an appreciable deterrent effect is that it's known that gangs will often have underaged gang members carry out hits specifically because they're not death penalty eligible.

We can only speculate as to what the situation would be like if the death penalty were applied more often, but personally, I can't believe that if everyone considering murder knew that if he were convicted, he'd be put to death within 3 years, SOME of them wouldn't do it. If they passed a law tomorrow that everyone who committed murder on Tuesday would be executed, but nobody else would, I guarantee you'd see fewer murders committed on Tuesday. Somewhat less silly - If you engaged in a criminal activity in which occasionally you "needed" to commit murder, e.g. carjacking or bank robbery, and you lived near the border of California and Arizona, and California had no death penalty and Arizona executed all convicted murderers within 3 years, wouldn't you do most of your work in California? Of course you would.

Additionally, the deterrent effect is far from the only justfication for criminal punishment. Another is incapacitation. One study of a few thousand convicted murderers showed that 9% had prior homicide convictions. If you're keeping score at home, that's at least a few hundred people murdered by other people who were convicted of murder and kept alive. Say what you will about the deterrent effect, but capital punishment has a great incapacitation effect; the recidivism rate for convicted murderers is 0.0%. Or, less flippantly, I'm sure at least a few people have been convicted of murder already this year. I have no idea whether any of them will commit murder again, and neither do you. But we both know that executed murderer Stanley "Tookie" Williams will never kill anyone again. Life imprisonment isn't the same thing; people get murdered in prison, and people break out of prison.

The recidivism rate also proves too much, in a sense. If you point to the recidivism rate (which is, as I've noted, highly debatable at its very best) to say that capital punishment doesn't work, so we shouldn't have it, then by that logic, we shouldn't have prisons, either. People whose punishment for various crimes is incarceration also have a high recidivism rate. Should we just let the convicted bank robber go, since "prison doesn't work"?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Apr 17, 2008 06:33PM)
[quote]
On 2008-04-17 16:29, abercrombe wrote:
Most people don't realize If you fire your attorney he can talk to the DA about everything you said in confidence to him.
[/quote]


This is not true. The duty of confidentially continues indefinitely. It is not limited to the duration of the attorney-client relationship.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Apr 17, 2008 07:51PM)
[quote]
On 2008-04-17 09:06, kregg wrote:
3 Million criminals behind bars means 3 million less crimes on the street.
[/quote]

And 300 million people behind bars would mean no crime at all.



except in canada
Message: Posted by: boynextdoor (Apr 17, 2008 08:42PM)
Nah, quite ironically, I refer to the High Dessert...Desert... Wait, dessert. No, wait, desert.

You know what I mean.

Not only the high concentration of sex offenders, drug makers, and abusers, but we also have someone who specializes in victims of satanic cults.

Kind of a screwed up place.
Message: Posted by: Leland Stone (Apr 17, 2008 09:18PM)
Mark me down as a "yes" on the should-tax-money-pay-for-lethal-injections survey.

Capital punishment is not about deterrence or cost-effectiveness, it is about morality, IMO. Shielding a person from the negative consequences of their criminal actions (when those actions are made in a volitional, rational state) is demeaning and condescending; in short, it is immoral to treat another human being as though they are incapable of right and wrong.

To illustrate: A pit bull which attacks and kills a human is not charged with a crime (though it may be euthanised or quarantined as a matter of safety). There is no criminal culpability, because the animal is incapable of knowing right from wrong. Human beings who are similarly divorced from responsibility for their actions are thus reduced to the level of animals.

No human being, regardless of their behaviour, deserves to be treated like an animal. Withholding appropriate punishment is no more moral than withholding appropriate rehabilitation, reconciliation, or reintegration into society.
Message: Posted by: JRob (Apr 17, 2008 09:23PM)
There are a few for whom I think impaling on a blunt stake would be too kind
Message: Posted by: Leland Stone (Apr 17, 2008 09:37PM)
I agree with the sentiment (and understand what causes that feeling) but on a rational level I have to affirm a commitment to punishment, not torment.
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Apr 17, 2008 10:32PM)
[quote]
On 2008-04-17 19:30, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-04-17 02:53, kcg5 wrote:
With 669 death row inmates, out of 173,000, it isn't much. highest prison pop. in the nation, with also highest recidivism rate. the death penalty does not deter people.

kevin

lobo, good comment on the movie thing.
[/quote]

I didn't say, and didn't mean to imply, that my opinion on the issue has anything to do with saving money.

I think referring to any current crime statistics to claim that the death penalty doesn't have a deterrent effect is specious, at best. Hundreds of murders are committed just in Los Angeles each year, yet very few executions take place statewide, and those that do take place years, often decades, after the crimes were committed. No consequence would show a measurable deterrent effect if it only applied to 1 out of 500 people who committed the crime, and was applied 20 years later.

To assess a detterent effect, there would have be a reasonable probability that the potential criminal would actually be given the proposed punishment, and within a reasonable timeframe. That being said, I think there's actually strong circumstantial evidence that captial punishment can/does have a deterrent effect.

First, when the death penalty finally does roll around for those few who receive it as a setence, the vast majority of them do everything in their power to avoid execution, including filing every conceivable motion, telling the police about other crimes and locations of other bodies, etc. It's also a regular course of action for murder suspects to plead to life in prison without parole in exchange for no death penalty. This strongly suggests that the death penalty is considered a greater punishment than life in prison, and it's fairly clear (and obvious and intuitive) from analysis of crime statistics that stronger punishments have greater deterrent effects (for example, raising a sentence of maximum imprisonment to 10 years from 5 years has a measurable deterrent effect on lesser crimes, though what usually happens is that the criminals switch to OTHER crimes, i.e. carjackers become burglars). The reason you may not see an apparent deterrent effect is because people who commit murder don't really think they're going to get the death penalty, and so it doesn't weigh into their considerations, and 99.9% of the time they're right.

A second piece of evidence that suggests to me that the death penalty has or could have an appreciable deterrent effect is that it's known that gangs will often have underaged gang members carry out hits specifically because they're not death penalty eligible.

We can only speculate as to what the situation would be like if the death penalty were applied more often, but personally, I can't believe that if everyone considering murder knew that if he were convicted, he'd be put to death within 3 years, SOME of them wouldn't do it. If they passed a law tomorrow that everyone who committed murder on Tuesday would be executed, but nobody else would, I guarantee you'd see fewer murders committed on Tuesday. Somewhat less silly - If you engaged in a criminal activity in which occasionally you "needed" to commit murder, e.g. carjacking or bank robbery, and you lived near the border of California and Arizona, and California had no death penalty and Arizona executed all convicted murderers within 3 years, wouldn't you do most of your work in California? Of course you would.

Additionally, the deterrent effect is far from the only justfication for criminal punishment. Another is incapacitation. One study of a few thousand convicted murderers showed that 9% had prior homicide convictions. If you're keeping score at home, that's at least a few hundred people murdered by other people who were convicted of murder and kept alive. Say what you will about the deterrent effect, but capital punishment has a great incapacitation effect; the recidivism rate for convicted murderers is 0.0%. Or, less flippantly, I'm sure at least a few people have been convicted of murder already this year. I have no idea whether any of them will commit murder again, and neither do you. But we both know that executed murderer Stanley "Tookie" Williams will never kill anyone again. Life imprisonment isn't the same thing; people get murdered in prison, and people break out of prison.

The recidivism rate also proves too much, in a sense. If you point to the recidivism rate (which is, as I've noted, highly debatable at its very best) to say that capital punishment doesn't work, so we shouldn't have it, then by that logic, we shouldn't have prisons, either. People whose punishment for various crimes is incarceration also have a high recidivism rate. Should we just let the convicted bank robber go, since "prison doesn't work"?
[/quote]

lobo, you make a good case. granted, mine was not as loquacious as yours, but I was only trying to make a point. You have certainly made yours. IMO, any type of eye for an eye justice doesn't work.

"an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" gandhi



kevin
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Apr 17, 2008 11:21PM)
[quote]
On 2008-04-17 23:32, kcg5 wrote:
lobo, you make a good case. granted, mine was not as loquacious as yours, but I was only trying to make a point. You have certainly made yours. IMO, any type of eye for an eye justice doesn't work.

"an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" gandhi



kevin
[/quote]


This is interesting in a few respects. I think that's a misnomer to talk about justice "working." I see justice as an end in itself. I also think that a lesser punishment for first degree murder is itself unjust. For a governing body to consider the fate of a person who deliberately cut short another's life, and to decide that that person should be entitled to live out his full and natural life, is not justice, in my view.

That's not to say that it's necessarily the wrong choice; just that it's one that deliberately aims for something other than justice -- perhaps suggesting that mercy is a higher value than justice.

If "eye for an eye" means subjecting the criminal to his own actions, then we shouldn't incarcerate kidnappers. The "eye" in that case being "confining people against their will."

As for Gandhi...leaving alive guys who put out other people's eyes isn't a good way to keep the world from going blind, either. They're dangerous, I tell ya!
Message: Posted by: abc (Apr 17, 2008 11:46PM)
I don't think a cute quote is productive in an argument like this one although it does convey one's opinion in a lighter way. I am a big fan of Gandhi and Mandela but there achievements should be seen in context.
I am also for the death penalty and recent research seems to suggest that it does have some effect of deterrence. Like Lobowolf stated, the perceived threat of punishment also plays a big role. If the perception is that the punishment is not going to materialize it doesn't have any deterring effect. The example of California and Arizona is an excellent example of this.
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Apr 18, 2008 01:53AM)
Abc, that's all I was trying to do, make ,my opinion known in a simple way. the "cute quote" just came to mind.

maybe we can all agree to disagree on this one?

kevin
Message: Posted by: abc (Apr 18, 2008 02:54PM)
I read my post again and that comment came across as insulting, which really was not my intention. I obviously don't agree with you but I didn't mean to insult you.
The point was that people seem to take the quote apart and add things to it which doesn't contribute to the discussion. It could be very funny though.
Your point did come across well.
Message: Posted by: Josh Riel (Apr 18, 2008 05:12PM)
I certainly do not believe we should kill prisoners to save money, and it doesn't seem like we should do it as a deterrent (Doesn't appear to work). We should do it for fun.

I also believe sentences should be randomized. We have a wheel that has sentences, from 'not guilty' to 'death by paper cuts in a vat of lemon juice'. Everyone who goes before a judge gets to spin the wheel (That might be a deterrent to j-walkers). Sentence is carried out immediately, the lemon juice would be in the judges chamber. Obviously we would need other types of death sentences or the whole thing would become stale.

Also, lemon juice is delicious, so if he's not going to use it, everyone can drink it.

In conclusion, discussions about penalties and their effectiveness by the unlettered masses is for suckers.
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Apr 18, 2008 08:55PM)
Thank you , abc. Its refreshing to see that some people around here still have their manners...

just kidding guys!
Message: Posted by: Don Faith (Apr 18, 2008 09:47PM)
I wonder how many Americans are now sitting in bars?
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Apr 18, 2008 10:22PM)
All over the world, people start in bars and finish behind them.

So much for - it's not where you start - it's where you finish.
Message: Posted by: abercrombe (Apr 19, 2008 02:04AM)
[quote]
On 2008-04-17 19:33, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-04-17 16:29, abercrombe wrote:
Most people don't realize If you fire your attorney he can talk to the DA about everything you said in confidence to him.
[/quote]


This is not true. The duty of confidentially continues indefinitely. It is not limited to the duration of the attorney-client relationship.

If you are correct,then the public defender, judge and DA did a railroad job on my son and they had no regard for the letter of the law. His former attorney did testify against him. There is no such thing as a Justice system, its a legal system that doesn't work if you cannot afford a real lawyer. The judge, DA and Public Defenders all work for the state.
Sorry , this is beginning to get to me and I most stop. Thanks for your kind words.
Abe
[/quote]
Message: Posted by: Orville Smith (Aug 27, 2008 07:22PM)
At first,I had intended posting this under a new thread since it concerns a British prison instead of American but I decided it's still pertinent for this one. It has to do with violation of a prisoner's rights. It has to do with the transfer of a prisoner from lockup to Britain's Northampton Crown Court which is JUST ACROSS the street. It required summoning the closest prison Van which was 57-miles away, to come give him a ride. The prisoner (Mark Bailey) could Not simply be walked across the street because officials feared that public exposure would embarrass him, in violation of his human rights. I realize that even a prisoner has rights but to summon a Van from FIFTY-SEVEN miles away just to transfer him just across a street is pretty wacky, don't you think? What is the extent of a prisoner's rights?
Message: Posted by: evolve629 (Aug 27, 2008 08:01PM)
Just wondering if there's any escape recently in any of the Supermaxes? The best bars in the world is in Morocco - gourmet meals, ocean view and AC provided in each cell!
Message: Posted by: gaddy (Aug 27, 2008 08:13PM)
[quote]
On 2008-04-18 18:12, Josh Riel wrote:
I certainly do not believe we should kill prisoners to save money, and it doesn't seem like we should do it as a deterrent (Doesn't appear to work). We should do it for fun.

I also believe sentences should be randomized. We have a wheel that has sentences, from 'not guilty' to 'death by paper cuts in a vat of lemon juice'. Everyone who goes before a judge gets to spin the wheel (That might be a deterrent to j-walkers). Sentence is carried out immediately, the lemon juice would be in the judges chamber. Obviously we would need other types of death sentences or the whole thing would become stale.

Also, lemon juice is delicious, so if he's not going to use it, everyone can drink it.

In conclusion, discussions about penalties and their effectiveness by the unlettered masses is for suckers.
[/quote]

Maybe a "Death Race 2000" or "Running Man" type gameshow? You just KNOW that FOX is just waiting for the political climate to more toward that eventuality...
Message: Posted by: gaddy (Aug 27, 2008 08:15PM)
[quote]
On 2008-02-28 17:54, balducci wrote:
http://wcbstv.com/national/prison.americans.prison.2.665053.html

So the question I have is, which of you off topic forum posters is a jailbird posting from inside some correctional facility?

Do I need to include a smiley face?

Here you go: :)
[/quote]

Questions are a burden to others, answers a prison to oneself...
Message: Posted by: gaddy (Aug 27, 2008 08:20PM)
[quote]
On 2008-02-29 01:16, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Well Tim, I'd say that Balducci trolled the bait this time, and MagicSanta bit.

The incarceration rates are curious, but it is hard to see just what they mean. The web is full of partisan explanations, but the world is rarely so simple.

I do find it odd that Canada and the US--which are very similar in very many ways--are so different in regard to incarceration. The US has about 7 times the incarceration rate of Canada--and that seems very strange to me

John
[/quote]

Meh... Ever since they figured out how to turn a profit from jailing citizens (and non-citizens alike...) we've seen nothing but increases in the prison population. And we will continue to see more people incarcerated, no doubt.
Message: Posted by: John Nesbit (Aug 27, 2008 11:34PM)
Here's an article to consider as to the "why's" of this "topic" are growing in number.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/08/27/2008-08-27_american_dads_think_twice_before_embraci.html
Message: Posted by: Bill Nuvo (Aug 28, 2008 12:46AM)
[quote]
On 2008-08-28 00:34, John Nesbit wrote:
Here's an article to consider as to the "why's" of this "topic" are growing in number.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/08/27/2008-08-27_american_dads_think_twice_before_embraci.html
[/quote]

I totally agree that the mandatory arrest laws are problematic.
Message: Posted by: Sorceress (Aug 30, 2008 06:21AM)
Stats show that fully 11% of people in prison are INNOCENT!
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Aug 30, 2008 09:34AM)
[quote]
On 2008-03-01 16:04, Timothy Drake wrote:
I'd be curious to see a " Scared Straight" 20 years later tv special to see how many of the troubled youth avoided future trouble. Anyone remember that show that created such a still so long ago?

Best,

Tim

Day 1
[/quote]

I remember an animated version on (of all things) "Fat Alber and the Cosby Kids"
Message: Posted by: John Nesbit (Aug 30, 2008 05:33PM)
[quote]
On 2008-08-30 07:21, Sorceress wrote:
Stats show that fully 11% of people in prison are INNOCENT!
[/quote]

Here's another article to support the statement above.

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/08/24/obamabiden-escalating-the-war-on-fathers-and-families/

Hopefully the needed changes will take place very soon. Families seem to be becoming obsolete.
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Aug 31, 2008 01:57AM)
(Talk about 'Fox News'...!)
Message: Posted by: Sorceress (Sep 2, 2008 12:53AM)
One truth about incarceration in this country is that we have NEVER decided if it is to punish or rehabilitate.
Message: Posted by: Orville Smith (Oct 18, 2008 07:22PM)
Offbeat news from Fayetteville, N.C.: Joey Bergamine, 19, who is preparing for a re-trial on a DUI charge stemming from a July incident, will argue that he should have been advised of his right to have a lawyer present when his father kicked open his bedroom door hours after the incident to help police officers who had come to question him. Joey's father is the police chief of Fayetteville, and Joey's lawyer said entering a locked room, as well as the subsequent interrogation, constituted "police" action and Not "parental" action, and since his dad failed to "Mirandize" him, the charge should be dismissed.
It would be interesting to see the outcome of this case.
Message: Posted by: Orville Smith (Nov 1, 2008 07:12PM)
Offbeat crime from Green Bay, Wisconsin: Wendy Brown, 33, was charged with identity theft in Green Bay, Wis., after she enrolled at Ashwaubenon High School pretending to be her 15-year-old daughter (who actually lives in Nevada). Though Brown has a "history" of identity-theft issues (according to a school official who spoke with Brown's mother), one motive in this case was to fulfill a longtime dream of becoming a cheerleader, and she had been attending practices and had made the squad, according to school officials, even though some people had noticed that she looked a little older than the other girls.
Message: Posted by: Orville Smith (Jan 22, 2009 07:23PM)
Weird but true crime from Dublin,Georgia: A judge in Dublin, Ga., sentenced Rico Todriguez Wright, 25, to at least 20 years in prison for the 2006 shooting of Chad Blue, who told police initially that he didn't know who had shot him. Blue later heard a thug-life song on a CD ("Hitting Licks for a Living") in which rap singer Wright brags, "Chad Blue knows how I shoot," and realized Wright was the one who shot him that night.
Message: Posted by: gaddy (Jan 22, 2009 07:50PM)
[quote]
On 2009-01-22 20:23, Orville_Smith wrote:
[b]"Chad Blue knows how I shoot,"[/b]
[/quote]

that's hilarious! If he didn't before, he does now ya' moron!
Message: Posted by: Orville Smith (Feb 9, 2009 07:25PM)
[quote]
On 2009-01-22 20:50, gaddy wrote:
[quote]
that's hilarious! If he didn't before, he does now ya' moron!
[/quote]
I'm glad you enjoyed that one, gaddy. Here's another hilarious but true crime:

A 49-year-old man was hospitalized in Leavenworth, Kansas, after using a front-end loader to pluck an ATM from the Frontier Credit Union. He was hurt when he drove to the edge of a 50-foot embankment and tried to drop the ATM, imagining that the fall would break it open, but instead the loader and the ATM and the man ALL crashed to the bottom.
Message: Posted by: gaddy (Feb 10, 2009 08:55PM)
California might be forced to release approx 1/3 of it's prison population.

Very interesting...

[url=http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/comments_blog/2009/02/federal-judges.html]L.A. Times article[/url]
Message: Posted by: balducci (Feb 10, 2009 09:02PM)
[quote]
On 2009-02-10 21:55, gaddy wrote:
California might be forced to release approx 1/3 of it's prison population.

Very interesting...

[url=http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/comments_blog/2009/02/federal-judges.html]L.A. Times article[/url]
[/quote]
"Three federal judges have ruled that overcrowding in California prisons means that there are not enough clinical facilities or resources to accommodate inmates with medical or mental health needs at the level of care they require. Based on this ruling, it's likely that California's prison population will be reduced by 36,000 to 57,000 inmates."

Like there aren't enough mentally disturbed sorts wandering about the environs of the Magic Castle as it is?
Message: Posted by: Orville Smith (Mar 14, 2009 07:59PM)
This crime news from Charleston, W.Va. leaves me somewhat puzzled at the ending,or,should I say, up in the air. I mean, do you believe the statement made by Shawn Lester? : A West Virginia man who police say attempted to rob a convenience store instead ended up buying a soft drink with his debit card---ultimately leading to his arrest.
Shawn Thomas Lester, 33, told the store clerk Monday he had a gun and wanted all the money in the register, police said. But the suspect got flustered when a customer walked in and the clerk told him to pay for the soft drink.

Lester handed over his debit card, then signed the receipt "John Doe" and left withOUT any cash.
Police traced the debit card and found Lester. He told police he was only joking when he demanded money.

That news report I ran across, did Not say whether the man was arrested and charged or not. I mean, the first impression I got was that it was an ACTUAL robbery attempt but that the man got nervous when that other customer walked in. In other words, wouldn't the "robber" have actually completed his crime if the Other customer had Not walked in at that point??? In other words, do you believe the statement made by Shawn Lester, his claim that he was only joking?
Message: Posted by: balducci (Mar 14, 2009 08:26PM)
I could believe he was joking and the clerk misinterpreted it (I mean, how often do we hear about innocent jokes / comments being overheard and misinterpreted in airports), up until the point when the customer signed his name 'John Doe'.

Even if he wasn't seriously thinking about committing a theft up until that point, I imagine he did commit a theft or at least fraud of some sort when he signed with a fake name.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Mar 14, 2009 08:27PM)
[quote]
On 2009-02-10 22:02, balducci wrote:

Like there aren't enough mentally disturbed sorts wandering about the environs of the Magic Castle as it is?
[/quote]
In case anyone misinterpreted my comment, I didn't mean the magicians. I meant the homeless and disturbed types living on the streets within a block or two of the Castle.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Mar 14, 2009 08:33PM)
Mr. Smith, do you recall the great Tower of Power song You're Still a Young Man (baaaaaaaby!)? The lead singer was Rick Stevens, now doing time for double murder. He was busted, I believe, because he wrote a song about the killings. Nice huh?

Another great musician killer, Jim something I think, was the drummer who toured with Joe Crocker on his Mad Dogs and Englishmans shows. He hacked his mother up and voices still tell him to kill his brothers.

California is always releasing masses of people from jail. My older brother use to walk in to do time and be out in two days. My little brother would go in and do every minute. Timing....it is everything.
Message: Posted by: Orville Smith (Mar 27, 2009 08:39PM)
Did anybody see the current news from Trenton, New Jersey about a 14-year old teen girl who got arrested for posting nude pics of herself on MySpace? Those pics had been intended to be seen by her boyfriend ONLY..but they were Inadvertently seen by many other people. Now in a case of supreme irony, the 14-year old teen girl is charged with Child-Porn and its distribution. To make it even more ironic, she might even have to be REGISTERED as a sex-offender!! Do any of you gents have comments on that? Should that teen-girl be charged as stated? I mean, for a teen-girl to be Registered as sex-offender is certainly bizarre!
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Mar 27, 2009 09:30PM)
[quote]
On 2009-03-27 21:39, Orville_Smith wrote:
Did anybody see the current news from Trenton, New Jersey about a 14-year old teen girl who got arrested for posting nude pics of herself on MySpace? Those pics had been intended to be seen by her boyfriend ONLY..but they were Inadvertently seen by many other people. Now in a case of supreme irony, the 14-year old teen girl is charged with Child-Porn and its distribution. To make it even more ironic, she might even have to be REGISTERED as a sex-offender!! Do any of you gents have comments on that? Should that teen-girl be charged as stated? I mean, for a teen-girl to be Registered as sex-offender is certainly bizarre!
[/quote]


Link?


I'm KIDDING!!!
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Mar 27, 2009 10:08PM)
14 year old girls? Oh to be in my mid 20's again!

Not kidding!
Message: Posted by: Orville Smith (May 21, 2009 07:42PM)
A case of Intoxication: A 44-year-old Drunken man was arrested in Ann Arbor, Mich., blocking traffic by approaching an officer and requesting a big hug (and then cursing the officer when he declined).
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 21, 2009 08:06PM)
Well, this has to do with Montreal, Canada, not America, but a woman there was recently handcuffed and fined for not holding onto an escalator handrail:

[url]http://www.montrealgazette.com/Laval+police+defend+metro+handcuffing+fine/1610303/story.html[/url]
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 21, 2009 09:03PM)
[quote]
On 2009-05-21 21:00, magicianman1 wrote:

Guilty until you prove yourself innocent here.
[/quote]

The vast majority of people arrested for a particular crime have done what they're believed to have done (to a layman, they "are guilty," although as a term of art, "guilt" includes a state of mind requirement that does not always apply; there's a lot of over-charging, but there's also a lot of plea bargaining). The system is designed to set free a whole bunch of "guilty" people in order to reduce the risk of incarcerating an innocent one. That's still pretty much the way it works.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (May 21, 2009 09:26PM)
Lobo is right you know. I tell folks that all the time. Magicianman is also right, the more money you have to throw at the system the better off you are and it simply isn't fair it just happens to be better than most.

I still remember 15 years ago when my wife had a student whos father was the biggest and best paid criminal attorney in Santa Clara County, he even had a lawyer name. I asked, about OJ, if it gets frustrating for lawyers that there are all kinds of delays....his response was "I get paid to keep them out of court, when they run out of money that is when we go to court". Nice huh?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 21, 2009 10:07PM)
The old joke about capital punishment is that if you have the capital you avoid the punishment.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (May 21, 2009 11:27PM)
Oh yeah. I believe the state has an obligation to do the DNA testing and all that crap for those who cannot afford to pay for it. If they don't want to do that then make all defendents get a public defender and tell the criminal lawyers to go review real estate deals, what do they care? It is money and that is what they are all about once they get past the BS about 'wanting to help society'. If they wanted to help society they should become trash collectors.
Message: Posted by: Orville Smith (Jul 16, 2009 09:23PM)
In order to pay for mattresses at a new jail addition, the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department in Missouri has come up with a novel idea. The offer is that if you pay them $50, you will be given a tour of the new jail and best of all, you will be given the privilege to spend a night in that new jail. The offer of that overnight stay is good for only July 31st, so if it appeals to you, then make plans accordingly.
Message: Posted by: Orville Smith (Aug 15, 2009 09:17PM)
Kendrick Pitts, 20, and his brother Marquise, 19, were arrested in the Ladies' room of a small office building in Fort Lauderdale,Fla., where they were hiding in stalls after being chased by police investigating a stolen truck. Their ruse failed when they tried, using falsetto voices, to persuade the cops that the only people present were Women.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 15, 2009 09:43PM)
[quote]
On 2009-07-16 22:23, Orville_Smith wrote:
In order to pay for mattresses at a new jail addition, the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department in Missouri has come up with a novel idea. The offer is that if you pay them $50, you will be given a tour of the new jail and best of all, you will be given the privilege to spend a night in that new jail. The offer of that overnight stay is good for only July 31st, so if it appeals to you, then make plans accordingly.
[/quote]
Sounds a little like they 'stole' (how ironic) the idea from San Pedro prison in Bolivia.

Story and photos here:

[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/06/americas_inside_a_bolivian_jail/html/1.stm[/url]

"San Pedro prison, the biggest in Bolivia's main city, La Paz, is home to about 1,500 inmates. Once you pass the thick walls and the security gates, any resemblance to a normal jail disappears: there are children playing, market stalls, restaurants, hairdressers and even a hotel. It looks more like the streets of El Alto, Bolivia's poorest neighbourhood that sprawls on the outskirts of La Paz, than a prison."

[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/travel/2009/jan/17/prison-tour-la-paz-bolivia[/url]

"San Pedro is arguably the most notorious prison in South America. Inmates are expected to pay for their cells, the poor sharing hovels while the wealthier bag themselves rooms resembling studio apartments. The more enterprising might also practise a trade (barbers, carpenters) or become proprietors of internal restaurants. Whole families live inside, with prisoners' wives and children free to come and go. Grease a few palms and this unusual visiting policy can be extended to curious tourists too."
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Aug 16, 2009 01:59AM)
I probably posted on this before, but when a new prison opened up in my area that offered an open house. I went. Along with about 10,000 other people. :) I guess I wasn't the only one who wanted to see what a prison really looked like.

It was very nice. Two room cells with a private shower and bath. Small rec room/dining rooms for each hallway rather than one large community dining room. Lots of nice facilities for exercise and such. It all reminded me of a small college in North America. Other than the fact that you get locked in at night and you can't leave the campus, it wouldn't be such a bad place to live and work.
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Aug 16, 2009 07:51AM)
Yeah, but with the seedy kind of people you get moving into those facilities, the 'neighborhood' goes down very quickly. ;)
Message: Posted by: Orville Smith (Nov 5, 2009 04:47PM)
In an actual Surveillance-tape I saw on Cable news, it showed a segment in prison where an inmate began assaulting a guard. Astonishingly, 4 other inmates came to the rescue, fighting off the assaultive-inmate, thereby saving the guard. It's astonishing because you would expect those 4 inmates to join in on the assault in hopes of making an escape, but those 4 inmates saved the guard. To add to the surprise, one of those 4 helpful inmates was in prison for attempted murder, but he still helped save the guard. What possessed those 4 inmates to do that? According to the reporter, that kind of behavior certainly goes AGAINST the grain as to what would be expected from an inmate. At the very least, this is certainly unusual.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Nov 5, 2009 05:27PM)
[quote]
On 2009-11-05 17:47, Orville_Smith wrote:
In an actual Surveillance-tape I saw on Cable news, it showed a segment in prison where an inmate began assaulting a guard. Astonishingly, 4 other inmates came to the rescue, fighting off the assaultive-inmate, thereby saving the guard. It's astonishing because you would expect those 4 inmates to join in on the assault in hopes of making an escape, but those 4 inmates saved the guard. To add to the surprise, one of those 4 helpful inmates was in prison for attempted murder, but he still helped save the guard. What possessed those 4 inmates to do that? According to the reporter, that kind of behavior certainly goes AGAINST the grain as to what would be expected from an inmate. At the very least, this is certainly unusual.
[/quote]
[url]http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/20091105/UPDATES01/91105037/Inmates+who+came+to+guard+s+rescue+get+help++too+[/url]

November 5, 2009

TAMPA, Fla. (AP) — Four inmates who came to the rescue of a Florida jail guard when he was attacked by another inmate may be getting some help of their own.

Deputy Larry McKinnon said Thursday the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office will write letters to the inmates' attorneys that can be used on their behalf in court.

The inmates helped save 64-year-old detention deputy Kenneth Moon on Monday afternoon when inmate Douglas Emanuel Burden charged him, put him in choke hold and began strangling him.

Four inmates saw the commotion and came to Moon's aid, including one who reached for the deputy's radio and called for help. The incident was caught on a security video.

The men are in jail for charges including home invasion and attempted murder.
Message: Posted by: Orville Smith (Dec 12, 2009 03:21PM)
Cesar Lopez, 29, was arrested at the Turkey Hill Minit Market in Lebanon, Pa., when he emerged from a restroom looking for something inside the baseball cap he was carrying. A police officer noticed that a small baggie was stuck to the top of Lopez's forehead and speculated that Lopez had stowed the baggie (found later to contain marijuana) inside the sweatband of the cap, but that when he removed the cap in the restroom, the baggie remained stuck to his head.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Dec 12, 2009 03:35PM)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126049373613486817.html

A Year After His Arrest ...

Bernie Madoff, the $19 Billion Con, Makes New Friends Behind Bars

BUTNER, N.C. -- Bernard L. Madoff's life of country clubs and luxury homes ended when federal agents arrested him at his Manhattan penthouse apartment exactly one year ago. But he is adjusting to his new life behind rows of gleaming silver razor wire in this small Southern town.

Inmate No. 61727-054 shares an unlocked cell at the medium-security prison at Butner Federal Correctional Complex with a younger man named Frank. He wears khaki prison garb and has been spotted walking on an outdoor track. He plays bocce, chess and checkers. He scrubs pots and pans in the prison kitchen.

The 71-year-old Mr. Madoff also is salvaging something that disappeared in the outside world the moment his fraud was exposed: respect. "To every con artist, he is the godfather, the don," says an inmate interviewed earlier this week.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Dec 12, 2009 03:41PM)
Its not Mr. Madoff, he paid a double to do his bird for him.
Message: Posted by: Orville Smith (Dec 18, 2009 02:24PM)
Inmate exonerated after 35 years: James Bain was freed after being behind bars for 35-years for a crime he did NOT commit. Bain had filed for several previous petitions asking for DNA testing, all of which were thrown out. He was convicted largely on the strength of the victim's eyewitness identification. Behind bars for THIRTY-FIVE YEARS despite his innocence. How should Mr. Bain be compensated?
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Dec 18, 2009 02:56PM)
No, he likely was involved, the hippie.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 18, 2009 03:16PM)
[quote]
On 2009-12-18 15:24, Orville_Smith wrote:
Inmate exonerated after 35 years: James Bain was freed after being behind bars for 35-years for a crime he did NOT commit. Bain had filed for several previous petitions asking for DNA testing, all of which were thrown out. He was convicted largely on the strength of the victim's eyewitness identification. Behind bars for THIRTY-FIVE YEARS despite his innocence. How should Mr. Bain be compensated?
[/quote]

We could let him falsely imprison the eyewitness for 35 years without punishment.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Dec 18, 2009 05:33PM)
Eye witnesses are nutty.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 18, 2009 05:45PM)
http://www.sphere.com/crime/article/killer-hector-quinones-plunges-to-his-death-after-his-pants-fall-down/19287498
Message: Posted by: Orville Smith (Dec 31, 2009 05:34PM)
Three men and a woman from Atlantic City, N.J., were arrested and charged with robbing the Artisans Bank in Bear, Del. Their escape after the robbery had been delayed when they accidentally left the keys to the getaway car in the bank.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Dec 31, 2009 05:42PM)
[quote]
On 2009-12-18 18:45, LobowolfXXX wrote:
http://www.sphere.com/crime/article/killer-hector-quinones-plunges-to-his-death-after-his-pants-fall-down/19287498
[/quote]

I am struck dumb. Thank you. I think.
Message: Posted by: Orville Smith (Jan 21, 2010 04:36PM)
Although this is not about somebody behind bars,but it still involves the judiciary system,so is still appropriate for this thread.
County officials in Chicago have agreed to pay a $14,000 injury claim to janitor Mary Tait of the sheriff's department. The amount covers two incidents, in which she hurt her back in the same way---while "reaching around to pick up a piece of toilet paper."
I don't know whether you folks consider that a justifiable claim or not.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Jan 21, 2010 07:21PM)
I have been a prisoner of the institution of marrage for over 40 years, and even though there were two women involved it has all been very hard time.
Message: Posted by: Orville Smith (Jan 22, 2010 04:48PM)
Travis Himmler,22,was charged with burglary after allegedly stealing the cash register from the Golden Wok restaurant in Bloomington,Minn., and carrying it away on his bicycle. He was found down the street, injured, after taking a bad tumble when the dangling cash register cord got caught in the bike's spokes.
Message: Posted by: Orville Smith (Jan 23, 2010 01:54PM)
This item is somewhat perplexing to me.
From Steamboat Springs, Colorado: "Police were called to a report of a suspicious incident in the 2900 block of a West Acres Drive where a woman reported that she found feces in her toilet that she did Not think she put there."

My only guess is that it's supposedly the feces of a burglar. Presumably he forgot to flush. That reminds me of another case from long ago where a burglar actually took a shower in the victim's house.
If Nobody else replies to this post, then I'll assume that my conjectural solution has been accepted.
Message: Posted by: Doomo (Jan 24, 2010 09:22AM)
Wow... Santa is a cranky kinda guy... Hooda thunk it? Oh... And the reason the USA has such a high incarceration rate is that we tend to make so many things against the law. Drugs, prostitution, that kinda thing. Tax em and treat em like any other industry... We tried making alcohol illegal and remember how well that worked?
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Jan 24, 2010 10:05AM)
Doomo
You are so right. Tobacco is legal and that **** will kill you.
Message: Posted by: Orville Smith (Feb 27, 2010 09:51PM)
A news summary of traffic stops on Christmas Eve in Alice Springs, Australia, noted that 11 people were charged with DUI, including one man who was spotted driving despite his car's hood being broken in the "Up" position and having smashed through his windshield. The driver maneuvered down the street by craning his neck out the side window.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 27, 2010 10:06PM)
The other 99 are homeless.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Feb 28, 2010 03:19PM)
[quote]
On 2010-02-27 23:06, tommy wrote:
The other 99 are homeless.
[/quote]
98 :)
Message: Posted by: Orville Smith (Apr 2, 2010 09:24PM)
Guido Boldini and his mother Constance Boldini pleaded guilty to soliciting a hit man to take out Guido's ex-wife, Michelle Hudon, after a contentious child-custody battle in Keene, N.H. The "hitman" was an undercover cop, and the son and mother are now serving a combined 12 to 35 years in prison. Unknown to the Boldinis, Michelle Hudon had been diagnosed with cancer, and died shortly after they were sentenced. Man,that sounds just like an Alfred Hitchcock twist-ending, except this item is real!
Message: Posted by: balducci (Apr 2, 2010 10:41PM)
[quote]
On 2008-02-28 17:54, balducci wrote:
http://wcbstv.com/national/prison.americans.prison.2.665053.html

So the question I have is, which of you off topic forum posters is a jailbird posting from inside some correctional facility?
[/quote]
And we've yet to hear from a jailbird. Don't they do magic tricks in the big house?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Apr 3, 2010 01:35AM)
I am broadcasting live from home. Not incarcerated. Just so y'all know.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Apr 3, 2010 06:55PM)
Oh. So you're NOT a jailhouse lawyer. :)
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 3, 2010 08:14PM)
If they rebuilt the Berlin Wall people today would be jumping over to the East to freedom.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Apr 4, 2010 03:48PM)
Are they presently walking over to the East?
Message: Posted by: Orville Smith (Apr 17, 2010 03:57PM)
Craig Show, 49, filed a lawsuit against the Idaho State Police and the Bonner County Sheriff's Office, demanding compensation following his DUI arrest. Show said the cops had seized a "medicine bag" on his motorcycle and, in opening it for inspection, permitted "mystical powers" inside to escape. The bag was blessed by a "medicine woman" in 1995 and, Show said, had been Unopened since then. Was Mr. Show justified in his demand for compensation?
Message: Posted by: Orville Smith (Apr 25, 2010 07:58PM)
Deanne Elshloz,44, was charged with domestic battery in Wesley Chapel, Fla., after hitting her husband, David, in the face with a glass. David, intoxicated, had enraged Deanne by completely missing the toilet bowl as he stood to urinate. Deanne then angrily charged after him but lost her footing on the urine-slippery floor.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Apr 28, 2010 11:23PM)
The poor little thing was just hungry.

[url=http://theoriginalgreenwichdiva.com/anna-godfrey-arrested-after-biting-chunk-from-mans-ear-for-calling-her-fat/8916/]Article here.[/url]

A Nebraska man who called a woman “fat” at a party had one of his ears bitten off.

Lincoln authorities say around 3:25 a.m. Wednesday police were called to the hospital to talk to the victim, who said 21-year-old Anna Godfrey bit his ear off because he called her fat.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Apr 28, 2010 11:44PM)
Going around eating ears isn't going to make her any skinnier.
Message: Posted by: Orville Smith (May 8, 2010 03:13PM)
(From Florida) Travis Neeley,19, was arrested in Lake City,Fla., for burglarizing a car, caught red-handed by the owner, who used the remote-control to lock Neeley inside. Neeley tried several times to unlock a door and exit, but each time, the owner relocked it before Neeley could get out, and he finally gave up and waited for the police.
You may have noticed that the article said the door got unlocked and relocked SEVERAL times. How many times is Several times? If it's a lot of times, it must have sure looked comical.
Message: Posted by: Orville Smith (May 9, 2010 12:16PM)
(From Montana news) John White, running for sheriff in Roundup, Mont., will be Unable to carry a gun if he wins because of a long-ago bank robbery conviction.
Message: Posted by: Algebra2 (May 10, 2010 10:53PM)
Ron Paul 2012 for President, check out http://www.campaignforliberty.com, make the Fed dissapear
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (May 11, 2010 11:26AM)
Oh.. so this thread went from one direction, to naming off odd crimes, to campaigning for president? While Ron might have some good ideas, there is no chance.

What would take over as the banking system if the fed went bye bye?
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (May 15, 2010 08:26PM)
The good ol' boys Shylock Society
Message: Posted by: Orville Smith (May 30, 2010 08:32PM)
Although this news item is Not American but instead from Sweden-news, it's still pertinent for this thread since it involves prison. Sweden's Metro newspaper reported that a 21-year-old inmate at Kirseberg prison in Malmo faces discipline for continuing his protests against jail conditions by aiming his Gas-passing directly at guards.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (May 30, 2010 09:12PM)
That is one talented inmate. Hey wait a minute my wife has accused me of possessing that very same talent.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 30, 2010 11:15PM)
[quote]
On 2010-05-11 12:26, kcg5 wrote:
Oh.. so this thread went from one direction, to naming off odd crimes, to campaigning for president? While Ron might have some good ideas, there is no chance.

What would take over as the banking system if the fed went bye bye?
[/quote]
I got wiplash from the sudden turn! Thank whoever that so many lawyers are here.
Message: Posted by: Orville Smith (Jun 11, 2010 11:18PM)
[quote]
On 2010-05-30 22:12, Al Angello wrote:
That is one talented inmate. Hey wait a minute my wife has accused me of possessing that very same talent.
[/quote]
Your acknowledgement of Gas-passing as an actual talent, although meant as a joke, is actually true. Because in vaudeville, there was a performer who would actually pass gas at will, on stage. I'm pretty sure I saw it in a book by Ricky Jay. I'm sure a number of you at this forum must have read that Ricky Jay book too.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jun 11, 2010 11:55PM)
[quote]
On 2010-06-12 00:18, Orville_Smith wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-05-30 22:12, Al Angello wrote:
That is one talented inmate. Hey wait a minute my wife has accused me of possessing that very same talent.
[/quote]
Your acknowledgement of Gas-passing as an actual talent, although meant as a joke, is actually true. Because in vaudeville, there was a performer who would actually pass gas at will, on stage. I'm pretty sure I saw it in a book by Ricky Jay. I'm sure a number of you at this forum must have read that Ricky Jay book too.
[/quote]
Ricky Jay discusses Le Petomane in his book Learned Pigs and Fireproof Women.

[url]http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Le_P%C3%A9tomane[/url]
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Jun 12, 2010 07:11AM)
I think that I am more of an amature at it. I saw on TV a Hollywood agency that specialized in odd talent, and they had a gas lighting performer. I saw a Scotish man on Leno that vomited things up for a living. My X wife was able to make her tassels twirl in opposit directions. I had an old girl friend that could tie a cherry stem in a knot with her tongue. There was a gut in my high school class that could burp all day long. I saw a woman once who could blow a bubble inside of a bubble. Oh yes there is undiscovered talent out there my friends.
Message: Posted by: Orville Smith (Jun 26, 2010 03:05PM)
At some point,the thread deviated from its topic, so now we get back on track. The following odd-crime does Not make sense,so maybe somebody could enlighten: "Clair Arthur Smith,42,of Cape Coral,Fla., was charged with forgery after he allegedly tried to doctor the amount of a check he had received from Bank Of America. Converting the "$10.00" check to $100, or even $100,000, would seem plausible, but Smith tried to deposit the check into his account after he had marked it up to "269,951.00." Why in blazes would he doctor it that way instead? Isn't it like begging to be caught?
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 26, 2010 07:06PM)
[quote]
On 2010-06-26 16:05, Orville_Smith wrote:
At some point,the thread deviated from its topic, so now we get back on track. The following odd-crime does Not make sense,so maybe somebody could enlighten: "Clair Arthur Smith,42,of Cape Coral,Fla., was charged with forgery after he allegedly tried to doctor the amount of a check he had received from Bank Of America. Converting the "$10.00" check to $100, or even $100,000, would seem plausible, but Smith tried to deposit the check into his account after he had marked it up to "269,951.00." Why in blazes would he doctor it that way instead? Isn't it like begging to be caught?
[/quote]


Do you think maybe he is stupid?
Message: Posted by: Orville Smith (Jul 3, 2010 03:15PM)
From Virginia news: Sean Almond,43, was charged with allegedly robbing a Kangaroo Mart in Suffolk, Va. Almond was caught immediately after the robbery when he was spotted in a nearby alley, where he had been overcome by a sudden urge to relieve himself.
Message: Posted by: Orville Smith (Mar 10, 2011 03:35AM)
From Florida news: Three men and two juveniles were charged with burglary in Silver Springs Shores, Fla., following a break-in that netted them electronics and jewelry and what they thought was a stash of Cocaine. The men told police they had snorted some of the powder. The police report identified the powder as the cremated ashes of the resident's late father. Some of the ashes were later recovered.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Mar 14, 2011 05:47PM)
I'm not sure how this thread transitioned from a discussion about how many Americans are incarcerated to "America's Dumbest Criminals," but getting back to the original discussion, those who think we're putting too MANY people in prison can take solace in the fact that professional sack-of-excrement George Villanueva, despite 28 prior arrests, including convictions for burglary and robbery, at least 23 domestic violence complaints, and multiple violations of a restraining order, was, nonetheless, free and on the streets long enough to (allegedly) kill a military veteran and NYPD officer over the weekend.

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/03/13/2011-03-13_nypd_cop_killed_responding_to_brooklyn_domestic_dispute.html
Message: Posted by: critter (Mar 14, 2011 06:04PM)
I think (and I'm not an expert, but have done [i]some[/i] research on this) that one reason that some people who should be in prison aren't is because of overcrowding. And one reason for overcrowding was the closure of so many asylums after the invention of anti-psychotic medications that nobody is making sure those who need them are taking after they are thrown onto the streets. And nobody likes taking anti-psychotics because they have extremely unpleasant side effects. So those people go off their meds, hut people, and are now taking up a lot of prison rescources that they shouldn't be.
And if those people were in asylums where they could be properly treated then there would be more room for the criminals who need to be in jail.

Again, just my interpretation, and I understand that my point of view is only one small piece of a very complex puzzle.
Message: Posted by: Orville Smith (Jan 4, 2012 05:47PM)
Corruption in some Latin American prisons has allowed powerful criminals to buy extraordinary privileges behind bars. News of the Weird's report on Venezuela's San Antonio prison described the imperial reign of one drug lord-inmate, who presided over a personal armory, a local-community drug market and private parties (and with his own DirectTV account). In a surprise raid in November on a prison in Acapulco, Mexico, the usual drugs and weapons turned up, but also 100 fighting roosters for daily gambling.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 4, 2012 07:18PM)
http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/censusstatistic/a/aainjail.htm

1 in 32 under correctional supervision, be it prison, parole, or probation.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 4, 2012 11:20PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-04 20:18, gdw wrote:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/censusstatistic/a/aainjail.htm

1 in 32 under correctional supervision, be it prison, parole, or probation.
[/quote]

Given that 32 was around the number of students in each of my high school classes, it sounds about right that at least one from each class ended up in the joint. But, then again, I went to school in New Jersey so it may have been higher.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jan 5, 2012 12:43AM)
Prediction:

The US will go through the most turbulent period in its history over the coming 20 years. Thereafter it will become the source of all spiritual goodness on the entire planet. At the moment, it is morally, economically, socially and politically breaking to pieces, there is disintegration everywhere (and it will get worse). Once the nation has encountered and broken through these tests, it will arise as the global leader in all these fields.

I'm sorry to say it but at the moment, the level of decadence, social disorder, disunity, and political corruption is at an all-time high, but trust me this is (globall-speaking) a great thing, because in the background, there's a lot of good things happening too which will eventually prevail, so 1 in 32 doesn't surprise me at all, but keep fighting the good fight guys :)

What the US needs right now (in my humble opinion) is a cohort of individuals dedicated to conducting themselves with the greatest moral rectitude, so much so that you shine like a beacon. Light shines at its most potent in the dark, and light in this condition is very attractive...

Kam
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 5, 2012 01:27AM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-05 01:43, kambiz wrote:
What the US needs right now (in my humble opinion) is a cohort of individuals dedicated to conducting themselves with the greatest moral rectitude, so much so that you shine like a beacon.
[/quote]

Yeah, but who gets to decide which moral code is the one to follow? (Rhetorical.)
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 5, 2012 01:36AM)
I agree with critter. We already have too many self-appointed arbiters of moral rectitude. That's one of the problems.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 5, 2012 01:47AM)
The problem isn't the self-appointed ones; it's the elected ones.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jan 5, 2012 01:56AM)
....trustworthiness, truthfulness, tactfulness, respect, honesty, reverence for all life, responsibility, excellence, humility, service.....

personally reflecting on a daily basis on these aspects of moral rectitude will take the US a long way. Hows that for a start.....can anyone say that trying to practice the qualities and working daily on bettering yourself in that practice will take the US backwards?

Kam
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 5, 2012 04:22AM)
[quote]Given that 32 was around the number of students in each of my high school classes, it sounds about right that at least one from each class ended up in the joint.[/quote]

The proportion of people who are incarcerated is about the same now as it was in the 1950s. But at that time, most of them were in State hospitals - mental institutions. Those institutions were mostly closed in the 1960s and 1970s, and the folks held in them put on the street. So in the 1970s and 1980s, the proportion of people incarcerated in the US was the lowest it had been in the XXth century. It took a while, but now we are back about where we always used to be. Only this time, the overwhelming majority of the people who are incarcerated are in prisons.

W.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 5, 2012 05:58AM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-05 02:47, LobowolfXXX wrote:
The problem isn't the self-appointed ones; it's the elected ones.
[/quote]

I would say that most of the latter started out as the former. I've no use for either.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jan 5, 2012 06:23AM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-05 06:58, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-01-05 02:47, LobowolfXXX wrote:
The problem isn't the self-appointed ones; it's the elected ones.
[/quote]

I would say that most of the latter started out as the former. I've no use for either.
[/quote]


What category do those that live an exemplary life fall under, you know, the ones that have not written or talked about a moral code, but when you look at their lives, you think WOW! I wish everyone on earth strived to BE like that.....

Are people like that self-appointed or elected?

Has anyone come across anyone that fits that description?

Kam
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 5, 2012 08:11AM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-05 06:58, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-01-05 02:47, LobowolfXXX wrote:
The problem isn't the self-appointed ones; it's the elected ones.
[/quote]

I would say that most of the latter started out as the former. I've no use for either.
[/quote]

So you're an anarchist ;)

As for how people should behave, I think some of the best advice can be found in an airplane.

“Remember to secure your own oxygen mask before assisting others with theirs.”
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 5, 2012 09:16AM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-05 06:58, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-01-05 02:47, LobowolfXXX wrote:
The problem isn't the self-appointed ones; it's the elected ones.
[/quote]

I would say that most of the latter started out as the former. I've no use for either.
[/quote]

Is the issue really that people self-appoint themselves as moral arbiters, or that people's arbitrations differ from ours? If you support the woman who killed the guy trying to break into her house, or if you think that abortion should be legal, or if you think that some people's tax money should be taken under threat of imprisonment to pay for the health care and education of other people, are you not being a moral arbIter?
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 5, 2012 10:59AM)
[quote]
On 2011-03-14 18:47, LobowolfXXX wrote:
I'm not sure how this thread transitioned from a discussion about how many Americans are incarcerated to "America's Dumbest Criminals," but getting back to the original discussion, those who think we're putting too MANY people in prison ...
[/quote]
The original point of this discussion (I speak as the thread starter) had nothing to do with either of those.

Rather, I was simply wondering why there are never any jailbirds posting in this forum when there are as many in jail as there are.

To the best of my knowledge, still no one here has stepped up and admitted to posting from behind bars.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 5, 2012 11:34AM)
The smiley face led me to believe that question was rhetorical. (I've used that word twice in two days. It is [i]not[/i] my favorite word...)
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 5, 2012 11:42AM)
Do they have internet in jail?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 5, 2012 11:49AM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-05 10:16, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-01-05 06:58, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-01-05 02:47, LobowolfXXX wrote:
The problem isn't the self-appointed ones; it's the elected ones.
[/quote]

I would say that most of the latter started out as the former. I've no use for either.
[/quote]

Is the issue really that people self-appoint themselves as moral arbiters, or that people's arbitrations differ from ours? If you support the woman who killed the guy trying to break into her house, or if you think that abortion should be legal, or if you think that some people's tax money should be taken under threat of imprisonment to pay for the health care and education of other people, are you not being a moral arbIter?
[/quote]

Not really - because I try not to pass judgment on those whose views differ from mine.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 5, 2012 02:34PM)
Well, balducci, like the man said she said, "We are all just prisoners here, of our own device."

W.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jan 6, 2012 03:10AM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-05 10:16, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-01-05 06:58, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-01-05 02:47, LobowolfXXX wrote:
The problem isn't the self-appointed ones; it's the elected ones.
[/quote]

I would say that most of the latter started out as the former. I've no use for either.
[/quote]

Is the issue really that people self-appoint themselves as moral arbiters, or that people's arbitrations differ from ours? If you support the woman who killed the guy trying to break into her house, or if you think that abortion should be legal, or if you think that some people's tax money should be taken under threat of imprisonment to pay for the health care and education of other people, are you not being a moral arbIter?
[/quote]

I agree very much with this. Who can we trust as an independent moral arbiter, that can be used as a source for true justice?

Surely, this post is begging for a regular flow of relatively changing moral guidelines that are aligned to the stage of evolution of civilization, from a source that can unite the said civilization under a commonly moral banner....


Kam
Message: Posted by: Dynamike (Jan 7, 2012 01:09AM)
It if was not for prison, half of us would not have ever learned sleight of hand to become a magician. :)
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jan 7, 2012 01:19AM)
1 In Every 99 Americans Now Behind Bars?

If it's after work, I suspect more people are behind bars... Drinking.

:goof:
Message: Posted by: vinsmagic (Jan 7, 2012 01:29AM)
What I feel very sad about and it is not the prisoners
but we lost our own magic santa since this post was first started
vinny
Message: Posted by: vinsmagic (Jan 7, 2012 02:28AM)
I havent seen magic santa around I miss his posts
vinny
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 7, 2012 02:34AM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-07 03:28, vinsmagic wrote:
I havent seen magic santa around I miss his posts
vinny
[/quote]

http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=447235&forum=32&42
Message: Posted by: vinsmagic (Jan 7, 2012 02:39AM)
Critter thanks for the up date. I really thought something had happened to him phewwwww
vinny
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 7, 2012 02:43AM)
Anytime. I like having the grouchy old fart around too.
Message: Posted by: Orville Smith (Jan 7, 2012 07:37PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-07 02:09, Dynamike wrote:
It if was not for prison, half of us would not have ever learned sleight of hand to become a magician. :)
[/quote]

Although you meant that as a joke, I remember reading an actual news report about 20 years ago where an inmate escaped from prison. In his prison-cell was a book he had borrowed from the prison-library, and it was a book about Houdini's escapes.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 7, 2012 10:58PM)
Orville, there was a similar story about an inmate who was refused books on magic, because they claimed he could do just that.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 7, 2012 11:01PM)
Here's a few more in prison:
http://www.sbsun.com/ci_19674783


"Sometimes we have to reinforce the idea that it is a crime to not send your child to school,"
Wow, putting it right out there. You ate forced, with threat of violence, to make your kids go to school. School is becoming nothing more than a day prison.
Those who think public education is a good thing, you are saying "we should force people, at fun point, into schools, for their own good of course."
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 7, 2012 11:05PM)
Speaking of schooling.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/07/dc-lawmakers-propose-requiring-students-to-apply-to-college/

"I believe that every child should have the opportunity, even if they don't go, to at least apply to a college,"
How do these people not see there is a BIG difference between having the opportunity to do something, and being forced to do it. One is good, the other is simply tyranny.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 7, 2012 11:14PM)
So, just to clarify, when your daughter hits 5, if she decides she doesn't want to go to school anymore after a week, you'd be fine with letting her make that decision? Can she just stay home and watch cartoons if that's what she wants to do?
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 8, 2012 01:00AM)
She'll force herself at fun point to watch them.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 8, 2012 08:01AM)
Lobo, I'm not a fan of school, but I am a fan of education. My point is that I shouldn't be thrown in a cage IF I didn't make her go back. Are you saying you support using force against me because of such? Because I disagree with what you view as "best" for schooling?
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 8, 2012 08:04AM)
Critter, do you take issue with my characterisation of the threat backing sending your children to school? If so, honestly, do you think they were just "asking" the parents to go to jail? Pretty please go in this cage?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 8, 2012 10:41AM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-08 09:01, gdw wrote:
Lobo, I'm not a fan of school, but I am a fan of education. My point is that I shouldn't be thrown in a cage IF I didn't make her go back. Are you saying you support using force against me because of such? Because I disagree with what you view as "best" for schooling?
[/quote]

What about her autonomy right to not go? Are you saying that you thhe right to force her if you and she disagree?
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 8, 2012 12:15PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-08 09:04, gdw wrote:
Critter, do you take issue with my characterisation of the threat backing sending your children to school? If so, honestly, do you think they were just "asking" the parents to go to jail? Pretty please go in this cage?
[/quote]

I don't know what you're on about now. I was only thinking that whatever fun point is, it doesn't sound that bad.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 8, 2012 03:38PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-08 13:15, critter wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-01-08 09:04, gdw wrote:
Critter, do you take issue with my characterisation of the threat backing sending your children to school? If so, honestly, do you think they were just "asking" the parents to go to jail? Pretty please go in this cage?
[/quote]

I don't know what you're on about now. I was only thinking that whatever fun point is, it doesn't sound that bad.
[/quote]

I like the cut of your jib.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 8, 2012 03:50PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-08 11:41, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-01-08 09:01, gdw wrote:
Lobo, I'm not a fan of school, but I am a fan of education. My point is that I shouldn't be thrown in a cage IF I didn't make her go back. Are you saying you support using force against me because of such? Because I disagree with what you view as "best" for schooling?
[/quote]

What about her autonomy right to not go? Are you saying that you thhe right to force her if you and she disagree?
[/quote]

Where did you get that from? That sounds much more like what you are advocating.
The law suggests that I should be thrown in a cage if I don't force her to go.

That's not to say I can't encorage and incentivise her. Unfortunately, statistic often seem to think that the threat of force, ie making a law, is the only way to "incentivise" someone. When your only tool is a hammer ...
Quite often the use of that analogy is pure projection.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 8, 2012 03:58PM)
Schools are looking more like jails every day and it's good training the thing that is coming.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jan 8, 2012 05:43PM)
Most modern educational techniques are unfortunately lamentably deficient

Kam
Message: Posted by: Tony Iacoviello (Jan 8, 2012 05:46PM)
I'm glad all of my family is part of the 99%

Tony
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 8, 2012 07:07PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-08 16:50, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-01-08 11:41, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-01-08 09:01, gdw wrote:
Lobo, I'm not a fan of school, but I am a fan of education. My point is that I shouldn't be thrown in a cage IF I didn't make her go back. Are you saying you support using force against me because of such? Because I disagree with what you view as "best" for schooling?
[/quote]

What about her autonomy right to not go? Are you saying that you thhe right to force her if you and she disagree?
[/quote]

Where did you get that from? That sounds much more like what you are advocating.
The law suggests that I should be thrown in a cage if I don't force her to go.

That's not to say I can't encorage and incentivise her. Unfortunately, statistic often seem to think that the threat of force, ie making a law, is the only way to "incentivise" someone. When your only tool is a hammer ...
Quite often the use of that analogy is pure projection.
[/quote]

It's a yes/no question. If she doesn't want to go to school, do you have the right to force her to go?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 8, 2012 07:27PM)
No. You have no rights. Ye must do as ye are told and if ye are told to force her to go, that is what ye will do, whether ye or she likes it or not.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 8, 2012 07:29PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-08 20:27, tommy wrote:
No. You have no rights. Ye must do as ye are told and if ye are told to force her to go, that is what ye will do, whether ye or she likes it or not.
[/quote]

Well, we may not have any rights, but at least there's beer.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 8, 2012 07:36PM)
Sometimes I wish that the parents of some of our forum posters had forced them to go to school.

:eek:
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 8, 2012 07:40PM)
Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 8, 2012 07:44PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-08 20:40, tommy wrote:
Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die
[/quote]

I approach every day with that philosophy, because I know that one day I'll be right.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 8, 2012 07:51PM)
Your roots are showing
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 8, 2012 07:57PM)
We do have rights, tommy. But it is up to us to secure and defend them.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 8, 2012 08:30PM)
Maybe it's only tommy who has no rights and he's projecting.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 8, 2012 08:41PM)
Absolutely not, you do not have the "right" to force her.
Why would you? What gives you, or anyone, such a right?
That doesn't mean you wouldn't have a responsibility, or obligation, to.

Rights, if they are inherent, are no more, and no less, than you would have alone on an otherwise deserted island, and such that the addition of an other person, who would obviously possess same rights, would not result in a conflict, or violation, of one an others rights.

Rights are neither gained, nor increased, by possession of a badge, nor any other object, nor by vote, nor proximity, nor number/population.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 8, 2012 09:17PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-08 21:41, gdw wrote:
Absolutely not, you do not have the "right" to force her.
Why would you? What gives you, or anyone, such a right?
That doesn't mean you wouldn't have a responsibility, or obligation, to.

Rights, if they are inherent, are no more, and no less, than you would have alone on an otherwise deserted island, and such that the addition of an other person, who would obviously possess same rights, would not result in a conflict, or violation, of one an others rights.

Rights are neither gained, nor increased, by possession of a badge, nor any other object, nor by vote, nor proximity, nor number/population.
[/quote]

I think it's a non-sequitur to say that you have an obligation to do something that you don't have a right to do.

What might give one an obligation (let alone a right) to would be that some people (in particular very young children) are too ignorant to make informed decisions in their rational self-interest.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 8, 2012 09:29PM)
Parents have the right and the responsibility to educate their children. This is the law of nature. Parents may delegate that right to the schools, who act as the parents' agent. But children do not belong to the State, and it should be the parents' option to educate their children, themselves.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 8, 2012 09:43PM)
I'm trying to ascertain whether or not GDW believes that parents have the right to educate children who do not wish to be educated.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 8, 2012 10:24PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-08 22:43, LobowolfXXX wrote:
I'm trying to ascertain whether or not GDW believes that parents have the right to educate children who do not wish to be educated.
[/quote]

I'm trying to figure that out too. He seems to say that the parent only has the right to ask the child to go and to reason with them, but appears to be saying that if the kid really doesn't want to go he/she cannot be forced.

At least that's what he appears to be saying.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jan 8, 2012 10:29PM)
Here in Australia, there is no legal obligation to send your children to school.

As a parent, it is your right, in my opinion, to decide on how you wish your child to be educated, however, it is your obligation to ensure that they are educated well. Now, the definition of "well" is open to debate, what constitutes good education and what constitutes bad education is a wrangle that will go on through the ages.

I feel it only rational that the state assesses the legitimacy of the educational means of the parent before granting full educational ownership to them for any particualr child....

A good balance between academio and spiritual education is the only means by which the incarcerated numbers in the US can be reduced. Those 2 types of education are essential to the constant development of the child as an individual, yet the correct approaches to these two types of education are exactly opposite to one another.

Kam
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 8, 2012 10:33PM)
Kam-

But that's not what GDW seems to be talking about. He appears to be saying that it is the kid's right to refuse to be educated if he/she doesn't want to be.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jan 8, 2012 10:55PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-08 16:50, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-01-08 11:41, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-01-08 09:01, gdw wrote:
Lobo, I'm not a fan of school, but I am a fan of education. My point is that I shouldn't be thrown in a cage IF I didn't make her go back. Are you saying you support using force against me because of such? Because I disagree with what you view as "best" for schooling?
[/quote]

What about her autonomy right to not go? Are you saying that you thhe right to force her if you and she disagree?
[/quote]

Where did you get that from? That sounds much more like what you are advocating.
The law suggests that I should be thrown in a cage if I don't force her to go.

That's not to say I can't encorage and incentivise her. Unfortunately, statistic often seem to think that the threat of force, ie making a law, is the only way to "incentivise" someone. When your only tool is a hammer ...
Quite often the use of that analogy is pure projection.
[/quote]


Bob, I sensed the opposite, from the quotes above, I read that he doesn't want to throw his kids to school, but he is a fan of education, which implies he does home-schooling, a very popular concept here in Australia...

I guess only GDW can fully clarify :)

Kam
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 8, 2012 11:53PM)
You're right, he might well mean that. But he also said, "That's not to say I can't encourage and incentivise her."

That's what confuses me because it implies that while he can encourage her to go to school, he can't force her.

GDW- Did you mean to imply that a child shouldn't be forced to go to school or be otherwise educated if he/she doesn't want to? It's really not clear from what you wrote.

Best-

Bob
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 9, 2012 03:16AM)
If something as simple as that is not clear to you, then all can say is, thank God I was not forced to go to your schools.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jan 9, 2012 04:00AM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-09 04:16, tommy wrote:
If something as simple as that is not clear to you, then all can say is, thank God I was not forced to go to your schools.
[/quote]

Tommy, with respect, you really need to work hard on improving your courtesy, politeness, respect, kindness, friendliness, humility, patience and gentleness, with that very comment....

I hope you don't speak to your loved ones like that

I personally cannot imagine even speaking to my enemies like that

:)

Kam
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 9, 2012 04:36AM)
Don't mind Tommy...I'm sure that those who know him in person have had plenty of time to get used to his "ultimate insider" bit. It grows on you.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jan 9, 2012 04:54AM)
:)

takes a lot to offend me Lobowolf :) just don't think Bob deserved that personally....

Kam
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 9, 2012 06:28AM)
Kam, why do you think "the State" should have the power to determine if the parents' educational choices for their children are "legitimate?" Shouldn't it be the citizens, who have the power to determine if the State's programs are "legitimate?" Note that there are asylum/refugee cases pending in the United States, for home-schoolers from Europe:

[quote][url=http://www.hslda.org/hs/international/Germany/201001260.asp]In a case with international ramifications,[/url] Immigration Judge Lawrence O. Burman granted the political asylum application of a German homeschooling family. The Romeikes are Christians from Bissinggen, Germany, who fled persecution in August 2008 to seek political asylum in the United States. The request was granted January 26 after a hearing was held in Memphis, Tennessee, on January 21.

“We can’t expect every country to follow our constitution,” said Judge Burman. “The world might be a better place if it did. However, the rights being violated here are basic human rights that no country has a right to violate.” [/quote]

And in almost every American liberal's utopian paradise, [url=http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/2202412530.html]Sweden[/url] -

[quote]Christer and Annie Johansson, a Christian homeschooling family, are in the unimaginable position of permanently losing custody of their only child, seven-year-old Dominic Johansson, simply because they homeschool.

Swedish authorities boarded a plane bound for India in June of this year (Annie's home country) and removed Dominic from his parents. They did not have a warrant nor have they charged the Johanssons with a crime; they simply did not believe homeschooling is an appropriate way to raise a child and insist the government raise Dominic.

"This is one of the most disgraceful abuses of power we have ever witnessed," said HSLDA attorney Mike Donnelly. "The Swedish government is exercising its authority under the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child to unnecessarily break up this family."

The suffering being imposed on the Johanssons is hard to imagine. Visitation was limited to two hours per week but now Swedish social services have curtailed that to one hour every fifth week and no visit at all for Christmas because the social workers will be on vacation.[/quote]

The State is a creation of individuals, to which they may delegate some portion of their rights and powers; since we no longer subscribe to the Divine Right of Kings in the Great Chain of Being, the State has no independent source of power on its own.

Just saying.

W.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jan 9, 2012 07:03AM)
Hey Woland, I totally respect your thoughts and agree with them, however I think you may have misread my comment.

My point was that the state should try and assess the educational MEANS ( not legitimacy) of the parents and look at providing assistance if the need is there. Not all parents can afford the books, pens, paper etc that are essential for the basics of education.

Secondly, I think the state has a responsibility to ensure that a child is not being reared purely for terrorism purposes (as an extreme example) and that the education is for the positive development of a child that can become a healthy contributor to global society.

What constitutes a healthy contributor to global society? Well this will become more and more evident and apparent as humanity evolves and advances more toward a unified and organically advancing unit, which is where we are heading whether we like it or not, in my humble opinion....

I hope that clarifies some of my thoughts :)

Kam
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 9, 2012 07:18AM)
It does. Thanks.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 9, 2012 07:40AM)
Man, there are a lot of hammers in this thread.

Lobo, there are a LOT of adults who are simply too ignorant to be using drugs, does that mean anyone has a "right" to force them not too?
I have a responsibility to feed my children, does that mean I have the right to FORCE feed them?

[quote]
On 2012-01-08 22:29, Woland wrote:
Parents have the right and the responsibility to educate their children. This is the law of nature. Parents may delegate that right to the schools, who act as the parents' agent. But children do not belong to the State, and it should be the parents' option to educate their children, themselves.
[/quote]

I'm fine with parents educating their children. Education rocks, school sucks. Individuals can certainly delegate that duty to whom ever they like. If they delegate that to someone else, should that other then suddenly have the right to cage the parent when their kid doesn't show up?
Also, individuals can delegate this got themselves, they have no right to delegate this for others.

Not saying that was what you were saying Woland, however your post provided a good basis for my rant ;)

As for what my wife and I will doing with regards to our daughter's education, that remains to be seen. We may, sadly, turn to public schooling, however that doesn't mean that will be the source of her education. I'd say it's hardly education for the majority.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jan 9, 2012 08:28AM)
"The forces at work on the hearts and minds of the young, are pernicious indeed. Exhortations to remain pure and chaste and strive for excellence in all their undertakings will only succeed to a limited degree in helping them to resist these forces. What needs to be appreciated in this respect is the extent to which young minds are affected by the choices parents make for their own lives, when, no matter how unintentionally, no matter how innocently, such choices condone the passions of the world—its admiration for power, its adoration of status, its love of luxuries, its attachment to frivolous pursuits, its glorification of violence, and its obsession with self-gratification. It must be realized that the isolation and despair from which so many suffer are products of an environment ruled by an all-pervasive materialism"

As I've previously pointed out, the state education system is lamentably defective, globally. The child's education is only complete when the parents are intimately involved in the educational process for the child as well.

Just my two cents

Kam
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 9, 2012 09:45AM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-09 04:16, tommy wrote:
If something as simple as that is not clear to you, then all can say is, thank God I was not forced to go to your schools.
[/quote]

Apparently you weren't forced to go to any schools at all.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 9, 2012 09:49AM)
Too true Kam.

The sad thing, with the state taking over responsibilities for people, like "educating" their children, most people don't take much interest in guiding that process. And why should they? The government is going to make everything ok.

Many like to blame the parents for the failing education of children, but the state removed all natural incentive for them to get involved in the first place.

When government takes over responsibilities, how can we expect anything but people being less responsible?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 9, 2012 09:51AM)
I'd really like to help Tommy out but, unfortunately, I read minds - I don't improve them.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 9, 2012 09:52AM)
Heres a wonderful story where another government "official" seems to have adapted the schooling mentality, treating an entire court room like a class of children.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9824710-7.html

At least there would seem to be some accountability for him in this case.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 9, 2012 09:58AM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-09 08:40, gdw wrote:
Man, there are a lot of hammers in this thread.

Lobo, there are a LOT of adults who are simply too ignorant to be using drugs, does that mean anyone has a "right" to force them not too?
I have a responsibility to feed my children, does that mean I have the right to FORCE feed them?
[/quote]

Is there anything you have the right to force her to do? Will you let her die of some disease or infection if she decides she doesn't want a shot, or medicine tastes yucky? Will you physically restrain her from running out into the middle of the street, or just let her go where she wants?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 9, 2012 10:02AM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-09 10:51, mastermindreader wrote:
I'd really like to help Tommy out but, unfortunately, I read minds - I don't improve them.
[/quote]

"they" have programmed you to believe it needs improving.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 9, 2012 02:13PM)
[img]http://behance.vo.llnwd.net/profiles21/489265/projects/1597729/622dcf6222193ce07dd4ed4fcf9e3714.png[/img]

In the land of the blind
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 9, 2012 02:41PM)
I am not sure if it was Marshall McLuhan, Stewart Brand, or Ken Kesey who pointed out that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is NOT king, he is taken to be an hallucinating lunatic.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 9, 2012 02:49PM)
Lobo, as I've said before, there's a difference between what you have a "right" to do, what you have a "right" to force, and a responsibility to do.

There's also a difference between what you have a right to do, and what you are willing to do. If you are willing to do something you don't neccessarily have a "right" to do, you do so accepting the consequences. The problem comes, when having the state do it, when people say it's worth the "price," they seem to completely forget about the "price" part.

I have no "right" to push you, but if I see a grand piano about to land on you, I might consider it (assuming I'm not going to simply get myself crushed in your place.). I do so because I am willing to. Bring willing to means I am accepting the risk. Not (just) the risk of being crushed, but the risk of violating your rights. If you, being grateful for my actions, are willing to forgive the otherwise relatively minor violation of your rights, as I imagine most would, hence my willingness to push you, then you alleviate me of the risk. Forgiving me the "price" if you will.

Applying this to parenting, well, if my daughter, when she's older, and independant, wants to hold me accountable for feeding her, pulling her out of on coming traffic, and educating her, then so be it.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 9, 2012 02:53PM)
I see a clinic full of cynics
Who want to twist the peoples’ wrist
They’re watching every move we make
We’re all included on the list.

The lunatics have taken over the asylum.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 9, 2012 03:52PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-09 15:49, gdw wrote:
Lobo, as I've said before, there's a difference between what you have a "right" to do, what you have a "right" to force, and a responsibility to do.

There's also a difference between what you have a right to do, and what you are willing to do. If you are willing to do something you don't neccessarily have a "right" to do, you do so accepting the consequences. The problem comes, when having the state do it, when people say it's worth the "price," they seem to completely forget about the "price" part.

I have no "right" to push you, but if I see a grand piano about to land on you, I might consider it (assuming I'm not going to simply get myself crushed in your place.). I do so because I am willing to. Bring willing to means I am accepting the risk. Not (just) the risk of being crushed, but the risk of violating your rights. If you, being grateful for my actions, are willing to forgive the otherwise relatively minor violation of your rights, as I imagine most would, hence my willingness to push you, then you alleviate me of the risk. Forgiving me the "price" if you will.

Applying this to parenting, well, if my daughter, when she's older, and independant, wants to hold me accountable for feeding her, pulling her out of on coming traffic, and educating her, then so be it.
[/quote]

Then, to get back to the original issue, I would say that some people believe that there is a right to decide certain things for people who are unable to appreciate the consequences of their actions; i.e. they would say, contrary to your position, that you DO have the right to prevent your daughter from playing in traffic.

Alternatively, though, the answer is nobody has the "right" to force a child to be educated, but some of us are "willing" to do so (to a certain age).
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 9, 2012 04:42PM)
[quote]but if I see a grand piano about to land on you, I might consider it (assuming I'm not going to simply get myself crushed in your place.)[/quote]

I'd take a piano for you.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 9, 2012 06:43PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-09 17:42, critter wrote:
[quote]but if I see a grand piano about to land on you, I might consider it (assuming I'm not going to simply get myself crushed in your place.)[/quote]

I'd take a piano for you.
[/quote]

Thanks Critter.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 9, 2012 06:48PM)
Critter's pretty bad-azzzzzzz. If a piano fell on him, I'd feel bad for the piano.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 9, 2012 06:49PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-09 16:52, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-01-09 15:49, gdw wrote:
Lobo, as I've said before, there's a difference between what you have a "right" to do, what you have a "right" to force, and a responsibility to do.

There's also a difference between what you have a right to do, and what you are willing to do. If you are willing to do something you don't neccessarily have a "right" to do, you do so accepting the consequences. The problem comes, when having the state do it, when people say it's worth the "price," they seem to completely forget about the "price" part.

I have no "right" to push you, but if I see a grand piano about to land on you, I might consider it (assuming I'm not going to simply get myself crushed in your place.). I do so because I am willing to. Bring willing to means I am accepting the risk. Not (just) the risk of being crushed, but the risk of violating your rights. If you, being grateful for my actions, are willing to forgive the otherwise relatively minor violation of your rights, as I imagine most would, hence my willingness to push you, then you alleviate me of the risk. Forgiving me the "price" if you will.

Applying this to parenting, well, if my daughter, when she's older, and independant, wants to hold me accountable for feeding her, pulling her out of on coming traffic, and educating her, then so be it.
[/quote]

Then, to get back to the original issue, I would say that some people believe that there is a right to decide certain things for people who are unable to appreciate the consequences of their actions; i.e. they would say, contrary to your position, that you DO have the right to prevent your daughter from playing in traffic.

Alternatively, though, the answer is nobody has the "right" to force a child to be educated, but some of us are "willing" to do so (to a certain age).
[/quote]

Some people say that, sure, and some people say that they have the "right" to decide which race deserves to live. What's your point.

Who's to say which people can't "appreciate" the consequences? These same people want to control what substances people can put in their body. Who's to say I can or can't appreciate the consequences of my diet? Should someone be able to force me to eat certain foods? Not that they don't effectively do this with regulations and subsidies. There's a reason there's corn products in virtually everything we eat.

So, the alternate you reiterate, yeah, that would seem to be the only objective and consistent option/reality.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 9, 2012 07:05PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-09 19:49, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-01-09 16:52, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-01-09 15:49, gdw wrote:
Lobo, as I've said before, there's a difference between what you have a "right" to do, what you have a "right" to force, and a responsibility to do.

There's also a difference between what you have a right to do, and what you are willing to do. If you are willing to do something you don't neccessarily have a "right" to do, you do so accepting the consequences. The problem comes, when having the state do it, when people say it's worth the "price," they seem to completely forget about the "price" part.

I have no "right" to push you, but if I see a grand piano about to land on you, I might consider it (assuming I'm not going to simply get myself crushed in your place.). I do so because I am willing to. Bring willing to means I am accepting the risk. Not (just) the risk of being crushed, but the risk of violating your rights. If you, being grateful for my actions, are willing to forgive the otherwise relatively minor violation of your rights, as I imagine most would, hence my willingness to push you, then you alleviate me of the risk. Forgiving me the "price" if you will.

Applying this to parenting, well, if my daughter, when she's older, and independant, wants to hold me accountable for feeding her, pulling her out of on coming traffic, and educating her, then so be it.
[/quote]

Then, to get back to the original issue, I would say that some people believe that there is a right to decide certain things for people who are unable to appreciate the consequences of their actions; i.e. they would say, contrary to your position, that you DO have the right to prevent your daughter from playing in traffic.

Alternatively, though, the answer is nobody has the "right" to force a child to be educated, but some of us are "willing" to do so (to a certain age).
[/quote]

Some people say that, sure, and some people say that they have the "right" to decide which race deserves to live. What's your point.

Who's to say which people can't "appreciate" the consequences? These same people want to control what substances people can put in their body. Who's to say I can or can't appreciate the consequences of my diet? Should someone be able to force me to eat certain foods? Not that they don't effectively do this with regulations and subsidies. There's a reason there's corn products in virtually everything we eat.

So, the alternate you reiterate, yeah, that would seem to be the only objective and consistent option/reality.
[/quote]

Well, apparently YOU, for one, take it upon yourself to say that some (logical definition: 'at least one' i.e. your daughter) people can't appreciate the consequences, because I have absolutely no doubt that you take it upon yourself to do things on her behalf that would violate your strict construction of autonomy interests.

You've alluded to "responsibilities" and "obligations"; what foists those upon you? "Who's to say" that you have the obligation to feed your daughter? Until what age? While I do believe in objective morality, there's absolutely no verification for it. That doesn't mean it's WRONG, but it does mean that it's irrational. So your appeal to your own personal code of rights as transcendent, or somehow objective, is really nothing more than an assertion of your own worldview.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 9, 2012 07:32PM)
"While I do believe in objective morality, there's absolutely no verification for it. That doesn't mean it's WRONG, but it does mean that it's irrational."

That sounds a bit contradictory.

As for me and my daughter, as I said, I may make, and "enforce" those decisions, that doesn't mean I have a "right" to. As for my responsibilities and obligations, the come from my choices. There are no unchosen obligations.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 9, 2012 08:15PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-09 20:32, gdw wrote:
"While I do believe in objective morality, there's absolutely no verification for it. That doesn't mean it's WRONG, but it does mean that it's irrational."

That sounds a bit contradictory.

As for me and my daughter, as I said, I may make, and "enforce" those decisions, that doesn't mean I have a "right" to. As for my responsibilities and obligations, the come from my choices. There are no unchosen obligations.
[/quote]

It's not at all contradictory. Lots of unprovable things are true. I can put together a good argument as to why murder is wrong, and I may be able to persuade someone that it is, but I can't "prove" murder is wrong, and someone who thinks it isn't wrong can't "prove" his case, either. It's irrational; it's metaphysics. Nevertheless, murder either is, or is not, wrong.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 9, 2012 09:02PM)
It's wrong.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 9, 2012 09:50PM)
If those generals and officers who attempted to assassinate Hitler had succeeded, are you saying their act would have been wrong? It was clearly an attempted murder complete with premeditation and deliberation.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 9, 2012 09:52PM)
Sam Wiezak would have killed Hitler.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 9, 2012 09:57PM)
Double Hitler point!
It's been quite a w'heil.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 9, 2012 10:01PM)
Bob, they certainly didn't have a right to, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't have done the "right" thing, if you will, or at least the best option they had.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 9, 2012 10:12PM)
I see what you are saying, gdw, but I was responding to Woland's "It's wrong" response to Lobo's statement that whether murder is right or wrong is a metaphysical argument.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 9, 2012 10:13PM)
As was I, sort of. Well, I was responding to your post, but addressing theirs I guess.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 9, 2012 10:21PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-09 22:52, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Sam Wiezak would have killed Hitler.
[/quote]

Yes. (The Dead Zone is one of my favorite books and films)
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 9, 2012 10:33PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-09 23:21, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-01-09 22:52, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Sam Wiezak would have killed Hitler.
[/quote]

Yes. (The Dead Zone is one of my favorite books and films)
[/quote]

Likewise. King has written a few of my favorite books and/or movies. Also on the short list are Hearts in Atlantis (book); (Rita Hayworth and) The Shawshank Redemption (both); and Stand By Me/The Body (both).
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 9, 2012 10:47PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-09 23:33, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Likewise. King has written a few of my favorite books and/or movies. Also on the short list are Hearts in Atlantis (book); (Rita Hayworth and) The Shawshank Redemption (both); and Stand By Me/The Body (both).
[/quote]

Just finished reading his latest 11/22/63. It, too, is on topic with this discussion as it poses the question of what would have happened if you could have gone back in time and killed Oswald before he shot Kennedy.

Excellent book, especially for the incredible attention to details of life in America between 1958 and 1963. (The atmosphere in Dallas prior to the assassination is disturbingly like much of what still exists today.)
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 9, 2012 10:59PM)
I liked 11/22/63. My favorite King in quite a while. I was actually expecting a different ending, but I think King's worked just as well (though I didn't like it as much at first). The book/movie that I liked a lot but still think I could have dramatically improved the ending of (with minimal change) is American Beauty.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 9, 2012 11:04PM)
Bob, ever read John Irving's "A Prayer for Owen Meany"?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 9, 2012 11:17PM)
No. I only read his "The World According to Garp" and "The Cider House Rules."

Is it good? Do you recommend it?

Re the ending of 11/22/63 - King notes in his afterwords that it was his son who came up with the ending. I was at first surprised that it wasn't a typical King ending. I mean, how often does a Stephen King book leave you with a happy tear in your eye?

Best-

Bob
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 9, 2012 11:25PM)
A Prayer for Owen Meany is the best book I've read. If you're interested in my 11/22/63 ending, send a pm and let me know where I can drop you a brief note. I don't want to post too much in the way of spoilers here.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 9, 2012 11:37PM)
PM sent. I'll go to Amazon and get a copy of the Irving book on your recommendation.

Thanks,

Bob
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 9, 2012 11:52PM)
I think you'll like it a lot. Bear with it if the first 50 or so start out slow...it picks up.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 10, 2012 01:59AM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-09 23:01, gdw wrote:
Bob, they certainly didn't have a right to, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't have done the "right" thing, if you will, or at least the best option they had.
[/quote]

Judge by cause not effect.

They certainly had a right to self defence in law, as Hitler was killing his own people, then his own people had a right to kill him. A reasonable jury given the facts would have found them not guilty of killing the little Quisling.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 10, 2012 02:01AM)
Tommy, you're always prone to such flights of wild fancy. Now, where on earth would anyone find a reasonable jury? Or TWO lawyers who would allow it to be seated?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 10, 2012 02:24AM)
:)

Since they did not kill him we will never know I fancy.


Can the fundamental principles of nature ever be wrong?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 10, 2012 02:31AM)
[quote]
Can the fundamental principles of nature ever be wrong?
[/quote]

Not as I understand you to use the term.

But neither can they be proven.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 10, 2012 02:51AM)
Lets assume that nature is always right and say the best and shortest road towards knowledge of truth is nature. Then ask what does nature teach us about rights? Does it teach us that might is right? Does it teach us that rights do not exist? Does nature teach us that rights are illusions, flights of fancy?
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 10, 2012 04:21AM)
[quote]Excellent book, especially for the incredible attention to details of life in America between 1958 and 1963. (The atmosphere in Dallas prior to the assassination is disturbingly like much of what still exists today.)[/quote]

JFK was killed by a communist. Remember? The "atmosphere in Dallas" is a red herring.

W.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 10, 2012 05:07AM)
Well there's an example of how illusury your rights are.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 10, 2012 05:48AM)
Bob, just noticed your question as to whether the killing of Hitler would have been justified. I think it would have been. There is such a thing as justifiable homicide - and that is not murder. Remember, the Ten Commandments read in the original, "Do not murder," not "Do not kill."

W.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jan 10, 2012 06:03AM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-10 03:51, tommy wrote:
Lets assume that nature is always right and say the best and shortest road towards knowledge of truth is nature. Then ask what does nature teach us about rights? Does it teach us that might is right? Does it teach us that rights do not exist? Does nature teach us that rights are illusions, flights of fancy?
[/quote]

Sorry Tommy, there is a huge flaw in the argument that human behaviour should be dictated by the laws of nature.

The human being is far above the intellect-lacking natural world, and should conduct his/her life as such....the human intellect is the basis behind the incredible potential that humans possess to create an ever-advancing civilization that lives in harmony with its natural environment, not the other way around...

Kam
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jan 10, 2012 06:14AM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-09 22:50, mastermindreader wrote:
If those generals and officers who attempted to assassinate Hitler had succeeded, are you saying their act would have been wrong? It was clearly an attempted murder complete with premeditation and deliberation.
[/quote]

In the future, tribunals, international courts and a global commonwealth will be responsible for making globally unifying decisions of this nature (by consultative means amongst representatives of all nations) which will assure everyone that certain killings are a morally right thing to do. Independent decisions made by any particular individual to kill anyone is morally wrong, even Hitler IMHO.

Decisions of a nature that involves killing someone cannot be left to an individual, this is a remnant of a previous, now disintegrating, system of governance....the world is moving towards an order whereby decisions that may involve the loss of human life is done through a collaborative, consultative and globally unifying approach.

We see seeds of this system at play today, with the alliances that the US is forming for decisions that have global ramifications. It will, through processes of reflection and learning, organically grow from is embryonic condition today into a very powerful system that will unify nations and provide justice never before seen in the world....

Just some of my psychic predictions for the next 20 years :)

Ignore me...

Kam
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 10, 2012 06:47AM)
The intellect-lacking natural world :)
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 10, 2012 07:07AM)
Kam, if such decisions are morally wrong for the individual, they do not suddenly become moral by the inclusion of more individuals.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 10, 2012 07:44AM)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 10, 2012 08:58AM)
This is a very good point, gdw:

[quote]if such decisions are morally wrong for the individual, they do not suddenly become moral by the inclusion of more individuals[/quote]

If something is morally wrong for one person to do, it is just as wrong when 2 or 3 gather together to do it, and just as wrong when 1,000,000 people or more vote to do it.

As Walter Williams (an economist with a lot more common sense than Paul Krugman, in my estimation) has pointed out, “No matter how worthy the cause, it is robbery, theft, and injustice to confiscate the property of one person and give it to another to whom it does not belong.” So for example, if I see a poor, sick, elderly homeless woman on the street, it is wrong for me to stick up the next well-dressed passerby I see, and rob him to buy her food, medicines, and a place to live. It is just as wrong for millions of people to vote to empower their armed representatives to enforce the same confiscation. Adding the consent of even an overwhelming majority does not suddenly transform a crime into an unblemished benevolence.

W.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 10, 2012 09:11AM)
Not a fan of Robin Hood I take it?
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jan 10, 2012 09:25AM)
Guys this is a matter of justice being carried out for the betterment of civilization.

It can be argued that it is morally wrong to incarcerate a murderer for life, but not so if he was genuinely guilty of the crime.

Matters of justice which have global ramifications will eventually be carried out through a collaborative and consultative venture to ensure a just outcome is ascertained. Naturally if an option is available to avoid killing someone then I am sure this will be explored by the collaboration.

Cases such as those like Hitler, are now being dealt with similar to Saddam Hussains downfall, and although his situation was dealt with FAR from perfectly, it still reflected the organic development of global decisions on how to deal with such despots, namely, it was a collaborative effort. This collaboration will continue to grow and develop more and more, and the learnings and outcomes it reaps will eventually and gradually develop into a more and more perfect system, making it's judicial decision-making more likely to be correct and thereby unifying.

Hope that makes sense :)

Kam
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 10, 2012 09:40AM)
Kam,

The usual standard in the Anglosphere is that a jury of 12 is sufficient for a just verdict in criminal cases. As a State Trooper once told me, "It is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6." But I don't know what you mean by " collaborative and consultative venture to ensure a just outcome is ascertained." I would hope that in matters concerning our national defense, whether of the USA, the UK, or Oz, our sovereign national governments will make the call. I don't think we need the assenting vote of an assorted 100 or so undemocratic kleptocracies in order to ratify a legitimate act of war. And I don't care what communist tyrannies think about it, either.

I enjoy the legend of Robin Hood as much as anyone, I guess, but robbery is still robbery. It really doesn't matter what you do with the money you've robbed, it's still wrong, and bienfaisance is not a defense.

W.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jan 10, 2012 10:04AM)
W,

Firstly, all kleptocracies and communism as a whole will eventually perish. I can't say whether it will be 100 states or 20, or 10, but whatever the number of representatives, all countries (which will be democratically run) will agree to the number and support any decisions made wholeheartedly.

Secondly, this part of the thread relates to how individuals such as Hitler should be dealt with in the modern world, namely, individuals who are on a path of genocide for example. This was not in relation to matters of national security, with which I agree with you, our national governments are quite capable of defending themselves. But even in this situation, if China decided to invade Australia tomorrow, I'm sure there will be a collaborative effort by many nations to assist Australia in defending itself, and assuredly a just outcome will prevail.

I guess collaboration means working together with other nations for the common good of the world. What is the common good for the world will be decided through a consultative process amongst the democratic nations of the world...

Kam
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 10, 2012 10:24AM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-10 08:07, gdw wrote:
Kam, if such decisions are morally wrong for the individual, they do not suddenly become moral by the inclusion of more individuals.
[/quote]
Not to speak for Kam, but I didn't read his post as suggesting that the decision will "become right," but rather that it is more likely that decisions that [i]are[/i] right (inherently) will be reached by having more parties involved in the moral reasoning process (in "close" cases). Which is not to say that I agree with the point. I certainly *dis*agree with the point that as a result "everyone" will be assured of the moral correctness of the decision. In fact, I doubt such a process would change many minds at all.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 10, 2012 10:31AM)
Is it wrong to steal back what the elite have stolen from the people?


I hope so. :)
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 10, 2012 10:37AM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-10 03:51, tommy wrote:
Lets assume that nature is always right and say the best and shortest road towards knowledge of truth is nature. Then ask what does nature teach us about rights? Does it teach us that might is right? Does it teach us that rights do not exist? Does nature teach us that rights are illusions, flights of fancy?
[/quote]

I think that if we relied on nature as our guide, we'd have a far different conception of "rights" that would approximate what you suggest here - that they either don't exist, or are just expressions of or tied to "might."

Beyond "for the sake of argument," though, I disagree with the premise that nature is a reliable (or necessary or useful) model from which to learn in this regard.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 10, 2012 10:50AM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-10 06:48, Woland wrote:
Bob, just noticed your question as to whether the killing of Hitler would have been justified. I think it would have been. There is such a thing as justifiable homicide - and that is not murder. Remember, the Ten Commandments read in the original, "Do not murder," not "Do not kill."

W.
[/quote]

Amazing that "Do not murder" is spelled the same way in the original language as it is in English ;)
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 10, 2012 11:04AM)
Not as amazing as finding out that killing in self-defense is wrong.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 10, 2012 11:43AM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-10 10:11, tommy wrote:
Not a fan of Robin Hood I take it?
[/quote]

Not recalling what Robin Hood actually "advocated" I take it?
The commonly said "stealing from the rich to give to the poor" is a gross misrepresentation.

Robin Hood took back what had been stolen. As Woland expanded upon above, what's wrong for the individual does not suddenly become "right" for the majority, or any number. To take someone else's properly by force, or threat of force, is USUALLY called stealing, but when a certain group does it, often under the claim of "for the greater good," it's suddenly called "taxing" and magically becomes "moral.". In fact it's also suddenly considered immoral to not hand over your property to gun backed robbe-I'm sorry, tax collectors.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 10, 2012 11:44AM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-10 09:58, Woland wrote:
This is a very good point, gdw:

[quote]if such decisions are morally wrong for the individual, they do not suddenly become moral by the inclusion of more individuals[/quote]

If something is morally wrong for one person to do, it is just as wrong when 2 or 3 gather together to do it, and just as wrong when 1,000,000 people or more vote to do it.

As Walter Williams (an economist with a lot more common sense than Paul Krugman, in my estimation) has pointed out, “No matter how worthy the cause, it is robbery, theft, and injustice to confiscate the property of one person and give it to another to whom it does not belong.” So for example, if I see a poor, sick, elderly homeless woman on the street, it is wrong for me to stick up the next well-dressed passerby I see, and rob him to buy her food, medicines, and a place to live. It is just as wrong for millions of people to vote to empower their armed representatives to enforce the same confiscation. Adding the consent of even an overwhelming majority does not suddenly transform a crime into an unblemished benevolence.

W.
[/quote]

You've just sumerized the foundation of my philosophy Woland.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 10, 2012 11:46AM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-10 10:25, kambiz wrote:
Guys this is a matter of justice being carried out for the betterment of civilization.

It can be argued that it is morally wrong to incarcerate a murderer for life, but not so if he was genuinely guilty of the crime.

Matters of justice which have global ramifications will eventually be carried out through a collaborative and consultative venture to ensure a just outcome is ascertained. Naturally if an option is available to avoid killing someone then I am sure this will be explored by the collaboration.

Cases such as those like Hitler, are now being dealt with similar to Saddam Hussains downfall, and although his situation was dealt with FAR from perfectly, it still reflected the organic development of global decisions on how to deal with such despots, namely, it was a collaborative effort. This collaboration will continue to grow and develop more and more, and the learnings and outcomes it reaps will eventually and gradually develop into a more and more perfect system, making it's judicial decision-making more likely to be correct and thereby unifying.

Hope that makes sense :)

Kam
[/quote]

Kam, are you ignoring that this approach is exactly what lead to Hitler, and a country eager to welcome him?
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 10, 2012 12:11PM)
Hitler point! Missed Kam's original post. Belated Hitler point!
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 10, 2012 03:16PM)
This particular meandering by-thread began with questioning whether it was wrong for Claus von Stauffenberg and others to try to kill Adolf Hitler. I think certainly not. I introduced the example of robbery a la Robin Hood in order to provide a more mundane or quotidian example of how a criminal behavior is not transformed into a virtuous good deed by the fact that many people, even millions of people, are joined together in its execution.

critter, your point about using one English translation to counter another English translation is a good one, but I think that you will find that most Biblical scholars agree that the commandment is "Do Not Murder," and not "Do Not Kill." In my opinion, a lot of the moral confusion we encounter when people discuss capital punishment, self-defense, and just war comes from having been taught a mis-translated and incorrect statement that they erroneously believe to be the word of God. Just saying.

W.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 10, 2012 03:31PM)
My point wasn't really a serious one.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 10, 2012 03:52PM)
But it has serious implications. How do we know what we think we know, after all? Do we know everything in translation? That is, is all of our knowledge mediated by other consciousnesses?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 10, 2012 04:51PM)
Nature tells us that rights are related to consciousness. Rocks, plants, animals, Humans, each do not have the same rights. The rock has less rights than the plant, the plant less than the animal, the animal less than the human, even though we all came out of this old world of ours and are made of the same stuff. Each has a an amount of rights in relation to the amount of consciousness it has. If a more advanced entities arrived on earth then they would have more rights than you human beings. Obviously, I the magician have more rights than the muggle.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 10, 2012 06:31PM)
What "Nature," if anything, tells us, is that the mechanisms of life are very diverse, resist easy generalization, and that there are many different solutions to the problems of survival.

The more Humans that have input and communicate with each other about how to solve the problem of survival for this particular species, the better chance we have at arriving at something that might actually work.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jan 10, 2012 07:02PM)
My points are very well supplemented by landmark's comments above....we can never generalize a given situation, a consultative process must be implemented to resolve any problem, whether it has familial, neighbourhood, community, national or international implications.

I won't get into how God fits into all this, my ideas are somewhat radical and will open a possible can of worms....

Kam
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jan 10, 2012 07:13PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-10 12:46, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-01-10 10:25, kambiz wrote:
Guys this is a matter of justice being carried out for the betterment of civilization.

It can be argued that it is morally wrong to incarcerate a murderer for life, but not so if he was genuinely guilty of the crime.

Matters of justice which have global ramifications will eventually be carried out through a collaborative and consultative venture to ensure a just outcome is ascertained. Naturally if an option is available to avoid killing someone then I am sure this will be explored by the collaboration.

Cases such as those like Hitler, are now being dealt with similar to Saddam Hussains downfall, and although his situation was dealt with FAR from perfectly, it still reflected the organic development of global decisions on how to deal with such despots, namely, it was a collaborative effort. This collaboration will continue to grow and develop more and more, and the learnings and outcomes it reaps will eventually and gradually develop into a more and more perfect system, making it's judicial decision-making more likely to be correct and thereby unifying.

Hope that makes sense :)

Kam
[/quote]

Kam, are you ignoring that this approach is exactly what lead to Hitler, and a country eager to welcome him?
[/quote]

Yes I acknowledge that, and its also somewhat similar to how the Ayatollah Khomeini came to power (much to the demise of my family's and co-religious members freedom and welfare and lives)

However, as I have said, the consciousness of the globe as a single entity is organically maturing with time, we are slowly developing an understanding of what impact an act in Africa can have on the whole world (for example). What happened with Hitler and the Ayatollah are as a resilt of the immaturity in understanding the glabal import of such decisions. Secondly, there was no real consultative process with the decision of Hitler to come into power, there was no genuine equality in that process, nor was there purity of intent with its intended outcome. All of these factors are important for the process to be running perfectly and only with time will these things develop.....

There is a global community that implements these ideas extremenly well (although it is still not perfect, but its way ahead of any other global system) and it is working hard with the UN to implement these principles globally...


Kam
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 10, 2012 08:28PM)
The UN is one of the most corrupt institutions in the history of the world. What the UN is working hard to implement is a totalitarian, socialist world government in which individual rights and national sovereignty are extinguished.
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Jan 10, 2012 09:32PM)
And Martian cylinders will start crashing on Earth any day now.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 11, 2012 05:05AM)
And it shall come to pass that the Martian cylinders shall contain our rights and new commandments?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 11, 2012 09:46AM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-10 22:32, Steve_Mollett wrote:
And Martian cylinders will start crashing on Earth any day now.
[/quote]

Is this in response to the Statement about the UN, or the one about the globe having a consciousness as a single entity?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 11, 2012 10:06AM)
Or the one that we were rocks once upon a time and that rocks might evolve into intellectuals one of these days like we did and then think they have rights?

:)

Maybe a big rock should be dropped off on Wall Street, caved in it the the words “I am not moving!”

We can then all go down there and film the cops spraying the rock with gas and hitting it with big sticks.

And sing the whole world is watching.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 11, 2012 10:56AM)
Interesting notion, tommy:

[quote]Or the one that we were rocks once upon a time and that rocks might evolve into intellectuals one of these days like we did and then think they have rights?[/quote]

Not that we "were" rocks, but we are rocks. We are the same atoms that were formed in the Big Bang. "We are stardust," as the song goes. We are solidified, conscious starlight that emanated from the Big Bang. "Let there be light; there was light."
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 11, 2012 11:35AM)
All in all :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZbM_MIz4RM
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 11, 2012 11:45AM)
Perhaps back in topic, getting them when they're young:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/09/texas-police-schools
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 11, 2012 02:19PM)
What the UN does with those pennies you collected on Hallowe'en:

http://pjmedia.com/claudiarosett/how-the-un-achieves-sustainable-peacekeeper-rape/
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jan 11, 2012 05:43PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-11 12:45, gdw wrote:
Perhaps back in topic, getting them when they're young:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/09/texas-police-schools
[/quote]

Thanks for this gdw, it was an eye-opening read, but not a surprise really. This is a prime example of how we as humans think we know what we want in terms of how an adult should behave themselves and contribute to the betterment of society, but there are a million guesses as to how to go about it...

This policing of schools has nothing to do with academic education, it's an attempt to instil order into the school which is stultifying the spiritual development of all of the children concerned. Were they to be more enthusiastic, determined and humble in their attempts to find something more positive, they would find that there are spiritual education systems out there that are developing children and youth into social ambassadors, transformers of communities and neighborhoods into regions of positive growth and spiritual development.

Kam
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 16, 2012 04:36PM)
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-wrong-id-20111225,0,7157038.story

Some years had an average of one a day. Wow.
Message: Posted by: Orville Smith (Aug 22, 2012 06:18PM)
(From California news) Firefighters were called to a trolley stop in National City, Calif., to free the arm of a 17-year-old boy after he got it stuck when he reached up a vending machine slot to try to steal a soda. The rescuers employed axes, crowbars, an air chisel, and a rotary saw.
Message: Posted by: Orville Smith (Nov 29, 2012 07:50PM)
(From Syracuse, New York) James Washington believed he had gotten away with a 1995 murder, but then he had a a heart attack, and on his deathbed, in a fit of remorse, he confessed to a confidant. "I have to get something off my conscience," he told a guard in the jailhouse where he was serving time for a lesser, unrelated offense. But Washington miraculously recovered from the heart attack and tried to take back his confession, but prosecutors in Nashville were unfazed. The used it to augment the sparse evidence from 1995, and the now-healthier Washington was convicted of the murder and sentenced to 51 more years in prison.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Nov 30, 2012 12:28AM)
1 In Every 99 Americans Now Behind Bars?

Yes, especially after work on Fridays.

:exclaim:

:ohyes:
Message: Posted by: Bob1Dog (Nov 30, 2012 12:49AM)
[quote]
On 2008-02-28 17:54, balducci wrote:
http://wcbstv.com/national/prison.americans.prison.2.665053.html

So the question I have is, which of you off topic forum posters is a jailbird posting from inside some correctional facility?

Do I need to include a smiley face?

Here you go: :)
[/quote]
I'm not taking the time to go through all the posts from 2008. Not a jailbird here, just someone who likes stirring up the doo doo from time to time.... :)
Message: Posted by: Octopus Sun (Nov 30, 2012 01:53AM)
I was at a 3 day Bluegrass music festival in Bear Valley, CA in 1999
Walking around the campgrounds playing my mandolin in the morning.
There were allot of drugs being sold everywhere.
One camp was having a jam session, I was invited over to sit and play
one person motioned for me to sit on the ice chest...not good.
While we were jamming on Shady Grove, a dude came over and asked me to get up,
I did, then sat back down. Within 1min of sitting I was tackled and beat down
by the local undercover police.
short story I went to jail for sitting on a cooler full of marijuana food.
I got f'd, I have a felony class 6 spent 21 days in jail at Lake Tahoe.
The public pretender refused to believe that I had nothing to do with them.
The courts made me take 3yrs unsupervised probation and time served.

What the F did I do to deserve that? I've often wondered and right now I think about
how the cops beat me up that morning, punching me in the left temple 7-8 times,
slamming my face in the dirt several times knocking me out, I woke up to a
bad left knee, a bloody cut up face. ringing in my ear, and impaired vision in my left eye.
Mom saw me and couldn't stop crying, same with my 2 friends.
short end of the stick is they wanted $400,000
for my bail which would have been $40,000.
I did the time for a crime I had no involvement with.
Yeah I puff so wtf.
But I NEVER sold drugs in my life EVER!, and that happened me an innocent bystander.
Just because I like to play guitar violin and mandolin.
I get tears in my eyes still to this day.
I had a cataract due to the whole getting beat up, and I have bad knee now
can't snowboard anymore, no riding mtn bikes, hiking long distance is a no go.
I tried to sue...no on would take my case.
So I wonder still wtf did I do to deserve that...

I will always hate on Cops for the rest of my life, and I will and have never show respect for anyone who is since that moment. I know we have a few here, and I don't respect them as fellow humans they are Evil Aliens disguised as humans. Just think what it would be like to have 6 giant dudes tackle you at once at beat you down, at the time I thought I was getting robbed by the people in that camp, only wake up in hand cuffs and leg shackles.
When I was in jail I was dosed with something in the food, the medical staff injected me with a flourescent pink dye, and
I hallucinated all weekend long, thinking I was in a UFO holding cell, like that movie Matrix, then they let me out into this day room with a violent murderer who had killed 3 inmates with no supervision.
Dude confessed his past to me, and when I finally was put into general population, I was told by an Aryan Brotherhood member the cops wanted him to kill me...wtf was that all about...I'll never understand.
Message: Posted by: Bob1Dog (Nov 30, 2012 02:51PM)
Wow Octupus Sun, I don't always agree with you but your situation sucked big time. I'd be extremely bitter today myself.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Nov 30, 2012 04:09PM)
Well that is what they call a Mandolin Wind I guess.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjKVBj0fmkg

Its a song about love sticking by your side in the face of long, debilitating death.

"The coldest winter in almost 14 years" is the toughest test of their marriage, fourteen years long.

"When the rain came I thought you'd leave
'cause I knew how much you loved the sun"

When things got tough with the cancer, he thought she'd leave because she couldn't stand to watch, she's a happy person, not one to tolerate decline.

"But you chose to stay, stay and keep me warm
through the darkest nights I've ever known"

But, she chose to stay, and he's singing his gratitude for her steadfast companionship

"If the mandolin wind couldn't change a thing
then I know I love ya"

If the sad, cold truth didn't dissuade her, then he's sure he loves her for it.

"Oh the snow fell without a break
Buffalo died in the frozen fields you know
Through the coldest winter in almost fourteen years
I couldn't believe you kept a smile
Now I can rest assured knowing that we've seen the worst
And I know I love ya"

Hyperbole on how cold, how severe his condition is. It may actually be winter outside his deathbed... but the rest is self-explanatory here - she kept up a smiling face, terminal disease is the worst possible end to a marriage, so if she sticks through it, nothing could ever be worse.

"Oh I never was good with romantic words
so the next few lines come really hard
Don't have much but what I've got is yours
except of course my steel guitar
Ha, 'cause I know you don't play
but I'll teach you one day
because I love ya"

Sure, he'll teach her, someday.

"I recall the night we knelt and prayed
Noticing your face was thin and pale
I found it hard to hide my tears
I felt ashamed I felt I'd let you down
No mandolin wind couldn't change a thing
Couldn't change a thing no, no"

Remembering the night of the diagnosis, how shocked and dismayed she was. He felt he let her down by having a terminal disease - which is somewhat common of a cancer patient, though he tried to mask his emotions for her sake - also very common of a terminal patient. And, it's terminal - nothing could change a thing.

It's a sad song, and not all that metaphorical, either. Maggie May gets all the attention, but I really like this one - in little, tiny doses, to remind me I survived cancer.

Read more at http://www.songmeanings.net/songs/view/64098/#UMDeq2G3l10fyz8e.99
Message: Posted by: Slide (Nov 30, 2012 04:33PM)
Octopus Sun,

What a story. I am sure one of these days mankind will look back at our time and the barbaric marijuana laws and we will shake our heads, like we do when reading stories about prohibition.
Message: Posted by: Octopus Sun (Nov 30, 2012 05:25PM)
Some times it's tough to look at the world and not be angry because things
have been taken away due to that event.
Bright side...I have 2 boys, a great wife, I work for myself and my
bills are paid.
Message: Posted by: irossall (Dec 1, 2012 12:46PM)
1 in 99 is a very small number, that is why society is unsafe.
We should have a Purity Test to see if one deserves to be free. The Industrial Prison Complex would reap a fortune (more than they do now).
The streets would finaly be safe.
Iven :patty:
Message: Posted by: Andrew Zuber (Dec 1, 2012 12:49PM)
Right, because one group of bad cops means every cop is crooked. Got it.
Message: Posted by: Bob1Dog (Dec 1, 2012 01:07PM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-01 13:49, Andrew Zuber wrote:
Right, because one group of bad cops means every cop is crooked. Got it.
[/quote]
You make a good point. How about that NYC cop who spent $75 out of his pocket to buy a homeless man a pair of boots? It went viral, so you can't miss it. Good on him.

Still a bad experience as Octpus Sun experienced would probably make me bitter too.
Message: Posted by: Orville Smith (Dec 8, 2012 08:00PM)
In addition to the tv-series,COPS, has anybody else seen the reality series, JAIL? I think that Jail has even more censorship and bleeping than Cops because the arrestees in J seem much more rambunctious. After all, they have been already taken into custody and what worsens their resentment is body-searches. Even more emotionalism than in Cops because in Jail, you,for example, see some arrestees violently banging their own heads against the wall, probably suicidally.

The only monotonous thing about Jail is that it's the same environment, confined as it is to the inside of a building, as compared to Cops which always has different environments each time. Which brings me up to an Inquiry: Does anybody know where I can get dvds of every episode of COPS? When I check the COPS site, the only dvds they carry are anniversary dvds and "The Best Of..." dvds. So the availability is very limited. As I said, I need every single episode. Can anybody provide information?
Message: Posted by: Orville Smith (Jun 13, 2013 05:39PM)
Can anybody explain about this one? Man gets 11 pounds of pot in mail by mistake. The police said that Burton's address was picked at random. So I wonder why since the pot was worth $24,000? http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/pot-delivery-marijuana-fedex-box-134825415.html