Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Prison Nation

I never said a thing about everybody does it so it must be OK, or judged anything about anyone else's ethics. I couldn't agree with you more about self discipline, but thought we were more moral as nation when the government did a better job of minding it's own business rather than the liberal approach of minding every one else's.

Jacques,

I couldn't agree with you more; that an moral/ethical people and less government would be fantastic.

The ethics detour was my own soapbox. I just hear the same defeatist reasoning about the war on drugs, used with school standards.

My kids attended a school, where they still had the rules of no drugs or alcohol during the sports season. The coach just told them at the first practice, the understood rule was, don't show up drunk or wasted for games. We even had one kid wreck his car while drunk, during basketball season, and no one even blinked or thought anything was wrong. A DUI was not a reason for school discipline or to stop playing sports. It still rankles!

Canada has MUCH lower rates of imprisonment, and no death penalty.

As a result, Canada is way worse off than the USA is,


... how?

Yep, every time some old boy climbs up on a stump and starts shaking his finger, sayin' we ought to do something about this or that, you'd be way better off holdin' your hand over your wallet and getting out of there before you buy into it. The ones that don't are causin' us to need more jails and they're sendin' ya the bill. Sure them rapists and murderer's need to be dealt with, but them potheads wasn't botherin' me none--Why they wanna send me the bill for roundin' 'em up? If I already knew better than to partake, what do I care? If I was one of 'em, I wouldn't want to hear about it either. Them junkies aren't stealing your stuff to buy drugs, they're stealing stuff to get a lot of money because illegal drugs are kept expensive by the laws that put your stuff at risk. But it's bad for them--yeah but so's bungie jumping and bull riding--so what. Bars are closin' up 'cause the fuzz is circlin' the parkin' lots all night and if you try to walk home, they'll bust you for that too. Kids are getting expelled for drawing pictures of guns, and some dudes I never met don't want me chewin' tobacco anymore either, so they're sin taxing me to death!!! They almost made shooting prairie dogs a crime here a week or two back. I don't think it's what them old boys that started the "Land of the Free" had in mind. Jails are big business! I'll bet the investors in them (the private kind anyway--the state ones are about business too, but in a sneakier way) are all for immigration too--I shouldn't be belly achin', I've been well paid to build a passel of 'em, but something smells rotten just the same--Don't worry none though, Obama's got a hankerin' to pass a bunch a more, new, and better laws--that'll fix everything up swell. TIC

I vote we put Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in charge of every prison in the country. There's a guy that knows how to run a prison. Humiliate them, make them pay for their stay, and work their asses off. If you make it "unpleasant" enough you won't have repeat offenders.

To all you bleeding heart PC liberals, if you want to give them anything more than that, then YOU PAY FOR IT, don't saddle the rest of us that don't give a [bleep]. Personally I'd like to bring back public hangings, so there's no use wasting your time and energy in trying to convince me otherwise.

Here's a little info on Sheriff Joe - http://www.mcso.org/index.php?a=GetModule&mn=Messages

No, I never said that and don't even think it. The vast majority are guilty of the crimes they have been sentenced for.


I have an idea... let's hate them and make it all but impossible for them to atone for their past. Let's keep them from jobs and decent housing, and block any access or attempt to become a productive citizen in society. Then we can sit around feeling superior and shake our heads over how bad they are. Yeah, that's the ticket. That will solve all our problems.

I'd like to write more, but I've got to get ready to leave for prison!

Penny

I have trouble understanding the justice of prison at all.

There are certainly the practicality issues that people have already pointed out: it's too expensive, it doesn't accomplish its stated objectives, and what it does accomplish is not exactly what most of its proponents envisioned.

But I would argue that not only is prison impractical, it's unjust--mostly unjust to the victims of crime.

There is, of course, the excellent argument against State intervention in mala prohibita--that is, victimless "crimes" like illegal drug use or prostitution or gun possession; but that argument has already been done to death on this site.

I'm mostly interested in the rationale, or lack of it, behind the State imprisoning people for mala in se, or crimes that actually hurt a victim, like assault or theft or rape or murder.

I think the root of some of the biggest problems is the fact that in criminal cases the State arrogates to itself the status of victim, and strips all influence from the actual victim. If Bill rapes Julie, the case isn't Julie v. Bill, but State of Xxx v. Bill. Instead of being said to owe a debt to Julie, Bill is said to owe a debt to society. And when he's convicted, Bill is said to pay this "debt to society" by charging society (including Julie), through his agent the State, dozens of thousands of dollars a year for room, board, protection, and enforced indolence.

There is not only no justice in this system: there's no sense in it.

In a just system, first of all, the State would not have plaintiff status in a rape case, because the State is in no way injured by a rape. To the contrary, as a matter of fact, on two points.

A. From a trending perspective, an increase in the number of rapes in a community stands a good chance of scaring the people into giving the State more power. In most cases, the State has an interest in increasing the number of rapes, not decreasing it, the way it would if it were a victim. The only case in which it doesn't is the case where the rate of rape is so high that increasing it stands a good chance of getting the State overthrown: but that's not very common. In the vast majority of locales, an increase in the rate of rape would result in a call for more police, more laws, and longer sentences.

B. If the State is to be involved in such a case at all, it should be as a co-defendant rather than as a plaintiff, seeing as how State laws very likely* prevented Julie from owning or carrying a gun with which she could otherwise have prevented the rape, and seeing as how it failed to defend her against the rape after implicitly taking upon itself the responsibility to do so by depriving her of the power to defend herself.

* I say "very likely" because as we all know, rapes are much less frequent where States do not guarantee rapists a field of unarmed victims. Therefore, if a woman is raped, it's likely she's under a State that does offer such guarantees.

Second, the debt would be owed to Julie, not to "society." "Society" would not be involved in the case at all, and Julie would directly benefit from Bill's payment of the debt, rather than having to pay him.

Third, Bill would get no free benefits for committing a rape. If he were to eat or sleep during the payment of his debt to Julie, he'd need to provide for room and board himself. If he were to be protected from Julie and her agents, he'd have to provide or hire that protection himself too.

The practicality issues with the prison system are certainly severe; but I think the justice issues are more pressing. After all, where's the profit in increasing the system's practicality and efficiency at committing injustice?

Lew Rockwell is right, once again.

Child molestation is an example of an actual crime, as classically understood. The problem is that the majority of folks in prison these days are not guilty of real crimes. Real crimes involve actual victims. Possession and personal use, purchase or sale of items or substances are not real crimes. They might be reasons to suspect an intention to commit a crime, and they might be evidence of a crime, such as the case of the person who declares, "I'm going to buy a gun today because I intend to murder that SOB who fired me." If the guy who fired him is then found shot, and it is discovered that he purchased a firearm the day before, that would be evidence, but the real crime is the actual victimization (the murder), not the purchase of the firearm, yet today lots of folks are in jail for merely purchasing (or possessing, or selling) a firearm, because society decided that in many cases the mere purchase, sale or possession is a crime. That is to say, the law presumes a criminal intent, and punishes that intent in advance of an actual crime. This is not part of our tradition. It's an alien concept that's crept into our system of justice. Only real crimes, like your example of child molestation, ought to be punished by the criminal justice system.

Well put Barak & TRH.

Possession and personal use, purchase or sale of items or substances are not real crimes
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Let me make sure I completely understand you before I respond further. Is it your position that a person distributing drugs, for money, to a person under 18 is not a real crime?

Short answer, Isaac. No, it's a financial transaction. The unfortunate part of it is that a minor is the buyer. Imaginie the situation reversed. i.e. a minor sells controlled substances to someone who's come of age. One can't help but perceive a different "crime" or list of "crimes". It's for sure the courts will handle the situation much differently.

Some of you all (no longer speaking to anyone specific) didn't read the link I posted.
Here it is again so those who choose to NOT learn can rethink their position.

http://www.mind-trek.com/articles/pct07a.htm


And here's one from a publication many of you are familiar with.

SHOTGUN NEWS
Vol. 50, Issue 33, 1996 -- 3rd issue of November

To the readers of Shotgun News:

...My columns concerning the "Drug War" in relation to gun control
have generated mountains of response from readers. The consensus is to
decriminalize drugs, let the chips fall where they may and obliterate the
drug dealer and crime in the process.

Mr. Populi's letter on the subject follows and we feel each and
every point he makes is well taken. We thank him for his permission to
publish this fine treatise on the subject and look forward to your input on
this timely debate.

Nancy Snell Swickard
Publisher


Ms. Nancy Snell Swickard -- Publisher
"Shotgun News"
P.O. Box 669, Hastings, Nebraska 68902

Dear Ms. Swickard,

I was very distressed to see the remark of one of your subscribers which
you quoted on page 8 of your October 1 issue. The support of the "Drug
War" by anyone who values the 2nd Amendment, and the rest of the Bill of
Rights, is the most dangerous error of thinking in the politics of the "gun
control" debate. This error is extremely widespread, although there have
been some recent signs that some Americans are seeing through the
propaganda of the Drug Warriors which affects all levels of our society.
Sadly, major players in the defense of the 2nd Amendment (like the NRA)
show no signs of awareness of the part played by the Drug War in our
present hysteria over violence. This is a serious error, because the
violence produced by the Drug War is one of the main reasons that a
majority of American citizens support gun control. Without the majority of
a citizenry frightened by endemic violence, Mr. Clinton and his allies in
the Congress would not enjoy the power they now posses to attack the Bill
of Rights.

To understand the effect of the Drug War, we must understand it for what it
is: the second Prohibition in America in this Century. I do not need to
remind anyone who knows our recent history what a disaster the first
Prohibition in America was. It is a classic example of the attempt to
control a vice -- drunkeness -- by police power. It made all use of
alcohol a case of abuse. It produced such an intense wave of violence that
it gave a name -- The Roaring Twenties -- to an entire decade. It lead to
the establishment of powerful criminal empires, to widespread corruption in
police and government, and to a surge of violence and gunfire all over the
land. And it produced a powerful attack on the Bill of Rights, including
the most successful campaign of gun control laws in America up to that
time. Before the first Prohibition criminalized the trade in alcohol,
liquor dealers were ordinary businessmen: after 1920 they were all violent
criminals fighting for their territories. We had gang wars, and drive-by
shootings and the use of machine guns by criminals. We now have the same
effects of the first Prohibition in the present Drug War, and Americans
appear to be sleepwalking through it with no apparent understanding of what
is happening. It is testimony to the truth of Santayana's famous remark
that those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it. We must
understand that this has all happened before, and for the same reasons.

It is essential that defenders of the 2nd Amendment understand the whole
Bill of Rights is under attack by the Drug War, and that assaults on the
2nd Amendment are a natural part of that trend. What is the main premiss
of a gun-control law? It is that guns are implements which are too
dangerous to entrust to the citizenry. What is the main premiss of Drug
Prohibition? It is that drugs are substances which are too dangerous to
entrust to the citizenry. Both lines of reasoning say that because a few
people abuse something, all Americans must be treated like children or
irresponsibles. All use is abuse. This is an extremely dangerous idea for
a government, and it leads inevitably to tyranny. It is a natural
consequence that such thinking will lead to attacks on the Bill of Rights,
because that is the chief defense in the constitution against abuses of
government power.

Since the beginning of the Drug War, no article of the Bill of Rights has
been spared from attack. There has been an enoromous increase in police
power in America, with a steady erosion of protections against unreasonable
search and seizure, violations of privacy, confiscation of property, and
freedom of speech. We have encouraged children to inform on their parents
and we tolerate urine tests as a condition of employment for anyone. All
who question the wisdom of Drug Prohibition are immediately attacked and
silenced. These are all violations of the Bill of Rights. Are we
surprised when the 2nd Amendment is attacked along with the others? We
understand that opponents of the 2nd Amendment exaggerate the dangers of
firearms and extrapolate the actions of deranged persons and criminals to
all guns owners. That is their method of propaganda. Do we also know that
Drug Warriors exaggerate the hazards of drug use -- "all use is abuse" -- in
the same way formerly done with alcohol, and extrapolate the condition of
addicts to all users of drugs? That is their method of propaganda. Most
Americans are convinced by both arguments, and both arguments depend on
the public's ignorance. That is why discussion and dissent is inhibited.
Most Americans are moving to the idea that drugs and guns are evil and
should be prohibited. Encouraging one way of thinking supports the other
because the logic of the arguments is the same.
Why not prohibit a dangerous evil? If every drinker is a potential
alcoholic, every drug-user a future addict, and every gun-owner a potential
killer, why not ban them all? There is no defense against this logic
except to challenge the lies that sit at the root of the arguments. Those
are the lies promoted by the prevailing propaganda in support of all
Prohibition. We cannot oppose one and support the other. To do so
undermines our efforts because all these movements walk on the same legs.
If we do not explain to people that the fusillade of gunfire in America,
the return of the drive-by shooting, and our bulging prisons, come from the
criminalizing of commerce in illegal drugs, we cannot expect them to listen
to a plea that we must tolerate some risk in defence of liberty.

Why should we tolerate, for the sake of liberty, the risk of a maniac
shooting a dozen people, when we cannot tolerate the risk that a drug-user
will become an addict? In fact, very few gun-owners are mass murderers and
a minority of drug users are addicts, but people are easily persuaded
otherwise and easily driven to hysteria by exaggerating dangers. What
addict would be a violent criminal if he could buy his drug from a pharmacy
for its real price instead of being driven to the inflated price of a
smuggler? How many cigarette smokers would become burglars or prostitutes
if their habits cost them $200 per day? How many criminal drug empires
could exist if addicts could buy a drug for its real cost? And without
Prohibition, what smuggler's territory would be worth a gang war? And why
isn't this obvious to all of us?

It is because both guns and drugs havve become fetishes to some people in
America. They blame guns and drugs for all the intractible ills of
society, and they never rest until they persuade the rest of us to share
their deranged view of the evil power in an inanimate object. They
succeed, mainly, by lies and deception. They succeed by inducing the
immediate experience of anxiety and horror by the mere mention of the
words: Guns! Drugs! Notice your reactions. Once that response is in
place, it is enough to make us accept any remedy they propose. An anxious
person is an easy mark. They even persuade us to diminsh the most precious
possession of Americans, the one marveled at by every visitor and cherished
by every immigrant, and the name of which is stamped on every coin we mint
-- Liberty. They say that liberty is just too dangerous or too expensive.
They say we will have to do with less of it for our own good. That is the
price they charge for their promise of our security.

Sincerely

Amicus Populi


* One of the "justifications" given by the ATF in the Waco
raid on the Branch Davidians... was that they had a
radical-underground-right-wing-fringe-gun-nut-magazine on the premises!
That turned out to be "Shotgun News." How very interesting.

* "These people, who do they think they are, saying that their government
has stamped out human freedom? We need to conduct a nation-wide search
for these right wing.... purveyors of hate." - Bill Clinton

No, because he has not victimized anyone. This should be a matter for the parents to punish the child, if they wish him to stay away from drugs (which any good parent would). The point, however, needs to be made that few if any would have the incentive to sell drugs to anyone, let alone minors, if they were legal to possess, purchase, and sell, i.e., there would be far fewer, if any, "pushers" attempting to hook anyone on drugs for profit.

Oh,now I get it....the financial transaction takes it outside the realm of criminal activity,right? Brilliant!! Don't think there's much to be learned from you other than it is good to learn that those who are grossly naieve and who clearly can not think outside the box are definitely out there.

And don't forget, the risk and loss must fall on the innocent for liberal sociological failures. Its not the professor in his gated community that suffers from crime, so he can be pretty, uh, detached in his pontifications about how the all this expense and inconvenience to the poor criminals.....who chose to be criminals.....means we should stop locking up the animals among us.

There is a self-evident reason for the long term decrease in violent crime rates, and that is that more violent criminals are behind bars. Where they belong. Maintaining them there is far less expensive than the cost of having them on the street.

if they were legal to possess, purchase, and sell, i.e., there would be far fewer, if any, "pushers" attempting to hook anyone on drugs for profit.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It would never be legal for minor's to possess or use controlled substances under any scenario. Consequently, there would be a premium price to be paid by the minors for the purchase. Those of you who continue to engage in the mind-set that the sale and distribution of drugs is a victimless crime will never have my acquiescence so, to that extent,the continued debate is futile.

That is exactly what goes on today with alcohol BUT, the usage rate is less also. Shall we again ban booze because some minors still buy it on the "black market"? I see a double standard here methinks.

Double standards is all you'll ever get from that kind of thinking. It's always shallow and bordering on obdurate.

Yeah, I suppose the premium under your scenario would be about like the premium kids pay for cigarettes and boos, but I am not aware of the prevalence of violent crime rings in the business of supplying kids with these things. The profit would not be sufficient to motivate it.

but I am not aware of the existence of violent crime rings in the business of supplying kids with these things. The profit would not be sufficient to motivate it.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Please tell me you're kidding in an effort to make some kind of point!