Peterson "Death Penalty, OT. Options

[Alison Baker]

Scott Peterson sentenced to DEATH !

[dmenche914]

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

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

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

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

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


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

Amazing the media hype on this case, amazing.

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

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