hasn't the three stikes law reduced repeat crimminal in CA? Hell if they are locked up, they can't continue crime outside. Only problem is the big cost, cause the politicians want big expensive prisons, and give huge benifits to the prison guards, whose union is a big campaign contributor.
Barbed wire, land mines,a nd tents, all could cheaply be had from military surplus, and would make a great prison. Give teh few gaurds needed a decent pay, but stop this pension crap, taxpayers shouldn't be giving money to folks that are no longer working, ecspecially when the pension deals are made by crooked politicains that recieve money from the prison guard union.
I submit our crime problem, and high cost of prisons is the direct result of politicians failing to do the right thing, but instead doing what benifits the politician.
Bunch of crap I thinks
Full Version: Peterson "Death Penalty
QUOTE(larryp @ Dec 14 2004, 07:41 AM)
Without bothering to address why there is not supposed to be a role of revenge in the justice department, let alone the fact that the criminal justice system is not even intended to punish or warehouse convicts but to rehabilitate them, or for that matter, that execution does not deter others from comitting heinous crimes, let's just look at this one particular matter.
Scott P might have killed his wife. He very likely did, for all the little facts I know (I sure as hell did not follow the case because I did not know the family and the media circus was unattractive when we are embroiled in two wars); but then lots of peoples' behavior looks bad and there are now literally hundreds of people convicted to die who were later found to be factually innocent of their crimes. (Many of them even confessed; educated people do amazing things under duress.) So if you think that the trial proved it, you are kidding yourselves. He is, as we say, "guilty" of killing his wife but that is just a finding from the jury. It does not mean he did so.
When it is the state versus you, the playing field is anything but level and the state typically does a very, very poor job; it is only their resources that permit them to win. OJ had resources to match and you saw what happened.
Scott P might have killed his wife. He very likely did, for all the little facts I know (I sure as hell did not follow the case because I did not know the family and the media circus was unattractive when we are embroiled in two wars); but then lots of peoples' behavior looks bad and there are now literally hundreds of people convicted to die who were later found to be factually innocent of their crimes. (Many of them even confessed; educated people do amazing things under duress.) So if you think that the trial proved it, you are kidding yourselves. He is, as we say, "guilty" of killing his wife but that is just a finding from the jury. It does not mean he did so.
When it is the state versus you, the playing field is anything but level and the state typically does a very, very poor job; it is only their resources that permit them to win. OJ had resources to match and you saw what happened.
Rehabilitation is not the "purpose" of imprisonment, although it has been the often misguided intention and assumption of many policy makers. If rehabilitation is possible, and it is not always, fine, but the only sure thing imprisonment accomplishes is protecting the rest of the population from further crime while the perpetrator is in jail.
As far as the death penalty, I am certainly not against it in cases when there is no doubt about guilt. As far as other cases, I don't want to debate it here.
Andrew
demenche914
The "Three Strikes" law was enacted to deal with criminals who repeatedly commit violent or "serious" felonies; who have a prior history of same. Some of us feel it indeed does an admirable job of dealing with habitual violent offenders; by the way, there are many states which also have these "habitual criminal" laws, California's version just happens to be the most famous. Unfortunately, the "less serious" offenders (petty thieves, drug users and dealers, car thieves, etc.), make up a large majority of the prison population and they are painfully aware of the Three Strikes Law and steer well clear of involvement with it. They are, as we say, "doing life on the installment plan". For this group, the Three Strikes Law has no importance as they will never commit a crime that draws them into it's realm of application. In 1977, the California State Legislature passed the Determinate Sentence Law (DSL) which mandates, that except for some serious crimes, the bulk of felony behavior will be punished with a determinate sentence; that means that the punishment for most felonies is a "base-term" of 16 months (possibly 2 years or 3 years depending on other factors). In addition, the state enacted the "work incentive program" ("good time/work time" credit provision), which means that if you work full-time or go to school full-time, stay discliplinary "free" during your incarceration, you will get half-time off your sentence! The number of felony cases continues to flood the court system and with the criminals pretty much knowing the length of the sentence they are facing, plea bargaining is rampant in the system, allowing the criminals to "get away with murder", or more pricisely, a much lighter sentence, but saving countless taxpayer dollars by foregoing a full-blown trial.
Just for your information, outside of every prison in this state, there is a (PLO) Prison Law Office that is manned by a bevy of anxious ACLU attorneys just waiting to sue the state for any- and every-thing that a prisoner says happens! You cannot begin to imagine how many law suits are generated by inmates; many of them are filed by the inmates themselves because they are allowed, by law, almost unlimited access to the prison "law library". If you pay taxes in California, you would be appalled by how much of you taxes go to fighting inmates' law suits, most of them frivolous!
As for the Department of Corrections' retirement plan [more precisely, California Public Employees' Retirement System (CALPERS)], the rate of payment is based on at least 20 years' service and being at least age 55 at time of retirement. For every year of service, you will receive 3% of your salary (at time of retirement) X the number of years of service up to a maximum of 85% of you salary; if less than 55 at time of retirement, you receive less than the 3%. This is same retirement formula used by almost every law enforcement agency in this state!
Ron
The "Three Strikes" law was enacted to deal with criminals who repeatedly commit violent or "serious" felonies; who have a prior history of same. Some of us feel it indeed does an admirable job of dealing with habitual violent offenders; by the way, there are many states which also have these "habitual criminal" laws, California's version just happens to be the most famous. Unfortunately, the "less serious" offenders (petty thieves, drug users and dealers, car thieves, etc.), make up a large majority of the prison population and they are painfully aware of the Three Strikes Law and steer well clear of involvement with it. They are, as we say, "doing life on the installment plan". For this group, the Three Strikes Law has no importance as they will never commit a crime that draws them into it's realm of application. In 1977, the California State Legislature passed the Determinate Sentence Law (DSL) which mandates, that except for some serious crimes, the bulk of felony behavior will be punished with a determinate sentence; that means that the punishment for most felonies is a "base-term" of 16 months (possibly 2 years or 3 years depending on other factors). In addition, the state enacted the "work incentive program" ("good time/work time" credit provision), which means that if you work full-time or go to school full-time, stay discliplinary "free" during your incarceration, you will get half-time off your sentence! The number of felony cases continues to flood the court system and with the criminals pretty much knowing the length of the sentence they are facing, plea bargaining is rampant in the system, allowing the criminals to "get away with murder", or more pricisely, a much lighter sentence, but saving countless taxpayer dollars by foregoing a full-blown trial.
Just for your information, outside of every prison in this state, there is a (PLO) Prison Law Office that is manned by a bevy of anxious ACLU attorneys just waiting to sue the state for any- and every-thing that a prisoner says happens! You cannot begin to imagine how many law suits are generated by inmates; many of them are filed by the inmates themselves because they are allowed, by law, almost unlimited access to the prison "law library". If you pay taxes in California, you would be appalled by how much of you taxes go to fighting inmates' law suits, most of them frivolous!
As for the Department of Corrections' retirement plan [more precisely, California Public Employees' Retirement System (CALPERS)], the rate of payment is based on at least 20 years' service and being at least age 55 at time of retirement. For every year of service, you will receive 3% of your salary (at time of retirement) X the number of years of service up to a maximum of 85% of you salary; if less than 55 at time of retirement, you receive less than the 3%. This is same retirement formula used by almost every law enforcement agency in this state!
Ron
i avoided this one so there would be a few pages of entertainment. re "cushy retirement", i wish you could explain that to my cousin who is currently a CO for the state of new york. the test of fire fire for him was duty at attica when he was fresh out of the academy. you know, they don't pack firearms, they walk the corridors surrounded by the enemy, they too are in prison while at work. it takes a strong individual to handle the job and the turn over rate is fairly high during the first years on the job. an under paid profession, that few people want, and fewer can handle. i applaud them for keeping the mutts knuckled under. i once asked my cousin about the potential for retribution from a parolee. he pulled the truck over and showed me his 38 cal revolver, "i would just introduce them to the pup cuz". 
kevin
kevin
Tell your cousin this:
I respect your work, and risk you take but,
Keep the prison guard union out of politics.
Our govenor accepted a big "donation" from the union right after he increased their pension. It was plainly a payoff, the Govenor got his money, by giving away mine, and the future generations.
The public employee pension plan is costing my state more and more every year. Many of the state unions are big "donators" to the politicians that give them my money.
The pension thing is a scam in my opinion. the reason why is thus: (bare with me on this)
The state unlike a private company need make no profit, and can increase income by raising taxes, and floating bonds (which is in itself another issue of stealing from future generations, except in the case of using bond money for long term projects that will benefit people the term of the bond (20-30 years0 something like a damn, or roadway)
If the State was a company, and the politcian the CEO, it would be like the rank and file employees getting the union to pay off the CEO to get a better pension deal. That would be warped, and in the business world, might lead to prison time for the CEO.
Also since the state need not make a profit, the "CEO" does not care how much he spends, or wastes, and besides, If the deal with the uniion is for increased pension, rather than salary (most private sector jobs do not have pensions), the "CEO" can still claim a "balanced" budget, until the employees start to retire, many years after the CEO has left office, thus the "share holders" (taxpayers) won't get screwed right away, at least not until the CEO is retired.
One of the big excuses my city has for cutting city services, is the overwhelming pension costs now coming due, thanks to some rotten politicians years ago that took bribes, and then figures a way to payback the union in installments with a pension system, thus avoiding busting the budget while that politician is still in office.
The Pension system is not right, give the employess the money up front, and allow them to invest and save for retirement. Be honest with the taxpayers by having the true cost of paying the employees be upfront, not left for a future generation to have to deal with. The pensions just allow politicians to shift the budget on the future.
Few if any private sector jobs have a 55 year retirement age. for the rest of us not fourtunate to have a CEO, that can be bribed by unions for benifits, and with no regard for the future debt of the "company" All we get is our own savings, and oh yes, that bankrupted, unconstitutional pyrimid scheme called socialist security (retirement age expected to be 72 years by the time I get to it, if there is any left at all).
For what I got (and I am exposed to deadly risk daily at my work) with social security as my only pension, a 55 year old retirement at 85% pay (with cost of living adjustments no doubt) sounds pretty damn cushy, seeing as I will have to work an additional 17 years, and recieve considerably less than half my salary, if even that much
Pay a fair wage for a days work, and rid the world of publis employee pension plans, they are scams.
I respect your work, and risk you take but,
Keep the prison guard union out of politics.
Our govenor accepted a big "donation" from the union right after he increased their pension. It was plainly a payoff, the Govenor got his money, by giving away mine, and the future generations.
The public employee pension plan is costing my state more and more every year. Many of the state unions are big "donators" to the politicians that give them my money.
The pension thing is a scam in my opinion. the reason why is thus: (bare with me on this)
The state unlike a private company need make no profit, and can increase income by raising taxes, and floating bonds (which is in itself another issue of stealing from future generations, except in the case of using bond money for long term projects that will benefit people the term of the bond (20-30 years0 something like a damn, or roadway)
If the State was a company, and the politcian the CEO, it would be like the rank and file employees getting the union to pay off the CEO to get a better pension deal. That would be warped, and in the business world, might lead to prison time for the CEO.
Also since the state need not make a profit, the "CEO" does not care how much he spends, or wastes, and besides, If the deal with the uniion is for increased pension, rather than salary (most private sector jobs do not have pensions), the "CEO" can still claim a "balanced" budget, until the employees start to retire, many years after the CEO has left office, thus the "share holders" (taxpayers) won't get screwed right away, at least not until the CEO is retired.
One of the big excuses my city has for cutting city services, is the overwhelming pension costs now coming due, thanks to some rotten politicians years ago that took bribes, and then figures a way to payback the union in installments with a pension system, thus avoiding busting the budget while that politician is still in office.
The Pension system is not right, give the employess the money up front, and allow them to invest and save for retirement. Be honest with the taxpayers by having the true cost of paying the employees be upfront, not left for a future generation to have to deal with. The pensions just allow politicians to shift the budget on the future.
Few if any private sector jobs have a 55 year retirement age. for the rest of us not fourtunate to have a CEO, that can be bribed by unions for benifits, and with no regard for the future debt of the "company" All we get is our own savings, and oh yes, that bankrupted, unconstitutional pyrimid scheme called socialist security (retirement age expected to be 72 years by the time I get to it, if there is any left at all).
For what I got (and I am exposed to deadly risk daily at my work) with social security as my only pension, a 55 year old retirement at 85% pay (with cost of living adjustments no doubt) sounds pretty damn cushy, seeing as I will have to work an additional 17 years, and recieve considerably less than half my salary, if even that much
Pay a fair wage for a days work, and rid the world of publis employee pension plans, they are scams.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.