-
What Are the Risks of Syria Involvement?
May 23, 2013 | 25 comments
-
Pray and Grow Rich
May 16, 2013 | 68 comments
-
Ruthie’s Way
May 2, 2013 | 6 comments
-
A Free and Indivisible Union
April 25, 2013 | 70 comments
-
Revoke Obama’s Peace Prize
April 18, 2013 | 80 comments
Among the Intellectualoids
Jailhouse Crock
News Flash: Prisons are full of violent criminals.
Here’s something you don’t read everyday: “Putting People in Jail Does Not Lower the Crime Rate.” Unless you are a subscriber to The Nation or a visitor to the MSNBC website. Then you probably do read that every day, or something equally counterintuitive.
I confess I do visit the MSNBC website most days. Where else am I going to get story ideas and a good laugh at the same time?
The other day I clicked on a segment with Tulane Professor Melissa Harris-Perry, a self-styled expert on crime and punishment. I was curious why we were putting ordinary people in jail in hopes of lowering the crime rate. Seemed a tad extreme to me.
Turned out the segment was really about putting convicted criminals in jail. So maybe the headline should have read “Putting Criminals in Jail Does Not Lower the Crime Rate.” That certainly sounds more like something a college professor would say.
Asked about the recent 5.5 percent drop in violent crime nationally, Dr. Harris-Perry said it had nothing to do with the large numbers of violent offenders behind bars. Rather, she said, our state prisons are swollen with nonviolent criminals convicted mostly for drug crimes and petty thefts, like shoplifting Slim Jims from the Quicky Mart, I guess.
One can hardly blame the former University of Chicago and Princeton University professor for failing to research the topic. Her teaching assistant was probably studying for finals that week. I did research the topic, however, and it turns out that, according to a 2009 Department of Justice report, more than half (52.4 percent) of criminals in state prisons were imprisoned for violent crimes.
I also stumbled across another interesting statistic from the DOJ: “From 2000 to 2008, the state prison population increased by 159,200 prisoners, and violent offenders accounted for 60 percent of this increase. The number of drug offenders in state prisons declined by 12,400 over this period.” Note to Tulane students: if you want to pass Dr. Harris-Perry’s class “Women in Politics, Media, and the Contemporary United States,” forget you read this.
ONE WONDERS WHERE Harris-Perry thinks violent criminals come from? Any beat cop will tell you hardened felons commit long strings of bush league thuggeries before being promoted to the majors. Clyde Barrow (of Bonnie and Clyde fame) did not spring a gangster fully formed from his mother’s womb. As a likely lad of 16, he was stealing turkeys and automobiles, then moved on to safecracking, and, finally, to bank robbery and homicide. The plain fact is if you are behind bars for pilfering turkeys, you are not on the streets committing carjackery. Thus the violent crime rate falls. It’s amazing how that works.
In her never-ending crusade against common sense, Dr. Harris-Perry goes on to suggest that locking up nonviolent criminals is bad for communities.
Here I must enthusiastically agree. Locking up criminals can be economically ruinous for a large segment of society. For starters, it’s terrible for home security system salesmen, close circuit TV camera installers, pit-bull breeders, auto glass repairmen, police officers, security guards, crime reporters and emergency room personnel. All risk being laid off. And think of the poor hipsters and artists who may no longer afford their cheap art galleries, record stores, head shops and every other kind of unsustainable business if crime rates went down and the middle class began moving back into the cities.
Sadly Harris-Perry is not talking about car alarm installers. She believes locking up criminals is bad for those who live in high-crime neighborhoods. How so? Because ex-cons have a harder time finding work and housing, so they naturally return to a life of crime and, ultimately, are sent back to jail (a situation she and author Michelle Alexander call “the new Jim Crow” and people who do not teach at Tulane call “criminal justice”). How much do you want to bet Dr. Harris-Perry doesn’t live in a high-crime neighborhood? I do live in a high-crime neighborhood and I can emphatically say that locking up criminals does nothing to lower my quality of life.
Last, she would like to see fewer incarcerations of nonviolent criminals and more taxpayer money spent on rehabilitation. This is easily done. All we have to do is ignore 35 years of data that shows rehabilitation doesn’t work.
I suppose I should give up the idea of teaching at a prestigious university. Not because I lack a Ph.D. in Queer Theory or Feminist Bible Interpretation, but because I still have some respect for truth, logic and common sense.
About the Author
Christopher Orlet writes from St. Louis.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (100) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Christopher Orlet
More Articles From Among the Intellectualoids
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/06/02/jailhouse-crock
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Paul| 6.2.11 @ 6:36AM
Imagine paying $50,000 a year at U Chicago or Princeton for your kid to be exposed to and brain-washed by an evil moron like this.
Patrick| 6.2.11 @ 7:22AM
"Never attribute to evil that which can be explained by stupidity."
"There are two malign forces in this universe, stupid and evil. Of the two, stupid is the worse."
Maddox| 6.2.11 @ 7:33AM
Unfortunately too many are both.
JimH| 6.2.11 @ 8:30AM
Of course under the current system it would be cheaper to send the criminal to Princton instead of jail as well.
Bill Diebold| 6.2.11 @ 10:57AM
Paul,
I seriously doubt she's mentally capable of being evil. That would infer she has cognisant reasoning
capacity. Her liberblabber indicates otherwise. She is a moron though, just dumber than a bag of hair. Maybe we should petition NY congressman anthony the weiner to send her an autographed picture.
jolizoom| 6.2.11 @ 11:08PM
She should move to CA. We're about to put her theory to the test.
http://www.latimes.com/news/lo.....7401.story
Appleby| 6.2.11 @ 7:21AM
If she wants to live under such a system of government, she should move to Canada. That is the general attitude of the courts up here. As one example, a maniac who beheaded a fellow bus passenger and then feasted on part of his body is now being considered for day parole and eventual release into the community. You can bet when he is, we will have to depend on the blue-collar newspapers to find his address and let us know.
Nobody under 18 can be punished for much of anything up here, and a 17 year old serial rapist will be released into some community that will not be told--the law forbids any mention of his name much less display of his picture.
And if you commit mass murder in the USA, flee to Canada -- they will not extradite you if you may face the death penalty, and likely you will get full benefits and your own talk show as soon as your boots hit the ground.
Look it up. Its all true.
SpiralArchitect| 6.2.11 @ 3:57PM
Oh Canada...
dee see| 6.2.11 @ 7:31AM
"Understand, so many of the prisons are
privately owned and operated ---and what's
more, sitting judges are shareholders. Really."
-ALAN WATT
(online)
REALLY----------------------------?
Hillel| 6.2.11 @ 8:06AM
verily you lie: You say Old Men have palsied hands and rheumy eyes...
Pelligrino| 6.2.11 @ 8:17AM
Best article of the day. Thank you, Mr. Orlet.
It follows nicely with what we read yesterday about the train ride to Chicago -- and how Chicago saw a brief increase in middle class people returning to the city.....but now that trend
Our cities suck. Our level of tolerance for crime is pathetic. We are the problem. We allow it to occur and do nothing.
Hard for me to believe that this is a good country when walking our streets is hazardous to your health.
Yes, that's right -- walking. So many places, if you are a pedestrian, you are a target (if it looks like you might have some money). Even in full daylight.
And we spend a lot of time "looking away" from the cold hard facts of primary "demographics" who perpetrate the violent crimes, don't we?
It is absurd to have to beat yourself to a pulp in order to earn so much money in life, just so you can finally "escape" to safety in more elite suburbs.
We are absurd.
PCC| 6.2.11 @ 8:33AM
My late brother was a Superior Court judge in Massachusetts.
One day, about 20 years ago, I asked him what was the cause of the dramatically falling crime rate.
He replied, "Two words: Mandatory Sentencing".
I've yet to find a better explanation.
SpiralArchitect| 6.2.11 @ 4:00PM
Excellent comment & excellent article.
There was a line I was going to quote from this article. By the end of this piece I had acquired too many so I decided to pass.
John Navratil| 6.2.11 @ 9:02AM
Good article, as far as it goes. It examines the 50% or 60% who are imprisoned for violent offences. What better place for them? The obverse of the coin is just as interesting. What are the other 40 or 50% in for? If it were all for property crimes (burglary, embezzlement, forgery, e.g.) that would be good too.
I'm speaking from memory here, but I recall that half of these non-violent offenders (roughly 1/4 of total prison population) are in for pure drug offences - possession, distribution or use. If my memory is correct, that's a lot of people housed at great expense for non-violent, non-property crimes.
There is a good reason for this...
"Two words: Mandatory Sentencing".
Pulius| 6.2.11 @ 9:43AM
Locking up serial, non-violent drug offenders? Works for me.
John Navratil| 6.2.11 @ 2:05PM
Pulius,
How about serial, non-violent drinkers?
Nunya| 6.2.11 @ 3:41PM
I disagree entirely. There are millions of non-violent drug users who have committed no other crime, who would otherwise be considered decent people by their neighbors, etc. Shall we lock all of them up? I think it's ridiculous to even consider.
SpiralArchitect| 6.2.11 @ 4:25PM
Depends on what activities they engauge in while 'under' - driving, power tools etc. ( you get my points)
John Navratil| 6.2.11 @ 5:30PM
SpiralArchitect,
Exactly so! If someone commits a crime (violent or property) do you care whether he is or is not intoxicated and by what? How many medicines come with a warning - "Do not operate machinery until you know how XYZ will affect you." No problem there!
PCC| 6.2.11 @ 10:30AM
Fair enough, John. But all the violent offenders are incarcerated for the crimes they were caught doing, not all of the crimes they perpetrated but weren't caught or convicted for.
Likewise, many of the so-called non-violent offenders may have had numerous offenses for which they were not caught or did not received custodial sentences, and the nature of their crimes may have (probably?) contributed to others' criminal activities, violent or non-violent. The fact is, locking up the 5% who commit crimes, violent or non-violent, separates them from the 95% who do neither.
John Navratil| 6.2.11 @ 2:09PM
PCC,
Incarcerating people for acts that the must have committed because they are criminals in other cases is not a principal of our jurisprudence. The absurd conclusion would be to fine people for the hundred of times they speed when they are caught for one.
It's seems clear to me that a pot smoker must also be a burglar, wouldn't you say? Perhaps a wife-beater is also a murderer. A person who bounces a check must also be an embezzler?
There is a book out documenting all the crimes each of us commit each day. Perhaps we should just all move to jail.
PCC| 6.3.11 @ 1:15AM
Of course I agree with the main point you're making, i.e., people should only be incarcerated for crimes that they have been convicted after a fair trial.
But I my point is two-fold: Firstly, a lot of the violent offenders and property-crime offenders are one-man crime waves, and when they are locked up, they're no longer committing the multiple crimes for which they were never and would never be caught.
Secondly, non-violent criminals are still that, criminals, and incarcerating them prevents them from contributing to the criminal life-support system of which they are a part, at the same time preventing them from accosting the law-abiding population.
John Navratil| 6.3.11 @ 8:38AM
PCC,
And they would be no more criminal than the speakeasy patron during prohibition but for the prohibition. Suppose, for example, I outlaw grass cutting on Sunday - a similar sort of morality based law - and you cut your grass on Sunday anyway. Obviously, people selling you gas for you mower on Sunday are participating in your crime. It's a stretch, but it illustrates the point. We make laws to protect property and persons from others. When we wander from that, we get tyranny. We tried it with alcohol and got crime. We are trying it with drugs and getting crime. Even if you live in Stepford with a perfect family and perfect neighbors, you still pay for it.
Garth| 6.4.11 @ 4:27PM
Thank you John,
I wasn't sure if anyone was going to point out the glaring omission. This article has the intellectual integrity of MSNBC. He selectively argues the 60%. What about the other 40%. This comment will probably be derided, but just remember followers, Milton Friedman would agree with this women. (Notice how I throw out a name the followers might follow)
Garth| 6.4.11 @ 4:58PM
This women is making a valid point. This discussion needs to be had. Revisit your own convictions, and ask the question "on what principles do I stand". On what principle does the illegalization of Marijuana stand. The writer uses criminal over and over, but that is his definition, not mine. He never even touches on the costs to the courts, to local police forces, or to the indirect costs of the convicted individuals.
Now for a very specific statement. I submit that if you are concerned about your own core principle standing, you cannot be for the legalization of alcohol, and for the illegalization of marijuana. This is a contradiction. It also reeks of group think (a distinct attribute of the left).
These comments are usually met with Demagoguery, because the arguments against it are vacant of principle.
Anneke9| 6.2.11 @ 9:07AM
You want to see some more prison-college nonsense? Visit the Project Rebound website at San Francisco State University.
http://asi.sfsu.edu/asi/progra.....about.html
This is a program in which felons get a "Get Out of Jail" free card and a free college education. Why on earth did I bother to work full-time and go to college at night? I could've jacked a car and gotten a free education.
P.S. Parents who are thinking about sending your children to SFSU, how do you feel about having a convicted felon sitting next to your 18 year old?
SpiralArchitect| 6.2.11 @ 4:53PM
Sucker! You joined the Conservatie ranks.
Just think of all the freebies you passed up - you could have lived the Liberal Life.
SpiralArchitect| 6.2.11 @ 4:54PM
That was Liberal LI(f)E
Harry the Horrible| 6.2.11 @ 9:13AM
Academicians are, for the most part, insane. Their lives and teachings have little or nothing to do with the real world.
I had an economics professor telling me that the national debt wasn't a problem because we, mostly, owe it to ourselves (never heard of "opportunity cost" apparently) and that savings were bad for the economy - we needed to take money that might be saved or invested and give it to the poor because they'll spend it right away which will be good for the economy.
He teaches at Kennesaw, I think.
Darcy | 6.2.11 @ 9:32AM
They pride themselves on being insane. They call it "resistance." You know, to "empire" and all that. Meanwhile the perks are pretty good...
SpiralArchitect| 6.2.11 @ 4:55PM
The Kennesian See-Saw? Heh.
I like it.
Kurt in S.L.C.| 6.3.11 @ 1:23AM
I went to Princeton. His name is Krugman
Bill| 6.2.11 @ 9:26AM
I question how many people who are locked up for various drug-related crimes are actually non-violent. I mean, the "rip-off," often at gunpoint, is well known for being widespread. And how about the role of drugs in prostitution, where whores get beaten up on a daily basis? Drug traffickers often go around armed; why would they arm themselves unless they fear violence?
So I have my doubts about the assumption that people in prison for crimes that are non-violent are not violent people.
I also wonder, based on the assertion that prison isn't bringing the crime rate down, where the New York Times gets its annual shocker "Crime Rate Falls While More and More People Are Sentenced to Prison."
Nunya| 6.2.11 @ 3:49PM
Bill, I arm myself daily. It's not that I fear violence, because I don't. Frankly, I sincerely hope that I never have to use my gun for any reason other than putting holes in paper targets. However, I would rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. As they say, "When seconds count, police are only minutes away."
Bill| 6.3.11 @ 9:34AM
So you are concerned enough about violence in your life that you carry a firearm, which must add some degree of discomfort that wouldn't be there if you weren't carrying. If you're not contemplating violence under certain circumstances, and protecting yourself with deadly force, why do you bother carrying a firearm?
Skippy| 6.3.11 @ 4:34PM
I'm always contemplating violence.
That way I'm not surprised or frozen when the opportunity presents itself to kill some SOB who so righteously deserves killing.
But that's just me...
Frekki| 6.2.11 @ 9:35AM
It's been common knowledge for over 100 years that the best way to stop someone from being a violent criminal is to lock him up till he is over 50. After 50 most men are too tired to get into much trouble. That used to be the reasoning behind most long sentences. But I guess if you are a liberal professor yesterday's common knowledge is unjust and simply wrong.
Harry the Horrible| 6.2.11 @ 11:03AM
I have to agree. At 50, I am definitely too tired to get into trouble!
JimH| 6.2.11 @ 12:36PM
Over fifties type like me then have a habit of confusing a lack of energy with increased morality.
John Navratil| 6.2.11 @ 3:08PM
JimH,
I used to think that one advantage of ageing was an increase in patience. Now I realize that I just don't give a ....
Brad| 6.2.11 @ 7:00PM
I'm UNDER 50, and I'm too tired to get into trouble. :)
Dan Hirsch| 6.2.11 @ 12:15PM
Or we may have finally figured out that trouble is really TROUBLE. It seems like it might make things easier, but we finally learn it makes them harder...
Or you might just be too tired.
I say learn something completely new....you'll be less tired. At 56, I'm finally learning to play a musical instrument - it's not pretty, but it is good.
Bill| 6.2.11 @ 12:22PM
Personally, I have no problem with prisoners getting harder in prison as long as they're getting harder IN PRISON.
W| 6.2.11 @ 9:44AM
Here in Pennsylvania, as in most states, we have a sentencing law, referred to as the sentencing guidelines. It is a grid system, based on your prior record, gravity of the crime, and any mitigating facts. First time, non violent crimes do not result in jail or prison, nor in most cases do second or third non violent crimes. There is minimum jail time for second and subsequent DUI cases. To have prison on your first conviction means it is a violent crime, usually with a gun.
This is easy to research since most states have similar laws.
Joe D.| 6.2.11 @ 9:53AM
Very nice article Chris. You did a great job in shooting down her stupid theories. These liberal Feminist women are just a pain. They have no common sense, facts or truth just stupid theories that we should follow.
GENE HAUBER| 6.2.11 @ 10:28AM
I THOUGHT U. CHICAGO AND PRINCETON USED TO BE GOOD SCHOOLS.
I GUESS THE DRUG ADDLED, MAGGOT INFESTED VERMIN OF THE 60'S GOT INTO THE WOODWORK
Anthony| 6.2.11 @ 10:46AM
Hey, this woman is as bright as Debbie Wasserman Shultz, the new DNC chair who recently stated "Republicans want to make illegal aliens, illegal". DUH!!!
George True| 6.2.11 @ 11:04AM
Thank you John Navratil for at least stating that there is another side to the "lock them all up, let God sort them out" knee jerk reaction typical of too many conservatives. And Joe D, are you saying than anyone who has a somewhat different opinion than you on this topic has no common sense, facts, or truth on their side?
First of all, the idea that 50-60% of convicts in prison are there for violent crimes is patently false. The figure is more like 10-20%. Here in Arizona, it is my observation over the last six years involvement in prison ministry that a shockingly high percentage of inmates are in for what would have been considered petty crimes thirty or forty years ago. Crimes for which punishments used to be two or three months in the county lockup. It also amazes me how many inmates are railroaded into prison without any real legal representation at all. For a lot of inmates, the first and only time they ever met their supposed defense attorney is when so-called attorney brought an already filled out plea bargain with a prison sentence of 5-10 years and insisted they sign it. Not knowing any better, a lot of them do sign it. I am sure a lot of you guys would be just fine with that, unless of course it was you or someone you love who is haled into prison on an exaggerated or trumped-up charge without the benefit of legal representation.
By the way, before some of you trot out the three-hots-and-a-cot and free health care argument, those are not quite true either. There is not health care in prison. Let me repeat that. THERE IS NO HEALTH CARE IN PRISON. Oh yes, they go through the motions, and frequently dispense prescription drugs, but no actual health care of a meaningful nature takes place. If you go into prison with a health issue, it will get worse while you are there, because they will not treat it. If you go into prison with a potentially life-threatening health condition, there is a good chance you will die in prison because of non-treatment for said condition.
As for rehabilitation not working, the reason it does not work is because there is no rehabilitation in prison. I repeat, THERE IS NO REHABILITATION. Again, they go through the motions, but they stop short of any type of rehabilitation program that would actually work or make a permanent change in the way an inmate thinks. Much of what passes for rehabilitation in prison is actually counter productive.
The people running the prisons as a group, are the most lazy, incompetent, unqualified, and overpaid parasites I have ever witnessed in my life. They are the epitome of the classic under- performing, overpaid, entitlement-minded government worker that we all like to lambast, and justifiably so. A lot of the prison guards I have met are decent people just trying to do their job. But a lot of them are people who frankly are not qualified to work at the local Seven Eleven, but they are collecting a high five figure salary while not actually doing their job, plus a health plan and a exceptionally generous defined-benefit pension that the rest of us can only dream of.
Our criminal justice system here in America has morphed into a ravenous beast. Yes, many real criminals who are violent and/or predatory need to be prosecuted and imprisoned. But the beast does not care how many innocent are convicted along with the guilty. It knows only that it needs to feed, and it is not that particular on whom it feeds. Mike Nifong, anyone? That was not an isolated incident, it was merely the tip of a gigantic iceberg. Prosecutors routinely charge people on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, lie to the grand jury (a felony), upcharge people (a felony), tamper with witnesses (a felony), suborn perjury (a felony), and lie in open court (a felony). They operate with almost complete impunity.
Before somebody tries to falsely label me as a liberal, I am a well-known, long time commenter here at TAS, and my bonafides as an uber-conservative are well-established and beyond contestation. I do acknowledge I am off the reservation on this issue.
Gary| 6.2.11 @ 11:24AM
Hey dude, you really think prisons are filled with innocents? Most there committed numerous offenses BEFORE they ever were caught or prosecuted, and many of those do not actually go to jail until they commit a string of offenses. As to prison guards, etc. how can anyone work around the criminals they deal with daily and not be jaded? My point is that most offenders have a long history of criminal behavior, are often not jailed for their first offense, but go out in society and continue their ways, yet you expect our prison system to rehab every variety of criminal and deviant behavior? It ain't possible man.
George True| 6.2.11 @ 11:35AM
Gary, you did not address any of the points I made. All you did was demagogue the issue. That's what leftists do. You're not a leftist are you, Gary?
By the way, you can call me a lot of things, but don't call me dude, OK? A dude is a tourist at a horse ranch.
Dan Hirsch| 6.2.11 @ 12:31PM
George True;
Nice. You call prison guards lazy and incompetent, you call prosecutors dishonest, you call Gary a leftist, in a backhand fashion.
You claim that you are an uber-conservative; is that like a conservative who is over everyone else? How did you achieve this rank? Maybe you are self-appointed, and you claim to be conservative to give yourself credibility with those of us who disagree with you. You certainly would not be the first CINO. THey were coming out of the woodwork when Reagan won, when the Republicans took the House in '94, and now since last November.
You say you do prison ministry, what percentage of the prison population says they are innocent, that they were framed? Do you believe them? Every last one of them? Why didn't the judge and jury believe them?
Methinks you no longer recognize the evil that men do. You have let sympathy overcome the fundamental responsibility that each of us has to recognize good and evil every where. Sounds as though your friendship for these unfortunates has clouded your judgement.
Mebbe you should stop calling people names and think about what you are doing.
Another thought for you, how much time have you spent counseling the VICTIMS of these criminals. I should think that a wise pastor would balance his time with criminals with time spent with victims. Too much time on one side does tend to confuse.
Did you know anyone personally who was murdered? It sure changed my attitude.
Pray, George, pray!
Jack London| 6.2.11 @ 12:23PM
George, an excellent post, although you generalize too much about the 'overpaid parasites' running prisons - it's an awful job in present conditions and it's hardly surprizing if it also brutalizes the captors. Our incarceration rate and prison conditions are appalling and clearly what we are doing is not working and as we now see in California, something has to give.
Skippy| 6.3.11 @ 4:40PM
Simple answer?
Privatize California's prison system.
End all Union guard contracts, fire every one of them, sell the facilities to the highest bidder, put the job out to contract, remodel so every prisoner has the same level of discomfort and misery, remove all entertainment items, organize chain gangs and fix some potholes.
This is not rocket science; the problem as always is government and their public employee unions.
Bill| 6.2.11 @ 12:27PM
As a criminal defense attorney, I can assure you from 34 years' experience, that the first problem is the unwillingness of courts to hand down strict sentences when the miscreant is a minor. Youths get far too many breaks. Two or three non-lockup sentences is one thing; letting the kid avoid lockup after half a dozen serious offenses is too much.
Second, those sentences for what is argued would be treated as petty offenses a couple of generations is an interesting point: it's partly true, but it ignores the reality that automobile thieves often got five-year work farm sentences the FIRST TIME. Read about the youthful experiences of Clyde Barrow in turkey and auto theft. Many crimes were severly punished the first time they were committed, and in a social context where obtaining parole was not as easy as it is now.
Bill| 6.2.11 @ 12:40PM
I might also point out that 30 or 40 years (two generations) ago, the downtown business areas of every one of our large cities was a wastland devoted to free-ranging criminals of all kinds after dark, and the commerical areas of most downtowns consisted of an inordinately large number of boarded-up storefronts as the downtown businesses escaped to the suburbs to avoid the rampant crime.
Bill| 6.2.11 @ 12:59PM
In 1972, the federal government abandoned the concept of rehabilitation as part of a prison sentence, and focused on the punishment aspect. The states followed suit and now prisons are unusual if they place any significant focus on rehabilitation.
That's because rehabilitation didn't work well enough when it was tried to make it worthwhile. If you wonder how our national crime rate can go down noticeably when we have so few cells available for the criminals, just ask yourself how many people who go to prison commit crime after crime and don't get caught, while most of the rest of humanity struggles to stay on the right side of the law.
It's also true that prisoners don't get much in the way of medical care. Part of the reason is that (as I am currently dealing with right now, as this is being written) prisons have to deal with people who will tell them with a straight face, "I have sciatica. My doctor has prescribed narcotics to deal with the pain. I can't go to prison, and need probation."
I've asked my client to tell me the name of her doctor because I have sciatica too, and my doctor says treat it with ibuprofen, aspirin, or Aleve.
W| 6.2.11 @ 1:27PM
1. where did you get the figure of 20% for inmates convicted of a violent crime? what state, or is it federal?
2. NO MEDICAL CARE? simply not true, my friend is a dentist at a state prison. he tells me the inmates receive better dental care than we do, and they all get their teeth fixed immediately.
3. I think you feel sorry for the inmates, most come from dysfunctional families, and did not have a fair chance. But that is no excuse for committing a violent crime and hurting another person.
4. this distinction between violent and non violent does not mean much to a victim defrauded of his or life savings. I had an elderly client who lost over $100,000 to a non violent con artist, who did only about 12 months.
John Navratil| 6.2.11 @ 3:15PM
W,
I commenting to you as I think I may be the one you are referring to regarding non-violent crimes. If so, my point was to lock up non-violent property criminals (burglars, embezzlers, etc.) My distinction was for the non-violent, pure drug offenses (possession, use, distribtion).
W| 6.2.11 @ 3:29PM
sorry, this directed to george true
Red Ryder| 6.3.11 @ 3:47PM
George, are you from the University of Chicago, too?
Gary| 6.2.11 @ 11:15AM
As an LSU grad I have little use for things Tulane, but this particular bimbo is irritating. As to "non violent" criminals, many have destroyed peoples' lives through fraud, deceit, thievery, etc. I wonder if the little lady from Tulane would want "rehab" for Bernie Madoff and his ilk who have similarly destroyed lives? Since he is not violent should HE be released? As a recipient of criminal activity, i.e., a burglary at my home, I was thrilled the inept perps were caught and jailed.
Albert| 6.2.11 @ 11:20AM
"There are some ideas that are so absurd that only an intellectual is capable of believing in them." I forgot who said that but it fits.
Bill| 6.2.11 @ 12:29PM
George Orwell. Just another bon mot from the master.
Richard| 6.2.11 @ 12:54PM
Liberalism makes it adherents stupid because they must believe stupid things and this is a great example.
Jack Olson| 6.2.11 @ 2:28PM
I looked up some of Melissa Harris-Perry's other works. She's not as dumb as you think, she's a lot dumber than that. I watched the video clip of a segment on Lawrence O'Donnell's show on MSNBC. They were talking about the budget battle and the deficit. They agreed that it is foolish to analogize the national budget to a family budget. She said that when a family's expenses exceed its income, they don't have to cut expenses. Instead, they can raise revenue, in this case by taxing the wealthiest 1% of taxpayers. He said that it is silly to claim that the federal government shouldn't borrow; you don't pay for your house in the year you buy it, do you? No, you take out a mortgage.
It is hard to say which is the greater moron. To tax the wealthiest 1% of taxpayers at 70% of their income would still not eliminate the deficit. And, if you take out a mortgage to buy a house, you own a real asset and gradually pay off the debt. But, most federal spending consists of transfer programs, not acquisition of assets, and paying off debt is the exact opposite of what the Congress has been doing. That Ms. Harris-Perry has a PhD in political science simply shows you how little such a credential means.
Seek| 6.2.11 @ 2:33PM
So long as we refuse to acknowledge the ugly truth -- that blacks are by nature violent and dishonest -- our prisons will be filled with felons. Yes, there are trashy, violent whites, but proportionately, it's blacks, and to almost the same extent, Hispanics, who drive crime statistics.
Conservatives need to put away those rose-colored Tea Party glasses and see things more in terms of race.
shipley130| 6.2.11 @ 4:08PM
I was pondering yesterday that if crime rates per capita for whites was equal to minorities, we would have to build a prison the size of New York. It's all about statistics, nothing to do with racism.
Mike| 6.2.11 @ 3:20PM
Seek
You are a dumbass.
Mike Johnston
SFC USA (RET)
Seek| 6.2.11 @ 3:29PM
Statistics and personal experience speak for themselves.
John Navratil| 6.2.11 @ 3:49PM
Seek,
You might also find some support from Walter Williams. However, you confuse causation and coincidence. Statistically, you find greater crimes in predominantly black areas. You also find greater black on white crime rates than vice versa. This gives rise to Jesse Jackson's famous observation that he breathes a sigh of relief to find the approaching footsteps in the middle of the night are of white persons rather than black.
The point is, the cause has nothing to do with the color of the skin. If you have ever worked with foreign blacks in Europe, for example, you will see that is true. Ask Walter Williams or Thomas Sowell about crime rates when they were growing up and you will find them profoundly different than today. If skin colour was causative, these variances would not exist.
Seek| 6.2.11 @ 4:10PM
I own and have read virtually all of Williams and Sowell's books; indeed, I've met them personally. Yes, blacks can produce honest libertarian scholars, among types of other standout citizens. I even had black roommates in college and grad school. But that doesn't cancel out the awful and violent behavior of so many blacks as a whole. I'd love to change my mind on this, but I don't see the evidence for it yet.
John Navratil| 6.2.11 @ 4:18PM
Seek,
Travel. You will see all manner of behaviour uncorrelated with skin colour. Now ask, what could have changed between the 40's when Sowell and Williams were growing up in Harlem and today? It wasn't their skin colour.
Sheila| 6.2.11 @ 4:48PM
I have lived ( for 12 consecutive months or more) in five countries (not counting the U.S.) and have visited an additional 14 (that I can specifically recall). Does this qualify as "travel?" I have seen all manner of behavior and it is definitely correlated to skin color. I'll save you and TAS 's lemming commenters the trouble: the term is proud ethnonationalist.
John Navratil| 6.2.11 @ 5:22PM
Sheila,
Over the last forty years, I've lived and worked in Norway, Germany, France, Britain, Saudi Arabia and travelled throughout Europe, around the Middle East, India, Australia, Khatmandu, Thailand, China (mainland weeks after it opened and Hong Kong), sailed the Carribean islands, Seychelles, Greek Dodecanese and the South Pacific.
My experience differs from yours. I see cultural differences unrelated to skin colour. Specifically, the Carribean and the Seychelles are full of blacks with completely different cultures.
If you don't mind, please address the point...
What could have changed between the 40's when Sowell and Williams were growing up in Harlem and today? It wasn't their skin colour.
Sheila| 6.2.11 @ 6:09PM
John Navratil, black crime rates have always exceeded Whites' in America, pre-Sowell and Williams, during their childhoods, and today. I don't have the statistics to hand but have seen them elsewhere; I don't doubt you could find them easily enough. Spare me the attribution to "poverty" and "racism." What changed was White America's tolerance of black pathology, and White "guilt" crafted and lead by leftists to undermine and transform traditional American culture and institutions and, ultimately, the American population in its entirety.
John Navratil| 6.2.11 @ 6:34PM
Sheila,
I didn't say "poverty" OR "racism". You did! I question your statistics and welcome some support for such a broad assertion. However, crime rates were lower when there was poverty of racism among the blocks. It IS cultural however. So stick to your guns, ignore the specific examples of coincidence over causation, and by all means, don't think about what might actually be demonstrably causal.
Jack London| 6.2.11 @ 5:21PM
I'm amazed you're giving this pond life the dignity of a reply. He can only be a Nazi or a troll (or both).
Mike| 6.2.11 @ 4:27PM
Seek
Your belief that Blacks, by their nature, are violent and dishonest is what makes you a dumbass. It was a racist believe before the 1960's and since then it is a result of liberal policies decimating the Black culture. Do you truely believe that because a person's skin pigment is dark that they would be violent and dishonest?
Mike Johnston
SFC USA (RET)
Sheila| 6.2.11 @ 4:43PM
Seek, there is no extant evidence in opposition to your factual statement; this is a right-liberal site with DWL (Disingenuous White Liberal) and SLAWB (Stupid Liberal Anti-White Bigot) commenters. Ignore the shaming language and stand by what you know is true. A good summation of the documented, factual evidence of black criminality can be found here: http://unamusementpark.wordpre.....ime-flyer/
Nunya| 6.2.11 @ 4:19PM
John, well said.
One who blames an entire race on the actions of a small percentage of those persons is an ignorant bigot.
shipley130| 6.2.11 @ 4:06PM
The crimes just get transferred into the prison when criminals are put in jail. I realize it's difficult to believe that assault or killing others while in jail is a crime, but I keep hoping that liberals will wake up and walk out of the haze.
George True| 6.2.11 @ 4:16PM
There were a lot of intelligent responses to my earlier comments. I knew the things I said would probably stir the pot quite a bit with our TAS crowd. I don't make comments to get a reaction out of people, but I did realize this can be a very polarizing issue, not just between conservatives and leftists, but also within the ranks of those of us who call ourselves conservative.
Dan, by uber-conservative I meant ultra-conservative. I was not using that as a term to imply that I am in some way superior to or in some way above other conservatives. In any case, are we not all "self-appointed" conservatives, based upon our ideology of less government and more freedom? I have been a card-carrying Republican my entire life, but of course that by itself doesn't mean much anymore, since the GOP has over the years morphed into the Democrat-Lite party, and the Democrat party has now become the Communist party.
Of course I don't believe that most prisoners are innocent. Most of them are there for a reason. There is, however, a percentage that are not guilty, and were wrongly prosecuted and convicted. Most studies that have been done have placed that percentage at somewhere between five and fifteen percent. Prosecutors say the percentage is no more that 3%, while the ACLU says it is 15-20%. Both of these figures are suspect because of the built-in bias of those groups. I suspect the real percentage is somewhere north of 5%, but probably not more than 10%. But if only five or ten out of 100 convicts are really innocent, this is a HUGE effing deal and a travesty of justice.
Yes, I know victims of crime, and have been a crime victim myself. So on balance, I do not think my concern for those wrongly convicted or those who were upcharged (indicted for and/or convicted of a crime far more serious than the one they were actually guilty of) is in any way overwrought.
I most assuredly do see the evil committed in the world today, which is why I will vehemently comdemn Islam and any form of socialism/marxism/communism/totalitarianism til my dying day. Which is why I also have particular condemnation for prosecutors in this country who, under the guise of the law, commit all manner of felonies to get their convictions, not caring if any of what they said is actually the truth. I have sat in many, many superior court proceedings, and I have seen this on many occasions. This, in my mind, is no different than the kangaroo court proceedings of Roland Freisler (Hitler's hanging judge), the show trials of the old Soviet Union, and the ongoing railroad jobs we see literally on a daily basis in Communist China, and in any Islamic country. As conservatives, let us not so readily condone that which we so justifiable despise in other countries.
W, with all due respect, here in Arizona, for all practical purposes, there is no health care in the prisons. Maybe it is better in other states, I don't know. As for dental care, again, maybe you and your dentist friend live in a state where things are better, but here in Arizona there is NO dental care in the prisons. If a prisoner has a problem with a tooth, their options are either have the tooth pulled or nothing at all. Even if the tooth could have easily been saved. I have seen prisoners released with over half their teeth gone for this reason.
I have also seen many people released from prison with their health permanently impaired or even destroyed, because the prisons would not treat what were very treatable and curable conditions. Several months ago at the women's prison, a 38 year old female inmate experiencing difficulty breathing was turned away for medical treatment, and told in no uncertain terms to return to her cell or else. She was found dead early the next morning, of an apparent heart attack. Several witnesses told me that the warden came to the cell, and then instructed several of the guards to destroy the HNR form (health needs request) so that there would be no record of the inmate having sought and been denied medical treatment the day before.
There are numerous such incidents I could relate. My point is, the loss of freedom itself is supposed to be the punishment when someone is sent to prison. Having one's health destroyed in the process is NOT supposed to be part of the deal. Getting the death sentence while serving 18 months for DUI, as happened to the woman I just mentioned, is most assuredly NOT supposed to be part of the deal. If you truly thing this is OK, then I submit that you are not a conservative. After all, it is the leftists who are generally in accord with the Stalinist sentiment that "you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet" . Those "eggs" being "broken" are of course human lives being destroyed or snuffed out.
By the way, W, I too had an elderly client who was defrauded out of almost $1ooK by scam artists. I absolutely have no problem with a substantial prison sentence for people like that. But even for such a despicable excuse for a human being, destroying their health in addition to incarcerating them is NOT okay.
Thanks to everyone for all the heartfelt comments, even the ones I disagree with. This is an issue with no easy answers. Liberals tend to err on the side of mollycoddling criminals, which I am NOT in favor of. Conservatives tend to err on the side of "lock them all up forever, let God sort them out", which is also painting with a very broad brush. I believe there is an intelligent, just, and humane middle way, but it takes courage even to discuss such things, let alone implement them.
I am truly glad we have forums such as TAS where we can exchange views on such things. Back in the sixties, the real liberals used to say "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend with my life your right to say it". Now it is only conservatives who embody this sentiment, while the so-called liberals, if they could, would institute a blackout on any and all opposing sentiment. It is they who are the would be totalitarians.
Jack London| 6.2.11 @ 5:25PM
Well George, how would you reform our criminal justice system? By the way, your snide remarks about liberals are not helpful at all.
George True| 6.2.11 @ 11:56PM
I did not mean for any of my remarks to come across as snide, Jack, not even the ones about liberals. I do not know if you consider yourself a liberal, but if you do I certainly did not mean my remarks as gratuitous swipes at liberals. Having said that, in my experience, as a general rule, it is so-called liberals in America today who seem to endorse a policy of eliminating the right for anyone to publicly voice opposition to their ideas. It is almost routine today for any conservative speaker at a college, for example, to be heckled and harassed off of campus, that is, if their talk is not cancelled altogether. I am aware of few, if any examples where conservatives will picket or harass leftist speakers to the extent that they are not able to give their talk.
As for what I would do to reform the criminal justice system, I am not an expert and do not have all the answers, and even if I did, it would take a phone book sized proposal. But a good place to start would be to reform the grand jury system. Originally, the purpose of the grand jury in American jurisprudence was to protect the accused from overzealous police and prosecutors. It has morphed into the exact opposite of that. Today, the grand jury is little more than a rubber stamp approval of whatever a prosecutor wants to do. It is fairly rare for a grand jury to fail to indict. You may have heard the saying that a prosecutor can have a ham sandwich indicted if he wants to. In its present form, the grand jury hears only what the prosecutor wants them to hear, and nothing else. A prosecutor can alledge that he has all kinds of evidence, when in fact he may not have any evidence whatsoever. But the grand jury doesn't know that.
And the problem with this is, once indicted, an individual is well and truly f***ed. The odds are heavily stacked against you from that point on, regardless of innocence. A skilled prosecutor can make Mother Teresa look like Lizzie Borden to a jury that doesn't know any better. Typically, only those who have deep enough pockets to hire the best attorneys have a prayer of escaping conviction, regardless of innocence or guilt.
The other thing that comes to mind is to have real penalties for prosecutors who abuse their powers. I am sure that the majority of them are honest. But just as there are dirty cops, there are also dirty prosecutors. But there is no system in place to weed them out. There needs to be.
As for prison reform, that would also be a book sized manifesto. But a good place to start would be looking at ways of actually changing the way the inmates THINK. That might possibly involve some sort of deprogramming, or even religious/spiritual indoctrination. Unfortunately, that would never fly, due to the politically correct, anti-Christian, anti-religion ideology of our federal and state governments today.
What are your thought on prison reform?
Bill| 6.3.11 @ 10:05AM
Prison reform? One reform that would go a long way toward reducing or eliminating the gang culture, fighting, and abuse that goes on, is to restore the work farm. Working prisoners until they're exhausted and collapse into bed would eliminate a lot of the prison shenanigans that go on.
Too bad that corrupt politicians and corrections officials turned the work farm into a slaves-for-rent racket. See the book, Worse Than Slavery, about the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman Farm.
"I'm sittin' down here on Parchman Farm,
Ain't never done no man no harm."
* * * * *
"I'll be here for the rest of my life,
And all I did was kill my wife."
Pelligrino| 6.3.11 @ 12:21AM
Mr. True, I appreciate what you wrote in the post above and in the earlier one of the day as well.
Thanks, one, for being a writer who expresses well in wording. (not so easy to find/come across)
I am not for mollycoddling (a good, descriptive word) but not for the travesties one hears of in prisions. Men assaulting, beating and then raping men, etc. That's pure hell on this earth.
As a congressman tried to argue 2/3 years ago, a man should be incarcerated but not be subjected to the very real dangers of deadly STDs via this routine brutality. Men beaten until they submit and 'join' the prison gang. Men beaten until they are crushed and do the bidding of their prison gang masters.
We all know that is what occurs. Maybe/probably not in every prison but far too many.
You are right to share your observations and experiences with us here. Thank you.
Visiting and aiding prisons should not be an afterthought. It should be something we actively and consciously consider as a place to serve.
Matthew 25 : 31 - 46 These are words via Matthew direct from Jesus.
That is one powerful passage -- for all of us.
I know that these artciles+follow-on threads have a 'shelf life' of about 16 hours and then no one returns to read or comment.
So if a future thread opportunity arises, I would glady read your thoughts on what you talk about above: Prison Rehabilitation.
You commented that where you assist in Arizona, there is no effort at Rehabilitation.
Please help me understand this. Rehab to me means the equavalent of repenting (never wishing/wanting/aiming to do it again). Changing one's behavior.
Three weeks lock up in any prision would forever beat & brand rehab/repentance into me. If I somehow survived prison, I would never come near any action that would return me.
This is my naive thinking. Or maybe I just don't understand? If a future opportunity occurs, please expound on what you mean by Prions Rehabilitation. Thank you.
I am in full agreement with you on courtroom proceedings and the legal beagles who do the battling on either sides (and judges presiding). It is about ueber-Lombardiesque "Win baby, win!" point scoring, profile enhancing, career-building.
It is too often not about direct justice for the individuals involved or the society at large.
Our legal system is whacked. We DO NEED to see more lawyers disbarred and themselves brought up on charges for felony behaviors.
Bill| 6.3.11 @ 9:45AM
Wherever the claim comes from that about 20% of the people in prison are not guilty of the charge they were convicted of, please keep one thing firmly in mind: people often get prison sentences pursuant to a plea bargain. When they make a plea bargain, they often plead guilty to a lesser charge in order to avoid the risk of being found guilty at trial and getting a more severe sentence. Had they gone to trial on the lesser charge that they agreed to plead guilty to, they might well have been found Not Guilty. That's not the point; they plead guilty to the lesser offense for reasons of self-interest. No one can fairly say that a sane criminal isn't a utility maximizer.
When they get to prison they have the advantage of truthfully saying that they're not guilty of the charge of which they were found guilty. That doesn't make them innocent by any means.
My experience with guilty people, trials, and plea bargaining is that the huge majority, probably about 99%, are guilty of what they're charged with. The plea bargains they make are true bargains for them. For example, I have a client who has engaged in a pattern of regularly shoplifting. She has ten pending cases. Her exposure (in City Court) is ten guilty verdicts and ten 90-day sentences to be served consecutively, or 900 DAYS and a $5,000 fine. She will be offered a plea bargain that will waive all fines and costs and 90 days in jail on each of 5 guilty pleas, to be served concurrently for one 90-day jail sentence. If she had committed first-degree murder, she would typically be offered a plea to manslaughter, which would get her a maximum sentence of 30 years instead of the death penalty or life imprisonment.
Pelligrino| 6.4.11 @ 4:35PM
Bill, while I appreciate what you write, you make HUGE assumptions or generalizations.
The first (unstated but there) is that the system is overall just.
I'm not talking about black&white; where the accused is standing over a still warm body with knife in hand.
A person's life can be wrecked just by being in the wrong place. How many witnesses never get the description of the perpetraor accurate?
The bigger issue: Money. Money tends/probably buys better prosecution or defense.
What if one's defense lawyer (forget team -- you cannnot afford a team) is a boozer and loser? Most people know of no lawyers in their lives let alone the 5 or 6 total that might be competent (and available) in a court room in their state.
Might it be that: A person 'bargains' because they see with crystal clear vision that they're sunk. Sunk and going down. One's defense lawyer might as well be Barney Fife or Klinger. The prosecuter is gunning for higher jobs and just sees you as one more notch in his belt. The judge seems ambivalent/disinterested/preoccupied.
Sure, we'd all love to know the ins and outs of what career lawyers know about courtrooom proceedures (what's admissible, what's not, evidence), but we don't. John Q. Public who's been a law abiding citizen is CLUELESS. We're at the total mercy of a system we don't at all understand.
And the 'system' don't give a rip about you.
So a person might "bargain" just because a 10 year sentence is much sweeter than 20 or more.
Got it? If you don't, you've never been an innocent man desperately needing justice and seeing in NOWHERE. (not seeing anyone who gives a rat's ass)
I'm not going to give you any bio info, but what I share comes from a real life experience. And it was no kangaroo court -- on paper or structure. (It was a kangaroo court in practice)
Scariest period of my life. Opened my eyes completely to the utterly fallen nature of every man.
So, yeah, you just might bargain. Because there is ZIP competency to be found in the whole screwed-up process AND all those who have roles to play in it.
shipley130| 6.2.11 @ 4:18PM
I believe that deep down in the criminal psyche that the criminal is not bothered by being locked up. They don't have to do anything to get that job that pays for their food and lodging. It's already mandated they work in the kitchen, laundry, etc. They don't have to do a job interview and then keep themselves out of trouble behind the prison walls. No matter what they do, they still have a bunk and meals. In their mind, it's easy street, and the liberals continue to make it nicer for the criminals.
Bill| 6.3.11 @ 10:22AM
Don't forget that if they behave themselves, they get trusty status that earns them good time and earned time, which will serve to take off about 12-15 days of each 30 days they spend behind bars.
A 30-day jail sentence will get a prisoner out of jail in less than 19 days if he/she minds his/her Ps and Qs.
Pete| 6.2.11 @ 4:54PM
Research is racist, dontcha know....
Great article. Is there a list somewhere of universities not totally infested with morons like this professor? Can they be mostly avoided by going into math and sciences ("climate science" excepted)?
Pelligrino| 6.2.11 @ 11:45PM
Pete is asking some really good questions at 4:54 p.m.
I am sure that the number of noninfested colleges and universities in America is WOEFULLY small. It's clearly a very short list.
Just talked with a dear conservative-thinking woman who essentially mothered a girl (not her own) from 8 until now. The girl just finished university in NY. The "girl" is now a decidedly full-blown liberal who embraces alternate living lifestyles, the lesbian culture, and socialist principles. Oh, and the girl has abandoned (scorns) her Christian faith/upbringing entirely.
Who'd voluntarily pay for that to happen to your child?
e track from saq| 6.2.11 @ 7:12PM
There's no denying that the modern world seems to bring out the worse in "some" people.
Having dated black women,let me say that no race has more physical nobility.
Black people know what's needed for the correction of the more idiotic members of their race and it isn't
the patsy little white liberal lunacy that we have now.
Richard Baker| 6.2.11 @ 9:23PM
Well, since California was ordered by that Judge to release 30-40,000 convicts, we'll see the test case, won't we? How utterly stupid a thought for this Ph.D. Remember the cynical meaning of the title. "Piled higher and Deeper." In the case of this "academic'" that's an accurate reflection on her "intellect."
dee see| 6.3.11 @ 12:52AM
Perhaps furthur dramatic expansion in the prison
grid as word spreads like wildfire here, and
across the world, as to the core agenda of
Globalism, Big Pharma ----and EUGENICS
(ie YOU-genocide).
AS poisoning' unto death, unto sterile nullity etc.
is ALREADY 'warmly' condemned with laws
on the books --------it's only a matter of months.
HUAC meets NUREMBERG 2012
replica handbags&wallet; | 6.3.11 @ 4:58AM
Congratulations! Your site is wonderfully written with a lot of great organizing information. I wish you much success!
www.shop-bag.net
Willie Laine | 6.6.11 @ 5:48AM
I would call the rhythm of either sort of a swing feel, not an absolute straight eight to the bar thing but not as pronounced a triplet feel as an outright shuffle.
http://hcgultradietdropreviewg.....dpress.com
Mutch Moore| 6.23.11 @ 1:35PM
Excellent counter point on counter intuitiveness. For sure, it's a crock that jail has no effect on lowering crime. One has to wonder what the nutty professor from Tulane, Mellisa Harris-Perry would propose as an alternative to incarceration, maybe some home detention or honor system? As for her bogus statistic, that "most" people are incarcerated for petty or nonviolent crime, it was only marginal and isn't worth quibbling. The nutty professor perhaps should have used the word "many" instead of most. In sum: this was a great expose' by Christopher Orlet. I wish there were much, mutch moore articles like his to shine the light of truth on the prevaricating left.
Michelle| 9.3.11 @ 4:00AM
Heyyyy, how do you like facts?
Only 7.4% of federal prisoners and 50% of state prisoners are there for violent crimes. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/p09.pdf. So the vast majority of our prison system is cluttered up by non-violent criminals. Wasting 27K a year on some guy who peed in a parking lot is the definition of stupid. But as a conservative, you hate facts. Poor baby.