Half of All U.S. Adults Have Immediate Family Member Currently or Previously Incarcerated

You are in complete denial of reality. Read The Black Book of Communism if you dare. Fool. And you think you're the smart one. That's just ****ing pathetic. Pick up a ****ing history book.

 

Think on this wise: there is crime and criminality. There is promotion of things which will lead to criminality, such as glamorizing Mafias, promotion of certain types of music, government corruption, courtroom shenanigans, unbridled immigration, allowances for illegal alien refuge, etc for one purpose and one purpose ONLY. What is said purpose? To create public distrust in government, whether it is justified or not, and facilitate the complete collapse of the American Experiment. Never should one think that the corruption in all forms and levels is coincidental; when some takes place on this grand of a scale, it is planned and organized and this applies across the board to all things related to said facilitation.

 

By historical standards, 50 years is even less than an instant. If my opponents cites the example of the times of Stalin and Lenin. Very often they talk about the reign of Ivan the Terrible, trying to show that in Russia power belongs to tyrants. In this case, 50 years of history, it can be said, was yesterday.

 

Stalin, Trotsky, Lenin, etc. where by NO MEANS A KINDLY GROUP. The intent was to break, subjugate and destroy Russia and the surrounding nations.

 

"The Black Book of Communism" is written for idiots. Only mentally disabled people can refer to this nonsense. The degradation of the intellect does not allow such degenerates to think rationally, so they refer to the sheer nonsense called "The Black Book of Communism." But this political libel and written for imbeciles and oligophrenics.

 

I'll disagree with you on the planned and organized part. I think it's all part and parcel of hating America and all things Western, but I think it's haphazard and accidental, not organized or planned. And then the goal isn't to create public distrust in government but to create public reliance on government. White Anglo-Saxon Protestants are fiercely independent and take care of themselves. Catholics, blacks, Hispanics, and Asians all look to government to take care of them. Replacing the first with the second helps with the goal of getting America to be dependent on the government.

 

If I knew where you lived, I'd be calling for the guys in white suits to come and pick you up and take you to a padded cell.

 

And what is most interesting, such as you do not even have a hint of mental activity, in order to think about what you wrote. Lenin and Stalin for the minimum time could create a state, the largest in the world. And make an agrarian and backward country, the second economy of the world. Create a country, who first launched a man into space in the world, the first in the world created nuclear power plants .... Lenin and Stalin created a country with equal opportunities for all, where the son of a poor peasant could become a minister, marshal, and the first to fly into space. Logic and you are incompatible concepts.

 

It is obvious that you have been kept in such a cell for a long time.

 

I said diverse culture not coming culture learn English please.

 

That is how it is sold and only applies to some. Do the Hispanics hate these United States of America, sure many of them do. Do Blacks hate these United States of America? You will be surprised the most Blacks in America who have a lineage of slavery in this country, are loyal to this nation. Do Catholics hate America, some do and some do not. Do so-called Asians hate America? some do and some do not, but it is not a deeply held sentiment, like with Blacks. This notion that "Asians" and Blacks look towards this nation to take care of them is silly. If the "Asians" really believed it, why do they open businesses and have their own sectioned off communities? As to Blacks, those that look towards government are children of single-parent households, led by females. Is there a problem with this? I say that there is, and such mentality came about during the "Great Society" Era, thanks to LBJ and the Democrat party, fuse this which the inundation of Third World immigration, thanks again to Democrats, and an infestation of Leftist Dogmatic Statist religion, the Church influence and you have Black folks in general. There are multiple problems among Black folks and the origins are easily traced, if you be a Man of Honesty, Integrity, and Fraternity. As for Catholics, I do not say much about them in general and what I do know about the religion of Catholicism, which is the Mother Church of All Christian denominations, especially in the West, but I digress. If you have a problem with it, address the Churches of Rome and Constantinople, I wash my hands of it.

 

Do you comprehend what the use of etc. represents? etc. is a substitute for et alii or et al. WOW!It is a well known fact the the Communist Party in Russia, aka the Bolsheviks, and their worldwide counterparts are the creation of certain money interests based in London, France, Austria-Germany and New York, at the time.

 

Read some Faulkner, Harper Lee, Gwendolyn Brooks.

 

It's rather sad that when discussing Russia, first thing that comes to everybody's mind is Stalin, not Tolstoy or the Group of Five.

But yes, Eastern Europe still doesn't understand nor accept democracy. The tendency to bring authoritarian regimes to power is quite obvious in the whole region.

 

Well, it seems that "50 years is even less than an instant" -- if it suits a person's political purpose, and that is pure subjectivity. Fifty years can be a very long time!

I really did see signs in Central Texas, indicating that Blacks could only enter in the rear of a building, or that they could only use a separate bathroom, or that they must use a separate drinking fountain, etc. I saw those signs when I was a child WITH MY OWN TWO EYES -- but NOT anywhere in the United States in more than fifty years, whether you think that's "an instant" or something else inconsequential....

If anyone thinks 50 years is nothing? Consider -- Adolf Hitler was in power in Germany for 12 years. How significant was that in the history of Germany?

Further consider -- Josef Stalin became General Secretary of the Communist Party in 1922, and de facto dictator later on. He died in March 1953 -- 31 years later. How significant were those 31 years were in the history of the Soviet Union...?

 

Thank you, I appreciate that.
Many people in prison are right where they need to be, for the good of society. The child molesters, the violent felons. Then there are many there who really don't need to be.
Once you have been in once, it is very easy to return. Of course a job is more difficult to obtain. You will be instantly treated different by police in any encounter.

We have a couple situations, people that really should be there, get released in fairly short time and people that really could of benefited from some kind of intervention, are warehoused far to long.
I am all for the pushers of dangerous drugs receiving their due. They are a danger to their communities and addiction drives all manner of crime, particularly theft.

These issues asides, all inmates should receive more efforts at rehabilitation and transistion back into life outside.
Address substance abuse, vocational training and general education. Establish a plan for transistioning back into society. Maybe assistance with job placement. Mental health care.

I got 4 years when I was 18. I did 3 years and 8 months. The only thing from the above list that I received was that I got my GED. I was released with one outfit of civilian clothes, a greyhound ticket and $100.
They drive you to the bus station and don't leave until they see you get on that bus.

This is a recipe for recidivism.

 

I don't think it's fascist or dictatorial. The US doesn't have a dictator. And unlike fascist political systems, citizenship in the US doesn't rely on racial or ethnic identity. I think it would be more accurate to describe the US political system as an oligarchy. And the oligarchs, in order to protect their interests, use the government to suppress competition with the oligarchy, which includes mass imprisonment and spying. Most Americans who were imprisoned were imprisoned for nonviolent drug offenses. The government claims drug prohibition is about "public safety", but it's really about protecting the profits of pharmaceutical corporations, alcohol corporations, tobacco corporations and even the drug lords themselves, to say nothing of the gigantic government bureaucracies that are used to enforce prohibition. Bottom line: Most Americans are imprisoned because it enriches the oligarchs. Basically everything the US government does is in some way connected to enriching the oligarchs.

 

Some things you say are very positive and reasonable, others not so much. For example, I don't understand why you think we would need more prisons. If we decriminalize and legalize drugs, then the prison population will be reduced by gigantic amounts. Most people in prison are in prison because of drug prohibition's direct and indirect effects on society. Many of the violent criminals in prison committed crimes that were connected to drug trafficking operations. But the biggest reason that people commit violent crimes in drug trafficking operations is BECAUSE the drug in question is illegal. If it weren't illegal, then it would be sold by reputable merchants who pay taxes and observe social norms. I also don't understand why you are so hostile to any idea that doesn't involve harsh imprisonment. Do not get me wrong, there are some criminals who ONLY deserve harsh imprisonment, like rapists and murderers. But for petty crimes, I see the need for some form of rehabilitation. It would be much better for society if a petty criminal was rehabilitated. But in order to rehabilitate them, we need more options than just harsh imprisonment. I'm not saying they should be coddled or anything, but focusing only on punishment is not really a viable path to rehabilitation. But I'm not going to quibble too much because you identified the most important solution, which is to decriminalize/legalize drugs. As long as you understand that, then you are part of the solution and not part of the problem.

 

Yes, in more ways than one. Because not only does drug prohibition protect the profits of established drug dealers like big pharma and alcohol, it also gives the state a convenient pretext to harass and intimidate political dissidents. A Nixon official basically admitted as much, although no admission was actually necessary to those who have been paying attention.

 

I don't see why short stays in prison should not be counted as a form of incarceration. Even spending one night in a prison is a serious incident.

 

What would be your estimate of the ratio of inmates who "need to be there" compared to those who don't "need to be there"?

What is your opinion on mandatory minimum sentences? How is society served by such sentences?

Should the pushers of cigarettes, very dangerous and toxic drugs, be treated?

 

Perhaps once we decriminalize drugs it would not be necessary to build more prisons... but, given how many less-than-lethal violent crimes that occur in this country that are simply dropped or glossed-over, it is an option we should keep open.

But, you're right... a lot of violent crimes are those that happen in connection with drugs, drug sales, etc.

Harsh punishment is a method I'd adopt for truly violent criminals if only because it is so clear now that coddling criminals has so little measurable, beneficial effect. Make prison a truly horrible place to be, and keep violent criminals there for the full term of their sentences. I know that's painting with an overly-broad brush, but we've got to stop this 'revolving-door' approach to the criminal justice system.

One thing about drug legalization -- and I never expected to be saying this: We totally legalized marijuana here in Colorado, and we were the first in the nation to do so. A lot of us, including me, voted for it because we believe in the freedom of the individual, and, because we wanted to reap a tax windfall from its sale. What we GOT, however, has been a very 'mixed-bag'.

We have gotten a big tax windfall, BUT, we've also gotten hordes of homeless bums and beggars who tell the police and media alike that they come to Colorado precisely because they can get stoned here all the time without legal entanglements. That has brought the necessity (according to radical Democrats who have now taken over Colorado) to provide "services" of many different kinds to these hordes of bums, and to start up "prevention programs" -- in order to suppress consumption of the very thing that we derive the tax windfall FROM! Sheer idiocy! And probably the worst part? The Black Market for marijuana is larger now than it has ever been! Totally surprising....

The point here is -- be careful what you wish for, and, what you VOTE for!

I still think we should decriminalize drugs for personal use, but when people prove to be too irresponsible to maintain their own existences, pay their own way in life, and refuse to obey laws that have nothing to do with using drugs, then their behaviors have to be suppressed harshly, and that probably means that they have to be put into prison and KEPT there, too. I know... it's sad that some people make such a damned miserable mess of their lives, but hasn't it always been so...?

 

You put up a random picture of minorities while discussing the level of crime?
I call that racist.

 

How so?

 

1. I would guess around half, purely a guess. That question has no easy answer.
2. I would support them in certain cases, such as violent career criminals. In that case, society would benefit by not having predatory criminals roam at large. However, the overuse burdens the system and is unjust.
3. Ciggarettes are legal and there is a world of difference between smokes and having someone strung out on meth, coke, opiates etc.