Prison

[SS-Block]

Its a poll, but a discussion would also be good.

I think prisons should just be for violent offenders. I don't see the point in having drug addicts or prostitutes in prison, and surely they're victims anyway. I used to think drug dealers and pimps should be in there, but is that the best way to protect society when they'll be replaced in the chain, and these people are so money motivated that tagging them (knowing all there whereabouts), siezing assets (including any transferred by them to others), and getting them doing community service might be a more effective punishment. Same for fraudsters. People like Blagojevich, too.

Prison seems overkill and too torturous for non-violent criminals.

[jolanar]

Seems like a pretty big damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

Obviously prison isn't helping anyone, but what else can we do? Why would a thief stop stealing if all he has to do is community service?

[SS-Block]

If its community service plus their assets taken away, I think they might be dissuaded. They would have nothing, and be forced to live in a council flat or equivalent. They would be on record and tagged, so escape would be unlikely.

To prevent innocent people's belongings being taken by state, all assets are held and frozen for a decade to allow time for the convict to prove innocence.

Cleaning up the legal process would also be needed to prevent innocent people being used for free labor/community service.

Its asking for a lot of change, but the current system doesn't work and needs a big alteration.

[Mr. Guiltless]

Ostracism and/or computerized ostracism would be far more effective than prisons imo. Sort of like how credit checks work. This means that such and such person wouldn't be able to buy groceries, an apartment, join a gym, etc.

The prison-industrial complex just turns many who were non-violent into future violent persons. Plus there's no such thing as a victimless "crime". An oxymoron if there ever was one. In order for there to be a crime, there HAS to be a victim. In fact the only real "crime" that occurs when it concerns "victimless crime" is kidnapping(er, excuse me, ARRESTING), prosecuting and incarcerating someone for any of these arbitrary "victimless crimes"(e.g. carrying the "wrong" kind of vegetation in their fucking pockets).

[Preston_79]

Non-violent prisoners should just never have to be around the violent ones. I'd have super short sentences for non-violent crimes.

[AceD]

Originally Posted by Mr. Guiltless

Ostracism and/or computerized ostracism would be far more effective than prisons imo. Sort of like how credit checks work. This means that such and such person wouldn't be able to buy groceries, an apartment, join a gym, etc.

The prison-industrial complex just turns many who were non-violent into future violent persons. Plus there's no such thing as a victimless "crime". An oxymoron if there ever was one. In order for there to be a crime, there HAS to be a victim. In fact the only real "crime" that occurs when it concerns "victimless crime" is kidnapping(er, excuse me, ARRESTING), prosecuting and incarcerating someone for any of these arbitrary "victimless crimes"(e.g. carrying the "wrong" kind of vegetation in their fucking pockets).

If you grow your own ganja and smoke it yourself, then fine. But if not? It is no longer a victimless crime.

[Mr. Guiltless]

Originally Posted by AceD

If you grow your own ganja and smoke it yourself, then fine. But if not? It is no longer a victimless crime.

How so? You mean if it has been stolen? Surely you don't mean bought. Silk Road works just fine(a picture of how peaceful and prosperous the world would be without a drug war). Anyway, it doesn't matter. The insane War On Drugs is a complete failure and criminal in and of itself.

[AceD]

Originally Posted by Mr. Guiltless

How so? You mean if it has been stolen? Surely you don't mean bought. Silk Road works just fine(a picture of how peaceful and prosperous the world would be without a drug war). Anyway, it doesn't matter. The insane War On Drugs is a complete failure and criminal in and of itself.

No sane person would defend the war on drugs. But that's not the issue. The fact is that for whatever the reasons, the drug trade does involve a lot of violence. A stupid and broken war on drugs doesn't negate or defend that. You can't bemoan the tragedy of blood diamonds and buy them at the same time, just as you can't pick and choose which parts of the drug trade you support/encourage.

[Mr. Guiltless]

Originally Posted by AceD

No sane person would defend the war on drugs. But that's not the issue. The fact is that for whatever the reasons, the drug trade does involve a lot of violence. A stupid and broken war on drugs doesn't negate or defend that. You can't bemoan the tragedy of blood diamonds and buy them at the same time, just as you can't pick and choose which parts of the drug trade you support/encourage.

I don't deal in half-measures. All drugs should be legal. All the violence you point out happens with any kind of prohibition. Look what happened in Capone's era. Conversely, look at Portugal now. Drugs are legal there, violence is down, and now drug use is down.

The Silk Road is a glimpse at a peaceful, voluntary future that will probably never get here when so many believe in the nonsense of statist benevolence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Ro...marketplace%29

[AceD]

Originally Posted by Mr. Guiltless

I don't deal in half-measures. All drugs should be legal. All the violence you point out happens with any kind of prohibition. Look what happened in Capone's era. Conversely, look at Portugal now. Drugs are legal there, violence is down, and now drug use is down.

I don't totally disagree, but I don't deal in half-measures either. If you don't support the violence, don't support the drugs. If you're "peaceful," then value peace more than use of drugs and abstain until the laws change. Again, I'm not saying your position is wrong, I'm just saying that we don't get to choose what aspects of the trade we support.

[Mr. Guiltless]

Originally Posted by AceD

I don't totally disagree, but I don't deal in half-measures either. If you don't support the violence, don't support the drugs. If you're "peaceful," then value peace more than use of drugs and abstain until the laws change. Again, I'm not saying your position is wrong, I'm just saying that we don't get to choose what aspects of the trade we support.

I don't believe in laws, which are just opinions with a gun. But if we are going to operate under them, if you want to end the violence and legalize drugs, then tell Obama to stop funding the drug cartels in Mexico and giving/selling them weapons.

[Preston_79]

I suppose there could always be violence in drug trade, but that really just depends on where you live. Being from Nor Cal and having many friends who have been in the marijuana business for over a decade, I don't know of a single one that ever had a violent altercation. They're not slangin singles to high schoolers, they're moving elbows. Just a bunch of peaceful dudes. I don't see anyone being victimized by their marijuana dealings.

[SS-Block]

I've never thought of marijuana as a violent business. E and acid, i'm not so sure. Heroin, crack etc is a different set of affairs entirely. That's probably the stupidity of the war on drugs, the bundling of diverse issues and substances into the same group.

[Mr. Guiltless]

Plus the word 'abuse' pretty much always follows after the word 'drug'. You never hear about MDMA improving marriages or cocaine keeping you awake on the subway late at night to prevent from being robbed. The propaganda out there is so thick, it itself is a drug; and the most abusive one at that.

[Bondgirl]

Originally Posted by SS-Block

Its a poll, but a discussion would also be good.

I think prisons should just be for violent offenders. I don't see the point in having drug addicts or prostitutes in prison, and surely they're victims anyway. I used to think drug dealers and pimps should be in there, but is that the best way to protect society when they'll be replaced in the chain, and these people are so money motivated that tagging them (knowing all there whereabouts), siezing assets (including any transferred by them to others), and getting them doing community service might be a more effective punishment. Same for fraudsters. People like Blagojevich, too.

Prison seems overkill and too torturous for non-violent criminals.

I have to agree with you alot of people with drug problems need professial help not a stint in prison
Where they will get into more worse drug habits
Plus they get into alot of the rough crowds in there

Also prostitudes shouldnt be in there like the above statement half of the time there is a reason why they do it and trying to figure out waht they are doing on the street in the first place

In prison these days it is way to over crowded with people who have just done something small

I think rapists and murderers should be in for life not just a couple of years

[SL Dubbs]

Prison does not work and is a complete failure. So is parole, 80% released on Parole end up breaking it and going right back.

When I was in Prison all the other inmates would talk about is potential crimes they will commit once released back into society.

They have prisons for violent offenders already. For those who don't play well with others killing inmates and staff members are thrown in Maximum Security Prisons like ADX.

If you just throw other violent inmates in general population it will turn into a gladiator academy or an all out riot.