Full Version: Are we really the land of the free?
Well, almost anyone- Russia has more in jail- but at least they are mostly mafia violet criminals. 
"The national incarceration rate has more than doubled since 1985. As a consequence, the United States has the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world with the exception of Russia. Significantly, over 60 percent of the prison population is serving time for nonviolent offenses. Nationwide, 62 percent of ex-offenders are re-arrested and 41 percent are re-incarcerated."
http://www.soros.org/initiatives/baltimore...riminal_justice
Granted, the site I gleamed this off of is left wing, but the stats aren't wrong, it is only the conclusions you can argue with!
So my question is this:
How do we call ourselves the "land of the free" when we incarcerate folks more than any country except Russia, and that includes China or India?
"The national incarceration rate has more than doubled since 1985. As a consequence, the United States has the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world with the exception of Russia. Significantly, over 60 percent of the prison population is serving time for nonviolent offenses. Nationwide, 62 percent of ex-offenders are re-arrested and 41 percent are re-incarcerated."
http://www.soros.org/initiatives/baltimore...riminal_justice
Granted, the site I gleamed this off of is left wing, but the stats aren't wrong, it is only the conclusions you can argue with!
So my question is this:
How do we call ourselves the "land of the free" when we incarcerate folks more than any country except Russia, and that includes China or India?
How do we call ourselves the "land of the free" when we incarcerate folks more than any country except Russia, and that includes China or India?
I thought this was discussed once before. It could be that our culture is less law abiding than in China or India. We want and expect more things than the citizens of China and India, and are not as willing to obtain our things legally.
With the exception of rare and highly publicized examples, criminals are in prison because they need to be.
If they want to be free, maybe they should stop their bad behaviour.
I don't feel victimized when criminals are incarcerated, but I do feel victimized when the courts are too lenient on some and let them out to become repeat offenders.
Whatever the reasons we incarcerate at a higher rate, it certainly isn't because of some evil right wing government plot.
Total and complete freedom is not possible, it has to be balanced against public saftey. And I am more than willing to limit the "freedoms" of criminals to improve my own liklihood of safety.
With 60 percent of those in jail only guilty of commiting "sins" against themselves, with no harm to others, what is the difference between the reason we jail poeple and those we decry put in prison for "political" reasons in third world countries, especially since they seem to leave thier general populations alone, unlike us?
How can we say we are the land of the free when we incarcerate more poeple than China and India?
How can we say we are the land of the free when we incarcerate more poeple than China and India?
Got sources for the 60% number? Reliable sources, please, not a website founded by a bunch of whiners who want total freedom from responsibility for their actions.
And what do you consider sins? Smoking pot? I just watched a Cold Case show on TV, not the fiction one, but real cases, and a serial killer/rapist was considered a really nice guy, until he got to drinking and smoking pot at the same time, then he "just snapped". Took years to catch him, and by then he had done a lot of damage.
"Sins" are just that if you are doing it at home in private, but once we go out in public and subject the rest of the world to our lack of control, it becomes a crime.
And I am sure you can agree that if we are "sinning" at home in private, and doing it quietly enough so as to not disturb the neighbors, it is kind of hard to get caught, much less prosecuted.
And what do you consider sins? Smoking pot? I just watched a Cold Case show on TV, not the fiction one, but real cases, and a serial killer/rapist was considered a really nice guy, until he got to drinking and smoking pot at the same time, then he "just snapped". Took years to catch him, and by then he had done a lot of damage.
"Sins" are just that if you are doing it at home in private, but once we go out in public and subject the rest of the world to our lack of control, it becomes a crime.
And I am sure you can agree that if we are "sinning" at home in private, and doing it quietly enough so as to not disturb the neighbors, it is kind of hard to get caught, much less prosecuted.
QUOTE(Bill55AZ @ May 31 2005, 06:23 AM)
Got sources for the 60% number? Reliable sources, please, not a website founded by a bunch of whiners who want total freedom from responsibility for their actions.
And what do you consider sins? Smoking pot? I just watched a Cold Case show on TV, not the fiction one, but real cases, and a serial killer/rapist was considered a really nice guy, until he got to drinking and smoking pot at the same time, then he "just snapped". Took years to catch him, and by then he had done a lot of damage.
"Sins" are just that if you are doing it at home in private, but once we go out in public and subject the rest of the world to our lack of control, it becomes a crime.
And I am sure you can agree that if we are "sinning" at home in private, and doing it quietly enough so as to not disturb the neighbors, it is kind of hard to get caught, much less prosecuted.
And what do you consider sins? Smoking pot? I just watched a Cold Case show on TV, not the fiction one, but real cases, and a serial killer/rapist was considered a really nice guy, until he got to drinking and smoking pot at the same time, then he "just snapped". Took years to catch him, and by then he had done a lot of damage.
"Sins" are just that if you are doing it at home in private, but once we go out in public and subject the rest of the world to our lack of control, it becomes a crime.
And I am sure you can agree that if we are "sinning" at home in private, and doing it quietly enough so as to not disturb the neighbors, it is kind of hard to get caught, much less prosecuted.
Actually Bill, if you want to refute the number, because you don't believe a "whiny" website is correct, is incumbant upon you to prove otherwise. Sources were provided. I don't think you will find any correctional officer or police officer that would refute that number either- not exactly the bedrock of the liberal community
- Bill, for the record, I am all for harsh penalties, and have posted my feelings of punishment against those that commit violent crimes, it is the large number of poeple that are in jail for simply violating some lifestyle prohibition of others that I have a problem with.
How do we call ourselves the "land of the free" when we incarcerate folks more than any country except Russia, and that includes China or India?
The US has considerably harsher laws than in Europe, with greater penalties for what we (scummy Europeans
) would consider quite trivial offenses - marijuana usage springing to mind.
Technically I suppose US legislation would be put in place by democratically elected legislators. So, for the most part, US law should follow the will of the people.
Which is fair enough - your laws reflect your culture - so (I would guess) that America has a culture that is less permissive than Europe - hence harsher and more widely applied penalties for misbehaving BUT this is neither good nor bad - it is a byproduct of cultural views on crime and punishment.
By the same token, European countries do not support the death penalty. Not because we have a rose-tinted view of murderers, but because we consider the death penalty to be too harsh a penalty for ANY crime.
But this doesn't mean the US is free or not - it's just harsher on law breakers and has a wider definition of what constitutes law breaking. In any free society you do have to play by the rules.
The US has considerably harsher laws than in Europe, with greater penalties for what we (scummy Europeans
) would consider quite trivial offenses - marijuana usage springing to mind.Technically I suppose US legislation would be put in place by democratically elected legislators. So, for the most part, US law should follow the will of the people.
Which is fair enough - your laws reflect your culture - so (I would guess) that America has a culture that is less permissive than Europe - hence harsher and more widely applied penalties for misbehaving BUT this is neither good nor bad - it is a byproduct of cultural views on crime and punishment.
By the same token, European countries do not support the death penalty. Not because we have a rose-tinted view of murderers, but because we consider the death penalty to be too harsh a penalty for ANY crime.
But this doesn't mean the US is free or not - it's just harsher on law breakers and has a wider definition of what constitutes law breaking. In any free society you do have to play by the rules.
Another point I wish to bring up against our judicial system is the errors in it. I personally have little faith in the ability of our system to determine who is guilty. I do not know of any statistics to back this up. I make it partially from personal experience.
From inference, I would point out the problems found for those convicted of murder in Illinois. The conclusion many seem to have made from that data is that we should not put murders to death but to give them life sentences. My conclusion is that our judicial system is in shambles. People are being found guilty for crimes when they are innocent. If it is happening for cases involving the death sentence I naturally expect it will be happening more often for cases with less severe punishment.
Likewise, I take cases such as the O. J. Simpson trial as an inference as to how bad our system is for determining the truth. Yes, he was found innocent, not guilty. However, it points out how shoddy thinking people are on these juries who are well capable of convicting people as well as letting them go due to the inability to process data.
How many are being found guilty when they are innocent? This number should be as near to zero as possible. How bad is it now? Hard to say. It would not surprise me if 5 to 10% of those in prison are actually innocent. Our society seems to tolerate it, though.
I greatly differ from your opinion, Bill55AZ, where you have blanket condemned those in prison. There are too many innocents in prison to be doing that. I would tend to agree with your statements if I had any faith that our system is accurately punishing those who deserve it. Our judicial system is a crap shoot. It is a game, not a means to determining truth. Cases are decided on extraneous factors such as race, religion, who you have for a lawyer, or the court's opinion of your courtroom demeanor.
From inference, I would point out the problems found for those convicted of murder in Illinois. The conclusion many seem to have made from that data is that we should not put murders to death but to give them life sentences. My conclusion is that our judicial system is in shambles. People are being found guilty for crimes when they are innocent. If it is happening for cases involving the death sentence I naturally expect it will be happening more often for cases with less severe punishment.
Likewise, I take cases such as the O. J. Simpson trial as an inference as to how bad our system is for determining the truth. Yes, he was found innocent, not guilty. However, it points out how shoddy thinking people are on these juries who are well capable of convicting people as well as letting them go due to the inability to process data.
How many are being found guilty when they are innocent? This number should be as near to zero as possible. How bad is it now? Hard to say. It would not surprise me if 5 to 10% of those in prison are actually innocent. Our society seems to tolerate it, though.
I greatly differ from your opinion, Bill55AZ, where you have blanket condemned those in prison. There are too many innocents in prison to be doing that. I would tend to agree with your statements if I had any faith that our system is accurately punishing those who deserve it. Our judicial system is a crap shoot. It is a game, not a means to determining truth. Cases are decided on extraneous factors such as race, religion, who you have for a lawyer, or the court's opinion of your courtroom demeanor.
From your source:
Significantly, over 60 percent of the prison population is serving time for nonviolent offenses.
I only know one correctional officer, and 2 policemen. I suspect they will back me up before they back you up. Or do you have a source for that as well? Is there a website for correctional officers who want criminals released?
Non-violent crimes are not the same as lifestyle issues, or sins. Someone who steals your car, or steals the radio from it, or liberates tools from your garage while you are not home, all describe non-violent crimes. We should let them run free? Maybe for the first offense, but not the second. And for the 3rd, serious time. They are obviously in need of a wake-up and slapping them on the wrist isn't going to do the trick.
Gray Seal, read my post. I am aware that some are wrongly convicted, and said so. If you want to liberate all non-violent criminals, would you also want them to live in a half-way house in your neighborhood?
I agree that what we have is a legal system, not a justice system. But I do not agree with excusing bad behaviour, just because nobody got physically hurt.
And there is a real slippery slope issue here. Those who would break into homes to steal are very likely to do worse in the future.
I still say incarcerate them, and that includes the white collar criminals who didn't physically hurt anyone, but stole the lifesavings of so many people just so they could live a lifestyle that they somehow think they deserved. Altho, I suppose we could put those types into a halfway program where they can handle and invest your retirement funds for you?
Significantly, over 60 percent of the prison population is serving time for nonviolent offenses.
I only know one correctional officer, and 2 policemen. I suspect they will back me up before they back you up. Or do you have a source for that as well? Is there a website for correctional officers who want criminals released?
Non-violent crimes are not the same as lifestyle issues, or sins. Someone who steals your car, or steals the radio from it, or liberates tools from your garage while you are not home, all describe non-violent crimes. We should let them run free? Maybe for the first offense, but not the second. And for the 3rd, serious time. They are obviously in need of a wake-up and slapping them on the wrist isn't going to do the trick.
Gray Seal, read my post. I am aware that some are wrongly convicted, and said so. If you want to liberate all non-violent criminals, would you also want them to live in a half-way house in your neighborhood?
I agree that what we have is a legal system, not a justice system. But I do not agree with excusing bad behaviour, just because nobody got physically hurt.
And there is a real slippery slope issue here. Those who would break into homes to steal are very likely to do worse in the future.
I still say incarcerate them, and that includes the white collar criminals who didn't physically hurt anyone, but stole the lifesavings of so many people just so they could live a lifestyle that they somehow think they deserved. Altho, I suppose we could put those types into a halfway program where they can handle and invest your retirement funds for you?
QUOTE
How do we call ourselves the "land of the free" when we incarcerate folks more than any country except Russia, and that includes China or India?
Easy. Who do we incarcerate and for what reasons? We imprison drug dealers because they break laws against selling drugs. We jail those who commit robbery because stealing is against the law. We arrest people who break laws that are in place to protect us. Laws that, for the most part, respect the human and civil rights of the citizen.
Those who are convicted of a crime were able to, in most cases, have an adaquate defense in a fair trial. Burden of proof is on the state, and any evidence obtained illegally can not be used in trial.
Now granted, our system is far from perfect, but take China, for example. Firstly, China reportedly executed over 1,000 people in 2002. The US only executed 71.. Along with those who commit heinous crimes for which even we would execute, China also executesthose guilty of forgery, bribery, embezzlement, and theft of "cultural relics".
Trials are often short, if they are held, and the accused are often convicted based on evidence obtained illegally, in many cases, through torture.
Gong Shengliang
QUOTE
...(T)hree women whom Pastor Gong was alleged to have raped have produced written testimonies - smuggled out of prison and out of China - claiming they were tortured by police in an attempt to force them to testify that they had been raped by Pastor Gong. In their testimonies, they also claim that police officers perpetrating the torture repeatedly told them that they had support from their superiors to use any means necessary to obtain evidence in their case against Pastor Gong, and that they would not be held responsible by their superiors for any consequences.(37)
They also, like Iran (of which Cyan can attest to), arrest bloggers who are critical of the government, like they did to Liu Di
So are we less free than China or Iran because we imprison more than they do? We imprison and punish criminals because they break laws. Laws that do not include speaking out against the government or having more childrenthan allowed.
Do we really live in the land of the free. I think so.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ May 31 2005, 11:34 AM)
Actually Bill, if you want to refute the number, because you don't believe a "whiny" website is correct, is incumbant upon you to prove otherwise. Sources were provided. I don't think you will find any correctional officer or police officer that would refute that number either- not exactly the bedrock of the liberal community -
- Here is what i found:
Bureau of Justice Statistics
QUOTE
Among the State prison inmates in 2000:
-- nearly half were sentenced for a violent crime (49%)
-- a fifth were sentenced for a property crime (20%)
-- about a fifth were sentenced for a drug crime (21%)
-- nearly half were sentenced for a violent crime (49%)
-- a fifth were sentenced for a property crime (20%)
-- about a fifth were sentenced for a drug crime (21%)
QUOTE
In 2000, an estimated 57% of Federal inmates and 21% of State inmates were serving a sentence for a drug offense; about 10% of Federal inmates and 49% of State inmates were in prison for a violent offense.
So the research shows that it is closer to 50% of people in jail for what would be considered a non-violent crime in state prisons. Federal prisons have a slightly different proportion since federal laws cover different crimes. Only time a violent crime would be federal is if the violent crime was committed against an agent of the federal government (mailman, FBI agent, exc...)
I agree mostly with what Titus said and want to add that the reason we have so many prisoners is because of the freedoms we allow. People find it easier to take advantage of those freedoms as opposed to other countries who are much more rigid. I bet there were not many criminals back in the Middle Ages where they had public executions and such. Its just finding a balance between sentences and justice.
I believe that you wont find high incarceration rates in nations like China or Iran because they are more likely to execute their prisoner than to put them in prison. As Titus displayed through his research, the crimes that people are "charged" for in these other countries would seem ridiculous to us in this country...but are an all too real reality in those nations.
QUOTE(Titus @ Jun 1 2005, 03:31 AM)
Easy. Who do we incarcerate and for what reasons? We imprison drug dealers because they break laws against selling drugs. We jail those who commit robbery because stealing is against the law. We arrest people who break laws that are in place to protect us.
OK then, if people are in jail because they are criminals, then why does the US produce more criminals then any other nation but Russia? The question still stands.
QUOTE
Those who are convicted of a crime were able to, in most cases, have an adaquate defense in a fair trial.
Arguably, unless they are poor and/or black, but thats a debate for another thread.
QUOTE
Now granted, our system is far from perfect, but take China, for example. Firstly, China reportedly executed over 1,000 people in 2002. The US only executed 71
If in order to make your justice system and death penalty sound fair you have to measure it against China, then you have a problem to begin with. You also have a better record on torturing captives then Saudi Arabia (your longstanding ally), but it says something when you have to put the bar that low in order to make a comparason.
QUOTE
So are we less free than China or Iran because we imprison more than they do? We imprison and punish criminals because they break laws. Laws that do not include speaking out against the government or having more childrenthan allowed.
Do we really live in the land of the free. I think so.
Do we really live in the land of the free. I think so.
Compared to China, yes I agree you do.
Now here's a fun game, try comparing yourself against a first world nation, see how that works out.
QUOTE(Vermillion @ Jun 1 2005, 12:21 PM)
OK then, if people are in jail because they are criminals, then why does the US produce more criminals then any other nation but Russia? The question still stands.
How about poor work ethic? Too many of us don't want to do the honest thing and work for the things we want? What do you think, as our northern neighbor?
Arguably, unless they are poor and/or black, but thats a debate for another thread.
I was a juror at a trial for a poor minority, accused of attempted rape, breaking and entering, etc. His defense was more than adequate, as the prosecution failed to present a good case, altho he was very likely guilty.
If in order to make your justice system and death penalty sound fair you have to measure it against China, then you have a problem to begin with. You also have a better record on torturing captives then Saudi Arabia (your longstanding ally), but it says something when you have to put the bar that low in order to make a comparason.
You compare us to Saudi Arabia? You obviously know nothing of their history.
Now here's a fun game, try comparing yourself against a first world nation, see how that works out.
Well, I guess it won't be Canada, or any of the other "sideline sitting", Monday morning quarterback type countries.
This isn't a game, but a debate. If you have any FACTS to offer, have at it.
Our legal system isn't perfect, but I would rather it stay as it is than have it changed by those who want to change the system by claiming it is unfair to people who commit crimes. The system is there to protect law abiding citizens from those who have no respect for law, the property of others, or anything else.
I suppose Canada could offer asylum to all of our "unjustly" incarcerated. But I am betting that they won't. Even your leaders are smarter than that.
I'm going to have to go back to all my elementary and high school teachers and correct them over this. Here, I thought when they were talking about "land of the free" it meant political and religious freedom. Now I find out that it means "freedom to commit crime". 
How do we call ourselves the "land of the free" when we incarcerate folks more than any country except Russia, and that includes China or India?
I will give my former teachers the benefit of the doubt here. "Land of the free" does not mean free to commit crime. The fact that we incarcerate people means that we have a lower tolerance for crime, less faith in rehabilitation (the original article cited a 40% recidivism rate), and a few crimes which other nations do not.
People are not being arrested for political or religious crimes, but for theft, assault, and other real crimes.
Actually CR, when your sources are doubted, it is incumbent upon you to defend them. As lederuvdapac points out, only 21% of criminals are in jail for drug offenses (the "sins against themselves" that you refer to, I'm guessing). That statistic doesn't quite bolster your thesis.
How do we call ourselves the "land of the free" when we incarcerate folks more than any country except Russia, and that includes China or India?
I will give my former teachers the benefit of the doubt here. "Land of the free" does not mean free to commit crime. The fact that we incarcerate people means that we have a lower tolerance for crime, less faith in rehabilitation (the original article cited a 40% recidivism rate), and a few crimes which other nations do not.
People are not being arrested for political or religious crimes, but for theft, assault, and other real crimes.
QUOTE(CruisingRam)
Actually Bill, if you want to refute the number, because you don't believe a "whiny" website is correct, is incumbant upon you to prove otherwise. Sources were provided. I don't think you will find any correctional officer or police officer that would refute that number either- not exactly the bedrock of the liberal community
Actually CR, when your sources are doubted, it is incumbent upon you to defend them. As lederuvdapac points out, only 21% of criminals are in jail for drug offenses (the "sins against themselves" that you refer to, I'm guessing). That statistic doesn't quite bolster your thesis.
QUOTE(Vermillion @ Jun 1 2005, 07:21 AM)
OK then, if people are in jail because they are criminals, then why does the US produce more criminals then any other nation but Russia? The question still stands.
I'm confident that there are more "criminals" in American society than other countries due to our cultural apathy towards accepting responsibility, our inability to lay blame where it is due, and and our "soft-handed" approach to crimes such as robbery or drug possession. If someone steals a car and knows that they will only spend a short time in jail for the first couple of offenses... the deterrent to crime is far less daunting than say, YEARS in prison in Mexico for something as small as carrying a bullet. In America, often times, crime can pay.... and you have to get caught more than once to go to prison for any period of time.
Frankly, if you're comparing China and Russia to the US, you have to discuss the socio-cultural approach to crime and punishment as opposed to spewing "bleeding heart"/land of the "un-free" speech. It's very apparent when discussing our justice system, that nearly every convict believes that they should be set free. If you were to make trips to your state penitentary, you'd find quickly that everyone has a hard luck story, but there are few of us that would want them living next door... Really, if there were someone convicted of dealing drugs, would you want them living next door to your 9th grade son/daughter??
The bottom line is that you can't be hard on crime without increasing the jailed population in the US. If you want to decrease the number of criminal convictions in the US, simply teach your children to become productive members of society. Hard work and ambition are GREAT alternatives to apathy and complacency. The latter of which seem to run rampant in our nation's "new found culture".
If you were to compare countries and their records on crime, you'd have to consider the true nature of crime and punishment in their societies. Simply put, if people are afraid of the ramifications of criminal activity... they're less likely to pursue those avenues.
QUOTE(Bill55AZ @ Jun 1 2005, 01:20 PM)
How about poor work ethic? Too many of us don't want to do the honest thing and work for the things we want? What do you think, as our northern neighbor?
I have my own theories, poor work ethic is I suppose a perfectly reasonable theory, but one then has to ask why the US has so much poorer a work ethic then other first world countries. As your 'northern neighbour' I personally think as aevans points out, that is has a lot to do with your instantly-letigious, everybody-is-to-blame-but-me culture which discourages personal responsibility. Just one out of many possibilities of course, and just a guess.
QUOTE
I was a juror at a trial for a poor minority, accused of attempted rape, breaking and entering, etc. His defense was more than adequate, as the prosecution failed to present a good case, altho he was very likely guilty.
Personal anecdote is fine of course, though it actually proves nothing. The reality is that not only are there more Americans per-capita in prison then in any other first world country except Russia, but worse still they are overwhelmingly proportionatly African-american. 40% of the Prison population, compared with 10% of the general population. And they make up more than 50% of death row. That looks like a problem to me.
QUOTE
You compare us to Saudi Arabia? You obviously know nothing of their history.
I know more about their history then the vast majority my friend. However, thats irrelevant. Read my post again; I was not comparing the US to Saudi, I was commenting that comparing the US to China when it comes to using a standard to show off how the US handles human rights was akin to comparing the US to Saudi Arabia.
QUOTE
Well, I guess it won't be Canada, or any of the other "sideline sitting", Monday morning quarterback type countries.
Apart from pointlessly insulting, I don't even know what this means. Canada is no monday morning Quarterback, they are a 'sideline sitter' in the Gulf war V2.0 (together with 96% of the other countries on the planet) because they saw it as wrong, and as far as I know have yet to be disproven. ALL of which is ENTIRELY irrelevant to the case at hand.
I would take the Canadian prison/criminal system every day of the week and twice on sundays over that of the United States.
QUOTE
Our legal system isn't perfect, but I would rather it stay as it is than have it changed by those who want to change the system by claiming it is unfair to people who commit crimes. The system is there to protect law abiding citizens from those who have no respect for law, the property of others, or anything else.
In other words, you would rather ignore all the problems with the system then change it and try to fix them? My criticisms were that the system was racist, overly harsh and results in the highest prison population in the first world, apart from Russia. If it is there to protect 'law abiding citizens', then perhaps it should be compared in quality to a country other than China to yout its greatness. Shall we compare the US prison system to another first world country? Canada would do, but we could also pick France, Any part of Scandinavia, Germany, Switzerland, Australia, and so on down the list.
Lets compare Prison populations. Lets compare recidivism rate. Lets compare murders per capita. Let's compare conviction rates for rape. Lets compare conviction rates for visible minorities. Lets compare rehabilitation rates.
Still want to stay with the system you have?
QUOTE
I suppose Canada could offer asylum to all of our "unjustly" incarcerated. But I am betting that they won't. Even your leaders are smarter than that.[/i]
Knock it off. If you cannot debate without throwing in irrelevant, off-topic and childish national insults, then don't debate at all.
How do we call ourselves the "land of the free" when we incarcerate folks more than any country except Russia, and that includes China or India?
I don't believe higher incarceration rates and the "land of the free" moniker are necessarily mutually exclusive. It could be argued (as some have) that more freedom creates more opportunity for criminal elan. Since "freedom" has never been empirically studied, I can only hypothesize about this: incarceration rates have never been correlated. For the same reason, since "freedom" has never been empirically studied, it is also difficult to say that more freedom means more incarceration; perhaps, the proposition -- more incarceration means less freedom -- is true. I simply don't know.
What is interesting is that the US appears to have a disproportional incarceration rate when compared to most other first world nations. Does this mean the US has more criminals? Does it mean the US likes to incarcerate more often and for longer periods? Is the US justice system broken, biased, corrupt? I don't have a good answer for these questions. Yet, the answers will not be found by tossing around ad hominem attacks against those folks who simply raise the question of why.
I don't believe higher incarceration rates and the "land of the free" moniker are necessarily mutually exclusive. It could be argued (as some have) that more freedom creates more opportunity for criminal elan. Since "freedom" has never been empirically studied, I can only hypothesize about this: incarceration rates have never been correlated. For the same reason, since "freedom" has never been empirically studied, it is also difficult to say that more freedom means more incarceration; perhaps, the proposition -- more incarceration means less freedom -- is true. I simply don't know.
What is interesting is that the US appears to have a disproportional incarceration rate when compared to most other first world nations. Does this mean the US has more criminals? Does it mean the US likes to incarcerate more often and for longer periods? Is the US justice system broken, biased, corrupt? I don't have a good answer for these questions. Yet, the answers will not be found by tossing around ad hominem attacks against those folks who simply raise the question of why.
I think it's funny that so many people just blindly accept laws. No smoking pot! Why not? I am an adult and as such should be able to decide if I smoke pot or not. I think cars have killed many more people than marijuana ever has, yet we are incouraged to buy more everyday on TV. What about KFC? KFC has contributed to more people's deaths than marijuana and probably all other drugs. Sex? Should we stop? How many people get raped every year? We should just make sex illegal and that will get rid of that whole pesky rape thing..
We are not a free country. I don't care what anyone says. In a truly free country you wouldn't be restricted from doing anything unless it hurt others. That is a free society. Free thought and free speech are two freedoms we have and we tend to take for granted and abuse, but how long will it be before they are said to be illegal? How hard will all of you fight for those laws? How many will blindly accept them? Sometimes I think the nuts in Montana have a point.
We are not a free country. I don't care what anyone says. In a truly free country you wouldn't be restricted from doing anything unless it hurt others. That is a free society. Free thought and free speech are two freedoms we have and we tend to take for granted and abuse, but how long will it be before they are said to be illegal? How hard will all of you fight for those laws? How many will blindly accept them? Sometimes I think the nuts in Montana have a point.
QUOTE(mindmesh @ Jun 1 2005, 01:25 PM)
I think it's funny that so many people just blindly accept laws. No smoking pot! Why not? I am an adult and as such should be able to decide if I smoke pot or not. I think cars have killed many more people than marijuana ever has, yet we are incouraged to buy more everyday on TV. What about KFC? KFC has contributed to more people's deaths than marijuana and probably all other drugs. Sex? Should we stop? How many people get raped every year? We should just make sex illegal and that will get rid of that whole pesky rape thing..
We are not a free country. I don't care what anyone says. In a truly free country you wouldn't be restricted from doing anything unless it hurt others. That is a free society. Free thought and free speech are two freedoms we have and we tend to take for granted and abuse, but how long will it be before they are said to be illegal? How hard will all of you fight for those laws? How many will blindly accept them? Sometimes I think the nuts in Montana have a point.
We are not a free country. I don't care what anyone says. In a truly free country you wouldn't be restricted from doing anything unless it hurt others. That is a free society. Free thought and free speech are two freedoms we have and we tend to take for granted and abuse, but how long will it be before they are said to be illegal? How hard will all of you fight for those laws? How many will blindly accept them? Sometimes I think the nuts in Montana have a point.
Speaking as a nut from Montana....(oh-oh, my secret's out!).....
How exactly would you define hurting others, in this case? Because I think that's exactly how the laws you describe get past....based on their (supposed) impact on others. For instance, take drugs. You might just be hanging out in your own place, smoking some pot...but that still has some impact on others. It brings in those who deal in drugs, it creates crime for those seeking to get money for drugs, etc. etc.....all of which does indeed hurt others, to some degree. Simply having drugs available hurts those seeking to keep their family away from them, as it creates an additional burden on them. I'm not advocating either position here...I'm just pointing out that many of the laws you decry are put in place for precisely the reasons you advocate...just from people with a different perspective on things. So....how to decide which perception is correct? There are those would could point to the speed limit as something that unduly infringes on one's ability to drive however they want as also limiting freedom....should that be done away with? (It's that 'nut in Montana' thing in me again?). What if you did do away with it, and then found that all you were doing was encouraging excess speeding? Should you then ban it? How fast should someone be allowed to go before they're unduly infringing on someone else's right to not be hit by some idiot driving too fast? See...it's all relative, isn't it? A free society either requires laws which help enforce societal norms...or laws should be gotten rid of completely (would that be a 'free' society?). I doubt you're advocating the latter, which leaves us with the former...which is pretty much what we have currently.
Note to anyone who disagrees with me....open mail at your own peril
(yes, I am just kidding)
Something to consider relevant to this discussion,
what nationalities are the people who are risking their lives and paying enourmous sums of cash to get out of their own country, and what countries are they trying to get into?
One country for sure that many are trying to get into, legally or otherwise, is the USA. Perhaps we should warn these people that they have it better where they come from?
Or maybe they know more than we think we do about freedom?
what nationalities are the people who are risking their lives and paying enourmous sums of cash to get out of their own country, and what countries are they trying to get into?
One country for sure that many are trying to get into, legally or otherwise, is the USA. Perhaps we should warn these people that they have it better where they come from?
Or maybe they know more than we think we do about freedom?
QUOTE(Bill55AZ @ Jun 1 2005, 08:55 PM)
Something to consider relevant to this discussion,
what nationalities are the people who are risking their lives and paying enourmous sums of cash to get out of their own country, and what countries are they trying to get into?
what nationalities are the people who are risking their lives and paying enourmous sums of cash to get out of their own country, and what countries are they trying to get into?
Canada, France, UK, Germany, Italy, Australia, Belgium, Spain, Norway, Switzerland, the US... In the recent UK election immigration problems was one of the top issues. Believe me, the US is part of a club that includes the whole first world in this regard.
QUOTE
Perhaps we should warn these people that they have it better where they come from?
Or maybe they know more than we think we do about freedom?
Or maybe they know more than we think we do about freedom?
I seem to be repeating myself here. I will try again.
Yes, the US is unquestionably the land of the free, and a spectacular, wonderful country... when compared to the third world, China or Saudi Arabia. My whole point (oft-repeated) has been that in order to get any serious compairason, you need to compare it against a first world country. You should give it a try.
How do we call ourselves the "land of the free" when we incarcerate folks more than any country except Russia, and that includes China or India?
Not sure what incarceration statistics have to do with liberty. Yes, living behind bars inhibits personal freedom. Living in a society with a lot of criminals running around also inhibits freedom. I’d prefer to keep the criminals behind bars, myself. I suppose it's a question of the individual's definition of freedom. If I thought that selling psychedelic mushrooms for medicinal purposes was tantamount to freedom, I’d have to move to certain parts of Asia to be “free” to practice my trade relatively unrestricted. If I considered freedom to mean the option of spraying graffiti on public property, I’d best not move to Singapore where I might incur a public caning. If I wanted to be free to throw all of my recyclables into one large garbage can unseparated, I’d best not move to Germany where I would incur a large fine. As has been mentioned, every society has rules, and I don’t think that the enforcement of those rules necessarily indicates limited freedom for the individual. More often, IMO, it’s the contrary. A stable government that reliably provides law and order is fundamental to a functioning free society.
I think the implication that we are less free than all countries but China, India, and Russia by reference to incarceration statistics is more than a little off, and doesn't tell the full story. Anecdotal example: we have more people in prison per capita than the Czech republic. My husband went to Bratislava for a few weeks, years ago. He encountered some skinheads at a bar. Subsequently, bar owner called the police, who entered the bar, scanned red laser sights from their weapons over the crowd, which was a signal to all to hit the floor (everyone knew this and responded accordingly), and entered the restroom and beat the skinheads to a pulp. They dragged them out unconscious and bleeding….Hey, they might not have even sent them to jail afterwards! But I don’t think it can be said that the residents of Bratislava had a great degree of freedom when the police are free to act that way. Laws and statistics don’t always describe the realities that people live by. The law may say, for rough example, that you have a right to import or export a product without paying bribes, but the reality is that you can’t. The law might say that there is a right to a fair trial, and offenders will not encounter police brutality and condoned vigilantism. The reality is different…and so forth.
My personal measure for freedom isn’t incarceration statistics, but economic freedom which (IMO) is foundation for other personal freedoms. In this category, the US ranks very high overall. The ability to start a business, buy and sell without massive government intrusion. The ability of sound law enforcement and courts to protect personal liberty and private property, is a fundamental component of liberty, and indicates more to me about our degree of freedom than the ability to lawfully grow marijuana in my backyard.
2004 'Index of Economic Freedom' ranked the US tenth, which is pretty good. Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, Luxembourg, Ireland, Estonia, the United Kingdom, Denmark, and Switzerland are above us. “Not as free as some, but freer than most” doesn’t exactly have a snappy ring to it like “freest in the world!”…I would like to see us higher as we were not long ago…but it isn’t half bad.
Not sure what incarceration statistics have to do with liberty. Yes, living behind bars inhibits personal freedom. Living in a society with a lot of criminals running around also inhibits freedom. I’d prefer to keep the criminals behind bars, myself. I suppose it's a question of the individual's definition of freedom. If I thought that selling psychedelic mushrooms for medicinal purposes was tantamount to freedom, I’d have to move to certain parts of Asia to be “free” to practice my trade relatively unrestricted. If I considered freedom to mean the option of spraying graffiti on public property, I’d best not move to Singapore where I might incur a public caning. If I wanted to be free to throw all of my recyclables into one large garbage can unseparated, I’d best not move to Germany where I would incur a large fine. As has been mentioned, every society has rules, and I don’t think that the enforcement of those rules necessarily indicates limited freedom for the individual. More often, IMO, it’s the contrary. A stable government that reliably provides law and order is fundamental to a functioning free society.
I think the implication that we are less free than all countries but China, India, and Russia by reference to incarceration statistics is more than a little off, and doesn't tell the full story. Anecdotal example: we have more people in prison per capita than the Czech republic. My husband went to Bratislava for a few weeks, years ago. He encountered some skinheads at a bar. Subsequently, bar owner called the police, who entered the bar, scanned red laser sights from their weapons over the crowd, which was a signal to all to hit the floor (everyone knew this and responded accordingly), and entered the restroom and beat the skinheads to a pulp. They dragged them out unconscious and bleeding….Hey, they might not have even sent them to jail afterwards! But I don’t think it can be said that the residents of Bratislava had a great degree of freedom when the police are free to act that way. Laws and statistics don’t always describe the realities that people live by. The law may say, for rough example, that you have a right to import or export a product without paying bribes, but the reality is that you can’t. The law might say that there is a right to a fair trial, and offenders will not encounter police brutality and condoned vigilantism. The reality is different…and so forth.
My personal measure for freedom isn’t incarceration statistics, but economic freedom which (IMO) is foundation for other personal freedoms. In this category, the US ranks very high overall. The ability to start a business, buy and sell without massive government intrusion. The ability of sound law enforcement and courts to protect personal liberty and private property, is a fundamental component of liberty, and indicates more to me about our degree of freedom than the ability to lawfully grow marijuana in my backyard.
2004 'Index of Economic Freedom' ranked the US tenth, which is pretty good. Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, Luxembourg, Ireland, Estonia, the United Kingdom, Denmark, and Switzerland are above us. “Not as free as some, but freer than most” doesn’t exactly have a snappy ring to it like “freest in the world!”…I would like to see us higher as we were not long ago…but it isn’t half bad.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Jun 2 2005, 12:14 AM)
Not sure what incarceration statistics have to do with liberty. Yes, living behind bars inhibits personal freedom. Living in a society with a lot of criminals running around also inhibits freedom. I’d prefer to keep the criminals behind bars, myself.
No, as you say the fact itself does not mean much on its own, but it does make one ask a lot of questions about the legal/prison sytem in the US. It does make one ask WHY the US needs to incarcerate a higher percentage of its population then any other first world country. It does make one ask why a nation with 10% of its population being Black has 40% of its prison population being black, and 55% of its death row inmates being black. It does make one ask why the US, despite the percentage of people behind bars, still has a much higher murder rate per capita then ofther first world countries. If Prison is supposed to solve some problem, why does the US have a higher recidivism rate then most first world countries?
I am not trying to make some claim about the US being a police state, which it is not (despite Bush Jr's best efforts) or some terrible place to live, obviously it is not.
What I am trying to do is get through to people like Bill55 who seem happy to spout platitudes about the 'land of the free' without ever actually looking at the situation. Who are secure in the propaganda that the Us is simply 'the best' without ever actually bothering to look for themselves. The US IS a great country, but by refusing to look at its problems, all people are doing is preventing it from improving.
The reality is the US is significantly below most first world countries in a LOT of factors, many like listed above, involving the terrible prison systems. Lets not even get into the fact that the US prisons are currently working at over 40% above capacity, that in most cases rehabilitation has just been abandoned as a concept, and that they have literally turned into crime schools. Lets not even look at the fact that the AIDS infection rate in US prisons would put central African countries to shame, a problem other first world nations seem to have under control. I have asked before, I will ask again. Compare the US prison system, in any manner you choose, with the prisons of most any other first world country, and see what you find.
The question is not why the US feels the need to incarcerate more of its people, the question is why does the US feel the need to incarcerate more of its people even when it is obviously not helping?
QUOTE
Anecdotal example: we have more people in prison per capita than the Czech republic. My husband went to Bratislava for a few weeks, years ago. He encountered some skinheads at a bar.
Bratislava is in Slovakia, not in the Czech republic.
QUOTE
Subsequently, bar owner called the police, who entered the bar, scanned red laser sights from their weapons over the crowd, which was a signal to all to hit the floor (everyone knew this and responded accordingly), and entered the restroom and beat the skinheads to a pulp. They dragged them out unconscious and bleeding….Hey, they might not have even sent them to jail afterwards!
I do not mean to diminish the experience of your husband, it sounds awful, but you know the dangers of argument by example. I could respond with the story of my best friend's brother who was dragged out of his car and beaten by a US State Trooper. Neither individual case means anything in the greater context.
However, I would also point out that Slovakia is only recently out from under the control of an authoritarian Police state, and has adjusted less well to its newfound freedom then many former Warsaw Pact nations.
QUOTE
My personal measure for freedom isn’t incarceration statistics, but economic freedom which (IMO) is foundation for other personal freedoms. In this category, the US ranks very high overall. The ability to start a business, buy and sell without massive government intrusion. The ability of sound law enforcement and courts to protect personal liberty and private property, is a fundamental component of liberty, and indicates more to me about our degree of freedom than the ability to lawfully grow marijuana in my backyard.
I agree that economic freedom is essential, and that the US does fairly well there. But one freedom does not trump the other. Mind you, some countries lose points on this system because they have some state monopolies of industries, like Bell 15 years ago for example. The UK gained room on this chart because it finally privatised the Royal mail, the chart ignored the fact that the privatisation was an unmitigated disaster. When the chart biases itself automatically against socialist institutions which are proven to work, there is perhaps a problem with the chart.
QUOTE
Vermillion
OK then, if people are in jail because they are criminals, then why does the US produce more criminals then any other nation but Russia? The question still stands.
OK then, if people are in jail because they are criminals, then why does the US produce more criminals then any other nation but Russia? The question still stands.
Well, I imagine it comes down to personal responsibility. Aside from that, I think Mrs. P nailed it down. If you don't want to be thrown in the hooskow, then don't break the laws that were put in place to protect liberty.
QUOTE
Vermillion
If in order to make your justice system and death penalty sound fair you have to measure it against China, then you have a problem to begin with. You also have a better record on torturing captives then Saudi Arabia (your longstanding ally), but it says something when you have to put the bar that low in order to make a comparason.
If in order to make your justice system and death penalty sound fair you have to measure it against China, then you have a problem to begin with. You also have a better record on torturing captives then Saudi Arabia (your longstanding ally), but it says something when you have to put the bar that low in order to make a comparason.
Well, I hope I alluded to the idea that, be it that we do not have the best justice/penal system on the planet, it is by leaps and bounds greater than Saudi Arabia, China, et al. I don't see how comparing to China is a bad thing when we're in the top 10 on the planet. So are we now international pariahs because we dont measure up with Switzerland? I know they have a hard time catching illegal Ricola traffickers (as much as those New Zealanders do catching Kiwi smugglers), but I think we're we should be, relativey speaking.
QUOTE
Vermillion
I personally think as aevans points out, that is has a lot to do with your instantly-letigious, everybody-is-to-blame-but-me culture which discourages personal responsibility. Just one out of many possibilities of course, and just a guess.
I personally think as aevans points out, that is has a lot to do with your instantly-letigious, everybody-is-to-blame-but-me culture which discourages personal responsibility. Just one out of many possibilities of course, and just a guess.
Which is funny, because you seem to have blamed the American justice/penal system for the stated problem. How about this grand idea? If you can't do the time, *say it with me kids*, don't do the crime! Granted, our system needs some work, but I fail to believe it's the government's fault for John Q. Thief breaking into my car.
Oh, and be sure to look into the context of a phrase and a map before you go on a tangent and use a trivial piece of info as a rebuttal. (Bratislava was apart of the Czech Republic from 1989 until 1993.)
So perhaps this issue of being more "free" than others, and using the nation's justice/penal system as a standard by which to measure, is laden with too many x factors by which to use only one standard.
Take population for instance. Using Mrs. P's index, we're actually better off than one would make an argument to the contrary, seeing as how we have over twice as many people in the U.S. than all of the nine ahead of us, combined. The U.K. is the only country that even comes close to our population on that list. I don't see India or China even on there.
So, I think it's a pretty hard issue to try and figure out, just using our justice system.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ May 30 2005, 12:57 PM)
Well, almost anyone- Russia has more in jail- but at least they are mostly mafia violet criminals.
"The national incarceration rate has more than doubled since 1985. As a consequence, the United States has the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world with the exception of Russia. Significantly, over 60 percent of the prison population is serving time for nonviolent offenses. Nationwide, 62 percent of ex-offenders are re-arrested and 41 percent are re-incarcerated."
http://www.soros.org/initiatives/baltimore...riminal_justice
Granted, the site I gleamed this off of is left wing, but the stats aren't wrong, it is only the conclusions you can argue with!
So my question is this:
How do we call ourselves the "land of the free" when we incarcerate folks more than any country except Russia, and that includes China or India?
"The national incarceration rate has more than doubled since 1985. As a consequence, the United States has the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world with the exception of Russia. Significantly, over 60 percent of the prison population is serving time for nonviolent offenses. Nationwide, 62 percent of ex-offenders are re-arrested and 41 percent are re-incarcerated."
http://www.soros.org/initiatives/baltimore...riminal_justice
Granted, the site I gleamed this off of is left wing, but the stats aren't wrong, it is only the conclusions you can argue with!
So my question is this:
How do we call ourselves the "land of the free" when we incarcerate folks more than any country except Russia, and that includes China or India?
I think the premise of this question is wrong. You're confusing the freedom of criminals with the freedom inherent in our system. Because we are free and because we value freedom, people are free to make more choices. If you are free to succeed, then you are free to fail. If you are free to make good choices, then logically you are free to make poor choices also (as criminals have).
Protecting this freedom requires the rule of law. The rule of law requires enforcement and enforcement requires that those who break the law be incarcerated.
Frankly, our incarceration rates are too low because our crime rates are too high. We let many criminals out way too early and fail to punish them when they are in prison. This leftist championed nonsense of "rehabilitation over punishment" has been a disaster for our country. Removing the stigma, shame, and disgrace associated with crime has not helped the situation. It's only hurt.
QUOTE(Vermillion @ Jun 2 2005, 03:08 AM)
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Jun 2 2005, 12:14 AM)
Not sure what incarceration statistics have to do with liberty. Yes, living behind bars inhibits personal freedom. Living in a society with a lot of criminals running around also inhibits freedom. I’d prefer to keep the criminals behind bars, myself.
No, as you say the fact itself does not mean much on its own, but it does make one ask a lot of questions about the legal/prison sytem in the US. It does make one ask WHY the US needs to incarcerate a higher percentage of its population then any other first world country. It does make one ask why a nation with 10% of its population being Black has 40% of its prison population being black, and 55% of its death row inmates being black. It does make one ask why the US, despite the percentage of people behind bars, still has a much higher murder rate per capita then ofther first world countries. If Prison is supposed to solve some problem, why does the US have a higher recidivism rate then most first world countries?
I'm leaving soon (I'll be back in four days), but wanted to respond to this a bit. First and foremost, I think it's important to remember that recidivism itself cannot be measured effectively. What is measured is the number of criminals caught again. So recidivism rate comparisons might indicate the presence of a more effective law enforcement as opposed to (or in addition to) higher incidence of incorrigible criminality.
Next, our "skyrocketing crime rates" aren't so staggering compared to other first world countries. All types of theft, burglary, and robbery are rampant throughout much of Europe. Here is the chart for overall crime per capita. Overall crime rates are lower here than Denmark, New Zealand, or the UK. We have lower rates of burglary , rape, car theft, and manslaughter than many parts of Europe. More telling, the perception of safety among the US population is about the highest in the world (second only to Sweden).
Our murder rates are higher, overall than much of the western world, but I think the reason our population feels safer than the murder numbers would indicate is, the numbers don’t tell the whole story. Violent crime mainly happens in a few especially violent areas within the United States. The US itself is a very vast piece of real estate. I think the racial issue which you address in your post presents evidence that this is the case. A black person is 7 times more likely to be incarcerated, but a black person is also 6 or 7 times more likely to be the victim of a crime. Certainly we have a crime problem, but I disagree that it is so very terrible by comparison to others. Our crime rates have truly risen only since the 1960s. This would indicate to me the cause can likely be found by analyzing changes that have happened since that time. Whew! Time to pack.
[quote=lordhelmet,Jun 4 2005, 01:22 PM]
[/quote]
I think the premise of this question is wrong. You're confusing the freedom of criminals with the freedom inherent in our system. Because we are free and because we value freedom, people are free to make more choices. If you are free to succeed, then you are free to fail. If you are free to make good choices, then logically you are free to make poor choices also (as criminals have).
Protecting this freedom requires the rule of law. The rule of law requires enforcement and enforcement requires that those who break the law be incarcerated.
Frankly, our incarceration rates are too low because our crime rates are too high. We let many criminals out way too early and fail to punish them when they are in prison. This leftist championed nonsense of "rehabilitation over punishment" has been a disaster for our country. Removing the stigma, shame, and disgrace associated with crime has not helped the situation. It's only hurt.
[/quote]
I agree. I feel my freedoms are more impacted by criminals than by the government. My wife and I have succeeded to some degree, but have had to watch out for those who want to take a portion of our success without giving anything in return. Whether it is someone sneaking in at night and removing my property, or some white collar type attempting to churn our investment accounts, they are the ones who think that they are free to take without giving fair goods or services in return. There needs to be more stigma attached to crime, and shame felt, but I think that is not going to happen any time soon. Forgiveness should only be given with repentance, and repentance is not complete without the criminal giving up his life of crime.
[/quote]
I think the premise of this question is wrong. You're confusing the freedom of criminals with the freedom inherent in our system. Because we are free and because we value freedom, people are free to make more choices. If you are free to succeed, then you are free to fail. If you are free to make good choices, then logically you are free to make poor choices also (as criminals have).
Protecting this freedom requires the rule of law. The rule of law requires enforcement and enforcement requires that those who break the law be incarcerated.
Frankly, our incarceration rates are too low because our crime rates are too high. We let many criminals out way too early and fail to punish them when they are in prison. This leftist championed nonsense of "rehabilitation over punishment" has been a disaster for our country. Removing the stigma, shame, and disgrace associated with crime has not helped the situation. It's only hurt.
[/quote]
I agree. I feel my freedoms are more impacted by criminals than by the government. My wife and I have succeeded to some degree, but have had to watch out for those who want to take a portion of our success without giving anything in return. Whether it is someone sneaking in at night and removing my property, or some white collar type attempting to churn our investment accounts, they are the ones who think that they are free to take without giving fair goods or services in return. There needs to be more stigma attached to crime, and shame felt, but I think that is not going to happen any time soon. Forgiveness should only be given with repentance, and repentance is not complete without the criminal giving up his life of crime.
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Jun 1 2005, 03:56 PM)
For instance, take drugs. You might just be hanging out in your own place, smoking some pot...but that still has some impact on others. It brings in those who deal in drugs, it creates crime for those seeking to get money for drugs, etc. etc.....
Do you remember a little experiment called Prohibition the US tried in the early part of the 20th century? How did Prohibition effect the US? The use of alcohol increased and there was a increase in crime and government corruption. Even during Prohibition, marijuana was legal in most states.
And why was it made illegal?
The states in the southwest part of the US were the first to make it illegal. Their main reason was purely racial. The laws were passed to control the Mexicans. A Senator in Texas, in the hearings leading to Texas's law, said "All Mexicans are crazy, and this stuff (referring to marijuana) is what makes them crazy." A Montana legislator, in that state's hearings, said "Give one of these Mexican beet field workers a couple of puffs on a marijuana cigarette and he thinks he is in the bullring at Barcelona." The next states to pass laws against marijuana were in the northeast. Those states passed their laws during Prohibition to try to keep marijuana from becoming a substitute for alcohol. A New York Times editorial of 1919 said, "No one here in New York uses this drug marijuana. We have only just heard about it from down in the Southwest"..."But, we had better prohibit its use before it gets here. Otherwise all the heroin and hard narcotics addicts cut off from their drug by the Harrison Act and all the alcohol drinkers cut off from their drug by 1919 alcohol Prohibition will substitute this new and unknown drug marijuana for the drugs they used to use."
There was no federal law against marijuana until The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 was passed. The hearings for it in Congress only lasted about 2 hours. Harry Anslinger, Commissioner of the newly formed Federal Bureau of Narcotics, told Congress "Marihuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death." Other testimony came from men of industry that didn't want hemp cultivated for uses such as rope, birdseed, paint and varnish. (Extracts of hemp can, and were at one time, used in paint and varnish). When Dr. William C. Woodward, a doctor and Chief Counsel to the American Medical Association, said "The American Medical Association knows of no evidence that marihuana is a dangerous drug" one member of Congress told him "Doctor, if you can't say something good about what we are trying to do, why don't you go home?" Another Congressman proceeded to say "Doctor, if you haven't got something better to say than that, we are sick of hearing you." There were never any debates over the bill in the Senate. When it was brought up for a vote in the House, at 5:45 on a Friday afternoon, Speaker Sam Rayburn said, "It has something to do with a thing called marihuana. I think it's a narcotic of some kind." When asked if the AMA supported it, a member of the committee supporting the bill said "Their Doctor Wentworth came down here. They support this bill 100 percent."
The laws against marijuana are based on lies, and support for those laws has been fueled by government, media and industry propaganda and lies.
Our current 'War on Drugs' has brought abought laws that clearly violate the Constitution. Police have gotten away with entrapment, planting evidence and lying in court to get drug convictions. Property seizure laws have pretty much done away with the concept of "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" as is stated in the 5th Amendment. And let's not forget mandatory sentencing laws. Did you know that in some places, you can get a harsher sentence for possession of one joint than you can for murder? Where's the justice in that?
No, this not a 'free' country. The Federal Government continues to use blackmail to force states to pass various laws. Motorcycle helmet laws and seatbelt laws are prime examples. The powers in Washington told the states that if they didn't pass the laws, their federal highway funds would be withheld. It sounds like blackmail to me. In no way am I saying that helmets and seatbelts aren't good ideas, I just don't think it's the government's job to force them on me.
QUOTE(HepcatBob @ Jun 4 2005, 10:24 AM)
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Jun 1 2005, 03:56 PM)
For instance, take drugs. You might just be hanging out in your own place, smoking some pot...but that still has some impact on others. It brings in those who deal in drugs, it creates crime for those seeking to get money for drugs, etc. etc.....
Do you remember a little experiment called Prohibition the US tried in the early part of the 20th century? How did Prohibition effect the US? The use of alcohol increased and there was a increase in crime and government corruption. Even during Prohibition, marijuana was legal in most states.
And why was it made illegal?
The states in the southwest part of the US were the first to make it illegal. Their main reason was purely racial. The laws were passed to control the Mexicans. A Senator in Texas, in the hearings leading to Texas's law, said "All Mexicans are crazy, and this stuff (referring to marijuana) is what makes them crazy." A Montana legislator, in that state's hearings, said "Give one of these Mexican beet field workers a couple of puffs on a marijuana cigarette and he thinks he is in the bullring at Barcelona." The next states to pass laws against marijuana were in the northeast. Those states passed their laws during Prohibition to try to keep marijuana from becoming a substitute for alcohol. A New York Times editorial of 1919 said, "No one here in New York uses this drug marijuana. We have only just heard about it from down in the Southwest"..."But, we had better prohibit its use before it gets here. Otherwise all the heroin and hard narcotics addicts cut off from their drug by the Harrison Act and all the alcohol drinkers cut off from their drug by 1919 alcohol Prohibition will substitute this new and unknown drug marijuana for the drugs they used to use."
There was no federal law against marijuana until The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 was passed. The hearings for it in Congress only lasted about 2 hours. Harry Anslinger, Commissioner of the newly formed Federal Bureau of Narcotics, told Congress "Marihuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death." Other testimony came from men of industry that didn't want hemp cultivated for uses such as rope, birdseed, paint and varnish. (Extracts of hemp can, and were at one time, used in paint and varnish). When Dr. William C. Woodward, a doctor and Chief Counsel to the American Medical Association, said "The American Medical Association knows of no evidence that marihuana is a dangerous drug" one member of Congress told him "Doctor, if you can't say something good about what we are trying to do, why don't you go home?" Another Congressman proceeded to say "Doctor, if you haven't got something better to say than that, we are sick of hearing you." There were never any debates over the bill in the Senate. When it was brought up for a vote in the House, at 5:45 on a Friday afternoon, Speaker Sam Rayburn said, "It has something to do with a thing called marihuana. I think it's a narcotic of some kind." When asked if the AMA supported it, a member of the committee supporting the bill said "Their Doctor Wentworth came down here. They support this bill 100 percent."
The laws against marijuana are based on lies, and support for those laws has been fueled by government, media and industry propaganda and lies.
Our current 'War on Drugs' has brought abought laws that clearly violate the Constitution. Police have gotten away with entrapment, planting evidence and lying in court to get drug convictions. Property seizure laws have pretty much done away with the concept of "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" as is stated in the 5th Amendment. And let's not forget mandatory sentencing laws. Did you know that in some places, you can get a harsher sentence for possession of one joint than you can for murder? Where's the justice in that?
No, this not a 'free' country. The Federal Government continues to use blackmail to force states to pass various laws. Motorcycle helmet laws and seatbelt laws are prime examples. The powers in Washington told the states that if they didn't pass the laws, their federal highway funds would be withheld. It sounds like blackmail to me. In no way am I saying that helmets and seatbelts aren't good ideas, I just don't think it's the government's job to force them on me.
Your issue seems to be with a number of the laws that were passed through our legislative process, signed by the executive branch, and not found to be in violation of the constitution by the judiciary. From my interpretation of your rant, your biggest issue is with the American system, not laws against smoking pot. You can't have your way and you don't like it. Boo hoo.
There is a process to change laws that is inherent in our system. It involves electing enough people that hold those views. If you can, you will. If you can't, tough beans, bucko.
Your big problem is that there is no majority of people to legalize drugs and no consensus on the USSC to say that the enforcement of those laws are "unconstitutional". You saying that they are just doesn't make it so.
The topic of this debate is whether the rates of incarceration in the US are somehow linked to our "freedom". I say they are not. I also say that our freedoms are strongly dependent on the rule of law and that this requires that lawbreakers be incarcerated for some crimes. Deciding to ignore certain laws (i.e, laws against illegal drugs) makes one a criminal and this undermines the rule of law. If you undermine the rule of law enough, the basis for protecting our freedoms is undermined and we will dissolve either into the chaos of anarchy or the totalitarianism of complete state control.
If you break the law, you should pay the price. Incarceration is REQUIRED for our freedoms, not a sign that we don't have them.
QUOTE(Titus @ Jun 4 2005, 04:16 AM)
Well, I hope I alluded to the idea that, be it that we do not have the best justice/penal system on the planet, it is by leaps and bounds greater than Saudi Arabia, China, et al. I don't see how comparing to China is a bad thing when we're in the top 10 on the planet. So are we now international pariahs because we dont measure up with Switzerland? I know they have a hard time catching illegal Ricola traffickers (as much as those New Zealanders do catching Kiwi smugglers), but I think we're we should be, relativey speaking.
Yes, very droll. However, where exactly did you determine you were among the top 10 on the planet in terms of judicial/prison systems? Mrs. P produced a chart which measured economic freedom, which; a- had nothing to do with the specific discussion at hand and b- is boiased against socialist systems regardless of their effectiveness or efficiency.
Yes, your prisons compare well against China and Saudi, but I think you will find they compare quite poorly against the rest fo the first world.
QUOTE
Which is funny, because you seem to have blamed the American justice/penal system for the stated problem. How about this grand idea? If you can't do the time, *say it with me kids*, don't do the crime! Granted, our system needs some work, but I fail to believe it's the government's fault for John Q. Thief breaking into my car.
Yes, yes, this can be said again and again, don;t commit the crime if you don;t want to be in trouble with the law, of course ANY state could say this, Iran for example, making it an utterly meaningless statement, but even despite that, it does not address at all the original question: why is it that so many people in the US seem to be doing the crime and doing the time compared to other countries?
QUOTE
Oh, and be sure to look into the context of a phrase and a map before you go on a tangent and use a trivial piece of info as a rebuttal. (Bratislava was apart of the Czech Republic from 1989 until 1993.)
Oh, and be sure to have some vague idea what you are talking about before you try and correct others on points of fact. Bratislava was part of Czechoslovakia until January 1993, when that state broke amicably into two new states, Czech Republic and Slovakia. Bratislava is the Capitol of Slovakia.
Oh, and by the way, it was never presented as any kind of rebuttal, thank you very much, it was simply a correction.
How do we call ourselves the "land of the free" when we incarcerate folks more than any country except Russia, and that includes China or India?
It's pretty relative as to what people consider freedom. Some think it means consumerism choice, others will point to investments, education paths, starting a business, jumping on a Hog and going coast-to-coast without more papers than a driver's license, heading to a trout stream for quality no-catch time, and so on.
For me, freedom means a lot of the above, plus the freedom to disagree with my government and not suffer legal punishment for doing so. I disagree with my government wasting taxpayer money on the enforcement of victimless crimes that fill our jails by about 50%. I disagree with a lot of what my government does. So far, no slammer time -- as a result, I'm still free to select the cola that I like.
I'm getting more nervous about some of the cavalier attitudes toward freedom these days. It's getting to the point where security outguns freedom, and that isn't a smart way to go. It's like destroying the village to save it. Maybe someday criticism of the government will actually be a criminal offense in this country, and if that day comes, we no longer live in a free country.
And then what? No freedom of religion? We all have to get born again or die? Mandatory military service? Assigned living quarters? Arranged marriages? Selected genetically correct children? Oh, we can go a long ways from here.
Right now it's not too late. Hope enough people see the wrong path we're on and work to change it. Specifically, the war on terror is a handy excuse for the government to take our freedoms away a little at a time, for a very long time. Get a few new generations accustomed to it, and there you go.
A government of the government, for the government, and by the government. The drone people will accept it, as they won't know about anything else.
Look how easily we got manipulated into Iraq, despite the protests from the Vietnam generations. The newer generations only knew victorious slamdowns that didn't involve too much effort and sacrifice. "Get a grip!" they hollered to us.
And now? "Oh just be quiet." Yeah, sure, whatever. I'm getting my grip.
It's pretty relative as to what people consider freedom. Some think it means consumerism choice, others will point to investments, education paths, starting a business, jumping on a Hog and going coast-to-coast without more papers than a driver's license, heading to a trout stream for quality no-catch time, and so on.
For me, freedom means a lot of the above, plus the freedom to disagree with my government and not suffer legal punishment for doing so. I disagree with my government wasting taxpayer money on the enforcement of victimless crimes that fill our jails by about 50%. I disagree with a lot of what my government does. So far, no slammer time -- as a result, I'm still free to select the cola that I like.
I'm getting more nervous about some of the cavalier attitudes toward freedom these days. It's getting to the point where security outguns freedom, and that isn't a smart way to go. It's like destroying the village to save it. Maybe someday criticism of the government will actually be a criminal offense in this country, and if that day comes, we no longer live in a free country.
And then what? No freedom of religion? We all have to get born again or die? Mandatory military service? Assigned living quarters? Arranged marriages? Selected genetically correct children? Oh, we can go a long ways from here.
Right now it's not too late. Hope enough people see the wrong path we're on and work to change it. Specifically, the war on terror is a handy excuse for the government to take our freedoms away a little at a time, for a very long time. Get a few new generations accustomed to it, and there you go.
A government of the government, for the government, and by the government. The drone people will accept it, as they won't know about anything else.
Look how easily we got manipulated into Iraq, despite the protests from the Vietnam generations. The newer generations only knew victorious slamdowns that didn't involve too much effort and sacrifice. "Get a grip!" they hollered to us.
And now? "Oh just be quiet." Yeah, sure, whatever. I'm getting my grip.
Vermillion, the issue you have brought to debate is so riddled with variables that a single conclusion can not be made based on one facet of the problem.
Your argument is confusing. On one hand, you seem to be making a critique of the American penal system, and on the other, making a critique of one's perception of free. It also appears to be based on a disagreement with those whose perception of our country's status as a freedom trend-setter differs from yours.
Your question makes a comparison with China, yet any comparison made in a rebuttle is shot down because China is not a fair standard by which to objectivly measure. Why is that?
When you boil it down, this is what it comes to; we seem to have more people in jail because more Americans break the law apparently.
Now, we can debate why that is until Gabriel toots his horn, but the truth is that there are so many factors that contribute to that, (i.e. population, socio-economics, location, recidivity rate) that it would be unfair to make a judgement either way until all that has been taken into account.
Using everyone's favorite stat source (nationmaster.com), we have more people in jail than anyone else, yet we are also ranked eigth in level of civil and political liberties. China, who only trails the US in the number of people in jail category is ranked one-hundred-twenty-fifth in the liberty category. Russia, who trails behind China in number of prisoners is ranked ninety-fifth in the liberty category. India, who trails Russia in the number of prisoners ranks fifty-sixth. Brazil, rounding out the top five, ranks sixty-third in political/civil liberties.
Why is it that we lead the world in the number of citizens incarcerated but are the only one in the top ten? None of the other four even come close!
Now, this is only one facet that could be used in determining how "free" a country is. The index that Mrs. P used isn't irrelevant. It's not an unacceptable idea that the countries with the freeest economies are "freer" in general. The index is just another facet to look at in coming to a conclusion.
Long story short, it could be said that we do live in the "land of the free" after all. Regardless of how many people are incarcerated.
Your argument is confusing. On one hand, you seem to be making a critique of the American penal system, and on the other, making a critique of one's perception of free. It also appears to be based on a disagreement with those whose perception of our country's status as a freedom trend-setter differs from yours.
Your question makes a comparison with China, yet any comparison made in a rebuttle is shot down because China is not a fair standard by which to objectivly measure. Why is that?
When you boil it down, this is what it comes to; we seem to have more people in jail because more Americans break the law apparently.
Now, we can debate why that is until Gabriel toots his horn, but the truth is that there are so many factors that contribute to that, (i.e. population, socio-economics, location, recidivity rate) that it would be unfair to make a judgement either way until all that has been taken into account.
Using everyone's favorite stat source (nationmaster.com), we have more people in jail than anyone else, yet we are also ranked eigth in level of civil and political liberties. China, who only trails the US in the number of people in jail category is ranked one-hundred-twenty-fifth in the liberty category. Russia, who trails behind China in number of prisoners is ranked ninety-fifth in the liberty category. India, who trails Russia in the number of prisoners ranks fifty-sixth. Brazil, rounding out the top five, ranks sixty-third in political/civil liberties.
Why is it that we lead the world in the number of citizens incarcerated but are the only one in the top ten? None of the other four even come close!
Now, this is only one facet that could be used in determining how "free" a country is. The index that Mrs. P used isn't irrelevant. It's not an unacceptable idea that the countries with the freeest economies are "freer" in general. The index is just another facet to look at in coming to a conclusion.
Long story short, it could be said that we do live in the "land of the free" after all. Regardless of how many people are incarcerated.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.