Q: Is our system so big because we have so much crime?

A: No.

America's overall crime rates are similar to comparable nations. For the crime of assault, 2.2% of Americans are victimized each year, compared to 2.3% of Canadians and 2.8% of Australians. For car theft, the U.S. rate is 2.3%, Australia is at 2.7% and England is at 2.8%. America is extraordinary only in its rate of homicide with guns - lethal violence. American gun homicide rates run twenty times the rate in comparable nations- causing Americans to live in fear that their counterparts in England and France do not share.

To read more http://www.stopviolence.com/cj-knowledge.htm#ideas

It says that 270,000 illegal immigrants served jail time in 2003. 108,000 in California, and thats supposed to make up half of California's prison population? It seems like California would have more than 216,000 people in jail or prison at any given point in time. Maybe I'm misunderstanding or misreading something.

 

Some estimates show illegals now make up half of California's prison population - It seemed to me as if the estimates were made at the time of the article (2006) not the time the most recent data was available at the time which was 2003. I don't know that just the way I read it.

The crimes don't have to be violent, that's my problem. Someone could have 2 cases of assault and then get in another stupid little scuffle and be in prison for the rest of their life! It's a stupid law that needs to be changed.

Just my opinion but 2 felony assault convictions and I wouldn't really care what the third felony was for I would support locking them up.

 

Conviction #1 Assualt against your sister

Conviction #2 Assault against your mom during an attempted purse snatching.

Conviction #3 would not really matter to me, if he was still alive after #'s 1 and 2 I would fully support life at that point for any other felony conviction.

Just my opinion but 2 felony assault convictions and I wouldn't really care what the third felony was for I would support locking them up.

 

Conviction #1 Assualt against your sister

Conviction #2 Assault against your mom during an attempted purse snatching.

Conviction #3 would not really matter to me, if he was still alive after #'s 1 and 2 I would fully support life at that point for any other felony conviction.

 

And that is why our prisons will continue to be full...

And that is why our prisons will continue to be full...

You would prefer having the prisons less full and releasing violent offenders into the street?

And that is why our prisons will continue to be full...

 

So your are not for putting someone in prison for life that could have been convicted of beating first your sister then your grandmother. I agree that 3 strikes may be too strong if the crimes are non-violent. For violent crime however I think you reap what you sew.

You would prefer having the prisons less full and releasing violent offenders into the street?

If non violent drug users were released, non violent prostitutes were released, etc.; there would be more room for violent offenders. Also a lot of the violent crimes associated with drug use, prostitution, gambling, etc., would be gone if it were legal. The real "War on Drugs" is the war we have waged on ourselves.

So your are not for putting someone in prison for life that could have been convicted of beating first your sister then your grandmother. I agree that 3 strikes may be too strong if the crimes are non-violent. For violent crime however I think you reap what you sew.

 

It doesn't have to be a "beating" and not all cases will include a sister or a grandmother.

 

It could be a gang member fighting a gang member. A felony assault, if I'm not mistaken, is any assault which results in physical harm. That could be punching someone in the face and bruising their face. Doing that 3 times should equal a LIFE TIME in prison?

If non violent drug users were released, non violent prostitutes were released, etc.; there would be more room for violent offenders. Also a lot of the violent crimes associated with drug use, prostitution, gambling, etc., would be gone if it were legal. The real "War on Drugs" is the war we have waged on ourselves.

 

You can't just let drugs run rampant through the country with no laws. Many of the drugs (not including Marijuana) are extremely dangerous and need to be regulated.

 

Prostitution can be very dangerous as well, with STD's and such.

You can't just let drugs run rampant through the country with no laws. Many of the drugs (not including Marijuana) are extremely dangerous and need to be regulated.

 

Prostitution can be very dangerous as well, with STD's and such.

They can be regulated to an extent. Just not illegal. That is a risk that the person chooses to take.

 

Where prostitution is legal (Amsterdam and Nevada) the prostitutes are tested and condoms are used. I would say that the STD rate of working prostitutes is probably lower than your average college campus ( I have no basis behind this, it's hard to find any stats on prostitutes).

They can be regulated to an extent. Just not illegal. That is a risk that the person chooses to take.

 

Where prostitution is legal (Amsterdam and Nevada) the prostitutes are tested and condoms are used. I would say that the STD rate of working prostitutes is probably lower than your average college campus ( I have no basis behind this, it's hard to find any stats on prostitutes).

 

Then there shouldn't be speed limits either? Because that is that persons risk to take? Driving fast puts other people at risk, but so does someone who's out of their mind on coke, or heroin. Or someone cooking up a meth lab in their garage...

 

Would you really want to be driving around Lexington and see prostitutes walking around standing on the street corners? I wouldn't.

You would prefer having the prisons less full and releasing violent offenders into the street?

Not me. There should never be such a term as 'overcrowded prisons'. If they're overcrowded, don't solve the problem by releasing convicts. Build more prisons. I would be willing to pay more taxes if it means keeping criminals locked up.

You would prefer having the prisons less full and releasing violent offenders into the street?

 

There are all different types of "violent" crimes and I don't think all of them should be lumped together.

 

And btw, I never said I thought all violent offenders should be released into the streets.

 

There are set penalties for committing crimes, I just think the "3 strikes" and your life is over law is stupid.

Not me. There should never be such a term as 'overcrowded prisons'. If they're overcrowded, don't solve the problem by releasing convicts. Build more prisons. I would be willing to pay more taxes if it means keeping criminals locked up.

 

Eventually our whole nation will be a prison with this thought process :lol:.

Then there shouldn't be speed limits either? Because that is that persons risk to take? Driving fast puts other people at risk, but so does someone who's out of their mind on coke, or heroin. Or someone cooking up a meth lab in their garage...

 

Would you really want to be driving around Lexington and see prostitutes walking around standing on the street corners? I wouldn't.

There have been studies that have shown otherwise. It seems to work in parts of Europe (Germany) just fine. The majority of people who use these drugs aren't a threat to anyone but themselves. And honestly, who's to say that the "bad apples" wouldn't be without the drugs. I still say you enforce the crimes that they may commit, but don't lock someone up simply for using drugs. It's the same with alcohol, it's perfectly fine to get drunk, it's not ok to get drunk and get behind the wheel. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it can't be kept under control. The legality of meth would do away with this. You wouldn't go through those dangers if it was cheaper and safer to purchase legal meth.

 

Prostitution is probably the world's oldest profession and never has it been "every where". Also, I would say if you knew what you were looking for you could find them today. Honesty what is wrong with two people making the consensual decision to make sex a monetary transaction?