Ricardo Klement: Well done, sir. He has listed how the police have profited, how congressmen have profited, how private prisons have profited, how judges have profited, how prosecutors have profited. But no one has showed how "the state" but not just "the state" indeed ALL "the states" have profited.

I mean, who cares if everyone involved has profited, or if a bunch of "the states" have profited, if it's not 100% of whatever population you define to be relevant, it's not a problem!

False Dichotomy.

First off, he responded to my specific question of how is it the state profits.

False assessment.

First off, he responded to your specific question about how a state profits by telling you about examples of states that actually do profit by privatizing their system. You ignored that because it completely proved you wrong. Then he gave many examples of other states where state workers and politicians actually profit. You dismissed that because it ruined your narrative.

Ricardo Klement: If a state does not have privatized prisons,

Let's argue from reality. Some states DO have privatized prisons.

Ricardo Klement: Personally, I'm betting on the War on Drugs rather than some nefarious "follow the money" assertion that applies throughout liberal democracies, while the War on Drugs does not.

False dichotomy. The war on drugs was another of his examples, you knobgoblin, he included it.

jackiepaper: I'm amused that the usual uber-anti-government farkers seem to think the government can do no wrong when it comes to crime and punishment, yet are absolutely terrible at EVERYTHING else.

They are also convinced that the American military is absolutely flawless aside from its obvious lack of funding.

Crackers Are a Family Food: Kimothy: Giltric: Kimothy: Again, I have to ask - when did America become a country of criminals?

Well we are a nation of laws....if you have enough people who break the law we wind up becoming a nation of criminals.


pro tip....don't break the law.

I work in schools. School districts all over the country have put police in schools out of fear of lawsuits from parents, over their need to control students, for lots of reasons. As a result, this generation of students has more interactions with police than any generation that has come before it. I know, as a teacher, that fully 75-80% of my students have negative interactions with the police (I work in a school for at-risk kids). Students who get in fights are charged with assault, unlike 20 years ago, when they were lectured, suspended, forced to apologize and then got on with their lives. They are labeled criminals before they've even had a chance to live as adults. They are charged as adults when they are 12, 13, 14 years old, and serve sentences in adult prisons. There, they learn a healthy hatred of the police, the law, the system. Once in the system, it is nearly impossible to get out. The rules for probation are not only designed to keep you within the system, they are incredibly biased against the poor (people on probation are inundated with fees, fines, and other expenses, not to mention that whenever they apply for a job, they have to get permission from the company to have their probation officer swing by whenever s/he pleases - most companies just refuse to hire them, so when they can't pay their fines, or fees, they are popped back into jail). It is legal to discriminate against anyone with a criminal record, even if that record was gained for a fight in junior high or high school, and people are rarely given a chance to explain to a potential employer what happened when they were 14 and charged as an adult.

I'd love to meet the person that's never broken a law. The laws are SET UP to be broken. Our l ...


Sorry, but I don't believe a word of that. OK, MAYBE you were driving.

{obvious}

Criminals? In jail?

THIS is a good thing!

CliChe Guevara: i would have thought that your conservative desire to oppose the increasing and unnecessary intrusion of government into private lives would trump your conservative desire to see brown people and gays locked up.

self-bumping, because i actually really want to see an answer to this

studebaker hoch Can someone tell me why legalizing and taxing recreational drugs would make the existing problems worse?

Because the same people who can't hold a job down because they're high all the time, or make mistakes and get fired because they can't concentrate, or just get to lazy or stoned to go out and put in an honest day's labor will continue to have the problem with legalized drugs - maybe more, if drugs become legalized and more people try it.

These people will continue to get money to buy legalized drugs that they do now - by stealing, assaulting, robbing, etc.

Why, you ask? Because some people can't keep their 'recreational' use at a recreational level. Because some people feel they're entitled to things they don't earn. Because our culture of instant gratification will continue to feed this. And more. ... and then some people will say, "Well, let's just give them the drugs so they won't have to steal." I, for one, do not feel I should be obligated to pay for someone else's bad habit (literally) and everything else that goes along with it.

For a country to claim itself as the land of the free, one of its citizens should be imprisoned only when absolutely necessary.

Murderers, thieves (include white collar crimes), rapists--those who through their acts inhibit and destroy the freedom that we all enjoy should be imprisoned.

People who use drugs and otherwise do not harm anyone else should not be considered criminals. Whether we want to leave them be or provide help for them is another debate, but they should not be denied freedom for making a bad personal choice. It's is hypocritical to take drug addicts whose only crime is harming themselves and send them to prison which is in all ways a worse form of harm. Who does that benefit? Certainly there are drug users who harm others through their acts (possibly because of their drug use), but it is those acts for which they should be considered for prison.

Approves

jackiepaper: I'm amused that the usual uber-anti-government farkers seem to think the government can do no wrong when it comes to crime and punishment, yet are absolutely terrible at EVERYTHING else.

QFT

Forget it, subby. Not on Fark. Bootlickers as far as the eye can see. You may as well suggest that hipsters are funny and creative. Deaf ears here on the Hollywood derpadex. These folks still believe they are the good guys.

jmr61:

I didn't believe it could happen either until it happened to me. Believe me, it's very much real. I was taken to the hospital to get blood drawn to confirm once again that I had no booze in me, but it's up to them whether I get charged or not. I think that most cops are good people, but the ones here are very corrupt. How is it even possible to be charged for a DUI if you didn't have a drop of alcohol in you?? Either they or I can't read the law correctly.

well why don't all you liberals thinking "oh those poor criminals" set up rooms in your house and let them live with you and your daughters.

Maybe a child rapist would be available for the room

CruiserTwelve: King Something: Police would rather have 1,000 innocent people be locked up and their lives ruined than one guilty person set free for any reason.

The police don't imprison people. Judges do.

You must be unfamiliar with the vast majority of cases that plea out because the perp/victim cant afford the kind of justice he deserves.

It is amazing how much of the justice system is profit driven. I'd like to see everyone get whatever legal help they want, loser pays the bill. No pleas, if they committed a crime lets actually have a trial and a jury find a verdict.

Faced with having to pony up billions to pay for losing cases and drowning in BS charges, the DA would only pursue serious crime where they were all but certain of a win in court.

Then you just need to go through the whole process systematically and remove any instance where anyone makes a profit. It should cost money to imprison someone. That should be offset by tax dollars. It shouldnt be a money making private business, because capitalism being what it is and our watchdog efforts sucking as much as they have means someone will subvert the process to take the money.

TWO short CSB's, I'm a clean cut guy and used to live next door to the scuzziest looking guy on earth. I used to get stopped and given tickets while this guy drove half in the bag in his piece of crap truck and broke every rule of the road. He never got stopped.

I mentioned that once and he said "You look like you can pay a fine! I dont."

So we're just being sized up for how much we can be squeezed for.

This one is even better and more germane. About 10 years ago I went out with some friends and the guy who drove me drank too much, so I called him a cab. Later I called one for myself and stepped out front to wait for it. Cops pulled up, jumped out and started interrogating me. I told them why I was there, doing all the right things, etc. I'm thinking its a little weird, because I only had a couple of drinks, was dressed well, wasnt causing any trouble. Next thing I know I'm in jail, but no charges the next day. Turns out the county gets paid for their jail headcount, so if they arent full they let all the town cops know and they round up as many likely suspects as they can to reach capacity.

Alonjar: PsiChick: BTW, have you never met a poor male before, or do you just never walk outside of your mansion? I grew up in poor white culture. Males are taught violence practically from birth. Race has jack shiat to do with it. You lived with poor people. Shocking, I know--you'll have to take a few showers in that gold-plated tub of yours, won't you?

Fail troll is fail. I grew up poor, and if you notice in my post, I was talking about my black room mates.... why did I have room mates? I couldnt afford to have my own place, because I was poor.

Your argument is bullshiat anyhow... my best friends brother (they're black) grew up in an afluent neighborhood, and had two highly educated parents, who owned their own insurance agency. They had far more money than me. He decided being a thug was cool and was the driver for an armed robbery, in which the victim was shot in the face. 10 year sentence.

He was influenced by the culture, and not by money or inability to access an education.

I'm not trolling. From what I've seen, the nearer the poverty line the culture overall, the more violent they are. Yes, African-Americans tend to be nearer the poverty line on a larger scale. That explains why African-American culture is so violent.

If you want to argue that the violence is inherent to African-Americans and not poverty, go find a wealthy African-American culture (not two people). Study them.

Kimothy: Road Rash: studebaker hoch Can someone tell me why legalizing and taxing recreational drugs would make the existing problems worse?

Because the same people who can't hold a job down because they're high all the time, or make mistakes and get fired because they can't concentrate, or just get to lazy or stoned to go out and put in an honest day's labor will continue to have the problem with legalized drugs - maybe more, if drugs become legalized and more people try it.

These people will continue to get money to buy legalized drugs that they do now - by stealing, assaulting, robbing, etc.

It's that whole "gateway" thing the bootstrappers espouse. Forget about the fact that you could actually keep a junky supplied with dope for less than the cost of incarceration. It's so much more fun to spout the nonsense that unregulated sugar consumption leads raping and car-jacking your grandmother while she's going to church.

Why, you ask? Because some people can't keep their 'recreational' use at a recreational level. Because some people feel they're entitled to things they don't earn. Because our culture of instant gratification will continue to feed this. And more. ... and then some people will say, "Well, let's just give them the drugs so they won't have to steal." I, for one, do not feel I should be obligated to pay for someone else's bad habit (literally) and everything else that goes along with it.

Are you actually advocating punishing everyone within the group for the actions of some of the persons in the group?

He's advocating being Fark douchebag.

It would cost less just to give every junky in the country a supply of drugs than it does to incarcerate anyone caught with a small quantity. But that's the whole bootstrappy philosophy. Whine about taxes and big government while putting anyone you don't like in the Gulag.

Descartes: Criminals? In jail?

THIS is a good thing!

Unless of course, we start writing laws, creating crimes with the purpose of filling jails. Or declaring innocent people criminals to fill jails.

But that's totally not currently happening. Wouldn't it be really awkward if it was though? I mean, really, really awkward?

Scerpes: CapnBlues: there are a lot of people in prison for pot possession charges.

[Citation needed]

this is how i know you're trolling. no reasonable person connected to reality (which you obviously are) would question the fact that there are a lot of nonviolent offenders in prisons for marijuana possession. if you acted crazier, I might buy your disbelief. You can't be as reasonable and intelligent as you are and not understand that Texas alone incarcerates a shiat-ton (technical term) of nonviolent marijuana offenders.

nice work, though. Until that one, I was biting. :) have a good one, chief.

Giltric: Weaver95: Giltric: Kimothy: Again, I have to ask - when did America become a country of criminals?

Well we are a nation of laws....if you have enough people who break the law we wind up becoming a nation of criminals.


pro tip....don't break the law.

no, that's amature hour. the real pro-tip is - make it impossible for people to obey the laws and you can control the population more effectively.

whats so impossible about not raping or killing someone else?

They managed to avoid raping you....or have they?

But of course. Anyone who murders and/or rape should go to prison for the rest of his natural life. Anyone with half a brain can tell you that. I believe what you made there is what some would call it a straw man argument. (I could be wrong)

So, since someone is charging money to house the ne'er do wells, we should be outraged?

$10,000 a year for the average state aid given to a family of 4 Vs the $36,000 we spend on the average prisoner.

Yeah, just let them loose, they learned their lessons, and will never do harm again.

bahamasorbust: namatad: DavidVincent: Rapist is another catagory that should be in prison.

Fun Facts:

In the United States in 2005, 37,460 white females were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, while between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man.

What this means is that every day in the United States, over one hundred white women are raped or sexually assaulted by a black man.

I am such an asshole for bringing this up. I know. But the reason I bring it up is most liberals have no idea how bad it is. MSNBC doesn't do stories on it. CNN doesn't either.

I know what you are going to say. " at least 40,000 rapes by white men on black women go unreported every year because black women don't believe a jury of their peers will convict a white man." yep.

he also left out the fun fact of how many white women are raped by white men.
more interesting is that the gross majority of all rape is non-stranger rape.
WTF is wrong with people??
sigh

He also left out the fun fact that those numbers came from a survey, not criminal convictions or police reports, and a verbal threat in that survey counted the same as a rape.


What are you talking about? I'm going to have to start calling you people RAPE DENIERS.
Yes you can attempt to interpret statistics a number of ways. I've also heard the one about black men having more chances at rape because, there are so many white women around too.

Here is a story you should all be able to relate to:

White woman raped by black man but grateful for the experience!

"It hurt. The experience was almost more than I could bear. I begged him to stop. Afraid he would kill me, I pleaded with him to honor my commitment to Haiti, to him as a brother in the mutual struggle for an end to our common oppression, but to no avail. He didn't care that I was a Malcolm X scholar. He told me to shut up, and then slapped me in the face.... went to Haiti after the earthquake to empower Haitians to self-sufficiency. I went to remind them of the many great contributions that Afro-descendants have made to this world, and of their amazing resilience and strength as a people. Not once did I envision myself becoming a receptacle for a Black man's rage at the white world, but that is what I became. While I take issue with my brother's behavior, I'm grateful for the experience."

Scerpes: Kimothy: Scerpes: Drug users rarely go to prison, especially for their first offense. Drug dealers go to prison. Claiming they're not destructive ignores all of the damage that they do to the lives of other people.
.

Yes they do, there are mandatory sentences. Not to mention that anyone carrying over an ounce (and sometimes a fraction of that) is generally charged with intent to distribute. The police (and then the DA's office) are great at making one minor crime into multiple crimes.

//My dad and uncle were cops. It was their goal to throw as many charges as possible, because the arrested person would be forced to plea down to something and they'd all pat themselves on the back for getting criminals off the streets.

Mandatory sentences at the federal level are for large quantities - far greater than personal use. I suppose it's possible that some state has started using mandatory sentences for small amounts, but I'd be surprised. They simply wouldn't have the available space.

And just so you know, an ounce is quite a bit - far more than what would typically be considered personal use.

For high purity class A drugs (cocaine, heroin) maybe .... however, a hardcore stoner will go through an ounce of high quality California weed in about 2 weeks (so I'm told). Given that it's illegal and you have to meet someone covertly to obtain it, that's a reasonable quantity to buy at a time. Charging it as a felony intent to distribute is an easy way to make the cops and the rest of the CJ system look like they are doing something about drugs (which is as we all know literally impossible, but they don't even try)

What the War on Drugs does is to perpetuate gang violence, and feed the aforementioned prison industry on the taxpayers' dime. It has no effect at all on the availability of drugs, merely their cost (price and social).

Road Rash: studebaker hoch Can someone tell me why legalizing and taxing recreational drugs would make the existing problems worse?

Because the same people who can't hold a job down because they're high all the time, or make mistakes and get fired because they can't concentrate, or just get to lazy or stoned to go out and put in an honest day's labor will continue to have the problem with legalized drugs - maybe more, if drugs become legalized and more people try it.

These people will continue to get money to buy legalized drugs that they do now - by stealing, assaulting, robbing, etc.

Why, you ask? Because some people can't keep their 'recreational' use at a recreational level. Because some people feel they're entitled to things they don't earn. Because our culture of instant gratification will continue to feed this. And more. ... and then some people will say, "Well, let's just give them the drugs so they won't have to steal." I, for one, do not feel I should be obligated to pay for someone else's bad habit (literally) and everything else that goes along with it.

Ah the slippery slope. How perchance does keeping it illegal help this whole process in any way? Does 90 days in jail or a big fine fix the people with issues who are high all the time?

Yeah, I didnt think so.

Just so you arent upset, I worked hard and made a ton of money (legitimately!), quit working and can get wasted whenever I want without having any sort of impact on anyone!

Ricardo Klement: First off, he responded to your specific question about how a state profits by telling you about examples of states that actually do profit by privatizing their system.

Specifically, what part did that?

The whole thing part.

Ricardo Klement: I'm not sure what you think my narrative is.

Yes you are.

Ricardo Klement: That's true, but think about this from a science perspective

That's not how science works. Instead, you mean "think about this from a perspective not based in reality." I'd really rather not.

Ricardo Klement: if a state without privatized prisons has a high incarceration rate, to what do you attribute that rate,

Uh, going on this much information, I say your stupid example is stupid and not based in reality. Can we return to reality preaze?

Ricardo Klement: He pointed to the property seizure part of the war on drugs, which happens even without incarceration. So the profit from that has already been met. Why imprison them once you have their stuff? That just costs the state money.

What exactly is your definition of "the state?" Before prosecutors, policemen and elected politicians did not count. Here, you consider taxpayers "the state." I love that you keep changing the definition, so I'm torn about making you actually define it. I mean, defining it is what you'd do if you had a serious point. But you don't, you've got a narrative.

Quick, think of a way out of defining your usage of "the state" that is consistent with your previous usage of it. Maybe you can phone a friend or ask for audience help?

Isn't this, by definition, the meaning of 'American Intuition'? Isn't the taking of a situation and turning it into profit precisely what we strive for in every single business endeavor? And don't give me that sanctity crap, people aren't convicted by juries to turn em into slot machines they're being imprisoned to protect society from them.

Ricardo Klement: That just costs the state money.

You got it. Public money is flowing into private pockets. The people into whose pockets the money is flowing want more of it, and donate a portion of their profits into the pockets of the politicians who can make it happen.

The the politicians take your money, give it to rich assholes, who then give the politicians a cut. Any questions?

GAT_00: Tatsuma: Or, wait, no, because they committed crimes and are now paying for them.

Indeed! Not a single innocent person has ever been locked up.

And not one guilty person was ever set free?

Tatsuma: People who use recreational drugs are not a specific group of people who should be defended under the law as such.

It is quite easy not to be a member of that group: just do not take drugs.

There are many things I would like to do, but they are illegal. So guess what? I don't do them.

Fine, let's make alcohol and smoking illegal.

Security bars for windows can be quite attractive.

This will continue happening. Prisons in America are privatizing every day. Corporations can get away with a lot more exploitation than the state can, plus they already have a product line ready for mass production. Soon it won't be called "jail" anymore. You will be able to tell what brand of clothing you'll be sentenced to sew by checking the judge's chambers.

If you're gonna steal, steal by the thousands, and watch the cops stand and watch, knowing all they can do is direct traffic to make sure looters don't get hurt.

JerkyMeat: And your GOP neighbor is to blame.

Not always, many (but fewer) Democrats have jumped on the authoritarian gravy train. For example when the soccer moms in the 'burbs really got scared of the big mean black people, Bill Clinton responded by putting 100,000 more cops on the street. And many of these cops went to places that never saw a serious crime except on television. After Columbine, more cops were put in schools to criminalize being different.

Another example? Mayor of Chicago Rahm Emmanuel who proposed-and got passed-legions of new laws and fines just so he can say "Because fark you, that's why! Pay me!" Again, Republicans are best at being authoritarians, but Democrats love to get in on the action every once in a while too.

CliChe Guevara: CliChe Guevara: i would have thought that your conservative desire to oppose the increasing and unnecessary intrusion of government into private lives would trump your conservative desire to see brown people and gays locked up.

self-bumping, because i actually really want to see an answer to this

They aren't about small government. They are about wanting everyone to be like them, which means small government when it comes to to cutting back on services that those Coloured Single Mothers use, and big government when it comes to Locking People Up Who Do Things We Don't Approve Of. The only reason marijuana is illegal is because of racism - at the time, it was poipular with the Coloureds and became a reason to arrest them.

It's ultimately a psychological effort to control - they want homogeneity and nothing to change, which is why they deny global warming, lest they have to give up their SUVs and lawn sprinklers, and why they are susceptible to religions - believing in gods and life after death is a way to appease this fear of death and need to control.

All people sentenced to prison, no matter what the crime should be executed. No appeal, no 20 years living in death row off the taxpayers. Once a criminal, always a criminal. Dont like it? Don't rape, murder, steal or do drugs.

One Bad Apple: Never

Well... to be fair, once OJ was just another poor black man, it was a lot easier to lock him up.

A significant percentage of Americans really hate poor people and don't want to pay for social programs to keep them from starving in the streets--particularly if they're mentally ill or addicts (redundant).

A significant percentage of Americans believe poor people should be penitent for being such losers and failures---hence, penitentiary.

They're willing to pay for 3 hots and a cot and a roof and an infirmary for a sick, physically disabled man if you put bars on it and call it prison, but not for the very same 3 hots and a cot and a roof and an infirmary if you leave the bars off and call it a hospice.

Same for a mentally ill man or woman. 3 hots and a cot, a roof, an infirmary, sometimes meds if it's known what they need. If you put bars on it and call it a prison, they're okay with paying for it. If you leave the bars off it and call it a mental facility---nope, not willing to pay for that, for the very same people.

We have this many people incarcerated in prisons because we have this many poor and sick and disabled and mentally ill people who would otherwise be dying in the streets. We have a society that is only willing to pay to take care of those folks if society can sadistically punish and shame them for being poor and sick and crazy.

Because if God approved of you, you obviously wouldn't be poor or sick or crazy. How can you tell who God approves of in society? He's the one with the big house and the BMW.

This is hyperbole (gee, ya think?), but there's still a lot to it---we as a society are still suffering a collective Puritan hangover.

We should lock up everyone who isn't a real American. Now we just need to find out who they are.

boobsrgood: This will continue happening. Prisons in America are privatizing every day. Corporations can get away with a lot more exploitation than the state can, plus they already have a product line ready for mass production. Soon it won't be called "jail" anymore. You will be able to tell what brand of clothing you'll be sentenced to sew by checking the judge's chambers.

Woo hoo! I got Judge Terrence Levis!

LarryDan43: Now we just need to find out who they are.

Let's start with the ones who don't believe in separation of Church and State.