Rape

[theintensifier 0]

Releasing 10% of the prison population wouldn't be a good idea. In theory, yes it would be a good idea, however, the courts would be overran with lawsuits (the inmates would be bitching because they didn't get let out, but the other inmate who did the same exact crime was released).

 

Does anyone agree with deterrence being used more than incarceration?

[Ripper 0]

In 1994, it was reported that the War on Drugs incarcerates 1 million Americans a year.[11] Of the 1 million drug arrests each year, about 225,000 are for simple possession of marijuana, the fourth most common cause of arrest in the United States[12] In the 1980s, while the number of arrests for all crimes was rising 28 percent, the number of arrests for drug offenses rose 126 percent.[13] The United States has a higher proportion of its population incarcerated than any other country in the world for which reliable statistics are available — reaching a total of 2.2 million inmates in the in 2005.

 

That does come from wiki, but you can check those sources (FBI) on their War on Drugs entry.

 

Re: Nate Newton...should a guy with a couple garbage bags full of comic books be incarcerated as well? That's about the same level of health risk.

 

Um...being arrested isn't the same as getting a prison term.

 

 

We are talking about prisons here, and to get a prison term, you have to at very least be charged with intent to distribute, and that is not "simple" possession of marijuana.

[snuffbox 0]

I'm pretty sure the point of this thread has changed over the past few pages. I think we are now discussing a broad sweep of crime/punishment. That is why I'm talking about all jailing (not just prison), arrests, and overall money being spent. If we want to cut down on serious crimes we CAN'T focus so much resources/energy on harmless marijuana smokers.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

Does releasing a mere 10% of the prison population solve the overcrowding issue?

 

Solve? No.

 

Would it help? Fuck yeah.

[Guest]

But do you do that every time that another equal number of people get convicted of crimes and sent to prison. What standard do you establish.

 

Just some numbers.

 

Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%), and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons (70.2%).

 

Within 3 years, 2.5% of released rapists were arrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for homicide.

 

The 272,111 offenders discharged in 1994 had accumulated 4.1 million arrest charges before their most recent imprisonment and another 744,000 charges within 3 years of release.

So, you release prisoners quickly so that they can commit similar crimes again more quickly, or do you repeal laws so that you don't have to send some of them to prison in the first place (and release the ones that are already in prison that broke said repealed laws). That's a fine line that I wouldn't want to be walking. Let's not punish marijuana smokers, oh wait, petty theft isn't so bad.

 

So on, and so forth. My personal opinions on what prison does to a person will not be told here. A good number of these criminals want to be in prison. So let them make their decision and have them deal with the consequences.

 

Have any of you been to a prison, or know people that work at one as a guard?

[The Metal Maniac 0]

Let's not punish marijuana smokers, oh wait, petty theft isn't so bad.

 

Yes, because me choosing to smoke something in the privacy of my own home without bothering anyone is exactly the same as me taking something that doesn't belong to me. Exactly.

[Guest]

I'm just saying that if you go lax on one thing, most people (I'm not saying you or anyone else on this board, but the general public) will expect others to follow. Petty theft was just an example. Ok, prositution, is that a better one? I couldn't care less if anyone was smoking weed in their house, but it's the law. As the law is set, people should be punished. If it gets changed, then obviously it's different. As long as the law remains, a short jail stint should remain an option as a deterrent for people that make the decision to smoke weed. You know the consequences, and you do it anyway. So deal with what happens if you get in trouble for it.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

If it gets changed, then obviously it's different.

 

I thought that's what we were talking about. Changing the law, so those 10% of people in jail get out, thus making the overcrowding issue 10% easier to deal with.

 

I certainly don't think people should be let out of prison just because it's crowded.

[Guest]

I saw overcrowding mentioned earlier, so I assumed that you meant it in that fashion (as well as me addressing overcrowding to begin with), so yeah.

 

They should let the citizens vote to see if the law should be changed. It's only fair. I don't think it would get changed from that route, either.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

They should let the citizens vote to see if the law should be changed. It's only fair.

 

Cuz they let the people vote on it in the first place, right?

 

Hell, do they ever vote on laws in the US? Serious question.

[Guest]

At a state level. They voted in Alaska, Colorado and Nevada on the issue of decriminalizing marijuana and it didn't pass.

 

Taken from wiki since it's public knowledge, and I don't want to type it all out.

 

In the November 7, 2000 election, voters in Alaska rejected Measure 5 by 60-40 percent. Measure 5 would have removed civil and criminal penalties for use of marijuana or other hemp products by adults age 18 and older and would have regulated the sale of marijauna similar to the sale of alcholic beverages.[1]

 

In the November 7, 2002 election, voters in Nevada rejected Question 9 by 61-39 percent.[2] Question 9 would have legalized possession of marijuana under 85.5 grams (3 ounces) by adults age 21 and older and would allow marijuana to be regulated, cultivated, sold and taxed.[3] Question 9 would have also made low cost marijuana available for medical marijuana patients and would have created laws against "driving dangerously" under the influence of marijuana.[4]

 

In the November 7, 2006 election, voters in Colorado and Nevada rejected propositions that would have legalized possession of up to 28.45 grams (one ounce) of marijuana.[5] In Colorado, Amendment 44 would have legalized possession of 28.45 grams or less by adults age 21 and older, but the amendment was rejected by 40-60 percent.[6] In Nevada, Question 7 would have allowed adults 21 and older to purchase marijuana from government-regulated shops and possession of 28.45 grams or less in a private home would have been legalized, but the Question was rejected by 56-44 percent.[7]

As far as I care about medicinal marijuana, legalize it (if voted on) and tax it. Not too heavily, just as much as they tax cigarettes. Make smokers buy it from a liquor store or something. But then, you have to worry about people robbing stores for weed. Have penalties for selling and bringing it across state lines into places where it is not legal.

 

Some cities legalize it for use in the home (and in some cases, for cultivation. I'm not too sure about that.), like West Hollywood for instance. I wouldn't live there though, for obvious reasons.

[theintensifier 0]

Have any of you been to a prison, or know people that work at one as a guard?

 

Yes to both. I've toured a level 5 through 1 prison, and my dad has been a guard since 1989.

[snuffbox 0]

Let's not punish marijuana smokers, oh wait, petty theft isn't so bad.

 

You must breathe solely from your mouth to ride the Slippery Slope.

[Guest]

I said that was a bad example.

[Guest Vitamin X]

Snuffy uses the "mouth breathers" thing way too much. Come up with something new, man.

 

Anyways, I wanted to add this real quick for those of you still arguing about this 10%: As Metal Maniac had said, it wouldn't SOLVE the overcrowding issue, but it would help a hell of a lot. Consider that while it may be only 10% of the prison population, that 10% is still a whole hell of a lot of people that are facing severe punishment for a victimless crime.

 

However, if a person is facing charges other than just the marijuana possession, they could get their case re-evaluated but I don't think they should just be released based on that.

[snuffbox 0]

I really don't think I do.

[Ripper 0]

I think the point that I made earlier is being missed. Being arrested isn't the same as going to prison. Thus, weed accounting for 10 percent of arrest doesn't translate into 10 percent of the prison population(thus legalizing weed will not free up 10 percent of the population in prisons)

 

I don't have any numbers and won't pretend that I do, but if I had to guess, I can't see the prison population being more than 2-3 percent off having weed, and once a gain, you have to have a really good amount to get prison time.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Also, you would have to account that some of those convicted of merely selling weed were suspected of larger crimes, but lacked hard evidence.

[Guest Queen Leelee]

How did a rape thread turn into a conversation about weed.

[snuffbox 0]

I'm not sure how this is such a dificult thing to grasp...

 

If we don't spend billions on the marijuana war then we can spend alot more on having civilized prison systems. Wasting huge amounts of resources on nonsense takes away from important issues. It doesn't just have to be about overcrowding, this also refers to all the money being simply thrown away with our focus on marijuana..if marijuana is not the focus of all those funds, those funds can go elsewhere such as to making prisons safer & more attention towards real crimes.

 

I'm guessing I will have to say this a few dozen more times, though.

[Boon 0]

The problem with the "war on drugs" is that all the statistics are so vague. "Money spent on victimless crimes" vs. "Money spent breaking up massive rings" is pretty hard to determine.

[snuffbox 0]

There wouldn't be any massive marijuana rings if it were legal.

[theintensifier 0]

Snuff - Where do you work?

[Guest]

I'm not sure how this is such a dificult thing to grasp...

 

If we don't spend billions on the marijuana war then we can spend alot more on having civilized prison systems. Wasting huge amounts of resources on nonsense takes away from important issues.

I'd prefer to focus on neither of those things.

[snuffbox 0]

Are you trying to play the must-not-have-a-job/CBacon card because I don't think we should spend so much on a war against marijuana?

[Boon 0]

There wouldn't be any massive marijuana rings if it were legal.

Yeah, I'm talking about rings for real drugs, not weed.

[snuffbox 0]

I'm not advocating the legalization of cocaine or the like. One of the biggest upsides of marijuana reform would be a certain reduction in the amount of prescriptions for the highly addictive, body-decaying Oxycontins and other legal heroin pills.

 

But, the most focused on 'drug' is marijuana and, again, if that money weren't being squandered on it then it could be used for far better things.

[theintensifier 0]

No, just wondering where you work. When you respond, I'll tell you why I am asking.

[snuffbox 0]

I attend college and make ends meet with a couple part-time jobs. During the summer I work at a local factory.

[theintensifier 0]

Damn. We have something in common, I too attend college, but, I am unemployed right now, as is the fiancee!

 

I asked because you sounded like a person who works at a cigarette company. I knew a guy once who worked at one, and the two of you have the same exact outlook on marijuana and how it shouldn't land people in prison, nor jail.