Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

What's Justice Worth?Follow

#52 May 18 2012 at 1:56 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,286 posts
Almalieque wrote:

Sounds like ignorant laziness to me. It's called budget cuts. I don't have to know anything about the prison system to know that it isn't necessary to spend $15 million dollars a year on these criminals.

What happens when you run out of budget to cut?
____________________________
Server: Midgardsormr
Occupation: Reckless Red Mage

IcookPizza wrote:

I think RDM's neurotic omniscience is sooooooo worth including in any alliance.
#53 May 18 2012 at 2:00 PM Rating: Excellent
I don't know, that was a pretty brilliant response. I'll bet it was tons of fun to write.
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 90 Priest
Digits, 86 Shaman
Thelesis, 85 Mage
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Necralita, 85 DK
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#54 May 18 2012 at 2:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,045 posts
cidbahamut wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

Sounds like ignorant laziness to me. It's called budget cuts. I don't have to know anything about the prison system to know that it isn't necessary to spend $15 million dollars a year on these criminals.

What happens when you run out of budget to cut?

Fire more teachers, firefighters, and union laborers.

Obviously.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#55 May 18 2012 at 2:38 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
We could spend less on guards if we just went with the panopticon route.

Fuck off, Firefox, it's a word. I wasn't trying to say "optician".
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#56Almalieque, Posted: May 19 2012 at 12:38 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) When that situation is in the planning range, then we should address that situation then based on the current situation. As of now, the simple fact that there are luxuries in the prison systems is a dead giveaway that there are plenty room for budge cuts.
#57 May 19 2012 at 1:33 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,405 posts
cidbahamut wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

Sounds like ignorant laziness to me. It's called budget cuts. I don't have to know anything about the prison system to know that it isn't necessary to spend $15 million dollars a year on these criminals.

What happens when you run out of budget to cut?
Starving prisoners start eating each other until the problem has fixed itself?
____________________________
Someone on another forum wrote:
Wow, you've got an awesome writing style.! I really dig the narrator's back story, humor, sarcasm, and the plethora of pop culture references. Altogether a refreshingly different RotR journal (not that I don't like the more traditional ones, mind you).

#58 May 19 2012 at 4:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,680 posts
Almalieque wrote:
cidbahamut wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

Sounds like ignorant laziness to me. It's called budget cuts. I don't have to know anything about the prison system to know that it isn't necessary to spend $15 million dollars a year on these criminals.

What happens when you run out of budget to cut?


When that situation is in the planning range, then we should address that situation then based on the current situation. As of now, the simple fact that there are luxuries in the prison systems is a dead giveaway that there are plenty room for budge cuts.
So, your view on prison is as a punishment system, not a rehabilitation system I take it?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#59 May 19 2012 at 4:52 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,948 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
cidbahamut wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

Sounds like ignorant laziness to me. It's called budget cuts. I don't have to know anything about the prison system to know that it isn't necessary to spend $15 million dollars a year on these criminals.

What happens when you run out of budget to cut?


When that situation is in the planning range, then we should address that situation then based on the current situation. As of now, the simple fact that there are luxuries in the prison systems is a dead giveaway that there are plenty room for budge cuts.
So, your view on prison is as a punishment system, not a rehabilitation system I take it?


Ideally, I would prefer the latter. However, if money is an issue, then the two should be separated but present. If one of the two has to go, it should be the rehabilitation and not the prison time.

Edited, May 19th 2012 12:53pm by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#60 May 19 2012 at 11:19 AM Rating: Default
**
697 posts
1 Shoot the murderers.
2 Cut the rapists junk off, then shoot em.
3. Then set them free and turn them all lose to their families.
4. ???
5. Profit.

Statistically there will be -0- repeat offenders and all the tax money (well, ok, less the cost of a little ammo which I bet would be donated) will be saved.

Any more problems to deal with? Bout time for lunch here.
____________________________
Shadechaos of Seraph Bismarck
R.I.P. Cindy 2.26.56 - 4.18.13
~She made a difference~
#61 May 19 2012 at 11:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,220 posts
RaiseIII wrote:
1 Shoot the murderers.
2 Cut the rapists junk off, then shoot em.
3. Then set them free and turn them all lose to their families.
4. ???
5. Profit.

Statistically there will be -0- repeat offenders and all the tax money (well, ok, less the cost of a little ammo which I bet would be donated) will be saved.

Any more problems to deal with? Bout time for lunch here.


Simplistic solutions are always the bestest.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#62 May 19 2012 at 12:20 PM Rating: Default
**
697 posts
Samira wrote:
RaiseIII wrote:
1 Shoot the murderers.
2 Cut the rapists junk off, then shoot em.
3. Then set them free and turn them all lose to their families.
4. ???
5. Profit.

Statistically there will be -0- repeat offenders and all the tax money (well, ok, less the cost of a little ammo which I bet would be donated) will be saved.

Any more problems to deal with? Bout time for lunch here.


Simplistic solutions are always the bestest.


Even more funner would be to chat with Charlie Manson and the like, or even better the victims of their crimes and then try to justify a fringe position where the rights of a very, very few should hold hostage the rights and public safety of an entire nation. Blame the prosecutor, the lack of a proper defense or an over zealous judge, but not the rest of us.
I suspect you have never been a victim of a crime as heinous as these folks are capable of. Some of us have. Lose a loved one and it will change an idealistic view in a heartbeat.

Simple works.
____________________________
Shadechaos of Seraph Bismarck
R.I.P. Cindy 2.26.56 - 4.18.13
~She made a difference~
#63 May 19 2012 at 12:54 PM Rating: Good
Will swallow your soul
******
28,220 posts
Better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#64 May 19 2012 at 1:36 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Quote:
I suspect you have never been a victim of a crime as heinous as these folks are capable of. Some of us have. Lose a loved one and it will change an idealistic view in a heartbeat.

Simple works.


Anything short of executing all suspected criminals is not an idealistic view.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#65 May 19 2012 at 8:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
RaiseIII wrote:
I suspect you have never been a victim of a crime as heinous as these folks are capable of. Some of us have.

Which is why you'd be disqualified from a jury about a similar crime. Your objectivity is compromised.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#66 May 21 2012 at 7:02 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,813 posts
Almalieque wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Maybe I missed something, but isn't it more related to the medical care costs than the housing costs?


I'm using that term inclusively. Maybe that was the wrong word to use. In other words, find ways to spend less on criminals as opposed to releasing criminals.

The incarceration rate in the US has skyrocketed in the last three decades. The US incarceration rates are two to three times those of other western countries. The violent crime rate in the US, on the other hand, has been dropping steadily since the 90's.

Also, black men and Hispanic men over-overwhelmingly make up the majority of our prison population. You hardly have to look to find a study pointing to the conclusion that black and Hispanic men are arrested and/or incarcerated more frequently than white men for similar crimes.

...and you think spending less per prisoner is the solution? Smiley: oyvey







Edited, May 21st 2012 3:12pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#67 May 21 2012 at 7:03 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,813 posts
RaiseIII wrote:
Samira wrote:
RaiseIII wrote:
1 Shoot the murderers.
2 Cut the rapists junk off, then shoot em.
3. Then set them free and turn them all lose to their families.
4. ???
5. Profit.

Statistically there will be -0- repeat offenders and all the tax money (well, ok, less the cost of a little ammo which I bet would be donated) will be saved.

Any more problems to deal with? Bout time for lunch here.


Simplistic solutions are always the bestest.


Even more funner would be to chat with Charlie Manson and the like, or even better the victims of their crimes and then try to justify a fringe position where the rights of a very, very few should hold hostage the rights and public safety of an entire nation. Blame the prosecutor, the lack of a proper defense or an over zealous judge, but not the rest of us.
I suspect you have never been a victim of a crime as heinous as these folks are capable of. Some of us have. Lose a loved one and it will change an idealistic view in a heartbeat.

Simple works.
[:loony:]

Gees, who's been guarding the door around here?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#68 Jun 02 2012 at 12:46 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,948 posts
Elinda wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Maybe I missed something, but isn't it more related to the medical care costs than the housing costs?


I'm using that term inclusively. Maybe that was the wrong word to use. In other words, find ways to spend less on criminals as opposed to releasing criminals.

The incarceration rate in the US has skyrocketed in the last three decades. The US incarceration rates are two to three times those of other western countries. The violent crime rate in the US, on the other hand, has been dropping steadily since the 90's.

Also, black men and Hispanic men over-overwhelmingly make up the majority of our prison population. You hardly have to look to find a study pointing to the conclusion that black and Hispanic men are arrested and/or incarcerated more frequently than white men for similar crimes.

...and you think spending less per prisoner is the solution? Smiley: oyvey


Edited, May 21st 2012 3:12pm by Elinda


Uhhhh.. I fail to see the connection. If the problem is money and the desired solution is to reduce money, then the solution must involve a reduction on money. Your response appears to focus on reducing crime. That's a completely different issue.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#69 Jun 02 2012 at 5:18 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,813 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Maybe I missed something, but isn't it more related to the medical care costs than the housing costs?


I'm using that term inclusively. Maybe that was the wrong word to use. In other words, find ways to spend less on criminals as opposed to releasing criminals.

The incarceration rate in the US has skyrocketed in the last three decades. The US incarceration rates are two to three times those of other western countries. The violent crime rate in the US, on the other hand, has been dropping steadily since the 90's.

Also, black men and Hispanic men over-overwhelmingly make up the majority of our prison population. You hardly have to look to find a study pointing to the conclusion that black and Hispanic men are arrested and/or incarcerated more frequently than white men for similar crimes.

...and you think spending less per prisoner is the solution? Smiley: oyvey


Edited, May 21st 2012 3:12pm by Elinda


Uhhhh.. I fail to see the connection. If the problem is money and the desired solution is to reduce money, then the solution must involve a reduction on money. Your response appears to focus on reducing crime. That's a completely different issue.
No, my solution would be to reduce incarceration.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#70 Jun 02 2012 at 3:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,642 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I don't have to know anything about the prison system to know that it isn't necessary to spend $15 million dollars a year on these criminals. If you think otherwise, then it's people like you that create these problems.


Aren't you the same person who defended the government spending a ton of money on arbitrary things, saying that if you don't "understand the military and how it works" you can't start making arguments about cutting the budget....?
#71 Jun 04 2012 at 6:18 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,948 posts
Elinda wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Maybe I missed something, but isn't it more related to the medical care costs than the housing costs?


I'm using that term inclusively. Maybe that was the wrong word to use. In other words, find ways to spend less on criminals as opposed to releasing criminals.

The incarceration rate in the US has skyrocketed in the last three decades. The US incarceration rates are two to three times those of other western countries. The violent crime rate in the US, on the other hand, has been dropping steadily since the 90's.

Also, black men and Hispanic men over-overwhelmingly make up the majority of our prison population. You hardly have to look to find a study pointing to the conclusion that black and Hispanic men are arrested and/or incarcerated more frequently than white men for similar crimes.

...and you think spending less per prisoner is the solution? Smiley: oyvey


Edited, May 21st 2012 3:12pm by Elinda


Uhhhh.. I fail to see the connection. If the problem is money and the desired solution is to reduce money, then the solution must involve a reduction on money. Your response appears to focus on reducing crime. That's a completely different issue.
No, my solution would be to reduce incarceration.


My solution is to the problem of reducing the amount of money spent in incarceration. Reducing the amount of incarcerations doesn't justify the amount of money spent on them. Once again, these are two different scenarios.

Belkira wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I don't have to know anything about the prison system to know that it isn't necessary to spend $15 million dollars a year on these criminals. If you think otherwise, then it's people like you that create these problems.


Aren't you the same person who defended the government spending a ton of money on arbitrary things, saying that if you don't "understand the military and how it works" you can't start making arguments about cutting the budget....?


What? Spend what money? I was against the US wasting money on politically driven bogus studies. This is consistent to my previous claim. I'm not suggesting the US to make any specific changes, I'm merely pointing out that there are obvious things available to cut. I don't know the effects nor am I demanding what to cut. You just can't say that there aren't room for cuts.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#72 Jun 04 2012 at 6:26 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,813 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Maybe I missed something, but isn't it more related to the medical care costs than the housing costs?


I'm using that term inclusively. Maybe that was the wrong word to use. In other words, find ways to spend less on criminals as opposed to releasing criminals.

The incarceration rate in the US has skyrocketed in the last three decades. The US incarceration rates are two to three times those of other western countries. The violent crime rate in the US, on the other hand, has been dropping steadily since the 90's.

Also, black men and Hispanic men over-overwhelmingly make up the majority of our prison population. You hardly have to look to find a study pointing to the conclusion that black and Hispanic men are arrested and/or incarcerated more frequently than white men for similar crimes.

...and you think spending less per prisoner is the solution? Smiley: oyvey


Edited, May 21st 2012 3:12pm by Elinda


Uhhhh.. I fail to see the connection. If the problem is money and the desired solution is to reduce money, then the solution must involve a reduction on money. Your response appears to focus on reducing crime. That's a completely different issue.
No, my solution would be to reduce incarceration.


My solution is to the problem of reducing the amount of money spent in incarceration. Reducing the amount of incarcerations doesn't justify the amount of money spent on them. Once again, these are two different scenarios.
If the problem is not enough space or money to house prisoners then my solution addresses the problem as much as yours - more so, as it would actually help with the crowding issues. Besides, if you're going to run a low-budget dungeon you'd best make sure the folks you throw in there to rot are really the worst-of-the-worst society has to offer and not just a bunch of negro street-loiterers in hoodies and illegal immigrant look-alikes.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#73 Jun 04 2012 at 11:30 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,948 posts
Quote:
If the problem is not enough space or money to house prisoners then my solution addresses the problem as much as yours - more so, as it would actually help with the crowding issues. Besides, if you're going to run a low-budget dungeon you'd best make sure the folks you throw in there to rot are really the worst-of-the-worst society has to offer and not just a bunch of negro street-loiterers in hoodies and illegal immigrant look-alikes.


Unless I'm mistaken, the concern was releasing people from jail to prevent spending the money to house them. It's simply a problem of justice vs money, hence the title of the thread. It's not about the lack of space or lack of money. If anything, spending less per prisoner would allow you to house more prisoners under the same budget.

I don't consider not having flat screen televisions, weights, etc as a "dungeon". As children, we have access to less than that under punishment from our parents. I do not have any sympathy for the lack of entertainment for prisoners.

If there's a percentage of prisoners who are "negro street-loiters in hoodies" and "illegal immigrant look-alikes", then yet again, that's an entire different issue. That has no bearing on the quality of prison of life because the prisons weren't made for the innocent. If the innocent are being thrown in jail, then that's another social issue that needs to be addressed.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#74 Jun 04 2012 at 11:40 AM Rating: Good
***
2,798 posts
I recently heard that the State of Louisiana was offering job skill training to prisoners who were sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. I couldn't help but facepalm for the stupidity of the state I called home.

I think prisoners should be forced to work. Prisons should be as close to self-sufficient as possible. Make the prisoners grow their own vegetables, raise and slaughter their own livestock, and cook their own food. They already have prison laundries, why not prison farms and prison cattle ranches?
____________________________
Sir Xsarus wrote:
That's pretty much the best ninja edit ever.


Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn
Midgarsormr realm
Eartha Kitty 30 BRD/12 MNK
#75 Jun 04 2012 at 11:52 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,813 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Quote:
If the problem is not enough space or money to house prisoners then my solution addresses the problem as much as yours - more so, as it would actually help with the crowding issues. Besides, if you're going to run a low-budget dungeon you'd best make sure the folks you throw in there to rot are really the worst-of-the-worst society has to offer and not just a bunch of negro street-loiterers in hoodies and illegal immigrant look-alikes.


Unless I'm mistaken, the concern was releasing people from jail to prevent spending the money to house them. It's simply a problem of justice vs money, hence the title of the thread. It's not about the lack of space or lack of money. If anything, spending less per prisoner would allow you to house more prisoners under the same budget.

I don't consider not having flat screen televisions, weights, etc as a "dungeon". As children, we have access to less than that under punishment from our parents. I do not have any sympathy for the lack of entertainment for prisoners.

If there's a percentage of prisoners who are "negro street-loiters in hoodies" and "illegal immigrant look-alikes", then yet again, that's an entire different issue. That has no bearing on the quality of prison of life because the prisons weren't made for the innocent. If the innocent are being thrown in jail, then that's another social issue that needs to be addressed.

You're the one who made this about the 'quality of life' in prison. You sound jealous of the prisoners. The OP was simply a discussion about releasing some of the longtime low-risk prisoners as a cost saving measure.

If the powers that be are debating this one-time release of prisoners, then it should be acknowledged that perhaps they were sentenced too long to begin with or that perhaps incarceration isn't getting us the best bang for our corrections buck, and ergo a policy review is in order.





Edited, Jun 4th 2012 7:55pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#76 Jun 04 2012 at 11:54 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,813 posts
Bigdaddyjug wrote:

I think prisoners should be forced to work.
They'll need job skill training.






Edited, Jun 4th 2012 7:54pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#77 Jun 04 2012 at 11:57 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,813 posts
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
Prisons should be as close to self-sufficient as possible. Make the prisoners grow their own vegetables, raise and slaughter their own livestock, and cook their own food. They already have prison laundries, why not prison farms and prison cattle ranches?
Would their chickens still be considered free-range if they were raised inside prison fences?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#78 Jun 04 2012 at 12:04 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
I think prisoners should be forced to work.

Sure, it's not as though there's anything about "involuntary servitude" in our federal legal documents.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#79 Jun 04 2012 at 12:20 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,813 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
I think prisoners should be forced to work.

Sure, it's not as though there's anything about "involuntary servitude" in our federal legal documents.
There is an exemption in the 13th amendment allowing for prisoner labor.

A working farm I could probably get behind. If the prisoners were growing their own food it seems like it might motivate them to grow it good. But who knows, it might cost more to set up a farm with good arable land, provide proper guarding in barns and hay lofts and silos, properly vet cows, chickens and goats.... than to just buy the prisoners cheap frozen food nuggets. Renting out prisoners to private industries like they were doing in the south a hundred years ago, should be avoided.

I still see prisoners picking up litter from the sides of the big freeways from time-to-time. One of our prisons had a wood-working shop and a little store that got to be very well known. I bought a stool from them at an auction. It's nice stuff. But that prison shut down.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#80 Jun 04 2012 at 1:49 PM Rating: Good
******
43,632 posts
Should have made nicer stools.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#81 Jun 04 2012 at 2:16 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,642 posts
Almalieque wrote:

Belkira wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I don't have to know anything about the prison system to know that it isn't necessary to spend $15 million dollars a year on these criminals. If you think otherwise, then it's people like you that create these problems.


Aren't you the same person who defended the government spending a ton of money on arbitrary things, saying that if you don't "understand the military and how it works" you can't start making arguments about cutting the budget....?


What? Spend what money? I was against the US wasting money on politically driven bogus studies. This is consistent to my previous claim. I'm not suggesting the US to make any specific changes, I'm merely pointing out that there are obvious things available to cut. I don't know the effects nor am I demanding what to cut. You just can't say that there aren't room for cuts.



http://www.zam.com/forum.html?forum=4;mid=1328802170163744118&h=50&p=1#215

Quote:
As I said, I'm sure there are some areas where money can be saved (i.e. stupid studies, uniform changes, etc.), but we don't have the knowledge of the big picture in order to say anything other than "we need to save money". We can say that on any topic. I'm sure that there's money wasted on Education as well, that doesn't mean we should make overall statements of reducing spending on Education in reference to our national economic plan.

That is something that should be handled on a lower level. That money spent on your new carpet may have been allocated to be spent on something else. Just because it was wasted on carpet, doesn't mean that the allocated money isn't needed in some other area. After moving that money to another area, your budget might remain the same.



Edited, Jun 4th 2012 3:20pm by Belkira
#82 Jun 04 2012 at 2:42 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,045 posts
Why are you two even arguing with him? So far, his logical argument has been far less than what I would expect from a 6-year-old.

1. Prison costs "too much"
2. ???
3. Prison costs not as much. Yay!
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#83 Jun 04 2012 at 3:25 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,877 posts
Demea wrote:
Why are you two even arguing with him? So far, his logical argument has been far less than what I would expect from a 6-year-old.

1. Prison costs "too much"
2. ???
3. I made poopie.
4. Prison costs not as much. Yay!


FIFY
____________________________
#swaggerjacker
#84 Jun 04 2012 at 3:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Elinda wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
I think prisoners should be forced to work.
Sure, it's not as though there's anything about "involuntary servitude" in our federal legal documents.
There is an exemption in the 13th amendment allowing for prisoner labor.

You absolutely correct, of course. For some reason I thought there was still an issue with this which is why most/much prison labor was voluntary and paid some token amount but from spending half a minute looking into it, I guess that's more a matter of policy than law. Easier to have someone voluntarily folding linen for fifteen cents an hour than to force someone to do it against their will.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#85 Jun 04 2012 at 11:55 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,948 posts
Elinda wrote:

You're the one who made this about the 'quality of life' in prison. You sound jealous of the prisoners. The OP was simply a discussion about releasing some of the longtime low-risk prisoners as a cost saving measure.

If the powers that be are debating this one-time release of prisoners, then it should be acknowledged that perhaps they were sentenced too long to begin with or that perhaps incarceration isn't getting us the best bang for our corrections buck, and ergo a policy review is in order.


Once again, you're purposefully combining two completely different issues. If you believe that those people were not given justice, then that's a totally different scenario. None of that addresses the issue of the amount of money spent per criminal. As I said, just because a prison only has 30 legitimate criminals, it doesn't justify spending an excess of millions of dollars on each person.

If there's an issue with money,which is the topic of this thread, then you cut the money from places where you don't need it. That's where the "quality of life" comes in. This has nothing to do with jealousy. Only a poor person in the street would envy a jailed person.

If you believe that there is a justice issue, then that's a justice problem, not a money problem. It's really as simple as that. What if only less than 1% of the population was wrongly incarcerated where the amount of money saved were negligible? Would you still care about that population?


____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#86 Jun 05 2012 at 6:21 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,813 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Elinda wrote:

You're the one who made this about the 'quality of life' in prison. You sound jealous of the prisoners. The OP was simply a discussion about releasing some of the longtime low-risk prisoners as a cost saving measure.

If the powers that be are debating this one-time release of prisoners, then it should be acknowledged that perhaps they were sentenced too long to begin with or that perhaps incarceration isn't getting us the best bang for our corrections buck, and ergo a policy review is in order.


Once again, you're purposefully combining two completely different issues. If you believe that those people were not given justice, then that's a totally different scenario. None of that addresses the issue of the amount of money spent per criminal. As I said, just because a prison only has 30 legitimate criminals, it doesn't justify spending an excess of millions of dollars on each person.

If there's an issue with money,which is the topic of this thread, then you cut the money from places where you don't need it. That's where the "quality of life" comes in. This has nothing to do with jealousy. Only a poor person in the street would envy a jailed person.

If you believe that there is a justice issue, then that's a justice problem, not a money problem. It's really as simple as that. What if only less than 1% of the population was wrongly incarcerated where the amount of money saved were negligible? Would you still care about that population?

Expand your mind, son.

Hawaii has prisons where convicts grow their own food. Smiley: grin It's a good idea. Also, perhaps prisons could double as slaughterhouses.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#87 Jun 05 2012 at 7:24 AM Rating: Good
******
43,632 posts
Elinda wrote:
Also, perhaps prisons could double as slaughterhouses.
Soylent Green is people!
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#88 Jun 06 2012 at 3:54 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,948 posts
Belkira wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

Belkira wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I don't have to know anything about the prison system to know that it isn't necessary to spend $15 million dollars a year on these criminals. If you think otherwise, then it's people like you that create these problems.


Aren't you the same person who defended the government spending a ton of money on arbitrary things, saying that if you don't "understand the military and how it works" you can't start making arguments about cutting the budget....?


What? Spend what money? I was against the US wasting money on politically driven bogus studies. This is consistent to my previous claim. I'm not suggesting the US to make any specific changes, I'm merely pointing out that there are obvious things available to cut. I don't know the effects nor am I demanding what to cut. You just can't say that there aren't room for cuts.



http://www.zam.com/forum.html?forum=4;mid=1328802170163744118&h=50&p=1#215

Quote:
As I said, I'm sure there are some areas where money can be saved (i.e. stupid studies, uniform changes, etc.), but we don't have the knowledge of the big picture in order to say anything other than "we need to save money". We can say that on any topic. I'm sure that there's money wasted on Education as well, that doesn't mean we should make overall statements of reducing spending on Education in reference to our national economic plan.

That is something that should be handled on a lower level. That money spent on your new carpet may have been allocated to be spent on something else. Just because it was wasted on carpet, doesn't mean that the allocated money isn't needed in some other area. After moving that money to another area, your budget might remain the same.



Edited, Jun 4th 2012 3:20pm by Belkira



There is no contradiction in my statements.

The quote that you referenced was against people blindly supporting a budget cut without any knowledge of how things were being spent, but solely on the amount of money being spent.

This thread is about letting criminals out of jail early in order to save money. I support the additional prison programs, but do not support "luxury over justice". I admitted to not knowing enough about the prison system to dictate any financial change, but I know that there are definitely available budget cuts IF money is an issue. This is what I meant by "we can say that about any topic", but we need to know the big picture.

I not only admitted to not knowing the big picture, or promote a specific thing to cut, I only approved it IF there were a financial problem where the result is prisoners getting out prematurely.

In other words; I'm saying that if you have financial problems, then fix them by making budget cuts. I'm not telling you what to cut, how or why, but just make it happen. If you do not have budget problems, then carry on.

No contradiction.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#89 Jun 06 2012 at 10:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,642 posts
Almalieque wrote:
There is no contradiction in my statements.

The quote that you referenced was against people blindly supporting a budget cut without any knowledge of how things were being spent, but solely on the amount of money being spent.

[...]

I not only admitted to not knowing the big picture, or promote a specific thing to cut, I only approved it IF there were a financial problem where the result is prisoners getting out prematurely.

In other words; I'm saying that if you have financial problems, then fix them by making budget cuts. I'm not telling you what to cut, how or why, but just make it happen. If you do not have budget problems, then carry on.

No contradiction.


Ok. So what I quoted is you saying "don't support blind budget cuts without any knowledge of how things are being spent, but solely on the amount of money being spent," and in this thread, you're saying, "I have no idea how things are being spent, but we can obviously cut the budget."

Sure. No contradiction....

Smiley: looney
#90Almalieque, Posted: Jun 07 2012 at 3:39 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Smiley: facepalm
#91 Jun 07 2012 at 3:54 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,175 posts
So people thought too much money is being spent on the Military = no reason.
People thinking too much money is being spent on prisoners = reason.
And your argument to just spend less is a good way to reduce the amount of money being spent.



Retard.


Edited, Jun 7th 2012 11:56am by Aethien
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#92 Jun 07 2012 at 6:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,949 posts
Yeah, you guys keep arguing because you think somehow you can rationalize things to him.

He's just dumb. It's hard to accept, but it's true.

He's just dumb.
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#93 Jun 07 2012 at 7:07 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,632 posts
Belkira wrote:
in this thread, you're saying, "I have no idea how things are being spent, but we can obviously cut the budget work."
Problem solved.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#94 Jun 07 2012 at 7:15 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,175 posts
If he was just dumb as a brick, it wouldn't cause any problems. The problem is that not only is he really that stupid, he's also as stubborn as an **** and completely and totally convinced he's right about every single thing he argues about.

Edited, Jun 7th 2012 3:17pm by Aethien
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#95 Jun 07 2012 at 8:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,045 posts
I think Almalique's employer is spending too much money on his salary, and propose that he be given a 30% pay cut to help EPS this quarter.

Clearly, he should support this.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#96 Jun 07 2012 at 8:21 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,288 posts
Sort of on topic, K2/Spice is back in Georgia under a slightly different formulation. The legislature has vowed to ban the new formula just as soon as their summer vacation is over. In the meantime, that's two months of legal fake-pot.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#97 Jun 07 2012 at 1:23 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,642 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Yeah, you guys keep arguing because you think somehow you can rationalize things to him.

He's just dumb. It's hard to accept, but it's true.

He's just dumb.


I try not to argue with him so much as show when he's being a hypocrite.

Edit: typing on an iPhone is annoying.

Edited, Jun 7th 2012 2:24pm by Belkira
#98Almalieque, Posted: Jun 07 2012 at 1:35 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Smiley: facepalm
#99 Jun 07 2012 at 1:49 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,045 posts
Jun 07 2012 at 4:39 AM

Jun 07 2012 at 2:35 PM

The Cluster Which Shall Not Be Named is on the loose again.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#100 Jun 07 2012 at 3:52 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,546 posts
At the risk of plumbing the depths here, while I agree that Alma's explanations are somewhat torturous, you're also engaging in some pretty selective silliness here.

His Excellency Aethien wrote:
So people thought too much money is being spent on the Military = no reason.
People thinking too much money is being spent on prisoners = reason.


The issue of whether or not someone has a legitimate reason to think that we're spending too much on something is completely separate from a discussion of the proposed reaction to said thing. I'm reasonably sure that Alma would be equally opposed to reducing military spending by cutting the total number of people in the military by X% as he would to reduce prison spending by reducing the total prison population by X%. You're conflating the "why" with the "how".


The question at hand is whether letting convicted felons get out of prison early purely because it costs too much to imprison them is a good idea. It is absolutely correct to examine why costs are so high before making such a decision. Wouldn't you agree? If we can save X% of money by making some changes other than letting prisoners go, that would seem to be a much better solution. I don't see anything wrong with questioning where money could be saved in this case, and it's absolutely different than questioning whether the costs are too high in the first place. Again, those are two different parts of the puzzle. If we decide that we're spending too much *then* we should look at how to reduce costs. Nothing strange about that at all.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#101 Jun 07 2012 at 10:51 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,948 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
So people thought too much money is being spent on the Military = no reason.
People thinking too much money is being spent on prisoners = reason.
And your argument to just spend less is a good way to reduce the amount of money being spent.



Retard.


Edited, Jun 7th 2012 11:56am by Aethien


And you people have the audacity to call me dense.

I really don't know how else to break it down further. You thinking that something is being over paid is NOT a reason, it's a stance.

You: "Hey boss, I think I need a raise".

Boss: "Why do you think that you deserve a raise?"

You: "Because I think so"

BOss: "Since you put it that way, of course!"

I'm sorry to burst your illusory fantasy, but that's not a reason; however, stating the effects on why or why not is a reason.

You: "Hey boss, I think I need a raise"

Boss: "Why do you think that you deserve a raise?"

You: "Well, I've been responsible for 37% of all sales which is twice the number of sales as any other employee. Furthermore, I've been working a plan that is promising of a 10% overall sale increase for the company."

That's a reason. The trigger for this thread to reduce money was the necessity to release criminals early.

It's really not that difficult.

TLW wrote:
Yeah, you guys keep arguing because you think somehow you can rationalize things to him.

He's just dumb. It's hard to accept, but it's true.

He's just dumb.


Ironically, those are my sentiments exactly with many on this thread. Somewhere deep down, I think that someone would grasp simplicity. Yet, only on this forum do I face constant disappointment.

Gbaji wrote:
The issue of whether or not someone has a legitimate reason to think that we're spending too much on something is completely separate from a discussion of the proposed reaction to said thing. I'm reasonably sure that Alma would be equally opposed to reducing military spending by cutting the total number of people in the military by X% as he would to reduce prison spending by reducing the total prison population by X%. You're conflating the "why" with the "how".


The question at hand is whether letting convicted felons get out of prison early purely because it costs too much to imprison them is a good idea. It is absolutely correct to examine why costs are so high before making such a decision. Wouldn't you agree? If we can save X% of money by making some changes other than letting prisoners go, that would seem to be a much better solution. I don't see anything wrong with questioning where money could be saved in this case, and it's absolutely different than questioning whether the costs are too high in the first place. Again, those are two different parts of the puzzle. If we decide that we're spending too much *then* we should look at how to reduce costs. Nothing strange about that at all.


Exactly.

I would support doubling the amount of money spent per prisoner if it deems efficient. I don't care. I just don't want prisoners out early because we spent money on televisions and weights.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 46 All times are in CDT