Mmmmmm Just Desserts...

Kayden

Kayden

Banned
The following is an email from my granny, enjoy. :D

TO THOSE OF YOU NOT FAMILIAR WITH JOE ARPAIO

HE IS THE MARICOPA ARIZONA COUNTY SHERIFF

AND HE KEEPS GETTING ELECTED OVER AND OVER.


THIS IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY:

Sheriff Joe Arpaio (in Arizona) who created the "tent city jail":

He has jail meals down to 40 cents a serving and charges the inmates for them.

He stopped smoking and porno magazines in the jails. Took away their weights. Cut off all but "G" movies.

He started chain gangs so the inmates could do free work on county and city projects.

Then he started chain gangs for women so he wouldn't get sued for discrimination.

He took away cable TV until he found out there was a federal court order that required cable TV for jails. So he hooked up the cable TV again only let in the Disney channel and the weather channel.

When asked why the weather channel he replied, so they will know how hot it's gonna be while they are working on my chain gangs.

He cut off coffee since it has zero nutritional value.

When the inmates complained, he told them, "This isn't the Ritz/Carlton. If you don't like it, don't come back."

He bought Newt Gingrich' lecture series on videotape that he pipes into the jails.

More on the Arizona Sheriff:

With temperatures being even hotter than usual in Phoenix (116 degrees just set a new record), the Associated Press reports: About 2,000 inmates living in a barbed-wire-surrounded tent encampment at the Maricopa County Jail have been given permission to strip down to their government-issued pink boxer shorts.

On Wednesday, hundreds of men wearing boxers were either curled up on their bunk beds or chatted in the tents, which reached 138 degrees inside the week before.

Many were also swathed in wet, pink towels as sweat collected on their chests and dripped down to their pink socks.

"It feels like we are in a furnace," said James Zanzot, an inmate who has lived in the tents for 1 = years. "It's inhumane."

Joe Arpaio, the tough-guy sheriff who created the tent city and long ago started making his prisoners wear pink, and eat bologna sandwiches, is not one bit sympathetic He said Wednesday that he told all of the inmates: "It's 120 degrees in Iraq and our soldiers are living in tents too, and they have to wear full battle gear, but they didn't commit any crimes, so shut your damned mouths!"

Way to go, Sheriff! Maybe if all prisons were like this one there would be a lot less crime and/or repeat offenders. Criminals should be punished for their crimes - not live in luxury until it's time for their parole, only to go out and commit another crime so they can get back in to live on taxpayers money and enjoy things taxpayers can't afford to have for themselves.

If you agree, pass this on. If not, just delete it.

Sheriff Joe was just reelected Sheriff in Maricopa County, Arizona
 
PaSS THIS ON TO 8 PEOPLE OR MORE OR THE EYELESS BOY WILL APPEAR ABOVE YOUR BED AT 2AM TONIGHT AND YOU WILL HAVE BAD SEX FOR EIGHT YEARS
 
Shit, that reminds me, I have to send it the pull tabs from my soda cans so Timmy's kindney machine can keep working.
 
I'm not stating this like its wrong. I just figured you guys would apreciate hearing how some of these fuckers are getting what they deserve. =)
 
[quote name='Scorch']PaSS THIS ON TO 8 PEOPLE OR MORE OR THE EYELESS BOY WILL APPEAR ABOVE YOUR BED AT 2AM TONIGHT AND YOU WILL HAVE BAD SEX FOR EIGHT YEARS[/QUOTE]

bad sex is better than no sex. im not passing this on to anyone.
 
If I recall, the corrections system is designed to (in theory, anyway) prevent recidivist behavior.

What is being done here is known as deterrence (making punishments harsh enough that people will not commit crimes). It's been proven to be completely ineffective (current recidivist rates show that almost 2/3 of all inmates return to prison within 3 years of release). This is also based upon the false premise that criminals have an idea what kind of punishment they'll get.

Cesare Beccaria, the ol' grandfather of modern criminology, point at judicial discretion as a major failure of the corrections system. Because sentences vary from judge to judge, people have no idea what kind of sentence they might get. Thus, deterrence is a complete and total failure. Shame that Beccaria forgot to point out sherrifs as well.

So, if you enjoy punishing people without doing anything fucking productive whatsoever, based upon the myriad of studies that show deterrence does not work, then hooray for this guy.

myke.
...but if you actually want to prevent future criminal behavior, look elsewhere, kiddos.
 
I'm glad he took away their weights, because I've known some people that went off to prison, and came back fucking scary huge. Just what we need on the streets, and bunch of Hulk murderers.
 
Wait....I thought this thread was about desserts like cake, pie, ice cream....I didnt expect this!
 
So... are you advocating luxuries for criminals?

What would you prefer we do? Have police follow people and give them free movie tickets when they don't murder someone? :roll:

[quote name='mykevermin']If I recall, the corrections system is designed to (in theory, anyway) prevent recidivist behavior.

What is being done here is known as deterrence (making punishments harsh enough that people will not commit crimes). It's been proven to be completely ineffective (current recidivist rates show that almost 2/3 of all inmates return to prison within 3 years of release). This is also based upon the false premise that criminals have an idea what kind of punishment they'll get.

Cesare Beccaria, the ol' grandfather of modern criminology, point at judicial discretion as a major failure of the corrections system. Because sentences vary from judge to judge, people have no idea what kind of sentence they might get. Thus, deterrence is a complete and total failure. Shame that Beccaria forgot to point out sherrifs as well.

So, if you enjoy punishing people without doing anything fucking productive whatsoever, based upon the myriad of studies that show deterrence does not work, then hooray for this guy.

myke.
...but if you actually want to prevent future criminal behavior, look elsewhere, kiddos.[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='Kayden']So... are you advocating luxuries for criminals?

What would you prefer we do? Have police follow people and give them free movie tickets when they don't murder someone? :roll:[/QUOTE]

no but treating people this way who have not been convicted in a court of law is completely wrong. Look at some of the sanctions he has gotten by the DOJ over the past few years, some of the things they point out are really fuckin out there as far as punishment.

Not only is treating people who have not been convicted wrong, but not giving people proper nutrition is also wrong. How can use expect someone to work in a chain gang in over 110 degree heat eating stuff that cost only .40 cents? Whats he feeding these people, saw dust like the fuckin nazi's did the jews? He has to have some magical secret to keep costs that low.

As far as luxuries, if these are county criminals, most of them probably did not commit harsh crimes or they would have gone to central (assuming Arizona has a central prison, though I would be shocked if they did not). Making a stupid mistake should not mean you should be treated and fed worse than a dog (the fact that he is proud of that shows how fucked up this guy is)
 
[quote name='Kayden']So... are you advocating luxuries for criminals?

What would you prefer we do? Have police follow people and give them free movie tickets when they don't murder someone? :roll:[/QUOTE]

I don't care if they don't get cable TV back, if that's what you're asking. That kind of government mandate sounds like a big favor from a state congressperson to a cable company that gave a fuckton of money to their campaign, anyway, so I'm not keen on that.

What I am keen on is rehabilitation. When you send a person to prison, they mostly suffer from the "prisonization effect." The idea is pure socialization; if you spend 5-10 years in prison, when you leave, that's all you know. You may fondly recall the "real world," but you sure as hell don't know how to behave in it. Like scientology.

If you take a person who, by committing a crime, has already proven that they don't respect norms of acceptable behavior, and punish them incessantly, (and here's my $10 question), what kind of idiot would then simply release them into free society? That's my point; the way our corrections system is structured, fewer people stay out than return, so obviously something is fucking wrong.

If your parents grounded you for something (let's say smoking pot), and sent you to your room (minus amenities) for two months, and never bothered to explain to you (1) how what you did was wrong, and (2) what you should do to avoid such behavior in the future, how in the world do you think you'd behave once ungrounded?

Again, don't bullshit me by claiming these inmates would have fuckin' valet parking if I had my way. I'm simply pointing out that, statistically and theoretically, this current mentality of running corrections is wrong, and its unhealthy.

I'm also looking forward to how people react to the first few people who die in the desert under this system. I'd not be surprised to hear a few people say "they deserve it," or "good." If that is the case, though, you are actively supporting state sanctioned neglect and murder. Congratulations, you are complicit.

myke.
 
Nice Kayden-))

More Sheriffs like Sheriff Joe! Thank you Sheriff Joe for saving tapayers money! EVERY Sheriff must do the same.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I don't care if they don't get cable TV back, if that's what you're asking. That kind of government mandate sounds like a big favor from a state congressperson to a cable company that gave a fuckton of money to their campaign, anyway, so I'm not keen on that.

What I am keen on is rehabilitation. When you send a person to prison, they mostly suffer from the "prisonization effect." The idea is pure socialization; if you spend 5-10 years in prison, when you leave, that's all you know. You may fondly recall the "real world," but you sure as hell don't know how to behave in it. Like scientology.

If you take a person who, by committing a crime, has already proven that they don't respect norms of acceptable behavior, and punish them incessantly, (and here's my $10 question), what kind of idiot would then simply release them into free society? That's my point; the way our corrections system is structured, fewer people stay out than return, so obviously something is fucking wrong.

If your parents grounded you for something (let's say smoking pot), and sent you to your room (minus amenities) for two months, and never bothered to explain to you (1) how what you did was wrong, and (2) what you should do to avoid such behavior in the future, how in the world do you think you'd behave once ungrounded?

Again, don't bullshit me by claiming these inmates would have fuckin' valet parking if I had my way. I'm simply pointing out that, statistically and theoretically, this current mentality of running corrections is wrong, and its unhealthy.

I'm also looking forward to how people react to the first few people who die in the desert under this system. I'd not be surprised to hear a few people say "they deserve it," or "good." If that is the case, though, you are actively supporting state sanctioned neglect and murder. Congratulations, you are complicit.

myke.[/QUOTE]

You took the words right out of my mouth, actually. Good work.
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback'] Whats he feeding these people, saw dust like the fuckin nazi's did the jews? He has to have some magical secret to keep costs that low.

[/QUOTE]

He's feeding them simple food. Bologna sandwiches and basic things.

It certainly should not be a luxury to be incarcerated.

You did the crime, you've got to do the time.
This type of punishment makes these criminals NOT want to come back.

Too many criminals are like "yo-yo's" these days- bouncing in and out of prison like it was nothing. Well, it's time to make it SOMETHING & make it a place they don't want to come back to.
 
I thought the entire point of the trial was to establish what they did wrong... Even if it wasn't, should an adult really need to be told murder, rape, or theft is bad? I knew lying was bad when I was little. It didn't come as much of a surprise to me when I got my ass handed to me for doing it anyways.

I understand what you're trying to say, but at the same time I don't. How can they not know what they did wrong? It's not like someone was jaywalking and was picked up in a black van and thrown in a federal pen. To be in prison, you generally need to do something not very nice. Its not like you can claim ignorance to the fact that robbing a bank is bad.

[quote name='mykevermin']I don't care if they don't get cable TV back, if that's what you're asking. That kind of government mandate sounds like a big favor from a state congressperson to a cable company that gave a fuckton of money to their campaign, anyway, so I'm not keen on that.

What I am keen on is rehabilitation. When you send a person to prison, they mostly suffer from the "prisonization effect." The idea is pure socialization; if you spend 5-10 years in prison, when you leave, that's all you know. You may fondly recall the "real world," but you sure as hell don't know how to behave in it. Like scientology.

If you take a person who, by committing a crime, has already proven that they don't respect norms of acceptable behavior, and punish them incessantly, (and here's my $10 question), what kind of idiot would then simply release them into free society? That's my point; the way our corrections system is structured, fewer people stay out than return, so obviously something is fucking wrong.

If your parents grounded you for something (let's say smoking pot), and sent you to your room (minus amenities) for two months, and never bothered to explain to you (1) how what you did was wrong, and (2) what you should do to avoid such behavior in the future, how in the world do you think you'd behave once ungrounded?

Again, don't bullshit me by claiming these inmates would have fuckin' valet parking if I had my way. I'm simply pointing out that, statistically and theoretically, this current mentality of running corrections is wrong, and its unhealthy.

I'm also looking forward to how people react to the first few people who die in the desert under this system. I'd not be surprised to hear a few people say "they deserve it," or "good." If that is the case, though, you are actively supporting state sanctioned neglect and murder. Congratulations, you are complicit.

myke.[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='crickett003']You did the crime, you've got to do the time.
This type of punishment makes these criminals NOT want to come back.
[/QUOTE]

There was an ex-con who moved into my apartment complex years ago. Despite the fact that he tried his best to live a straight life, it was apparent that he was not ready to handle freedom in society.

Once time, my neighbors and I were having a barbecue and he was walking by. We gave him a plate of chicken and he freaked out. He wasn't used to people being nice to him.

Its was a shame because deep down inside he was a good guy. His alcoholism led him back to trouble and he got evicted. The man need psychological help.

I imagine that its hard for convicts to get back into society. Punishing them is one thing but I feel like there needs to more to be done.
 
even if they only fed them three bologna sandwiches a day, you add in the cost of water (if its a meal something to drink is also included) it still has to rise above .40 cents.

Water out in the desert is going to be expensive, so the costs should be far more than they are.
 
Despite my card-carrying-liberal status, I don't have a lot of sympathy for murderers, rapists and other violent criminals (drug posession convicts are another story, though). Still, it vexes me--I am vexed!--whenever someone mentions "luxury" in the same sentence as "prison." There is nothing luxurious about incarceration. Anyone who thinks so deserves a night in jail.
 
[quote name='Kayden']I thought the entire point of the trial was to establish what they did wrong... Even if it wasn't, should an adult really need to be told murder, rape, or theft is bad? I knew lying was bad when I was little. It didn't come as much of a surprise to me when I got my ass handed to me for doing it anyways.

I understand what you're trying to say, but at the same time I don't. How can they not know what they did wrong? It's not like someone was jaywalking and was picked up in a black van and thrown in a federal pen. To be in prison, you generally need to do something not very nice. Its not like you can claim ignorance to the fact that robbing a bank is bad.[/QUOTE]

As I mentioned, our current recidivism rate is around 67% within three years. Our prison population was around 600,000 in 1973; 30 years later, it's over 2.5 million.

Funny thing about that is that most deterrence-based correction practices began aroun 1975, after Robert Martinson published research claiming that rehabilitation didn't do a damn thing. Policymakers jumped on this study like white on bread, despite its numerous shortcomings; simply put, the paper was wrong.

Crime is, whether you want to see it this way or not, sometimes ambiguous. Is it a crime to steal to feed your family? Yes. Is it wrong? Depends who you ask. How do you convince this kind of person that there are socailly acceptable means of behaving normatively?

Don't think that rape, murder, and the like occur in a criminal vacuum; there is frequently a subculture, or a volume of like activities. I simply think that we can do better in preventing recidivist behavior, and greater punishment has not done it in the past, and thus will not change a damn thing.

Again, my question is this: why punish a person who has already proven to behave illegally, and expect to ever release them into the free society? If you don't mind paying for them to be locked up forever, perhaps I could understand your argument. Otherwise, you are admitting to sending people into society even less prepared to deal with the kinds of contingencies that they encounter on a daily basis.

myke.
 
My uncle has been in and out of jail for his whole life. All across the country, He says some suck and some are like club meds. He said some are bad, which would be good to us because the prisoners actually get punished. On the other hand he said some are great; free cable, food and cheap cigarettes. Drug's are easy to get in some jail's then on the streets according to my uncle.
 
[quote name='adamsappel']Despite my card-carrying-liberal status, I don't have a lot of sympathy for murderers, rapists and other violent criminals (drug posession convicts are another story, though). Still, it vexes me--I am vexed!--whenever someone mentions "luxury" in the same sentence as "prison." There is nothing luxurious about incarceration. Anyone who thinks so deserves a night in jail.[/QUOTE]


Yep, violent criminals should pay the price, the vitcims sure did.
 
Some of you guys probably dont even know anyone who has done real time (6 months or more). I've never been to jail but the people who i know who have been there dont want to go back even if they had cable or other "luxuries". Putting convicts in horrible conditions is only going to fuck them up further. Most will eventually make their way back to society and i'd rather they have been helped during their time in jail than being treated like animals, if they are treated like animals for years they will have a hard time adjusting to acting like a human with basic rights.

Most of the ex-cons that i know are pretty damn respectful and nice guys. My sister's boyfriend did time in San Quentin and now he has a couple kids, a nice house, and a nice career. Overall he is living the american dream; he's very normal, has a nice family (though he was divorced), makes choppers and shows them in competitions as a career, and makes pretty decent money. Most dont turnout like him but it does show that some criminals are just in need of something to get them on track. If all of society had been in to jail (myself included) I'd bet that people would become more respectful and patient of others.
 
What if whatever miracle treatment that makes them 'normal' isn't economically feasible? How can we honestly pay hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of dollars for programs to rehabilitiate these people? Do you like the though of paying more into taxes so proven criminals can be better people? (It's not as though that really matters, seeing how a lot of us don't agree with the majority of what is being done with our money. :evil: )

However, talking money and politics brings a whole other futile argument into play, so lets not.

I know you supposedly can put a price on a life, but if you could, I'd say its about 0.35 a day. Isn't that how much those Christain sponsorship programs cost? How many support them? Americans don't want to pay to make other people's lives better. They just want to bitch about how others hardships bother them.


Not to incite a blood feud or anything. I'm proposing this question in a simple manner. How many of you would like to see the death penalty instituted for repeat offenders or for vicious first time offenders?

I don't mean if you shoplift twice you die. I mean more along the lines of kill someone and you're dead. Rape once you go to jail for a while. Rape again after and you're dead. Rape multiple people before you're caught and you're fucked. Etc.

There would have to be exceptions like killing in self defence. That would probably require consuling.

The program would have multiple benefits including- not paying billions to detain people in a fashion that is proven fruitless, keeping populations down and hopefully detering crimes.

Where there's an upside, theres gotta be a downside. What if its the wrong guy? That happens now. Some people spend their entire life in jail for a crime they didn't commit. In my view, it'd be more human to just kill them instead of torturing them their whole life. Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer they'd not be incarcerated at all, I'm just picking the least of two evils. Who can put a value on a human life? Well, as I see it, anyone that would murder, rape or molest a person isn't worth a pile of beans anyways.

As far as method of death, chemical injections are too expensive. Why not just go back to decapitation? Thats just as quick and I really dobut they'd feel anything.

[quote name='mykevermin']As I mentioned, our current recidivism rate is around 67% within three years. Our prison population was around 600,000 in 1973; 30 years later, it's over 2.5 million.

Funny thing about that is that most deterrence-based correction practices began aroun 1975, after Robert Martinson published research claiming that rehabilitation didn't do a damn thing. Policymakers jumped on this study like white on bread, despite its numerous shortcomings; simply put, the paper was wrong.

Crime is, whether you want to see it this way or not, sometimes ambiguous. Is it a crime to steal to feed your family? Yes. Is it wrong? Depends who you ask. How do you convince this kind of person that there are socailly acceptable means of behaving normatively?

Don't think that rape, murder, and the like occur in a criminal vacuum; there is frequently a subculture, or a volume of like activities. I simply think that we can do better in preventing recidivist behavior, and greater punishment has not done it in the past, and thus will not change a damn thing.

Again, my question is this: why punish a person who has already proven to behave illegally, and expect to ever release them into the free society? If you don't mind paying for them to be locked up forever, perhaps I could understand your argument. Otherwise, you are admitting to sending people into society even less prepared to deal with the kinds of contingencies that they encounter on a daily basis.

myke.[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='JimmieMac']For those of you wanting actual desserts:
[/QUOTE]

*blech* Caramel piccan is ucky.
 
These were good cakes.

p10101913sy.jpg

p10102009wp.jpg

p10402084lt.jpg
 
I really should get one of those Betty Crocker hollow cake making pans. It would be nice to give someone a cake full of live locusts.
 
[quote name='Kayden']What if whatever miracle treatment that makes them 'normal' isn't economically feasible? How can we honestly pay hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of dollars for programs to rehabilitiate these people? Do you like the though of paying more into taxes so proven criminals can be better people? (It's not as though that really matters, seeing how a lot of us don't agree with the majority of what is being done with our money. :evil: )

However, talking money and politics brings a whole other futile argument into play, so lets not.

I know you supposedly can put a price on a life, but if you could, I'd say its about 0.35 a day. Isn't that how much those Christain sponsorship programs cost? How many support them? Americans don't want to pay to make other people's lives better. They just want to bitch about how others hardships bother them.


Not to incite a blood feud or anything. I'm proposing this question in a simple manner. How many of you would like to see the death penalty instituted for repeat offenders or for vicious first time offenders?

I don't mean if you shoplift twice you die. I mean more along the lines of kill someone and you're dead. Rape once you go to jail for a while. Rape again after and you're dead. Rape multiple people before you're caught and you're fucked. Etc.

There would have to be exceptions like killing in self defence. That would probably require consuling.

The program would have multiple benefits including- not paying billions to detain people in a fashion that is proven fruitless, keeping populations down and hopefully detering crimes.

Where there's an upside, theres gotta be a downside. What if its the wrong guy? That happens now. Some people spend their entire life in jail for a crime they didn't commit. In my view, it'd be more human to just kill them instead of torturing them their whole life. Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer they'd not be incarcerated at all, I'm just picking the least of two evils. Who can put a value on a human life? Well, as I see it, anyone that would murder, rape or molest a person isn't worth a pile of beans anyways.

As far as method of death, chemical injections are too expensive. Why not just go back to decapitation? Thats just as quick and I really dobut they'd feel anything.[/QUOTE]

Go here: http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html

See Article VIII.

myke.
...I'm glad to see that an issues that deal with how dignified and humanely we treat our prisoners often boils down to economics. :roll:
 
[quote name='jmcc']I really should get one of those Betty Crocker hollow cake making pans. It would be nice to give someone a cake full of live locusts.[/QUOTE]

Remind me to never know you... :lol:
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Go here: http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html

See Article VIII.

myke.
...I'm glad to see that an issues that deal with how dignified and humanely we treat our prisoners often boils down to economics. :roll:[/QUOTE]

Don't roll your eyes at me. I'm not the one throwing our youth after oil.

I'm stating it like it is. Most people care more about their own money than the wellbeing of others.

As for the ammendments... Death is already a valid form of punishment. I fail to see how its cruel if you kill them quickly and painlessly. I'm not saying restrain them to a bed and let them starve to death.... but thats apparently legal too. :roll:
 
[quote name='Kayden']Remind me to never know you... :lol:[/QUOTE]

It would be great and you know it. They'd cut into it and start screaming as the bugs got into their hair and clothes, and I'd shout "LET MY PEOPLE GO!" then take off running.
 
[quote name='jmcc']It would be great and you know it. They'd cut into it and start screaming as the bugs got into their hair and clothes, and I'd shout "LET MY PEOPLE GO!" then take off running.[/QUOTE]

zorak.jpg
 
That is so ass-backwards. Making prisoners live under inhumane conditions does not prevent them from committing crimes in the future. If anything, it has a brutalizing effect that demoralizes and dehumanizes them until they lash out even further. Cable access I could care less about, but the very least they deserve as human beings (and yes, they are still human beings) is sufficient nutrition and tolerable living conditions. Considering most prison inmates are incarcerated for drug possession, it's not like everyone in there is a rapist or murderer. When we as a society stop caring about people and treating them like animals simply because they have a criminal record, do you honestly think that improves living conditions for the rest of us?
 
How do you define tolerable? Troops in Iraq are doing hard work in full combat dress in HIGHER temperatures.

[quote name='evilmregg']That is so ass-backwards. Making prisoners live under inhumane conditions does not prevent them from committing crimes in the future. If anything, it has a brutalizing effect that demoralizes and dehumanizes them until they lash out even further. Cable access I could care less about, but the very least they deserve as human beings (and yes, they are still human beings) is sufficient nutrition and tolerable living conditions. Considering most prison inmates are incarcerated for drug possession, it's not like everyone in there is a rapist or murderer. When we as a society stop caring about people and treating them like animals simply because they have a criminal record, do you honestly think that improves living conditions for the rest of us?[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='JimmieMac']For those of you wanting actual desserts:
[/QUOTE]

Thank you - kind sir...
 
[quote name='Kayden']How do you define tolerable? Troops in Iraq are doing hard work in full combat dress in HIGHER temperatures.[/QUOTE]

Well, 12,762 American troops have died thus far in Iraq by official count, so I don't exactly think their living conditions fit the definition of "tolerable." Do you really think they're not miserable out there in the Iraqi desert? They routinely suffer from dehydration and heat exhaustion. They're not out there having a good time.
 
[quote name='evilmregg']Well, 12,762 American troops have died thus far in Iraq by official count, so I don't exactly think their living conditions fit the definition of "tolerable." Do you really think they're not miserable out there in the Iraqi desert? They routinely suffer from dehydration and heat exhaustion. They're not out there having a good time.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. They're the good guys and they're in a worse situation than the criminals.
 
[quote name='Kayden']Exactly. They're the good guys and they're in a worse situation than the criminals.[/QUOTE]

Well, they're certainly not all good guys. Certain pictures of military prisoners being abused and humiliated come to mind. You probably think that American prisoners should be subject to the same treatment, though, so I guess that's a moot point.
 
Sexually degrading people isn't funny. The soldiers that did that were acting like 12 year olds and I in no way approve.
 
[quote name='Kayden']Don't roll your eyes at me. I'm not the one throwing our youth after oil.

I'm stating it like it is. Most people care more about their own money than the wellbeing of others.

As for the ammendments... Death is already a valid form of punishment. I fail to see how its cruel if you kill them quickly and painlessly. I'm not saying restrain them to a bed and let them starve to death.... but thats apparently legal too. :roll:[/QUOTE]

So valid that it was banned from 1972-1976? 12 states still don't allow for it: Alaska, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin. Another 6 have not executed anybody since 1972: Connecticut, Kansas, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, and South Dakota. These facts don't bode well for the certainty of your claim of capital punishment's validity.

Well, you're fucking killing them; don't compare it to Terri Schiavo, because her problem was the fault of the fucking right wing, who have kept our national dialogue on right of death in this country at such an asinine level that we can't even consider euthanizing the "good" people. Don't blame corrections for that; it also does nothing to validate death as punishment (we assume Terri wanted to die, and most inmates don't want to).

People do care about money more than wellbeing; however, people are also stupid. As I said on page 1, people think that deterrence works in preventing criminal behavior; if they didn't, this guy wouldn't be popular. However, the fact is this: it doesn't fucking work.

People think that criminals are aware of the kinds of punishments they'll receive if caught, and that is simply not true. The same goes for taxes. I did some simple math the other day on the Vs. forums, and using 1997 data, showed that the average household (not person) contributed $167.14 (I may be off) annual for AFDC. I would imagine that, based on people's vehement outrage for paying taxes for welfare programs, that most people would despise the money they pay for AFDC versus, say, military spending. This is *ONLY* because they have no fucking clue how much of their money goes where. They are upset with no idea what they are upset about. Shame that they get to vote.

myke.
...stream of consciousness over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top