# Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore...



## sideKahr

Shooter's post that _"it will soon pay to be a minority committing crimes"_ is now reality:

*America Hits Rock Bottom: Cities Are Paying Criminals $1000 Per Month "Not To Kill"*

"...cash to the tune of $1000 per month is already being [given] to some of the most brazen criminals living in the US today with one simple condition: 'don't kill people.' "

"cities across the country, beginning with the District of Columbia, are moving to copy Richmond's controversial approach because early indications show it has helped reduce homicide rates."

"In Richmond, the city has hired ex-convicts to mentor dozens of its most violent offenders and allows them to take unconventional steps if it means preventing the next homicide. For example, the mentors have coaxed inebriated teenagers threatening violence into city cars, not for a ride to jail but home to sleep it off - sometimes with loaded firearms still in their waistbands."

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...ties-are-paying-criminals-1000-month-not-kill

I must be dreaming.


----------



## AquaHull




----------



## Smitty901

About what it is coming to. In major cities just to get arrested for a crime takes a lot of work. In Milwaukee LE is ordered to let car thief's go.


----------



## Camel923

This stuff is bass ackwards!!!!!


----------



## txmarine6531

It'll come back to bite them in the ass like a pack of velociraptors.


----------



## Slippy2

Good is Evil and Evil is Good


----------



## Will2

This is good if it works. The cost of keeping someone incarcerated is often more than the cost of keeping them from being a criminal in the first place.

The same is true for a lot of hoods.

Its really only some people like theives who steal for the thrill or to live large that are beyond reach with small payments to live their life.

You know people who have deviant criminal histories such as peds, bank robbers and rapists.

Even some rapists could probably be stopped by managing their libidos with access to publically run sex clubs, not all.


None the less, the crime prevention approach through removing the need for the crime is a good start.


The real criminals are the ones you need to worry about are the ones who break the law to victimize others, not the ones that are trying not to be a victim.


----------



## Moonshinedave

Not to worry my friends, there's plenty of money, there always will be. Soon, we'll all be waist deep in twenty dollar bills, just a few months from the era of milk and honey. Life is soon to be great, repeat after me "life is soon......."


----------



## Coastie dad

Will2 said:


> This is good if it works. The cost of keeping someone incarcerated is often more than the cost of keeping them from being a criminal in the first place.
> 
> The same is true for a lot of hoods.
> 
> Its really only some people like theives who steal for the thrill or to live large that are beyond reach with small payments to live their life.
> 
> You know people who have deviant criminal histories such as peds, bank robbers and rapists.
> 
> Even some rapists could probably be stopped by managing their libidos with access to publically run sex clubs, not all.
> 
> None the less, the crime prevention approach through removing the need for the crime is a good start.
> 
> The real criminals are the ones you need to worry about are the ones who break the law to victimize others, not the ones that are trying not to be a victim.


And where is this money to come from? Bribery to not commit crimes? Legal extortion? Screw that. How about we quit pitying these lowlife predators and start providing consequences for their actions, hm?


----------



## jim-henscheli

So, I your kid was smearing Shitt on the wall, and said she would stop if she got candy, woul she get candy or solitary?
Come on wil, really? We don't reward good behavior, it's what is EXPECTED. We punish he wrong doers, the minority who make it hard for everyone else. 
No one get your panties in a wad because I said minority. You know what I mean.


----------



## Will2

Jim you don't seem to have a basic grasp of psychology or criminological theory.

This discussion will not be beneficial to either of us.


I know where you are coming from, but where you are coming from doesn't fix problems nearly as well as systems of behavioural positive reinforcements, social bonding theory implementations, and conflict theory benefit creation.

Personally I don't think you care about the stuff on the wall what you are upset about is who put it there. Personally I would rather have that stuff gone and stay gone and my way gets rid of it.

You are just on a different planet than me, I know you were brought up to different beliefs and you have limited knowledge of newer methods to reduce crime and recidivism.

Really you should educate yourself on those things before entering a discussion like this.


It is about creating a postive environment that accepted and positive behaviours can be patterned and reinforced. You don't make a good person by doing bad things to them. That isn't good role modeling. With kids it sends an incredibly confusing message.


----------



## Auntie

Look where everyone gets a trophy, there are no winners or losers, no kid left behind has gotten us. If you reward bad behaviour you get more bad behaviour for the rewards. Look at the children of today, not all but a large percentage of them. You have all seen them in the grocery stores, parks, schools, would you have ever considered behaving like that in public? This country is raising a bunch of spoiled, entitled brats!*

If criminals get paid to be nice, then what is to stop someones child from seeing this and saying hey if I act like that I can get a thousand a month to be nice, so I will not be nice now. The logic is so flawed.


*Yes, I know there are exceptions.


----------



## BuckB

Will2 said:


> You are just on a different planet than me, I know you were brought up to different beliefs and you have limited knowledge of newer methods to reduce crime and recidivism


What planet would that be Will? And if you are on a different planet, how come you got so upset with me the last time I told you to pull your head out of Uranus?


----------



## Will2

BuckB said:


> What planet would that be Will? And if you are on a different planet, how come you got so upset with me the last time I told you to pull your head out of Uranus?


One that existed before social sciences discovered ways of improving the world without resorting to systems of negative reinforcement and penalization.

Oh, I think you don't understand buck. I am not upset with you, you seem to think that I actually care anything about what you think or do. My problem with you is that you say stupid things you think are funny but I find to be lame annoying and having the intent to bug me, and spark a reaction. I am not keen on people who are drama whores begging for attention or to put someone on a spot to create a scene. I am a fairly conservative person socially so I consider what you are doing as intentional acts of malice.

I know very well that most people on here want blood out of people, to beat them into compliance. As you are probably well aware I don't think that an effective method and is contrary to the principles of a free society.

There are two types of criminals those who have mental issues stopping them from acting civilly, and the other type that area indoctrinated into criminal behaviours. While we will never be able to help the first, whether by beating them down or by nurturing them, the second type has hope of being rehabilitated, and rehabilitation is not created from traumatizing people or destroying their life on concepts such as revenge seeking.

Suppression of people doesn't make them better people, it destroys peoples ability to be socially integrated.

Systems of rehabilitation and social inclusivity are worth the effort. Life is largely about habit formation. We need people to have good jobs, and we need people to be involved with those around them.

Putting someone in the corner for a time out only sets them back further in life. Setting people back is only pushing them further away from society meaning you are creating a more abnormal and deviant person as a result. It is really common sense here.

You don't want people at risk of committing crimes alienated from society, that will only increase the likelyhood that they will commit a crime.

In essence your ways of crime control create criminals and results in higher crime rates.

BUt I understand you don't care about the crimes, you want to vent your angst and sense of helplessness on those you can exert control over for breaking the rules. You just don't want to admit it. Your solution is to remove liberty, and an individuals quest for fullfillment from them so they are enslaved to the lowest common standard. You want to penalize individuality rather than teaching why social interaction is a positive activity. You want to shut down not create new ways of being.

I understand your system. I just don't think it is the best model for humanity, afterall it has failed year after year for as long as it has existed to prevent crime.


----------



## Prepared One

Disregarding Willies obvious disconnect from reality and no firm footing on "THIS" planet, you reward bad behavior you get bad behavior, period. I can think of no quicker way to insure a bad outcome then paying someone to refrain from engaging in criminal activities. This type of mindset is exactly why things are going to shit in a basket. I am not paying any dumb ass $1000.00 not to rob me when a 45 cent bullet will do. Think protection rackets.


----------



## duncan1371

Not to mention the fact that nothing is stopping them from drug dealing and making money on the side. So I'm paying for the house not a and they get tax free money as long as they don't kill someone. Please

Tent city in AZ has from whatvi heard almost no return offenders. Know why?

Because it sucks to be there. If prisons were still had places the low level criminals would stop going but now it's there hits and a cot. Some go on purpose. 

This is because it isn't as hard as it should be on inmates in prison. I get comments all the time on my children's behavior. This is because they are disciplined when needed and praised when needed. Postivive reinforcement in what happy place do you think you criminals are just gonna be satisfied with 1000 a month. They can make that slinging drugs in 30 mins on the street. Alittlebout of touch with the interworkings of society.


----------



## Arklatex

Will2 said:


> This is good if it works. The cost of keeping someone incarcerated is often more than the cost of keeping them from being a criminal in the first place.
> 
> The same is true for a lot of hoods.
> 
> Its really only some people like theives who steal for the thrill or to live large that are beyond reach with small payments to live their life.
> 
> You know people who have deviant criminal histories such as peds, bank robbers and rapists.
> 
> Even some rapists could probably be stopped by managing their libidos with access to publically run sex clubs, not all.
> 
> None the less, the crime prevention approach through removing the need for the crime is a good start.
> 
> The real criminals are the ones you need to worry about are the ones who break the law to victimize others, not the ones that are trying not to be a victim.


Umm. I'm not about to pay more taxes to keep thugs from being thugs. I already pay for enough bullshit. The real obvious answer in my opinion is to cut back on amenities for inmates. Sheriff Joe style. Make those thugs earn their keep and live in tents. Jail and prison shouldn't be a place folks want to go in order to get a masters degree in thuggery. Goes along the same line of thinking that one doesn't reward criminal behavior.


----------



## chocks141

as human animals, we all have to be trained, just like we train dogs. You would not just walk up to a dog and give it a treat for not biting you. Sooner or later, a vicious dog will take your treat then bite you anyway.


----------



## Targetshooter

They say crime don't pay ,,, ha ha ha ha ha ,, jokes on us .


----------



## BuckB

Will2 said:


> One that existed before social sciences discovered ways of improving the world without resorting to systems of negative reinforcement and penalization.
> 
> Oh, I think you don't understand buck. I am not upset with you, you seem to think that I actually care anything about what you think or do. My problem with you is that you say stupid things you think are funny but I find to be lame annoying and having the intent to bug me, and spark a reaction. I am not keen on people who are drama whores begging for attention or to put someone on a spot to create a scene. I am a fairly conservative person socially so I consider what you are doing as intentional acts of malice.
> 
> I know very well that most people on here want blood out of people, to beat them into compliance. As you are probably well aware I don't think that an effective method and is contrary to the principles of a free society.
> 
> There are two types of criminals those who have mental issues stopping them from acting civilly, and the other type that area indoctrinated into criminal behaviours. While we will never be able to help the first, whether by beating them down or by nurturing them, the second type has hope of being rehabilitated, and rehabilitation is not created from traumatizing people or destroying their life on concepts such as revenge seeking.
> 
> Suppression of people doesn't make them better people, it destroys peoples ability to be socially integrated.
> 
> Systems of rehabilitation and social inclusivity are worth the effort. Life is largely about habit formation. We need people to have good jobs, and we need people to be involved with those around them.
> 
> Putting someone in the corner for a time out only sets them back further in life. Setting people back is only pushing them further away from society meaning you are creating a more abnormal and deviant person as a result. It is really common sense here.
> 
> You don't want people at risk of committing crimes alienated from society, that will only increase the likelyhood that they will commit a crime.
> 
> In essence your ways of crime control create criminals and results in higher crime rates.
> 
> BUt I understand you don't care about the crimes, you want to vent your angst and sense of helplessness on those you can exert control over for breaking the rules. You just don't want to admit it. Your solution is to remove liberty, and an individuals quest for fullfillment from them so they are enslaved to the lowest common standard. You want to penalize individuality rather than teaching why social interaction is a positive activity. You want to shut down not create new ways of being.
> 
> I understand your system. I just don't think it is the best model for humanity, afterall it has failed year after year for as long as it has existed to prevent crime.


Oh come on Will, admit it... You think I'm funny. You have to admit the gag about Uranus was a pretty good play on words. Just admit it. You enjoy my quips and barbs as much as I enjoy writing them.

Your Friend

Buck Bored

P.S. Slippy says "Hi" by the way...


----------



## Slippy2

Rumor has it Will2's head is up Hisanus.


----------



## Denton

Will2 said:


> One that existed before social sciences discovered ways of improving the world without resorting to systems of negative reinforcement and penalization.
> 
> Oh, I think you don't understand buck. I am not upset with you, you seem to think that I actually care anything about what you think or do. My problem with you is that you say stupid things you think are funny but I find to be lame annoying and having the intent to bug me, and spark a reaction. I am not keen on people who are drama whores begging for attention or to put someone on a spot to create a scene. I am a fairly conservative person socially so I consider what you are doing as intentional acts of malice.
> 
> I know very well that most people on here want blood out of people, to beat them into compliance. As you are probably well aware I don't think that an effective method and is contrary to the principles of a free society.
> 
> There are two types of criminals those who have mental issues stopping them from acting civilly, and the other type that area indoctrinated into criminal behaviours. While we will never be able to help the first, whether by beating them down or by nurturing them, the second type has hope of being rehabilitated, and rehabilitation is not created from traumatizing people or destroying their life on concepts such as revenge seeking.
> 
> Suppression of people doesn't make them better people, it destroys peoples ability to be socially integrated.
> 
> Systems of rehabilitation and social inclusivity are worth the effort. Life is largely about habit formation. We need people to have good jobs, and we need people to be involved with those around them.
> 
> Putting someone in the corner for a time out only sets them back further in life. Setting people back is only pushing them further away from society meaning you are creating a more abnormal and deviant person as a result. It is really common sense here.
> 
> You don't want people at risk of committing crimes alienated from society, that will only increase the likelyhood that they will commit a crime.
> 
> In essence your ways of crime control create criminals and results in higher crime rates.
> 
> BUt I understand you don't care about the crimes, you want to vent your angst and sense of helplessness on those you can exert control over for breaking the rules. You just don't want to admit it. Your solution is to remove liberty, and an individuals quest for fullfillment from them so they are enslaved to the lowest common standard. You want to penalize individuality rather than teaching why social interaction is a positive activity. You want to shut down not create new ways of being.
> 
> I understand your system. I just don't think it is the best model for humanity, afterall it has failed year after year for as long as it has existed to prevent crime.


Buck says stupid things? Buddy-boy, you have won the prize of Dumbest Notions Offered In a Thread award.

No, seriously.

You have some notion that you are more enlightened than the rest of us, and that is as disillusioned as your notion that paying extortion to criminals is some new and better method of policing.

Positive reinforcement is not paying people not to do bad things. Positive reinforcement is when you conduct yourself properly and society accepts you as a good member.
What does a thug learn when he is paid a thousand dollars for not bustin' a cap in yo azz? He's not learning to be a good citizen, but is learning that he can make a few bucks by manipulating a stupid system.

Claiming the criminal justice system is ineffective is looking the wrong way. What has failed is the liberal experimentation in society. The notion of rewarding thugs is nothing more than more of the same, failed liberal experimentation.

Furthermore, it is immoral to pay thugs to not commit a crime. A thug is paid to go home and not kill someone, but what about the kids who do the right thing because it is the right thing to do? What message is sent when Thug Life is subsidized with taxes?

Yup, you are from a different planet. Problem is that you are not the only one who came from that planet to screw up this one. Just like Invasion of the Body Snatchers, large swaths of this planet has been infected, but rather than pods, the aliens from Liberalism used the entertainment industry and the public education system to destroy humanity.

Please, contact your home planet. Tell your leaders to come and retrieve you and all those who have been taken over by liberalism. Maybe if you could do that for the rest of us, we could refashion a strong, decent culture that uses peer pressure to reinforce the adherence to norms and mores rather than paying criminals to do so. We could also strive to craft a society that once again sees that rugged individualism and self reliance is viewed worthy goals instead of wallowing in victimhood or glamorizing criminal oriented subcultures.

If you have lost your communication device and cannot contact your mother planet for that pick-up, you can go over to democraticunderground. There are many people over there who are not from this world, either. Maybe one of them can make that intergalactic phone call for you.


----------



## Slippy2

Mrs Slippy just asked me why I pissed my shorts and why I was laughing uncontrollably! See below.



Denton said:


> Buck says stupid things? Buddy-boy, you have won the prize of Dumbest Notions Offered In a Thread award.
> 
> No, seriously.
> 
> You have some notion that you are more enlightened than the rest of us, and that is as disillusioned as your notion that paying extortion to criminals is some new and better method of policing.
> 
> Positive reinforcement is not paying people not to do bad things. Positive reinforcement is when you conduct yourself properly and society accepts you as a good member.
> What does a thug learn when he is paid a thousand dollars for not bustin' a cap in yo azz? He's not learning to be a good citizen, but is learning that he can make a few bucks by manipulating a stupid system.
> 
> Claiming the criminal justice system is ineffective is looking the wrong way. What has failed is the liberal experimentation in society. The notion of rewarding thugs is nothing more than more of the same, failed liberal experimentation.
> 
> Furthermore, it is immoral to pay thugs to not commit a crime. A thug is paid to go home and not kill someone, but what about the kids who do the right thing because it is the right thing to do? What message is sent when Thug Life is subsidized with taxes?
> 
> Yup, you are from a different planet. Problem is that you are not the only one who came from that planet to screw up this one. Just like Invasion of the Body Snatchers, large swaths of this planet has been infected, but rather than pods, the aliens from Liberalism used the entertainment industry and the public education system to destroy humanity.
> 
> Please, contact your home planet. Tell your leaders to come and retrieve you and all those who have been taken over by liberalism. Maybe if you could do that for the rest of us, we could refashion a strong, decent culture that uses peer pressure to reinforce the adherence to norms and mores rather than paying criminals to do so. We could also strive to craft a society that once again sees that rugged individualism and self reliance is viewed worthy goals instead of wallowing in victimhood or glamorizing criminal oriented subcultures.
> 
> If you have lost your communication device and cannot contact your mother planet for that pick-up, you can go over to democraticunderground. There are many people over there who are not from this world, either. Maybe one of them can make that intergalactic phone call for you.


----------



## Denton

Slippy2 said:


> Mrs Slippy just asked me why I pissed my shorts and why I was laughing uncontrollably! See below.


Tell Mrs. Slippy I said hi, and Mrs. Denton says we have to get together one of these days.


----------



## txmarine6531

Will2 said:


> This is good if it works. The cost of keeping someone incarcerated is often more than the cost of keeping them from being a criminal in the first place.
> 
> The same is true for a lot of hoods.
> 
> Its really only some people like theives who steal for the thrill or to live large that are beyond reach with small payments to live their life.
> 
> You know people who have deviant criminal histories such as peds, bank robbers and rapists.
> 
> Even some rapists could probably be stopped by managing their libidos with access to publically run sex clubs, not all.
> 
> None the less, the crime prevention approach through removing the need for the crime is a good start.
> 
> The real criminals are the ones you need to worry about are the ones who break the law to victimize others, not the ones that are trying not to be a victim.


Yeah how 'bout nooo. Enough of our tax dollars are wasted on criminal as it is, don't need any more going into their pockets. I worked for it, not them. Liberal dream world.


----------



## jro1

I've made it 33yrs without cracking a single skull! The liberals owe me some serious dough!!


----------



## Smitty901

jro1 said:


> I've made it 33yrs without cracking a single skull! The liberals owe me some serious dough!!


I tried not to crack any skulls but failed miserably. I did get paid for some of them , can I now collect on the ones I was not paid for.


----------



## jro1

*Putting someone in the corner for a time out only sets them back further in life. Setting people back is only pushing them further away from society meaning you are creating a more abnormal and deviant person as a result. It is really common sense here*

Just curious Will2, but how do you suppose I discipline my children when they act out of line? Your saying I shouldn't put them on a time out to think about their actions?!?! I'm not looking for a fight by any means, I can respect your point of view you are after all entitled to it! 
But what would you suggest I do? Is it really setting my kids back socially? I got some pretty good ass whoopin from mom and dad! Spent some serious time in the penalty box as a kid! Definitely got into some trouble as a young teen, and paid the price! Now I have a family, a good job....JOB!! I pay my taxes, and I don't dare step out of line! What's the answer man?


----------



## Medic33

who's toto and why do you put a kan in the azz


----------



## Denton

Medic33 said:


> who's toto and why do you put a kan in the azz


Depends on how old you are.

If you are really old, it was Dorothy's dog. If you are just old, it was a "rock" band, although I don't consider it rock.


----------



## Will2

Denton said:


> as your notion that paying extortion to criminals is some new and better method of policing.


At no point did I reference to paying an extortion fee. You seem to be missing the point I made, in that providing people opportunities for inclusion into society, and a means of living life in a way they enjoy and is not harmful to society, reduces the damage and costs done to society.

You seem again intent on "teaching someone" the right way to be, as opposed to "training someone" to be a good person. You don't teach stupid people lessons by locking them in a cage, you waste their time and keep them from integrating with society.



> What does a thug learn when he is paid a thousand dollars


 Not to be a thug. A thug who doesn't thug is not a thug, if a thug only thugs for 1000$ then if they get a 1000$ for not being a thug then you reinforce them not being a thug as opposed them getting a reward i.e. 1000$ for being a thug. You seem intent on turning this into getting 1000$ for being a thug when in fact it is getting 1000$ for good behaviour.



> He's not learning to be a good citizen


I disagree, he is having behaviour reinforced that helps create lifestlyes that are law abiding.



> Claiming the criminal justice system is ineffective is looking the wrong way.


Calling a spade a spade.



> What has failed is the liberal experimentation in society. The notion of rewarding thugs is nothing more than more of the same, failed liberal experimentation.


I understand you don't like the soft approach on crime, but you are wrong. In fact the soft approach is time and time again more successful than the brutalization of people that you so much cherish.



> Furthermore, it is immoral to pay thugs to not commit a crime. A thug is paid to go home and not kill someone, but what about the kids who do the right thing because it is the right thing to do? What message is sent when Thug Life is subsidized with taxes?


You don't seem to understand a life is worth more than 1000$ a month. Paying people not to commit crimes when those crimes cost society more than 1000$ a month and it is assure they will be committed without giving those criminals a chance to live a life without resorting to crime is a no brainer. The issue is fixing the problem, not doing something you consider immoral. Giving people money whether giving a kid an allowance if they do their chores and don't get into trouble is a reward for good behaviour as opposed to them committing a crime and getting a reward for bad behaviour.

You are in denial of pretty clear facts that harm reduction programs prove time and time again effective at reducing social problems.

I understand it is mostly politics here but you can't deny facts without being in denial, and that you are.

The way you look at it is blaming the person, instead of recognizing the issues that create crime, and recognizing what is causing that person to commit crime, it has nothing to do with who they are, it has to do with where they are in life.

There is nothing immoral at all in giving people a chance at a good life.

Spending 1000$ to save 5000 is just good fiscal sense.

You way fixes nothing and costs more.

You fixate on the 1000$ and totally ignore how much it saves taxpayers. This program saves taxpayers money not the other way around.

Take a look at this. Like some other libertarians I can see how providing a basic income just makes fiscal sense because it allows the government to eliminate 1001 different programs that have tons of people working to administer those funds adding more and more costs and more and more redtape. It makes sense just to make sure everyone has enough to put them above the poverty line, that will reduce cost to the tax payer big time by reducing bloat and cost markups created in public service employment.
Take a look at this, there are tons of other links. 
http://www.salon.com/2014/03/19/5_r...ached_basic_income_for_all_americans_partner/


----------



## Auntie

Will, I would like to see some facts to back up your statements.

The studies I have read state that education and drug programs would be the most effective way to combat recidivism. Most convicts dropped out of high school, why? There are a number of theories as to why they dropped out. Bad home life, not being able to keep up, why should they go to school when they can make money doing something illegal etc. etc. It has been shown that drug treatment programs in prison and after release reduce recidivism, so why not put the money into that?

Paying someone to not be a thug is not the answer!


----------



## Coastie dad

Please don't confuse facts with liberal statements.


----------



## rstanek

Will2 said:


> This is good if it works. The cost of keeping someone incarcerated is often more than the cost of keeping them from being a criminal in the first place.
> 
> The same is true for a lot of hoods.
> 
> Its really only some people like theives who steal for the thrill or to live large that are beyond reach with small payments to live their life.
> 
> You know people who have deviant criminal histories such as peds, bank robbers and rapists.
> 
> Even some rapists could probably be stopped by managing their libidos with access to publically run sex clubs, not all.
> 
> None the less, the crime prevention approach through removing the need for the crime is a good start.
> 
> The real criminals are the ones you need to worry about are the ones who break the law to victimize others, not the ones that are trying not to be a victim.


Boy, my parents really screwed up on how they raised me, I was taught to work hard, be fair, treat people with respect, lend a hand to someone in need and thank God everyday for all that he has blessed me with, no disrespect intended Will ,but I really believe this way of thinking is what is taking this country down the crapper, we deal with criminals by rewarding them, really? How about being held accountable, let's try that...


----------



## Auntie

Wait... you want someone to be held accountable for their actions and decisions? That is an old idea like respect, common sense and hard work.


----------



## Will2

txmarine6531 said:


> Yeah how 'bout nooo. Enough of our tax dollars are wasted on criminal as it is, don't need any more going into their pockets. I worked for it, not them. Liberal dream world.


What you fail to recognize is that this reduces costs to tax payers not the other way around.

Incarceration costs run anywhere from $2500 a month to a much higher costs talking thousands and thousands just to keep people locked up.

Just off the top of stopping them being sent to jail is saving you $1500 minimum each month.

That is right for every thousand that represents a savings of $1500

Do you want to pay 1000$ to keep someone a law abiding citizen or pay $2500 to make them a criminal and have your loved one killed as a result?

This is not even taking into consideration other costs like legal costs.

For terrorism related stuff, which I am sure you'd rather solve the chinese way, costs are close to $1,000,000 per inmate.

Isolation you are looking at $5000 a month for the really dangerous offenders.

Realize that getting inmates a college education and getting them involved in the community, and other social programming with their needs taken care of will save you money through removing them from the penal correction system which costs way more than social programming to keep them out of jail.

Good people are not made in jail, that is where criminals are made.
Good people are made in the community where they are encouraged and feel a sense of belonging.

You are more concerned with what they did than how they can be made better.


----------



## Joe Smith

Hello,
This phenomena seems to be isolated to California, I am lucky to be far enough away that I can stand back and see how it goes with this. From what I have read CA has decreased the penalties on many of their lower level crimes, released many convicts, and have seen an "explosion" of property crimes. I would guess that many of the released were in this line of work.

Now from a money perspective -the population of the city is approx 100,000. So if they pay 10% of them for these "jobs" that will be 10 million. I would gather they also get food money, rent money, cell phone, health care. The cost for the taxpaying citizens might be considered excessive, at least by those paying taxes. The article mentions that the money was removed from the law enforcement budget. Wouldn't it be ironic if your 911 call wasn't answered promptly because of a lack of funds. 

The article states that there is little independent study of the program, a city jobs program was passed over in favor of this, and that the program is run by ex-convicts that sometimes shield their "charges" from prosecution, even from murder. 

Please note that as stated, "$1000 a month not to commit gun crime." So, they can still stay in the program and supplement their income on the side with oh, stabbings and such. What will happen when the state budget can no longer afford this? Are we not creating and encouraging a group of people to be wards of the state unable to ever hold a job, to live off the backs of the working people?

I know you just got out of your criminal justice class and you now have all the answers, why have we all been so foolish not to implement this plan earlier, obviously your professor loves it. What you have though are theories, wait and you'll see the results. Compare it to the approach used in NYC , the "broken windows" approach and evaluate the outcome.


----------



## rstanek

So it's all about the money and not accountability, I have an idea, let's print more money and give everyone a $1000.00 a month not to commit a,gun crime, or do you have to be someone special, boy, this really steams me, we can cut costs in the prisons by taking away healthcare for frivolous things like sex changes, and other cosmetic surgeries I have read about . No, I don't have the articles to post, this was a while back. I'm sure other cost cutting can take place if they look hard enough. Let's get real here.......


----------



## txmarine6531

Will2 said:


> What you fail to recognize is that this reduces costs to tax payers not the other way around.
> 
> Incarceration costs run anywhere from $2500 a month to a much higher costs talking thousands and thousands just to keep people locked up.
> 
> Just off the top of stopping them being sent to jail is saving you $1500 minimum each month.
> 
> That is right for every thousand that represents a savings of $1500
> 
> Do you want to pay 1000$ to keep someone a law abiding citizen or pay $2500 to make them a criminal and have your loved one killed as a result?
> 
> This is not even taking into consideration other costs like legal costs.
> 
> For terrorism related stuff, which I am sure you'd rather solve the chinese way, costs are close to $1,000,000 per inmate.
> 
> Isolation you are looking at $5000 a month for the really dangerous offenders.
> 
> Realize that getting inmates a college education and getting them involved in the community, and other social programming with their needs taken care of will save you money through removing them from the penal correction system which costs way more than social programming to keep them out of jail.
> 
> Good people are not made in jail, that is where criminals are made.
> Good people are made in the community where they are encouraged and feel a sense of belonging.
> 
> You are more concerned with what they did than how they can be made better.


Don't forget about EBT/food stamps, housing, Obamaphone, internet, child care, the cost of paying more gov employees to redistribute more of OUR wealth, gov employees to make sure they're being honest criminals and not committing crimes, the lawsuits that will ensue from the other side of the isle (there's your legal costs), ect. Hey!! You know how I know you're a socialist liberal?! You said SOCIAL PROGRAMMING!! And good luck "programming" those folks.


----------



## BuckB

Will2 said:


> What you fail to recognize is that this reduces costs to tax payers not the other way around.
> 
> Incarceration costs run anywhere from $2500 a month to a much higher costs talking thousands and thousands just to keep people locked up.
> 
> Just off the top of stopping them being sent to jail is saving you $1500 minimum each month.
> 
> That is right for every thousand that represents a savings of $1500
> 
> Do you want to pay 1000$ to keep someone a law abiding citizen or pay $2500 to make them a criminal and have your loved one killed as a result?
> 
> This is not even taking into consideration other costs like legal costs.
> 
> For terrorism related stuff, which I am sure you'd rather solve the chinese way, costs are close to $1,000,000 per inmate.
> 
> Isolation you are looking at $5000 a month for the really dangerous offenders.
> 
> Realize that getting inmates a college education and getting them involved in the community, and other social programming with their needs taken care of will save you money through removing them from the penal correction system which costs way more than social programming to keep them out of jail.
> 
> Good people are not made in jail, that is where criminals are made.
> Good people are made in the community where they are encouraged and feel a sense of belonging.
> 
> You are more concerned with what they did than how they can be made better.


I guess it stands to reason that you believe these things. As I recall you have had several run-ins with the law yourself, yes?

Buck Bored's solution to crime:

There are plenty of good law abiding people that are living with horrible health maladies as they wait for transplants. So, once a criminal has been convicted, I suggest we feed and house them for up to 5 days while we find all of the donor matches we can for them. Then it is just a matter of a quick dispatch with a .22LR to the back of the skull, then off to the chop shop.

If your figure about a criminal costing about $2500 per month is accurate, housing and feeding them for 5 extra days will cost about $500. Those costs can be more than offset by selling their organs to good people who desperately need them. I expect, on the open market we could get a few thousand just for the kidneys. Then you have the liver, bone marrow, the heart, etc. This could be a profitable little enterprise.

And hell, we have already proven as a culture we do not have a problem with Planned Parenthood selling the parts of little babies that have not hurt anybody. Whacking out a degenerate to help several others should be no issue at all.


----------



## Reddog7313

Dont bring them home just kill them


----------



## Will2

Auntie said:


> Will, I would like to see some facts to back up your statements.
> 
> The studies I have read state that education and drug programs would be the most effective way to combat recidivism. Most convicts dropped out of high school, why? There are a number of theories as to why they dropped out. Bad home life, not being able to keep up, why should they go to school when they can make money doing something illegal etc. etc. It has been shown that drug treatment programs in prison and after release reduce recidivism, so why not put the money into that?
> 
> Paying someone to not be a thug is not the answer!


Hi Auntie, I don't have time to waste sharing research on this issue with you in depth. I suggest you do some research on your own.
Based upon commonly available info for example incarceration costs in the us range between $20,000 and $60,000 per year.

What statements are you not able to find further research or information on? Identify what statement you are having difficulty with?

Definately there are various programs that prove effective at stopping people from committing crimes. Anything that saves the taxpayer money by providing alternative treatment is likely going to be better than a system that focuses and paying large costs to lock people up in jails they learn how to be better criminals in and grow gang associations.


----------



## Will2

txmarine6531 said:


> Don't forget about EBT/food stamps, housing, Obamaphone, internet, child care, the cost of paying more gov employees to redistribute more of OUR wealth, gov employees to make sure they're being honest criminals and not committing crimes, the lawsuits that will ensue from the other side of the isle (there's your legal costs), ect. Hey!! You know how I know you're a socialist liberal?! You said SOCIAL PROGRAMMING!! And good luck "programming" those folks.


I'm actually not a socialist liberal. I am a fiscal conservative minarchist libertarian, who thinks most social issues are due to not dealing with the issue of poverty. So much money is spent creating government when they could just provide a basic income for everyone for less than it costs to run less effective programs. Some people can be helped, others are beyond help. I've studied social issues for quite a while largely as part of my social&cultural anthropology studies, but also as part of my legal studies training, and there are two major views here, so I know where you are coming from.

You know people want divine punishment for the people who have transgressed but in looking at the statistics, you end up causing even more problems with that methodology because it does nothing to remove the root causes. Sadly people who have lived rough lives don't consider jail to be "punishment" it is recovery time and down time. People who have done a bunch of time in jail really have no chance at life so they just don't care. That is why so many end up back in jail with someone else a victim because in your quest to get vengence on the SOB, you did nothing to cure the demons that plague the person. It is just a nonsensical process really.

Basically you are going to be paying that $5000 a month to keep the SOB locked up because it gives you a sense of satisfaction you got the bad guy and the bad guy is suffering for what he did. In fact it is actually just wasted time, they are eating better than they did on the outside and probably have a better quality of life with more benefits than they would as an unemployed person on the streets just getting by.

Due to the political divide on this I don't think I will get any sense through to those of you on the right wing of this discussion,because the issues are not the same. For you it is about putting down and keeping down the criminal. It has nothing to do with preventing crimes and reducing costs.

It is just rediculous when half of those in jail are going to be there most of their life.

You know over 80% of people who commit property crimes end up in jail again. More than half of offenders go right back to jail. What exactly are you teaching them, you need to get a new teacher cause they arn't getting the message you are trying to send.

Just bear in mind you are paying 200% to 2000% the cost to keep them in jail rather than training them to live lawfully in the world.


----------



## Will2

BuckB said:


> As I recall you have had several run-ins with the law yourself, yes?


really buck what is that? PM me with these so called run-ins I am guessing the facts are speaking for themselves so now you are gearing up for a smear and personal attacks because your position is one without anything to support it.



> So, once a criminal has been convicted, I suggest we feed and house them for up to 5 days while we find all of the donor matches we can for them. Then it is just a matter of a quick dispatch with a .22LR to the back of the skull, then off to the chop shop.


I think your opinion goes a little outside the range of socially acceptable or even legal speech. Incitement to commit murder is a felony. Hate speech like yours is criminal.



> If your figure about a criminal costing about $2500 per month is accurate, housing and feeding them for 5 extra days will cost about $500. Those costs can be more than offset by selling their organs to good people who desperately need them. I expect, on the open market we could get a few thousand just for the kidneys. Then you have the liver, bone marrow, the heart, etc. This could be a profitable little enterprise.


Not really sure if you are expecting a reply from me on that.

BuckB Are you an organ donor? If not put your organs where your mouth is. An easy way to end organ shortages is for everyone to sign up to be a donor. You don't need to murder petty criminals for that purpose.


----------



## Joe Smith

"Incitement to commit murder is a felony. Hate speech like yours is criminal".

Congratulations Buck, you have now been pre-qualified for the program. An ex-convict mentor will be comin' by the house with a check. Oh the irony.


----------



## BuckB

Joe Smith said:


> "Incitement to commit murder is a felony. Hate speech like yours is criminal".
> 
> Congratulations Buck, you have now been pre-qualified for the program. An ex-convict mentor will be comin' by the house with a check. Oh the irony.


You Sir, are a witty sumbitch! :triumphant:


----------



## BuckB

Will2 said:


> really buck what is that? PM me with these so called run-ins I am guessing the facts are speaking for themselves so now you are gearing up for a smear and personal attacks because your position is one without anything to support it.


It beats me. I was going by your previous posts where you mentioned you could not leave Canada for some number of years due to a run-in with the border patrol. I did not understand your whole story because I think you were off your meds when you wrote it. But it was good reading.



Will2 said:


> I think your opinion goes a little outside the range of socially acceptable or even legal speech. Incitement to commit murder is a felony. Hate speech like yours is criminal.


That is the beauty of living in the good old U S of A. We do not have hate speech laws. Furthermore, do I really impress you as somebody that cares about "socially acceptable"?



Will2 said:


> Not really sure if you are expecting a reply from me on that.
> 
> BuckB Are you an organ donor? If not put your organs where your mouth is. An easy way to end organ shortages is for everyone to sign up to be a donor. You don't need to murder petty criminals for that purpose.


Don't touch my organ!

Your Friend

Buck Bored


----------



## Will2

BuckB said:


> It beats me. I was going by your previous posts where you mentioned you could not leave Canada for some number of years due to a run-in with the border patrol.


You seem to be delusional at no point did I make that statement. If anyone is off their meds it is you. Why don't you stop even thinking about me man, you seem to have your own story going. Very disturbing. Get your facts straight or keep your mouth shut man. You do no good spouting off like a delusional nutcase saying things were said that weren't said.



> That is the beauty of living in the good old U S of A. We do not have hate speech laws.


You are actually very wrong Buck. I suggest you learn your own laws before speaking on their behalf.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_United_States

give this a go to if you are literate
http://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1413&context=facpubs

"The latter court held that the ordinance
had been interpreted as applying only to "conduct that itself inflicts
injury or tends to incite immediate violence", which the U.S. Supreme
Court had characterized in earlier cases as unprotected by the First Amendment's free speech clause even when it is expressive in character
(the so-called "fighting words" exception)."

I'm pretty sure your talk of using a rifle to execute everyone convicted of a crime to harvest their organs would be considered 'fighting words' and would not be protected speech, because it is easily recognizable as being outside the boundaries of socially acceptable actions.

It is distrubing speech very distrubing and what you are calling for is frankly, quite inhumane and against all reasonable people's standards of social conduct.


----------



## Slippy2

Rumor has it Will2 tried to touch Buck's organ. 

If true, Will please post a new picture of your smashed face . Thanks


----------



## Auntie

Will2 said:


> Hi Auntie, I don't have time to waste sharing research on this issue with you in depth. I suggest you do some research on your own.
> Based upon commonly available info for example incarceration costs in the us range between $20,000 and $60,000 per year.
> 
> What statements are you not able to find further research or information on? Identify what statement you are having difficulty with?
> 
> Definately there are various programs that prove effective at stopping people from committing crimes. Anything that saves the taxpayer money by providing alternative treatment is likely going to be better than a system that focuses and paying large costs to lock people up in jails they learn how to be better criminals in and grow gang associations.


Wow Will, I try to have an adult discussion and you don't have time to provide facts to back up your statements. Perhaps you missed this part of my original post


> The studies I have read state that education and drug programs would be the most effective way to combat recidivism.


You cry when someone doesn't agree with you, you throw a temper tantrum when someone tries to prove you wrong. I tried to debate this with you civilly but you don't have the time. So be it.


----------



## Arklatex

How is it that you call yourself a libertarian while advocating for government subsidies for criminals? Makes no sense to me.


----------



## Arklatex

Will2 said:


> I think your opinion goes a little outside the range of socially acceptable or even legal speech. Incitement to commit murder is a felony. Hate speech like yours is criminal.
> .


Here we go again. I bet the above statement was carefully crafted, screenshotted and printed off. To put in the big binder of stuff you posted pics of before. Thinking you will have some big lawsuit one day. Lol. So sad and petty.


----------



## BuckB

Arklatex said:


> Here we go again. I bet the above statement was carefully crafted, screenshotted and printed off. To put in the big binder of stuff you posted pics of before. Thinking you will have some big lawsuit one day. Lol. So sad and petty.


If we can ever convince Will to join Slippy, you and me down at Slippy Lodge to earn his Man Card, that will be a hell of a good time!


----------



## Arklatex

BuckB said:


> If we can ever convince Will to join Slippy, you and me down at Slippy Lodge to earn his Man Card, that will be a hell of a good time!


Since I'm the low man on seniority that means I get to use the bullwhip right?! As an ex fencing guy I'm real good at telling folks where to dig holes!


----------



## BuckB

Will2 said:


> You seem to be delusional at no point did I make that statement. If anyone is off their meds it is you. Why don't you stop even thinking about me man, you seem to have your own story going. Very disturbing. Get your facts straight or keep your mouth shut man. You do no good spouting off like a delusional nutcase saying things were said that weren't said.


My apologies Will. I was pretty sure that I had read a post from you about getting in trouble with customs people (I am still not sure if it was American or Canadian customs people). There was something about a flat tire and you running a roadblock that was not marked well enough or something?

Anyway, no matter. I went through about 10 or 15 pages of your recent posts before I was ready to drill holes in my forehead with a cordless drill but I could not find the post so maybe I had you mixed up with some other crazy person. So I offer my sincere apology. (But Auntie did mention this one... http://www.prepperforums.net/forum/general-talk/15352-hearsay-7.html)

Your Friend

Buck Bored


----------



## Denton

Will2 said:


> You seem to be delusional at no point did I make that statement. If anyone is off their meds it is you. Why don't you stop even thinking about me man, you seem to have your own story going. Very disturbing. Get your facts straight or keep your mouth shut man. You do no good spouting off like a delusional nutcase saying things were said that weren't said.
> 
> You are actually very wrong Buck. I suggest you learn your own laws before speaking on their behalf.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_United_States
> 
> give this a go to if you are literate
> http://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1413&context=facpubs
> 
> "The latter court held that the ordinance
> had been interpreted as applying only to "conduct that itself inflicts
> injury or tends to incite immediate violence", which the U.S. Supreme
> Court had characterized in earlier cases as unprotected by the First Amendment's free speech clause even when it is expressive in character
> (the so-called "fighting words" exception)."
> 
> I'm pretty sure your talk of using a rifle to execute everyone convicted of a crime to harvest their organs would be considered 'fighting words' and would not be protected speech, because it is easily recognizable as being outside the boundaries of socially acceptable actions.
> 
> It is distrubing speech very distrubing and what you are calling for is frankly, quite inhumane and against all reasonable people's standards of social conduct.


Really?

You are attempting to stifle an American's right to free speech. That means you are attempting to violate an American's 1st amendment right. You are guilty of violating the law of nature and nature's God, and that is the highest law of this land. That makes you a criminal in the highest order.

You want to pretend to be some moronic shade tree lawyer yet you attempt to tell someone to shut up. You are, in fact, a liberal. We already knew that because you are trying to tell us that we should pay criminals to not commit crimes. As if criminals can be trusted to not commit crimes after taking the money. Only a total idiot and certified moron would think that a criminal can be trusted not to commit a crime.

One way, you are an idiot who thinks he can tell someone to keep his opinions to himself; another way, he thinks he can say stupid crap and not be called an idiot. Either way, it is idiotic.

Man, that felt good.


----------



## txmarine6531

Will2 said:


> I'm actually not a socialist liberal. I am a fiscal conservative minarchist libertarian, who thinks most social issues are due to not dealing with the issue of poverty. So much money is spent creating government when they could just provide a basic income for everyone for less than it costs to run less effective programs. Some people can be helped, others are beyond help. I've studied social issues for quite a while largely as part of my social&cultural anthropology studies, but also as part of my legal studies training, and there are two major views here, so I know where you are coming from.
> 
> You know people want divine punishment for the people who have transgressed but in looking at the statistics, you end up causing even more problems with that methodology because it does nothing to remove the root causes. Sadly people who have lived rough lives don't consider jail to be "punishment" it is recovery time and down time. People who have done a bunch of time in jail really have no chance at life so they just don't care. That is why so many end up back in jail with someone else a victim because in your quest to get vengence on the SOB, you did nothing to cure the demons that plague the person. It is just a nonsensical process really.
> 
> Basically you are going to be paying that $5000 a month to keep the SOB locked up because it gives you a sense of satisfaction you got the bad guy and the bad guy is suffering for what he did. In fact it is actually just wasted time, they are eating better than they did on the outside and probably have a better quality of life with more benefits than they would as an unemployed person on the streets just getting by.
> 
> Due to the political divide on this I don't think I will get any sense through to those of you on the right wing of this discussion,because the issues are not the same. For you it is about putting down and keeping down the criminal. It has nothing to do with preventing crimes and reducing costs.
> 
> It is just rediculous when half of those in jail are going to be there most of their life.
> 
> You know over 80% of people who commit property crimes end up in jail again. More than half of offenders go right back to jail. What exactly are you teaching them, you need to get a new teacher cause they arn't getting the message you are trying to send.
> 
> Just bear in mind you are paying 200% to 2000% the cost to keep them in jail rather than training them to live lawfully in the world.


You say you're a fiscal conservative minarchist libertarian (sounds a little redundant, JMO), but a lot of your text seems to point in another direction. I've never heard anyone on the right or center right say something like "we need social programming", or "we should redistribute more wealth to criminals". Maybe it means something different up north. I don't know. But what I do know, is that putting criminals on salary to not commit crime is nothing more than a bribe. What checks would there be to ensure they are staying clean? What checks would there be to guard against misappropriations by the government (we all know that'll never happen)?

Programs are already in place for offenders. Have been for a long time. In jail and out. One is the local/jail church. Countless former/current inmates doing outreach. The opportunities are there, it's up to the individual to participate. They made their decision to not participate and instead commit crime over and over. And I derive no pleasure in seeing a person locked in a cage. Even the worst of the worst, but I know they have to be for the good of the public. It's a damn shame really. Who knows what some of those people could do if they made the decision to clean up their act. Maybe a lot of good somehow.

I agree that some people who are locked up for long or life sentences shouldn't be there for so long. Some though, well, they need to be. But before we hand out money to people who don't deserve it, first thing that needs to happen is to clean up government. #1 thing that should happen. Because with this current administration, crime is being rewarded it seems. We have LEO being told to let criminals go. The government itself is committing crime and getting away with it. Unfortunately, we don't have a single candidate that would clean anything up. They've all been a part of the system for too long and don't want to let that money and power go. Including Trump. Only candidate is gone. If you're not part of the "in crowd", you don't stand a chance.


----------



## rstanek

So what happens to criminals that are receiving this taxpayer windfall, if at the time they are receiving payment and decide to commit another crime, do they get a raise? :/


----------



## Real Old Man

Will2 said:


> At no point did I reference to paying an extortion fee. You seem to be missing the point I made, in that providing people opportunities for inclusion into society, and a means of living life in a way they enjoy and is not harmful to society, reduces the damage and costs done to society.
> 
> You seem again intent on "teaching someone" the right way to be, as opposed to "training someone" to be a good person. You don't teach stupid people lessons by locking them in a cage, you waste their time and keep them from integrating with society.
> 
> Not to be a thug. A thug who doesn't thug is not a thug, if a thug only thugs for 1000$ then if they get a 1000$ for not being a thug then you reinforce them not being a thug as opposed them getting a reward i.e. 1000$ for being a thug. You seem intent on turning this into getting 1000$ for being a thug when in fact it is getting 1000$ for good behaviour.
> 
> I disagree, he is having behaviour reinforced that helps create lifestlyes that are law abiding.
> 
> Calling a spade a spade.
> 
> I understand you don't like the soft approach on crime, but you are wrong. In fact the soft approach is time and time again more successful than the brutalization of people that you so much cherish.
> 
> You don't seem to understand a life is worth more than 1000$ a month. Paying people not to commit crimes when those crimes cost society more than 1000$ a month and it is assure they will be committed without giving those criminals a chance to live a life without resorting to crime is a no brainer. The issue is fixing the problem, not doing something you consider immoral. Giving people money whether giving a kid an allowance if they do their chores and don't get into trouble is a reward for good behaviour as opposed to them committing a crime and getting a reward for bad behaviour.
> 
> You are in denial of pretty clear facts that harm reduction programs prove time and time again effective at reducing social problems.
> 
> I understand it is mostly politics here but you can't deny facts without being in denial, and that you are.
> 
> The way you look at it is blaming the person, instead of recognizing the issues that create crime, and recognizing what is causing that person to commit crime, it has nothing to do with who they are, it has to do with where they are in life.
> 
> There is nothing immoral at all in giving people a chance at a good life.
> 
> Spending 1000$ to save 5000 is just good fiscal sense.
> 
> You way fixes nothing and costs more.
> 
> You fixate on the 1000$ and totally ignore how much it saves taxpayers. This program saves taxpayers money not the other way around.
> 
> Take a look at this. Like some other libertarians I can see how providing a basic income just makes fiscal sense because it allows the government to eliminate 1001 different programs that have tons of people working to administer those funds adding more and more costs and more and more redtape. It makes sense just to make sure everyone has enough to put them above the poverty line, that will reduce cost to the tax payer big time by reducing bloat and cost markups created in public service employment.
> Take a look at this, there are tons of other links.
> 5 reasons to consider a no-strings-attached, basic income for all Americans - Salon.com


First your thoughts are just plain foolish and not well grounded in the real criminal world. Denton is correct giving criminals $1000 / month not to comit crimes is out and out extortion.

But what you have no clue about is the mentality of the Criminals. Most know no other way of life. If they've been incarcerated for any length of time, they've lost touch with the real world which has long since passed them by. Family, they to have moved on with life with out Brother, sister, mom or dad. And a good many use the criminal as a constant reminder that that's what happens to you if you chose crime over hard work.

And for those that say crime doesn't pay, wake up and smell the horse crap you all are shovelling. They see the top thugs with good looking women, all the dope they can handle and cash much easier than working a hard labor job. Hell there's almost a stop and rob on every other street corner. And those stinking little asians won't have the nerve to fight back against a big bad nasty boy.

And remember the tax payers are only paying so much cause you stinking liberals want to pander these poor misunderstood innocents. Crap. They should get grits three times a day, with water. No tv, no exercise machines, a cell that's 6' x 10', and no books other than a math book and an english reader.

Rape some one - execution - two days after being found guilty. Kill some one (don't care the reason - other than self defense) and hang them two days after the verdict is in.

Save the tax payers money execute every one with a 12 gauge shot gun blast into their open mouth up thru the roof of their mouth.


----------



## SittingElf

Back to one of the original treatises of this thread.

Here's a Poll just released regarding "Paying Criminals not to commit crime".....

A Rasmussen Reports poll released March 31 shows slightly more than four out of five Americans reject the plan for Democrat-run cities to pay killers not to kill with guns. The poll revolved around plans in Baltimore, Toledo, Washington, D.C., and other cities to use money to try to curtail the behavior of killers untouched by a myriad of gun control laws.
Rasmussen asked, "In an effort to reduce their homicide rates, several cities are considering a plan to pay criminals not to commit gun crimes. Do you favor or oppose a plan in your community to pay criminals up to $1,000 a month not to kill someone with a gun?"
In response, five percent of respondents agreed with such a plan, while 81 percent rejected it outright.
_The Washington Post_ reports that such a program already exists in Richmond, California, where overlooking certain crimes-and even an occasional homicide-is par for the course to keep the program rolling. And this month, the D.C. City Council voted to allot funds to begin financing a program that mirrors the one in Richmond. "Council member Kenyan R. McDuffie (D-Ward 5) has promised to shift money from the mayor's other law-enforcement priorities to launch the program."


----------



## Will2

Arklatex said:


> How is it that you call yourself a libertarian while advocating for government subsidies for criminals? Makes no sense to me.


While it lasts, I'll try to respond to some of the comments I received before my ban for complaining about copyright violations of my youtube content.

I am a minarchist libertarian.

I see it this way.

Prisons are expensive, and deterring crime before it happens saves both the justice system and corrections system money and resources, it also leaves jails for people that can't live in or contribute to society.

This is based upon facts surrounding recidivism, and different types of criminals.

I am not saying this will work for all or most people who have committed crimes but I do think that it will work with some, and that the cost savings and resource savings will be a benefit rather than be a hindrance on tax payers.

Since I think small government is good government, having extensive bureaucratic legal systems to manage people costing taxpayers thousands of dollars per person in the system each month creating a system that removes all that bureaucracy and replaces it will providing a living wage to people to not commit crimes, not just violent criminals, is a move in the right direction. Non institutional programs cost less than institutional programs. Creating incapable institutionalized people is totally the opposite of what any real libertarian would seek.

Minarchism is about small government, not about ignoring social issues or allowing poverty to lead to crime. Reducing costs is important and programs that pay people at high risk of criminal lifestyles to engage in socially productive lifestyles such as volunteering with food co-ops or getting a publically funded education so they can find gainful employment that makes society more capable and stronger - these are good things.

If I have to choose between keeping someone in a zoo to rot due to a bad upbringing and being in a bad crowd, or pay for someone to become a carpenter or mechanic, the answer is easy, of course I am going to try to make that person a capable independent law abiding person, not someone who only learns that force is rule.

I am hoping you can understand why I think paying criminals not to be criminals is better than paying to keep criminals in jail.

Now bear in mind I think that there are limits, if someone doesn't respond to this sort of program, then offering them a hand out to make their life lawful, other measures are needed but we should take proactive measures to reduce recidivism and get people capable to be part of soceity, as non criminals.

You know I would use this type of program for those who respond to it and keep their nose clean and get training and employment and start paying back taxes eventually, others I might give a choice between some sort of military or remote service or jail. You know there are different ways you can make criminals productive members of society. Above all I think that victims of property offences should be repaid, and apologized to while the most serious criminals need to very carefully be managed and if they arn't goofs, but mental or just bad people then they ought to be in work camps or jail.

Everyone deserves freedom, criminal management is about society being protected, that is the only reason why freedom is limited, risk to society. The whole punishment aspect of crime control is a bad moral character, it teaches the wrong values. I think the death penalty should only be self elective.


----------



## Will2

Denton said:


> Really?
> 
> You are attempting to stifle an American's right to free speech. That means you are attempting to violate an American's 1st amendment right. You are guilty of violating the law of nature and nature's God, and that is the highest law of this land. That makes you a criminal in the highest order.


I'm in no way attempting to stifle free speech of anyone. I do think there are reasonable limits and rationally one of those limits is when someone calls for genocide of a class of persons.

Likewise I think there is a certain respect people should have with others copyright in that if they request you not use their copyright you don't use it.

I think those are reasonable limitations on free speech. Criminal speech ain't free, it is criminal.



> You want to pretend to be some moronic shade tree lawyer yet you attempt to tell someone to shut up. You are, in fact, a liberal. We already knew that because you are trying to tell us that we should pay criminals to not commit crimes.


No sorry I am libertarian not liberal. However, I do think I support liberalism to a certain extent, it seems you do to.

You know "Liberalism in the United States is a broad political philosophy centered on the unalienable rights of the individual."
I think even constitutionalists are liberals by that definition. I do support free speech however I do think that free speech becomes combative when it calls for genocide, murder, attacks against people, defamatory speech etc.. That isn't socially acceptable conduct that is a breach of the peace.

Moral authority is part of freedom, clear attacks on freedom should not be tolerated, nor should freedom be usable as a tool to destroy freedom. Inciting and counseling murder is a felony.

=freedom of the press, ok fair enough I support a free press but I support an honest press more than a free press.
=freedom of religion for all belief systems = I think this goes as far as it doesn't attack others beliefs. Believe what you want but don't force your views on others. Your beliefs end at my ears.

=separation of church and state = I think this is important for the US, in Canada it is slightly different because religion is the lowest level of government in Canada and civil government has long been part of the major churches in Canada.

right to due process - I think there is too much process but I think it is important, I would just hope they would simplify law to remove all the bloat.

equality under the law = as a libertarian I think this is really important, you know if we all had the same rights and abilities there would be much less need for government above the people.

I can't understand how you can't support those things. Why would any American not want freedom for Americans?



> As if criminals can be trusted to not commit crimes after taking the money. Only a total idiot and certified moron would think that a criminal can be trusted not to commit a crime. One way, you are an idiot who thinks he can tell someone to keep his opinions to himself; another way, he thinks he can say stupid crap and not be called an idiot. Either way, it is idiotic.
> Man, that felt good.


Well thats your view, I think the program would reduce crime and improve peoples quality of life. I would fine tune things more than just money for people to stay clean, but it is a move in the right direction.

Criminals get let out of jail all the time. Can't say I agree with you. There are different types of criminals. Some are just screw ups. You get most of these people on a good path they can live a good life. Not all but some.


----------



## Will2

txmarine6531 said:


> You say you're a fiscal conservative minarchist libertarian (sounds a little redundant, JMO), but a lot of your text seems to point in another direction.


Nope. I am guessing you just havn't asked me to clarify things you don't understand. You want to open my eyes to something by all means shed light on what I am missing but I have the feeling you won't offer nothing and in fact it is you who don't understand why I support what I do.



> I've never heard anyone on the right or center right say something like "we need social programming", or "we should redistribute more wealth to criminals".


What the heck do you think jail is? Social programming. I support non-institutionalization as a conduit to a free society.

Money is better than even more expensive bureaucracy that does nothing but build a bloated system that fails to correct the social issues at the root of crime.



> Maybe it means something different up north.


Not at all its much the same, in fact the US is a little more privatized but I think in as big a mess. Higher crime rates in the US though, but that comes with larger urban populations.



> I don't know. But what I do know, is that putting criminals on salary to not commit crime is nothing more than a bribe. What checks would there be to ensure they are staying clean? What checks would there be to guard against misappropriations by the government (we all know that'll never happen)?


I know the idea in itself is just stupid because you don't want to reward who you want to be treated like scum. Fact is though why would you want a bunch of scum when you can have people. Personally I would run the program like an enhanced welfare with education streams, earning certain bonuses for volunteer activities, progressing in school, apprenticeship, staying drug free etc..



> Programs are already in place for offenders. Have been for a long time. In jail and out. One is the local/jail church. Countless former/current inmates doing outreach. The opportunities are there, it's up to the individual to participate.


You should share more links. None the less people still need money to live. You know people who have nothing don't risk nothing by breaking the rules.



> They made their decision to not participate and instead commit crime over and over.


I think environment is as much it as they are. I understand you don't support that. You think people make their own choices. I think people are indoctrinated into belief systems through mass media, peer networks, and society at large. If you don't influence people into good lifestyles then they are a victim of their upbringing, it ain't right to let people rot when you can make them better people.



> And I derive no pleasure in seeing a person locked in a cage. Even the worst of the worst, but I know they have to be for the good of the public. It's a damn shame really. Who knows what some of those people could do if they made the decision to clean up their act. Maybe a lot of good somehow.
> I agree that some people who are locked up for long or life sentences shouldn't be there for so long. Some though, well, they need to be. But before we hand out money to people who don't deserve it, first thing that needs to happen is to clean up government. #1 thing that should happen. Because with this current administration, crime is being rewarded it seems. We have LEO being told to let criminals go. The government itself is committing crime and getting away with it. Unfortunately, we don't have a single candidate that would clean anything up. They've all been a part of the system for too long and don't want to let that money and power go. Including Trump. Only candidate is gone. If you're not part of the "in crowd", you don't stand a chance.


I think that we can fix social problems. It can be done for less than the cost of sweeping it under the rug.

Yes I support offering programs that correct social ills. I still think it is better than just wasting peoples lives and facilitating for more harm to be done. Locking people up for life ain't the answer if you can give people the chance for living it.

I could go much more in depth but there are specific criminal M.O.s for things like Robbery that could be fixed through social programming. Each crime needs to be treated differently. Locking people in a cage should only be a last resort for those than can't be fixed through other measures.

Lots of these problems are cultural, and socio-economics. Jail don't fix nothing.


----------



## Will2

rstanek said:


> So what happens to criminals that are receiving this taxpayer windfall, if at the time they are receiving payment and decide to commit another crime, do they get a raise? :/


Nah nah. I think that some people can't be helped. You would definitely take a knock off that.

I think there should be a grading system though

you know for property crimes, crimes of violence, drug crimes etc..

It is important to not pigeon all crimes as simply crimes.

There are consensual crimes, and victimizing crimes.

We need to look at the reasons.

This isn't about a crime control methodology.

It is about social programming.

Crime control doesn't really work these days, it just creates more hate for the system among the disenfranchised, profiled etc..

You know earning points or loosing points would make more sense.

You know depending on the type of crime they would loose a certain number of points and go down in pay.

You know they might earn points by completing rehab programs, doing community work, staying drug free, getting course credits, working, etc..

You know it is still going to be less than keeping them in jail. It also gives them a means to pay fines, or restitution.

Doing some drugs might not be a big deal but heavier drug use like crack, meth etc.. might earn bigger point reductions.

You can't expect people to be perfect but you can make them less bad.

Some of these points might be cash others might be options for free education, a drivers license, etc... you know state benefits that would otherwise be out of reach to them. You know incentivising good social behaviour.

WE need to recognize there are serious crimes and laws that are on the books. Some crimes are really temporary and not a big deal but are made a big deal and cost taxpayers thousands. That is just madness. You know jaywalking, getting caught with pot, getting into a fight where no one is really hurt, speeding etc.. these are all just non-serious nuisances, wasting thousands on stuff like that is just nonsense.

Institutionalizing people over that stuff is just idiocy.

Crimes where no one is a victim needs to be treated differently.

Who in their right mind wants to feed and house a screwup, who will only be a bigger screw up who faces even more barriers to being a good citizen when you are done with them. It is just madness.


----------



## Will2

Real Old Man said:


> First your thoughts are just plain foolish and not well grounded in the real criminal world.


I don't agree.



> Denton is correct giving criminals $1000 / month not to comit crimes is out and out extortion.


Your opinion.



> But what you have no clue about is the mentality of the Criminals.


Oh really. You tell it man, you must know everything, huh.



> Most know no other way of life. If they've been incarcerated for any length of time, they've lost touch with the real world which has long since passed them by.


Limiting the level of institutionalization is really important. Bear in mind you don't seem to know your facts as long terms of incarceration actually reduce recidivism rates for specific demographics. Knowing what approach to take with what is what is important here.



> Family, they to have moved on with life with out Brother, sister, mom or dad. And a good many use the criminal as a constant reminder that that's what happens to you if you chose crime over hard work.


I don't see it that way. I see it as a reminder of how the government failed to correct a social issue. Seeing failures of government is no remark on the individual.



> And for those that say crime doesn't pay, wake up and smell the horse crap you all are shovelling. They see the top thugs with good looking women, all the dope they can handle and cash much easier than working a hard labor job. Hell there's almost a stop and rob on every other street corner. And those stinking little asians won't have the nerve to fight back against a big bad nasty boy.


There are many many types of criminals you seem to have an image painted in your mind what a criminal is. I think you are out of touch.



> And remember the tax payers are only paying so much cause you stinking liberals want to pander these poor misunderstood innocents. Crap. They should get grits three times a day, with water. No tv, no exercise machines, a cell that's 6' x 10', and no books other than a math book and an english reader.
> 
> Rape some one - execution - two days after being found guilty. Kill some one (don't care the reason - other than self defense) and hang them two days after the verdict is in.
> 
> Save the tax payers money execute every one with a 12 gauge shot gun blast into their open mouth up thru the roof of their mouth.


Sounds like you are Russian, or even worse perhaps.

I can't understand how people are so demented as to be called for summary executions of people. It to me is awfully extremist. Seems like you all have no respect for life that are towing that line.

There are a variety of rape laws I wouldn't consider every rape case to be merited for execution. None the less, I do think that easier access to sex would lower the rate of rape cases.

The laws of Æthelbert directed that anyone who 'take revenge before he
demand justice' was to provide compensation (Thorpe 1840: 109), and the laws
of Ine (died 726) required that the killing of a thief be justified by showing that
'he whom he killed was a thief trying to escape' (Simpson 1981: 74)

You know I need to draw your attention to Packer's The Limits of Criminal Sanction, the first page actually.

"The retributive position is an old one, and its content has not changed much over the centuries. It holds, very simply, that man is a responsible moral agent to whom rewards are due when he makes right moral choices and to whom punishment is due when he makes wrong ones." Read the book.

None the less I have to say you only seem to account for the wrong moral actions. Society should also reward those who make right decisions.

A one sided application of morality for past acts doesn't treat someone as they are due. One wrong act should not cause others to ignore many right acts, nor should it block access to the right path through an intent of ruin of a person for something they did in the past.


----------



## Boss Dog

I knew there was a reason I like that ignore button.


----------



## SittingElf

> Originally Posted by *Denton*
> 
> Really?
> 
> You are attempting to stifle an American's right to free speech. That means you are attempting to violate an American's 1st amendment right. You are guilty of violating the law of nature and nature's God, and that is the highest law of this land. That makes you a criminal in the highest order.





> by Will2:
> 
> While it lasts, I'll try to respond to some of the comments I received before my ban for complaining about copyright violations of my youtube content.
> 
> Likewise I think there is a certain respect people should have with others copyright in that if they request you not use their copyright you don't use it.


With all due respect.... if you want to copyright and restrict your videos...you can't use YouTube.

From their Terms of Service:

*6. Your Content and Conduct*


As a YouTube account holder you may submit Content to the Service, including videos and user comments. You understand that YouTube does not guarantee any confidentiality with respect to any Content you submit. 
You shall be solely responsible for your own Content and the consequences of submitting and publishing your Content on the Service. You affirm, represent, and warrant that you own or have the necessary licenses, rights, consents, and permissions to publish Content you submit; and you license to YouTube all patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights in and to such Content for publication on the Service pursuant to these Terms of Service. 
For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your Content. *However, by submitting Content to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Content in connection with the Service and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Service (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels. You also hereby grant each user of the Service a non-exclusive license to access your Content through the Service, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such Content as permitted through the functionality of the Service and under these Terms of Service. *The above licenses granted by you in video Content you submit to the Service terminate within a commercially reasonable time after you remove or delete your videos from the Service. You understand and agree, however, that YouTube may retain, but not display, distribute, or perform, server copies of your videos that have been removed or deleted. The above licenses granted by you in user comments you submit are perpetual and irrevocable. 

Just saying.....


----------



## SittingElf

Will,

One thing (and rare I admit), that you and I might agree on is that I would support releasing non-violent prisoners whose crime was simply drug use or possession without the intent of sale. That group makes up a very large percentage of our prisoner population, and a waste of taxpayer money. What they get in prison is the WRONG education, and many will leave prison with the wrong new skills. Community service would be a much more appropriate punishment for these minor offenders.

Case in point.... There is a man in Texas who is serving LIFE for having been convicted for the third time....for possession of Marijuana. Even the judge didn't want to sentence him, but the law required the Life sentence...just like California's three strikes law.

We need judicial discretion....not hard laws that take the "judge" out of the Judgement.


----------



## That Bald White Guy

Yet another idiotic way our government decides to spend the money we sweat for. All why continually taking for more & more.


----------



## Will2

SittingElf said:


> With all due respect.... if you want to copyright and restrict your videos...you can't use YouTube.
> 
> From their Terms of Service:
> 
> [*]For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your Content. *However, by submitting Content to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Content in connection with the Service and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Service (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels. You also hereby grant each user of the Service a non-exclusive license to access your Content through the Service, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such Content as permitted through the functionality of the Service and under these Terms of Service. *


You are not Youtube. You have no license whatsoever to my content, users of youtube are allowed to access the content through their youtube user account and use the youtube service to interact with that content. As indicated I am the sole owner. Youtube has distribution rights within its service. IE Youtube.com You have no rights whatsoever to distribute my content.

THIS IS NOT YOUTUBE.COM

You have no rights to redistribute the content on other websites.

Prepperforums.net IS NOT A YOUTUBE SERVICE.

I have no intention to discuss this further but if you want a license to distribute my content you will need to pay me otherwise you are breaching my copyright.

There is absolutely no allowance for you to redistribute my content or in anyway use that content outside of youtube.

Stop redistributing my content you have no right to. If you want to buy a license from me PM me and we can discuss intended use and rates.
*4. General Use of the Service-Permissions and Restrictions
YouTube hereby grants you permission to access and use the Service as set forth in these Terms of Service, provided that:

You agree not to distribute in any medium any part of the Service or the Content without YouTube's prior written authorization*

*You agree not to access Content through any technology or means other than the video playback pages of the Service itself, the Embeddable Player, or other explicitly authorized means YouTube may designate.*

BBcode is not youtubes embedded player.

ACCESS IS NOT DISTRIBUTION!!!

You can access the content where I post it, or on youtube. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO POST IT WITHOUT MY PERMISSION, or A LICENSE.

The glaring abuse is the problem in that you have been asked not to post content in relation to me, use of my content explicitly contrary to my wishes is incredibly offensive.

This is the only place you should be accessing my videos

www.youtube.com
YouTube app on Android and iOS
YouTube app on TVs including Xbox, Google TV, PlayStation, and Chromecast
m.youtube.com accessed from most smartphones

Anywhere else is a violation of my content control.

The only exception to this is content I designate and personally assign. This applies to all my youtube accounts, I have more than one.

YOU HAVE NO DISTRIBUTION RIGHTS WHATSOEVER sittingelf, and others. Pay me or remove and stop using my content on non-authorized platforms.


----------



## Will2

SittingElf said:


> Will,
> 
> One thing (and rare I admit), that you and I might agree on is that I would support releasing non-violent prisoners


Just to clarify I don't think it is violence or non violence nor does it apply to everyone, but I think there are some people who don't really plan their crimes and those people need tools to manage their lives to prevent a repeat of those events. Other people have bad living situations that are at the root of their criminal causes.



> whose crime was simply drug use or possession without the intent of sale.


I think for organic drugs for sure. I think when it comes to hard drugs we need to consider the quantity more, as the stuff can be dangerous. Drug users definately should be put through drug court though, not criminal court, and people destroying their lives with unhealthy lifesyles should altleast be given a way out if they want it.



> That group makes up a very large percentage of our prisoner population, and a waste of taxpayer money. What they get in prison is the WRONG education, and many will leave prison with the wrong new skills. Community service would be a much more appropriate punishment for these minor offenders.


I agree.


----------



## SittingElf

Oh well....I tried. Sigh.....


----------



## Real Old Man

Will2 said:


> What you fail to recognize is that this reduces costs to tax payers not the other way around.
> 
> Incarceration costs run anywhere from $2500 a month to a much higher costs talking thousands and thousands just to keep people locked up.
> 
> Just off the top of stopping them being sent to jail is saving you $1500 minimum each month.
> 
> That is right for every thousand that represents a savings of $1500
> 
> Do you want to pay 1000$ to keep someone a law abiding citizen or pay $2500 to make them a criminal and have your loved one killed as a result?
> 
> This is not even taking into consideration other costs like legal costs.
> 
> For terrorism related stuff, which I am sure you'd rather solve the chinese way, costs are close to $1,000,000 per inmate.
> 
> Isolation you are looking at $5000 a month for the really dangerous offenders.
> 
> Realize that getting inmates a college education and getting them involved in the community, and other social programming with their needs taken care of will save you money through removing them from the penal correction system which costs way more than social programming to keep them out of jail.
> 
> Good people are not made in jail, that is where criminals are made.
> Good people are made in the community where they are encouraged and feel a sense of belonging.
> 
> You are more concerned with what they did than how they can be made better.


Welcome back. Really have missed you foolish posts.

Now back on point. Since you claim to have not had much of an education in the workings of the criminal mind (that's right I don't think you have a criminal mind. For the life of me I'm not sure anyone can guess what type of mind you do have), let me give you a short lesson. Denton was right paying money for criminals to not bother you is called protection money - i.e. extortion. It's what the gangsters did in Chicago back in the 20's and 30's. It's classed as a Racket and we have a federal statute on it it's called RICO. But even if you did pay these criminals your protection money, it won't stop them from committing crimes. They'll just move to a town city or state where they haven't gotten their racket money and put the bite on this next group of folks.

Secondly since you've never been inside a prison, let me tell you these mopes are not even interested in getting their high school degree, much less a college degree. It's only by making it a requirement of their release from prison that they will grudgingly go to classes.

Thirdly, you can't make someone better if they don't want to be made better. Heck most of them don't think what they did to get locked up was in anyway shape or fashion wrong. And like they say in AA if you can't realize that what you did/are doing is morally wrong, you'll never be able to get off the - Booze, drugs, gambling or criminal life style.

Perhaps you should do thirty days in an American Prison to see just what these folks are really like before you spout off about something that you know absolutely nothing about.


----------



## Prepared One

SittingElf said:


> Oh well....I tried. Sigh.....


What we have here is a failure to comprehend. Or a lost cause, take your pick.:grin:


----------



## Will2

Real Old Man said:


> Welcome back. Really have missed you foolish posts.
> 
> Now back on point. Since you claim to have not had much of an education in the workings of the criminal mind


What? At no point did I claim not to have much of an education in the workings of the criminal mind.

I am a prospective legal studies student. I've done numerous courses regarding criminal conduct. I've been doing social studies for over a decade now. I just finished a course on criminology. While I am not an expert, I have the sense I have far more knowledge than people calling for summary executions for all people convicted of a crime. My studies continue with my current courses being policing, treatment of juveniles, and conflict resolution, in addition to medieval and roman archaeology.

Turning this discussion to about me again is just a failure of any intelligent discussion.



> let me give you a short lesson. Denton was right paying money for criminals to not bother you is called protection money - i.e. extortion.


It is paying them to instill law abiding lifestyles, as a side effect victimization of the public also doesn't occur.



> It's what the gangsters did in Chicago back in the 20's and 30's. It's classed as a Racket and we have a federal statute on it it's called RICO. But even if you did pay these criminals your protection money, it won't stop them from committing crimes. They'll just move to a town city or state where they haven't gotten their racket money and put the bite on this next group of folks.


You are taking one model and applying it to another model. Personally I don't think just paying them is the end, but it is the start. It is about managing certain people who are at risk of jail, and creating lower costing alternatives that deter crime through positive reinforcement rather than negative reinforcement and amplifying their criminal lifestyles.



> Secondly since you've never been inside a prison,


You don't know me, nor is this discussion about me.



> let me tell you these mopes are not even interested in getting their high school degree, much less a college degree.


That is part of the environmental issue. Jails arn't schools. They arn't designed to be schools and that is why they are a failure for giving people the tools they need to succeed on the outside.



> Thirdly, you can't make someone better if they don't want to be made better.


I totally disagree. I believe more in social indoctrination and propaganda than free will and a mind that can't be made healthy.



> Heck most of them don't think what they did to get locked up was in anyway shape or fashion wrong. And like they say in AA if you can't realize that what you did/are doing is morally wrong, you'll never be able to get off the - Booze, drugs, gambling or criminal life style.





> Perhaps you should do thirty days in an American Prison to see just what these folks are really like before you spout off about something that you know absolutely nothing about.


I was in San Mateo for an extended time, for trying to catch a plane or bus home from San Diego. (No crime committed customs said I was trying to live in the US, which I wasn't) I've been housed with people who were drug traffickers, weapons offenders, drug lords, and others, from all around the world. While I have never been held in jail for committing a crime, I've been in custody before for various administrative purposes.

None the less, you don't know me so don't talk about me.


----------



## OctopusPrime

Real life experience is what matters. University is there to give you the basic fundamentals of what ever specialty you are pursuing. Masters one step further and PHD another step further. I got a BA in history, but I am by no means even close to a history teacher/professor/archivist/curator ect. Just because you take a law course or even 20 courses does not mean jack in the real world. In specific regards to law and criminal justice...Book smart...Street smart... there is a difference, and it is huge. You get into a debate in a court room with a seasoned lawyer, and you will get your ass handed to you.


----------



## Real Old Man

Will2 said:


> What? At no point did I claim not to have much of an education in the workings of the criminal mind.
> 
> I am a prospective legal studies student. I've done numerous courses regarding criminal conduct. I've been doing social studies for over a decade now. I just finished a course on criminology. While I am not an expert, I have the sense I have far more knowledge than people calling for summary executions for all people convicted of a crime. My studies continue with my current courses being policing, treatment of juveniles, and conflict resolution, in addition to medieval and roman archaeology.
> 
> Turning this discussion to about me again is just a failure of any intelligent discussion.
> 
> It is paying them to instill law abiding lifestyles, as a side effect victimization of the public also doesn't occur.
> 
> You are taking one model and applying it to another model. Personally I don't think just paying them is the end, but it is the start. It is about managing certain people who are at risk of jail, and creating lower costing alternatives that deter crime through positive reinforcement rather than negative reinforcement and amplifying their criminal lifestyles.
> 
> You don't know me, nor is this discussion about me.
> 
> That is part of the environmental issue. Jails arn't schools. They arn't designed to be schools and that is why they are a failure for giving people the tools they need to succeed on the outside.
> 
> I totally disagree. I believe more in social indoctrination and propaganda than free will and a mind that can't be made healthy.
> 
> I was in San Mateo for an extended time, for trying to catch a plane or bus home from San Diego. (No crime committed customs said I was trying to live in the US, which I wasn't) I've been housed with people who were drug traffickers, weapons offenders, drug lords, and others, from all around the world. While I have never been held in jail for committing a crime, I've been in custody before for various administrative purposes.
> 
> None the less, you don't know me so don't talk about me.


Book learning is no basis for suggesting how the real world works. And it's not about you, it is about your level of real world experience.

Take it from those of us that have had to deal with these miscreants for decades. We can tell you what works and what doesn't. And Prison is first and foremost a punishment and only secondarily a method for rehabilitating the criminals.

As for our criminal population we have here in the commonwealth 33,000 inmates (in our prisons) who do not go out in public and commit crimes on the 8 million virginians who live here. Most are incarcerated in our facilities for on average 5 - 10 years. That's 5 - 10 years where these felons can not commit a crime against our citizens. That's right for that time frame they can't rob, rape, murder.

Can some of them be rehabilitted? Maybe. Not too many.

But like I said, commit a murder you should hang, commit a rape you should hang, set a fire of an occuppied structure you should hang. And that hanging should occur as soon after the trial as possible. not 10 years down the road, one appeal and off to the gallows.


----------



## Real Old Man

Hey little willie: Just to give you a hint at what crime is like here in the USofA. 

14 billion in property loss is nothing to sneeze at, nor is 1 million plus violent crimes.

Facts not book learning.


Here are some highlights from Crime in the United States, 2014:

There were an estimated 1,165,383 violent crimes (murder and non-negligent homicides, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults) reported by law enforcement.
Aggravated assaults accounted for 63.6 percent of the violent crimes reported, while robberies accounted for 28.0 percent, rape 7.2 percent, and murders 1.2 percent.
There were an estimated 8,277,829 property crimes (burglaries, larceny-thefts, and motor vehicle thefts) reported by law enforcement. Financial losses suffered by victims of these crimes were calculated at approximately $14.3 billion.
Larceny-theft accounted for 70.8 percent of all property crimes reported, burglary for 20.9 percent, and motor vehicle theft for 8.3 percent
Police made an estimated 11,205,833 arrests during 2014—498,666 for violent crimes, and 1,553,980 for property crimes. More than 73 percent of those arrested during 2014 were male.
The highest number of arrests was for drug abuse violations (1,561,231), followed by larceny-theft (1,238,190) and driving under the influence (1,117,852).


----------



## BuckB

Will2 said:


> What? At no point did I claim not to have much of an education in the workings of the criminal mind.
> 
> I am a prospective legal studies student. I've done numerous courses regarding criminal conduct. I've been doing social studies for over a decade now. I just finished a course on criminology. While I am not an expert, I have the sense I have far more knowledge than people calling for summary executions for all people convicted of a crime. My studies continue with my current courses being policing, treatment of juveniles, and conflict resolution, in addition to medieval and roman archaeology.


According to your LinkedIn account you are a firefighter (with a summary of "mushrooms" - whatever the hell that means). According to Facebook, you are an electrical engineer.

You are just an all around Renaissance Man aren't you?


----------



## Will2

BuckB said:


> According to your LinkedIn account you are a firefighter (with a summary of "mushrooms" - whatever the hell that means). According to Facebook, you are an electrical engineer.
> 
> You are just an all around Renaissance Man aren't you?


I've done training in various things. I'm not a kid I have decades of training. I've done various jobs and I have a variety of experiences from all walks of life.

None the less I am not the topic of this discussion and the continuous fixation on myself, is seen as stalking and is disturbing.

I have nothing kind to say to you.

Your fixative harassment is unwanted.

I don't maintain my social media accounts and they have been created for various purposes.

If I am not sending you a resume, and you don't know me, why don't you do me a favour and don't troll my social media.

I can't confirm anything none the less I have no obligation to maintain my social media, nor do I have an obligation not to make decoy accounts or include misinformation online to stop stalkers from profiling and harassing me.

None the less this thread ain't about me so why not talk about the topic instead of fixate. It is obsessive.

I don't agree with many of you.You don't like my opinion whatever. You feel compelled to attack me whenever you don't agree with my ideas. Mature intelligent people don't do that. That is what uneducated hicks do.


----------



## essdub

I'm no expert here, especially when it comes to the personalities who have been here a LOT longer than I have. But one thing that gets me is that you claim to be for a small government, but seem to think that it's the government's failure to stop these things that "cause"the criminals to commit crimes, and then another failure in that the govt doesn't "fix"the criminal after the fact, and that you think there need to be more "social programming" type programs, and paying criminals to not commit crimes. 
Where, praytell would a govt as small and efficient as the one you claim to want ever have the resources to pull off ANY of these things, much less all of them?

That sounds like a seriously oversized, overreaching , big brother, thought police type of govt. 
A small govt would have more money because it wouldn't be interfering in citizens lives in such a way. It wouldn't have, want, or need the manpower or the authority to enforce any such program. 
I'm all for some of the things you've proposed, as long as the"help"is being offered by private citizens or companies of their own free will. For instance maybe company x thinks that they could utilize skills that people convicted of certain crime might possess, so they could approach the criminal, the court, whoever and offer some type of solution that could possibly benefit everyone. But the key is that it would have to be voluntary on the part of the people who are footing the bill. That, I might support. 
Govt taking more off my money to give even more to people who WON'T try to earn their own way? I'll never support


----------



## Will2

essdub said:


> you claim to be for a small government,


My personal political position is minarchism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism



> but seem to think that it's the government's failure to stop these things that "cause"the criminals to commit crimes,


Yes, I think that big government has created institutions that foster criminal culture, and that criminal culture feeds and grows more criminal activity. One major element of that is the dismal penal corrections system that fails to rehabilitate people nor provides them with useful skills that will enable the find gainful employment, for some to leave a criminal lifestyle.



> and then another failure in that the govt doesn't "fix"the criminal after the fact, and that you think there need to be more "social programming" type programs, and paying criminals to not commit crimes


I think some people would benefit by having stable living environments where they are happy with their life, and can lead a law abiding life style that will help their personality grow to appreciate what they have, to act as a deterrent to recidivism.

There are many indicators of likelyhood of criminal activity, lack of education, lack of positive social bonds, a desire to do something tomorrow, not being substance dependent, having family/kids, etc. The more inputs to a law abiding lifestyle you provide the less likely someone is to commit another crime, for various criminal types.

. 


> Where, praytell would a govt as small and efficient as the one you claim to want ever have the resources to pull off ANY of these things, much less all of them?


Lets be realistic, you can't have an ideal system, you need to work with what you have. So I support making a better system, one that costs less, and is more effective. Utopias are in books, you don't get Utopias out of thin air, it takes decades for social change to occur.

You know things like offering access to driver's licences, business licenses and removing other fees for service government red tape barriers to employment is just one of many things that could be done. You need to give people the opportunity, access without barrier is just one way to provide opportunities for social integration.



> That sounds like a seriously oversized, overreaching , big brother, thought police type of govt.
> A small govt would have more money because it wouldn't be interfering in citizens lives in such a way. It wouldn't have, want, or need the manpower or the authority to enforce any such program.
> I'm all for some of the things you've proposed, as long as the"help"is being offered by private citizens or companies of their own free will. For instance maybe company x thinks that they could utilize skills that people convicted of certain crime might possess, so they could approach the criminal, the court, whoever and offer some type of solution that could possibly benefit everyone. But the key is that it would have to be voluntary on the part of the people who are footing the bill. That, I might support.
> Govt taking more off my money to give even more to people who WON'T try to earn their own way? I'll never support


What you don't get is that it isn't more money, it is less.

You pay more to keep people in jail than you do to pay them to stay out of it.

You don't value people, you value the idea of labour. You I am guessing are a socialist.

Fact is, if there is no work people can't work, they can't live.

If you don't make work or get them training so they can get work, they resort to criminal lifestyles.

You want ideals but don't seem to understand the world isn't some magical fairy land where everyone who wants gainful employment gets it.

You are only pushing what you think should be the way it is, but you arn't offering gateways so people can live that life, so you are all talk. You arn't offering oppourtunities for people to live a good life. If you don't do that you don't have a deterent to a criminal lifestyle.

Keep focus on what this discussion is about.

Government ends up wasting tons of resources managing people to be unproductive. That is idiocy. Sanity says manage people to be productive contributing members of society.

If you want people to be productive and add to society then create work for them to do that.

You are expecting people to do something they have no way to do. It is failure by design. You are just making something to be the enemy and to hate.

There are various types of criminals, and this won't work for everything, but we need to address people stuck in the rut of criminal lifestyle, we need to help people who are substance dependent the chance to clean up and start fresh in a new environment, we need to get screwups a chance to fix what made them screw ups. We can't fix all bad people, but there are some who can be helped, and helping them lowers the cost to society. Forcing people to the lowest rung of society, one of the most expensive rungs for taxpayers, as totally dependent institutionalized people is the exact opposite of what any minarchist would seek. We need to reduce the bloat of government by giving people freedom.

It in large part is the culture that needs to be confronted, and you can't do that with negative reinforcement, you solidify opposition to legal rule by punishing dissent, and blocking access to enfranchisment won't gain compliance once they gain freedom from scrutiny.

Many criminals don't think they will be caught or face retribution for their acts when they commit them. They commit acts because a lawful lifestyle offers them less benefits than a criminal one.

Fixing people costs less than shelving them.

It also doesn't require an extensive bureaucracy, and definitely less bureaucracy than the penal system does.


----------



## BuckB

Will2 said:


> I've done training in various things. I'm not a kid I have decades of training. I've done various jobs and I have a variety of experiences from all walks of life.
> 
> None the less I am not the topic of this discussion and the continuous fixation on myself, is seen as stalking and is disturbing.
> 
> I have nothing kind to say to you.
> 
> Your fixative harassment is unwanted.
> 
> I don't maintain my social media accounts and they have been created for various purposes.
> 
> If I am not sending you a resume, and you don't know me, why don't you do me a favour and don't troll my social media.
> 
> I can't confirm anything none the less I have no obligation to maintain my social media, nor do I have an obligation not to make decoy accounts or include misinformation online to stop stalkers from profiling and harassing me.
> 
> None the less this thread ain't about me so why not talk about the topic instead of fixate. It is obsessive.
> 
> I don't agree with many of you.You don't like my opinion whatever. You feel compelled to attack me whenever you don't agree with my ideas. Mature intelligent people don't do that. That is what uneducated hicks do.


I disagree Will. You are the PERFECT case study for this thread. By your own admission you have had many run ins with the authorities. So by your own logic, if the Canadian government were to pay you $1000 per month, do the members here believe there would be less need in the future for the police to arrest you?

I think it is an excellent topic and it really brings your own suggestion out of the realm of theory and puts a more real-world spin on it.

Thanks for taking one for the team!

Your friend

Buck Bored


----------



## essdub

I'll agree with you that the current system is not effective. Plus, it's extremely expensive. But I disagree with you about how to fix it. 
The way to fix the problem is not to reward bad behavior. The responsibility for your actIons lies solely upon your own shoulders. It's not the government's responsibility to fix you. Nor is it my responsibility to fix you. I'd probably contribute to an organization who had a clear plan to try to rehab certain types of criminals. I already give to local organizations (churches mostly, and law enforcement) that have programs which try to educate and show"disadvantaged"people a better way. The govt doesn't have any money to give. Every dollar they give away to someone who didn't trade an equivalent value in goods or services makes every dollar we have in our wallets worth less. Then they just take more because the same dollar they took yesterday doesn't pay off as many criminals today. 
I'm all for seCond chances. I'm all for a better way. Smaller govt is a better way, but then who is gonna give a free life to those who WON'T go earn one? Nobody. Life is hard. There are no free rides. Tough lesson. Work, or starve. Wanna rob people of their hard earned money? Rape? Murder? SeCond chance for robbery maybe if it's a minor (and then they would have to be put into some sort of forced labor prison for a time- which would be a severe deterrent for future crime).
No second chance for other violent offences (murder, rape, armed robbery - especially if there's been one already).

I'll agree that people respond to social programming. 
Just what are they being programmed to think if we reward their bad behavior. If the punishment fit the crime, that's effective social programming. You learn pretty quick that you 'll be put to death if you do those things. Right now they've learned that if they get caught, and then IF they get convicted, then they MIGHT have to go to jail where everything is provided for them and they don't have to work for anything except "street cred".
effective programming for sure. I'll even agree that if a person is sentenced to prison that it be a requirement that they complete some sort of program which would maybe help the minority of the people incarcerated to live a better life once they are released. Learn a skill, learn something that would allow them to become productive citizens. It would only help a minority. Most of them COULD live productive lives, but choose crime because it's easier and more profitable and there's no real consequences. Hard labor and the requirement to learn something MIGHT help. But I doubt it will help many.


----------



## Will2

essdub said:


> I'll agree with you that the current system is not effective. Plus, it's extremely expensive. But I disagree with you about how to fix it.
> The way to fix the problem is not to reward bad behavior.


I'm not sure if you read all my posts in this thread, however, I do think that rewarding good behaviour is important. You are rewarding people for living law abiding lifestyles, not rewarding them for the crime they were convicted of. You are missing the boat on why the funding is being provided. It is being provided because they are staying out of jail and not breaking the law. That is rewarding good behaviour not rewarding bad behaviour.



> The responsibility for your actIons lies solely upon your own shoulders. It's not the government's responsibility to fix you. Nor is it my responsibility to fix you.


Well I'm just fine actually I don't need no fixing. None the less I don't agree with your position as the government is saying what is problem (antisocial) behaviour, if it isn't offering corrections and rehabilitation in its program, it is just throwing money down the drain.



> I'd probably contribute to an organization who had a clear plan to try to rehab certain types of criminals. I already give to local organizations (churches mostly, and law enforcement) that have programs which try to educate and show"disadvantaged"people a better way.


Whatever, sure being socially active is good, much better than just ignoring the world. Some of my family volunteers with the Salvation Army, they do a variety of things to help disadvantaged people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Salvation_Army



> The govt doesn't have any money to give. Every dollar they give away to someone who didn't trade an equivalent value in goods or services makes every dollar we have in our wallets worth less. Then they just take more because the same dollar they took yesterday doesn't pay off as many criminals today.


I don't think you really understand, that this costs less than jailing people, so if the government doesn't have money for this, it doesn't have money for jail. Just ignoring social issues also isn't an answer as it will lead to anomie and anarchy.



> I'm all for seCond chances. I'm all for a better way. Smaller govt is a better way, but then who is gonna give a free life to those who WON'T go earn one?


Because some people are disadvantaged and don't have options. A criminal record makes it that much harder.



> Nobody. Life is hard. There are no free rides. Tough lesson. Work, or starve. Wanna rob people of their hard earned money?


Not everyone has access to gainful employment. Desperate people do desperate things.



> Rape?


Some rape is cultural, other rape is due to body chemistry.

You know others have psychological problems, and others are just bad people with bad social values.



> Murder?


Some people kill on purpose others do it by accident. Some murder is very specific, other murder is habitual. You know not every murderer is the same.



> SeCond chance for robbery maybe if it's a minor (and then they would have to be put into some sort of forced labor prison for a time- which would be a severe deterrent for future crime).
> No second chance for other violent offences (murder, rape, armed robbery - especially if there's been one already).


This is your view. I think it is more about the person than what they were convicted of that matters.



> I'll agree that people respond to social programming.
> Just what are they being programmed to think if we reward their bad behavior.


I'm not suggesting bad behaviour be rewarded. I am not sure where you are getting that from.



> If the punishment fit the crime, that's effective social programming. You learn pretty quick that you 'll be put to death if you do those things. Right now they've learned that if they get caught, and then IF they get convicted, then they MIGHT have to go to jail where everything is provided for them and they don't have to work for anything except "street cred".
> effective programming for sure


There are a wide variety of people who will respond differently to different things. Sending gang people to prison don't fix them, it hardens them. None the less lots of different types of crimes and criminals. I think the worst thing that can be done is overgeneralization, or fixate on acts you don't like, when we should be focusing on the people and if they can be fixed.

You seem to be someone more concerned with punishment and retribution, than corrections and rehabilitation. In this case it is clear there are some acts that you consider undeserving of humane treatment or for a person to try to live a crime free future.

Obviously if you have already prejudged people no post sentencing program will ever be useful because you don't want those people to reintegrate into society.

I think the failure is that you think everyone who kills someone is an evil person who can't lead a normal life. I can't agree some people have a specific situation where they make a bad choice, that doesn't mean they will ever make that choice again.

I also have this sense you have never been to jail but think it is some place where people are tortured. That isn't the case, it is dead time. People make criminal links there and learn how to commit crimes better and not get caught.


----------



## Will2

BuckB said:


> I disagree Will. You are the PERFECT case study for this thread. By your own admission you have had many run ins with the authorities. So by your own logic, if the Canadian government were to pay you $1000 per month, do the members here believe there would be less need in the future for the police to arrest you?
> 
> I think it is an excellent topic and it really brings your own suggestion out of the realm of theory and puts a more real-world spin on it.
> 
> Thanks for taking one for the team!
> 
> Your friend
> 
> Buck Bored


I cost about $3000 a month actually. I'll take your $1000 though, PM to arrange for payment.

Just to correct your delusion though. No I don't have problems with authorities. I am not a Yes man though. Sometimes you need to stand up for what you think is right. Some times that means administration is required, sometimes you need to discuss those things. This isn't a totalitarian dictatorship where some specific person rules everyone else. You seem to have a warped view of life that has seeded power tripping mentalities behind it.

Due process is just part of the system. Being a pushover who surrenders their rights is nonsense. You have rights to use them, not to let dictatorship delegate your life.


----------



## essdub

I don't think jail it's a place where people are tortured. I think it's a place where a lot of people go to get a free ride when they get caught trying to get a free ride on the outside. 
I agree that some people can be rehabilitated. 
Sometimes killing isn't murder (accidents, self defense, etc. )
I think you're using a very liberal definition of rape. Rape as I'm referring to it means forcing someone to have sex. Usually violently or with threat of violence. 
Paying them not to commit crimes IS rewarding bad behavior. Here's how: reward (money) being given for. .. nothing. 
How about this, I'd be a lot more willing to support a organization that offered some form of assistance to a former criminal who actually got a job. Any job. Bag boy, janitor, whatever. Reward them by allowing them access to some of the programs already in existence. Ebt (food stamps), section 8, etc.
Why would anyone change bad behavior when they're rewarded for bad behavior. They're getting rewards now. Paying them not to commit crimes is just a slightly less repulsive way off rewarding bad behavior (being paid for nothing. Make no mistake, being paid, therefore taught, that you get money for nothing will lead to wanting, demanding more of something for less of nothing. Meaning they'll still commit crimes, but may try to be more crafty)
They're depending on the system for support. They'll work the system to dishonestly gain more. Just like they do now. 
The plan you describe sounds nice, but will not work. 
Rewards are earned. 
Gifts are given. Freely
I'm all for giving. 
But if you wanna be paid, you gotta do SOMETHING. Not doing something bad isn't the same as earning. You're not talking about rewarding good behavior. Your talking about increasing rewards for exchanging bad behavior for increased dependency.


----------



## Will2

essdub said:


> I don't think jail it's a place where people are tortured. I think it's a place where a lot of people go to get a free ride when they get caught trying to get a free ride on the outside.


So why would you want to send people there?



> I think you're using a very liberal definition of rape.


Rape is a very broad crime, if you want to refer to a specific type of rape, refer to it rather than using a generalized term. For instance the FBI changed their definition of rape for reporting purposes in 2012, it became effective in 2013

A: The old definition was "The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will." Many
agencies interpreted this definition as excluding a long list of sex offenses that are criminal in
most jurisdictions, such as offenses involving oral or anal penetration, penetration with objects,
and rapes of males.
The new Summary definition of Rape is: "Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or
anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without
the consent of the victim."

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/u...ew-rape-definition-frequently-asked-questions



> Rape as I'm referring to it means forcing someone to have sex. Usually violently or with threat of violence.


Well there is also stat rape, and other forms of non-consensual sex that don't require threats or violence. Tons of date rape these days is done with roofies.



> Paying them not to commit crimes IS rewarding bad behavior.


I don't think so, there is no bad behaviour involved. You don't pay them if they break the law.

Dude they do it anyway, their reward is why they do the bad behaviour, you are rewarding them for not doing the bad stuff, and doing good stuff. You totally illogically defy that simple truth.



> Here's how: reward (money) being given for. .. nothing.
> How about this, I'd be a lot more willing to support a organization that offered some form of assistance to a former criminal who actually got a job. Any job. Bag boy, janitor, whatever. Reward them by allowing them access to some of the programs already in existence. Ebt (food stamps), section 8, etc.


Some people want to live and commit crimes for that reason. You arn't removing the criminal act. Sure you may want some dude to work a crappy job, doesn't mean they will pick that over a quick score, or dealing crack.



> Why would anyone change bad behavior when they're rewarded for bad behavior.


I'm not suggesting rewarding bad behaviour I think you still have a disconnect.



> They're getting rewards now. Paying them not to commit crimes is just a slightly less repulsive way off rewarding bad behavior (being paid for nothing.


Much like giving a kid an allowance for not getting into trouble, this ain't any different. If they get good grades etc.. then they can get something material from it. I'm not suggesting giving them money for nothing, I'm saying that not breaking the law IS doing something for someone who normally breaks the law. You don't see it as something because I would assume your doing nothing is not breaking the law. Their not doing something is breaking the law. You are seeing it from your life instead of looking at it from their perspective. Until you see where they are coming from and view it from their life, you won't get it because you arn't even considering them. You have a model of what you want them to be, and think they are just like you but have broken the law, that ain't reality.



> They're depending on the system for support. They'll work the system to dishonestly gain more. Just like they do now.
> The plan you describe sounds nice, but will not work.
> Rewards are earned.
> Gifts are given. Freely
> I'm all for giving.
> But if you wanna be paid, you gotta do SOMETHING. Not doing something bad isn't the same as earning. You're not talking about rewarding good behavior. Your talking about increasing rewards for exchanging bad behavior for increased dependency.


You don't get it. Until you start seeing other peoples lives, you won't understand.

See it from their view, from their background and their experience. Placing your value system, and how you think life is, or how you live your life and apply it to them, is just nonsense.


----------



## Boss Dog

Not banned yet? sigh... :76:


----------



## BuckB

Will2 said:


> I cost about $3000 a month actually. I'll take your $1000 though, PM to arrange for payment.
> 
> Just to correct your delusion though. No I don't have problems with authorities. I am not a Yes man though. Sometimes you need to stand up for what you think is right. Some times that means administration is required, sometimes you need to discuss those things. This isn't a totalitarian dictatorship where some specific person rules everyone else. You seem to have a warped view of life that has seeded power tripping mentalities behind it.
> 
> Due process is just part of the system. Being a pushover who surrenders their rights is nonsense. You have rights to use them, not to let dictatorship delegate your life.


But just to clarify, you have been detained (by your own admission) on many occasions. So the question relevant to Will's proposition in this thread, how many members here think Will would modify his behavior to be detained less if he were paid $1000 per month by the Canadian government? And would his less frequent detention result in an overall savings?


----------



## NotTooProudToHide

We haven't been in Kansas for a minute now. Its a pretty sad world when prison sentences become a status symbol for street cred and homeless people look for reasons to get locked up so they have a warm place to sleep and food.

The more I think about it the more I believe the gangster/gangbanger lifestyle is the root of a good part of whats wrong in the world today. Kids think its cool to shout "F Da Police", do dope, have sex with as many partners as they can, rob/steal, not work, and finally collect government benefits. I also think prison/jail is becoming a catchall solution for many social problems including poverty and mental illness. There is no doubt we need to make some serious changes in this world and that includes nations outside of the United States. My first inclination is we need programs similar to what FDR put in place with the new deal including the WPA and CCC camps. Lets get these kids that really never had a chance out of the street, put them in a structured environment similar to a military camp that offers discipline and guidance, put them to work fixing our crumbling infrastructure, and pay them for that instead of not committing crimes. That would get the bridges repaired/rebuilt, the highways maintained, as well as keep some out of jail while providing valuable service to the country. I also think it would be cheaper to do it this way instead of incarcerating them and giving out bloated contracts to company's that give kickbacks to politicians.


----------



## SittingElf

Sheriff Arpaio in Arizona has vastly reduced the cost of incarceration. His inmates are housed in tents without AC. They work on chain gangs doing hard labor...by choice. The recidivism rate is far lower than other institutionalized prisons.

Arpaio's jail detention practices include serving inmates edibles recovered from food rescue and limiting meals to twice daily. He has also banned inmates from possessing "sexually explicit material" including _Playboy_ magazine, after female officers complained that inmates openly masturbated while viewing the articles. The ban was challenged on First Amendment grounds, but was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
In February 2007, Arpaio instituted an in-house radio station he calls KJOE. Arpaio's radio station broadcasts classical music, opera, Frank Sinatra hits, patriotic music and educational programming. It operates five days a week, four hours each day.

*"Tent City" confinement*

Arpaio set up a "Tent City" in 1993 as an extension of the Maricopa County Jail for convicted and sentenced prisoners. Arpaio has described Tent City as a concentration camp. Tent City is located in a yard next to a more permanent structure.
On July 2, 2011, when the temperature in Phoenix hit 118 °F (48 °C), Arpaio measured the temperature inside Tent City tents at 145 °F (63 °C). Some inmates complained that fans near their beds were not working, and that their shoes were melting from the heat. During the summer of 2003, when outside temperatures exceeded 110 °F (43 °C), Arpaio said to complaining inmates, "It's 120 degrees in Iraq and the soldiers are living in tents and they didn't commit any crimes, so shut your mouths."
In 1997, Amnesty International said Arpaio's Tent City jail is not an "adequate or humane alternative to housing inmates in suitable ... jail facilities." Tent City is criticized by groups contending that there are violations of human and constitutional rights.
In 2005, Pearl Wilson whose son was murdered in Tent City, wrote a letter to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors asking for Tent City to be torn down.
Arpaio stated that he reserves the punishment of living in tent city "for those who have been convicted."
*
Volunteer chain gangs*

In 1995, Arpaio reinstituted chain gangs. In 1996, he expanded the chain gang concept by instituting female volunteer chain gangs.
Female inmates work seven hours a day (7 a.m. to 2 p.m.), six days a week. He has also instituted the world's first all-juvenile volunteer chain gang; volunteers earn high school credit toward a diploma.

*Pink underwear*

One of Arpaio's public-relations actions was the requirement that inmates wear pink underwear. Arpaio subsequently started to sell customized pink boxers (with the Maricopa County Sheriff's logo and "Go Joe") as a fund-raiser for Sheriff's Posse Association. Despite allegations of misuse of funds received from these sales, Arpaio declined to provide an accounting for the money.
Arpaio's success in gaining press coverage with the pink underwear resulted in his extending the use of the color. He introduced pink handcuffs, using the event to promote his book, _Sheriff Joe Arpaio, America's Toughest Sheriff_. Arpaio has said "I can get elected on pink underwear...I've done it five times."[SUP][[/SUP]
*
Selective Service registration and organ donation program*

In 2001, he was the first sheriff to require all inmates aged 18 and over to register for the Selective Service System. Since 2001, a total of 28,000 inmates (including 9,000 aliens) have registered for Selective Service.
Arpaio also started the "Have a Heart" program in which inmates may volunteer to be organ donors.

*Also impressive are the Sheriff's get tough policies. For example, he banned smoking, coffee, movies, pornographic magazines, and unrestricted TV in all jails. He has the cheapest meals in the U.S. too. The average meal costs between 15 and 40 cents, and inmates are fed only twice daily, to cut the labor costs of meal delivery. He even stopped serving them salt and pepper to save tax payers $20,000 a year.*

Another program Arpaio is very well known for is the pink underwear he makes all inmates wear. Years ago, when the Sheriff learned that inmates were stealing jailhouse white boxers, Arpaio had all inmate underwear dyed pink for better inventory control. The same is true for the Sheriff's handcuffs. When they started disappearing, he ordered pink handcuffs as a replacement.

Arpaio has started another controversial program on the website Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. Mugshots of all those arrested (about 300 per day) are posted on the Sheriff's website as they are booked and processed into jail. Just under a million hits daily come into the website, making it one of the most visible law enforcement sites on the internet.

*In addition to these tough measures, the Sheriff has launched rehabilitative programs like "Hard Knocks High," the only accredited high school under a Sheriff in an American jail, and ALPHA, an anti-substance-abuse program that has greatly reduced recidivism.
*
[SUP]
_______________________

THIS is how to run a jail!! Cheap, effective, and rehabilitative. Lower recidivism and real punishment, not a resort hotel. He even separates veterans from main population to help with PTSD and other issues and works to get them back on their feet. AMERICA'S SHERIFF....hated by every leftist organization in existence! (ACLU, SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, DEMOCRATS, and MORE)

Go Joe!
[/SUP]


----------



## Will2

BuckB said:


> But just to clarify


If you want to ask me questions I suggest you PM me. I am not the topic of this discussion.



> , you have been detained (by your own admission) on many occasions.


No sorry. I haven't been detained on many occasions. I suggest you stop trolling me and creating a fantasy version of my life. It is sick.



> So the question relevant to Will's proposition in this thread, how many members here think Will would modify his behavior to be detained less if he were paid $1000 per month by the Canadian government? And would his less frequent detention result in an overall savings?


Here is a better idea why don't you put up the money or try sticking to the topic.

You are delusional. Stop bugging me.


----------



## BuckB

Will2 said:


> I cost about $3000 a month actually. I'll take your $1000 though, PM to arrange for payment.
> 
> Just to correct your delusion though. No I don't have problems with authorities. I am not a Yes man though. Sometimes you need to stand up for what you think is right. Some times that means administration is required, sometimes you need to discuss those things. This isn't a totalitarian dictatorship where some specific person rules everyone else. You seem to have a warped view of life that has seeded power tripping mentalities behind it.
> 
> Due process is just part of the system. Being a pushover who surrenders their rights is nonsense. You have rights to use them, not to let dictatorship delegate your life.


So, your government is already paying you 3 times the amount you suggest paying criminals not to commit crimes. Yet, by your own estimates, you still require the police to "bug you" about once per year. So obviously, paying you to behave in a civil society is not working as well as you suggest it should.

Maybe it is time to try other means? Although I have not done an official cost-benefit analysis, I suggest the Canadian government try waterboarding or electroshock therapy. I know in my personal life, I have found electricty to be a great motivator.

Always trying to help

Buck Bored


----------



## Seneca

If I got this right, the victim of a crime would also be required (through paying taxes) to monetarily assist the perpetrator to the tune of a thousand a month. So the poor victim gets nailed twice once by the crook and again by the system. Where's the justice in that?


----------



## Real Old Man

Will2 said:


> If you want to ask me questions I suggest you PM me. I am not the topic of this discussion.
> 
> No sorry. I haven't been detained on many occasions. I suggest you stop trolling me and creating a fantasy version of my life. It is sick.
> 
> try sticking to the topic.


Willie you have taken it upon yourself to become part of the topic when you use your educational experiences as the basis for your suggested fix to the criminal justice system.

You have little to no direct knowledge of what you post. So when you throw up your work experience, your educational background and your limited detention as the basis for your proposition, it is a perfect case of how the uninformed attempt to foist their idiotic suggestions on folks that have been on the front lines in dealing with this problem.

I would suggest that we take you and place you in a prison for 90 days. First you would be happy since you'd not be bugged by anyone here harrassing you for 90 days. Second you'd get a chance to meet some of these fine misunderstood individuals that you are very happy to have others (not you) support with their (not your) hard earned money. Lastly it would also give you an appreciation for keeping your thoughts to yourself. I can assure you that if you told a couple of folks in my prison the same crap you seem free to dump on your fellow preppers here, that they would give you a head space and timing adjustment that you would never forget.


----------



## Will2

BuckB said:


> you still require the police to "bug you" about once per year.


Not at all. I communicate with police for various reasons, none of it has to do with me committing crimes. See the difference. Police can be active in the community for a variety of reasons, it isn't like everything police respond to is a criminal incident. Police respond to concerns of the public, and serve a role in regard to lost property. Since I am in studies on a campus, there are also campus policies, and people from around the world.Many of my contacts relate to property issues, or issues that should be cleared with police to avoid confusion and misunderstanding that could result in police responding to something on a false context. The fact police have contact doesn't relate to criminal activity, but rather it relates to insuring everyone is comfortable and happy. Some people don't like certain things, me for instance I don't like noise in the morning from motors on unannounced work orders waking me up, or people parking in my drive way, or people coming onto my property even though there are no trespass notices, you know at school some people don't like me hanging a sleeping bag and biovac off of a remote railing so it can dry, or me wearing a gas mask while I work out, there are lots of reasons why police may become involved when people can't be reasonable. Personally I don't think it is me, I think it is other people not really taking into consideration that 1. I am within my rights, and 2. There is no law broken. Sometimes police can be called so that a situation doesn't endanger people, not because people are endangered.



> So obviously, paying you to behave in a civil society is not working as well as you suggest it should.


I'm not being paid to behave in civil society, again your line of thought is delusional and out of touch with reality.


----------



## Will2

Seneca said:


> If I got this right, the victim of a crime would also be required (through paying taxes) to monetarily assist the perpetrator to the tune of a thousand a month. So the poor victim gets nailed twice once by the crook and again by the system. Where's the justice in that?


It has nothing to do with the original crime. This is so they don't recommit more crimes. Has nothing to do with the act. The person already goes through sentencing for the previous crime before this specific program is applicable. That program is for when they get out after serving their time, to reduce the risk of them making another victim.


----------



## BuckB

Will2 said:


> Not at all. I communicate with police for various reasons, none of it has to do with me committing crimes. See the difference. Police can be active in the community for a variety of reasons, it isn't like everything police respond to is a criminal incident. Police respond to concerns of the public, and serve a role in regard to lost property. Since I am in studies on a campus, there are also campus policies, and people from around the world.Many of my contacts relate to property issues, or issues that should be cleared with police to avoid confusion and misunderstanding that could result in police responding to something on a false context. The fact police have contact doesn't relate to criminal activity, but rather it relates to insuring everyone is comfortable and happy. Some people don't like certain things, me for instance I don't like noise in the morning from motors on unannounced work orders waking me up, or people parking in my drive way, or people coming onto my property even though there are no trespass notices, you know at school some people don't like me hanging a sleeping bag and biovac off of a remote railing so it can dry, or me wearing a gas mask while I work out, there are lots of reasons why police may become involved when people can't be reasonable. Personally I don't think it is me, I think it is other people not really taking into consideration that 1. I am within my rights, and 2. There is no law broken. Sometimes police can be called so that a situation doesn't endanger people, not because people are endangered.
> 
> I'm not being paid to behave in civil society, again your line of thought is delusional and out of touch with reality.


I am just tryin' to help you out buddy!

Regards

Buck Bored


----------



## Will2

> Willie you have taken it upon yourself to become part of the topic when you use your educational experiences as the basis for your suggested fix to the criminal justice system.


No I wasn't the one who referenced that actually. Someone else indicated I had no knowledge on the subject. Which was the point of reply. They resorted to a personal attack, which I responded to that ad hominem.

There is still no need whatsoever to include me as a topic of this discussion, other than adding more problems to a discussion on a topic. I suggest you and others just stop right now.



> You have little to no direct knowledge of what you post.


I can speak for myself just fine. You are the one with no knowledge of me or my knowledge, screw off already and talk about what you know, not what you claim I don't.



> So when you throw up your work experience, your educational background and your limited detention as the basis for your proposition, it is a perfect case of how the uninformed attempt to foist their idiotic suggestions on folks that have been on the front lines in dealing with this problem.


I am not the one bringing that up, others are referencing it. Baiting much. None the less why don't you screw off already and talk about the topic instead of being a dick and derailing this topic turning it into yet another thread about me, which you are fixated and delusional about. It is obsessive stop already.



> I would suggest that we take you and place you in a prison for 90 days. First you would be happy since you'd not be bugged by anyone here harrassing you for 90 days. Second you'd get a chance to meet some of these fine misunderstood individuals that you are very happy to have others (not you) support with their (not your) hard earned money. Lastly it would also give you an appreciation for keeping your thoughts to yourself. I can assure you that if you told a couple of folks in my prison the same crap you seem free to dump on your fellow preppers here, that they would give you a head space and timing adjustment that you would never forget.


I'd suggest you get better ideas and stop harassing me. Your line of thought is just sick. You grasp a basic understanding of myself and I suggest you stop sharing such convoluted and plainly sick thoughts. Your mindset is twisted and disturbing. Stop communicating with or in relation to me.

Get off your highhorse already, you are an incredibly disrespectful goon as far as I am concerned. I have 0 respect for your simply demented viewpoints on what you think you should do with me. Its just idiocy.

Dude go back to your people already you are sick.


----------



## Auntie

Will2 said:


> ...
> *I suggest you ... just stop right now.*
> ...
> *screw off already*
> 
> None the less why don't you* screw off already* and talk about the topic instead of being a dick and derailing this topic turning it into yet another thread about me, which you are fixated and delusional about.* It is obsessive stop already.*
> ...
> *Stop communicating with or in relation to me.*
> 
> *Get off your highhorse already, you are an incredibly disrespectful goon as far as I am concerned. I have 0 respect for your simply demented viewpoints on what you think you should do with me. Its just idiocy.*
> 
> Dude go back to your people already *you are sick.*


My tongue hurts from biting it, trying so hard to not post in this thread. I give up...

I have no problem with education and drug/alcohol addiction program expenses. These are things that are needed to reduce recidivism. There is something to be gained with education and other programs. Handing someone money to be good is a waste and is a reward for bad behavior!

Book knowledge differs greatly from life experience. Great you have read reports, studies and learned about criminal behavior from a book and a professor. A lot of people on this forum have life experience with criminals because of their jobs. You are like the engineer that sits in his office and draws up plans for something that doesn't work when the item is actually built. It looked good on paper.

I quoted you above because I feel that the words you typed apply to you. STOP ALREADY with your don't talk about me, don't talk to me. You are on a forum, we all have the right to talk about things. High horse, you rode in on one.


----------



## Will2

Auntie said:


> My tongue hurts from biting it, trying so hard to not post in this thread. I give up...
> 
> I have no problem with education and drug/alcohol addiction program expenses. These are things that are needed to reduce recidivism. There is something to be gained with education and other programs. Handing someone money to be good is a waste and is a reward for bad behavior!
> 
> Book knowledge differs greatly from life experience. Great you have read reports, studies and learned about criminal behavior from a book and a professor. A lot of people on this forum have life experience with criminals because of their jobs. You are like the engineer that sits in his office and draws up plans for something that doesn't work when the item is actually built. It looked good on paper.
> 
> I quoted you above because I feel that the words you typed apply to you. STOP ALREADY with your don't talk about me, don't talk to me. You are on a forum, we all have the right to talk about things. High horse, you rode in on one.


Why don't you stop fingering me. You don't know diddly about my life, so why don't you and the other trolls stop with your delusional plainly false views of what my experiences are.

I am not the topic, and you have no knowledge of my life experiences to say what I know or don't.

It is just falselight nonsense.

Talk about you if you want to talk about someone. You don't know jack about what my life experiences are. It is just nonsense you are posting inclining you know about my life experiences.

Just because I have studied various aspects of the social sciences for years doesn't mean I have no hands on knowledge of the subject matter.

Stop being such an ignoramus.

You do this repeatedly in thread after thread, it is annoying, you are trolling. Stop.

You don't need to derail every thread by turning it into a thread about me. Considering you don't get me or your facts about me right in the first place it is just continuous false light personal attacks that are defamatory.

Stop.

finger (redirected from fingering)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Medical, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
finger
1. tv. to point someone out; to identify someone (as having done something, been somewhere, etc.). Pete fingered Marty as being the one who arrived first.

It is clear you are just digging for info (perhaps cops or feeding them false info) while also launching personal attacks against me.

It is awful you are such a crappy person that you do this over and over again.

How many kids you rape today Auntie, how is your pedophile ring going these days?

Let talk about you and what you have been up to Auntie?

How much would it take you to stop smoking your crack and raping little kids?

You like false light defamatory attacks?

This thread is no place for people to troll others or derail the discussion with completely nonsensical and unrelated attacks on individuals.


----------



## Arklatex

Dang. This thread keeps on keeping on. Will, I have news for you. You are not a small government advocate in any way. You are actually a liberal progressive no better than Hillary . You may even be feeling the Bern. Please never move to the USA. And stay the hell outta Texas.


----------



## Will2

BuckB said:


> So, your government is already paying you 3 times the amount you suggest paying criminals not to commit crimes. Yet, by your own estimates, you still require the police to "bug you" about once per year. So obviously, paying you to behave in a civil society is not working as well as you suggest it should.
> 
> Maybe it is time to try other means? Although I have not done an official cost-benefit analysis, I suggest the Canadian government try waterboarding or electroshock therapy. I know in my personal life, I have found electricty to be a great motivator.
> 
> Always trying to help
> 
> Buck Bored


No worries, if you want to help you can not talk about me and not communicate with me.

Thanks Buddy!


----------



## Auntie

Will2 said:


> Why don't you stop fingering me. You don't know diddly about my life, so why don't you and the other trolls stop with your delusional plainly false views of what my experiences are.
> 
> I am not the topic, and you have no knowledge of my life experiences to say what I know or don't.
> 
> It is just falselight nonsense.
> 
> Talk about you if you want to talk about someone. You don't know jack about what my life experiences are. It is just nonsense you are posting inclining you know about my life experiences.
> 
> Just because I have studied various aspects of the social sciences for years doesn't mean I have no hands on knowledge of the subject matter.
> 
> Stop being such an ignoramus.
> 
> You do this repeatedly in thread after thread, it is annoying, you are trolling. Stop.
> 
> You don't need to derail every thread by turning it into a thread about me. Considering you don't get me or your facts about me right in the first place it is just continuous false light personal attacks that are defamatory.
> 
> Stop.
> 
> finger (redirected from fingering)
> Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Medical, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
> finger
> 1. tv. to point someone out; to identify someone (as having done something, been somewhere, etc.). Pete fingered Marty as being the one who arrived first.
> 
> It is clear you are just digging for info (perhaps cops or feeding them false info) while also launching personal attacks against me.
> 
> It is awful you are such a crappy person that you do this over and over again.
> 
> How many kids you rape today Auntie, how is your pedophile ring going these days?
> 
> Let talk about you and what you have been up to Auntie?
> 
> How much would it take you to stop smoking your crack and raping little kids?
> 
> You like false light defamatory attacks?
> 
> This thread is no place for people to troll others or derail the discussion with completely nonsensical and unrelated attacks on individuals.


Are you kidding me? Wow you are ............ WOW

Quoted to preserve this filth so you can not delete it and say you didn't type it.


----------



## Arklatex

Will2 said:


> Why don't you stop fingering me. You don't know diddly about my life, so why don't you and the other trolls stop with your delusional plainly false views of what my experiences are.
> 
> I am not the topic, and you have no knowledge of my life experiences to say what I know or don't.
> 
> It is just falselight nonsense.
> 
> Talk about you if you want to talk about someone. You don't know jack about what my life experiences are. It is just nonsense you are posting inclining you know about my life experiences.
> 
> Just because I have studied various aspects of the social sciences for years doesn't mean I have no hands on knowledge of the subject matter.
> 
> Stop being such an ignoramus.
> 
> You do this repeatedly in thread after thread, it is annoying, you are trolling. Stop.
> 
> You don't need to derail every thread by turning it into a thread about me. Considering you don't get me or your facts about me right in the first place it is just continuous false light personal attacks that are defamatory.
> 
> Stop.
> 
> finger (redirected from fingering)
> Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Medical, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
> finger
> 1. tv. to point someone out; to identify someone (as having done something, been somewhere, etc.). Pete fingered Marty as being the one who arrived first.
> 
> It is clear you are just digging for info (perhaps cops or feeding them false info) while also launching personal attacks against me.
> 
> It is awful you are such a crappy person that you do this over and over again.
> 
> How many kids you rape today Auntie, how is your pedophile ring going these days?
> 
> Let talk about you and what you have been up to Auntie?
> 
> How much would it take you to stop smoking your crack and raping little kids?
> 
> You like false light defamatory attacks?
> 
> This thread is no place for people to troll others or derail the discussion with completely nonsensical and unrelated attacks on individuals.


You smell like poop and your dreadlocks look really stupid. Don't you know those are for black folks? Get a haircut and a job. You are a loser and a leech on society. Bug out from PF. Nobody here likes you.


----------



## Real Old Man

Will2 said:


> Why don't you stop fingering me. You don't know diddly about my life, so why don't you and the other trolls stop with your delusional plainly false views of what my experiences are.
> 
> I am not the topic, and you have no knowledge of my life experiences to say what I know or don't.
> 
> It is just falselight nonsense.
> 
> Talk about you if you want to talk about someone. You don't know jack about what my life experiences are. It is just nonsense you are posting inclining you know about my life experiences.
> 
> Just because I have studied various aspects of the social sciences for years doesn't mean I have no hands on knowledge of the subject matter.
> 
> Stop being such an ignoramus.
> 
> You do this repeatedly in thread after thread, it is annoying, you are trolling. Stop.
> 
> You don't need to derail every thread by turning it into a thread about me. Considering you don't get me or your facts about me right in the first place it is just continuous false light personal attacks that are defamatory.
> 
> Stop.
> 
> finger (redirected from fingering)
> Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Medical, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
> finger
> 1. tv. to point someone out; to identify someone (as having done something, been somewhere, etc.). Pete fingered Marty as being the one who arrived first.
> 
> It is clear you are just digging for info (perhaps cops or feeding them false info) while also launching personal attacks against me.
> 
> It is awful you are such a crappy person that you do this over and over again.
> 
> How many kids you rape today Auntie, how is your pedophile ring going these days?
> 
> Let talk about you and what you have been up to Auntie?
> 
> How much would it take you to stop smoking your crack and raping little kids?
> 
> You like false light defamatory attacks?
> 
> This thread is no place for people to troll others or derail the discussion with completely nonsensical and unrelated attacks on individuals.


Willie Willie Willie

such anger and disrespect. Look you were called out about your lack of real world experiences in the realm of dealing with criminals. You chose to respond by claiming that your readings and wandering educational trump real world experiences and you then get all huffy and upset when folks laugh at you.

Ark and Auntie and a couple of others have very clearly pocked so many holes in your arguments that any reasonable human would slink back to his cave in shame. Instead you go into your attack mode.

My suggestion that you do a 30 day bit in jail was to give you a real world experience in dealing with the criminals you are so happy to champion. Since you lack any other real world experiences with them that would be the quickest way for you to gain the intimate knowledge that your posts indicate you lack.


----------



## Denton

It's only right to lock this thread.


----------



## Denton

Forgot to lock it.


----------

