I agree in principle with forced treatment for addicts/mentally ill. For the addicts, I think it could be potentially possible by setting up an addict specific jail with the primary goal of treatment.

The problem with that is that the treatment would be ineffective. Being treated for an addiction means learning to live your normal life with out the drug. Treatment in a jail, no matter how well done, cannot substiute for "normal life". Also once released, the support systems in the jail are no longer there (a clean enviroment, counselors 24/7, etc), causing te addict to look toward thier original support system - the drug. Ex. If our addict lives w/ mom and mom is also a drug addict, how likely do you think it will be for our addict to relapse?

The mentally ill provide a totally different challange. While you can get an addict into jail/treatment when they commit a crime, what do you do with the mentally ill that has not committed a crime? We have no authority, except in exceptional circumstances to take custody of the person (ie constrain their rights). How many people here have ADD/adhd, Depression, or Anxiety? Those are mental illnesses. Should I, by virtue of the existance of the illnesss in you, be allowed to force you into a hospital? I think not.

Personally, atleast concerning drug use, I feel that very strong anti-drug education (for both parents and children) would be the best bet. It is not, nor will it ever be a silver bullet, but prevention is easier and more cost effective than rehabilitation.



Well look at it this way. The pure Existance of the Drug, what ever it may be, is not the problem. What is the problem is the combination of the power/appeal of the drug along with the actions associated with the drug.

Those who are addicted will commit crimes, serious crimes, violent and non-violent to obtain the means to get more drugs. There are countless cases of Thefts, BE's, GTA's, all the way up to murder for little more than one dose. This doesn't even cover the crimes committed by those who are under teh influence of drugs (loss of inhibition - rage, etc)

Those who deal will also commit crimes, serious crimes. Got a rival dealer? Beat him up, kill him, steal his dope. Got someone who can't won't pay? Beat 'em up, rape thier significant other, break into thier home and terrorize it.



As a civillian, If you kill anyone, for any reason, you've murdered them. It is that simple. Now there are affirmative defenses (the most famous being self defense), but again, that's a defense to a criminal charge. That's the way the justice system works. If det/pros determine it was, say self defense, then the chares are dropped, if not, the process continues.



Its actually required for our justice system to work, like it or not. Here's why. Taking an offender to trial is a long and arduous task. It takes months and is a large strain on resources, both financially and in manpower. Depending on your court and state, you could go before a judge 7+ times before getting to a trial. By pleading guilty, the offender waives his rights to trial, etc, saving a huge amount of strain and time on the system. They are still required to pay fines and court costs (that's where they get the offender many times), in addition to serving some type of sentence.



No such thing. I'm serious. They are called Miranda Warnings. It appears to be semantics, but the difference is very important. The Miranda decision by the SC, did not establish or alter any rights what so ever. It mearly mandated that we provide arrestees with warnings regarding thier already established consitutional rights. Its procedural and is a failsafe. Here's why:

You see, any waiver of a right (confession, consent to search, etc), must be made knowingly and intelligently. Hence you must know what rights you have if you are going to waive them and you must know that you are waiving them if you are going to waive them.

Not everyone in the US fully knows or understands thier rights and requirements when dealing with the Justice system and the police. You'd be surprised how few do. By telling them their rights and asking if they understand them, we ensure that the offender knows what rights they have and he/she cannot claim to have waived a right unknowingly or unintelligently. This allows Law enforcement to secure evidence lawfully while maintaining the integrity of the due process afforded to the offender.

BTW, any addiction can be harmful, be it cigarettes, drugs, or even gambling where the addiction is psychological instead of physical.

Addictions take away from family time.
Addictions take away money that could be used elsewhere.
Addictions take away from other constructive activities.
Addictions lead to unnecessary divisions in family and community.

People who are addicted will often try to appease that addiction, and it's much more likely for a person to take illegal actions if that action helps continue the addiction. It does not really matter what the addiction is; all addictions have a danger of some people becoming criminals that would normally not engage in criminal behavior.

You can argue that gambling has none of the side effects associated with any type of smoking. But guess what? Gambling is still a very controlled industry, and even illegal in some states. Why? Because it can be addictive, and has lead to the financial ruin of a lot of people, that's why. Addictions have a negative impact on the individual and often the people around the individual, no matter what the person is addicted to.

What many people forget, i notice is that kids think it's "cool" to do drugs. I remember a commercial where a fictional drug dealer was complaining that all of the kids were getting addicted on their parent's perscriptions. Perscriptions are legal. Perscriptions can still be bad. If we start selling weed in wal-greens, then all of the kids will buy it! The government can't legalize pot because all of our children will be addicted to weed, and come time they are defending our country, they will be high! Whatever backwashed country it is bill beat the living $#!t out of our troops and we the people will be enslaved/cannibalized. Legalizing weed isn't the way, but giving it to people for use in an institution would probably be the only way to do it. If we legalize weed, we will all lead horrible lives or die in the same manner.

I have a no one cares update...

I have found out I have an illegal sentence. The only effect is that my parol will be terminated as soon as I file an ammended pcra...

Then it seems to me that your education system is failing these people.

My personal believe is that there needs to be a radical shift in the way we deal with crime in North America. You are right that a very large percentage of crime is drug and or gang or poverty related. My solution is simple we need to start giving proper treatment and education in our prisons. We also need to stop sentencing people for lengths of time, but rather we should sentence them to complete certain tasks.

For example a heroin addict is convicted of armed robbery to support his drug habit. Lets say our addict never completed school and is illiterate. Instead of being released after say 5-10 years regardless of whether he can be incorporated into society, he should only be released once he has satisfied certain conditions. For example

1)He seeks out and completes an addiction treatment program. (Obviously there would need to be a support mechanism in place to prevent relapse upon release.

2)He seeks out and completes sufficient education/training to allow him to secure good employment. I also suggest that programs be in place providing employment for released convicts.

3)Completion of a program detailing the effects of crime on individuals and society.

Now if our addict chooses not to meet any of these conditions he does get out. Ever. Period. We have a standard of conduct in our society and if we provide him the tools and he chooses not to try we have no use for him. By the same token if he does complete his program and then goes on to continue commiting crime then again he goes back in and does not get out. Ever.

I feel this is a fair system, as the reasons for the crime are adressed.

Cannot be done... would be considered cruel and unusual punishment... Life in prison cause I cannot read and don't want to learn how?
I understand your reasoning but that would create a situation where the cure is worse than the disease.

What level of proficiency would they have to read at? What language? (We do not have an official language in the United State and people have the right to speak whatever language they want!)

What if they have a learning disability that prevents them from learning to read well? (Dyslexia)

Would someone with a low IQ stay in jail longer because they were slower at learning?
See what I mean...

Not to mention the lawsuits that would come up as “you violated my right to an education so now I am suing you for keeping me in jail because your agent (the teacher) under color of law (mandated school till age 16) failed to provide me with my constitutional guaranteed services (education) which is now causing me to lose my right to liberty!

I have dyslexia and I learned to read very well, but I do have problems with spelling though. The key to fixing dyslexia is to get to the problem early on or it will just get worse. And because this is prison people will have some trouble but enough hard work and the problem could be solved. Dyslexia is more of a diffrent way of thinking than a problem. Dyslexics are even though to be more creative then regular people because entrepreneurs are found to be five times as likley to have dyslixia so this might be a improvment for priosners with dyslexia because they can use their creativity to help themselves. For more info on Dyslexia here is a link on Wikipedia. WWW Link

Vengeance is underrated.

Yes the US needs to reform the prisons and i have a simple solution its called the death penalty. The reason people commit crime is they are not afraid of the punishment. I read earlyer of the 3 strikes law. Texas has one when it comes to molesters. The third strike for that one is the death penalty, however i dont think it should be that severe for petty crimes but they should understand that crime will cost alot.

What about 3 strikes for drug users? Should we kill them too?

Denyasis, your next response might cause me to die of laughter, you murderer!

Do you really believe all that shit you posted about weed? Cobra at least posted real, if irrelevant information.

I'm not a stoner, I've never used alcohol, smoked cigarettes or done drugs of any kind. I have educated myself on the subjects though, your post reads worse than the modern bullshit does. Shit that absurd hasn't been said about weed since the sixties propaganda movies were made that showed people becoming satanists and murdering each other because of drugs and dying from too much sex.

Marijuana is a mild narcotic, it slows the brain down and duplicates the effects of aging. With long term heavy use, permanent effects akin to old age set in, deficient memory, sluggish reflexes. It's also a fucking outstanding painkiller, excellent for terminally ill cancer patients, severe cases of RA, etcetera etcetera. Stoned people don't give a shit, that's really about it. They don't kill people for joints, it's not any more addictive than caffeine is. Yes, sodas will drive you to kill someone for a fix before marijuana will.

It's bullshit, utter bullshit. The rest of your views on the evils of marijuana are a product of it being illegal. If it were found in supermarkets with the cigarettes, there would be no dealers, there would be no problems associated with dealer, there would be no gang wars over turf for it.

Personally, the shit smells worse than sewage and gives me a fucking migraine anytime I end up near some dipshit that exhales facing the wind. Of course, cigarettes aren't much different.

"As a civillian, If you kill anyone, for any reason, you've murdered them. It is that simple. Now there are affirmative defenses (the most famous being self defense), but again, that's a defense to a criminal charge. That's the way the justice system works. If det/pros determine it was, say self defense, then the chares are dropped, if not, the process continues."

Not even most liberal wackjobs consider self defense killings murder. You do know that murder and kill are two separate words with distinct meanings yes? Did you post drunk or something? If this is a language barrier problem, please say so. If for nothing else, the sake of my sanity.

The rest of your post is less irritating. It's nice that you know we have no actual Miranda right, but your logic on why is astounding. You seem to think ignorance should be excused. If I murder you, can I simply claim I didn't know I wasn't supposed to? After all, if you don't inform me, how am I expected to know? There is no requirement that they be waved. You have the right to counsel, not the right to have the police treat you like an invalid unless you expressly deny your right to counsel. Anyone that doesn't know their rights doesn't know the rights of the people around them, if anything not knowing is further indication that they belong in prison.

Plea deals... Wrong, wrong, wrong. Either do it right, or don't do it at all. Plea deals create crime. Learn history, the softer and more manipulative a system becomes, the more it is taxed. Reducing the burden on the judicial system by letting people off hasn't worked in this country, and it hasn't worked in any of the others either. Do you think that despite vastly superior methods of solving them, we have a higher crime rate than we did 50 years ago for no reason? The judicial system is perpetuating it. The prison population has quadrupled in the last fourty years, the violent crime rates at the peak of the idiocy in the ninties were over four times as high as they were in the sixties. Murder was relatively uncommon, only about twice as high. California, with a huge minority population, high poverty rates and substantial gang problems actually has one of the lower crime rates these days. Remember that three strikes law?

Oh my GOD! We'll be swamped! Oh, hey, where'd the crime rate go? Shit man, I could get life for stealing that lady's purse, fuck it, I'm getting a job...

Educate thyself.

Cobra.

"It's a hallucinogen, it deteriorates motor skills, it generally has very negative effects on the mind, and can exacerbate the symptoms of many mental disorders."

Indeed, and? Not sleeping well does the same things, and to far greater degree. Perhaps it should be mandated by law that you sleep from 9pm to 5am? More in line with a drug, certain foods have similar effects. Exacerbating symptoms of many mental disorders is something so common you might as well shoot yourself now and get it over with. Cane sugar should most definitely be illegal by this reasoning.

"It contains 20 times more ammonia, and contains five times as much hydrogen cyanide and nitrous oxides as tobacco, and contains about as many carcinogens. The effects of second hand smoke from Cannabis are totally unknown, and indeed the effects of smoking it in general are not well studied. Studies from the USA and Sweden are in conflict, with the US study claiming no direct deaths from smoking it, while the Swedish study claims increased risk of violent deaths."

The Swedish studies are irrelevant to your thesis. I'm guessing you didn't read them. Alcohol users were four times as likely to develop psychotic behavior, good ol' booze. It's also important to note that the biggest risks associate with underage use. Fucking with your brain is apparently less important after it's fully matured.

"Indeed, while studies show the risk of cancer deaths is not higher than tobacco deaths, they still show the risk is much higher than people who do not smoke at all. In particular, bullous lung disease, which is normally uncommon, is found in many Cannabis smokers. Habitual inhalation of any form of smoke is unhealthy."

The summation of this is that breathing fire is bad. No shit. So is stabbing myself with a pencil, but it's not illegal. If you want to be a walking ashtray in your own home, what the fuck do I care? What business of mine is it? If you want to perform ritual cuttings on your dick, I don't really have any valid reason to stop you do I?

Second hand smoke has nothing to do with the issue, they're already banning smoking in public places all over the country. Limiting the use to private areas and restricting driving and other potentially problematic activities to those of sound mind are common sense regulations, and have nothing to do with a substance being legal or illegal. You're not supposed to drive while using nyquil unless you've previously determined that it doesn't hinder your abilities, would you make cold medicine illegal?

Legislating morality doesn't work, as can be seen by the massive increase in drug use since it was made illegal. Educate them, no bullshit either. The assholes lying to people in the sixties did irreparable damage to their cause. If they choose to fuck themselves up, let them. If they start fucking other people up, remove them from society.

Chrizzle

"Then it seems to me that your education system is failing these people."

Yes.

"My personal believe is that there needs to be a radical shift in the way we deal with crime in North America. You are right that a very large percentage of crime is drug and or gang or poverty related. My solution is simple we need to start giving proper treatment and education in our prisons. We also need to stop sentencing people for lengths of time, but rather we should sentence them to complete certain tasks."

No. Fire the fucking teacher that isn't doing their job or passes a student that can't read. No hearings, no excuses, no more lazy fuck teacher. Problem solved. The illiteracy rate of high school graduates is what happens when you let morons run their own system. Kill the unions and you kill the problem with the education system. Your solution is putting a band aid on a gunshot wound when the victim is already dead. After they've become a career criminal is a little late to be giving them a good start in life.

I do like your two strikes philosophy though.

SpacePony, if all else fails there's only one thing left to do. Run for office on a judicial re-reform platform. We need more balls in congress anyway.

no it isn't



statistically no it doesn't



like what



no it doesn't

all four of these points are unsupported by studies and at least two of them are bullshit myths. please use a drug with actual deleterious effects in the future with your examples, like coke or heroin.



ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, this is like Reefer Madness meets Joseph McCarthy. if we let the damn commies smoke the weed, our heterosexual strong American boys in the army will be overwhelmed by the Viet Cong stoners! stop posting.

Statistical source, please.



"Unsupported by studies" meaning you never bothered to look. Studies exist in plenty of numbers; you are simply ignoring them. My points about mental disorders are actually supported by studies.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607611623/abstract
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/rapidpdf/bmj.38267.664086.63v1?ehom
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070727/marijuana_psychosis_070727?s_name=&no_ads=
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080123104017.htm

That is Great News! I wish you luck with it!
I'm actually fairly surprised that you got any significant time over the incident. Even with the phone call issue, its clear you were not the primary agressor. I'm really surprised a jury would convict you.



I never mentioned marijuana in my reply. I used it as a springboard to discuss the general concept behind illict drugs. While you are partially correct, there would be fewer problems with dealers if the drug were legalized, you'd still have the associative crimes commited by the users. In addition you'd still have black market dealings in the drugs, thus not totally eliminating the dealers (There are illict alcohol operations. I know one of our local theives only steals tobbacco products despite both product being legal).

Like I said, the problem isn't the drug itself, its the actions associated with the drug.



Fortunately, you've never been in that situation. What do you think happens when you kill someone? You just shout "Self defense!" and everyone else goes "ohh ok" and walks away? Of course not. You are investigated for a crime (murder, manslaughter, whichever). If we find that your claim of Self Defense does indeed stand, then that's all she wrote. If it doesn't hold up well, you are looking at criminal charges. For example, look at cases like Sean Bell. Its not the best example, but its the one that come immediately to mind. Those Officers were charged criminally and went to trial for what was essentially a self defense action. They were found innocent as the claim of self defense was deemed valid by the jury. I hope that explains it better for you.



Like I implied in my earlier post above, its not my logic. Its the SC's logic, period. Yes, it is slightly ironic that a lack of knowledge of a crime is not an affirmative defense, but a lack of knowledge of a right will get a case thrown out. It basically boils down to the fundamental philosophy here in the US that the rights of the individual take a priority to the will of the state. Allow me to explain it to you as simply as I can:

When you break the law, you are held accountable as you've essentially violated antoher's rights (the victim). A lack of Knowledge of the law is not an affirmative defense. However, if you do not know or understand your rights, you cannot knowingly exercise/waive them. I (the state) by taking advantage of your lack of knowledge would be violating Your rights and I (the state) would be held accountable (hence you would be the victim - even if you know it or not).

Yeah, its weird/complicated. I didn't come up with it, sorry.



Look, Most of us on this forum are fairly well educated/read and primarily we deal and live with similar people. Not everyone in the US is like that. Everyone didn't have a good education, or even complete it. You'd be surprised how few people truly know their Rights and Requirements. That doesn't mean they belong in prison simply beccause they don't know the admendments that protect our due process and other rights. That's why we have lawyers. Miranda is there to protect the rights of the people from the state.



I rechecked my post for you and it is totally correct. Like it or not, Pea Deals are required. Personally, I tend to agree with you. I feel that they are overused, especially with very serious cases where the offender should get some hardcore pnishment. That said there are some cases, wher I think it is appropriate. For example, say your case isn't very strong; if you go to trial and lose, the offender gets away scott-free. If you plea, you get the conviction, and at least some form of punishment.

I would be ok with some plea deals, personally (Traffic/MM/some M). You have the right to trial, so you can take your seatbelt ticket to trial. So... take $20 off the fine cost, or listen to some dude pretending to be lawyer for 30+min explaining why we couln't see his seatbelt, but it was really on(trust me - mind-numbing, lol)...

So in some cases it can be good. But we over use the Plea way too much with the more serious cases (atleast in my opinion). I'd be more than happy to go all the way to trial to make sure some of the idiots I have to deal with are put away. And with several hours OT for just walking in the door, I can't really complain, etc.



The reason why the crime rate may be higher (its dropping in my city actually), is for a number of reasons. First, better reporting. 50 years ago, there were fewer crimes - literally. Mandatory DV arrests, for example, didn't exist back then. No report - no crime. Also reporting volume has increased. More people are required to report crimes (teachers, anything you are gonna try to get your insurance to cover, etc). Also, your looking at a larger population than 50 years back - more crime in general. Lastly, you're looking at a historical era where a blind eye was generally turned to crimes against minorities who were a significant percentage of the population.

--

I can see that you are quite passionate about your feelings on the topics, however it does not befit anyone on this forum to stoop to throwing insults. This is a place for dicsussions, not tempertantrums.

Also, if you are interested in learning more about your basic constitutional rights and requirements and the procedures/rules of the court, I would highly recommned Klotter's "Constitutional Law" and "Criminal Evidence". They've been valuable references for me for the past 6 years, and are very well written (although a little dry - I won't lie). Hanson's "Drugs and Society" is also a good refence, although it is definetly written with an almost "introductory" slant, and can be overly simple at times.

Take Care!

Cool. I would say congratulations, but it doesn't seem right. Hopefully you can put this all behind you now.