From: William Clark on
In article <84to04FsbmU1(a)mid.individual.net>,
"dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote:

> "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
> news:clark-0EE06F.13513011052010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
>
> > > Increased incarceration rates are one of many factors that have
> > > lowered the crime rate. It's not even the principal one.
> > > ---------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Name the other factors.
> > >
> > > -Greg
> >
> > Increased investment in policing. Duh.
>
> Bad guys were being caught. That was never the issue, especially since most
> criminals are pretty dumb. The problem is that they were having their hands
> slapped in the name of probation or parole and released.
>
> Duh.
>
> -Greg

It was always the issue. Once you put a greater police presence on the
ground you a) catch the bad guys, and b) drive them out of the area.
Incarceration in the US system is proven to be neither a deterrent nor
reforming.
From: BAR on
In article <4be8c384$0$4977$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>,
nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>
> On Mon, 10 May 2010 19:21:32 -0700, dene wrote:
> > "Howard Brazee" <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote in message
> > news:tbahu5pcbiskjlm6mt2gtrsd7h2po9l1ms(a)4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 10 May 2010 09:25:59 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
> >> <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> If narcotics are made legal and easy to buy, will drug addiction - and
> >>> the many problems it imposes on society - go up or down?
> >>
> >> Total amount? We're guessing. What happened when Prohibition was
> >> repealed?
> >>
> >> The population of abusers will likely be different. We won't have as
> >> many problems with criminal gangs. The people working on the problem
> >> will be social workers, freeing up police to do other vital work.
> >
> > A flock of social workers. Just what our society needs. Prison is more
> > effective. Cleans up the addicts and makes them think twice about using
> > again.
>
> The US incarcerates a larger percentage of its own citizens than any
> other first world country. That war on drugs is gonna be won any year
> now!!!

It is the ramifications of a society that is based upon individual
freedom. I wouldn't have it any other way.
From: BAR on
In article <971993e3-6952-4b02-90ad-f3a4ed741a87
@b7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, johnb505(a)gmail.com says...
>
> On May 11, 7:33�am, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote:
> > In article <co2gu5d0meg5o9ptmefk7gv8fbdsq59...(a)4ax.com>,
> > bkni...(a)conramp.net says...
> >
> > > I have no problem with that at all, and I have no problem with
> > > enforcing our border.
> >
> > > Let's just get this straight. �Say that there's a 40 year old man
> > > living in Mexico with his wife, two sons and a daughter. �His wife is
> > > not well and he hasn't worked in weeks. �Can't find a job. �One of his
> > > compadres tells him that across the border in Texas he can get a job
> > > paying $20 dollars a day working in the fields, so in desperation he
> > > makes a 50 mile trip on foot, and crosses the border,hoping to stay a
> > > couple of weeks then return home to try to find work there again.
> >
> > > Please don't tell me you would murder this man that's only trying to
> > > put food in his family's stomach, doing labor that no U.S. citizen
> > > will do.
> >
> > What if this same man was caught stealing to provide for his family. Is
> > his action any less illegal?
> >
> > The issue at hand is do laws have meaning and should the law breaker be
> > treated the same in the eyes of the law.
> >
> > What if this same man kill the owner of a store while he was stealing to
> > provide for his family?
> >
> > We always hear from the left that we are a nation of laws, that the
> > police and the courts will protect us, however, when our laws, police
> > and courts need to protect us we are told that they guy was just trying
> > to provide for his family. What do you think the guy who had his goods
> > stolen was doing? He was trying to provide for his family and doing so
> > within the law.
> >
> > I have yet to see, hear or read of a legal exception that states that
> > the law doesn't apply when the person's post-transgression explanation
> > was I was just trying to provide for my family.
> >
> > Legality and convictions are two separate classifications. You can be
> > illegally performing an act and not have been convicted of the act which
> > doesn't make the act any less illegal.
>
> You've changed your standard from crossing the border to robbing and
> killing after crossing the border. So your argument now is that
> everyone who enters the country illegally should be presumed a thief
> and a murderer and shot before he gets the chance. Right?

No I haven't changed the standard. You fail to realized that illegally
entering the US is the same as illegally entering your house, both are
crimes and both should be punished. However, you believe one should be
rewarded. And, maybe you believe entering your house illegally should be
rewarded too.


From: BAR on
In article <m44ju5hbdrpf9b2o5revnestdf2k4kt3m0(a)4ax.com>,
bknight(a)conramp.net says...
>
> On Tue, 11 May 2010 10:16:25 -0700, "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:971993e3-6952-4b02-90ad-f3a4ed741a87(a)b7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> >On May 11, 7:33 am, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote:
> <clip>
> >You've changed your standard from crossing the border to robbing and
> >killing after crossing the border. So your argument now is that
> >everyone who enters the country illegally should be presumed a thief
> >and a murderer and shot before he gets the chance. Right?
> >
> >--------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >A chance to do what?
> >
> >-Greg
> >
>
> C'mon Greg. That's perfectly clear. I wouldn't dare ask you, or
> anyone else, for the answer to the illegal alien problem because its
> so complicated, , but I will ask you this:
>
> Do you think BAR's suggestion (now said four times here) that anyone
> crossing our borders illegally should be summarily killed?
>
> That only requires a simple yes or no.

Your problem Bobby is that you refuse to address the hard problems. And,
your refusal to adress the hard problems is then transferred to everyone
else. You would rather sit back, throw your hands in the air and say
live and let live. When in reality that attitude is what continually
gets us in trouble.



From: BAR on
In article <84rt1iF4caU1(a)mid.individual.net>, dene(a)remove.ipns.com
says...
>
> "Howard Brazee" <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote in message
> news:tbahu5pcbiskjlm6mt2gtrsd7h2po9l1ms(a)4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 10 May 2010 09:25:59 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
> > <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >If narcotics are made legal and easy to buy, will drug addiction - and
> > >the many problems it imposes on society - go up or down?
> >
> > Total amount? We're guessing. What happened when Prohibition was
> > repealed?
> >
> > The population of abusers will likely be different. We won't have
> > as many problems with criminal gangs. The people working on the
> > problem will be social workers, freeing up police to do other vital
> > work.
>
> A flock of social workers. Just what our society needs. Prison is more
> effective. Cleans up the addicts and makes them think twice about using
> again.

The social workers deal with the aftermath. The social workers will do
nothing to stop the problems.