Political Discussions

States should have a right to consider this an aggravating factor and increase the punishment.

 

Over 1.8 million people are currently behind bars in the United States. This represents the highest per capita incarceration rate in the history of the world. In 1995 alone, 150 new U.S. prisons were built and filled.

This monumental commitment to lock up a sizeable percentage of the population is an integral part of the globalization of capital. Several strands converged at the end of the Cold War, changing relations between labor and capital on an international scale: domestic economic decline, racism, the U.S. role as policeman of the world, and growth of the international drug economy in creating a booming prison/industrial complex. And the prison industrial complex is rapidly becoming an essential component of the U.S. economy.


PRISONS ARE BIG BUSINESS

Like the military/industrial complex, the prison industrial complex is an interweaving of private business and government interests. Its twofold purpose is profit and social control. Its public rationale is the fight against crime.

Not so long ago, communism was "the enemy" and communists were demonized as a way of justifying gargantuan military expenditures. Now, fear of crime and the demonization of criminals serve a similar ideological purpose: to justify the use of tax dollars for the repression and incarceration of a growing percentage of our population. The omnipresent media blitz about serial killers, missing children, and "random violence" feeds our fear. In reality, however, most of the "criminals" we lock up are poor people who commit nonviolent crimes out of economic need. Violence occurs in less than 14% of all reported crime, and injuries occur in just 3%. In California, the top three charges for those entering prison are: possession of a controlled substance, possession of a controlled substance for sale, and robbery. Violent crimes like murder, rape, manslaughter and kidnaping don't even make the top ten.

Like fear of communism during the Cold War, fear of crime is a great selling tool for a dubious product.

As with the building and maintenance of weapons and armies, the building and maintenance of prisons are big business. Investment houses, construction companies, architects, and support services such as food, medical, transportation and furniture, all stand to profit by prison expansion. A burgeoning "specialty item" industry sells fencing, handcuffs, drug detectors, protective vests, and other security devices to prisons.

As the Cold War winds down and the Crime War heats up, defense industry giants like Westinghouse are re-tooling and lobbying Washington for their share of the domestic law enforcement market. "Night Enforcer" goggles used in the Gulf War, electronic "Hot Wire" fencing ("so hot NATO chose it for high-risk installations"), and other equipment once used by the military, are now being marketed to the criminal justice system.

Communication companies like AT&T,;Sprint, and MCI are getting into the act as well, gouging prisoners with exorbitant phone calling rates, often six times the normal long distance charge. Smaller firms like Correctional Communications Corp., dedicated solely to the prison phone business, provide computerized prison phone systems, fully equipped for systematic surveillance. They win government contracts by offering to "kick back" some of the profits to the government agency awarding the contract. These companies are reaping huge profits at the expense of prisoners and their families; prisoners are often effectively cut off from communication due to the excessive cost of phone calls.

One of the fastest growing sectors of the prison industrial complex is private corrections companies. Investment firm Smith Barney is a part owner of a prison in Florida. American Express and General Electric have invested in private prison construction in Oklahoma and Tennessee. Correctional Corporation Of America, one of the largest private prison owners, already operates internationally, with more than 48 facilities in 11 states, Puerto Rico, the United Kingdom, and Australia. Under contract by government to run jails and prisons, and paid a fixed sum per prisoner, the profit motive mandates that these firms operate as cheaply and efficiently as possible. This means lower wages for staff, no unions, and fewer services for prisoners. Private contracts also mean less public scrutiny. Prison owners are raking in billions by cutting corners which harm prisoners. Substandard diets, extreme overcrowding, and abuses by poorly trained personnel have all been documented and can be expected in these institutions which are unabashedly about making money.

Prisons are also a leading rural growth industry. With traditional agriculture being pushed aside by agribusiness, many rural American communities are facing hard times. Economically depressed areas are falling over each other to secure a prison facility of their own. Prisons are seen as a source of jobs‹in construction, local vendors and prison staff‹as well as a source of tax revenues. An average prison has a staff of several hundred employees and an annual payroll of several million dollars.

Like any industry, the prison economy needs raw materials. In this case the raw materials are prisoners. The prison industrial complex can grow only if more and more people are incarcerated‹even if crime rates drop. "Three Strikes" and mandatory minimums (harsh, fixed sentences without parole) are two examples of the legal superstructure quickly being put in place to guarantee that the prison population will grow and grow and grow.

SOURCE

 

What?!?!? That is EXACTLY what the whole social safety net/welfare state is all about. It says that since the rich aren't "moral" enough to share with the poor government should confiscate the wealth of one group and redistribute it to another. Of course a person doesn't have to be all that poor to look around and see people with more than themselves and think that if it is legitimate for gov't to take and give to someone else there's no reason it shouldn't take and give to me. That's the premise of the whole liberal ideal... that gov't has a duty to solve people's problems for them.

No... established on the Constitution and the rights, liberties, and sovereignty of the individual. There is absolutely NO merit to the notion that something is right simply because there is a precedent for it or because a majority agreed to it.

That is specifically why the founders tried to restrict gov't power and make changes to the constitution very difficult. Unfortunately, liberals have for over 100 years found creative ways to ignore and over ride those protections.

This points out something else that makes illegality not the biggest problem. People involved in crime and especially violent crime are very frequently involved in drug use... and no, legalization will not cause them to straighten up and get an honest job.

This is not to say that many do not break the law only that many who do break the law do so while involved in drug use.

 

Scott,

I agree that employers have that right. No argument there. However, pre-employment screening is currently a joke. I have know of many people who get around drug tests. Those who use drugs know how to beat the tests. What is the answer? I truly don't know.

I don't follow. I didn't say I want the rest of us to pay to relieve them of the risks. You take the liberty, you assume the risks. I think you misunderstood my point here.

Again, I think you misunderstand me. I am saying social safety net in that I believe in universal healthcare, not just for bad choices, but for routine healthcare and catastrophic illness. Libertarians generally don't agree.

Given that, I do think that taxing the recreational drug supply channel could make people pay for their bad choices themselves. Use the taxes to provide for the outcome of their bad choices.

 

States should have a right to consider this an aggravating factor and increase the punishment. </font>[/QUOTE]And indeed, they do! DUI is an aggravating factor almost everywhere.

 

Scott, your lack of compassion is showing. Of course, there are always those with more or less than others. However, I believe those who have been highly blessed also have a responsibility to the society that gave them that opportunity. Most poor people are not lazy or poor by choice. They are the working poor, struggling to get by. Did Bill Gates build the roads that allowed him to get to work every day to make his fortune? Did he cook his own food at every restaurant? Luckily he voluntarily is a major philanthropist, but I do think those with the means owe something back. Taxes are to provide for the common defense and the general welfare.

If you want to talk about redistribution of wealth, let's look at the Bush tax cuts, where the largest portion went to the top 10+ percent of the wealthy. Take from the poor, give to the rich. Reverse Robin Hood.

</font>[/QUOTE]Sorry, but the judiciary is the arbiter of the constitutionality of law. Precedential law is a foundation of our legal system.

Because the procurement of said drugs is an illegal activity. Look at the alcohol prohibition experiment. We had gangs running booze. Repealed prohibition, and the gangs dried up, or had to find other areas of crime. Yes, there will always be criminals, but a large part of the street violence and killing today is because of gangs fighting over distribution turf.

 

Scott, your lack of compassion is showing.</font>[/QUOTE] You know. Liberals always repeat this absurd lie. Saying that government does not have the right to confiscate one person's wealth and give it to another is not equivalent to lacking compassion.

It is the responsibility of individuals, churches, and voluntary groups to relieve the poor... not the government. Oh btw, this system worked in the US up until the very early 20th century when it replaced greatly due to humanism and liberalism within the church and specifically NOT because it failed.

Moreover, relative to the technology and wealth of the day, the elderly were much more respected and better cared for when families saw their care as a family responsibility. Families were closer as well.

The Social Security lie is a trap. It started out with about 13:1 contributors to beneficiaries... roughly equal to the number of family members who would have supported them directly... and more efficiently. By the 90's the ratio had dropped to between 6:1 and 8:1. Within the next 25-35 years, it will reach 2.5:1.

The system will collapse on its own fraudulent foundation or else become another wealth redistribution program as those who had the foresight to save for retirement are means tested out.

I do to. But that isn't your problem. Your problem is that you think you have a right to force this moral decision upon others by force of gov't.

I have had this round here with someone else before. Virtually all adult poor people are like the rest of us. There current conditions are the sum result of the choices they've made in their lives. The biggest common factor amongst the poor today is single mothers. They made some terrible choices that resulted in this condition.

It is not an act of helping them to subsidize these bad decisions.

Poor when used like this is a very relative term. My grandparents in their day would not have been considered poor. Yet today, we'd consider them very poor and entitled to a whole myriad of social programs... which they'd have turned down anyway.

Someone did research on what it meant to be poor in America. I have posted the article here before but will find it again if you want to see it. The average "poor" person in America has more living space than the average citizen of Paris. They have a phone, a stove, a microwave, washer/dryer, have not been cold, have AC, have not been hungry in the past year, have cable tv, etc. In short, by world and historical standards... they aren't poor.

Did anyone object to the government building roads?

Do the people who do the cooking get paid the wage they agreed to work for?

Owe? Absolutely not. Should be charitable and gracious... even self-sacrificing? Absolutely YES.

Correct. Not to involuntarily redistribute wealth from those who earned/own it to those who don't. This was the mind of the founders and they were absolutely correct.

Do you know why just over 50% of the tax cuts went to the top 10%? Because they pay over 90% of the tax bill! As a percentage of their tax payment, they got the lowest tax cut. They simply pay way more to start with.

Wrong! It never belonged to the poor... or in this case the lower bracket tax payers, to start with. It belonged to the rich. They got the lowest percentage of tax cut but the end figure was more because they were paying so much more to start with.

Your envy and jealousy are showing.

</font>[/QUOTE]Sorry, but the judiciary is the arbiter of the constitutionality of law.</font>[/QUOTE] Sorry but that isn't the scope of what you said. Further, that is NOT where the judiciary has stopped in establishing all of these precedents that have progressively perverted the constitutional ideals. Like I said, liberals have progressively used these tactics to erode the founder's built in protections of the rights of the minority.

Not legitimately. There is nothing sacred about precedent. Precedent should always be compared back to the strictest interpretation of the constitution.

If you want to change the constitution, there is a mechanism for it... and it isn't judicial precedence.

They didn't dry up. I don't drink and strongly discourage it. I also don't agree with prohibition... but gangs didn't dry up at all.

And you think legalizing drugs in the way you prescribe will fix this problem? Sorry but no.

 

Oh btw. The rich create wealth producing jobs. The poor do not. Bill Gates would have done his part if he'd never given a dime to charity. Consider the number of people who are employed in some aspect of business due to his contribution to the economy. It is more than likely in the millions.

I appreciate the cut I got as a middle class tax payer... but I didn't employ thousands more people with it as the high end investment class did.

Bush's cuts did exactly what they thought they'd do for exactly the reason they thought they'd do it. They cut taxes on consumers and the investment class. The result is job creation and an economy that is rising in spite of the oil problems and war. Strangely liberals in the MSM don't want to talk about the economy since it stopped being another hammer they could hit Bush with. I remember them touting "Clinton's economy" throughout has scandal plagued years.

 

All law is based on morality. Statutes come from our representatives work out of a view of what is right and what is wrong. It is known to be wrong to murder, so we made it illegal(except in the case of unborn children..but I digress) It is known to be wrong to steal, so we made it illegal.
Our sense of fairness that liberals are always crying out for is based on morality. You cannot have law without morality. And any true child of God, especially a Baptist should know this and live by it. You cannot be a true child of God and cry out for a secular society. Our lives as christians both public and private are to be consumed with our worship to God. therefore we should be proud to stand up for the very righteousness and Holiness of God. For it is relative to him who defines all morality, and righteousness.

I agree with you about the prisons, and the jails, and filling them up. But the answer doesnt lie in ignoring the need for justice as God requires it. Justice is necessary to have a moral and civilized society.

I disagree with you that drug users only crime is using a substance that makes them feel different. This is a false characterization. Being a former "alcoholic" and having been raised in a very abusive alcohol filled home I must say with all expertise that you have no idea what you are talking about.

These substances destroy entire families. You may not know what it is to stand and watch your Mothers blood be spattered all over the wall because your father is on drugs and alcohol and decided that God has told him to kill her "because she was no good". But I surely do. So please untill you truly understand an issue I would stay silent. And refrain from over simplification of very serious issues that create so much devistation in so many lives.

 

You folks are always oversimplifying things or running to exagerated extremes as if they are the only alternative.

It is rediculous to compare what I said with the Taliban. I do not think like them, nor do they think like God. Again, it is not necessary to think that anyone would go to such an extreme. It is not the only alternative.

Again, true Christians cannot cry out for a secular society. But our character and our laws should reflect the character of God.

Ken, if we are ever threatend by the Taliban I will stand beside you in that battle.

 

Revmitchell, I am sorry you had such a horrible childhood. No child should have to witness or endure that. You are correct, I don't have the experience you do, never lived with an addict, nor have I been one. Not that I am high and mighty, just never had an attraction to drugs or alcohol.

Still, the problem you cite is abuse. If someone chooses their addiction over their family, it is incumbent upon the others to either help the person into rehab, or leave.

I also agree fully with Ken. I will not stand by while any religion tries to take over our secular republic where all are free to worship as they please, or not worship at all. God gives us free will, and you cannot, and should not, use the power of the state to promote sectarian beliefs or base civil law on it.

I've said it before, and it is right what my dad taught me..."Your rights to swing your fists ends where my nose begins."

True conversion comes with a change of the heart, not with the imposition of the force of the state.

 

You have missed my point. The very fact that we desire and have laws are evidence that we are made in the image of God. Every law passed speaks to that. You cannot run from God and you cannot exclude Him, however hard you may try.

Drugs and alcohol almost always lead to abuse. It is a key factor. It is the very cause of abuse in so many cases. It cannot be seperated as an individual issue. where drugs and alcohol are concerned, abuse is primary.

 

There is always the impulse to "help" people be better, by coercion. It always makes things worse.

God's law will work, when only God is enforcing it.

If one feels that He's not doing a good job of it, more likely, one does not understand what His purposes are.

 

That is correct... nor can you replace Him. The NT is built around the idea that men stands before God to give an account individually. Libertarianism is the only form of gov't I know of that does not attempt to interfere in that relationship.

It endeavors to protect men from each other... but not to protect them from God.

And that still doesn't give you or me a right to play God and force someone to obey our moral standards through the force of gov't. It is our duty to try to convince them. It is not our duty to twist their arm.

 

We could start by dropping the ridiculous idea that the "right to privacy" extends to protecting individuals from employer investigation that doesn't invade their property. There are effective ways of testing but currently they would bring down the full weight of ACLU types who would claim the employer was invading the privacy of the employee.

I don't follow. I didn't say I want the rest of us to pay to relieve them of the risks. You take the liberty, you assume the risks. I think you misunderstood my point here.</font>[/QUOTE] You said it should be monitored and regulated. To what end and at whose cost? The primary reason would be to protect the user, wouldn't it?

Again, I think you misunderstand me. I am saying social safety net in that I believe in universal healthcare, not just for bad choices, but for routine healthcare and catastrophic illness. Libertarians generally don't agree.</font>[/QUOTE] That's because universal health care is one of the worst examples of gov't relieving people of personal responsibility. Moreover, it would have a tremendous direct effect on this issue. The healthcare system would obviously pick up the bill for drug related health problems.

So since these people won't make the "right" choice, you'd have gov't do it for them. That isn't libertarian at all.

 

Its not our moral standards that concern me. Its the lack of Gods moral standards that concern me. He gets to decide.

 

Amen!