From: Peter on
"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2010050718385297801-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2010-05-07 18:08:50 -0700, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> said:
>
>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>> news:2010050717590918024-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>> On 2010-05-07 17:31:55 -0700, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net>
>>> said:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 7 May 2010 09:47:35 -0400, "Peter"
>>>> <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:vdv7u5lhs6psehi8gce41t5ih8cl3rrph3(a)4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Thu, 6 May 2010 23:50:11 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't agree there, either. A person is, or is not, a convicted
>>>>>>>>>> felon. Certain crimes are designated as felonies. We don't need
>>>>>>>>>> another layer of government to decide if this convicted felon
>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>> or should not be treated differently from that convicted felon.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If circumstances of the crime have a bearing on sentencing why
>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>> not have bearing on restoration of privelleges.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. Who is going to decide?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. The sentencing is set before the felon goes to jail. Any
>>>>>>>> restoration of privileges has be determined after the felon is
>>>>>>>> released and is off parole and probation and based partially on the
>>>>>>>> person's behavior while incarcerated and on parole or probation.
>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>> means the setting up of some sort of review board that does not
>>>>>>>> presently exist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I should think at least the preliminary work could be done as part
>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>> parole process. Whatever they need to consider during that, should
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>> bearing on the question of restoration of rights later.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can't add to the workload without adding to the work staff.
>>>>>> Prisons are presently over-crowded and understaffed.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder how many are in prision because of the marijuana and/or the
>>>>> Rockefeller drug laws.
>>>>> Wouldn't reformation of those laws lighten the work load?
>>>>
>>>> Marijuana offenses range from a misdemeanor to a felony. Whether or
>>>> not you agree with the laws in this regard, you *know* what the
>>>> penalties are. Almost all of the people in jail or prison for
>>>> possession/dealing/growth made a decision to take a chance on going to
>>>> jail or prison. That's on them.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, reducing the penalties would reduce the number of people in jail
>>>> and prison. Reducing the use would do the same thing.
>>>>
>>>> Misdemeanor offenders go to jail, by the way. Offenders are sent to
>>>> jail for one year or less, and to prison for a longer sentence. (Not
>>>> all jurisdictions draw the line quite so sharply, though.)
>>>>
>>>> I don't have strong feelings either way or de-criminalizing marijuana.
>>>> I see points on both sides of that issue. Given the right to vote on
>>>> the issue, I'd vote for de-criminalization but I wouldn't lead any
>>>> movement to do so. 'Course I don't use the stuff so I don't have a
>>>> dog in that fight.
>>>
>>> Once more, I can only speak for the current situation in California.
>>> Here marijuana possession for personal use usually ends up in a Court
>>> ordered "Diversion" program. That diverts the subject to a substance
>>> abuse program, usually non-residential, which he/she has a year to
>>> complete. With a certificate of completion the Court will expunge the
>>> conviction from his/her record.
>>> Many of these folks get second and third chances, provided there are no
>>> other crimes committed.
>>> In the area of dealing in quantities of more than an ounce of marijuana,
>>> the Feds get involved.
>>>
>>> Our big problems are crystal meth, heroin, and powder & crack cocaine.
>>> There is a myth that the prisons are filled with misunderstood,
>>> persecuted 60's hippie type pot smokers. Certainly there is a drug
>>> connection to many crimes, but those drugs are mostly crystal meth,
>>> heroin and the real biggie, alcohol. Few are serving time for the drug
>>> use alone. There is usually a primary violent or property crime which
>>> goes along with the drug use.
>>> Of those drug users some have serious drug abuse issues, but for the
>>> most part their drug and alcohol use is not driven by their poor social
>>> environment as many would have you believe, they are actually
>>> responsible for getting where they are by being criminals. The drug use
>>> is a smoke screen, so to speak.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Any drug can be abused. Certain drugs, such as crystal meth and H have
>> little or no known medical value. I also agree that substantial crime is
>> associated with illegal drug use. While I can't cite statistics, I think
>> that if distribution and use of certain drugs that have legitimate
>> medical uses, such as marijuana, were legal, there would be a lower
>> prison population.
>
> Again, the numbers incarcerated purely for either possession and/or
> dealing in marijuana in California are surprisingly small. Those who have
> had such a poor defense to end up in prison, could be kicked out of the
> California prisons today, and we would still make very little progress in
> reducing the prison population. Marijuana is well on the way to being
> decriminalized in California. However the Feds are not being so
> charitable.

So what is the answer?
We have vested interests in seeing the prison industry grow. We have a
social dichotomy over whether prisons should be purely punitative, or serve
as rehabilitation facilities, or both. We do not have the monies to pay for
rehabilitation and we do not have the monies to pay for pure incarceration.

Most people do not act criminally unless it is socially acceptable to do so.
What are these people learning at home.

>
> You have to see the violence tied to the meth & crack trade to truly
> understand. The use of the drug plays a small part in why these
> individuals are incarcerated. Control of the street level trade and
> territorial street & prison gangs are the big players in filling
> California prisons. Drug use/abuse is secondary.


I've read about the violence. I have no intention of getting so close that I
see it personally.

--
Peter

From: Peter on
"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2010050721303838981-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2010-05-07 21:00:52 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> said:
>

>> I seriously object to your concept that the right wingers in California
>> voted for the three strikes law. Since when did the "right wingers" have
>> any say at all over what laws got on the books in California? I preached
>> against the concept that you could replace a 125 K a year judge with a
>> secretary and a computer for many years when I lived in that state. But
>> after 40 years there, I can safely say that there was no law that I voted
>> for that wasn't voted down by the populace and visa-versa. A conservative
>> living in California was the equivalent of being disenfranchised.
>
> It is not my "concept" it is fact.
>
> The California "Three Strikes Law" was the result of a Voter Initiative
> (Proposition 184) put on the ballot in 1994 by one Mike Reynolds, who had
> been campaigning for it for year since his daughter was murdered by a
> parolee. It won with 72% of the vote, and it was badly written law.
> There was much publicity and reaction due to the kidnapping and murder of
> Polly Klass (do you remember her?) by Richard Allen Davis, a parolee in
> 1994. He became the poster boy for this initiative and the right-wing
> voters pushed it through without thought of the cost.
>
> The author of the Law was one Bill Jones, Republican, California
> Assemblyman, and losing opponent to your pal Barbara Boxer in the Senate
> race in 2004. He is currently involved with private company voting
> services as a consultant to Sequoia Voting Systems. A fine upstanding
> right-wing Republican. He would be very upset to hear you think he is a
> "Liberal" law maker.
>

Please don't bother him with facts.
Mr. Grahm is not a true conservative. I seriously question whether he
understands, or would admit he understands, the difference between true
conservatives and wing nuts.


--
Peter

From: Peter on
"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:9fo9u5lfahp1r2t0bt9cb0labh5gg15gdb(a)4ax.com...
> On Fri, 7 May 2010 21:08:50 -0400, "Peter"
> <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>Any drug can be abused. Certain drugs, such as crystal meth and H have
>>little or no known medical value. I also agree that substantial crime is
>>associated with illegal drug use. While I can't cite statistics, I think
>>that if distribution and use of certain drugs
>
> That's the part that bothers me about legalization of marijuana. The
> rules would creep. Once marijuana is legal, it would be easier to get
> other drugs on the list.
>

Do you remember the Vietnam domino theory?

>>that have legitimate medical uses, such as marijuana,
>
> C'mon, now. What's the real need for medical use of marijuana?
> One-tenth of one percent of the potential users? Yeah, it's helpful
> to glaucoma sufferers and chronic pain victims, but so are other -
> legal - drugs.
>

Marijuana is the only substance that has been shown to provide a high degree
of relief from many of the side effects of chemotherapy.
I had a friend who had a fatal neurological disease that caused, paralysis
accompanied by chronic sever pain. He had a life expectancy of no more than
ninety days. Under medical guidelines he could only receive moderate
narcotic doses, because they did not want him to become addicted.


--
Peter

From: Neil Harrington on

"Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:4be4b331$0$15023$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
> "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
> news:D8adnRV2I40Ox3nWnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>> Peter wrote:
>>> "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ffOdnf0qgpHBtHnWnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:4be32172$0$27753$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>>>>> "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:0PidnfYBjd7ycX_WnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:hrudm3$638$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unless they are suddenly afflicted by a severe attack of Humpty
>>>>>> Dumptyism (or a couple more Obama radical-lib appointees, which
>>>>>> effectively amounts to the same thing), they will not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly which "radical-lib" was appointed by our President?
>>>>
>>>> Obviously, Sotomayor.
>>>>
>>>>> Which decision[s] made prior to appointment, of his one appointee
>>>>> do you object to?
>>>>
>>>> Most famously, her ruling against white firefighters in New Haven, on
>>>> purely racist grounds. She was then and undoubtedly still is in
>>>> favor of discriminating against white males. That ruling of hers was
>>>> of course overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. Now she's part of
>>>> that court, which is bad news for anyone who cares about justice.
>>>>
>>>> The "wise Latina woman" remains what she always has been, in favor of
>>>> preferential treatment for certain races and genders, such as her
>>>> own. She has as much as said she wants to use the court for her own
>>>> political agenda, rather than to support the Constitution as it
>>>> stands. She made a joke of it on at least one occasion.
>>>
>>>
>>> That's what I thought you were talking about. Her original decision,
>>> which was fortunately overturned, was based upon precedents that
>>> existed at the time of her decision.
>>
>> What precedents?
>
> The ones upholding affirmative action. I'm sure you were aware that in
> Ricci she ruled against white and Hispanic firefighters. Acccording to my
> notes, she is Hispanic. Your statement that she gave preferential
> treatment to Hispanic people is contrary to the decision you are relying
> on.

You are correct, but there were seventeen whites and ONE Hispanic. I had
forgotten the one Hispanic. Mea culpa. It was still mainly a ruling against
white firefighters, based on their race. And I don't know about precedents
"upholding affirmative action." Precedents have been mixed, I think.

In any case her ruling was sublimely stupid and completely racist.

>
>
>>
>>> That decision doesn't make her a
>>> racist. We will have to wait and see her subsequent decisions.
>>
>> I think she's already made it clear what she is. Of course she downplayed
>> her agenda during confirmation, as anyone with that sort of agenda would.
>>
>>> At the risk of starting a flame war, I agree with the the decision
>>> that , race or ethnicity should never be a factor in hiring. Having
>>> said that, my comment only applies if the hiring tests are not
>>> skewed. e.g. if an "intelligence" test included a ;question on the
>>> meaning of "pants on the ground" it would be skewed.
>>
>> I believe the claims that certain population groups consistently score
>> lower on intelligence tests because the tests are "skewed" has been
>> pretty well debunked.
>
> When? Citation please.

I can't provide you with any off hand; it is my impression from what I've
read about the subject over the years. IQ tests are not supposed to be based
on one's knowledge or schooling, and I am not aware of any proof that they
are, or on any other factor that would skew them in favor of some race or
other population group.


From: Neil Harrington on

"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:komdnQ1lwKUsR3nWnZ2dnUVZ_uOdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
> news:D8adnRV2I40Ox3nWnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>> Peter wrote:
>>> "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ffOdnf0qgpHBtHnWnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:4be32172$0$27753$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>>>>> "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:0PidnfYBjd7ycX_WnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:hrudm3$638$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unless they are suddenly afflicted by a severe attack of Humpty
>>>>>> Dumptyism (or a couple more Obama radical-lib appointees, which
>>>>>> effectively amounts to the same thing), they will not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly which "radical-lib" was appointed by our President?
>>>>
>>>> Obviously, Sotomayor.
>>>>
>>>>> Which decision[s] made prior to appointment, of his one appointee
>>>>> do you object to?
>>>>
>>>> Most famously, her ruling against white firefighters in New Haven, on
>>>> purely racist grounds. She was then and undoubtedly still is in
>>>> favor of discriminating against white males. That ruling of hers was
>>>> of course overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. Now she's part of
>>>> that court, which is bad news for anyone who cares about justice.
>>>>
>>>> The "wise Latina woman" remains what she always has been, in favor of
>>>> preferential treatment for certain races and genders, such as her
>>>> own. She has as much as said she wants to use the court for her own
>>>> political agenda, rather than to support the Constitution as it
>>>> stands. She made a joke of it on at least one occasion.
>>>
>>>
>>> That's what I thought you were talking about. Her original decision,
>>> which was fortunately overturned, was based upon precedents that
>>> existed at the time of her decision.
>>
>> What precedents?
>>
>>> That decision doesn't make her a
>>> racist. We will have to wait and see her subsequent decisions.
>>
>> I think she's already made it clear what she is. Of course she downplayed
>> her agenda during confirmation, as anyone with that sort of agenda would.
>>
>>> At the risk of starting a flame war, I agree with the the decision
>>> that , race or ethnicity should never be a factor in hiring. Having
>>> said that, my comment only applies if the hiring tests are not
>>> skewed. e.g. if an "intelligence" test included a ;question on the
>>> meaning of "pants on the ground" it would be skewed.
>>
>> I believe the claims that certain population groups consistently score
>> lower on intelligence tests because the tests are "skewed" has been
>> pretty well debunked.
>>
> If you are testing people for a specific job, you should ask questions
> that are applicable to the job, and if the evaluator of the test results
> does not know who took the test (is unaware of the race or color of the
> testees) then the results should be fair to all races and ethnic groups.
> If all this is true, and you still end up with an all white group of
> firemen, then who can you blame for that?

Just so. In one large city (I forget which) a few years ago, not a single
black in the police department could pass the test for sergeant. I believe
they tried more than once, with the same result. So they just went ahead and
promoted some blacks to sergeant anyway, over whites who had gotten passing
test scores.

Now that is absolutely ridiculous.