From: Bill Graham on

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}> wrote in message
> What makes a weapon "deadly" is the manner in which the item or object is
> used. Strangulation with pantyhose, running down a victim with a car, or
> as Hitchcock demonstrated, clubbing your husband with a frozen ham.
> --
> Regards,
> Savageduck
Hey! You're preaching to the choir....Tell that to the liberals, who have
been trying to take my guns away from me all of my life. ( I speak of people
like Dianne Feinstein who as Mayor of SF, wanted to ban all gun stores from
that city.)

From: tony cooper on
On Fri, 7 May 2010 07:00:18 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}> wrote:

>So that leaves us with about 60-62K who should successfully complete
>parole each year. Part of the final documentation from the parole agent
>could be a certificate restoring voting rights.

That's paroled inmates. Isn't the number of former felony inmates on
probation far higher than that? Aren't there felons who serve their
full sentences and then go straight to probation?

This isn't my area, but isn't parole an early-out from a sentence
where probation is a continuation of a sentence?

For the system to provide review, probation officers would have to
carry most of the load. In Florida, at least, they are over-loaded as
it is.

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Bill Graham on

"Neil Harrington" <never(a)> wrote in message
> "Will T" <nospam(a)> wrote in message
> news:ajp8u5l4vqg38c7soe5fjfnghjur82e9kr(a)
>> On Fri, 7 May 2010 14:23:11 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)>
>> wrote:
>>>Peter wrote:
>>>> "Neil Harrington" <never(a)> wrote in message
>>>> news:ffOdnf0qgpHBtHnWnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d(a)
>>>>> "Peter" <peternew(a)> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4be32172$0$27753$8f2e0ebb(a)
>>>>>> "Neil Harrington" <never(a)> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:0PidnfYBjd7ycX_WnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d(a)
>>>>>>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:hrudm3$638$1(a)
>>>>>>> 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
>>>on intelligence tests because the tests are "skewed" has been pretty well
>> Wow. What century are you living in.
> The Anything-Can-Happen Century.
> Look at this, a man in Germany just "married" his cat:
> Now there you go. Can television sets be far behind?
Hummmm......I wonder if the cat was rich.....Did he stand to inherit a bunch
of money when the cat died?

From: Bill Graham on

"Neil Harrington" <never(a)> wrote in message
> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)> wrote in message
> news:f739u5dbuguccanu3eg9qbvtondueflfte(a)
>> On Fri, 7 May 2010 11:25:31 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)>
>> wrote:
>>>"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}> wrote in message
>>>> On 2010-05-07 04:56:34 -0700, tony cooper
>>>> <tony_cooper213(a)>
>>>> said:
>>>> So that leaves us with about 60-62K who should successfully complete
>>>> parole each year. Part of the final documentation from the parole agent
>>>> could be a certificate restoring voting rights.
>>>Those are very interesting numbers.
>>>I have what I believe is the perfect solution to U.S. prison
>>>which I modestly call the Harrington Plan. Here it is, free, gratis and
>>>no charge:
>>>Our states arrange with some other country, preferably in South America
>>>perhaps Asia, to take our convicted felons. The benefits would be
>>>to all concerned (except the felons involved, of course). I understand
>>>each inmate of an American prison costs the taxpayer more than $20,000 a
>>>year, perhaps much more than that in some cases. I'll bet a country like,
>>>say, Ecuador would jump at the chance to take them for $1,000 a year.
>>>would help their economy a great deal while saving the American taxpayers
>>>millions. It would also probably stop gang leaders from continuing to run
>>>their criminal operations while in prison. And the thought of doing time
>>>an Ecuadoran prison (or Indonesian, or whatever) might even serve as a
>>>useful deterrent to crime.
>>>Great, huh? (I really think a little applause would be appropriate at
>> Fidel Castro beat you to this solution. In 1980 he sent about 125,000
>> Cuban prisoners to Florida. They included many violent criminals.
> I remember that -- the Marielita crowd, wasn't it? Very nasty types, not
> made any more well-mannered by having done time in Cuban prisons.
> But that was not by formal arrangement. He just put them on boats and told
> 'em "America's that way," or something close to that. My plan is to do it
> by agreement.
There was nothing wrong with that....It was a brilliant move on Fidel's
part.....Put the real stupidity where it belongs.....WE TOOK THEM!

From: J. Clarke on
On 5/7/2010 8:31 PM, tony cooper wrote:
> On Fri, 7 May 2010 09:47:35 -0400, "Peter"
> <peternew(a)> wrote:
>> "tony cooper"<tony_cooper213(a)> wrote in message
>> news:vdv7u5lhs6psehi8gce41t5ih8cl3rrph3(a)
>>> On Thu, 6 May 2010 23:50:11 -0400, "Neil Harrington"<never(a)>
>>> 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.

I don't use the stuff but I don't see where the "war on drugs" has
actually accomplished anything other than making the government look
like a bunch of buffoons.