Colbert 1, State Dept. 0

Post Reply New Topic

DWI where there is no injurious outcome is still wrong because it imposes an unreasonable danger upon others.

People who drive impaired should have their driving privilege suspended for life.

ruveyn[/quote]

As if your opinion matters, sadist.

Where was any alleged "drug offense" ever first defined as a "human right"? And actually, "medical marijuana" is now being recognized as legal.

For the alleged good of all, and especially for the sake of "government and big business", certain substances are controlled at all levels of commerce.



I can easily believe that kind of thing happens, but I cannot believe there is enough of that going on to actually cause and sustain significant elevations in US prison populations.



That is one scenario I have been thinking about, but there are two things about that:

1) It would be insane for the rest of us to demand no intoxicated driver ever be incarcerated unless some kind of actual harm had been done;
2) I cannot believe there are enough harmless drunk drivers locked up to actually cause and sustain significant elevations in US prison populations.

A person can do what they want with their body. If they're not harming others or the property of others, then what is the problem?

With the statutory exceptions of something like age or intoxication while on parole, people are not jailed for that. "Drug offenders" are jailed for violating laws related to commerce.

You're clearly delusional, I'll leave you alone now.

What the article pointed out is that despite being justly convicted of criminal offenses, most of the soon to be Australians were not criminally minded in their nature. It was simply that while in Britain, their best shot options for sustenance level lives were illegal.

They were criminals of desperation essentially. When freed of that environment, they showed their true colors and became prosperous upright citizens. This is likely also true of the bulk of the American prison population, and the grave mistake of connoting poverty with moral turpitude is comparable to the damning life paths imposed by the British class system.

Oh, come on! How does anyone's inability to show violations of human rights causing elevated populations in US prisons prove me delusional?! Or, and other than as in the statutory kinds of things I have mentioned, who do you know has ever been arrested merely for drinking or smoking dope?! Look more closely and you will see it is always drinking *and* something (often such as posession), and not just *for* putting something into one's own body.



I am not able to read that article well enough for myself, and I will not ask you to do that for me. However, I do find it difficult to believe there are no soup kitchens or transient-housing "faith mission" kinds of places in Britain.



I once tried using that kind of argument in traffic court and a judge quickly pointed out some options I had consciously chosen not to consider.



Actually, I *can* appreciate and show respect for their ultimate display of character.



You might be correct there, but I highly doubt that. I have been there both as a resident and as a regular visitor, and I can only think of one man I have ever know there to whom that kind of thought might have actually applied.



I might be completely ignorant concerning Britain, but I have yet to see any evidence here in relation to violations of human rights effecting US prison populations.

I think that leejosepho is being somewhat disingenuous.

Of course, there is the fact of crime that predicates almost all incarcerations (there are wrongfully convicted inmates, but I will sucscribe to the assumption that they are outliers, for the moment).

But there are the collateral issues of proportionality, and the exercise of discretion by courts.

How many offenders in the United States face imprisonment terms that are disproportionate to the gravity of their offence?
How many offences carry mandatory minimum sentences that remove discretion from the court?
How many face indeterminate sentences under, "three strikes," laws?

I will grant you that proportionality is difficult to quantify, but that does not insulate the exercise of state power from scrutiny.

Of course. Today. But the article talks about the days when Australia was first settled in the late 1700s. This was the time of the American and French revolutions.



I'm guessing that you were not speeding out of hunger or homelessness.



I knew that wouldnt be lost on you.





I personally didnt say anything about human rights violations in US prisons. If it occurs, its mostly at the hands of the other prisoners. My pertinent point was that the bulk of crimes are petty things such as shop lifting, opportunistic theft, robberies and muggings due to substance abuse and far ahead in the list, traffic violations.

Punitive measures to correct these are pretty much a waste of resources. I am sure that whatever you did to land in jail, it was through a lapse in judgment and your moral facilities were present both before your crime and after. The stint in jail wasnt really needed... was it?

There is a bumpersticker around here that says "kids that hunt fish and trap dont mug people". A little simplistic, but its also true enough that people on farms dont steal much food.

Not at all, but I have yet to understand what this thread is actually all about. Governments treat their citizens as they see fit, and the same goes for their incarcerated citizens. "Government" here in the land of US wants its citizens to believe it works hard at keeping them free and safe, so it comes down "lawfully hard" on anyone who might otherwise give Grandma a bit of a scare ... and "big business" benefits from all of that, thereby helping to keep the economy alive for another week or two.

Where are the human rights violations?

Surely this should be an enormous red flag to anyone who is turning their attention to the question of human rights. Governments should be subject to the rule of law, not treating their citizens as they see fit, but rather treating them in accordance with the standards of natural justice, and infringing upon their rights to life, liberty and security of the person only so far as is necessary in a free and democratic society.



I think the proportionality test is still a meaningful answer to your question. Does the criminal law exist to deter offenders? To exact retribution? Or to make "Grandma" feel safer and put profits in the hands of "big business?"

As a case in point, I do not believe that "Three Strikes" laws demonstrate a legitimate public policy response. I believe them to be an excessive, blunt instrument, that violates the human rights of offenders subjected to them. In effect, offenders are being punished twice for their earlier offences, and punish disproportionally for their present offence.