200,000 Convicts To Be Released

[rotor]

What if someone sells a teen a dose of heroin and the teen dies of an overdose? Any different than just shooting or stabbing the teen?

Yes, there is a vast difference. The teenager made a voluntary choice to buy the heroin and to ingest it. I'm presuming that in your analogy that the same teen would not be paying someone to shoot or stab him, nor would he volunteer to be shot or stabbed. The difference is volition. Even teenagers are aware of the dangers of buying and using heroin. It's a choice. Teenagers also overdose on Acetaminophen and die as a result and the dangers of Acetaminophen are far less known to teenagers than the dangers of heroin. Unless the person has been deliberately misinformed about what is being ingested it is his responsibility not to overdose.

If your premise is correct than teenagers would never end up buying and using what turns out to be a lethal dose of narcotics. The people selling those drugs to teens don't care if the teen dies. The teen has no way of knowing that he may be getting a lethal dose of drugs but the seller does know it and doesn't care. If we want legalized drugs than it ought to be sold and taxed just like all the other legal abusive drugs (alcohol and tobacco).

[Excaliber]

That oughta help the unemployment numbers!

When they can't find jobs, what do you think they're likely to do?

Apparently Obama and Holder are upset over the falling crime rates. Their idea is to replicate the utopias of Detroit and Chicago throughout the country.

[VMI77]

If your premise is correct than teenagers would never end up buying and using what turns out to be a lethal dose of narcotics.

That's a non sequitur. They buy illegal drugs because they like using them and because they're not available legally. The drug dealers aren't stopping them in the street, pointing a gun at their heads, then forcing them to buy and ingest these drugs. First, they have to get they money for them. Then they decide to spend the money on drugs rather than something else. Then they have to seek out someone selling the drugs they want to buy. Then they have to ingest them in some fashion or another. They make a series of choices. Their choices. No one is forcing them to do drugs. The media, movies, and television shows are full of stories about the dangers of illegal drug use.

The people selling those drugs to teens don't care if the teen dies.

True to some extent, but even for illegal drug dealers, dead customers are both bad for business and tend to attract attention from law enforcement.

The teen has no way of knowing that he may be getting a lethal dose of drugs but the seller does know it and doesn't care.

Quite false. This possibility is repeatedly expressed in the media, in television shows, and in movies, as well as lectures in schools and anti-drug programs. Again, the seller may be somewhat indifferent, but it's not accurate to say he doesn't care (at least in most cases) since killing customers brings unwanted attention and hurts business.

If we want legalized drugs than it ought to be sold and taxed just like all the other legal abusive drugs (alcohol and tobacco).

That would be better than the current system but I'm not in favor of government regulation and taxation for social engineering purposes. I'd rather repeal the taxes on alcohol and tobacco. Why should tobacco be taxed more than butter or soda pop?

[baron]

If people are killed with guns should the dealers go to jail?

[rotor]

If people are killed with guns should the dealers go to jail?

If the gun dealer illegally provided the gun to a bad guy (someone not legally able to own a gun) than yes. But if people are shot by bad guys during an illegal act than those bad guys should go to jail. And drug dealers should go to jail too.

[baron]

The argument was drug dealers should be sent to prison because drugs kill people. I was pointing out the same argument could be applied to gun dealers. And is by the anti-gun people.

I'm sorry I was too subtle.

[cb1000rider]

That oughta help the unemployment numbers!
When they can't find jobs, what do you think they're likely to do?
Apparently Obama and Holder are upset over the falling crime rates. Their idea is to replicate the utopias of Detroit and Chicago throughout the country.

Using that logic, once locked up, we should throw away the key. In order to do that, you and I are going to have to pay more taxes to make sure we can provide for their care and feeding. You want to provide social welfare to those who made bad choices? I don't.

I understand the "criminals are criminals" mentality, but I think this - on the face of it - is likely a solid financial decision and speaks well of our justice system. Is it fair to get convicted of a crime, get sentenced for 20 years, only to see the country change punishment policies had you committed that same crime a few years later? Heck, states are decriminalizing some of this stuff, turning it into a tax benefit instead of an institutional tax burden.

I'm for keeping the really bad guys locked up and spending my money to do it. However, for non-violent people largely guilty of single offenses - saying that we should keep them locked up because our rehabilitation system prevents them from getting a job sounds like a great downward spiral.

[mojo84]

The argument was drug dealers should be sent to prison because drugs kill people. I was pointing out the same argument could be applied to gun dealers. And is by the anti-gun people.

I'm sorry I was too subtle.

Actually, they are sent to prison because selling illegal drugs is illegal.

[philip964]

hmmmmm can they be voters?

That is next on the agenda. Trust me.

[nightmare69]

Most will change their mind once those drug users and dealers move into their neighborhood and they get the whole 9 yards of crime that goes with the drug world. It's easy to say they should be let out and the laws are too strict in your nice gated community.

[The Annoyed Man]

Apparently here are some of the qualification guidelines:

To qualify, prisoners must have already served 10 years of their sentence for a nonviolent crime that would have been prosecuted or sentenced differently today. They must also have no significant ties to larger crime organizations, have a good record in prison, and be free of a lengthy criminal record aside from the crime they're currently serving time for.

Apparently this is mopping up after many of the mandatory minimum sentence guidelines got changed (support on both parties).

Sounds reasonable to me, but if this impacts a large group of people, we'll find a few examples of why this wasn't a good idea.

Actually, I'm mostly OK with those guidelines. But there are a few kinds of non-violent prisoners who are SO deviously immoral and broken that I think they should die in prison......Bernie Madoff for instance.....people that simply wiped out the financial solvency of thousands of the elderly and reduced them to poverty for the rest of their lives. A guy like that deserves to die in prison, no matter how many years it takes. If he ever gets out, his parole should require him to mop the floors in a hospice for the rest of his life.

Add John Corizine to that list.

Absolutely.

[Abraham]

nightmare69

You hit the nail on the head!

Criminals simply put are criminals.

Let's suppose they quit dealing in drugs, does that presume they won't be involved in other crimes...fat chance.

Letting criminals out because they're non-violent is a ludicrous idea.

The cost savings of letting them out will exceeded by the crimes they'll now have the opportunity to commit.

Paying for criminals to remain in jail is one welfare program I'm in favor of...

[Abraham]

...and (I forgot to add) just because they're convicted of a drug crime and not a violent crime doesn't automatically equate to them NOT being a violent criminal.

Many drug criminals are quite violent, though it may not be listed in their conviction.

[gringo pistolero]

Criminals simply put are criminals.

Are we talking about people who have muzzle loader bullets in Washington DC, people with a lock blade pocket knife in San Antonio, or both?

[Jim Beaux]

nightmare69

You hit the nail on the head!

Criminals simply put are criminals.

Let's suppose they quit dealing in drugs, does that presume they won't be involved in other crimes...fat chance.

Letting criminals out because they're non-violent is a ludicrous idea.

The cost savings of letting them out will exceeded by the crimes they'll now have the opportunity to commit.

Paying for criminals to remain in jail is one welfare program I'm in favor of...

History proves youre correct. Hard to remember many of the details but when activist judge William Justice (rabidly liberal as they come) took over the Texas prison system he ordered that it reduce prison populations due to over crowding. The state had no alternative but to open the gates and release inmates that were not eligible for release. The state began paroling the less violent offenders-and over night Texas was hit with an epidemic of car thefts & burglary. Our prisons quickly became a revolving door and many who were charged with crimes learned not to plea bargain for probated sentences because they could go to prison and get released faster then what the terms of probation would be.

The actions of this clown has not only made the world unsafe, but have cost many Texans to lose loved ones, and pay for one of the largest prison complexes in the world.