The American Ruling Class

[5150]

California may lead prison-reform trend, ease '3 strikes'
Voters appear poised to approve measure to let nonviolent offenders out faster



More than a decade after California set a national trend toward longer sentences for habitual criminals with its three-strikes law, crime in the Golden State is down, prison costs are up - and voters are poised to soften the hardline stance.

A California ballot measure that would let some nonviolent offenders out of jail faster is the most high-profile example of what Adam Gelb, a criminal justice expert at the Pew Center, calls "a sea change across the country in attitudes on crime and punishment."

While the main financial backer of the campaign to pass the measure is a liberal billionaire, it has drawn support from religious conservatives, fiscal hawks and a broad array of constituencies who have supported "tough on crime" policies in the past.

California isn't the first state to revisit policies that have caused an explosion in inmate populations and in some cases jailed people for many decades over relatively minor infractions. In 2007, Texas faced more than $2 billion in new prison costs and chose instead to plow $240 million into alternatives such as treatment-oriented programs for nonviolent offenders.

more

California may set trend easing '3 strikes' law - politics | NBC News

[rickoff]

Hi there, 5150. I'd be interested to hear your story, and to learn what an "insider" like you would do to alleviate California's problems caused by prison overcrowding and the unsustainable expense involved. Were you in for 3 strikes? If so, do you worry about going back a 4th time, and what do you think would be a fair penalty for a 4th time offender? Also, how many offenses do you think a person should be allowed to commit before that person is determined to be incapable of being effectively rehabilitated and released?

It's no secret that California is in deep financial difficulty, and that her cities are beginning to fall, like dominoes, into bankruptcy. One major driving force that has lead to this is the unsustainability of paying lavish state worker pensions. Another enormous contributing factor is California's vast illegal immigrant population, and the costs related to not only allowing this problem to go unabated, but rewarding this illegal activity by offering sanctuary cities. On October 5th I posted some information about the actual costs of harboring illegal aliens that bear repeating here: " The total cost of illegal immigration to Los Angeles County taxpayers alone exceeded $1 billion in 2008. Approximately $200 million was spent on public safety, $400 million for healthcare, and $450 million to welfare and food stamps. And consider this: In California alone, immigration is responsible for more than 45% of the state's school children. This huge influx costs California's taxpayers more than $26 billion each year."

In California's prison system, somewhere between 17 and 30 percent of jailed or imprisoned persons are illegal immigrants, depending on what source is cited. And, in recent years, the prison population has exploded to at least double what its planned capacity was. California cannot afford to construct more facilities to house this ever burgeoning inmate population, so there remains only two alternatives:
1. Deport all illegals now jailed or imprisoned in California. This would immediately alleviate much of the overcrowding, as well as the expense of housing these inmates. The only problem with this solution is that ICE has determined that roughly 70% of deported criminal illegal aliens are found to reenter the United States soon afterward, which means it is highly likely that they will commit further crimes and once again require incarceration, either in California or other states.
2. Dramatically increase the penalties for committing crimes, both for illegal aliens and citizen criminals. For example, anyone who has committed a violent crime would be executed. For non-violent criminal illegals, send them to a tent city bordering Mexico, where they would be put to work earning their keep while constructing an impenetrable border fence. When the fence is completed, release all prisoners of Mexican origin to the other side.

Real problems, like impending bankruptcy, require realistic solutions. If a state is going bankrupt it is only because they are spending more than they take in. Thus, the first step towards solvency is to prohibit any further deficit spending. The next steps necessary are to identify how state funds have been spent in recent years as compared to a time when that state had no deficit spending. Once the offending spending has been identified, you determine what caused the increases in those areas, and you remedy those causative factors. For some reason, California has refused to take these obviously necessary remedial steps. Perhaps it is because they expect that the federal government will offer a massive taxpayer funded bailout that will keep them going on their present course for a few more years, until the next unavoided and sure to come crisis. After all, California is probably considered "too big to fail," right?

[5150]

Hi there, 5150. I'd be interested to hear your story, and to learn what an "insider" like you would do to alleviate California's problems caused by prison overcrowding and the unsustainable expense involved. Were you in for 3 strikes? If so, do you worry about going back a 4th time, and what do you think would be a fair penalty for a 4th time offender? Also, how many offenses do you think a person should be allowed to commit before that person is determined to be incapable of being effectively rehabilitated and released?

It's no secret that California is in deep financial difficulty, and that her cities are beginning to fall, like dominoes, into bankruptcy. One major driving force that has lead to this is the unsustainability of paying lavish state worker pensions. Another enormous contributing factor is California's vast illegal immigrant population, and the costs related to not only allowing this problem to go unabated, but rewarding this illegal activity by offering sanctuary cities. On October 5th I posted some information about the actual costs of harboring illegal aliens that bear repeating here: " The total cost of illegal immigration to Los Angeles County taxpayers alone exceeded $1 billion in 2008. Approximately $200 million was spent on public safety, $400 million for healthcare, and $450 million to welfare and food stamps. And consider this: In California alone, immigration is responsible for more than 45% of the state's school children. This huge influx costs California's taxpayers more than $26 billion each year."

In California's prison system, somewhere between 17 and 30 percent of jailed or imprisoned persons are illegal immigrants, depending on what source is cited. And, in recent years, the prison population has exploded to at least double what its planned capacity was. California cannot afford to construct more facilities to house this ever burgeoning inmate population, so there remains only two alternatives:
1. Deport all illegals now jailed or imprisoned in California. This would immediately alleviate much of the overcrowding, as well as the expense of housing these inmates. The only problem with this solution is that ICE has determined that roughly 70% of deported criminal illegal aliens are found to reenter the United States soon afterward, which means it is highly likely that they will commit further crimes and once again require incarceration, either in California or other states.
2. Dramatically increase the penalties for committing crimes, both for illegal aliens and citizen criminals. For example, anyone who has committed a violent crime would be executed. For non-violent criminal illegals, send them to a tent city bordering Mexico, where they would be put to work earning their keep while constructing an impenetrable border fence. When the fence is completed, release all prisoners of Mexican origin to the other side.

Real problems, like impending bankruptcy, require realistic solutions. If a state is going bankrupt it is only because they are spending more than they take in. Thus, the first step towards solvency is to prohibit any further deficit spending. The next steps necessary are to identify how state funds have been spent in recent years as compared to a time when that state had no deficit spending. Once the offending spending has been identified, you determine what caused the increases in those areas, and you remedy those causative factors. For some reason, California has refused to take these obviously necessary remedial steps. Perhaps it is because they expect that the federal government will offer a massive taxpayer funded bailout that will keep them going on their present course for a few more years, until the next unavoided and sure to come crisis. After all, California is probably considered "too big to fail," right?

[dutchdivco]

Basic Premise of 'Human Behavior',...

For what its worth.
A+B=C, where A is me, B is any other 'entity' I am interacting with; My spouse, child, parent, co-worker, boss, neighbor, company, Government, ,....My fricking Dog.
C is the RESULT of my interaction with them.
If I am unhappy with C, I need to change the formula.

Basic reality; I CAN'T change other peoples behavior; we humans TRY it all the time, but it doesn't work! There is only ONE persons behavior I CAN change, and thats my own. BUT, if I change my behavior (not easy, but unlike changeing others behavior, at least possible) others WILL respond to me differently, and C; the RESULT of my interaction, will be different.

So, A squared plus B will NOT eaqual C. On the other hand;
A+B=C,A+B=C,A+B=C, etc. is a pretty good definition of insanity.i.e continueing to do the same thing, over and over, while expecting different results.
And, continueing to play the BLAME game, keeps us in the insanity; we're blaming B, instead of recognising that WE need to change OUR behavior.

I used to be like, and think like, the previous poster; When I encountered a C who was an 'assh*le', I re-arranged his face, or at least wanted to. And, I spent some time with 3 squares and a cot, courtesy of the taxpayers.

Then, I developed a different way of 'looking' at things; a 'bullet' I kept in my pocket.When I would encounter such an entity, (assh*le) I would THINK, (but NOT say) "Gee, fella! You'll NEVER get hemmeroids, cause your such a perfect assh*le!" As I would think that, it would be all I could do, to keep from laughing at the person! I would smile, and WALK AWAY.

We can Blame "olympic swimmers" (good one, by the way), but if our area was one of extreme poverty, and we could move 200, 500 or even 1000 miles away, and KNOW we could find jobs paying 10 or 100 times as much, MANY of us would move; look at the 'Booms' currently (Oil BOOM up North), and in the past (Gold Rushes, etc.).

We can blame the Gov't, and Business, but we either passively or actively participated in the development of our current system. If people are 'Gaming' the system, we are allowing them to. AND, most importantly, WE CAN'T CHANGE THEIR BEHAVIOR; only our own.
Sure, we COULD kill them, and that WOULD change their behavior, but they'd just make more!

For instance, people BLAME, and complain, about the 'GREED' of Big Business; Banks,Big Tobacco, Big Pharm, Big Oil. And yet, the greatest amount of stocks are held by IRA's,401K's and Pension Plans. And, as stockholders, companies that give a return on investment are rewarded, and those that don't are penalised.

Remember in 2008, when people were so upset at seeing their 'retirement account' balances drop? They were saying they WANTED these Companies to continue to be greedy!

Majority of stock in BP, Gov't pension plans in England.And they invested in BP, because it gave and gives steady, high return on investment; and it has a long history of 'cutting corners', PRIOR to the Gulf spill, which is WHY it was able to give these high yields!

Everyone is crying about the 2008 crash, but no one was complaining, prior; no one complained at low interest rates, or having their house 'value' go up $10,000 or more every year, or being able to 'flip' houses for a profit, etc.

"I have seen the enemy, and he is me!"

YES, politicians are corrupt; but we reward them for their behavior. We SAY we would like an 'Honest' Politician, but if one were REALLY honest, we would not vote for them.Politicians are giving us exactly what we reward them for, so WHO is to blame, and, more importantly, who's behavior can we change?

The problem is NOT with the politicians, its with the electorate; We have gotten the system we deserve.Jim

[5150]

[rickoff]

@5150: There are some points that we completely agree upon, such as government failure to enforce existing illegal immigration laws being the prime factor in our country being overrun by hordes of illegals. I also agree with you that government welfare programs should largely be eliminated because too many people milk them for all they are worth. What's the point of paying someone hundreds of dollars per week in unemployment compensation, for example. Why not assign that person to a work detail where they will be employed until they can find a better job? Let them work for what they receive. For that matter, why aren't such programs being carried out in the prison system? In "the good ole days" prisoners were assigned to work details such as manufacturing license plates and other goods, or working on road repair crews and such. Evidently this has all changed, because you say that, "3 hots and cot and sitting on my ass while the tax payers feed me is Cadillac." Sounds more like a hotel than a prison, except that when you stay at a hotel you must pay for your room, bed, and meals. Let me ask you this - did you prefer things that way, or would you have preferred being assigned to some job detail where you could have done something constructive and earned your keep while perhaps learning a useful trade that you could rely upon for income after being released?

On some things we definitely disagree, such as illegal immigration. You don't appear to think it is a problem, and seem to think that it actually results in some kind of financial benefit. It doesn't, and it has been documented that Barry's amnesty for illegals is actually going to cost 70 times more than the cost of enforcing existing immigration laws and deporting these illegals. And if the Mexican government is providing their people with free healthcare that is as good as ours, as you say, then why in the world are Los Angeles County taxpayers being saddled with $400 million in annual costs for providing healthcare to illegal immigrants? It's insane.

You appear to think that I "hate" illegal immigrants, and their offspring, but that is far from true. I'm not a hateful or spiteful person, and believe that everyone should be afforded the opportunity to better their own and loved ones lives. Many people want to come to the US to chase after that opportunity, and that's understandable, but there's a right way and a wrong way to do this. The US already admits nearly 1.5 million legal immigrants each year, and I have no problem with legal immigrants. My wife is one of them, having come here from the Philippines. She waited in line for nearly 3 years, paid all the fees, and did everything the right way. It's hard enough to find work for legal immigrants at a time when 23 million Americans are unemployed. Allowing illegals to stay here, work, and take advantage of a wide array of welfare programs is creating an enormous and unnecessary burden on US taxpayers who are already way overburdened, and is totally unfair to all those immigrants who followed the rules to come here legally.

I do agree that it is the fault of the corrupt and greedy politicians who made all of this possible, and I also agree with Jim (dutchdivco) that it is the fault of the people who have elected and reelected these politicians. I would totally agree with you that nearly all state and federal politicians are criminals and should be doing time in prison for their treasonous, destructive, and unconstitutional behavior. With them making the laws, and forming their own ethics investigation committees, though, that's not a likely scenario. As I've repeatedly been saying in this thread, voters need to get smart and kick out all these bums, and do it often.

Have you been able to find work while staying at the halfway house? I hope things will improve for you, and that you will not find it necessary to return to prison. You do seem to recognize that most, or perhaps all of your stays resulted from overly aggressive acts that you willfully participated in. Yes, there are plenty of a-holes in this world, and surely many of them probably deserve a good whupping, but why go to the places where these people are likely to hang out and get in your face? They aren't likely to show up at your residence, unless you have invited them, and aren't likely to be at your workplace either. You definitely have a choice as to the people you want to associate with, and I hope you make the right choices from here on out. I wish you all the best.

Rick

[5150]

[aljhoa]

and I also agree with Jim (dutchdivco) that it is the fault of the people who have elected and reelected these politicians.

not guilty by reason of insanity legal definition of not guilty by reason of insanity. not guilty by reason of insanity synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

For instance, people BLAME, and complain, about the 'GREED' of Big Business; Banks,Big Tobacco, Big Pharm, Big Oil. And yet, the greatest amount of stocks are held by IRA's,401K's and Pension Plans. And, as stockholders, companies that give a return on investment are rewarded, and those that don't are penalised.

Remember in 2008, when people were so upset at seeing their 'retirement account' balances drop? They were saying they WANTED these Companies to continue to be greedy!

HOW THE STOCK MARKET WORK - YouTube

Al

[Regster]

In California's prison system, somewhere between 17 and 30 percent of jailed or imprisoned persons are illegal immigrants, depending on what source is cited. And, in recent years, the prison population has exploded to at least double what its planned capacity was. California cannot afford to construct more facilities to house this ever burgeoning inmate population, so there remains only two alternatives:
1. Deport all illegals now jailed or imprisoned in California. This would immediately alleviate much of the overcrowding, as well as the expense of housing these inmates. The only problem with this solution is that ICE has determined that roughly 70% of deported criminal illegal aliens are found to reenter the United States soon afterward, which means it is highly likely that they will commit further crimes and once again require incarceration, either in California or other states.
2. Dramatically increase the penalties for committing crimes, both for illegal aliens and citizen criminals. For example, anyone who has committed a violent crime would be executed. For non-violent criminal illegals, send them to a tent city bordering Mexico, where they would be put to work earning their keep while constructing an impenetrable border fence. When the fence is completed, release all prisoners of Mexican origin to the other side.

Around 16% of inmates in California are in for possession of drugs. Portugal decriminalized possession of ALL drugs in 2001. The bottom line for them at the start was that it costs less to treat than to imprison and, contrary to scare-mongering at the time, is now enjoying a massive reduction in drug addiction (and drug use overall) and associated healthcare costs, for example a decline of STDs from prostitution and sharing of needles etc etc.

So decriminalization of possession of all drugs would free 16% of the prison population right away, just 1% off the (more sane) figure you quoted for illegal immigrant prison population. Decriminalizing the sale of marijuana would bring that figure up to 17.6%. And of course this would bring down the 17% figure too.

Certainly spending $50,000 p.a. to imprison someone for 25 years to life just because they get caught with $10 of drugs with the 3 strikes policy is fiscally (and morally of course) crazy.

As for violent crimes, as we get older it's easy to forget the maelstrom of testosterone and young adult social posturing/positioning we had to deal with. Violence is part of nature and when you look at how violent adolescent dolphins or monkeys can be (for example), you can see we are not alone.

It's easy to pontificate as we get older and as these memories fade, but I wonder how many of us would be doing life in California if we were unlucky enough to get caught for every stupid thing we ever did as kids/young adults?

[rickoff]

decriminalization of possession of all drugs would free 16% of the prison population right away, just 1% off the (more sane) figure you quoted for illegal immigrant prison population. Decriminalizing the sale of marijuana would bring that figure up to 17.6%. And of course this would bring down the 17% figure too.

Certainly spending $50,000 p.a. to imprison someone for 25 years to life just because they get caught with $10 of drugs with the 3 strikes policy is fiscally (and morally of course) crazy.

Hi Regster. Good points you make. I too think that decriminalizing all drugs is the way to go, and this has always been one of Ron Paul's stances.

[Dave45]

My take on the prison system, I have not personally been down but have a brother that has spent most of his life doing hard time, and my son done a two year stint.
I personally believe they use the prison system to indoctrinate young men and women, they send them down into a place that breads hate, hate for anyone that is not your color, they allow gangs, this bleeds out into society after they have been indoctrinated and released.
They keep us fighting amongst ourselves while they quietly rob us blind of our country and our liberty.
Its time to wake up.
dave

[dutchdivco]

Marshmallows

In the late 50's, a researcher (into Human Behavior) developed a simple experiment, which has been repeated 1000's of times.
A room, with a child sized chair and table, several toys scattered around the room, and a camera to record what happens. They bring in a 3-4 y.o. child, have them sit down, and place a marshmallow on the table. They explain to them the 'rules' of the 'game'; the child can eat the marshmallow any time they want,...BUT; the researcher is going to leave, for a few moments; when they come back, if the child hasn't eaten the marshmallow, they will give them a second marshmallow,and the child can eat BOTH. Then the researchwr walks out and closes the door.
SOME children eat the marshmallow before the door latches. Some resist eating the marshmalow for as much as 15 minutes. And some, (the most entertaining to watch, LOL) agonize, even beating their heads against the table, or with their hands etc. before finally succumbing, and eating the marshmallow.
In a follow-up study, they asked the chldren who had been able to succesfully resist eating the marshmallow "How they did it?", and (summarising) they pretended the marshmallow was a cloud, or a piece of Liver, or that it wasn't real, or that it wasn't there at all.
Many of them didn't LOOK at it, they looked everywhere else, or even got up and played with the toys.
On the other hand, the kids who couldn't resist looked right at it, and even seemed to be 'fighting' with it, looking at it with mean expressions, etc.

They continued to follow these children, thru adulthood. It was found that this test is a more accurate predictor of the childs future than I.Q., socio-economic background, single vs. 2 parent household, or any other predictor.

Something like 80% of those who 'failed' (to resist eating the marshmallow) also 'failed' to complete high school, or go to college, and over 60% ended up incarcerated.
On the other hand, 80% ofthose who 'resisted' (eating the marshmallow) completed 4 years of college, and only 2% were incarcerated.

Based (in part0 on this experiment, there is a 'theory' of human behavior; in any situation, there are 3 parts; 1) we 'percieve' the situation. 2)We 'think about' the various options for how we will respond to the situation, and 3) we form the WILL to respond in a specific way. This whole process can take less than a second, such as how we react to a traffic situation. Or, it can take some time, as we, for instance, consider making a major purchase,like a car or house.
Now, during the 18th century, the emphasis was on the 3rd step; 'Victorian' moral thinking said if you had 'Good moral character', you resisted the temptation to engage in certain behaviors; eating or imbibing to excess, adultery, whatever. THAT didn't work very well, as not only did many parishoners engage in such behaviors, but the priests who were 'preaching' did, as well.
During the 19th century, the emphasis was on the 2nd step; it was the 'age of REASON and LOGIC, (DeScartes, and the french enlightenment).
The idea was that you used LOGIC to 'control' your behavior; you didn't participate in certain behaviors, because you knew the consequences. "Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time", etc. Also a dismall failure, as our high incarceration rate shows.
So, Behavioral scientists, after 50= years of research, now say that step 2 and 3 are very 'weak' tools, for detirming behavior. The key, that these children who 'passed' the test have figured out, is in step 1; in the percieving, which is much more than what our eyes 'see'; its what our mind sees.
As an example; I'm going to assume we are all males, and none of us are pedophiles, (for the sake of this example).
If we 'see' a 5, 10 or 12 y.o. girl, we don't 'see' her as a sex object; as someone to have sex with. The idea never occurs to us. And yet we KNOW there ARE men who DO see such a child that way.
So, WE don't have to try to 'rely' on step 3; 'Knowing' that 'its wrong', nor do we have to 'rely' on step 2; "If I do this, I might get caught, and will be a social pariah, spend many years in jail, etc.
We 'address' the issue at step 1; our initial perception. And, as these children learned/knew, we as humans CAN control HOW we percieve something, and even CHANGE how we percieve something.
There was a time when I 'Saw' pharmacies as a building to break into, to steal the drugs to sell and use. Now, I 'see' a pharmacy the way the 'straights' do; as a place to get Rx.'s filled, and buy pampers, etc.
There was a time when I saw assh*les as a THREAT, and HAD to re-arrange their face; NOW, I 'See' them as clowns, to be laughed at, or even pitied, as i 'KNOW' they are going to ultimately hurt themselves far more than they hurt anyone else.
It DIDN'T happen over night, and it required a LOT of work, but I am much happier now, and snuggle up at night next to an accomodating wife, who is working WITH me to accomplish our goals, instead of having 3 squares and a cot.
"He made me so MAD, I njust hadda re-arrange his face!".....Well, no, not really. He engaged in behavior that was bullying, obnoxious, whatever. But, you CHOSE how to 'see' that behavior, and THAT choice led to your responce. You can hit him, or laugh at him, based on how you 'see' him, and his behavior.
Try it with something simple, as a start. Then work up to more complex things.
If you 'see' white guys as something to be 'punked out' than 'resisting' the urge to do so requires a LOT of work; if you CHANGE the way you 'see' them, than its EASY. The 'trick' is in the 'seeing', and THAT requires re-wiring your brain, and thats NOT easy; and takes TIME. Much les time than the time it'll cost you, if you don't, tho!
You and I don't see some things so differently, but we 'see' some things very differently; in large part, because I've made a conscsious effort to see things differently.
And I DO appreciate your stated perspective, that we can 'agree to disagree', and I wish everyone posting on these various threads and sites could retain that demeanor. Jim

[5150]

They keep us fighting amongst ourselves while they quietly rob us blind of our country and our liberty.
Its time to wake up.
dave

you said it, and its true.

[IndianaBoys]

Thinking Errors List

In my opinion, Dr. Samenow is one of the best resources to assist those that have had errors in their thinking and ended up in jail/prison. This applies to all even though they may not have been caught:

Biographical Sketch of Dr. Stanton E. Samenow
Biography of Stanton E. Samenow

Concept of the Month
Concept of the Month

Thinking Errors List:

http://www.healthychoices4dd.com/Art%20for%20the%20CD.pdf

[5150]

@ Indian Boys

Man what a crock of ... you know what!!!

Do you actually buy into all that BS you posted and the Dr who subscribes to such nonsense?

My response is in red

He got in my face and threatened me as he began to hit me, so I took care of business. So is that blaming others or simply calling it like it is?

2- Smoke Screen (Side Tracking) This Thinking Error is used when someone is trying to talk to you about something you don't want to hear - so you change the subject.
4- I'm Slick Thinking you can get away with negative behavior and not get consequences. Many times this involves sneaky behavior and lies.

5- I'm Special When an offender plays the I'm Special game, he thinks rules do not apply to him, or rules are not for him. He also thinks he should not get consequences for his behavior. When the laws are stacked against them or if the rules or laws are not honest in the first place then why not think they are above such laws.

6- Playing Dumb Saying "I don't know" when you really do know and don't want to try. Not trying hard enough to find the answer.

7- I've Got A Secret (na-na-na-na boo-boo) Keeping secrets because you think it is fun. Sometimes you might keep a secret because you want to be friends with that person. Making your victim keep a secret. As in classified information or Top-Secret or better yet Confidential on the basis of national security which the government engages in all the time. Also a secret in other situations can be either bad or good


8- Poor Me (Victim Stance) When you use this Thinking Error, you want people to feel sorry for you. You might do this when you are trying to not get consequences. I see many people play, they play the victim role as an excuse and I can spot these people a mile away. They are weak in my book too.

9- I Want It Now (Entitlement) Thinking you should get something without working for it. Asking for something over and over again instead of waiting patiently. This too is very common these days, way too many people think they deserve what they want and they want it right now.

10- I don't care about you (No Empathy) Not caring about other people. Only caring about yourself. Not caring about the things you do to other people and how it hurts them.

11- It's no big deal (Minimizing) Thinking like something is not a big deal when it really is. Using words like ONLY or JUST when talking about your behavior.