Random Politics & Religion #00

I was listening to a debate on NPR this weekend, for and against the death penalty in America, and one of the guys that supports the death penalty claimed that the food is too good. He suggested some kind of nutriloaf? or something like that. Basically a tasteless food that's sole purpose is just to give you what you need to survive.

No, my point is that we don't know the precise figures because no one has been keeping track of those who are exonerated

Those are the exonerated cases that were found as of 2012, the year the database started. More have been found since and it's likely more will still be found.

And those are the people who were exonerated. Not everyone who is/was innocent will be exonerated

Did you see the 34,000 cases that have to be re-evaluated? The 200 cases that were put on hold?, etc. Because of mistakes or malicious intent by technicians. The court cases that were convicted because of faulty science (like the FBI admitting in April 2015 that the use of hair analysis has been flawed for decades) are not being re-tried. The NAS has stated that many "forenisic methods" being used as evidence are flawed or outright lies. Do you remember the case about faulty fingerprint analysis? The states that don't allow appeals for convicts who pleaded guilty or plea bargained to a crime to have DNA compared.

There are issues with the current justice system and not keeping track of our misktakes doesn't let us try to fix them.

Nutriloaf's tasteless on purpose. If you're in prison, you've lost your right to flavor.

I've never been to state or federal prison, but I can't imagine the food is better than a county jail. I know a guy I can ask, I'll do some research later this week.

And we wonder why prisoners go insane in prison and can never be rehabilitated.

I know that's what he's saying. But we're discussing social science, not chemistry. It's literally impossible to control for all variables in social science. It's hard enough trying to control for variables in more traditional sciences like chemistry.

If someone came up to me, tabula rasa, and said, "We should decriminalize drugs," I'd think the idea had very little merit. It sounds slightly crazy to me. Then again, I was born when Nancy Reagan was spouting her ridiculous "Just Say No" slogan, so I'm not strictly tabula rasa, anyways.

But then we look at the decriminalization and even legalization efforts made involving psychoactive substances and similarly proscribed dopamine-releasing activities (incidentally, every time I refer to Amsterdam, I'm thinking of its brothels, not its marijuana) and the knee-jerk reaction just doesn't work.

Yes, it's scary to be standing on the precipice and debating whether it's a good idea to jump into the water below. It's ridiculous to watch several dozen people do the same and then sit hemming and hawing about whether or not they died when one can clearly see they're alive and splashing.

Thing is, if nothing else, does criminalization ever deter criminal activity? I'm reminded very much of gun nuts rights advocates and their comment, "Outlaw all the guns and only outlaws will have guns."

Are there potential issues involved in legalizing substances? Absolutely. Portugal didn't actually legalize, anyhow, they just changed it from a criminal/imprisonment matter. Alcohol is still semi-criminalized here in the United States. Ohio only JUST killed its "No liquor sales on Sunday" a couple years back and I can still be arrested for leaving a licensed premises while inebriated, for all the sense that makes. CO's laws regarding marijuana are largely similar to those regarding alcohol, from what I know. It's not carte blanche to be wasted 24/7.

Nor would most people want to be. Google the "Rat Park experiments" to see why the popular model of drugs and addiction as portrayed to the public at large is very flawed. I can link it in comic form if people prefer. Or just think about it logically: alcohol is mostly legal and relatively easy to access, but most people aren't alcoholics, even though many do drink with some frequency.

I hate to be conspiracy theorist, but I really have to wonder if there isn't some ulterior motive behind 40+ years of a failed repeat of Prohibition. It's made insane amounts of money for drug producers in poor parts of the world (though they're also a perfect example of why trickle down economics is a load of manure), it's permitted the further rise of an already-bloated military-industrial complex, it's been a major factor in something like 1 in 6 Americans having a criminal record... it can't all just be Puritanical hysteria, not over the course of fully two generations.

You can't say that we don't know the figures and also say


Those arguments are counter to each other, even since your very sources you used to prove your reasoning showed a .0375% exoneration rate.

Yes, we don't know exacts. But what we do know is that the number is smaller than you think, and more in line with standard deviation. Which is something we can live with, because (although Mil will probably say otherwise) we don't live in a world where cops pick people up off the street and arrest them just for fun.

I thought true freedom was the ability to do whatever illicit drugs you wanted and to own the consequences therein? Seems both sides of the political shitshow want to moralize before having cocktail parties where everyone engages in drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes.

If you want to do hard drugs, go for it. You'll be a great warning label for future people who need warding off abuse. You'll probably also help employ someone in a rehab clinic near you. Or occupy a jail. Or be a riveting story that sells millions of book copies.

Either way, someones getting paid.

And on the other side? Perhaps some producers will become millionaires and innovators currently unable to cultivate *insert drug here* will be able to boost profits. Means more $$$$$ tax revenue... at least until we ship it all overseas to Thailand. And who doesn't like seeing quarterly profits? Even the moralizers will have no choice but to stroke themselves off at all the money they'll be making.

Just like we do right now.

It's pretty well proven at this point that severity of punishment is not deterring crime. I thought like you when I was 15 and had hard opinions on things that were based on ideology and not reality.

I never wonder that. I worked at Huntsville for most of the 90's. There will always be criminals that aren't interested in getting any kind of help with their problems, but the ones that do want the help too often don't get it because they're "just not worth it". According to my boss at the time, anyway.

Hell, you look at private prisons in the U.S. and even the guards aren't worth it to the owners. Understaffed, undertrained, undergeared.

It's all they can do to get through their shifts safely, let alone keep prisoners safe and properly in line.

I got to use a nice chunk of my first few paychecks on gear.

Hell even at state prisons.

I've a friend who was on-duty there at the time, luckily she wasn't involved in the incident directly.

BINGO. Milamber wins. Hope is restored.

I predict our new Duff Zero will sell better than our previous brand...

Out of business sign:

30 seconds later: Well that's the end of me !

I gotta say... I'm getting real tired of having a large chunk of tax money get paid out to people all the time for police *** ups and then watch as no one actually gets held accountable and they just go back to their jobs. Another $20 million paid out to a guy exonerated of his alleged crimes. Not to mention all the money spent on court costs and prison costs and the fact that the real criminal was allowed to go free.

We do not know this. We do not know this because we do not have the data.

I stated that those were the cases we know about. I also listed incidents where tens of thousands of cases are being re-evaluated. Cases which will also never be re-evaluated.

I could have worded my statement better by saying it definitely looks like false convictions occur at a higher rate than .2% because of [research posted below and in the that thread I listed]

Baltimore drug free zones where people were arested for standing around. recent interview on Baltimore

old news stories from the 1990's forward on the drug free zones

Edit:
cop in the hood

Uh, police don't convict people.

Sure they do it's called pepper spray !

Did the police:
Plant evidence?
Lie?
Not turn over all evidence to DA?
Etc

Flavin made the claim and didn't provide a source, so the ball's in his court.

You don't like it? Call the cops.

We're not talking about the criminals who don't give a ***. We're talking about the ones that want/can be rehabbed. The ones who'll be flushed down the tubes because "they're not worth it."

Since when do people care about criminals ?

It's not my fault damn it I'm the product of a bad environment. I'm not responsible I tells ya !

Christian America: Where I keep hearing about this Jesus guy forgives but *** if we don't love the death penalty and skullfucking prisoners in subhuman conditions.

Practice what you preach? Naw. *fires a rifle off in the air*

Google is wonderful
Man freed after 20 years in prison for Waukegan murder gets $20 million

I don't recall preaching forgiveness...for criminals...

If you wanna feel sorry for Johnny stabs a lot you are free to do so. I will not !

God... you just look for reasons to disagree with me don't you?