They're gonna do it! Set "lifers" loose...

[Atash Hagmahani]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/05/04/teen.lifers.supreme.court/index.html

His lawyers admit that he has had more than a 100 incidents of fighting and threatening inmates and guards, plus having contraband and weapons
...
It's important for the criminal justice system to recognize that inmates like Joe [Sullivan] are going to change biologically, psychologically and emotionally as they grow up in prison," Stevenson said. "We should not assume it is a change for the worse."

Even their euphemisms sounds really bad.

The implication in the early paragraphs was that he was sentenced harshly for "just" rape. Then they slowly add bits and pieces to the story--he brutalized his victim...and already had an extensive criminal record.

[Rusty Shackelford]

As I told you, I rarely go anywhere unarmed.

[Watcher]

Wow.

'had a lengthy juvenile record'

'violent home-invasion robbery while on parole for another felony.'

'returned with a knife and sexually assaulted the 72-year-old female homeowner'

'more than a 100 incidents of fighting and threatening inmates and guards, plus having contraband and weapons,'

But......
 
There is 'a lack of proper jailhouse counseling' and 'Few studies have been conducted on the psychological effects of young defendants facing life in prison' and 'We have created a forgotten population with a lot of needs'.

This is for real isn't it?  They are actually going to release someone who violently raped a 72 year old and has a repeated and consistent history of violence both before and after his arrest.  They are actually going to do it, because of a lack of 'counseling' for him in jail.

[Atash Hagmahani]

I keep posting these articles to make a point.

It seems counter-intuitive at first. At the moment we're having a statistical lull in violent crime, due to demographic issues ("greying"--overall largely elderly population--90 year olds usually don't cause much trouble), but 20 years ago, a lot of US politicians made their careers with "tough talk" about "getting tough on crime", often coordinated with various publicity stunts to make them seem sincere.

If you look more closely, you start noticing a pattern: certain crimes that they care about, and certain crimes they don't. That makes sense, actually, from a cynical point of view. You'll notice that it tends to depend on variables that determine whether they can opportunistically use the incident or not, and generally not on "victim impact" or "probability of recidivism" once other more important variables have been accounted for.

There is 'a lack of proper jailhouse counseling' and 'Few studies have been conducted on the psychological effects of young defendants facing life in prison' and 'We have created a forgotten population with a lot of needs'.

There is basically an assumption that they WILL be paroled. Usually they wait until the "heat" (public pressure) is off.

One of the elements in the story that I find disturbing is the victimization angle. He's in a wheelchair, with a neurological disease that will eventually kill him. OK. I'm sorry. It's not my fault, and it's not relevant. If anything--sorry to say this--but he is probably cheaper to maintain in prison than on welfare with a legion of case workers.

There was a case in my old neighborhood, in which an elderly woman was caught shoplifting. The media publicity around the case kept emphasizing how FRAGILE she was. How she needed an oxygen tank. OK, but she got caught stealing crab-meat. The courts threw the case out immediately by pure judicial fiat, and accepted her lawsuit against the store for "emotional trauma", costing the company an expensive settlement. Shortly thereafter, they moved out and sold the store.

How about all the other elderly ladies who really are poor, who DIDN'T steal the crabmeat, and to whom the cost of shoplifting is passed along in the form of higher prices they can't afford?!

Most people don't make those kind of connections. Many people will look at you dumbfounded if you do, and accuse you of just making excuses for being a cold-hearted SoB.



 

[Lore]

You are on to something. I see something similar in a related matter.

Canada has a thriving multi billion dollar bureaucracy - victim industry - that benefits directly from a heavily promoted program for drug addicts. Called "Harm Reduction," it involves free syringes, trained staff, counselors, food and drink and comfortable surroundings, ostensibly / allegedly "to prevent the spread of disease."

It sounds humane, and liberal activists are pushing it hard, but the effect is to legitimise drug addiction and promote it as a sustainable lifestyle. The impact to people and businesses downtown (steady increase in CRIME and FEAR) is largely ignored, with occasional high profile incidents resulting invariably in calls for "more police" and "more funding" and "more affordable housing" (more empire building), but no real change.

The courts are an administrative gravy train. Police are frustrated by the lack of meaningful consequences for repeat offenders, who are generally back on the street within hours of apprehension.

I don't have time right now, but it would be interesting to see how crime and law enforcement changes during a SHTF scenario.

[Watcher]

There was a case in my old neighborhood, in which an elderly woman was caught shoplifting. The media publicity around the case kept emphasizing how FRAGILE she was. How she needed an oxygen tank. OK, but she got caught stealing crab-meat. The courts threw the case out immediately by pure judicial fiat, and accepted her lawsuit against the store for "emotional trauma", costing the company an expensive settlement. Shortly thereafter, they moved out and sold the store.

How about all the other elderly ladies who really are poor, who DIDN'T steal the crabmeat, and to whom the cost of shoplifting is passed along in the form of higher prices they can't afford?!

Most people don't make those kind of connections. Many people will look at you dumbfounded if you do, and accuse you of just making excuses for being a cold-hearted SoB.

I can just about see the rationale behind dropping a shoplifting case against an old woman who has very fragile health. There's a certain degree of natural sympathy for frail old women and prison is hardly going to be a realistic option so it could be reasoned that it's just not worth the hassle of a full prosecution. That doesn't follow that a court could just throw the case out due to those considerations.  For her to then be able to file a case for 'emotional trauma' for the trauma of being arrested for commiting a crime just shows that the rule of law is being completely subverted in the name of cheap emotional blackmail.  When the rule of law is overturned in that way it sets an extremely disturbing precedent. Without the protection of consistently upheld law, society is unable to operate properly.  Without consistent law, how do people make investment decisions?  Make any sort of long term plans and how is justice to be upheld if law can be overturned by appeals to irrational emotions?

Lore makes a good connection to the situation in Canada, where the 'Human Rights Commisions' have usurped the role of Parliament and the courts in making and judging laws and have made such fine decisions as awarding damages of tens of thousands of dollars against a restaurant owner for the 'crime' of telling someone to stop smoking cannabis in the entrance to his restaurant.  They have also upheld the 'right' of employees of McDonalds to NOT[/] wash their hands after using the lavatory.  Accountability is draining away and arbitary rules and decisioning making processes are growing. This way lies the death of a free society and the development of a corrupt, banana republic system where no institution can be trusted and everything is done according to who you know.

[Lore]

I didn't get to my point in the previous post. What I was trying to say is that authoritarianism cannot take hold across communities without some widespread critical mass of crime to break down trust between neighbors and create the perception of need for outside 'security.'  Drugs are one handy vehicle to set the stage.

Ridiculous, no?

On a different but related note, does anybody remember the incident where 2 or 3 Quebec Police disguised themselves as rock-throwing protestors in order to play agent provocateur during the Bilderburg meeting in Quebec? Civil unrest makes socialistas uncomfortable, hence the deliberate attempt to escalate an otherwise peaceful demonstration and legitimise dramatic police action. I had a hard time coming to grips with this news, as I know a few genuine, honest policemen who would not take part in such a thing. But the fact that it has definitely happened once - in recent memory, relatively close to home - suggests that someone thinks that way and would do it again. Accept this, and you start to look for agent provocateurs behind all sorts of world events...

[Lore]

Accountability is draining away and arbitary rules and decisioning making processes are growing. This way lies the death of a free society and the development of a corrupt, banana republic system where no institution can be trusted and everything is done according to who you know.

What do immoral rulings and legislation tell us about the rulers and legislators?

[Atash Hagmahani]

I don't have time right now, but it would be interesting to see how crime and law enforcement changes during a SHTF scenario.

Well, I dunno what things are like where you are (Canada?) but here in Seattle, the police are already undependable and somewhat corrupt. However, there are variables I do not pretend to understand.

During any of our riots, the police have been selective about whose life and property they are willing to defend. If it were something worse than a riot, I would fear the police themselves.

[opsec]

Most people don't make those kind of connections. Many people will look at you dumbfounded if you do, and accuse you of just making excuses for being a cold-hearted SoB.

I want to learn how to be more of a cold-hearted SoB just to piss off these kinds of people.

[Rusty Shackelford]

Being a cold hearted SOB is easy.  Just remember that "those people" are taking food from the mouth of your children.

You make the mental choice - "those people" or your kids.  Pick one.  They lose every time. 

I equate theft with murder.  You exchange your life for value - you do something for a set amount of time - say 10 hours for which you earn $100.  You spend that $100 on a bicycle.  That bicycle is now worth 10 hours of your life. 

Somebody steals that bicycle.  They have in effect, stolen 10 hours of your life.

Now, if you had 10 hours to live and someone killed you, could they be prosecuted for murder?

How is the theft of the 10 hours of labor different?

[opsec]

I don't have time right now, but it would be interesting to see how crime and law enforcement changes during a SHTF scenario.

The experiment has already been done. Look at what the police did in New Orleans during hurricane Katrina. They banded together and started robbing people at gunpoint, effectively transforming themselves into an armed gang.

[Lore]

On a different but related note, does anybody remember the incident where 2 or 3 Quebec Police disguised themselves as rock-throwing protestors in order to play agent provocateur during the Bilderburg meeting in Quebec?

I was mistaken. It was the North American Union bunch ("Security & Prosperity Partnership")...

LINK to video of the event

The following news also seems somewhat relevant to our overall topic:

Italy Sanctions Creation of Vigilante Patrols

[opsec]

How's this for an idea? We form our own vigilante group with the governments approval. Instead of being autonomous like they want the vigilantes to be (i.e. to break down legitimate law and order) we immediately present ourselves to the county Sheriff and ask to be deputized. We then act as an interface between the public and the authority structure such as it exists. Given the way the police behave now, and the fact that we would be much more sympathetic to the public than the police, we would quickly gain more credibility and thus have more real power than the police. The police would then effectively be under our control.

[Watcher]

What makes you think the police would deputise you?

It seems somewhat unlike that they would willingly give up authority to any 'vigilantes'.