It's really too bad. So many criticize this administration over the immigration situation as if the problem began in January of 2017. And all the usual suspects in the Democratic Party, such as Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, were in office prior to Trump even running for the Republican nomination. We know that in Schumer's case, he actually supported many of the policies now pushed by Trump. And like them, Dem voters, such as Dan Trabue, did nothing to criticize Barack Obama for his failure to resolve the issue. They made no arguments against his detention of immigrants. I know this is true as I have recently reviewed all of Dan's blog posts from a few months before Obama took office and on throughout his two terms and there is next to nothing at all in the way of criticism for ANYTHING Obama did...despite Dan insisting he calls out his own when they do wrong.
But then, Dan's a known liar.
Anyway,
So much of what people like Dan...well...actually...I'm pretty much referring to Dan with what will come in this post, though much of it is true of most on the left with regard to the immigration issue...so much of what Dan expects is actually in place already. We welcome immigrants from all over the world to the tune of about 1million per year...600K of which are change of status personnel. And despite Trump's reduction in the number of refugees admitted, we still took in over 20K in fiscal year 2018, but the main reason for the drop in numbers is due to the backlog with which our people are already dealing.
That backlog is the result of the screening and vetting that must take place before affirming the claimant is legitimate and entitled to receive our protection. When the system is overwhelmed...which it is...that simply causes more of a backlog. It can't be helped what happens in other countries that forces people to flee for their lives. It's a true tragedy for which most people...regardless of political leanings...feel deep sadness and empathy. Unfortunately, regardless of how badly we might feel for all those suffering world wide, there are limits to what we can do about it.
And therein lies much of the dispute between people like me and the stupid...I mean, Dan. Dan pays lip service to concepts like how many we can actually let in and help, but he has no solid suggestion for just where the cut off should be. I'm more than happy to simply stop it all until we can catch up, because we're doing no one any good letting the crowd awaiting processing to grow and grow. We need both more people doing the job and fewer people trying to get in. Perhaps Dan can go and volunteer at one of the agencies who do the processing. He can clean toilets in order to free up those who know what they're doing.
But all this is just those who apply for asylum legally, through the proper legal channels every step of the way. There are also those who simply cross our borders illegally and then when caught, they assume the guise of refugee seeking asylum. There is no justifiable expectation that they should be treated exactly as are those who did things by the numbers. Dan sees no difference between them and the legal applicants. Dan is stupid. Legally, logically and practically, these border jumpers are simply illegal immigrants and should be regarded as such, dealt with separately from all those that sought entry according to the law.
Then there are the total frauds. There are far more than Dan is honest enough to admit, because to Dan, all those who want to come in should be believed no matter what their story is. But just as we know that there are far more false rape claims that idiots like Dan is willing to admit, illegal immigrants will lie as well. How many, Dan asks? Doesn't matter. What matters is that there are quite enough to justify tightening up enforcement of all laws related to immigration and border protection. The reason is simple, though Dan is too simple to get it through it pointy head. Bad actors come to us from other countries...as if we don't have enough of our own...and they do bad things in this country. The Remembrance Project is an organization that documents cases of Americans killed...some murdered, some victims of things like drunk driving...by illegal immigrants. Other sources illustrate that crime...particularly violent crime...and incarceration rates are disproportionately greater among illegal immigrants. To pretend there is no documentation for this fact is stupidly false and only an idiot would suggest such a thing...particularly one who prefers to regard all immigrants as within their rights to come and go as they please without regard the laws of the land. This is like suggesting that total strangers have the right to enter your home whenever they want, eat your food and use your stuff. But that's how stupid lefties are.
The intelligent people know that immigration law is meant to serve the country into which the immigrant wishes to enter. That country's main concern is the welfare of its own people, not that of the foreigner. No twisting of Scripture can change that, because nothing in Scripture disputes it in the least. But people like Dan, for whom truth and honesty is no more than a punchline, will do that twisting as if it's OK to risk the lives of one's fellow citizens in order to posture as a caring human being.
*Sigh* There are so many angles to the immigration issue that is only complicated by people like Dan and the Democrats he supports. There is no way to correct the many problems without first establishing that the laws must be obeyed and that our borders must be respected. Since it's asking too much to expect those conned by activists to respect our borders, we are actually forced into erecting a wall. Doing so will solve many of the problems we face, including slowing the backlog. A proper wall that inhibits the ability to cross will act as a deterrent, as word spreads that there is no "easy" way in because of it. Fewer will cross illegally confident that they can escape detection long enough for the next idiot Democrat to suggest amnesty.
The real cure, of course, is the countries from which these people come. More jobs, less violence and corruption results in fewer refugees and asylum seekers. But that's a different post for a different day. Dan and the Dems have even fewer logical, practical or worthy suggestions for those issues.
Sunday, December 30, 2018
Saturday, December 29, 2018
Futility
It's incredibly sad that we can't engage in civil discourse any longer in our nation. At least not on-line. People hide behind the fact that they aren't face-to-face, often not even in the same state or country, and equally as often not even using their real names (mostly on the blogs, but in other comments, too, such as those following internet news stories). As such, too many act rudely. They speak to others in a manner they never would face-to-face, supposing those on the other end of their incivility actually believe them to be tough guys, or courageous orators or whatever.
On the blogs, we see other bad behaviors, most notably a level of fascism that truly is becoming S.O.P. for those on the left. Just as they are in universities, in politics and in the media, these "progressives" (and liberals, socialists, marxists...so hard to know one from the other anymore, so much do they resemble each other) seek to dictate how opponents speak in order to express themselves. They delete and ban those who do not toe their constantly moving line...moving that line whenever it is convenient for the "progressive" to have it move.
The worse of this breed of malcontent I've encountered is our own Dan Trabue, self-styled "progressive" "Christian". (I had to surround each word with quotes separately due to the fact that each word is questionable on its own in describing this guy.) One can easily look for one's self to see that what I say is true, with one caveat: he's deleted so much from his comments sections of that which was posted by ideological opponents that one cannot fully experience what a lying coward he really is. Now, when I use that term..."lying coward"...I do not use it as a mere ad hominem. His cowardice is manifest in the fact that he does indeed delete that which exposes the flaws in his positions and character. His deceit manifests in how he describes what he has deleted if he deigns to post any bit of it in order to respond to increase his debate advantage.
That, too, is a trait of the left and Danny-boy. Their tactics are to gain advantage while pretending to put forth truth. Truth is always secondary because they don't believe such a thing exists as truth, but only the mysterious "MY TRUTH"...which changes from lefty to lefty as well as from one moment to the next depending on how the debate is going. OR, they...in this case, Dan...will simply delete.
The worst part of this behavior is when he deletes that which is exactly what he demanded from his opponent. In his most recent nonsensical post, wherein he once again disparages the president in the most shameful, unChristian manner...here comparing him to King Herod of the Christmas story...I stated the fact that many of those who seek asylum are lying about the reasons they give for seeking it. Now, this isn't news to anyone who's paying attention. But Dan demanded proof...actually demanding I provide some number or percentage of seekers who are lying. I provided THREE links that speak to the point. Each provided different information confirming that such abuses of the asylum system take place...with one coming from the USCIS, and another from an advocate for immigration. I doubt he ever read any of the links I provided because for him the important thing is to deny the truth in favor of that which he supports or advocates.
Frankly, I don't believe for a second...not anymore at this point...that Dan cares about anything other than posturing as a caring person. That is, if it was assumed by all who met him that he was a caring person, he would do very little to demonstrate it. What Dan cares about, in addition to his posturing, is advancing a very leftist and unChristian ideology on the world, to whatever extent he can, under the guise of a caring Christian.
But a real Christian doesn't advocate for that which is so incredibly harmful. A real Christian doesn't pervert Scripture in order to push an agenda. He doesn't lie about an opponent's position to support his own, nor does he lie about his own, for that matter. On the issue that prompted this post, Dan lies about Trump's immigration policy, attributing the deaths of two children to that policy. How is this a Christian act? It's bad enough that Dan thinks our immigration laws are evil, but to actually imply (if not outright state) that it was the policies which are responsible for the deaths of these kids...or any other would-be immigrant who dies in the attempt to illegally cross our border...is a lie of the most egregious kind.
Dan's position is basically this: because some people who want to come here aren't allowed to enter on their terms, our immigration policy is evil. Any attempt to counter this lunacy is met with vitriol, ultimatums and deletions. Is this the behavior of someone who cares about the people truly fleeing danger? No. Is it the behavior of someone who's truly seeking solutions? No. And it's certainly not the behavior of a Christian.
I've often been asked why I bother with this guy. I've got to say that at this point he shows no redeeming values whatsoever. His heresies and lies and support for sinful behaviors is pretty much without any cover these days. It's out in the open for all to see. Hypocrisy reigns supreme with him, as he lies constantly while going on and on about Trump being a liar, never once having criticized any Democrat for the many lies they spew as a matter of their party's platform. It's sad. It's pathetic. He's a true reprobate given over to his sin nature.
I've said of myself that I'm here to persuade or be persuaded. That's never changed. To debate, to hold an opinion...both require evidence of some kind...evidence that can be presented to others for them to examine. Only then can one persuade or be persuaded. Dan demands evidence, but rejects what is given out of hand with no counter evidence to even hope that the opponent can be disabused of his position. Dan offers no evidence for his side, yet expects the opponent to yield.
It's like talking to a petulant child.
He's still welcome to make his case here, if he ever finds a pair necessary to do so. He won't. He no longer tries. It's amazing that I can post any comment at all at his blog. That lack of cowardice he exhibits is telling. I have to think that if I was as frightened to engage with one diametrically opposed, it would be a sign that perhaps my position is lacking in some way, if not totally wrong and contrary to truth and reality. Dan doesn't care about truth and reality, though he uses the latter word often. He only cares about what he wants truth and reality to be. That's called LYING.
On the blogs, we see other bad behaviors, most notably a level of fascism that truly is becoming S.O.P. for those on the left. Just as they are in universities, in politics and in the media, these "progressives" (and liberals, socialists, marxists...so hard to know one from the other anymore, so much do they resemble each other) seek to dictate how opponents speak in order to express themselves. They delete and ban those who do not toe their constantly moving line...moving that line whenever it is convenient for the "progressive" to have it move.
The worse of this breed of malcontent I've encountered is our own Dan Trabue, self-styled "progressive" "Christian". (I had to surround each word with quotes separately due to the fact that each word is questionable on its own in describing this guy.) One can easily look for one's self to see that what I say is true, with one caveat: he's deleted so much from his comments sections of that which was posted by ideological opponents that one cannot fully experience what a lying coward he really is. Now, when I use that term..."lying coward"...I do not use it as a mere ad hominem. His cowardice is manifest in the fact that he does indeed delete that which exposes the flaws in his positions and character. His deceit manifests in how he describes what he has deleted if he deigns to post any bit of it in order to respond to increase his debate advantage.
That, too, is a trait of the left and Danny-boy. Their tactics are to gain advantage while pretending to put forth truth. Truth is always secondary because they don't believe such a thing exists as truth, but only the mysterious "MY TRUTH"...which changes from lefty to lefty as well as from one moment to the next depending on how the debate is going. OR, they...in this case, Dan...will simply delete.
The worst part of this behavior is when he deletes that which is exactly what he demanded from his opponent. In his most recent nonsensical post, wherein he once again disparages the president in the most shameful, unChristian manner...here comparing him to King Herod of the Christmas story...I stated the fact that many of those who seek asylum are lying about the reasons they give for seeking it. Now, this isn't news to anyone who's paying attention. But Dan demanded proof...actually demanding I provide some number or percentage of seekers who are lying. I provided THREE links that speak to the point. Each provided different information confirming that such abuses of the asylum system take place...with one coming from the USCIS, and another from an advocate for immigration. I doubt he ever read any of the links I provided because for him the important thing is to deny the truth in favor of that which he supports or advocates.
Frankly, I don't believe for a second...not anymore at this point...that Dan cares about anything other than posturing as a caring person. That is, if it was assumed by all who met him that he was a caring person, he would do very little to demonstrate it. What Dan cares about, in addition to his posturing, is advancing a very leftist and unChristian ideology on the world, to whatever extent he can, under the guise of a caring Christian.
But a real Christian doesn't advocate for that which is so incredibly harmful. A real Christian doesn't pervert Scripture in order to push an agenda. He doesn't lie about an opponent's position to support his own, nor does he lie about his own, for that matter. On the issue that prompted this post, Dan lies about Trump's immigration policy, attributing the deaths of two children to that policy. How is this a Christian act? It's bad enough that Dan thinks our immigration laws are evil, but to actually imply (if not outright state) that it was the policies which are responsible for the deaths of these kids...or any other would-be immigrant who dies in the attempt to illegally cross our border...is a lie of the most egregious kind.
Dan's position is basically this: because some people who want to come here aren't allowed to enter on their terms, our immigration policy is evil. Any attempt to counter this lunacy is met with vitriol, ultimatums and deletions. Is this the behavior of someone who cares about the people truly fleeing danger? No. Is it the behavior of someone who's truly seeking solutions? No. And it's certainly not the behavior of a Christian.
I've often been asked why I bother with this guy. I've got to say that at this point he shows no redeeming values whatsoever. His heresies and lies and support for sinful behaviors is pretty much without any cover these days. It's out in the open for all to see. Hypocrisy reigns supreme with him, as he lies constantly while going on and on about Trump being a liar, never once having criticized any Democrat for the many lies they spew as a matter of their party's platform. It's sad. It's pathetic. He's a true reprobate given over to his sin nature.
I've said of myself that I'm here to persuade or be persuaded. That's never changed. To debate, to hold an opinion...both require evidence of some kind...evidence that can be presented to others for them to examine. Only then can one persuade or be persuaded. Dan demands evidence, but rejects what is given out of hand with no counter evidence to even hope that the opponent can be disabused of his position. Dan offers no evidence for his side, yet expects the opponent to yield.
It's like talking to a petulant child.
He's still welcome to make his case here, if he ever finds a pair necessary to do so. He won't. He no longer tries. It's amazing that I can post any comment at all at his blog. That lack of cowardice he exhibits is telling. I have to think that if I was as frightened to engage with one diametrically opposed, it would be a sign that perhaps my position is lacking in some way, if not totally wrong and contrary to truth and reality. Dan doesn't care about truth and reality, though he uses the latter word often. He only cares about what he wants truth and reality to be. That's called LYING.
Friday, December 21, 2018
Watch That First Step...It's a Doozy!
I've been so busy with extra work days due to the holiday season, that I've barely time for much of anything. But while I'm still mired in the peak season, there's so much going on about which I'd like to put forth my thoughts that I'm willing to risk a less than ideal quality of post to get at it. I figure changes could be made or notions fleshed out in more detail in the comments section.
Right now, I wish to comment on the First Step Act of prison reform that at the moment, I'm not sure how far along the legislative process it has gone. From what I've been able to read about it, I immediately see problems. I'll begin with this:
"The mass incarceration epidemic in America is a stain on our society that must be eradicated. Lives have been ruined, families torn apart and communities devastated." -Hakeem Jeffries
"Epidemic"??? This foolish statement is at the heart of prison reform. What reform is necessary has less to do with those incarcerated than with how prisons are run. By this I mean that should one break the law, and the penalty for doing so is incarceration, there is no problem here whatsoever. The "epidemic" is crime...NOT incarceration for having committed crimes. It's absurd, yet to insist that lives are ruined and families torn apart...that's on the law-breaker! NOT on the prison system, the court system or law enforcement. This is how it works:
1. The legislative branch of government (fed, state, local) determines which behaviors are prohibited under penalty of law. Engage in one or more of those behaviors, and one has broken the law.
2. Law enforcement seeks out law-breakers and arrests them.
3. The courts decide of the charges against a defendant are legitimate and passes sentence.
4. If the sentence is incarceration, jail or prison is the next stop.
Throughout this process, lives are ruined...namely, the victims of the lawbreaker. The victims include not only those who were robbed, assaulted, murdered, etc., but the families of the lawbreaker (should the lawbreaker have one). The families that are torn apart are not simply the families of the lawbreaker upon his incarceration, but also the families of his victims, should those victims be murdered or hospitalized...and in some cases, so traumatized that the families are essentially broken until such time as the direct victim of the lawbreaker can be healed. And of course, communities are devastated by the commission of crimes against them by lawbreakers. Indeed, there is a ripple effect upon communities, society and the culture from every crime committed.
But the focus is on those who have broken the law with this Act. How is this just? If one is jailed unjustly, what needs reform is either law enforcement or the courts or both. Unjust arrest and sentencing is not a prison concern or issue. And in her support of this Act, Michelle Malkin refers to her investigative reporting that dealt with the wrongly accused. On that score, I believe prisons should facilitate any appeals by prisoners so as to rectify situations of wrongful convictions. I've read elsewhere that not all prison officials are necessarily sympathetic, assuming that anyone who is sent to them must be guilty. We know that isn't true 100% of the time. But I don't think the Act is meant to address these types of cases. So let's focus on actual lawbreakers.
It is said that credits for early release is part of the deal. But why should there be any expected? That is, crime comes with consequences...generally prison time based on the crime, the extent of which determined on case by case basis within predetermined parameters. I don't necessarily oppose "time off for good behavior", as a show of remorse and works to prove it may be used to both keep behavior within prisons in check, as well as to lessen overcrowding. But one must assume the full sentence will be served because justice demands it. Prison is primarily punishment and if one can't do the time....
When breaking the law, the perpetrator has incurred a debt to society and prison is how he pays that debt. It's a well known maxim. But this Act, as has been the case with so many for so long, does not consider prison as punishment. Indeed, many call themselves "correctional facilities". OK. Let's go with that for a moment. I believe that when one finds one's self in prison for having broken a law, one is punished by the loss of one's freedom of movement and during his incarceration should reflect on his deeds and correct his own bad attitude, vowing never again to walk on the dark side.
But any effort to provide the means by which a felon will "rehab" and become a good citizen incurs more debt to society. We each are provided with the means to acquire education from K through 12th grade. We are provided that, in most cases, through the loving donations of the American taxpayer. Additional education is paid for by the citizen or the citizen's parents. Now, we have these scofflaws who are somehow entitled to more education??? Because they broke the law??? It is said by many that it is worth it because recidivism goes down when the scumbags are given training for the outside world. But they had the same chance as everyone else to work hard (as hard as one's situation requires) to acquire that education and training for employment. They chose otherwise and now we're supposed to pay for it while paying for the education and training of ourselves and/or our kids?? No way!
If training for the outside world is what they need, and they are willing to partake in training provided by the prison system, they can have their future earnings garnished to pay back that added burden to society. It's only fair. One joker insisted I provide data that shows that would work. What idiocy!! I'm not concerned with whether such data exists and don't care to research to find out. I'm concerned with justice and there is none by breaking the law and expecting others to pay for your training while serving your punishment!! You owe society, not the other way around!
The First Step Act speaks to providing such training. It also seeks to provide for therapies for addictions and mental health. So really, if you have issues, or if you just can't kick that opioid addiction, rob a liquor store and your troubles are over!! All of this stuff should be at the cost of the felon, not the public.
Another issue is this 500 mile radius rule, which provides easier access for family members. All in all, I don't have a problem with this in theory, but again, there are problems attached. The first is, boo-freakin'-hoo. It's too bad your family is so far away. Whose fault is that? The judge? The prison? Your family? No. It's the fault of the convict for having broken the law. So if it's a burden on the family, why is that our problem?
What's more, what of those high crime areas? Metropolitan areas have more crime. How can convicts be guaranteed they'll be close to family if so many from the same cities are locked up? What do we do? Build more prisons so that no one is too far from those who care to visit? I don't see that there's any way they'll be able to accommodate all prisoners.
Finally, there is the desire to reconsider sentencing with regard to non-violent crimes. Fine. But I don't want to find out that sentences are reduced to relieve overcrowding. I don't care that lawbreakers have to sleep ten to a cell. Don't break the law and one needn't worry about such things. But again, that's not a prison issue. It's a court issue and a legislative issue. Change the law, if sentences are deemed too long. But the punishment must fit the crime, and that means not lessening the punishment just as it means don't overdo it.
The real problem of course isn't an "epidemic" of incarcerations. It isn't that minorities are locked up disproportionately. It isn't that prison needs to be fair, if by fair one means, no suffering. The problem is moral decay which leads to more crime for which people are arrested and locked up. But how do we solve that? It's that sin nature thing. Perhaps we should just teach people not to break the law (as if we haven't been doing that). That's how we're supposed to solve the "rape epidemic", so it should work equally well here.
Right now, I wish to comment on the First Step Act of prison reform that at the moment, I'm not sure how far along the legislative process it has gone. From what I've been able to read about it, I immediately see problems. I'll begin with this:
"The mass incarceration epidemic in America is a stain on our society that must be eradicated. Lives have been ruined, families torn apart and communities devastated." -Hakeem Jeffries
"Epidemic"??? This foolish statement is at the heart of prison reform. What reform is necessary has less to do with those incarcerated than with how prisons are run. By this I mean that should one break the law, and the penalty for doing so is incarceration, there is no problem here whatsoever. The "epidemic" is crime...NOT incarceration for having committed crimes. It's absurd, yet to insist that lives are ruined and families torn apart...that's on the law-breaker! NOT on the prison system, the court system or law enforcement. This is how it works:
1. The legislative branch of government (fed, state, local) determines which behaviors are prohibited under penalty of law. Engage in one or more of those behaviors, and one has broken the law.
2. Law enforcement seeks out law-breakers and arrests them.
3. The courts decide of the charges against a defendant are legitimate and passes sentence.
4. If the sentence is incarceration, jail or prison is the next stop.
Throughout this process, lives are ruined...namely, the victims of the lawbreaker. The victims include not only those who were robbed, assaulted, murdered, etc., but the families of the lawbreaker (should the lawbreaker have one). The families that are torn apart are not simply the families of the lawbreaker upon his incarceration, but also the families of his victims, should those victims be murdered or hospitalized...and in some cases, so traumatized that the families are essentially broken until such time as the direct victim of the lawbreaker can be healed. And of course, communities are devastated by the commission of crimes against them by lawbreakers. Indeed, there is a ripple effect upon communities, society and the culture from every crime committed.
But the focus is on those who have broken the law with this Act. How is this just? If one is jailed unjustly, what needs reform is either law enforcement or the courts or both. Unjust arrest and sentencing is not a prison concern or issue. And in her support of this Act, Michelle Malkin refers to her investigative reporting that dealt with the wrongly accused. On that score, I believe prisons should facilitate any appeals by prisoners so as to rectify situations of wrongful convictions. I've read elsewhere that not all prison officials are necessarily sympathetic, assuming that anyone who is sent to them must be guilty. We know that isn't true 100% of the time. But I don't think the Act is meant to address these types of cases. So let's focus on actual lawbreakers.
It is said that credits for early release is part of the deal. But why should there be any expected? That is, crime comes with consequences...generally prison time based on the crime, the extent of which determined on case by case basis within predetermined parameters. I don't necessarily oppose "time off for good behavior", as a show of remorse and works to prove it may be used to both keep behavior within prisons in check, as well as to lessen overcrowding. But one must assume the full sentence will be served because justice demands it. Prison is primarily punishment and if one can't do the time....
When breaking the law, the perpetrator has incurred a debt to society and prison is how he pays that debt. It's a well known maxim. But this Act, as has been the case with so many for so long, does not consider prison as punishment. Indeed, many call themselves "correctional facilities". OK. Let's go with that for a moment. I believe that when one finds one's self in prison for having broken a law, one is punished by the loss of one's freedom of movement and during his incarceration should reflect on his deeds and correct his own bad attitude, vowing never again to walk on the dark side.
But any effort to provide the means by which a felon will "rehab" and become a good citizen incurs more debt to society. We each are provided with the means to acquire education from K through 12th grade. We are provided that, in most cases, through the loving donations of the American taxpayer. Additional education is paid for by the citizen or the citizen's parents. Now, we have these scofflaws who are somehow entitled to more education??? Because they broke the law??? It is said by many that it is worth it because recidivism goes down when the scumbags are given training for the outside world. But they had the same chance as everyone else to work hard (as hard as one's situation requires) to acquire that education and training for employment. They chose otherwise and now we're supposed to pay for it while paying for the education and training of ourselves and/or our kids?? No way!
If training for the outside world is what they need, and they are willing to partake in training provided by the prison system, they can have their future earnings garnished to pay back that added burden to society. It's only fair. One joker insisted I provide data that shows that would work. What idiocy!! I'm not concerned with whether such data exists and don't care to research to find out. I'm concerned with justice and there is none by breaking the law and expecting others to pay for your training while serving your punishment!! You owe society, not the other way around!
The First Step Act speaks to providing such training. It also seeks to provide for therapies for addictions and mental health. So really, if you have issues, or if you just can't kick that opioid addiction, rob a liquor store and your troubles are over!! All of this stuff should be at the cost of the felon, not the public.
Another issue is this 500 mile radius rule, which provides easier access for family members. All in all, I don't have a problem with this in theory, but again, there are problems attached. The first is, boo-freakin'-hoo. It's too bad your family is so far away. Whose fault is that? The judge? The prison? Your family? No. It's the fault of the convict for having broken the law. So if it's a burden on the family, why is that our problem?
What's more, what of those high crime areas? Metropolitan areas have more crime. How can convicts be guaranteed they'll be close to family if so many from the same cities are locked up? What do we do? Build more prisons so that no one is too far from those who care to visit? I don't see that there's any way they'll be able to accommodate all prisoners.
Finally, there is the desire to reconsider sentencing with regard to non-violent crimes. Fine. But I don't want to find out that sentences are reduced to relieve overcrowding. I don't care that lawbreakers have to sleep ten to a cell. Don't break the law and one needn't worry about such things. But again, that's not a prison issue. It's a court issue and a legislative issue. Change the law, if sentences are deemed too long. But the punishment must fit the crime, and that means not lessening the punishment just as it means don't overdo it.
The real problem of course isn't an "epidemic" of incarcerations. It isn't that minorities are locked up disproportionately. It isn't that prison needs to be fair, if by fair one means, no suffering. The problem is moral decay which leads to more crime for which people are arrested and locked up. But how do we solve that? It's that sin nature thing. Perhaps we should just teach people not to break the law (as if we haven't been doing that). That's how we're supposed to solve the "rape epidemic", so it should work equally well here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)