Life in Prison for being Homeless

[Lorizael]

Curiously enough, I think calling them inhuman dehumanizes them too.

At what point did their DNA change? What makes them inhuman other than the fact that you're repulsed by what they do? Why don't they deserve a second chance?

It's not as if they did anything really bad, like eat an apple they weren't supposed to eat or anything.

[Lancer]

A second chance is a second chance to molest a child.

Really, I'm for killing them, and never giving them a second chance.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Lancer
A second chance is a second chance to molest a child.

Really, I'm for killing them, and never giving them a second chance.

I'm not really sure how this argument couldn't be made for all crimes and criminals.

[Shrapnel12]

Originally posted by Lancer
Imran, couldn't there be different laws for different aged kids? Like a 5 year old boy being molested by a 50 year old guy should be considered differently than an 18 year old boy and 17 year old girl doing what comes natural. Couldn't the law be written differently for these cases?

I think most of us will agree the laws are not fair. Why are they that way though? Why won't they change? Why are the most "innocent" crimes of say a 17 & 18 yr old having sex treated so harshly, but the most cruel crime of pedophilia treated so leniently? I think we need to ask the religious right the first question and looney left the answer to the second question. We are being too controlled by the extremeist factions of our governments.

[Lancer]

Originally posted by Lorizael


I'm not really sure how this argument couldn't be made for all crimes and criminals.

Nature of the crime.

Shrapnel, that sounds good to me.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Lancer
Nature of the crime.

Shrapnel, that sounds good to me.

That sounds like cruel and unusual punishment to me.

Let me get something out of the way before this continues: do you actually care about the Constitution at all? Does it have meaning for you? If it doesn't, that's fine, but it means I'm going to start making very different arguments.

[Ramo]

Guys, I know I'm not mainsteam on crime. Mainstream people is why it's not safe to walk the streets at night. Mainstream people sit in their gated community and cry over the rights of monsters.

It's probably exactly the opposite. Rich people in gated communities are the demographic that generally favors longer prison sentences. Gated communities, like longer prison sentences, make these people feel safer. For instance, here's a Zogby poll on NY State (about drugs, but the same principle likely holds):

Q: Some people think anyone caught in possession of illegal drugs should be sent to jail or prison. Others think it makes little sense to imprison people for simple drug possession and they should receive treatment instead. Which comes closer to your own opinion – jail or prison, or treatment?

Jail or prison 18.9

Treatment 73.8

Not sure 7.2

Treatment is favored by three-quarters (76.8%) of respondents in New York City, African-Americans, Hispanics, most age groups and income levels, union workers, females, and those who live in large cities. The strongest support for treatment (82.8%) comes from those in the less than $15,000 income bracket.

One-quarter of Republicans (27.3%) and suburbanites prefer jail terms.

http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/publicopinio/zogby.cfm

[Shrapnel12]

Originally posted by Lancer
Imran, couldn't there be different laws for different aged kids? Like a 5 year old boy being molested by a 50 year old guy should be considered differently than an 18 year old boy and 17 year old girl doing what comes natural. Couldn't the law be written differently for these cases?

I think most of us will agree the laws are not fair. Why are they that way though? Why won't they change? Why are the most "innocent" crimes of say a 17 & 18 yr old having sex treated so harshly, but the most cruel crime of pedophilia treated so leniently? I think we need to ask the religious right the first question and looney left the answer to the second question. We are being too controlled by the extremeist factions of our governments.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Straybow

Originally posted by lord of the mark
The article mentions 15 folks, surely Georgia has far more registered sex offenders than that?

It isn't that there is anything unusual about the topology in Augusta. Some offenders already own a home, or live with relatives, or share an apartment with a friend, etc. There are undoubtedly many places outside the restrictions if those options are available. If not, the Salvation Army shelter is too close to protected locations. That leaves only a couple of sleazy motels.

How hard would it be for the state legislature to finance another homeless shelter in Augusta? That way homeless sex offenders can still live in Augusta, and the state can keep its law the way it likes. Meanwhile the folks already arrested can be pardoned.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo

It's probably exactly the opposite. Rich people in gated communities are the demographic that generally favors longer prison sentences. Gated communities, like longer prison sentences, make these people feel safer.

Gated communities are, i suppose, cheaper and more common in Texas than here. And of course, upper class liberals much rarer on the ground there than here.

Here Id say the folks who support harsh attitudes to crime are more likely to be more or less ordinary middle class folks, some living far out, some living on the edges of areas that far from homogeneous. . Mainly suburban, but that hardly means rich. And, not surprisingly, heavily Republican.

[Shrapnel12]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



How hard would it be for the state legislature to finance another homeless shelter in Augusta? That way homeless sex offenders can still live in Augusta, and the state can keep its law the way it likes. Meanwhile the folks already arrested can be pardoned.

I wouldn't be surprised if Georgia did this deliberately. Perhaps they are trying to get sex offenders to leave the state or lock them away forever. If that's the case, they would never do as you suggest.

[lord of the mark]

"Treatment is favored by three-quarters (76.8%) of respondents in New York City, African-Americans, Hispanics, most age groups and income levels, union workers, females, and those who live in large cities. The strongest support for treatment (82.8%) comes from those in the less than $15,000 income bracket.

One-quarter of Republicans (27.3%) and suburbanites prefer jail terms."

1. the support for treatment comes from all income levels in NYC. So the difference is location,not income. IE uppermiddleclass folks in Suffolk are harsh, and folks in the same income brackets in Upper Manhattan are not. Limousine liberals, anyone?

And not surprisingly, support is strongest in the income brackets where people are most likely to know a drug user. Of course drug use is a victimless crime. Would you get the same reaction if you were asking not about drugs, or even crimes against property, but about crimes againts persons? Like, er, sex crimes?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Shrapnel12


I wouldn't be surprised if Georgia did this deliberately. Perhaps they are trying to get sex offenders to leave the state or lock them away forever. If that's the case, they would never do as you suggest.

So they care more about Augusta than Atlanta?

[Ramo]

Gated communities are, i suppose, cheaper and more common in Texas than here. And of course, upper class liberals much rarer on the ground there than here.

Here Id say the folks who support harsh attitudes to crime are more likely to be more or less ordinary middle class folks, some living far out, some living on the edges of areas that far from homogeneous. . Mainly suburban, but that hardly means rich. And, not surprisingly, heavily Republican.

I was being somewhat hyperbolic when I used term "rich." My point was that the "tough on crime" sentiment is more likely to come from folks that live in less crime-ridden areas (like gated communities and suburbs). Income obviously is a strongly correlated variable here.

1. the support for treatment comes from all income levels in NYC. So the difference is location,not income. IE uppermiddleclass folks in Suffolk are harsh, and folks in the same income brackets in Upper Manhattan are not. Limousine liberals, anyone?

And not surprisingly, support is strongest in the income brackets where people are most likely to know a drug user. Of course drug use is a victimless crime. Would you get the same reaction if you were asking not about drugs, or even crimes against property, but about crimes againts persons? Like, er, sex crimes?

Obviously where you have 73.8% supporting treatment, all income groups will. But it's clear that the lowest income group supports treatment at a higher rate. And yes, that income group is more likely to know someone convicted of a drug related crime. Just as they would be more likely to know people convicted of most other crimes (probably including sex crimes). But I'd be interested in seeing other polls...

[Ramo]

So they care more about Augusta than Atlanta?

I'd suspect that there's a similar effect in Atlanta...