Conference quark::human_relations-v1

I'm fighting the family court system, right now... (see other notes), and it
sucks as well.  I am finding that to get any justice, you have to *fight*, and
***pay*** for it! 

Maybe it's a misleading idea that justice and freedom are free...

Jim.

     
     Next thing you know, they'll be talking about touchy-feely stuff
     in SOAPBOX.
     
     --Mr Topaz

    I am not happy with how justice appears to be blind in this state.
    There are victim services available on a limited basis through the
    district att. office.  It is a start.  Several people I know have
    been "gay bashed".  First they have to prove the assault and then
    the element of discrimination in the violence they have suffered.
     Usually the criminal gets off with probation or a fine.  Al if
    you are still frustrated and angry, seek help through EAP.  They
    have people available to you to help you by listening, and learning
    new coping styles.
    
    You have a right to your anger.  Try to keep focused and not feel
    victimized...be angry with the system and use that to fight to change
    it. It sounds like you intend to do that.  Any way best of luck...
    
    MaggieT

    In California and Colorado, the Republician controlled bashed the
    liberal courts until they got tough penal laws passed. Now, they
    are fighting tax increase measures to feed and house the over crowded
    inmates at the various levels of jails.
    
    It is my observation that most folks want to sweep the "bad" folks
    under the rug [aka prisons] and forget them. Unless there is a disposal
    system, the solution may get them temporily out of your community
    but the problem doesn't go away.
    
    Long term solutions are costly [read LIBERAL], short term solution
    is to sweep the problem from view [read conservative].
    
    Any comments?
    /cal hoe 

    re: .5. .6
    
    Well, me buckoos, take heart. When the 'Supreme Court' gets its
    newest 'conservative' Justice, some observers (Businessweek) feel
    that all the "hard won gains" in Equality, Gay Rights, Freedom_for_all,
    and all those other "liberal" policies CAN BE CHANGED by being brought
    back to the Supreme Court.
    
    You may find all those "criminals" in jail; and a jail in everyones
    back yard. Hopefully, the jails will be located where the "law and
    order" proponents live.
    
    There is a "Jail shortage" now. It seems thay can't use any of the
    old ones that don't have air conditioning in them because the Guards
    can't take the heat (many jails/prisons now employ female guards
    in the mens' prisons-pays too low to attract men).
    
    .bob.
    
    Hey, Don - How'd we get from H_R to Soap_Box ?
    

    
    Someone correct me if I'm wrong......
    
    Judges in Mass. are appointed by politicians (which isn't unusual)
    but I'd rather be able to elect one. 
    
    I'd also like a method of removing judges similiar to that which
    the people of California have. 
    
    Maybe if judges here in Mass. were actually accountable for their
    actions...............nah, that might make sense.
    

    In Montana, where I grew up, we elect at least some of the judges, and
    it doesn't make any difference.  Go into any bar or coffee shop and
    you'll hear exactly the same complaint about the judges and the justice
    system. 
    
    In most states, judges, like other officials, are subject to
    impeachment for cause.
    
    --bonnie

    Uhmm,  is this soapbox?  Oh well, ....
    Sorry you got burnt Big Al but the justice system in this state
    leaves a great deal to be desired.... on both sides.  I know a guy
    who went to jail for six months for pushing away from him the drunken
    wife of a very rich and powerful man.  Two judges disqualified
    themselves from the case because they were "contacted at home",
    one of whom ran the local court system (forget his title).  The
    guys boss was contacted and warned not to hire him on work release,
    the guys girlfriend received "anonymous" phone calls telling her
    that he was gay.  The police officer (who did NOT make an arrest
    at the time because he did not feel any criminal action took place)
    testified UNDER OATH that he met several times with the woman's
    husband "socially" during which time the woman's husband (who was
    not even present during the incident) "explained" to him "further
    details" regarding what happened that night.  
    Ah yes, the Massachusetts Justice system..... all the justice money
    can buy.

    Um, this is not SOAPBOX.  I sympathize entirely, but don't think
    that this topic is really H_R material.
    
    					Steve

    re: .11
    
    Steve, I realize that my first note sounds a little soapbox'ish(sp).
    My intend was to ask how long do we put up with the behavior of
    a court/legislative/goverment system that allows crime to be a big
    business. How do we overhaul a system and make it work before being
    the victim impacts each of us individually. I don't feel that I
    am on a soapbox but rather as a victim at this time I wonder how
    many people have to be victims before we all wake up. I for one
    would much rather feel that I can trust someone and not have to
    run a police computer check to see if they are an ideal roommate.
    I would like the consolation that the criminals are asleep in a
    safe place and I don't have to worry about someone is going through
    my security boxes while I am at work.
    
    If you feel this note has gone past the limit feel free to delete
    it or set it hidden.
    
    al
    

    Can I ask you a couple of questions, Al? 
    
    I don't think you mean this (or do you?), but you sound as though you
    think that anyone who has ever committed any crime of property or
    violence ought to be permanently removed from society. 

    Granted that this person who took you to the cleaners sounds like a
    pretty sleazy sample of humanity, and he's clearly a repeat offender,
    do you really think he deserves a life sentence for credit card fraud?
    
    What would you recommend doing to him?  It's easy to criticize the
    present system of capture and punishment; its flaws are painfully
    obvious to any thoughtful person whether or not they've been personally
    victimized.  But what is going to work better?
    
    If you continue to penalize the person for the rest of his life,
    making it difficult to get housing and jobs, for example, you've
    virtually guaranteed that he's going to continue preying on others
    simply because he has so few choices.  How are you going to prevent
    that? 

    Thanks for any clarification or ideas.
    
    --bonnie

    Al, like you and others in this note, I'm not thrilled by
    the way our criminal justice system works (or doesn't work,
    depending on one's point of view).
    
    There is, unfortunately, a problem in locking up all offenders
    for whatever period of time is deemed appropriate for the crime,
    and thinking, "O.K., now decent society is protected".
    
    For each criminal who is "put away" or who dies - like the old
    saying that nature abhors a vacuum - there are more CIT's
    (Criminals in Training) to take his/her place.
             
    
         Alan
    

    
    
    Part of the inherent problem as far as discussing the judicial system
    could be that we don't really know exactly how it works; at least
    I don't. Anyhow.........
    
    One thing I'd like to see is for those incarcerated to be allowed
    time off not for good behaviour but instead only if they've done
    something that will enable them to reenter "society". What I mean
    by that is to get a trade or to finish/further their education.
    Now I know that a reasonable percentage are probably employable
    but from what I read, a large percent are without marketable skills
    and/or a minimum education. Perhaps if those folks were required
    to get a legitimate high school education before they could be released
    there might be less repeat offenders. Og course I'm not
    referring to the extremeley violent types who probably should be
    incarcerated for OUR good. 

    The state cannot even afford to feed and house them.  Jails are
    so overcrowded that men sleep in hallways.  I read somewhere that
    this country jails significantly more people than European countries
    to.  Standards for behavior are set by our leaders.  Our leaders
    think nothing of flaunting the law for their own purposes.  Very
    few "white collar" criminals are jailed.  Last year a record setting
    number of banks went belly up and the reasons given were "incompetence
    and theft" on the part of bank officials.  No bank officials were
    ever prosecuted.  There is a dangerous double standard of behavior
    in this country.  The poor man gets jailed for things the rich man
    isn't even chastised for.  Minimum wage has been frozen for seven
    years.  A man can work a forty hour week and still not be able to
    rise above poverty level, never mind support a family.  These
    conditions foster an atmosphere conducive to lawlessness.  
    Lawlessness reflects an unhealthy society, not a permissive one.

    RE:13,14,15,16
       
    I don't believe all criminals belong in prison, but do believe some
    form of incarceration is required be it prison or state health
    institution. I did a sociology paper in college on the penal system
    in this state - I actually spent 3 days in MCI - Concord. I am as
    aware as anybody how bad the conditions are there.
    
    The perpetuator of the crime against me did the same thing to the
    last person he rented a room from - that person was already under
    severe emotional strain due to loosing a leg to bone cancer and
    as well as having his family leave him. His bank would not make
    good on the 5000 dollars of stolen/forged checks and he went over
    the edge and OD'd on sleeping pills. My ex roommate did 30 days
    at Billerica and was released when he offered to make good on the
    checks to the bank. Since our courts will not let the D.A. look
    at past crimes, this individual never gets looked at by the system
    for the historical trail of crime he has left behind him. I believe
    this individual needs intensive mental health treatment say at a
    state facility like Bridgewater. He has been doing these kinds of
    things for at least the last 6 years according to his father who
    is also a victim. The word I have gotten is that there are people
    on the street looking for him in regard to Drug money. enough about
    this individual.
    
    I believe our courts should have solid victim rights in order to
    help restore victims of crime back to a stable status. Our state
    should build a massive facility that has treatment center as an
    integral part of it. This treatment center would be equiped to treat
    mental health problems.All criminals would do the required sentence
    for their crime at a prison where some form of skills would be taught.
    When the court sentence has been served, these criminals would be
    sent to this mental health facilty where they would undergo intensive
    analysis and therapy to get their minds to act in a more responsive
    manner. Only when they are of reasonable sound mind would they
    be eligible for a parole board hearing. Once released they would
    be on an intensive probation regimen till they have shown they are
    capable of being on there own.
    
    Violent crime offenders(repeat offenders) would be incarcerated
    for longer periods of time. Premeditated murder, murder comitted
    while in the act of another crime, rapists and police killers would
    be sent to the death chair or locked up till natural death occurs.
    
    I believe that if the punishment for commiting a crime were more
    severe there would be less crime. We increased the penalty for driving
    under the influence in this state - the result is less alcohol related
    deaths - is there a correlation - I think so...
        

    al
    

    Which notesfile am I in??  
    
    - M

    Human_relations - because people are discussing this politely
    and not screaming :-)
    

< Note 349.17 by USMRW4::AFLOOD "BIG AL" >
                          -< from where I sit...... >-

    
    I believe that if the punishment for commiting a crime were more
    severe there would be less crime. We increased the penalty for driving
    under the influence in this state - the result is less alcohol related
    deaths - is there a correlation - I think so...

We have longer prisom terms than many other countries which have lower
crime rates. The certainty of punishment is more of a deterent than
unlikely serious punishment.  There's also an argument that kids with 
no hope for reasonable jobs (no training, high unemployment rates) are
going to turn to crime as the only way of supporting themselves.

We are seeing a major change in the mores of the society about drunk 
driving.  It simply isn't acceptable anymore.  When the society decides
that drunk driving isn't acceptable, we don't allow our friends to drive
home if they've been drinking, bars offer free soft drinks to "designated
drivers" and everyone thinks more about the dangers of drunk driving.  
We're still not very good at catching drunk drivers, nor are we always
punishing them, but the behaviour isn't acceptable among most driver's peers,
so it isn't done.

--David

    A liberal education ruins you for real life  . . . 
    
    The only reply I can think of is to cite my favorite counterexample:
    the rather famous one of Renaissance English pickpockets practicing
    their trade in the most favorable of circumstances -- the hanging of a
    fellow pickpocket. . . 
    
    --bonnie

    I for one will start to have the same outrage at a person that commits
    a robbery, breakin or any crime that involves force when the same
    people that cry for the serverest penalties for this type of criminal
    do the same for the slick "white" collar criminal.  I believe that
    the "white" collar criminal does as much, if not more damage to
    society as a robber.  I feel some people in this country actually
    admire the criminal (often well educated) that can pull off a swindle
    of some kind but want to hang a person that steals from a single
    individual.  The one thing I want is ALL criminals to be treated
    as criminals, not some to be treated as some kind of special person
    because they didn't use force.
    
    
    JEF           

    Someone else suggested in the 22 replies to this note that maybe
    we should think about what constitutes crime.
    
    If we were to invite someone to our house on the weekend and they
    ran up $200 in phone bills and refused to pay them we would be
    outraged, maybe even consider bringing the case to small claims
    court.
    
    And yet many of us feel very comfortable using DEC's phone system
    to conduct personal business.
    
    If we go to a hotel, some of us may feel very comfortable bringing
    home towels (which seems to be a common practice), and there are
    people who feel comfortable taking sheets and shower curtains.
    
    Let's talk specifically about taking something which is not ours
    and not reimbursing the owner.  
    
    Aren't we really coming down a little hard on 'real' criminals when
    we refuse to address the forms of acquistion that have become 'accepted'?

    RE: .22 and .23
    
    I don't know about you folks, but personally, I would prefer
    walking on the street at night and meeting Ivan Boesky rather
    than being greeted by Charles Manson.
    
    In general, (of course there will be some exceptions), I think 
    that putting people in prison for non-violent "white collar"
    crimes is not a very productive way of dealing with the offense.
    What is the point of putting these offenders in jail - to punish
    them and prove that "crime does not pay"?
    
    I believe that the cost of incarcerating a prisoner comes to some-
    thing like $18K per year. If these "white collar" offenders were
    forced to make monetary restitution, perform a certain amount of
    of community service activities, and say, in the case of Ivan
    Boesky, forbidden to take part in any sort of Wall Street trading
    for 10 years, they would get the message that they were being
    punished and their criminal actions did not pay. 
    
    What I'm getting at is, for $18K per year, I want someone who 
    already has done physical harm to someone - and very might well do
    the same thing, or worse, to me -  to be locked up. I'm less afraid
    of getting financially hurt in the Stock market than getting pistol
    whipped in an alley and having my wallet stolen.
     
    A couple of years ago, there was a Federal committee appointed whose
    purpose was to come up with some sort of uniformity in our nation's
    criminal justice system (sort of like job leveling at DEC). This
    was due to the recognition that people who were convicted of crimes
    of a similar nature were not always treated equally in the Courts.
    
    Conversely, people convicted of crimes of a different magnitude
    were receiving the same sentences - or even more unfairly, people
    convicted of "lesser" crimes were receiving harsher sentences. 
    A person convicted of second-degree murder might draw a sentence
    of 20 years; someone convicted of armed robbery might be given
    a sentence of 25 years.
    
    Some of these disparate sentences could often occur within the same
    state, depending upon what judge one was unlucky enough to get.
    Of course if you look at the different forms of justice handed out
    to convicted offenders in different states, sentencing becomes even
    stranger. One should pick very carefully a state in which he or
    she wishes to kill somebody. It literally comes down to a matter
    of life or death for the person convicted.
    
         Alan
    
         
                                                 

    
Oh come on!  The greedy rich who already has money gets to buy his way
out but the poor slob serves time?  The problem with making this kind
of differentiation in value judgements is that it creates the disparity
that ultimately leads to a corrupt social system.  Violence is not 
limited to the poor.  There is a Texas millionare walking around right
now who (according to what I have read) killed his ex-wife, her daughter
and her boyfriend.  Lawyers cost money,... good lawyers cost even more 
money.
         
Charles Manson (a looney tune in my book) might attack a guy in an alley 
but its the Ivan Boeskys of the world who attack us all, our very way 
of living by distroying our trust in our own institutions.

Incarceration is not reserved for the violent and violence is *sometimes*
determined by definitions convenient for the privileged.  I am (of course)
not refering to those genuinely violent people who must be kept from injuring
an innocent society.

< Note 349.24 by FDCV03::ROSS >
                           -< Crime and Punishment >-

>    I don't know about you folks, but personally, I would prefer
>    walking on the street at night and meeting Ivan Boesky rather
>    than being greeted by Charles Manson.
>    

       It depends  on  your style. Personally, I find the owners and
       officers  of  the  D.H.  Robbins  Co.  (makers  of the Dalkon
       Shield)  much  more dangerous than your average armed robber.
       An  armed  robber might rob a few hundred people, and perhaps
       kill  one  of them, while the Dalkon Shield killed many women
       and  made  thousands  more  infertile,  not  to  mention  the
       tremendous  medical costs involved. It's true that the robber
       is  scary  and makes you less comfortable walking the streets
       at  night, but the white collar criminals are doing more harm
       to more people.  

       It may  be  that  you find it more acceptable to kill or maim
       someone  who  you'll never meet, and who you can't specify in
       advance  (ie.  you  know someone will get hurt, but you can't
       figure  out  who'll suffer when you commit the crime) than to
       point  a  gun at a specific person, but I'm not persuaded. It
       is  certainly more genteel, but I don't think that that makes
       it acceptable.

       The question is what will prevent white collar crime, and the
       answer  is clearly the certainty of punishment in jail. It is
       not a deterent to merely pay back some portion of the profits
       (or  let  your insurance company pay) in court judgements and
       fines.  It  is  much  more  serious to actually spend time in
       jail,  so  we  should clearly be using jail as a deterent. If
       you're  worried  about  the  costs,  we  could  require  rich
       criminals  to  pay  their  own  jail  costs  as  a fine, as a
       continuation  of  the old requirement that people in jail pay
       for their own food, or eat real slop.

--David

    
    
    Forget jails!  Let's punish criminals like a Scandanavian country
    I heard about - if a person steals, he/she loses a finger. If
    the person steals again, he/she loses a hand.  If a person rapes...
    well, you get the idea.
    
    Much cheaper than jails, no over-crowding problems and I'll bet
    there aren't many second offenders!

    Scandanavian country?

    A reminder that this conference is Human_Relations. This note's
    focus is not how to punish criminals or the American justice system.
    These topics are/have been discussed exhaustively in BETHE::SOAPBOX.
    
    This note needs to keep to those aspects of crime as it affects
    us on a personal basis, not a political one.
    
    Tamzen, moderator

    re: .27 -- 
    
    I believe the practices described are applied in certain Middle Eastern
    countries where traditional religion is strong. It's based on the Old
    Testament injunction, "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth", etc. 

    An article in _Time_ in the not too distant past describing life in
    Iran claimed that the specific crimes and their punishments are spelled
    out in the Koran (including stoning to death of adulterers).  I'm not
    personally familiar with the Koran so I don't know if that's true. 

    --bonnie

    re .30 >stoning to death of adulterers ?
    
    This book *MUST* be banned in Boston :-)

    re .30:
    
    If you're thinking of the country (I believe it's known in some circles
    as "Country Two") I am, mutilation of criminals is not done because of
    teachings in the O.T., but the Koran. 
    
    	Jon 

    
    
    re: .27
    
    Can you say "Tongue in cheek, boys and girls?" (also read "moderator")

    
    It would be interesting if victims did indeed have some influence
    regarding the final sentence for a given crime. I mean REAL influence.
    
    As for white collar crime; it's just as despicable. I'd be happier
    if Ivan Boesky lost all of his fortune and served some time too.
    IN fact, they should have attached some of his money to cover
    the costs for his deserved incarceration. 

    As for DUI, I drink, I drive, but I don't drink AND drive.....
    .....(unless it is pepsi) :-)
    
    What gets me upset about the system is the way they let criminals
    out after a while on grounds of good behaviour. This guy, Larry
    Singleton raped a 17 year old girl, hacked both her arms off
    and left her on the freeway to bleed to death. Luckily someone
    spotted her in time and she survived. This guy was let out
    after 7 years on grounds of good behaviour! No wonder there is
    so much crime!                             
    
    

        A lot of people are willing to complain about the justice system
    and the criminal detention system, but most aren't willing to pay
    more for a better system.  How many of those who are complaining
    are willing to pay more taxes for what they want?

>   How many of those who are complaining
>   are willing to pay more taxes for what they want?

	I would be willing to pay more taxes if I could control by 
referendum where the money went. I would rather see my taxes go for 
education and crime control.

	The most disgusting part of housing prisoners is that they receive 
better treatment than homeless people do. If I remember correctly, we spend 
about $15,000/prisoner. I don't know what we spend on homeless people. 

	Prisoners violated the rules of society and therefore we shouldn't 
be bound to treat them by the rules of society until they have paid their 
debt to the society.

	We should be looking for ways to economize on prison costs and make 
it more socially unacceptable to be in prison. We are educating against AIDS 
but we (from my view) don't put enough into showing people contemplating 
crime the consequences of that crime. 

	This sounds like it should be in soapbox, but the topic was here...

    Talking about taxes, I would rather see my money go to reform a
    criminal, educate a child, feed the hungry, shelter the homeless.....
    But why should I pay more money so that someone can be maimed in
    central america... For every extra dollar I pay, a big
    chunk is gonna go there anyway and I have no control over it!
                                                                    
    For a criminal who has killed once (and coldblooded), what is the
    guarantee that the person feels compassionate now. Mid-term release
    on good behaviour in the jail is not a good enough guarantee that 
    he/she has paid the dues and now he/she will live by the RULES and
    LAWS of the society. I don't feel safe when a benifit of doubt is
    given to such a person who ABUUUUUSED my trust in him/her in
    the first place.
    
    anil.
    
    

RE: .38

"Prisoners violated the rules of society and therefore we shouldn't be bound to
treat them by the rules of society until they have paid their debt to the
society."

You sound like that give us the right to treate them inhumanly. 

"make it more socially unacceptable to be in prison."

What do you mean by that?  If you mean just that, it won't make a bit of
difference because the only people they will be socializing with will be fellow
prisoners.  If you mean after they are out, you are making it more likely that
they will commit more crimes. 

Jim.

    Several times there has been mention of how much it costs to keep
    someone in prison.  Does anyone have a breakdown on how much of
    this is actually spent DIRECTLY on the prisoner and how much is
    spent on the support staff, administration, etc of the prisoner?
       
       
    JEF

    re: .41
    
    Whats the difference between "the cost of supporting a prisoner"
    and DIRECT costs on the prisoner an  "staff, administration, etc"?
    
    A more interesting comparison (?) might be the cost to society for
    a "crime" that the "criminal" forced society to accept, in terms
    of "fear" to travel in certain parts of town during certain hours;
    the cost to building owners when a "suspect" is being searched and
    or "shooting it out" with police; the cost in $ to capture, prosecute,
    detain, AND house "criminals"; the cost to victims who are maimed
    by "lawless" criminals such as murders, drunks, rapists, uninsured
    drivers; the cost to us for "malpractice" by "professionals" in
    terms of increased costs by other professionals ..
    
    The "cost" to actually house a criminal is less than the cost to
    house "1 more person" in a building, which has the capacity to house
    200, and only contains 150. It is minimal (perhaps $1.00 day).
    
    The cost to house "200" more people in a building designed to hold
    150 persons is far more substantial (which is what several states
    are facing right now).
    
    When the "new" prison was completed in Concord, NH a few years back
    (opening was delayed because the contractor, - lowest bidder - use
    shoddy materials and workmanaship, and it had to be literally
    'reconstructed' by another contactor at triple the original bid).
    
    Whatever the cost, it is already outdated and too small for the
    existing prison population. The "more" violent prisoners have to
    be sent "out of state" to prisons with better control (at a cost
    to the state,of course).
    
    When we talk about "criminals", do we mean "bad criminals" like
    the "rapist-murderers" or do we mean the "nice ones" like the ones
    involved in Watergate, Iran arms deals, or Wall Street 'insider
    trading' ?
    
    Do you suppose, for a minute, that the "political bad guys" get
    the same "$1.00 day" lodging that the "arch criminal bad guys get"?
    
    One must assume in these situations that the Golden Rule applies:
    
    
    
    
    
    		"Thems that gots the gold makes the rules"
    
    .bob.
    
    
    
    
    

> You sound like that give us the right to treate them inhumanly. 

	We should treat them as humanely as we treat our senior citizens in 
nursing homes, the children of homeless families, and the victims of the 
crimes during trials.

> What do you mean by that?  If you mean just that, it won't make a bit of
> difference because the only people they will be socializing with will be fellow
> prisoners.  If you mean after they are out, you are making it more likely that
> they will commit more crimes. 

	It is not apparent to me in the current penal system that we do
anything more than put people in a cell. Why not just admit this and treat
these people like prisoners? 

	If we want to reform them, we should have more programs to deal with
first offenders in a more positive way. If they committed a crime because
they couldn't find a job, make the condition of release they successfully
complete a job training program. If they didn't complete high school, put
them in remedial classes. 

	My point is either incarcerate or rehabilitate. Doing it halfway is 
not the answer.

    re: .43 et. al.
    
    The difference between "criminals" and people in nursing homes,
    is that generally someone has enough  financial clout or 'caring'
    to assure that the 'criminals' are treated in  a humane manner.
    
    It may be true that both institutions are regulated by licensing
    bureaus and/or periodic inspections; but there's a reason why the
    word "bribe" exists in our language.
    
    As far as rehabillitating is concerned, that is  a two-step process.
    First, the 'institution' needs a program.
    
    Second, it needs willing participants who see the program as something
    other than a 'game' to be used to get an early release.
    
    The 'human factors' surrounding the whole penal system is really
    extremely complex, to wit: In the past few years several celebrated
    cases of the "wrong" person being locked up for years has been in
    the news.
    
    Another aspect seldom seen by many people is "baiting", or a modified
    version of "abscam". IN the real world, such as Worcester, Mass,
    policewoman go onto the street disguised as 'immoral teenage girls'
    to see if some adult male (there was a fairly famous one recently)
    will try to pick them up, They tell the 'john' that they are undeer
    18, and if the guy is dumb enough to offer them money for sexual
    favors ... BAM, its off to the clink.
    
    In similiar manner, prisoners (male) are often taunted by the female
    security guards in an obscene and vulgar manner. If the 'inmate'
    is dumb enough to sass them back or issue epithets or some other
    'bad behaviour' they'll get written up for 'bad manners' (violating
    rules'.
    
    Many people who've been through military 'basic training' ,
    particularly prior to 1970, are more than aware of this form of
    harassment (and worse).
    

    
    Those foolish enough not to learn from history will wind up repeating
    it. If you begin to look at the statistics for crimes and the no#
    of crimes per capita of population we in this country run so far
    over the rest of the world its sickening.
    
    Why the major difference. Its real simple, we are the only country
    that pampers and baby sits its society offenders. Our legal system
    and laws are so complex that the average criminal stands a better
    chance of being released on some technicality that going through
    full prosecution and thats if their caught. Most arnt until they
    have gone on a spree and the odds have caught up with them.
    
    Our current system is so wrapped up in accused and prisoners rights
    that we have totally ignored the law abiding citizen and the victim
    of the crimes. Now on the other side look at the countries with
    low crime, why ??? again simple, they treat their offenders like
    the dirt bags that they are. They make prisons a VERY uncomfortable
    and miscible place to wind up. They take care of the victims of the
    crimes. In short they make it so that a person thinks real hard
    before they go out and do criminal acts since getting caught means
    they go into a hell hole. In short it puts the fear of GOD in em.
    
    The answer is to un complicate the laws, remove the loopholes that
    allow criminals to escape the law. Build more prisons but stop 
    making them into country clubs for prisoners, make the holes 
    that no one would want to wind up in. It works around the world,
    it will work here.
                                       Bob B

RE: -.1

It would also help if the government would stop passing illconsidered laws... 

Jim.

    re: .47
    
    If he had managed to set the plane down on Pennsylvania Avenue without
    being blown out of the sky by some secret service helicopter gunship
    first, he probably would've had his license suspended, been given
    a suspended sentence and ordered to perform some community service
    for a couple of years.  After all, he's just a kid...

    re .48:
    
    And that's about what he got -- not much. The type of camp Rust is
    sentenced to is hardly the Gulag. He'll probably spend his time making
    cuckoo clocks or little Russian dolls. He'll also probably get released
    in a few months as a show of good will (probably about the time of a
    summit or the anniversary of the Revolution). 
    
    	Jon

    He may be released in a coupl of months but the point to ponder
    is clear. In this country we are so concerned for human rights that
    the offender gets preferential treatment. I believe we have lost
    sight of the rights of the victim. The most outragious example of
    this is in a rape case. Who in their right mind can except someone
    being violated to that extent and then be more concerned about the
    rapist than the victim. Even when the prosecution does present the
    case to the courts they inevitably attack the sexual conduct of
    the victim. How many times has the fact that the women may have
    been promiscuous justify her rape. It is beyond my reasoning to
    except this policy as fair or right. If the women chose to have
    sexual relations with 1/2 of her home town she is still protected
    from having someone assault her. This is taking the "you asked for
    it" to the ridiculous. I knew a girl who was assaulted and it destroyed
    her life as she knew it. One day she may put her life back together
    but the fact that we condone this behavior by not protecting her
    and others and by the self rightous courts who decide if you are
    worthy of protection. What court would prosecute a man for raping
    a prostitute.....mine but unfortunetly not ours. 
    I supported Benard Goetz and salute his courage for standing up
    to this outragious attack on law abiding citizens and saying enough.
    If the courts took care of this issue we wouldn't...
    
    BTW isn't Charles Manson due for a hearing again (#12) to decide
    if he should be released....We can learn alot more from Japan besides
    manufacturing excellence.
    Bob
    

    re .50 taking your rape case example, and why there is such concern
    for the accused -
    
    	There are/have been many (many more than only a few) men accused,
    	tried, convicted, and done (or are doing) long hard time for
    	a rape.  Only to have the truth of their innocence come out after 
    	the fact.
    
    	The South is noted for this behavior, especially, and more so
    	when there is a cross-racial element.
    
    The issue grew out of common practice in this country; it grows
    worse when the accused are of _any_ disadvantaged group, including
    "you ain't from around here, are you ?".  Consider the Michael Geter
    (spelling on that name) case down in Texas (Dallas area, I think).
    
    
    Too, if you and yours are not the victims of the system (ie, accused
    whose rights are being abrogated, in the name of justice) then it's
    usually a case of "the liberal system letting those punks..."
    
    Dwight