Discussion:
(OT) No wonder they don't play to win
(too old to reply)
DeezNutz
2003-07-24 21:06:39 UTC
Permalink
are you saying they don't play poker because they are in jail from
gangbanging and selling crack? Gary Carson, you are a racist! go run to
wal-mart and buy your lighter fluid and bedsheet you hillbillie.
From a Justice Dept news release on prison population in the US
" As of December 31, 2002, black males from 20 to 39 years old
accounted for about a third of all sentenced prison inmates under
state or federal jurisdiction. On that date 10.4 percent of the
country's black male population between the ages of 25 to 29 were in
prison, compared to 2.4 percent of Hispanic males and 1.2 percent of
white males in the same age group."
That doesn't count jails and doesn't count INS lockups, just people
who are serving sentences of 1 year or more.
The data are from the bulletin "Prisoners in 2002" (NCJ-200248)
written by BJS statisticians Paige M. Harrison and Allen J. Beck.
Single copies may be obtained by calling the BJS Clearinghouse at
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/p02.htm (after July 27)
Gary Carson
2003-07-24 21:46:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by DeezNutz
are you saying they don't play poker because they are in jail from
gangbanging and selling crack? Gary Carson, you are a racist! go run to
wal-mart and buy your lighter fluid and bedsheet you hillbillie.
The title of the thread is from a quote of something Mike "Blacks
don't play to win" Caro said in his Book of Tells.

A few years ago Pugum started a thread about it and it's become
something of a joke.

Although my sister graduated from Arkansas Tech, I don't really
qualify as a hillbilly (which is the correct spelling, btw). A
deadbeat redneck, maybe. But, I never really lived in the hills. I
did live back in the east Texas piney woods for a while, that's pretty
close to hillbilly culture, but it's flat land.

Caro, however, actually lives in the Ozarks, although it's in the
Missouri part and I'm not sure that would actually count for
legitimate hillbilly status.

Right now I'm living in a trailer house on the beach, kind of like Jim
Rockford, and he was an Okie, but I'm not sure if it was in east
Oklahoma or not. East Oklahoma counts for hillbilly status. The rest
of Oklahoma doesn't.

Only wannabes wear sheets, real klansman have tailor made robes.

And, I'm saying if they don't play to win it's because they've learned
they can't win.

One out of ten of every black man in his 20's is in prison? What
percent of them do you think are in some kind of justice system
supervision, combining prison, jails, probation, and parole? That's
gotta be a staggeringly obscene number.

There's something terribly rotten about the justice system when
something like this is allowed to happen.
Post by DeezNutz
From a Justice Dept news release on prison population in the US
" As of December 31, 2002, black males from 20 to 39 years old
accounted for about a third of all sentenced prison inmates under
state or federal jurisdiction. On that date 10.4 percent of the
country's black male population between the ages of 25 to 29 were in
prison, compared to 2.4 percent of Hispanic males and 1.2 percent of
white males in the same age group."
That doesn't count jails and doesn't count INS lockups, just people
who are serving sentences of 1 year or more.
The data are from the bulletin "Prisoners in 2002"
(NCJ-200248)
Post by DeezNutz
written by BJS statisticians Paige M. Harrison and Allen J. Beck.
Single copies may be obtained by calling the BJS Clearinghouse at
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/p02.htm (after July 27)
Matu
2003-07-29 22:54:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Carson
There's something terribly rotten about the justice system when
something like this is allowed to happen.
Per the link in your original post, a tad over two million people are in
the gray bar hotel. You seem to consider this outrageous. Per the same
source (Bureau of Justice), about twelve million 'crime index' offenses
were reported in 2001 (most recent stats I could find). Crime index
counts only murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary,
larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft.
I'm just wondering how you reconcile the thought that we arrest too many
people when there is clearly so much crime on the streets? Frankly, I
think we do lock up too many stoners unnecessarily. But notice 'crime
index' doesn't count them. We need reform, but overall I think more
people ought to be in jail, not less.
Large prison population is a clear sign of a failed society. With the
cashmoney wasted on prisons USA could easily battle poverty wich is the #1
reason for most crime. Fight crime by stopping new generations of criminals
being born would be the bright move rather than just contain a whole lot of
people.

Prisoners are wasted resources.

Ps. Most of the "crime index" offences are quite directly linked to a losing
war on drugs. On the violence department i think alcohol is still #1 on all
substances present, then comes the violence thats linked to sale of illegal
narcotics and such (as was the case also when alcohol was prohibited).
Losers, Inc.
2003-07-30 01:16:52 UTC
Permalink
I'm the first person to question statistics. But at least I did some
homework and provided references to support my point. Scroll down.
Post by Matu
Large prison population is a clear sign of a failed society.
It's society's fault? Should I to take your word for this, or would you
like to support your point?
Post by Matu
With the
cashmoney wasted on prisons USA could easily battle poverty wich is the #1
reason for most crime.
The poor have no choice but to murder and rape? Should I to take your
word for this, or would you like to support your point? You're aware that
Chinatown in San Francisco (circa 1960) was heavily impoverished and had
an astonishingly low crime rate? I can provide cites, if you're
unfamiliar with this.
Post by Matu
Fight crime by stopping new generations of criminals
being born would be the bright move rather than just contain a whole lot of
people.
William Shockley would be on board with your idea, but you're going to
piss off a lot of other people.
Post by Matu
Prisoners are wasted resources.
So prisoners would, if free, be beneficial to society? I think you need
to think again. Manbeast, who is not so polite as I am, thinks you have
your head rammed up your ass, and thinks you're still relatively stupid,
counting only those people with their heads rammed up their asses. In
fact, based on this statement alone, he thinks you're a retard among the
head-rammed-up-their-ass crowd. Nothing personal. I not even thinking
about asking you to support this point.
Post by Matu
Ps. Most of the "crime index" offences are quite directly linked to a losing
war on drugs.
So most people kill or rape or steal cars because drugs are illegal?
Should I to take your word for this, or would you like to support your
point?
Post by Matu
On the violence department i think alcohol is still #1 on all
substances present, then comes the violence thats linked to sale of illegal
narcotics and such (as was the case also when alcohol was prohibited).
I think I would disagree, if your writing was clear enough to fucking
understand.

Enjoy that world you live in,
Variable

_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
Gary Carson
2003-07-30 05:43:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Losers, Inc.
The poor have no choice but to murder and rape? Should I to take your
word for this, or would you like to support your point? You're aware that
Chinatown in San Francisco (circa 1960) was heavily impoverished and had
an astonishingly low crime rate? I can provide cites, if you're
unfamiliar with this.
1. The population was very dense, and if it had twice as much crime
as another part of SF with the same area the crime rate problaby would
have been lower because of the population density.

2. Immigrants, espeicially immigrants who are living in apartments
which are overcrowded to to the point of being illegal tend not to
report crime.

3. Police departments have been known to micro-manage reported crime
statistics for political purposes -- FBI crime reports in the 60's
were notoriously unreliable.

4, The area had no ethnic diversity, and the lack of ethnic diversity
is internationally correlated with low rates of reported crimes.

I don't think anyone has said that the poor have no choice but to
murder and rape.
Post by Losers, Inc.
Post by Matu
Prisoners are wasted resources.
So prisoners would, if free, be beneficial to society?
Most of them would.
Post by Losers, Inc.
I think you need
to think again.
I've been a prisoner. I've worked in prisons. I know something about
it. There are some that are very dangerous people. But, not many.

Most murders are not recidivists. That was demonstrated when many
prisoners where paroled off of death row when the death penalty was
declared unconstitutional back in the 1970's. One of the better
studies of that is reported in a book by James Marquart (who teaches
criminology these days but used to be a prison guard).
Post by Losers, Inc.
Post by Matu
Ps. Most of the "crime index" offences are quite directly linked to a losing
war on drugs.
So most people kill or rape or steal cars because drugs are illegal?
Many do. Not many rapes, but much violent crimes and theft are
directly a result of the war on drugs.
Post by Losers, Inc.
Should I to take your word for this, or would you like to support your
point?
Fairly standard economics of crime models predict it. The Rand
Corporation has done a bunch of such studies (they finailly quit
because the Fed's wouldn't fund it anymore). One of the more
interesting models was one the predicted that customs interdictions
actually lead to increased binge use of drugs. It's about how the
drug laws create an artificial market for drugs. It causes prices to
go up. Part of the reason for price increases is that participants in
the market have to provide their own security, increasing both cost
and violence.

Really all you have to do to understand it is look at what happened
with prohohition of alchohol.

It's not rocket science.


Seabiscuit is still #1 on the gambling books bestseller list
http://garycarson.rediffblogs.com/
Losers, Inc.
2003-07-31 01:48:54 UTC
Permalink
On Jul 29 2003 6:45PM, Gary Carson wrote:

Re: Chinatown --

James Q. Wilson and Richard J. Herrnstein report, "During the 1960s, one
neighborhood in San Francisco had the lowest income, the highest
unemployment rate, the highest proportion of families with incomes under
$4,000 per year, the least educational attainment, the highest
tuberculosis rate, and the highest proportion of substandard housing of
any area of the city. That neighborhood was called Chinatown. Yet in 1965,
there were only five persons of Chinese ancestry committed to prison in
the entire state of California."
Post by Gary Carson
1. The population was very dense, and if it had twice as much crime
as another part of SF with the same area the crime rate problaby would
have been lower because of the population density.
5 is pretty low no matter how you slice it.
Post by Gary Carson
2. Immigrants, espeicially immigrants who are living in apartments
which are overcrowded to to the point of being illegal tend not to
report crime.
I think you're really reaching here.
Post by Gary Carson
3. Police departments have been known to micro-manage reported crime
statistics for political purposes -- FBI crime reports in the 60's
were notoriously unreliable.
Also reaching. Underreporting immigrant crime to what political end?
Post by Gary Carson
4, The area had no ethnic diversity, and the lack of ethnic diversity
is internationally correlated with low rates of reported crimes.
Bingo.
Post by Gary Carson
Most murders are not recidivists. That was demonstrated when many
prisoners where paroled off of death row when the death penalty was
declared unconstitutional back in the 1970's. One of the better
studies of that is reported in a book by James Marquart (who teaches
criminology these days but used to be a prison guard).
Here are some numbers from the DoJ website
(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#recidivism)

Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, an
estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within
3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new
crime.

The 272,111 offenders discharged in 1994 accounted for nearly 4,877,000
arrest charges over their recorded careers.

[I'd call that pretty high recidivism. 272 thousand criminals racked up
4.9 million more arrests in 15 states. Per fbi.gov, there's about 1
arrest for every 5 crimes, so you do the math on how much recidivism cost
in dollars and human misery.]

Within 3 years of release, 2.5% of released rapists were rearrested for
another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were
arrested for a new homicide.

[One in 83 for murder, within 3 years, isn't low to me. And of course
there are doubless instances where the criminal murders again but is not
caught.]
Post by Gary Carson
Not many rapes, but much violent crimes and theft are
directly a result of the war on drugs.
I agree for some values of 'much', and think some drugs should be
legalized, but you do a violent crime and you should be locked up
nonetheless.
Post by Gary Carson
Fairly standard economics of crime models predict it. The Rand
Corporation has done a bunch of such studies (they finailly quit
because the Fed's wouldn't fund it anymore). One of the more
interesting models was one the predicted that customs interdictions
actually lead to increased binge use of drugs. It's about how the
drug laws create an artificial market for drugs. It causes prices to
go up. Part of the reason for price increases is that participants in
the market have to provide their own security, increasing both cost
and violence.
Really all you have to do to understand it is look at what happened
with prohohition of alchohol.
It's not rocket science.
Agreed.

_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
Gary Carson
2003-08-02 21:26:50 UTC
Permalink
I've given you hard Dept of Justice stats on recidivism which, while
perhaps not perfect, are the best available to me.
I've given evidence in the form of numbers wherever I can. You've
given
your opinion.
Evidence for what? I'm not clear what you're trying to claim.

Are you claiming that the crime pattern for chinise immigrants in SF
during the 1960's is different from the ghetto crime patterns for
every other immagrant group in the history of the US?

Okay. That's true. Or, it might be true, I don't really know. This
history of chinese immigration into the US is certainly different from
the history of, for example, Irish immigration.

Are you claiming that recidivism rates for property crime are much
higher than recidivism rates for violent crime? Okay, yes, I think
that's whay I'd already said.

What is your point?

Are you claiming that the rate at which the US imprisons young black
men isn't a problem?

How does any of the numbers who quoted address that claim?




Winning Low Limit Hold'em by Lee Jones is #8 on the bestseller lis
http://garycarson.rediffblogs.com/
Gary Carson
2003-08-03 04:12:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Carson
What is your point?
Just this: The fact that we've got a higher prison poluation than
some
other nations does not prove, ipso facto, that the justice system is
whacked. It is just possible that - for a cornucopia of underlying
reasons - we have more crime than some other nations.
Why didn't you just say that?

Of course we have more crime than other countries. The definition of
crime is a part of what the justice system is -- out justice system is
why we have more crime.

Even if you limit your comparitive analysis of crime to homicides
we'll have more crime than other societies simply because of the way
we define crime.

An example of what I mean by that occured in San Marcos Texas a few
years ago.

A man drove up to pickup his kids from his ex-wife for a visitation.
He has a history of drinking problems and has a breath device
installed on his car so he can't start it if he's been drinking. He's
drunk. When he leaves he has his daughter breath into it.

Now, they have a history of court problems with visitation and if she
refused to let him take the kids she's at risk of being jailed for
contempt of court. Even if she's willing to risk that, he's bigger
than she is, she'd probably have to shoot him to successfully stop him
from driving off.

He runs off the road, they all die.

The mother of the two dead kids is arrested, charged with murder.
It's her fault because she say the daughter breath into the device.

That's our justice system at work.

After a few months in jail she plead so some misdemeanor and got
sentenced to time served. But, that one counts in our crime
statistics as a homocide.

There some criminological theories of
crime/shame/retribution/reintegration that explains why many asian
socities have less recidivism than we do (that wasn't part of your
statitistics, but its true). They have criminal justice systems, and
social and familiy support systems, that actually help former
offenders reintegrate into normal society. We, on the other hand,
have 3-strike laws.

Winning Low Limit Hold'em by Lee Jones is #8 on the bestseller lis
http://garycarson.rediffblogs.com/
Matu
2003-08-03 02:19:02 UTC
Permalink
"Losers, Inc." <***@hotmail.com> kirjoitti viestiss� news:3f2c0a32$0$15234$***@news.newshosting.com...

If you really wan't numbers or fancy statistics then here have some:

In the year 2000 according to Human Rights Watch out of all convicted drug
offenders 62.7% were black and 36.7% were white.

There were around 5-1 ratio of white to black drug users.

So it was around 8-10 times more likely for a black drug user to be
convicted than a white user.

Every 20th black male (over 18 years old) was convicted to prison when only
every 180th white male was convicted. Black people don't commit crimes at a
6-1 ratio when compared to white people.

In 7 states 80-90% of all convicted drug offenders that were sent to prison
were black. Among worst were Maryland and Illinois.

There are more white crack users than there are black crack users :-)

Because of poverty a lot of drug sales and use take place on the streets of
black communities while in white communities it takes place indoors. Police
are lazy, they take who ever they see first. If you can't afford a proper
attorney then you're bound to get sent to prison.

Holland that is fairly liberal concerning drug use there are around 160
heroin addicts per 100000 residents compared to 430 heroin addicts per
100000 in the USA. In the USA(illegal) there 2 times as more cannabis use
than in Holland(legal) when related to the whole population.

And so on................................
.......now i'm doing your homework you lazy bastard :-)

Ps. Your point about the low crime rate among the chinase in San Francisco
was cute and all, but it was just one point that most likely had hardly
anything to do with the number of actual crimes committed.
Losers, Inc.
2003-08-03 03:29:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matu
Because of poverty a lot of drug sales and use take place on the streets of
black communities while in white communities it takes place indoors. Police
are lazy, they take who ever they see first.
OK, so what's your solution -- repeal the fourth amendment or have the
cops ignore a certain percentage of drug use they spot out in the open?

It's like a Chris Rock routine. Don't want to get busted for drugs? Step
one: don't smoke crack in public.
Post by Matu
Holland that is fairly liberal concerning drug use there are around 160
heroin addicts per 100000 residents compared to 430 heroin addicts per
100000 in the USA. In the USA(illegal) there 2 times as more cannabis use
than in Holland(legal) when related to the whole population.
I keep saying, I'm on board with you here.
Post by Matu
And so on................................
........now i'm doing your homework you lazy bastard :-)
It's about time. Looking stuff up was cutting into my drinking time. :-)
Post by Matu
Ps. Your point about the low crime rate among the chinase in San Francisco
was cute and all, but it was just one point that most likely had hardly
anything to do with the number of actual crimes committed.
My guess is that it was just a culture which did not accept crime. Strong
family units that knew what their kids were doing, and kept them out of
trouble. If you, Gary and Hillary want to call me a right wing nut case
because I think that, go ahead.

Overall, I think poverty is a factor in crime from a simple risk/reward
perspective (the poor have less to lose), but it does not in and of itself
cause crime. Like Gary said, it is complex. Poverty is a factor. Family
values (gasp) are another factor. And there are many more. I find the
nut cases (on both sides) to be the people who believe only one factor is
primarily responsible.

_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
Gary Carson
2003-08-03 04:40:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Losers, Inc.
Post by Matu
Because of poverty a lot of drug sales and use take place on the streets of
black communities while in white communities it takes place
indoors. Police
Post by Losers, Inc.
Post by Matu
are lazy, they take who ever they see first.
OK, so what's your solution -- repeal the fourth amendment or have the
cops ignore a certain percentage of drug use they spot out in the open?
It's like a Chris Rock routine. Don't want to get busted for drugs?
Step
Post by Losers, Inc.
one: don't smoke crack in public.
Yes, most people who get arrested for drug crimes are arrested because
they are stupid.

I guess our polititians think it's easier to just imprison people than
it is to run a functional education system.
Post by Losers, Inc.
My guess is that it was just a culture which did not accept crime.
There's a lot of crime research about how asian societies address
crime. The primary cultural difference is that they do accept crime
-- in particular they punish crime socially with a process of shame
followed by a sociatal process of reintegration into society of the
former criminal.

An Aussie named Braithwaite is credited with the start of that crim
theory,


Strong
Post by Losers, Inc.
family units that knew what their kids were doing, and kept them out of
trouble.
Yes, strong faimily units that are part of a strong society that
allows reintegration of offenders is crucial. Strong family units by
themselves dont' do it. You don't think that Irish, Italian, etc,
immigrants didn't have strong family units? Well, they did but also
had crime ridden neighborhoods.

More recently some cities have had large influxes of Polish
immigrants. Chicago in the 60's and 70's is one such city. It was
almost all illegal immigrants, single people, who worled 2-3 jobs for
a few years, and returned to Poland with some money. They didn't have
families here. They had families in Poland and sent money back to
Poland. They had a polish society within Chicago that accepted them,
supported them, and protected them. They didn't have much crime among
those immigrants without family.

Houston has a large population of illegal Mexican immigrants (not 'of
Mexican ancestry", but Mexican). Hispanic neighborhoods in general in
Mexico are high crime. That subset of illegal immigrants from Mexicao
don't have high crime rates.

btw, until 1965 it was difficult for chinise immigrants to come to the
US with family. The recent immigrants in that old SF chinatiown you
mentioned didn't tend to live in family units.
Post by Losers, Inc.
If you, Gary and Hillary want to call me a right wing nut case
because I think that, go ahead.
Hillary doesn't know you, I didn't call you a right wing nut case.
You might be, I don't know. Your use of a isolated quote that's often
used in right-wing-nutcase websites does suggest that you like to
quote research of others that's been cited by others rather than
figure things out for yourself though.

Hillary's comment about it taking a village to raise a child is
correct. Crim research (by both right wingers and left wingers)
supports that. But, the right wing nutcases who want to attack that
idea don't seem to understand the context in which the village has to
act. A strong family unit is needed to support the offender. But,
that doesn't work unless we have a strong society (a villlage) to
support the family.

It does take a village. The village has to support the family, not
attack and destroy the family of offenders.

Don't arrest one family member for the crimes of another (example
would be the woman in San Marcos). Don't encourage family members to
betray other family members and inform on them for public order type
crimes (part of our war on drugs).

The village has to support the family for the family to work. We have
a criminal justice system that does not support the family.
Post by Losers, Inc.
Overall, I think poverty is a factor in crime from a simple
risk/reward
Post by Losers, Inc.
perspective (the poor have less to lose), but it does not in and of itself
cause crime. Like Gary said, it is complex. Poverty is a factor.
Family
Post by Losers, Inc.
values (gasp) are another factor. And there are many more.
The criminal justice system is itself a factor. Our criminal justice
system in the US is simply broken. Our imprisonment rates are a clear
demonstration of that.




Gary Carson
The Complete Book of Hold'em Poker is #9 on the bestseller list
List of Top Ten Gambling Books
http://garycarson.rediffblogs.com/
Amercian Casino Guide is #13 last week
Gary Carson
2003-08-03 17:35:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Carson
Your use of a isolated quote that's often
used in right-wing-nutcase websites does suggest that you like to
quote research of others that's been cited by others rather than
figure things out for yourself though.
It was all I could find. And I don't really have the time to conduct
a
study on my own.
Your use of the term 'right-wing-nutcases' (and examples thereof)
suggests
that you have some set political convictions and may not be very open
minded to other arguements.
In criminology, the right-wing nutcases are primarily in Criminal
Justice departments teaching policing at backwater schools like
Southwest Texas State. They do almost no research at all, but often
quote conservative ideas espoused by faculty in schools of government
(as the ones you cited) in farily prestigious universities (like the
Kennedy School at Harvard).

The left-wing nutcases are less influential in criminology, even
though the field has a reputation as a left-wing field. That
reputation comes from research of stuff like theories of income
inequalty from socioology departmetns. But, those liberal researchers
are't influenced much by left-wing nutcases in the field who tend to
be marxists, pushing ideas about power inequality as root causes of
social unrest. The research that the left-wing nutcases put out is
mostly not really research, just a bunch of unreadable rhetoric.

One of the more stable ideas that has come from the conservative crowd
in the field is the broken windows theory. That's the basis for the
recent war against crime in NYC where they heavily enforced nuisance
type public order crimes as a way to attack crime in general. It's a
solid theory backed up by independent social psychology research about
human behavior and appears to have been working fairly well in NYC.

But, the income-inequality theories, the power-inequality theories,
the broken windows theories, the shame/re-integration theories, are
all related in some way to peopls perceptions about control over their
own lives. When people seee their lives being driven by outside
forces that they have no control over at all, they tend to give up.
When they see some stability in their lives, some predictibility in
their lives, they tend to take action that grabs control of their own
destiny.

I think of myself as kind of a middle-of-the-road criminologist.
That's really a pretty small minority in that field. There's a lot of
good conservative thinking that goes on in the field, and a lot of
good liberal thinking. The left-wing nutcases tend to be bright
people with some good ideas but without the research skills to develop
their ideas. The right-wing nutcases in the field tend to be not very
bright, and very reactionary.

There's actually research to support my claimof the right-wing
nutcases in the field tending to be not very bright. There was an
article in The Journal of Criminal Justice Education by Tim Flannery
back in the early 90's where he showed that the criminal justice grad
students (the right wing nutcase branch of criminolgy) had lower
average GRE's than any other major. The field that used to hold that
distinction was education.


Gary Carson
The Complete Book of Hold'em Poker is #9 on the bestseller list
List of Top Ten Gambling Books
http://garycarson.rediffblogs.com/
Amercian Casino Guide is #13 last week
Matu
2003-08-03 07:38:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Losers, Inc.
Post by Matu
Because of poverty a lot of drug sales and use take place on the streets of
black communities while in white communities it takes place indoors. Police
are lazy, they take who ever they see first.
OK, so what's your solution -- repeal the fourth amendment or have the
cops ignore a certain percentage of drug use they spot out in the open?
No, but it would be nice that having a certain skincolor wouldn't mean that
you're 10 times more likely to be sent to prison than a person of different
complexion.
If being black means you're 10 times more likely to go to jail than being
white, then it's safe to say that your cops and courts are quite racist.
Post by Losers, Inc.
It's like a Chris Rock routine. Don't want to get busted for drugs? Step
one: don't smoke crack in public.
And here comes the poverty part, if you can't afford not to smoke crack in
public or in crackhouses in an area that the police tend to patrol actively,
you look like you're a possible drug user (broke, black and male, a
criminal in the eyes of the police) and can't afford to get a proper
attourney with the added bonus of stupidity because you were never afford to
get properly educated and your father spent your childhood in prison then
you're likely to go to prison for a crime that is committed by 10 white men
that never get any trouble for the same crime.

If you don't want to get busted for drugs, don't be black and for the love
of god don't be a broke black male :-)
Post by Losers, Inc.
Post by Matu
Holland that is fairly liberal concerning drug use there are around 160
heroin addicts per 100000 residents compared to 430 heroin addicts per
100000 in the USA. In the USA(illegal) there 2 times as more cannabis use
than in Holland(legal) when related to the whole population.
I keep saying, I'm on board with you here.
So you also think that drug use shouldn't be illegal, that cannabisproducts
should be taxed and overseen by the goverment? You agree that heavy
penalties only make the situation worse ? You agree that heroin addicts
should given drugs like Subutex and Temgesic ?
Post by Losers, Inc.
Post by Matu
Ps. Your point about the low crime rate among the chinase in San Francisco
was cute and all, but it was just one point that most likely had hardly
anything to do with the number of actual crimes committed.
My guess is that it was just a culture which did not accept crime. Strong
family units that knew what their kids were doing, and kept them out of
trouble. If you, Gary and Hillary want to call me a right wing nut case
because I think that, go ahead.
Now you're underestimating the control of the triads/tongs in SF in the 60's
:-)
I'm not calling you a nut case of any sort.
Post by Losers, Inc.
Overall, I think poverty is a factor in crime from a simple risk/reward
perspective (the poor have less to lose), but it does not in and of itself
cause crime.
For this i don't bother to do your homework, but if you feel like you can
prove yourself wrong quite easily, this is the friggin internet.

Like Gary said, it is complex. Poverty is a factor. Family
Post by Losers, Inc.
values (gasp) are another factor. And there are many more. I find the
nut cases (on both sides) to be the people who believe only one factor is
primarily responsible.
I never said poverty was the only reason for crime, but i will say it is the
BIGGEST reason for crime and drug use worldwide.

What did you think about stats you cut away without commenting ?

Ps. I live in a country where we have 3000 prisoners out of a polation 5 000
000.
Gary Carson
2003-08-03 11:13:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Losers, Inc.
Post by Losers, Inc.
Post by Matu
Ps. Your point about the low crime rate among the chinase in San
Francisco
Post by Losers, Inc.
Post by Matu
was cute and all, but it was just one point that most likely had hardly
anything to do with the number of actual crimes committed.
My guess is that it was just a culture which did not accept crime.
Strong
Post by Losers, Inc.
Post by Losers, Inc.
family units that knew what their kids were doing, and kept them out of
trouble. If you, Gary and Hillary want to call me a right wing nut case
because I think that, go ahead.
Now you're underestimating the control of the triads/tongs in SF in the 60's
:-)
I'm not calling you a nut case of any sort.
When I was searching the web to see if I could find a source for that
weird claim that only 5 people of chinese desent where in CA prisons
in 1965 I discovered some stuff I didn't realize about Chinese
immigration. Prior to 1965 it was very difficult for a family to
immigrate. So, I'm guessing that one characteristic of Chinatown in
the 1960's is that it didn't have a lot of teenage boys. Get rid of
teenage boys and you'll see a very big drop in the crime rate.



Gary Carson
The Complete Book of Hold'em Poker is #9 on the bestseller list
List of Top Ten Gambling Books
http://garycarson.rediffblogs.com/
Amercian Casino Guide is #13 last week
Matu
2003-08-03 15:39:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Carson
Post by Matu
Now you're underestimating the control of the triads/tongs in SF in
the 60's
Post by Matu
:-)
I'm not calling you a nut case of any sort.
When I was searching the web to see if I could find a source for that
weird claim that only 5 people of chinese desent where in CA prisons
in 1965 I discovered some stuff I didn't realize about Chinese
immigration. Prior to 1965 it was very difficult for a family to
immigrate. So, I'm guessing that one characteristic of Chinatown in
the 1960's is that it didn't have a lot of teenage boys. Get rid of
teenage boys and you'll see a very big drop in the crime rate.
Lol.

I'm still guessing it was the triads/tongs influence.

So far so good all i could find was book about 1977 Golden Dragon Massacre
that also included some history of the SF chinatown. Don't know if it's
reliable.

http://www.pisgahweb.net/brox/btigers/index.html

But what i gathered from it was that the Tongs were given an ultimatum of no
violence in chinatown so they could continue business as usual.
They policed themselves 'till 65 when new HongKong based immigrants came
with a lack of respect to elders wich led to gangwars........and the police
couldn't just gather the payola anymore.
Gary Carson
2003-08-03 17:44:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matu
Post by Gary Carson
Post by Matu
Now you're underestimating the control of the triads/tongs in SF in
the 60's
Post by Matu
:-)
I'm not calling you a nut case of any sort.
When I was searching the web to see if I could find a source for that
weird claim that only 5 people of chinese desent where in CA
prisons
Post by Matu
Post by Gary Carson
in 1965 I discovered some stuff I didn't realize about Chinese
immigration. Prior to 1965 it was very difficult for a family to
immigrate. So, I'm guessing that one characteristic of Chinatown in
the 1960's is that it didn't have a lot of teenage boys. Get rid of
teenage boys and you'll see a very big drop in the crime rate.
Lol.
I'm still guessing it was the triads/tongs influence.
So far so good all i could find was book about 1977 Golden Dragon Massacre
that also included some history of the SF chinatown. Don't know if it's
reliable.
http://www.pisgahweb.net/brox/btigers/index.html
But what i gathered from it was that the Tongs were given an
ultimatum of no
Post by Matu
violence in chinatown so they could continue business as usual.
They policed themselves 'till 65 when new HongKong based immigrants came
with a lack of respect to elders wich led to gangwars........and the police
couldn't just gather the payola anymore.
That's probably true. The mafia had a strong control over the SF
North Beach neighborhood (Italian neighborhood between Fisherman's
Wharf and Chinatown) and operated pretty freely as long as they stayed
in North Beach and the Fisherman's Wharf area. Also it wasn't until
the late 60's or early 70's that the police department was cleaned up
enough so that they stopped extorting money from Knob Hill brothels to
allow them to operate.

1965 was when the immigration laws changed, and immigrants where no
longer mostly single men and I'm guessing that much of the gang war
that broke out after that was partially from street gangs of teenage
boys. I'm sure the influx of teenage boys both increases crime and
loosend the control of the triads (nobody can control teenage boys --
Lord of the Flies isn't a work of fiction).

Much of the conservative research in criminology is based on pretty
good ideas but it's not really research. They come up with an idea
and then poke around to try to find some numbers that seem to support
the idea. They don't bother with any modelling efforts, any
hypothesis testing kind of stuff, they just try to use numbers to
prove a thesis. A lot of stuff that comes out of the Kennedy School
of Government at Harvard is like that. Good ideas, but bad research.

Gary Carson
The Complete Book of Hold'em Poker is #9 on the bestseller list
List of Top Ten Gambling Books
http://garycarson.rediffblogs.com/
Amercian Casino Guide is #13 last week
Matu
2003-08-04 07:21:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Carson
1965 was when the immigration laws changed, and immigrants where no
longer mostly single men and I'm guessing that much of the gang war
that broke out after that was partially from street gangs of teenage
boys. I'm sure the influx of teenage boys both increases crime and
loosend the control of the triads (nobody can control teenage boys --
Lord of the Flies isn't a work of fiction).
Yea pre 65 it was something like 105 chinese immigrants per year and after
that 15 000 a year. And yes the gangwars were mostly because of new street
gangs consisted of teenagers.
Youth didn't see the benefits of working for tong elders or the concept of
keeping it lowprofile. Good chunk of those that were killed and/or killed in
the 70's in chinatown were 14-17 years old.
Post by Gary Carson
Much of the conservative research in criminology is based on pretty
good ideas but it's not really research. They come up with an idea
and then poke around to try to find some numbers that seem to support
the idea. They don't bother with any modelling efforts, any
hypothesis testing kind of stuff, they just try to use numbers to
prove a thesis. A lot of stuff that comes out of the Kennedy School
of Government at Harvard is like that. Good ideas, but bad research.
This part sort of went over my head since i don't have a clue about
"conservative research in criminology". I mostly give credit to "poverty
leads to crime" and "idle hands are a devils playground"-type of theories.
They can be seen in combination at times of heavy unemployment, even though
i do think it is crime itself to ask anybody work for 12-16 hours a day and
still be stuck to below the povertyline. Also most of the time when seeking
whose guilty of what i usually blame the society/goverment before the
individual that committed the crime.

If your only way out of poverty is to sell drugs (particularily if we are
talking about substances that are less toxic than aspirin) or win in the
lottery, then i'm not going to blame you for choosing either way. That
doesn't mean it isn't honorable to try to struggle ones way out poverty even
though it would be a lost battle to beginwith in some cases and
circumstances.

Ps. In Finland we have out of a population of 5 mil. something like 0,5 mil
unemployed (government stats. tend to be heavily manipulated, they say 300
000), 300 000 alcoholics (if i remember correctly thats just people that
average 50 liters of pure alcohol per year) and third most firearms per
capita (USA and Jemen only top that), still we only got 3000 prisoners.
Crime is not as big of a problem as alcoholism wich also correlates with
unemployment and poverty as escalating factors (genetics and enviroment as
causing).
Gary Carson
2003-08-04 08:13:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matu
Post by Gary Carson
Much of the conservative research in criminology is based on pretty
good ideas but it's not really research. They come up with an idea
and then poke around to try to find some numbers that seem to
support
Post by Matu
Post by Gary Carson
the idea. They don't bother with any modelling efforts, any
hypothesis testing kind of stuff, they just try to use numbers to
prove a thesis. A lot of stuff that comes out of the Kennedy
School
Post by Matu
Post by Gary Carson
of Government at Harvard is like that. Good ideas, but bad
research.
Post by Matu
This part sort of went over my head since i don't have a clue about
"conservative research in criminology". I mostly give credit to
"poverty
Post by Matu
leads to crime" and "idle hands are a devils playground"-type of theories.
Poverty leads to crime is a liberal theory. Idle hands are a devils
playground is a conservative theory.

The attempts to validate the liberal theories tends to usually invovle
some reasonably sophisticated statistical modellin.

The attempts to validate the conservative theories tends to be a mixed
bag. Stuff coming from political scientists and schools of government
tends to be crap, just a bunch of simple stastics, some numbers pulled
out of the ass that seems to support the ideas. But, conservative
stuff coming from economists tends to invovle some sophisticated
statistical modelling.

Some of the best work in criminology comes from conservative
economists (the only criminologists to ever win a Nobel Prize is Gary
Becker, an economist at Univ of Chicago). Liberal sociologists also
tend to come up with some good work. The government and political
scientist and admin researchers tend to just mouth platitudes.
Post by Matu
If your only way out of poverty is to sell drugs (particularily if we are
talking about substances that are less toxic than aspirin) or win in the
lottery, then i'm not going to blame you for choosing either way.
There are a lot of theoretical mechinisms of how poverty might lead to
crime. You've picked on of the more conservative ones -- one often
developed by economists-- job markets.

Liberals might say it's not really the poverty itself, it's income
inequality. If everybody is poor you don't have crime. If I'm poor
and I see a bunch of rich people around I get resentful and start
hitting people ion the head with a stick and taking their wallet.



Gary Carson
The Complete Book of Hold'em Poker is #9 on the bestseller list
List of Top Ten Gambling Books
http://garycarson.rediffblogs.com/
Amercian Casino Guide is #13 last week
Matu
2003-08-04 09:20:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Carson
There are a lot of theoretical mechinisms of how poverty might lead to
crime. You've picked on of the more conservative ones -- one often
developed by economists-- job markets.
Yea that was the example i gave - as in crime out of need and the lack of
reasonable future prospects out from poverty, but i also give reasonable
credit to how poverty is linked to alcoholism wich is heavily linked to
crime.

Alcoholism also has a tendendy to create unstable growing enviroment for the
youth (also linked to crime) and domestic violence (link to crime).

Poverty just tends to correlate to a lot of things that correlete to crime,
so when given limited space it's just easier to say poverty leads to crime
when taking care of poverty would also lower crime particularily street
crime.
Post by Gary Carson
Liberals might say it's not really the poverty itself, it's income
inequality. If everybody is poor you don't have crime. If I'm poor
and I see a bunch of rich people around I get resentful and start
hitting people ion the head with a stick and taking their wallet.
I partialy agree - it sorta depends what comes with poverty (thats a
relative term i think, everybody can't be poor), as in how it correlates to
living conditions, education, medical care, possibilities of getting out of
poverty by hard work, power in society (is it reduced to nonexisting),
social stigma and so on..........

If poverty only means that you will have less to spend on entertainment than
those with better income and you have reasonable means for a better income,
then it's really not that bad at all.

Well only thing thats 100 % safe to say is that it's complicated - it
depends - lol
Bad Bob
2003-08-04 12:46:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matu
Yea that was the example i gave - as in crime out of need and the lack of
reasonable future prospects out from poverty, but i also give reasonable
credit to how poverty is linked to alcoholism wich is heavily linked to
crime.
Alcoholism also has a tendendy to create unstable growing enviroment for the
youth (also linked to crime) and domestic violence (link to crime).
Poverty just tends to correlate to a lot of things that correlete to crime,
so when given limited space it's just easier to say poverty leads to crime
when taking care of poverty would also lower crime particularily street
crime.
I think the WCTU already floated that theory Gary. It resulted in
"Prohibition" and the rise of the Italian Mafia in the 20's and 30's.
The latest boogie man to blame all our troubles on is "Drugs".
The truth is that the real boogie man is "Greed" but no one talks
about that, because then they might have to stop chasing the god
almighty dollar too.




-- Bad Bob the Albino
Matu
2003-08-04 14:03:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bad Bob
Post by Matu
Yea that was the example i gave - as in crime out of need and the lack of
reasonable future prospects out from poverty, but i also give reasonable
credit to how poverty is linked to alcoholism wich is heavily linked to
crime.
Alcoholism also has a tendendy to create unstable growing enviroment for the
youth (also linked to crime) and domestic violence (link to crime).
Poverty just tends to correlate to a lot of things that correlete to crime,
so when given limited space it's just easier to say poverty leads to crime
when taking care of poverty would also lower crime particularily street
crime.
I think the WCTU already floated that theory Gary. It resulted in
"Prohibition" and the rise of the Italian Mafia in the 20's and 30's.
The latest boogie man to blame all our troubles on is "Drugs".
The truth is that the real boogie man is "Greed" but no one talks
about that, because then they might have to stop chasing the god
almighty dollar too.
I think i said that even though i don't know what you refer to (or what is
WCTU), but everything Gary said was cut out of your post so it's a safe
guess :-)

I sometimes cut posts with unnecessary force resulting in mild confusion
about who said what.

I'd also say it's pretty safe to say that alcohol causes crime (it just
removes inhibitions and makes some characters lose all impulsecontrol), but
prohibition of most products tends to add new problems to the mix.

Even though prohibition is the type of a cure thats usually worse than the
disease it's trying to cure it still doesn't change the qualities (in pure
form) of the products it's prohibiting.

Drugs came after the red scare, the latest witch to hunt is TERRORISM :-)

Who's not talking about greed? You need to read between the lines.
Bad Bob
2003-08-04 14:19:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matu
Post by Bad Bob
Post by Matu
Yea that was the example i gave - as in crime out of need and the lack of
reasonable future prospects out from poverty, but i also give reasonable
credit to how poverty is linked to alcoholism wich is heavily linked to
crime.
Alcoholism also has a tendendy to create unstable growing enviroment for
the
Post by Bad Bob
Post by Matu
youth (also linked to crime) and domestic violence (link to crime).
Poverty just tends to correlate to a lot of things that correlete to
crime,
Post by Bad Bob
Post by Matu
so when given limited space it's just easier to say poverty leads to
crime
Post by Bad Bob
Post by Matu
when taking care of poverty would also lower crime particularily street
crime.
I think the WCTU already floated that theory Gary. It resulted in
"Prohibition" and the rise of the Italian Mafia in the 20's and 30's.
The latest boogie man to blame all our troubles on is "Drugs".
The truth is that the real boogie man is "Greed" but no one talks
about that, because then they might have to stop chasing the god
almighty dollar too.
I think i said that even though i don't know what you refer to (or what is
WCTU), but everything Gary said was cut out of your post so it's a safe
guess :-)
WCTU = Women's Christian Temperance Union
(Thats all the women with axes that went around attacking men in bars
and chopping up beer barrels and whiskey bottles at the turn of the
last century.)
Post by Matu
I sometimes cut posts with unnecessary force resulting in mild confusion
about who said what.
Me too!
Post by Matu
I'd also say it's pretty safe to say that alcohol causes crime (it just
removes inhibitions and makes some characters lose all impulsecontrol), but
prohibition of most products tends to add new problems to the mix.
Even though prohibition is the type of a cure thats usually worse than the
disease it's trying to cure it still doesn't change the qualities (in pure
form) of the products it's prohibiting.
Drugs came after the red scare, the latest witch to hunt is TERRORISM :-)
Who's not talking about greed? You need to read between the lines.
Drugs and alcohol abuse are just the symptoms. Greed on the other
hand is a root cause.

Why are we still using the original subject line?

;o)


-- Bad Bob the Albino
Matu
2003-08-04 10:54:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Carson
Some of the best work in criminology comes from conservative
economists (the only criminologists to ever win a Nobel Prize is Gary
Becker, an economist at Univ of Chicago).
Didn't find too much about criminology from Gary S. Becker but what i found
about economics was pretty nasty.

I just generally dislike people that make silly remarks about social
security. Yes it's true that you can lower unemployment levels by making
people starve, but it does have tendency to make people starve even when
they are employed wich i hope isn't the purpose.
I doubt he even considers what influence does lowering socialsecurity have
on low or moderate wages, they go down as jobmarkets get filled with
desperate people willing to work for a dime.
Back to the friggin coalmines.
Matu
2003-08-04 14:58:39 UTC
Permalink
I think you are both wrong.
OK :-) It's hard to disagree :-)
My theory about crime is more of a "Monkey see, Monkey do" scenario.
When you grow up seeing that everything and everyone around you is
corrupt. From your parish priest all the way up to the president of
your country, you tend to want to get in on the action before all the
pie gets eaten.
Well thats just basic perception nothing special about that. There are
though levels of corruption that differ from country to country.
When you see people being incarcerated for rolling a weed in paper and
smoking it, but those who steal millions of dollars from peoples
investments and savings go without being punished or even fined any
significant portion of that theft, you lose your sense of right and
wrong after a few decades.
Well that has been going on as long as human history, the same laws don't
apply to everyone or does the punisment fit the crime.

Because of the catholic church for a period of 1200 years (in Europe) you
weren't allowed to use any medical treatments besides alcohol or blood
letting, if you did you got burned as a witch. Only rationale behind that
was that the Catholic church didn't want anybody healing people besides them
even if they sucked at it for a full 1200 years. You werent even allowed to
use Nazarines favourite drug for healing and general amusement :-)
But you know all this, you've read your Jack Herer, right ?

Today you can get a variety of happy pills (benzodiazepams and such) if you
got the cash money to get diagnosed and fixed for descriptions, if you
haven't got the cash money to get diagnosed (secret of happy pills is that
everybody "needs" them) you're stuck with the classics for selftreatment,
that is alcohol and weed (only one of them works, you know your Jack Herer,
right?).

And you're still not allowed to use Nazarines drug of choice :-)
When people see the government an attack on your country as an excuse
to spend millions more of public monies to create another bureau of
cronies and relatives without accomplishing anything for the good of
the society, (homeland security my ass) the feeling of helplessness
just grows and grows.
Well thats old news :-) We european bastards have been blaming you guys for
that for decades. You have the best "tools" for greedy bastards to act upon
that greed, how the hell have they been able to sucker the taxpayers to
paying their profit i don't know.

I think Saddam still owes the american tax payers around 2 billion dollars
for the dual-use shit you sold him, since he got a government backed loan
(you know who pays that when they can't collect :-)) to pay that shit.

Did they seriusly thought that Saddam was a trustworthy person, did they
care, the corporations got theirs and cronies got theirs :-)
Same thing with the war and "rebuilding", but atleast this time you're not
the only ones getting screwed (iraqis are in worse shape and paying for it).
Its called decadence, and we as a country, as well as the world, is
suffering from it. Just like the Roman Empire and others we will not
solve the problem on our own, not now..., it has gone too far.
Nah not even close, things get a lot worse before they get better.
History shows me that significant changes to society only come through
chaos and upheaval. I.E. revolution & war. Before you can build a new
house on a foundation you have to tear down the old one.
Osma and his Al Qieda got it started by knocking down the foyer. It
remains to be seen if they can tear down the rest of this house of
cards.
You dirty commie :-) I've read my Marx on the side. Uncle oSAMa and his
merry men can't make the States go down, they never even had the potential
for it, but they gave a nice excuse for goverment control and never ending
war against someone. Orwell was right, he just missed the date by 20 years
or so :-).

PS. Watch out what you say, you got ecchelon on your back :-) No need get
cynical when you can just laugh at the "beauty" of it, it's brutal but a
good scam is always a good scam (sort of like organized religion, a self
fueling pyramid scam).
dave keiser
2003-08-05 05:00:10 UTC
Permalink
Don't get you started. Sound like you been running your mouth all day and
as usual 90% are saying nothing,period. Do you really thing that RGP needs
all these posts from twoshitbirds like you and carson. GET A LIFEBABY
YOU'RE WAY WAY OUT THERE.
Don't even get me started on the Catholic Church...
(No I have nothing against Catholics just the Holy Roman Church.)
-- Bad Bob the Albino
_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
Matu
2003-08-04 19:12:05 UTC
Permalink
Yea Bad Bob i'm from Finland.

Out of some crasy reason Outlook keeps jamming all posts adressed to you,
they should appear one day :-)
RTN4
2003-08-05 02:54:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matu
(USA and Jemen only top that),
Where is Jemen?
Gary Carson
2003-08-05 03:24:35 UTC
Permalink
Yemen to an american.
Post by RTN4
Post by Matu
(USA and Jemen only top that),
Where is Jemen?
Gary Carson
The Complete Book of Hold'em Poker is #9 on the bestseller list
List of Top Ten Gambling Books
http://garycarson.rediffblogs.com/
Amercian Casino Guide is #13 last week
Losers, Inc.
2003-08-03 15:46:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matu
What did you think about stats you cut away without commenting ?
I'd have to ask you several clarifying questions and I'd have to look some
stuff up. Maybe I will, but at the moment I'm not ready to spend the time
on it.

_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
Gary Carson
2003-07-30 02:53:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Carson
There's something terribly rotten about the justice system when
something like this is allowed to happen.
Per the link in your original post, a tad over two million people are
in
the gray bar hotel. You seem to consider this outrageous. Per the
same
source (Bureau of Justice), about twelve million 'crime index'
offenses
were reported in 2001 (most recent stats I could find). Crime index
counts only murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary,
larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft.
We put more of our citizens in prison than any other non-3rd world
country.

You can't really compare out 'crime index' offenses to criminal
offensies in other coutries because of the way we count them. Those
stats come from police departments. Some police departments have a
policy of overcharging, charging aggravated assault for instance, when
they know the result is going to be a conviction of disturbing the
peace (a bar fight or something). The overcharging is a tactic used
to give prosecutors something to bargian with, and it's a way for
police to basically act as courts and decide who gets locked up for a
few days.
I'm just wondering how you reconcile the thought that we arrest too
many
people when there is clearly so much crime on the streets?
It's not clear at all that we have that much crime on the streets.
Much of the crime that we do have is created by out zeal to lock
people up. The drugs laws, for example, create a lot of property
crime and violent crime.
Frankly, I
think we do lock up too many stoners unnecessarily. But notice
'crime
index' doesn't count them. We need reform, but overall I think more
people ought to be in jail, not less.
That just creates more problems than it solves.
Michael Langford
2003-08-04 15:07:38 UTC
Permalink
I'm just wondering how you reconcile the thought that we arrest too many
people when there is clearly so much crime on the streets? Frankly, I
think we do lock up too many stoners unnecessarily. But notice 'crime
index' doesn't count them. We need reform, but overall I think more
people ought to be in jail, not less.
The crime rate is lower than EVER before, much lower than when your
parents were kids. You have to look at rate(e.g.
convictions/population), not incidences(e.g. how MANY convictions),
because the number of people in the county is greater than any time in
the past.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/gvc.htm

Its at a level now where I am pretty much happy about the crime rate,
and actually I'm starting to worry about the institutionalized
practice of state santioned rape:

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/prison/

--Michael
Viperholdem
2003-07-25 04:42:55 UTC
Permalink
3) Whites NEVER get the death penalty for killing blacks
You know, you really don't see all that many whites killing blacks. Hmm.
Stephen Jacobs
2003-07-25 13:41:57 UTC
Permalink
Or vice versa, by the way.

Murder is such an...Intimate crime. The races are still fairly separate in
the US.
Post by Viperholdem
3) Whites NEVER get the death penalty for killing blacks
You know, you really don't see all that many whites killing blacks. Hmm.
Peter Lizak
2003-07-25 06:28:25 UTC
Permalink
1) Planted and made up evidence by police as proved in the LA Ramparts Division
and in hundreds of ACLU and NAACP civil cases;
2) Disparity in income level between blacks and whites which means blacks get
minimal and poor legal representation;
3) Whites NEVER get the death penalty for killing blacks;
I don't think anyone but serial killers should get the death penalty.
Come to think about it (and I think it was Chris Rock that originally
brought this up), I don't know any non-white serial killers.
4) Constant lack of equal economic opportunity for blacks in this country due
to persistent racism and job discrimination;
5) White jurors and eyewitnesses who cannot distinguish one black from another
or between black and hispanic;
6) White financed media representation of all inner city blacks as thugs and
criminals;
7) Vestiges of segregated public schools, inferior funded black schools, and
prohibition against admittance even to the most qualified and outstanding black
applicants for more than one hundred years;
8) Historically higher black participation rate in the nation's INFANTRY (not
base camp technical jobs) and the total lack of re-integration programs
post-war for minorities; AD NAUSEUM;
So just what the eff is your point about high black prison population rates???
Jim Jamison, Atlanta
Come move to Canada. I went to a party last week, and I was the only guy
in the joint with Blue eyes. I found 3 other whities, and you know what.
NO ONE GAVE A DAMN. Also, no tax on gambling :)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Lizak
***@math.uwaterloo.ca
Scientific Computing Lab, University of Waterloo
Gary Carson
2003-07-25 07:11:03 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 02:28:25 -0400, Peter Lizak
Post by Peter Lizak
1) Planted and made up evidence by police as proved in the LA
Ramparts Division
Post by Peter Lizak
and in hundreds of ACLU and NAACP civil cases;
2) Disparity in income level between blacks and whites which means blacks get
minimal and poor legal representation;
3) Whites NEVER get the death penalty for killing blacks;
I don't think anyone but serial killers should get the death penalty.
Come to think about it (and I think it was Chris Rock that originally
brought this up), I don't know any non-white serial killers.
Ida Amin?
Peter Lizak
2003-07-25 09:11:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Carson
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 02:28:25 -0400, Peter Lizak
Post by Peter Lizak
1) Planted and made up evidence by police as proved in the LA
Ramparts Division
Post by Peter Lizak
and in hundreds of ACLU and NAACP civil cases;
2) Disparity in income level between blacks and whites which means
blacks get
Post by Peter Lizak
minimal and poor legal representation;
3) Whites NEVER get the death penalty for killing blacks;
I don't think anyone but serial killers should get the death penalty.
Come to think about it (and I think it was Chris Rock that originally
brought this up), I don't know any non-white serial killers.
Ida Amin?
He was more of a dictator than a serial killer... little bit of a
difference, n'est pas?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Lizak
***@math.uwaterloo.ca
Scientific Computing Lab, University of Waterloo
Gary Carson
2003-07-25 09:44:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Carson
Post by Peter Lizak
Come to think about it (and I think it was Chris Rock that
originally
Post by Gary Carson
Post by Peter Lizak
brought this up), I don't know any non-white serial killers.
Ida Amin?
Gary, I'm surprised you had to go that far away to think of one.
Railcar Killer ring a bell? In Huntsville, Texas sits Angel Maturino
Resendiz on death row. Says he's wasted over 40 people.
http://www.click2houston.com/news/935487/detail.html
I consider him white. Too many hispanics in my family.

I couldn't remember the name of that guy in Atlanta that killed the
kids or the sniper.
lvdlrs
2003-07-25 18:47:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Lizak
, I don't know any non-white serial killers.
Post by Gary Carson
I couldn't remember the name of that guy in Atlanta that killed the
kids ------Wayne Williams------
Derrick Todd Lee.
http://atlanta.about.com/cs/media/a/serialkiller.htm

Gary (...) Philips
Gary Carson
2003-07-25 19:25:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Lizak
, I don't know any non-white serial killers.
Post by Gary Carson
I couldn't remember the name of that guy in Atlanta that killed the
kids ------Wayne Williams------
And I think he's an example of why even serial killers probably
shouldn't get the death penalty.

He was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond doubt. They
had some strong circumstantial evidence, he probably did it, but they
didn't really have any direct evidence that I can recall. There
remains some possibility that he didnt' actually do it.
James L. Hankins
2003-07-25 20:29:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Carson
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 02:28:25 -0400, Peter Lizak
Post by Peter Lizak
I don't think anyone but serial killers should get the death penalty.
Come to think about it (and I think it was Chris Rock that originally
brought this up), I don't know any non-white serial killers.
Ida Amin?
I think Idi was actually a mass murderer rather than a serial killer.
Bad Bob
2003-07-25 22:39:41 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 20:29:43 GMT, "James L. Hankins"
Post by James L. Hankins
Post by Gary Carson
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 02:28:25 -0400, Peter Lizak
Post by Peter Lizak
I don't think anyone but serial killers should get the death penalty.
Come to think about it (and I think it was Chris Rock that originally
brought this up), I don't know any non-white serial killers.
Ida Amin?
I think Idi was actually a mass murderer rather than a serial killer.
I think he was one of those evil doers...


-- Bad Bob the Albino
email: ***@blueflintcat.us
WWW.BLUEFLINTCAT.US/RGPFAQ/
Home of: "FAQ (rec.gambling.poker)for New Poker Players"
jw_steve
2003-07-27 01:51:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Carson
Post by Peter Lizak
Come to think about it (and I think it was Chris Rock that originally
brought this up), I don't know any non-white serial killers.
Ida Amin?
Gary, I'm surprised you had to go that far away to think of one.
Railcar Killer ring a bell? In Huntsville, Texas sits Angel Maturino
Resendiz on death row. Says he's wasted over 40 people.
http://www.click2houston.com/news/935487/detail.html
Gary (...) Philips
Don't forget about the Nightstalker, Richard Ramirez,
and Charles Ng (although he had a partner so maybe it
doesn't count).

-jw steve
lvdlrs
2003-07-25 07:38:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Lizak
Come to think about it (and I think it was Chris Rock that originally
brought this up), I don't know any non-white serial killers.
You don't have to go too far back. The Beltway Snipers, John Allen
Muhammad and Lee Malvo. Shot 14 people between Sept 14 and Oct 22, 2002.

Gary (...) Philips
Craig Permenter
2003-07-25 20:15:42 UTC
Permalink
The citizens of Atlanta and Southern Louisiana do.
Post by Peter Lizak
I don't think anyone but serial killers should get the death penalty.
Come to think about it (and I think it was Chris Rock that originally
brought this up), I don't know any non-white serial killers.
accountant
2003-07-25 06:33:48 UTC
Permalink
A couple of observations / points:

(1) That's one place a white guy doesn't want to be at - Prison. I can't
think of anything worse than being in the minority with a population of
persons that thinks my race fucked them over...

(2) I think the justice system is a smaller part of the problem than the
underlying causes, lack of family values and / or lack of an actual family.

(3) The stats tell me that blacks pro rata are being convicted of more
crimes, which means they are committing more crimes. The question is why?
See above for my best guess.

Many of these young black males didn't have a Dad. It would be
interesting to see the family statistics of the prisoners.

Just my opinion.
From a Justice Dept news release on prison population in the US
" As of December 31, 2002, black males from 20 to 39 years old
accounted for about a third of all sentenced prison inmates under
state or federal jurisdiction. On that date 10.4 percent of the
country's black male population between the ages of 25 to 29 were in
prison, compared to 2.4 percent of Hispanic males and 1.2 percent of
white males in the same age group."
That doesn't count jails and doesn't count INS lockups, just people
who are serving sentences of 1 year or more.
The data are from the bulletin "Prisoners in 2002" (NCJ-200248)
written by BJS statisticians Paige M. Harrison and Allen J. Beck.
Single copies may be obtained by calling the BJS Clearinghouse at
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/p02.htm (after July 27)
_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
Gary Carson
2003-07-25 07:23:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by accountant
(1) That's one place a white guy doesn't want to be at - Prison. I can't
think of anything worse than being in the minority with a population of
persons that thinks my race fucked them over...
(2) I think the justice system is a smaller part of the problem than the
underlying causes, lack of family values and / or lack of an actual family.
(3) The stats tell me that blacks pro rata are being convicted of more
crimes, which means they are committing more crimes.
Neither is true.

The stats don't tell you that blacks pro rata are being convicted of
more crimes. They are being sentenced to prison more often. People
with sentences less than one year serve them in jail, not prison.

An example of the difference is the difference between powder cocaine
and crack cocaine. Non-blacks pro rata get convicted more often of
powder cocaine violations, blacks more often of crack violations.

The penalties are higher for crack than for powder, so blacks are more
likely to go to prison even if they aren't more likely to get
convicted (pro rata more likely).

Also, you're much more likely to be convicted of a felony if you can't
afford a private attorney. So, being convicted more often can just
mean you don't have as much money, having nothing to do with having
committed more crimes
.
In Texas, for example, you can't get bail (even for trivial offenses)
unless you're able to hire an attorney. If you use public defender
you aren't allowed bail. (there is a case working it's way up the
appeals courts attacking the constitutiality of that, but right now
that's the way it is). That gives someone with no money a high
incentive to just plead guilty.

Example. You get arrested for some something. You don't have an
extra couple thousand dollars. So, you sit in jail for two weeks,
then finially a public defender meets you at about your third court
appearance. Your trial date is 6 months away. They offer you a deal,
you plead guilty and you'll get probation, you'll get out of jail by
the end of the week. A lot of people will take that deal, even if
they aren't guilty.

But, now you're in the system. Now you don't even have to commit a
crime to go to prison, just piss off your probation officer. Then if
you go to prison and claim you're innocnent you won't get paroled
because you haven't shown remorse for your crime (the one you never
committed in the first place)

It's really messed up. Crime is not the problem. The criminal
justice system is the problem.
Bad Bob
2003-07-25 10:51:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by accountant
Post by accountant
(1) That's one place a white guy doesn't want to be at - Prison. I
can't
Post by accountant
think of anything worse than being in the minority with a population
of
Post by accountant
persons that thinks my race fucked them over...
(2) I think the justice system is a smaller part of the problem than
the
Post by accountant
underlying causes, lack of family values and / or lack of an actual
family.
Post by accountant
(3) The stats tell me that blacks pro rata are being convicted of
more
Post by accountant
crimes, which means they are committing more crimes.
Neither is true.
The stats don't tell you that blacks pro rata are being convicted of
more crimes. They are being sentenced to prison more often. People
with sentences less than one year serve them in jail, not prison.
An example of the difference is the difference between powder cocaine
and crack cocaine. Non-blacks pro rata get convicted more often of
powder cocaine violations, blacks more often of crack violations.
The penalties are higher for crack than for powder, so blacks are more
likely to go to prison even if they aren't more likely to get
convicted (pro rata more likely).
Also, you're much more likely to be convicted of a felony if you can't
afford a private attorney. So, being convicted more often can just
mean you don't have as much money, having nothing to do with having
committed more crimes
.
In Texas, for example, you can't get bail (even for trivial offenses)
unless you're able to hire an attorney. If you use public defender
you aren't allowed bail. (there is a case working it's way up the
appeals courts attacking the constitutiality of that, but right now
that's the way it is). That gives someone with no money a high
incentive to just plead guilty.
Example. You get arrested for some something. You don't have an
extra couple thousand dollars. So, you sit in jail for two weeks,
then finially a public defender meets you at about your third court
appearance. Your trial date is 6 months away. They offer you a deal,
you plead guilty and you'll get probation, you'll get out of jail by
the end of the week. A lot of people will take that deal, even if
they aren't guilty.
But, now you're in the system. Now you don't even have to commit a
crime to go to prison, just piss off your probation officer. Then if
you go to prison and claim you're innocnent you won't get paroled
because you haven't shown remorse for your crime (the one you never
committed in the first place)
It's really messed up. Crime is not the problem. The criminal
justice system is the problem.
Jesus fucking Christ guys, I'm trying to go cold turkey off my
anti-depressants so I can get a boner once in a blue moon again. This
thread is sure as hell not helping much...





-- Bad Bob the Albino
email: ***@blueflintcat.us
WWW.BLUEFLINTCAT.US/RGPFAQ/
Home of: "FAQ (rec.gambling.poker)for New Poker Players"
Stephen Jacobs
2003-07-25 13:47:05 UTC
Permalink
Ask your physician about nitrglycerin ointment.
Post by Bad Bob
Post by accountant
Post by accountant
(1) That's one place a white guy doesn't want to be at - Prison. I
can't
Post by accountant
think of anything worse than being in the minority with a population
of
Post by accountant
persons that thinks my race fucked them over...
(2) I think the justice system is a smaller part of the problem than
the
Post by accountant
underlying causes, lack of family values and / or lack of an actual
family.
Post by accountant
(3) The stats tell me that blacks pro rata are being convicted of
more
Post by accountant
crimes, which means they are committing more crimes.
Neither is true.
The stats don't tell you that blacks pro rata are being convicted of
more crimes. They are being sentenced to prison more often. People
with sentences less than one year serve them in jail, not prison.
An example of the difference is the difference between powder cocaine
and crack cocaine. Non-blacks pro rata get convicted more often of
powder cocaine violations, blacks more often of crack violations.
The penalties are higher for crack than for powder, so blacks are more
likely to go to prison even if they aren't more likely to get
convicted (pro rata more likely).
Also, you're much more likely to be convicted of a felony if you can't
afford a private attorney. So, being convicted more often can just
mean you don't have as much money, having nothing to do with having
committed more crimes
.
In Texas, for example, you can't get bail (even for trivial offenses)
unless you're able to hire an attorney. If you use public defender
you aren't allowed bail. (there is a case working it's way up the
appeals courts attacking the constitutiality of that, but right now
that's the way it is). That gives someone with no money a high
incentive to just plead guilty.
Example. You get arrested for some something. You don't have an
extra couple thousand dollars. So, you sit in jail for two weeks,
then finially a public defender meets you at about your third court
appearance. Your trial date is 6 months away. They offer you a deal,
you plead guilty and you'll get probation, you'll get out of jail by
the end of the week. A lot of people will take that deal, even if
they aren't guilty.
But, now you're in the system. Now you don't even have to commit a
crime to go to prison, just piss off your probation officer. Then if
you go to prison and claim you're innocnent you won't get paroled
because you haven't shown remorse for your crime (the one you never
committed in the first place)
It's really messed up. Crime is not the problem. The criminal
justice system is the problem.
Jesus fucking Christ guys, I'm trying to go cold turkey off my
anti-depressants so I can get a boner once in a blue moon again. This
thread is sure as hell not helping much...
-- Bad Bob the Albino
WWW.BLUEFLINTCAT.US/RGPFAQ/
Home of: "FAQ (rec.gambling.poker)for New Poker Players"
Bad Bob
2003-07-25 14:06:42 UTC
Permalink
I got about ten bottles of the oral spray laying around here. Should I
spray it under my tongue or on my prick?

That shit is cold ya know....



On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 09:47:05 -0400, "Stephen Jacobs"
Post by Stephen Jacobs
Ask your physician about nitrglycerin ointment.
Post by Bad Bob
Post by accountant
Post by accountant
(1) That's one place a white guy doesn't want to be at - Prison. I
can't
Post by accountant
think of anything worse than being in the minority with a population
of
Post by accountant
persons that thinks my race fucked them over...
(2) I think the justice system is a smaller part of the problem than
the
Post by accountant
underlying causes, lack of family values and / or lack of an actual
family.
Post by accountant
(3) The stats tell me that blacks pro rata are being convicted of
more
Post by accountant
crimes, which means they are committing more crimes.
Neither is true.
The stats don't tell you that blacks pro rata are being convicted of
more crimes. They are being sentenced to prison more often. People
with sentences less than one year serve them in jail, not prison.
An example of the difference is the difference between powder cocaine
and crack cocaine. Non-blacks pro rata get convicted more often of
powder cocaine violations, blacks more often of crack violations.
The penalties are higher for crack than for powder, so blacks are more
likely to go to prison even if they aren't more likely to get
convicted (pro rata more likely).
Also, you're much more likely to be convicted of a felony if you can't
afford a private attorney. So, being convicted more often can just
mean you don't have as much money, having nothing to do with having
committed more crimes
.
In Texas, for example, you can't get bail (even for trivial offenses)
unless you're able to hire an attorney. If you use public defender
you aren't allowed bail. (there is a case working it's way up the
appeals courts attacking the constitutiality of that, but right now
that's the way it is). That gives someone with no money a high
incentive to just plead guilty.
Example. You get arrested for some something. You don't have an
extra couple thousand dollars. So, you sit in jail for two weeks,
then finially a public defender meets you at about your third court
appearance. Your trial date is 6 months away. They offer you a deal,
you plead guilty and you'll get probation, you'll get out of jail by
the end of the week. A lot of people will take that deal, even if
they aren't guilty.
But, now you're in the system. Now you don't even have to commit a
crime to go to prison, just piss off your probation officer. Then if
you go to prison and claim you're innocnent you won't get paroled
because you haven't shown remorse for your crime (the one you never
committed in the first place)
It's really messed up. Crime is not the problem. The criminal
justice system is the problem.
Jesus fucking Christ guys, I'm trying to go cold turkey off my
anti-depressants so I can get a boner once in a blue moon again. This
thread is sure as hell not helping much...
-- Bad Bob the Albino
WWW.BLUEFLINTCAT.US/RGPFAQ/
Home of: "FAQ (rec.gambling.poker)for New Poker Players"
-- Bad Bob the Albino
email: ***@blueflintcat.us
WWW.BLUEFLINTCAT.US/RGPFAQ/
Home of: "FAQ (rec.gambling.poker)for New Poker Players"
John T. Kennedy
2003-07-26 05:14:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Carson
An example of the difference is the difference between powder cocaine
and crack cocaine. Non-blacks pro rata get convicted more often of
powder cocaine violations, blacks more often of crack violations.
The penalties are higher for crack than for powder, so blacks are more
likely to go to prison even if they aren't more likely to get
convicted (pro rata more likely).
Crack has nothing to do with being black.
Post by Gary Carson
Also, you're much more likely to be convicted of a felony if you can't
afford a private attorney. So, being convicted more often can just
mean you don't have as much money, having nothing to do with having
committed more crimes
That also has nothing to do with being black.
Gary Carson
2003-07-25 19:38:25 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 01:14:35 -0400, John T. Kennedy
Post by John T. Kennedy
Post by Gary Carson
An example of the difference is the difference between powder
cocaine
Post by John T. Kennedy
Post by Gary Carson
and crack cocaine. Non-blacks pro rata get convicted more often of
powder cocaine violations, blacks more often of crack violations.
The penalties are higher for crack than for powder, so blacks are more
likely to go to prison even if they aren't more likely to get
convicted (pro rata more likely).
Crack has nothing to do with being black.
For some reason that has nothing to do with skin pigmentation, crack
seems to be more popular among blacks than among whites. And, cocaine
in powdered form seems to be more popular among whites than among
blacks.

The laws have been written to reflect that.

We have a long history in our drug laws about that sort of thing.

Pot has nothing to do with being Mexican. But, that was the origin of
our first anti-pot law. It was an ordinance in El Paso Texas.

About the time of Pancho Villa there was a large influx of new Mexican
immigrants into El Paso, straining the infrastucture resources of the
city. There was no INS, immigrants was a local problem.

The new immigrants, escaping the revelution in Mexico, where comeing
from a differnt part of Northern Mexicao than had previous immigrants
into El Paso. They brought marijuana with them, it was indiginous to
the mountain regions they were immagrating from.

Some deputy Sheriff noticed that the new immigrants were smoking that
stuff, but "our" mexicans didn't smoke it. So they passed a law
against it as a way for the local law enforcment to distiguish between
the new and old immigrants.

It was an immigration control law.
Post by John T. Kennedy
Post by Gary Carson
Also, you're much more likely to be convicted of a felony if you can't
afford a private attorney. So, being convicted more often can just
mean you don't have as much money, having nothing to do with having
committed more crimes
That also has nothing to do with being black.
Nope, that's right. Poor white people get screwed almost as much as
poor blacks.

But, it's correlated with being black.

Many of the more heavy-handed practices of our criminal justice system
are strongly correlated with being black.

Being both poor and mentally retarted is pretty much a death sentence
(Penry, from Livingston Texas is an example of a white guy who was
poor and mentally retarted -- he got the death penalty three times I
think and the only real evidence they had was that he confessed to the
same Texas Ranger that got that guy in a Texas Prison to confess to
400 murders that he didn't commit).

In one of the SC decisons quibbling about whether his IQ is 68 (where
it's not okay to kill him) or 72 (where it is okay top kill him) one
of the justices made the comment that the Ranger that took his
confession was "highly experienced" -- as if that meant we should give
deference to evidence he provided. Sure, he was "highly experiended"
in getting false confessions.



Most ot the people in prison are white, white guys are still a pretty
big majority. But, blacks are in prison disproportinate to their
population numbers.
John T. Kennedy
2003-07-26 12:40:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Carson
But, blacks are in prison disproportinate to their
population numbers.
Blacks are also in the NBA disproportionate to their population
numbers.

What conclusions are we to draw from such correlations?
John T. Kennedy
2003-07-26 12:49:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Carson
About the time of Pancho Villa there was a large influx of new Mexican
immigrants into El Paso, straining the infrastucture resources of the
city. There was no INS, immigrants was a local problem.
The new immigrants, escaping the revelution in Mexico, where comeing
from a differnt part of Northern Mexicao than had previous immigrants
into El Paso. They brought marijuana with them, it was indiginous to
the mountain regions they were immagrating from.
Some deputy Sheriff noticed that the new immigrants were smoking that
stuff, but "our" mexicans didn't smoke it. So they passed a law
against it as a way for the local law enforcment to distiguish between
the new and old immigrants.
It was an immigration control law.
Unfair, but easy to avoid. Nobody should be jailed for victimless
actions like selling or using drugs. Such laws are completely immoral,
but the consequences are easy to avoid. People selling and taking
crack are typically routinely making very low quality decisions. Yes
they should be left alone, but I reserve the lion's share of my
sympathy for people making better quailty choices in their lives.
Gary Carson
2003-07-26 19:02:32 UTC
Permalink
Subject: Re: (OT) No wonder they don't play to win
Unfair, but easy to avoid. Nobody should be jailed for victimless
actions like selling or using drugs.
So the guy on the corner selling crack to school kids shouldnt be in
jail?

If we don't want people standing on the corner selling crack then we
should sell crack in drug stores.

If we don't want people selling crack to school kids then we should
regulate the sales and require the retailer to examine id before
selling it.

It works for tobacco and beer.

The laws against selling tobacco to school kids have been around for a
long time. Until recenlty law enforcement didn't really worry about
them, the laws existed but everybody ignored them. But, now that we
enforce them we fine people who violate those laws, we don't send them
to prison. In Texas I think the fine for selling tobacco and/or
alchohol to school kids is $600. And you usually don't get arrested,
you get a citation.

What is it about crack that makes it so special?


Great
idea,where do you live,Berkely?Wait till some rock monster breaks in
your house
and steals everything youve got to go buy crack or worse,sticks a
saturday
night special in your face,then come back and tell us how its a
"victimless
crime" ok?
The laws that make crack expensive and difficult to acquire are't
victimless at all. It's the crack itself that's victimless.
Gary Carson
2003-07-26 20:11:55 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 03:50:47 -0400, John T. Kennedy
That's better than an all out drug war, but there's still no
justification for it. And school kids probably get more tobacco and
beer now than they do crack. They might well get more crack than
they
do now if crack were regulated like alcohol or tobacco. But so what?
People should mind their own kids, and let other people take care of
their's.
When I was growing up the law in Texas was that there was no minimum
drinking age if you were in the presecne of your parents.

I used to go to bars with my daddy often. It would have been legal
for me to drink. But, daddy wouldn't let me.

I think they've changed that law though.
John T. Kennedy
2003-07-27 08:46:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Carson
When I was growing up the law in Texas was that there was no minimum
drinking age if you were in the presecne of your parents.
I used to go to bars with my daddy often. It would have been legal
for me to drink. But, daddy wouldn't let me.
I think they've changed that law though.
That's better than what we have now.

What do you think would happen if there were no regulation of alcohol
at all?
Gary Carson
2003-07-26 21:10:13 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 04:46:51 -0400, John T. Kennedy
Post by John T. Kennedy
Post by Gary Carson
When I was growing up the law in Texas was that there was no minimum
drinking age if you were in the presecne of your parents.
I used to go to bars with my daddy often. It would have been legal
for me to drink. But, daddy wouldn't let me.
I think they've changed that law though.
That's better than what we have now.
What do you think would happen if there were no regulation of alcohol
at all?
We'd have a national sales tax?

Corn farmers of Northern Pennsylvania would be making federal tax
policy?

The owners of the English Gin Shops would have migrated to America?

The naval base at Yokuska Japan used to have a lunch room in the EM
club that served beer during working hours. But, before 4 pm you
could only buy beer with food. Beer was 10c a bottle, pimentoe cheese
sandwiches were 25c. I drank a lot of 35c bottles of beer.

That's what regulation does.

You should have seen us the day four of us came back from "lunch" and
the cheif bos'n mate had the quaterdeck watch. He had the four of us
put up a canvas awning over the quarterdeck. We got it done, but it
was pretty funny to watch.
John T. Kennedy
2003-07-27 10:47:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Carson
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 04:46:51 -0400, John T. Kennedy
Post by John T. Kennedy
Post by Gary Carson
When I was growing up the law in Texas was that there was no minimum
drinking age if you were in the presecne of your parents.
I used to go to bars with my daddy often. It would have been legal
for me to drink. But, daddy wouldn't let me.
I think they've changed that law though.
That's better than what we have now.
What do you think would happen if there were no regulation of alcohol
at all?
We'd have a national sales tax?
I thought we were talking about the effect on children.
Post by Gary Carson
Corn farmers of Northern Pennsylvania would be making federal tax
policy?
The owners of the English Gin Shops would have migrated to America?
The naval base at Yokuska Japan used to have a lunch room in the EM
club that served beer during working hours. But, before 4 pm you
could only buy beer with food. Beer was 10c a bottle, pimentoe cheese
sandwiches were 25c. I drank a lot of 35c bottles of beer.
That's what regulation does.
It produces inefficient markets, yeah.
Post by Gary Carson
You should have seen us the day four of us came back from "lunch" and
the cheif bos'n mate had the quaterdeck watch. He had the four of us
put up a canvas awning over the quarterdeck. We got it done, but it
was pretty funny to watch.
Fred
2003-07-26 22:53:32 UTC
Permalink
I grew up and my parents had the "Alcohol is no big deal." attitude. It
made me grow up with the same attitude. The "You can't have this until you
are older." attitude is what causes binges in college. While all my friends
were drinking to excess because they could now, I had been drinking for
years and could handle it.

Fred.
Post by Gary Carson
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 04:46:51 -0400, John T. Kennedy
Post by John T. Kennedy
Post by Gary Carson
When I was growing up the law in Texas was that there was no minimum
drinking age if you were in the presecne of your parents.
I used to go to bars with my daddy often. It would have been legal
for me to drink. But, daddy wouldn't let me.
I think they've changed that law though.
That's better than what we have now.
What do you think would happen if there were no regulation of alcohol
at all?
Chester Numitz
2003-07-26 21:42:47 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 04:46:51 -0400, John T. Kennedy
Post by John T. Kennedy
Post by Gary Carson
When I was growing up the law in Texas was that there was no minimum
drinking age if you were in the presecne of your parents.
I used to go to bars with my daddy often. It would have been legal
for me to drink. But, daddy wouldn't let me.
I think they've changed that law though.
That's better than what we have now.
What do you think would happen if there were no regulation of alcohol
at all?
John T. Kennedy-

Will you please do us all a favor and fix the clock on your computer
so it is the right time and timezone? All your posts are dated in the
future and group up on the bottom of my newsreader and its driving me
crazy. I don't want to killfile you to solve this problem because I
want to read your responses, but its very annoying to have all the
John T. Keenedy posts stuck on the bottom of my list. I am sure I am
not the only one who hates this.

Thanks
Chester
John T. Kennedy
2003-07-27 23:19:47 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 14:42:47 -0700, Chester Numitz
Post by Chester Numitz
Will you please do us all a favor and fix the clock on your computer
so it is the right time and timezone? All your posts are dated in the
future and group up on the bottom of my newsreader and its driving me
crazy. I don't want to killfile you to solve this problem because I
want to read your responses, but its very annoying to have all the
John T. Keenedy posts stuck on the bottom of my list. I am sure I am
not the only one who hates this.
Sorry, it should be fixed now.
Chester Numitz
2003-07-26 23:53:11 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 19:19:47 -0400, John T. Kennedy
Post by John T. Kennedy
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 14:42:47 -0700, Chester Numitz
Post by Chester Numitz
Will you please do us all a favor and fix the clock on your computer
so it is the right time and timezone? All your posts are dated in the
future and group up on the bottom of my newsreader and its driving me
crazy. I don't want to killfile you to solve this problem because I
want to read your responses, but its very annoying to have all the
John T. Keenedy posts stuck on the bottom of my list. I am sure I am
not the only one who hates this.
Sorry, it should be fixed now.
SIGH - well you fixed your AM and PM finally, but you are still a full
day ahead on your date. Notice it says the 27th on your posts. Keep
the time the same, just move your date one day back and you will
finally be in sync.
John T. Kennedy
2003-07-27 00:20:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chester Numitz
SIGH - well you fixed your AM and PM finally, but you are still a full
day ahead on your date. Notice it says the 27th on your posts. Keep
the time the same, just move your date one day back and you will
finally be in sync.
Thanks again. This is embarassing.
TWal289
2003-07-27 01:13:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chester Numitz
SIGH - well you fixed your AM and PM finally, but you are still a full
day ahead on your date. Notice it says the 27th on your posts. Keep
the time the same, just move your date one day back and you will
finally be in sync.
Must be the crack.
Peter Lizak
2003-07-27 18:12:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Carson
What is it about crack that makes it so special?
I can't believe you wrote that. It better not be a serious question.
Erich Schulte
2003-07-25 10:50:13 UTC
Permalink
Couple points.
1. There are non-white serial killers. The most famous is Richard
Ramirez, the Night Stalker (mexican). They recently cought a black
one somewhere down south. Still, it's interesting that serial
killers are disproportionatly white. Maybe if you're a psychopath in
the inner city, where so many blacks and hispanics live, you just join
a gang. Who knows?


2, it's certainly true that blacks commit more crimes that whites,
but the desparity might not be as great as you think. Consider this:

The rate of drug admissions to state prison for black men are thirteen
times greater than the rate for white men. A recent report by Human
Rights Watch found that while drug use is consistent across all racial
groups, Blacks and Latinos are far more likely to be arrested and
prosecuted and given long sentences for drug offenses. Blacks
constitute 13 percent of all drug users, but 35 percent of those
arrested for drug possession, 55 percent of persons convicted, and 74
percent of people sent to prison.(1) Nationally, Latinos comprise
almost half of those arrested for marijuana offenses(2) and Native
Americans comprise almost 2/3 of those prosecuted for criminal
offenses in federal courts.(3)

which i got from here

http://www.drugpolicy.org/race/criminaljust/

Oh shit.. War on Drugs. My blood's boiling already. One they people
will look back at politicians who support this "war" (that is, most of
them) the same way they now look back at politicians who supported
slavery. Whenever I begin to think, "oh, Clinton (or virtually any
other politician) might not be such a bad guy" I just think of all the
money and lives they flush down the toilet, certainly knowing that
there is no remotly plausible justification for doing so.
Oh yeah. The topic of the thread. Looks like, if you're black,
you're more likely to be arrested for commiting the same crime as joe
white guy. And if you're both arrested, you're more to be convicted.
And if you're both convicted, you're more likely to go to prison.
Because of your lack of family values, of course.
Stephen Jacobs
2003-07-25 13:38:50 UTC
Permalink
The start of the problem with justice administration in this country is that
you're guilty of a drug felony. Doesn't matter who you are or what you do.
If you aren't totally bedridden it's certain that you are carrying money
with detectable traces of heroin and cocaine on it, and that you are engaged
in conspiracies with major drug offenders. It's the way the laws are
written, the way prosecutors have stretched them and the way judges have
allowed results that (I want to get seriously obscene here, but I don't want
to be distracting) that, I say, violate the spirit of the Constitution and
the memory of its authors--simply because the literal words those atrocities
are authorized by appear not to violate the Constitution. (The example that
can get me screaming is that no level of government is authorized to require
drug tests on a person without 'probable cause.' They are, however, allowed
to dictate that every business provide a "drug-free workplace," and to say
that pre-employment drug screening is one way to do that.)

So anyway, given that you can imprison anybody you have the time and
interest to, it isn't at all surprising that prisons are full of minorities.

I recommend the book "Smoke and Mirrors," although I wonder if the author
was as appalled when he started as he was when it was published; his
documentation is done with the highest level of journalistic thoroughness
(HE's a veteran of The WSJ), and appears to argue the case just as well as
his purplish prose.

Given subsequent events, his portrayal of William Bennet is priceless.
Aaron
2003-07-25 16:29:45 UTC
Permalink
" As of December 31, 2002, black males from 20 to 39 years old
accounted for about a third of all sentenced prison inmates under
state or federal jurisdiction. On that date 10.4 percent of the
country's black male population between the ages of 25 to 29 were in
prison, compared to 2.4 percent of Hispanic males and 1.2 percent of
white males in the same age group."
What about the Vietnamese? When they came to the USA as war refugees
in the 1970's, they were poorer than most blacks ever were. They had
been exposed to so much horror, it was practically in their blood.
They were the ultimate example of people who had suffered abuses which
might predispose them to end up in prison. And they were hated by
lots of people in the USA who considered them "gooks" and would rather
see them dead.

What percentages of blacks and Vietnamese in the USA get PhD's? What
percentages of them are prosperous? What percentages of them are in
prison?

There is clearly something other than racism or abuse causing blacks
to end up in prison and not getting their PhD's and not being
prosperous. Of course there are lots of exceptions, lots of rich
blacks, lots of blacks with PhD's, etc., but not nearly in proportion
to the Vietnamese.

What is the secret factor that makes one ethnic group so much more
successful than another, in spite of being more hated and abused?

What is the secret factor that makes blacks more likely to end up in
prison, in spite of having more advantages and opportunities?

And what can be done about it? Should we use affirmative action,
sending more whites to prison, based on racial quotas? Should we let
most of the blacks out of prison, and hope they aren't dangerous to
society? Should we prohibit rich whites from hiring lawyers, and
insist that everyone use public defenders?
Gary Carson
2003-07-25 19:43:06 UTC
Permalink
You're absolutely right.

If the damn niggers dont' get off their butts and get PhD's then they
out to go to prison.

It's the only right thing for society to do.
Post by Aaron
" As of December 31, 2002, black males from 20 to 39 years old
accounted for about a third of all sentenced prison inmates under
state or federal jurisdiction. On that date 10.4 percent of the
country's black male population between the ages of 25 to 29 were in
prison, compared to 2.4 percent of Hispanic males and 1.2 percent of
white males in the same age group."
What about the Vietnamese? When they came to the USA as war refugees
in the 1970's, they were poorer than most blacks ever were. They had
been exposed to so much horror, it was practically in their blood.
They were the ultimate example of people who had suffered abuses which
might predispose them to end up in prison. And they were hated by
lots of people in the USA who considered them "gooks" and would
rather
Post by Aaron
see them dead.
What percentages of blacks and Vietnamese in the USA get PhD's? What
percentages of them are prosperous? What percentages of them are in
prison?
There is clearly something other than racism or abuse causing blacks
to end up in prison and not getting their PhD's and not being
prosperous. Of course there are lots of exceptions, lots of rich
blacks, lots of blacks with PhD's, etc., but not nearly in proportion
to the Vietnamese.
What is the secret factor that makes one ethnic group so much more
successful than another, in spite of being more hated and abused?
What is the secret factor that makes blacks more likely to end up in
prison, in spite of having more advantages and opportunities?
And what can be done about it? Should we use affirmative action,
sending more whites to prison, based on racial quotas? Should we let
most of the blacks out of prison, and hope they aren't dangerous to
society? Should we prohibit rich whites from hiring lawyers, and
insist that everyone use public defenders?
Stephen Jacobs
2003-07-26 00:47:33 UTC
Permalink
There are actually some namby-pamby bleeding-heart-liberal answers to why
black people continue to do poorly in US society, and what can be done to
stop it. Like a lot of other stupid liberal blather, it's probably correct
and practical, but easy to ridicule.

One of the best correlations with general markers of success is a sense of
belonging to a multi-generation family. This is tough for black people in
the US because many of their ancestors were kidnapped and relocated around
200 years ago, and treated as property, with their family histories
intentionally muddied until about 100 years ago. Their were large and
fairly desperate migrations as late as 50 years ago. So that sense of the
long family is less common than in many immigrant groups.

The obvious response would be selected kinds of "Black Studies" programs.
I've been posting enough off-topic stuff today, and I'm sure you can fill in
as well as I can.
Post by Aaron
" As of December 31, 2002, black males from 20 to 39 years old
accounted for about a third of all sentenced prison inmates under
state or federal jurisdiction. On that date 10.4 percent of the
country's black male population between the ages of 25 to 29 were in
prison, compared to 2.4 percent of Hispanic males and 1.2 percent of
white males in the same age group."
What about the Vietnamese? When they came to the USA as war refugees
in the 1970's, they were poorer than most blacks ever were. They had
been exposed to so much horror, it was practically in their blood.
They were the ultimate example of people who had suffered abuses which
might predispose them to end up in prison. And they were hated by
lots of people in the USA who considered them "gooks" and would rather
see them dead.
What percentages of blacks and Vietnamese in the USA get PhD's? What
percentages of them are prosperous? What percentages of them are in
prison?
There is clearly something other than racism or abuse causing blacks
to end up in prison and not getting their PhD's and not being
prosperous. Of course there are lots of exceptions, lots of rich
blacks, lots of blacks with PhD's, etc., but not nearly in proportion
to the Vietnamese.
What is the secret factor that makes one ethnic group so much more
successful than another, in spite of being more hated and abused?
What is the secret factor that makes blacks more likely to end up in
prison, in spite of having more advantages and opportunities?
And what can be done about it? Should we use affirmative action,
sending more whites to prison, based on racial quotas? Should we let
most of the blacks out of prison, and hope they aren't dangerous to
society? Should we prohibit rich whites from hiring lawyers, and
insist that everyone use public defenders?
noiseboy
2003-07-25 17:00:36 UTC
Permalink
I substitute taught for a bit in the public schools of Oakland, and man,
it's a war zone down there. I'm amazed every time I hear about someone
born and raised in the ghetto who DOESN'T end up in prison. Both sides of
the story are somewhat correct, because of the vestiges of segregation and
slavery, blacks are, in fact, more likely to turn to crime. This is
mostly due to socioeconomic factors of them, on average, being more likely
to be poor and to come from broken homes. They grow up in neighborhoods
where shootings are a daily occurence, where the only people making a
living are the drug dealers and where the public schools are a joke due to
underfunding. They've got around forty to fifty kids in class, it's crazy!

However, the people that argue that the system is f@#$ed are also correct.
The recent imprisonment of all those people down in Texas based on a cop
who was CONVICTED OF PERJURY, proves beyond a reasonable doubt that there
is a problem with a percentage of cops being racist, and the justice
system being biased against blacks. I mean, even after the cop got
convicted of perjury and planting evidence, a lot of those people didn't
get out of jail for more than a year, and only then after a media outcry.

Another example, there was this guy here in Oakland who just got released
after 20years in prison for a murder he didn't commit. Man, twenty years,
how do start over after that? All over the country there are people who
are getting released from death row due to DNA evidence proving their
innocence. You just can't argue with that. In San Jose, police just shot
and killed a VietNamese woman, a mother of two and all of five feet
100lbs., because they said she had a "knife". Turns out it was a potato
peeler. We definitely have some problems with our police and justice
system.

Anyway, just a rant.
From a Justice Dept news release on prison population in the US
" As of December 31, 2002, black males from 20 to 39 years old
accounted for about a third of all sentenced prison inmates under
state or federal jurisdiction. On that date 10.4 percent of the
country's black male population between the ages of 25 to 29 were in
prison, compared to 2.4 percent of Hispanic males and 1.2 percent of
white males in the same age group."
That doesn't count jails and doesn't count INS lockups, just people
who are serving sentences of 1 year or more.
The data are from the bulletin "Prisoners in 2002" (NCJ-200248)
written by BJS statisticians Paige M. Harrison and Allen J. Beck.
Single copies may be obtained by calling the BJS Clearinghouse at
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/p02.htm (after July 27)
_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
Gary Carson
2003-07-25 19:46:48 UTC
Permalink
Integratoin is what destroyed inner city black neighborhoods.

Working class and professional class blacks moved out of the black
neighborhoods. It used to be that black kids came in frequent contact
with adult blacks who were teachers, doctors, cops, business owners,
plumbers, lawyers, etc. It was contact in the normal course of the
day, they were neighbors, shopped in the same stores, etc.

That's all gone. Integration destroyed it. Now the normal role
models for kids just don't exist in black neighborhoods.

It's a monster that feeds on itlself. The drug laws just serve to
give it a little extra shove.
Post by noiseboy
I substitute taught for a bit in the public schools of Oakland, and man,
it's a war zone down there. I'm amazed every time I hear about
someone
Post by noiseboy
born and raised in the ghetto who DOESN'T end up in prison. Both sides of
the story are somewhat correct, because of the vestiges of
segregation and
Post by noiseboy
slavery, blacks are, in fact, more likely to turn to crime. This is
mostly due to socioeconomic factors of them, on average, being more likely
to be poor and to come from broken homes. They grow up in
neighborhoods
Post by noiseboy
where shootings are a daily occurence, where the only people making a
living are the drug dealers and where the public schools are a joke due to
underfunding. They've got around forty to fifty kids in class, it's crazy!
The recent imprisonment of all those people down in Texas based on a cop
who was CONVICTED OF PERJURY, proves beyond a reasonable doubt that there
is a problem with a percentage of cops being racist, and the justice
system being biased against blacks. I mean, even after the cop got
convicted of perjury and planting evidence, a lot of those people didn't
get out of jail for more than a year, and only then after a media outcry.
Another example, there was this guy here in Oakland who just got released
after 20years in prison for a murder he didn't commit. Man, twenty years,
how do start over after that? All over the country there are people who
are getting released from death row due to DNA evidence proving their
innocence. You just can't argue with that. In San Jose, police just shot
and killed a VietNamese woman, a mother of two and all of five feet
100lbs., because they said she had a "knife". Turns out it was a potato
peeler. We definitely have some problems with our police and justice
system.
Anyway, just a rant.
From a Justice Dept news release on prison population in the US
" As of December 31, 2002, black males from 20 to 39 years old
accounted for about a third of all sentenced prison inmates under
state or federal jurisdiction. On that date 10.4 percent of the
country's black male population between the ages of 25 to 29 were in
prison, compared to 2.4 percent of Hispanic males and 1.2 percent of
white males in the same age group."
That doesn't count jails and doesn't count INS lockups, just people
who are serving sentences of 1 year or more.
The data are from the bulletin "Prisoners in 2002"
(NCJ-200248)
Post by noiseboy
written by BJS statisticians Paige M. Harrison and Allen J. Beck.
Single copies may be obtained by calling the BJS Clearinghouse at
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/p02.htm (after July 27)
_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
Gary Carson
2003-07-25 19:41:41 UTC
Permalink
Make your own point.

I think it speaks for itself. If it doesn't speak to you then it
doesn't speak to you. I guess there are some parts of the human
condition that don't touch you.

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 16:21:01 +0000, andrew gray
From a Justice Dept news release on prison population in the US
" As of December 31, 2002, black males from 20 to 39 years old
accounted for about a third of all sentenced prison inmates under
state or federal jurisdiction. On that date 10.4 percent of the
country's black male population between the ages of 25 to 29 were
in
prison, compared to 2.4 percent of Hispanic males and 1.2 percent
of
white males in the same age group."
Um... I think I should assume that you posted this as a way of
illustrating how our criminal justice system is biased against
blacks, or
how the inherent feelings of disenfranchisement brought on by
generations
of living in ghettoes with little hope of escaping poverty have
affected
the statistics, or something like that -- and that you just forgot to
say
what your point was.
I'd much rather that, and keep my respect for you, than assume that
you
think posting stuff like this without comment in a non-political
newsgroup
in any way improves the human condition, or betters our understanding
of
black people or whatever.
So here's your chance to clarify: WTF did you post this in rgp for?
--
a g r a y at b i t u s m e u s dot c o m
Yippee! We're doomed! -- GIR
TWal289
2003-07-26 15:32:49 UTC
Permalink
Subject: Re: (OT) No wonder they don't play to win
So the guy on the corner selling crack to school kids shouldnt be in jail?
Right.
So you dont mind kids smoking crack,great.
That's not buying or selling crack, now is it?
Duh,no but its a direct result of it.
he wouldn't have much reason
to steal because his hobby would be inexpensive.
Nice hobby.
John T. Kennedy
2003-07-27 05:05:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by TWal289
Subject: Re: (OT) No wonder they don't play to win
So the guy on the corner selling crack to school kids shouldnt be in jail?
Right.
So you dont mind kids smoking crack,great.
I don't mind *your* kids smoking crack. I don't need the drug war to
keep my kids from smoking crack.
Post by TWal289
That's not buying or selling crack, now is it?
Duh,no but its a direct result of it.
Not at all. How many alcoholics break into your house to get money to
buy liquor?
Post by TWal289
he wouldn't have much reason
to steal because his hobby would be inexpensive.
Nice hobby.
But how is it your business?
TWal289
2003-07-27 01:50:45 UTC
Permalink
Subject: Re: (OT) No wonder they don't play to win
From: John T. Kennedy
I don't mind *your* kids smoking crack. I don't need the drug war to
keep my kids from smoking crack.
No?Maybe you will when "my" kid sells or gives "your" kid crack.Or when "your"
kid gets shot by "my" kid because he was high on crack that you didnt care that
he smoked.
Not at all. How many alcoholics break into your house to get money to
buy liquor?
Last time I checked,none.dont turn the arguement away from crack,I dont like
alcohol much either.
But how is it your business?
Its everyones buisiness.
John T. Kennedy
2003-07-27 03:56:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by TWal289
Subject: Re: (OT) No wonder they don't play to win
From: John T. Kennedy
I don't mind *your* kids smoking crack. I don't need the drug war to
keep my kids from smoking crack.
No?
No. It's not helpful.
Post by TWal289
Maybe you will when "my" kid sells or gives "your" kid crack.Or when "your"
kid gets shot by "my" kid because he was high on crack that you didnt care that
he smoked.
We'll take our chances with you and your kids, fine.
Post by TWal289
Not at all. How many alcoholics break into your house to get money to
buy liquor?
Last time I checked,none.dont turn the arguement away from crack,I dont like
alcohol much either.
Why don't alcoholics commit as many crimes to buy alcohol? Because
it's so cheap they have no reason to. And crack will be dirt cheap
when you remove prohibition. There is no magic housebreaking-burglary
impulse caused by crack.
Post by TWal289
But how is it your business?
Its everyones buisiness.
Why? How is buying, selling, or using crack your business.
TWal289
2003-07-27 04:27:24 UTC
Permalink
Subject: Re: (OT) No wonder they don't play to win
From: John T. Kennedy
We'll take our chances with you and your kids, fine.
Youre in luck,mine dont use it.But you go right ahead and take your chances
with the others that do.Maybe where you live in Cn your chances are pretty good
but carefull what neighberhoods you guys venture into at night.
And crack will be dirt cheap
when you remove prohibition.
Aint happening in this country,try Denmark if you want your kids to be able to
legally buy crack.
John T. Kennedy
2003-07-27 05:12:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by TWal289
Subject: Re: (OT) No wonder they don't play to win
From: John T. Kennedy
We'll take our chances with you and your kids, fine.
Youre in luck,mine dont use it.But you go right ahead and take your chances
with the others that do.Maybe where you live in Cn your chances are pretty good
but carefull what neighberhoods you guys venture into at night.
Since you already have drug prohibition in all neighborhoods, why
aren't we safe from crack addicts there now?
Post by TWal289
And crack will be dirt cheap
when you remove prohibition.
Aint happening in this country,try Denmark if you want your kids to be able to
legally buy crack.
TWal289
2003-07-27 05:21:40 UTC
Permalink
Subject: Re: (OT) No wonder they don't play to win
From: John T. Kennedy
Since you already have drug prohibition in all neighborhoods, why
aren't we safe from crack addicts there now?
Umm,because we have a bunch of law breakers there?
John T. Kennedy
2003-07-27 05:56:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by TWal289
Subject: Re: (OT) No wonder they don't play to win
From: John T. Kennedy
Since you already have drug prohibition in all neighborhoods, why
aren't we safe from crack addicts there now?
Umm,because we have a bunch of law breakers there?
Then I guess prohibition didn't work.
TWal289
2003-07-27 06:07:03 UTC
Permalink
Subject: Re: (OT) No wonder they don't play to win
From: John T. Kennedy
Then I guess prohibition didn't work.
You're correct.There is also prohibition of murder.Maybe if repeal the the laws
against murder and manslaughter all the killing would stop?
John T. Kennedy
2003-07-27 06:23:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by TWal289
Subject: Re: (OT) No wonder they don't play to win
From: John T. Kennedy
Then I guess prohibition didn't work.
You're correct.There is also prohibition of murder.Maybe if repeal the the laws
against murder and manslaughter all the killing would stop?
That would be a valid analogy if I had suggested that drug markets and
drug use would vanish if drug prohibition were repealed, but of course
I suggested nothing of the sort.

Repealing the prohibition of alcohol didn't stop people from selling
and using alcohol, of course, but it did improve the general
situation.

Some alcoholics do all sorts of undesirable things, but prohibition of
alcohol was a train wreck, just as the current drug war is.
Gary Carson
2003-07-27 06:25:37 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 01:56:55 -0400, John T. Kennedy
Post by John T. Kennedy
Post by TWal289
Subject: Re: (OT) No wonder they don't play to win
From: John T. Kennedy
Since you already have drug prohibition in all neighborhoods, why
aren't we safe from crack addicts there now?
Umm,because we have a bunch of law breakers there?
Then I guess prohibition didn't work.
It would work if we just built more prisons.
John T. Kennedy
2003-07-27 06:42:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Carson
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 01:56:55 -0400, John T. Kennedy
Post by John T. Kennedy
Post by TWal289
Subject: Re: (OT) No wonder they don't play to win
From: John T. Kennedy
Since you already have drug prohibition in all neighborhoods, why
aren't we safe from crack addicts there now?
Umm,because we have a bunch of law breakers there?
Then I guess prohibition didn't work.
It would work if we just built more prisons.
Just use convict labor to build them. Problem sloved.
Gary Carson
2003-07-27 07:00:18 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 02:42:11 -0400, John T. Kennedy
Post by John T. Kennedy
Post by Gary Carson
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 01:56:55 -0400, John T. Kennedy
Post by John T. Kennedy
Post by TWal289
Subject: Re: (OT) No wonder they don't play to win
From: John T. Kennedy
Since you already have drug prohibition in all neighborhoods, why
aren't we safe from crack addicts there now?
Umm,because we have a bunch of law breakers there?
Then I guess prohibition didn't work.
It would work if we just built more prisons.
Just use convict labor to build them. Problem sloved.
They used to do that in Texas. The College of Criminal Justice
building at Sam Houston State Univeristy in Huntsville was built by
prison labor. Many prison units were built by inmates.

Every night, the contractors (prisoners also) would make up work
assignments for the next day. They had a skills inventory of inmates
at various prison units in Walker County (where most of the prisons in
texas where located back then) and other areas for skills in short
suupply, and about midnight they'd make phone calls to the warden's
offices, giving them lists of inmates to have ready for pickup. Then
they'd send out buses and pick them up, delivering them to the jobsite
at dawn.

It took a lot of coordiantion work, it's wasn't something you just
snap your fingers and do, but they did it for years.

They dont' do it anymore.

When I was teaching at Sam Houston, I was having breakfast in the
restuarant in the CJ building with George Beto, a CJ professor who had
run the Texas Prison System for about 10 years when that building
program was going on, and another CJ grad student (I taught in the
business school and was a PhD student in criminal justice). The other
grad student asked Beto why the prisons didn't use convict labor any
more.

"Too much work", he said.

"Well, don't the prisinors have work at something anyway", the student
asked.

"Not for the prisoners, the inmates loved the program, too much damn
much work for the wardens', Beto said.
Gary Carson
2003-07-27 16:48:50 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 12:14:28 -0400, John T. Kennedy
Post by Gary Carson
"Not for the prisoners, the inmates loved the program, too much damn
much work for the wardens', Beto said.
Plus the unions won't stand for it.
Texas is a right to work state.

But, generally the unions can't do anything about it anyway.

There's been plenty of lawsuits about using inmate labor. The only
one I can think of that prevailed was one in Lousiana where the
sheiriff was providing inmate labor to his son-in-laws construction
company and wasn't paying them anything at all. Usually the prison
system prevails in those kinds of lawsuits.

Inmate labor is very much unfair competition. Inmates make all the
guard uniforms, they get paid much, much less than minimum wage. How
can a private company compete with someone who can essentially use
slave labor?
Peter Lizak
2003-07-27 21:26:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Carson
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 01:56:55 -0400, John T. Kennedy
Post by John T. Kennedy
Post by TWal289
Subject: Re: (OT) No wonder they don't play to win
From: John T. Kennedy
Since you already have drug prohibition in all neighborhoods, why
aren't we safe from crack addicts there now?
Umm,because we have a bunch of law breakers there?
Then I guess prohibition didn't work.
It would work if we just built more prisons.
America already has the highest prison rate in its population in the
world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Lizak
***@math.uwaterloo.ca
Scientific Computing Lab, University of Waterloo
Gary Carson
2003-07-28 00:32:27 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 17:26:51 -0400, Peter Lizak
Post by Peter Lizak
America already has the highest prison rate in its population in the
world.
I think China beats us if you only conisder the imprisonment rate,
they don't have much of a probabation or parole system.

But, if we'd just build more prisons we could be number one.
Matu
2003-07-27 22:32:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by TWal289
Post by John T. Kennedy
And crack will be dirt cheap
when you remove prohibition.
Aint happening in this country,try Denmark if you want your kids to be able to
legally buy crack.
What ? Are you just kidding or what ? You can't by crack legally in denmark.
You can by cannabis products and some shrooms semi-legally from christianias
pusher street, but that's all.

Crack ain't legal nowhere and it is a direct result of the war against
drugs. People don't smoke crack in south-america. Crack is demonized in the
USA mainly because it's used by the blacks and hispanics (sorta like the
"killer weed" of the 30's). It's cheap but it isn't nobodys drug of choice.
People would snort coke if it was cheaper rather than smoke crack.
BANKROLLONSWOLL
2003-07-28 19:20:53 UTC
Permalink
1) Planted and made up evidence by police as proved in the LA Ramparts
Division
and in hundreds of ACLU and NAACP civil cases;
NO COMMENT
2) Disparity in income level between blacks and whites which means blacks
get
minimal and poor legal representation;
DRUG DEALERS AND RAPPERS ARE RICH, I HATE TO TELL YA
3) Whites NEVER get the death penalty for killing blacks;
NO, THEY JUST COLLECT THE REWARD
4) Constant lack of equal economic opportunity for blacks in this country
due
to persistent racism and job discrimination;
3 WORDS......BACK TO AFRICA??
5) White jurors and eyewitnesses who cannot distinguish one black from
another
or between black and hispanic;
CAN YOU???
6) White financed media representation of all inner city blacks as thugs
and
criminals;
THEY CALL IS AS THEY SEE IT
7) Vestiges of segregated public schools, inferior funded black schools,
and
prohibition against admittance even to the most qualified and outstanding
black
applicants for more than one hundred years;
THEY JUST OPENED A GAY HIGH SCHOOL IN NYC, WHATTA YA SAY TO THAT?
8) Historically higher black participation rate in the nation's INFANTRY
(not
base camp technical jobs) and the total lack of re-integration programs
post-war for minorities; AD NAUSEUM;
THEY BLEND IN BETTER IN THE DIRT.
So just what the eff is your point about high black prison population
rates???

HEY, ITS NOT MY BAG BABY.
Jim Jamison, Atlanta
ARE YOU RELATED TO JENNA THE PORN PRINCESS??
Ken M
2003-07-29 23:34:02 UTC
Permalink
The problem isn't so much that so many people are in jail as that so many of
them are in jail for things they didn't do, while the people who did the crimes
are out running loose. They keep finding innocent men on death row. How many
innocent men aren't being found because they aren't on death row with the world
trying to save them?
Per the link in your original post, a tad over two million people are in
the gray bar hotel. You seem to consider this outrageous. Per the same
source (Bureau of Justice), about twelve million 'crime index' offenses
were reported in 2001 (most recent stats I could find). Crime index
counts only murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary,
larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft.
I'm just wondering how you reconcile the thought that we arrest too many
people when there is clearly so much crime on the streets? Frankly, I
think we do lock up too many stoners unnecessarily. But notice 'crime
index' doesn't count them. We need reform, but overall I think more
people ought to be in jail, not less.
Regards,
Variable
_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
Michael Langford
2003-08-04 14:54:09 UTC
Permalink
This does not mean that black men commit proportionally more crimes,
especially to the extent these percentages seem to imply. This means
they are caught, accused and sucessfully convicted of more crimes, and
get longer sentences. This disparity is caused by several factors.

1. In many cases, lack of money to pay for good counsul leads to more
charges pressed against young black males, larger conviction rates,
and longer prision sentences.

2. Blacks are most likely to be pulled over/searched out of any racial
group in America.

3. Of the drugs poor black males are likely to use, Crack, roughly
similar in addictiveness and "power" to cocaine, carries over 2 times
the mandatory sentence that cocaine does. This is true of marijuana
vs. tranquilizers and sevral other "poor drugs" vs. "rich drugs"

The last of these points makes me want to get rid of the schedule
listing of drugs and just make "substance possesion" or "substance
abuse" two crimes independent of substance.

--Michael

PS: The term "Black" is still very valid, please do not tell me to use
"African-American". I know several people who are black, yet cannot
"truthfully" fill out PC forms because they are NOT Americans (one's
nigerian, the other french, for example) yet they are black.
Humorously enough, US citizenship paperwork uses the term "African
American" in one of the accompanied surveys.
From a Justice Dept news release on prison population in the US
" As of December 31, 2002, black males from 20 to 39 years old
accounted for about a third of all sentenced prison inmates under
state or federal jurisdiction. On that date 10.4 percent of the
country's black male population between the ages of 25 to 29 were in
prison, compared to 2.4 percent of Hispanic males and 1.2 percent of
white males in the same age group."
RTN4
2003-08-04 15:00:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Langford
PS: The term "Black" is still very valid, please do not tell me to use
"African-American".
Martin Luther King wanted to be called a Negro. I will abide by his
wishes.
Bad Bob
2003-08-04 15:35:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by RTN4
Post by Michael Langford
PS: The term "Black" is still very valid, please do not tell me to use
"African-American".
Martin Luther King wanted to be called a Negro. I will abide by his
wishes.
Be nice when we can just call them "people".


-- Bad Bob the Albino
Matu
2003-08-04 15:58:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Langford
3. Of the drugs poor black males are likely to use, Crack, roughly
similar in addictiveness and "power" to cocaine, carries over 2 times
the mandatory sentence that cocaine does. This is true of marijuana
vs. tranquilizers and sevral other "poor drugs" vs. "rich drugs"
Actually white people in USA use more crack than black people. Sure it's a
poor mans drug of choice, but there are more poor white people than there
are poor black people (since they are only 12% of population).

Crack is the free-base form of cocaine.
Matu
2003-08-04 18:49:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by noiseboy
Post by Matu
Actually white people in USA use more crack than black people. Sure
it's a
Post by Matu
poor mans drug of choice, but there are more poor white people than
there
Post by Matu
are poor black people (since they are only 12% of population).
A higher percent of blacks use crack. More whites use crack simply
becauae there are more whites. A black male is more likely to be a
crack user than a white male, and that's not inconsistent with having
more white crack users.
Yea thats why mentioned the 12 % of population thingie. I think a higher
percentage of black people are also poor so it's still safe to say that
crack is a poor mans choice rather than a black mans choice.

The crack vs cocaine laws tend to discriminate poor people and indirectly
black folk (since %-wise they have more poor people).

Racism comes to play when you consider the fact that even though there are
more white users than black users the black users are still convicted to
prison for that crime more often than white users.
dave keiser
2003-08-05 04:49:39 UTC
Permalink
FINALLY, the truth comes out. This I can believe. I just wish that when
you're high on drugs you go in your closet and crawl around on the floor
and not bother us here. I'm getting a little tired of your moronic posts.
YA BIG DUMMY
I been a crack user for a long time, but I keep away from that fucking
cocaine ;o)
-- Bad Bob the Albino
_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
Keith Johnson
2003-08-12 11:33:11 UTC
Permalink
Subject: Re: (OT) No wonder they don't play to win
From: "dave keiser"
FINALLY, the truth comes out. This I can believe. I just wish that when
you're high on drugs you go in your closet and crawl around on the floor
and not bother us here
I'm getting a little tired of your moronic posts.
YA BIG DUMMY
I been a crack user for a long time, but I keep away from that fucking
cocaine ;o)
I get the feeling thats not the kind of "crack" he was talking about.
At least they found out they have something in common

Keith Johnson

Michael Langford
2003-08-05 18:45:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by noiseboy
A higher percent of blacks use crack. More whites use crack simply
becauae there are more whites. A black male is more likely to be a
crack user than a white male, and that's not inconsistent with having
more white crack users.
Exactly.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...