1 in 4 US Adults Now Have Criminal Record - Around 65 Million Citizens

reply to post by GhostLancer

I can tell that you are a really happy person and fun at parties... LOL Hey, relax. I see that this is going to be a rollercoaster. Relax, hero.

Yeah, right. This site isn't a party, and the terms and conditions of this site don't even allow you to discuss certain recreational patterns, so let's not pretend we're at a party here, and recognize what is really going on. As my Dear old Mom used to always say; "The country is going to hell in a hand basket!"

I haven't studied the reasons for implementing the parole system, but I imagine that it might have something to do with the overcrowding of prisons, even as far back as the 1930s.

I actually Googled the history of parole when I initially replied to you, and the information as to why it was created is sleight, although it Wikipedia say's that penologist Zebulon Brockway, first introduced the system in New York State to "manage prison populations and rehabilitate those incarcerated", and doesn't say much else about the why. Whatever the why, the fact remains that the parole system is a method by which a prisoner remains a ward of the state, or federal government even after being released. It is a dubious practice.

Committing a crime and being held accountable for it usually involves separation from open society. Convicts are not property, but they must be handled in a contained environment.

There is the issue of felony disenfranchisement, and there is the issue of holding public office. Congress has been known to expel elected members who are deemed unfit due to convictions, and both while both disenfranchisement and holding public office vary from state to state, many states ban felons, and even in some instances misdemeanor offenses from holding public office. It is a fair question whether voting or holding public office are unalienable rights, since unalienable rights preexist government, but both voting and holding office require the existence of a government in order to be fulfilled, but just the same, these are denied certain convicts, and this makes them less a person than you and I, under the eyes of government. At the very least, this practice is questionable, and most unlawful. I am talking about convicts that have done their time, and yet still denied voting and holding public office.

In terms of unalienable rights, there is the matter of the right to keep and bear arms. Felons have been barred from owning guns, and this is highly questionable, and is no doubt an infringement on an individuals right, which is expressly prohibited by the 2nd Amendment on a federal level, and most states acknowledge the right to keep and bear arms as well, and even those that don't virtually all states echo the 9th Amendment, so it is arguable that even for the states that do not acknowledge the right to keep and bear arms, the declaration that enumerated rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people lends credence the argument that virtually all states are entrusted to protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and anyone not included as people, would fairly be described as property.

How would you run a prison? Perhaps a kinder, gentler place that good citizens might want to vacation in?

Great question, and given that you just asserted that imprisonment involves a separation from open society, what would be so wrong with a "kinder, gentler place"? Lao Tzu suggests we should all be gentle in doing good, and imprisoning those who have harmed others is arguably good, what would would be so wrong with being gentle in doing good?

More to the point, what the hell are we doing imprisoning people who have not harmed anyone? If there is no victim, there is no crime, and yet, there are people placed in prison for these so called "victimless crimes", which undermines your whole "not property" argument.

? Convicts aren't property, but they must be *managed* and some people might see that as dehumanization. It's not. They did something wrong. They are removed from society until society sees fit to release them back into the pond.

"Drug Crimes, Prostitution Crimes, and other various Black Marketing Crimes" are not crimes in a free society. Where there is no victim, there is no crime. Those who have caused willful harm to another, are criminal, those who have not, did what they did by right. "Managing" and removing people who have not caused any harm, but have instead violated questionable legislation is not an admirable strategy for a free society. In a society where people are property, then "managing" people and removing those who violate arbitrary and capricious legislation is par for the course.

A convict does his time. He has a record of being dangerous and/or untrustworthy. He has to try to succeed again, even with those caveats associated with his background. It's unfortunate, but it is a reality he/she has personally taken direct action to create (the committing of the crime).

Plenty of people who have never committed a crime are untrustworthy, and even dangerous, even if that danger has not yet manifested itself. Untrustworthy, and even "dangerous", which in this context would be more correctly stated potentially dangerous, are not reliable litmus tests for determining the rights of individuals.

Human rights are not arbitrary and capricious inventions of humanity. Unalienable rights are natural phenomena, which is what makes them law. All law is simple, universal, true, and absolute. Once a convicted criminal has done the prison time determined to be appropriate for the crime committed, that debt has been paid, and the universal law of rights applies once again.

Before the lazy crimvelvet jumps in and decides I am arguing that criminals have the right to a job, or some other stupid nonsense, let me be clear here. No one has the right to a job. Everyone has the right to earn a living, but no one is owed a job. If an employer wants to make a decision that a convicted criminal is not employable, that is the business owners right to make that decision. However, a person who has paid their debt for the crime they committed - a real crime where an actual victim was involved - has the right to move forward, and under the rule of law - real law, not legislation pretending to be law, or simulation of legal process - that person does not have to reveal any incriminating information about them self, so they, just as it is with all other people, have the right to be as mystifying in terms of how trustworthy they are as the next fellow, and business people, and neighbors, will have to take their chances just as they do with all the other untrustworthy potentially dangerous people who have never been convicted of a crime...real crime, where a victim exists.

Sure, time is served. But we have a forgive and do not forget society when it comes to these things. Service industry and grunt jobs (cooks, chefs, fast food attendants, store clerks, lawn maintenance, ditch digging, etc.) don't require an unblemished background. However, higher-end jobs (attorney, medical field, police, firefighter, etc.) may require a cleaner background.

It is not up to "society" to determine what the law is, the law is what it is, and all people have rights, and rights are law. All law is simple, true, universal, and absolute. Your advocacy of a caste system is unimpressive, and hopelessly naive. With a 97% conviction rate for the federal government, this statistic does not bode well for defense attorneys and reveals a level of incompetency that suggests that people have as good a chance hiring a ditch digger to defend them in a federal court as they do an attorney. Iatrogenocide is a term used to describe death by doctoring caused by treatment or diagnostic procedures, and if you click that link I provided you will discover that death by doctoring is the third largest cause of death for Americans each year, which suggests that people have as good a shot at survival by using a dishwasher to heal them, than they do a doctor. Police officers are increasingly becoming some of the most dangerous people in America.

The point is that, depending on the service provided, customers may not want a convicted felon to take care of them.

Interesting that you include police officers and firefighters in the same field of professionals as attorneys and doctors, where the former are not professions that are generally viewed as having "customers", and again, just because police officers may not be convicted felons, this does not mean the public is immune from thuggery when it comes to police officers.

In terms of other professions, the only way "customers" could know a person is a convicted felon is because they know personally that this person was a convicted felon, or because of some bogus legislation that "requires" disclosure of this information. I have always found it amazingly hypocritical that the right to privacy has only been recognized by the courts in terms of abortion, in terms of un-enumerated rights, but the idea of a right to privacy when it comes to drug use, or prostitution, or other "victimless crimes" is not recognized, and of course this idea of requiring a convicted person to disclose such information once their debt has been paid, is just another violation of privacy.

It's just that people are looking out for themselves and their families. I would not hire a contractor to work in/on my home who has a criminal background. Am I mean? No, I'm looking out for my family.

I am all for people looking out for themselves, and I would never ask you to hire a contractor that you knew was a convicted felon. However, if you are asking me to join you in advocating the capricious and arbitrary treatment of unalienable rights, such as the right to privacy, then my answer is no.

I don't think so.

You do not think the governments, federal, state, and local, are aggregating power? I would suggest you pick up some history books and find out for yourself just how much power the federal, state, and local governments have aggregated since the inception of this country. Indeed, the Constitution for the United States of America is the first example of a federal aggregation of power that did no exist under the Articles of Confederation of Perpetual Union. While you keep advising me to relax, I will continue to advise you to stop being so naive.

The real situation is that people who have a criminal background have a harder time finding jobs.

Quite honestly, I am bored with this jobs issue. I am a free market advocate, and at this juncture in the United States, I would be more interested in seeing people reject the idea of working for the man, and just become the man themselves. I don't know how many states statutorily define "employee", but if it is only the State of California, that is one state too many. I am a capitalist, and no fan at all of corporatism, so frankly, if convicted criminals are finding it increasingly harder to get a job, then my advise would be they go into business for themselves, and being a free market advocate, all people, convicted of a crime, or not, will not find a free market in the so called "free and open market" where "deregulation" is debated, but will find a free market in the black market, which is to say, unlicensed businesses.

Most of our prisoners, it seems, are there because of illegal drug use.

Bingo! Now we are getting to the root of a problem, in terms of a prison nation.

Legalizing marijuana would not only bring in billions (perhaps trillions) in tax revenue, but would free up a lot of prison space.

You can't legalize what is a natural right to do. If the best reason you can come up with to repeal the bogus legislation regarding marijuana is tax revenue, then it is clear where your head is at. Look, if we are going to have a government, and I believe such a thing is necessary, then taxation is a part of having a government, but when people look at a behavior that causes no harm to others, and creates no victim, and uses language like "legalize" and justifies their logic with taxation, then you are not just naive about aggregation of power, you are facilitating it.

Some people are less aggressive and more pleasant; some seem angry and make discussions feel like a grudge-match in a blood pit. So, in a fashion, you're pit-bull aggressiveness sends out signals of angry naivety, as the following quote from you suggests:

I could really care less how polite you think you're being while you piss all over my rights. I am not now, nor have I ever been a convicted criminal, but I don't have to be one to recognize the steady rise of tyranny and the odious sycophants of tyranny. Politeness is not synonymous with goodness. Smiling does not necessarily mean the person doing so is trustworthy, and when someone is smiling while trampling all over my rights, such a smile is sinister, and one should not relax under such circumstances.

This country will keep steadily marching towards tyranny as long as there are people who look for excuses to justify the abrogation and derogation of individual rights.

For me, and for many in this thread, this issue is not about actual criminals who have caused harm and created an actual victim, this thread is about all those put in prison where no victim ever existed. For you, and too many others, you desperately want to make this thread about the actual criminals only to justify the continuation of a rising prison population, and the invasions of privacy, and God knows what other violated rights you advocate. It is just tragically ironic that while you desperately try to frame this argument about real criminals, only paying empty rhetoric lip service to "legalizing" marijuana as if this is some sort of clever sheepskin to disguise what you really are, as you tell me to relax.

Originally posted by primus2012
NELP compared their main argument number to page 22 of the report found at this link:
The Attorney General's Report on Criminal History Background Checks
the quote:

Accessibility of records: From among the estimated 71 million criminal records in the U.S.,

edit on 25-3-2011 by primus2012 because: (no reason given)

Just another money spinner? In the UK, background checks form a major funding stream for the Association of Chief Police Officers.

ACPO Criminal Records OfficeThe ACPO Criminal Records Office (ACRO) was set up in 2006 in response to a perceived gap in the police service's ability to manage criminal records and in particular to improve links to biometric data. The aim of ACRO is to provide operational support relating to criminal records and associated biometric data, including DNA and fingerprint recognition.

It also issues police certificates, for a fee, needed to obtain immigration visas for Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and the USA.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux"Drug Crimes, Prostitution Crimes, and other various Black Marketing Crimes" are not crimes in a free society. Where there is no victim, there is no crime. Those who have caused willful harm to another, are criminal, those who have not, did what they did by right. "Managing" and removing people who have not caused any harm, but have instead violated questionable legislation is not an admirable strategy for a free society. In a society where people are property, then "managing" people and removing those who violate arbitrary and capricious legislation is par for the course.

I just want to applaud (and star) this statement and quote it for truth. It shows that we do not live in a free society. people are getting felonies on their records for lesser and lesser "crimes", because it feeds the prison industry. Millions are being made by throwing people into dungeons, who have not brought any harm to anyone.

This is by definition, evil.

reply to post by woghd


Thirded. It can be frustrating for those of us who are intelligent enough to realise this and have to live amongst those who wish to control every aspect of our short time here on earth.

Live free. Nothing brings greater happiness.

Here's your future if pot becomes legal.

reply to post by primus2012


Wow, you really are ignorant..

That vid more closely resembles today's alcoholic culture (notice the can of beer? ).

Remember kids (those of you over 18 ), alcohol kills brain cells. Cannabis promotes neurotransmission and does not kill healthy brain cells (only cancerous ones).

"The illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world."

-Carl Sagan

reply to post by Azp420


Cannabis is still illegal, ie; against the law, a crime to sell, use, hold, don't matter what your age is. If you have the scrip for a medical condition that's a different story. I won't argue that there are those that need it to ease their suffering.

Arguing that it shouldn't be illegal and therefore being unjust if you're punished for it...just plain pot-head dumb.
Pot-heads are dumb, ie; stupid, ignorant, less intelligent than most everyone else, and they are criminals as the law of the land now dictates.
Pot-dealers are too lazy to get a job, evil for taking advantage of the dumb addicts, deserve to be sitting in a cell.

Jaywalking is a dumb law, but if you're busted for it, no use in crying is there? It's the law.

Don't like the laws? Run for office and try to change them to your liking.

Pot smoking is making it awful hard for you to understand what I am saying.

Don't like me and need to call me defaming names because I think laws shouldn't be broken? Shame on you. Please don't have children and teach them your brand of values.

Originally posted by primus2012
reply to post by Azp420

 

Don't like me and need to call me defaming names because I think laws shouldn't be broken? Shame on you. Please don't have children and teach them your brand of values.

That goes double for you.

Your ignorance and intolerance is mind blowing. Almost to the point where I'm convinced you're a troll. do you really believe what you're saying? Or just starting sh!t on the internet because you're bored?
Carl Sagan really is dumb and ignorant huh?

reply to post by primus2012

Don't like me and need to call me defaming names because I think laws shouldn't be broken? Shame on you. Please don't have children and teach them your brand of values.

Shame on you for being such an ignoramus and propagating the values of tyranny. God protect any children you might teach from your values of oppression and suppression. Laws are broken everyday by the very government you defend in its tyranny. Rights are abrogated and derogated on a regular basis, but all you can do is praise legislation, and pretend it is law?

Let's be clear here, what you are advocating is that law is merely the capricious and arbitrary whims of busybody's. You are not advocating law and order, what you are advocating is the delusional belief that governments can impose any act of legislation on the people and declare it law. What you are advocating is chaos.

Are you so blind that you cannot see how useless this so called "war on drugs" actually is? Are you so ignorant that you cannot discern that the gang violence that has spread across the United States is funded by the "war on drugs"? Are you proud of the police state in which we live, also funded by the "war on drugs"?

Are you one of the far too many tax feeders of the United States? Are you a lazy government employee, too limited in your creativity and drive to make a living in the private sector? Do you profit from this war on marijuana?

I'm basing my arguments on not breaking the law. That makes me ignorant? I'm promoting the idea that laws shouldn't be broken just because you feel they are unjust. I will teach my children to obey the laws so they don't get into trouble.

Call me a troll, tyrant, slave catcher, etc... I can call you all dumb pot-heads because that's clearly evident.

I am just a law abiding citizen.

And as I've stated many many times now, if you don't like the laws, get them changed, then change your lifestyle to match. Don't break them and complain about being busted. Why can't you understand that?

reply to post by primus2012

I'm basing my arguments on not breaking the law. That makes me ignorant?

You are basing your arguments on the presumption that legislation is law, and that makes you a total ignoramus. If legislation were law then the courts wouldn't have the authority, with judicial review, to strike down legislation as unlawful. If legislation was law legislatures could not repeal it.

All law is simple, true, universal, and absolute. Just like the law of gravity, the law of individual rights is a natural phenomenon inherent in all people. This law, the law of individual rights, is not a law you are even remotely interested in promoting. Instead, you promote legislation that has expanded government at the expense of individual rights.

I'm promoting the idea that laws shouldn't be broken just because you feel they are unjust.

No you're not. You are promoting the idea that government doesn't have to obey laws, but that they get to invent whatever "laws" they think are worthwhile to push forth their agenda -always about aggregation of power - and impose this bogus legislation on the populace.

You are promoting tyranny.

In order for there to be a crime, there must be a victim. If there is no victim, there is no crime. If there is no crime, there is no law describing that crime. What you are promoting is the "war on drugs", and you are doing so in spite of the mounds of evidence that show that this "war on drugs" is failing dramatically.

I will teach my children to obey the laws so they don't get into trouble.

You will teach your children to become ignoramuses such as yourself.

Call me a troll, tyrant, slave catcher, etc... I can call you all dumb pot-heads because that's clearly evident.

You are an ignorant fool and whatever you call anyone is meaningless. Who cares what an ignoramus like you thinks about people who actually know the law, and have bothered to educate their selves on important matters. Your opinion has no merit.

I am just a law abiding citizen.

No, you're a legislation bowing government sycophant. You have shown too little regard for the unalienable rights of people to convince me that you are law abiding.

And as I've stated many many times now, if you don't like the laws, get them changed, then change your lifestyle to match. Don't break them and complain about being busted. Why can't you understand that?

Oh yeah? What about the law of gravity? That pesky little law keeps people grounded. Who do we petition to have that changed? The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is annoying in its insistence on a tendency towards entropy. Who do we elect to have that law changed?

You? I have no doubt you have worked tirelessly to have the Law of Individual Rights changed. This does not make you admirable in any way shape or form.

I'm all for individual rights, but don't think it's an individual's right to break the law. It's the individual's right to break the law and go sit in cell with Bubba for a while. Or if he was so inclined to kill someone because he didn't think the laws should apply to him, he has the right to a nice electric chair, gas chamber, firing squad, or deep dark hole for the rest of his life.

If dope wasn't illegal you wouldn't be doing the crybaby routine and I wouldn't be sticking up for the law (legislation).

Legislation IS law just like apples are fruit and dope-dealers are criminals.

edit: the 20+ year show on NBC isn't called Legislation and Order, and if you get caught with dope you won't appear in a Court of Legislation. The more I argue this point, the more I'm glad all those legislations exist lolol. Society wouldn't be possible without laws. Laws exist in the animal kingdom too...leader of the pack keeps the idiots in check and such. That's about as intrinsic as it gets. Just think of it in that manner; government is the leader of the pack and those of you that don't want to follow their rules will get bit.

reply to post by bandito


Can you give us the name and location of your business?

As an actual American with no criminal convictions, I want to know who to steer clear of when I do my shopping, or enter into contract for goods and services.

Thanks in advance.

reply to post by ldyserenity


Unless they are prescribed to you by a doctor or your supervisor?

Yeah, freedom is for suckers.

reply to post by primus2012

I'm all for individual rights, but don't think it's an individual's right to break the law. It's the individual's right to break the law and go sit in cell with Bubba for a while. Or if he was so inclined to kill someone because he didn't think the laws should apply to him, he has the right to a nice electric chair, gas chamber, firing squad, or deep dark hole for the rest of his life.

Breaking the law is not a right. This is what distinguishes law from legislation, and that is the right of the individual. What a person does that causes no harm, outside of self defense, defense of others in peril, or defense of property, they do by right. If what a person does causes unjustifiable harm to others, then this is not a right. This is law...not legislation but law. People do not have rights because some legislature somewhere gave them these rights, people have rights because they are people, and rights are a part of physical law. They are not inventions borne of a social construct, they are physical laws that apply to all people everywhere, at all times.

Your disingenuous assertions that someone has the right to the electric chair if they murder someone only illustrates your profound ignorance of what rights actually are. Whether a person is put in prison for life, or is executed for murder, this imprisonment or execution is not the right. The right belonged to the victim, and in this instance, that right was the right to life, which was trampled upon by the murderer. In the case of murder, there is a clear and identifiable victim. Thus, there is a crime. If there is no victim, then there is no crime.

If dope wasn't illegal you wouldn't be doing the crybaby routine and I wouldn't be sticking up for the law (legislation).

You are, of course, not sticking up for law, but are instead promoting legislation as law. You necessarily ignore the arguments I make in order to maintain your position, which is telling how feeble your position is. Under your paradigm, that being legislation is law, then rights are nothing more than legislation, and as most people know, legislation is an artificial construct created by people. You are necessarily reducing rights to legislation by equating legislation with law. So, when you say; "I'm all for individual rights", this is just empty rhetoric coming from a person who will gleefully accept the repeal of the First, Second, or any other Amendment within the Bill of Rights as a part of "law", even though such a thing necessarily ignores the Ninth Amendment. An Amendment I have no doubt you have no idea of its meaning, or even what it states.

Legislation IS law just like apples are fruit and dope-dealers are criminals.

The map is not the territory, the word is not the thing defined, and a picture of a pipe is not a pipe. A rose does not need a Congress of roses in order to derive its right to keep and bear thorns. A porcupine need not a decree from a king in order to derive its right to keep and bear needles, and the skunk does not need permission from the state in order to carry and spew its stink. These are self evident rights that exist with or without legislation. A skunk has the unalienable right to stink, and a rose - by any other name - has the right to smell as sweet.

This is a simple concept easy understood by the sane.

edit: the 20+ year show on NBC isn't called Legislation and Order, and if you get caught with dope you won't appear in a Court of Legislation.

This is the best you can come up with? The title to a television show? The so called "Personal Income Tax" legislation is not a direct tax upon income. The so called "Leave No Child Behind Act" manages to leave children behind, and the so called "Patriot Act" has nothing at all to do with patriotism.

Martin Heidegger once said: "Language speaks us, we do not speak language." Heidegger was not talking about the critical thinker when he made this statement, he was talking about the ignorant fools of the world. It is not necessarily so that "language speaks us" and critical thinkers are more than capable of speaking language...Of course, that doesn't mean that the language being spoken will be understood by the ignorant, or insane. It would require a sane mind also adept at critical thought to understand the language being spoken.

You are still wasting all of this time performing fanciful interpretations of words because you are mad that you can't openly smoke a bowl of illegal (against the law) drugs, and moreso that somebody is telling you what you can't do.

Probably more mad that you can't get the last word in lololol. I'll let you have that though. Later man.

Originally posted by primus2012
You are still wasting all of this time performing fanciful interpretations of words because you are mad that you can't openly smoke a bowl of illegal (against the law) drugs, and moreso that somebody is telling you what you can't do.

Probably more mad that you can't get the last word in lololol. I'll let you have that though. Later man.

You are presuming that I smoke dope. Presumptions are for the arrogant, not the erudite. This is all you can do, deflect through logical fallacies. No one can force you to engage in critical thought, only you can make that decision. Thankfully, we have a Constitution in place that establishes a republic. That republic was established to protect the minority from foolish majorities, and there is no greater minority than the individual. Even more thankfully, people are waking up from their ignorant slumber, and realizing what has happened while they were asleep. Not all, mind you, some wake up and are merely confused, so to them, and to you, all I can do is gently say; "Shhhh. There, there. Go back to sleep."

I do not have a record, but

When I was young I had some records and 8 tracks.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


If the Constitution protects the minority from the majority then how did the minority get so much power?

And if majority rules this country 51% can make anything legal even murder.

Originally posted by ACTS 2:38
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

If the Constitution protects the minority from the majority then how did the minority get so much power?

And if majority rules this country 51% can make anything legal even murder.

Who said the Constitution "protects" the minority from the majority? Certainly not I. What I did say was that we have a Constitution in place that establishes a republic and because of this individuals have a legal and lawful way to assert their individual rights. Of course, this requires actually knowing the law. It also requires trusting juries at a trial, instead of trusting licensed attorneys who will lead you down the path of plea bargaining.

The 18th Amendment was repealed just 13 years after it was passed because juries refused to convict rum runners. Today, juries are beginning to take the same attitude towards other prohibitions.