More Americans In Jail Than In Stalin's Gulag Archipelago

Originally posted by Guenter
reply to post by Hopechest

 

You change laws by disobeying them. Or simply by lobbying for them. And maybe have a clause of NON-ENFORCEMENT while a law is under revision/debate. As it happens in some countries. But one does not go around and shrugs shoulders with the comment: "Well its the law ...."

No you change laws by going through the proper procedures of legislation, not by disobeying them. Suppose I decide that stealing is a stupid law and come and rob your house?

Would you want me arrested and prosecuted or would you say that I'm just exercising my rights?

Of course you would want me punished according to the law. As for stupid laws on the books it is completely up to the State or Federal Government what laws they want to pursue but yes, if they want to arrest me for having more than two toys that is completely their right.

Common sense tells us though that it will not happen.

Originally posted by Hopechest

Change the law then.

If you allow a society to pick and choose what laws they want to follow you will not have a society for long.

The breaking of laws come with the task of changing the laws.

I wonder if you would have happily let Rosa Parks rot in prison because she knew what the law was.

You cant in the same breath claim a law is unjust and support punishment under that very unjust law.

Makes no sense.

"Because it's illegal" is immature reasoning. Essentially a parent using "because I said so."

Originally posted by Cabin

Originally posted by Guenter
reply to post by Hopechest

 

You change laws by disobeying them. Or simply by lobbying for them. And maybe have a clause of NON-ENFORCEMENT while a law is under revision/debate. As it happens in some countries. But one does not go around and shrugs shoulders with the comment: "Well its the law ...."

As the current system shows - disobeying laws does not change the law, it only ends you up at the prison.

The laws may be harsh and often unfair, although at the end it is your choice and your responsibility if you get caught not following them, bearing the consequences is part of your choice, so you can ultimately blame no one else but yourself for the poor choice you made.

Whether we want it or not, that is how the world is currently.

Well then one begins to lobby for it. We see 1,000's of petitions surfacing on the internet for all kinds of causes. So petition for it. Choice of political parties. Independent groups and parties. I still "waste" my vote each elections on the "Greens" for example. But I sure can't be blamed for having voted "MY" present government into power.
These stupid laws exist because its this generic consumer attitude of "Not my problem...". We seem to have lost the ability to stand up. I have signed numerous petitions in my life for causes I could have cared less. But I did so because it does matter. Because if one freedom falls, then my own "lil' world freedom" of what I enjoy can be next.

Originally posted by Cabin

Originally posted by Guenter
reply to post by Hopechest

 

You change laws by disobeying them. Or simply by lobbying for them. And maybe have a clause of NON-ENFORCEMENT while a law is under revision/debate. As it happens in some countries. But one does not go around and shrugs shoulders with the comment: "Well its the law ...."

As the current system shows - disobeying laws does not change the law, it only ends you up at the prison.

The laws may be harsh and often unfair, although at the end it is your choice and your responsibility if you get caught not following them, bearing the consequences is part of your choice, so you can ultimately blame no one else but yourself for the poor choice you made.

Whether we want it or not, that is how the world is currently.

Agreed... that is the current state of things.

My point is to make us aware that we should be taking measures to alter the mind set of those in charge of making laws. I agree that it should be done through the legislation processes. But to obtain successes in the change of laws that aren't working, we first must look at those that are imprisoned and make logical judgements to the validity of them being incarcerated. We can't take on a mind set of.... a law is a law, oh well, it's their fault. How are we to make better decisions towards law making, if we aren't analyzing those that have been through the law processes. I'd prefer to make the alteration of laws off of those examples much more so than what any one person or group feels to be lawful.

To save money in those decisions, I think that defining a victim other than the person committing the crime would be a good starting point. I feel that it's a waste of tax payers money to jail people that only victimize themselves. With tough financial times on us as tax payers, saving money on this issue should take presedence over a person that chooses to victimize tthem self.

Maybe we should start looking at how come morals in our society are crumbling and creating cons and thieves. White collar crime, swindling, is at an all time high and the government isn't even prosecuting these thieves. Seems like deceiving people is allowed, let the buyer beware is a spawn of the devil.

Originally posted by Guenter

Originally posted by Cabin

Originally posted by Guenter
reply to post by Hopechest

 

You change laws by disobeying them. Or simply by lobbying for them. And maybe have a clause of NON-ENFORCEMENT while a law is under revision/debate. As it happens in some countries. But one does not go around and shrugs shoulders with the comment: "Well its the law ...."

As the current system shows - disobeying laws does not change the law, it only ends you up at the prison.

The laws may be harsh and often unfair, although at the end it is your choice and your responsibility if you get caught not following them, bearing the consequences is part of your choice, so you can ultimately blame no one else but yourself for the poor choice you made.

Whether we want it or not, that is how the world is currently.

Well then one begins to lobby for it. We see 1,000's of petitions surfacing on the internet for all kinds of causes. So petition for it. Choice of political parties. Independent groups and parties. I still "waste" my vote each elections on the "Greens" for example. But I sure can't be blamed for having voted "MY" present government into power.
These stupid laws exist because its this generic consumer attitude of "Not my problem...". We seem to have lost the ability to stand up. I have signed numerous petitions in my life for causes I could have cared less. But I did so because it does matter. Because if one freedom falls, then my own "lil' world freedom" of what I enjoy can be next.

Exactly my point.

Laws are dictated by society and societies change. We now see gay-marriage and the legalization of a certain substance (TOA) about to happen and who knows what the future may hold.

Until these laws change however the government has a right to follow through with them and the people need to understand that they run the risk of prison if they want to engage it it.

Originally posted by Hopechest

No you change laws by going through the proper procedures of legislation, not by disobeying them. Suppose I decide that stealing is a stupid law and come and rob your house?

Why is it that the moment one talks about disobeying "Stupid laws" the argument example is always "serious" crimes?
Maybe you should understand that most serious crimes as rape, murder, theft and violence are "common sense crimes". They are crimes against our own nature! Against our ability to cohesively work together as a unity against our outside enemies. And our outside enemies are NOT back then another human being, but a lion that had us listed for lunch!
Go back to our original family and tribal setting. We are a "SOCIAL" species! So naturally we abhor violence and peace disturbing actions! Communities set their own standards eventually.
The problem with countries and civilization are laws against activities that harm no one, but just some big guy on the top decides to enforce his morality and standards on all. Look at your "prohibition" past! Some old spinsters decided to lobby for prohibition and created the Mafia! How many alcoholics were "created" during these times by making them go underground. Naturally if you have a limited time to sneak away for a drink, you will over indulge, unlike most that just legally enjoy a beer at the pub with friends. Is it a "Coincidence" that AA was founded just at the end of prohibition with alcohol addiction going through the roof?
What about for a "Law" that prohibits the ownership of x-numbers of "Dildos"? - as one poster just mentioned? What concern is it for the state to give a damn what one does in the privacy of ones bedroom?
This is what we are talking about! And I remind you again, that most "Bad" countries do their "Bad things" LEGALLY. When we are appalled by some countries stoning adulteresses, deny girls to go to school and so on, we forget they do it - BECAUSE IT'S THE LAW!!!

reply to post by Guenter


Prohibition was decided on a societal basis and subsequently removed on a societal basis.

Its a very good example because it proves my point. Certain laws are in regards to crimes that do not harm others but society has determined it should be a law.

It is not the right of the individual to choose what laws are good an bad. That is acting outside of the society they choose to live in and should be punished.

That is the basic level of it.

The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
Read more at www.brainyquote.com...

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by Guenter

 

Prohibition was decided on a societal basis and subsequently removed on a societal basis.

Its a very good example because it proves my point. Certain laws are in regards to crimes that do not harm others but society has determined it should be a law.

It is not the right of the individual to choose what laws are good an bad. That is acting outside of the society they choose to live in and should be punished.

That is the basic level of it.

The issue the OP began with is the for profit prison system. The incentive of greed to create more prisoners. And naturally as I observe so much in the USA is the incredible powers of special interest groups SIG on certain agendas. Especially from the RRR -(Radical Religious Right). But your argument that just because one does NOT obey the law he should be punished is quite flawed. If it does not harm society, then it is no ones business. The present system encourages "snitches" - now disguised to fight terrorism. And maybe the system of quotas, entrapment and so on, all well documented in US LEA is another issue. Just watching US TV and seeing your political attack adds is mind-blowing, so "Black and White". But critical thinking is not encouraged. And what about a cop who "sees you committing a victimless crime and decides he "didn't see it"?
Maybe for a better society it's not the issue that we need more "angels",, - maybe we just individually decide to be "Less of devils".

reply to post by Hopechest


You realize that a great deal of the reason behind society changing their mind on prohibition was all the law breakers and the hyper-escalation of police required to fight the new prohibition-made law breakers, right?

You think repeal would have come is everything was all peaches and cream?

You only have to take a look at gitmo. People kidnapped and held in a camp ilegally were they are being tortured. If this was in Russia or some other country then the USA and her allies would be screaming the house down and calling for invasion. But seeing as its being done in the USA then no one seems to mind. No shouts of war crimes and not a word from the press. Some one already mentioned that judge who was doing a deal with the prisons. Ha ha ha only in America. Land of the free lol

Originally posted by Guenter

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by Guenter

 

Prohibition was decided on a societal basis and subsequently removed on a societal basis.

Its a very good example because it proves my point. Certain laws are in regards to crimes that do not harm others but society has determined it should be a law.

It is not the right of the individual to choose what laws are good an bad. That is acting outside of the society they choose to live in and should be punished.

That is the basic level of it.

The issue the OP began with is the for profit prison system. The incentive of greed to create more prisoners. And naturally as I observe so much in the USA is the incredible powers of special interest groups SIG on certain agendas. Especially from the RRR -(Radical Religious Right). But your argument that just because one does NOT obey the law he should be punished is quite flawed. If it does not harm society, then it is no ones business. The present system encourages "snitches" - now disguised to fight terrorism. And maybe the system of quotas, entrapment and so on, all well documented in US LEA is another issue. Just watching US TV and seeing your political attack adds is mind-blowing, so "Black and White". But critical thinking is not encouraged. And what about a cop who "sees you committing a victimless crime and decides he "didn't see it"?
Maybe for a better society it's not the issue that we need more "angels",, - maybe we just individually decide to be "Less of devils".

There is no need to create prisoners, prisons are already overflowing with what you would consider "legitimate" crimes.

What crimes do not hurt society? I would argue that the very fact that you ignore a law would harm society because if people are allowed to pick and choose what laws to follow you will see that society break down. Therefore, every law is important.

I would argue there is no such thing as a victimless crime because every law that is broken is hurting society as a whole.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by Hopechest

 

You realize that a great deal of the reason behind society changing their mind on prohibition was all the law breakers and the hyper-escalation of police required to fight the new prohibition-made law breakers, right?

You think repeal would have come is everything was all peaches and cream?

It is still society that demanded the law be changed, regardless of the reasons.

But you are correct of course.

reply to post by Hopechest


No victimless crimes... really?

If you do illegal drugs in your own house that you grew from seed, get up the next day and carry on in your life with no I'll effects on others, you hurt society how?

On the other hand, you smoke cigarettes in front of your children in your house all day and night... exposing them to second hand smoke. Do you feel that no harm is done to the children or society because cigarettes are legal?

Originally posted by ttobban
reply to post by Hopechest

 

No victimless crimes... really?

If you do illegal drugs in your own house that you grew from seed, get up the next day and carry on in your life with no I'll effects on others, you hurt society how?

On the other hand, you smoke cigarettes in front of your children in your house all day and night... exposing them to second hand smoke. Do you feel that no harm is done to the children or society because cigarettes are legal?

There is the possibility of that person becoming overly intoxicated from the substance, driving, and killing someone.

There is a risk there so yes, its a legitimate crime.

reply to post by Hopechest


And your opinion on the cigarettes? And, would it be OK to take legal prescription drugs and drive?

Plus, I mentioned that you don't leave the house and get up the next day to carry on with your life.

Originally posted by ttobban
reply to post by Hopechest

 

And your opinion on the cigarettes?

Why are drugs illegal and alchohol is not?

Its because society makes the rules and those rules do not have to make sense. Those rules do need to be followed however and when they are not there should be punishment given out.

This is how societies must function to exist.

Plus, I mentioned that you don't leave the house and get up the next day to carry on with your life.

Can we guarantee that everyone will behave like this though?

Of course not.

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by ttobban
reply to post by Hopechest

 

And your opinion on the cigarettes?

Why are drugs illegal and alchohol is not?

Its because society makes the rules and those rules do not have to make sense. Those rules do need to be followed however and when they are not there should be punishment given out.

This is how societies must function to exist.

Plus, I mentioned that you don't leave the house and get up the next day to carry on with your life.

Can we guarantee that everyone will behave like this though?

edit on 17-5-2013 by Hopechest because: (no reason given)

Of course not. But it does clearly define 'victimless crime', of which you mentioned does not exist. I think exposing children to second hand smoke is not a victimless crime, and it seems you're OK with it happening because it is legal.

There are leaders and there are followers. It's quite clear that you're a follower, and that is exactly what law makers want and need to be successful... even if their laws are good or bad for the future of society.

I don't condone breaking laws, but I surely do condone and wish for people to think for themselves. I also wish for people that wish to ruin their lives with drugs to have the right to do so without tax payers having to foot the bill for it. Once they start victimizing others, I'll be glad to contribute to jailing them.

Originally posted by ttobban

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by ttobban
reply to post by Hopechest

 

And your opinion on the cigarettes?

Why are drugs illegal and alchohol is not?

Its because society makes the rules and those rules do not have to make sense. Those rules do need to be followed however and when they are not there should be punishment given out.

This is how societies must function to exist.

Plus, I mentioned that you don't leave the house and get up the next day to carry on with your life.

Can we guarantee that everyone will behave like this though?

edit on 17-5-2013 by Hopechest because: (no reason given)

Of course not. But it does clearly define 'victimless crime', of which you mentioned does not exist. I think exposing children to second hand smoke is not a victimless crime, and it seems you're OK with it happening because it is legal.

There are leaders and there are followers. It's quite clear that you're a follower, and that is exactly what law makers want and need to be successful... even if their laws are good or bad for the future of society.

I don't condone breaking laws, but I surely do condone and wish for people to think for themselves. I also wish for people that wish to ruin their lives with drugs to have the right to do so without tax payers having to foot the bill for it. Once they start victimizing others, I'll be glad to contribute to jailing them.

Actually I've stated that there are many laws I do not agree with.

I do believe we have a system in place to change them however and I do not agree with simply ignoring them because you do not like it.

Society had determined that drugs should be illegal and has put forth punishments for those who partake in that crime. Whether you agree with the law or not is irrelevant.

I'm glad you would condone those who think for themselves and break this law but they will be held accountable if they are caught.

Until society changes the law.