Solitary confinement is a subject that has been readdressed and discussed as of recent. People are starting to think about the rights of prisoners. Solitary is just one of those things. It's just one of those things. Does solitary confinement need laws to regulate the amount of time spent there? Personally, I think that there should be something like that. I think that use of solitary confinement is fine for up to a year, but any longer than that is excessive. However, once those prisoners come back out and they get into more trouble with the general prison populace, they can go back in there.
I wouldn't give prison officials a free hand in deciding the amount of time in solitary. I could picture these officials throwing the rules right out the window because they hold some sort of authority and probably feel as if they can do whatever they want. A lot of authority is like that. Their heads get big and they feel as if they're better than everyone. It sickens me. Restriction on prison officials is the key here.
I wouldn't allow prisoners to challenge their position in court. That's a bit ridiculous.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Gangs; Will it ever end?
Personally, I think that gangs will never cease to exist. Gangs are something that makes people feel big, larger than life. There are a lot of people in this world who carry that macho mentality around with them, and gangs are definitely something that fits into. It's something that cannot be stopped, goddammit. The gang mentality and mob rule are probably some of the worst concepts to be developed in our society. It's a vicious cycle. What is being proposed is a total Darwinian society. I think these people's dogma are running a little thin. Or their jargon. It's whatever.
Finding a solution to these problems will be hard. I don't think heightened police presence will do anything. The police are just a bunch of inept jack-offs who think they hold some sort of authority because they have a gun and a badge. They can't actually do anything to combat gangs and gang members because they're so late to respond to everything. I think former gang members would help the most because they know their shit. And they know whats going on.
Finding a solution to these problems will be hard. I don't think heightened police presence will do anything. The police are just a bunch of inept jack-offs who think they hold some sort of authority because they have a gun and a badge. They can't actually do anything to combat gangs and gang members because they're so late to respond to everything. I think former gang members would help the most because they know their shit. And they know whats going on.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Yeah, check it out y'all, one two we back up in this joint!
The death penalty is one of the most controversial subjects to discuss in our society today. Both sides for and against the penalty are very passionate about it. In my own idea of it though, I would say that the death penalty is not affective as a way to stop crime and criminals. Let's face it, does the death penalty deter violent crimes? No, it doesn't. Violent crimes will always happen, no matter what the punishment may be. There will always be people who are extremely angry or insane, and no matter what the consequences are, they will commit crimes of unspeakable violence. On top of that, it costs millions upon millions of dollars to execute someone. For example, in Maryland, the number of death penalty cases in that state will cost the citizens about $107.3 million dollars in their lifetime. That is completely ridiculous. Think about how much money that Texas and Florida spend on the death penalty. It just isn't worth it.
The only thing that the death penalty is used for is retribution, pure and simple. The death penalty will never deter violent crimes. Real talk, son. We as Americans are (unfortunately) bloodthirsty people. We are out for justice and revenge. The only way I think the death penalty will work; if the criminals themselves agree to face the death penalty. I'm sure many criminals wouldn't want to rot their lives away in a prison. There was only one thing that surprised me in my death penalty findings; and that's that the two states that allow hanging as a method of punishment are Washington and New Hampshire. I could picture a lot of southern states allowing that, but it is not to be. I find it very hard to believe that a state in the New England territory allows hangings. I thought that was a very liberal area and I can't believe that that's actually allowed there.
You can never master, it's invincible, Wu-Tang indispensable
One nation, under God, indivisible
With liberty and justice, the mic is in my clutches
Thugs who bring ruckus leave in crutches
The death penalty is one of the most controversial subjects to discuss in our society today. Both sides for and against the penalty are very passionate about it. In my own idea of it though, I would say that the death penalty is not affective as a way to stop crime and criminals. Let's face it, does the death penalty deter violent crimes? No, it doesn't. Violent crimes will always happen, no matter what the punishment may be. There will always be people who are extremely angry or insane, and no matter what the consequences are, they will commit crimes of unspeakable violence. On top of that, it costs millions upon millions of dollars to execute someone. For example, in Maryland, the number of death penalty cases in that state will cost the citizens about $107.3 million dollars in their lifetime. That is completely ridiculous. Think about how much money that Texas and Florida spend on the death penalty. It just isn't worth it.
The only thing that the death penalty is used for is retribution, pure and simple. The death penalty will never deter violent crimes. Real talk, son. We as Americans are (unfortunately) bloodthirsty people. We are out for justice and revenge. The only way I think the death penalty will work; if the criminals themselves agree to face the death penalty. I'm sure many criminals wouldn't want to rot their lives away in a prison. There was only one thing that surprised me in my death penalty findings; and that's that the two states that allow hanging as a method of punishment are Washington and New Hampshire. I could picture a lot of southern states allowing that, but it is not to be. I find it very hard to believe that a state in the New England territory allows hangings. I thought that was a very liberal area and I can't believe that that's actually allowed there.
You can never master, it's invincible, Wu-Tang indispensable
One nation, under God, indivisible
With liberty and justice, the mic is in my clutches
Thugs who bring ruckus leave in crutches
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Insanity Defense: worth it?
"Pumpin' bumpin' scoopin' scumpin'
Homies be jumpin' with the pumpkins"
Personally, I think the insanity defense is a viable solution for crimes, but it definitely does get overused. When I read through my books on serial killers, I see how some of these killers clearly have some level of consciousness and reasoning, but they attempt to get off on the insanity defense anyway. In some cases, it's understandable (such as Ed Gein or Edmund Kemper), but with other's, I think it's just a cheap ploy to avoid jail time or the death penalty. I am glad that most juries find the insanity defense to be bunk. However, I do believe that sanity should be at least reviewed in some cases. Take for example, Albert Fish. Albert Fish was a serial killer who claimed victims all over the northeastern U.S., and he clearly had maniacal tendencies. When he was apprehended by the police and taken to court, he attempted to get off on the insanity defense, but he was found sane. I think this was a mistake. Anybody who had read about Albert Fish's life would know how big of a lunatic he was. I think he definitely could have gotten off, but he didn't. Defining insanity differs from many people though. What some people might consider insane, others might consider "quirky" or "eccentric". It's a very difficult thing to define completely. It's just one of those things. Finding whether someone is insane or not has go to be one of the hardest things for people to agree on.
Andrea Yates is one of those cases. I think Mrs. Yates was clearly insane, but I do not like how she is out and about in the free world. A person who has killed 5 other human beings does not deserve to have her rights. I just find that unfair. The death penalty wouldn't do anything to her I think. She wouldn't be able to comprehend why she was being killed. She thinks that the atrocity she committed was doing a good thing. This is where mental institution comes in handy. I think that the U.S. should start putting that to good use.
Homies be jumpin' with the pumpkins"
Personally, I think the insanity defense is a viable solution for crimes, but it definitely does get overused. When I read through my books on serial killers, I see how some of these killers clearly have some level of consciousness and reasoning, but they attempt to get off on the insanity defense anyway. In some cases, it's understandable (such as Ed Gein or Edmund Kemper), but with other's, I think it's just a cheap ploy to avoid jail time or the death penalty. I am glad that most juries find the insanity defense to be bunk. However, I do believe that sanity should be at least reviewed in some cases. Take for example, Albert Fish. Albert Fish was a serial killer who claimed victims all over the northeastern U.S., and he clearly had maniacal tendencies. When he was apprehended by the police and taken to court, he attempted to get off on the insanity defense, but he was found sane. I think this was a mistake. Anybody who had read about Albert Fish's life would know how big of a lunatic he was. I think he definitely could have gotten off, but he didn't. Defining insanity differs from many people though. What some people might consider insane, others might consider "quirky" or "eccentric". It's a very difficult thing to define completely. It's just one of those things. Finding whether someone is insane or not has go to be one of the hardest things for people to agree on.
Andrea Yates is one of those cases. I think Mrs. Yates was clearly insane, but I do not like how she is out and about in the free world. A person who has killed 5 other human beings does not deserve to have her rights. I just find that unfair. The death penalty wouldn't do anything to her I think. She wouldn't be able to comprehend why she was being killed. She thinks that the atrocity she committed was doing a good thing. This is where mental institution comes in handy. I think that the U.S. should start putting that to good use.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
How can we stop crime in an effective manner?
My ideas for preventing crime in the United States are as follows
Personally, I think that if poverty is put to an end, crime will follow as well. We need a number of things to be done. People are always going to do drugs. There's no way to stop that. We might as well legalize all of them, and put regulations on them. We also need to get rid of the chance of parole for people who commit violent crimes. Society doesn't need more violent people back out in the streets. I'd say those are two of the biggest concerns as far as crime goes. Another thing, white collar criminals need far more harsher punishments. Enough of this "three years in jail then out" business. These people steal millions of dollars and they get out of jail in a measly three years? We need to be harded on these people. Just because they're rich and middle-aged and white doesn't mean that they don't deserve a punishment. I think these solutions will all work well, but I think it would consume a lot of time to get these things done and agreed upon, especially making all drugs legal and harsher punishment for white collar criminals. A lot of people in government probably wouldn't like the thought of having all drugs legalized and their rich friends in business getting some long jail time for their wrongdoings. Convincing the people in government to allow these things to pass is sure to be quite a challenge. But I think that it is completely plausible.
Personally, I think that if poverty is put to an end, crime will follow as well. We need a number of things to be done. People are always going to do drugs. There's no way to stop that. We might as well legalize all of them, and put regulations on them. We also need to get rid of the chance of parole for people who commit violent crimes. Society doesn't need more violent people back out in the streets. I'd say those are two of the biggest concerns as far as crime goes. Another thing, white collar criminals need far more harsher punishments. Enough of this "three years in jail then out" business. These people steal millions of dollars and they get out of jail in a measly three years? We need to be harded on these people. Just because they're rich and middle-aged and white doesn't mean that they don't deserve a punishment. I think these solutions will all work well, but I think it would consume a lot of time to get these things done and agreed upon, especially making all drugs legal and harsher punishment for white collar criminals. A lot of people in government probably wouldn't like the thought of having all drugs legalized and their rich friends in business getting some long jail time for their wrongdoings. Convincing the people in government to allow these things to pass is sure to be quite a challenge. But I think that it is completely plausible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)