This is a discussion on Parole boards. within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; The recent massacre in Conn. brings to light ONCE AGAIN that parole boards, and Judges I believe, need to be held personally responsible in some ...
July 29th, 2007 09:01 AM
The recent massacre in Conn. brings to light ONCE AGAIN that parole boards, and Judges I believe, need to be held personally responsible in some way for the decisions they make.
Before they can send someone back out into society, they should be made to let the ex-perp live with them and their family, babysit their kids or go on a camping trip in some remote locale.
I guarantee these bums would be a tad more discerning in who they let out, don't you think!
July 29th, 2007 11:15 AM
Hmm, not a bad idea. Or how about we make things simple... if you get 20 yrs for your crime, you serve 20 yrs. If your crime affects the victim for their lifetime, you serve life. You cant get out of the "system" until you have righted your wrongs. If its impossible to right your wrongs, then their is no sense in keeping you alive.
"Just blame Sixto"
I reserve the right to make fun, point and laugh etc.
July 29th, 2007 11:17 AM
If I were a governor, I would let it be known that I intended to use the power of imminent domain to seize the homes on either sides of judges' and parole board members' homes and convert them into half-way houses for all of the "fine citizens" that the judges and parole boards released. How could the judges and parole board members object? We would simply be giving these "victims of society" the best possible chance to succeed after their incarceration was ended.
Of course, it would not be fair to the homeowners on either side, but maybe they should consider the company they keep....
July 29th, 2007 12:24 PM
Part of what forces the early-release problem is overcrowding and lack of funding, things the parole boards and judges cannot control. If this leaky spigot is turned "off" without addressing the other one (funding, overcrowding), then bad guys will simply not be admitted to the system that should be. Nice sentiment, but it's not as simple as toying with one element of this marvelous, busted revolving door we call a "system".
Originally Posted by DasBoot
Points I'd recommend:
- Enough prison facilities (or more-flexible work camps in the boonies) suitably secure to house twice the number now being held.
- Work-for-food/housing plan, as the normal gig behind bars. Help pay for the three hots and a cot, instead of merely living "large" off the goodness of the citizens. In other words, chain gangs, rock quarrying or other hard labor.
- No workout equipment that would shame the local gym, to avoid super-buff and -dangerous criminals when they are released.
- If you're a guard or prison/jail employee and caught supplying the flow of contraband goods, you're now a resident.
- Caught for a violent crime or felony and not a citizen of this country? Full-term serving of penalty, followed by ejection from country. Get caught coming back, and it's a hard-work camp or prison for life.
- Full-term serving, without parole. Parole is for societies that can't walk the talk.
- Revising of the classification system: violent felony vs non-violent felony vs. misdemeanor. Not everyone must be housed in the max facilities, taking up valuable space better used to keep the truly violent out of our hair.
- Three-strikes arrangement -- Commit three violent felonies, and you're out of society for life at a hard-work camp or prison.
- Death penalty -- Reinstate it. A life for a life. That's it, and that's all. At some point, there will be no more felons desiring to take a life. At that time, we can revisit the question.
- Location, location, location -- If cannot be done affordably or safely on continental soil, pick an island and get it right.
- Funding -- fund domestic "defense" out of the national defense budget, covering all jails, prisons, work camps and other facilities. What's left of the national defense budget after covering domestic defense is to be allowed for external, outward-facing defense.
July 29th, 2007 01:32 PM
Holding judges , parole boards accountable for crimes of the released is close to blaming gun makers for negligent use of their guns.
I agree with ccw9mm, the system is overcrowded and prisoners treated wayyy too well.
"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." Thomas Jefferson
Nemo Me Impune Lacesset
July 29th, 2007 02:07 PM
Holey cow! A better summing up of how things ought to work have never been spoken! That is EXACTLY how it should be.
Originally Posted by SIXTO
You are completely right on the money there SIXTO.
I agree also with the majority of what you say CCW9mm, but this last point I could not disagree with more. I would never agree to tie domestic police and prison funding with national defense. That is just not the way to do that. And to fund the military with what is left AFTER the police and prison funding is done? Why not just hand the country to the islamic extremists?
Funding -- fund domestic "defense" out of the national defense budget, covering all jails, prisons, work camps and other facilities. What's left of the national defense budget after covering domestic defense is to be allowed for external, outward-facing defense.
Last edited by TN_Mike; July 29th, 2007 at 03:14 PM.
July 29th, 2007 02:22 PM
I would love to be on a parole board !! Does anybody know the process ??? One thing for sure, there wouldn't be any parole consideration before 90% of the sentence is served, and that would only apply to first-timers. I have to gladly agree with SIXTO!!
July 29th, 2007 02:31 PM
"National" defense is nothing more than individual defense in the aggregate.
Originally Posted by TN_Mike
The point was: defending others before ourselves is ludicrous. It's the same logic that anti's use when implying that guns held by authorities are sufficient for protecting individuals during crimes. It just doesn't work that way. Without the individual having the ability to defend, often the larger general program for "protection" (aka, police infrastructure) can't get there in time. Likewise, with a weak and cowed populace, there's little to fight for overseas. Didn't mean to imply that requiring one at the expense of the other was the goal. Rather, I strongly believe the opposite is true ... and it should cease being at the expense of domestic security.
We've got sheep-slaughtering extremists here in the USA ... the garden-variety murderous criminals we read about daily. I'd hand over another country to that country's people if it would mean more focus could be paid to our own. Every day of the week.
Why not just hane [sic] the country to the islamic extremists?
July 29th, 2007 02:51 PM
Nothing could be further from the truth. National defense is completely different than individual defense in the aggregate. National defense is comprised of intelligence, defense, and offense. Good intentions of well armed individuals cannot launch spy satellites, cannot analyze enemy communications, cannot put agents on the ground in enemy territory, and cannot create advanced technology to thwart enemy aggression. It is no longer sufficient to have a well armed miltia to defend this nation.
Originally Posted by ccw9mm
It is a mistake to confuse domestic law enforcement with national security.
Unfortunately, we cannot offer other countries as appeasement to our enemies. They want to kill us and have us submit to their will. Soon, they will have nuclear weapons and long range missiles. Well armed citizens and keeping BGs in jail is completely irrelevant to that particular problem.
I'd hand over another country to that country's people if it would mean more focus could be paid to our own. Every day of the week.
July 29th, 2007 03:10 PM
^^ No confusion, here. Never said Johnny Citizen armed with a musket can launch sats, provide on-the-ground intel or guard against nuke technologies. All of that's obvious. Am simply identifying that an appreciation for defense must comprise more than going after only a few of the rat holes, if we're to be secure from rats. The statement about "other countries" wasn't a suggestion of coughing up allied countries as winnings; it was a reference to having our "world police hats" on at the expense of security elsewhere.
"Homeland Security," hm? Well-defended ingress points at airports, but the cargo isn't heavily inspected. Well-armed soldiers in foreign countries, SIGNINT, COMINT ... but little HUMINT, ends up missing much. All facing outward but little-to-none (by comparison) inward leaves an empty, burned-out husk. It's a matter of balance. Historical point: Rome found out the reality of this, the hard way.
July 29th, 2007 05:20 PM
Originally Posted by ccw9mm
Proverbs 27:12 says: “The prudent see danger and take refuge, but the simple keep going and suffer for it.”
Certified Glock Armorer
NRA Life Member
July 29th, 2007 06:04 PM
By 1911luver in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
Last Post: February 13th, 2011, 12:01 PM
By sullitf in forum New Members Introduce Yourself
Last Post: December 6th, 2008, 05:59 PM
By DopdBrd in forum Defensive Carry Holsters & Carry Options
Last Post: October 7th, 2007, 02:43 AM
By HKR in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: August 8th, 2007, 09:51 PM
By bennnn in forum New Members Introduce Yourself
Last Post: April 19th, 2007, 03:11 AM