posted on July 24, 2000 06:26:49 PM new
Have there been any studies that show that college degrees transform antisocial or violent criminals into productive, law-abiding citizens?
posted on July 24, 2000 06:34:24 PM new
Marwin's suggestion is sure to create smarter, harder to catch criminals.
[ edited by stockticker on Jul 24, 2000 06:34 PM ]
posted on July 24, 2000 06:36:13 PM new
jamesoblivion: Yes, at the very least to the extent that we know that crime in many forms is just a way to increase income for many who would otherwise make very little.
With higher income comes also social recognition, which most criminals did not enjoy in the free world, precisely due to their low education and low income.
Criminals want respect as much or possibly more, than anyone else, high education, letters after their name, a job which commands respect at work and outside of it, a good income, those are powerful ingredients.
posted on July 24, 2000 07:53:07 PM new
Well, I have typed my response twice now, and 'cleared the field'. I'll try to contain myself.
marwin - If your percentages are correct, then could a few of the reasons for that be that in other countries the guilty are put to death immediately? No continuous appeals, that sometimes take 10 to 15 years. They're just executed right then. Or they're put in prisons where the conditions are very unhealthy and they die early/quickly from lack of medical care, or protection from the guards or other prisoners? Could the lesser crimes be handled differently in these other prisons? Like when one steals, their hand is cute off.
Many examples could be given as to why there are more 'living' in our jails than other countries.
Then on the education idea.....most of these life criminals didn't graduate from middle school, let alone high school. A lot can't read or write and you're suggesting we pay for a 'college' education/degree? Even if we did reward them with a college degree, just how many do you think would choose that option? Way too much work involved in 'earning' an education, it's just too easy to steal (and maybe kill someone while doing so) than working for something. Education is something they choose to throw out the window, they preferred the 'easy' money crime brought them.
posted on July 24, 2000 07:59:05 PM new
makes me think prisoned pple at the telephone services saying "This is the MCI telephone company and I would like to discuss the company's low rates"
posted on July 24, 2000 08:21:41 PM new
Okay I'm having a miserable day so I guess I will bite.(But don't think my advanced age has me so muddle brained that I don't realize that you like to collect statistics , stir them together, inject them with a few wild conclusions and leaps of logic all an attempt to get us old foggies riled. Our hearts can take it , most of us old geysers have great insurance and I don't want to dissapoint you but we will all be here in the morning Your attempt at "old farticide" is not working )
Marwin "the general perception is that crime is at every corner, that we need guns in every home,"
Can we vote on that one?
"Obviously, one does not get the feeling that anyone feels anymore secure with 2 million people behind bars, than if we just had a few."
Huh? I just want the criminals behind bars. I don't care if it is 9 or 9 million.
Do you really want more education for all of them? Do you know how much of our court systems are clogged up with jailhouse lawyers
that waste the taxpayers money with endless appeals and frivolous lawsuits.
You do know that a great many of them will choose to become lawyers? You really want to release that on to the community.
Marwin " Reduce prison stress, because now you CAN get out, and to get out fast"
Oh now that is great. I want the man that raped me out of jail faster with a free college degree. I'm probably not as concerned with HIS stress problems as my own
need of therapy thanks to his actions. Add that to the four years I had to work at a minimum wage job to pay for my college while he got his free FOR RAPING ME!!!!!!!
I'm sorry I just can't buy your argument.
The numbers on the paper often don't add up quite as well when translated into reality.
posted on July 24, 2000 08:30:11 PM new
Linda_K: The number of people behind bars has increased enormously since 1970. In fact, it's not an increase, it's a multiplication. In the 1990's alone 840,000 Americans were sent behind bars.
In the past 20 years we have built new jails at the rate of about 1 per week.
Do you feel any safer?
Of the 2 million currently in jail, some 750,000 are serving time for non-violent offenses and victimless crimes: Gambling, not wearing a seat belt, breaking censorship laws, consensual sex, non-violent drug related activity, etc.
Maybe we do need to look at who we are putting in jail and for what reason these days. Is this another one of our periodic fanatical crusades? Like the Prohibition, the McCarthy Pink Witch Hunt?
You are certainly right about many other countries executing and so on much faster than we do, but how do we compare to those we feel closest to as "civilized" countries? England, Western Europe, Australia, Canada, Japan?
posted on July 24, 2000 08:51:18 PM new
tegan: Yes, the visual of the poor rape victim is pretty strong, but it does not address why we have 5 times as many people behind bars as the rest of the world.
10% more of maybe even 30 or 40% could be explained away, but 400% more?
And yet we remain a Country afraid to go out at night, loaded with alarm systems everywhere, not to forget the best selling steering wheel "club".
If there would be a relationship between safety and number of people in jail, we would be safer than Switzerland, and obviously we are not, so maybe indeed we should look at it.
posted on July 24, 2000 09:07:03 PM new
marwin - While I don't profess to have all the answers, I do *always* vote for the building of more prisons...until we have a solution.
Welfare is a good example of our system being out-of-control. Now with the new changes, the two, three and four generations of welfare recipients are learning to 'work' not just sit at home and cry around how hard it is to live on such a small amount. (Tax payers money.)
In Arkansas, the prisoners are put to work, doing jobs the county would be paying CalTrans to do in California. The ones not in for serious crimes dig up the streets, lay new cement...well you get the picture. They're working hard, not sitting in a cell watching TV and having all their needs taken care of. They learn/are taught the work ethic. Few wish to return to that. Same thing with that prison warden who has the prisoners living in tents in the hot weather and eating peanut butter sandwiches for lunch....boy are the liberals complaining about all that. Poor babys....maybe they won't want to come back and do this again.
You ask about other countries like Japan. Well I believe in some of those countries it is a word called *shame*. It's shameful to *not* take care of oneself and family. It brings shame to the family name if a member breaks the law. Here families join one another in doing unlawful things. It's all about easy money...not working or earning money.
In America we are just way too easy with all our liberal thinking.
That's one 'old foggies'( @ tegan statement) opinion.
Edit - cause I want that 'free' college education so I can spell.
[ edited by Linda_K on Jul 24, 2000 09:15 PM ]
posted on July 24, 2000 09:12:41 PM new
Linda_K: Would you be opposed to a system which would give people in jail a chance to cut down substantially on their sentence time, if they in turn, made the sustained effort over several years to acquire true higher education?
posted on July 24, 2000 09:16:56 PM new
I think it would be important to have a system where convicted criminals complete their jail sentences. Also, I think we need to rethink many of the drug laws that themselves create crime where none would otherwise exist (I believe).
James.
posted on July 24, 2000 09:25:19 PM new
jamesoblivion: What is the purpose of a jail sentence? Is it:
a) To put the individual away in order to protect society?
or
b) Just a punishment. "We'll put you through something unpleasant"?
Considering how many people we have behind bars, do you feel our method is working? Are we achieving having a safe society and neighborhoods and cities?
posted on July 24, 2000 09:25:58 PM newSame thing with that prison warden who has the prisoners living in tents in the hot weather and eating peanut butter sandwiches for lunch....boy are the liberals complaining about all that. Poor babys....maybe the won't want to come back and do this again.
Actually Linda K, with all respect, that is a sheriff and not a
warden. It's a county jail, 90 % of the population of this place have not been convicted of a crime yet and are still waiting to go to court. We are still innocent until proven guilty in this country. I'm sure a large percentage are guilty but for the few innocent it's not right. BTW I'm not a liberal.
"Put more water in the soup pot, there's a better day a comin' "
[ edited by hardoutfit on Jul 24, 2000 09:27 PM ]
posted on July 24, 2000 09:30:54 PM new
Without having thought about it much, I'd say offhand the purpose is B with A being a positive result. I'm sure it's very, very debatable.
James.
posted on July 24, 2000 09:32:35 PM new
marwin - Because I don't believe in rewarding negative behavior. I believe in using those same funds (you think we'll be saving) and giving those to the young adults that have chosen not to take the road of crime.
There are many young people, of all races, who can't afford to go to college, even with 3.9 and 4.0 grades. Help them with those funds, not the people who are looking for the easiest way out. Not the ones who have been dependent within/upon our system for most of their lives.
Maybe if we educate those motivate young people, they'll come up with a solution for this problem.
And as to the small crimes you mentioned, I truly don't believe people are going to jail for not wearing their seat belts, etc. The small crimes they are going to jail for are only because they have a 'rap' sheet three miles long....and finally some judge has stood his/her ground.
Hardoutfit - I'd place my money on that.
James - My husband believes we should legalize drugs since we can't/don't want to win the war. Like other countries marwin uses in his example do. They set aside parts of town (kind of like our red-light districts) where people can go to sell and use their drugs. I don't agree, but it's been something I've been open to listening to.
posted on July 24, 2000 09:47:17 PM new
hartoutfit - I stand corrected, thank you.
The point I was trying to make (in using that as an example) was that when people who have been arrested are housed this way, everyone seems to start screaming, "..inhumane conditions". A lot of the time these conditions are better than (or equal to) what they came from.
I do not believe I called you a liberal, hartoutfit. I try to not post to a person, just the subject.
I do feel it's the liberal attitudes that has gotten us where we currently are though. As James stated, if these offenders served their full jail time, they wouldn't be out re-offending....thus adding to marwin statistics.
posted on July 24, 2000 09:47:50 PM new
Linda_K: You seem to have great confidence in both the efficiency and flawlessness of our system.
There was a show on TV a couple of months ago, 60 Minutes maybe, or 20/20, something like that, showing a bunch of people in various jails who had actually commited no crime at all. They had been transfered a number of times, from one jail to another, and their "file" had been "lost". No one was sure where it was anymore. Some of them had been in jail for a couple of years. The authorities interviewed could only comment that indeed these were very unfortunate situations.
There was another show, Late Night, I believe, with Ted Koppel, dealing in particular with women in jail. A good number of them were shown who didn't have any criminal record at all, much less 3 miles long, and who yet were in jail for several years even though the crime was victimless i. e. drug transportation and cash transportation. Some of these women were quite destitute. Some had young children. You do wonder, what good does it do anyone, to lock up a woman behind bar for 7 years, on her first and only victimeless "crime"?
At least, under the suggestion these posts started with, they would get education.
posted on July 24, 2000 09:58:25 PM new
What's wrong with that? Should my mother have her tax dollars used to fund a free college degree for her son's killer?
H*** NO!
posted on July 24, 2000 10:05:46 PM new
snowyegret: Of the 2 million people in jail in this country, the vast majority, meaning probably over 80% have never killed anyone.
So, let's say your point is understandable regarding murderers. What about the other 1 million 600,000?
If the cost would be about equal, would it be a good idea let them become educated?
posted on July 24, 2000 10:10:24 PM new
marwin - No, I do not feel it is flawless and I too, have seen many of the same shows you speak of. We could go on for hours about all the injustices that occur. This thread was speaking to the issue of educating them and then releasing them earlier. I do not agree with that.
The young women you speak of who transported drugs and cash do *not* get my sympathy. They know there is a war on drugs. They knew they were taking a chance and could go to jail. They took that chance. A very stupid one, IMO, as since many have been screaming for tougher laws on drug offenders, laws have changed. Now they should expect my sympathy that they have never done this before, they have families that need them? I don't agree.
See, for me, this is where the problem is. People break the law, then we go easy on them (for one reason or another) so where are their consequences? There used to be consequences to negative behavior....now there are excuses for negative behavior...it is tolerated more by our society. That's what has change. So it's my opinion that has been a part of why people are willing to 'take that chance' and sell/transport those drugs.
That's one of the reasons we retired in Arkansas and left San Jose, CA. Here it's like it was 30-40 years ago in the big cities. We can walk at night and feel safe. Things are much more conservative here, and we find that comforting. I do feel safe here, I'd didn't in LA and SJ.
posted on July 24, 2000 10:22:36 PM new
marwin, I enjoy your circular logic and sophmoric hypotheses. The high quality banter you provoke is reason enough to keep visiting this board.
As to the current topic, your proposal is not at all that far removed from present day reality. Prisoners are given the opportunity to further their education and the acquisition of a degree is viewed most favorably by parole boards.
I personally agree with Linda K's husband. The "war on drugs" is, in many ways, similar to Prohibition and to the Vietnam war. It is "morality" gone crazy and serves to enrich only those involved in the anti-drug industry.
Even though we incarcerate people at an alarming rate, you may be surprised to learn that it is not all that easy to get in to jail. In many locales there is an actual waiting list. All but the most violent and dangerous felons are often released because there is simply not enough room.
posted on July 24, 2000 10:25:00 PM new
"Now with the new changes, the two, three and four generations of welfare recipients are learning to 'work' not just sit at home and cry around how hard it is to live on such a small amount."
Linda-K, you do realize that with these "new changes," about 1 million children were thrown into direct poverty? They did nothing wrong to deserve the consequences that were handed to them.
Meanwhile, we, the taxpayers, will be funding Colombia's "war on drugs" (which as of late has amounted to nothing more than the slaughtering of civilians) to the tune of $1 Billion dollars.
Furthermore (and this is for anyone really) ...where is the bill for corporate welfare reform? More $ goes to corp welfare than social welfare. Why are we constantly chipping away at social welfare (the pittance that it is), meanwhile it is okay to subsidize huge corps like Sunkist, McDonalds, ADM, Boeing, etc? Kinda backwards, eh?
And, just to stay OT (sorry for rambling on your thread, Marwin), federal sentencing guidelines & mandatory minimums are a joke, and in effect tie the hands of judges who should be able to sentence non-violent offenders at their own discretion. It defies logic when a small-time drug offender serves a stiffer sentence than, say, a sexual offender. But that is exactly what we have as a result of these ridiculous guidelines.
Jules
(Proud Liberal, since we're labeling and all.)
posted on July 24, 2000 10:25:18 PM new
People choose to be criminals.
Why should we reward them?
I consider a college education a gift and a privilage, I worked hard for it, I earned it.
Why give it to someone who has committed a crime againest society in hopes they might, maybe, not commit another crime.
I think if someone gets sentenced to five years they should do five years. If they are really serious about bettering themselves they will find a way to get a degree once they get out.
Don't tell me it can't be done because I have worked in community outreach programs that helped ex cons do that very thing.I agree we should try to convince them that there is a better way of life. Crime is a really stupid career move.
But I don't really think letting them off easy or early is the answer.
posted on July 24, 2000 10:27:34 PM new
Gee Whiz, a youth who watches both '60 Minutes' AND 'Nightline', how refreshing. Don't you think, Pareau?
[ edited by yorequest on Jul 24, 2000 10:28 PM ]
Your attempt at "old farticide" is not working 
[ edited by Linda_K on Jul 24, 2000 09:15 PM ]