Wapsi Square Forum

Warrl wrote:

lake_wrangler wrote:

FreeFlier wrote:Some years ago there was a drunk driver that killed a woman the day he got out of jail from his previous drunk driving charge . . . the prosecutor charged him with second-degree murder, only because the prosecutor felt he wouldn't be able to prove premeditation. (This was the third person he'd killed driving drunk. This was also about the time they started really cracking down on drunk drivers.) Got a conviction, and managed to tick the judge off badly enough that the judge ordered him sent to the furthest-away state prison for his entire term . . . neither the prisoner nor the Department of Corrections was happy about that.

I can understand why the prisoner would be upset, but why the Dept. of Corrections? What am I missing?

Well, there are a few states where that could be several hundred miles of prisoner transport...

Also, generally convicts are put into the custody of the Department of Corrections, which can then choose what prison to put them in - and move them - on whatever basis seems necessary and convenient. Sometimes it's transport costs and current prison populations, sometimes it's to break up a prison gang, or to protect a prisoner who's been targeted by one or more other prisoners, and sometimes there are other reasons for the choice. But if the judge specifies a prison, that's it - the Department can't move the prisoner to a different prison unless it petitions the court and gets permission to do so.

It was several hundred miles, but the real issue was that the DoC didn't like anyone telling them what to do . . . that was at the same time that the DoC sent an official representative to the state legislature to explain that three strikes would interfere with DoC's goal of releasing the average prisoner after one-third of their sentence . . .

This for a three-strikes bill that was limited to violent A and B felonies . . . armed robbery, kidnapping, murder, that sort of thing. And it took three separate cycles through prison to have it kick in.

--FreeFlier

You're shitting me.

Why the hell would they have a GOAL of releasing AVERAGE prisoners after one third of a term? I kinda thought putting people in prison was as much for the protection of law-abiding citizens as it is for teaching criminals a lesson... Being let out early for AVERAGE behavior seems kinda counter-productive.

Ugh. It's cheaper that way, isn't it? Gorramit, money rules everything...

GlytchMeister wrote:You're shitting me.

Why the hell would they have a GOAL of releasing AVERAGE prisoners after one third of a term? I kinda thought putting people in prison was as much for the protection of law-abiding citizens as it is for teaching criminals a lesson... Being let out early for AVERAGE behavior seems kinda counter-productive.

Ugh. It's cheaper that way, isn't it? Gorramit, money rules everything...

No, I'm not joking. Official testimony from the official DoC representative. I think that's a big part of why three strikes passed . . . eventually.

And as far as I could tell, money didn't enter in at all.

--FreeFlier

GlytchMeister wrote:You're shitting me.

Why the hell would they have a GOAL of releasing AVERAGE prisoners after one third of a term? I kinda thought putting people in prison was as much for the protection of law-abiding citizens as it is for teaching criminals a lesson... Being let out early for AVERAGE behavior seems kinda counter-productive.

Ugh. It's cheaper that way, isn't it? Gorramit, money rules everything...

I've read a couple of articles, here on the webs, and heard at least one guy on a radio talk show, who claim that the private prison system inflates/urges inmates into transgressions that can be inflated to keep them inside for more time.
So prison for profit may be changing that concept.

And here I thought prisons were a huge money suck for the government that has been causing all kinds of problems with budgets and stuff...

GlytchMeister wrote:And here I thought prisons were a huge money suck for the government that has been causing all kinds of problems with budgets and stuff...

The gubbmint is the one that pays the for profit prisons. And that's one of the most spendy lobbies for keeping cannabis a crime.

GlytchMeister wrote:You're shitting me.

Why the hell would they have a GOAL of releasing AVERAGE prisoners after one third of a term? I kinda thought putting people in prison was as much for the protection of law-abiding citizens as it is for teaching criminals a lesson... Being let out early for AVERAGE behavior seems kinda counter-productive.

Ugh. It's cheaper that way, isn't it? Gorramit, money rules everything...

Consider the fact that the United States has one of the highest rates of incarceration of any country. In many jurisdictions, the jails and prisons are far over the capacity for which they were designed; some of the buildings are quite old and their heating and cooling and sanitation and security systems are failing. Governments don't like to raise taxes to pay to build extensive new prison systems or hire lots of new guards. In a number of areas, the courts have found that the conditions in the prisons are so bad that they amount to cruel and unusual punishment, and have ordered the state governments to reduce crowding and provide at least a baseline level of security and health care to the inmates.

A lot of this comes from the "three strikes" and "mandatory minimum" sentencing rules. These have had the effect of swelling the prison populations a lot, with many of those convicted being nonviolent offenders (controlled-substance use and possession, in lots of cases).

In practice, getting a high percentage of the nonviolent offenders out onto parole, as soon as the rules permit, is the only way that some jurisdictions have of getting their prison-population size down to the levels that the courts have demanded. Not that it's a great solution... after five or ten years in prison, making a productive "re-entry" into normal society and finding a job and staying out of further trouble is not easy.

GlytchMeister wrote:This is why I get real nervous when driving on roads through woods and cornfields out here... Especially at night. I have learned to slow the heck down and watch for ANY sign of movement or eye shine.

I have been known to slam on the brakes because I spotted a reflection from a pair of soda cans on the side of the road.

I usually drive little zippy cars, so deer wouldn't so much as end up in my lap as they would end up in my face. Deer rib through the eyeball is NOT something I want to experience.

Slightly related: I refuse to get on a powerboat on the Illinois River. Asian Carp like to jump when startled by motors, and they can get pretty big.

F=ma... Large fish to the face when your face is traveling at 30 mph can be lethal. And that is about the least glorious way I can imagine being killed... Being fish-slapped so hard by the laws of physics your neck breaks.

What were we talking about again? Who wants some pie?

I've heard it postulated that the cheep-cheeps from Super Mario Bros are based on Asian carp. Mostly as a way to explain how they can hurt Mario and the gang. There's also a rare allergic reaction to shitaki mushrooms which might explain deadly goombas.

In my native county of northern Greater Appalachia, the coal mines traditionally provided the greatest number of nonfarm jobs.

By the time I was growing up, the ski resorts had taken the lead.

Now it's the prisons.

My father often remarks that creating jobs for lowerclass white people by locking up lowerclass black people is a damn poor model for economic development.