The US' massive prison population is getting older.
Long sentences that were handed out decades ago are catching up with the American justice system.
Prisons across the country are dedicating entire units just to house the elderly.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Gray Behind Bars
"I'm Chris Hansen, and you're going to die in prison..."
Dying Inside: Elderly in prison
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
First of all, child molesters get ridiculously short jail time, so I think the Chris Hansen comment is out of place. Honestly, I wish child molesters died in prison, but they don't. They get let out in 2-3 years and go back to ruining people's lives, only to have "privacy" advocates fight for their right to abuse children.
ReplyDeleteSecond, most of the large sentences are drug cases. I doubt those people even belong in jail.
I think the Chris Hansen comment is out of place.
ReplyDeleteRight, Ginx, that's why you can get life in prison for it.
Please learn how lives are ruined by the insane and evil "sex offender" laws before you make such statements.
The time done by rapists and child molesters is often less than those charged with trafficking. Of course every local and state system works differently, but I think you'll find most sex crimes have appalling short actual sentences served.
ReplyDeleteRemind me not to let one of you libertarians babysit my kid. You'd think NAMBLA linked to this site.
NAMBLA, Ginx? That's one of the most offensive comments you've ever made here, especially coupled with the remark about babysitting. You owe me and every libertarian reading this an apology.
ReplyDeleteIn the link to the Classically Liberal blog post I gave in my previous comment, there is a video about a 14 year old girl who took and posted nude photos of herself so her boyfriend could see them. She was then charged with possession and distribution of child pornography!
The state is a cold, cruel monster, and it is its sick, blind followers such as yourself that continue to create victims like that young woman.
Don't you fucking dare get on your lying phony self-righteous high horse and spread that kind of viscous innuendo around here again, you sick motherfucking statist!
Here you can see some of the child victims of the "sex offender" laws you love so much.
Those are the most offensive comments I have made here? Kiss my ass you fucking cunt. Don't pretend to be a libertarian if you're going to get offended like a whiney bitch.
ReplyDeleteIsn't there an 11 year old you should be luring into your van right about now?
So Ginx, a libertarian isn't allowed to ever get offended at what anyone says about them? You don't even know the meaning of the word libertarian, you moron!
ReplyDeleteI'm supposed to let someone accuse me of being a child molester and just take it and not reply?
Go fuck yourself, asshole!
Oh, and I notice you didn't bother checking out the last link I included in my comment before this one. Read it and then decide which of us really wants to protect children.
I also see you gave no reply to the children being labeled sex offenders for life (I actually mentioned the 14 year old girl who was charged with child pornography for taking nude photos of herself-for her boyfriend) under these laws.
ReplyDeleteYou don't even know the issue or what its about, yet you start engaging in personal attacks, as if anyone who has a concern about how such laws are used against innocent people is on the side of child rapists.
Learn what the fuck you're talking about before you start typing, you lunatic!
You point to two examples, two cases that if you have the patience to let the justice system play out you will see they will likely serve little or no time. Were two lives inconvenienced?
ReplyDeleteOf course, but I have zero sympathy for the women who molested a 13 year old boy and got "life in prison." She will likely serve little or no time and get probation. It's too soon to tell as this case is still in court.
The 14 year old did commit a crime, and unless you're trying to encourage children to keep posting naked pictures of themselves, I don't understand the whole point of this argument. She has not been sentenced to any jail and will only have to register as a sex offender, which I think is a little much.
Quit defending pedophiles and instead suggest something constructive. You're Rand Pauling yourself into defending stupid ideas just because they coincide with your unworkable ideology.
The State is what's "unworkable", Ginx, and you and other statists have no moral ground to stand on (your whole position is completely arbitrary).
ReplyDeleteThanks for at least making an effort at addressing the points I made. It is not necessary to use ad hominem LIES to make your points.
When you write things like "Isn't there an 11 year old you should be luring into your van right about now?" you're just behaving like a common troll.
Were two lives inconvenienced?
ReplyDeleteIt's more than a mere "inconvenience" to be terrorized and threatened with a long prison sentence and the stigma of "sex offender" forever.
The 14 year old did commit a crime, and unless you're trying to encourage children to keep posting naked pictures of themselves, I don't understand the whole point of this argument.
Then get a brain if you don't understand. If you have no problem with a child being charged with possesion of child porn for having pictures of herself naked, you're more hopeless than I thought.
Some kids have been charged with similar "crimes" for just texting such images to each other.
I'm just glad I haven't learned to love Big Brother the way you have.
The laws are written because there are people doing horrible things. Judges and juries who ignore the individual circumstances of a case are to blame, just as imprecise wording or loopholes in the legislation are as well.
ReplyDeleteChildren cannot be allowed to produce pornography of themself. What interest is it of yours that child pornography exist and be legal in some circumstance? I know a 14 year old who takes a nude picture of themself should not be charged without the same crime and face the same punishment as an adult coercing a child into doing it. This is merely a problem with the imprecise nature of our system, not an indictment of government.
The thought experiment of anarchy is not a solution to anything. Anarchy exists like the moment "now" exists; it comes and it passes. Anarchy is ethereal. It is merely a power vacuum, one which is immediately filled by smaller power structures which have less oversight and a fresh feeling of empowerment that often leads to abuse. Anarchy has not been good to any nation who has been unfortunate enough to experience it.
What I suspect you are doing is trying to draw out a basic truth to its extreme conclusion: we live in a society bogged down by many senseless rules that have been useless for over a century, yet hinder our ability to progress. Maybe we need to wipe the legal slate clean, but it cannot (and will not) remain blank for long.
If the state was called "the corporation," would you salute? If it was called "the family" or "the south" or "Libertaria," would that make it better? A power structure by any other name will inevitablly cause undue harm in its pursuit to establish a working system. We need this system, because larger, democratically run systems result in less overall pain and suffering (despite your ridiculous faith in the contrary).
Do you believe people spontaneously do the right thing in all circumstances, without the need for any sort of impartial mediation between parties? If this were the human condition, I could imagine anarchy working.
I mean Jesus fucking Christ... you thought the girls dancing to Beyonce was creepy. You simply do not have the stomach for true anarchy, and I think you should just come to terms with the fact that you're a limited government libertarian. At least this is a sensible and defendable position, unlike anarchism... which makes me giggle and think of teenagers arguing over whether the Sex Pistols or the Ramones invented punk rock.