From: (null pointer)@symphony.cc.purdue.edu (Dartanyan the Witchling)
Subject: Re: "Drugs" threaten democracy in former Soviet Union
Organization: Purdue UNiveniversityurdue UNiversityniversity
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 12:46:30 GMT

In article <62937@mimsy.umd.edu> tms@cs.umd.edu (Tom Swiss (not Swift, not Suiss, Swiss!)) writes:
>billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>>
>>: I think that for property crimes anyway, they should get time taken off
>>: only if and when they fully repay their victim for all damages (like
>>: half off).   Whether they get this money from making shoes in prison
>>: or by borrowing it all from a relative is not important.  Making the
>>: victim whole again financialy is the most important goal.
>>
>>Agreed.
>
>     Wonderful. A criminal justice system that discriminates even more
>between rich and poor. No thank you. 
>
	Is it just me, or does it also seem to others that if you focused
more on  making the PERPETRATOR financially whole when he got out of
prison would decrease repeat crime rates radically.
	I guess that, no matter how much Les Mis tours, people will still
not get the point that most people STEAL because the economy is too
FUCKED to let everybody have a reasonable chance at a decent life.  People
don't just rob banks for the hell of it, they do it because they NEED MONEY.
Maybe they need money because they are addicted to an illegal drug.
	If they decriminalized or even legalized the drugs, people would
need less money for them.  That might put a damper on that.
	Others mug or steal because they have to pay RENT.  If there were 
legal restrictions on how much landlords could charge for rent, or on how
zoning worked to  KEEP slums from forming rather than ENCOURAGING them to
form by just "dropping all those (snide voice) POOR PEOPLE into some less
noticeable neighborhood where we won't have to look at them."  And if 
there were LESS government restrictions (the need for special licensing,
getting a location in a correctly zoned area, etc...) on forming small
businesses, plus more FEDERAL AID to help these businesses get started
there might be more jobs and less need to spend as much on either LAW
ENFORCEMENT OR WELFARE.
	If the government needs more money to initiate any of this stuff,
simple...  TAX THE FUCKING CHURCHES.   Tax them all fairly, just like a
company and do not bias according to religion or denomination.  The local
southern baptists would pay the same amount as the moslem sanctuary, 
bahai temple, synagogue, or wiccan coven.  Give unto caesar what is caesars.
	Hell, that's how you could pay for the prisons.  Most religions
believe that "evildoers" should be rehabilitated, and they would just be
"donating" their moneys to help out their world.  In return, let them ditribute
their literature (all of them, no christian chauvinism, now) in the prisons
and talk with the prisoners freely.  Maybe if the prisoners leave with
SOMETHING to believe in (certainly not the government) they would have
half a chance.
	Besides, this might get some of those damn televengelists off TV.
	As far as work camps go, pay the rpisoners full fledged wages.
Not only might this get them used to earning their money AND give them
a reference (picture prison as a refernce... heh!) but they'd have money
when they got out and not be desperate and inclined to go rob a 7-11 as
soon as they leave.  They could get an apartmant and a car and go out looking
for a job.  Maybe even get a life.  Besides, actually having something to look 
forward to when they leave JUST MIGHT encourage them!
	This might make them feel human and get rid of (or tone down) the 
perpetual dog-eat-dog adolescent wet-dream society that usually thrives in
prisons.
	If you did take any off the top from their earnings, use it to pay
government sanctioned prostitutes to keep them happy at least once a month
so they don't get out as sexually frustated as most fundamentalist preachers
nowadays.  (the only problem with this is the possibility that some might
want in if they find that they CAN'T get it outside)
	It might also cut down on prison rape and STDs in prison, as the
slammerhookers would be tested, of course.
	(this last should apply equally to womens and mens prisons, reagrdless
of the possible supposition that only womens (or mens) were singled out in
this case.)
	On the other hand, for various reasons, refuse to allow prisoners to 
watch television.  They might not leave prison living as a SPECTATOR like 
most of the rest of this world.  Or they might just really want out to see 
some.
	And give them PETS.  If they learn to deal with animals, it's a start
at learning to deal with PEOPLE.

		Just my 2 shilling tirade.
						Sean 	
Newsgroups: alt.drugs