• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

So we've decided to beat unarmed cancer researchers to death.

jhmd2000 said:
Where do you think the fathers of the accused will sit during their trials?
Click to expand...

More than likely they're in prison. Statistically they're probably in prison due to drug related charges.

In order to promote family structure we should stop throwing kids parents in jail because they have a drug problem. We should instead try to help these people recover in drug rehabilitation centers where they can get healthy and contribute positively to their community and families. To me that would make an immediate impact on the family structure in the US.

I know it would work a whole hell of a lot better than cutting welfare and giving all the good guys guns.
 
Statistically speaking they're probably also in jail for a disproportionate amount of time based on sentencing structures when compared to teh whitez.
 
What's the matter with criminals in prison? While they are there, we are safe from them; and while they are there, we can try to rehabilitate them.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
The current prison system is a horrible way to "rehabilitate" criminals.
Click to expand...

True. Unfortunately, many people in prison lack even the most basic skills to be gainfully employed. They should not be discharged from prison until they acquire such skills because if they can't get a job, they will obviously go back to being criminals. Seems pretty obvious.
 
sailordeac said:
What's the matter with criminals in prison? While they are there, we are safe from them; and while they are there, we can try to rehabilitate them.
Click to expand...

There's no profit in rehabilitation. There's not much public will to treat criminals like human beings instead of caged animals. Watch John Oliver's take on prisons from two weeks ago. Nails it.

Here is an Atlantic piece showing how prisons cost more than college. One year of prison costs more than one year at Princeton.
http://m.theatlantic.com/national/a...costs-more-than-one-year-at-princeton/247629/

sailor, you think criminals don't get jobs because of skills? Criminals don't get hired for jobs because they're criminals especially if they're black. Plenty of research on this. Checking that box dooms someone for life.
 
Last edited:
There is a ton of profit in rehabilitation. After working with a lot of mental health providers in NC I'm positive that if the government were to expand rehab services in lieu of prison you would have the same issues fiscally. I agree it would have a better outcome for society but there would be just as many rent seekers charging the government an arm and a leg for their services.
 
PhDeac said:
sailor, you think criminals don't get jobs because of skills? Criminals don't get jobs because they're criminals especially if they're black.
Click to expand...

Sometimes you have to wonder which is worse in some employers' eyes: being black OR having a record.
 
94Deac said:
Sometimes you have to wonder which is worse in some employers' eyes: being black OR having a record.
Click to expand...

Read The Mark of a Criminal Record, a study by Devah Pager.
The first study was a large-scale experimental audit of employers in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. This study involved the use of four male auditors, two Blacks and two whites, who were paired by race. The pairs were matched on the basis of age, race, physical appearance, and general style of self-presentation. Education attainment and work experience were made similar for the purpose of the job applications. Within each team, one auditor was randomly assigned a "criminal record" for the first week; the pair then rotated regarding which member presented himself as the ex-offender for each successive week of employment searches, such that each auditor served in the criminal record condition for an equal number of cases. The audit pairs were randomly assigned 15 job openings each week. The auditors visited employers, filled out applications, and proceeded as far as they could during the course of one visit. If they were asked to interview on the spot, they did so, but they did not return to the employer for a second visit. The dependent variable was the proportion of applications that elicited call-backs from employers. The intent of this study was to determine the extent to which employers used information about criminal histories and race to screen out otherwise qualified job applicants. The results provided clear evidence for the significant impact of both a criminal record and race on employment opportunities; ex-offenders were one-half to one-third as likely to receive initial consideration from employers relative to equivalent applicants without criminal records. Findings also showed that Blacks without a criminal record fared no better, and perhaps worse, than did whites with criminal records. The second study involved a telephone survey of the same employers who were involved in the audit study, so as to obtain self-reported information about the considerations and concerns of employers in hiring entry-level workers, with a focus on employers' reactions to applicants with criminal backgrounds. The employers' self-reports significantly understated the barriers to entry-level employment faced by both Blacks and ex-offenders. A comparison of the audit findings and the survey responses of employers suggests that although employer surveys can provide useful information about the relative preferences of employers, researchers cannot assume that expressed employer preferences will translate into actual hiring behavior. These findings are particularly disturbing given that over half a million prisoners are released each year in America to face significant barriers to employment as they seek to build new lives. Extensive tables and figures and 252 references
 
Well, if we can't rehabilitate them, we can't keep them from endangering the public, we can't teach them basic skills, we can't force employers to hire them ... then apparently we can't do anything about crime. Three choices left: lock 'em up and throw away the key, just go ahead and shoot them, or simply continue with the current unhappy and counterproductive situation. Maybe we should bring back gladiator shows?
 
We CAN rehabilitate them, we just lack the will to do so...especially not as long as the cash keeps rolling in.
 
sailordeac said:
Well, if we can't rehabilitate them, we can't keep them from endangering the public, we can't teach them basic skills, we can't force employers to hire them ... then apparently we can't do anything about crime. Three choices left: lock 'em up and throw away the key, just go ahead and shoot them, or simply continue with the current unhappy and counterproductive situation. Maybe we should bring back gladiator shows?
Click to expand...

I would argue your first and third choices are basically the same.
 
Right. I have a long history of posts advocating that people be killed? The problem is more serious than your sarcasm meter. You need to master basic reading and comprehension. Of course, you could start by removing your ideological blinders. Naw better not. At this point, reality would be too much of a shock for you.

Run along now, and before posting again remember Harry's advice, "A man's got to know his limitations."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top