More like bribery; it’s not being demanded, it’s being offered.
America is not a high-crime nation, the reason for having the largest prison population in the world by a far margin is the superior efficiency in catching and incarcerating criminals.
The US has 7 times more prisoners per capita than Canada, assuming simmilar crime levels, the Canadian police and justice is obviously absolutely incompetent compared to their neighbours (those silly Mounties falling off their horses all the time is my guess). As must the UK counterpart be, which only manages a bit over a sixth of the US prison population.
Some (almost exclusively terrorists, communists and self-hating liberals) are a bit critical of this theory. They even go so far as to question that God favors USA, or that the USA can do no wrong. They (in typical propaganda style) point out that statistics and other ‘evidence’ doesn’t support the case of USA being a uniquely special country favored by God, and that it in some areas not only is NOT the best, but even quite behind comparable nations (note: these hippies tend to think that Industrialized Western Nations are ‘comparable’ rather than the more appropriate comparisons to countries such as North Korea, Uganda and Colombia).
The fact that the US has 25% of the prison population is good, and proves beyond reasonable doubt that the system is working. But real Americans should not be satisfied until 100% of Americans are in prison! Every criminal put behind bars make the world safer. The US is already the safest land in the world from external threat (spending 52% of the worlds military budgets), why shouldn’t we aspire to this level domesticall as well? If every person put in jail makes us a bit safer, why not aspire to putting everyone in jail?
This is why I propose a mandatory minimum sentencing of life imprisonment for all crimes, and that we criminalise all un-American activities. Such as pre-marital sex, marital sex, watching foreign films and voting for Democratic candidates.
They are like hemorrhoids. Facts you don’t like or that you find irritating are “factoids”.
Would you like some cream for that?
I thought factiods where (somewhat) commonly known “facts” that aren’t in fact, facts. Ie: they’re wrong, but resemble facts.
Found a definition:
something resembling a fact; unverified (often invented) information that is given credibility because it appeared in print
24 hour individual lock-up prevents crime - or do you think they all go on their best behaviour once jailed?
And I’ve always understood them to be facts that while true, were so trivial or useless (usually) that nobody really cared.
Factoids that are facts that are wrong but are “true” because they are in print is a relatively late development.
AFAIK “factoid” has always been a cute/stupid way of saying “here is a minor fact you might have not known”, not a “wink wink nudge nudge here is lie we are presenting as fact”. The phrase has been around for decades and I seriously doubt mainstream tv shows and papers were telling folks “here’s a neat little lie we thought you’d like to hear”. Yeah, they often do lie or mislead, but they don’t generally announce it right then and there.
Considering that the word “factoid” was only invented in 1973 by Norman Mailer to mean “facts which have no existence before appearing in a magazine or newspaper” I fail to see how it had your earlier meaning and was redefined.
Factoids aren’t the result of media intentionally lying or misleading or joking with “wink wink”, they are caused by the media screwing up or repeating a myth or misunderstanding something, which they repeat. Because the media repeat it, people start believing it’s a fact because the media are seen to be a legitimate source of factual information.
I remember seeing “factoids” being heralded in papers and tv. And what do you mean by “only” 1973? I said decades. I didnt say the word was used in the civil war era. What year is it now?
Norman Mailer may have meant one thing, but do you really think the mainstream media meant what Norman meant when they told you they had an interesting “factoid” to tell you? That its a fact that isnt true? That makes no damn sense.
What’s to stop me from taking the 30K and still committing crimes?
ISTM that people want more than that, even - perhaps especially - criminal types.
Regards,
Shodan
C’mon…the word rehabilitation looks a lot like retribution, doesn’t it? Same difference.
Are we just talking financial incentives? Or would the government be willing to provide me with a regular supply of prostitutes if I stated an intent to become a serial rapist?
It’s being offered by someone else, without your permission, in exchange for them not committing a threatened crime. From the government’s point of view, sure, it’s bribery. From the taxpayer’s it’s closer to extortion, with the government acting on behalf of the crook.
We, the tax payer, have to pay the $30k each and every year no matter what. It is our penance for living in a free and just society.
So we can either pay it at the end, after a crime has been committed, and provide food, shelter, and free health care to a criminal.
OR we could get creative with it and think about alternative ways to spend it. Just handing someone a cheque and asking for a promise seems rather flimsy, which is why I threw out some alternatives.
You joke, but providing prostitutes could actually work. I have no cite for this, but I remember hearing about a facility that did just that, to keep people with mental problems from exploding. The opportunity for regular sex has a remarkable affect on a person’s psyche.
The field of criminal justice spends a lot of time trying to figure out individuals that are at the highest risk for committing crimes. And for the most part I’m talking about pretty basic things like stealing cars, knocking over a convenience store, or muggings.
So take the stereotypical criminal, make some assumptions about his. Then ask yourself if $30,000 could delay his crime spree for a year. Because in the end that’s all we’re asking. If he commits the crime (and gets caught) we’re still out the $30,000, but we ALSO have the crime committed.
I think it’s quite obvious that just handing him the cash is the least effective method. At least I thought that was obvious.
However, if a government grant provided that guy with a good job, would he still be as likely to commit those crimes? Now he’s making money, meeting non-criminals, and has a disincentive to steel cars. Keep in mind that this is pretty much a one, maybe two, time fee. He gets an internship, something he might not have been able to get, and after a year or two of experience he’s fully employable on his own.
But if he had an opportunity to go to trade school would he still need the government funded job? This seems to cost even less than a year of full time work; trade school is usually 2 years, so use the remaining to make sure that in addition to tuition there is money to provide housing and a meal plan at school.
Of if a grant had been provided during highschool to make sure he didn’t drop out, would he still need a bursary for trade school? It’s possible that the $30,000 could actually help more than just one student. So instead of spending the $30k on that same kid in prison, spend that money on his school.
Or go back a bit further, what other factors in his life has a significant contribution to his life of crime? Where else could that $30k be applied to reduce his likelihood of becoming a criminal?
I first encountered the word “factoid” in 3-2-1 Contact Magazine, circa 1980. It referred to neat (true) little science facts.