|
| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
last time here
Guest
|
i be keepin' a thesaurus and a dictionary at da keyboard..  |
_________________
Guest post |
|
Fri Feb 22, 2008 6:44 pm |
|
|
Ted Jankowski
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
two tap, that was one of the most information posts I've seen, thanks for supporting my point. COMPLEX MODEL.
Demeralda, I’m sorry. I read the whole article and I don’t see what it was in it that agreed with anything that you said? Could you point it out to me?
quote:
One of the more ignorant comments I've seen lately is in this thread:
The community doesn't want criminals to go to jail?
COME ON!!!!!
Really, Do you read the flint Journal at all? You’ve never heard people say that we need to “find something for these people to do and not just put them in jail”? Who are the people they are talking about? Simply put they are the criminals. Many officials can be quoted for saying much the same things in different ways. Essentially, they are all saying the same thing. They don’t want to build a jail because “They don’t want to just lock people up”. Again we are not talking about honest citizens. We are talking about criminals.
quote:
There is a relationship between unemployment, poverty and crime. No one knows exactly what it is, but it seems common sensical that people who have money are less likely to pull a stick up; that people who have something going for them are more likely to consider the consequences of a criminal act.
OK, did you read the article. We know that there is no relationship between unemployment and poverty being a cause of crime. The article made a very compelling argument about the break down of the family. Let me point out some of the ideas.
For example this article went as far as to call the idea of “poverty is the primary cause of crime” and being absurd! It even pointed out that those living the most in poverty in California had the least amount in prison.
quote:
The central proposition in official Washington's thinking about crime is that poverty is the primary cause of crime. In its simplest form, this contention is absurd; if it were true, there would have been more crime in the past, when more people were poorer. And in poorer nations, the crime rates would be higher than in the United States. More significantly, history defies the assumption that deteriorating economic circumstances breed crime (and improving conditions reduce it). Instead, America's crime rate gradually rose during the long period of real economic growth: 1905 to 1933. As the Great Depression set in and incomes dropped, the crime rate also dropped. It rose again between 1965 and 1974 when incomes rose steadily. Most recently, during the recession of 1982, there was a slight dip in crime, not an increase.
What is true of the general population is also true of black Americans. For example, between 1950 and 1974 black income in Philadelphia almost doubled, and homicides more than doubled. Even the Reverend Jesse Jackson, whose prescriptions for social reform mirror conventional liberal ideology, admits that black-on-black homicide is not an issue of poverty. The crime rate in other communities also shows no link between low incomes and crime. The Chinese in San Francisco in the mid- 1960s, for instance, had the lowest family income of any ethnic group (less than $4,000 per year) but next to no crime: only 5 Chinese in all of California were then in prison.
The article further went on to prove, that criminal behavior can be passed on generation to generation. Something I’ve believed but have not talked about on here. I should have something on my website mentioning this in one of my articles. I haven’t been doing too good of a job getting to this point. I can’t even get a consensus on things that are common knowledge about this area.
One of my points relates to this below:
quote:
Tragically for these communities, single-parent neighborhoods tend to be high-crime neighborhoods. Researchers long ago observed that violent crime, among both teenagers and adults, is concentrated most heavily in urban neighborhoods characterized by a very high proportion of single- parent families. More recent figures indicate the illegitimate birth rate in many urban neighborhoods is a staggering 80 percent. And today's researchers, like those before them, find that a neighborhood composed mainly of single-parent families invariably is a chaotic, crime-ridden community in which assaults are high and the gang -- " the delinquent subcommunity"-- assumes control. In these chaotic conditions, parental supervision of adolescent and pre-adolescent children is almost impossible. In turn, children living in these neighborhoods are more likely to learn, accept, and use physical violence to satisfy their wants and needs.
This is one of the things I wanted to point out about how government keeps control through chaos. By putting all these families in “Urban Housing Developments” Lovingly called “The Projects”. Government feeds the criminal behavior putting more people in the same condition to network? Read the article!
quote:
A high concentration of broken families without husbands and fathers is the danger signal for future crime.
See these are not my arguments. I figured some out on my own. But, much smarter people than I have a better grasp.
Now that you’ve put a concentrated group of “at risk of becoming criminals” young people into a small area. They will gravitate to others of the same mindset. Government would call this the “unintended consequences’ of trying to help these people. When what they did was create a breading ground. That sounds harsh. And here I may be going out on a limb a bit. But I believe that during the 60’s. Our elected officials knew this would happen! I could go on for hours about this subject. I will be doing some shows on this topic.
quote:
In the company of their peers, future criminals gradually learn to exploit the people of their own community, a community to which they feel no responsibility or obligation. For these boys, increasingly involved with delinquent companions, their lives tend to become insulated from the weakening influence of their families. Continued weakness in parental supervision, monitoring, and control invariably escalates the conflict at home, and this increasing conflict and related family problems cause these children to deepen their affiliation with delinquent groups, the only class of people likely to welcome them "with a place to belong to." While the children continue their aggressive, hostile, and violent ways, their behavior also increasingly repels normal, non-aggressive people. They grow more familiar and at ease with their delinquent peers. Dropping out of school is a natural development.
This is also a reason I believe. That if we can fix the school system. We can while in school educate these “at risk” type young people. We may have a chance at saving them before they ever commit their first crime.
But, here, the education system shouldn’t be raising our children. So how do we address the problem of poor parenting or single parenting. Again, a topic I’ve covered in detail on a couple of shows.
Why am I such a proponent of Flint having it’s own jail that can house criminals long term and just a large if not bigger than the County’s?? Hmmm part of it is explained below.
quote:
As a result of the low arrest rate for criminals, even the alarming official crime figures do not give policymakers a true picture of what is happening in high-crime communities. According to Dunford and Elliott, 93 percent of those committing between 100 and 200 offenses between 1976 and 1978 were not arrested, while 81 percent of the youth responsible for more than 200 offenses during the same two-year period were not arrested. Explains Dunford: "These data suggest that only those at the extreme have any risk of arrest, and even that risk is not high. It appears that the volume of crime committed by these youth may be such that arrest is a function of chance alone. The police may, figuratively, be stumbling over them. The likelihood of arrest is close to zero until one reports in excess of 100 total offenses." Elsewhere in the same study, Dunford reports: "Of the 242 [career criminals] 86 percent had no record of arrest. In other words, the overwhelming majority of self-reported career offenders were never arrested during a three year period when they were involved in very frequent and serious criminal offenses."
The Majority of the crime is committed by a minority of the population in a community. (for those about to call me racist, I’m not saying minority as a race, I’m talking minority as a small group. This is for those who are a bit slower than others at figuring out what I’m talking about.) THIS IS WHY CRIME IS DOWN IN FLINT RIGHT NOW! Flint opened the jail. They began arresting criminals and getting them into the system and off the street. Pretty simple logic.
What I see is that when law enforcement has to intervene. The sooner they can discourage criminal behavior, the longer lasting the effectiveness of their actions. On a board basis, it is governmental parenting. Teaching them, that there are consequences for bad behavior. Something, that this article did an excellent job of defending, “the break down of the family”. Without a dominant authority figure; Government ends up taking on the role. Sad but true. Thus discipline should be quick. If the young people learn that when they finally get caught all’s that happens is a slap on the wrist; there is no consequences for their actions. They will keep increasing in not only the amount of criminal activity they commit on a daily or weekly basis. They will also continue to increase in the severity of the crime as the system as we know it now allows them to get away with it. The father in a family is the “Stop gap” measure for guidance in “Crime and Punishment” (grin) only on a family level and not governmental.
The difference I see is that in the family it is not just the father who is the authority but also has the responsibility to the family. Thus discipline by him is a responsibility to be done properly. Discipline by government is to protect the innocent. To protect and serve. Not for the criminals own good. Hopefully you can pick out what I’m trying to say here. But below is a excellent example. The father and mother discipline for the child’s own good. So that they grow up and respect others, behave in public, understand right and wrong.
quote:
Absence of a Father's Authority and Discipline. The dominant role of fathers in preventing delinquency is well-established. Over forty years ago, this phenomenon was highlighted in the classic studies of the causes of delinquency by Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck of Harvard University. They described in academic terms what many children hear their mothers so often say: "Wait till your father gets home!" In a well-functioning family, the very presence of the father embodies authority, an authority conveyed through his daily involvement in family life. This paternal authority is critical to the prevention of psychopathology and delinquency.
Oh and I did want to talk about minutia. Minutiae, precise details; small or trifling matters. Sorry, I never took Latin and it is actually a word I had never looked up to ever spell in any article. While I have heard and used it many times, I guess I’m just a complete idiot for being 40 years old and never have had to write it down. But, it seemed the best word to use. Since I do most of my posts in 1 to 5 minute sections at work I don’t always proof everything. So, My apologies for offending the English and Latin languages.
Jw’s is a karaoke bar on Dort hwy on Flint’s Eastside. |
|
|
|
Sat Feb 23, 2008 7:55 pm |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
And mandated sentencing guidelines are the WORST idea ever hatched by anyone.
What??? Are you saying that having mandatory sentences for commiting a felony with a firearm is a bad idea. How about felony murder? What about child molesters? Giving some whacko judge the option of turning some pervert loose back into society should be an option?  How many times do we have to hear about some heinouis crime being commited by some pervert who was given one more slap on the wrist from some activist judge who wants to give em one more chance because they may have had a rough childhood? Jessicas Law is a good example of mandatory sentencing guide lines that need to be nation wide but of course we have several "Enlightened" States" that refuse to implement it and actually have sanctuary zones for these guys to hide out in. Illinois, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Jersey, Hawaii, Vermont and of course Massachusetts
Here are just a few of the more egregious examples:
In Rhode Island, 18-year-old Josh Maciorski was convicted of having sex with a 13-year-old girl, but sentenced to probation. Two years later he molested a 14-year-old girl and served just one year. Then, when he got out, Maciorski raped a 16-year-old girl. His sentence after this third strike - an unbelievable three years in prison.
In Missouri, 19-year old Darrell Jackson pleaded guilty to repeatedly sexually abusing a little girl, beginning she was just eight. But when Jackson came up for sentencing, a soft judge gave him four months in prison and five years probation.
In Minnesota, Joseph Duncan stood in front of a judge, accused of molesting a young boy. Despite the fact that Duncan had previously served 16 years for raping another young boy at gunpoint, the judge released him on just $15,000 bail. Duncan promptly skipped bail and headed for Idaho, where he allegedly kidnapped, raped, and killed a 9-year old boy, molested his sister, and killed their family.
Jessicas law
Ensure that all child molesters who molest children under the age of 14 are put into a prison with a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years or 25 years to life. Closes all loopholes in California’s “one-strike” laws.
Eliminate all “good-time” credits for sex offenders ensuring that these sex offenders are required to serve their entire sentence and will not be released for good behavior.
Electronically monitor convicted sex offenders for life, if they are ever released from prison, through GPS tracking.
Create a 2,000 foot “predator-free” zone around schools and park to prevent sex offenders from living near where our children learn and play. |
|
|
|
Mon Feb 25, 2008 9:13 am |
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
