If it were up to you, what laws would you create?

[FunnyDuddies 6]

Ok...since we have broken away from the original intent of this thread, and are openly discussing this. Lets hear from the raving right wing religious fanatic.

Tired Old Man, you mentioned that illiterate folk are more likely to become criminals. This probably comes down to a few very specific points.

*Illiterates more than likely have no money because they cannot get a job. So they have to resort to crime to earn a living. Ok. I get that. Not a good thing, but I understand the cause and effect.

*Illiterates more than likely are illiterate because they did not attend the classes that they should have when they were children. Instead they were out hanging out with all the other losers more than likely getting into trouble, and raising hell, and starting their life of crime early. Once in that life, it is hard to get out of it. Ok. I get that too.

So it seems to me the second would actually be the cause for the first as well. Ok. So lets look at that closely. Kids not being in school when they are supposed to be. What causes this? Its not the teachers. The fact that schools don't have enough colored pencils. the fact that the band doesn't have enough drum sets and flutes. It has to do with no one enforcing that these kids have to be in school. And don't try and say "Well they just don't want to be there". No one wants to be in school when you are a kid. You don't really appreciate school until you get older. The accountability of the parents are not there. They are not forcing their kids to get into that school house every day. Truancy is not punished any longer. Security around campuses is so relaxed, it takes nothing to get out of class, or even the whole school day.

We can even go deeper and look at the serious offenders here. Lots of people will say "Most of them have no father's or come from drug addicted households." OKAY! Why are these people allowed to breed? Why are we not taking crack babies away from crack mothers? Why do we feel that rehabilitation of the mother will cure the problems with the child?

It seems to me there are a lot of things that could be done at the root of the problem. Like taking children from drug homes. Enforcing the truancy laws. Forcing these kids into school to make something of themselves. We can't sit back and let that continue to go on, and then try to put a bandaid on the pile of problems when they adults end up in prison for killing a family of 4 because they caught someone breaking into their house for a tv and a turkey sandwich. There is no rehabilitation at that point. You are a lost cause at that point. There is no Go. No 200 bucks. You kill someone...you die. You touch a kid, you spend the rest of your life in jail. You steal, you don't get a second chance. You spend a lot of time in prison.

I hate taxes, but I will gladly spend 50% of my hard earned paycheck to fund jails and prisons to hold all of these people. And lets start over and begin with the youth we have today. The rest are lost causes. We need to start from scratch, look at the root of the problem and try to fix the future.

Ok...let the flaming begin. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Wheetsin 714]

I hate taxes, but I will gladly spend 50% of my hard earned paycheck to fund jails and prisons to hold all of these people.

This is about what would have to happen, unless death penalties were tightened or sentences were greatly reduced. As I mentioned earlier, my father is an assistant warden. Fortunately he works in a minimum security facility -- people who have comitted minor crimes, people who are close to reaching the end of their sentences, etc. He may get a page because someone is on a hunger strike. However, I see the other end of the book because my uncle is the president of his union and is a guard captain at Leavenworth penitentiary. He may get a page because a guard was killed and his eyeballs were gouged out and another inmate was forced to eat them. Two totally different environments, and two totally different roles -- my father's being the administrator, and my uncle's being the enforcer.

It doesn't matter which scenario you're in -- right now any prison in any state could be rioted and taken over by the inmates at any time. In a best case scenario, the inmate:guard staffing is something like 7:1. In some cases it's over 20:1. If there weren't some element of inmate compliance in place, it would be relatively easy for a prison to lose control to its inmates. That's a big part of why prisons put so much money, effort, etc. into placating their inmates - they have to. At least the way prisons are structured right now, they way they are governed, etc.

So if nothing changed other than facilities, we'd need a heckuva lot more facilities to house people. If nothing changed other than policy (to the harsher side) we'd need -- what we have now, maybe a little fewer, but they could be staffed reasonably.

[JMO 0]

For all those who think that incarceration is much too easy on the convicts and that the convicts get things that they can't afford, I ask, "Why don't you commit a crime to take advantage of their easy life and benefits?"

That question does not even deserve an answer.

Do you think Christ would have wanted the most downtrodden of our society to be treated like animals? I believe in Love, compassion and forgiveness. I believe that is why Christ died on the cross. Do not only quote “an eye for and eye', try quoting some of the Beatitudes of Jesus.

I think our orginal disagreement was that I wanted stronger dealth penalties and you would like the guilty to get an education. I am not aware of any HUMANS being treated like animals unless they have acted like ANIMALS. And even then I don't know of any animals that have cages with tolets and sinks, along with a bed, three hot meals a day, ect ect

I also agree in love compassion and forgiveness, but that is not to say that I think there punishment should not equal the crime. If someone killed someone in my family, yes I would have to forgive them. (so I could live with myself) But I would still want them to pay for it with their lives.

This is a sore subject in my home but I am going to bring it up and ask for you to put your self in this position. A friends child was hurt in a way no child should ever be hurt. The man responsible was caught, confessed, and plead out for a lesser sentence by helping with another case that had nothing to do with the one he was guilty of. This man was let out of jail after 3 months, and put on probation for 3 years. This is just a small example of the problems in the system .. Let a child rapest out of jail? How many other children will this man harm.

I am happy for all of you that have shared your opinion on this subject (even if you felt different than I ) Again this is a law THAT I WOULd PASS!

[gadgetlady 4]

New Law: Anyone who reads the tabloids sold at supermarket checkout counters would forfeit their right to vote.

I've always believed one should have to pass either an IQ test or a test demonstrating basic knowledge of civics to vote.

Also, I don't know how this is in other states, but it California it is ILLEGAL for the polling place workers to ask for identification from the person trying to vote. So long as they know their name and address, they can sign in and vote. How difficult is it to get someone's name and address????????????????

[gadgetlady 4]

If I could make ONE law, it would be to make abortion illegal. I just abhor the killing of innocent children.

As an aside, everyone is harping on separation of church and state. There is no separation of church and state in the constitution. Those three words appear no where in the constitution.

The constitution says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof . . ."In other words, the government can't require people to join one religious sect over another, and it can't establish an official "state" religion. The purpose of the first amendment was not to disallow religion in the US, but rather to protect it. The whole thing was put into effect to protect the CHURCH from STATE interference, NOT the STATE from CHURCH interference!

[Wheetsin 714]

Who said it was part of the constitution? No one, that I saw, though I'll admit to not reading every post. Pesonally I *know* it isn't. There are a lot of applied legal concepts that are not in the constitution. Some common examples - the right to a fair trial, and the right to privacy.

[gadgetlady 4]

I don't believe there should be a right to privacy. I believe there is/should be a right to personal autonomy, but not privacy. Subtle distinction, but important.

[gadgetlady 4]

Actually, it says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." You can read that how you want, that's your right. But I read it as ANY establishment of religion, whether that be prayer in public schools or mentioning god in the pledge. No one is saying religion should be disallowed, but rather, that it should not be allowed to comingle with government. And you have no proof for saying that it is only to protect religion. It makes much more sense that it was put into effect to protect BOTH. You can have your beliefs, but they certainly aren't fact.

Actually, if you look at what the founding fathers SAID about it, you will find something entirely different. Look at the writings of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. It is from them that I glean my understanding of the first amendment, not from my own reasonings. The first amendment expressly states that the government shouldn't impede in religion, not vice-versa. And sorry I missed the word prohibiting; you are correct.

[FunnyDuddies 6]

The constitution may be a living document, but that does not mean that the ideals laid down in them change due to modern interpretation of the english language. It just means that we as a country have the ability to change it. It can be rewritten. But the original meanings of its ideals still should stand true as they were originally intended. You cannot take a document and interpret it in such a way to fit your thoughts and feelings or to suit your argument. You can simply take a document the way it is written and "glean your own understanding of it". Which by the way can be present or past tense. :Banane10:

The issue of seperation of church and state was actually originally brought up in a lawsuit of all things. Everson v. Board of Education in 1947 where some guy thought his taxes shouldn't go to bussing kids to his kids school and a christian private school. What the constitution actually guarantees us is that the govt will never put itself in a situation where it controls any part of our religion. It was written in a time when the founding fathers were running from the church of england. Of course...they would make one of the most important parts of the constitution the guarantee that such a governing body would never be formed again. Thats all. Just freedom of religion. It did not and does not state anywhere that religion would not have some sort of influence. Our base laws are formed on the basic teachings of most major religions. Don't kill, don't cheat, don't steal, don't harm, protect innocence, etc. Without religion you would not have most of these laws. Personally I like these laws :Banane09:

[nolagirl2 0]

Our base laws are formed on the basic teachings of most major religions. Don't kill, don't cheat, don't steal, don't harm, protect innocence, etc. Without religion you would not have most of these laws. Personally I like these laws

I don't think that's necessarily true. I would have some of them if I were to make my own society/laws (Don't kill, steal, or harm... I'm not quite sure what it means to not cheat or protect innocence....) Morality and religion aren't necessarily fused.

[FunnyDuddies 6]

I think that morality and spirituality are totally fused. Keep in mind I did not say religion. Lets take away the boundaries for a moment.

Who sets your morals without spirituality. You just want to be a good person? Who defines good? Where did you learn what "good" and "bad" is? Without a higher teaching from somewhere it could be completely ok to take from one because of your need. We have certainly seen that as God is removed from our govt and everyday lives more and more that it is becoming much more common place to take from the 'haves' to give to the 'have nots'.

To not cheat means to not deceive or lie. To not bare false witness. To not cause harm to someone in a non physical way. To protect inocence is to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Children, mental ill, the infirm, the aged. Keep them protected, and help guide them so that they do not bring harm onto themselves.

[Kat817 19]

Looks like I may have missed the "making your own laws", looks like the thread has changed a bit. However since I just got here, I am going to slip back that way a minute!!

I would like to see our laws changed concerning uninsured drivers. Having been hit by one, I take this personally!! I think we should all pay for our insurance at the gas pump. The more you drive, the more you pay. The bigger the gas guzzler you drive, the more damage you can do to whatever you hit, so the more you pay. These big trucks everyone wants to have their own roadways...there is the funding! I know gas costs a fortune ($3.14 a gallon here today) but most of us pay additionally by having insurance, and have to pay even more by buying uninsured motorists insurance so that some can skate by.

I also want to repeal a law!! I don't like the fact that they can ticket me for choosing not to wear my seatbelt. I fully support all children and minors being required. I faithfully buckle up, but feel it should be my CHOICE!!! If I am speeding down the road, I endanger others, so ticket me. If I am a moron, and choose to drive drunk, I am endangering others, so lock me up. But by opting not to wear a seatbelt, I only endanger myself. I see this as nothing other than revenue enhancement!

Ok, will let you guys get back to wherever you were wanting to go with this thread!!!

Kat

[Wheetsin 714]

I love watching the evolution of threads. It has the same trend as people getting together in a restaurant, getting lost in conversation, and 4 hours later when they realize how much time has passed they also realize that they've talked about everything from fashion to the cost of petunias to their favorite veterinarian.

Tougher DWI laws, like lose your license until you've been sober for a year... any more offenses and it's gone for good. Or something like that. I had two friends killed by drunk drivers at different times, and a family member who had over 7 DWI convictions. (My husband says, "Anyone caught DWI gets automatic involuntary manslaughter charges!")

Do away with the "other duties as assigned" stipulation!

I think automatic gratuity should be taken away. I fully understand why it's there, but so, so, sooo many times I've been part of a large group that received lackluster service, and we had no choice other than to tip them an even higher percentage that "standard".

Tougher punishment for hate crimes. There's too much hate in the world. It's still going to be there, but maybe people will quit thinking it's ok to act on.

Mandatory skinning, salt rub, and vinegar bath for "Reverend" Phelps and all of his ministry. Over and over again.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Ok...let the flaming begin. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I will not flame. I will discuss rationally and intelligently any topic that any member feels like discussing in a like manner. I will break off my end of the conversation as soon as anyone decides not to be civil. I see no reason why any member at this forum can not be civil.

Do you think Christ would have wanted the most downtrodden of our society to be treated like animals? I believe in Love, compassion and forgiveness. I believe that is why Christ died on the cross. Do not only quote "an eye for and eye", try quoting some of the Beatitudes of Jesus.

You're asking me this question? Or someone else?

As for "Why don't you commit a crime to take advantage of their easy life and benefits?" - because I don't need to.

I generally write to no one and everyone simultaneously. That question was not addressed to you.

Now back to my opinions on prisons.

As I said in an earlier post:

It is really a shame that the Massachusetts pilot program was terminated in the mid-1980's. If it wasn't we might have crime rates to compare between Massachusetts and the states with the harshest forms of incarceration.

I take note note though, that both politicians on the left and on the right (including Florida's Governor Jeb BuSh and other "Red-State" governors) have come out for rehabilitating criminals. The main difference is that the "Red-State" governors only believe rehabilitation is possible if Jesus Christ is part of the program. I find that almost amusing when one looks at the results of the Massachusetts program's success rate. Do the "Red-State" governors believe that a Christian education and vocational training is good for both the prisoners (and the public that they will be released back into), but a college education without Christ is bad? The results say differently.

Illiterates are most often illiterate, because they did not attend school and didn't pay attention when they did. They were also children when these transgression transpired, and many were brought up by people who were parents only in the ability to perform the sexual act. I am not saying that we should not hold them accountable for their crimes, which may have been avoided with proper parenting and proper nutrition, but I am saying to give them a second chance while doing their time. Many of the vicious attacks of criminals are caused by striking out in anger. Education and self-awareness care help relieve that anger. To not give them a second chance is to punish them twice for the sins and/or ineptness of their parents. The Massachusetts program let no one out of prison early for participating. Everyone paid his full legal debt to society.

Two pieces of Iron can be coiled in a circle. When the pressure is released, one piece may stay in the circular configuration that was formed by the pressure, but the other piece, because of a different alloy makeup will spring back in a violent reaction to the pressures previously exerted on it injuring everything in it's proximity. Analogously, by education, we have the ability to transform the inmates so that they can be molded into the Iron that is not going to spring back on us.

I find in amusing that we can tell convicts that they better behave or else, and yet we can not stop ourselves from destroying ourselves with food. We all have our problems. Maybe we should have as much compassion for others as we would like for our own faults. Before you say, "there is no comparison, because they hurt others", weren't we hurting our loved ones who feared for our health because of our overeating. I know that my wife, son, aunts, uncles, etc. were all fearful for my future because of my heart condition, diabetes, blood pressure, cholesterol, etc.

I am not crazy about paying taxes, but as the Massachusetts program proved, it will actually lower taxes to rehabilitate criminals. That is one of the arguments that the governors of the "Red-States" have been making, except that they want tax money to fund religious training.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

I would like to see our laws changed concerning uninsured drivers. Having been hit by one, I take this personally!! I think we should all pay for our insurance at the gas pump. The more you drive, the more you pay. The bigger the gas guzzler you drive, the more damage you can do to whatever you hit, so the more you pay. These big trucks everyone wants to have their own roadways...there is the funding! I know gas costs a fortune ($3.14 a gallon here today) but most of us pay additionally by having insurance, and have to pay even more by buying uninsured motorists insurance so that some can skate by.

I have been saying that for years. I wonder what the insurance lobby thinks about that?

I also want to repeal a law!! I don't like the fact that they can ticket me for choosing not to wear my seatbelt. I fully support all children and minors being required. I faithfully buckle up, but feel it should be my CHOICE!!! If I am speeding down the road, I endanger others, so ticket me. If I am a moron, and choose to drive drunk, I am endangering others, so lock me up. But by opting not to wear a seatbelt, I only endanger myself. I see this as nothing other than revenue enhancement!

Kat

This week, the quarterback of the Pittsburgh Steelers was badly injured when involved in a motorcycle accident with no helmet on. If he had been unable to continue his career or had become a paraplegic, his earnings from sports would have sustained him (and his fans probably would have contributed).

But for Joe Q. Average American, if he is seriously crippled by not wearing a seat-belt or motorcycle helmet, who do you think is going to take up the slack for his medical bills? It will either be increases in taxes, increases in medical insurance or increases in auto insurance rates. The American public will talk the talk about personal responsibility, but will not let them die.

The other good reason for seat-belt laws is that my grandchildren buckle-up without even thinking about it. It is as automatic as closing their car door.

The quarterback of the Pittsburgh Steelers was too macho to wear his motorcycle helmet, but he would never run one play in a football game without his football helmet. Why was he so macho about motorcycle helmets, but so compliant about football helmet? Training and tradition.