View Full Version : Harvard or Prison?
Ivan Seeking
Oct8-07, 03:02 AM
MR. RUSSERT:...How much does it cost to go to Harvard University for a year?
MR. KOPPEL: It’s, it’s like $43,200.
MR. RUSSERT: And how much does it cost to house a prisoner in the California penal system?
MR. KOPPEL: Forty-three thousand. However, when the, when they let you out on parole, they hand you $200 bucks. So I think it’s, I think it’s a dead wash.
...We have more people in prison in this country than any other nation in the world.[continued]
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21180419/page/5/
Should we then now think of an industrial way to dispose of this ressource-wasting ?
:biggrin:
Ivan Seeking
Oct8-07, 04:22 AM
Well, it would seem to justify sending one person to college for free, for every one kept out of prison. Now, if we could just send less people to prison. I wonder how we might manage that one?
I bet they don't do shiv making 101 at Harvard.
If Harvard could somehow find a legal loophole where it could be classified as a prison then everyone could go for free.
Well, it would seem to justify sending one person to college for free, for every one kept out of prison. Now, if we could just send less people to prison. I wonder how we might manage that one?
Gun control for starters.
Gun control for starters.
Last time I saw the figures, way more people were murdered with blunt instruments, like the handy chair or frying pan.
Lets just send all the criminals to Harvard!
Now, if we could just send less people to prison. I wonder how we might manage that one?Death penalty.
Jimmy Snyder
Oct8-07, 09:06 AM
Now, if we could just send less people to prison. I wonder how we might manage that one?
Fewer laws. I have posted this in the past. I propose the following law:
In order to pass a new law, two old laws must be taken off the books.
This would apply at all levels of government, federal, state, local, and forums. Of course, passage of my new law would require the retirement of two antiquated old ones. I recommend the laws against murder and theft as these have proven an impediment to the business community and an unwelcome intrusion into the private affairs of otherwise law-abiding citizens.
Fewer laws.
There are some song lyrics something to the affect; Laws, who needs them? Bad people don't follow them, good people don't need to be told what to do.
Fewer laws. I have posted this in the past. I propose the following law:
In order to pass a new law, two old laws must be taken off the books.
This would apply at all levels of government, federal, state, local, and forums. Of course, passage of my new law would require the retirement of two antiquated old ones. I recommend the laws against murder and theft as these have proven an impediment to the business community and an unwelcome intrusion into the private affairs of otherwise law-abiding citizens.
That's a bit silly. Even if you were to pass a constitutional amendment like that, all you'd get is congresscritters rolling together old law a, old law b, and new law c into new law d and voting on new law d. Also, eventually, the legislatures would run out of old laws to remove. Moreover, the practice of re-writing the older laws is questionable considering that a lot of the poorly thought out or less sensible law is modern.
There are a lot of people making money off of the huge US prison population. This is in the form of construction companies, for-profit private prisons, prison labor industries, prison food service companies, and, I'm sure, a whole slew of others. Meanwhile, there isn't nearly the same direct fiscal pressure to keep prison populations down since those costs end up as government debt, or part of the general fund.
While people like to blame mandatory sentencing minimums and excessive use of imprisonment for non-violent offenders, it's hard for me to look past the fiscal pressures as a root cause for overlarge prison population.
Jimmy Snyder
Oct8-07, 09:51 AM
Also, eventually, the legislatures would run out of old laws to remove.
That is my goal. The two to one ratio would eventually result in all laws being rolled up into a single law. That would make it mathematically impossible for any more laws to be passed. I predict that the form of this law to end all laws will be:
It shall be illegal to commit crimes.
That should hold us I think.
However, your comment about rolling old laws into new ones is something I hadn't foreseen. It is easily addressed.
1. Rather than retire two old laws under my new law, the two old laws would be rewritten so that previously enjoined activity would become legal. For instance, rather than simply repeal the following Arkansas law:
"No person shall be permitted under any pretext to come nearer then fifty feet of any door or window of any polling room from the opening of the polls until the certification of the returns."
it would be rewritten so that voting would become legal in that state. 755,539 people voted in that state in 2006. At $42,300 each, my plan would save us $32,639,284,800.00, enough money to build 40 Harvards. And I haven't even started with the laws against owning too many pets.
2. If an activity is deemed both legal and illegal, then legality would take precedence over illegality.
This is not really my opinion, but one could argue that seeing how it costs a lot to keep people in prison and the epidemic of diseases there, such as tuberculosis, it would actually be more humane to apply the death penalty as an act of mercy.
Jimmy Snyder
Oct8-07, 10:34 AM
Sorry, I got caught up in the moment. The topic of this thread is the problem that it costs no more to send your kid to a private institution in Massachusetts, than to a public one in California. I'm not sure how to solve it. Perhaps the $200 incentive bonus is too high, or maybe we should ask Harvard to raise their prices. After all, recidivism rates at Harvard are quite low compared to prison and this should be reflected in the price. I think that the implication of the Russert-Koppel (way rehearsed) exchange was that we should send the prison population to Harvard. This would be a mistake in my opinion, as we already have more white-collar crimes than we can handle now.
Ivan Seeking
Oct8-07, 11:15 AM
There are a lot of people making money off of the huge US prison population. This is in the form of construction companies, for-profit private prisons, prison labor industries, prison food service companies, and, I'm sure, a whole slew of others. Meanwhile, there isn't nearly the same direct fiscal pressure to keep prison populations down since those costs end up as government debt, or part of the general fund.
I guess prisons are good for a service economy.
rewebster
Oct8-07, 12:45 PM
Sorry, I got caught up in the moment. The topic of this thread is the problem that it costs no more to send your kid to a private institution in Massachusetts, than to a public one in California. I'm not sure how to solve it. Perhaps the $200 incentive bonus is too high, or maybe we should ask Harvard to raise their prices. After all, recidivism rates at Harvard are quite low compared to prison and this should be reflected in the price. I think that the implication of the Russert-Koppel (way rehearsed) exchange was that we should send the prison population to Harvard. This would be a mistake in my opinion, as we already have more white-collar crimes than we can handle now.
yeah--maybe----or maybe the other way around---a lot of lawyers come out of Harvard
Ivan Seeking
Oct8-07, 12:47 PM
Death penalty.
That seems unlikely. With the number of death sentences being reversed due to the fact that old DNA evidence can now be evaluated, it is clear that the justice system doesn't work and certainly can't be trusted. Besides, murder convictions account for less than 1% of those incarcerated annually. .
The death penalty does not need to be limited to convicted murderers . . .
Jimmy Snyder
Oct8-07, 12:55 PM
The death penalty does not need to be limited to convicted murderers . . .
I like your thinking, solve the overcrowding problems in our prisons and at Harvard in one shot.
The death penalty does not need to be limited to convicted murderers . . .Exactly. Studies show that a large percentage of criminals in prison started off with smaller crimes. I'm thinking death penalty for first offense misdemeanors.
I like your thinking, solve the overcrowding problems in our prisons and at Harvard in one shot.
Well, it would take many shots, but we get the idea. :wink:
rewebster
Oct8-07, 01:03 PM
Exactly. Studies show that a large percentage of criminals in prison started off with smaller crimes. I'm thinking death penalty for first offense misdemeanors.
I still think you gotten the bar to high----it should start with grammar and spelling mistakes.
I still think you gotten the bar to high----it should start with grammar and spelling misteaks.
Mmmm..... misteak.... *drool*
rewebster
Oct8-07, 01:15 PM
Mmmm..... misteak.... *drool*
how about a Miss Steak of the forum?
_______________
oh yeah--never mind--those go to Forum Feedback & Announcements
Ideally, anyone doing anything that upsets the current regime could be handled this way.
...
However, your comment about rolling old laws into new ones is something I hadn't foreseen. It is easily addressed.
...
Not really, the congresscritters are too sophisticated, and have too much discretion for anything like that to be practically enforceable.
There are far too many ways for the powers that be to circumvent things like this. The law can provide executive discretion - effectively the unilateral ability to make decisions about what's allowed - to a separate department. For example, the FCC can decide what it's going to allow to be broadcast independently of the legislature. Similarly, you could look into the 27th Amendment, which led the Congress to vote itself 'cost of living increases' rather than raises.
All one has to do to make the penal system work is to make the inmates work, a non profit making, or at least break even penal system is crazy.
Jimmy Snyder
Oct8-07, 02:30 PM
All one has to do to make the penal system work is to make the inmates work, a non profit making, or at least break even penal system is crazy.
Sounds like a plan. If you can't find a job, rob a bank. Only bungle it so you can get a job. It's a win-win situation.
All one has to do to make the penal system work is to make the inmates work, a non profit making, or at least break even penal system is crazy.
I'm afraid I have to go with having inmates fight two-on-two until one of them dies. It is much more humane and the government saves on electricity or chemicals. Also, this would enable us to start a betting game. Naturally, the matches would be settled before-hand to maximize government winnings.
Sounds like a plan. If you can't find a job, rob a bank. Only bungle it so you can get a job. It's a win-win situation.
That was my plan for retirement as the present system stands, but with a higher possibility of getting away Scot free.
Mallignamius
Oct8-07, 04:13 PM
jimmysnyder, how about a point system that legislature could be allotted to spend on each law they write. Say, 1 point for each word of a law, with 1000 points to spend. And bonus points awarded for especially effective laws and voter confidence.
Should come up with a spinner, too.
Huckleberry
Oct10-07, 06:16 AM
Yeah, kill off all them lousy pot smokers and jay walkers. That will make this a much better nation. The good news is that your prison population will decline. The bad news is that your murder rate will drastically increase. But at least it might save a few dollars.
Yeah, kill off all them lousy pot smokers and jay walkers. That will make this a much better nation. The good news is that your prison population will decline. The bad news is that your murder rate will drastically increase. But at least it might save a few dollars.Now wait a minute, are you saying that pot smokers and jay walkers prevent murder? :bugeye:
Jimmy Snyder
Oct10-07, 11:28 AM
Now wait a minute, are you saying that pot smokers and jay walkers prevent murder? :bugeye:
If you killed off the jay-walkers in Phila., there wouldn't be anyone left except murderers. The murder rate would go way up, but only for a short while. After that it would be peace and quiet. I'm in.
Perhaps this is why the prisons are full
(AP) A Missouri man could potentially face a 30-year prison sentence for stealing a doughnut from a store. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/07/national/main3340068.shtml
Maybe he should just be executed instead :uhh:
Perhaps this is why the prisons are full
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/07/national/main3340068.shtml
Maybe he should just be executed instead :uhh:Based on prior arrests, it's definitely a death sentence.
People are missing the point. It is not about the doughnut.
County Prosecutor Wendy Wexler Horn
minorwork
Oct10-07, 12:30 PM
My father when asked if he thought OJ Simpson was guilty responded, "I think it's a shame what it costs to prove your innocence these days."
Get rid of victimless crimes.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.