CAN HAPPEN ANYWHERE

[root]

Root, there sure is a lot of information out there on Google. I found this:

Conversely, Prentky, Lee, Knight, and Cerce (1997) found that over a 25-year period, child molesters had higher rates of reoffense than rapists. In this study, recidivism was operationalized as a failure rate and calculated as the proportion of individuals who were rearrested using survival analysis (which takes into account the amount of time each offender has been at risk in the community). Results show that over longer periods of time, child molesters have a higher failure rate—thus, a higher rate of rearrest—than rapists (52 percent versus 39 percent over 25 years).

http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.html

Actually I was referring to this statement:

“Violent offenders should be removed forever. The rate of recidivism is high for these people and we are only giving them second chances upon release.”

This implies that violent offenders have a higher rate of recidivism than non-violent offenders. The study that I quoted from shows the opposite. I did look for others but mostly what I found where studies that used a very limited geography or were more opinion pieces based on isolated incidences than factual studies.

I think that it could be the case that the perception that violent offenders having a high rate of recidivism is caused by the media sensationalizing the cases where there is violent recidivism. Then politicians play on these stories in an effort to garner the “get tough on crime” vote. Then laws are passed to increase punishment, regardless whether there are any facts concerning the effectiveness of rehab. or that the increased punishments actually reduce recidivism.

I don’t mean any disrespect to the victims or yourself. Of course any cases of violent crime, whether it is a case of recidivism or not are regrettable and we should take prudent action to avoid them. My request is for factual information to clarify whether the reality is different from the perception.

[Queue]

Root, there sure is a lot of information out there on Google. I found this:

Conversely, Prentky, Lee, Knight, and Cerce (1997) found that over a 25-year period, child molesters had higher rates of reoffense than rapists. In this study, recidivism was operationalized as a failure rate and calculated as the proportion of individuals who were rearrested using survival analysis (which takes into account the amount of time each offender has been at risk in the community). Results show that over longer periods of time, child molesters have a higher failure rate—thus, a higher rate of rearrest—than rapists (52 percent versus 39 percent over 25 years).

http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.html

Actually I was referring to this statement:

“Violent offenders should be removed forever. The rate of recidivism is high for these people and we are only giving them second chances upon release.”

This implies that violent offenders have a higher rate of recidivism than non-violent offenders. The study that I quoted from shows the opposite. I did look for others but mostly what I found where studies that used a very limited geography or were more opinion pieces based on isolated incidences than factual studies.

I think that it could be the case that the perception that violent offenders having a high rate of recidivism is caused by the media sensationalizing the cases where there is violent recidivism. Then politicians play on these stories in an effort to garner the “get tough on crime” vote. Then laws are passed to increase punishment, regardless whether there are any facts concerning the effectiveness of rehab. or that the increased punishments actually reduce recidivism.

I don’t mean any disrespect to the victims or yourself. Of course any cases of violent crime, whether it is a case of recidivism or not are regrettable and we should take prudent action to avoid them. My request is for factual information to clarify whether the reality is different from the perception.

I could speculate forever on this topic. Repeat burglars have more time to repeat (more time out) than somebody that serves ten or more years. Violent offenders spend more time in jail. Then, you have the violent crime itself ... which can differ from felony to felony. For example, murder vs. manslaughter and the list goes on and on. Then there is the numerous types of non-violent crime (drugs?) and we've got so many types ... I'm afraid recidivism cannot be compared so broadly.

I'll bet we all agree it is too high. If so, the sliding scale of what we do about it opens up a million more speculations. I remain confused!

[WKYonc]

Root, there sure is a lot of information out there on Google. I found this:

Conversely, Prentky, Lee, Knight, and Cerce (1997) found that over a 25-year period, child molesters had higher rates of reoffense than rapists. In this study, recidivism was operationalized as a failure rate and calculated as the proportion of individuals who were rearrested using survival analysis (which takes into account the amount of time each offender has been at risk in the community). Results show that over longer periods of time, child molesters have a higher failure rate—thus, a higher rate of rearrest—than rapists (52 percent versus 39 percent over 25 years).

http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.html

Actually I was referring to this statement:

“Violent offenders should be removed forever. The rate of recidivism is high for these people and we are only giving them second chances upon release.”

This implies that violent offenders have a higher rate of recidivism than non-violent offenders. The study that I quoted from shows the opposite. I did look for others but mostly what I found where studies that used a very limited geography or were more opinion pieces based on isolated incidences than factual studies.

I think that it could be the case that the perception that violent offenders having a high rate of recidivism is caused by the media sensationalizing the cases where there is violent recidivism. Then politicians play on these stories in an effort to garner the “get tough on crime” vote. Then laws are passed to increase punishment, regardless whether there are any facts concerning the effectiveness of rehab. or that the increased punishments actually reduce recidivism.

I don’t mean any disrespect to the victims or yourself. Of course any cases of violent crime, whether it is a case of recidivism or not are regrettable and we should take prudent action to avoid them. My request is for factual information to clarify whether the reality is different from the perception.

I could speculate forever on this topic. Repeat burglars have more time to repeat (more time out) than somebody that serves ten or more years. Violent offenders spend more time in jail. Then, you have the violent crime itself ... which can differ from felony to felony. For example, murder vs. manslaughter and the list goes on and on. Then there is the numerous types of non-violent crime (drugs?) and we've got so many types ... I'm afraid recidivism cannot be compared so broadly.

I'll bet we all agree it is too high. If so, the sliding scale of what we do about it opens up a million more speculations. I remain confused!

Of course you remain confused. You have yet to check with me.
Recidivism be damned. It cost's lots of money to keep them locked up.
I'm in favor of holding only folks who have hurt other people. And I'd keep them as long as possible in substandard conditions.
Also I think we should have only one penitentiary. A BIG one. In Nebraska. And if your momma can't afford to come visit, tough. Don't do the crime.
Easy for me to say. I've never been caught.

[root]

Would anyone care to address the data presented in the study I posted that seems to run contrary to the commonly held belief concerning recidivism of at least two types of violent offenders (rapists and murders)?

Cases where commonly held beliefs run contrary to reality are interesting to me as I wonder what the “root” cause of the misperception is. In this case I am currently suspecting the sensationalizing by the media, and the “issue playing” of politicians looking for votes.

And geez Wonky, for someone who talks of using violence to express your disagreement with others opinions (“You wouldn’t say that to me in person and remain standing” stuff) would you wish long term incarceration for violent behavior of the type of violence assault you seem to advocate from time to time?

[root]

Root, there sure is a lot of information out there on Google. I found this:

Conversely, Prentky, Lee, Knight, and Cerce (1997) found that over a 25-year period, child molesters had higher rates of reoffense than rapists. In this study, recidivism was operationalized as a failure rate and calculated as the proportion of individuals who were rearrested using survival analysis (which takes into account the amount of time each offender has been at risk in the community). Results show that over longer periods of time, child molesters have a higher failure rate—thus, a higher rate of rearrest—than rapists (52 percent versus 39 percent over 25 years).

http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.html

Actually I was referring to this statement:

“Violent offenders should be removed forever. The rate of recidivism is high for these people and we are only giving them second chances upon release.”

This implies that violent offenders have a higher rate of recidivism than non-violent offenders. The study that I quoted from shows the opposite. I did look for others but mostly what I found where studies that used a very limited geography or were more opinion pieces based on isolated incidences than factual studies.

I think that it could be the case that the perception that violent offenders having a high rate of recidivism is caused by the media sensationalizing the cases where there is violent recidivism. Then politicians play on these stories in an effort to garner the “get tough on crime” vote. Then laws are passed to increase punishment, regardless whether there are any facts concerning the effectiveness of rehab. or that the increased punishments actually reduce recidivism.

I don’t mean any disrespect to the victims or yourself. Of course any cases of violent crime, whether it is a case of recidivism or not are regrettable and we should take prudent action to avoid them. My request is for factual information to clarify whether the reality is different from the perception.

I could speculate forever on this topic. Repeat burglars have more time to repeat (more time out) than somebody that serves ten or more years. Violent offenders spend more time in jail. Then, you have the violent crime itself ... which can differ from felony to felony. For example, murder vs. manslaughter and the list goes on and on. Then there is the numerous types of non-violent crime (drugs?) and we've got so many types ... I'm afraid recidivism cannot be compared so broadly.

I'll bet we all agree it is too high. If so, the sliding scale of what we do about it opens up a million more speculations. I remain confused!

I'm sure you noted that in the study I quoted, the time frame was the same for rapists and murders as that for non-violent criminals.

[TennisMom]

Root, there sure is a lot of information out there on Google. I found this:

Conversely, Prentky, Lee, Knight, and Cerce (1997) found that over a 25-year period, child molesters had higher rates of reoffense than rapists. In this study, recidivism was operationalized as a failure rate and calculated as the proportion of individuals who were rearrested using survival analysis (which takes into account the amount of time each offender has been at risk in the community). Results show that over longer periods of time, child molesters have a higher failure rate—thus, a higher rate of rearrest—than rapists (52 percent versus 39 percent over 25 years).

http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.html

Actually I was referring to this statement:

“Violent offenders should be removed forever. The rate of recidivism is high for these people and we are only giving them second chances upon release.”

This implies that violent offenders have a higher rate of recidivism than non-violent offenders. The study that I quoted from shows the opposite. I did look for others but mostly what I found where studies that used a very limited geography or were more opinion pieces based on isolated incidences than factual studies.

I think that it could be the case that the perception that violent offenders having a high rate of recidivism is caused by the media sensationalizing the cases where there is violent recidivism. Then politicians play on these stories in an effort to garner the “get tough on crime” vote. Then laws are passed to increase punishment, regardless whether there are any facts concerning the effectiveness of rehab. or that the increased punishments actually reduce recidivism.

I don’t mean any disrespect to the victims or yourself. Of course any cases of violent crime, whether it is a case of recidivism or not are regrettable and we should take prudent action to avoid them. My request is for factual information to clarify whether the reality is different from the perception.

Point taken, Root.

[soccermom]

But the tragic part is that it could have been preventable if our liberal judges and lawyers would give a rats ass and keep these violent offenders behind bars where they should have to rot away the rest of their lives.

I am not sure whether to laugh or scream at this statement! It would be funny if the ignorance behind it wasn't so prevalent among conservatives. Let me remind you about the simple facts of the criminal/judicial system. Keeping prisoners behind bars costs money. Where does that money come from? Taxes! Who doesn't want to pay taxes? Conservatives! Programs and psychological help required to reform criminals costs money. Where does that money come from? Taxes! Who doesn't want to pay taxes? Conservatives! Most adult criminals show signs of their behavior as juveniles. Juveniles are much more amenable than adults. Teachers are likely to recognize these traits in juveniles, but it takes money to deal appropriately with the juvenile once identified. Where does that money come from? Taxes! Who doesn't want to pay taxes? You guessed it...conservatives!!!

It is more plausible that a sexist conservative judge is to blame...she was probably wearing something seductive after all

FYI~I was a juvenile PO for 12 years. There are viable programs out there and very knowledgeable people who could rehabilitate youth that show criminal tendencies. What is lacking is money or a health care system to pay for the services. Taxes and insurance...once again...conservatives!

[bbqboy]

Hi SM, glad to see you appear out of the skies.

[tvguy]

But the tragic part is that it could have been preventable if our liberal judges and lawyers would give a rats ass and keep these violent offenders behind bars where they should have to rot away the rest of their lives.

I am not sure whether to laugh or scream at this statement! It would be funny if the ignorance behind it wasn't so prevalent among conservatives. Let me remind you about the simple facts of the criminal/judicial system. Keeping prisoners behind bars costs money. Where does that money come from? Taxes! Who doesn't want to pay taxes? Conservatives! Programs and psychological help required to reform criminals costs money. Where does that money come from? Taxes! Who doesn't want to pay taxes? Conservatives! Most adult criminals show signs of their behavior as juveniles. Juveniles are much more amenable than adults. Teachers are likely to recognize these traits in juveniles, but it takes money to deal appropriately with the juvenile once identified. Where does that money come from? Taxes! Who doesn't want to pay taxes? You guessed it...conservatives!!!

It is more plausible that a sexist conservative judge is to blame...she was probably wearing something seductive after all

FYI~I was a juvenile PO for 12 years. There are viable programs out there and very knowledgeable people who could rehabilitate youth that show criminal tendencies. What is lacking is money or a health care system to pay for the services. Taxes and insurance...once again...conservatives!

Nice post

[Prospero]

Well, this did not really enlighten much. It shows the DA was reluctant to prosecute to the full extent. Let me assure you, the DA does not choose to forgo or lessen prosecution out of some misguided and unholy virtue of liberalism. There are other reasons. And all are self serving to the DA's office. How it reflects on them, how their wins vs loses looks, what their chances of a case being thrown out are as opposed to a minimal win...this is not liberalism. DA's offices are notoriously self serving. And why? Because it's not about you, or the victim. It's about politics. Not liberal or conservative, but survival as an entity and showing proof of value. If you ever have the bad fortune to know anyone entwined in the clutches of the DA's office, you will see what a serpentine and duplicitous operation they truly are. Perry Mason they are not.

A breath of reality. How much of our criminal justice is ever centered on truth?

In the Judge Dee mysteries of Robert van Gulik, set in ancient China, the title character is a government functionary that has no parallel in our society, as his job is to find out the truth in criminal cases. He comprises the principal investigator, the attorneys for the prosecution and the defense, and the judge, all rolled into one.

In an ideal world, where crime would be dealt with a la Judge Dee, but using the amazing technical resources celebrated on the various "CSI" shows, the solution would be simple: round up everyone found guilty of damaging other people -- either physically (murder, rape, abuse) or financially (burglary, robbery, vandalism, fraud, identity theft, arson, etc.) -- and send them (in emulation of the old British method of transportation to Australia) on a one-way trip to the moon.

[orygunluvr]

But the tragic part is that it could have been preventable if our liberal judges and lawyers would give a rats ass and keep these violent offenders behind bars where they should have to rot away the rest of their lives.

I am not sure whether to laugh or scream at this statement! It would be funny if the ignorance behind it wasn't so prevalent among conservatives. Let me remind you about the simple facts of the criminal/judicial system. Keeping prisoners behind bars costs money. Where does that money come from? Taxes! Who doesn't want to pay taxes? Conservatives! Programs and psychological help required to reform criminals costs money. Where does that money come from? Taxes! Who doesn't want to pay taxes? Conservatives! Most adult criminals show signs of their behavior as juveniles. Juveniles are much more amenable than adults. Teachers are likely to recognize these traits in juveniles, but it takes money to deal appropriately with the juvenile once identified. Where does that money come from? Taxes! Who doesn't want to pay taxes? You guessed it...conservatives!!!

It is more plausible that a sexist conservative judge is to blame...she was probably wearing something seductive after all

FYI~I was a juvenile PO for 12 years. There are viable programs out there and very knowledgeable people who could rehabilitate youth that show criminal tendencies. What is lacking is money or a health care system to pay for the services. Taxes and insurance...once again...conservatives!

Since I don't know the political leanings of the judge that gave this guy a light sentence against the recommendations of the professionals that evaluated him, I won't say one way or the other. What I do know is that conservatives are fighting right now in San Diego county to unseat several judges because of being to soft on crime. Seems this case, as well as the other body that was just found, might seal their fate.

As far as the taxes, and who pays. WE ALL PAY, NO MATTER WHAT POLITICAL PARTY WE LAY CLAIM TO. Maybe if Nancy Pelosi hadn't of targeted 30 MILLION dollars for some rodent, it could have been put to better use. Maybe if Barbara Boxer wasn't so intent on taxing Californians to death to cover the 20% of the states budget for supporting ILLEGAL ALIENS, the money could be put to better use. I bet if these 2 issues alone were addressed business would return to California, and with that tax revenue would increase. These 2 ladies :spit: just happen to be DEMOCRATS.

So as a good lib you are an advocate for profiling?

[Tia]

To be quite truthful, I don't understand the foot scuffing and balking on the issues here. If offenders are truly violent and repeat offenders, what are we waiting for? Castration. Chemical, or physical, and a Clockwork Orange type of treatment and now let's move on and get these lesser criminals moving on to more productive rehabilitation and get things working better. Get your Conservative judges and Lawyers to get that in and let's get going.

[Queue]

I'm sure you noted that in the study I quoted, the time frame was the same for rapists and murders as that for non-violent criminals.

- of course I missed it. I'll read it again ... with more care.

[Queue]

I remain confused!

Of course you remain confused. You have yet to check with me.
.

[cletus1]

I am not sure whether to laugh or scream at this statement! It would be funny if the ignorance behind it wasn't so prevalent among conservatives. Let me remind you about the simple facts of the criminal/judicial system. Keeping prisoners behind bars costs money. Where does that money come from? Taxes! Who doesn't want to pay taxes? Conservatives! Programs and psychological help required to reform criminals costs money. Where does that money come from? Taxes! Who doesn't want to pay taxes? Conservatives! Most adult criminals show signs of their behavior as juveniles. Juveniles are much more amenable than adults. Teachers are likely to recognize these traits in juveniles, but it takes money to deal appropriately with the juvenile once identified. Where does that money come from? Taxes! Who doesn't want to pay taxes? You guessed it...conservatives!!!

It is more plausible that a sexist conservative judge is to blame...she was probably wearing something seductive after all

FYI~I was a juvenile PO for 12 years. There are viable programs out there and very knowledgeable people who could rehabilitate youth that show criminal tendencies. What is lacking is money or a health care system to pay for the services. Taxes and insurance...once again...conservatives!

Since I don't know the political leanings of the judge that gave this guy a light sentence against the recommendations of the professionals that evaluated him, I won't say one way or the other. What I do know is that conservatives are fighting right now in San Diego county to unseat several judges because of being to soft on crime. Seems this case, as well as the other body that was just found, might seal their fate.

As far as the taxes, and who pays. WE ALL PAY, NO MATTER WHAT POLITICAL PARTY WE LAY CLAIM TO. Maybe if Nancy Pelosi hadn't of targeted 30 MILLION dollars for some rodent, it could have been put to better use. Maybe if Barbara Boxer wasn't so intent on taxing Californians to death to cover the 20% of the states budget for supporting ILLEGAL ALIENS, the money could be put to better use. I bet if these 2 issues alone were addressed business would return to California, and with that tax revenue would increase. These 2 ladies :spit: just happen to be DEMOCRATS.

So as a good lib you are an advocate for profiling?

Hi Soccermom, that logical post of yours prompted a tangled response from OL with illegal aliens thrown into the mix to boot. Some things never change.

OL, suggesting that California would spend more money on keeping violent offenders locked up if they spent less on other basic services is conservaspin. You also managed to blame Barbara Boxer for economic problems in California. You are truly the say anything guy aren't you. According to you, illegal immigrants and Democrats are the reason for most of our problems. It is that simple isn't it?

[WKYonc]

I am not sure whether to laugh or scream at this statement! It would be funny if the ignorance behind it wasn't so prevalent among conservatives. Let me remind you about the simple facts of the criminal/judicial system. Keeping prisoners behind bars costs money. Where does that money come from? Taxes! Who doesn't want to pay taxes? Conservatives! Programs and psychological help required to reform criminals costs money. Where does that money come from? Taxes! Who doesn't want to pay taxes? Conservatives! Most adult criminals show signs of their behavior as juveniles. Juveniles are much more amenable than adults. Teachers are likely to recognize these traits in juveniles, but it takes money to deal appropriately with the juvenile once identified. Where does that money come from? Taxes! Who doesn't want to pay taxes? You guessed it...conservatives!!!

It is more plausible that a sexist conservative judge is to blame...she was probably wearing something seductive after all

FYI~I was a juvenile PO for 12 years. There are viable programs out there and very knowledgeable people who could rehabilitate youth that show criminal tendencies. What is lacking is money or a health care system to pay for the services. Taxes and insurance...once again...conservatives!

Since I don't know the political leanings of the judge that gave this guy a light sentence against the recommendations of the professionals that evaluated him, I won't say one way or the other. What I do know is that conservatives are fighting right now in San Diego county to unseat several judges because of being to soft on crime. Seems this case, as well as the other body that was just found, might seal their fate.

As far as the taxes, and who pays. WE ALL PAY, NO MATTER WHAT POLITICAL PARTY WE LAY CLAIM TO. Maybe if Nancy Pelosi hadn't of targeted 30 MILLION dollars for some rodent, it could have been put to better use. Maybe if Barbara Boxer wasn't so intent on taxing Californians to death to cover the 20% of the states budget for supporting ILLEGAL ALIENS, the money could be put to better use. I bet if these 2 issues alone were addressed business would return to California, and with that tax revenue would increase. These 2 ladies :spit: just happen to be DEMOCRATS.

So as a good lib you are an advocate for profiling?

Hi Soccermom, that logical post of yours prompted a tangled response from OL with illegal aliens thrown into the mix to boot. Some things never change.

OL, suggesting that California would spend more money on keeping violent offenders locked up if they spent less on other basic services is conservaspin. You also managed to blame Barbara Boxer for economic problems in California. You are truly the say anything guy aren't you. According to you, illegal immigrants and Democrats are the reason for most of our problems. Is it that simple isn't it?

It's like shadow boxing. We can land the punches in the right place and still never hit anything.
And those of us on the "Liberal" side of the isle are not blameless.
I don't watch a lot of pundits on TV, but because of a couple of comments you made (as I recall...could be wrong) I started watching Rachael Maddow on MSNBC. Very bright woman. And totally one way in expressing her views. About a half dozen times was enough to know that I would get no balance from her. I like everything she says: Because I agree. She postures however, and so it boils down to entertainment for the believers. I have accused Fox of that, and so must be fair in seeing Maddow in the same light.

So, we continue. We plow the same field over and over and wonder why we never get a crop. And I'm guilty as sin, because all I know is the crop never comes in but I have no clue about how to change the farming practice. (Guess I milked that metaphor for all it's worth!)

Watching Christopher Hitchens recently (so intelligent!): He was a young man in England and watch the British Empire go from a world power to a second rate nation. (His words). I hope we are not asleep at the switch and have to watch our great country slide into irrelevance.

Because as Old Oregon reminded us, POGO may have been right.

[mixpix]

_ Since I don't know the political leanings of the judge that gave this guy a light sentence against the recommendations of the professionals that evaluated him, I won't say one way or the other. What I do know is that conservatives are fighting right now in San Diego county to unseat several judges because of being to soft on crime. Seems this case, as well as the other body that was just found, might seal their fate.

As far as the taxes, and who pays. WE ALL PAY, NO MATTER WHAT POLITICAL PARTY WE LAY CLAIM TO. Maybe if Nancy Pelosi hadn't of targeted 30 MILLION dollars for some rodent, it could have been put to better use. Maybe if Barbara Boxer wasn't so intent on taxing Californians to death to cover the 20% of the states budget for supporting ILLEGAL ALIENS, the money could be put to better use. I bet if these 2 issues alone were addressed business would return to California, and with that tax revenue would increase. These 2 ladies :spit: just happen to be DEMOCRATS.

So as a good lib you are an advocate for profiling?

It seems to me the biggest complaint that conservatives have is paying taxes…

They would rather have their own gated community with personal protection than to pay for public & civil services. Case in point California is 46th in education. It has the largest population of any state in the union but the least education funding. BUT is does have one the largest prison funding. More people are incarcerated in the USA than almost any other place on the planet. California is probably one of the top states for incarceration; following TEXAS, a bastion for conservatives. You don’t hear about conservatives bitching about funding for more prisons. The conservatives seem to have their boiler plate response on almost any type of law break issue: “lock’m up & throw away the key”.

As a fact, people from California in the recent years, sold off their property & moved out of state, to places like, you guessed it, Oregon. The problems stemmed from those moves, the lack of a tax base & the influx of immigrants to California to work the fields then deciding to take up residence here. You didn’t hear the farm owner making the point to extract illegal immigrants; they wanted the cheap labor. Gee, I wonder how many farm owners who are conservatives that made the motion to send their illegal workers back?

Anyway, unlike the conservatives who are so bitter that an African American is holding the rein of the nation; counter to their tradition of the typical WASP, due to their failed savior, George Bush’s inept policies. I think the system is corrupted generally; from health care to the legal system. In these cases, sometimes everything needs to be stripped out & put back in order. There might be some exceptions?

The conservatives will just keep crying that liberals are over taxing & the liberals will cry the conservatives don’t care. Mean time, these politicos, with lobbyists in tow, are playing across both sides of the aisles lining their pockets with both liberal & conservative tax dollars. While both party’s constituents are pointing fingers at one another, they’re getting ripped off from a corrupt system; too bad it isn’t seen that way .....

[orygunluvr]

I am not sure whether to laugh or scream at this statement! It would be funny if the ignorance behind it wasn't so prevalent among conservatives. Let me remind you about the simple facts of the criminal/judicial system. Keeping prisoners behind bars costs money. Where does that money come from? Taxes! Who doesn't want to pay taxes? Conservatives! Programs and psychological help required to reform criminals costs money. Where does that money come from? Taxes! Who doesn't want to pay taxes? Conservatives! Most adult criminals show signs of their behavior as juveniles. Juveniles are much more amenable than adults. Teachers are likely to recognize these traits in juveniles, but it takes money to deal appropriately with the juvenile once identified. Where does that money come from? Taxes! Who doesn't want to pay taxes? You guessed it...conservatives!!!

It is more plausible that a sexist conservative judge is to blame...she was probably wearing something seductive after all

FYI~I was a juvenile PO for 12 years. There are viable programs out there and very knowledgeable people who could rehabilitate youth that show criminal tendencies. What is lacking is money or a health care system to pay for the services. Taxes and insurance...once again...conservatives!

Since I don't know the political leanings of the judge that gave this guy a light sentence against the recommendations of the professionals that evaluated him, I won't say one way or the other. What I do know is that conservatives are fighting right now in San Diego county to unseat several judges because of being to soft on crime. Seems this case, as well as the other body that was just found, might seal their fate.

As far as the taxes, and who pays. WE ALL PAY, NO MATTER WHAT POLITICAL PARTY WE LAY CLAIM TO. Maybe if Nancy Pelosi hadn't of targeted 30 MILLION dollars for some rodent, it could have been put to better use. Maybe if Barbara Boxer wasn't so intent on taxing Californians to death to cover the 20% of the states budget for supporting ILLEGAL ALIENS, the money could be put to better use. I bet if these 2 issues alone were addressed business would return to California, and with that tax revenue would increase. These 2 ladies :spit: just happen to be DEMOCRATS.

So as a good lib you are an advocate for profiling?

Hi Soccermom, that logical post of yours prompted a tangled response from OL with illegal aliens thrown into the mix to boot. Some things never change.

OL, suggesting that California would spend more money on keeping violent offenders locked up if they spent less on other basic services is conservaspin. You also managed to blame Barbara Boxer for economic problems in California. You are truly the say anything guy aren't you. According to you, illegal immigrants and Democrats are the reason for most of our problems. It is that simple isn't it?

20% of the budget in Cali goes towards programs for ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. That happens to be 20% LESS for people that actually are LEGAL immigrants/citizens. That is a fact that you seem happy with. Don't you think that amount could be better spent on rehab programs for the ones that can be turned around? Barbara Boxer proclaimed in her inaugaration speech in 1992 that "If you want to do business in the state of Claifornia, you're going to pay", with Diane Feinstein at her side smiling. That helped create the first mass exodus from California. To raise taxes to fund programs that are broken, instead of fixing them is hurting society on a whole. If I get a tax increase at the business level, the consumer gets it at their level. What part about that don't you understand?

I bet you like the increase in prices at the stores this month. Think that's to cover the tax increases? That's taxing the rich? You folks will tax yourselves into oblivion "Taxing the rich".

[bbqboy]

Do you have anything to back up your 20 percent figure?

[Queue]

Well Root - I finally realized that TM's post was not the one you were referring too, but if you read hers, you will find out two things:

1: It is too easy to lump apples with oranges (such as socially skilled child molesters with mentally ill flashers) and come up with stats about sex offenders. Your wiki article might combine drugged vs. sober, planned vs. spontaneous, small hauls vs. large hauls, adept vs. inept, and etc... who knows?

2: Mega analysis is the best thing since the wheel.

I remain confused, but open. I have to believe that judges need more leeway in handling individual cases vs. the Kafkaesque policy that some wish to apply. I believe, if this is your point, that we agree. But I'll be damned if I can really prove it. And considering that judges are elected ... I am open.