Skip to main content

Unnecessary Crime Brought To You By The ACLU

The answer to overcrowded prisons are bigger ones


The ACLU continues to file lawsuits to protest overcrowded prisons. The ACLU sues prisons they know they have the best chance of winning. In the end, the ACLU wins virtually every case.

In the three years after the ACLU wins, the prison population in these states drops by 15% relative to other states. The result: violent crime and property crime rise by 10% and five percent, respectively.

Moreover, an analysis by the authors of Super Freakonomics, Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, found the total impact of TV on crime in the 1960's was an increase of 50% in property crimes and 25% in violent crimes. The data, however, failed to provide answers as to why.

In response to the ACLU law suits, why aren't bigger and/or more prisons being built? Why should citizens be subject to more crime, criminal investigation costs, and policing/court costs? Likewise, if we have tied specific prison sentences to specific crimes, why are we reducing sentences? The sentences no longer fit the crimes committed and justice is no longer served. The deterrent to committing crime has been significantly reduced.

In addition to rewarding criminals with shorter sentences, the cost to society is enormous. There are social, emotional, and mental costs that remain with the victims for the rest of their lives.

The public needs to demand enough prisons and space to accommodate full-term sentences for everyone, except in special cases where parole is warranted.

How about cheap prisons like the tent city Sheriff Arpaio used? Whether you agreed with Sheriff Arpaio or not, we must have the capacity necessary to hold all of our sentenced criminals for their full sentences.

Keep criminals behind bars and society will best be served.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How ACORN, Obama, and Bill Clinton started the sub prime crisis

ACORN that is continually in trouble for voter fraud also pushed the sub prime mortgage crisis that has destabilized our economy.   Disturbingly, Barack Obama promised ACORN that it was going to shape our national agenda. ACORN was started in the 1970’s by Radicals George Wiley & Wade Rathke, with input from sociologists, Richard A. Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, started ACORN in the 1970's.   All of them are neo-Marxist ideologists. Barack Obama's Start In ACORN ACORN is made up of several legally distinct parts including local non-profits, a national lobbying organization, and the ACORN Housing Corporation.   ACORN is partisan and always aligned with the Democratic Party on policy. Obama began to work for ACORN via Project Vote in 1992 and as a trainer for the "power" seminars.   ACORNs "People’s Platform Preamble" includes " We are an uncommon people. We are the majority, forged from all minorities.   We are the masses of many, not the...
1 comment
Read more

Minnesota Governments Lack of Transparency

Data Practices Act Defendants in Marvin Pirila & Gail Francett e v. Thomson Township, etal., denied access to relevant information to their legal matter pursuant to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA), even after learning it did not apply to them.   The MGDPA does not apply to towns, except those exercising special town powers under Minn. Stat. § 368.01 and located within the 7-county metropolitan area (Minn. Stat. § 13.02, Subd. 11).   Minn. Stat. § 473.121 Subd. 2 defines Metropolitan areas and does not include defendant Thomson Township. Townships are to provide access to public data upon reasonable requests .   In this particular manner, the defendants refused to voluntarily answer information requests, letters, and emails.   Thomson Township attorney David Pritchett interfered with informal discovery by writing plaintiffs and stating they were “… hereby instructed to cease and desist from making contact with such persons for the pur...
Post a Comment
Read more