Criminal justice?

Originally Posted by Rich Z

I guess I'm not really sure how that would fit into my retirement plans....

Just imagine a tv show called Rich Z private eye.. could take place in Florida. It would be fun show to watch.

Originally Posted by Austin M

It's easy to blame those in jail for the $1.9 Billion, but don't forget some people are getting very rich off of that money. Do you think those rich people have a vested interest in keeping as much money pumping into the system as possible? I think they do. Take away the prisoners TV and hot meals and I bet you'll still be paying $1.9 billion. lol

You're probably right. It's a very complex issue with many different viewpoints, but irritates me just the same. It seems that those who contribute nothing are the biggest drains on our very limited resources.

Kathy

Originally Posted by insomniac101

You're probably right. It's a very complex issue with many different viewpoints, but irritates me just the same. It seems that those who contribute nothing are the biggest drains on our very limited resources.

Kathy

I agree it's complex.

Are your prisons privatized and run by corporations in Michigan? I bet they are.

As a manager of a privatized corporate prison system my goal would be to cut the cost per inmate and push a P.R. campaign showing the savings to the tax payer. Then when everyone is feeling good about the cost cuts I would increase the volume of inmates because I get paid to build more prisons and get paid per year per inmate. I have endless options of increasing volume too. Then I would push another P.R. campaign blaming the "losers" in my prisons for those costs. Since 80% of Americans have "tried" illegal drugs, and we have "waged war on drugs" I would have an endless stream of "losers" to make money off of. So as a manager I'd be all for throwing Michigan law breakers in tents, in the U.P. and making them live off wild game. I would still charge you $1.9 billion, but only because the prisoner population is going to triple. It's a killer deal for the tax payer. It's like buy two get one free. Drug use is on the rise you know? I can't wait for alcohol to be outlawed again, as a manager of private prisons that is.

When I lock them up and prevent them from contributing who is the biggest drain on our resources, them or me?

Justice can be criminal sometimes.

Originally Posted by Austin M

Are your prisons privatized and run by corporations in Michigan? I bet they are.

I don't know, but I'll find out. Michigan in a very pro-union state, and every time there is mention of privatizing anything, employees start a civil war! The unions have a lot of clout here, and a powerful lobby.

Sounds like you have a very interesting job. Frankly, I haven't looked at things from your position of managing a correction system. My view as a taxpayer is one of frustration. We're being squeezed so tightly, and it's not fun working two jobs just to survive. It just burns me that I am working to support people who are not taxpayers, yet avail themselves to all of the benefits of our numerous entitlement programs.

Sorry for the rant . . .

Kathy

Originally Posted by insomniac101

I don't know, but I'll find out. Michigan in a very pro-union state, and every time there is mention of privatizing anything, employees start a civil war! The unions have a lot of clout here, and a powerful lobby.

Sounds like you have a very interesting job. Frankly, I haven't looked at things from your position of managing a correction system. My view as a taxpayer is one of frustration. We're being squeezed so tightly, and it's not fun working two jobs just to survive. It just burns me that I am working to support people who are not taxpayers, yet avail themselves to all of the benefits of our numerous entitlement programs.

Sorry for the rant . . .

Kathy

I hope I wasn't being misleading with my hypothetical "if I was". I am not a prison system manager, although I have a relative who is. I am a manager in manufacturing. One thing I do at work is "root cause analysis". Back in the day, at my job, most problems were blamed on people. The problems didn't go away because the problems usually were not the people. The problems were usually process and procedure problems. When proper process and procedures were introduced the problems went away, and if they didn't then the root cause was not being addressed. It's to bad many people were fired in order to realize that.

I understand your frustration and agree we're being squeezed. One thing I do at work to find root cause is to take a problem and ask why we have this problem. Then I take the answer and ask why and so on and so on. I get answers and ask why until I get to the root cause. Then I have to come up with a solution for the root cause.

If the problem is spending $1.9 billion on housing prisoners I would ask why.
Answer: There are a lot of law breakers.

Why are there a lot of law breakers?
Answer: 60% of people in prison are in for nonviolent drug use or sale.

Why are 60% of prisoners in prison for drugs?
Answer: We have a war on drugs.

Why do we have a war on drugs?
Answer: Drugs breed crime.

Why do drugs breed crime?
Answer: There is a black market for them.

Why is there a black market for them?
Answer: Addiction

Now I just slapped this together very quickly just to illustrate how I come up with root cause. I say one root cause of your $1.9 billion dollar problem is addiction. So the question has to be is spending $1.9 billion housing prisoners an affective allocation of resources for preventing and treating addiction?

Sorry if my ramblings have hijacked the thread.

I'd like to add, I don't believe root cause will be addressed by our local, state or federal government. Addressing root cause would mean budget cuts for them. No manager wants to see budget cuts. It doesn't matter if its prisons, sheriffs, schools, or FBI.

Originally Posted by Austin M

I hope I wasn't being misleading with my hypothetical "if I was". I am not a prison system manager, although I have a relative who is. I am a manager in manufacturing. One thing I do at work is "root cause analysis". Back in the day, at my job, most problems were blamed on people. The problems didn't go away because the problems usually were not the people. The problems were usually process and procedure problems. When proper process and procedures were introduced the problems went away, and if they didn't then the root cause was not being addressed. It's to bad many people were fired in order to realize that.

I understand your frustration and agree we're being squeezed. One thing I do at work to find root cause is to take a problem and ask why we have this problem. Then I take the answer and ask why and so on and so on. I get answers and ask why until I get to the root cause. Then I have to come up with a solution for the root cause.

If the problem is spending $1.9 billion on housing prisoners I would ask why.
Answer: There are a lot of law breakers.

Why are there a lot of law breakers?
Answer: 60% of people in prison are in for nonviolent drug use or sale.

Why are 60% of prisoners in prison for drugs?
Answer: We have a war on drugs.

Why do we have a war on drugs?
Answer: Drugs breed crime.

Why do drugs breed crime?
Answer: There is a black market for them.

Why is there a black market for them?
Answer: Addiction

Now I just slapped this together very quickly just to illustrate how I come up with root cause. I say one root cause of your $1.9 billion dollar problem is addiction. So the question has to be is spending $1.9 billion housing prisoners an affective allocation of resources for preventing and treating addiction?

Sorry if my ramblings have hijacked the thread.

Another answer to one of the levels of questions is that the reason that there is crime associated with drugs is because the illegality of that merchandise made it a hard to come by commodity which raised the buying price substantially for people who want it, regardless. So in effect, the desire of people who want certain substances, coupled with the fact that the government does not want them to have those substances, created an highly inflated black market that is attractive to people who recognize the lucrative profit potential that was created.

Quite simply, is something being addictive a sufficient enough reason for the government to make it illegal? And are the damages inflicted by the illegality (enforcement of the laws, criminal violence, etc.) of those substances actually greater than the damages that such addiction would actually inflict on the populace if those substances were able to be legally obtained?

In other words, is the "cure" better or worse then the "disease"?

Or is there another motive actually involved other than simply trying to save society from the ills of addictive drugs?

Originally Posted by Rich Z

Another answer to one of the levels of questions is that the reason that there is crime associated with drugs is because the illegality of that merchandise made it a hard to come by commodity which raised the buying price substantially for people who want it, regardless. So in effect, the desire of people who want certain substances, coupled with the fact that the government does not want them to have those substances, created an highly inflated black market that is attractive to people who recognize the lucrative profit potential that was created.

I agree completely! I think if meat was illegal you would have the same effect as we do with drugs right now. Lets not overlook our gang problems are do to this "highly inflated black market" as you put it Rich. If meat was illegal we would have crime and gang violence over meat.

Originally Posted by Rich Z

Quite simply, is something being addictive a sufficient enough reason for the government to make it illegal? And are the damages inflicted by the illegality (enforcement of the laws, criminal violence, etc.) of those substances actually greater than the damages that such addiction would actually inflict on the populace if those substances were able to be legally obtained??

Good question, I think alcohol is a good example of tried and tested results to answer that question. Look at prohibition days versus alcohol use today.

Originally Posted by Rich Z

In other words, is the "cure" better or worse then the "disease"?

Or is there another motive actually involved other than simply trying to save society from the ills of addictive drugs?

I think the motive is simple, money. Our government is the largest beneficiary of this "highly inflated black market" that they created. It is nothing more than a back door tax on the population. This back door tax is not new. I watched a good documentary on the history channel about prostitution. It said that in the old west prostitution was illegal but law enforcement didn't dare shut the industry down. They made too much money off fining it. They called it a back door tax. The population wouldn't accept raising taxes, but they were ok fining prostitutes and their Johns. So the government got their money without raising taxes.

Some people say make drugs legal and tax it. But why would the government do this. They are already taxing it through back door taxation, and they are taxing it at the "highly inflated black market" rate, not the free market supply and demand rate. If it were legal their hands would be tied with regulated sales tax rates. Right now they can back door tax at what ever rate they want. They can tax us in the form of law enforcement, prisons, gang units, border control, ect. Also they make big money on confiscating cars, money, houses and all kinds of personal property.

I watched an episode of COPS a couple weeks ago where undercover cops were advertising and selling $10 bags of pot on a street corner. Anyone who bought the pot was arrested and put in jail. The cops confiscated the cars and all possessions in the car in order to auction them off on a government auction web site. The cops were actually asking the people they were arresting if the cars were paid off or the banked owned them. No one will convince me this was nothing more than one of many government money making scenes, or back door taxes.

This thread took a very interesting turn. I love reading all of your thoughts on the subject, and really couldn't agree more about it. Especially great points/questions Rich and Austin !

Yeah, it certainly puts a different spin on our perceptions of the government when you begin to awaken to the fact that law enforcement is more about revenue generation than it is about "protecting and serving" the populace. If the government wants to collect raise more money, simple make something illegal or raise fines and fees without having to go through the headaches and bad press of having congress raise taxes.