I won't be shocked if a few here start a collection for this guy!

Are you serious?
Looks like you don't like democracy, rule of law and human rights that much.

Yes I'm very serious! Human rights? What about the kid who was stabbed and stuck in a wheelchair for the rest if his life? With all this moral decay we worry more about the rights of the guilty than the victim!

And coming from the same guy who was concerned about the Human Rights if terrorists I'm not suprised you worry about this guy!

You can't condemn an act, and then condone the same act as retribution for the act you originally condemned. It's just plain illogical.

the kid was 14 when this happened! thats not to say that he should be let off, but this is yet another example of a batshit crazy middle eastern country gone mad!

I wouldn't go as far as to paralyze the guy but our punishment for serious crime needs to be far harsher.


* Felons should be receiving longer sentences where they actually serve the entire time. None of this early release crap.

* We also need to completely change what prison is. No more hanging around, watching TV, lifting weights, playing basketball, etc. Hard labor during the day. Basically prison should be a hard labor camp. You work these felons so hard that they have no energy to act out. You break them mentally, if not physically.

* For those who have a true desire to make changes and earn it, provide some classes or whatever. But the rest of the time, it's either working, eating, or sleeping. Maybe one day off a week.

* If a prisoner chooses to act out or break some rule, throw him in solitary naked, where he's surrounded by nothing but concrete and metal and can live on bread and water until he wises up. If it takes months, so be it.

* There are no murderers in prison, at least long term, because they've been executed. Any prisoner who seriously assaults, rapes, or kills another prisoner is executed.

* Take the "3 strikes rule" further. If somebody has committed 3 separate felonies over time, no matter what they are, they have shown no desire to change and should be executed. However, this would be unlikely because the severity of prison would likely prevent this.


If these ideas were used, I believe most would seriously rethink committing crime because they would truly dread prison. But a certain group in society, and we know who they are, would never allow it because they're so concerned about "human rights," etc. So, as a result, we get what we've always gotten. Prisons filled to the max, habitual criminals, etc.

If the crime is done with the person meaning to do it and not being sorry for the actions he has done, then it should be like that. I think it's fair, but there's a lot of aspects to take in. But in this situation the guy was only 14 years old, I doubt anyone on these forums were wise enough at 14 age. At least I think I was not so wise as I am now when I'm 20.

Why was a prison created? One reason was to keep the criminal from doing what he's doing, other thing was him to change and not to do anything like that again.

In my opinion, execution needs to be done to pedophiles and serial killers/mass murderers. I'd say rapists also, but there's a shitload of cases where a girl sleeps with a guy and then tells she got raped to gain money out of the guy.

For other people, I think the right system is to get them in the community as legal citizens. That means, pshycologists and other specialists need to work with them. They need to find out why they have done what they are doing. What they could do legally, like maybe a robber is a good mechanic or he bakes some pretty cakes, etc. By just eliminating and mentally degradating them you won't gain anything. That's what they did in the Soviet Union, prisoned millions of people in the Siberian Gulags(my grandfather was one of them). Well guess what? Not one of them did want to become a legal citizen of the USSR. All of them turned to crime, and now we see what has happened after that. There's generation of Russians who are criminal masterminds(once you meet and live with some of them for a while, you'll get what I mean).

If you ask about my grandfather, then he came out and after that went back once again to the gulag and another time to a prison. And no, he didn't do crime when he got in for the first time. The Soviet laws in those times put up in prison anyone after the war that were fighting on the German Side. Got to mention, if you denied on to going to serve any side you were called in, you got shot.

Some of the things here I do agree with. I am sick and tired of those in prison having it easy like that. Also, murderers and rapists (no matter the age) should be in prison for the rest of there lives or put to death.

But, as somebody who is handicapped and had to use a wheelchair at times. The guy should be punished for his crime, but not like this. It won't make the victim walk again and I highly doubt it would make him feel better that his attacker can't walk either.

Ivy, I would agree with most of what you said but for one small problem. Where are these prisons? The main reason that sentences are reduced and plea bargains are made is that there is ridiculous overcrowding in prisons. Also, thanks to overdevelopment, there's not too many places to build new ones. Nobody wants them near their homes, and you can't blame them.

However, if we legalized and regulated certain things, like marijuana, prostitution or certain kinds of gambling, not only would they add to the tax coffers, but that would free up space in prisons for the real felons.

I agree to this, it would really make up things a lot better, like more tax income and the real criminals to be in prison.

I'd argue that the harsher approach I described above would drastically lower the prison population. You'd have all the murderers out of the picture. As well as habitual 3 time felons. The harsher approach would also keep would-be criminals from committing crime in the first place and others from returning to crime when they're released.

Really getting serious about crime is the answer. Not legalizing bad behavior. Prohibition was not enforced in the right way, so people thought it was a failure, and legalized booze again. Now, because it's legal and widely available, alcohol does more damage to society than all the illegal drugs combined. You could also say the same thing about tobacco.

I'd say it's the people who do the damage to themselves. Weak people with no character. If a person can't control himself, then he'll be addicted to those things.

I wish I could say "Death to every murderer" and mean it, but I do believe there are certain cases that don't deserve the death penalty. And I don't think that harsher prisons will scare people from committing crimes. Kids that are raised in projects and bad neighborhoods are not going to be frightened of prison or the death penalty. They live with the shadow of death and in horrendous conditions every day of their lives.

A vast number of prisoners are in for drug-related charges. If we somehow managed drugs in this country in a better way (we've been waging the "war on drugs" and we're losing), offering treatment to users for example, then perhaps we would get somewhere.

Whatever we're doing now isn't working, so what do we have to lose? As for Prohibition, you got that right. All it did was allow criminals to flourish.

Things like manslaughter, I would agree with you.



Harsher prisons would scare a lot of would be criminals away. All of them? Of course not. But that's why you deal with these hardened criminals appropriately. Even ultimately meting out the ultimate punishment if they keep returning to crime.



When you say "drug related" charges, it's important to differentiate between the users and those who are involved in the drug trade. I'm talking about the latter.

I'd argue the "War on Drugs" needs to take a two-pronged approach.

1. Start executing those involved in the drug trade, from the kingpin all the way down to the corner dealer. Of course, this would require completely overhauling our current system. No more 20 years of endless appeals. They get one appeal and, if the conviction stands, they are taken outside the courthouse and shot. If this were enforced quickly and consistently for an extended period of time, people would start to get the hint. You can see other countries who take such a harsh approach to narcotics and the relatively low levels of drug trafficking there.

2. Send our special forces, helicopters, drones, etc. into Mexico. The Mexican government can assist or get out of the way. Hunt down the cartel leaders and members Clear & Present Danger style. Basically take a scorched earth approach. Identify the corrupt politicians and police officials in Mexico, extradite them, try them, and execute them.


This would effectively kill the drug trade. Yes, there would still be some drug flow but on a relatively miniscule level. Certainly enough of a change where the addicts would be all but forced to quit because there wouldn't be nearly enough of a supply. They'd have to resort to drinking cough syrup or huffing gas because there would be no heroin, cocaine, meth, marijuana, ecstasy, etc.

Mexico isn't the only country where drugs are produced. With enough equipment you can produce any drug even at your living room nowdays. If it won't be Mexico, it'll be Colombia, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Panama, India and ending with Russia and even North Korea starting to produce them in bulk.

As soon as you start effectively mass killing drug cartel members in Mexico, they'll turn their people against USA and soon from just drug cartels they'll develop into terrorist organizations that'll put all their billions in weapons and make public bombings in your country and will be right in front of your face as ironic as it sounds. And it'll be another massive problem.

The vast majority of drugs already come by way of Mexico and that will only likely increase in the future. And groups bringing drugs from other countries wouldn't have the benefit of proximity that Mexico does.



I'm not sure what you're basing that assumption on. The Mexicans aren't like those in the Middle East. There's no religious ideology involved here. Even if they didn't like the U.S. taking such an approach, I don't think they would allow themselves to be radicalized by the cartels (who they hate) and become terrorists.

Yeah, but once Mexico will be out of the game they'll have that benefit.

Yeah, but look at this. Pablo lives illegally in the states and paints walls. He hears that American soldiers have killed his beloved 7th cousin Juan. And in fact, to his family Juan was a legal boy studying hard. On the other side he'd maybe be a cartel worker, but maybe he was just caught in the crossfire when the soldiers attacked the cartel. Just like it's now in Afghanistan were civilians get killed by mistake. What makes you think that Pablo will not want to take revenge on his cousin?

People who are good at speaking and have sense in pshycology will turn around everyone's mind and before you turn around they'll be bombing shit or making attacks on Americans. Murder isn't the answer. What you're suggesting here, is the same like they did in Soviet Union. Nothing good came out of it. Just a generation of hardened criminals that the world fears.

These ideas dont address the underlying issue which eventually leads to the trafficking of drugs into the USA, and thats the demand for drugs in America. As long as there is a demand for illegal narcotics in America there will ALWAYS be somebody somewhere who is willing to supply it. If the barriers to trafficking described such as harsher sentences, increased interdiction/law enforcement, death, etc are implemented these things only address the supply side of the equation. This will in turn lead to higher prices (cause of a lower supply) and larger profits for the drug traffickers who arent caught/killed. The underlying issue is DEMAND.

I couldn't agree more. Drugs would not be making it into this country if the people weren't demanding it. Americans love their pot, coke, and heroin.

Ivy, are there any problems to which you see other solutions than violence?

By "benefit of proximity," I mean Mexico borders the U.S. Other than Canada, the other countries don't have that benefit.



There may be some "Pablos" here and there. But nothing like in the Middle East, which is what you're comparing it to.



Whether the demand is there or not, the point is there would be almost nobody to supply the demand. What I described above doesn't mean we wouldn't also address the "demand" side of the equation. But I'm not sure what else society can do on that. There's a lot it can still do on the "supply" side.



So, if I'm reading between the lines correctly here, we should just throw up our hands and be done with it? Legalize everything, because Americans will always want their drugs, and just let people get high and wasted all day long?



Yes, but not this one. We've already seen the inherent violence in not fighting the drug war correctly.

So your saying that if everything you suggested is enacted that in a world of almost 7 billion people there would only be a few people supplying it? LOL Ivy,lets not be foolish here. The demand for these drugs is the underlying issue, this is pure economics in its rawest form. Anybody who knows how the free market works particularly conservatives who claim they tout it, knows the inherent flaw in not addressing demand.

One solution proposed by a number of experts which goes at the heart of the demand problem is the immediate legalized regulation of narcotic substances.

By doing this, the initial effect would not help the drug problem drastically, but would rather help the crime and violence side of the drug war. With drugs legalized, we could take some of the countries most dangerous criminals out of business overnight. The legalized drugs could be regulated and taxed by the federal government, and instead of pouring billions into fighting against drugs, we could stimulate the economy by opening up a whole new market.

Though this idea sounds a bit controversial, the point is not to say “drugs are o.k. kids, share this crack pipe!” Rather, with the money saved no longer funding the drug war and with new money generated by taxes on the drugs themselves, we could use our new resources to educate the public, teach our youths to understand the truths about drugs and make positive decisions, and provide treatment for those already addicted.

When critics challenge the fact that legalization of drugs will lead to more drug use, lets look at the Netherlands.
In the Netherlands cannabis is legal. However, according to a survey entitled "Comparative Analysis of Marijuana Policy in the United States and the Netherlands," marijuana use is 26% greater in the united states than in the Netherlands. In fact, half of 18 year olds in the Netherlands who try marijuana quit within a year. Crime rates and homicide rates are both significantly lower in the Netherlands as well. By accepting mind altering drugs as part of our shared human culture, we can better understand them so we

Initially, the way this solution would be funded is through private activist organizations such as LEAP or DPA, individuals speaking out in letters to their congressman or becoming active voices on blogs and internet forums, and corporations and businesses lobbying congress and putting out commercials supporting legalization. Once the politicians see that this is what’s popular, they will run on platforms to end prohibition and eventually do so. This solution would not need a lot of funding after the initial steps to push the idea through based on the billions we would save overall.

The first step is to educate the public, as drugs are still a touchy subject for most Americans. This solution involves shifting the American perspective on the issue of drugs into a whole new light. There would have to be tireless efforts to inform the public on the horrible injustices and blatant failures of the War on Drugs. Still, many of the older generations who grew up in a time of reefer madness and other anti-drug propaganda may never believe that this is a good way to handle drug policy. That’s why it is up to the younger generations to push as hard as they can to spread the truth about this failed policy and teach the public that they are all victims of the War on Drugs.

Note: Just for the record, I dont partake in any illegal narcotics. My vice is the the legal consumption of alcohol.

Where did I say anything about what the entire world should do? I'm simply talking about the U.S.

You can't say the demand for drugs alone is the underlying issue. There's two symbiotic sides to the issue here, not just one.

Again, I'm not saying we don't address the demand side. I was simply saying what we need to do to address the supply side. You seem to be completely ignoring the supply side altogether. And even on the demand side you basically seem to be saying it's a lost cause because there will "always" be demand.

That is EXACTLY what I am saying. No use in expending X amount of $$$ and resources fighting a lost cause.



You brought up the example of America going into Mexico. If we did that, another country will eventually take its place as the major supplier/transit point for example Colombia (once again) or Honduras or Canada or Puerto Rico or Dominican Republic. If we went into either one of those, another country will take its place. It will be a never ending cycle which will cause us to get involved all over the world.

demand for drugs is without a doubt the underlying issue. if it was not, do you guys think there would be the very expensive and labor intensive processes used to produce drugs such as cocaine and heroin? maybe they could start selling it as a type of sand to keep basketball hoops from blowing over? or maybe school janitors could use a sawdust/cocaine mixture to soak up the vomit at elementary schools?

as far as wiping out the supply side, a huge first step would be to stop turning a blind eye to the production of up to 90% of the worlds heroin in afganistan. an even better step might be to stop allowing the people to grow it over there in return for alliances used to fight the never ending "war on terror". also, do you realize that cannabis can be easily grown outdoors in all 50 states, even alaska?

Exactly.

We actually tried (and eventually failed) to tackle Afghani opium production by bribing people not to do it, and also paying them to grow other stuff instead of opium but this would require an endless amount of manpower and $$$ forever to police and enforce which we dont have. I read about these efforts in detail in Tenet's book and books by former Generals/Commanders during the occupation.

I see. So, now that we see that the drug war is a "lost cause," we should.....what? Legalize drugs? Like we did with alcohol? With all the damage that has done to society?

Even if/when drugs did start to come by way of other countries, remember that there wouldn't be many people here in the U.S. to distribute it.

I get the impression that many here, and those in general who are against the war on drugs, are against it simply because they want to see drugs legalized. Not a few of them being drug users themselves. So they start from the position that nothing else will work and argue accordingly.