Quote:
Originally Posted by onesnowyowl
Oregon just voted yes on a crime measure that is going to cost us $150 million to fund, and the measure came with no direction as to where that money is supposed to come from, therefore it must come from the general fund. This crime measure is meant to punish nonviolent offenders, such as those committing ID theft and meth-related crimes, and proscribes mandatory minimum sentences for such crimes. I voted no, because I am tired of living in a state where we spend more on prisons than we do on education, and tired of living in a state where we pack our prisons full of people who do not belong there--be they nonviolent offenders or the mentally ill.
|
i agree with most of what you said... but I have some disagreement/conflict with this. Prison isn't meant just for non-violent offenders. It's a place for criminals. Yeah it sucks for the white collar embezzler to be sharing a bunk with a rapist or murderer, but then they shouldn't have been embezzling.
meth-related crimes is pretty vague... are we talking about selling or using? or stealing/mugging/whatever in order to get the money to pay for their meth habit? i think we should be decriminalizing drug use, but i feel no sympathy nor do i think we should go easy on the dealers.
and ID theft may be non-violent, but it's a pretty horrendous crime. i've never had it happen to me, but i can imagine that it causes victims to lose some of their sense of security, and cause them a lot of pain and trouble to get their shit back together. how many people have lost a loan because of someone else screwing up their credit? (not that that should mean they should be punished extra hard or anything, just that it's not a victimless crime). really, the only difference between mugging someone (violent crime) and ID theft (non-violent crime) is that the latter lets you mug someone from anywhere in the world.
i think drug users should get rehab, not jail. and there are other victimless crimes that are worthy of reduced sentences or an alternative to jail. i think seperating violent criminals from non-violent ones in prison is a good idea. seperate those who could be rehabilitated from those who can't (which isn't based on whether the crime was violent or not). but don't go easy on those who cause harm to others, just because it's non-violent.