Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Wow! (Score 3, Insightful) 262

"Do you mean that dialogue and not violence is a better way to solve problems? Most intelligent people know this."

Actually, dialogue is the ideal way to solve problems. However, you need to have two parties willing to talk and compromise. When one or both parties are unwilling to compromise violence is likely inevitable. Most intelligent people understand this.

Comment Re:Seeing is believing (Score 1) 202

" 1000 watts of solar is not that hard to achieve"

neither is 10,000. You just need a lot of surface area.

1000 is about 5.5 square meters -- and that will produce about enough water for 1 person per day -- to drink -- never mind tending to food (livestock or crops). Unless we're planning on building a subterranean society of Morlocks living under miles of solar panels I don't think we're at the point where this is practical for anything more than off-grid outback living or helping out small communities of hunter gatherers who happen to live in deserts.

Comment Re:The nice kind of rape (Score 1) 903

And "oh":

Fun fact: Prop 57 (part of the AB109, Prop 47 Prop 57 trifecta), if you are serving state prison time for multiple felonies related to the same crime that included a violent felony and serving time consecutively, once you have served time for the "violent felony(ies)" you are now magically considered "non-violent" and will be dropped off in county PRCS (probation) once you complete the full sentence (remaining felonies). Example: robbery (violent felony - 6 years), B&E (non-volent -- 3 years -- pick any other associated felony -- doesn't matter) -- Serve about 4 years of the robbery (85% of the sentence + (1+1 time served credit) in jail awaiting trial) then POOF. You are now a non-violent felon and when you finish your remaining 2.5 years you will be going to county probation under PRCS and not parole. Madness.

Comment Re:The nice kind of rape (Score 1) 903

"Since the person who raped your daughter had "a long history (including violent felonies)", he should have been in prison for those violent felonies, and GP's leniency toward non-violent drug offenders wouldn't apply."

Re-read my post. It's against the mindset and misunderstanding of what many places consider "non-violent drug offenders". Well meaning idiots are passing legislation without considering the consequences. Most "non-violent drug offenders" have a fairly long rap sheet. Most involve robbery (with violence or threat of violence) which is a "violent" felony.

"he should have been in prison for those violent felonies"

He was -- he served his time, went on parole, offended again (this time for a drug offense) less than 1 year after finishing his state supervised parole, went back to state prison and because his LAST offense was non-violent, he was released to AB109 PRCS (probation -- with restrictions on when or if revocation time can be used -- mostly short "flash incarcerations), he was supervised by county probation rather than state parole. He violated the terms of his "probation", got a flash incarceration, was out a few days later, got high with some friends and decided to rob some homes for more drug money, broke in to my home and kidnapped my daughter.

Pre AB109 he would been supervised by state parole and would have likely, with his history, received at least the AVERAGE time for a parole violation (90 days at the time) and have been behind bars that night. AB109 put him back on the streets and laid down "rules" that made it virtually impossible for him to get any meaningful revocation time. It completely defeats the ideas behind parole (help the felon move back to society but pull him back if he's not ready) in favor of AB109 probation which is based on "keep them out of prison at all costs". Once a felon has a history -- particularly one that includes violence, the object should be to get them off the streets easier, not tossing up roadblocks. If they quit offending before they do something that puts them away for the rest of their life, YAY! If not, get them off the streets as often as possible to minimize the damage they can do to their community.

Comment Re:The nice kind of rape (Score 1) 903

"And finally, since you brought it up so many darn times, what was the end result in your perfect playbook?"

Simple -- once someone has proven an inability to keep from re-offending the object needs to be to take them off the street as easily as possible. Maybe -- just maybe they'll get a clue before they commit a crime that sends them away for the rest of their life while destroying the lives of others -- or maybe we can reduce the amount of harm they do in their communities by putting them behind bars easier while on supervised release. That is the end result of my "perfect playbook".

I've already started trying to get ab109 changes reformed and I'm pushing for the following changes:

1. The 3Ns – (non-serious, non-violent or non-sex offenses) will only be sent to PRCS (county probation) if the offender has never had a sexual, serious or violent felony in the past – not just their last offense.
2. Prolific repeat felony offenders will not be sent to PRCS (county probation) if they were last released from prison on any felony (3N or otherwise) and post release supervision and committed their most recent felony with a period of time. I suggest 5 years.

"you can't blame the justice system that let him go on the shoplifting charge. Well, you can, but it doesn't make any sense."

Yes I can and it does make sense. That is how parole works. It tries to help someone re-enter society but ALSO remove them if they aren't ready yet. If a criminal with a long rap sheet gets picked up for shoplifting (a violation of their parole), they would likely get 180 days to a year, and probably add 1 year to their time on parole pre AB109. With no rap-sheet, maybe a few days to 30 days.

I can't help that you have you have no common sense on this issue but you appear to take each offense as if it's the ONLY offense when considering actions against the offender. *THAT* doesn't make any sense.

Comment Re:The nice kind of rape (Score 1) 903

"Unfortunately, I think you read the situation wrong. Your problem is actually exacerbated by jailing non-violent drug offenders, three ways."

Unfortunately, I think *YOU* read the situation wrong. At this point it doesn't matter. Our monster already had a history including violence. The solution isn't to pretend felon's histories don't exist.

If the idea is to get them BEFORE they become violent and rehabilitate them then THAT is where you focus your efforts. You don't pretend they don't have a past and pat them on the head and say "be good".

"Just imagine a world where murderers got 20+ years and people who just possessed some drugs got 8 instead of vice-versa"

Just imagine a con with a history (including murder) after getting released and off probation gets arrested again -- for drugs and got 8 instead of hate. Just imagine them violating their probation (because *NOW* they are on PRCS rather than parole because we CANT look at their past), getting a flash incarceration of 4 or 5 days then getting back out on the streets and killing someone. It has happened. Parole helps people get back in to society and remove them if they aren't ready to get back. PRCS keeps people out of prison -- period. The problem is targeting.

Comment Re:The nice kind of rape (Score 1) 903

"If it had been drug use or minor dealing, it would not have covered up any earlier violent felony."

You have no idea how AB109 works. It *FORCES* by rule of law felony parolees to county probation -- and prevents the consideration of any past felonies -- with very few exceptions, all revocation time is limited to 6 working days (maximum of 10 days including weekends). Under state supervision a criminals past is considered for all parole violations and all violations have a hearing to determine action -- with a max revocation time of 1 year and extending parole. Under county PRCS (AB109 county probation) only the last felony is considered on who is supervised by state or county. When he violated his "probation" (because AB109 forced him to county supervision with the new rules) our monster was only allowed a "flash incarceration" -- 6 days in the time-out chair in county jail. Under state supervision he would have likely been sent away for 90 days (the average at the time for parole violations) and he would have been behind bars the night he decided to rob my house and kidnap my daughter.

I have become quite knowledgeable on AB109 and the workings of the CA legislature. Trust me -- what you say is wrong.

Fun fact: Prop 57 (part of the AB109, Prop 47 Prop 57 trifecta), if you are serving state prison time for multiple felonies related to the same crime that included a violent felony and serving time consecutively, once you have served time for the "violent felony(ies)" you are now magically considered "non-violent" and will be dropped off in county PRCS (probation) once you complete the full sentence (remaining felonies). Example: Home invasion: robbery (violent felony - 6 years), B&E (non-volent -- 3 years) -- Serve about 4 years of the robbery (85% of the sentence + 1+1 in jail awaiting trial) then POOF. You are now a non-violent felon and when you finish your 2.5 years you will be going to county jail under PRCS and not parole. Madness.

I know what I'm talking about. The problem is that it's a complication issue and most people don't see the giant public safety hole because it requires understanding the convoluted language AB109 used to change CAs penal code -- plus CDCR (California Dept for Corrections and Rehabilitation) lies by misdirection whenever the issue comes up: "X wasn't released early -- X served their full time in state prison" rather than acknowledge they were RELEASED from state supervision to a much lower standard of COUNTY supervision.

We had a Police officer in Whittier killed by an AB109 probationer with a violent past. He had violated the terms of his parole 5 times before he killed his cousin, stole a car and had a shootout with cops that left one officer dead. Under state supervision this felon with a dangerous past would have been back in state prison after the first -- MAYBE the second violation with more than 90 days. Probably 1 year (max under probation) and probably had his probation term extended another 2 or 3 years.

Comment Re:The nice kind of rape (Score 1) 903

"If what you are saying is that he should have been in prison before the fact to prevent him from having hurt your daughter, that's a kind of pretzel logic I'm not going to even indulge."

You are deliberately being obtuse. He violated his "probation". Under state supervised parole he would have been behind bars for PAROLE violations pre AB109. He would not have been on the streets to commit the crime he committed against my daughter -- if it were allowed to be applied "segregation" would have protected my daughter. The only "pretzel logic" required is to come up with some reasoning where this isn't valid.

The fact that he was on the streets 6 days after violating the terms of his release is a travesty. The laws were changed by folks that apparently seem to think as you do about deterrence and retribution which have undercut our ability to yank out from society those who would harm the innocent and aren't ready to re-enter society.

I get it -- you don't like the system the way it was -- the way it is in most other states. Try to find a way to "fix" people BEFORE they are multiple repeat felons and before they are so "damaged", if that's what you believe is happening to them. The solution isn't to arbitrarily let people out of jail and hamstring our ability to easily put them back in when on post release supervision. THAT is not pretzel logic -- that is the common sense observation of naive legislation.

With regards to

Comment Re:The nice kind of rape (Score 1) 903

"You said yourself that this man had a history of violent felonies and was, in the case of your family's ordeal, violent. Terrible story, I'm very sorry to hear, but your anecdote in no way relates to a statement about non-violent drug offenders."

You missed the part where I'm telling you that you need to look at what is considered a "non-violent drug offender". In our state, a "non-violent" anything is based *JUST* on their latest offense now. Yes, our monster had a history -- but new legislation made it impossible to consider that during post release supervision.

Also, most stories about "non-violent drug offenders" in prison statistics completely ignored the offenders history which helped pass the crazy legislation in my state.

"but your outrage is obviously clouding your logic."

Trust me -- it's not. There are four basic reasons society puts people in prison:

1. Retribution – they must pay their ‘debt to society’
2. Rehabilitation – assist them in re-entering society as a safe and productive member
3. Segregation – they are separated from society for its safety
4. Deterrence – The price to pay to society must try to deter the committing crimes against society

The table on which we rest our machine that attempts to keep society safe and provide a way “back” in to society for those who have hurt the innocent sits upon 4 legs represented by each one of the above reasons.

What we have done is hack off lengths of retribution, deterrence and segregation and lengthened rehabilitation to the point of absurdity. The table is now uneven, unstable and the machine meant to help keep the innocent safe can’t possibly work effectively. Each tilt and rock of that table spills out those who aren’t ready to re-enter society and encourages those who would otherwise be deterred to harm the innocent.

Parole has a purpose -- and it's to make sure the offender is READY to renter society -- and if not, make it EASY to put them back in prison Recent legislation in my state has hamstrung this important role at the expense of public safety.

Comment Re:The nice kind of rape (Score 1) 903

"That said, what exactly is your point? Someone with no record at all could have done exactly the same thing or worse."

I've no idea how you cannot miss my point. Pre AB109 would have almost certainly had this monster off the streets when he violated the terms of his post release supervision -- and post AB109 made it virtually impossible to take him off the streets for more than a few days. Pre AB109 he wouldn't have been on the streets to commit this crime. This mind set about keeping "non-violent" drug users out of prison is wrong. You really need to look at the full criminal history of a "non-violent drug user". The goal needs to be to make it EASIER to take repeat felons off the streets -- not harder.

The mind-set that passed AB109 is nothing but naivety and idiocy that failed to consider the consequences of ignoring someone's history.

Comment Re:The nice kind of rape (Score 1) 903

"So why defend the system that failed to protect your daughter?
By your own admission the system didn't work, so what is to be gained by perpetuating it?"

I'm not. Re-read my post. I'm arguing against the mindset that CHANGED the system to favor drug users with no consideration to reality or consequences. Casting a wide legislative net to help "drug users" keep from spending time in prison is what contributed to a monster kidnapping and brutally raping my daughter.

Comment Re:The nice kind of rape (Score 1) 903

"Seriously though, anyone who "robs" or "steals" is no longer a "non-violent" offender. There are pretty precise lists that categorize that, state-by-state and federally. Burglary II, something not involving another person, is usually considered "non-violent". Burglary I specifically involves someone else. One is "class A" felony, the other "class B"."

Seriously, though -- under AB109 in CA if your LAST felony offense was "non-violent" (and most thefts are listed as non-violent), you are treated during post release supervision as if you committed a misdemeanor and are supervised by county probation (with virtually no way for revocation time) instead of state parole. Had our monster been supervised by state and he received the typical amount of revocation time he would have been in prison the night he decided to rob houses (and kidnapped my daughter). His last office was drug related (meth). You'd be surprised (or horrified) by what CA considers (or does not consider) violent and/or sexual crimes now.

And there was a tracking system -- "probation". He violated it and received a "flash incarceration" (required by AB109) rather than real revocation time (under state parole) -- solely because his LAST offense was a 3N offense (non-violent, non-sexual, non-serious). Fun fact: Under AB109 if an offender has in their past a "serious" or "violent" or "sexual" felony and their current crime is a 3N and they receive prison time -- they serve that time in STATE prison whereas under AB109, they would service there sentence in county jail without the "violent, sexual, serious" past crimes. The "rap sheet" is enough to keep them in state prison but when it comes to post-release supervision they are all sunshine and rainbows for county supervision.

"Most people, when talking about "non violent drug offenders", are meaning people who usually have no other felony convictions, and are busted for using pot, LSD, X, or something else along those lines"

If someone is a prolific re-offender (felony after felony after felony) we need to make it easier to get them off the streets, not harder. Cops in my state rarely, if ever, arrest for pot unless it's bales of it -- or you are smoking it while driving. Most of the "recreational" offenses are misdemeanors or citations (fine). You need to look at those "non-violent drug offenders" rap sheets. You'll find very few with ONLY drug offenses in their past. It takes quite a bit to get a few years or more in prison.

Comment Re:The nice kind of rape (Score 1) 903

The majority of recreational drug users are not, in fact, in prison or even arrested.

Again -- once it gets to the point where threats of violence are used to rob money for drugs that's the point where it needs to be made easier to take them off the streets and for longer periods of time.

Slashdot Top Deals

"We learn from history that we learn nothing from history." -- George Bernard Shaw