Clarification of Answer by
politicalguru-ga
on
07 Mar 2006 01:43 PST
Dear d14ksa,
First of all, I wish people would say, when asking, what they're
looking for. Did you expect me to enable my superpowers to know that
you're looking for arguments for a debate?
In any case, in most countries and cases at least, non-violent
offenders do not receive the same punishments as violent criminals.
See several arguments that might help you for your debate here:
"Provide Alternative Sentencing for Non-Violent Offenders.
Criminals who are not a physical threat to society should not be
locked up with violent criminals but should be sentenced to projects
that will pay back the community. Criminals should pay restitution to
their victims and the community. Locking up violent criminals makes
sense; locking up non-violent criminals does not. Currently it costs
more to warehouse a criminal for one year than it does to send the
brightest student to Harvard University. Alternative sentencing for
non-violent offenders will reduce taxpayer cost and generate funds
which can provide restitution for the crime committed."
(SOURCE: Kerby Anderson, "Crime in America",
<http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/crime.html>).
New Leahy Bill Targets Prisons? Revolving Doors ...Directs Resources
to Prison Drug Testing and Treatment
<http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200005/000524b.html> - a bill to treat
non-violent drug criminals otherwise, and separate them from the
violent criminals.
BBC, "Tagging criminals 'damages trust'", 16 November, 2004,
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4015041.stm> - in the UK, some claim
that tagging non-violent offenders with electronic devices is more
efficient, some oppose.
"it was Republican Senators Sam Brownback and Tom Coburn and Arlen
Specter who had the courage to talk about being smart on crime as well
as tough on crime. As set forth in the first set of excerpts below,
Senator Brownback, after noting President Bush's discussion of
re-entry issues in his 2004 State of the Union address, promoted his
bill for providing intensive treatment and counseling as prisoners are
approaching release; Senator Coburn stressed drug crimes and stated
boldly "we ought to be doing drug treatment rather than
incarceration"; and Senator Specter asserted that these issues are
"going to be a priority for the Judiciary Committee this year and next
year and into the foreseeable future," and he stressed the importance
of distinguishing violent and non-violent criminals. Among other
responses, AG nominee Gonzales said on these issues:
I agree ... that for people who commit violent crimes and are
career criminals, they should remain in our prisons. But there is a
segment of the prison population ? juveniles, for an example, as you
mentioned, and first-time, maybe sometimes second- time offenders ?
who can be rehabilitated.
And as I said earlier in response to a question, I think it is not
only smart, but I think it's the right thing to do. I think it is part
of a compassionate society to give someone another chance."
(SOURCE: "Gonzales hearing highlights (torture-free)",
<http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2005/01/gonzales_hearin.html>).
"For example, non-violent criminals are often housed with hardened
violent criminals. The result of such policy is a fulfillment of the
principle cited by the Apostle Paul:
Do not be deceived: "Bad company corrupts good morals." (1
Corinthians 15:33 NASV2)
Place a non-violent criminal in confinement with a violent criminal
and the violent criminal is not going to be converted to the
non-violent criminal's lifestyle. Instead, the non-violent criminal is
much more likely to become hardened and violent. America's prisons are
simply fertile training grounds for compounded criminal behavior. More
often than not, the non-violent criminals become physical and sexual
victims of the hardened lifers. "
(SOURCE: MIssion to Israel, "Prisons - Shut them all Down: America's
Penal System" <http://www.missiontoisrael.org/prisons.php>).
"Federal, State, and local governments spent $24 billion last year on
the incarceration of non-violent criminals (many of them drug
offenders) alone. This is 50% more that the entire federal welfare
budget, and almost six times the amount the federal government spends
annually on child care. " (SOURCE: ACLU, "Prison Overpopulation &
Harsh Sentencing (6/15/2001)",
<http://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/sentencing/10873res20010615.html>).
"There are many other approaches to convince the public, and the
public means basically tax-payers, that prison for non-violent
criminals is a waste of money. Calculations showing how many
tax-payers are needed to maintain someone in prison versus the number
needed to manage alternative programs are always very convincing."
(SOURCE: "Beyond Prisons Symposium - Kingston, Ontario",
<http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/forum/bprisons/speeches/4_e.shtml>).
