BF2S Forums Privatization of the U.S. prison system

entirely my business though.

what has that got to do with anything? think i'd keep quantities of it in my room if it was illegal? no. i was in possession of a legal drug. something with the same status as sugar, or paracetamol. i committed no crimes. therefore for me to have a 'record' for that act is unlawful. you can't keep a record on someone for not breaking a law. nor can you hold them in criminal contempt because you 'warned' them for consuming a legal substance. that is not how the law works. the law doesn't work retroactively, either: one of the principles of the law from its fuckin' roman origins. the fact it was made illegal a few days later does not imply my criminality for consuming it when it was legal. doesn't. work. that. way.

and yes, i know you "don't sign anything". however the way the police would 'snag' people for their books/performance stats is by presenting it as a release form. i can't remember the news article i found this on, but that practice in particular was what came under attack from the court of appeal. it wasn't a "here's a confession, sign it and admit you did wrong". it was a "here's your phone and possessions, now just sign here to be formally released". that was put on a police database - that i had been in custody for a period of time. that datum, through the CRB system as it was, could then be supplied to all future employers. wow. like i'd have to recapitulate the entire non-crime to every single employer for the rest of my life. it's none of their business. it doesn't impinge on my ability to perform a job. it doesn't warn that i'm a dangerous or criminal individual. it doesn't warn that i'm going to fiddle children. it's none of their business. people shouldn't have to lose job opportunities, or go through a routine humiliation during job interviews, because of an improperly-applied background-system. it is way over the bounds of liberal freedom.

oh and i should add that it never actually negatively affected me. i got a graduate job that didn't ask for a background check. i have never been 'humiliated' by it. in fact, what bothers me was that i was completely unawares, until i read the recent news about it. then i had to send letters and take initiative to make sure i wouldn't be unfairly criminalized. there are hundreds of thousands of people out there who could be adversely affected by this, though. i think that's wrong.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-06-03 06:16:59)

i never said i was 'arrested for nothing'. i was arrested for a reason. they kept a record on my non-crime for "nothing". there's a big difference. you can't ruin someone's entire life just because they were arrested. arrest doesn't imply a crime nor guilt. many people are arrested wrongly, or only on suspicion, or for the sake of public safety, or whatever, and never are charged with anything. yes i was arrested with white powder in my room. however that powder was legal. therefore it is unlawful for the rest of my life to be sullied with that fact.

it's very simple.

and the police mess with people every day, for myriad reasons, without them asking for it. pretty funny line for you to take, considering earlier in this thread you were talking about how corrupt and improper the uk police are. now you're acting like the only way you'd ever get held-up by the police is 'if you ask for it'. okay dilbert

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-06-03 06:24:54)

tbh the british 'liberal' opinion on the CRB system, i.e. the graun commentariat groupthink line, is pretty much the same as mine. the system was devised to track pedophiles and violent individuals, to flag-up this behaviour/past if they applied for a job around children (pressure for its establishment came after that case of child-murder with the guy who was a school caretaker). i have no problem with that. there is a public interest. however using it as a giant 'intelligence' database, keeping tabs on things like people signing out of police custody (which implies no crime/guilt, let alone one endangering children or individuals) is just basically totalitarian, yeah. i normally avoid 'totalitarian' rhetoric, i think it's lazy, but that sort of database is such an invasion of privacy that it makes me actually angry. to think that i could have been called out in a job interview in 20-30 years, well into a career, and had this non-incident brought up where i was taken into custody for possessing a legal powder... makes me angry. people shouldn't even have to be humiliated on their past crimes if they are spent/minor conviction, e.g. the original case's example of a guy who stole a bike when he was a little kid. do the crime, pay the time. you shouldn't have to answer to some stranger in a job interview for something you did 20 years ago, of no interest to the public or any relevancy to the job. that is oppressive.

the system basically criminalizes people for life. i'm a very fringe example, as i never committed a crime. but if someone did commit a crime in their youth, and was trying to put it behind them, for a system to call you out on every single job/course application is terrible. the system, if anything, increases chances of recidivism and criminal behaviour. if you declare someone a 'criminal' for life and place them beyond the realms of ordinary society, beyond hope of rehabilitation into the citizenship, then you only give them the choice to go back to crime. the CRB system was basically creeping so casually into the everyday process of job-recruitment that this was seemingly becoming an inevitability. totally stupid.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-06-03 06:36:17)

looks like the army

Chief Keef had a really bad Monday that just kept getting worse. The Chicago rapper, whose real name is Keith Cozart, was sentenced to 18 months probation for driving 110 miles-per-hour on the Edens Expressway. He must also pay a $531 fine and complete 60 hours of community service.

18 months of probation for a speed violation.

She probably makes more money than 95 percent of other women in her age bracket.  lol

Last edited by Spearhead (2013-07-25 02:18:23)

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is set to announce Monday that low-level, nonviolent drug offenders with no ties to gangs or large-scale drug organizations will no longer be charged with offenses that impose severe mandatory sentences.

The new Justice Department policy is part of a comprehensive prison reform package that Holder will reveal in a speech to the American Bar Association in San Francisco, according to senior department officials. He is also expected to introduce a policy to reduce sentences for elderly, nonviolent inmates and find alternatives to prison for nonviolent criminals.

Justice Department lawyers have worked for months on the proposals, which Holder wants to make the cornerstone of the rest of his tenure.

“A vicious cycle of poverty, criminality and incarceration traps too many Americans and weakens too many communities,” Holder plans to say Monday, ­according to excerpts of his ­remarks that were provided to The Washington Post. “However, many aspects of our criminal justice system may actually exacerbate this problem rather than alleviate it.”

Holder is calling for a change in Justice Department policies to reserve the most severe penalties for drug offenses for serious, high-level or violent drug traffickers. He has directed his 94 U.S. attorneys across the country to develop specific, locally tailored guidelines for determining when federal charges should be filed and when they should not.

“Too many Americans go to too many prisons for far too long and for no good law enforcement reason,” Holder plans to say. “We cannot simply prosecute or incarcerate our way to becoming a safer nation.

That is great. Some are let down still because they were hoping marijuana would be reclassified to a level 3 drug instead of level 1. This is a step in the right direction anyway.