Solution to Crime! NEED INPUT

[Mike Elzinga]

Take up a collection and buy a bunch of .25 and .32 caliber Jennings, Davis and Lorcin pistols. Then load up a bunch of .25 and .32 ammo full to the brim with Bullseye or maybe blackpowder. Load all the guns up with this dynamite ammo and scatter them about in high crime areas. Let the criminals shoot at each other and watch as those Lorcins become hand grenades.

Or, make everything legal and there won't be any crime. Its a punk answer but I think fitting for a stupid, open ended question where pretty much any answer is right.

 

[Mike H]

Make prison sentences "punishment" instead of 3 hots and a cot. I'm talking hard labor here. I don't care if they are just making big rocks into little rocks. Prison should be a place where nobody wants to go. It appears to be a vacation for some.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Funny, my church does.



We've had it this way for four decades now. How's that not teaching morals and ethics in schools working out for ya?

Your church teaches those subjects during the service or in an attached school? Two different animals, Kirk. As for how it's working out...it worked out just fine for me and for my daughter. She was taught right from wrong. She's legally an adult now and as such, makes her own choices, choices I don't always approve of, but along with those choices goes the responsibility for her actions.

Ding ding ding...we have a winner!

Bill, if "we should not be teaching morals and ethics in schools" I ask: where should those be taught? And if you mention "In the home (which I agree with by the way)" how do we do that?

WE don't do that. YOU do that for your children and I take a parental responsibility to teach it to mine. As for those that don't get taught young, come on... Basic moral lessons, things like not stealing, not murdering... You can't tell me kids don't know by the time they're 6 or so not to do those things. While they disregard those lessons occasionally (i.e. stealing candy or a toy from a store) when caught, they seem to learn quickly enough. If not, they learn when someone steals from them.
My main point is that it's neither my place nor my job to teach your children, whether we're discussing the "three Rs" or right from wrong, the Indiana Constitution's mention of public education notwithstanding. Those are your responsibility as the child's parent.

For those who never learn it, well...that brings us back to the OP, doesn't it?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[ThrottleJockey]

Eliminate indoctrination factories (public schools run by liberal unions). Make prison really suck. Limit appeals. Arm everyone. De-criminalize about 70% of everything already on the books. Almost a complete libertarian society if you will.

 

[sepe]

1) Eliminate "Plea Barganing",diversion programs,alternative sentencing, house arrest and such.
2) Eliminate youth facilities. If you do an adult crime, you do adult time.
3) Utilize tent cities and chain gangs. The inmates shall work to pay for their food, care and housing. Remove all recreational/comfort items. Eliminate contact/conjugal visits. Make a prison a prison, not the holiday inn express.
4) Mandatory minimum sentencing, for Violent crimes, sex crimes, drug dealers, all start with a twenty five year sentence.
5) If during the commision of any crime a life is taken, then all criminals involved shall forfiet their life/lives.

Your #4 makes me laugh a bit. You do know that there are people in prison/or have been locked up because of "sex crimes" that were between consenting 17 and 19 year olds. Would it make sense to make a minimum 25 year example out of them? I personally know people involved in a situation like that. He had to register as a sex offender and was registered the day they got married. He was registered the day each of their 4 children were born. They had been dating a few years before her parents decided they didn't like him and something needed to be done.

Removing all of the "comfort" items is going to end up making things worse for the ones that actually might be able to be rehabilitated. Instead of having hope of seeing family, even if it is through glass, they're going to be growing more and more bitter with the system. Should they be eating cake and enjoying their time in prison? No. Should EVERYONE in prison be treated like the scum of the earth or an animal? No.

About the not teaching morals and ethics in schools... Parents need to be more accountable. It shouldn't be on some crutch or the schools to teach.

 

[jblomenberg16]

Your church teaches those subjects during the service or in an attached school? Two different animals, Kirk. As for how it's working out...it worked out just fine for me and for my daughter. She was taught right from wrong. She's legally an adult now and as such, makes her own choices, choices I don't always approve of, but along with those choices goes the responsibility for her actions.



WE don't do that. YOU do that for your children and I take a parental responsibility to teach it to mine. As for those that don't get taught young, come on... Basic moral lessons, things like not stealing, not murdering... You can't tell me kids don't know by the time they're 6 or so they don't know those things. While they disregard those lessons occasionally (i.e. stealing candy or a toy from a store) when caught, they seem to learn quickly enough. If not, they leRn when someone steals from them.
My main point is that it's neither my place nor my job to teach your children, whether we're discussing the "three Rs" or right from wrong, the Indiana Constitution's mention of public education notwithstanding. Those are your responsibility as the child's parent.

For those who never learn it, well...that brings us back to the OP, doesn't it?

Blessings,
Bill

Bill...your last statement is exactly right, and I think as a whole we are in agreement, at least at the fundamental level.

Where we also agree is that as parents, it is our responsibility to teach our children life's essential lessons, including morals. But to come full circle back to the OP and one of my earlier posts, what happens when there is no parent or adult at home to do that? Where do those children then learn those lessons?

My point is that school for many kids is the most interaction they'll have with an adult the entire day, and I think that basic moral and ethics needs to be a part of that education. If it is not, We know that kids will turn to other sources for that guidance...which are things like TV, movies, music, video games, etc.

 

[sepe]

Bill...your last statement is exactly right, and I think as a whole we are in agreement, at least at the fundamental level.

Where we also agree is that as parents, it is our responsibility to teach our children life's essential lessons, including morals. But to come full circle back to the OP and one of my earlier posts, what happens when there is no parent or adult at home to do that? Where do those children then learn those lessons?

My point is that school for many kids is the most interaction they'll have with an adult the entire day, and I think that basic moral and ethics needs to be a part of that education. If it is not, We know that kids will turn to other sources for that guidance...which are things like TV, movies, music, video games, etc.

Why can't the parents be responsible for teaching their kids right from wrong? Yeah, I know...most parents don't have time to be actively involved in their child's life or they'd rather be friends instead of a parent but that does NOT mean that a school is suppose to teach a child the things they're suppose to be learning at home. That is a big problem with education, lazy parents make lazy children. If the parents don't care enough to be involved it makes a huge impact on the classroom and you have kids being pushed through the system because the teacher has to teach little Johnny right from wrong instead of making sure the little putz can read or write.

If there is NO parent at home, the child probably needs to be influenced by other family members. If there is one parent at home that can't be the proper influence because they're working 3 jobs to make ends meet, another family member should come into the fold. Lack of 2 parents still doesn't put the brunt of forming a child onto the school system.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Your church teaches those subjects during the service or in an attached school? Two different animals, Kirk.

We teach them during the services and in an attached school. The two are inexplicably intertwined; they are the same animal.

it worked out just fine for me and for my daughter.

Glad to hear but the official state religion of nihilism that is taught in government schools is not working for society.

The crime we see today is a direct result of the Welfare State. Crime is a byproduct of the government's war on the family (most notably seen in single mother families). Without fathers and guidance young men go feral and self-destructive and stick us all with the bill and government steps in with "solutions".

 

[Bill of Rights]

We teach them during the services and in an attached school. The two are inexplicably intertwined; they are the same animal.



Glad to hear but the official state religion of nihilism that is taught in government schools is not working for society.

The crime we see today is a direct result of the Welfare State. Crime is a byproduct of the government's war on the family (most notably seen in single mother families). Without fathers and guidance young men go feral and self-destructive and stick us all with the bill and government steps in with "solutions".

I'm going to guess from context that you meant inextricably, not inexplicably. I'm not sure how a religious service teaches English, math, and science, but I'll take you at your word that it's so, mostly since this is not the time or place for that discussion.

I disagree that disregard of laws and societal importance is taught in the government schools; quite the reverse. They're being taught to be good little slaves to the machine, IMHO. That said, though, I agree that the criminal element is at least in large part the product of the welfare state, only worsened by the lack of male exemplars by which young boys learn how to be men.

The sticking point here is that "government" is allowed to step in with the solutions you mentioned. Just as parents have abdicated their responsibility to their children, so have individuals abdicated their responsibility to be their own protection, to look out for themselves, not as if any man is an island, but simply that one cannot look to others for the necessities of life for any length of time without becoming dependent upon those others. THAT is, IMHO, the part that needs fixed.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I'm not sure how a religious service teaches English, math, and science

So, you don't like sermons from the Book of Numbers?

Thank you, I'll be here all week, try the veal.

I'm going to guess from context that you meant inextricably, not inexplicably

No, I meant inexplicably. I make a little pun on a legal phrase.

I disagree that disregard of laws and societal importance is taught in the government schools; quite the reverse. They're being taught to be good little slaves to the machine, IMHO

Since I'm a fan, let's use G.K. Chesterton to answer this inquiry:

As G.K. Chesterton said, "When you break the big laws, you do not get freedom; you do not even get anarchy. You get the small laws." Schools teach kids that there are no big laws as they are oppressive, paternalistic and homophobic. Now we have only a mindless horde of small laws for bullying, racism, sexism, ism after ism.

Government schools teach children to be slaves to almighty government as G.K. Chesterton said, "Once abolish the God, and the government becomes the God."

 

[Bill of Rights]

So, you don't like sermons from the Book of Numbers?

Thank you, I'll be here all week, try the veal.

Simply talking at people is not teaching them those things, Kirk. I recall you posting that one of your pet peeves is the use of "less" when "fewer" is the more grammatically correct word; if talking about that is teaching, why do people who have read your posts still use the former incorrectly? ( and no, I don't count since I was already using it correctly!)

No, I meant inexplicably. I make a little pun on a legal phrase.

Ok

Since I'm a fan, let's use G.K. Chesterton to answer this inquiry:

As G.K. Chesterton said, "When you break the big laws, you do not get freedom; you do not even get anarchy. You get the small laws." Schools teach kids that there are no big laws as they are oppressive, paternalistic and homophobic. Now we have only a mindless horde of small laws for bullying, racism, sexism, ism after ism.

Government schools teach children to be slaves to almighty government as G.K. Chesterton said, "Once abolish the God, and the government becomes the God."

So if I understand you and Chesterton correctly, you're saying that our government is and has been setting up a massive case of Stockholm Syndrome with the American people.

I can't argue that; while I've not thought of it in those terms before, intentional or not, (and I believe it very well could be,) that is undeniably the effect, else we would not have a group of people called "statists". I haven't yet checked the DSM-IV, but if it's listed there, wouldn't that technically be evidence that statists are mentally ill? (I debated using a smiley here, but the question is not meant to be in humor.)

Blessings,
Bill