Waianae / Leeward: Dangerous 4 Haoles?
haoleman
Hi;
Some old native Hawaiian friends got me and
my haole family cheap lodging on the military base
near Waianae for a week-and-a-half...we wouldn't
be able to afford Oahu otherwise. As far as
tourists go, we are not too flagrant, but we've
read in some travel guides to avoid the leeward
coast due to local hostility. Our native friends have
assured us they wouldn't place us in danger, but we
would also like to respect local situations. After reading the sad
history of Oahu, if I were a native, I would probably try to kill all the
haoles I could, but WHAT situations and behavior should we avoid....if we
go? We will be doing some driving to Honolulu, Kailua, etc. and a lot of
rusty/beginner surfing.
Thank You
Harold Hindemith
I imagine the military base near Waianae is Barber's Point or
the Navy's nuclear storage facility at Lualualei. You shouldn't
have any problems during the day on the Waianae coast.
Evenings may be the luck of the draw. I have a haole friend
who lives in Maile, sometimes known as "Haole Haven" in
the Waianae area, and he hasn't had a problem, but then
again, he goes out at night with his Filipina wife. :-) A California
neighbor of mine has a time-share condo in Makaha, which he
visits without incident once a year. That he and his family are
Black may or may not have something to do with it. In any event,
there are no remarkable night time attractions in Waianae, so
staying out of the area at night would be no problem. On base,
I doubt if there would be any problems due to patroling by MPs.
Wherever you go, though, especially the beaches, don't leave
valuables visible in the car. Thieves have an uncanny knack for
spotting tourists' cars (sometimes lookouts hang around parking
lot entrances), and break-ins are common at some beaches and
scenic look-outs.
If you want to try surfing, I recommend renting a board on Waikiki
Beach and, perhaps, getting an hour's instruction from a beach
boy. The last time I checked, lessons go for $50/hr. This time of
year, the surf on the north shore will be "up", and it would be suicide
to try to learn in it. To save money, try parking along the Ala Wai
Canal or at the Zoo parking lot. A tip for Ala Wai parking: Parking
is legal at the top of "T" intersections (between the crosswalks)
along Ala Wai Blvd. If you can borrow a board, you might try the
surf at Barber's Point. The surf on the southern shore is usually
mild in the winter.
_HINDEMITH_
Lana
"haoleman" <wome...@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:1046052...@news.lava.net...
> if I were a native, I would probably try to kill all the
> haoles I could, but WHAT situations and behavior should we avoid....if we
> go? We will be doing some driving to Honolulu, Kailua, etc. and a lot of
> rusty/beginner surfing.
>
> Thank You
Gosh. Its not THAT bad in Waianae. Just try not to stick out. Try to blend
in. Try not to look at people in the eye especially if they look Hawaiian.
Then again there is no way to tell whether or not someone is Hawaiian or not
LOL As in any other place, as long as youre cool calm and collective there
shouldnt be a problem. Make sure you roll your socks down and dont wear
socks with sandals! You will stick out and many people will see you as
someone vulnerable to O'ahu. Lock your car doors. Dont leave ANY valuables
in it.
For female visitors especially be careful in Salt Lake. There is a high rape
rate there.
Other than that... no where is safe. Just be careful though... thats all you
can do.
bill turner
In article <1046052...@news.lava.net>,
"haoleman" <wome...@ixpres.com> wrote:
Aloha haoleman,
Based on your posting history across various usenet newsgroups, I
suspect you'll be happiest if you stay in Waikiki.
I hope your time on Oahu is one of growth. The best to you and I hope
you can resolve your various issues.
-- bill
Judy
Lana wrote:
> Make sure you roll your socks down and dont wear
> socks with sandals! You will stick out and many people will see you as
> someone vulnerable to O'ahu.
Oh for Pete's sake!
OCTOGENARIAN haole clients of mine just spent a glorious week in Makaha
and loved it. They most definitely "stuck out." Wore socks with sandals
and dorky hats. But they're very nice people and they loved it. If it
weren't such a long haul to Tripler they'd be buying there. (He thought
Kolekole Pass was a main thoroughfare.)
A smile and pleasant attitude go a long way. The people who get in
trouble over there are generally those whose smug superior attitude
"sticks out" and fairly begs to get knocked down.
But lock your car.
jw+++++++++++
maybe coming from London I am a bit naive, but I wonder why these car break
ins are allowed to continue.
we have police entrapment vehicles. when people break in the car locks up
and an alarm sounds and the police come around the corner and have them all.
it works a treat. then they pop up little notices. warning police entrapment
vehicles in this area. problem solved. finally they even have to resort to
leaving the latest laptop computers in cars to try and get a bite.
if you have an email for the chief of police to give me maybe I could tell
him about this.
john west
Judy <JBar...@roadrunner.hawaii> wrote in message
news:1046080...@news.lava.net...
>
> Lana wrote:
>
> > Make sure you roll your socks down and dont wear
> > socks with sandals! You will stick out and many people will see you as
> > someone vulnerable to O'ahu.
>
>
Gene Lancette
haoleman wrote:
There's no place on the planet that can guarantee safety. But, you
will have little to worry about if you are 1) yourself 2)friendly
3)respectful 4)not paranoid 5)be open.
There are some super people on the Leeward Coast. You just don't
read about them like you do the punks.
On the mainland, when people greet each other it is with a nod of the
head. In Hawaii, it is with raised eyebrows. A smile helps. Don't be too
quick to judge. I have found the "meanest looking" people can often be
the most friendly.
If you don't want trouble surfing and are rusty or a beginner, go Waikiki
first. Take a lesson. Learn protocol. Surfers can be quite territorial.
Waikiki is considered the place for beginners. Dinging someone's board
elsewhere could cause a lot of grief. I work on the beach in Waikiki and
if you want I can give you some references on which places to go and
who to ask for to get good lessons.
Enjoy your visit.
Alvin E. Toda
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, haoleman wrote:
>
> Hi;
>
> Some old native Hawaiian friends got me and
> my haole family cheap lodging on the military base
> near Waianae for a week-and-a-half...we wouldn't
> be able to afford Oahu otherwise. As far as
> tourists go, we are not too flagrant, but we've
> read in some travel guides to avoid the leeward
> coast due to local hostility. Our native friends have
There was some problems several years ago from some
hotheads, but I think the kids were turned in, and
things have calmed down. I think the military was also
improving the security there.
Economically the area is worse than Honolulu, but it
doesn't seem as bad as some areas in the mainland that
I have visited. Visitors to Hawaii have a high rate of
theft committed against them-- even in Waikiki. So you
may want to keep an eye on your things where ever you
may go.
--alvin
albert the panther
Gene Lancette wrote:
> I have found the "meanest looking" people can often be
> the most friendly.
That's so true in this town. There's a wonderful couple who have lived in
Ala Moana Beach Park for years, and continue to do so despite the current
campaign of harrassment being carried on by the police. "We just go back
at five o'clock", he told me, when I asked how they were coping with the
Mon-Wed-Fri clear-out of the park from midnight until four a.m.
Grandparents.
As tough looking, both of them, as you could imagine, but with the
proverbial hearts of gold, two of the best people I've ever had the
privilege to meet.
Alvin E. Toda
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, jw+++++++++++ wrote:
> maybe coming from London I am a bit naive, but I
> wonder why these car break ins are allowed to
> continue. we have police entrapment vehicles. when
> people break in the car locks up and an alarm sounds
> and the police come around the corner and have them
> all. it works a treat. then they pop up little
> notices. warning police entrapment vehicles in this
> area. problem solved. finally they even have to
> resort to leaving the latest laptop computers in cars
> to try and get a bite. if you have an email for the
> chief of police to give me maybe I could tell him
> about this. john west
Too many thieves and not enough cops. I think now and
then there are stake out operations and they tape the
break-ins for evidence at the trial. This is at a
tourist attraction. I hope this number will sink in: in
my area of about 100,000 residents there is only two
cops on patrol 24 hrs through out the day from the
small police station in the area.
In Waikiki, there is one station and more police on
patrol. But in proportion,there's also a great many
more thieves to catch. It's lucky a lot of hotels have
private security.
--alvin
honu
For starters, if you're asked "Like beef, haole?" don't think they're asking
for a food choice, and start backing away (or down) respectfully unless you
really want to fight.
"haoleman" <wome...@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:1046052...@news.lava.net...
>
Lana
"Judy" <JBar...@roadrunner.hawaii> wrote in message
news:1046080...@news.lava.net...
> Oh for Pete's sake!
>
> OCTOGENARIAN haole clients of mine just spent a glorious week in Makaha
> and loved it. They most definitely "stuck out." Wore socks with sandals
> and dorky hats. But they're very nice people and they loved it. If it
> weren't such a long haul to Tripler they'd be buying there. (He thought
> Kolekole Pass was a main thoroughfare.)
yeah i was being sarcastic
Harold Hindemith
"honu" advised:
> For starters, if you're asked "Like beef, haole?" don't think they're asking
> for a food choice, and start backing away (or down) respectfully unless you
> really want to fight.
The correct response to "Like beef, haole?" is to say
"You pilau okole donno how fo' beef!" :-)
_HINDEMITH_
Wing C Ng
In article <1046123...@news.lava.net>, Alvin E. Toda <a...@lava.net> wrote:
>
>On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, jw+++++++++++ wrote:
>
>> maybe coming from London I am a bit naive, but I
>> wonder why these car break ins are allowed to
>> continue. we have police entrapment vehicles. when
>> people break in the car locks up and an alarm sounds
>> and the police come around the corner and have them
>> all. it works a treat. then they pop up little
>> notices. warning police entrapment vehicles in this
>> area. problem solved. finally they even have to
>> resort to leaving the latest laptop computers in cars
>> to try and get a bite. if you have an email for the
>> chief of police to give me maybe I could tell him
>> about this. john west
>
>Too many thieves and not enough cops. I think now and
Hawaii, or maybe Honolulu, is the property crime capital
of the U.S. Lots of victims are tourists. I guess they
don't come back to testify.
Wing
jw+++++++++++
This operation only needs a couple of policemen and a bit of publicity in
the local news about entrapment vehicles. after a couple of arrests and
local publicity it has found to be very effective as a deterent here. Then
the police are not really needed. more advanced vehicle with global
positioning transmitters do not even need any police attendance other than
locating them and making the arrest.
jw+++++++++++ <one...@TAKEAWAAYyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1046102...@news.lava.net...
>
> maybe coming from London I am a bit naive, but I wonder why these car
break
> ins are allowed to continue.
> we have police entrapment vehicles. when people break in the car locks up
> and an alarm sounds and the police come around the corner and have them
all.
> it works a treat. then they pop up little notices. warning police
entrapment
> vehicles in this area. problem solved. finally they even have to resort to
> leaving the latest laptop computers in cars to try and get a bite.
> if you have an email for the chief of police to give me maybe I could tell
> him about this.
> john west
>
>
> Judy <JBar...@roadrunner.hawaii> wrote in message
> news:1046080...@news.lava.net...
> >
> > Lana wrote:
> >
> > > Make sure you roll your socks down and dont wear
> > > socks with sandals! You will stick out and many people will see you
as
> > > someone vulnerable to O'ahu.
> >
> >
> > Oh for Pete's sake!
> >
> > OCTOGENARIAN haole clients of mine just spent a glorious week in Makaha
> > and loved it. They most definitely "stuck out." Wore socks with sandals
> > and dorky hats. But they're very nice people and they loved it. If it
> > weren't such a long haul to Tripler they'd be buying there. (He thought
> > Kolekole Pass was a main thoroughfare.)
> >
Lana
"Harold Hindemith" <HHind...@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:1046154...@news.lava.net...
> The correct response to "Like beef, haole?" is to say
> "You pilau okole donno how fo' beef!" :-)
>
>
> _HINDEMITH_
Youre gonna get him into trouble.
dvec...@pop.slkc.uswest.net
A lot of folks will say that the Wai'anae area is a very bad location,
especially for haoles. I was born and raised there and can say in all
honesty that it is a beautiful area, rich in history and culture, and the
people there are just as beautiful and just as rich in hospitality and
genuine caring. As with all things, you would do well to show respect for
the area and it's inhabitants. That would entail not going to the beaches
and littering, not driving as though you were on a California freeway, and
being just as courteous and respectful as you would like to be treated. The
people there are very........earthy and do not put much stock into
appearances, but they are all about what you are on the inside. As they say,
when in Rome, do as the Romans do........when in Wai'anae, do as the locals
do.
Have a good trip! Be sure to visit the heiaus in the area as they are
amazing, especially the one up at Makaha Valley which is one of the best
preserved(restored) in the state.
daniel
"jw+++++++++++" <one...@TAKEAWAAYyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1046166...@news.lava.net...
>
> This operation only needs a couple of policemen and a bit of publicity in
> the local news about entrapment vehicles. after a couple of arrests and
> local publicity it has found to be very effective as a deterent here. Then
> the police are not really needed. more advanced vehicle with global
> positioning transmitters do not even need any police attendance other than
> locating them and making the arrest.
>
HPD can't get their radios to work properly, don't think they'll have better
luck with global positioning transmitters
Gene Lancette
Lana wrote:
I think people would be either confused or be laughing too hard
at such an idiotic response to hurt the guy... (wondering if Harold
even actually grew up here?)
Larry Levy
Can one of you guys translate the response for this haole? :)
It sure didn't sound like it would calm things down :)
-Larry
Gene Lancette
Larry Levy wrote:
>
> Can one of you guys translate the response for this haole? :)
>
> It sure didn't sound like it would calm things down :)
>
> -Larry
Larry, "pilau" is roughly translated to mean bad smelling or distasteful.
"like beef" is pigin. It translates to "do you want to fight"
"Okole" translates in this case to "asshole".
In english you would say something like "You stinking asshole, you
don't know how to fight."
Harold has such a wonderful sense of humor. A truly classy guy....
Wouldn't you agree?
Larry Levy
Lol, yeah that sure would de-escalate things. :)
The beef part I figured out, but I was lost on the rest.
Thanks,
-Larry
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 23:50:06 -0000, Gene Lancette
<lancet...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
http://www.geocities.com/levys2/levyslinks.html
Please remove "hatespam" to email
Alvin E. Toda
I agree. And they don't need vehicles to entice
thieves. Just staking out a popular tourist site will
catch a lot of thieves on camera. Perhaps if there
alternative school programs for those kids that play
hookey, and continuing ed and drug programs for those
that need better jobs, or just jobs, we would have as
big a problem. Non property crime here is reported to
be much lower rate than many parts of the mainland.
--alvin
Gene Lancette
Alvin E. Toda wrote:
>
> I agree. And they don't need vehicles to entice
> thieves. Just staking out a popular tourist site will
> catch a lot of thieves on camera. Perhaps if there
> alternative school programs for those kids that play
> hookey, and continuing ed and drug programs for those
> that need better jobs, or just jobs, we would have as
> big a problem. Non property crime here is reported to
> be much lower rate than many parts of the mainland.
>
> --alvin
>
School programs won't work for those "professional thieves"
who work together in rings to rob tourists. Many of them are
adult offenders. And some even come from other parts of the
country/world to rob tourists. It is far too simplistic to blame
"kids" for all of the crimes.
Alvin E. Toda
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Gene Lancette wrote:
> Alvin E. Toda wrote:
>
> > I agree. And they don't need vehicles to entice
> > thieves. Just staking out a popular tourist site
> > will catch a lot of thieves on camera. Perhaps if
> > there alternative school programs for those kids
> > that play hookey, and continuing ed and drug
> > programs for those that need better jobs, or just
> > jobs, we would have as big a problem. Non property
> > crime here is reported to be much lower rate than
> > many parts of the mainland.
> School programs won't work for those "professional
> thieves" who work together in rings to rob tourists.
> Many of them are adult offenders. And some even come
> from other parts of the country/world to rob
> tourists. It is far too simplistic to blame "kids"
> for all of the crimes.
Some people get so good at it that they can make a
living. Do you think this is mainly the type of theives
we have here???
My oppinion is that most of them are in this line of
work out of desperation, rather than a preference. For
kids, it's more out of ignorance of the consequences of
getting caught. They just don't think about it. They
look at visitors as a walking ATM.
However, I think you are right that the professionals
do a lion's share of the stealing and get away with it.
I'd guess it was reported something like about 30% is
committed by less than 5% of the thieves??? You would
place it more like 70% of the robberies and
burglaries-- property crime??? We're talking here about
what the typical thief is like.
--alvin
Sue Larkin
In article <1046080...@news.lava.net>, Judy
<JBar...@roadrunner.hawaii> wrote:
[...]
:A smile and pleasant attitude go a long way. The people who get in
:trouble over there are generally those whose smug superior attitude
:"sticks out" and fairly begs to get knocked down.
Yep. Waianae is definitely the "land of instant karma". One almost
always gets back what one puts out. It is an extremely economically
deprived area. The locals really respond well to respect.
:But lock your car.
This is so true...anywhere, anytime. It's not exclusive to Waianae.
Sad, yeah?
Tutu Sue...who has, on more occasions than she cares to admit to,
forgotten to lock her car or front door in Makaha. So far, so good!
Gene Lancette
Alvin E. Toda wrote:
>
> On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Gene Lancette wrote:
>
>> Alvin E. Toda wrote:
>>
>> > I agree. And they don't need vehicles to entice
>> > thieves. Just staking out a popular tourist site
>> > will catch a lot of thieves on camera. Perhaps if
>> > there alternative school programs for those kids
>> > that play hookey, and continuing ed and drug
>> > programs for those that need better jobs, or just
>> > jobs, we would have as big a problem. Non property
>> > crime here is reported to be much lower rate than
>> > many parts of the mainland.
>
>> School programs won't work for those "professional
>> thieves" who work together in rings to rob tourists.
>> Many of them are adult offenders. And some even come
>> from other parts of the country/world to rob
>> tourists. It is far too simplistic to blame "kids"
>> for all of the crimes.
>
> Some people get so good at it that they can make a
> living. Do you think this is mainly the type of theives
> we have here???
Damn right it is. Most of them when caught are career offenders.
And they are catching more "rings" of criminal offenders.
They work in groups, each one doing their part. You have spotters
watching for potential targets and risks. You have the one that
does that actual break-in and sometimes someone to carry off the
goods so that if seen and searched the one did the crime is not
caught with the goods. They work with radios and are quite soph-
isticated. It is the same thing with purse snatchings in Waikiki.
> My oppinion is that most of them are in this line of
> work out of desperation, rather than a preference.
That is fairy tale material. The majority choose crime over an
honest living because it is "easier" money to them than having
to report to work everyday. They can even do their "job" while
drunk or loaded on drugs.
For
> kids, it's more out of ignorance of the consequences of
> getting caught. They just don't think about it. They
> look at visitors as a walking ATM.
Yes, there are juvenile offenders. Some of them are solicited
by the rings. Juveniles can get away with a lot more than an
adult offender. Some of them are just being stupid too. The stupid
ones get caught faster.
> However, I think you are right that the professionals
> do a lion's share of the stealing and get away with it.
> I'd guess it was reported something like about 30% is
> committed by less than 5% of the thieves???
>You would place it more like 70% of the robberies and
> burglaries-- property crime??? We're talking here about
> what the typical thief is like.
>
> --alvin
And you'll find it's not like "Andy of Mayberry" anymore. This
is not a sitcom. Many career criminals have high IQs. They just
don't have high ideals or mores. It is the more ignorant ones most
likely to commit violent crimes, or vandalism rather than a property
crime.
albert the panther
Alvin asked:
> Some people get so good at it that they can make a
> living. Do you think this is mainly the type of theives
> we have here???
I am convinced most thieving here is the result of crystal methamphetamine
(aka ice or batu).
Too many of my favorite people are stealing, not because they want what
they are bagging, but because they want to sell the stuff to fill that
damned glass pipe.
And some of them are in OCCC or Halawa as a result.
The ones who aren't are stealing every day to get those little plastic
baggies.
<sigh deeply> ... and go check the Judiciary webpage to see if any of them
got arrested yesterday ...
Alvin E. Toda
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Gene Lancette wrote:
> Alvin E. Toda wrote:
>
> > However, I think you are right that the
> > professionals do a lion's share of the stealing and
> > get away with it. I'd guess it was reported
> > something like about 30% is committed by less than
> > 5% of the thieves???
>
> > You would place it more like 70% of the robberies
> > and burglaries-- property crime??? We're talking
> > here about what the typical thief is like.
> And you'll find it's not like "Andy of Mayberry"
> anymore. This is not a sitcom. Many career criminals
> have high IQs. They just don't have high ideals or
> mores. It is the more ignorant ones most likely to
> commit violent crimes, or vandalism rather than a
> property crime.
I think we'll have to leave this as a disagreement of
oppinions rather than a discussion of "Andy of
Mayberry". However, I believe the news reports of the
past agree with my oppinion.
If what you say is true, then we don't have as
widescale a problem in property crime as the reports
claim. We can eliminate almost all crime (well about
70%) on property by catching the handfull of thieves
that commit them. The other 30% is committed by the
other 95% of the thieves and that is the smaller amount
of property crime in this state.
Your statement is also inconsistant with the fact that
everytime the police set up a stakeout to catch a
handful of thieves, it doesn't make a serious dent in
the property crime rate. You'd think at least one time
they would get lucky if 70% of the time, this handfull
is thieving. This poor rate of capture would only be
explained by the professionals having the smarts to
check for a stateout before starting, or having an
informant within the system.
--alvin
Alvin E. Toda
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, albert the panther wrote:
> Alvin asked:
>
> > Some people get so good at it that they can make a
> > living. Do you think this is mainly the type of
> > theives we have here???
>
> I am convinced most thieving here is the result of
> crystal methamphetamine (aka ice or batu).
>
> Too many of my favorite people are stealing, not
> because they want what they are bagging, but because
> they want to sell the stuff to fill that damned glass
> pipe.
Desparate lives of desparate people. The papers seem to
agree with your oppinion.
--alvin
Richard
Personally, I view the problem more as NOT keeping them behind bars when
they do catch them. It is somewhat more difficult to be a repeat offender if
you're still locked up! I would be interested to compare the cost of all
lost property and the time and inconvenience involved vs. the cost of
additional jails and longer sentences.
"Alvin E. Toda" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1046460...@news.lava.net...
>
> snip>
Gene Lancette
Alvin E. Toda wrote:
>
> I think we'll have to leave this as a disagreement of
> oppinions rather than a discussion of "Andy of
> Mayberry". However, I believe the news reports of the
> past agree with my oppinion.
Only you have two "p's" in opinion. One time could be a typo.
"Andy of Mayberry" had a very simplistic look at crime.
Saying that school programs would deter crime is pretty simplistic.
> If what you say is true, then we don't have as
> widescale a problem in property crime as the reports
> claim. We can eliminate almost all crime (well about
> 70%) on property by catching the handfull of thieves
> that commit them. The other 30% is committed by the
> other 95% of the thieves and that is the smaller amount
> of property crime in this state.
You are 100% wrong. What I wrote does not say, or indicate
in anyway that because there are well trained thieves that
property crime is not widescale. I never mentioned anything
about the volume of the crime. Once again you have interjected
your own words into my statements and came up with false
deductions.
> Your statement is also inconsistant with the fact that
> everytime the police set up a stakeout to catch a
> handful of thieves, it doesn't make a serious dent in
> the property crime rate.
That is not true, Alvin. Considering the recent case where
they recovered hundreds of stolen lawn ornaments and other
stolen property they were able to solve hundreds of crimes.
One handful of thieves could be responsible for thousands of
crimes. Catching them doesn't stop other handfuls of thieves.
No one said there was only ONE ring of thieves. That is you
adding things to my statement that I never wrote.
> You'd think at least one time
> they would get lucky if 70% of the time, this handfull
> is thieving. This poor rate of capture would only be
> explained by the professionals having the smarts to
> check for a stateout before starting, or having an
> informant within the system.
>
> --alvin
There have been a couple of cases where police were involved
with the rings. One case that I remember happened in Hawaii Kai.
The thieves would burglarize a home. Then when the police invest-
igated they would learn from the victims where the "real" valuables
were hidden. The police would tell the thieves who would go back
and make the bigger score. Of course the police received their cut.
They were indicted and found guilty.
There was another case of a female cop who was hooked on ice
and was even involved in some of the actual thefts. She was caught
and prosecuted as well.
Crime is everywhere. It is not easy to stop it entirely.
Alvin E. Toda
On Sat, 1 Mar 2003, Gene Lancette wrote:
> Alvin E. Toda wrote:
>
> Only you have two "p's" in opinion. One time could be
> a typo. "Andy of Mayberry" had a very simplistic look
> at crime. Saying that school programs would deter
> crime is pretty simplistic.
Gene...get over your hangups with spelling. And you
brought in "Andy.."
> > If what you say is true, then we don't have as
> > widescale a problem in property crime as the
> > reports claim. We can eliminate almost all crime
> > (well about 70%) on property by catching the
> > handfull of thieves that commit them. The other 30%
> > is committed by the other 95% of the thieves and
> > that is the smaller amount of property crime in
> > this state.
>
> You are 100% wrong. What I wrote does not say, or
> indicate in anyway that because there are well
> trained thieves that property crime is not widescale.
> I never mentioned anything about the volume of the
> crime. Once again you have interjected your own words
> into my statements and came up with false deductions.
Of course, I realise that there are professional
thieves and I think that much crime is caused by them.
But you asserted more than that. You claimed they are
typical of property criminals here in Hawaii.
--alvin
Alvin E. Toda
On Sat, 1 Mar 2003, Richard wrote:
> Personally, I view the problem more as NOT keeping
> them behind bars when they do catch them. It is
> somewhat more difficult to be a repeat offender if
> you're still locked up! I would be interested to
> compare the cost of all lost property and the time
> and inconvenience involved vs. the cost of additional
> jails and longer sentences.
I think we need to have some perspective though. To
keep a person in jail for 30 days when the take may not
have been more than $50 cash (I don't know what the
average take here is), is not quite as bad as locking
him up for life for stealing a loaf of bread (ala Les
Mis..). And the fact that they have an arrest record
has a greater effect of really screwing up their life.
And these 3 strikes law have been downright draconian.
--alvin
Harold Hindemith
"Larry Levy" asked for a translation of
"You pilau okole donno how fo' beef!" :
>
> Can one of you guys translate the response for this haole? :)
>
> It sure didn't sound like it would calm things down :)
"You filthy butt, you don't know how to fight!"
_HINDEMITH_
Richard
So where do you draw the line? At what point is stealing just
mischievious and annoying, or a "crime" which they should be held
responsible for? If they "only" steal $50 from 1 or 2 people a day, that
adds up to $1500-3000 per month. What percentage of the work force here
makes $3000 a month? For how many hours of honest work? How much more do you
and I and every other honest customer pay for bread every week, at the
supermarket because prices are jacked up to cover theft losses? I don't know
about you, but my parents taught me that stealing was stealing, period. If
you are not held accountable for a wrong action, why would you stop? This is
exactly why there ARE so many repeat offenders. Have you ever been a victim?
How did you feel about it?
A Classic example from personal experience: I witnessed a man driving a
vehicle which he parked on my (commercial) property. He had just had an
accident with it and it was no longer driveable. He said he would be back to
get it. After over a week, the car still sat so I checked it for ownership
papers and contacted the RO, who said the car had been stolen. She described
the guy I had seen and said he took her keys from the bar. Police were
called etc. etc. About 2 months later I see the same guy in a bar and call
911. They pick the guy up, and sure enough he has a rap sheet a mile
long--47 convictions for grand theft auto (the guy is 62 years old) with
warrants in 3 different states. RECAP: positively identified by vehicle
owner and myself and placed in the vehicle, prints in the vehicle, and
numerous warrants. Because he was picked up in a different county than the
crime took place, no one would pay to extradite him so he was on the street
AGAIN in less than 48 hours.
To many offenders, jail is just like a second home, often times BETTER! 3
square meals, clean, no bills, rec room etc.-- they don't mind it so much.
They know they'll be back out real soon, so why make the effort to make an
honest living when stealing is easier and provides them with a little
excitement and a big laugh at someone elses expense. Longer terms
administered sooner (and fewer comforts) would either deter more habituals
or directly keep them off the street, in either case improving quality of
life for honest citizens. I would not suggest throwing away the key on a
first offense, as anyone can certainly make a mistake. But if you make the
same mistake over and over, it is no longer a mistake, but a habit, and I
think "Three Strikes" generally sends the right message. I just think it
should apply to more types of crime, and therefore kick in sooner.
"Alvin E. Toda" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1046559...@news.lava.net...
Gene Lancette
Alvin E. Toda wrote:
>
> On Sat, 1 Mar 2003, Gene Lancette wrote:
>
>> Alvin E. Toda wrote:
>>
>
>> Only you have two "p's" in opinion. One time could be
>> a typo. "Andy of Mayberry" had a very simplistic look
>> at crime. Saying that school programs would deter
>> crime is pretty simplistic.
>
> Gene...get over your hangups with spelling. And you
> brought in "Andy.."
I only mention the spelling with you, because I thought I
saw a post where you said you did substitute teaching.
This is not a good example for any "students" that may
be reading these posts. I wouldn't even mention it if it
only occurred once. But, when it carries into post after
post, it is not the kind of thing I would want my children
and grandchildren exposed to.
Yes, I made a reference to Andy of Mayberry. Because
"Andy of Mayberry" was first aired on televison in a more
simplistic society. It appeared to me that you were using
these same simplistic ideas by saying that more school
programs would change things...
>> > If what you say is true, then we don't have as
>> > widescale a problem in property crime as the
>> > reports claim. We can eliminate almost all crime
>> > (well about 70%) on property by catching the
>> > handfull of thieves that commit them. The other 30%
>> > is committed by the other 95% of the thieves and
>> > that is the smaller amount of property crime in
>> > this state.
>>
>> You are 100% wrong. What I wrote does not say, or
>> indicate in anyway that because there are well
>> trained thieves that property crime is not widescale.
>> I never mentioned anything about the volume of the
>> crime. Once again you have interjected your own words
>> into my statements and came up with false deductions.
>
> Of course, I realise that there are professional
> thieves and I think that much crime is caused by them.
> But you asserted more than that. You claimed they are
> typical of property criminals here in Hawaii.
>
> --alvin
Where did I assert "more than that"? Please quote me
where I claimed that they are "typical of property criminals
here in Hawaii".
Alvin E. Toda
On Sun, 2 Mar 2003, Richard wrote:
> So where do you draw the line? At what
> point is stealing just mischievious and annoying, or
> a "crime" which they should be held responsible for?
> to cover theft losses? I don't know about you, but my
> parents taught me that stealing was stealing, period.
> If you are not held accountable for a wrong action,
> why would you stop? This is exactly why there ARE so
> many repeat offenders. Have you ever been a victim?
> How did you feel about it?
Nobody said that a criminal's behavior is not a crime.
However, luckily in this country, most subscribe to a
punishment related to the seriousness of the crime. We
don't cut off people's hands for stealing.
> Longer terms administered sooner (and fewer comforts)
> would either deter more habituals or directly keep
> them off the street, in either case improving quality
> of life for honest citizens. I would not suggest
> throwing away the key on a first offense, as anyone
> can certainly make a mistake. But if you make the
> same mistake over and over, it is no longer a
> mistake, but a habit, and I think "Three Strikes"
> generally sends the right message. I just think it
> should apply to more types of crime, and therefore
> kick in sooner.
Throw away the key on the third offense?
However, I've heard that this has lead to abuses. For
example, people who in a moment of desperation, commit
shop-lifting say, but because of two other convictions
in their distant past get sent up for years. This is
very much like treating a petty thief as a vicious bank
robber. These kinds of laws don't give the judge much
leaway in punishment. He can't exercise much
discression in handling the case.
Sure, this law works on the repeat offenders. But it
also causes harm to others. If the law penalizes the
undeaserving of such punishment, then lawmakers should
withdraw it and go back to figuring out a better way.
People who insist on these unjust sentences are pretty
insensitive. We in Hawaii wouldn't want these overly
mean laws. How could we claim to have the aloha spirit
if we wanted to lock up thieves permanently?
--alvin
Alvin E. Toda
On Sun, 2 Mar 2003, Gene Lancette wrote:
> I only mention the spelling with you, because I
> thought I saw a post where you said you did
> substitute teaching. This is not a good example for
> any "students" that may be reading these posts. I
> wouldn't even mention it if it only occurred once.
> But, when it carries into post after post, it is not
> the kind of thing I would want my children and
> grandchildren exposed to.
Please, Gene, people have been mis-spelling since the
earliest days of the internet. You're being too
moralistic for something that is of insignificant
importance.
> Yes, I made a reference to Andy of Mayberry. Because
> "Andy of Mayberry" was first aired on televison in a
> more simplistic society. It appeared to me that you
> were using these same simplistic ideas by saying that
> more school programs would change things...
Although I don't consider this the typical thief, yes I
do think that not just more but different programs,
will help. There is a good article in this morning's
Star-Bulletin about such a special ed program at
Waipahu High School. They make model boats and race em.
--alvin
Gene Lancette
Alvin E. Toda wrote:
>
> Sure, this law works on the repeat offenders. But it
> also causes harm to others. If the law penalizes the
> undeaserving of such punishment, then lawmakers should
> withdraw it and go back to figuring out a better way.
Even in jail there is a long time saying:
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
> People who insist on these unjust sentences are pretty
> insensitive. We in Hawaii wouldn't want these overly
> mean laws. How could we claim to have the aloha spirit
> if we wanted to lock up thieves permanently?
>
> --alvin
It is so insensitive to protect innocent people from crime. Why
everybodies tutu should be knocked to the ground and have
their purses stolen by the same repeat offenders because those
poor offenders only need "aloha".
And any struggling family who opens a store and works 16 hours
a day should give up a few dollars in merchandise everyday to
those poor "aloha" starved thieves.
It is so unjust to remove someone who has no respect for people
or property in order to protect those people who work so hard for
so little.
It used to be "crime doesn't pay". Now we've got people who want
to extend happy time "aloha" to those who commit crimes.
Alvin E. Toda
On Sun, 2 Mar 2003, Gene Lancette wrote:
> Alvin E. Toda wrote:
>
> > People who insist on these unjust sentences are pretty
> > insensitive. We in Hawaii wouldn't want these overly
> > mean laws. How could we claim to have the aloha spirit
> > if we wanted to lock up thieves permanently?
>
> It is so insensitive to protect innocent people from
> crime. Why everybodies tutu should be knocked to the
> ground and have their purses stolen by the same
> repeat offenders because those poor offenders only
> need "aloha".
> It used to be "crime doesn't pay". Now we've got
> people who want to extend happy time "aloha" to those
> who commit crimes.
Perhaps we should have caning like they do in
Singapore? Is twenty canings and twenty years enough
for the third purse snatching? After all, I guess you
do NOT feel locking them up for years after the third
purse snatch is enough. Or maybe we should start
choping off their hands? Sure.... land of aloha and
draconian punishments. Everyone has to be good here.
If not, watch out. I'm calling for more discretion on
the judge's part, not freeing the criminal.
--alvin
Gene Lancette
Alvin E. Toda wrote:
> Perhaps we should have caning like they do in
> Singapore?
Good idea.
> Is twenty canings and twenty years enough
> for the third purse snatching?
No.
> After all, I guess you
> do NOT feel locking them up for years after the third
> purse snatch is enough.
Quit guessing what I feel or think. You have no clue.
> Or maybe we should start choping off their hands?
Yes, at the kneecaps...
> Sure.... land of aloha and draconian punishments.
>Everyone has to be good here. If not, watch out.
Santa won't come if you're not good.
>I'm calling for more discretion on the judge's part, not freeing the
>criminal.
I do not see where you are qualified to tell a judge when he/she
is or isn't using more discretion. You don't have access to the
judicial files on the suspect.
> --alvin
>
>
Alvin E. Toda
On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Gene Lancette wrote:
>
> Alvin E. Toda wrote:
>
>
> > Perhaps we should have caning like they do in
> > Singapore?
>
> Good idea.
I think many here in this country would disagree with
this practice. Remember the American kid who got 1 or 2
strokes a few years back for vandalism of some street
signs. We thought it was bad. But in comparison, I
think his Chinese friend-- the other kid did the same
crime-- got about 6 strokes. Definitely, too much for a
minor offense.
> > Is twenty canings and twenty years enough
> > for the third purse snatching?
>
> No.
I can't imagine the kind of place you would turn Hawaii
into. It's certainly not a land of aloha to me-- ie in
the traditional sense, "love", not love of your money.
[more of the above]
> >I'm calling for more discretion on the judge's part,
> >not freeing the criminal.
>
> I do not see where you are qualified to tell a judge
> when he/she is or isn't using more discretion. You
> don't have access to the judicial files on the
> suspect.
That's the point I'm making. The Judge needs the
freedom to decide the punishment. "Discretion" means
he/she decides, and not you, me, or any member of the
legislature who represents us. When legislators try to
mandate a rigid schedule of punishment, the judge is
forced to carry it out even if it is unjust.
--alvin
Michael J Wise
Alvin E. Toda wrote:
> I think many here in this country would disagree with
> this practice. Remember the American kid who got 1 or 2
> strokes a few years back for vandalism of some street
> signs.
Oh yes.
> We thought it was bad.
Please define, "We", in this context.
Please show that this was the majority opinion.
> That's the point I'm making. The Judge needs the
> freedom to decide the punishment. "Discretion" means
> he/she decides, and not you, me, or any member of the
> legislature who represents us. When legislators try to
> mandate a rigid schedule of punishment, the judge is
> forced to carry it out even if it is unjust.
Perhaps.
On the flip-side, after a while, the populace get up in arms when some
people get off with "Nothing More Than A Slap On The Wrist".
And they demand that SOMETHING be done.
If the right something had been done to start with, perhaps the wrong
something wouldn't be pushed as a solution to compensate.
Aloha mai Nai`a.
--
"Please have your Internet License http://kapu.net/~mjwise/
and Usenet Registration handy..."
Richard
"Alvin E. Toda" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1046643...@news.lava.net...
To quote from today's Advertiser- "Shane Mark, the suspect in yesterday's
fatal shooting of a police officer, was wanted in an attempted murder case
and has a lengthy criminal history of 14 convictions, ranging from petty
theft to felony burglary and auto theft".
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2003/Mar/05/ln/ln10a.html
Treating criminals with the aloha spirit really paid off eh? Gee, he "only"
had 14 convictions. If only he'd have been locked up sooner, for longer.
Once again, those "minor" offenses have lead to something tragic. Another
sad day for HPD-condolences to the family.
Alvin E. Toda
On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Michael J Wise wrote:
> Alvin E. Toda wrote:
>
> > I think many here in this country would disagree with
> > this practice. Remember the American kid who got 1 or 2
> > strokes a few years back for vandalism of some street
> > signs.
>
> Oh yes.
>
> > We thought it was bad.
>
> Please define, "We", in this context.
> Please show that this was the majority opinion.
If you remember, there were many editorials criticising
such punishment. The word "barbaric" comes to mind.
Especially late in the controversy when a more
knowledgeable view of caning became known, the
editorials went negative on the practice. I think
papers tend not to go too way out on a limb in relation
to their readers' oppinions-- except when it gets in
the way of their own aggenda.
I even think the number of strokes the kid got was
reduced because of the growning negative reaction to
his sentence in this country. I'm sure that they
wouldn't want tourists to avoid going to Singapore for
fear of being caned for a minor offense. Ordinary, the
American might have gotten about 6 (what the other kid
got) and would have been in much worse condition after
the punishment.
> On the flip-side, after a while, the populace get up
> in arms when some people get off with "Nothing More
> Than A Slap On The Wrist".
>
> And they demand that SOMETHING be done.
>
> If the right something had been done to start with,
> perhaps the wrong something wouldn't be pushed as a
> solution to compensate.
And we keep trying. We elect new leaders and hope that
they will influence the selection of committees that
appoint different judges, or we hope that new attorneys
will be hired. We give prosecutors new legal tools like
a hate crime designation to prosecute. Or we even pass
constitutional ammendments to change the legal process
itself-- like this new option of forgoing the
indictment process in Hawaii. We even invest in
training of law enforcement officers so they wont botch
the investigation. Mandatory sentencing is like looking
for a silver bullet to solve this problem. It might
succeed except that it would create more problems.
--alvin
Alvin E. Toda
On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Richard wrote:
> To quote from today's Advertiser- "Shane Mark, the
> suspect in yesterday's fatal shooting of a police
> officer, was wanted in an attempted murder case and
> has a lengthy criminal history of 14 convictions,
> ranging from petty theft to felony burglary and auto
> theft".
> http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2003/Mar/05/ln/ln10a.html
>
> Treating criminals with the aloha spirit really paid
> off eh? Gee, he "only" had 14 convictions. If only
> he'd have been locked up sooner, for longer. Once
> again, those "minor" offenses have lead to something
> tragic. Another sad day for HPD-condolences to the
> family.
But we do have mandatory sentencing in this case. No
matter what the circumstances of the killing (looks
like there was a struggle-- so it might be 2nd degree
murder, or even perhaps an accidental gun discharge,
manslaughter), he is facing the harshest punishment of
life imprisonment without parole in Hawaii.
BTW, his is not the case of a professional thief. He
was a violent person. The article states that his
parole had been revoked for failing a drug test. And
his divorce was accompanied by violent infantile
behavior. A professional thief might be quite
non-violent unless forced to kill to protect himself,
but in this case, he's a different type of criminal
entirely. I would guess that the reason he got out so
often was that in prison, he might go off drugs and be
an entirely different type of person. In this case,
"Aloha" is a vague term in this case. Perhaps he did
stay the required sentencing period. Staying in prison
didn't solve this problem.
--alvin
tongaloa
Hawaii crimes, year 2000 #/1000 population
Violent crime 243 2
Larceny/Burglary/Theft 9405 7.5
auto theft 504 0.4
population 1.25 million
CCW* allowed: NO
Georgia crimes, year 2000 #/1000 population
Violent crime 504 0.06
Larceny/Burglary/ 8019 0.98
auto theft 472 0.06
population 8.2 million
CCW* allowed: YES
3 times the violent crime
8 time the Larceny/Burglary/Theft
6.6 times the auto theft
Might this have an affect on tourism and business
location decisions?
Hawaii imprisons approximately 20% more
people per 1000 violent crimes than Georgia does
and approximately 20% fewer for property crimes
Source, NCIC (national crime information center)
*CCW=Carrying Concealed Weapons (info from www.packing.org)
I'm not saying the difference in CCW regulations
makes for the difference in crime statistics. But,
it is the one major difference I'm aware of...
Any ideas as to what else it could cause this....
pre-emptively:
educational performance is roughly the same
I doubt 'right to work' vs. unions makes much difference
ethnic demographics...
HI GA
caucasian 294k 5327k
african amer. 22k 2349k
native amer. 3.5k 22k
asian 504k 174k
Hawaiian/OPI 114k 4k
other 15k 197k
multi 259k 114k
hisp/latin 88k 435k
I doubt this makes much difference either...
income/poverty/age stats
HI
http://factfinder.census.gov/bf/_lang=en_vt_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_DP3_geo_id=04000US15.html
GA
http://factfinder.census.gov/bf/_lang=en_vt_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_DP3_geo_id=04000US13.html
flame away :-)
-t
Judy
tongaloa wrote:
>
> I'm not saying the difference in CCW regulations
> makes for the difference in crime statistics. But,
> it is the one major difference I'm aware of...
>
> Any ideas as to what else it could cause this....
>
Other than one of the longest economic depressions in recorded history,
high levels of unemployment, and widespread problems with drug
addiction, particularly to crystal methamphetamine (ice, batu) which is
noted to turn off the volume control on violent behavior?
Put marijuana on the shelf at Long's, duly regulated and taxed, at
prices comparable to alcohol and see what happens to the theft and
violent crime stats.
ThomasH
tongaloa wrote:
>
[...]
>
> pre-emptively:
> educational performance is roughly the same
> I doubt 'right to work' vs. unions makes much difference
>
> ethnic demographics...
> HI GA
> caucasian 294k 5327k
> african amer. 22k 2349k
> native amer. 3.5k 22k
> asian 504k 174k
> Hawaiian/OPI 114k 4k
> other 15k 197k
> multi 259k 114k
> hisp/latin 88k 435k
> I doubt this makes much difference either...
>
> income/poverty/age stats
> HI
> http://factfinder.census.gov/bf/_lang=en_vt_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_DP3_geo_id=04000US15.html
> GA
> http://factfinder.census.gov/bf/_lang=en_vt_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_DP3_geo_id=04000US13.html
>
> flame away :-)
Well, no flame intended except a hint that many white people
consider it highly insulting to be called "Caucasians."
I am sure that Hawaiians/Polynesians would not like to be called
something else because someone suspects that they migrated from
whatever part of the planet, but can not really remember or even
believe it, for that matter.
On all governmental forms I than cross "Other [X]" and write
"White" or "European." The cliché explanation for this strange
term is that Americans are not very good in geography and do not
realize where Caucasia and where Europe is.
No, we are most definitely not Caucasians, but someone from
Chechenia, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan or even Armenia might
rightfully and correctly say: I am a Caucasian. Europeans have
a written record of history of over two millennia, let's stick
with facts and leave behind the US bureaucratic legend about
white people allegedly coming from Caucasia.
Thomas, a non-caucasian
>
> -t
>
Harold Hindemith
[Moderator's note: please keep this thread on topic for Hawaii. The
nomenclature and derivation of the term caucasian really is not.
--Susan, co-moderator]
"ThomasH" wrote:
>No, we are most definitely not Caucasians, but someone from
>Chechenia, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan or even Armenia might
>rightfully and correctly say: I am a Caucasian. Europeans have
>a written record of history of over two millennia, let's stick
>with facts and leave behind the US bureaucratic legend about
>white people allegedly coming from Caucasia.
>
>Thomas, a non-caucasian
"Caucasian" has always been a stretch of the imagination for
me, too. But a recent 2-hr documentary on PBS has a
geneticist claiming that Europe was populated by imgrants
from Central Asia coming by way of the Caucusus Mtns. or
thereabouts. The gist was that they didn't come up from the
Mediterranean, but came in from the east. My recollection
may be wrong, so someone correct me with some links if
you can.
_HINDEMITH_
Karl Magnacca
On Thu, 06 Mar 2003 03:20:03 -0000, ThomasH <tho...@coco.net> wrote:
>On all governmental forms I than cross "Other [X]" and write
>"White" or "European." The cliché explanation for this strange
>term is that Americans are not very good in geography and do not
>realize where Caucasia and where Europe is.
>
>No, we are most definitely not Caucasians, but someone from
>Chechenia, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan or even Armenia might
>rightfully and correctly say: I am a Caucasian. Europeans have
>a written record of history of over two millennia, let's stick
>with facts and leave behind the US bureaucratic legend about
>white people allegedly coming from Caucasia.
What, are you the Lana for haoles? :-)
It doesn't come from a "US bureaucratic legend", but from old European
racialist ideas that the "white" race originated in the Caucasus. Not
such a bad guess either, as all the language groups of Europe and
southwest Asia meet around there, and in the Caucasus itself there is
an astounding variety of ethnicities and language groups.
Since many people who are "Caucasian" are neither white nor of
European descent, neither of those is a very good term. That's why I
prefer "haole", even outside Hawaii.
FWIW, Uzbekistan is a long way from the Caucasus.
Karl
Karl Magnacca
I think your statistics are a little off (see below).
On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 23:35:04 -0000, tongaloa <tong...@alltel.net>
wrote:
>Hawaii crimes, year 2000 #/1000 population
>
>Violent crime 243 2
>Larceny/Burglary/Theft 9405 7.5
>auto theft 504 0.4
>population 1.25 million
>CCW* allowed: NO
>
>Georgia crimes, year 2000 #/1000 population
>
>Violent crime 504 0.06
>Larceny/Burglary/ 8019 0.98
>auto theft 472 0.06
>population 8.2 million
>CCW* allowed: YES
>
>3 times the violent crime
>8 time the Larceny/Burglary/Theft
>6.6 times the auto theft
>From www.disastercenter.com/crime, which cites the FBI Uniform Crime
Reports as its source:
Hawaii crimes, year 2000 #/1000 population
Murder 35 0.028
Violent crime 2954 2.44
Larceny/burglary 53919 44.50
Auto theft 6114 5.05
Georgia crimes, year 2000 #/1000 population
Murder 651 0.079 (note: the Georgia Bureau
Violent crime 41319 5.05 of Investigation reports
Larceny/burglary 308928 37.73 0.061, 4.32, 32.00, and
Auto theft 38702 4.73 4.14 respectively)
So in fact, while the theft rates are slightly higher in Hawaii,
violent crime is about *half* the rate of Georgia (even if you use the
lower figures on the state web site), not three times higher as you
claimed. Maybe the difference in violent crime is due to the
difference in CCW laws, maybe not.
One major difference aside from the law itself is the general gun
culture in the South. It would be extremely unusual, for example, to
see a convenience store owner in Waianae behind the cash register with
a revolver stuck in his belt. While this may deter some thefts
(though it should be noted that robbery, such as holding up a store,
is considered a violent crime, and the rate in Hawaii is also about
half that of Georgia), it also contributes to violent crimes by people
on short fuses.
Karl
tongaloa
Karl-
You are correct.
This will teach me to check more carefully.
Whilst gloming the stuff into the spreadsheet I muffed
some labels.
Havce cancelled the post.
Thanks,
-t
Alvin E. Toda
On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, tongaloa wrote:
>
> Hawaii crimes, year 2000 #/1000 population
>
> Violent crime 243 2
> Larceny/Burglary/Theft 9405 7.5
> auto theft 504 0.4
> population 1.25 million
> CCW* allowed: NO
>
> Georgia crimes, year 2000 #/1000 population
>
> Violent crime 504 0.06
> Larceny/Burglary/ 8019 0.98
> auto theft 472 0.06
> population 8.2 million
> CCW* allowed: YES
There seems to be a problem with consistancy of the
Georgia figures. The ratio of property to violent crime
is much higher than Hawaii ratio. It's just the
opposite of what's normally reported in the local news.
For this reason, I would suspect that the state-wide
reporting mechanism of Georgia is inefficient. Were we
to look at rates of crime reported in an urban
population perhaps say like the Atlanta police dept. I
would suspect more similar numbers to Hawaii.
But perhaps it's also possible that they just don't
keep very good records out in the rural areas. We're
even talking census figures here. Perhaps the bad
economy in recent years has depleted the state of
Georgia more than the state of Hawaii-- that would
partly explain the lower overall figures of rates in
Georgia.
> Might this have an affect on tourism and business
> location decisions?
Certainly. There was a business article where a local
Japanese tourist representative said that many Japanese
stay away from Hawaii for fear of purse snatchings.
But now the world is less safe. Typhons in Guam,
bombings in Manila and Bali, etc. I think they might
just play it safe and stay home for vacation. :)
But it's a carrot and stick thing. He also thought that
our media approach of ads was ineffective. It would be
a bigger draw to have cultural exhibits touring Japan
to peak interest in Hawaii-- ie a more educational
approach rather than the typical TV ad on Hawaii which
seems to work in the mainland.
> Hawaii imprisons approximately 20% more people per
> 1000 violent crimes than Georgia does and
> approximately 20% fewer for property crimes
This seems to be the right emphasis. Violent crimes are
the worse crime.
> *CCW=Carrying Concealed Weapons (info from www.packing.org)
>
> I'm not saying the difference in CCW regulations
> makes for the difference in crime statistics. But,
> it is the one major difference I'm aware of...
I don't think most violent crime like beatings involves
weapons. I do see your point that it might be a
deterrent for random violence or property crime. But
thieves choose their targets for less risk anyway no
matter what the rule on CCW is. No respectable purse
snatcher would try to victimize a 6'5" tita. But this
is just an opinion.
--alvin
Alvin E. Toda
Or in the coffe houses as in Amsterdam.
I'd also suspect that reclassifying it itself as a
health problem rather than a crime like alcohol would
have a great effect on crime statistics-- not to
mention people's behavior.
--alvin
The Guy
In article <1046837...@news.lava.net>,
"Alvin E. Toda" <a...@lava.net> wrote:
[stuff deleted]
>
> > >I'm calling for more discretion on the judge's part,
> > >not freeing the criminal.
> >
> > I do not see where you are qualified to tell a judge
> > when he/she is or isn't using more discretion. You
> > don't have access to the judicial files on the
> > suspect.
>
> That's the point I'm making. The Judge needs the
> freedom to decide the punishment. "Discretion" means
> he/she decides, and not you, me, or any member of the
> legislature who represents us. When legislators try to
> mandate a rigid schedule of punishment, the judge is
> forced to carry it out even if it is unjust.
>
> --alvin
>
I'm late to this thread, but I don't agree that a severe punishment
level is against the Aloha Sprit. Remember that the punishment
also serves as a deterent to others, at least if it's severe enough.
And please let's not leave it to the judges to decide punishment...
I've seen enought real life examples where this has resulted in
disaster. Punishment should be determined by the people via their
representives or thru a proposition as we have here in Calif.
Tourists getting robbed and beaten up and sometimes getting killed in
Hawaii is the anti-thesis of the Aloha Sprit...so stiff sentences to
deter and punish the perpetrators would help the promotion of or at least
reduce the degradation of the Aloha Sprit.
--
Steve O The best defense is an effective offense. Sun Tzu ca. 525 BC
Alvin E. Toda
On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, tongaloa wrote:
> Karl-
>
> You are correct.
>
> This will teach me to check more carefully. Whilst
> gloming the stuff into the spreadsheet I muffed some
> labels. Havce cancelled the post.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -t
I think I may have done this once too, but I don't
remember the occasion. I think I might have caught the
error in the presentation, so it did no harm-- just
embarassing.
But except for a possible small bias and an
inconsistancy with news reports, it definitely seemed
to show a trend. Didn't suspect the figures themselves
were in error. But did you get Karl's point that maybe
your comment on CCW stuff was just the opposite of what
you expected, when you consider the figures he found???
--alvin
Sue Larkin
In article <1047060...@news.lava.net>, The Guy
<sokuny...@e4e.ucix.edu> wrote:
:I'm late to this thread, but I don't agree that a severe punishment
:level is against the Aloha Sprit. Remember that the punishment
:also serves as a deterent to others, at least if it's severe enough.
:And please let's not leave it to the judges to decide punishment...
:I've seen enought real life examples where this has resulted in
:disaster.
Hawaii is currently going thru a real life example. A policeman was
shot and killed a few days ago at the Kapolei Shopping Center by a
criminal released from prison, iirc, last November after 5 years of
incarceration. Per a news account that I saw, the judge could've given
that criminal 10 years in prison on the previous conviction. Instead,
the criminal received 5 years. A very sad situation, to say the least.
Sue
Will Grates
Please catch up on the thread...
I've already explained error in figures and cancelled the post.
-Bob
tongaloa
No, I missed that part.
Too embarrassed from screwing up the stats to read further.
I will go over them (mine/Karl's)again when I have some spare time.
Google preserves...
And I admonished you for not catching up the thread and promptly did
the same myself...
Perhaps it's "aloha friday" time already...
-t
Alvin E. Toda
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, The Guy wrote:
> I'm late to this thread, but I don't agree that a
> severe punishment level is against the Aloha Sprit.
> Remember that the punishment also serves as a
> deterent to others, at least if it's severe enough.
> And please let's not leave it to the judges to decide
> punishment... I've seen enought real life examples
> where this has resulted in disaster. Punishment
> should be determined by the people via their
> representives or thru a proposition as we have here
> in Calif.
But CA is riff with examples of people who have
committed crimes in the distant past and get mandatory
25 years for shop lifting.If you don't like the
decisions that judges make, then you in California can
elect new judges. Here, our judicial selection bodies
try to get qualifited professionals. There's no point
in having a qualified judge if you take away his/her
discretion in sentencing. Might as well have a computer
do it.
> Tourists getting robbed and beaten up and sometimes
> getting killed in Hawaii is the anti-thesis of the
> Aloha Sprit...so stiff sentences to deter and punish
> the perpetrators would help the promotion of or at
> least reduce the degradation of the Aloha Sprit. --
Our jails are bursting-- so bad that we have to
contract with other states to hold the criminals. And
yet the crime rate does not decrease. Our latest high
profile criminal served his full term of five years.
The current debate is that if he had received an
extended term of 10 years, whether that that might have
prevented the recent killing. It seems to me, that a 10
year term in his case might only have meant another
killing in prison or a delay until he got out.
http://starbulletin.com/2003/03/07/news/index4.html
Seems to me that pro-active measures might work better.
--alvin
Karl Magnacca
On Fri, 07 Mar 2003 17:50:02 -0000, "Alvin E. Toda" <a...@lava.net>
wrote:
>There seems to be a problem with consistancy of the
>Georgia figures. The ratio of property to violent crime
>is much higher than Hawaii ratio. It's just the
>opposite of what's normally reported in the local news.
Check out my post of 3/6; the original were wrong. Georgia actually
has a violent crime rate of about twice that of Hawaii, while the
property crime rate is slightly higher in Hawaii.
Karl
Sue Larkin
In article <1047148...@news.lava.net>, "Alvin E. Toda"
<a...@lava.net> wrote:
:Our jails are bursting-- so bad that we have to
:contract with other states to hold the criminals. And
:yet the crime rate does not decrease. Our latest high
:profile criminal served his full term of five years.
:The current debate is that if he had received an
:extended term of 10 years, whether that that might have
:prevented the recent killing.
The news account that I heard mentioned the judge in the previous case
involving this criminal could have sentenced him to 10 years. Instead,
the judge chose 5...and the criminal had a rap sheet with an
extaordinary number of arrests and convictions. This criminal allegedly
shot someone just last month. SINCE HIS RELEASE FROM PRISON LAST NOV.
HE'S HAD ACCESS TO AND WAS WALKING AROUND WITH A GUN IN HIS BELT. He
was even a problem prisoner. Alvin, do you think that had said criminal
received the 10 year sentencing and, because of it, was still
incarcerated that any debate would exist? Of course the recent murder
would have been prevented. As would the shooting last month.
:It seems to me, that a 10
:year term in his case might only have meant another
:killing in prison or a delay until he got out.
I'm not quite sure I understand this. Did this criminal already kill
someone in prison? If so, I missed hearing that. If not, but you see
that as a possibility if he remained incarcerated, then the prison
system would need to deal with it...not innocent, law abiding citizens.
Not 2, young daughters. We can't assume what might've been. We only
know what was/is. And, that's that the murdered officers 2 children
would still have a father if this punk had been kept off the street. Or
is that more palatable or acceptable than "another killing in prison"?
:http://starbulletin.com/2003/03/07/news/index4.html
This article makes it clear to me that this criminal should've been put
away for a maximum sentence. Domestic abuse and drugs can and did
escalate into horrendous crimes. Domestic abuse is bad enough. He
should've received 10 years on that one, alone. <donning my asbestos
suit!>
:Seems to me that pro-active measures might work better.
What, for example? Time outs? Grounding? No TV for a week? Talk
therapy? I'm not saying we should do nothing. However, each criminal is
an individual with individual reasons for their behavior, including
emotional, mental and physical. No one, blanket measure, proactive or
otherwise, will work for all. We've all seen examples in our daily
lives of people whose brains, for whatever reason, just aren't wired
correctly. Each needs personalized help...a very costly undertaking.
Sue (who knows someone close to the officers family, which makes this
case a lot more personal)
Alvin E. Toda
On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, Karl Magnacca wrote:
> Check out my post of 3/6; the original were wrong.
> Georgia actually has a violent crime rate of about
> twice that of Hawaii, while the property crime rate
> is slightly higher in Hawaii.
Thanx for looking up the info, Karl. That certainly
beats specuation about it's correctness.
--alvin
Alvin E. Toda
On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, Sue Larkin wrote:
>
> In article <1047148...@news.lava.net>, "Alvin E. Toda"
> <a...@lava.net> wrote:
>
> :Our jails are bursting-- so bad that we have to
> :contract with other states to hold the criminals. And
> :yet the crime rate does not decrease. Our latest high
> :profile criminal served his full term of five years.
> :The current debate is that if he had received an
> :extended term of 10 years, whether that that might have
> :prevented the recent killing.
>
> The news account that I heard mentioned the judge in
> the previous case involving this criminal could have
> sentenced him to 10 years. Instead, the judge chose
> 5...and the criminal had a rap sheet with an
> extaordinary number of arrests and convictions. This
It's the same one I read. My understanding is that the
prosecutor asked for an extended sentence-- an extra
five years-- because he had been caught convicted and
served time for many previous offenses. The judge just
disagreed with the prosecutor that the previous
convictions warranted doubling the sentence. The
prosecutor could just as well have asked for 7 as 10
and this killing would have been moot issue. It's hard
for us to put a number on additional years beyond the
required number of years for the crime. Why should it
be any easier for the judge. The only easy thing is
20-20 hind sight.
> :It seems to me, that a 10
> :year term in his case might only have meant another
> :killing in prison or a delay until he got out.
>
> I'm not quite sure I understand this. Did this
> criminal already kill someone in prison? If so, I
> missed hearing that. If not, but you see that as a
> possibility if he remained incarcerated, then the
> prison system would need to deal with it...not
> innocent, law abiding citizens. Not 2, young
> daughters. We can't assume what might've been. We
So it's ok to kill prisoners??? That doesn't make the
crime less heinous.
> This article makes it clear to me that this criminal
> should've been put away for a maximum sentence.
> Domestic abuse and drugs can and did escalate into
> horrendous crimes. Domestic abuse is bad enough. He
> should've received 10 years on that one, alone.
> <donning my asbestos suit!>
I think someone in this thread has mentioned that
Hawaii on the average, does give longer sentences for
violent crimes. And we do have a lower crime rate than
the mainland. But there is a limit on how much more you
can extend this reasoning-- ie the longer the sentence,
the less the crime-- before it becomes unjust. 20-20
hindsight is wonderful. Let's leave it up to judges to
exercise their discression.
> :Seems to me that pro-active measures might work better.
>
> What, for example? Time outs? Grounding? No TV for a
> week? Talk therapy? I'm not saying we should do
> nothing. However, each criminal is an individual with
> individual reasons for their behavior, including
> emotional, mental and physical. No one, blanket
> measure, proactive or otherwise, will work for all.
> We've all seen examples in our daily lives of people
> whose brains, for whatever reason, just aren't wired
> correctly. Each needs personalized help...a very
> costly undertaking.
>
> Sue (who knows someone close to the officers family,
> which makes this case a lot more personal)
You say you haven't a clue what would have helped in
his case?
I have a more personal concern in this issue,
but I don't think it's as important as having a just
and fair system. I wouldn't claim to know what Mark's
problem is-- but I suspect it has a lot to do with drug
addiction. It seems he should have received a lot more
drug counseling while in prison, than he was reported
to receive.
In fact, he did test positive for drugs while in
prison, and that is an indictment of prison system.
While in prison, he can be induced (well forced) to go
into treatment to earn priveleges. Outside he cannot
be forced. The authorities had five years to work on
his drug addiction problem and failed.
It isn't as mysterious as you think. It seems quite
clear what his needs were. I think this case proves
that you can't just lock criminals (as screwed up as
Mark is) up and expect them to reform themselves. I
don't know if his case went through the drug courts,
but it seems that it should have.
--alvin
Sue Larkin
In article <1047247...@news.lava.net>, Alvin E. Toda <a...@lava.net>
wrote:
: On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, Sue Larkin wrote:
:
: >
: > In article <1047148...@news.lava.net>, "Alvin E. Toda"
: > <a...@lava.net> wrote:
[...]
: > :It seems to me, that a 10
: > :year term in his case might only have meant another
: > :killing in prison or a delay until he got out.
: >
: > I'm not quite sure I understand this. Did this
: > criminal already kill someone in prison? If so, I
: > missed hearing that. If not, but you see that as a
: > possibility if he remained incarcerated, then the
: > prison system would need to deal with it...not
: > innocent, law abiding citizens. Not 2, young
: > daughters. We can't assume what might've been. We
:
: So it's ok to kill prisoners???
Alvin? Helloooooooo! If you interpreted my reply to mean just that then
maybe I should interpret your reference above to mean that it's ok to
kill innocent, law abiding citizens rather than "another killing in
prison". Any further explanation of what I meant, I fear, will be lost
on you.
Maybe we should just stick with portabello mushroom recipes.
: That doesn't make the
: crime less heinous.
All murders are heinous.
: > This article makes it clear to me that this criminal
: > should've been put away for a maximum sentence.
: > Domestic abuse and drugs can and did escalate into
: > horrendous crimes. Domestic abuse is bad enough. He
: > should've received 10 years on that one, alone.
: > <donning my asbestos suit!>
:
: I think someone in this thread has mentioned that
: Hawaii on the average, does give longer sentences for
: violent crimes. And we do have a lower crime rate than
: the mainland. But there is a limit on how much more you
: can extend this reasoning-- ie the longer the sentence,
: the less the crime-- before it becomes unjust. 20-20
: hindsight is wonderful. Let's leave it up to judges to
: exercise their discression.
Also, somewhere in this thread, was mentioned repeat offenders. Mark
was/is a multiple, repeat offender. Drugs in and out of prison,
domestic abuse, theft, access to a gun, use of gun more than once soon
after release from prison, murder. Possibly, if Hawaii had a 3 strikes
and your out law, Mark's crimes and convictions #4 thru 14 would've
never happened. Ditto for last week's tragedy...and 2 young girls would
still have their father.
: > :Seems to me that pro-active measures might work better.
: >
: > What, for example? Time outs? Grounding? No TV for a
: > week? Talk therapy? I'm not saying we should do
: > nothing. However, each criminal is an individual with
: > individual reasons for their behavior, including
: > emotional, mental and physical. No one, blanket
: > measure, proactive or otherwise, will work for all.
: > We've all seen examples in our daily lives of people
: > whose brains, for whatever reason, just aren't wired
: > correctly. Each needs personalized help...a very
: > costly undertaking.
: >
: > Sue (who knows someone close to the officers family,
: > which makes this case a lot more personal)
:
: You say you haven't a clue what would have helped in
: his case?
I'm not an expert in these matters. If I had the skills to know what
would've helped in Mark's case, well, let's just say that my career
would not be that of a casting director. What I did say was that the
reasons for drug abuse are individual and, as such, need to be treated
individually...and that is a very expensive proposition.
: I have a more personal concern in this issue,
: but I don't think it's as important as having a just
: and fair system. I wouldn't claim to know what Mark's
: problem is-- but I suspect it has a lot to do with drug
: addiction. It seems he should have received a lot more
: drug counseling while in prison, than he was reported
: to receive.
Regardless of where substance abuse counseling takes place, the
addicted person has to admit s/he has a problem and be willing to
accept help before counseling can help. Do you know if Mark admitted
his problem and was open to receiving help? That's a simple, yes/no
question, Alvin. No need to try to read between the lines. I don't know
the answer to it but am curious if someone does.
: In fact, he did test positive for drugs while in
: prison, and that is an indictment of prison system.
It also shows the extremes people will go to to smuggle drugs into a
prison. On several occasions I visited a "calabash kid" of mine at
WCCC. I was amazed and somewhat taken aback at the screening process
upon entry. Baby's diapers were removed as part of the process. I had
to open my mouth as wide as I could. I had to take off my shoes. I was
thoroughly patted down. Ditto for the very elderly lady in front of me.
And, yes, I can think of one or 2 possibilities for smuggling drugs, in
spite of the process, but this is, after all, a "family newsgroup"!
"Calabash Kid" filled me in. Suffice it to say that where there's a
will there's a way.
: While in prison, he can be induced (well forced) to go
: into treatment to earn priveleges.
Being "forced" to go into treatment, privileges or no privileges, just
doesn't work for the long haul. I'd guess, when one is locked up, s/he
can be "forced" to attend treatment but it will mean nothing and be of
absolutely no help unless the abuser wants it. One can "tune out".
: Outside he cannot
: be forced. The authorities had five years to work on
: his drug addiction problem and failed.
It takes 2 to tango. Proper services must be available and the abuser
must be willing. Only then can rehabilitation begin.
: It isn't as mysterious as you think.
I wasn't aware that I thought it was mysterious. Please explain...
: It seems quite
: clear what his needs were.
His needs may or may not be clear and the means to accomplish those
needs, whatever they are, are very complex.
The only thing that seems "quite clear" to me is that 2 little girls
lost their father at the hand of a repeat offender.
: I think this case proves
: that you can't just lock criminals (as screwed up as
: Mark is) up and expect them to reform themselves.
Agreed! However, what I mentioned in my previous post was that
substance abusers abuse for different reasons. Those reasons can be
emotional, mental, physical or a combination. There is not one, blanket
treatment that will work for everyone. If needs were clear and there
was a one-treatment-fits-all solution then rehabilitation would be
taking place on a regular basis.
: I
: don't know if his case went through the drug courts,
: but it seems that it should have.
I wonder what went on in Mark's life that led him to drugs to begin
with. A tiny bit of this piece to the puzzle was touched on by
reporters. Whatever his ongoing problems were/are, they also need to be
addressed. Substance abuse is a complex situation. The underlying
reasons have to be identified and treated, too.
Are there any prison systems that are acclaimed for their successful,
*long term*, substance abuse rehabilitation programs? Again, no need to
read between the lines, Alvin. I'm truly interested to know if anyone
has the answer to this question.
Sue
The Guy
In article <1047147...@news.lava.net>,
Sue Larkin <sue...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <1047060...@news.lava.net>, The Guy
> <sokuny...@e4e.ucix.edu> wrote:
>
> :I'm late to this thread, but I don't agree that a severe punishment
> :level is against the Aloha Sprit. Remember that the punishment
> :also serves as a deterent to others, at least if it's severe enough.
> :And please let's not leave it to the judges to decide punishment...
> :I've seen enought real life examples where this has resulted in
> :disaster.
>
> Hawaii is currently going thru a real life example. A policeman was
> shot and killed a few days ago at the Kapolei Shopping Center by a
> criminal released from prison, iirc, last November after 5 years of
> incarceration. Per a news account that I saw, the judge could've given
> that criminal 10 years in prison on the previous conviction. Instead,
> the criminal received 5 years. A very sad situation, to say the least.
>
> Sue
>
Sounds like Hawaii should consider a 3-strikes law. California's
was just declared to be constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court
last week. But with it comes increased prison costs, the upside
is less repeat offenders on the streets such as the killer mentioned
above.
Alvin E. Toda
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Sue Larkin wrote:
>
> In article <1047247...@news.lava.net>, Alvin E. Toda <a...@lava.net>
> wrote:
> : So it's ok to kill prisoners???
>
> Alvin? Helloooooooo! If you interpreted my reply to
> mean just that then maybe I should interpret your
> reference above to mean that it's ok to kill
> innocent, law abiding citizens rather than "another
> killing in prison". Any further explanation of what
> I meant, I fear, will be lost on you.
It's just a rhetorical question. But yes I don't
understand why having a dangerous killer killing in
prison is ANY different from killing innocent folk like
you assert. Just how is it different??? I would think
you would expect that I would think that it should make
no difference-- that both are terrible-- from the
comments I make.
You seem to think just the opposite-- ie that I would
think it equally OK. This could only be if YOU somehow
think it's less of a problem if a killer kills in
prison.
You need not react so strongly to such a harmless
question of clarification usless you really have such
feelings that prisoners themselves do not deserve
protection from killers, and psychopaths.
> Also, somewhere in this thread, was mentioned repeat
> offenders. Mark was/is a multiple, repeat offender.
> Drugs in and out of prison, domestic abuse, theft,
> access to a gun, use of gun more than once soon after
> release from prison, murder. Possibly, if Hawaii had
> a 3 strikes and your out law, Mark's crimes and
> convictions #4 thru 14 would've never happened. Ditto
> for last week's tragedy...and 2 young girls would
> still have their father.
Laws which allow for injustice to occurr are worse than
doing nothing, and NO substitute for inaction by the
system. You can expect that with no intervention, that
he would eventually get out and continue to commit
crimes.
> : You say you haven't a clue what would have helped
> : in his case?
>
> I'm not an expert in these matters. If I had the
> skills to know what would've helped in Mark's case,
> well, let's just say that my career would not be that
> of a casting director. What I did say was that the
> reasons for drug abuse are individual and, as such,
> need to be treated individually...and that is a very
> expensive proposition.
It's more expensive not to have the staff that can
address this problem. Loss of life as in this most
recent crime is immeasurable in terms of cost. But the
fault here is not that we don't try hard enough. In a
number of cases, the system just doesn't try at all.
> Regardless of where substance abuse counseling takes
> place, the addicted person has to admit s/he has a
> problem and be willing to accept help before
> counseling can help. Do you know if Mark admitted his
> problem and was open to receiving help? That's a
> simple, yes/no question, Alvin. No need to try to
> read between the lines. I don't know the answer to it
> but am curious if someone does.
Yes it's a question of motivation. But you do have a
chance to help if the addicted person just shows up.
Of course, you are aware that it is surely failure if
he/she does not show up for therapy. At least, you can
have a chance if he/she shows up for a session. And if
that therapist cannot motivate, then try another.
They're paid for their empathy and skill in effecting
change with these types of persons.
And I think you need to stop thinking in terms of
revolutionary change. It can take years, and success
comes in small small increments.
> : In fact, he did test positive for drugs while in
> : prison, and that is an indictment of prison system.
>
> It also shows the extremes people will go to to
> smuggle drugs into a prison. On several occasions I
> visited a "calabash kid" of mine at WCCC. I was
> amazed and somewhat taken aback at the screening
> process upon entry. Baby's diapers were removed as
> part of the process. I had to open my mouth as wide
> as I could. I had to take off my shoes. I was
> thoroughly patted down. Ditto for the very elderly
> lady in front of me. And, yes, I can think of one or
> 2 possibilities for smuggling drugs, in spite of the
> process, but this is, after all, a "family
> newsgroup"! "Calabash Kid" filled me in. Suffice it
> to say that where there's a will there's a way.
I thought they use these glass partitians between the
prisoner and the visitor. At least, they should if they
want to stop drugs from getting in. I assume that drugs
are getting in the way it's been reported in scandals
all over the country: the staff is paid off to smuggle
it in.
I'm surprised at how thorough the authorities are. Out
of curiosity, one of our class reunion organizers wrote
to a classmate who is in federal prison in the mainland
to find out whether he would be coming out, etc. The
stamps she enclosed in the letter to write back were
returned to her by the prison authorities. She
enventually reached him by phone. That in itself is an
interesting story.
> : It isn't as mysterious as you think.
>
> I wasn't aware that I thought it was mysterious.
> Please explain...
My son's a social worker. Motivation is largely a
function of how successful you are in gaining the
client's trust. Rarely is it as difficult as it is in
the Matt Damon movie where he played a genius criminal
undergoing therapy. But it is not a job for amateurs--
although you may think it's very difficult (because it
would be, if you were to try it).
> I wonder what went on in Mark's life that led him to
> drugs to begin with. A tiny bit of this piece to the
> puzzle was touched on by reporters. Whatever his
> ongoing problems were/are, they also need to be
> addressed. Substance abuse is a complex situation.
> The underlying reasons have to be identified and
> treated, too.
>
> Are there any prison systems that are acclaimed for
> their successful, *long term*, substance abuse
> rehabilitation programs? Again, no need to read
> between the lines, Alvin. I'm truly interested to
> know if anyone has the answer to this question.
>
> Sue
Sue, I really don't know. My son used to work in a
short term (3 or 4 month duration) program of
"multi-systemic" therapy that state contracted with
schools for kids that were wanabe criminals-- "at
risk"? They had a 60% success rate in meeting the terms
of the behavior contract with the student, and even the
partial successes were significant although the agency
was not paid for those. This sytem of therapy is touted
as being very successful on the mainland.
I think the one problem was that the therapists were
skeptical of long term success because the only
follow-up was by school counselor who did not see
his/her role as therapy, and also did not work with the
family and teachers in the student's environment-- the
system of therapy involved training and therapy of them
as well as the student. The other major problem is that
even if the schools did not pay for therapy of 40% of
the students, they felt that the 60% costs were too
much for their budget. Also the legislative auditor did
a poor management audit of the program.
I would expect that a succesfull prison program would
be very multi-faceted, but they all would need
therapists who can motivate the client to try.
--alvin
Gene Lancette
Alvin E. Toda wrote:
> It's just a rhetorical question. But yes I don't
> understand why having a dangerous killer killing in
> prison is ANY different from killing innocent folk like
> you assert. Just how is it different???
Put killers with killers. Killers shouldn't complain about
the possibility of being killed. If killing is good enough
for them....
>I would think
> you would expect that I would think that it should make
> no difference-- that both are terrible-- from the
> comments I make.
Perhaps a writing course would help you make these
distinctions more clear. I can see that I'm no where near
the only one to find the meanings to be not clear.
> You seem to think just the opposite-- ie that I would
> think it equally OK. This could only be if YOU somehow
> think it's less of a problem if a killer kills in
> prison.
>
> You need not react so strongly to such a harmless
> question of clarification usless you really have such
> feelings that prisoners themselves do not deserve
> protection from killers, and psychopaths.
The question of clarification is NOT harmless to one who
has lost a friend or a loved one. It is an extremely tacky
question in this incident to say that the life of a dedicated
police offer is worth no more than a murderer.
>> Also, somewhere in this thread, was mentioned repeat
>> offenders. Mark was/is a multiple, repeat offender.
>> Drugs in and out of prison, domestic abuse, theft,
>> access to a gun, use of gun more than once soon after
>> release from prison, murder. Possibly, if Hawaii had
>> a 3 strikes and your out law, Mark's crimes and
>> convictions #4 thru 14 would've never happened. Ditto
>> for last week's tragedy...and 2 young girls would
>> still have their father.
>
> Laws which allow for injustice to occurr are worse than
> doing nothing, and NO substitute for inaction by the
> system. You can expect that with no intervention, that
> he would eventually get out and continue to commit
> crimes.
Prison is intervention. Death or crippling are the only other
interventions that can keep anyone from continuing to com-
mit crimes.
>> : You say you haven't a clue what would have helped
>> : in his case?
>>
>> I'm not an expert in these matters. If I had the
>> skills to know what would've helped in Mark's case,
>> well, let's just say that my career would not be that
>> of a casting director. What I did say was that the
>> reasons for drug abuse are individual and, as such,
>> need to be treated individually...and that is a very
>> expensive proposition.
>
> It's more expensive not to have the staff that can
> address this problem. Loss of life as in this most
> recent crime is immeasurable in terms of cost. But the
> fault here is not that we don't try hard enough. In a
> number of cases, the system just doesn't try at all.
This is total BS. You cannot FORCE rehabilitation. Those
that have rehabilitated themselves did so much on their
own because it is what they wanted. If they didn't care
or didn't want it, no amount of staff or money could rehab
them...
>> Regardless of where substance abuse counseling takes
>> place, the addicted person has to admit s/he has a
>> problem and be willing to accept help before
>> counseling can help. Do you know if Mark admitted his
>> problem and was open to receiving help? That's a
>> simple, yes/no question, Alvin. No need to try to
>> read between the lines. I don't know the answer to it
>> but am curious if someone does.
>
> Yes it's a question of motivation. But you do have a
> chance to help if the addicted person just shows up.
You obviously know NOTHING about drug rehab. I've worked
in drug rehab and that is the most fictitious statement I've ever
read by the uninformed.
The ONLY chance you have of achieving a successful rehab
is if the patient SEEKS rehab.
> Of course, you are aware that it is surely failure if
> he/she does not show up for therapy. At least, you can
> have a chance if he/she shows up for a session. And if
> that therapist cannot motivate, then try another.
It's not the therapist. A person is ready when they're ready.
That usually means hitting rock bottom for that person.
> They're paid for their empathy and skill in effecting
> change with these types of persons.
>
> And I think you need to stop thinking in terms of
> revolutionary change. It can take years, and success
> comes in small small increments.
I think you should learn about drug rehab before making such
inaccurate statements about treatment. Drug rehab is a heartbreaking
undertaking because the recividity rate is discouraging. You malign
the caring, hardworking rehab specialists with your unknowlegeabe
diatribe.
>> : In fact, he did test positive for drugs while in
>> : prison, and that is an indictment of prison system.
>>
>> It also shows the extremes people will go to to
>> smuggle drugs into a prison. On several occasions I
>> visited a "calabash kid" of mine at WCCC. I was
>> amazed and somewhat taken aback at the screening
>> process upon entry. Baby's diapers were removed as
>> part of the process. I had to open my mouth as wide
>> as I could. I had to take off my shoes. I was
>> thoroughly patted down. Ditto for the very elderly
>> lady in front of me. And, yes, I can think of one or
>> 2 possibilities for smuggling drugs, in spite of the
>> process, but this is, after all, a "family
>> newsgroup"! "Calabash Kid" filled me in. Suffice it
>> to say that where there's a will there's a way.
>
> I thought they use these glass partitians between the
> prisoner and the visitor. At least, they should if they
> want to stop drugs from getting in. I assume that drugs
> are getting in the way it's been reported in scandals
> all over the country: the staff is paid off to smuggle
> it in.
You watch too many TV shows, and obviously have
no personal experience in these matters.
> I'm surprised at how thorough the authorities are. Out
> of curiosity, one of our class reunion organizers wrote
> to a classmate who is in federal prison in the mainland
> to find out whether he would be coming out, etc. The
> stamps she enclosed in the letter to write back were
> returned to her by the prison authorities. She
> enventually reached him by phone. That in itself is an
> interesting story.
>
>> : It isn't as mysterious as you think.
>>
>> I wasn't aware that I thought it was mysterious.
>> Please explain...
>
> My son's a social worker. Motivation is largely a
> function of how successful you are in gaining the
> client's trust. Rarely is it as difficult as it is in
> the Matt Damon movie where he played a genius criminal
> undergoing therapy. But it is not a job for amateurs--
> although you may think it's very difficult (because it
> would be, if you were to try it).
Your son would be embarassed to read what you have
written. Continued motivation is the work of a social worker,
but even the best social worker cannot force someone to
commit to accepting rehab.
>> I wonder what went on in Mark's life that led him to
>> drugs to begin with. A tiny bit of this piece to the
>> puzzle was touched on by reporters. Whatever his
>> ongoing problems were/are, they also need to be
>> addressed. Substance abuse is a complex situation.
>> The underlying reasons have to be identified and
>> treated, too.
>>
>> Are there any prison systems that are acclaimed for
>> their successful, *long term*, substance abuse
>> rehabilitation programs? Again, no need to read
>> between the lines, Alvin. I'm truly interested to
>> know if anyone has the answer to this question.
>>
>> Sue
>
> Sue, I really don't know. My son used to work in a
> short term (3 or 4 month duration) program of
> "multi-systemic" therapy that state contracted with
> schools for kids that were wanabe criminals-- "at
> risk"? They had a 60% success rate in meeting the terms
> of the behavior contract with the student, and even the
> partial successes were significant although the agency
> was not paid for those. This sytem of therapy is touted
> as being very successful on the mainland.
Working with school kids is difficult. But changing a career
criminals motivation is quite beyond that. A lot of career
criminals know how to play the "rehab game". They will
use it to their advantage if possible.
Sue Larkin
In article <1047362...@news.lava.net>, "Alvin E. Toda"
<a...@lava.net> wrote:
:On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Sue Larkin wrote:
:
:>
:> In article <1047247...@news.lava.net>, Alvin E. Toda <a...@lava.net>
:> wrote:
:
:> : So it's ok to kill prisoners???
:>
:> Alvin? Helloooooooo! If you interpreted my reply to
:> mean just that then maybe I should interpret your
:> reference above to mean that it's ok to kill
:> innocent, law abiding citizens rather than "another
:> killing in prison". Any further explanation of what
:> I meant, I fear, will be lost on you.
:
:It's just a rhetorical question. But yes I don't
:understand why having a dangerous killer killing in
:prison is ANY different from killing innocent folk like
:you assert. Just how is it different??? I would think
:you would expect that I would think that it should make
:no difference-- that both are terrible-- from the
:comments I make.
Huh?
:You seem to think just the opposite-- ie that I would
:think it equally OK. This could only be if YOU somehow
:think it's less of a problem if a killer kills in
:prison.
Ummm...huh?
:You need not react so strongly
I'm nowhere close to reacting strongly...not even a one point rise in
my blood pressure.
:to such a harmless
:question of clarification usless you really have such
:feelings that prisoners themselves do not deserve
:protection from killers, and psychopaths.
Ai yi yi yi yi, Alvin! <shaking head!> I stand by my quote above, esp.
the last sentence that reads, "Any further explanation of what
I meant, I fear, will be lost on you." I'll leave it at that.
:> Also, somewhere in this thread, was mentioned repeat
:> offenders. Mark was/is a multiple, repeat offender.
:> Drugs in and out of prison, domestic abuse, theft,
:> access to a gun, use of gun more than once soon after
:> release from prison, murder. Possibly, if Hawaii had
:> a 3 strikes and your out law, Mark's crimes and
:> convictions #4 thru 14 would've never happened. Ditto
:> for last week's tragedy...and 2 young girls would
:> still have their father.
:
:Laws which allow for injustice to occurr are worse than
:doing nothing, and NO substitute for inaction by the
:system. You can expect that with no intervention, that
:he would eventually get out and continue to commit
:crimes.
Do you consider a "3 strikes" law an injustice?
:> : You say you haven't a clue what would have helped
:> : in his case?
:>
:> I'm not an expert in these matters. If I had the
:> skills to know what would've helped in Mark's case,
:> well, let's just say that my career would not be that
:> of a casting director. What I did say was that the
:> reasons for drug abuse are individual and, as such,
:> need to be treated individually...and that is a very
:> expensive proposition.
:
:It's more expensive not to have the staff that can
:address this problem.
In the long term, yes. But, many if not most government "systems" are
penny wise and pound foolish and/or they're corrupt and/or they just
don't have the staff they need due to budgetary limitations. In an
ideal situation there would be enough resources to deal with this
problem. We don't live in ideal times with ideal situations. Especially
now.
:Loss of life as in this most
:recent crime is immeasurable in terms of cost. But the
:fault here is not that we don't try hard enough. In a
:number of cases, the system just doesn't try at all.
I don't have enough facts to agree or disagree with that. I was aware
of how hard the "system" tried with my calabash kid. AAMOF, I was
amazed. And, she was motivated. A lot can be accomplished with the
combination of those 2 factors.
:> Regardless of where substance abuse counseling takes
:> place, the addicted person has to admit s/he has a
:> problem and be willing to accept help before
:> counseling can help. Do you know if Mark admitted his
:> problem and was open to receiving help? That's a
:> simple, yes/no question, Alvin. No need to try to
:> read between the lines. I don't know the answer to it
:> but am curious if someone does.
:
:Yes it's a question of motivation. But you do have a
:chance to help if the addicted person just shows up.
But there's a better chance if the inmate desires help. Many show up
for reasons other than help.
:Of course, you are aware that it is surely failure if
:he/she does not show up for therapy.
<big eyes!> Really?
:At least, you can
:have a chance if he/she shows up for a session. And if
:that therapist cannot motivate, then try another.
:They're paid for their empathy and skill in effecting
:change with these types of persons.
I know someone who works in the prison system in this capacity. It is a
difficult task to motivate inmates.
:And I think you need to stop thinking in terms of
:revolutionary change.
Huh? How did you arrive at that conclusion?
:It can take years, and success
:comes in small small increments.
Ok. I understand that.
:> : In fact, he did test positive for drugs while in
:> : prison, and that is an indictment of prison system.
:>
:> It also shows the extremes people will go to to
:> smuggle drugs into a prison. On several occasions I
:> visited a "calabash kid" of mine at WCCC. I was
:> amazed and somewhat taken aback at the screening
:> process upon entry. Baby's diapers were removed as
:> part of the process. I had to open my mouth as wide
:> as I could. I had to take off my shoes. I was
:> thoroughly patted down. Ditto for the very elderly
:> lady in front of me. And, yes, I can think of one or
:> 2 possibilities for smuggling drugs, in spite of the
:> process, but this is, after all, a "family
:> newsgroup"! "Calabash Kid" filled me in. Suffice it
:> to say that where there's a will there's a way.
:
:I thought they use these glass partitians between the
:prisoner and the visitor.
I can only speak about the women's prison...no glass partitians that I
saw. But, that doesn't mean there aren't any. There is a large
courtyard in the middle of the main building. Everyone is in the
courtyard together. After a fairly thorough search, visitors have to
pass thru several gates to get there. The clanking noise each gate
closure made behind me was an ominous sound. If an inmate does not have
a visitor that inmate may not be in the courtyard.
:At least, they should if they
:want to stop drugs from getting in. I assume that drugs
:are getting in the way it's been reported in scandals
:all over the country: the staff is paid off to smuggle
:it in.
That's one way, I 'spose!
:I'm surprised at how thorough the authorities are.
I could take absolutely nothing into the prison when I visited. No
purse, no keys, all jewelry had to be removed and there was a dress
code.
:Out
:of curiosity, one of our class reunion organizers wrote
:to a classmate who is in federal prison in the mainland
:to find out whether he would be coming out, etc. The
:stamps she enclosed in the letter to write back were
:returned to her by the prison authorities. She
:enventually reached him by phone. That in itself is an
:interesting story.
:
:> : It isn't as mysterious as you think.
:>
:> I wasn't aware that I thought it was mysterious.
:> Please explain...
:
:My son's a social worker. Motivation is largely a
:function of how successful you are in gaining the
:client's trust. Rarely is it as difficult as it is in
:the Matt Damon movie where he played a genius criminal
:undergoing therapy. But it is not a job for amateurs--
:although you may think it's very difficult (because it
:would be, if you were to try it).
Alvin...I meant please explain how you arrived at the conclusion that I
thought it was mysterious.
It's a difficult job, even for professionals. In the past, I've
attended parties at my friend's (the prison therapist) home. On
occasion he has invited previous inmates whom he has been "successful"
with to attend. None, that I can remember, were hard core criminals,
tho'. And all had been motivated from the beginning to get their lives
back on track. Dunno why, but I've never thought to ask if any have
"relapsed".
[...]
:> Are there any prison systems that are acclaimed for
:> their successful, *long term*, substance abuse
:> rehabilitation programs? Again, no need to read
:> between the lines, Alvin. I'm truly interested to
:> know if anyone has the answer to this question.
:>
:> Sue
:
:Sue, I really don't know. My son used to work in a
:short term (3 or 4 month duration) program of
:"multi-systemic" therapy that state contracted with
:schools for kids that were wanabe criminals-- "at
:risk"? They had a 60% success rate in meeting the terms
:of the behavior contract with the student, and even the
:partial successes were significant although the agency
:was not paid for those. This sytem of therapy is touted
:as being very successful on the mainland.
:
:I think the one problem was that the therapists were
:skeptical of long term success because the only
:follow-up was by school counselor who did not see
:his/her role as therapy, and also did not work with the
:family and teachers in the student's environment-- the
:system of therapy involved training and therapy of them
:as well as the student. The other major problem is that
:even if the schools did not pay for therapy of 40% of
:the students, they felt that the 60% costs were too
:much for their budget.
See...there we are...back to budgetary limitations...
: Also the legislative auditor did
:a poor management audit of the program.
...and government ca-ca!
:I would expect that a succesfull prison program would
:be very multi-faceted,
Absolutely...because it would need to be tailored to individual needs.
:but they all would need
:therapists who can motivate the client to try.
Yes but the incarcerated population, by nature, are very difficult to
motivate in this respect, esp. when drugs are involved. Drug addiction,
like alcoholism, is an illness. I don't think either are ever "cured"
but, rather, with lots of hard work, the patient goes into remission
only to relapse if ongoing treatment...not only of the addiction but of
the underlying problems that led to it...isn't available. I watched
this happen with my calabash kid and it absolutely broke my heart.
Fortunately she wasn't a violent person...just an angry one. And, for
the most part, her anger was focused inward. I eventually learned what
pushed her over the edge and into drugs to begin with. Because there
was little if any resolution to that problem she eventually relapsed. A
motivational, empathetic therapist sometimes isn't enough.
Sue...who is highly motivated to get some sleep!
Alvin E. Toda
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Sue Larkin wrote:
> In article <1047362...@news.lava.net>, "Alvin E. Toda"
> <a...@lava.net> wrote:
>
> :to such a harmless
> :question of clarification usless you really have such
> :feelings that prisoners themselves do not deserve
> :protection from killers, and psychopaths.
>
> Ai yi yi yi yi, Alvin! <shaking head!> I stand by my
> quote above, esp. the last sentence that reads, "Any
> further explanation of what I meant, I fear, will be
> lost on you." I'll leave it at that.
I agree. I think we'll have to agree that we don't
understand the other's reasoning. I'm disappointed that
my reasoning is lost on you. Went right over you.
> Do you consider a "3 strikes" law an injustice?
Yes because it takes discresion from the judge.
You may have committed a couple of crimes in you
distant past. But perhaps in a moment of bad judgement
or desperation commit a minor crime and get caught.
We have in California a judge being forced to sentence
a guy who shop-lifted 3 golf clubs to a mandatory 25
years without parole. This sentence seems indefensible
to me but perhaps you don't see this as an injustice???
White collar criminals who lie on financial reports and
steal millions from their employees and stock holders,
may not even see the inside of a prison.
> In the long term, yes. But, many if not most
> government "systems" are penny wise and pound foolish
> and/or they're corrupt and/or they just don't have
> the staff they need due to budgetary limitations. In
> an ideal situation there would be enough resources to
> deal with this problem. We don't live in ideal times
> with ideal situations. Especially now.
Over crowding is not something that can wait. There are
some conditions that the court can mandate government
spending-- and they have taken over Hawaii's prisons in
the past. Having the criminally insane mixed in with
the general prison population is also an unacceptable
situation-- although a jury may have found the man sane
at the time of the murder. You pay now or you pay
later. Mark is not insane, but since they didn't fix
his drug habit, then we paid by his killing when he got
out. I think we even agree that he could have killed in
prison. Penny wise and pound foolish.
> :Of course, you are aware that it is surely failure if
> :he/she does not show up for therapy.
>
> <big eyes!> Really?
Gene would argue with this. But it is a fact that the
system has an opportunity to change your behavior by
therapy. Hope you don't call this brain-washing. It has
a chance to put your idle time to good use. At least if
it can't change your attitudes, it could still teach
you a work skill-- other than crime of course. There
are some that say you come out worse than when you went
in-- lots and lots of anger, and knowledge of criminal
methods and other criminals.
> Alvin...I meant please explain how you arrived at the
> conclusion that I thought it was mysterious.
You had a concern about the complexity of therapy, and
how hard it is to motivate a person to want help-- how
everyone is different and has different concerns. I
think that makes the process seem to mysterious.
I say leave that to professionals. But the process just
starts with gaining the client's trust. And progress is
slow and incremental-- small, small increments.
> It's a difficult job, even for professionals. In the
> past, I've attended parties at my friend's (the
> prison therapist) home. On occasion he has invited
> previous inmates whom he has been "successful" with
> to attend. None, that I can remember, were hard core
> criminals, tho'. And all had been motivated from the
> beginning to get their lives back on track. Dunno
> why, but I've never thought to ask if any have
> "relapsed".
I don't think there's a hard core look. In fact, Shane
Mark looks like the typical Hawaiian-Chinese kid to me.
I guess that might be Korean, because I think Mark is
Korean? It's a relative thing. I would define as hard
core as a repeat offender-- even if the crimes are
non-violent ones.
But I wouldn't put you in jail for a mandatory 25 years
for your third shop lifting even if it was only last
month that you came before me for your 2nd conviction.
You should be punished more for your stupidity in that
case-- and you should look for other work. :)
> Yes but the incarcerated population, by nature, are
> very difficult to motivate in this respect, esp. when
> drugs are involved. Drug addiction, like alcoholism,
> is an illness. I don't think either are ever "cured"
> but, rather, with lots of hard work, the patient goes
> into remission only to relapse if ongoing
> treatment...not only of the addiction but of the
> underlying problems that led to it...isn't available.
> I watched this happen with my calabash kid and it
> absolutely broke my heart. Fortunately she wasn't a
> violent person...just an angry one. And, for the most
> part, her anger was focused inward. I eventually
> learned what pushed her over the edge and into drugs
> to begin with. Because there was little if any
> resolution to that problem she eventually relapsed. A
> motivational, empathetic therapist sometimes isn't
> enough.
They just ran out of time to help her. We do have
community mental health centers. I think there was four
reported on Oahu in the news report about Lingle
testifying on their funding. Her mother suffered from
bipolar mood swings I think. But she probably had
health insurance for that. The centers serve a lot of
people who would have difficulty affording therapy.
Perhaps she has a social worker case manager in
addition to a probation officer, who can refer her????
--alvin
Alvin E. Toda
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, The Guy wrote:
> Sounds like Hawaii should consider a 3-strikes law.
> California's was just declared to be constitutional
> by the U.S. Supreme Court last week. But with it
> comes increased prison costs, the upside is less
> repeat offenders on the streets such as the killer
> mentioned above.
In the Star-Bulletin yesterday...
http://starbulletin.com/2003/03/10/editorial/indexeditorials2.html
Problem with the California law is that it creates
injustice. Looks like the Supreme Court doesn't look at
lengthy terms as cruel and unusual punishment. It's
sticking to the more conservative definition of
physical torture. It's something that's up to the
voters to change-- ie if someone goes a mandatory 25
years to prison for shop-lifting 3 golf clubs.
--alvin
Alvin E. Toda
Gene....I think Sue got the point. Why haven't you? If
you don't show up for therapy, then there's no chance
of treatment. At least if you show up, there's a
chance. I think we agree that the person is not going
to show up on his own. But he can get more priveleges
in prison if he does. Yes this is what goes on in drug
court. If one program fails, then you're put in
another. The judge wont accept that no therapist can
motivate you to try.
---alvin
###########################################################
Alvin E. Toda a...@ieee.org
sr. engineer Phone: 1-808-455-1331
2-Sigma WEB: http://www.lava.net/~aet/2-sigma.html
1363-A Hoowali St.
Pearl City, Hawaii, USA 96782
Gene Lancette
Alvin E. Toda wrote:
>
> Gene....I think Sue got the point. Why haven't you?
Was there a point other than to pass the blame onto
everyone BUT the offender?
If
> you don't show up for therapy, then there's no chance
> of treatment. At least if you show up, there's a
> chance.
There can be a chance without showing up for a specific
therapy encounter. I've known people who found religion
to be their "therapy". Others became motivated by develop-
ments in their family life.
>I think we agree that the person is not going
> to show up on his own.
I am not stupid enough to agree to any such thing.
I stand by what I wrote earlier. The offender has to
be motivated in order for treatment to work. If they
have found such motivation they will show up on
their own.
> But he can get more priveleges in prison if he does.
It's just a game, as I wrote. Play along to get something.
That is NOT rehabilitation. That is not the motivation that
will keep one off drugs when sent back out in the streets.
> Yes this is what goes on in drug
> court. If one program fails, then you're put in
> another. The judge wont accept that no therapist can
> motivate you to try.
>
Ever heard of the term "incorrigible"? There is no working
treatment for some people. They will do drugs til they die.
We recently lost the talented composing artist Mackey Feary
because the judge did not think he was responding to treat-
ment and sent him back to prison. Mackey hung himself there.
He was not a career criminal.
The FACTS do not back much of anything that you wrote
regarding this. Face it, no one can be an expert in everything
just because they can respond to every topic in a news group.
Gene Lancette
Alvin E. Toda wrote:
>
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, The Guy wrote:
>
>> Sounds like Hawaii should consider a 3-strikes law.
[...]
>
> Problem with the California law is that it creates
> injustice. Looks like the Supreme Court doesn't look at
> lengthy terms as cruel and unusual punishment. It's
> sticking to the more conservative definition of
> physical torture. It's something that's up to the
> voters to change-- ie if someone goes a mandatory 25
> years to prison for shop-lifting 3 golf clubs.
>
> --alvin
The only problem is that you are totally unaware of
reality when it comes to prison and its purpose.
The purpose for prison is to punish criminals. A desired
result is to reform those criminals.
They are released from prison after serving their terms.
It is hoped that they will not commit further crimes.
If the offender has a past record of violent crime and
begins to commit crime again, even a shoplifting crime,
it is the start of an old pattern. If you can justify stealing
golf clubs then it is not much farther for the career crim-
inal to think they can strike someone with those clubs if
it will solve an immediate problem.
Stealing golf clubs or any small item cannot be justified,
especially by someone who has made a life stealing and
hurting people. If someone proves that their only solution
to hard times is to steal then they never learned the lesson
prison was to teach them. It is time to send them back. Why
wait until they regress even further and resort to hurting
innocent hard working people? You make no sense at
all.
Jerry Okamura
"Alvin E. Toda" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1047460...@news.lava.net...
> Problem with the California law is that it creates
> injustice. Looks like the Supreme Court doesn't look at
> lengthy terms as cruel and unusual punishment. It's
> sticking to the more conservative definition of
> physical torture. It's something that's up to the
> voters to change-- ie if someone goes a mandatory 25
> years to prison for shop-lifting 3 golf clubs.
>
The choice we have is simple. We either tolerate the cost of having
habitual criminals do their thing, or we try to do something about it.
Sue Larkin
In article <1047427...@news.lava.net>, "Alvin E. Toda"
<a...@lava.net> wrote:
:On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Sue Larkin wrote:
:
:> In article <1047362...@news.lava.net>, "Alvin E. Toda"
:> <a...@lava.net> wrote:
:>
:> :to such a harmless
:> :question of clarification usless you really have such
:> :feelings that prisoners themselves do not deserve
:> :protection from killers, and psychopaths.
:>
:> Ai yi yi yi yi, Alvin! <shaking head!> I stand by my
:> quote above, esp. the last sentence that reads, "Any
:> further explanation of what I meant, I fear, will be
:> lost on you." I'll leave it at that.
:
:I agree. I think we'll have to agree that we don't
:understand the other's reasoning. I'm disappointed that
:my reasoning is lost on you. Went right over you.
Nah...it went under me because of the way it was written. Confusing and
didn't make sense.
:> Do you consider a "3 strikes" law an injustice?
:
:Yes because it takes discresion from the judge.
:
:You may have committed a couple of crimes in you
:distant past. But perhaps in a moment of bad judgement
:or desperation commit a minor crime and get caught.
Then, possibly, the "3 strikes" law just might help to deter crime,
minor or otherwise. That would be a good thing. What exactly is it
about breaking a law that you don't understand?
:We have in California a judge being forced to sentence
:a guy who shop-lifted 3 golf clubs to a mandatory 25
:years without parole. This sentence seems indefensible
:to me but perhaps you don't see this as an injustice???
Perhaps I do. You have such a way with words, Alvin. What were the
other 2 "crimes" committed by the person who stole the golf clubs?
Murder? Dealing drugs? Child pornography? I don't know the answer but
the answer makes a difference as to whether the 3rd strike and it's
resultant sentence make sense or not.
If Hawaii was to adopt a "3 strikes" law, in your opinion would Hawaii
NOT be able to redefine it? Would Hawaii be mandated to adopt
California's law word for word? I don't think so. I don't feel the "3
strikes" law is an injustice if it includes appropriate punishments.
OTOH...possibly the *threat* of inappropriate punishments is enough to
scare the you-know-what out of some potential criminals. If the thief
mentioned above committed check fraud and later scammed an elderly
person out of, say, a few hundred bucks, before stealing 3 golf clubs
then, yes, a mandatory 25 years without parole seems inappropriate.
Well, the "without parole" part, anyway! But some kind of punishment is
necessary. Three times, Alvin, is still 3 times too many. What's so
unjust about punishing even minor crimes? We have laws for a reason.
And we have prisons for a reason. Judges are called judges for a
reason. I recently testified at a hearing involving someone who
committed check fraud against me. She has 5...count 'em...
F I V E...priors. That's FIVE too many! She broke the law with each
prior conviction. As #5, you bet I'm gonna be there to help see that
she never does it again...to anyone. Or, when I go back to court,
should I just hand her a batch of checks from my new account to save
her the hassle of stealing them?
:White collar criminals who lie on financial reports and
:steal millions from their employees and stock holders,
:may not even see the inside of a prison.
And, that's a travesty. But, it seems, those kind of white collar
crimes are now being exposed and punished.
:> In the long term, yes. But, many if not most
:> government "systems" are penny wise and pound foolish
:> and/or they're corrupt and/or they just don't have
:> the staff they need due to budgetary limitations. In
:> an ideal situation there would be enough resources to
:> deal with this problem. We don't live in ideal times
:> with ideal situations. Especially now.
:
:Over crowding is not something that can wait. There are
:some conditions that the court can mandate government
:spending-- and they have taken over Hawaii's prisons in
:the past. Having the criminally insane mixed in with
:the general prison population is also an unacceptable
:situation--
That happens outside of prison walls everyday. Why is it more
unacceptable inside of prison than outside?
:although a jury may have found the man sane
:at the time of the murder. You pay now or you pay
:later. Mark is not insane,
Has he been clinically diagnosed already? I don't know the answer to
that. It's a don't-read-between-the-lines question.
:but since they didn't fix
:his drug habit, then we paid by his killing when he got
:out. I think we even agree that he could have killed in
:prison. Penny wise and pound foolish.
:> :Of course, you are aware that it is surely failure if
:> :he/she does not show up for therapy.
:>
:> <big eyes!> Really?
:
:Gene would argue with this. But it is a fact that the
:system has an opportunity to change your behavior by
:therapy.
Well, I guess there's a very slim opportunity...as long as the inmate
desires it. Opportunity is a 2 way street...not a one way street.
:Hope you don't call this brain-washing.
I hadn't even thought of the term. Interesting that you did, tho'. My
guess is that the same inmates who cannot be motivated by therapy will
be resistant to brain washing, too. Criminals, esp. those on drugs, are
known for their abilities to manipulate people.
:It has
:a chance to put your idle time to good use. At least if
:it can't change your attitudes, it could still teach
:you a work skill-- other than crime of course.
That's not therapy. That's school.
:There
:are some that say you come out worse than when you went
:in-- lots and lots of anger, and knowledge of criminal
:methods and other criminals.
I've heard this many times.
:> Alvin...I meant please explain how you arrived at the
:> conclusion that I thought it was mysterious.
:
:You had a concern about the complexity of therapy,
Complexi and mysterious have 2 different definitions. I think what I
tried to convey was that the problem was complex, that there wasn't a
one-size-fits-all solution. Nuthin' mysterious about that.
:and
:how hard it is to motivate a person to want help-- how
:everyone is different and has different concerns. I
:think that makes the process seem to mysterious.
You may think what you like however you accused me of thinking the
process was mysterious when I made no indications of such. I think it
makes the process more difficult.
:I say leave that to professionals. But the process just
:starts with gaining the client's trust. And progress is
:slow and incremental-- small, small increments.
:
:> It's a difficult job, even for professionals. In the
:> past, I've attended parties at my friend's (the
:> prison therapist) home. On occasion he has invited
:> previous inmates whom he has been "successful" with
:> to attend. None, that I can remember, were hard core
:> criminals, tho'. And all had been motivated from the
:> beginning to get their lives back on track. Dunno
:> why, but I've never thought to ask if any have
:> "relapsed".
:
:I don't think there's a hard core look.
A hard core look? Do you think I inferred that?
:In fact, Shane
:Mark looks like the typical Hawaiian-Chinese kid to me.
Shane Mark has rage written all over him. All you need to do is look at
his eyes. THAT is not a typical "look", Hawaiian-Chinese or otherwise.
:I guess that might be Korean, because I think Mark is
:Korean? It's a relative thing. I would define as hard
:core as a repeat offender-- even if the crimes are
:non-violent ones.
So, does that make the golf-club-bandit you mentioned above, the one
you feel was dealt the blow of injustice, a hard core criminal because
he's a repeat offender?
:But I wouldn't put you in jail for a mandatory 25 years
:for your third shop lifting even if it was only last
:month that you came before me for your 2nd conviction.
What punishment do you feel is fair in that situation? Do you know what
the other 2 "crimes" were that said golf-club-bandit committed?
:You should be punished more for your stupidity in that
:case-- and you should look for other work. :)
One should be punished ALL 3 times but the punishment needs to fit the
crime. Mental impairment is a whole, other issue.
:> Yes but the incarcerated population, by nature, are
I'm not going to respond anymore re: my calabash kid because the point
I was trying to make when right over your head.
Sue
Alvin E. Toda
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Gene Lancette wrote:
>
> Alvin E. Toda wrote:
>
> >
> > On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, The Guy wrote:
> >
> >> Sounds like Hawaii should consider a 3-strikes law.
> [...]
> >
> > Problem with the California law is that it creates
> > injustice. Looks like the Supreme Court doesn't look at
> > lengthy terms as cruel and unusual punishment. It's
> > sticking to the more conservative definition of
> > physical torture. It's something that's up to the
> > voters to change-- ie if someone goes a mandatory 25
> > years to prison for shop-lifting 3 golf clubs.
> >
> > --alvin
>
> The only problem is that you are totally unaware of
> reality when it comes to prison and its purpose.
> If the offender has a past record of violent crime
> and begins to commit crime again, even a shoplifting
> crime, it is the start of an old pattern. If you can
> justify stealing golf clubs then it is not much
> farther for the career crim- inal to think they can
> strike someone with those clubs if it will solve an
> immediate problem.
He doesn't have to have a record of violence. Just past
shoplifting. With the 3-strikes law, this could very
well be in the distant past, and still it doesn't
matter. The judge has no choice but to add additional
years to his sentence. You can't justtify this.
This is why the Star-Bulletin, as conservative as they
are, can see the injustice of this law.
--alvin
Alvin E. Toda
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Gene Lancette wrote:
>
> Alvin E. Toda wrote:
>
> > If you don't show up for therapy, then there's no
> > chance of treatment. At least if you show up,
> > there's a chance.
>
> There can be a chance without showing up for a
> specific therapy encounter. I've known people who
> found religion to be their "therapy". Others became
> motivated by develop- ments in their family life.
Uh isn't this showing up? What's the diff?
> > I think we agree that the person is not going
> > to show up on his own.
>
> I am not stupid enough to agree to any such thing. I
> stand by what I wrote earlier. The offender has to be
> motivated in order for treatment to work. If they
> have found such motivation they will show up on their
> own.
Gene...They're in prison. And if they don't attend,
then they don't get any priveleges.
>
>
> > But he can get more priveleges in prison if he does.
>
> It's just a game, as I wrote. Play along to get something.
> That is NOT rehabilitation. That is not the motivation that
> will keep one off drugs when sent back out in the streets.
>
> > Yes this is what goes on in drug
> > court. If one program fails, then you're put in
> > another. The judge wont accept that no therapist can
> > motivate you to try.
> >
>
> Ever heard of the term "incorrigible"? There is no working
> treatment for some people. They will do drugs til they die.
>
> We recently lost the talented composing artist Mackey Feary
> because the judge did not think he was responding to treat-
> ment and sent him back to prison. Mackey hung himself there.
> He was not a career criminal.
>
> The FACTS do not back much of anything that you wrote
> regarding this. Face it, no one can be an expert in everything
> just because they can respond to every topic in a news group.
>
>
###########################################################
Alvin E. Toda
Huh? Injustice is a "tolerate cost"??
--alvin
Alvin E. Toda
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Sue Larkin wrote:
> In article <1047427...@news.lava.net>, "Alvin E. Toda"
> <a...@lava.net> wrote:
>
> :On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Sue Larkin wrote:
> :
> :> In article <1047362...@news.lava.net>, "Alvin E. Toda"
> :> <a...@lava.net> wrote:
> :>
> :> :to such a harmless
> :> :question of clarification usless you really have such
> :> :feelings that prisoners themselves do not deserve
> :> :protection from killers, and psychopaths.
> :>
> :> Ai yi yi yi yi, Alvin! <shaking head!> I stand by my
> :> quote above, esp. the last sentence that reads, "Any
> :> further explanation of what I meant, I fear, will be
> :> lost on you." I'll leave it at that.
> :
> :I agree. I think we'll have to agree that we don't
> :understand the other's reasoning. I'm disappointed that
> :my reasoning is lost on you. Went right over you.
>
> Nah...it went under me because of the way it was
> written. Confusing and didn't make sense.
Well your explanation went neither under or over,
because it never got explained. Just very mysterious.
> :> Do you consider a "3 strikes" law an injustice?
> :
> :Yes because it takes discresion from the judge.
> :
> :You may have committed a couple of crimes in you
> :distant past. But perhaps in a moment of bad judgement
> :or desperation commit a minor crime and get caught.
>
> Then, possibly, the "3 strikes" law just might help
> to deter crime, minor or otherwise. That would be a
> good thing. What exactly is it about breaking a law
> that you don't understand?
What exactly is it about an unfair sentence that you
don't understand?
> :We have in California a judge being forced to sentence
> :a guy who shop-lifted 3 golf clubs to a mandatory 25
> :years without parole. This sentence seems indefensible
> :to me but perhaps you don't see this as an injustice???
>
> Perhaps I do. You have such a way with words, Alvin.
> What were the other 2 "crimes" committed by the
> person who stole the golf clubs? Murder? Dealing
> drugs? Child pornography? I don't know the answer but
> the answer makes a difference as to whether the 3rd
> strike and it's resultant sentence make sense or not.
It doesn't matter. He could have shop lifted previously
in the distant past. It's a mandatory sentence which
the judge cannot avoid. You obviously assume it must be
terrible to warrant such a sentence. That's NOT the way
the law is written. But you're putting your own
interpretation and judgement into the law.
> If Hawaii was to adopt a "3 strikes" law, in your
> opinion would Hawaii NOT be able to redefine it?
> Would Hawaii be mandated to adopt California's law
> word for word? I don't think so. I don't feel the "3
> strikes" law is an injustice if it includes
> appropriate punishments. OTOH...possibly the *threat*
So you think if the judge could decide the suitabillity
of extended punishment for past convicted crimes with
the present in such a 3-strikes Hawaii law, than the
law could be administered without injustice.
Well, that is what we presently have. Apparantly, our
judges in Hawaii (someone in this thread has said)
sentence criminals to 20% more time on the average.
But what you are concerned about is that people like
Mark can fall through the cracks, and not receive an
extended sentence ??? The solution for that is to
complain about the judge. Just who sentenced him to
only the full 5 years for his last offense??? Funny
that has not come out in the papers...
> Judges are called judges for a reason. I recently
> testified at a hearing involving someone who
> committed check fraud against me. She has 5...count
> 'em... F I V E...priors. That's FIVE too many! She
> broke the law with each prior conviction. As #5, you
> bet I'm gonna be there to help see that she never
> does it again...to anyone. Or, when I go back to
> court, should I just hand her a batch of checks from
> my new account to save her the hassle of stealing
> them?
>
> :White collar criminals who lie on financial reports and
> :steal millions from their employees and stock holders,
> :may not even see the inside of a prison.
>
> And, that's a travesty. But, it seems, those kind of
> white collar crimes are now being exposed and
> punished.
It's sad, but although white collar crime (such as your
bad check person) cost us more, the punishment is much
much less. I guess she used an alias??
> :> In the long term, yes. But, many if not most
> :> government "systems" are penny wise and pound foolish
> :> and/or they're corrupt and/or they just don't have
> :> the staff they need due to budgetary limitations. In
> :> an ideal situation there would be enough resources to
> :> deal with this problem. We don't live in ideal times
> :> with ideal situations. Especially now.
> :
> :Over crowding is not something that can wait. There are
> :some conditions that the court can mandate government
> :spending-- and they have taken over Hawaii's prisons in
> :the past. Having the criminally insane mixed in with
> :the general prison population is also an unacceptable
> :situation--
>
> That happens outside of prison walls everyday. Why is
> it more unacceptable inside of prison than outside?
But you say it's OK for a "budgetary limitation"?
And I don't think there's such a thing as MORE
unacceptable. It either is, or it isn't.
I don't understand your statement. I think we agreed
that you didn't want to take about this subject of
difference from your viewpoint. Obviously, you don't
understand mine.
> :although a jury may have found the man sane
> :at the time of the murder. You pay now or you pay
> :later. Mark is not insane,
>
> Has he been clinically diagnosed already? I don't
> know the answer to that. It's a
> don't-read-between-the-lines question.
Don't need to. He has so much documentation on him from
pass encounters with the law, that if he had mental
problems, it would have been reported by the papers.
> :> :Of course, you are aware that it is surely failure if
> :> :he/she does not show up for therapy.
> :>
> :> <big eyes!> Really?
> :
> :Gene would argue with this. But it is a fact that the
> :system has an opportunity to change your behavior by
> :therapy.
>
> Well, I guess there's a very slim opportunity...as
> long as the inmate desires it. Opportunity is a 2 way
> street...not a one way street.
>
> :Hope you don't call this brain-washing.
>
> I hadn't even thought of the term. Interesting that
> you did, tho'. My guess is that the same inmates who
> cannot be motivated by therapy will be resistant to
> brain washing, too. Criminals, esp. those on drugs,
> are known for their abilities to manipulate people.
I see this as a slim opportunity because we don't
bother to spend the money for this kind of therapy. But
it is better than voluntary committemnt to a drug
therapy program. I understand that the drop out rate is
about 80% of voluntary people. Ie 80% of those do not
complete the program.
In the case of drug court, the judge tries another
program, or another counselor. He has years of the
sentence to work on the prisoner. So even though the
chances of success are small on a single try, the
chances improve the more years, and attempts at
treatment.
> :It has
> :a chance to put your idle time to good use. At least if
> :it can't change your attitudes, it could still teach
> :you a work skill-- other than crime of course.
>
> That's not therapy. That's school.
This is shift in topic. But still germane.
> :There
> :are some that say you come out worse than when you went
> :in-- lots and lots of anger, and knowledge of criminal
> :methods and other criminals.
>
> I've heard this many times.
>
> :> Alvin...I meant please explain how you arrived at the
> :> conclusion that I thought it was mysterious.
> :
> :You had a concern about the complexity of therapy,
>
> Complexi and mysterious have 2 different definitions.
> I think what I tried to convey was that the problem
> was complex, that there wasn't a one-size-fits-all
> solution. Nuthin' mysterious about that.
It is to you. To a therapist, there are a small number
of approaches he/she might try. It's a professional
judgement and not black magic as to which approach has
a reasonable chance of sucess. It is mysterious when
there are so many approaches that you have no idea
where to start. It's not where a therapist comes from.
> :In fact, Shane
> :Mark looks like the typical Hawaiian-Chinese kid to me.
>
> Shane Mark has rage written all over him. All you
> need to do is look at his eyes. THAT is not a typical
> "look", Hawaiian-Chinese or otherwise.
Anyone in his situation at that time would look
distraut. That's what I saw in this eyes. But this is
an opinion. I don't really know how he feels.
> :But I wouldn't put you in jail for a mandatory 25 years
> :for your third shop lifting even if it was only last
> :month that you came before me for your 2nd conviction.
>
> What punishment do you feel is fair in that
> situation? Do you know what the other 2 "crimes" were
> that said golf-club-bandit committed?
I'd leave that up to the judge. And it would be up to
the prosecutor to justify the extended sentence if
he/she were indeed to recommend one. This is our
present system.
> :They just ran out of time to help her. We do have
> :community mental health centers. I think there was four
> I'm not going to respond anymore re: my calabash kid
> because the point I was trying to make when right
> over your head.
I don't think it did go over. She still needs help. Why
should getting out of jail make a difference on her
therapy? If she can be persuaded (perhaps even
rewarded) to show up for counseling, then there is a
chance that someone might reach her.
--alvin
Judy
>
> Alvin E. Toda wrote:
> > My son's a social worker. Motivation is largely a
> > function of how successful you are in gaining the
> > client's trust. Rarely is it as difficult as it is in
> > the Matt Damon movie where he played a genius criminal
> > undergoing therapy. But it is not a job for amateurs--
> > although you may think it's very difficult (because it
> > would be, if you were to try it).
>
Hello, Alvin? Matt Damon portrayed a SOCIOPATH. We have had a rather
excellent example of the problem right before our very eyes in this
group. There is no "cure" for sociopathy, regardless of the skill of the
therapist. Sociopaths do not see a problem, they feel no guilt, and they
certainly do not desire a cure. With no desire to change, there will BE
no change.
Gene Lancette
Alvin E. Toda wrote:
>
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Gene Lancette wrote:
>
>>
>> Alvin E. Toda wrote:
>> The only problem is that you are totally unaware of
>> reality when it comes to prison and its purpose.
>
>> If the offender has a past record of violent crime
>> and begins to commit crime again, even a shoplifting
>> crime, it is the start of an old pattern. If you can
>> justify stealing golf clubs then it is not much
>> farther for the career crim- inal to think they can
>> strike someone with those clubs if it will solve an
>> immediate problem.
>
> He doesn't have to have a record of violence.
Who doesn't Alvin? Are you talking about a specific case, now?
> Just past
> shoplifting. With the 3-strikes law, this could very
> well be in the distant past, and still it doesn't
> matter. The judge has no choice but to add additional
> years to his sentence. You can't justtify this.
I certainly can. The way the prison system works, many offenders
are released early on parole. They got out of doing time that they
were sentenced to.
Adding time to a new crime is just make up time for lying about
their rehabilitation to get out early.
> This is why the Star-Bulletin, as conservative as they
> are, can see the injustice of this law.
>
> --alvin
They don't see the whole law as unjust. They only see the poss-
ibility for injustice.
In the Shane Mark case, it would not have been an injustice to have
thrown away the key from an earlier crime. We'd have at least two
less victims and two girls who would still have their father.
Jerry Okamura
"Alvin E. Toda" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1047567...@news.lava.net...
> > >
> > The choice we have is simple. We either tolerate the
> > cost of having habitual criminals do their thing, or
> > we try to do something about it.
>
> Huh? Injustice is a "tolerate cost"??
>
Okay, let us try this one more time. The very nature of our justice system,
can be termed "unjust" since by definition we convict innocent people and
let guilty people off scot free, everyday in this country. There is no such
thing as a "perfect" system of justice.
Jerry Okamura
"Alvin E. Toda" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1047567...@news.lava.net...
>
> He doesn't have to have a record of violence. Just past
> shoplifting. With the 3-strikes law, this could very
> well be in the distant past, and still it doesn't
> matter. The judge has no choice but to add additional
> years to his sentence. You can't justtify this.
Are you kidding me? The Government can "justify" just about anything they
do. And those who support such a policy, can come up with a whole host of
reasons to "justify" the need. The problem is, you just happen to find this
particular policy "unjust". Let us be honest, how many times have you used
this very forum to "justify" your position on some of the issues we talk
about. How many times have all of us used this forum to "justify" our
postion on some of the isses we talk about.
The Guy
In article <1047567...@news.lava.net>,
"Alvin E. Toda" <a...@lava.net> wrote:
m.
>
> He doesn't have to have a record of violence. Just past
> shoplifting. With the 3-strikes law, this could very
> well be in the distant past, and still it doesn't
> matter. The judge has no choice but to add additional
> years to his sentence. You can't justtify this.
>
> This is why the Star-Bulletin, as conservative as they
> are, can see the injustice of this law.
>
> --alvin
>
You may call it 'just past shoplifting' but I believe above a
certain $ value or in certain circumstances it is a felony. The
3-strikes law does not apply to misdemeanor offenses.
The three-strikes law requires that those convicted of any three
felonies be sentenced to 25 years to life. There is a two-strike
provision, as well: those convicted of a second felony receive a doubled
sentence. This is in Calif...other states have their own 3-strikes laws.
While you may consider it an unjust punishment, at least it will prevent
the perpetrator from committing more felonies, at least outside of
prison...which protects me so I'm for it...he had his chance to go
straight after the 2nd felony and he blew it...too bad...I don't think
it's unjust...punishment is relative. Compare that to being a thief in
Saudi Arabia: you can get your hand surgically removed (chopped off
in the old days.) Now that's what I call harsh.
Hawaii should consider a 3-strikes law.
--
Steve O The best defense is an effective offense. Sun Tzu ca. 525 BC
RobeFortu1
>Perhaps I do. You have such a way with words, Alvin. What were the
>other 2 "crimes" committed by the person who stole the golf clubs?
>Murder? Dealing drugs? Child pornography? I don't know the answer but
>the answer makes a difference as to whether the 3rd strike and it's
>resultant sentence make sense or not.
People with 3 "minor" arrests might be
given the maximum sentence for each
of the 3 crimes they were convicted of,
if 25 years seems too long for a "minor"
3rd conviction.
After all, it's not like they were struck
by lightening 3 seperate times.Convicted
3 times says they are a career criminal.
Three convicted times shows they're working at it.
a criminal career
Yoda
In article <1047574...@news.lava.net>, Judy <JBar...@roadrunner.hawaii> wrote:
>Hello, Alvin? Matt Damon portrayed a SOCIOPATH. We have had a rather
>excellent example of the problem right before our very eyes in this
>group. There is no "cure" for sociopathy, regardless of the skill of the
>therapist. Sociopaths do not see a problem, they feel no guilt, and they
>certainly do not desire a cure. With no desire to change, there will BE
>no change.
Yeah, watevah wen happen to dat reclusive, sociopathic kamaloli anyways?
o o __ __
\ / ' `
|/ / __ \
(` \ ' ' \ '
\ \| | @_/ |
\ \ \ /--/
` ___ ___ ___ __ ' . . . . . . .
Yoda <G>
Alvin E. Toda
Your definition is a little fuzzy. In the end, the
therapist played by Robbin Williams-- Mork-- broke
through the barriers put up by Damon's character. And
Damon did see a problem with his behavior as well as
new insight as to where his anger was coming from.
>From talking to social worker's and others interested
in the criminal mind, there seems to be two schools. I
would tend to believe the school that says there are no
sociopaths and psychopaths, there are only difficult
clients and psychopaths-- the latter would fit your
above definition. Also there are a variety of
psychopaths. But you are free to use whatever you
prefer to use for Damon's character.
The thing his character had in common with Mark is
being a repeat offender, and somewhat on the violent
side with his participating in that beating of a
competitor on their turf. What he didn't have in common
with Mark, is that he was not drug addicted nor did he
have the same intelligence. In fact, his intellect was
portrayed as being far superior to the norm.
--alvin
Alvin E. Toda
Gene, I think we need to go back to square one. The
extra sentencing mandated by the proposed 3-strikes law
is not conditional on anything but prior convictions.
It doesn't depend on the type of crime, or how recently
the crime was committed. The only justification need
for 25 years for shop-lifting is 2 prior convictions.
It don't matter what kind of crime they are, or how
long ago the crimes were committed. If this is what you
call "justice", then you and I are NOT using the same
definition. No way is this a just law. But you really
don't even need to appeal to justice, if you only
believe the purpose of prison is to punish.
--alvin
###########################################################
Alvin E. Toda
And in the case of the 3-strikes law, I don't believe
the intent of the lawmaker is for justice. Fair
treatment would dictate that the criminal serve no more
no less than any other convicted of the same crime.
The intent seems to be protection of the public by
sentencing excessive amounts of extra years to the
repeat offender. The "tolerated cost" is real and not
just rhetoric as you have stated. Some undeserving
individuals will serve an excessive sentence for a
small crime.
--alvin
Alvin E. Toda
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
>
> "Alvin E. Toda" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
> news:1047567...@news.lava.net...
> >
>
> > He doesn't have to have a record of violence. Just past
> > shoplifting. With the 3-strikes law, this could very
> > well be in the distant past, and still it doesn't
> > matter. The judge has no choice but to add additional
> > years to his sentence. You can't justtify this.
>
> Are you kidding me? The Government can "justify"
> just about anything they do. And those who support
> such a policy, can come up with a whole host of
> reasons to "justify" the need. The problem is, you
The point is that the law does NOT require
justification beyond having prior convictions. It's a
matter of record, and the judge doesn't have the
authority for any other sentence. The prosecutor
doesn't have to argue for extra years added to the
sentence. Currently, in Hawaii we do require
justification for sentencing beyond the required
ammount specified in the law.
--alvin
Jerry Okamura
"Alvin E. Toda" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1047607...@news.lava.net...
> > >
> > Okay, let us try this one more time. The very nature
> > of our justice system, can be termed "unjust" since
> > by definition we convict innocent people and let
> > guilty people off scot free, everyday in this
> > country. There is no such thing as a "perfect"
> > system of justice.
>
> And in the case of the 3-strikes law, I don't believe
> the intent of the lawmaker is for justice. Fair
> treatment would dictate that the criminal serve no more
> no less than any other convicted of the same crime.
>
> The intent seems to be protection of the public by
> sentencing excessive amounts of extra years to the
> repeat offender. The "tolerated cost" is real and not
> just rhetoric as you have stated. Some undeserving
> individuals will serve an excessive sentence for a
> small crime.
>
Yep. And some people are executed for crimes they did not commit. Some
people are put in jail for crimes they did not commit. That is what happens
in the real world.
Karl Magnacca
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 22:50:05 -0000, The Guy
<sokuny...@e4e.ucix.edu> wrote:
>You may call it 'just past shoplifting' but I believe above a
>certain $ value or in certain circumstances it is a felony. The
>3-strikes law does not apply to misdemeanor offenses.
Part of the California law is that if you already have two felonies, a
misdemeanor can count as a third. The court even upheld this part.
>While you may consider it an unjust punishment, at least it will prevent
>the perpetrator from committing more felonies, at least outside of
>prison...which protects me so I'm for it...he had his chance to go
>straight after the 2nd felony and he blew it...too bad...I don't think
>it's unjust...punishment is relative.
So why not just execute people after three tries and save the trouble
of keeping them in jail? By your logic, it would be just as well.
Karl
Alvin E. Toda
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, The Guy wrote:
>
> In article <1047567...@news.lava.net>,
> "Alvin E. Toda" <a...@lava.net> wrote:
>
> m.
> >
> > He doesn't have to have a record of violence. Just past
> > shoplifting. With the 3-strikes law, this could very
> > well be in the distant past, and still it doesn't
> > matter. The judge has no choice but to add additional
> > years to his sentence. You can't justtify this.
> >
> > This is why the Star-Bulletin, as conservative as they
> > are, can see the injustice of this law.
> >
> You may call it 'just past shoplifting' but I believe
> above a certain $ value or in certain circumstances
> it is a felony. The 3-strikes law does not apply to
> misdemeanor offenses.
True. We would be a lot like old France if anyone got
25 years for stealing a loaf of bread. I believe the
guy took something like 3 golf clubs. Technically, a
kid stealing the family car for a joy ride might be
committing a felony. I don't think it's difficult at
all to commit a felony in CA.
> While you may consider it an unjust punishment, at
> least it will prevent the perpetrator from committing
> more felonies, at least outside of prison...which
> protects me so I'm for it...he had his chance to go
I think this is the reason so many like this law. But
in that case, why have judges?
And isn't this the real problem. Just who was the judge
in Mark's case, that refuse the prosecutor's request of
double the maximum term for Mark's last conviction? And
in Mark's case, he had insufficient drug counseling
while in prison, and even managed to get drugs while in
prison. Shouldn't these factors be something to
complain about as well? It seems he came out worse
after spending 5 years in prison. The media doesn't
seem to focus on these problems. You create more
problems than you solve when you deny judges a chance
to do their jobs with the 3-strikes law.
--alvin
Alvin E. Toda
It doesn't matter if they are or are not a carreer
criminal. The law doesn't make that distinction. They
could have been convicted and served their time long
ago. 20 years or 20 days, the third offense however
minor, gets them 25 years. California's prisons are
bursting, just as Hawaii's are from the extra
sentencing that Hawaii judges already give to
criminals, and CA judges who must apply the 3 strikes
law.
--alvin
Karl Magnacca
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 16:50:08 -0000, Gene Lancette
<lancet...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>They don't see the whole law as unjust. They only see the poss-
>ibility for injustice.
>
>In the Shane Mark case, it would not have been an injustice to have
>thrown away the key from an earlier crime. We'd have at least two
>less victims and two girls who would still have their father.
That's true, which is why it makes sense for violent crimes: those are
things you can't turn back the clock on and bring someone back to life
or health. For nonviolent crimes like theft where it's only material
goods that can be returned or replaced, it doesn't. These laws make
injustice is not only possible but inevitable when there's no judicial
flexibility to not throw away the key for someone who's just a
habitual shoplifter. When you can get away with less than 10 years
for your first time killing someone, locking someone up for life for
stealing, even if they've done it three times, doesn't make sense.
Judy
Just completed a 3-week career at Star-Bulletin.
(Zat Yoda or Nay-10??)
Judy
The Guy wrote:
>
> The three-strikes law requires that those convicted of any three
> felonies be sentenced to 25 years to life.
And what if 2 or three of those "felonies" are drug possession charges?
Ya think 25 to life is appropriate? How large a segment of the
population are you willing to lock up for life for possession? (Bad
behavior under the influence is another issue entirely.)