PDA

View Full Version : Inmate count in U.S. dwarfs other nations'



Qtec
04-23-2008, 07:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Inmate count in U.S. dwarfs other nations'
By Adam Liptak
Wednesday, April 23, 2008

The United States has less than 5 percent of the world's population. But it has almost a quarter of the world's prisoners.

Indeed, the United States leads the world in producing prisoners, a reflection of a relatively recent and now entirely distinctive American approach to crime and punishment. Americans are locked up for crimes — from writing bad checks to using drugs — that would rarely produce prison sentences in other countries. And in particular they are kept incarcerated far longer than prisoners in other nations. </div></div>

A guy writes a bad check for $500 and goes to prison.

Top bankers and banks are responsible for trillions of $ of loss in the subprime scandal and they get bailed out with Fed Dollars!
Elliot Spitzer and another 50 politicians tried to prevent the disaster and were stopped by the Govt!

This deserves to be posted in full. Read it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime
How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers

By Eliot Spitzer
Thursday, February 14, 2008; A25

Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive "teaser" rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.

Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.

Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.

But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.

Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.

When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers.

The writer is governor of New York. </div></div>

Who are the real criminals?

Q

wolfdancer
04-23-2008, 10:25 AM
I read recently that 1 of every 120 Americans is in prison...the best growth industry is the penal system.
the worst thing is that we can't protect the non violent inmates from the hardened criminals.

eg8r
04-23-2008, 11:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Who are the real criminals?</div></div> What does it matter? Your post makes it seem like you have an issue with the number of inamtes we have. If we were to include all these others whom you believe to be the "real" criminals it would just make our inmate rate increase. So tell us, is your issue that the inmate rate is not high enough?

eg8r

eg8r
04-23-2008, 11:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I read recently that 1 of every 120 Americans is in prison...the best growth industry is the penal system.
the worst thing is that we can't protect the non violent inmates from the hardened criminals. </div></div> I don't see this as an issue and wish it was more of a deterrant for future criminals than it actually is.

eg8r

sack316
04-23-2008, 11:49 AM
hey, that gives me an idea for the economy and outsourcing! Let's bring back the convict-lease system! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Sack

bsmutz
04-23-2008, 12:06 PM
I think, eg8r, that Q was pointing out the fact that petty criminals go to jail for their crimes (which according to the article wouldn't necessarily be crimes in other countries) while the white collar criminals who are not so great in number but have more money/power get off scot-free or even worse, get subsidized by the government. Of course, people with their head up their figurative a** wouldn't be able to see that it matters or that it is an issue.
I think our whole penal and judicial systems need a major overhaul. Jail isn't a big deterrent to crime and it's a waste of resources in a lot of ways. There are also many ways for people in power or who have lots of money to make a mockery of both systems. It's definitely not as bad as it could be, but it certainly could be better.

Deeman3
04-23-2008, 01:52 PM
Of course, this disparity in punishment is bad but happens worldwide. It is not an American phenomonen.

It is becomeing increasingly hard to house all these criminals and,as wolfdancers says, they are all mixed in tough and pansey all together. I have long thought the answer was to basically abandon the hard core criminals, rapists, murderers and gang heads. Australia had the right idea in dunping them on an isolated island land mass, giving them crude means of survival and just keep away for many years. I would even trade away the death penalty for this option.

I do thinnk we should consider de-criminalization of drugs as our policy over the last 50 years has been abysmal at helping. The present funds spend could be directed toward mental illness and those recoverable addicts.

I also think we could solve the gun violence problem very quickly. Of course new possession laws would have the same impact they always have but if they would enforce harsh punishment for crimes with guns, even us hard core gun people would feel good about that. INstead, they let gang members and criminals off with light sentences after gun crimes and cry for tougher laws. How foolish?

White collar criminals should be punished but, again, separated from violent offenders.

Peoplewho call for the release of all criminals should be assigned one to live with them after that release. End of program. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r
04-23-2008, 02:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think, eg8r, that Q was pointing out the fact that petty criminals go to jail for their crimes (which according to the article wouldn't necessarily be crimes in other countries) while the white collar criminals who are not so great in number but have more money/power get off scot-free or even worse, get subsidized by the government. Of course, people with their head up their figurative a** wouldn't be able to see that it matters or that it is an issue.</div></div> If all that is true then mentioning that we send more people to jail has nothing to do with the subject and is just a strawman to his own argument. Now, whether or not the crimes would be illegal in another country does not matter, the crimes were committed here where they ARE crimes. I agree, I think it is BS that the wealthy get off scot free or subsidized by the government just like I think it is BS that people who willingly entered into bad mortgages can get bailed out by the same government.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think our whole penal and judicial systems need a major overhaul. </div></div> I don't really think it needs that big of an overhaul other than possibly doing what it is meant to do. These criminals should be treated like criminals and sent off away from society. They don't need playground time, tv time, bonding time, work release time, license plate stamping time, library time, etc. They need to be locked up in a cell, have food shoved under the door, give them a toilet, cot and a secured window to pop open on the hot days.

It sickens me to hear people say we have too many people in jail. BS we don't have enough. If you don't believe me then watch your local news tonight and see how many crimes occurred again today. We need to actually get tough on people and make their lives a miserable hell for ever single second they are in jail so they don't get comfortable and should they be released they do everything they can to make sure they never have to go back. If you don't think this would be successful then just take a look at the prison out in Arizona where the prisoners wear pink underwear and have a very low return rate.

eg8r

eg8r
04-23-2008, 02:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">White collar criminals should be punished but, again, separated from violent offenders. </div></div> I don't understand this one bit. If we separate them what is the incentive for the white collar criminal to stay crime free? If we put them in with the tough guys, my hope is that they have an eye opening experience and when they get free they will walk the straight and narrow.

eg8r

Deeman3
04-23-2008, 03:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">White collar criminals should be punished but, again, separated from violent offenders. </div></div> I don't understand this one bit. If we separate them what is the incentive for the white collar criminal to stay crime free? If we put them in with the tough guys, my hope is that they have an eye opening experience and when they get free they will walk the straight and narrow.

eg8r </div></div>


Ed,

Please understand, all white collar type criminals are not the corporate executives that make the news. Most are petty theifs and minor items. Like underage offenders and small dope dealers, we just make them much worse if we put them in with violent offenders who will make them much worse. I am all for sending the big white collar offenders to the big house with Budda Snake. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif I do think we have to treat rapists and murderers and mass killers a little differently than minor offenders and gang bangers.

bsmutz
04-23-2008, 03:30 PM
Basically, what we are doing is saying that all crimes deserve the same sort of punishment, i.e. jail time. Certainly, there may be something to be said for Sheriff Joe Arapaio's desert bivouac method, but does it fit everyone? How about innocent people who are merely there waiting to be acquitted? What about your sister or mom who forgot to pay her traffic fine? What are we getting for the huge amounts of money that we are now paying to incarcerate such a large percentage of the population? What is the return on our investment? Are there better ways to spend that money?
I'll grant you, there are people out there that have no conscience and don't give a crap about anyone, including themselves. I don't think there is any punishment below death that will rehabilitate them. On the other hand, there are plenty of people who probably didn't really think through the consequences of their actions or have been arrested for a victimless crime that aren't career criminals. They can probably be rehabilitated by paying a fine or spending a night in jail.
I personally think more needs to be done to address the root causes for criminal behavior rather than do something after the fact. One of the biggest is our laissez-faire attitude about it. On one hand, we glorify violent criminal behavior (TV, movies, games, newspapers, etc.) and then we wonder why there is so much of it going on. I'd wager pretty much everyone knows at least one person who operates outside the law in some area of their life. I'd also wager that just about every single person in our country has broken one or more laws in their lifetime. Maybe not a go-to-jail law, but a law, nonetheless. Therein lies the problem. It's okay to break the law if you can get away with it, if it doesn't hurt anyone, if noone will find out, etc.
Another aspect of this whole issue is that I don't think we can eliminate criminal behavior. I think it is impossible. In order for people to do right, there has to be people who do wrong. It's a fundamental rule of the universe called duality. You can't have this without that or you can't know what this is. There is a certain chaotic nature to everything that exists that has to be that way. It's part of the beauty of the whole thing and enriches the experience.

Qtec
04-24-2008, 06:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If all that is true then mentioning that we send more people to jail has nothing to do with the subject and is just a strawman to his own argument. Now, whether or not the crimes would be illegal in another country does not matter, the crimes were committed here where they ARE crimes. I agree, I think it is BS that the wealthy get off scot free or subsidized by the government just like I think it is BS that people who willingly entered into bad mortgages can get bailed out by the same government.</div></div>

Crimes are crimes but you don't need to send people to prison for petty non-violent crimes. Since prisons have become an industry [big buisness], there has been more and more pressure to send more and more people to prison.
I saw a docu the other day and one guy was doing 30 yrs for stealing a camera[ 3 strike rule]. This is not only crazy and costly but its also inhumane.
If the present system worked you would have less people behind bars, not the record levels you see now.

You may think its BS that the banks and their directors get off scott free and get bailed out by the Govt but thats exactly what is happening.
The sub-prime crisis didn't happen by accident. If you actually read my post with Spitzer's op-ed you can see that the warning signals were clear but the Govt stepped in and allowed the problem to escalate.
Why?

Spitzer went after Wall St crooks and they got him in the end. Banks all over the world are going bust, Govts have been forced into injecting billions [world wide maybe trillions in total] to prevent financial collapse and no-one is even investigated. Its the biggest fraud ever in the history of the world and these guys don't go to jail- they get million $ bonuses!
Meanwhile families conned into purchases they couldn't afford and handing in the keys and just walking away from their home.

Where are they going to go?

Double standards?

You betcha.

Q

Guy has a few beers and is driving home when suddenly a car is heading srtaight for him. He veers off to the right and hits a pedestrian who later dies.
The police arrive and breathalyse him and he is just over the limit. Nobody believes his story and eventually he is found guilty and gets life.

Is that justice? Does life imprisonment fit the crime?

Deeman3
04-24-2008, 07:26 AM
[quote=Qtec] <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Guy has a few beers and is driving home when suddenly a car is heading srtaight for him. He veers off to the right and hits a pedestrian who later dies.
The police arrive and breathalyse him and he is just over the limit. Nobody believes his story and eventually he is found guilty and gets life.

Is that justice? Does life imprisonment fit the crime? </div></div>


In most cases that is manslaughter. if he had no previous crimes, he would probably get 5-20 years with an early probation. Life is usually reserved for horrible crimes with intent and redundant offenders.

eg8r
04-24-2008, 08:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Crimes are crimes but you don't need to send people to prison for petty non-violent crimes.</div></div> I agree on first or second offense, but if it is habitual then something more needs to be done.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I saw a docu the other day and one guy was doing 30 yrs for stealing a camera[ 3 strike rule]. This is not only crazy and costly but its also inhumane.</div></div> First off, when people do documentaries they have an agenda. In order for their documentary to gain any ground they look to find extremes. They cannot use the "norm" or they would not have anything to produce. Now, when they talked about this pathetic thief did they tell you everything about his life? What made you believe everything at face value? Was it the fact that it was on TV? How much actual information on this person did the docu tell you? Don't you honestly think there is probably more to the story?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You may think its BS that the banks and their directors get off scott free and get bailed out by the Govt but thats exactly what is happening.
</div></div>This is solid proof that you don't quite comprehend the english language and is probably the reason why half the crap you post is as ridiculous as it sounds. I was siding with you on that point, meaning I don't agree with bailing out banks and their directors.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The sub-prime crisis didn't happen by accident. If you actually read my post with Spitzer's op-ed you can see that the warning signals were clear but the Govt stepped in and allowed the problem to escalate.</div></div> None of this has anything to do with overcrowded prisons. If we were to believe your conspiracy about the big business of prisons we would probably see less of the government helping the banks and more of them going to jail.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Banks all over the world are going bust, Govts have been forced into injecting billions </div></div> Again, what does this have to do with overcrowded jails? Strawman?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Meanwhile families conned into purchases they couldn't afford and handing in the keys and just walking away from their home.

Where are they going to go?
</div></div> What does this have to do with overcrowded jails? To answer your question, they are going to go wherever the other stupid and greedy people went who did not want to live within their means and read a contract.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Guy has a few beers and is driving home when suddenly a car is heading srtaight for him. He veers off to the right and hits a pedestrian who later dies.
The police arrive and breathalyse him and he is just over the limit. Nobody believes his story and eventually he is found guilty and gets life.

Is that justice? Does life imprisonment fit the crime? </div></div>That is definitely justice. I am sure the family of the lost loved one would agree. You are probably the only fool that would sit here and tell us you believe his drunk story.

eg8r

eg8r
04-24-2008, 08:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Basically, what we are doing is saying that all crimes deserve the same sort of punishment, i.e. jail time. Certainly, there may be something to be said for Sheriff Joe Arapaio's desert bivouac method, but does it fit everyone? </div></div> It may or may not, but just looking at the numbers no one can argue it is ineffective. He does not have a problem whatsoever with overcrowding and there is nothing unusually different about their justice system and other places other than the way he runs his prison. It works, and others should be following his lead.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What are we getting for the huge amounts of money that we are now paying to incarcerate such a large percentage of the population? What is the return on our investment? Are there better ways to spend that money?</div></div> We are getting a bit of a piece of mind that criminals have a place to go when they get caught. If we are just giving them one night in prison and letting them go then there is no piece of mind.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I personally think more needs to be done to address the root causes for criminal behavior rather than do something after the fact. One of the biggest is our laissez-faire attitude about it. On one hand, we glorify violent criminal behavior (TV, movies, games, newspapers, etc.) and then we wonder why there is so much of it going on. I'd wager pretty much everyone knows at least one person who operates outside the law in some area of their life. I'd also wager that just about every single person in our country has broken one or more laws in their lifetime. Maybe not a go-to-jail law, but a law, nonetheless. Therein lies the problem. It's okay to break the law if you can get away with it, if it doesn't hurt anyone, if noone will find out, etc. </div></div> I am with you, I totally agree more needs to be done. However until we begin seeing results from those efforts we need to continue throwing them in jail.

eg8r

eg8r
04-24-2008, 08:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I do think we have to treat rapists and murderers and mass killers a little differently than minor offenders and gang bangers. </div></div> I can go along with this but only if we put opposing gang members together and then remove security and let these thugs beat the crap out of each other. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

wolfdancer
04-24-2008, 09:46 AM
Ed would have made an excellent Inspector Javert "I know the meaning of the law".
I cited here, a few years ago, a case in California where a young Hispanic was doing life without the possibility of parole under the "3 strikes" law. His third offense, the last one had occurred 12 years earlier....he had taken the written part of the driver's exam for his cousin, who didn't read English too well, but needed a license so they could both get a job as roofers.
While we don't need another bad driver out on the highway....the punishment didn't quite fit the crime....except in somebody's "black and white" world.
Does it really matter that these are isolated instances?
Shouldn't each case be judged on it's merits?
Good thing we no longer take the crimes and punishments outlined in the O.T. literally....

Deeman3
04-24-2008, 09:54 AM
I think there does need to be some wiggle room in all cases. Justice must make sense or we will not be able to enforce it.

Sady, it does seem where some judges have latitude they abuse it. The cases of child abusers getting probation on several consecutive occassions just to re-offend.

Of course, the Supream Court shold be able to ahndle this but they are so backed up with junk cases and appeals, they are years behind the curve.

wolfdancer
04-24-2008, 10:11 AM
There was another case mentioned in Playboy...i think they featured Earl Stanley Gardner's "Court of last resort"
A young man was hitch hiking in the Reno area, got picked up and shortly after offered to share a "joint" with the driver....who promptly drove him to the police station. the driver happened to be an off duty LV cop. They found some personal use pills on the "kid"...charged him with possession with intent to sell, and he got 5 years in a max security prison.
The problem with the law is it isn't applied evenly. If Ed robbed a 7/11, he'd get less time ( he might walk) then if I ran out without paying for a slurpee from the same place...since he could afford a better lawyer...

Deeman3
04-24-2008, 10:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If Ed robbed a 7/11, he'd get less time ( he might walk) then if I ran out without paying for a slurpee from the same place...since he could afford a better lawyer... </div></div>

I didn't even know that was illegal for us righties! :0

Gayle in MD
04-24-2008, 10:26 AM
Bravo! Excellent post.

wolfdancer
04-24-2008, 01:27 PM
"I'd also wager that just about every single person in our country has broken one or more laws in their lifetime."
I once removed a "do not remove" label on a mattress....so far the crime has gone unnoticed, but I have confessed to it before a priest and been forgiven....

eg8r
04-24-2008, 03:35 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I once removed a "do not remove" label on a mattress....so far the crime has gone unnoticed, but I have confessed to it before a priest and been forgiven....
</div></div>You are a wild man. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

Qtec
04-25-2008, 09:07 AM
What I am am saying is that there are reasons for the huge number of inmates in the US.
eg, <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The argument for privatization stresses cost reduction, whereas the arguments against it focus on standards of care, and the question of whether a market economy for prisons might not also lead to a market demand for prisoners (tougher sentencing for cheap labor). While privatized prisons have only a short history, there is a long tradition of inmates in state and federal-run prisons undertaking active employment in prison for low pay. </div></div>

Half the people in prison are non-violent offenders. W Snipes just got 3 years for tax evasion. Is society now safer with him in prison ?

Q

bsmutz
04-25-2008, 11:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">W Snipes just got 3 years for tax evasion. Is society now safer with him in prison?
</div></div>
See, we've been watching this guy kill people for years and get away with it. Now he gets 3 years for tax evasion? Where's the justice?!?!

wolfdancer
04-28-2008, 07:56 AM
so how many dwarfs do we have as inmates?

wolfdancer
04-28-2008, 01:51 PM
I think the last celebrity that went to prison for tax evasion was Al Capone. It's too bad Wesley isn't a contributer to the RNC...then he could have just checked into rehab, instead of prison....

eg8r
04-28-2008, 01:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think the last celebrity that went to prison for tax evasion was Al Capone. It's too bad Wesley isn't a contributer to the RNC...then he could have just checked into rehab, instead of prison....
</div></div>According to the looney tune across the pond all the rich get out of jail free. I guess Wesley did not use Q as his defense attorney.

eg8r

hondo
04-28-2008, 02:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think the last celebrity that went to prison for tax evasion was Al Capone. It's too bad Wesley isn't a contributer to the RNC...then he could have just checked into rehab, instead of prison....
</div></div>According to the looney tune across the pond all the rich get out of jail free. I guess Wesley did not use Q as his defense attorney.

eg8r </div></div>

He certainly must have not used O.J. or Blake's attorneys!

Deeman3
04-28-2008, 02:40 PM
You guys! You gotta murder someone to get the really special treatment!!!

eg8r
04-29-2008, 08:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Half the people in prison are non-violent offenders. W Snipes just got 3 years for tax evasion. Is society now safer with him in prison ?</div></div> Well, society will now get their hands on the money he was keeping and that will help pay for the officers who are out keeping our streets safe.

Keeping society safer is NOT the only purpose of prison. People who do wrong need to be dealt with. I definitely believe he belongs in jail. Now, to your other point about rich people always getting off scot free, I guess Wesley showed you. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
04-29-2008, 08:06 AM
Nope his attorney had the bright idea to try and buy his way out of court. I think Wesley should sue his lawyer. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

sack316
04-29-2008, 10:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nope his attorney had the bright idea to try and buy his way out of court. I think Wesley should sue his lawyer. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r </div></div>

indeed, and the number they presented was $5 million. It was denied because "it wasn't nearly what he owes". Yet somehow the rich have all these great incentives and don't ever owe taxes? Well there is at least one rich guy who apparently will have to pay more in taxes than all of us on this board will likely pay into the system combined for our entire lifespan.

Sack