Did anyone else know that we lead the numbers in incarcerating our people over other countries? This article is interesting and scary. For example, in the past 23 years, the state of CA built a new prison every year to the tune of 100 million each, meanwhile only one public higher education facility was built during that same time.
I've been involved with the criminal justice system since I married my H, who is a 3 time convicted felon. And quite frankly it is sickening. Yes, he fvcked up, but AFTER the first conviction, sometimes the restrictions are such that its extremely difficult to NOT fvck up again. Not to mention society as a whole doesn't make it any easier on a convicted felon. It's over now, and my H does 100% take responsibility for his way of life back then.
But this is where it gets tricky... His life of criminal activity began with crack cocaine. He's an addict who started using at 15. That's also when his juvenile record begins. Admittedly his mother was passive when her kids started fvcking up. But she did not have the means to do much else and daddy bolted with a stripper and dodged the child support order (which to this day he still owes!).
So what's the solution to this? Because this article also explains that 60% of our locked up guests are non violent offenders, you know, the child support dodgers. It's a viscous cycle.
IMO, the solution starts with dealing with drug use as a public health issue, rather than a criminal one. That starts with legalizing, regulating and taxing marijuana, and using the taxes to fund treatment programs rather than courts and incarceration. The added benefits are that the dealers lose a cash crop and access to customers that just want pot and nothing stronger, and that kids would have a tougher time getting it from a street dealer (the same way street dealers aren't out there pushing beer to kids in a big way).
I'm ambivalent about other drugs. But, I would like to see the results of this test with marijuana.
Oh, yeah, when it comes to imprisonment and capital punishment, we are right up there with such guiding lights as Iran, China, and North Korea.
I would legalize pot in a heartbeat, and come up with some saner policies for other drugs. If you really want to learn about how hopeless the drug war in America is, watch The Wire.
“…this article also explains that 60% of our locked up guests are non violent offenders, you know, the child support dodgers.”
Instead of legalizing drugs with all of the problems which this entails (driving with other motorists stoned, babies born addicted, more workplace errors and so on) why not begin to reduce the prison population by simply applying, universally, the most basic legal principle upon which all criminal law is (supposedly) based in this country? I am speaking of the Principle of Innocent until Proven Guilty.
The men mentioned in the quotation, above, may indeed be guilty of violating a judge’s order to pay child support. But what if the divorce, itself, occurred not as the result of anything done by the men but instead by their wives? What if these women divorced their husbands only so that they could be with their lovers full-time? What if they simply were gold-diggers who decided to “upgrade” to a man with more means?
In my view the above circumstances would mean that the divorce, itself, was not morally justified and, therefore, neither was the “fruit of the rotten tree”, the award of custody and child support to these women. Hence, in such cases, the men involved were innocent of any wrongdoing and any order to pay anything, to anyone, ultimately resulting from such unproven “guilt” is unjustified and unsustainable.
I wonder how many of these men would be released from prison, thus relieving the burden not only on the men themselves but on all of us, if the aforementioned principle could only be recognized in this area of law. I doubt if we will ever know, however, as there are just too many vested interests in the persons of greedy divorce lawyers, demagogic politicians and forever-upgrading gold diggers for such law to ever be reformed!
“…this article also explains that 60% of our locked up guests are non violent offenders, you know, the child support dodgers.”
Instead of legalizing drugs with all of the problems which this entails (driving with other motorists stoned, babies born addicted, more workplace errors and so on) why not begin to reduce the prison population by simply applying, universally, the most basic legal principle upon which all criminal law is (supposedly) based in this country? I am speaking of the Principle of Innocent until Proven Guilty.
The men mentioned in the quotation, above, may indeed be guilty of violating a judge’s order to pay child support. But what if the divorce, itself, occurred not as the result of anything done by the men but instead by their wives? What if these women divorced their husbands only so that they could be with their lovers full-time? What if they simply were gold-diggers who decided to “upgrade” to a man with more means?
In my view the above circumstances would mean that the divorce, itself, was not morally justified and, therefore, neither was the “fruit of the rotten tree”, the award of custody and child support to these women. Hence, in such cases, the men involved were innocent of any wrongdoing and any order to pay anything, to anyone, ultimately resulting from such unproven “guilt” is unjustified and unsustainable.
I wonder how many of these men would be released from prison, thus relieving the burden not only on the men themselves but on all of us, if the aforementioned principle could only be recognized in this area of law. I doubt if we will ever know, however, as there are just too many vested interests in the persons of greedy divorce lawyers, demagogic politicians and forever-upgrading gold diggers for such law to ever be reformed!
And who do you suggest support the "fruit of the rotten tree" Galt, we the tax payers? And if you look more closely at the rest of the prison population, its made up of those kids that daddy (or mommy) did not support... The less fortunate children in this world whose mothers had to get out there to support the children that daddy didn't, the kids who couldn't escape the cycle of poverty, or how they were raised. Whether it be poverty, abuse, addiction, whatever... Some dude sitting in prison for deciding not to care for his child does not concern me... Pay for your responsibility! If it ain't gonna be daddy, it'll be us!!! By all means lock him up..
And who do you suggest support the "fruit of the rotten tree" Galt, we the tax payers? And if you look more closely at the rest of the prison population, its made up of those kids that daddy (or mommy) did not support... The less fortunate children in this world whose mothers had to get out there to support the children that daddy didn't, the kids who couldn't escape the cycle of poverty, or how they were raised. Whether it be poverty, abuse, addiction, whatever... Some dude sitting in prison for deciding not to care for his child does not concern me... Pay for your responsibility! If it ain't gonna be daddy, it'll be us!!! By all means lock him up..
locking him up doesnt generate the $$$ he owes though does it? but the prison corp. gets their $$$ outta him...
locking him up doesnt generate the $$$ he owes though does it? but the prison corp. gets their $$$ outta him...
Nope, it sure doesn't. But since he (or even she) can't bother to pay for his child, he needs to be punished in some way, shape or form. I've sat in family court, if someone can't pay for their child support obligation, even owing back child support to the tune of thousands, they can request $10/week payments. Or whatever they claim they can pay.
If you read my original post, you will understand that I have zero tolerance for child support dodgers. My father in law still owes $33,000 for 4 children he left ranging in age from 10 to 15 over 2 decades ago. He did everything in his power to not have to pay for those children. Moving out of state, working under the table, marrying a woman so he can get things in her name, etc... All that because he wanted to fvck around on the mother of his 4 children, who for the first 10 years of her children's lives, she was a stay at home mother and she had no skills (this was the 70's, early 80's) to get a good job, so she took a job at a fast food joint to support 4 kids working all hours of the day/night?????... But when he left her for strippers, the authorities back then couldn't, or wouldn't do anything more than send demand letters for support to help with those 4 children. So yes, by all means I will say it again, LOCK THE CHILD SUPPORT DODGERS UP, suspend their drivers license... I don't really care. They NEED TO PAY FOR THEIR CHILDREN. PERIOD.
ETA: 3 out of 4 of those children made up the rest of the prison population at some point over the next 10 years after child support dodger left.. see a cycle? One support dodger = 3 prison inmates.
Nope, it sure doesn't. But since he (or even she) can't bother to pay for his child, he needs to be punished in some way, shape or form. I've sat in family court, if someone can't pay for their child support obligation, even owing back child support to the tune of thousands, they can request $10/week payments. Or whatever they claim they can pay.
If you read my original post, you will understand that I have zero tolerance for child support dodgers. My father in law still owes $33,000 for 4 children he left ranging in age from 10 to 15 over 2 decades ago. He did everything in his power to not have to pay for those children. Moving out of state, working under the table, marrying a woman so he can get things in her name, etc... All that because he wanted to fvck around on the mother of his 4 children, who for the first 10 years of her children's lives, she was a stay at home mother and she had no skills (this was the 70's, early 80's) to get a good job, so she took a job at a fast food joint to support 4 kids working all hours of the day/night?????... But when he left her for strippers, the authorities back then couldn't, or wouldn't do anything more than send demand letters for support to help with those 4 children. So yes, by all means I will say it again, LOCK THE CHILD SUPPORT DODGERS UP, suspend their drivers license... I don't really care. They NEED TO PAY FOR THEIR CHILDREN. PERIOD.
ETA: 3 out of 4 of those children made up the rest of the prison population at some point over the next 10 years after child support dodger left.. see a cycle? One support dodger = 3 prison inmates.
I agree, but it is really a silly issue. The prisons are not "filled with support dodgers." It takes a whole lot of missed support to get thrown into prison. Most that do end up in a work release, where they are in jail over the weekend. This is just Galt and his windmill about him not knowing the marriage laws. Of course, he conveniently forgets that these fathers, including himself, would be out the money either way. Its not like taking care of the kids is free when the father does it, but costs money when someone else does it.
I agree, but it is really a silly issue. The prisons are not "filled with support dodgers." It takes a whole lot of missed support to get thrown into prison. Most that do end up in a work release, where they are in jail over the weekend. This is just Galt and his windmill about him not knowing the marriage laws. Of course, he conveniently forgets that these fathers, including himself, would be out the money either way. Its not like taking care of the kids is free when the father does it, but costs money when someone else does it.
Oh, I know they're not. Usually they get thrown in jail for a minute and somehow they all of a sudden come up with the money Or they do the weekend thing like you said.
You are all missing the point. The issue is not whether a man should pay to support his children; it is whether he should be forced to pay child support to his wife when she divorced him purely for her own selfish reasons in the first place. Any woman who divorces her husband so that she can be with her lover full time, for example, or who only wishes to upgrade to a more wealthy man, should be required to supply one-hundred percent of the support for her children if she willingly accepts their custody.
Any man so divorced by such a woman has a moral obligation to refuse to pay child support, under any circumstances, and should thereby force the responsibility for their support to be worked out between the woman and the state. This follows from the fact that it was the laws of the state, combined with the willingness of the woman to take advantage of them for her own convenience, which resulted in the divorce to begin with. This would still be true even if such a cheated man can provide for paying child support to his wife at no more expense than it was costing to take care of his children when he was living with them. This, of course, is impossible.
Such a man should feel no guilt whatsoever about not paying CS. His children will understand the reason when they are old enough.
You are all missing the point. The issue is not whether a man should pay to support his children; it is whether he should be forced to pay child support to his wife when she divorced him purely for her own selfish reasons in the first place. Any woman who divorces her husband so that she can be with her lover full time, for example, or who only wishes to upgrade to a more wealthy man, should be required to supply one-hundred percent of the support for her children if she willingly accepts their custody.
Any man so divorced by such a woman has a moral obligation to refuse to pay child support, under any circumstances, and should thereby force the responsibility for their support to be worked out between the woman and the state. This follows from the fact that it was the laws of the state, combined with the willingness of the woman to take advantage of them for her own convenience, which resulted in the divorce to begin with. This would still be true even if such a cheated man can provide for paying child support to his wife at no more expense than it was costing to take care of his children when he was living with them. This, of course, is impossible.
So, if a man leaves his wife for his own purely selfish reasons, should he be punished and have to pay... let's say double?
Who is going to decide is a spouse filed for divorce for selfish reasons or for valid reasons. There are valid reasons for divorce.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galt
Such a man should feel no guilt whatsoever about not paying CS. His children will understand the reason when they are old enough.
You have go to be kidding me... do you really think that children are going to excuse their father (or mother) for being a dead beat parent? Do you really think that a child will say
"That's ok dad. I get that you were man a mom so you took it out on me. I was just fine with oatmeal for dinner a few times a week, always second hand clothing.. etc.
And by the way dad, how's that new house of yours with the pool that you bought with the child support you never paid. I understand why I never get to visit and swim in the pool. It's 'cause mom is a *****. I get it"
So, if a man leaves his wife for his own purely selfish reasons, should he be punished and have to pay... let's say double?
Who is going to decide is a spouse filed for divorce for selfish reasons or for valid reasons. There are valid reasons for divorce.
Clearly, Galt will decide, which will likely mean that men's reasons were valid, while women's reasons are selfish.
Quote:
You have go to be kidding me... do you really think that children are going to excuse their father (or mother) for being a dead beat parent? Do you really think that a child will say
"That's ok dad. I get that you were man a mom so you took it out on me. I was just fine with oatmeal for dinner a few times a week, always second hand clothing.. etc.
And by the way dad, how's that new house of yours with the pool that you bought with the child support you never paid. I understand why I never get to visit and swim in the pool. It's 'cause mom is a *****. I get it"
They are your kids, regardless of whether they stay with you or not, if your wife leaves you for good reasons or not. My kids would have had no say if my wife decided to leave me, so why would I not support them. Unfortunately, Galt is so bitter over his divorce that he would do this to his kids to spite his wife. I actually feel pity for him.
You are all missing the point. The issue is not whether a man should pay to support his children; it is whether he should be forced to pay child support to his wife when she divorced him purely for her own selfish reasons in the first place. Any woman who divorces her husband so that she can be with her lover full time, for example, or who only wishes to upgrade to a more wealthy man, should be required to supply one-hundred percent of the support for her children if she willingly accepts their custody.
Any man so divorced by such a woman has a moral obligation to refuse to pay child support, under any circumstances, and should thereby force the responsibility for their support to be worked out between the woman and the state. This follows from the fact that it was the laws of the state, combined with the willingness of the woman to take advantage of them for her own convenience, which resulted in the divorce to begin with. This would still be true even if such a cheated man can provide for paying child support to his wife at no more expense than it was costing to take care of his children when he was living with them. This, of course, is impossible.
Such a man should feel no guilt whatsoever about not paying CS. His children will understand the reason when they are old enough.
No, you are missing the point... This article is not about divorce law or child support dodgers, this article is about mass incarceration in America. And Tall Average Guy is right, child support dodgers seldom, if ever, end up in prison. Some make it to jail, but again, they seem to always find a way to get out quickly, more quickly than they find a way to pay their CS obligations voluntarily prior to getting thrown in jail.
Here is the one of the primary issues with mass incarceration in America, any thoughts on keeping this disadvantaged group out of our prisons Galt?
"The United States penal population has grown every year for the past thirty-six years. The rate of imprisonment in the United States is now four times its historic average and seven times higher than in Western Europe. Even more striking than the overall level of incarceration is the concentrated force of the penal system on the most disadvantaged segments of the population. One-third of African American male high-school dropouts under age 40 are currently behind bars. Among all African American men born since the mid-1960s, more than 20 percent will go to prison, nearly twice the number that will graduate college. This extraordinary pattern of penal confinement has been called “mass incarceration,” a rate of incarceration so high that it affects not only the individual offender, but also whole social groups."
Even more striking than the overall level of incarceration is the concentrated force of the penal system on the most disadvantaged segments of the population. One-third of African American male high-school dropouts under age 40 are currently behind bars. Among all African American men born since the mid-1960s, more than 20 percent will go to prison, nearly twice the number that will graduate college. This extraordinary pattern of penal confinement has been called “mass incarceration,” a rate of incarceration so high that it affects not only the individual offender, but also whole social groups."
Statistically, all high-school dropouts are more likely to be behind bars at some point in their lives. Correlations can be drawn, but there are so many of them that it's all too tangled up to pinpoint one cause-effect association.
For example, most people in prison lived below the poverty threshold before incarceration. There's a definite correlation between poverty and crime. In most states, the percentage of African-Americans living below the poverty threshold is 2-3 times that of white people. High school drop-outs are much more likely to live below the poverty threshold. There's a correlation between being a high school drop-out and committing a crime. The percentage of African-American drop-outs is higher than the percentage of Caucasian drop-outs. We could find hundreds, if not thousands, more correlations. There might even be one between eating turkey sandwiches on Tuesdays and committing crimes. My feeling is that there is a primarily socioeconomic cause, but that doesn't narrow it down at all.
Throwing everybody in prison sure doesn't seem to be helping decrease crime rates. While I do think there needs to be some sort of overhaul in the criminal justice system, I'm not one bit qualified or informed enough to come up with any realistic solutions to that. As far as fixing the causes, I think the only thing we can do is tackle each potential cause when we find it.
The problem is everyone has different ideas of how to do that. For instance, on the education issue...I'm for privatizing schools and using voucher systems everywhere. The Department of Ed's solution is to keep throwing more and more money at the problem. Definition of insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. I think that definition applies to the criminal justice system and the education system.
7Likes
Mass incarceration in America 
Or they do the weekend thing like you said.
They are your kids, regardless of whether they stay with you or not, if your wife leaves you for good reasons or not. My kids would have had no say if my wife decided to leave me, so why would I not support them. Unfortunately, Galt is so bitter over his divorce that he would do this to his kids to spite his wife. I actually feel pity for him.
