Is the St. Mary's Today editor and publisher Ken Rossignol a racist?

[Tom Sawyer]

Who cares about reforming them? Most of them don't want to be reformed anyway. Lock 'em up and throw away the key. Or better yet, fry them crispy and REALLY be done with them.

I take it you don't agree with Martin O'Malley --M.O.M.---wanting to do away with the death penalty.

Well: I dont either.

As for Rossignol , he is an #######.

I used to read his rag just to laugh at Steve Uhler,but even that is repeats now. I thnk Rossignol and Steve fell out or something.

 

[vraiblonde]

I take it you don't agree with Martin O'Malley --M.O.M.---wanting to do away with the death penalty.

MOM is a liberal ass who has all kinds of sympathy for criminals and cares oh so much about their "rights", yet doesn't give a crap about law-abiding citizens and THEIR right to not have to put up with crime.

I swear the only people who voted for him are the criminals themselves and elitists who live in safe little gated compounds. Look what he did to Baltimore. That's all you need to know about Martin O'Malley.

 

[vraiblonde]

Grrrrr!

 

[Kain99]

Grrrrr!

Read this thread and didn't think about my Mom once. Odd....

 

[BuddyLee]

Non-violent criminals aren't the ones we worry about. Yeah, it's no fun having someone steal your stuff, but it pales incomparison to being killed or raped. THOSE are the ones that need to fry.

I beg to differ. It is clear that we worry more about murderers and rapists but we incarcerate more non-violent criminal offenders, the bulk of our taxes go to these offenders, and new prisons are being built for these offenders. The number of those incarcerated has doubled since 1985, obviously someone is worried or someone thinks we should be worried.

 

[vraiblonde]

I beg to differ. It is clear that we worry more about murderers and rapists but we incarcerate more non-violent criminal offenders, the bulk of our taxes go to these offenders, and new prisons are being built for these offenders. The number of those incarcerated has doubled since 1985, obviously someone is worried or someone thinks we should be worried.

I would guess that non-violent offenders are more frequently locked up and cost more money because...there's more of them. :shrug:

 

[BuddyLee]

I would guess that non-violent offenders are more frequently locked up and cost more money because...there's more of them. :shrug:

Indeed. Should we waste money locking them all up?

 

[vraiblonde]

Indeed. Should we waste money locking them all up?

Okay, I see where you're going.

If space is a problem, I'd think the violent offenders would get locked up before some bad check writer. Doesn't seem to be the way it works, though, does it?

 

[ylexot]

Indeed. Should we waste money locking them all up?

I think you misunderstood vrai's statement...

Non-violent criminals aren't the ones we worry about. Yeah, it's no fun having someone steal your stuff, but it pales incomparison to being killed or raped. THOSE are the ones that need to fry.

 

[BuddyLee]

Okay, I see where you're going.

If space is a problem, I'd think the violent offenders would get locked up before some bad check writer. Doesn't seem to be the way it works, though, does it?

Kinda sorta. I think I see other means for 'some' of these non-violent offenders than five years in lock-up in a truly violent environment; I don't think they'll get much of anything out of that. I also think the payoff to society (all offenders locked up vs. all taxpayer's money) doesn't quite work out. I think at least 'some' of these offenders would be better off if they were forced to accomplish a great deal of hard-knocks strict community service so that society is paid back in full. I see little benefit to society if certain non-violent criminal offenders are thrown in prison. They then get out and have a greater probability to actually commit a violent crime because of the environment they were in and because of the lack of opportunities/privileges they may not accrue due to them being an ex-con. It seems like a lose-lose for society in my eyes; here we pay and pay and yet have a greater chance of being robbed in five years for that.

 

[BuddyLee]

I think you misunderstood vrai's statement...

No misunderstanding. I was trying to implement a point.

 

[vraiblonde]

I think I see other means for 'some' of these non-violent offenders than five years in lock-up in a truly violent environment; I don't think they'll get much of anything out of that.

In my opinion, violent offenders should get the death penalty. Then there will be plenty of room for the NVs and they won't have to worry about prison violence.

 

[BuddyLee]

In my opinion, violent offenders should get the death penalty. Then there will be plenty of room for the NVs and they won't have to worry about prison violence.

Only in a perfect Walgreen's world.

 

[FromTexas]

We are the only species that kill one another for pleasure or just because we can.

 

[JS62]

Rossignol is pretty quick to point the finger at other's, but doesn't seem to see his own behavior as "criminal."

http://www.thebaynet.com/news/index.cfm?fuseaction=news.viewStory&story_ID=4576

I think his former reporter has a good idea:

"I hope this time Mr. Rossignol will publish a cartoon of himself holding bad checks."

White guy/bad check(s)=crime

You have to wonder who appointed him judge and jury of everyone but himself.

 

[Tonio]

In my opinion, violent offenders should get the death penalty. Then there will be plenty of room for the NVs and they won't have to worry about prison violence.

My idea for eliminating prison violence would be solitary confinement in single cells for all those convicted of violent crimes. Do away with the cafeterias and common areas, as well as the double-occupancy cells. Eliminate any opportunities for the prisoners to interact with one another.