John B. Wells

[PB the Deplorable]

It's a shame that Wells and his guest didn't spend more time on the prison industrial complex. We have the world's biggest prison population, with China in second place. We have more incarcerated citizens, per capita, than anywhere else in the world. Yet, our legislators pass more laws to incarcerate/harass more people, and there are no signs that this trend will reverse itself.

Those US government harassment laws you mention are designed to create the need for more public employees to shuffle paper, to confiscate and redistribute our property, to get our guns, get us out of our cars, to stifle business, to micromanage us right down to lightbulbs and shower heads.  I'm not sure they add to the prison population much.

The inner city violent crime is another matter and is created by these same statists - although not through these harassment laws.  For the most part, the right people are in jail and the problem is they keep letting them back out.

A couple other criminal groups that are not even being addressed are the corrupt government officials who are bankrupting us, and Wall Street types that are doing things like creating the crisis of 2008, intentionally drilling offshore without adequate safety systems, exporting our jobs..

There may be a few in jail that shouldn't be, but there are a bunch more that should be and aren't.

[RedMichael]

It's a shame that Wells and his guest didn't spend more time on the prison industrial complex. We have the world's biggest prison population, with China in second place. We have more incarcerated citizens, per capita, than anywhere else in the world. Yet, our legislators pass more laws to incarcerate/harass more people, and there are no signs that this trend will reverse itself.

Not to go waaay off track of Wells but I want to point out also that our prison system isn't designed to rehabilitate. It can claim to be but it is not. It is storage. The only thing inmates forget is how to interact in a free society and for every good skill they learn, they learn a behavior or skill incompatible with living independently. Not good.

IF the prisons were designed to rehabilitate, it wouldn't matter since they are far too overcrowded. But it is odd to know that the cost of implementing effective programs would be a drop in the bucket and save money in the long run. Long run doesn't get you reelected.

[Nucky Nolan]

Yeah I was hoping for far more prison talk too. There have been some good shows in the past on that topic.
Also the callers are good because you get people with law enforcement stories.

I wasn't as interested in the personal philosophy journey.

I would have listened to the growing up among cannibals in Indonesia. The short stories he told were good.

They missed an opportunity to have a discussion on new laws that lead to more nonviolent law-breakers and more imprisoned citizens. The guest was right about mental prisons. I served time in OCD Alcatraz when I wasn't incarcerated in the Leavenworth of depression. There was too much touchy-feely stuff last night, though. That likely disappointed more than a few people. We wanted to hear more about jails and prisons made of bricks and mortar. We wished to hear more about cases that demonstrated that our penal system needs to be reformed, especially in light of what the caller said about one greedy corporations' lament about the lack of new inmates (profits). BTW, Coast could do a whole show on the guest's life in Indonesia. 

[Nebraska888]

Wells did OK last night (Saturday).......I didn't mind him at all!  ANYONE BUT NOORY.

[Nucky Nolan]

Those US government harassment laws you mention are designed to create the need for more public employees to shuffle paper, to confiscate and redistribute our property, to get our guns, get us out of our cars, to stifle business, to micromanage us right down to lightbulbs and shower heads.  I'm not sure they add to the prison population much.

The inner city violent crime is another matter and is created by these same statists - although not through these harassment laws.  For the most part, the right people are in jail and the problem is they keep letting them back out.

A couple other criminal groups that are not even being addressed are the corrupt government officials who are bankrupting us, and Wall Street types that are doing things like creating the crisis of 2008, intentionally drilling offshore without adequate safety systems, exporting our jobs..

There may be a few in jail that shouldn't be, but there are a bunch more that should be and aren't.

With all due respect, neither political party has a monopoly on this problem. Both parties get behind needless legislation that hassles more people. They just do it in different ways. The penalties and punishments are similar, though. There seems to be a common thread running through much of the needless legislation, and it has little to nothing to do with political philosophies. There's a tragic event of some kind. There's an isolated problem of some kind. A politician pledges to pass the "Bob Law" or the (Orwellian term) Act to address the problem. The new menace to society is really very anomalous, so much so that it affects less than 1% of the population. The majority are then hassled by a needless law, which will do more harm than good. Some ordinary person may face fines or jail because they broke this ridiculous law that doesn't even help the original problem. Once a law is passed, it's rarely revoked.

We part company on another thing. Too many people are in jail and prison. Most of them are non-violent offenders. Our form of justice doesn't have a good record on rehabilitation, which supposedly is the main goal. Save the cages for the violent people who murder and rob other people. Non-violent individuals don't need to share cells with psychopaths who might bring them to the dark side, and they definitely should be released first, en masse, if there are concerns with overcrowding. I'm appalled at the high number of prison inmates in our country, and I'm definitely not proud of the fact that we have gold medals in two prison population "events". Surely, you don't think that we need *more* people in cages. 

[Nucky Nolan]

Not to go waaay off track of Wells but I want to point out also that our prison system isn't designed to rehabilitate. It can claim to be but it is not. It is storage. The only thing inmates forget is how to interact in a free society and for every good skill they learn, they learn a behavior or skill incompatible with living independently. Not good.

IF the prisons were designed to rehabilitate, it wouldn't matter since they are far too overcrowded. But it is odd to know that the cost of implementing effective programs would be a drop in the bucket and save money in the long run. Long run doesn't get you reelected.

I agree with you. There are exceptions to the rule, but the rule stands. Warehousing is a great way for the incarceration industry to maximize cash flow. The guy, who worked as a corrections officer, more or less said the same thing last night. The corporate leadership lamented the fact that there was less crime. They were afraid that drug laws and other laws might be relaxed or revoked. The most chilling comment, that confirmed your statement, was what the caller said about our caged youth. It was something like, "they said that they'll build more beds for them to sleep in when they come to adult prison."

[Nucky Nolan]

Wells did OK last night (Saturday).......I didn't mind him at all!  ANYONE BUT NOORY.

I might be in the minority here, but I think that Wells is much better than Noory. That's remarkable because Wells is a novice compared to Noory, who has much more experience and seniority. I just wish that he would stop talking so much about talking.

(Not) John Wells: "Let me phrase it this way, just us talking with a million of our closest friends, no, I'll ask it like this, a shotgun out the back door, and you can hold the floor, it's just that I have to say, and this isn't some kind of commentary,...."

[PB the Deplorable]

With all due respect, neither political party has a monopoly on this problem. Both parties get behind needless legislation that hassles more people. They just do it in different ways. The penalties and punishments are similar, though....

We part company on another thing. Too many people are in jail and prison. Most of them are non-violent offenders. Our form of justice doesn't have a good record on rehabilitation...

I didn't mention any parties, just Statists.  They are in charge of both parties, one is just worse than the other.

As far as criminals - I'd like to see the breakdown between violent and non-violent.  Keeping in mind that plenty of violent criminals plead down to lesser crimes.  I'd say most people inside earned their way there, and there are plenty more that should be in jail - just check the newspaper for crime on any given day.

As far as sympathy - any and all should go to victims not criminals, period.

Our problem is inner city social rot.  No other country has this to the extent we do.  Letting people out of prison doesn't fix that.

[PB the Deplorable]

... The most chilling comment, that confirmed your statement, was what the caller said about our caged youth. It was something like, "they said that they'll build more beds for them to sleep in when they come to adult prison."

Do you live in or near an urban area?  Do you look at the news from there?  The crimes some of these 'kids' are out doing, they are just not rehabilitatable.  It's disgusting they have to be let out again at some pointt to go conmmit additional grotesque crimes before they are caught and sentenced permanently.  The very few of this bunch that might 'go straight' just aren't worth the additional crimes the rest of them commit after being let out.


Note I said some juvies, not all.  I'm talking about the worst of them that are clearly not going to be rehabilitated..

Think of the victims and potential victims.  These are the people that matter.

[Nucky Nolan]

I didn't mention any parties, just Statists.  They are in charge of both parties, one is just worse than the other.

As far as criminals - I'd like to see the breakdown between violent and non-violent.  Keeping in mind that plenty of violent criminals plead down to lesser crimes.  I'd say most people inside earned their way there, and there are plenty more that should be in jail - just check the newspaper for crime on any given day.

As far as sympathy - any and all should go to victims not criminals, period.

Our problem is inner city social rot.  No other country has this to the extent we do.  Letting people out of prison doesn't fix that.

Last night's guest said that most prisoners were incarcerated for nonviolent offenses. They often became angry and bitter while caged with violent inmates. They became worse people, not better people. That outcome didn't match the claimed goal of imprisonment. There was more recidivism than rehabilitation. The released inmates, many of whom were impoverished from the start, weren't able to find work. They jumped on the hamster wheel that defined our penal system in the modern era. They returned to the loving embrace of the guards and inmates at their former home.

There are more than a few innocent prisoners too. That's not just a liberal shibboleth. Some of these inmates were falsely accused of heinous crimes like murder and rape. The people, freed with the help of Centurion Ministries, could tell you all about it.

[PB the Deplorable]

Last night's guest said that most prisoners were incarcerated for nonviolent offenses. They often became angry and bitter while caged with violent inmates. They became worse people, not better people. That outcome didn't match the claimed goal of imprisonment. There was more recidivism than rehabilitation. The released inmates, many of whom were impoverished from the start, weren't able to find work. They jumped on the hamster wheel that defined our penal system in the modern era. They returned to the loving embrace of the guards and inmates at their former home.

There are more than a few innocent prisoners too. That's not just a liberal shibboleth. Some of these inmates were falsely accused of heinous crimes like murder and rape. The people, freed with the help of Centurion Ministries, could tell you all about it.

Keep in mind these guests are operating from their own viewpoint.  Did he have a book to sell?  I really doubt we have all the wrong people locked up.  In fact, since laws like 3 strikes and mandatory sentencing, crime is way down.  That is hard to argue with.

As far as innocent inmates, no doubt.  I'm glad people are working to free them.  But are they statistically significant?  Are some of them found 'not guilty' down the line because witnesses and evidence is no longer available or reliable?  Are they scum anyway that were likely out doing other shit that they weren't caught for?  Hard to say. 

[Nucky Nolan]

Keep in mind these guests are operating from their own viewpoint.  Did he have a book to sell?  I really doubt we have all the wrong people locked up.  In fact, since laws like 3 strikes and mandatory sentencing, crime is way down.  That is hard to argue with.

As far as innocent inmates, no doubt.  I'm glad people are working to free them.  But are they statistically significant?  Are some of them found 'not guilty' down the line because witnesses and evidence is no longer available or reliable?  Are they scum anyway that were likely out doing other shit that they weren't caught for?  Hard to say.

It's not hard to say. DNA evidence freed them. Just think about spending twenty years in a cage for a crime that you didn't commit. In some cases, police and/or prosecutors framed the inmate. Even after the fact, some of these rogues worked to retry the freed people, even though they obviously didn't commit the crime with which they were charged. Note to Sardondi: these rogues are exceptions to the rule. As far as significance, I'd say it's pretty darn significant when one of these falsely accused people are fried or poisoned by the State. BTW, you can look at statistics, free of guests' agendas, to find examples of official corruption, as well as prisoners' characteristics.

[ziznak]

whoa just started listening through last nights show with Wells and did he take open lines for the first hour or something?  Sounded like he was taking calls there before the guest came on.  I'm barely into hour 2 but the show topic interested me.  Hopefully I actually find something interesting about it... lately for some reason Wells appearances seem to be non-events limited to my subconcious half listening gamer brain.

[Nucky Nolan]

whoa just started listening through last nights show with Wells and did he take open lines for the first hour or something?  Sounded like he was taking calls there before the guest came on.  I'm barely into hour 2 but the show topic interested me.  Hopefully I actually find something interesting about it... lately for some reason Wells appearances seem to be non-events limited to my subconcious half listening gamer brain.

He indeed took calls during the first hour. I'm substituting for Morgus tonight.

[ziznak]

lol... well your dropping the ball then... you should have some sort of random stats on the last time Wells did a similar subject and what other hosts have covered the topic.  There would also be some kind of Art reference thrown in as well.

[Nucky Nolan]

lol... well your dropping the ball then... you should have some sort of random stats on the last time Wells did a similar subject and what other hosts have covered the topic.  There would also be some kind of Art reference thrown in as well.

Your point is well taken. My syntax is quite pedestrian in comparison too.

[Nucky Nolan]

In fact, since laws like 3 strikes and mandatory sentencing, crime is way down.  That is hard to argue with.

I don't mean to sound like a contrarian jerk tonight, but it's not hard to argue with that. Those laws are responsible for miscarriages of justice. They don't allow judges to look at cases based on their particular circumstances and merits. Some jurists have complained about this. The punishment should fit the crime. A two-time loser shouldn't receive a life sentence for stealing a piece of pizza. That's certainly a cruel and unusual punishment. I'm not sure that such unwise "jurisprudence" is responsible for less crime, but we really should debate that in a new thread. 

[ziznak]

I thought the 3 strikes rule only applied to violent crime/drugs or crimes of a certain degree that would warrant the gubbermint to say "Ok that's it you prick!"  I think the mandatory minimum sentencing is insane... the amount of people who have been jailed for stupid possession violations is awful.  I also think this show was mislabeled... should have been described as being about "psychological prisons."

[Nucky Nolan]

I thought the 3 strikes rule only applied to violent crime/drugs or crimes of a certain degree that would warrant the gubbermint to say "Ok that's it you prick!"  I think the mandatory minimum sentencing is insane... the amount of people who have been jailed for stupid possession violations is awful.  I also think this show was mislabeled... should have been described as being about "psychological prisons."

It certainly was mislabeled. The guest talked more about emotional and mental prisons. He made some good points. I don't agree with his view that we all yearn to keep up with the Jones's (not a drug joke), though.

The three-strikes law is wrong. You're right in that the first two strikes should be major crimes, but the third strike could be a minor crime. It hamstrings judges and prosecutors. Hence my mention of the pizza thief. I agree with what you said about the unfairness of some mandatory sentences. Each case has its own set of pertinent issues and mitigating factors that need to be addressed on a case by case basis. Judges should be allowed to use their *judg*ment in each case. Some of the harsh sentences are unduly disproportionate too.

[PB the Deplorable]

It certainly was mislabeled. The guest talked more about emotional and mental prisons. He made some good points. I don't agree with his view that we all yearn to keep up with the Jones's (not a drug joke), though.

The three-strikes law is wrong. You're right in that the first two strikes should be major crimes, but the third strike could be a minor crime. It hamstrings judges and prosecutors. Hence my mention of the pizza thief. I agree with what you said about the unfairness of some mandatory sentences. Each case has its own set of pertinent issues and mitigating factors that need to be addressed on a case by case basis. Judges should be allowed to use their *judg*ment in each case. Some of the harsh sentences are unduly disproportionate too.

I think 3 strikes is implemented state by state, so each has slightly different rules.

It came about because citizens were outraged that the Liberal so-called 'Bleeding Heart' judges were much too lenient in sentencing, and these criminals were getting out and killing and committing other horrendous crimes over and over.  I think the legal term is 'Revolving Door'.  Here in Calif, our Three Strikes Law came about when a lifelong criminal with a rap sheet literally dozens of pages long was out - yet again - snuck into a 12 year old girls bedroom, raped and killed her.  Her dad really mobilized people and got the law passed.  And good for him.  Everyone wanted to know what the ferk this guy was doing out of prison in the first place.  That girl didn't have to die. 

For every pizza thief anecdote you have, I have a story like this.  And again, I don't give a single crap about any of these derelicts you site, I only care about the victims and potential victims.  Boo-hoo, someone is in jail for the rest of their life for stealing a bike.  Good.  What else have these three time losers been doing that they didn't get caught for?

Keep in mind the third strike, at least in Calif, has to be a violent felony, and the first 2 strikes must also have been felonies.  These are exactly the people that need to be removed permanently.  Crime is way down.  I prefer a one-strike policy for violent felonies myself - crime would be down even further.

[Nucky Nolan]

I think 3 strikes is implemented state by state, so each has slightly different rules.

It came about because citizens were outraged that the Liberal so-called 'Bleeding Heart' judges were much too lenient in sentencing, and these criminals were getting out and killing and committing other horrendous crimes over and over.  I think the legal term is 'Revolving Door'.  Here in Calif, our Three Strikes Law came about when a lifelong criminal with a rap sheet literally dozens of pages long was out - yet again - snuck into a 12 year old girls bedroom, raped and killed her.  Her dad really mobilized people and got the law passed.  And good for him.  Everyone wanted to know what the ferk this guy was doing out of prison in the first place.  That girl didn't have to die. 

For every pizza thief anecdote you have, I have a story like this.  And again, I don't give a single crap about any of these derelicts you site, I only care about the victims and potential victims.  Boo-hoo, someone is in jail for the rest of their life for stealing a bike.  Good.  What else have these three time losers been doing that they didn't get caught for?

Keep in mind the third strike, at least in Calif, has to be a violent felony, and the first 2 strikes must also have been felonies.  These are exactly the people that need to be removed permanently.  Crime is way down.  I prefer a one-strike policy for violent felonies myself - crime would be down even further.

That's exactly what I meant in an earlier post. They make laws based on one tragedy. Such tragic cases are used as footballs by politicians and prosecutors so that they look like they're tough on crime. They don't look past the next election to see the ramifications of such symbolic laws. They evidently couldn't care less about unintended consequences. They would rather appease the masses with quick fixes that remove proper jurisprudence. I would rather see fair and just applications of extant laws, which focus on just the facts at hand, rather than some unwise campaign to right the wrongs of society in one court case. I want fair sentences, not mob appeasements.   

[PB the Deplorable]

That's exactly what I meant in an earlier post. They make laws based on one tragedy. Such tragic cases are used as footballs by politicians and prosecutors so that they look like they're tough on crime. They don't look past the next election to see the ramifications of such symbolic laws. They evidently couldn't care less about unintended consequences. They would rather appease the masses with quick fixes that remove proper jurisprudence. I would rather see fair and just applications of extant laws, which focus on just the facts at hand, rather than some unwise campaign to right the wrongs of society in one court case. I want fair sentences, not mob appeasements.

But it IS fair for these idiots to finally be permanently taken off the streets.  How is it not fair?  It's certainly fair for the people that now won't be just another victim.  It's fair for those people's family and friends that won't have to live though some nightmare.  It's the Lib judges that are all sad because they can't let some thug off more easily to go commit more crimes.  They talk about the 'facts' and 'circumstances' and all that.  It's all BS - most of what comes in front of them is watered down plea bargains.  The perps are mostly already getting a big break.  Fact is, if these judges had been doing their jobs in the first place, the citizens wouldn''t have to insist by passing Propisitions or marching on the Legislature with torches and pitchforks to finally get these criminals Off Our Streets.  It takes a lot to finally mobilize Joe Citizen.  These lax judges managed to do it.


You mention making laws based on one tragedy (first off, it's a crime, not a 'tragedy), but then just offer an anecdote of your own - the pizza thief - to support undoing these laws. I don't understand someone wanting some guy running around stealing pizza and who knows what all other nuisance crimes out loose anyway.   I'm glad they go to jail permanently.  I'm glad crime is down.  I spend zero time worrying about the these thugs, petty or otherwise.

Here's an idea:  don't want to go to jail, don't be a criminal.  That's what I do.  That's what most people do.

[stevesh]

Here's an idea:  don't want to go to jail, don't be a criminal.

Sadly, that doesn't always work, especially if you're African-American. Read Michelle Alexander's book The New Jim Crow for infuriating details.

Also, the idea that throwing more and more people in prison results in less crime is a canard. Street crime is mostly a function of the proportion of young males in the population.

[Juan]

Additionally, so many things are now illegal that prosecutors have learned that they can charge someone with multiple crimes and almost always get the defendant to plead guilty to something.  Said situation makes prosecutors lazy - they don't have to really gather evidence that proves a crime beyond a reasonable doubt - and it makes some of them publicity hounds.  I've seen numerous prosecutors on TV bragging about catching a criminal and charging him with 300-counts, but then learned that 2/3 of the counts were dismissed as lesser included crimes of other charged offenses.

[PB the Deplorable]

... Street crime is mostly a function of the proportion of young males in the population.

So these other, poorer, less educated countries with considerably less crime don't have young males? 

Our own country in less violent times - even during the Great Depression when one would expect high crime based on what the Libs tell us is the root cause - didn't have any around  either?


Ok. I'm done.  This is getting way off topic.  Everyone is so worried about the criminals and couldn't care less about the victims and potential victims.  I get it.

[b_dubb]

Here's an idea:  don't want to go to jail, don't be a criminal.  That's what I do.  That's what most people do.

oh i get it.  because no innocent person has never been wrongfully convicted.  or executed. 

[Nucky Nolan]

But it IS fair for these idiots to finally be permanently taken off the streets.  How is it not fair?  It's certainly fair for the people that now won't be just another victim.  It's fair for those people's family and friends that won't have to live though some nightmare.  It's the Lib judges that are all sad because they can't let some thug off more easily to go commit more crimes.  They talk about the 'facts' and 'circumstances' and all that.  It's all BS - most of what comes in front of them is watered down plea bargains.  The perps are mostly already getting a big break.  Fact is, if these judges had been doing their jobs in the first place, the citizens wouldn''t have to insist by passing Propisitions or marching on the Legislature with torches and pitchforks to finally get these criminals Off Our Streets.  It takes a lot to finally mobilize Joe Citizen.  These lax judges managed to do it.


You mention making laws based on one tragedy (first off, it's a crime, not a 'tragedy), but then just offer an anecdote of your own - the pizza thief - to support undoing these laws. I don't understand someone wanting some guy running around stealing pizza and who knows what all other nuisance crimes out loose anyway.   I'm glad they go to jail permanently.  I'm glad crime is down.  I spend zero time worrying about the these thugs, petty or otherwise.

Here's an idea:  don't want to go to jail, don't be a criminal.  That's what I do.  That's what most people do.

No, three-strikes laws are not fair. The individual punishment should fit the individual crime. Conscientious and responsible judges condemn this crap law because it ties their hands. They can't make just decisions based on the facts of the case. Some of the convicted "idiots" are imprisoned for crimes that would not be considered as serious felonies were it not for the three-strikes law. IOW, "stealing apples" is transformed into "robbing banks" because the apple thief robbed two banks in the past, perhaps when he was much younger. He should be tried for theft, not what he did in the past. He might have been rehabilitated, acted on impulse, and got sentenced to spend the rest of his life in prison with killers and rapists. How is that fair? What "nightmare" did he create when he stole a couple apples from the corner store? Whose lives are improved by putting the rehabilitated man in a cage, with vicious and violent inmates, for the rest of his life? BTW, something can be a crime, as well as tragic (mass murder), so my word usage was correct in my other post.

[Nucky Nolan]

Ok. I'm done.  This is getting way off topic.  Everyone is so worried about the criminals and couldn't care less about the victims and potential victims.  I get it.

That's not true at all. I have an issue with unjust laws. It's not like one has to be either Judge Roy Bean or William Kunstler. One should look at each individual case on its own. It's true that past actions often can predict future actions, but judges should have the ability to take all factors into account. They should not be hamstrung by poor legislation passed to make it look like certain people are "tough on crime". They should *not* pre-sentence individuals just based on what they *might* do. We don't live in the worlds of "Judge Dredd" and "Minority Report" (yet). 

As for convicted murderers, they should get life sentences. I'm not a proponent of capital punishment. Innocent individuals have been imprisoned and killed by the State. We can do better than that. Violent felons should be sentenced to serve appropriate time, based on the severity of their crimes. Rapists and robbers shouldn't be released before they serve their full time. I'm a supporter of truth in sentencing but not gimmicky "tough-on-crime" laws. Victims of crimes should go to the front of the line, and they more than deserve justice, but unjust laws serve no one.

[Nucky Nolan]

Additionally, so many things are now illegal that prosecutors have learned that they can charge someone with multiple crimes and almost always get the defendant to plead guilty to something.  Said situation makes prosecutors lazy - they don't have to really gather evidence that proves a crime beyond a reasonable doubt - and it makes some of them publicity hounds.  I've seen numerous prosecutors on TV bragging about catching a criminal and charging him with 300-counts, but then learned that 2/3 of the counts were dismissed as lesser included crimes of other charged offenses.

You can break a law without even knowing it. I learned that the hard way. We have too many petty and silly laws on the book. It's past time to trim the fat. It's best to avoid the justice system as much as you can. Most lawyers are okay, but there are rogue defense lawyers and prosecutors who pervert justice. Victims are abused twice. Innocent individuals are imprisoned.

[ziznak]

wtf... "how does religion make us feel that we'll never be good enough and i suppose that we'll just abandon our character and let the darker side of our nature attract the attention of the police and... "WHAT THE FUCK??? did he really ask the guest this shit and then dude answered it!!!" and dude proceded to make sense to me??? holy WTF MOMENTS FOR ZIZNAK ... and then i was told i was beautiful... now i feel gay... awesome!