Part 8--Kids stop violence as beds are built to house them in prisons in adulthood

   Prison State

Is it the great wisdom of our government, averting future catastrophe, that has pushed the prison population’s growth beyond country and world record numbers? No. It is not wise to be ignoring rehabilitative, restitution-oriented, and educational, programs while building incredibly costly prisons in record numbers.  Were these brick and mortar human cages really the greatest cause of the reduction in violent crime? No. Did our society need to prepare for the criminals of tomorrow? No.  Researchers have exposed the falsehood in all of those rationalizations. And even outside of research, the signs are everywhere.

 Today's’ trend-setting youth have not yet been subjected to the direct effects of our growing prison population, yet the violent crime in public schools has dropped faster than it has in the streets. Public School violence has dropped by half between 1992 and 2002, and the trend continues.⑥

So why are we spending so much money on so many prisons? Millions of Americans are trapped in concrete. Why are so many of those peace promoting x-seniors of the 2000's so much more likely now to go to prison and stay there longer, than those twice as violent seniors of the early 1990's? Our politicians have been closing down the schools the seniors were bringing peace to, basically in order to make sure that once they graduate we have room to house them in our prisons. We have had to close schools and brown out fire stations while roughly $10,000,000,000.00 (that's 10x100million a year for a state of under 37,000,000)⑩ of tax-payer money was taken to largely pay prison-guard salary.  Far from saving us, these sentencing disparities and the concomitant prison growth are depleting finances and destroying the familial structures of many. Families forced to interact with this heartless system are depleted of their social capital.

.  Well, with all the (mostly dark-skinned) people we now have locked up in our prisons, we have had to have reduced crime, at least in the short term. It had to have saved some innocent lives. Though, likely not as many innocent lives as if we had let all of them go but instead imprisoned all the potential drunk drivers! DUI deaths, per year, are significantly higher than the number of people murdered by someone they have had no relation to. Since it is Californians losing on average roughly $1078.95 every 3 years* to pay the CDC, you would think that that state would be the first to act. It loses so much, in fact, that it forces the state to cut funding in ways which then produce a condition in which fewer criminals are caught. More criminals are kept unmonitored just so they can pay the inflated costs for a harsher revenge of the fewer convicted. When it comes to avenging, or even better saving, those innocent lives, the system should be aiming to get us the best bang for your buck? Charging California almost double the national average to house what has been at times the largest inmate population in the country, equates to the single largest bill to taxpayers in that state.  California's CDCR charges almost $50,000 per year ($49,171for males, and $51,405for females. ④ Even with the National average inflated by the roughly $50,000cost per inmate that the largest prison population in America requires, it still is only $28,000 per year.*** Follow the money, the system is a theft scheme at best, with prejudiced roots.

*Take California’s population (36,961,664) then remove the children (25.5%) and even without including the temporarily and chronically unemployed, those imprisoned, or on disability(no longer helping pay taxes) and per person the (9,970,008,758.00) annual prison cost is $359.65 which means, even if the costs no longer rose (not likely) you’ll give up $3,600 every 10 years.

**CCPOA is the Correction Officers Union. CCPOA is an acronym for “California Correctional Peace Officers Association.

***As a remedy we could immediately demand our legislators to hold a special election to outlaw the **CCPOA (along with the police and teachers unions: The terminator may have been on to something). So California stops being forced to pay the CDCR, 

Part 7 "Promoting STD's" #2

Humans tend to judge those who seem to hold similar beliefs as them in a more favorable light. Meaning, behaviors they would condemn in others, they give the benefit of the doubt towards those they more easily identify with. Our justice system has not been immune to this dynamic. Though not reflected by our laws, when judged objectively, things like DUI's and spreading an STD are far more horrid than are most traditional crimes in modern America.

Picture this, imagine that you and everyone you've ever been friends with never drank alcohol, had promiscuous sex nor an STD. Once you've imagined this, I mean really stopped reading and pictured this as your reality, then think about that race of reckless people who do drive drunk, and manipulate their way into frequent sexual encounters, wouldn't you want to just give them the death penalty regardless? Now, imagine that combined they kill more than 37,000 American, including innocent children, each and every year. Which is drastically more than any other two crimes combined. Carjackers kill less than 15 people a year. Do those that are murdering 37,000 Americans each year still deserve no prosecution or prison? All the Muslims in the world haven't killed half that number of Americans in the past (10) ten years, combined!

As for the future of America, is it Justice that labels inner-city kids "street terrorists" when all gang-related killings don't even equate to 1,000 people?

But don't stop there, no other violent crime in America, according to the most recent statistics, kills that many people yearly.

But, DUI's do! In 2004, they were responsible for 16,694 murders in America. Oh, what, they weren't "murders" because they didn't intend to kill anyone? On the face I could agree with that, but...

Do you think that most carjackers and robbers intended to kill anyone when they woke up that day? Like the inner-city robber that the 10-20-Life Law gives two strikes and 22 years minimum to for shooting a bullet (anywhere but at a person) into the ground? Well, the law treats it as an accident that he shot it into the ground instead of at a person. where for drunk driving has also been treated as an accident even when the drunk driver kills an innocent family, in this case, people have gotten (6) six years in prison.

Shoot a bullet into the ground and steal a wallet, get a minimum of 22 years in prison; remove the existence of a whole family (except the grandparents) and you can still get out while you're in your 20's. I'm sorry, but if that's the pinnacle of justice in the "free" world, I would hate to see its valley.*

Certain STD's promote the likelihood you will further contract an even more serious or deadly STD. But we will never see (10) ten-year enhancements on them.

Uninhibited group sex and sexual gang-bangs have been rightfully deemed very risky behaviors. And - as crazy as it sounds — per capita active participants of this form of gang-banging and the like, can very well be responsible for far more death (past, present, and future) than all the Bloods, Crips, Hispanic, Asian, and White gangs combined. But the Bloods and Crips usually just shoot rob and kill each other.

Gang members, in general, are usually pretty easy to spot. Whereas porn stars, swingers, those who've participated in drunken orgies or just have a lot of promiscuous sex, usually look just like -or often better than- the average American. Making them all the more dangerous.

Not only that but if a Crip goes and robs you, it usually doesn't mean you will become a Crip. However, like vampires, mix some bodily fluids with someone who has herpes and/or syphilis during a one night stand, chances are you have become a threat to everyone you, and they, enjoy (or would believe they would enjoy) becoming intimate with.

STD's don't need a license to drive, passports to travel, keys to enter, or age limits to avoid. No single crime in America kills even 1/10th of what either DUI's or STD's kill.

And without effective and responsible treatment (not to mention expensive) on a case by case basis, can spread exponentially, victimizing innocent humans for centuries.

While "studio gang banger" rappers, like "The Game" may promote criminal activity; Jenna Jameson walks the walk. What's a more dangerous picture than unprotected group anal sex? Well, she'll do it, on video, and I can all but guarantee some of our own lawmakers and public officials have put money in her pocket by buying these same videos.

Everyone knows condoms can be compromised. And yet, many people are capable of, in the right circumstances, and have engaged in knowingly placing an innocent human being (whether their spouse of new sex partner) in jeopardy of a death sentence, solely so they, in pure greed, can comfortably get their rocks off. Is this not one of the evilest of criminal acts?

I say this because sex usually requires a perceived shared feeling of trust, and at the least is a very close and intimate act. 
The following is a  very possible but hypothetical story: A very competitive and distinguished senior at a prestigious university finds out he has HPV but shows no continuing symptoms. He naturally only confides this to his best friend back home. A few

months go by and he ends up having sex with an extremely beautiful freshman. The kind of girl you'd be crazy to say "no" to. Well, about the 3rd or 4th time of them having sex through the night, the condom breaks. He graduates and goes on to help write the 3 strikes law, which sends people to prison for life, who have never hurt another person ever in their whole lives.

Around the same time, the law is taking a noticeable effect, a beautiful woman who is now a senior at her prestigious university dies of cervical cancer as a result of an HPV virus she had somehow caught when she was an 18-year-old freshman.

*Unfortunately ironic is the fact that often the same people yelling "freedom isn't free" are the ones supporting policies ensuring "Justice isn't Just". Though unbeknownst to most, these sorts of media parrots are the perfect soldiers in a battle against themselves as they fight against their freedom, and even their children's, while unwittingly supporting the wishes of the Corporatocracy--but, I digress, that is another subject.

Part 6-- "Promoting STD's" #1

But of course, they can't imprison all potential drunk drivers. They could send those already found guilty to prison, though.

Well, if it's only saving lives they think about when they create harsh sentencing laws, maybe they should focus on the biggest of the big dogs first. Such as people with STD's or, even those acting in a manner which may spread or promote the spreading of STD's. I suggest this because more Americans die each year from sexually transmitted diseases

(on average 22,000) than by all categories of murder combined. In fact, those people who are so afraid to be murdered by a random criminal during the commission of a felony, write laws making it legal to throw non-violent people away for (15) fifteen years (someone who has never hurt anybody, and committed his or her first crime ever). Laws that can also end up throwing these people away for life. Let me inform these logical people: If you count the nation's murderous robberies (731), burglaries (61), car theft and carjackings (11), and rapes (15) committed, where the police believe the victim and offender had no discernible prior relationship, you are roughly 27 times more likely to die from someone who gave you a deadly STD than from any of the above mentioned felonies. (27) Twenty-seven times the raw number 22,000 — is pretty significant, especially since many of the perpetrators could be tracked, investigated, and then prosecuted. Both as examples and also for public safety.

The major difference between the, on average, 22,000 dying each year from STD's and say the (11) eleven dying annually from carjacking, besides the huge difference in numbers, is that relatively very few affluent or influential (white) families will be affected by the mandatory 10- or 15-year sentence for carjacking. Whereas consensually engaging in an activity that may give another an STD, is something partaken of by even affluent kids and university students.

So, regardless of the tens of thousands dying each year, these same lawmakers see no need for rigorous prosecution for the passing along of deadly STDs. Since, like their own children, many of them are capable of transmitting an STD. Their minds are simply unable to demonize it. It's acceptable to them, even as thousands of young, wonderful, university women contracted and died from cervical cancer (caused by an STD).

And actually, because this affluent white sexual indulgence won't stop, minorities also will continue to receive a pass from prosecution.

Why is not all sex illegal for people who possess these historically murderous beings inside their bodies? Why not, like gang members, label the infected that have even protected sex with the healthy, `street terrorists' and given (10) ten-year and up sentences, regardless of the circumstances? Even as they kill thousands and bring worry and concern into our intimate lives. We could even, with near perfection, adapt the existing 10-20-life law for people with STD's. The firearm can be replaced with the sex organs. (10) Ten years if you display it in

a sexual manner, (20) twenty years if you use it sexually in front of someone, and 25 to life if you engage in any sort of sexual intercourse with them. And, of course, if they died, accident or not, protected or not, you'd be charged with their murder and subsequently face the death penalty.

When a cop kills someone who is committing a criminal act, it's the criminal's partner in the said crime that gets the murder charge. In this case, the STD could take the place of the murderous police officer. They both were acting carelessly because just as the healthy caught it they could then spread it, and also were promoting such wanton and reckless behavior by aiding its execution.

The intent, or outcome, is rarely considered when it comes to (3) three strikes and the gang and gun enhancements unless of course it could be used against the criminal.

Should then intent or outcome even matter when judging someone sexually promiscuous who has an STD?

Considering the potentially extreme danger it can subject countless lives for countless years, how is there no prisons for these mad biological terrorists? Why don't the police investigate each new documented case of a recently contracted sexually transmitted disease in order to make sure no crime took place? To facilitate the process, why aren't documented cases of STD's registered (either publicly or solely for police investigation)? Why aren't the sworn protectors of our society considering all those who are dying?

Well, the “Why?” is simple: Just as DUI's have historically been,

sex is something experienced by the majority of Americans.

And even the rich and powerful ones have contracted STD's. How, in any way, could they demonize themselves?

Part 5--The real dangers to families

Threats of terror

The ridiculous disparities do not end there but get worse. As sad as it is for all involved, drunk driving kills people daily, yet daily drunk drivers get off,  but when has a verbal threat ever even got someone’s pinkie-finger stubbed?  Yet, in California, being convicted of an angry statement (only a heard and then regurgitated statement, not even a full-blown flowing free speech!) such as ''I'm going to kick your ass", will get you a violent criminal strike which may include prison time (and lead to a life sentence!) for what they've labeled "Terrorist threats" *. This will also mandate parole or probation thereby increasing your likelihood of returning. And now since you have a strike, no matter the nature of the strike-carrying first offense, in any future convictions, your sentence, historically, would be doubled and put at 80% to 85% mandatory time to be served. Therefore, not only “double,” but forever putting them in “Jeopardy” for a crime they already were punished for.  While this may seem like a good deterrent for reducing crime, the research has failed to support this hypothesis.

A society should strive for greater objectivity, and thus equality, in social applications, especially in regards to state violence as means for promoting justice.  Why then, we should ask, is the penalty for a verbal threat so extreme?  Well, in America you are almost twice as likely to die from an argument or brawl than from someone during the commission of a felony. But then if arguments are so dangerous why aren't they labeled "violent" and why don't they carry 10-year enhancements for each arguer, say if arguing in reach of a potential deadly weapon? ① Why not "brawl" enhancements for arguments? One out of every 100 carjacking’s result in the hospitalization of the victim (11), how many fist fights happen before someone visits the hospital? You would think that it would be way less than a crime for which you lose at least 10 years of your life. Plus, shouldn't a fight be looked at as one step closer to murder for the arguer?

Is the justice system’s overlooking of the relative danger—as compared with other violent felonies—in arguing because originally an argument takes two? But driving drunk only takes one, and even if, when criminals fight, shoot and, rob each other our law doesn't hesitate to punish both, or either, in fact, it often increases their punishments with things like that mandatory minimum 10-year gang enhancement, even though just like 2 average people in an argument, what they do rarely affects our own safety.  Are we trying to protect ourselves, or simply lynch them?  Drunk drivers statistically even go after our babies, with murderous success, how come they aren't so casually labeled "violent"? 16,694 Americans died in 2004 because of them, and these often weren't gang members, relatives, or acquaintances who died, many of these people were 100% innocent random victims (at a far greater number and age-range than carjacking victims). They were given no choice, no warning, and no opportunity for provocation of any kind. Even for individuals who are completely sober, California has mandatory minimum sentences of an extra 10 years for simply having a broken shell of a gun while committing certain felonies.  Sure, someone with a gun is likely dangerous, sober or not, and needs to be dealt with by society.  But as scary as it seems, a gun does not speak on the violence of a criminal any more than does a lack of one. While all are horrible, I, personally, would rather be shown a broken, unloaded gun while having my wallet taken, than being physically hit; or dying in an auto accident.  A car is, in fact, just as dangerous as a gun in the wrong hands. Why is there no alcohol-related mandatory minimum, 10-year sentences, or even 10-month, for certain infractions, say for speeding or unsafe lane changing? As an automobile driver, you have a 1 in 247 chance of dying in an accident. A broken gun does not shoot, but generally, your chances of being even non-fatally shot are only 1 in 452,476.  And in America, unless you're one of Dick Cheney's friends, getting shot usually takes provocation (just kidding Dick, I’d still be your friend).
* For the world’s sake, I wish terrorism was mainly an issue of threats instead of violence for the pursuit of political aims.