Post 33--
Apology and Subject
I once again apologize for the time lapse between this and the last post. I was under such intense work pressure that I just had to let go for a while. I may as well tell you now that I expect to be in Nigeria the full month of May and am not sure I will have the facilities or the files I need to write new posts while there. So, perhaps one or two posts over the next week and then off to Nigeria. When the next one after that? We’ll see. Possibly early June.
Please refresh your memory regarding my first preposterous proposal in the previous post with respect to the self-cleansing of the gangster world. Though I continue with the subject of gangsters to provide continuation with Post 32, my basic concern today is more with prisoners in general, including gangsters.
Second Proposal
The second proposal has to do with the fact that the prison population of this country and this province is increasing by leaps and bounds. The institutions are overcrowded something fierce. The Federal Government is planning to build more penal institutions. The latest statistic I read is that it costs approximately $120,000 annually to house one prisoner in Canada. $120,000! Imagine. And that will only increase along with the numbers incarcerated. It has become impossible and unaffordable.
So, my second proposal: Instead of incarcerating gangsters and other criminals in prisons, they should be put on a very short leash in someone home, whether their own, a friend’s or relative’s or even a home some individual organized for that very purpose. They should feed themselves or be fed by friend, relative or whoever. Though living in private homes, they are actually incarcerated prisoners with no more freedom to move around than they would in actual prison. They would be subject to the same restraining orders and restricted contact with the outside then if they were in prison, with the exception of people living in the same house with them. They should be stripped of most human rights and be banned from any contact with the criminal world whatsoever during the course of their sentence. In fact, they are not allowed to phone anyone or conduct correspondence in whatever shape or form, except with their “keeper” or “handler,” that is, their caseworker. The terms “parolee” and “parole officer” would not apply in their case, for they are prisoners. No email or internet or social network access or connections. Complete isolation via comprehensive restraining orders. This is prison at home. If they wish to improve themselves in preparation for the time they have served their sentence by distant learning, special arrangements can be made with their keeper.
No doubt, there will be all kinds of problems to be solved before this system is workable, but it would be a lot cheaper than the current method of incarceration. And thus a lot easier on the pockets of citizens. It is these pockets, that is, the welfare of ordinary citizens, that are more important than the welfare of these hicks. My concern here is to reduce the burdens of innocent citizens who have to foot the current $120,000 p.a. per prisoner. My primary compassion goes out towards the hard working tax payer. I also have a strong but secondary compassion for many prisoners, but, I must confess, little for gangsters. I would think that my scheme would be much more humane for them and would protect them from the barbarization that appears to affect many in the current prison system. Being in the company of “ordinary” people might be a more effective way of rehabilitating, re-socializing and re-humanizing them.
I am very eager to hear of your response to these proposals. I know that they don’t stand much of a chance, but perhaps mulling them over will at least get us out of the box to something better than we have now. Personally, I would be overjoyed if they were accepted with the proper tinkering to make them workable. Email me at boerjf@hotmail.com for discussing these proposals. Go ahead and tell me I’m crazy or cruel.
Capital Punishment?
I am not even proposing capital punishment at this point, though, according to recent polls, that would not be so outlandish, since the majority of Canadians support it (Guest Editorial, Vancouver Sun, Jan. 26, 2011, taken from the Ottawa Citizen). I confess to being tempted with regard to gangster dogs and other murderers, but I hesitate because of the lengthy and expensive legal appeals capital punishment often triggers, another impossible expense for which we need to tackle the legal profession from whom I want to protect the taxpayer. One of these days I will engage in a series of blogs directed at those gowned legal gangsters.
Summary
In summary, while in Post 32 I advocate self-cleansing of the gangster world so that the police can go about the more important business of protecting the innocent, in this one I propose reducing the expense of incarceration and exchanging the barbarization of the current system with rehabilitation in the context of more civilized and normal people. Between the two of them, we would create a more humane world for both taxpayers, my primary concern, and for prisoners, even for those gangsters.
Future Discussions
The next post will show how my apparent harshness in this and the previous posts mirrors that of Christ Himself. After that, I plan to change gears. Before long I hope to start a series of posts about lawyers and the court system. You should see the files of materials I have amassed about these “friends” of ours. It’s going to take me some time to organize the material. So, have patience. We will get there. In the meantime, we will occupy ourselves with some more innocent and less volatile issues—perhaps!
Showing posts with label gangsters. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gangsters. Show all posts
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Treatment of Gangsters—Preposterous Proposals (3)
Post 32:—-
I am really going to take you out of the box with this post. I am going to offer a proposal that I have never heard of or read about before. I have tested it on a crime journalist who rejected it outright as ridiculous. But what we’re doing now with gangsters is, according to me, even more ridiculous, at least if you go by “success.” The population of BC, especially in the south, is being traumatized by constant shoot outs in public places with innocent bystanders or passers by getting killed. Many people feel that the “justice” system seems more concerned with the human rights of monster gangsters and with proper legal procedures than with the safety of ordinary citizens. And after one gangster has killed another gangster, all the manpower and other resources of police forces are marshalled to investigate the killing to the finest detail, while other policing needs receive insufficient attention. They even go out of their way to protect gangsters against gangsters!
So, my proposal: Deny gangsters human rights and police protection. Remember from the last post, that in the scheme I am currently discussing, gangs themselves are now seen as illegal and it is illegal to belong to them. When a gangster—i.e., a member of a known gang-- is killed, let the gang world take care of the dog’s corpse and dispose of it. No investigation on the part of the police. Who cares? That’s one down. Their work has just become a little easier. If gangsters know that no one is concerned about such murders and no one will investigate, perhaps they will kill each other more without restraint and so reduce the further chaos they cause in the civilized community. In the meantime, the police can turn their attention to more worthwhile issues.
There, I’ve said it with all my gruffness without any euphemisms. I just called a spade a spade. This is the proposal that crime journalist rejected almost indignantly. You could think of it as gang suicide or self-cleansing. Goodbye to bad rubbish. And if you don’t like the animalistic terms I use for these dogs, well, I’m in the good company of Kim Bolan, a crime journalist and of Andrew Wooding of the Abbotsford Police whom she quotes approvingly as saying, “It is animalistic.” Indeed. So why not give it a more concrete name with apologies to all respectable dogs?
Recently more hoodlums have been arrested. Bolan reports that Wooding expects that increasing arrests will lead to “less public gunplay.” “It will drive things underground, unfortunately. But I think that is safer for the public.” With all respect for Wooding’s experience, I cannot follow his logic here. Whether the hoodlums shoot each other publicly or underground, what’s the difference? When they do, just leave them lying in their own blood for the dogs to lick up. I don’t believe for one moment that more arrests will instill greater caution in the hearts of gangsters. I know of no research that proves arrests stop criminals in their tracks. If that were so, the US should have fewer criminals than any other nation. Alas….
My rather crude sense of justice has some backing in the Old Testament of the Bible. The prophet Elijah was sent to chastise King Ahab of Israel who had arranged to kill a man called Naboth in order to seize his property. The prophet said, “In the place where dogs licked up Naboth’s blood, dogs will lick up your blood—yes, yours!” His wife, who had instigated it all, was to suffer the same fate along with their entire family (I Kings 21:19, )! Now even for me that’s a bit over the top!
I’m not done. Stay with me.
Source: The source for the journalistic materials is Kim Bolan, “Murder Charges….” Vancouver Sun, Jan. 26, 2011, p. A8.
I am really going to take you out of the box with this post. I am going to offer a proposal that I have never heard of or read about before. I have tested it on a crime journalist who rejected it outright as ridiculous. But what we’re doing now with gangsters is, according to me, even more ridiculous, at least if you go by “success.” The population of BC, especially in the south, is being traumatized by constant shoot outs in public places with innocent bystanders or passers by getting killed. Many people feel that the “justice” system seems more concerned with the human rights of monster gangsters and with proper legal procedures than with the safety of ordinary citizens. And after one gangster has killed another gangster, all the manpower and other resources of police forces are marshalled to investigate the killing to the finest detail, while other policing needs receive insufficient attention. They even go out of their way to protect gangsters against gangsters!
So, my proposal: Deny gangsters human rights and police protection. Remember from the last post, that in the scheme I am currently discussing, gangs themselves are now seen as illegal and it is illegal to belong to them. When a gangster—i.e., a member of a known gang-- is killed, let the gang world take care of the dog’s corpse and dispose of it. No investigation on the part of the police. Who cares? That’s one down. Their work has just become a little easier. If gangsters know that no one is concerned about such murders and no one will investigate, perhaps they will kill each other more without restraint and so reduce the further chaos they cause in the civilized community. In the meantime, the police can turn their attention to more worthwhile issues.
There, I’ve said it with all my gruffness without any euphemisms. I just called a spade a spade. This is the proposal that crime journalist rejected almost indignantly. You could think of it as gang suicide or self-cleansing. Goodbye to bad rubbish. And if you don’t like the animalistic terms I use for these dogs, well, I’m in the good company of Kim Bolan, a crime journalist and of Andrew Wooding of the Abbotsford Police whom she quotes approvingly as saying, “It is animalistic.” Indeed. So why not give it a more concrete name with apologies to all respectable dogs?
Recently more hoodlums have been arrested. Bolan reports that Wooding expects that increasing arrests will lead to “less public gunplay.” “It will drive things underground, unfortunately. But I think that is safer for the public.” With all respect for Wooding’s experience, I cannot follow his logic here. Whether the hoodlums shoot each other publicly or underground, what’s the difference? When they do, just leave them lying in their own blood for the dogs to lick up. I don’t believe for one moment that more arrests will instill greater caution in the hearts of gangsters. I know of no research that proves arrests stop criminals in their tracks. If that were so, the US should have fewer criminals than any other nation. Alas….
My rather crude sense of justice has some backing in the Old Testament of the Bible. The prophet Elijah was sent to chastise King Ahab of Israel who had arranged to kill a man called Naboth in order to seize his property. The prophet said, “In the place where dogs licked up Naboth’s blood, dogs will lick up your blood—yes, yours!” His wife, who had instigated it all, was to suffer the same fate along with their entire family (I Kings 21:19, )! Now even for me that’s a bit over the top!
I’m not done. Stay with me.
Source: The source for the journalistic materials is Kim Bolan, “Murder Charges….” Vancouver Sun, Jan. 26, 2011, p. A8.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Gangs are Terrorists: More Outrageous Proposals (2)
Post 31—:
My question for this post is why gangs are not considered and treated as terrorists.
My dictionary defines a terrorist as one who engages in “the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion.” That seems simple and clear enough. For my purposes, I would probably drop the term “systematic” from the definition, for I doubt that gangsters do their shooting according to a systematic schedule, but they do according to a set of priorities that they may not have defined carefully—do gangsters define anything?—but by which they operate instinctively. Applying the word “instinctively” to gangsters seems to degrade them to animalistic levels, but that is not so far off the mark.
Do we need anything more? Since terrorism is an international problem, we should listen to the international political community. Unfortunately, it has not been able to reach agreement on a definition. Some experts have found over 100 definitions and, it appears, productivity and imagination are still cranking out more. The political community generally links terrorism to violence for political ends. That is not the case with gangs. They are not primarily politically inspired and I see no reason the definition should be exclusively political. One terrorism expert, Walter Laqueur, has concluded that the “only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence.” That seems to come pretty close to the essence of gangs.
When you turn to the definition of gangs, especially the legal definition, you once again end up in the land of multiples. Alabama law has defined it more precisely than some as follows: a "street gang" is, "any combination, confederation, alliance, network, conspiracy, understanding, or similar arrangement in law or in fact, of three or more persons that, through its membership or through the agency of any member, engages in a course or pattern of criminal activity." That’s probably pretty good, except that it does not necessarily include violence. For my purposes I would like to take the Alabama version as my working definition of gangs with the addition of “frequent violence.”
But is it legitimate to subsume gangsterism under the umbrella of terrorism? Back in 1988, California enacted the Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention Act. Since that time, at least 28 other states have enacted similar legislation. (Sorry, but I have not found parallel info about the Canadian situation. Perhaps I should try harder?) Here gangsterism is subsumed under “street terrorism.” So, my proposal to bring them together is not unheard of. I stand by it.
Why these thugs are not treated like terrorists and their organizations classified as terrorist organizations is beyond me. If they were, the gangs would be illegal and their bank accounts could be frozen. I am not a lawyer and so do not know whether simple membership in a terrorist organization is illegal in Canada, but in my opinion, it should be.
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada explains what Canada should and/or is doing to counteract terrorism in this website: http://www.international.gc.ca/crime/terrorism-terrorisme.aspx. Check it out and see how much of it you think should or could be applied to gangs and gangsters. One of the things I fail to understand is the emphasis on the need for paying special attention to human rights in this framework, unless the reference is to the human rights of the targets.
In my humble opinion, gangs should be treated like terrorist organizations and gangsters like terrorists. Their organizations should be illegal as should membership in them, whether or not an individual member has personally committed any act of violence or not. Their assets should be seized and used to pay for the expenses of countering them.
I am not done yet with these monsters. In the meantime, I invite you readers to dialogue with me on this subject. Tell me where I am wrong. Insult me all you wish. But one thing I will not accept, namely to be told that the law, whether national or international, forbids the kinds of things I am suggesting. Law is becoming oppressive. It is increasingly used to protect terrorists and gangsters. That climate must be done away with. God is the ultimate law giver, but much of today’s positive law with respect to our subject goes counter to His law and has become a prison to the ordinary citizen. In the previous post I wrote about the need for revival. Well, positive law needs to be revived and refreshed to make it more hospitable to freedom and peace. In this process, our lawyers, these so-called “legal experts,” should be assigned a backseat and the “lay” citizen take control of the process.
My question for this post is why gangs are not considered and treated as terrorists.
My dictionary defines a terrorist as one who engages in “the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion.” That seems simple and clear enough. For my purposes, I would probably drop the term “systematic” from the definition, for I doubt that gangsters do their shooting according to a systematic schedule, but they do according to a set of priorities that they may not have defined carefully—do gangsters define anything?—but by which they operate instinctively. Applying the word “instinctively” to gangsters seems to degrade them to animalistic levels, but that is not so far off the mark.
Do we need anything more? Since terrorism is an international problem, we should listen to the international political community. Unfortunately, it has not been able to reach agreement on a definition. Some experts have found over 100 definitions and, it appears, productivity and imagination are still cranking out more. The political community generally links terrorism to violence for political ends. That is not the case with gangs. They are not primarily politically inspired and I see no reason the definition should be exclusively political. One terrorism expert, Walter Laqueur, has concluded that the “only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence.” That seems to come pretty close to the essence of gangs.
When you turn to the definition of gangs, especially the legal definition, you once again end up in the land of multiples. Alabama law has defined it more precisely than some as follows: a "street gang" is, "any combination, confederation, alliance, network, conspiracy, understanding, or similar arrangement in law or in fact, of three or more persons that, through its membership or through the agency of any member, engages in a course or pattern of criminal activity." That’s probably pretty good, except that it does not necessarily include violence. For my purposes I would like to take the Alabama version as my working definition of gangs with the addition of “frequent violence.”
But is it legitimate to subsume gangsterism under the umbrella of terrorism? Back in 1988, California enacted the Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention Act. Since that time, at least 28 other states have enacted similar legislation. (Sorry, but I have not found parallel info about the Canadian situation. Perhaps I should try harder?) Here gangsterism is subsumed under “street terrorism.” So, my proposal to bring them together is not unheard of. I stand by it.
Why these thugs are not treated like terrorists and their organizations classified as terrorist organizations is beyond me. If they were, the gangs would be illegal and their bank accounts could be frozen. I am not a lawyer and so do not know whether simple membership in a terrorist organization is illegal in Canada, but in my opinion, it should be.
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada explains what Canada should and/or is doing to counteract terrorism in this website: http://www.international.gc.ca/crime/terrorism-terrorisme.aspx. Check it out and see how much of it you think should or could be applied to gangs and gangsters. One of the things I fail to understand is the emphasis on the need for paying special attention to human rights in this framework, unless the reference is to the human rights of the targets.
In my humble opinion, gangs should be treated like terrorist organizations and gangsters like terrorists. Their organizations should be illegal as should membership in them, whether or not an individual member has personally committed any act of violence or not. Their assets should be seized and used to pay for the expenses of countering them.
I am not done yet with these monsters. In the meantime, I invite you readers to dialogue with me on this subject. Tell me where I am wrong. Insult me all you wish. But one thing I will not accept, namely to be told that the law, whether national or international, forbids the kinds of things I am suggesting. Law is becoming oppressive. It is increasingly used to protect terrorists and gangsters. That climate must be done away with. God is the ultimate law giver, but much of today’s positive law with respect to our subject goes counter to His law and has become a prison to the ordinary citizen. In the previous post I wrote about the need for revival. Well, positive law needs to be revived and refreshed to make it more hospitable to freedom and peace. In this process, our lawyers, these so-called “legal experts,” should be assigned a backseat and the “lay” citizen take control of the process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
