« "How can Georgia turn lawbreakers into taxpayers?" | Main | "Federal Sentencing at a Crossroads: A Call for Leadership" »

May 31, 2010

What would those who gave all think about US mass incarceration?

Here is a deep question to ponder on Memorial Day: what would the men and women who gave their lives fighting for American freedom think about the modern reality that the US now has the largest prison population in the world?

May 31, 2010 at 10:43 AM | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference What would those who gave all think about US mass incarceration?:


Aren't they from the Greatest Generation that lynched people, and ran federal judges back to Washington when they tried to impose their anti-states rights agenda on the public? There was very little crime in their day. They took care of the criminals more locally. It was not 123D. It was the 3 B's, 2 beatings and 1 bullet. Corporal punishment was everywhere and not a hint of political correctness. This incarceration question would have puzzled them as a waste of money. When told most of the increase in the number of criminals stems from bastardy, they would take the shotgun out and make those street thugs get married.

They would end 90% of crime in a week.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | May 31, 2010 3:05:40 PM

true SC but i'd still bet money if the generation's from before. showed up the ones from before 1900! they would be diging up and buying guns to go visit washingion!

Posted by: rodsmith | May 31, 2010 4:37:03 PM

If you think government is stupid and oppressive today, imagine being used as cannon fodder by lazy, moronic officers, and having to use defective weapons purchased by bribed military officials.

The hatred and disrespect of government began with our warriors, who paid for government stupidity with their lives.

Naturally, when we say, government, that is a wholly owned subsidiary of the criminal cult enterprise that is the lawyer profession. Lawyers made 99% of the policy decisions, including those two lawyer gems, Lincoln and Roosevelt, catastrophic dumbasses to the extreme.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | May 31, 2010 5:02:19 PM

They would have thought that the freedom for which they were fighting was the freedom to live in peace and safety under democratically adopted laws. They did not think that it consisted of the "freedom" to evade the standard consequence (jail) when a person criminally violates those laws.

Freedom from the Nazis has nothing to do freedom from the cops after you've knocked over the liquor store, or sold meth to your local 10th grader. Nothing.

Posted by: Bill Otis | May 31, 2010 11:47:09 PM

What a sad, sad debate.

Posted by: peter | Jun 1, 2010 1:15:50 AM

Peter: They saved your Euro trash bacon over there, too. Several times.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jun 1, 2010 2:44:35 AM

peter --

Although I do not subscribe to his wording, SC has a point. The American soldiers who died in Europe were the same redneck yahoos at whom you regularly stick up your nose. Do you think respect and gratitude would be a better attitude than condescension?

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jun 1, 2010 4:10:01 AM

I smell ad hominem bullcrap. There was no condescension evident in peter's five-word, ambiguous comment. But I guess if you want to wrap yourself in the flag to advance your own agenda, accusing others who may disagree of "condescending" to fallen soldiers is an effective strategy.

I hesitate to make the same mistake and read my own meaning into peter's brief comment, but maybe he meant merely that it is sad when people attempt to use the dead to advance their own petty agendas.

America's war dead represent a cross section of the country, and their political and social views and backgrounds were doubtless all over the map. That is why it was semi-asinine of Doug to generalize by asking what "the men and women who gave their lives fighting for American freedom" would think about anything, and why it is even more asinine to answer that question by inserting some version of one's own standard talking points into the mouths of the dead. And to claim some sort of moral high ground after doing so? That requires a special level of chutzpah!

Sorry for getting pissy, but a number of those honored on Memorial Day were relatives or friends of mine, and I take offense when sunshine patriots pop up every year trying to conscript them in one political cause or another.

Posted by: Anon | Jun 1, 2010 11:19:44 AM

One thing is certain. Like most government employees, there was an oath to defend the Constitution. Our soldiers died defending the Constitution.

Oaths of Enlistment and Oaths of Office

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

Didn't you take a similar oath, Mr. Bill? I didn't know "So help me God" was added in 1962. That was probably added in fearful reaction to those communist pinkos during the cold war, like the Pledge of Allegiance was changed.

Posted by: George | Jun 1, 2010 12:24:08 PM

"The American soldiers who died in Europe were the same redneck yahoos at whom you regularly stick up your nose."

My grandfather fought as a private in Patton's ground forces in Europe, and he lived to tell the tale. He was about as liberal as I am before he passed away, believe it or not.

Posted by: JC | Jun 1, 2010 3:16:57 PM

Anon: Just among your fallen friends, and the other veterans you know, did they believe in a low crime rate? Did they believe in corporal punishment? Did they believe in the death penalty?

When they gave everything to defend our constitution, did they think the constitution was to maintain our freedoms or to generate a bunch of lawyer jobs, using the constitution as a phony pretext?

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jun 1, 2010 3:37:22 PM

Anon --

"America's war dead represent a cross section of the country, and their political and social views and backgrounds were doubtless all over the map."

Nope -- and you know it. In every war we have fought, America's soldiers were overwhelmingly white males, obviously with military experience. White males with military experience are by no means a "cross section," nor AS A GROUP are their views "all over the map." They are about the most conservative demographic you can get.

The idea, which the caption of this post implies, that such a group would be shocked with "incarceration nation" is ridiculous. And you know that too.

I agree in principle that Memorial Day should not be enlisted in one side of this debate or the other. But once it is so enlisted -- by the liberal side, need I add -- the opposing side is not required to remain silent in response.

"Sorry for getting pissy, but a number of those honored on Memorial Day were relatives or friends of mine..."

And you think you are alone in this?

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jun 1, 2010 3:58:50 PM

Military Political Affiliation Shifts: Fewer U.S. Troops Identify As Republicans (POLL)

First Posted: 04-12-10 04:30 PM

A new Military Times survey finds that fewer American troops identify as Republicans.

According to the survey of 1,800 troops released on Monday, the number of active service members self-identifying as Republican has fallen by one-third since 2004, with 9 percent of that drop-off occurring in the last year.

The shift in party affiliation among active-duty troops comes on the heels of similar findings from a survey the publication released in 2008. Infantry officer Jason Dempsey writes on a comparable shift observed among troops between 2004 and 2006:

These Military Times survey results show that support for the Republican Party among senior members of the Army, the group most likely to identify as Republican, declined significantly between 2004 and 2006 before leveling off at about 49% in 2007. Also interesting is that the data show no corresponding change in support for the Democratic Party.

Evidently they don't like your Constitution, Mr. Bill. If it was 49% in 2007, and dropped another 9%, then only about 40% at best now identify as Republican. Keep up the good work.

Posted by: George | Jun 1, 2010 4:34:34 PM

George --

Tell ya what. Why don't you put up the whole poll rather than selected snippets of a report about the poll?

If they don't like my Constitution, they REALLY must not like yours. Not one little bit.

So go ahead. Let's see it. The whole poll, not stories or characterizations. The numbers.

Should I wait?

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jun 1, 2010 4:49:59 PM

George --

While we're waiting, let's harken back to the question you nicely avoided, that being whether the overwhelmingly white and male veterans who served us in our foreign wars would look with suspicion on "incarceration nation."

Here's something for you to chew on from the DLC -- not exactly a Karl Rove kind of place: "As a group, white men are substantially more conservative than is the electorate as a whole. Only 16 percent identify themselves as liberal, versus 20 percent for the general electorate; by contrast, 35 percent regard themselves as conservative (versus 29 percent)."

So more than twice the percentage of the dominating dempgraphic among war veterans are conservative than liberal.

My, my, my.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jun 1, 2010 5:47:03 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB