"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Most of these incarcerations are at the state, county and municipal
level,
so POTUS has nothing to do w/ it, Mr. Krause.

Would you care to rethink that statement?

Sure, I'd be happy to rethink the statement.
OK......thinking.....Googling.......DONE.

Here are some summary statistics from the US Dept. of Justice, Office of
Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/sent.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/correct.htm

For 2000, only 6% of all felons went to the federal pen. This did not
include the inmates in county and municipal lock ups (stats below). I
imagine years prior to 2000 would show about the same percentages.

State legislatures & the Governors enact the STATE laws. Offenders of STATE
law go to STATE prison.

The US Congress, US Senate and the POTUS enact the FEDERAL laws. Offenders
of FEDERAL law go to FEDERAL prison. So how is the POTUS responsible, say,
for a wife beater in an Indiana prison, a burglar in Florida, or a boat
thief in Deale Maryland? ]

Here's a little cut 'n paste from their web site:

In 2000, State and Federal courts convicted a combined total of nearly
984,000 adults of felonies -- State courts convicted an estimated 924,700
adults and Federal courts convicted 59,123 adults (accounting for 6% of the
national total.)

In 2002, 6.7 million people were on probation, in jail or prison, or on
parole at yearend 2002 -- 3.1% of all U.S. adult residents or 1 in every 32
adults.


State and Federal prison authorities had under their jurisdiction 1,440,655
inmates at yearend 2002: 1,277,127 under State jurisdiction and 163,528
under Federal jurisdiction.


Local jails held or supervised 737,912 persons awaiting trial or serving a
sentence at midyear 2002. About 72,400 of these were persons serving their
sentence in the community.


States spend more on criminal justice than municipalities, counties, or the
Federal government.

After dramatic increases in the 1980s and 1990s, the incarceration rate has
recently leveled off.

The number of prisoners under sentence of death at yearend 2002 decreased
for the second consecutive year.

Serious violent crime levels declined since 1993.

Property crime rates continue to decline.

Violent crime rates declined for both males and females since 1994. Rates
for men and women are getting closer in recent years.

Firearm-related crime has plummeted since 1993.

The estimated number of arrests for drug abuse violations decreased slightly
from 2001 to 2002.


Theft rates continue to decline.

Burglary rates continue to decline

After declining since 1992, motor vehicle theft rates leveled off after
2000.

Nonfatal firearm crime rates have declined since 1994, reaching the lowest
level ever recorded in 2002.

My conclusion: The UTNE fish wrapper Jim gets is full of it. (no wonder they
have to give it away unsolicited) They've confused the 6.7 million people
who were on probation, in jail or prison, or on parole at year end 2002 with
the 2.18 million (Fed, state, local) actually IN prison. Extreme liberals
love to play fast and loose with the truth, but it just makes them look
ridiculous to anyone who cares to look at the facts.

I'm not saying that the incarceration stats aren't frightening, but you'll
see that when prison rate increases, crime seems to go down! Who woulda have
thunk that?

I wonder if the new age libs of UTNE would advocate a wholesale amnesty for
all those poor incarcerated souls. It would be funny to see their faces at
their love-ins in Sedona AZ as crazed maniacs pilfered their Volvo wagons,
hauling off all those crystals and granola bars.

Regards - Zing

"Zing" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Most of these incarcerations are at the state, county and municipal
level,
so POTUS has nothing to do w/ it, Mr. Krause.

Would you care to rethink that statement?

Sure, I'd be happy to rethink the statement.
OK......thinking.....Googling.......DONE.

snip

Too bad you spent all that time writing. This class ends soon. If this is
your thesis, it's indefensible. Please go back and start over with the RIGHT
theory.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...


Sure, I'd be happy to rethink the statement.
OK......thinking.....Googling.......DONE.

snip

Huh?

Too bad you spent all that time writing.

Thanks for your heartfealt concern Doug. I canz tipe reely fast so it wasnt
to bad plus it wasnt that much writin cuz most wus cut an paste sinz you
asked me to rethink my statement an i use that goooogle thingy to check
stuff out. yes sometime facts are a bummer cuz they lay waste to our closely
held beliefs.

This class ends soon.
I hope so. I'm rained in, can't go anywhere and bored to death, hence my
fooling around here.

If this is
your thesis, it's indefensible. Please go back and start over with the
RIGHT
theory.


Wasn't really a thesis (I wrote one once). Just a collection of indisputable
facts and my personal conclusion. Plus its fun to play with the libs. Even
more fun than playing with the neocons. Doug, what's the RIGHT theory? Doug,
what's YOUR theory? Please keep it short - typing is hard work.

Kind Regards - Your pal Zing

"Zing" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...


Sure, I'd be happy to rethink the statement.
OK......thinking.....Googling.......DONE.

snip

Huh?

Too bad you spent all that time writing.

Thanks for your heartfealt concern Doug. I canz tipe reely fast so it
wasnt
to bad plus it wasnt that much writin cuz most wus cut an paste sinz you
asked me to rethink my statement an i use that goooogle thingy to check
stuff out. yes sometime facts are a bummer cuz they lay waste to our
closely
held beliefs.

"Rethink" means you head to the web? That's not thinking.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Zing" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Rethink" means you head to the web? That's not thinking.


Ohhh come on Doug! A little research at a US Gov't web site, presenting a
few facts and coming to a conclusion isn't thinking? My head felt all tingly
so I must have been thinking. No, I'm not drinking beer.

Doug, Let me try again and I'll try to keep it simple.

1) You asked if I would rethink my statement that only a small fraction of
incarcerated felons were in the Federal system. I said "certainly."

2) I gave two links that absolutely, unequivocally show that my statement is
correct. For the click impaired, I cut and pasted their summaries so they
wouldn't have to look at those confusing graphs.

3) I wrote a conclusion in my very own words! Now that's thinking! Please
post a coherent reply and show the world that you can think too.

See, we did this in school and the teacher would say "good thinking." Some
of youz guyz really crack me up. Oh, BTW I have a boating question, but it's
stopped raining so I'm out of here.

Kind regards - Zing

"Zing" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Zing" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Rethink" means you head to the web? That's not thinking.


Ohhh come on Doug! A little research at a US Gov't web site, presenting a
few facts and coming to a conclusion isn't thinking? My head felt all
tingly
so I must have been thinking. No, I'm not drinking beer.

Doug, Let me try again and I'll try to keep it simple.

1) You asked if I would rethink my statement that only a small fraction of
incarcerated felons were in the Federal system. I said "certainly."

No, that's not what I asked. I asked you to rethink your comment about one
president or another being connected with incarceration rates. Your theory
is way too simple. Crime rates and subsequent results are the result of a
system, not a particular politician, although politicians will get in front
of microphones and choke their chickens all day long about how they're going
to fix things that their predecessors broke.