If the consequence of mixing blacks and hispanics is conflict leading to violence, then it is the duty of the prison to separate them.

I don’t commit crimes either, but it could happen. There are several false arrests every day. Do you really believe the criminal justice system is that perfect from top to bottom?

I’m not a lobbyist for criminals. I’m a citizen who wants to be assured my rights don’t disappear if a fellow citizen mistakenly points me out as a purse snatcher. This isn’t about cable in prison or any of the other creature comforts that may be available.

I can engage in discussion, argument or debate. But, we must be talking about the same thing to proceed. Confusing the issue may be innocent on your part or it may be a ploy. If you can’t agree that the right to appeal must be maintained, there is no point in going any further.

You should also read what I posted. I don’t mention the word “compassion” anywhere in my posts. Dexy does though. Maybe you should direct your obnoxious post his way.

You don’t know one thing about me. Not one. So I really would back off, especially on that first sentence.

This has nothing to do with feeling sorry for a criminal. This has everything to do with due process. We have a ton of people in prison because of mandatory sentencing and draconian drug laws. I only wish we had all rapist and murderers in prison. We don’t.

Fighting crime is like anything else. It requires a sound strategy and effective use of resources. Locking up a pot smoker isn’t either. In Boston, we are experiencing almost a homicide a day. In the 80s, we were able to reduce the murder rate with community policing and targeting “impact players”. Basically, 200 or 250 of the kids that made life unbearable for residents of Boston’s inner city. They were locked up for lengthy sentences and we became a national model for prevention of violent crime.

And, yeah, people deride community policing, but it works. Boston has six million people and less than 2,000 city police officers. Strategic use of those resources is vital.

I know it’s tempting to take the “T.J. Hooker” approach to crime, but like Shatner’s toupee, it’s unrealistic.

Also, I’m not talking about giving criminal more rights, just preserving the ones they already have under the Constitution. If you found yourself in a line-up, you would want all those guarantees in place for you. I know I would.

You, nor a loved one, obviously haven’t been the victim of a violent crime. When you see your father, brother, sister, mother or child, lying in a hospital bed from being beaten and shot five times, then let’s talk compassion.

Citizen? I don’t consider most human and how they are treated in prison means less to me than the demise of an insect, except, I think they are treated too well for the crimes they have commited. And when you find the rare exception, and innocent prisoner, I bet he isn’t innocent of all crime, just the one he’s serving time for.

“Atheists and Agnostics in prion kind of take it in the shorts though. ”

I think you mean P-R-I-S-O-N. I guess the above comment is an example of the charity of your faith.

Since when is a prisoner stripped of his citizenship? If a convict is no longer protected by the Constitution, how does he appeal? How does he seek a new trial? The Founders could have easily sought to strip citizenship away from those convicted of crime. But, unlike us, they were not so arrogant to think a system run by Man could be flawless.

Eyewitness identification which weighs heavily in favor of conviction in jury trials has been found in several studies to be unreliable. Just today, the was a story the wire services about a mentally disabled man who spent at least 10 years in jail for two rapes he didn’t commit. He was cleared by DNA evidence. But, if not for his citizenship, there would be no way for him to get justice.

Atheists and Agnostics in prion kind of take it in the shorts though.

P.S. spell check doesn’t seem to do anything.