Revolving Door
A review of court records for Parnell and other offenders from Milwaukee who have been released early this year shows that several of the men - convicted of a range of felonies including drug dealing and identity theft - have extensive criminal records and a history of returning to crime during previous stints on the streets.
About 800 inmates are eligible for early release under the program, said Department of Corrections Secretary Rick Raemisch, who has the final say in whether an offender is granted early release.
Lots of students know the basic keys of literature term paper writing, however it doesn’t mean they would accomplish really good papers, however a media essay writing service could assist to write the argumentative term paper of great quality and show writing skillfulness of some students.
Posted by znKatie on February 23, 2010 at 0850 hrs
Only way to be safer in this State is to flush the Doylet and the majoritiy-D legislators.
And about 25% of State employees.
Posted by dad29 on February 23, 2010 at 1010 hrs
We are being no better served by the “occupant” of the Oval Office than we are being served by the occupant of the Governor’s Mansion. We should have gotten rid of doyle when we had the chance, and we should get rid of obama before he completely screws up this country. Unfortunately history has proven, only the Liberals have the tenacity to push for removal of those they see as a danger to their policies.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2010 at 1058 hrs
Given that Parnell can only harm me if I come into contact with him (and in 48 other states, I’d be able to arm myself and fight back), I’d prefer him to Doyle and Obama. They can harm me all day, every day, anyplace I choose to go.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2010 at 1109 hrs
Maybe these guys should attend “Challenge Day”
It will make them more understanding compassionate people, and we could bill the State to get our $12,000.00 back!Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2010 at 1133 hrs
I’m not sure what the point of your post is or what solutions are available here. These are habitual criminals; they break the law and will continue to break the law. I don’t see this as a problem with the “early release” program as much as what typically happens when people without any marketable skills are released from their incarceration, particularly in a time of high unemployment.
From the article, it appears that these guys were released anywhere from one to four months earlier than their original sentence. Would completing the full terms of their sentences change anything? Would they have somehow “gotten religion” in the last month/months of their sentences? I don’t see this as a partisan political issue as much as about budget constraints and/or criminal sentencing guidelines.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2010 at 1202 hrs
As with the death penalty, it may not be a deterrent to violent crime, but it will certainly keep the criminal who is put to death from committing any more violent crimes. Serving their full sentences keeps these criminals from committing crimes earlier than they would if they have to remain incarcerated. Why does it always have to be the law abiding citizens that have to pay for the Liberals feel good policies?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2010 at 1245 hrs
The simple answer is that is 1-4 less months they will be on the streets committing more crimes, which a sure bet for these folks.
This was the way to cut state funds? Trading in the safety of state residents?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2010 at 1246 hrs
A better solution would be to decriminalize marijuana and use those resources to incarcerate people who commit crimes against others.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2010 at 1322 hrs
Ahhh, there goes Scott with the typical, partisan BULLSHIT!!!
The bottom line is this: law enforcement costs money. If you want to increase criminal sentencing (i.e. improve your “safety”) then you have to be willing to pass a budget that accounts for the cost; that may unfortunately mean raising taxes. You have to be willing to allocate the money and the space to build prisons and jails. Or, as djheru suggests, you have to be willing to de-criminalize certain types of crime. But the game of partisan table-tennis solves nothing.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2010 at 1343 hrs
If you want to increase criminal sentencing (i.e. improve your “safety”) then you have to be willing to pass a budget that accounts for the cost; that may unfortunately mean raising taxes.
Or you could trim a billion or two from less necessary programs and expenditures. Nah, who wants to do that?!!!?But the game of partisan table-tennis solves nothing.
Practice what your preach, right?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2010 at 1350 hrs
Less necessary programs? You mean, like education? Job Training? Substance Abuse Treatment? Please be more specific.
Paractice what I preach? “Liberals have the tenacity to push for removal of those they see as a danger to their policies”. “...Liberal feel good policies”.
Sorry, but I was questioning Scott’s choice of words. He appears to be the one trying to bring this down to a liberal/conservative/democrat/republican bitch session.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2010 at 1404 hrs
You mean, like education? Job Training? Substance Abuse Treatment?
Yeah, that’s exactly what I mean… excuse me while I go catch my eyes that rolled across the floor on that one. Seriously, you’re complaining about someone’s choice of words being partisan bitching, and look at your reply to me.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2010 at 1418 hrs
Well we could have saved 46 million on those 2 choo choo’s we bought for amtrack. Federal subsidies pay for amtrack and yet the state bought them 2 new trains. How many criminals would have been off the streets for that sort of money.
Posted by fishaddict on February 23, 2010 at 1432 hrs
How about saving $18 million/year by not spending state funds on child care fraud. How about putting convicts on work programs instead of paying union wages to pick up trash.
Doyle would rather give them back to the state then have them give back to the state.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2010 at 1433 hrs
Jason: Are you also Scott? You introduced the topic of less necessary programs, did you not? I just asked you which ones. But for some reason, you consider that as my being partisan. So be it…
The point is one of basic economic theory: hard costs versus social costs. Cutting “less necessary programs” on the front end (i.e. prevention) requires a larger outlay of capital on the back end (resultant societal damage) in terms of property damage, bodily injury, loss of life, law enforcement, court costs, incarceration. What I’m saying is that those politicians who ran for office on “law and order” platforms neglected to anticipate the cost of housing the exponential explosion of prisoners that needed to be housed. All you have to do is look at the state of California.
So the question is, do you make further cuts in education (which hurts the community as a whole) in order to pay for the costs of housing criminals? Given the fact that sentences are being commuted already to save money, it doesn’t appear to be working. BOTH options require an investment, but which one has the better pay off? (Please note my non-partisan statement does not contain the words liberal, conservative, democrat or republican).
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2010 at 1446 hrs
Isn’t that always the liberal knee-jerk response to asking for budget cuts. Right away they say “OK, but cut police, fire, schools, close the roads, end merciful beheadings, no more kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, and cancel Christmas”. It’s never an option to rid ourselves of Badger Care… a program that was NEVER sold to us as health care for the multitudes. Stop building million dollar toilets at rest areas, or end wasteful and pointless child care for people who don’t work…. not on the table at all.
You people simply astound me. Does that make sense, even in a liberal mind? It surely doesn’t in a conservative one.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2010 at 1458 hrs
hard costs versus social costs.
Interesting. So, since you’re defending the actions of Wisconsin on this point, I’m assuming that you have completed and can share with the class the “hard” and “social” costs involved in early release?
Look at that, a little brain storming, and millions have already been saved, lets see you show us the “social” cost of Amtrak trains, the State Tourism fiasco of last year, rampant fraud, rest areas… etc. I would argue, and I’m guessing ultimately win, that the “social” cost of those savings is far better than early release.
It’s the same old tired schtick and meme, just like the DMV’s shutting down for their forced furloughs on days just before a holiday weekend, to make for a 4 day weekend and impart maximum inconvenience to the public (their customers). You come in here complaining about how partisan someone’s comments are, and attempt to incite fear mongering of the “social” cost of reducing children’s education. Who said anything about cutting education costs… I clearly said “less necessary programs and expenditures.” The fact that you translated that into education shows me that you’re a lefty shrill and nothing more.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2010 at 1521 hrs
@ Jason. Stop being such a dick. I’m sorry, but the so called fear mongering was actually introduced by our host, Owen, asking people if they “felt safer”. I just asked you to be specific about the “less necessary programs” that you so clearly cited. I threw out education, job training and substance abvse treatment; sorry, but my sarcasm font just doesn’t seem to translate well on this blog.
I’m not defending the actions of Wisconsin; I currently reside in Virginia and still have property in California. However, Californians DEMANDED stricter sentencing of repeat offenders and the “three strikes” penalty was instituted. Unfortunately, NO ONE foresaw the cost of implementation and then when prisons needed to be built, communities raised up and invoked the “N.I.M.B.Y. Doctrine” (Not In My Back Yard). Result: greater need for prisons, not enough prisons being built and prison over crowding. A severe case of failure to forecast. However, the beginning of end for the state of California was the passage of Proposition 13 (the Jarvis Gann Act) back in 1978.
The state of Wisconsin seems to recognize it has a problem on its hands and is attempting to do something; unfortunately, it’s just a band-aid.
@ TFG: I actually agree with most of what you said. My problem with a lot of what is posted here, is yeah, while I’m more left than the vast majority of the posters here, I’m not as far left as I am accused of being. Yet somehow, that doesn’t seem to matter here. That’s just the price of admission.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2010 at 1630 hrs
I’m sorry, but the so called fear mongering was actually introduced by our host, Owen, asking people if they “felt safer”.
Asking us if we feel safer now that criminal are getting commuted sentences based solely on State budgeting issues is Fear Mongering? Wow.
I threw out education, job training and substance abvse treatment; sorry, but my sarcasm font just doesn’t seem to translate well on this blog.
Why pick those, when I specifically said “less necessary programs and expenditures”? Is it because you really think they are lower on the chain than criminal corrections? Honestly? Grow up, and stop being “such a dick”. You started it…. nahhhaaanhaahahaa
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2010 at 1938 hrs
Wow. Just fvcking WOW…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2010 at 1942 hrs
Wow. Just fvcking WOW…
6 minutes for that reply? Someone is really refreshing the blogs!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2010 at 2023 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134051
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 10:25 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 136
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 10:50 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).