Reminds me of Duggan, always knowing the right things to say. Partnerships to keep them out of prison for their crimes. A partnership with prosecutors was crucial. They want to lock people up and throw away the key. How many of those men keep that job they leave out with in their hand. Those tablets are not free. They do give incentive, however. Teachers in the women prison do not show up. Jobs aren't the most important. Re-entry back into society and drug used and re-offending is the problem. The "programs" are based on the the cooperation of people responsible for sending ex-cons back to prison. Smoke and mirrors. You create these programs, then you stop sending people to prison in high-rates and then you say that the "programs" are the reason why. We know from watching the news most crimes in society are committed by ex-offenders (80%), and not by first-time offenders. So, there should be a direct collation between crime rates and recidivism, crime should also be going down in our communities, if less ex-offenders are going back to prison. Crime is still high in most urban areas where most of these prisoners come from. How does she explain that? She doesn't!
First, Let's get this straight. People commit crime. America is filled with people that do wrong to others. People rob people, break into their homes while they are there and when they are gone. Children are molested by adults, murdered and exploited. Some are even kidnapped and held for the pleasure of a sub-human adults. Child porn and even child labor. People murder other people for nothing, some for something, some as a form of revenge and others for a means to an end. We must face the cruel and terrible fact that crimes are committed. Women are raped, abused and sold at a price. When these things happen, there is a system that has been created. It was created by one of our Founding Fathers James Madison. He was a lawyer and helped write the Bill of Rights that is the what our Judicial System in America is based on. It mirrors in many ways British Judicial laws and statues. Known as "The Father of the Constitution", he is responsible for the "Law of the Land". We owe our entire means of punishment and the creation of the law to him. He messed up a few times, and had to get it right, and that's what this is all about.
If ever the Constitution can't be amended to cover the state of our country, we can write a new one. Truthfully, we can just hold a meeting at a time and place and just write a whole new one. If the proper people are there to oversee the deed. I heard the Clinton's at one point had created a committee of some sort to do just that. Our Judicial System is all wrapped up in that concept. That's why the "Fathers" put just about everything in there. A good lawyer, can take a dog bite case and relate it to the Second Amendment "Right to Bear Arms" or the Fourth "unlawful search and seizure". It's true, if you sat in a courtroom you would hear a lot of BS about crime and why a lawyers client is innocent or deserves some astronomical settlement in a civil case. All of it comes from the writings of James Madison. We owe him for it all, even "Ambulance Chasers".
When I think of recidivism and the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC), I laugh. They are claiming that they have cut recidivism by 29%. It seems that people aren't going back to prison by committing crimes. So, people aren't committing crimes and going back to prison, Ms. Washington? I beg to differ. I think that they are committing crimes, but instead of going back to prison, they do jail time or the judges are going light on parolees and not sending them back to prison and once again, keeping them in jail for a sentence and setting them free. It works, because they are only counted if they return to prison. If a person re-offends and doesn't go back to prison, they are not counted. So, the question is not if they have re-offended and gone back to prison. That's a play on semantics. The real question is, "Have they committed another crime?"
Oakland County Jail runs a whorehouse. It is a prime example of what is going on in the prison system, today. If you sell yourself in the clinic and make the deputies money, you don't have to go to prison. Shoplifting crimes are accelerated to "Unarmed Robbery" quickly, when the asset protection employee beats you and you fight back. That is a "Simple-Assault" and "Shoplifting", but in order to get women to prostitute, they make it "Unarmed Robbery". Unarmed Robbery is a Class "C" and is punishable by 15 years in prison. Simple-Assault gets you two years in prison. Unarmed Robbery s more frightening and easier to coerce a person to sell themselves. Only after they make them some money in the clinic, it's dropped down to a probationary offence. Women come back from their arraignments crying and wondering what they are going to do. I used to say, "Girl, you didn't even do all that. Take you butt to the clinic and work those charges down to what they were supposed to be!" The balling would sometimes get louder, sometimes I'd hear nothing, mostly I heard, "F... you B..."
The prosecutors that were crooked or those who were not, loved it. Another big issue with recidivism is prosecutors needing to keep their numbers up. They want a conviction at all cost. They don't walk into a courtroom with their 30-pound briefcase or rolling suitcase to lose. They win at all cost. I told you about the pre-trial blues. They will pre-trial you to death. Always 45-days out. You get so tired that you would say you killed a beanie baby to go home, and they aren't alive. If you did a portion of what they say you did, you'd take a plea, Cobbs or whatever. Your court-appointed doesn't care. They're getting paid by the case and probably have two more defendants in your group from downstairs, or looking to pick one up. It's "dog-eat-dog". As the Defendant, you don't even have a dog in the fight. The "Blood sucking lawyer" is doing all the talking for you, while the prosecutor just wants to win. It's so hard to let someone else fight for you and be helpless, especially when you aren't a prostitute. That's all certain judges care about. These days it seems that everyone gets a break.
Recidivism is committing a crime and going back to prison; right? Again, if you don't go back to prison there isn't another offender in the recidivism bucket. I watched a man that had been to prison twice, get out on "Drug Court". He had went to prison for the same thing he got "Drug Court" for; "Larceny". I think it's about five to seven years, before you can skate from prison after going to prison. He had been twice and had just gotten out in 2009 and it was 2011. He was supposed to automatically go back to prison as a re-offender. The prosecutor made his case a strong case and a true case. That man was supposed to go back to prison. He was a Gigolo, a male-prostitute in the Oakland County Jail and was set free that day. Only to re-offend in a few weeks, very few complete drug court, and will be back in jail and in front of Chabot and home, again. They do time, lots of time, just not in prison. This is the trick to this 29% decrease. It's a cycle and one less recidivism offender. Get it?
I want to know how many committed a crime, but instead of going back to prison, did time in jail. How many petty judges stopped putting people in prison in the first place. How many Parole and Probation Officers have stopped sending people back before a judge, because they just felt that person needed to go to prison. I bet a bunch. Jails are filled with petty crimes these days, shoplifting being one of them. The opioid crisis would have the prisons filled at this point. It's supposed to be that three misdemeanors are equal a felony. They stopped following that rule, because that means women would go to prison for "Prostitution". I know a woman that has more than 45 misdemeanors. I don't know if she's in prison at this point, but she finally caught a case that wasn't "Prostitution", "Larceny" or "Trespassing". The stores in the area that sell drugs would call the police on her when she was standing outside the store waiting for a man, with his dope, to ask for a date. It's tricky y'all, real tricky.
I'm not sure what Madison had in mind when he wrote the "Bill of Rights". I'm sure it wasn't all these lies, and surely not all this corruption. Heidi Washington, Director of the MDOC is not a genius. She did not discover a new way to stop people from going back to prison. She found a new administrative rule. A new way of doing things that doesn't include people going back to prison. They took a page from OCJ's whoremongering book of lies. Now, that judges aren't sending people back to prison and giving them jail time instead prison, Washington wants to give credit to all her new "Programs". One thing has nothing to do with the other. That's the first thing you learn in Statistics. Just because B happened after A, does not mean that A was the cause. Their are variables and deviations that have to be taken into consideration, before we can determine what happened and why B actually happened. If you can do the equation properly, you will find that jail stays have risen and parole and probation's incidents of sending people back on violations are down. Even if they violate them, it all comes back to the judge. If they say "no" it's NO! One thing they have not stop doing, however, is putting people in prison that don't belong there...
