Prison and Inmate Reform

Many states are faced with a daunting number of inmates who are incarcerated currently for a variety of crimes.  Each state is given the responsibility for ensuring the prisons meet federal guidelines in accordance to housing requirements.  There are prisons around the country that are housing more inmates than they have the capacity to handle.  Who is looking out for the inmates to ensure they are treated humanely in accordance with the constitution?  In this article, we will look at some of the key suggestions put forward for reform of the penal system at federal and state level, in addition to analyzing the arguments for both sides in attempting to reach a conclusion that is fair and just for both the victim and the offender, as well as society.
There are prisons across the nation that are putting 3 and sometimes as many as 4 inmates into cells that were designed to house only 2.  This is a serious danger for health reasons, as well as the safety of the inmates.  While inmate safety is a concern, it should be a major cause of concern for guard safety.  Guards are monitoring more inmates than they can handle, which cause quickly create very dangerous situations.  The guards have a job to do, they are unable to do so if they are watching more inmates than they can handle.
States are forced to build more prisons to accommodate the incoming prisoners, which is a wonderful short-term solution.  However, longer solutions must be found.  With the numbers of inmates in prisons all across the country rising each year, there must be standards put into place to avoid future problems.  There are programs, which handle parole, as well as probation, attempting to reintegrate reformed offenders back into society with minimal hassle and fuss, as well as ensuring there is no or as close to no chance of reoffending as is possible.
Probation and parole are two alternatives to incarceration.  One the one side of the spectrum, there is probation, which defers prisoners away from the prison system and enables them to serve time by reporting to a probation officer.  On the other end of the spectrum, is parole.  This program is reserved for those offenders who are no longer considered a danger to society.  They are given an early release from the prison system, into society. 
While the addition of programs such as parole and probation are great for the ability to add more jobs in the states, they do require some very careful and precise screening in order to ensure that society is safe.  Yet, even with these programs in place, the numbers entering the prison system are steadily rising.  The prisons are still overcrowded, and guards are still overworked. 
Solutions for the long term must be worked out; inmates have a right to be safe, as do the guards in the prisons, whilst the general public at large has a right to know that prisoners are being kept within secure locations for relevant time periods.  Each year, with the numbers in prison rising, the problem grows larger.  Add to this, that on average 1 prison is issued a closure warning and the problem grows worse.
You may wonder, why some prisons are issued closure warnings, these warnings are issued once a prison has been over capacitated for a certain period of time.  The federal government's solution to this problem is to close the prison, instead of helping the states solve the problem.  This is a wonderful example of why prison reform is necessary to help protect the residents of society, and indeed to protect the offenders housed within for the longer term. As we look towards the future, we can hope to start to see some progress in the way of discussions about the problem, but solutions cannot be seen on the horizon, given the immense financial commitment necessary to build more prisons and investigate alternatives.

Illegal Gambling.. What To Watch For

Gambling can come in many different forms and manner, carrying with it risks of varying levels.  An individual can gamble and can bet on all sorts of things.  Gambling is currently very popular and continues to expand around the world.
Legal forms of gambling are those that are being run directly by charitable institutions, companies for profit or government agencies.
Whereas illegal forms of gambling are those by which bets are placed on underground gambling services, the internet, being such.  Gambling among peers or associates such as playing poker or pool that includes real money betting is also considered illegal.
Each City or State has complex rules that dictate legal or illegal gambling. Here are different forms of gambling:
*Casino.  This is a form of gambling rapidly growing especially in the internet, as an online gaming site.  This is a set up, usually referred to as "the house" wherein players can play in such games of chance, which include slot machines, poker, black jack, keno and roulettes.
*Sports betting.  In other parts of the world, this is considered legal.  Here in the United States, betting on individual sports events is accepted only as legal in Nevada.  This is partly because of the possibility for such events to be "fixed". As certain cases does happen when gamblers pay sports teams to lose in the game. 
*Horse racing is the most common type of legal gambling.  This is presided over by the pari-mutuel, or French for mutual stake.  This system works in such a way that all the betting is place in a fund, where it will be divided among winning bettors, minus a certain percentages that will go to the track.
*Lotteries.  This works such that tickets are being sold for a certain set of amount.  A portion of the proceeds is given back to the winners, through random draw process.  In most cases, while other players choose their own numbers, others allow the computer to pick numbers for them.
Such type of gambling offers different games.  There are instant scratch tickets, wherein an individual may win instantly with the right combinations on the ticket and super lotto's that offer increasing jackpots until such time that there is a winner.  Eighty percent of States in the U.S. have laws that allow lotteries run by government.  Thus, twenty five percent of all legal gambling revenues are from lottery.
*Other forms of gambling include bingo, dog races, pool, playing mah jong and the stock market.
Gambling can be seen everywhere, especially today, where the internet offers a lot of sites where such forms of gambling can easily be accessed. This is why it is important to carefully assess the site or the place that you are in, before making any move.

Supreme Court Abortion Debate

Supreme Court Abortion Decision
After much deliberation and discussion, the Supreme Court has returned a critical strike to the core of women's rights in the abortion arena.  The court in a 5-4 decision banned a medical procedure known as a partial-birth abortion or Dilation and Extraction.  This abortion procedure was performed after the 20th week of pregnancy.  While the pro-rights crowd is naturally upset over the ban, they are horrified over the fact that there are no exceptions to the ban that would enable a doctor to save the life of a woman if it was medically necessary to perform the procedure. 
Doctors can face up to 2 years in prison if they are convicted of performing the procedures, which will greatly limit the numbers of doctors performing the procedures and likely increase the number of states placing bans of the entire abortion procedure as well.  The decision came from a split Supreme Court, with two of the justices being hand picked by Bush himself.  This is a cause of great concern, suggesting that the Supreme Court has turned into a very conservative place, despite the lack of support for Bush and many of his ideas and practices on a broader level.  The Supreme Court's involvement in politics is usually noted, but given the gravity of this decision it is clear where certain allegiances lie.
Is the Supreme Court really following the wishes of the majority, do they really have the legal right to determine that a medical decision can or cannot be performed?  The anti-abortion camps in the GOP are happy following the decision and are busily looking for more ways to put a damper on the rights of women in regards to abortions.  How will this decision be regarded when it comes election time, and the Presidential elections come around?  What about the midterm elections next time they are scheduled?
Many people are left to wonder if the Supreme Court decision is truly a legal decision, or nothing more than a very carefully selected group of ultra conservative judge's who are following Bush's wishes and desires in regards to the case.  The case was sitting before a panel of judge's who seem to thrive off of the acceptance of Bush, and Bush was noted as being encouraged by the ruling and declaring it as a victory for his administration. 
The court defended its decision by saying that it was doing nothing more than drawing a line between abortion and infanticide.  There is a difference between killing a child, or an infant, and an abortion.  One of the most notable differences is that a child or infant is not considered an infant until the first breath of air is taken into the lungs.  An abortion does not allow the infant to take that first breath of air, therefore, removing the term infant from their being. 
While it is noble that the Supreme Court is looking and seeking to protect all forms of life, they should also concern themselves with the lives of the mothers who carry babies, who should not be allowed to continue to term for medical reasons.  There are numerous women each year who become pregnant who are unable physically to carry a child to term, and must abort the child, or risk their own life.  What has the Supreme Court done in order to protect those mothers, or improve their quality of life?

Gun Control in America

After the recent massacre in Virginia Tech, once again the mammoth issue of gun control has been brought up at full force.  Many are highly upset that even after gun control laws have been enacted that the killer in the massacre was approved for a gun and purchased it in less than 30 minutes.  Many have speculated that had there been much harsher guidelines in place, that the sale would not have been completed, and it could have potentially saved all of the lives that were tragically lost in the disaster. 
The death toll from the massacre has risen to over 30 killed and more than 20 wounded.  This is aside from the emotional damage that has been caused to the hundreds who are left grieving in the wake, and those who experienced first hand the trauma of the event.  How can such events really be avoided?  Is it possible to avoid such tragedy with firmer gun laws? 
What about the programs that offer rewards in the form of video game systems, computers and even cash in exchange for turning guns into the police?  Are these programs effective?  In order to truly control guns, there has to be consensus around the country where everyone agrees that it is time for a change and the change occurs quickly, and without opposition.  Gun laws are clearly too lax, and our country needs to take action to avoid scenes like those in Virginia from happening again. 
The chances of something such as this happening are almost impossible.  Neither side of the political arena can agree with the other side about what appropriate gun control is, and with many residents of the United States being avid hunters whom use riffles and shotguns on an almost daily basis, it makes it very difficult to control all of the actions and movements that occur. 
Consider that many weapons used in crimes are illegally obtained; it makes it very difficult to determine how effective the stiffer gun laws would really be.  With a new Presidential Primary due to start in the near future, it will seem as if there will be much heavy debate over how to control the flow of guns into the hands of those who are dangerous, or potentially dangerous. 
Facts remain, that while the election is likely to focus on this issue, there is still the issue of preserving the Constitutional right to "bear arms" as long as it is done legally, and those who already have the weapons currently can potentially be just as dangerous as those looking to purchase the guns in the future.  We are left with the task of trying to avoid the tragedy as much as possible. 
Colorado stepped up to the plate with a swift action enacting much stiffer gun laws after the Columbine school massacre in which two teenage boys entered their school donning trench coats and heavy weapons leaving a wake of blood and fallen students in the path.  Colorado decided to avoid future incidents and enact the tougher laws.  It is suspected that Virginia will follow in this path.  The fate of the country rests in the hands of those elected to the public offices to help determine exactly how far gun control should go, and how the changes should occur.

No Child Left Behind Does It Work?

What exactly does No Child Left Behind really mean?  Does that mean that a school bus driver agrees not to leave my child at school, or does it have a deeper meaning for parents to look into?  What it really means, is that schools are forced to link the money they receive from the federal government in direct connection to how well students perform academically.  Looking at the sheer facts of life, schools must have money in order to educate students. 
Yet with the need for money in the schools rising steadily there needed to be a solution to ensure that students were, being taught the skills they needed in order to be successful adults who are capable of securing a job.  Many students have graduated from high school in the last several years without the ability to complete many basic tasks such as reading, writing, and elementary level arithmetic. 
After experiencing this phenomenon for several years, President Bush stepped up to the plate and proposed tying the results of students to the financial assistance that schools received as an incentive for schools to perform better.  A grade was also assigned to schools each year based upon the standardized test scores that would tell parents, educators and the country as a whole how well the schools in a district were performing. 
If a school performs badly, parents and students are given the option to transfer to another school that received a better grade; this directly affects the amount of money each school is capable of receiving.  This puts a great pressure on schools to perform better.  Schools are forced to start taking note, and answering questions in regard to why students are not performing on an acceptable academic level when the report cards come out.  Each school has the ability to improve their grades and scores simply by teaching students the information needed.
Many parents are upset by the program; they feel their children are being pushed too hard in classes.  Many other parents are very happy with the program; they feel that the schools are just now being forced to be accountable for the education that students are receiving.  As the future draws more into the technological era, it becomes clear, that technology is king.  In order for students to be able to secure jobs, they must have basic skills and be able to handle the pressures of life.
Students must leave school fully prepared to take on a job, make a name for themselves, and improve their lives.  Many students upon graduating from school were forced previously to go onto welfare and take jobs only in low paying jobs that were unable to turn into careers.  Many students now are able to go onto decent paying jobs that show the possibility to grow into careers, thus avoiding the welfare trap that many recent graduates were forced into. 
How the schools perform in the next few years will really determine how well our outlook is for the job market.  With more jobs moving overseas to cheaper labor, it is very important that students leave school with the knowledge and ability to help keep jobs here for the future generations, for it is only with a graduate-led economy we can remain competitive on an international level.

Sex Offenders and the Law

With the high rise in the number of sex offenders who are also repeated offenders the federal government decided to impose laws requiring all convicted sexual offenders to register with the states in which they reside.  Although this measure is controversial, government officials are claiming that it is an increasingly effective method of avoiding re-offending in some of the most serious criminals.  Is this an invasion of privacy that the states and politicians have imposed upon someone who has served their sentence, or is this a legitimate measure of control for some of society's most dangerous offenders?
At some point in time, it became acceptable for the government to track former criminals; in requiring them to register as an offender, they are essentially tracking the criminal.  They do nothing more than monitor closely their whereabouts, actions, friends, lifestyle, etc.  How this came to be is quite scary, while it has occurred for a crime that fits the punishment, after all our children should be protected.  It also comes with a price.  Many people see this as an intense invasion of privacy and human rights, and in Europe under the banner of the European Convention on Human Rights, such procedures would almost certainly not be allowed.
Since beginning this and requiring that all sexual offenders register with their respective states, it opens the door for criminals of other crimes to be required to register.  Once that happens, it allows the governments to start requiring slowly that everyone be registered for one reason or another.  Is this something that the people are willing to let happen?  Should the government have full knowledge and control over where you go, who your friends are and where you work? 
Many feel that the laws for the sexual offenders are not stiff enough; they call for stiffer punishments and heavier penalties for these most despicable of criminals.  This comes from the side of people that wish to seek nothing more than revenge.  At the same time, if someone commits a crime whom is sent for mental help, instead of jail they are not required to register.  Their offenses are recorded differently, and their punishment is much easier.
This can cause serious problems in terms of people not being registered that really should be registered as an offender.  The main goal of the program is to protect the interest of the children; after all, they are the main resource worth protecting in society.  Nevertheless, how far is too far?  Some have suggested implanting the offenders with a microchip that would enable law enforcement agencies to track the offenders' movements continuously.  Is this something that the American public is willing to accept? 
With this being talked about, what are the chances of this occurring for other crimes as well?  What is the point of releasing someone from the judicial system if they are so dangerous that they must be continuously tracked?  As a woman, or a child how safe do you feel knowing that there are people surrounding you whom have been convicted of serious crimes against others?  What about as a man, does this change your opinion?  The requirement for registration causes social problems and victimization for those offenders, arguably justifiably, who have shown themselves to be dangerous.  This has the knock on effect of altering the course of justice, given that these people will have served the appropriate sentence for their crime, and hopefully have progressed through the systems of rehabilitation in place.
How do you think it should be resolved?  There are some people who truly believe that the registrations processes should be removed, that once their time is served the offenders should be allowed to disappear back into the woodwork and free to live their lives without being under the public scrutiny.  These are the people who are looking to have yet another law changed, that could have some very devastating effects on society, particularly for our children in the coming generations.

Should Gay Marriages Be Legal

The debate of gay marriages has been a very hot social topic for many years and with being such a hot topic it is almost astounding the number of places that have come out publicly either for or against the topic.  While there are few states who allow the idea of a gay or same-sex marriage there are those more liberal affording almost equal rights.  Massachusetts is the only state currently in the United States that allows same-sex marriages.  The state of Rhode Island is generous enough to recognize as legal marriage any same-sex marriage that is performed in Massachusetts, which is a major victory for many same-sex supporters.
The elections of recent years have seen this as a very hot topic button, and with the White House, stressing that marriage involves a man and a woman only, not same-sexes many states have been very reluctant to allow the same-sex marriages. However, a few states have come forward and allowed same-sex civil unions, which are very similar to a marriage.
These states are California, Hawaii, Maine, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Vermont.  The District of Columbia also recognizes same-sex unions and soon the Governor of New Hampshire has stated publicly that he will sign a bill giving the ok to same-sex unions.  This is a major victory for those who are supporting the movement. 
While many states have not given the green light on the same-sex issue, there are states who are sitting around discussing the issues.  Many couples who are fighting for their rights have argued that there is no difference in the way they run their homes compared to their heterosexual counterparts.  They have also said that while they may be with a partner who is the same sex as them, they do still love their partner and should have the right to get married. 
This has always been a hot topic, and likely will continue to be a hot topic for many years to come.  With the issues raging within the states and at the national level it will likely be a very long time before the gay and lesbian rights groups are able to truly declare a victory for their cause.  Nevertheless, there is some solace to be taken in the small victories as they occur, and another Governor of a state being willing to allow a civil union is at least a step in the direction towards a victory. 
The fact remains that often the views of the individual states tend to reflect the views of the President.  With a President in office who is a staunch opponent to the concept of same-sex marriage as well as civil unions it is unlikely to allow much room for many victories until a more accommodating, or rather liberal, President is in the White House. 
Once the bill passes all of the channels, it can go into effect as early as next year for the New Hampshire residence who have long been awaiting this victory.  With each state that gives this right to its residents, it opens the doors to more states to start becoming more tolerant of all their inhabitants.  Finally, this is paving the way for America to join the bulk of Europe in recognizing the legal inequalities between straight and gay couples nationwide.