timesjoke

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,589222,00.html?test=latestnews HELENA, Mont. — Inmate Michael Murphy usually started by seeking a small favor. That would often lead to a kiss or love letters. And in at least five cases, he convinced female prison employees to have sex with him or do other illegal favors. In each of those cases, the female corrections employees were caught, shamed and forced out of a job, according to documents detailing an investigation by Montana prison officials and obtained by The Associated Press after an open-records lawsuit. The female officers described Murphy as the aggressor, even as the predator. But that makes no difference in either state or federal penitentiaries, where prison employees — male or female — are the violators if they have sex with inmates. A Justice Department study shows that cases like Murphy's are common: Female staff are more often implicated than their male counterparts in prison sexual misconduct. While many cases could be considered consensual, incarceration experts and female prison guards say the problem is much more complicated. In some cases, the women reported that they couldn't say no to the inmate out of fear, or were afraid to go to a co-worker out of shame at what had happened. One small mistake often led to something else. Experts say there is a culture of silence in the prisons that makes it difficult for female guards to come forward with problems before they spin out of control. Documents detailing the state investigation into Murphy's liaisons show he persuaded at least five Montana female prison employees to break the rules over several years. He even convinced his therapist to have sex with him, and was able to arrange one-on-one meetings with her even though prison officials knew of his past history with female workers. Cover-up charges were filed against one of the female prison workers. Murphy, 36, faced no charges. He is serving time for theft, forgery and other charges. No sexual assault charges were filed at the time against the women due to lack of evidence, according to the documents. But in letters to newspapers and in a request to the ACLU of Montana, Murphy wrote that he had been sexually assaulted by some of the women. Prison officials would not allow him to be interviewed for this story. The confidential and lengthy internal investigation tells a complicated tale about how an inmate manipulated prison staff. The therapist, for instance, told internal investigators that she knew she had been manipulated and compromised. She said she allowed Murphy to kiss her one day in her office and the relationship spiraled out of control from there. The man who once ran New York City's corrections department has little sympathy for female prison workers who see themselves as victimized in these cases. Martin Horn, now a professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, said female workers who have sex with inmates are often treated less harshly by officials than male worker who do the same. "As long as we have a double standard we are going to see these kind of behaviors," Horn said. "It is a very slippery slope we go down if we say we are not going to hold female officers to the same standard." A 2007 U.S. Department of Justice study analyzing the prevalence of sexual assault in state and federal prisons found that 58 percent of staff perpetrators of sexual misconduct were female. One expert on the issue says the "culture of silence" in prisons makes it tough on the female workers. "Even if the staff did small favors, they should have felt free enough to communicate with their superiors about the fact that they were by being blackmailed by the inmate," said Brenda Smith, a law professor at American University who has studied prison rape issues. Montana corrections officials said they have cases dating back to 2003 where two female workers at the state prison in Deer Lodge were disciplined for some sort of undisclosed involvement with Michael Murphy. Murphy rocked the prison again in 2008 when it was learned three more had become involved with him. The prison launched a lengthy internal investigation, and Murphy was later transferred to a facility in Glendive. Montana State Prison Warden Mike Mahoney said 41 percent of the system's employees are female. He said it is impossible to separate female staff from any particular inmate, even one who has proven skilled at compromising workers. He said the prison always stresses to workers not to get involved with inmates in even the smallest way, and to never reveal personal details of any type. The warden said Murphy's case, though, will likely provide lessons to improve the training. Should men work in a female prison unsupervised? No, should women work in a male prison unserpervised? No. Many States have been forced to allow women to work in male prisons because of equal opportunity lawsuits. I was involved in the settlement for the Florida case where women argued that they did not get the same chance for advancement as the men because they were excluded from certain possitions inside the male prisons. And they were right, women were excluded and because of that exclusion they had less experience in many areas that were looked at for promotions. Also, with promotions came greater responsibilities that included many exposures to naked men (visitor parks and hospital security supervision, confinement showers, etc...) where it was seen as not reasonable to have women work in these areas. The question is, should the States be forced to allow women to work alone supervising male inmates? I would have to say it seems logical to not allow anyone of the opposite sex to be alone with inmates. Will that policy mean women get less promotions in male facilities? Yes, but I see nothing wrong with that. But this is another case of how political correctness sets aside common sense, in my opinion.

Wow, the picture of liberal thinking and understanding hugo, no wonder you Libertarians are starting to support people like Obama....... As it stands I don't see anything wrong with hiring a convicted felon within reasonable exceptions, such as a bank robber should not be working in a bank, but I truly believe in paying your debt to society and the chance to live down the past. I have hired a few myself, mostly in construction to be honest, but still I give then trust until they prove they are not worthy of it. But "FIRST" they must pay that price to society, and that is not possible if someone is out there making excuses for what they did that prevents that person from learning from their mistake.

Again with the dodging through misrepresentation? While I never said Libertarians were the only group, they certainly were one of the most prominent to vocally support Obama, if that splinter group ran away from their normally conservative talk, not hard to understand how other splinter groups did the same thing. Anyway, what does that have to do with how felony charges in Texas rarely result in someone going to prison? I did notice a couple stories of how Texas recently turned to some new progressive programs of prison and Inmate reforms. They say there has been such a large reduction in people going to prison that three prisons that were already funded and schedueled to be built will now no longer be needed. Texas the new reform State? Who would have thought of that?

And community service would be the most likely penalty even if it was a felony, just because you charge a person with a felony that does not mean they go to prison, I have started a new thread to try and explain this to you using your own State as a basis. And part of the pussified world is people like you want to protect people from the results of their own folly hugo.

Based on a recent discussion where hugo maintained that a woman charged with a minor felony would cost between 30 - 40 thousand to house her in prison, I decided that maybe this could be a good discussion. Using Texas as a basis of the discussion being as hugo is from Texas I decided to look around at some info about their crime rates. According to THE TEXAS UCR PROGRAM, they had a decrease in their violent crimes rate from 511.2 (in 2007) to 508.2 (in 2008), now this is per 100,000 residents. Texas has a polulation of around 24,782,302. This means they have more than 123,000 new violent crimes inserted into their criminal justice system every year. Texas has about 171,790 inmates in State and private prisons. Using just the violent crimes numbers and excluding the non-violent felonies it is not hard to see that it would be impossible for even a small fraction of these violent offenders to be held in a prison, at least not very long. Consider that most violent crimes have minimum prison time of fifteen years, if your adding more than 123,000 new fifteen year or more inmates into a system with 171,000 beds, that does not work. So what happens to the "lesser" felons? Texas had 969,807 cases of property crimes in 2008, because of differences between reporting because different areas consider crimes in different ways not all of these are felony charges. We have to look at this list and see it included things like Burglary and Motor Vehicle Theft so I believe at least half being a felony is a fair assumption. So now we add about 500,000 lesser felons to the total of violent felons to get about 671,000 felony charges but 171,000 beds that are already occupied. If we assume 10 years per person (some get less, many more get more) then in 9 years you would have over 6 million people in prison before some of them can qualify to get back out. 6 million in 9 years. If we extend this further out and include inmates with longer times that are already there and will be there longer after this time as new are added we can easily see how complicated it will get. So what happens to the "tiny"felons? Well, it does not take a rocket scientist to understand that if the State of Texas does not have enough room to keep even serious to violent felons in prison, it would be close to impossible to find the prison room for the minor felons, these people will end up with small penalties and maybe a short probation time. Texas has about 500,000 people on probation. So in closing, I believe we can easily say that based on this information it is very doubtful that a minor felon will ever see a prison cell, they just do not have the beds to put them all into prison.

50 years ago the woman would have had more self-respect than to expose their breasts or even consider using their breast milk as a weapon. Of course 50 years ago the average woman with child was married as well while today the fastest growing segment of society is the never married mother of two. Did we get to this point in one big step or did it instead take millions of baby steps? The answer is baby steps and these baby steps are made possible by people like hugo who make excuses for bad behavior instead of saying the bad behavior is wrong. The Liberals and hugo want us to believe this kind of thing is normal, but it is not normal, and should not be seen as normal. We should be encouraging our members of society to behave themselves, not encouraging them to misbehave by comming up with all kinds of excuses in the name of being a progressive. Hugo is not stupid, even in his own police State of Texas, it is rare that anyone charged with a felony ever goes to Prison, hugo also knows that the State of Texas actually makes money from the probation system because the felon must pay for the cost of his supervision. So why is hugo misrepresenting the debate? Because maybe he is more liberal than he admits to being. This would have made the situation mutual permission of exposure and yes, very funny. Okay, here you go again trying to misrepresent what I was trying to say so let me make it more clear. If this was her "only" felony as was pointed out in the story, then she has a 95% chance of getting no more than probation, if during her sentencing it is discovered that she has several other felony convictions then the sentencing guidelines would possibly give her a very short time in a local jail, there is almost no way she could be given prison time on this kind of charge. She would have to be charged with a VOP (violation of probation) for this charge to send her to prison and even then it is not this charge but instead the conditions of their probation that said they were supposed to stay out of trouble that really was why they went to prison.

If they are so insignificant, why do they bother to be different? Every political expert agrees that it is the independents who are now deciding the elections. These many groups do tend to be mostly moderate and conservative minded people (at least that is what they say) that without their splintered groups would be part of the Republican party. Collectively, these groups hand more races to liberals than anyone else because their normal vote would be for the conservative canidate if they were a Republican but because they want to feel as though they are different, they will waste voted on someone who cannot win or even jump ship and vote for a pure socialist like the Libertarians did in the last presidential election. Many times these independents even refuse to vote at all and again, this is a vote "FOR" the Liberal canidate NEW INFO Based on new reforms started in Texas two years ago, Texas is now reducing their prison population: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6770360.html State Rep. Jerry Madden, R-Plano, and state Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, worked across partisan lines to implement the “reinvestment movement� in 2007, which they say is just starting to show results. The program invests state funds in drug, alcohol and mental health programs to treat offenders rather than just prisons to house them. So Texas is now starting to turn to reforms? Will Texas be the new California in a few years? And why did these conservatives vote for liberal ideas? Does this mean these guys are all socialists?

Agreed, I like a lot of things they say, but when you look down to the meat of the policies they want you find huge holes.

http://www.redcounty.com/national/2008/10/a-no-vote-or-a-barr-vote-equal A vote for Barr was a vote for Obama, so combine both lists of Libertarians who voted either way and you get the total of harm against a conservative ticket. The Libertarians helped Obama get elected. They certainly was not the only ones, but this goes to my splinter comment, if you guys let yourself get splintered off and support either someone who has no chance of getting elected, or you support the pure socialist as you did with Obama, your obviously doing more harm than good for your stated cause of conservative values. I do not agree with the goal that if you can't have someone who is 100% the way you want them you will refuse to settle for someone who meets 80% of your stated beliefs then you instead vote for someone like Obama. To be honest, that kind of voting looks like a temper tantrum.

I was not the guy who went from claiming to be conservative to voting for Obama hugo. The Libertarians did exactly that so how can you complain about the old days Republicans when your modern day Libertarians are voting more socialist than the Republicans of old? Say what you want, nothing any Republican has voted for is as bad as voting for Obama.

But that is like cutting your nose off to spite your face hugo. Your solution to the 70% problem (your number not mine) is to throw away the 30% and join forces with the 100% socialist? I personally agree that in the past we have seen a lot of things from Republicans that I am not very proud of, we had a lot of chances to do some real good and we wasted our power on things better seen from Liberals. You have complete agreement from me that a lot of them were not doing as they should have. But splintering the party made it worse, not better. I don't see how these Libertarians think their doing better by voting for a pure socialist like Obama. The solution is to come back together under one flag, to work hard internally and eliminate these more liberal leaning Republicans and to stop embracing the lies of the Liberals hugo. Example: Palin is not a liberal just because of one instance where she supported the laws of her State, you dilute the waters by comparing her to someone like Obama and you actually make Obama look centerist with that. In comparison, our Nation would be a lot better off with someone like Sarah Palin than someone like Obama........... But you Libertarians reject Sarah Palin to vote for Obama......incredible.

The one comment I keep remembering is one that some critics have used from last year, if this is such a great bill, why does the Democratic leadership have to twist so many arms in their own party to get it passed?

But they have found replacements in groups like the Libertarians who supported Obama in the last election so they do not need those that they will lose.

A tax, is a Tax, is a Tax, some higher then others but still is a tax hugo. My point was that the taxes collected are a source of income Texas gets that most States do not get. They use that income that would normally have to come from the people. Some of the oil related taxes in Texas: $0.01 per quart of automotive oil imported or sold in Texas Crude Oil Production Tax-Oil production tax: 4.6% (.046) of market value of oil Diesel Fuel-$0.20 per gallon of diesel fuel Gasoline-$0.20 per gallon of gasoline Liquefied Gas Tax-$0.15 per gallon; Prepaid users: based on mileage and registered gross weight of vehicle Natural Gas Production Tax (same oil companies pay this)-Gas: 7.5% (.075) of market value of gas. Condensate Production Tax: 4.6% (.046) of market value of gas. Oil Well Service Tax-2.42% (.0242) of taxable services Petroleum Products Delivery Fee- (many rates, depands on the amount of fuel carried, for example $11.75: 5,000 but less than 8,000 Coastal Protection Fee-The tax rate on returns for transfers after September 1, 2005 is 1.333 cents per barrel of crude oil or condensate. I never said it was "just" the Libertarians who got Obama elected, usual liberal tactics of inserting things and meaning I never said to redirect attention away from the true point. I said it was the splintering of the basic beliefs into several tiny parties that made an election of someone like Obama possible. These Libertarians who would normally have supported a Republican canidate were standing on the outside and decided to vote for Obama, if they had instead been a part of the larger party that most directly represents most of their stated values, they would have supported McCain who was the least socialist. Libertarians supported Obama, but the real question is why? Why did they depart from everything they usually believe in and vote for the socialist? Libertarians are just one example of the many splinter groups who have struck out on their own and have together made the liberals stronger. Only by sticking together can the socialist agenda be defeated. Splinters like Libertarians help the Liberals.

Another distortion, your trying to divert the discussion away from reality hugo. People with felony charges do not go to prison very often, around 5% will but most of them will have several prior convictions showing a pattern of problems or they will have one very big charge like attempted murder or something. So this decision does not involve 30-40k a year as you just said, while on probation the person has to pay for their time so there is no cost of supervision to the State at all. All crimes end up with the person in a court of law so charging them with a felony instead of a misdemeanor does not change that, both charges require the state to spend that money. So no change in the cost. The decision is not about the money, the decision is about the mindeset of holding people accountable for what they do or not. The decision is if a person should be allowed to force exposure to their body fluids or not. The concept the liberals and hugo want you to believe is that some crime is reasonable and we should just accept them as the fault of society, not the individual. The liberals and hugo want to set aside individual responsibility and make excuses for people so they do not have to face punnishments for what these progressive minded people see as "reasonable" or minor. Give somebody an inch and they'll take a mile. If you condone crime in one area, they will take what you condone then a step further, so again your out there giving in again and they take more again, over and over again until the day you say, no more, I will give no more, this is the limit, going further than this is not acceptable. Liberals and hugo are still in the mode of giving in, letting behavior slip a little at a time, over and over again to placate the unruly masses. And it is that attitude by liberals and hugo that has eroded our morals in America.

lol, never give up on your Palin hate hugo, your making the liberals proud of the way even people like you believe their propaganda. Of course that is why most of you Libertarians voted for Obama in the last election too, you guys seem to believe whatever they tell you. The real conservatives that have been directing most of the path Texas has taken should be the model for all States, Texas does have a Subsidized Government though from big oil, and that is something most States do not have. The money Texas extracts from the oil sales replaces the tax money they would normally get from the people and businesses. California is a great example of what the liberals want for the entire Country though, we need to ask ourselves if this is what we really want. If you do not want this then you need to join the Republican party and help to keep it truly conservative. The many fringe parties like the Libertarians can't make up their minds who they want to support and in the last election, they voted for a 100% socialist President to help him get elected. Division and splintering is one of the things that are tearing the fabric of America apart and splintering in the party to these tiny groups can only do the same thing and rip the conservative side apart allowing the Liberals to take advantage of our splintered status. Do I like everything the Republicans do? Hell no, but I like what they do over what people like Obama does and it was the splintering of conservative minded people like the Libertarians who made it possible for Obama to be in power now. You don't have to like everything about the Republican canidate to know that whoever it is, they are not as bad as the alternative.

"Why do children want to grow up? Because they experience their lives as constrained by immaturity and perceive adulthood as a condition of greater freedom and opportunity. But what is there today, in America, that very poor and very rich adolescents want to do but cannot do? Not much: they can "do" drugs, "have" sex, "make" babies, and "get" money (from their parents, crime, or the State). For such adolescents, adulthood becomes synonymous with responsibility rather than liberty. Is it any surprise that they remain adolescents?" ~Thomas Szasz

"The price of greatness is responsibility." ~ Winston Churchill The real shame is a society of people who require ten thousand regulations because they are more interested in splitting hairs than doing what is right. You hugo are part of that minset to try and offer excuses for bad behavior instead of just saying that forcing your body fluids on someone else is wrong. "Ninety-nine percent of all failures come from people who have a habit of making excuses." ~ George Washington Carver "The willingness to accept responsibility for one's own life is the source from which self-respect springs." ~Joan Didion "Man must cease attributing his problems to his environment, and learn again to exercise his will - his personal responsibility. ~ Albert Einstein

And a time before we had something called Aids, lol. At one time we had open air markets too hugo, you want to go back to leaving your meats out in the open? Unlike hugo, I am actually trained in basic medical care as a first responder to include one way breathing masks and splints that are in ever car I drive because there is a responsibility that goes with training as a first responder. And my biggest responsibility is not to create another victim ( like myself and my family) while I am trying to help one victim. Why does hugo believe he should have the rignt to expose other people by force to his fluids without penalty as long as he is not carrying a disease? Let me say again, your rights end where another's rights begin hugo. When you force your fluids on another person against their will you are in my mind doing something severe. I guess you do not believe in individual rights and protecting them. We should be more understanding of the criminals who can't control themselves and offer them kindness and help when they offer disobediance and nasty behaviors to society........because after all, society made them do it right hugo? I am going to post this one again because hugo is missing the point of responsibility in the discussion and maybe he will take the time to read it this time: "Why do children want to grow up? Because they experience their lives as constrained by immaturity and perceive adulthood as a condition of greater freedom and opportunity. But what is there today, in America, that very poor and very rich adolescents want to do but cannot do? Not much: they can "do" drugs, "have" sex, "make" babies, and "get" money (from their parents, crime, or the State). For such adolescents, adulthood becomes synonymous with responsibility rather than liberty. Is it any surprise that they remain adolescents?" ~ Thomas Szasz Society did not force this woman to do what she did hugo, that was her decision, and that decision should hold a penalty. "We have not passed that subtle line between childhood and adulthood until... we have stopped saying "It got lost," and say "I lost it." ~ Sidney J. Harris

While other people who claim to be embracing conservative values at the same time spend the majority of their time making excuses for bad behaviors that in itself causes bad bahaviors because you have eliminated penalties. Nobody at any time said to put this woman in prison, your intentionally obscuring the discussion hugo, just because she would be charged with a felony that would not put her or 95% of the other Americans charged with felonies into a prison cell. Also there is no change in the criminal courts, either charge level includes time standing before a Judge so that is a non-issue you insert to try and divert attention away from the real discussion as to your insistence that you should be alowed to force your body fluids onto someone else against their will with only a slap on the wrist or even no penalty at all as long as your not infected with a disease. Like our freedoms and rights change based on our medical status. You know hugo, your sounding a lot like the activist Judges who believe the Constitution should be an evolving concept, where we try to understand changes in society and ADAPT our laws around new accepted standards. We should be kinder, gentler, go easy on people because it is not their fault they mess up right hugo? You starting to come around to the progressive movement now? Personal freedoms. Personal responsibility. These things made America great, not making excuses for bad behaviors.

?If a warrior is to succeed at anything, the success must come gently, with a great deal of effort but with no stress or obsession.? ~ Carlos Castaneda ?Your ability to use the principle of autosuggestion will depend, very largely, upon your capacity to concentrate upon a given desire until that desire becomes a burning obsession.? ~ Napoleon Hill ?Passion is a positive obsession. Obsession is a negative passion.? ~ Paul Carvel

So if you agree with me that these idiots always feel like they have to do something. And you also agree with me that on the whole, these idiots rarely do anything that is good. Then is it not reasonable to believe that all we will ever hope for out of these guys is the least evil?

Okay, let me try this from another angle: As much as I would love them all to just go home and take the next several months off allowing the dust to settle in Washington, I understand that this is impossible. All Government people from the local county politician to the Washington Senator all feel they need to be changing things, because they need to justify and define their existence. So with that understanding that these idiots will feel obligated to constantly do "something" I would rather them work on something that might actually help, but I agree with you that in a perfect world, they would just stop completely. I will say this, done properly the Government can get out of the way of the private sector so they can create jobs. Almost all ov the lost production jobs in America was caused by heavy handed laws and regulations forced by our Government. For example, Union friendly laws gave Unions the right to bully employers until many of these employers departed to friendlier Countries for cheaper labor. The employees/Unions out of greed killed the Goose that layed the golden eggs.

I have no issue with 'some' reform. We do need to do things like tort reform and erasing the invisible State lines that stop competition from State to State. But we do not have a "right" to free healthcare in America, trying to force this to happen will change the fundamental system of America and give us no choice but to fully embrace socialist programs from now on because there will be no other way to fund this monster. Your rights end where another's rights begin hugo. Do what you want to your own body, but if you force yourself onto another person in any way, then your trampling on the rights of that other person. I should have the right to not be assaulted by another person in any way. You say yourself that your okay with charging a felony as long as the person is infected with a disease so in your case the disease is more important than the issue of forcing yourself on another person, but I see each of our individual rights to freedom to be more important than any one case of disease. How did we get to the point where even people like you hugo are spending more time arguing why people should not be held accountable for their own actions instead of making personal responsibility a priority in America life? "The great thought, the great concern, the great anxiety of men is to restrict, as much as possible, the limits of their own responsibility." ~ Giosu? Borsi "Why do children want to grow up? Because they experience their lives as constrained by immaturity and perceive adulthood as a condition of greater freedom and opportunity. But what is there today, in America, that very poor and very rich adolescents want to do but cannot do? Not much: they can "do" drugs, "have" sex, "make" babies, and "get" money (from their parents, crime, or the State). For such adolescents, adulthood becomes synonymous with responsibility rather than liberty. Is it any surprise that they remain adolescents?" ~ Thomas Szasz

Even skanks need love.......