Did I get your attention? I expect I did. Well, calm down. I’m not here to praise Thomas Ravenel, or defend him.
But I am here to raise the question: Why do we want to pay to feed, clothe and house him for the next 10 months?
This brings me to the larger question — one of the biggest facing the state of South Carolina, in fact: Why do we want to imprison nonviolent offenders? Sure, we may do it cheaper than any other state in the union, but even then it’s a huge waste of resources that could be better spent. And our cheapskate, insecure way of running prisons is going to bite us in the long run (actually, it already does, in terms of recidivism rates).
This is a recurring theme. Today, we raised the question on the local level — Columbia is finally having to own up to the fact that its penchant for locking people up for more offenses than the county does actually costs money.
Of course, T-Rav is neither state nor local, but we pay federal taxes, too. And it’s hard to imagine a better example of someone who could have paid another way. If you have a multi-millionaire partying on cocaine, why not give him a multi-million-dollar fine? As the sage Billy Ray Valentine said, "You know, it occurs to me that the best way you hurt rich people is by turning them into poor people." In other words, why isn’t he paying us, instead of the other way around?
That would make a lot more sense than sending him off to commune with Kevin Geddings in Georgia.
Related Posts
Agreed. House arrest, fines, community service (trash pickup in Charleston would probably be a humbling experience) should be the standard for non-violent offenders.
Or maybe force him to change his last name to Smith and see how far he and his offspring get in life…
Everyone note this instance in which Doug and I agree — which is something that happens more often than you might think.
I would further note that finding other modes of punishment for nonviolent offenders is a Grownup Party sort of idea. The "lock ’em up but don’t pay for guards mentality" is infantile — all emotion and immediate gratification, no reason.
One millionth visitor gets a Free T-Rav shirt…make him pay for it.
Oh, and we’re getting close — fewer than 500 to go now!
Of course, I sort of knew that a post headlined “Free Thomas Ravenel” would put me over the top, without my posting anything else for the rest of the day…
not to mention all the self-viewing you are doing on the blog
There’s hope for you yet Brad. Now, let’s follow this to it’s logical conclusion. If T-Rav is harmless to society outside of prison for doing drugs wouldn’t he also be harmless without ever being convicted. Hence we could free-up the expenses associated with arresting him, trying him and incarcerating him. Since, by your own admission, you agree he is of no threat why outlaw the crime he is being punished for.
Because we currently have a consensus among our society’s Grownups that we don’t want people distributing, buying, selling or using cocaine.
Grownups draw boundaries. This is one we’ve drawn. Personally, I’m unconvinced that we need to remove this one.
You are certainly free to keep arguing otherwise. But until you convert the consensus to your point of view, the boundary will remain. And there will be penalties for crossing it.
Frankly, I think he should never have been convicted, but if you’re worried about his upkeep, have him pay actual costs plus 10% –
businessmen understand making a profit. Frances
Grownups draw boundaries. This is one we’ve drawn. Personally, I’m unconvinced that we need to remove this one.
-Brad (discussing why he thinks T-Rav should be designated a criminal)
This is the same kind of weird logic you and the editorial board used to endorse George W. Bush in 2004. You give all these grand arguments to support one side, then turn around and reach the exact opposite conclusion. Which course in logic did I miss? I was alway taught that when you make a series of points that support one side of an argument you conclude by supporting the argument with the most persuasive points. But that’s just me.
The loss of liberty that incarceration brings serves as quite a slap in the face to oodles of offenders. Ask Judge H. Bruce Williams how a night or five at DJJ improved the attitude of his non-violent offenders in the Drug Court.
Them Yurripeans favor fines; Germany uses unit fines, payments set as a percentage of income, so the rich can pay larger fines than the normal folks would for the same offense.
Your’e almost there Mike, but more poor people (because there are more poor people)commit more crime than rich people so the coffers of local government would soon dry up. Let’s set a base fine for poor people and go from there.
‘Because we currently have a consensus among our society’s Grownups that we don’t want people distributing, buying, selling or using cocaine.’
We don’t have a consensus, there has never been on opportunity for the public to weigh in on the subject of drug enforcement. In fact, there has been a lot of discussion about the idiocy of the ‘War on Drugs’ but not in legislative circles.
Laws and the punishment associated with the crimes serve as a deterrent to the public against committing the crimes. T-Rav blames his behavior on his broken childhood.
Yes, more of the poor are in jails and the rich. But there have been some high-profile people imprisoned, Martha Stewart; Ken Lay would have been if it hadn’t been for his fatal heart attack. I think some of the Rigas family of Adelphia Cable have served some time. This past week, Jeane Palfrey, the “DC Madam” committed suicide instead of prison.
Robert Soloway was indicted in United States District Court, Western District of Washington at Seattle, of 10 counts of mail fraud, 5 counts of wire fraud, 2 counts of fraud in connection with electronic email, 6 counts of aggravated identity theft, thirteen counts of money laundering, and also tax evasion. It made a plea bargain with some of the charges. Microsoft won a judgment against Soloway and it taunted Microsoft by saying it would never pay any of the judgment to Microsoft. Should Soloway go free since it committed “victimless crimes”? Although identity theft is not physical harm, real people are definitely harmed by identity theft having to contact creditors and to clear up their credit rating and reputation. Identity theft is armed robbery except the victims don’t realize they were victims until later.
Ah, I did several fist pumps in the air when I realized in the letter from the Department of Justice, that I helped put it away.
The supposed “War on Drugs” does not touch the core of the problem that we have in this country nor does incarceration cure the problem.
I am not going to defend T. Rav only to say that (apparently) he used the drugs he bought to buy friends.
We should make drugs legal and take out the profit. The war would be over because the profit is taken out . Let the people that want the drugs to kill themselves be able to go to the local drug store and get them over the counter. If they die, what have we lost other than a drug addict? This sounds like a harsh way to deal with the problem; however, laws cannot protect those that are self-destructive. Treatment is provided to both alcoholic and drug addicts free from organizations provided by your tax money.
So. What do we do for the drug addict except for the taxpayer to put more money into the court system, into the criminal justice system, to the rehabilitation system etc. When the drug pusher gets out (if he serves any time) he is smarter than when he was sentenced and back on the street making more money and smarter than ever.
The only way to solve the problem is the legalize drugs. Turn him loose or make all the local drug dealers have to serve time on the first offense.
The supposed “War on Drugs” does not touch the core of the problem that we have in this country nor does incarceration cure the problem.
I am not going to defend T. Rav only to say that (apparently) he used the drugs he bought to buy friends.
We should make drugs legal and take out the profit. The war would be over because the profit is taken out . Let the people that want the drugs to kill themselves be able to go to the local drug store and get them over the counter. If they die, what have we lost other than a drug addict? This sounds like a harsh way to deal with the problem; however, laws cannot protect those that are self-destructive. Treatment is provided to both alcoholic and drug addicts free from organizations provided by your tax money.
So. What do we do for the drug addict except for the taxpayer to put more money into the court system, into the criminal justice system, to the rehabilitation system etc. When the drug pusher gets out (if he serves any time) he is smarter than when he was sentenced and back on the street making more money and smarter than ever.
The only way to solve the problem is the legalize drugs. Turn him loose or make all the local drug dealers have to serve time on the first offense.
I am expecting some off-the-wall comment from Lee.
Without stating an opinion, I note that most of the duly elected representatives in this constitutional republic have supported or enacted — or at least not voted for the repeal of — drug laws.
My opinion is that despite my libertarian inclinations, our drug laws are spot on. I admit that I don’t have a lot of rational arguments to support my view. But I don’t have a lot of rational arguments against legalized gambling (whether state-sponsored, as in the lottery, or state-sanctioned as is the case in parts of Nevada and New Jersey, or on Native-American Indian reservations), prostitution, and other vices.
My strongest arguments are cultural in perspective, specifically, what do we want to encourage and discourage from our fellow citizens. On the rational side I assert that it’s not a great idea for a surgeon, an architect, a welder, or a construction inspector to do their jobs while high on what’s now illegal or even what’s legal. The difference is that a lot of (most) of the illegal stuff is habit-forming and eventually, and probably sooner, will be used when the individual is on the job. We currently can readily detect and do sanction folks who are drunk on the job, an especially good thing when the miscreant is a pilot or an employee of the East Richland Sanitary District, and need to ensure that not only folks in life-threatening positions are sober.
I mention the sewer thingy because at this moment after 10:00 PM on a Saturday night, two of their employees are clearing out a sewer blockage two houses down with a big truck pumping water at high pressure. My neighbors and I are pleased at the seriousness with which they approach their work at this hour. I can’t speak for all of my neighbors, but I’m happier than a pig in, er, poo, that they are in better shape than a Huguenot on Saturday night.
(I note that one of my neighbors is a Huguenot; he and I have been sipping a reasonable red wine — a reasonably price Chilean cabernet sauvignon — during our oversight of the sewer folks’ progress.)
As for the poor, I now announce that I’ve had it up to here (I’m standing on a chair with my hand in a horizontal position above my head) with the poor. Poverty is an attitude, and folks just need to get up at a reasonable hour, submit an application, and show up for work. I do that, and the poor can too. (I’m not dissing the disabled; we should support them while carefully defining who is in fact disabled.)
It was never proved (or even suggested) that he spent any of the state’s money (our money) to buy drugs.
So what the hell do I care??
The way I see it, if he used his own funds to support his jones, he’s one hell of a stand-up guy.
Brian
Cheers to the legalization advocates above. There’s a real wealth of evidence to support the idea that the drug war is yet another profiteering enterprise for bureacrats and prison-builders (privatized, now).
So legalization sounds extreme? Well then, why not just legalize cannabis? Three different government commissions (going back to Nixon) have recommended this–and for good reason: law enforcement resources would immediately be freed up to handle actual crimes.
Oh but wait–pot busts are the economic engine that drives the scenario I mentioned in graph 1. There simply aren’t enough users of refined drugs (like Ravenel) in this country to support the business model of incarcerating citizens for profit. (Preferably citizens of color, it seems–look at the stats.)
Brad,
In SC, drug charges are considered violent offenses. This was done years ago when the crack craze was hitting America.
The GA classified them as such to prevent early release. Blame the GA. Heck they were probably using the stuff while writing the bills. Look at the new DUI law as an example.
Opening statement. T. Rav is a victim of his own indulgence in drugs that got out of hand because he included too many friends. The more people that are added to any illegal indulgence puts you top of the list for those that hate you and will turn you in to get revenge because he has more money than they have or they have not been invited to the party. We could name all the traps that Ravenel fell into because he trusted what he thought were friends that could be bought for a few grams of cocaine.
I do not know Mr. Ravenel but I feel that he has been given a dose of the opiate that has brought down many an elected official. That opiate is not that he is above the law but the law is not after the user that wants profit from the casual user that does not sell but only supplies to his friends. He was set up for the fall.
We need to legalize drugs and then we will separate the casual user and his friends from the addicts that would use the system to profit from the drug war. Mr. Ravenel did not apparently profit from the fact that he bought cocaine. He used it as a recreational drug with his friends. The drug dealer and the buyer that is only after the profit that can be made from the distribution of the drug could be cut out of the drug for profit if we legalize drugs. It is a win, win situation.
TAKE THE PROFIT OUT OF DRUG DEALING BY MAKING CERTAIN DRUGS LEGAL SHOULD BE ON THE AGENDA OF ANYONE THAT WANTS TO BE ELECTED.
Free Ravenel.
America Should Aim For Truth – And Justice – In Drug Sentencing
http://schotline.wordpress.com/2008/03/25/america-should-aim-for-truth-–-and-justice-–-in-drug-sentencing/
OK. Let me run this by you and see what you think. Maybe the political sins of the daddy were directed at the son. The son won his first state elected seat. Next would probably be governor. The son has the brains, good looks and name recognition.
But. The state political machine does not want another powerhouse by the name of Ravenel. So. They waited until he was elected (no point in opening the trapdoor if he does not win) and then they put the bug in the ear of the drug law enforcement division and the rest is history.
Can it happen? Happens every day all around the country.
I still say legalize certain drugs and we will see a big difference in the crime rate.
Sure has the good looks!!
Free non violent offenders…but, does this apply to all of the others as well?
the only reason Thomas Ravenel is going to prision is because of who he is. It’s totally politically motivated. He should not get away with it but he should not be going away either.
Thomas Ravenel would in no way be out of line by seeking a pardon from President Bush. He has more than paid for his sins already. He was young and naive, even at 44. He should have received PTI. Like I did at age 44. There were not many of us 44-year-old PTI graduates, but then again — I am just a poor peasant girl.
This was totally politically motivated. And as HYPOCRITICAL as all get out from the source of it. This mob of rinos is ruthless.
Not Bad
If you are looking for cheap prescription drug pharmacy, I would recommend you all to shop at eshoprx.com They are reliable, fast and believe me CHEAPEST.
i agree that the only way to solve the problem is the legalize drugs or even go to a recovery home. lol!
cletsey