I was particularly thinking of the population of Merrie Olde England (and its nearest neighbours).

POTUS that I liked? I guess Abe was pretty decent. Clinton...but she's not been elected yet.

What's stopping them?

Now that's comedy. Basically the fact you like Clinton shows that you are not well informed at all about American politics. We already had one failed experiment, the America people don't need to suffer under another one. The PIAPS is probably more corrupt than Johnson was and is morally bankrupt. Perhaps look into her past before you make a judgement on her. The fact that she is female should not make a difference to you, at least in the sense of making historical strides. A female president is not necessarily a Bad Thing for America, except for that female. I am not sure she even is a woman.
 

 

Did you ever see such a messed up situation in your whole life, son?

What's even more weird is the lack of crticism for the obama administration; if George Bush or any other Republican had been POTUS, the media wailings and criticisms would be loud and long. Look at how the media criticised GWB for Katrina, when in fact, although the Feds could have done more, it was really the local, State governments that failed to act and people largely did not evacuate even though they should have.

GWB went on TV, nationally broadcast, and called the storm a dangerous Category Five hurricane, calling for the people of the Gulf Coast communities to put their safety and their families safety above all else and move to safe ground. Bush had already spoken to Ray Nagin who was central to the problems NO. Nagin, failed to implement an evacuation plan until less than a day before Katrina hit. There were parking lots full of buses that could have been used for evacuation, but Nagin was worried about insurance and a shortage of bus drivers. Nagin is going to jail for corruption in relation to Katrina rebuilding. Although Governor Blanco and Mayor Nagin (both Democrats) were slow to act especially in asking for help as is required, FEMA and Bush ended up taking most of the blame. Democrats get a free pass.

obama got more involved in the Trayvon Martin case and stupidly made the inept comment, "If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon Martin". And that meant what? Perhaps obama's handlers decided that his reading from a teleprompter on the Brown (Ferguson) case might actually do more harm than good.
 

Is it possible that other countries include our excludes in their general population? I don't see a mentioning on why the U.S. figures are broken out as they are, do you?

Curiously your population figures fail to mention some interesting facts:

U.S. population: 318M; England, Scotland, Wales 64M; Seychelles, 92k; Saint Kitts, Nevis, 51K

While the U.S crime rate per 100 thousand based on population is 707, yours is 148; ESW population is just under 5 times what ours is, so actually your crime rate is higher than ours adjusted for total population, resulting in 732 per 100K. Seychelles would look even worse with a population of 92k and a per 100k of 868. But I am just spitballing here.

Blacks and Hispanics are also overrepresented via population densities in cities, which tend to be Democratic. They are not less likely to vote, especially in cities and where perhaps the presence of militant, baton-wielding Black Panthers may be present to dissuade white votes. In suburban and rural areas you definitely have my attention. All this said, I do agree in large measure that whites do not suffer the persecution that blacks do in situations involving crime. Black crime is sensationalised by the media (tends to be Liberal, Left, leaning - i.e Democratic) here which is odd considering Dems claim to represent minorites, especially blacks. Recently the Dems have claimed to be for Latinos as well, but recent actions (or inactions as it were) seem to indicate their overall motivation is to get votes rather than actual reforms to help Hispanics.
 

That's almost as bad as saying that there are nothing but innocent Black and Hispanic people in our prisons although we both know that isn't true. If prisons were big business there would be an incentive to increase their population through the incarceration of all people - if not certainly more minorities - but in Big Business, what would it matter? There are plenty of dirtbag white boys throughout the country who easily belong in the clink. Interestingly, prison workers are generally represented by unions, so if anyone questions the amount of imprisonment or the number of prisons, the Dems are going to fight on that one because Democrats are pro-Union and Unions are pro-Democrat. Just so you know, businesses to my way of thinking are started for profit. Prisons do not operate profitably.
 

The humanitarian crimes are perpetrated when a guy like Rodney King gets beaten. That was sensationalised too, but King was likely drunk driving and was attempting to elude the police at high speed. He also apparently charged a police officer, a fact which is sometimes disputed but may be supported by video. The real crime was that the police officers, though several were fired, were acquitted on charges of assault with a deadly weapon and use of excessive force. Scores of police departments across the country have been investigated or otherwise have come under scrutiny for racial profiling. It does happen and is just as wrong as letting the white guy go for a similar crime.

How do gun laws figure into the whole thing? Are you for more gun laws or less? If you support fewer guns, then I'd suggest taking another look at your crime rate vs ours whilst adjusting your population to the size of ours. All things being equal, I project your crime rate would still go up with more people.

 

Did you ever see such a messed up situation in your whole life, son?

That is correct. I was thinking one thing and typed another which blew apart my reply. Sorry.
 

That was my basic point. But I don't see why you refer to U.S. Figures as "dodgy"? First off I could understand your point if the U.S. were hiding figures, they're not. China, for example holds a lot of people in detention centers and those are not counted. So the U.S. could also hold a percentage in "detention centers" and thus make the numbers look better, since you seem to think there is a deliberate action to make our numbers look better. I disagree with that.

People who cannot make bail, are considered a flight risk or are violent are in jail. Jail (temporary) is not the same as prison.They are awaiting trail and counted as incarcerated (in the study you posted). Should we just release them back into the general population in the hopes they arrive for trial? As you have stated, since laws for crimes vary that will also affect the numbers in prisons and reflects those who are actually serving time after trial and been found guilty. But our figures do include those in jail.

Interestingly, jail and prison seems to be viewed as being the same thing over there.

We do incarcerate people over here in an extremely wasteful manner by the imprisonment of people for victimless crimes. We could reduce our prison population by 30-80% if those people were not in our prisons. I am talking about drug users (50% Federal prisons pop.) and Public Order (35%) offenses (people arrested on weapons charges, public drunkeness, illegal gambling, prostitution). I don't know what should necessarily be done about the illegal behaviour, but certainly imprisoning someone who is non-violent and really only hurting themselves is ridiculous - until of course they start other behaviour which may include a victim such as theivery to support a drug or gambling habit or violence in performing those behaviours.

But of course I would suspect that guys like Roy Walmsley write books, then he sells lots of books to people and prisons actually end up being big business for him. So without prisons, what does he write about?

Interestingly, Democratic Underground has an article or more on his thoughts. Perhaps if Democratic underground came above ground, they'd advance their agenda better. Another interesting thing to note is while Democrats love to talk about limiting government and how evil the Republicans are, they are typically the ones making all of those silly laws, rules and regulations that have to get enforced. So who is going to enforce all of those laws the Dems dream up? Big Government, the very thing they claim to want to avoid. No wonder Dems are always being accused of having pretzel logic.


 

 

Did you ever see such a messed up situation in your whole life, son?

• Republicans believe strongly in trickle-down (and the rest of their policy grows from this).
• Democrats believe slightly less in trickle-down (and ditto)

             , ,   , ,   , ,   , ,   , ,   
  `'        (o,o) (o,o) (o,o) (o,o) (o,o)  
   *\*      |)__) |)__) |)__) |)__) |)__)  
     ''`>-,--”-”---”-”---”-”---”-”---”-”----
,'.*''`