How would you reform our prison system?

login · August 11, 2012

as it occurred to you that some people are simply incapable of reform

Under the current prison system, yes. However, I think that most people can be reformed over the course of years, and why you may ask, neurology, psychology, and reading on programming and brainwashing.

, that they have no wish to reform?

No. I think that conflict theory is pretty real in that you have to understand peoples values, then it is a matter of cost benefit. I think life is mostly stimulus response. I think anything beyond that isn't worth discussion nor action since it would be illogical and left to faith alone, in that case impeding any liberty would be wrong.

Criminal culture can be irradicated or segregated, but I don't think prisons are the right medium for that. Forcible confinement among intelligent creatures should only be a last resort.

I think it is being used as a first resort.

Edited August 11, 2012 by login

cybercoma · August 11, 2012

Has it occurred to you that some people are simply incapable of reform, that they have no wish to reform?

This has occurred to me, but not for the myriad of criminality that you would like to apply it to.

I would apply it to paedophiles because this is a sexual desire like homosexuality or heterosexuality. You don't just make gay person straight or vice versa, so I don't see how you would "correct" a paedophile. Some might argue you can teach them to not act on this desire, but that's the same as teaching abstinence. It really doesn't work. Thus, in the interest of safety paedophiles ought to receive the maximum penalty possible.

I also don't think people with mental illnesses are capable of reform, unless their mental illnesses are cured. This is why insanity pleas typically result in those successful defendants being placed in custody of a mental health institution, sometimes for life. If a mental illness would cause a person to be a serious risk to society, they need to be placed in a facility safely away from society until they are cured or forever if they are incurable.

Where you and I differ is about the conditions of those detainments. You want them to be torturous, while I believe that safety of society is more important than violent punishment of offenders.

Wild Bill · August 11, 2012

Under the current prison system, yes. However, I think that most people can be reformed over the course of years, and why you may ask, neurology, psychology, and reading on programming and brainwashing.

No. I think that conflict theory is pretty real in that you have to understand peoples values, then it is a matter of cost benefit. I think life is mostly stimulus response. I think anything beyond that isn't worth discussion nor action since it would be illogical and left to faith alone, in that case impeding any liberty would be wrong.

Criminal culture can be irradicated or segregated, but I don't think prisons are the right medium for that. Forcible confinement among intelligent creatures should only be a last resort.

I think it is being used as a first resort.

I am going to go out on a limb here but you sound to me like an extremely bright adolescent. Adolescence is a stage in our lives when we may have a brain with the power of supercomputer but very limited life experience. In lieu of sufficient real world data we extrapolate to make conclusions but the more and further we extrapolate the more likely we are wrong.

In the late 80's I worked for a boss who had fallen in love with a brand new invention - spreadsheets! He created huge business plans and would change values in cells all day long, watching in wonder as every related cell instantly recalculated to jive with his change. He would present these business plans to HIS bosses and they would be impressed, as they were all old and rather out of touch with the new power of computers.

They backed him with his plans and of course, they were a disaster!. I had kept quiet as it was the kind of old company where rank had its privileges and a mere grunt should not draw negative attention to himself. However, I had come from the high tech world of electronic distribution and was way ahead of my new employer on things like spreadsheets. I had spotted the fatal flaw with my boss' business plans immediately.

Everything on the page was related to a few critical cells with values he had pulled out of his butt! How many units did we expect to sell in the first year? Out came something that sounded great! What would be our profit margin? Pull another great sounding figure out! The whole thing was based on guesses and wishes but the fact that it was in a powerful spreadsheet dressed it up pretty for the rubes!

Login, your arguments sound very similar to me. You spin them well in an intelligent manner but too many premises are flawed when contrasted to facts from the real world. This is the hallmark of a brilliant adolescent, not of a wise and experienced man.

Logic is only a mental tool, useful but not a proof in itself. You can prove literally anything simply by leaving out any facts that would contradict your argument. I read about how one of my favourite science fiction authors liked to keep files and make graphs and curves about technological and social evolution for Man down through his history. He had one on the speed of transportation, from caveman days when we could only walk, through horses, sail, engines and cars and finally rockets. The curve started off on a very slight slope against thousands of years but at the end took a quick spike upward into a logarithmic curve, since we had gone from horses to Saturn V boosters in about a century.

Extrapolating such a curve suggested we would be traveling faster than light by about 2050. Going by the evidence, it was a logical assumption, except it almost certainly is very, very wrong. The speed of light is likely to be a cold, hard limiting Law of the Universe!

One fact destroys the prediction, if the predictor is unaware of it.

So I would caution you against being too sure of some of your premises. As you grow older they may come back to haunt you.

If it makes you feel better, you will have a LOT of company!

Including myself, if I am still around.

Edited August 11, 2012 by Wild Bill

Argus · August 11, 2012

This has occurred to me, but not for the myriad of criminality that you would like to apply it to.

That's a meaningless reply.

I would apply it to paedophiles because this is a sexual desire like homosexuality or heterosexuality.

Paedophila is not a crime, it is a psychological illness.

Thus, in the interest of safety paedophiles ought to receive the maximum penalty possible.

You want to lock up all paedophiles, even the ones (the majority I believe) who have never commited any crimes?

I also don't think people with mental illnesses are capable of reform, unless their mental illnesses are cured.

Well duh.

Where you and I differ is about the conditions of those detainments. You want them to be torturous, while I believe that safety of society is more important than violent punishment of offenders.

First, all you've mentioned are crazy people. Paul Bernardo is not crazy. I assume, then, that you believe he should be 'reformed" and returned to society. Mad Dog Boucher is likewise not the least bit mentally disturbed. So again, I guess you think you can reform him with love and kindness. Most of the more vicious murderers in prison are not crazy. They're just ruthless, cruel, and lack much in the way of empathy for their victims.

As to "torturous", I think you and I differ on the meaning. I consider torture to be pulling someone's eyes out. You consider it to be not giving them free satellite television.

cybercoma · August 11, 2012

I thought we could have an actual intelligent discussion, but I see you're more interested in arguing against a bunch of strawmen you've created. Have fun swinging at those. When you're ready to have a rational discussion let me know.

login · August 12, 2012

I appreciate you have opinions.

This gives me warm fuzzies.

The problem is they are only that and quite frankly why do I care what you think? do you really think I would base a decision as to whether this person should be released into the public on what you think?

No. I think you should make your decisions based on what you think, and I hope you either show me where my own opinion is lacking or that you realize where your opinion was lacking.

Lol. If you had been the person raped or the relatives of the victims or were a woman or vulnerable person walking the streets I might be tempted to care a little bit more about your opinion.

I've been victimized before I still harbour fury due to it. When I have gotten injured or relating to seminal emissions from a wet dream I feel raped by nature. I'm spiritual and I don't think that a human molesting a human or nature doing it is much different. The fact is it happens and all we can do is try to prevent it from happening in the future. This doesn't mean I stop sleeping or breathing or running though, it just means I take precautions.

As for you being a security expert

I never claimed to be a security expert.

whi has invented a bonafide sure proof method of monitoring people that's nice.

I'm sure there is room for improvement. However I have put time into it and I am aware of many systems that are currently used in places such as Europe. I study future and cutting edge technologies so I'm often beyond the masses in awareness of these things, but I like to share, but yes I think there is definate room for deployment and enhancing past ways policing has been done in terms of tracking dangerous persons who have been released to the public. It happens they all arn't kept in jail forever. Look at the recidivism rate for that. Not all criminals recommit, and not all convicts actually committed their crimes. so there has to be a middle ground that appeased all factors.

Your reasoning as to why you believe he was a rapist but not a murderer is absurd in fact not just absurd but so ridiculous it makes me have to question whether you are in the position to understand ANYTHING about the psyche of criminals.

He abetted murder (and in that way is guilty of murder^-at the least as accessory after the fact), but I don't think he was the initial will behind it.

Look its tempting to think you can be an expert. We all have opinions the fact is you do not understand nor will you ever understand forensic psychiatry so don't pose as a forensic psychiatrist. You have zero clue what fabric makes up the psyche of a rapist let alone a murderer.

That is reassuring. I've read into neuropsychology, and psychology so I don't feel I'm completely lay on the subject. I actually do think I understand the sciences of it. 1 part lust, 1 part oppourtunity. the other part a communication to do so. There is more to it than that but peoples basises can be quite convoluted such as Bernardo's bastard element and the conditions of his upbringing based on his exposures.

I have two Master's one in psychology and one in law, and I have worked with such people and I make zero claim, zero of being able to say to anyone with sound psychiatry/psychology knowledge of the pathology of criminals can be as confident as you in throwing out your opinions.

Well that is good that you don't understand criminal minds, I feel I am in tune with humanity and I understand humanity. I've peeled my onion and I get my life, maybe you don't understand yours. I am suprised you can't project yourself into the mind of a criminal. For someone who is a student of law I am shocked unless perhaps you studied corporate law or something other than criminal law.

Bottom line, its easy to talk abotu releasing violent criminals. How would you feel if they come live next door to you? Hmmm?

I have weapons i'm not indifferent to using if I need to. Do I feel secure no. Do I think violent poeple are absent from the world all locked behind bars, no not even before the next siren goes off. Do I think we should take people from maximum security prisons and turn them over to day cares... NO. I think there should be a graduated reduction of the conditions so that people are gradually reintroduced to society after they have passed a series of tests through a work camp system aiming on building communities in Northern Canada where population centers don't currently exist, and where they will only be exposed to persons they would be exposed to previously. If they can't live in a coed environment of cons for 6 months then putting them into society at large is just irresponsible. My system offers more protections. Also tracking them via a grid allows awareness and will asssist in pinpointing who may have committed a crimes should it happen in a given area. In more secure areas, paranoid people can utilitize even a higher level of security is there. But I think the whole strategy needs to be changed.

I understand how a lawyer may find these corrections to be a risk since both those professions benefit from the currrent maladministration of justice, and I understand if you are part of the bar your duty to make it look good even at the cost of the truth.

Edited August 12, 2012 by login

login · August 12, 2012

I am going to go out on a limb here but you sound to me like an extremely bright adolescent. Adolescence is a stage in our lives when we may have a brain with the power of supercomputer but very limited life experience. In lieu of sufficient real world data we extrapolate to make conclusions but the more and further we extrapolate the more likely we are wrong.

In the late 80's I worked for a boss who had fallen in love with a brand new invention - spreadsheets! He created huge business plans and would change values in cells all day long, watching in wonder as every related cell instantly recalculated to jive with his change. He would present these business plans to HIS bosses and they would be impressed, as they were all old and rather out of touch with the new power of computers.

They backed him with his plans and of course, they were a disaster!. I had kept quiet as it was the kind of old company where rank had its privileges and a mere grunt should not draw negative attention to himself. However, I had come from the high tech world of electronic distribution and was way ahead of my new employer on things like spreadsheets. I had spotted the fatal flaw with my boss' business plans immediately.

Everything on the page was related to a few critical cells with values he had pulled out of his butt! How many units did we expect to sell in the first year? Out came something that sounded great! What would be our profit margin? Pull another great sounding figure out! The whole thing was based on guesses and wishes but the fact that it was in a powerful spreadsheet dressed it up pretty for the rubes!

Login,

vulgarities. Need some more paint?

your arguments sound very similar to me. You spin them well in an intelligent manner but too many premises are flawed when contrasted to facts from the real world. This is the hallmark of a brilliant adolescent, not of a wise and experienced man.

cut the rhetorical bs and be constructive with my plan instead of presenting ad hominems. You lower your status in doing so.

Logic is only a mental tool,

hay?

useful but not a proof in itself. You can prove literally anything simply by leaving out any facts that would contradict your argument. I read about how one of my favourite science fiction authors liked to keep files and make graphs and curves about technological and social evolution for Man down through his history. He had one on the speed of transportation, from caveman days when we could only walk, through horses, sail, engines and cars and finally rockets. The curve started off on a very slight slope against thousands of years but at the end took a quick spike upward into a logarithmic curve, since we had gone from horses to Saturn V boosters in about a century.
Extrapolating such a curve suggested we would be traveling faster than light by about 2050. Going by the evidence, it was a logical assumption, except it almost certainly is very, very wrong. The speed of light is likely to be a cold, hard limiting Law of the Universe!

2050 yes. we have technology to bring us to approaching lightspeed built already. (this ignoring the fact we as projections move at the speed of light but people don't view life that way I feel, not that science is the end all or that we ourselves are confined to sublight speed not to say so much the point goes on another tangent and you are lost in what I'm talking about so I'll stop with that but no there are no limits but it probably helps you sleep better at night knowing life is plain and simple and only forward linear etc.. you have your box I have mine, mine is one that is fundamentally correct, yours is one where you place limits for no reason other than you feel safer with it that way. I feel unsafe and that is ok because I have nothing to fear of being unsafe because I'm already fulfilled. Is that weird enough sounding for you?)

Future talk is a little what if, talk about what we are capable of now. Read on plasma ion drives already built by NASA or NASA's proposed energy. This past years events of faster than light particles. You don't want to bring FTL into your world view because of your meek understanding of relatively. There is no reason to deny time travel or FTL techs other than it makes you loose control, and you don't like that. If I brought a laptop back to 500AD they would be skeptical and think it was magical and fantastic. The main force holding humanity back is divisions and economic interests. Collectively we could have an even higher level of development, but there are realities and plausabilities. I would not be in disbelief if time travel exists by 2038 but I won't say it will. How do you explain God or existence, the bottom line is there are no rules to reality and anything is possible, but we can hold what we have and dream about what we don't.

One fact destroys the prediction, if the predictor is unaware of it.

So I would caution you against being too sure of some of your premises. As you grow older they may come back to haunt you.

I'm not a haunted person I'm a realist, and I am given what I am graced and grace can be gone. I am in the hands of God and that is where my faith and comfort will remain in all I do.

If it makes you feel better, you will have a LOT of company!

Including myself, if I am still around.

I lost you on the lots of company line.

Edited August 12, 2012 by login

Moonlight Graham · August 12, 2012

The easiest way to lower crime, reduce the number of criminals in our prisons, and avoid repeat offenders is to get rid of all of our laws.

login · August 12, 2012

As to "torturous", I think you and I differ on the meaning. I consider torture to be pulling someone's eyes out. You consider it to be not giving them free satellite television.

Pulling someones eyes out would likely be maiming not too torturous.. now taking out their eye with a corkscrew, leach or bird while strapped down watching through a video screen close up on the eye with the free eye is a little more like torture. Chinese water torture on an eye is also tortuous, simply removing an eye is disfigurment and maiming, it doesn't automatically denote trauma or pain.

This person does it to themself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0ozXpV2U0o

Edited August 12, 2012 by login

Argus · August 12, 2012

I thought we could have an actual intelligent discussion,

Then you should have started it by saying something intelligent. You failed to do so. Thus the blame is yours.

Argus · August 12, 2012

I'm not a haunted person I'm a realist, a

No, Login, you are not. That's the issue most have with you. You are, in fact, naive to believe that everyone can be reformed, or that if they can, it be done quickly (it could take many years for attitudes to change) or that monitoring could be of such focus as to prevent brutality being inflicted on innocent people while your criminals, including rapists and murderers, are released into the general population.

What do you say to the family of a 14 year old girl raped and/or murdered by Bernardo a week after he gets released?

"Gee, maybe I was wrong," won't cut it.

eyeball · August 12, 2012

Maybe it'll just make us feel better.

Yes, I get that you're a sadist Argus. But who's this us you're talking about?

The feeling of extreme anger the general population feels towards violent criminals isn't the result of political 'tough on crime' efforts, but the cause of them.

I think you're simply projecting your own feelings of anger onto everyone else to make yourself and your suggestions seem more normal, to you mostly. You're still the prime source of reasons why I maintain the best way to not reform our prison system is let anyone who thinks like you anywhere near it.

Argus · August 12, 2012

Yes, I get that you're a sadist Argus. But who's this us you're talking about?

I'll assume the title if you'll agree that you love child rapists and want to protect them from punishment.

I think you're simply projecting your own feelings of anger onto everyone else to make yourself and your suggestions seem more normal, to you mostly. You're still the prime source of reasons why I maintain the best way to not reform our prison system is let anyone who thinks like you anywhere near it.

Well, you're welcome to your opinion, as uninformed and silly as it is (as usual), but the consensus of the general population seems to be more in support of my views than yours.

Wild Bill · August 12, 2012

vulgarities. Need some more paint?

cut the rhetorical bs and be constructive with my plan instead of presenting ad hominems. You lower your status in doing so.

hay?

2050 yes. we have technology to bring us to approaching lightspeed built already. (this ignoring the fact we as projections move at the speed of light but people don't view life that way I feel, not that science is the end all or that we ourselves are confined to sublight speed not to say so much the point goes on another tangent and you are lost in what I'm talking about so I'll stop with that but no there are no limits but it probably helps you sleep better at night knowing life is plain and simple and only forward linear etc.. you have your box I have mine, mine is one that is fundamentally correct, yours is one where you place limits for no reason other than you feel safer with it that way. I feel unsafe and that is ok because I have nothing to fear of being unsafe because I'm already fulfilled. Is that weird enough sounding for you?)

Future talk is a little what if, talk about what we are capable of now. Read on plasma ion drives already built by NASA or NASA's proposed energy. This past years events of faster than light particles. You don't want to bring FTL into your world view because of your meek understanding of relatively. There is no reason to deny time travel or FTL techs other than it makes you loose control, and you don't like that. If I brought a laptop back to 500AD they would be skeptical and think it was magical and fantastic. The main force holding humanity back is divisions and economic interests. Collectively we could have an even higher level of development, but there are realities and plausabilities. I would not be in disbelief if time travel exists by 2038 but I won't say it will. How do you explain God or existence, the bottom line is there are no rules to reality and anything is possible, but we can hold what we have and dream about what we don't.

I'm not a haunted person I'm a realist, and I am given what I am graced and grace can be gone. I am in the hands of God and that is where my faith and comfort will remain in all I do.

I lost you on the lots of company line.

A very long reply.

I missed the part where you told me if I am correct about you being an adolescent.

cybercoma · August 12, 2012

Then you should have started it by saying something intelligent. You failed to do so. Thus the blame is yours.

It was a hell of a lot more intelligent than the garbage that has been coming off your keyboard lately.

Wild Bill · August 12, 2012

or that monitoring could be of such focus as to prevent brutality being inflicted on innocent people while your criminals, including rapists and murderers, are released into the general population.

Argus, I get the willies just thinking about this idea of his. How many civil "serpents" would this need? How much would it cost?

Even with technology to track monitored criminals, you need people to make decisions. Moreover, how on earth could such a system PREVENT a criminal from hauling off and hitting someone, or even killing them? Sure, the "system" would know the criminal's location but by the time authorities were aware of the act and could get an enforcement officer there the victim would be SOL!

No concept of the costs or the logistics. Very, very adolescent.

Edited August 12, 2012 by Wild Bill

login · August 13, 2012

No, Login, you are not. That's the issue most have with you. You are, in fact, naive to believe that everyone can be reformed, or that if they can, it be done quickly (it could take many years for attitudes to change) or that monitoring could be of such focus as to prevent brutality being inflicted on innocent people while your criminals, including rapists and murderers, are released into the general population.

What do you say to the family of a 14 year old girl raped and/or murdered by Bernardo a week after he gets released?

"Gee, maybe I was wrong," won't cut it.

I don't think so Argus. First I think that the current system fails at reforming people to be contributing members of society in large part it keeps in mind the act, whcih many times was completely justified, just not socially acceptable.

I think vegetables should be in rehab and people should be progressed into lives that they will be able to maintain social stability within. Not everyone should be released onto the street but a homophobic rapist may not feel inclined to rape if he has access to hookers and works on a fishing ship. Or what is a embezzler going to do on an oil rig in the middle of the arctic ocean? What danger do loggers posed dendrophelia? I havn't heard of bears being raped by humans. This is why the graduated releae system is so heavily purported by myself. First it takes people out of prisons and has them perform work which is so essential to criminals who can't live off book sales and other contracts recounting their crimes which are few. Second having criminals forced to live and work together exposes them to the worst possible environment they will encounter, and it doesn't endanger the general public. If they can't live with each other for 6 months how do they expect to live with law abiding peoplefor the rest of their life. Since the graduated system penalizes people who get into trouble with both reseting their good behaviour time, and in the case of criminal offences potentially moves them up the block. The people who can't be good won't get out, they will move up further North. While their liberties are not reduced, their communities are composed of those other peoplewho do not agree to the general publics accepted rules of interaction. They still work, they still get money to buy things they'd like, they just arn't able to access the rest of the world, and they help pay for policing and other costs they created, and contribute to for the rest of the public. I think that the good people will get out, and they will stay out as long as the laws are reasonable and not politically or culturally motivated, but based on fundamental justice and human rights.

As for the parents of the 14 year old girl. Bad stuff happens to good people all the time. They arn't alone. The differnece is they have a human to hate. The least that can be done is preventing that sort of injustice a second time. But what if it wasn't who you think it was? What if your position is causing innocent people to be locked away like the rapist bernardo's confession got out of jail after he lost 20 years of his life? There is no reason to hurt other humans other than poor values. We as conscious humans should hold compassion. If you arn't angry enough to kill him then you need to let God be the torturer or annihilator in the after life. People that are truely evil will be damned life is short, and you will see your daughter again before you know it, if your faith allows that, my faith doesn't prevent anything, and I beleive all things will work for good, and it is essential that the justice system is based on prevention of human rights abuses, that includes to both victims and accused persons.

a minimum 10 year sentence for a serious indictable offence as a baseline is a long time argus the person would be 29 before they were released on a standard sentence. If they don't reform in 10 years I don't see what another 10 will do. Frankly the 8 year minimum graduated release on good behaviour is actually still very long, people get PhDs in a shorter period of time.

I really don't know what you are looking for or what you think the justice system should accomplish.But I frankly think the current system only makes things worse for everyone but people being employed by the system and those people supplying contracts for the peoples living costs. It is an insanely stupid and broken system. It is only allowing the circumstances of crime in some cases to no longer be oppourtunities to commmit, that is why recidivism occurs, time does not erase all circumstances for everyone.The current system fails to remove the condictions of crimes occuring based on the individuals circumstances and characteristics. To have a successful corrections system you need to insure it takes people with problems in, and takes away those problems before they are back out on the street. If they don't have problems, prison won't do nothing for them, and if they still have problems when they get out prison has done nothing for them.

If you just want to ruin people have compassion and do them off and save the time and money and waste of life. It is only inviting conflict to occur.

Protection of life is a lawful defence.

Edited August 13, 2012 by login

cybercoma · August 13, 2012

Let's not kid ourselves. Those that can afford to buy political power get to pick the tune. That tune is laws that keep the focus on the underclass while allowing the white collar criminals to get away with killing hundreds of thousands of people and stealing trillions of dollars with impunity.

blueblood · August 13, 2012

Let's not kid ourselves. Those that can afford to buy political power get to pick the tune. That tune is laws that keep the focus on the underclass while allowing the white collar criminals to get away with killing hundreds of thousands of people and stealing trillions of dollars with impunity.

How pray tell do white collar criminals kill hundreds of thousands of people and steal trillions of dollars?

Tinfoil? Jealousy?

login · August 13, 2012

A very long reply.

I missed the part where you told me if I am correct about you being an adolescent.

Yeah like I'm going to end up in your backroom tied to a wall.

guyser · August 13, 2012

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/

Uh no, that doesnt explain the nuttiness you popsted earlier about the govt being implicated as distributor.

And, and by the way, based on your earlier post and hamfisted attempt to impress us, .......

I have two Master's one in psychology and one in law

...I call absolute BS on that.

NUMBERED · August 13, 2012

Uh no, that doesnt explain the nuttiness you popsted earlier about the govt being implicated as distributor.

It was the justice department that wrote it, notice the " "'s

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/rs/rep-rap/2003/rr03_vic1/p7_2.html

Edited August 13, 2012 by NUMBERED

guyser · August 13, 2012

It was the justice department that wrote it, notice the " "'s

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/rs/rep-rap/2003/rr03_vic1/p7_2.html

Wrote what?

Both of you need to work on some reading and interprative skills. Login thought the govt could be charged with distributing child porn.

As if :rolleyes:

Every case of child porn would have to be dismissed, not to mention even having charges produced would indict the cops who have looked at it, the crown, the defendants lawyer.

NUMBERED · August 13, 2012

Wrote what?

Both of you need to work on some reading and interprative skills. Login thought the govt could be charged with distributing child porn.

As if

Every case of child porn would have to be dismissed, not to mention even having charges produced would indict the cops who have looked at it, the crown, the defendants lawyer.

OK read it it is near the bottom it is a direct quote, the paper is sponsered by the justice department and appears on their website. last updated 08/03/2012

I'm not sure about the charge thing, implicating and charging are two seperate things. Although the government can be sued, generally criminal charges need to be pressed against individuals not persons. The government is not immune they only have at times colour of right.

Even the Queens immunity from prosecution has been called into question in the last 20 years.

Although in the case of widespread corruption many persons can be charged with the charge and/or conspiracy to commit a given charge, of course corruption in the justice system, blue wall ect are obvious conflicts to prevent abuse of power.

But to the point, the quote was direct from a justice department publication that appears on their website.

Edited August 13, 2012 by NUMBERED