Path: bloom-picayune.mit.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!news.media.mit.edu!americast.com!usa-post Newsgroups: usa-today.issues From: usa-post@AmeriCast.Com Organization: American Cybercasting Approved: usa-post@AmeriCast.com Subject: issues Tue, Apr 28 1992 Date: Tue, 28 Apr 92 05:41:28 EDT Message-ID: 04-28 0000 DECISIONLINE: Issues & Debate USA TODAY Update April 28, 1992 Source: USA TODAY:Gannett National Information Network Here are some of the issues and topics being debated across the nation Tuesday morning in USA TODAY: Prisons; Voting; Earth. TODAY'S DEBATE - PRISONS: USA TODAY'S OPINION: Violent crime is reaching out across the USA. Cities of under 100,000 saw murder go up 22% last year. Towns of 10,000-25,000 saw rape reports jump 11%. Overall violent crime was up 5%. The experts blame it on guns, gangs and drugs. And they generally agree with Attorney General William Barr, who said Sunday that the way to handle violent criminals is to lock 'em up. There's just one problem: Building more prisons, as Barr suggests, isn't working. States have built jail space at a record pace for a decade, as the prison population went from 330,000 in 1980 to 804,000 last year. In all, 426 of every 100,000 Americans are behind bars. The cost of this "tough on crime splurge" is astronomical - an average $22,000 a year to keep a prisoner, almost $52,000 to provide space to keep him; $20.1 billion in all last year. And violent crime went up. The reason isn't hard to understand. Most of those locked up are not violent criminals. New York doubled its prison population between 1983 and 1990, but the number in for violent crimes went down. That is typical. And it's foolish. Most prisoners are 18 to 34. They are drunks, drug users, low-level drug dealers, parole violators or tax evaders, like Leona Helmsley and recently released Pete Rose. About 100,000 are mentally ill. Two-thirds never finished high school and have drug problems; 40% can't read. Society needs cheaper, more effective ways of dealing with them. OTHER VIEW: JOHN LOFTON, a Laurel, Md., writer and newsletter publisher: The philosopher George Santayana defined fanaticism as "redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aims." And a case in point is the wrongheaded idea of so-called "alternative sentencing" to reduce the size of our prison population - such things as halfway houses, electronic monitoring of people ordered to stay in their own houses, and boot-camp-style programs in which criminals supposedly are scared into being good. But these are notions which only further demonstrate the bankruptcy of the thinking of our secular, humanistic modern-day criminologists. What we need are tough new alternative laws, based on biblical principles, which would: Lengthen the list of capital crimes, for which a swift and sure death penalty would be just punishment; require restitution, a monetary or equivalent payback to those who are damaged; and corporally punish through, for example, the whipping post, those who commit lesser, non-violent crimes. VOICES ACROSS THE NATION ON VOTING IN CONGRESSIONAL RACES: PAPILLION, Neb., Roger D. Scott, 32, U.S. Air Force: Personally, I'm going to pay more attention. It's necessary with everything that's going on. It's important to vote and to keep your voice heard. I'm not satisfied with the politicians. I need to pay attention because I haven't before; I have to find out what they stand for. HIGHLANDS, N.C., Robert "Bo" Burts, 64, retired contractor: I will vote because I don't like what's going on and I want to do my share and pick someone who can help straighten out the mess. I feel it's not only my duty, but it is the right thing to do. LAWRENCE, Kan., Joan Scharinger, 48, office manager: I'll vote. I've paid attention to a lot of the scandals, and I guess I feel we've been taken advantage of by everybody in Congress. They think the American public is pretty stupid. Everyone has had it and would like some changes, including me. MIAMI, Fla., Allen Hardin, 23, graduate student: I'm more likely to vote because I think there needs to be a turnover. The politicians need to realize that we are keeping an eye on what they're doing and, if we're not happy, we need to have them replaced. If we are unhappy, we shouldn't sit back and avoid the problem. SENECA, Mo., Marian Kelly, 34, stand-up comic: I'm more likely to vote because, while it may be that I'm just growing older, I'm beginning to see how things affect me directly. I'm particularly concerned about the growing deficit. I won't vote for anyone not in favor of a balanced-budget amendment. TOPIC - GLOBAL WARMING: SEN. ALBERT GORE, a second-term Democrat from Tennessee, was interviewed by USA TODAY's editorial board and news staff about global warming and the upcoming Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. DO YOU SEE ANY HOPE FOR A TREATY TO STOP GLOBAL WARMING? President Bush has instructed our negotiators to stonewall the rest of the world, to place roadblocks in the path of progress. He has been unwilling to resolve the conflicts within his administration and give clear directions to our negotiators in New York. Consequently, the entire negotiating process is now at risk. HOW WOULD THE TREATY STOP GLOBAL WARMING? By stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions, which are responsible for global warming, at 1990 levels by the year 2000. The president's supporters acknowledge we will probably meet that goal anyway. But if we refuse to adopt the goal and abide by it, then nobody will elsewhere in the world. Carbon dioxide emissions are increasing dramatically. We have a much larger impact on this problem than any other nation, and President Bush is saying: "We're not going to accept any responsibility for it." WHAT IS HIS MOTIVATION? Parts of the energy industry are worried the transition will hurt profits. The president has also been vulnerable to the arguments of skeptics who say there isn't any problem. And there is his all-out commitment to short-term perspectives. What does the next overnight opinion poll show? He never seems to ask the question: What's the impact on future generations? AREN'T THERE STILL UNCERTAINTIES ON GLOBAL WARMING? There are uncertainties, of course. There's uncertainty about how rapidly the warming will take place and how high temperatures will go. There's uncertainty about the regional effects of the climate change that this will cause. There is virtually no uncertainty about the fact that continued accumulations of greenhouse gases will lead to warming. There's virtually no uncertainty that that warming will in turn cause climate change. Issues & Debate Editor: Michele Coleman. (1-919-855-3491) Making copies of USA TODAY Update (Copyright, 1992) for further distribution violates federal law. This article is copyright 1992 Gannett News Service. Redistribution to other sites is not permitted except by arrangement with American Cybercasting Corporation. For more information, send-email to usa@AmeriCast.COM