Topic: Crime (And Punishment) (Read 29236 times)

12AX7 · « **Reply #50 on:** May 30, 2007, 10:47:01 PM »

I know a crack hoe that got married.

Zephyr · « **Reply #51 on:** May 30, 2007, 10:47:30 PM »

I agree that people shouldn't live in life support. I think that is a waste. But I also have a huge moral conflict with it because when it comes down to it, that handicapped person is someone's sister, brother, son, daughter, cousin, wife, etc. If my sister got into a car wreck and became severely handicapped, I'd have a huge problem is the state swept in and put her down. If you mean handicapped CRIMINALS...well, that doesn't make sense to me. Kind of hard to rob a bank if you can't chew your own food.

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #52 on:** May 30, 2007, 10:56:58 PM »

Quote from: Zephyr on May 30, 2007, 10:47:30 PM

But I also have a huge moral conflict with it because when it comes down to it, that handicapped person is someone's sister, brother, son, daughter, cousin, wife, etc. If my sister got into a car wreck and became severely handicapped, I'd have a huge problem is the state swept in and put her down.

If I feel like taking care of a handicapped relative (or friend, whatever), the state can go fuck itself blue if it has a problem with that.

12AX7 · « **Reply #53 on:** May 30, 2007, 10:59:35 PM »

Just the same if you were looking after a crack hoe.

Zephyr · « **Reply #54 on:** May 30, 2007, 11:00:07 PM »

Also, I guess my other concern is reforming homeless people. Into what? Working poor? Even a Bachelor's degree is starting to become worthless and I doubt the government will reform them through that much schooling.

12AX7 · « **Reply #55 on:** May 30, 2007, 11:01:07 PM »

Crack hoes don't need a Bachelor's degree... just the bachelor.

Zephyr · « **Reply #56 on:** May 30, 2007, 11:03:02 PM »

Quote from: 12AX7 on May 30, 2007, 11:01:07 PM

Crack hoes don't need a Bachelor's degree... just the bachelor.

Oh for Christ's sake.
~~My mom is a crack hoe. Cheap!~~

Vespertine · « **Reply #57 on:** May 30, 2007, 11:06:27 PM »

12, knock it off or I'm gonna crack your skull with a hoe!

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #58 on:** May 30, 2007, 11:10:23 PM »

hehehehe...crack hoes.

12AX7 · « **Reply #59 on:** May 30, 2007, 11:22:16 PM »

Quote from: Vespertine on May 30, 2007, 11:06:27 PM

12, knock it off or I'm gonna crack your skull with a hoe!

I doubt it.

Evonus · « **Reply #60 on:** May 30, 2007, 11:25:01 PM »

Quote from: Zephyr on May 30, 2007, 10:47:30 PM

I agree that people shouldn't live in life support. I think that is a waste. But I also have a huge moral conflict with it because when it comes down to it, that handicapped person is someone's sister, brother, son, daughter, cousin, wife, etc. If my sister got into a car wreck and became severely handicapped, I'd have a huge problem is the state swept in and put her down. If you mean handicapped CRIMINALS...well, that doesn't make sense to me. Kind of hard to rob a bank if you can't chew your own food.

If you don't want the state to put her down then take care of her yourself. That's basically what I'm proposing.

Evonus · « **Reply #61 on:** May 30, 2007, 11:27:42 PM »

Quote from: Zephyr on May 30, 2007, 11:00:07 PM

Also, I guess my other concern is reforming homeless people. Into what? Working poor?

That's another issue all it's own. But yes, standard blue collar workers.

Quote

Even a Bachelor's degree is starting to become worthless and I doubt the government will reform them through that much schooling.

I'm only getting my BS. I'm a sophmore, I already know a company that wants to hire me, and I'm going to start out making over 60k. That's plenty enough. Half of that would be enough. If you can't live off 30-40k a year (just you, not feed a family of

then you are a wasteful wasteful person.

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #62 on:** May 30, 2007, 11:33:23 PM »

Quote from: Evonus on May 30, 2007, 11:25:01 PM

If you don't want the state to put her down then take care of her yourself. That's basically what I'm proposing.

Well if you take the concept of them being a drain on society as a whole to it's natural conclusion, you have no choice but kill them wherever they are depending on healthy people to survive. If I'm caring for a mental cripple, I'm spending time and energy that would be better spent in the service of society (probably in the form of the state). This seems more and more like fascism the more and more I think about it.

Zephyr · « **Reply #63 on:** May 30, 2007, 11:34:51 PM »

Quote from: Evonus on May 30, 2007, 11:27:42 PM

That's another issue all it's own. But yes, standard blue collar workers.

I'm only getting my BS. I'm a sophmore, I already know a company that wants to hire me, and I'm going to start out making over 60k. That's plenty enough. Half of that would be enough. If you can't live off 30-40k a year (just you, not feed a family of then you are a wasteful wasteful person.

Yeah, you should be able to live off of 30-40k a year, but considering the 20k I'm investing in an education, I'd prefer making 40-50k for my money and effort. And good for you.

Evonus · « **Reply #64 on:** May 30, 2007, 11:40:55 PM »

Quote from: Zephyr on May 30, 2007, 11:34:51 PM

Yeah, you should be able to live off of 30-40k a year, but considering the 20k I'm investing in an education, I'd prefer making 40-50k for my money and effort. And good for you.

20k isn't that much, just FYI for education. I'm paying 40k and that's with scholarships out the ass. Effort I can see, but you also need to pursue something that pays well.

Zephyr · « **Reply #65 on:** May 30, 2007, 11:48:09 PM »

Just because it's not as much as you've paid, doesn't mean it isn't a lot of money. 20k in any circumstance is a huge chunk of money. Or is your life, the amount you pay, the jobs you've been offered, and the salary you'll be making the new standard?

Vespertine · « **Reply #66 on:** May 31, 2007, 12:05:51 AM »

Quote from: Evonus on May 30, 2007, 10:37:50 PM

I wasn't trying to make it sound like that, if it came off that way I apologize and will try to improve my phrasing for next time.

Yes. I know the United States criminal justice system does not execute people who have mental problems, but I disagree with this. I just don't see any reason to keep them around.

I'm not 100% sure what you mean by this. Do you mean the "after how much is it suitable for them to retire?" or do you mean "how much time we should spend trying to get them capable of working?"

I mean exactly what I said. How do you determine how much effort, or time, or money should be put into any one person before you slate them for execution? Is it an absolute scale, or does is slide?

Quote

Well we know people sentenced to death or condemned to life in prison can't contribute, because they're probably in maximum security, and don't get to leave their room very much, so that's easy enough. Besides that I think we should put money towards reforming the homeless and unemployed, and those that don't succeed should be terminated.

Stamping liscence plates doesn't mean much to me. Do you have any examples?

Can't contribute? Want examples? Here you go.

Stan "Tookie" Williams - executed in 2005...founder of the crips turned anti-gang activist (even wrote childrens' books) from death row.
Leonard Peltier - 2 consecutive life terms...convicted of killing two FBI agents...has received several human rights awards for his good deeds from behind bars
Gary Graham - executed in 2000...convicted of murder...earned his GED, cofounded a newspaper and social justice organization, the Endeavor Project, and frequently urged young people to not get involved with criminal conduct
Judy Clark - 3 consecutive 25 year sentences...formed an AIDS counseling program to help inmates coping with AIDS

Evonus · « **Reply #67 on:** May 31, 2007, 12:16:32 AM »

Quote from: Zephyr on May 30, 2007, 11:48:09 PM

Just because it's not as much as you've paid, doesn't mean it isn't a lot of money. 20k in any circumstance is a huge chunk of money. Or is your life, the amount you pay, the jobs you've been offered, and the salary you'll be making the new standard?

I'm not trying to make it personal. I'm just saying, as far as education goes, and believe me, I know, I've had to compare prices, that's cheap.

12AX7 · « **Reply #68 on:** May 31, 2007, 12:17:28 AM »

Quote from: Vespertine on May 31, 2007, 12:05:51 AM

I mean exactly what I said.

Did you go get your hoe?

It's not cracked, is it?

Evonus · « **Reply #69 on:** May 31, 2007, 12:21:10 AM »

Quote from: Vespertine on May 31, 2007, 12:05:51 AM

I mean exactly what I said. How do you determine how much effort, or time, or money should be put into any one person before you slate them for execution? Is it an absolute scale, or does is slide?

Depends on if they seem to be responding to the treatments or not. I'd imagine it'd be best to gather a jury to evaluate each person, and allocate a certain amount of money per person.

Quote

Can't contribute? Want examples? Here you go.

Stan "Tookie" Williams - executed in 2005...founder of the crips turned anti-gang activist (even wrote childrens' books) from death row.
Leonard Peltier - 2 consecutive life terms...convicted of killing two FBI agents...has received several human rights awards for his good deeds from behind bars
Gary Graham - executed in 2000...convicted of murder...earned his GED, cofounded a newspaper and social justice organization, the Endeavor Project, and frequently urged young people to not get involved with criminal conduct
Judy Clark - 3 consecutive 25 year sentences...formed an AIDS counseling program to help inmates coping with AIDS

Then maybe people should be spared from the death penalty if they can prove themselves useful, like the first couple people you mentioned. Depends on which perspective you take it from though. I don't see any reason to remove them from jail seeing how they're obviously more productive in jail than out of it, but I don't think we should kill useful people.

TheJudge · « **Reply #70 on:** May 31, 2007, 07:47:40 AM »

After reading this entire thread, I have reached one conclusion: Evonus is half Drow.

I guess the basic problem in dealing with criminals is our inability to make an effective triage. It sounds like most people agree that there are criminals who can be reformed, and some who can't. Unfortunatly, we are unable to distingish them from another in a lot of cases. So regardless of all the ideas proposed on how to manage each criminal group respectivily (i.e. educate vs search and destroy), if we can't draw a clear line between criminal types, we'll have a never ending debate. The risk of course is the destruction of inocent life, in the event where a mistake is made, or where someone abuses their state given powers. This is one of the many reasons why a lot of people are against capital punishement.

In terms of the prison system, mixing mass murderers with someone caught paying for sex where prostitution is illegal doesn't quite make sense, as Demo pointed out earlier. One of the things we are able to define clearly is crime severity, but with some limitations. For example, if we went through all laws and established a degree from one to five, five being the most severe, this could help us conduct a better triage. I other words, prisons would either be of a specific level, or a prison would have assigned sections for each level it houses. This is sort of what we have in place today except they use words like Max, SuperMax, instead of numbers. What we don't have however is a concordance table of some sort where breaking Law #1 = Max and breaking law#2 = SuperMax. (or in my proposal, a number from 1 to 5 instead of descriptive words). I think this could serve as a basline in the sense that if you break a certain law, to a minimum, you are assigned a crime level (just like grand theft auto! hehe). Then the subjective part somes in: Context. This includes things like the person's history, precedence, influence (drug use, mental illness, etc). There is a subjective analysis that goes on (court process) and at the end of this process two things would be decided. First, is the person guilty or not. Second, when found guilty the person is given a basic crime level (based on the specific crime level identified in the law that was broken) and a decision on determining if this crime level should go up is made, based on context.

In essence, this is like combining the statutory law system with the common law system. I think that would be interesting.

What Evonus defines as the "useless" category, under my proposed system, would likely be found a criminal level 5. However, that does not mean that all individuals at level 5 are automatically beyond rehabilitation or unable to contribute to society, hence the original problem. Evonus would probably tell you "shoot first, ask questions later" when it comes to that particular group. Having hunted for many years, and having dealt with strange and reckless rednecks, the shoot first ask questions later phiolosophy is pretty primitive (not to mention dangerous) in my opinion. So hwat do you do when you have a group of people, you know that some of them are beyond any salvation of any kind, but not all, and you hhave no way of identify which one is which. Who do you shoot? There can only be two answers, and that should be based on the morales and principles of the society we want to live in: Shoot none, or shoot all.

I choose none. If I can't be certain, then it would be irresponsible for me to take action. So instead, I can simply force these humans to be productive by putting them to work. Perhaps I can teach them the value of teamwork and cooperation in the process. Perhaps I can reach just one person and change how they view the world. And if I don't succeed, at least my hands are clean.

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #71 on:** May 31, 2007, 08:42:16 AM »

As far as I'm concerned, most of the things that count as crimes today are a waste of time and money to enforce. If the Canadian government (for example) were to spend the money it spends on all the personnel and resources tracking down grow ops on something useful, the good that could be accomplished boggles the mind. Drug laws are bullshit, ditto prostitution (I think the unsavory elements of both, violence et al, would be all but eliminated by moving it out into the open by removing fear of the popos) laws. As far as I'm concerned, the only crimes worth doing something about are the ones where a person has proven that they are inclined to hurt innocent people and seem likely to do it again (basically murderers, rapists, and assaulters). In this case I'd prescribe seperating them from the rest of the population in some manner so that they are unable to get back in but not in a traditional prison (those are extremely wasteful and poorly designed in my opinion).

12AX7 · « **Reply #72 on:** May 31, 2007, 08:43:50 AM »

Quote from: TheJudge on May 31, 2007, 07:47:40 AM

After reading this entire thread, I have reached ~~one~~ two conclusions: Evonus is half Drow; and 12 has a weird thing about saying "crack hoe" at every opportunity

Fixed.

12AX7 · « **Reply #73 on:** May 31, 2007, 09:42:16 AM »

Here's one for y'all to chew on in this thread. (And it's NOT a crack hoe!)

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/conditions/05/31/tb.flight.ap/index.html

"It was while the man was in Rome that he learned further U.S. tests had determined his TB was the rare, extensively drug-resistant form, far more dangerous than he knew. They told him turn himself over to Italian health officials and not to fly on any commercial airlines.

Instead, on May 24, the man flew from Rome to Prague on Czech Air Flight 0727, then flew to Montreal aboard Czech Air Flight 0104 and drove into the U.S., according to CDC officials."

12AX7 · « **Reply #74 on:** May 31, 2007, 09:44:00 AM »

Shit, I'm glad cat and crew came back earlier!!!

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: Crime (And Punishment) (Read 29236 times)

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7