The Geek Forum
Main Forums => Political Opinions => Topic started by: Crystalmonkey on May 26, 2007, 02:21:09 AM
-
This is taken from the discussion on murder, but I felt that this should also apply to all crime as well. I've edited it somewhat.
From what I've seen, which doesn't qualify me as an expert in any way other than for the purposes of this discussion, people seem to commit crimes for three broad reasons, which you may recognize from our discussion of the death penalty (and murder):
1) They've completely lost themselves to rage, and the consequences/logic of their actions is no so easily seen. (By them or by us, which was mentioned in the other thread.) It's often said that emotions can distort our judgment, in many different directions.
2) They have some innate desire or compulsion to do some action. (We call these people psychopaths when they have an innate desire or impulse to kill others, and I believe TehJudgie briefly touched on this in the murder thread.)
3) They commit crimes for "profit". (They believe, for whatever reason, that the pros outweigh the cons. For instance, not believing you will be caught.)
The question then, is why do we have prisons? If they are meant to separate the "criminals" from the rest of the population, does it matter whether prison is a terrible place or not? I think that having prison as a terrible place is the SAME reason we have a death penalty, and should be changed for almost EXACTLY the same reasons.
-
I think that having prison as a terrible place is the SAME reason we have a death penalty, and should be changed for almost EXACTLY the same reasons.
And what reasons are those?
-
And what reasons are those?
1) A deterrent to other people committing crimes.
2) A form of punishment. (Like an eye for an eye, almost.)
-
1) A deterrent to other people committing crimes.
2) A form of punishment. (Like an eye for an eye, almost.)
Why should it be changed for those reasons though? I'm not really seeing where you're going with this.
-
The question then, is why do we have prisons? If they are meant to separate the "criminals" from the rest of the population, does it matter whether prison is a terrible place or not? I think that having prison as a terrible place is the SAME reason we have a death penalty, and should be changed for almost EXACTLY the same reasons.
Society has changed its position on this many times over the course of history, and it is sure to change many more.
My own opinion on the subject is more of a "should" rather than an "is".
Prisons should be rehabilitative wherever possible, provide humane separation of non-rehabilitory inmates from the rest of the law-abiding population when rehabilitation is not possible, and never punitive.
If the goal of a free society is to protect the rights of individuals, it is necessary to remove those people from society who cannot refrain from violating the rights of others. It is not the place of the State to decide to "punish", but I do believe it is well within the State's authority to detain and separate.
If the goal of that separation is a bit more broad in its vision, then it should also work to prevent repeat-offenders. The "deterrent" argument has been used for centuries to justify executions and other non-capital punitive measures, but in practice, there really doesn't seem to be a statistical correllation with States which employ various measures and a reduction in crime.
Certainly, governments who put criminals to death don't have those particular criminals re-offending. But putting them to death does not seem to deter others from committing crimes.
Because of this, and because of the fact that I simply don't believe any government should have the authority and power to end the life of anyone -- regardless of what crime has been committed -- I'm opposed to anything beyond simple detention for those who are non-rehabilitative, and I believe that it is in the best interests of a free society to provide a realistic, reasonable path to rehabilitation for any who express a genuine desire for it.
I'm also of the opinion that victims of crime deserve compensation for their losses in a much greater sense than the State currently provides. Monetary damages are typically laughed at in the context of our prison system, namely in the sense that "you can't get blood from a stone".
I'm not opposed to humane work camps as being part of that rehabilitory aspect of the penal system. Production facilities and other organized working environments that enable an inmate who owes reparations to work an honest and productive -- not just busy work to earn a dime from the State -- day's work on the inside, with the non-essential portion of the inmate's salary going toward paying off whatever debt they owe their victims or victims' families. Programs of this sort do exist in spotty fashion around the US today, but most of them are eaten up by shoddy management, bureaucratic red-tape and administrative costs, so victims and their families see nothing for it. This could easily be corrected, but consistency in philosophy and approach must be mandated from the top on down, and, like so many other government-run entities, the prison systems in the United States are often mired in idiocy that would take a bulldozer to clean up.
For those who are non-rehabilitative, repeat offenders who demonstrate no desire to rejoin society as a law-abiding member, prison should be simply that: a holding pattern for those who are a danger to others and need to be held safely apart from other individuals so as to not allow them to violoate the rights of others. This should be done as humanely as possible, in my opinion, as there is no excuse for a civilized society to treat human beings like animals or worse, even if those human beings have demonstrated contempt for others and don't seem "deserving" of humane treatment.
/long
-
The non-rehabilitatables should live with those who share the same values. Evonus, perhaps you should take them in.
-
In all seriousness, I could go for a system much like the one Demo delineated. The current system is far too punitive and anyone who has taken even an introductory Psychology class knows that punishment doesn't correct behavior, it only makes those behaviors more covert. Possitive reinforcement can do wonders thought, and what many of the people in prisons today need is the tools to be able to operate in our society. Training and education will go a long way to curbing recidivism, but there are those, namely the sociopaths, who really do need to be sequestered from society. I really like the compensation idea for victims' families and if doing the work teaches the offender useful skills for when their debt to society is paid, I'm even more for it.
-
Like I had mentioned, some work/compensation programs do exist out there today in various state-run systems, but they're not very consistent and they usually rely on state funding rather than being self-sufficient, which, aside from the work skills they can provide inmates and the structure they can impose, are somewhat self-defeating. If you're just paying someone to do busy-work, it doesn't really help anyone else.
That's not to say that there aren't prison businesses out there that don't show profits or produce meaningful goods -- there are many that do... but not nearly enough.
-
I agree with Demosthenes. We have an interesting program in my area for juvenile delinquents that works on rehabilitating as opposed to punishing. Volunteers work with juveniles to grow gardens, build homes, and other tasks that give a sense of place in the community and reward (while also giving the kids someone to talk to). Businesses in the area offer work or donate supplies, so a good portion of funding comes from the community itself rather than just the state. Rehabilitation can be a community effort. It'd be nice to see this on a larger scale.
-
...It'd be nice to see this on a larger scale.
Heh. What was that Aerosmith song? Dream On?
:wink:
-
Heh. What was that Aerosmith song? Dream On?
:wink:
What was that George Michael song? Faith?
COME ON, think happy thoughts Peter Pan.
-
Wasn't Peter Pan recalled because it made some kids sick?
Come on, man... give me something to work with!
:D
-
I would have responded with "I believe I can fly" in reference to that R Kelly song made popular by Space Jam.
Guess my wit is lacking.
-
Wasn't Peter Pan recalled because it made some kids sick?
Wasn't he arrested for luring kids to neverland ?
-
At last, Peter Pan and Michael Jackson have something in common.
-
At last, Peter Pan and Michael Jackson have something in common.
And K-Mart!
-
They all have little boys' pants half off...
-
And K-Mart!
K-Mart sucks.
(http://ahsmail.uwaterloo.ca/~remccall/dustin.gif)
-
K-Mart sucks.
(http://ahsmail.uwaterloo.ca/~remccall/dustin.gif)
So does your image host. :wink:
-
I think Demo's idea is full of worth.
That said, I think it would also be interesting if instead of that, we had something established on a separate area/island, with no way to leave (Unless your sentence if finished, or however the system works by this point) that is not as restrictive as prison but still meant to keep them isolated from the rest of society. I believe government is meant to prevent people from violating other people's rights. (I might extend that, but as a minimalist definition that's it.)
If someone violates another person's rights, you separate them from others. No killing, and a relatively minimal removal of personal liberty.
The area would have it's own police force, of course, as well as restrictions on what items can be brought in and who can enter. I wonder what would happen to those who "violate" other peoples rights while inside... perhaps THEN is where more traditional prisons are called for. There will of course be rehabilitation, though I'm not sure I like the government being able to "re-educate" people...
-
Didn't America begin as a bunch of criminals that were shipped over?
-
Nah, that was Australia :D
Here's my plan:
We should sterilize everyone involved in a crime more serious than... (there has to be set a miniumum level crime), and the 1st grade relatives: sons/daughters, siblings, parents. That way we'll get rid of the most violent genetic characteristics, we'll have a good evolutionary reason to follow the law, and we'll help with the overpopulation problem as a side benefit.
I know it's a long shot, but let's try in for a few hundred generations and see what happens...
-
So you're into eugenics, Adolph?
-
The theory that criminal tendencies are hereditary is far from proven.
Of course, one of the reasons it's far from proven (or disproven) is because there is a reluctance to seriously look into the matter. After all, if we find out that criminality is genetic, then we might be tempted to do something about it.
-
So you're into eugenics, Adolph?
THOSE 'PEOPLE' ARE BELOW ME AND HAVE NO BUSINESS BEING ALIVE BECAUSE I SAID SO, DON'T YOU SEE YOU PLEB?
-
Has Paladin met Evonus yet?
-
Paladin may've been sarcastic. Only time will tell.
-
Well since this argument has been mainly demo and crystal monkey agree I figure I'll throw in my opinion. If you're going to ridicule me, don't read my post. If you want to debate, feel free.
Prisons should be rehabilitative wherever possible, provide humane separation of non-rehabilitory inmates from the rest of the law-abiding population when rehabilitation is not possible, and never punitive.
I agree with this for the most part. I do believe that a guy who raped and killed 15 people shouldn't be housed with a guy arrested for car theft. I don't agree with the "never punitive" thing.
If the goal of a free society is to protect the rights of individuals, it is necessary to remove those people from society who cannot refrain from violating the rights of others.
I agree.
It is not the place of the State to decide to "punish", but I do believe it is well within the State's authority to detain and separate.
I disagree. It is the states job to deal with people that can not operate normally within society. Now, I'm sure we'd disagree with which punishments would be assigned for the most part, but I think we can both agree jail time is a deterrent. Thieves and con men are put in jail for a certain amount of time as a punishment, so that when they get out they won't take the easy way out. Jail is simply another method of teaching people to operate within the bounds of society, and not try to take the easy way out, no matter what that is. Some people need to have a fear of a punishment hanging over their heads to not commit a crime. It won't deter everyone, but I don't think anyone besides homeless people who are starving to death wants to go to jail, so it will make people at least step back and think, "is this worth it."
Because of this, and because of the fact that I simply don't believe any government should have the authority and power to end the life of anyone -- regardless of what crime has been committed -- I'm opposed to anything beyond simple detention for those who are non-rehabilitative, and I believe that it is in the best interests of a free society to provide a realistic, reasonable path to rehabilitation for any who express a genuine desire for it.
This part I don't agree with, and it's simply because it just seems pointless to me to provide for people that can't ever amount to anything or contribute anything. I think that since they are basically the waste products of society that they should be disposed of, as efficiently as possible. They aren't worth anything because they can not operate with other people. It's not worth it to hurt other people emotionally, physical, or monetarily for these people, because they are worthless.
I'm also of the opinion that victims of crime deserve compensation for their losses in a much greater sense than the State currently provides. Monetary damages are typically laughed at in the context of our prison system, namely in the sense that "you can't get blood from a stone".
I agree with this.
I'm not opposed to humane work camps as being part of that rehabilitory aspect of the penal system. Production facilities and other organized working environments that enable an inmate who owes reparations to work an honest and productive -- not just busy work to earn a dime from the State -- day's work on the inside, with the non-essential portion of the inmate's salary going toward paying off whatever debt they owe their victims or victims' families. Programs of this sort do exist in spotty fashion around the US today, but most of them are eaten up by shoddy management, bureaucratic red-tape and administrative costs, so victims and their families see nothing for it. This could easily be corrected, but consistency in philosophy and approach must be mandated from the top on down, and, like so many other government-run entities, the prison systems in the United States are often mired in idiocy that would take a bulldozer to clean up.
Gulags comrade Stalin? ;)
Nah, I'm just joking, I agree that they should be made to contribute like everyone else. I think that prison life should just be a harder day of work than that outside the system. This could help the inmates as well as society, because inmates could possibly learn trades, as well
simply getting used to normal work.
For those who are non-rehabilitative, repeat offenders who demonstrate no desire to rejoin society as a law-abiding member, prison should be simply that: a holding pattern for those who are a danger to others and need to be held safely apart from other individuals so as to not allow them to violoate the rights of others. This should be done as humanely as possible, in my opinion, as there is no excuse for a civilized society to treat human beings like animals or worse, even if those human beings have demonstrated contempt for others and don't seem "deserving" of humane treatment.
My only answer to this is that, if you act like an animal, you get treated like one, for example, being put in a cage. If you have the mentality of a rabid animal, you should be put down like one.
-
So, if you act and argue like you have 3 live brain cells...
-
This part I don't agree with, and it's simply because it just seems pointless to me to provide for people that can't ever amount to anything or contribute anything. I think that since they are basically the waste products of society that they should be disposed of, as efficiently as possible. They aren't worth anything because they can not operate with other people. It's not worth it to hurt other people emotionally, physical, or monetarily for these people, because they are worthless.
Here's the thing. These people are worthless in your opinion. It is also your opinion that those you deem worthless should die. Based on you own words (in the past), you have a much broader definition of 'worthless' than many, if not most, other people. I would like you to define worthless. In your eyes, at what point is someone nothing but a drain on society, and therefore worthy of termination?
-
I was beeing sarcastic, thank you Ivan. But i am into voluntary eugenics, we all are even if we don't realize it. As in: i want to have children with THAT woman, so my progeny will (maybe) have those genes from her... And we could do better than that i think, but not with compulsory sterilisation of family members.
Offtopic and all that.
-
Here's the thing. These people are worthless in your opinion. It is also your opinion that those you deem worthless should die.
This thread has been largely opinion based so far, so I figured I'd provide mine.
Based on you own words (in the past), you have a much broader definition of 'worthless' than many, if not most, other people. I would like you to define worthless. In your eyes, at what point is someone nothing but a drain on society, and therefore worthy of termination?
Okay, worthless as I see it is basically the point where no matter what effort, money, or time is put into someone that they can no longer ever function within the bounds of society or contribute to society.
Now I know that there is one group of people that falls into this category that I'm not for terminating, and that is the elderly, but I feel that since these individuals worked their entire lives and made the world what it is that they deserve rest. The main thing I'm against is people that society keeps alive that don't contribute, or can't contribute.
-
The retarded? The severely disabled?
-
Now I know that there is one group of people that falls into this category that I'm not for terminating, and that is the elderly, but I feel that since these individuals worked their entire lives and made the world what it is that they deserve rest. The main thing I'm against is people that society keeps alive that don't contribute, or can't contribute.
Do the retarded fit this? If he has the body of an adult, but the mind of a three year old and can't be taken anywhere in public anymore because last time he was in KayBee Toys he got caught trying to fuck the stuffed Kermit the frog doll while his handler was in the bathroom, should he be killed?
Edit: DAMN YOU PB!
-
Quoting him defeats the nifty Ignore feature.
-
Well excuuuuuuuuuuuse me, princess.
-
V to Evonus:... I would like you to define worthless.
Economy with words is sometimes a virtue, as in when your list would conceivably go on forever it is far more expedient to start at the top and name those not on your 'hit-list' ....
Evonus: there is one group of people that falls into this category that I'm not for terminating, and that is the elderly
... at least you draw the line somewhere ! :roll:
Evonus: The main thing I'm against is people that society keeps alive that don't contribute, or can't contribute.
Were you potty trained at gunpoint ?
... Oh. One more thing ...
Evonus:... If you're going to ridicule me, don't read my post. ...
Nonsense. It is only by the reading of your posts that the seeds of ridicule can be gathered without prejudice.
-
Well excuuuuuuuuuuuse me, princess.
I'm just saying.
If y'all want to continue exchanging virtual saliva with the unpleasant fellow, then by all means. But there is another, less stressful path.
-
Now, I'm sure we'd disagree with which punishments would be assigned for the most part, but I think we can both agree jail time is a deterrent.
Tell that to people that are still dealing drugs now that in most states there are laws on the books offering life without parole for some drug trafficking offenses.
-
Nonsense. It is only by the reading of your posts that the seeds of ridicule can be gathered without prejudice.
Yeah, I'm gathering them WITH prejudice.
-
Good call, Demo.
It was a Jewish anarchist (I can't recall his name, the only reason that's noteworthy is because the whole video was about Jewish anarchism in particular) who said that good people don't need laws and bad people break them anyway. The fact that laws and prisons are around now yet crime still happens proves they are fatally flawed. So what's the answer? Arm the police with better weapons, disarm the public, set up security systems galore, and prisons so brutal you'd have to be insane to break the law and risk being sent there? That would result in a police state, and many would say that sucks even worse than having a bit of crime here and there.
-
Tell that to people that are still dealing drugs now that in most states there are laws on the books offering life without parole for some drug trafficking offenses.
Hell, forget dealing...look how many people are using drugs, and then tell me that laws against drugs are an effective deterrent.
-
look how many people are using drugs, and then tell me that laws against drugs are an effective deterrent.
Crack hoes don't give damn about drug laws. Neither do I.
The drug laws are a scam to rip off the citizenry "legally".
-
The retarded? The severely disabled?
Well, I mean I'm not for pulling people out of their homes if they've done nothing wrong, and gunning them down. But if these people eventually end up hopeless lost and homeless I think it's probably the right thing to do. Some people that are retarded and severely disabled can work. You can still work as a Janitor even if you're retarded (we have a couple at college) and disabled people can still work a desk job.
Tell that to people that are still dealing drugs now that in most states there are laws on the books offering life without parole for some drug trafficking offenses.
Some people have the system figured out, or think they do anyway and find that the net gain will outweigh the potential risk. Not all people can be deterred, there will always be crime, but deterrents do work, they just don't work for everyone, at least to a certain point.
-
Crack hoes don't give damn about drug laws. Neither do I.
Better be careful dude, there's a war on those things!
-
Here's the thing. These people are worthless in your opinion. It is also your opinion that those you deem worthless should die.
This thread has been largely opinion based so far, so I figured I'd provide mine.
I didn't mean that you shouldn't offer your opinion. I meant that you're not stating a fact. Those beliefs are your opinions, and are, therefore, not necessarily reflective of any facts.
Okay, worthless as I see it is basically the point where no matter what effort, money, or time is put into someone that they can no longer ever function within the bounds of society or contribute to society.
Now I know that there is one group of people that falls into this category that I'm not for terminating, and that is the elderly, but I feel that since these individuals worked their entire lives and made the world what it is that they deserve rest. The main thing I'm against is people that society keeps alive that don't contribute, or can't contribute.
So, if the severely retarded/disabled end up homeless "drains on society", you believe they should be terminated.
I have some questions about your point, "no matter what effort, money, or time is put into someone that they can no longer ever function within the bounds of society or contribute to society".
1. How do you determine the time/money/effort threshold?
2. How to you intend to make the law prescient enough to know what the future will hold for any given person?
2a. What about convicted killers/rapists who have gone to prison for life and/or death, who have then contributed to society from behind bars?
-
Depending on what state you live in, I think a murderer or rapist may have drilled the holes for your license plates.
-
Better be careful dude, there's a war on those things!
There's a war on crack hoes?
-
I didn't mean that you shouldn't offer your opinion. I meant that you're not stating a fact. Those beliefs are your opinions, and are, therefore, not necessarily reflective of any facts.
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.
So, if the severely retarded/disabled end up homeless "drains on society", you believe they should be terminated.
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 have some questions about your point, "no matter what effort, money, or time is put into someone that they can no longer ever function within the bounds of society or contribute to society".
1. How do you determine the time/money/effort threshold?
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?"
2. How to you intend to make the law prescient enough to know what the future will hold for any given person?
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.
2a. What about convicted killers/rapists who have gone to prison for life and/or death, who have then contributed to society from behind bars?
Stamping liscence plates doesn't mean much to me. Do you have any examples?
[/quote]
-
I think that Ted Kaczynski wrote a book review, and Ted Bundy did an interview with Focus of the Family about the evils of pornography.
-
I know a crack hoe that got married.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Just the same if you were looking after a crack hoe.
-
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.
-
Crack hoes don't need a Bachelor's degree... just the bachelor.
-
Crack hoes don't need a Bachelor's degree... just the bachelor.
Oh for Christ's sake.
My mom is a crack hoe. Cheap!
:w:
-
12, knock it off or I'm gonna crack your skull with a hoe! :x
-
hehehehe...crack hoes.
-
12, knock it off or I'm gonna crack your skull with a hoe! :x
I doubt it.
-
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.
-
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.
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 8) then you are a wasteful wasteful person.
-
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.
-
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 8) 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.
-
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.
-
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 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?
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
-
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.
-
I mean exactly what I said.
Did you go get your hoe? :-P
It's not cracked, is it?
-
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.
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.
-
After reading this entire thread, I have reached one conclusion: Evonus is half Drow. :lol:
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.
-
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).
-
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 :lol:
Fixed. :-)
-
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 (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."
-
:-o :-o Shit, I'm glad cat and crew came back earlier!!!
-
People who know they are infected with a very bad disease, yet still go on not giving a shit if they infect other people really, really, REALLY piss me off.
-
Those bastards should be shot! :lol:
-
If you know you have HIV, aren't doing jack shit about it, and continue to lie to everybody telling them that you're clean knowing full damn well that you're going to infect your new partner (but who cares, it's not like you ever intend to see him again after tonight, right?) then, yes, you should be shot.
-
Right in the nuts in fact.
-
If you know you have HIV, aren't doing jack shit about it, and continue to lie to everybody telling them that you're clean knowing full damn well that you're going to infect your new partner (but who cares, it's not like you ever intend to see him again after tonight, right?) then, yes, you should be shot.
People who have sex and don't get tested annually for STDs should be severely shaken.
-
I have sex and don't get tested annually for STDs.
-
I have sex and don't get tested annually for STDs.
Do you wish to be shaken or stirred?
-
Variety is the spice of life.
-
Okay, you have more than one partner in the span of your previous test to your next, then you should get tested regularly. Obviously if you're married and not having affairs, it's unnecessary.
-
I learned something today. It's not a good idea to make blanket statements, well unless, they're about blankets, and then be careful, because we all know what blankets did to the native americans, but anyway, one size does not fit all, generalizations generally over-simplify, and there are many perspectives, none of which are absolute truth.
-
but anyway, one size does not fit all, generalizations generally over-simplify, and there are many perspectives, none of which are absolute truth.
And that's the truth. :raspberry:
-
Those bastards should be shot! :lol:
Can't you be charged with murder for giving somebody aids if you knew you had it and told them otherwise?
-
Can't you be charged with murder for giving somebody aids if you knew you had it and told them otherwise?
In a perfect world......YES. Can't wait until I'm Dictator-For-Life. One of my first acts, after painting the White House pink, would be to make this one of the new laws.
-
HIV is what is given, AIDS may or may not develope later but in either case death would have to occur before murder could be claimed. Nonetheless, there are (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_transmission_of_HIV) laws on reckless transmission allready... some with fairly severe penalties and some new laws evolving.
-
i think if you're a dude and you know you have hiv or aids and you purposely don't tell somebody you have it and sleep with them anyways you should have you're dong cut off
-
I think punctuation is under appreciated and under used.
Does your shift key work?
-
I think that if one has any STD, and regardless of whether one is a Dude or a Dudette, serious repercusions should be applicable as a penalty for any deliberate and/or reckless endangerment.
... The cutting off of body parts however, would create another can of worms though.
-
I think punctuation is under appreciated and under used.
Does your shift key work?
From now on I'll be sure to try my best as to use correct punctuation to better accommodate you. Sorry for the previous incorrect posts.
[/quote]I think that if one has any STD, and regardless of whether one is a Dude or a Dudette, serious repercusions should be applicable as a penalty for any deliberate and/or reckless endangerment.
... The cutting off of body parts however, would create another can of worms though.
I believe the cutting off of the limbs was a little too much, but I definitely agree with serious repercussions being taken for these crimes.
-
How would you prove it?
Many people react almost instantly (days) to Herpies for example; however, some don't develop symptoms for weeks or months. Some never show symptoms, but they're definitely infected. How would you determine the source?
-
How would you prove it?
Many people react almost instantly (days) to Herpies for example; however, some don't develop symptoms for weeks or months. Some never show symptoms, but they're definitely infected. How would you determine the source?
That is a good point. I guess these punishments would only be applicable in certain situations, almost making them useless, because the people needing to be protected by them most likely are the ones with multiple partners who wouldn't be able to pinpoint, or prove the person(s) that gave them the std(s).
-
Good point indeed.
In order for such laws to work, the operative words "deliberate", "reckless" and "endangerment" would have to be clearly defined and provable.
In the same [similar] spirit as laws to protect against potential harm to others by negligence (towards children, employees, etc.) there are many penalties for merely exposing to danger/harm and these can become increased if and when actual harm occurs.
-
Just criminalize sex and be done with it.
-
If you outlaw sex, only outlaws will have sex.
I forget, was I a white-hat, or a black-hat H4xx0r at HN?
-
A whole new social class will be created...
Sexy pot smoking Outlaws with guns ... oh my.
-
Just criminalize sex and be done with it.
You mean it's legal where you live?!
-
You mean it's legal where you live?!
Well, I've got a note from my doctor ... would that count ?
-
Many people react almost instantly (days) to Herpies for example; however, some don't develop symptoms for weeks or months. Some never show symptoms, but they're definitely infected. How would you determine the source?
I know quite a few people that are indeed infected but display zero symptoms and have the virus itself down to undetectable levels. Doesn't mean they're cured of course. Medication has really advanced from the 80s, naturally, and while catching HIV isn't the fast ticket to the grave that it once was, it's still in essence a death sentence. It's a really scary disease and it quite honestly terrifies me. I just got my test done two days ago and I hate getting these things. I know I live pretty much like a monk, but there is always the 'what if' factor that freaks me out.
-
i think if you're a dude and you know you have hiv or aids and you purposely don't tell somebody you have it and sleep with them anyways you should have you're dong cut off
I like the way you think son.
You mean it's legal where you live?!
I'm guessing you live in the Vatican.
-
(http://www.kreuz.net/article/article.4300.attachment1.jpg) (http://www.metrog.com/locations/orangecounty/xhis_dugas.jpg)
-
A whole new social class will be created...
Sexy pot smoking Outlaws with guns ... oh my.
Sign me up!
-
(http://www.kreuz.net/article/article.4300.attachment1.jpg) (http://www.metrog.com/locations/orangecounty/xhis_dugas.jpg)
I don't get it.
-
The only thing I can think of is that this is that guy from the 'Boys Beware' video that I had to sit through in grade school. Yes, they actually made us watch it and even then my tender young mind knew that there is was something wrong with us being forced to watch it.
-
(http://www.kreuz.net/article/article.4300.attachment1.jpg) (http://www.metrog.com/locations/orangecounty/xhis_dugas.jpg)
i think this dudes my uncle
-
The only thing I can think of is that this is that guy from the 'Boys Beware' video that I had to sit through in grade school. Yes, they actually made us watch it and even then my tender young mind knew that there is was something wrong with us being forced to watch it.
I watched it along with all the Sid Davis stuff I could find years ago (I'm a fan), and to tell you the truth I think it's largely an all right film if you replace the word 'homosexual' with 'pedophile'. Sure it's a testament to the culture of fear, but compared to some of Sid's other work it's downright tame.
-
Ahah, that Sid Davis ...
Sid Davis was an actor and stand-in for John Wayne during the 1940s and '50s who went on to make some well-known films for children about the dangers of drugs, drinking and running with scissors. He died October 16 in Palm Desert at age 90 from a scissor wound, apparently he was running through his home carrying them and tripped over a wrinkle in the rug.
... oh the irony of it all.
-
That is Gaetan Dugas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaetan_Dugas).
The early 80s were a scary and sad time for many people.
-
Wow.
-
I like the theory where Alfred Kinsey nailed a bushman and then gave it to JFK and Marilyn Monroe...at least I think that's how it went. I think I have the book somewhere actually...hmm...
-
Ahah, that Sid Davis ...
... oh the irony of it all.
Maybe he was just trying to prove a point. ;)
That is Gaetan Dugas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaetan_Dugas).
The early 80s were a scary and sad time for many people.
My highschool Chemistry teacher knew this guy.
-
Maybe he was just trying to prove a point. ;)
More than likely.
My highschool Chemistry teacher knew this guy.
Your Chem teacher knows d_money's uncle ? It is a small world.
-
That is Gaetan Dugas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaetan_Dugas).
The early 80s were a scary and sad time for many people.
Holy Shit. Sorry, but there's not much more I can say...