|
PTBrennan posted:A few thousand protesters are one thing, over a million is another. Imagine 10 million US citizens arriving all at once, surrounding the white house and demanding change and if change doesn't come right away those 10 million people threaten to forcefully remove all those unwilling to do the peoples bidding. Did you miss the Iraq war protests? The power doesn't care.
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2011 01:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 09:58 |
|
|
anonumos posted:Oh please. Not all drugs have ties to murder. I agree.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2011 02:16
|
|
|
PTBrennan posted:There's all the proof you need right there. They're not worried about protecting it's citizen population, they're worried about filling their coffers and keeping people in jail. quote:“while the total number of people in prison increased less than 16 percent, the number of people held in private federal and state facilities increased by 120 and 33 percent, correspondingly. Government spending on corrections has soared since 1997 by 72 percent, up to $74 billion in 2007. And the private prison industry has raked in tremendous profits. Last year the two largest private prison companies — Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and GEO Group — made over $2.9 billion in revenue.” http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/06/23/251363/cca-geogroup-prison-industry/
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2011 02:22
|
|
|
Congressman Hansen Clarke gives some short, emotional, and surprisingly pro-reform remarks at a recent hearing on prison issues. It's always refreshing to hear a politician at least say the words.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2011 05:28
|
|
|
quote:Did you miss the Iraq war protests? The power doesn't care. There weren't millions of people at the protest demanding change there were a few thousands/tens of thousands. Do you really think if that many people, I mean literally millions of Americans, got together at capital hill all at once and demanded change and that threaten to force change if change didn't come, that non would come? I'm not talking a few thousands that can easily be dispersed by riot squads but millions of Americans for one day got together and demanded change. Edit: I'm not saying it would happen but I find it hard to believe if that many people in one voice showing that kind of solidarity demanding change wouldn't enact change in our government. PTBrennan fucked around with this message at 15:08 on Jun 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2011 15:05
|
|
|
PTBrennan posted:There weren't millions of people at the protest demanding change there were a few thousands/tens of thousands. The Iraq War protests were collectively the largest anti-war protest in the history of the world. Nonviolent protest only works in the form of a concerted, concentrated, and extended effort. Time is required, and Americans are too busy paying credit card bills. The only form of protest afforded prisoners begins with the word 'hunger'. babies havin rabies fucked around with this message at 16:02 on Jun 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2011 15:58
|
|
|
PTBrennan posted:There weren't millions of people at the protest demanding change there were a few thousands/tens of thousands. Essentially because the media didn't cover it then it didn't happen, because if it happened the media would have covered it? You've been hoodwinked. Estimates for how many protesters there were in NYC on February 15, 2003 do in fact go as high as a million, and none go anywhere below hundreds of thousands. Rome had three million protesters. Thirty six million people protested the Iraq War that day. But CNN reported a 50,000 man crowd in Los Angeles as 'thousands', and the San Francisco Chronicle called their crowd of 200,000 people (agreed on by both police and protest organizers) as 65,000. atelier morgan fucked around with this message at 16:07 on Jun 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2011 16:04
|
|
|
PTBrennan posted:There weren't millions of people at the protest demanding change there were a few thousands/tens of thousands. There were hundreds of thousands the the DC protests and tens of millions of people protesting around the world. You aren't aware of it because it's convenient for power for you not to be aware of it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2011 16:05
|
|
|
quote:It's not a mistake that you have this impression. No poo poo. I remember hearing that the numbers were dramatically misrepresented in the media and one station was even caught using an old protest picture taken years before as one that was taken during the protest but wasn't aware it was this misrepresented. Thanks for the info going to go read more about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2011 16:23
|
|
|
quote:In the 1950s, Finland's incarceration rate was 200 prisoners per 100,000 people -- a normal rate for East Bloc countries such as Poland and Czechoslovakia where justice systems had been Sovietized, Almost no states in the US have this low a prisoner population ratio. I suspect that we have a much higher ratio that the USSR did back at its height. Cray.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2011 20:06
|
|
|
nm posted:I am struck by this most. You don't need to suspect, we do, by a lot, albeit we do kill fewer prisoners than the gulags did.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2011 20:22
|
|
|
I think we broke the Soviet record in the early '90s. U.S.A. #1! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2011 20:38
|
|
|
UberJew posted:we do kill fewer prisoners than the gulags did.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2011 21:03
|
|
|
Dick Morris has a video up today about states looking to release illegal immigrant prisoners. "RELEASE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS WHO COMMITTED CRIMES?" http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert-release-illegal-immigrants-who-committed-crimes/ "In this video commentary, I attack plans in several big states to release illegal immigrants who have committed violent crimes rather than deport them."
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2011 21:26
|
|
|
Found this while researching a legal issuequote:The Legislature finds and declares that the purpose of imprisonment for crime is punishment They later say that you can try to rehabilitate "non-violent offenders" if you have the time and money. Guess those violent offenders are hosed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2011 21:33
|
|
|
nm posted:Found this while researching a legal issue Out of curiosity, have you ever done work with post-release "dangerous sex offenders," particularly ones that went through all sorts of rehab while in prison? Based on my vague recollection, it's my understanding that the designation of "dangerous sex offender" is based solely on pre-incarceration data (i.e. pre-sentence reports, victim's statements, etc.). Notably, the parole board or whoever assigns the designation is statutorily barred from looking at in-prison rehab, including castration and perfect psychological evals. This is a process I have a desire to know more about before I start wielding it in court. For those of you who don't know of "dangerous sex offender designation", here's a pdf that explains it. (note: the John Howard Society are a bunch of liberal commie hippies). The designation basically leads to indefinite civil confinement after criminal jail release because they're mentally insane. quote:Sexually violent predators must be diagnosed as having a disorder or abnormality that makes them likely to engage in acts of violence. A sexually violent predator will be held indefinitely until the Health Services Secretary recommends release. BigHead fucked around with this message at 21:56 on Jun 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2011 21:54
|
|
|
BigHead posted:Out of curiosity, have you ever done work with post-release "dangerous sex offenders," particularly ones that went through all sorts of rehab while in prison? Based on my vague recollection, it's my understanding that the designation of "dangerous sex offender" is based solely on pre-incarceration data (i.e. pre-sentence reports, victim's statements, etc.). Notably, the parole board or whoever assigns the designation is statutorily barred from looking at in-prison rehab, including castration and perfect psychological evals. This is a process I have a desire to know more about before I start wielding it in court. I have not worked on Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) cases however. Basically though, the legislature diluted sex offender to include everything down to indecent exposure, so that had to create a new class for the people who are actually dangerous. Of course, the "normal" sex offenders are still on the website with addresses listed and are subject to harassment and pretty much imprisonment at an officer's say so.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2011 21:58
|
|
|
babies havin rabies posted:The only form of protest afforded prisoners begins with the word 'hunger'. Speaking of which, it's already been posted but the Pelican Bay hunger strike is still scheduled to begin on July 1st.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2011 04:20
|
|
|
HidingFromGoro posted:Speaking of which, it's already been posted but the Pelican Bay hunger strike is still scheduled to begin on July 1st. Good luck guys. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2011 09:55
|
|
|
UberJew posted:albeit we do kill fewer prisoners than the gulags did. During the era of widespread convict leasing (from the end of reconstruction up until the Great Depression), in Arkansas one in four prisoners leased over a two year stretch died. During that same time, nearly half died in South Carolina. These are the conditions that scumbags like that Georgia governor and others want to return to. Authorman fucked around with this message at 10:49 on Jun 25, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2011 10:23
|
|
|
All violent offenders should be sent to labor camps for the rest of their lives, and executed when they are unable to procure a net gain for the state. There is no reason to pump money into rehabilitating degenerates when contributing citizens are in need. Hard drug dealers (e.g. cocaine, meth, heroin) should be subjected to similar measures. There are plenty of people who grew up in poverty who still manage to act decently and with concern for their fellow man.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 13:39
|
|
|
Andropov posted:All violent offenders should be sent to labor camps for the rest of their lives, and executed when they are unable to procure a net gain for the state. There is no reason to pump money into rehabilitating degenerates when contributing citizens are in need. Hard drug dealers (e.g. cocaine, meth, heroin) should be subjected to similar measures. The fact that were it posted anywhere other than this thread it would not be possible to tell if this was satirical or not is deeply depressing
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 14:17
|
|
|
Andropov posted:All violent offenders should be sent to labor camps for the rest of their lives, and executed when they are unable to procure a net gain for the state. There is no reason to pump money into rehabilitating degenerates when contributing citizens are in need. Hard drug dealers (e.g. cocaine, meth, heroin) should be subjected to similar measures. I can't tell whether you're sarcastic, trolling or simple insane. Assuming it's no the former two, where would you drawn the line on "violent" crime? Murder? Provoking a fistfight? Causing a lethal carcrash?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 14:19
|
|
|
The line should be at assault. Someone being drunk and provoking a fistfight obviously shouldn't receive the death penalty. Would you disagree that there are very few circumstances in which a good person would have to resort to violent crime, except in cases of self-defense or as a response to a home invasion? Bad people are bad and should be removed from society. It's as simple as that; your whines about "morals" and "ethics" are meaningless. I posted this in another thread and will post it here as well: The species has evolved morality to perpetuate itself. There is nothing transcendent or perennial about it, and in a time of great evolutionary change, biological, societal, and otherwise, it should be abandoned in favor of a pragmatic approach to things. Whether or not something is "moral" or "ethical" is irrelevant; instead, the arbiter of decision making should be a set destination, which in most cases is the advancement of national, ethnic, individual, societal etc, interest and improvement. The goal in this case is societal improvement. Answer this question: are murderers people who contribute to society and improve it? No sane person, I hope, would answer in the affirmative. Andropov fucked around with this message at 14:34 on Jun 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 14:30
|
|
|
Andropov posted:The line should be at assault. Someone being drunk and provoking a fistfight obviously shouldn't receive the death penalty. Holy poo poo you were serious. Or you're trolling.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 14:32
|
|
|
Andropov posted:The line should be at assault. Someone being drunk and provoking a fistfight obviously shouldn't receive the death penalty. I would say that your premise is flawed. Seperating people into "good" or "bad" is a very simplistic view of a very complex matter. What makes a "good" person good? What makes a bad person bad? Can a good person become bad or vice versa? It's a subject philosophers have struggled with for a long time and just dismissing all of its intricacies out of hand makes it unlikely if not impossible to lead to a sensible solution. Perestroika fucked around with this message at 14:48 on Jun 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 14:40
|
|
|
OK, since it seems you actually ARE serious, lets address these points one by one.Andropov posted:The line should be at assault. Someone being drunk and provoking a fistfight obviously shouldn't receive the death penalty. Getting in a drunken fistfight IS assault. quote:Would you disagree that there are very few circumstances any good person would have to resort to violent crime, except in cases of self-defense or as a response to a home invasion? Bad people are bad and should be removed from society. It's as simple as that; your whines about "morals" and "ethics" are meaningless. I posted this in another thread and will post it here as well: Yes, I WOULD disagree. This mythical line between "good person" and "bad person" does not exist. A child brought up in a violent, unstable household, conditioned from birth to see life as a painful struggle where the strong survive and the weak are subjugated, is likely to become a violent adolescent and a violent adult. A child brought up with love and respect is less likely to do so. This does not mean the first person is bad destroyed and should be, it means they need our help and support to become well adjusted functioning members of society. Circumstances are not restricted to childhood trauma, environment has a mass of effects on us at all stages of life and whenever it is experienced. quote:The species has evolved morality to perpetuate itself. There is nothing transcendent or perennial about it, and in a time of great evolutionary change, biological, societal, and otherwise, it should be abandoned in favor of a pragmatic approach to things. Whether or not something is "moral" or "ethical" is irrelevant; instead, the arbiter of decision making should be a set destination, which in most cases is the advancement of national, ethnic, individual, societal etc, interest and improvement. wot? I'm going to interpret this paragraph as saying "we should do whatever works to rid society of crime", because I can't really work out what else you might be trying to say. Being entirely pragmatic, being "tough on crime" DOES NOT REDUCE CRIME compared to rehabilitative approaches. It is also immensely costly, harmful socially and culturally, and generally counterproductive. Even if you treat prisoners as slave labour, their upkeep is still more costly than their earnings. quote:The goal in this case is societal improvement. Answer this question: are murderers people who contribute to society and improve it? No sane person, I hope, would answer in the affirmative. Most murderers are not loner serial killers or calculating sociopaths. Gang related murders are psychologically more like killings in a war; it's a violent culture of "kill or be killed", of victims seen as enemy combatants. This does not excuse such killings, but it points to the fact that even killers CAN become contributing members of society if they are removed from the harmful environment that lead to their becoming killers, and given the ability to become part of a wider less destructive culture. Killers can indeed become functioning members of society, and contribute to and improve it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 14:45
|
|
|
Andropov posted:The goal in this case is societal improvement. Answer this question: are murderers people who contribute to society and improve it? No sane person, I hope, would answer in the affirmative. A brain surgeon comes home and catches her husband having an affair. She murders the mistress in a fit of rage. Is it more beneficial to society to have the brain surgeon pick cotton for the rest of her life, or to allow her to rejoin society and save peoples' lives again?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 14:47
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:I would say that your premise is flawed. Seperating people into "good" or "bad" is a very simplistic view of a very complex matter. What makes a "good" person good? What makes a bad person bad? Can a good person become bad or vice versa? It's a subject philosophers have struggled with for a long time and just dismissing all of its intricacies out of hand is unlikely if not impossible to lead to a sensible solution. I reiterate that the arbiter for large-scale decision making should be the betterment of society in any vector. Murderers are dangerous and harmful to the species and thus should be eliminated. quote:Getting in a drunken fistfight IS assault. Yes, but getting into a drunken fistfight is something a decent person could do, providing they consumed enough alcohol. The job here is eliminating unwanted individuals, and not all people who get into drunken fistfights fit that criteria. quote:Yes, I WOULD disagree. This mythical line between "good person" and "bad person" does not exist. A child brought up in a violent, unstable household, conditioned from birth to see life as a painful struggle where the strong survive and the weak are subjugated, is likely to become a violent adolescent and a violent adult. A child brought up with love and respect is less likely to do so. This does not mean the first person is bad destroyed and should be, it means they need our help and support to become well adjusted functioning members of society. Circumstances are not restricted to childhood trauma, environment has a mass of effects on us at all stages of life and whenever it is experienced. I agree with you to an extent, which is why, in this hypothetical scenario, I would prefer it if people who grew up in violent and unstable homes were given more leeway in the court process. It is also why I support non-racial eugenics; meaning, if you earn below a certain amount, you should be barred from having children. Still, a rapist or a murderer is simply a broken person; there is no way to fix them. quote:b]Even if you treat prisoners as slave labour, their upkeep is still more costly than their earnings.[/b] If this is the case, then they should be killed. quote:Most murderers are not loner serial killers or calculating sociopaths. Gang related murders are psychologically more like killings in a war; it's a violent culture of "kill or be killed", of victims seen as enemy combatants. This does not excuse such killings, but it points to the fact that even killers CAN become contributing members of society if they are removed from the harmful environment that lead to their becoming killers, and given the ability to become part of a wider less destructive culture. Yes, they can, but most don't, and most can and will kill again given the chance. We should do our best to separate the two from each other, but a cold-blooded murder in a robbery attempt or something similar should always result in the death penalty. quote:A brain surgeon comes home and catches her husband having an affair. She murders the mistress in a fit of rage. Is it more beneficial to society to have the brain surgeon pick cotton for the rest of her life, or to allow her to rejoin society and save peoples' lives again? She should pay a large sum of money to the family of the person she murdered, and then set free.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 15:01
|
|
|
Andropov posted:If this is the case, then they should be killed. Killing costs even more than incarceration. Also, no decent people kill other people, not even under the guise of government. Could you please gently caress off with your fascist ideas about societal purity now?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 15:04
|
|
|
Andropov posted:If this is the case, then they should be killed. In that case, you are saying the penalty should be either no prison sentence, or death (without a proper appeals process, since this is also expensive) Lets just employ Judge Dredd, cut out the middle man.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 15:09
|
|
|
quote:Killing costs even more than incarceration. This is because of our broken judicial system. Theoretically, it should cost next to nothing. quote:Also, no decent people kill other people, not even under the guise of government. So if someone breaks into your house and you kill them in self-defense, you're not a decent person? The state must safeguard its constituency. The death penalty is like the above situation in this regard. quote:In that case, you are saying the penalty should be either no prison sentence, or death (without a proper appeals process, since this is also expensive) Yes. Prison and furthermore all "punishment" based systems of retribution are worthless and acheive nothing. I recommend B.F. Skinner's excellent book on the subject, Beyond Freedom and Dignity. Andropov fucked around with this message at 15:14 on Jun 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 15:11
|
|
|
Andropov posted:This is because of our broken judicial system. Theoretically, it should cost next to nothing. Killing costs next to nothing if you don't care about issues such as guilt, due process and justice. And no, generally killing someone over material possesssions does not make you a decent person. Ofcourse now you'll say "what if you get personally attacked and it's you or him?". Not that it matters, because you are not advocating the morality of killing someone in desperate self-defense, you are advocating extra-judicial state murder.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 15:16
|
|
|
Andropov posted:This is because of our broken judicial system. Theoretically, it should cost next to nothing. I love how death penalty advocates refer to the system put in place to give people their due process rather than just executing them after a peremptory trial as "broken". Are you OK with executing innocent people? Because we've done it before and if we got rid of the appeals process we'd probably do it a lot more.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 15:17
|
|
|
quote:Killing costs next to nothing if you don't care about issues such as guilt, due process and justice. I don't, because they are meaningless vagaries. I reiterate: The species has evolved morality to perpetuate itself. There is nothing transcendent or perennial about it, and in a time of great evolutionary change, biological, societal, and otherwise, it should be abandoned in favor of a pragmatic approach to things. Whether or not something is "moral" or "ethical" is irrelevant; instead, the arbiter of decision making should be a set destination, which in most cases is the advancement of national, ethnic, individual, societal etc, interest and improvement. quote:And no, generally killing someone over material possesssions does not make you a decent person. Ofcourse now you'll say "what if you get personally attacked and it's you or him?". I meant in self-defense, meaning if someone was lunging at you with a knife or something similar. quote:I love how death penalty advocates refer to the system put in place to give people their due process rather than just executing them after a peremptory trial as "broken". Are you OK with executing innocent people? Because we've done it before and if we got rid of the appeals process we'd probably do it a lot more. No, I am not OK with killing innocent people. DNA testing and the like can now show us beyond all reasonable doubt who did what, when, where, and to who. I propose installing surveillance cameras in all public areas, among other things, to decrease the chance of executing an innocent. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) Andropov fucked around with this message at 15:23 on Jun 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 15:19
|
|
|
Andropov posted:Yes. Prison and furthermore all "punishment" based systems of retribution are worthless and acheive nothing. I recommend B.F. Skinner's excellent book on the subject, Beyond Freedom and Dignity. But Skinner argues AGAINST free will; by his own reckoning there are not the good and bad people you were previously talking about, people are simply products of their environments. If you can change the environment, you can change the behaviour, you don't have to kill people to rid society of undesirable behaviour patterns. This is an argument in favour of stepping up efforts in rehabilitation and reintegration of criminals into non-criminal society.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 15:21
|
|
|
quote:the arbiter of decision making should be a set destination What, specifically should this destination be? "betterment of society" and "advancement of national interests" is too vague, I'm after very specific goals like "a smaller number of innocent people should be killed prematurely", "standards of living should be improved for the poorest people" or "the ability to pursue chosen life goals regardless of the circumstances of birth should be increased for all people" Andropov posted:I don't, because they are meaningless vagaries. What good does it do to society to execute innocent people? Fatkraken fucked around with this message at 15:25 on Jun 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 15:22
|
|
|
Honestly friend if we're using "something a decent person would do provided they had consumed a lot of alcohol" as our standard we're going to have to lower the execution bar pretty far.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 15:23
|
|
|
Andropov posted:I don't, because they are meaningless vagaries. Literally fascism. For those American posters shaking their heads and dismissing this poster as an obvious troll, please bear in mind that your government is currently engaging in exactly the kind of behaviour this poster is advocating. Except instead of "engaging in violence", your government chooses "inciting to terrorism (as secretly and unaccountably defined by us)" as its criteria for extra-judicial murder.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 15:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 09:58 |
|
|
Andropov posted:No, I am not OK with killing innocent people. DNA testing and the like can now show us beyond all reasonable doubt who did what, when, where, and to who. I propose installing surveillance cameras in all public areas, among other things, to decrease the chance of executing an innocent. You do know that 1984 was a political satire right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 15:27
|
|