|
Obdicut posted:Okay, the best thing to do in the GMO thread was to ignore your no-effort posts, so that's what I'm going to do here, too. Cool, I mean, you're in my ignore list anyway...
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 04:13 |
|
|
Obdicut posted:In order to reform the police, the things that are really wrong with them, you need to reform the justice system. It is nothing weird, or startling, to suggest that to fix an element of the system it is necessary to fix other parts of the system. That is how the world works. You actually believe that police policy is perfect in America and needs no reform? Because in your laundry list of things list 0 police reforms. You list some reform of crimes, but no reform of police use of force, community policing guidelines, etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You actually believe that police policy is perfect in America and needs no reform? No, I think police policy stems from the political arena, the laws that we set, the conditions we put on the police. This is a very pedestrian concept and it really weirds me out that it's like news to you. quote:Because in your laundry list of things list 0 police reforms. You list some reform of crimes, but no reform of police use of force, community policing guidelines, etc. Most of the extension of the use of force are either part of the supreme court judgements I mentioned, or results of the drug war. I think the things you mention are good, I think they're of tiny effect unless you do the things I said.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:In order to reform the police, the things that are really wrong with them, you need to reform the justice system. It is nothing weird, or startling, to suggest that to fix an element of the system it is necessary to fix other parts of the system. That is how the world works. So you wave away the need for immediate police reform, saying that the only politically achievable way to really do it properly is to reform the justice system. Pressed for an achievable goal, you suggest "ending the election of judges." Wow I defer to your sense of practicality and can-do spirit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:So you wave away the need for immediate police reform, saying that the only politically achievable way to really do it properly is to reform the justice system. Pressed for an achievable goal, you suggest "ending the election of judges." Having police be treated like regular citizens is impossible and could never happen, but reforming the entire justice system excluding the police is reasonable and easily done.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Having police be treated like regular citizens is impossible and could never happen, but reforming the entire justice system excluding the police is reasonable and easily done. I believe what I said was "It's going to be a long, long slog, because we're very far from that now". Look, I understand you disagree with me, but why do you have to constantly pretend I said something else to attack me? What good does that do you? And to have police be treated like regular citizens, you're going to have to extensively reform the justice system. I have no clue why you think this isn't true, and you haven't ever, at any point, explained how you'd get police treated like regular citizens without involving the rest of the system.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:And to have police be treated like regular citizens, you're going to have to extensively reform the justice system. I have no clue why you think this isn't true, and you haven't ever, at any point, explained how you'd get police treated like regular citizens without involving the rest of the system. That's the insanity of your arguments, I'm not allowed to argue for incremental change, e.g. cops arresting cops because it won't "solve the whole problem". Even cops arresting cops is something you claim is an impossibility that would "break down" American law enforcement. quote:If police were arrested for crimes they committed but nothing else about our justice system would change, the police would probably break down, yeah, but first of all you're describing an impossibility, and second of all it wouldn't actually solve anything. It'd actually probably lead to more corruption. The police arresting their own for crimes they committed is both something you described as impossible and something solely in the hands of the police. Now sure, its easy to try shift blame from the people actually with the power here (the police) and blame the system of incentives, but that is either the Nuremberg defense or a pretense that police have no self-control/self-agency.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:That's the insanity of your arguments, I'm not allowed to argue for incremental change, e.g. cops arresting cops because it won't "solve the whole problem". Even cops arresting cops is something you claim is an impossibility that would "break down" American law enforcement. You are allowed to argue incremental change. You're doing it backwards. And no, I didn't say cops arresting cops is impossible and would break down American law enforcement. Even when you're not just lying about what I said, you're completely misrepresenting it. What I'm saying is that 'cops arrest other cops for stuff like excessive force' is at the end, not the beginning, of a lot of incremental change. quote:The police arresting their own for crimes they committed is both something you described as impossible and something solely in the hands of the police. How is it solely in the hands of the police? quote:Now sure, its easy to try shift blame from the people actually with the power here (the police) and blame the system of incentives, but that is either the Nuremberg defense or a pretense that police have no self-control/self-agency. No, it's that I don't give a poo poo about blame. It doesn't matter if they're morally culpable. What matters is how to stop it from happening.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 01:48
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:No, it's that I don't give a poo poo about blame. It doesn't matter if they're morally culpable. What matters is how to stop it from happening. That's a new idea as far as the justice system is concerned. It's interesting how it gets brought out in the context of police behavior, but seldom elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:No, it's that I don't give a poo poo about blame. It doesn't matter if they're morally culpable. What matters is how to stop it from happening. jfc dude shut the gently caress up, you keep making yourself look worse
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:And no, I didn't say cops arresting cops is impossible and would break down American law enforcement. Even when you're not just lying about what I said, you're completely misrepresenting it. You said that imprisoning cops the same as civilians would increase corruption. I actually means to ask for an explanation of that one because that's a pretty interesting claim to make.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
Cichlid the Loach posted:You said that imprisoning cops the same as civilians would increase corruption. I actually means to ask for an explanation of that one because that's a pretty interesting claim to make. It's gleeful blackmail from a police apologist. "If you try to punish the police they'll commit even more abuse. They're a loose cannon Mcbain! And that's why we must never disturb their important work."
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
Cichlid the Loach posted:You said that imprisoning cops the same as civilians would increase corruption. If nothing else changed. So, we still have prosecutors who are driven by winnable cases, we still have laws allowing no-knock warrants, we still have quotas on number of arrests. Nothing else has changed except that somehow, with this magic wand you waves, cops get imprisoned the same as civilians. Never mind that this isn't possible, because, as I said, this would be the end of a long chain of events, not the beginning. If we somehow pretend this is possible, then the cops who do do illegal poo poo are going to go to greater lengths to cover it up, and corrupt cops will depend on each other more. It's similar to drug criminalization or anything else, you can expect to drive it underground. Again, this is an impossible situation, because in order to imprison the cops the same as civilians you'd have to fix the prosecutor's office, you'd have to somehow remove the knowledge the cops have of the law that they have that privileges them in dealing with the system, you'd have to do all this other poo poo. This is an idea roughly on par with "Just make crime illegal". It's not an actual idea, it's an end result that you want to have, and I'm trying to talk about the way to get to that end result. You can't start there: it's not possible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:So, we still have prosecutors who are driven by winnable cases, we still have laws allowing no-knock warrants, we still have quotas on number of arrests. There's also the fact that if a prosecutor doesn't want his political opponent saying 'He arrested good, decent, innocent officers, making them scared to protect you!' he'll never prosecute police officers worth a drat. So getting convictions on cops with crimes will still be outright impossible, even if they're more likely to be charged with them. Punitive measures only work if you can actually get them enacted, and even then the punitive measures wouldn't really work super well as deterrence. How many times has this forum discussed how the death sentence doesn't actually deter crime, because people committing said crime don't stop and think "But what if I get caught? Oh boy, they'd kill me. . .I better not do it." They just think they won't get caught. Obdicut is saying that yes, Arresting cops who break the law would be a good thing, but it's just treating the symptoms of a bigger disease. Just dumping corrupt cops into jail is just a feel good 'gently caress the pigs' reaction and isn't going to get us any closer to ending the corruption. It's like trying to repair a building by putting on a new coat of paint. Yeah sure it looks different and maybe a bit better but the wooden frame is still rotten as gently caress and it's going to come tumbling down sooner or later regardless of how many new coats of paint you slap on. We also had this huge prison reform thread, and basically everybody there said that prisons suck rear end and they need to be rehabilitative instead of punitive because even criminals are human beings. Apparently cops aren't even that. I hate the police. I hate them because they terrify the gently caress out of me, and the poo poo going down all over the country is just compounding that fear, but they're still human beings and deserve the base respect human beings deserve. Even if they don't give it to others. Just like sending a stupid kid away in jail, refusing to let him better his lot in life and try and get a job once he's out, all you're going to end up doing is making someone whom cannot survive without turning to crime. If you're convicted of a crime, that is on your head for the rest of your life. 90% of jobs aren't applicable to ex-cons. If you got put away for *anything*, be it littering or public urination, you're hosed. E-Tank fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Oct 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Or maybe people are arguing that have a two-tiered justice system where those who make and enforce laws are free from its consequences is, in fact, a bad thing, even if those consequences are bad, specifically because the people with the power to change it have no incentive to? Equality before the law is kind of an important concept in American jurisprudence, and the argument from E-tank/Obdicut/Vahakyla that the police should get special treatment simply for being police, because someone being treated "reasonably" (even if there's nothing reasonable about their exceptions) is better than no one being treated reasonably.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
I don't know what my opinion is. Reasonable treatment in justice system is a net benefit even if it does not apply to everyone, but obviously equal treatment might have more long term benefit. I don't know. Retarded sentencing sucks hard core and the less there is of it, the better. But but but... I don't know. If we get to apply the harshness against people frowned upon by the white straight majority, it is a tool of abuse. Whatever leads us faster to the overall reduction of harshness of sentencing. Like I said about the worker's protections to cops, I'd rather them not lose but everyone get it. Same with the good amount of reasonable benefit of doubt in criminal actions, which I think everyone deserves and what people more commonly get in other countries instead of the super vindictive "EVIL CRIMINAL"-thing. Like I said, I don't know what I am for in it. What I did not say that cops getting special treatment for just being cops is a good thing. I never said such thing. I've argued that their benefits is what everyone should get. Vahakyla fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Oct 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:
I have never made this argument. Ever. At all, in the least. Neither has anyone else. This is a complete and utter strawman.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Equality before the law is kind of an important concept in American jurisprudence, and the argument from E-tank/Obdicut/Vahakyla that the police should get special treatment simply for being police Oh wow, I'd like you to please look through the one post I've made in this thread in the longest time, and tell me where exactly I said the police should get special treatment. Before you approach any other arguments, you loving deal with the poo poo you just got through saying. Edit: Actually no, I'm pissed off now. I just got through saying I loving hate the police, that I'm loving terrified of them, but I understand that they're people. Apparently that means that I want them to have special treatment. No, I want *everybody* to have rehabilitative treatment. I don't want 'punitive' sentences on ANYONE because it doesn't loving work. You want to make a criminal not be a criminal? Give him another way to loving live. Find out what drove him to crime to begin with and help him deal with that, while also serving his sentence. I want it to be if you go to jail, you come out of it a better person who still has prospects and is not shut off from basically every possible avenue of survival beyond committing crimes again. I want it to be that jail is not something where you go to be forgotten, I want it to be someplace where you're held, but you're able to better yourself and be better prepared for the world once you're let out. How the gently caress you can get 'cops get preferential treatment' out of that is beyond me but I suggest you loving work on your reading comprehension. E-Tank fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Oct 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:I don't know what my opinion is. Reasonable treatment in justice system is a net benefit even if it does not apply to everyone, but obviously equal treatment might have more long term benefit. How do you figure that unequal protections are a net benefit?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 14:29
|
|
|
ImAMinister posted:How do you figure that unequal protections are a net benefit? That's not what that quote says.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 14:32
|
|
|
Then you'll have to enlighten me since I don't see any other way to read, " I don't know what my opinion is. Reasonable treatment in justice system is a net benefit even if it does not apply to everyone, but obviously equal treatment might have more long term benefit. "
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 14:33
|
|
|
ImAMinister posted:Then you'll have to enlighten me since I don't see any other way to read, " I don't know what my opinion is. Reasonable treatment in justice system is a net benefit even if it does not apply to everyone, but obviously equal treatment might have more long term benefit. " I don't see what's the least bit hard to understand. For example, say that one guy arrested for possession of paraphernalia gets a judge who's cool and dismisses the charge based on an improper search. Another guy, same exact circumstances, has an rear end in a top hat judge who allows the evidence and he goes to prison. Would you rather both guys go to prison? Or is it a net benefit that the first guy got off?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 14:37
|
|
|
How can you assume that that's a net positive for the legal system when I can easily use the fact that one of those individuals is getting railroaded as a net loss? Especially when this discretion often happens based on racial and class lines, not circumstance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 14:42
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I don't see what's the least bit hard to understand. This reminds me of the discussion we had about the rich kid who owned some people drunk in his dad's Super Duty and got sentenced to treatment at a posh facility. I argued that it didn't make any sense to send him to a more austere treatment center if they didn't have any better outcomes. Still feels weird.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 14:42
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I don't see what's the least bit hard to understand. And to actually answer your question, you yourself said both of those individuals were arrested under the exact same circumstances. What kind of legal system lets one of those individuals off and convicts the other? Not a fair one. Personally, I'd rather each of the accused be treated fairly, but I want consistency in my fairness. If one dude gets off, but the other triggered a mandatory minimum sentence, how is that a net positive?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 14:48
|
|
|
ImAMinister posted:How can you assume that that's a net positive for the legal system when I can easily use the fact that one of those individuals is getting railroaded as a net loss? Compared to both of them getting the smart, cool judge, it's a net loss. compared to them both getting the rear end in a top hat judge, it's a net positive. This is really not difficult. quote:Especially when this discretion often happens based on racial and class lines, not circumstance. That, obviously, is a huge problem, and you can argue that that perpetuation is a net negative. It doesn't, however, fit the example i just gave. It's also important to separate out individual outcomes from group problems. SedanChair posted:This reminds me of the discussion we had about the rich kid who owned some people drunk in his dad's Super Duty and got sentenced to treatment at a posh facility. I argued that it didn't make any sense to send him to a more austere treatment center if they didn't have any better outcomes. Still feels weird. Exactly. And this ties back into the punishment-based approach that most people have to the justice system. But yeah, it does feel super-weird. I agree with you, though, that the response, though, should be "Let's fund the poo poo out of rehabilitation programs so they're available for all kids, not just this rich one", rather than "Make the rich prick suffer." ImAMinister posted:And to actually answer your question, you yourself said both of those individuals were arrested under the exact same circumstances. What kind of legal system lets one of those individuals off and convicts the other? Not a fair one. Personally, I'd rather each of the accused be treated fairly, but I want consistency in my fairness. If one dude gets off, but the other triggered a mandatory minimum sentence, how is that a net positive? I'm not sure how many times you're going to ask the same question. Sure, it's not 'fair'. You're never going to have a system where every judge acts exactly the same way: some people will get more lenient treatment, some more harsh. The systemic, racial, class problems are a real problem, but applying that to individuals is dumb and punitive. And again: it is a net positive compared to both of the guys getting a mandatory minimum sentence. Are you saying it would be better for them both to be imprisoned? If not, how is it not a net positive that one guy goes free?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 14:48
|
|
|
Because one got railroaded, a net loss E: See how we can play this game?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 14:52
|
|
|
ImAMinister posted:Because one got railroaded, a net loss Jesus loving christ. It's a net loss compared to both going free, but it's not a net loss compared to both going to prison. What is your problem with admitting this? And again: it is a net positive compared to both of the guys getting a mandatory minimum sentence. Are you saying it would be better for them both to be imprisoned? If not, how is it not a net positive that one guy goes free? It's not a game. The original post very clearly was saying that it was a net positive compared to both guys getting it in the neck. The poster obviously, obviously thought it'd be better for better treatment to be available for all. You have stubbornly refused to understand this: Why?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 14:53
|
|
|
Because one man arrested under the same exact circumstances was convicted while the other one was freed. It is awesome that one got off, but that doesn't make our legal system positive. Because some people get treated reasonably does not outweigh the huge amounts of people who get hosed by it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 14:56
|
|
|
ImAMinister posted:Because one man arrested under the same exact circumstances was convicted while the other one was freed. It is awesome that one got off, but that doesn't make our legal system positive. The poster didn't claim that it made our legal system positive. You have spent this entire time arguing against a strawman. Why? Just thought I'd put this question in you keep dodging: It is a net positive compared to both of the guys getting a mandatory minimum sentence. Are you saying it would be better for them both to be imprisoned? If not, how is it not a net positive that one guy goes free? quote:Because some people get treated reasonably does not outweigh the huge amounts of people who get hosed by it. Nobody disagrees with this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 14:57
|
|
|
ImAMinister posted:Because one man arrested under the same exact circumstances was convicted while the other one was freed. It is awesome that one got off, but that doesn't make our legal system positive. Because some people get treated reasonably does not outweigh the huge amounts of people who get hosed by it. Do you believe rehabilitation is effective? If so, is it better that one out of two offenders get it or zero out of two? Do you believe that leniency is effective and reduces the cycle of offending? If so, is it better that one out of two offenders get it or zero out of two?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 14:58
|
|
|
Yeah, I don't actually have a follow up for that
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 14:59
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Do you believe rehabilitation is effective? If so, is it better that one out of two offenders get it or zero out of two? Rehab is better. It is better for one instead of zero. But a legal system that allows for that is not great, which is my argument.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 15:00
|
|
|
ImAMinister posted:Rehab is better. It is better for one instead of zero. Glad you agree. quote:But a legal system that allows for that is not great, which is my argument. Nobody argued against that, ever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 15:02
|
|
|
Well great, it seems we're on the same page then.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 15:03
|
|
|
ImAMinister posted:Well great, it seems we're on the same page then. Seriously, if you can indulge me, why did it take you so long to realize this? The original post was clear, and even if it wasn't, it was then made abundantly clear to you really quickly what was being said. Were you just 'playing devils advocate' or some poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
Wasn't clear to me and I still believe that the discrepancy between sentencing is a net loss for the Justice system on the whole. But of course I'll cede that someone getting treated reasonably is better than no one getting treated reasonably.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
ImAMinister posted:Wasn't clear to me and I still believe that the discrepancy between sentencing is a net loss for the Justice system on the whole. But of course I'll cede that someone getting treated reasonably is better than no one getting treated reasonably. Again, what made it unclear to you? Even if it was unclear at first, how did it not become clear after the nth time it was explained to you? You also seem to be treating the discrepancy in sentencing as a cause, rather than a result, of the hosed up system. The original poster was very clearly analyzing the loss/gain from the perspective of the people receiving justice, rather than the system itself. You seem to be saying that discrepancies in sentencing are somehow a 'loss' for the justice system: can you explain what the hell that means? Am I right in that you see these discrepancies as causative, rather than a result?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 15:13
|
|
|
I don't know what the heck you guys are talking about, there's no "net benefit" from making some people effectively exempt from normal law. That's just corruption.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 15:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 04:13 |
|
|
Kaal posted:I don't know what the heck you guys are talking about, there's no "net benefit" from making some people effectively exempt from normal law. That's just corruption. Again, nobody has talked about making anyone exempt from normal law.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 15:20
|
|