|
Rehabilitating people isn't hippy bullshit even if the people have done horrible things.
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 23:11 |
|
|
Vahakyla posted:Surely the victim is heard as a witness to the case, and they have the right to say their opinion, but plenty of these systems ignore those opinions in the sentencing, to go as far as to prohibit the consideration of them in any way. They are not heard in parole or probation hearings at all, either. no. they don't get to give victim impact testimony during the trial, as it's not relevant to the question of guilt. Sentencing is the only time they have the opportunity to truly discuss how the crime impacted them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
Adenoid Dan posted:Rehabilitating people isn't hippy bullshit even if the people have done horrible things. it is when you refuse to recognize that not all people have the same rehabilitative potential as the teenagers you work with.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:it is when you refuse to recognize that not all people have the same rehabilitative potential as the teenagers you work with. Even in cases that won't be released, treating people with dignity isn't hippy bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
Untagged posted:http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/12/03/actual-facts-Eric-Garner I've already combed through Google and can find no answers beyond comment hearsay; I was hoping maybe someone here had institutional access to the legal records or a subscription to a background check service. I'm really hoping that the answer isn't zero because that makes the video even more sinister, but then I remember the guy in Miami who got arrested something like 60 times for trespassing at the convenience store where he worked.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:no. they don't get to give victim impact testimony during the trial, as it's not relevant to the question of guilt. Sentencing is the only time they have the opportunity to truly discuss how the crime impacted them. Exactly. And that's what I argued against. The victim should be helped into the welfare system and mental care facilities, not to the sentencing. The feeling of punishment for closure is not a valid reason to imprison people for life, or hand out heavy sentences at all. Those sentences should have valid societal reasons, such as containment for the duration of mental evaluation, or psychiatric help, and they should end right after the valid reason for them ends, thus ending life sentences without parole, for example. The US being literally the only country to use such thing. Because people want people to suffer. "For closure". Like said, how do you argue to the fact that people are never satisfied with the amount of punishment? Other legal scholars and judges in many countries have laid out the moral and ethical case for not handing out sentences that can not be changed in the future based on the offender's needs and the current situation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:it is when you refuse to recognize that not all people have the same rehabilitative potential as the teenagers you work with. If your so big on others reading what you say, you should try to at least pretend to do the same.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:it is when you refuse to recognize that not all people have the same rehabilitative potential as the teenagers you work with. A Norwegian judge said of Breivik, the mass killer, when questioned by american journalists, that "we do not know truly who we can and who we can't rehabilitate. From cradle, norway educates people to be citizens and proper people in 18 years. There are 22 years to work with Mr Breivik. We owe it to everyone to try, even if we don't succeed in the end with everybody''. These societies have rehabilitated cop killers, serial rapists, pedofiles, axe murderers, arson murderers, kidnappers and even war criminals of the nazi era. So your view might be clouded by the fact that this country has not even tried it. Vahakyla fucked around with this message at 16:26 on Dec 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 16:23
|
|
|
Adenoid Dan posted:Even in cases that won't be released, treating people with dignity isn't hippy bullshit. I didn't say they shouldn't be treated with dignity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I didn't say they shouldn't be treated with dignity. I think that part of treating people with dignity is acting like they have the possibility of and offering the opportunity to fix whatever problems they have that led to them being taken out of society. Even if they won't necessarily be put back into society.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
Adenoid Dan posted:I think that part of treating people with dignity is acting like they have the possibility of and offering the opportunity to fix whatever problems they have that led to them being taken out of society. Even if they won't necessarily be put back into society. but if you know they won't be put back in, you're not engaging in rehabilitation. You're engaging in retribution...just in a more humane context. Now we're talking prison reform. I can support the idea that prisons need improvement in many areas while still recognizing the societal value of incarceration for some offenders. Punishment doesn't have to mean fingernail extractions and shower rape. It can simply be deprivation of personal freedom.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
ActusRhesus, have you ever happened to prosecute a police officer for something they did in the line of duty? I'm just curious to see if you have any perspective on that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
LorneReams posted:ActusRhesus, have you ever happened to prosecute a police officer for something they did in the line of duty? I'm just curious to see if you have any perspective on that. As a military prosecutor, I did have a few police type defendants. (It wasn't line of duty related, though, it was outside misconduct) As a civilian? No. We don't have many allegations here (none in fact since I've been here) because our force is actually pretty good. However there was a recent case from a few towns over. Guy was convicted of excessive force. He deserved it. Right outcome. (Turned out to be someone I knew from sports as a kid...sad he turned out that way) My hometown (which is in a different district) also just had a few cops convicted of stealing union funds. Also the right outcome. When police break the law, they should be punished.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:not to mention, to recognize its proceeds as taxable wages, you'd have to implicitly recognize it as a valid operation. Wait, aren't gains from illegal operations taxable as well? Or is that some dumb thing you just hear on television?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Wait, aren't gains from illegal operations taxable as well? Or is that some dumb thing you just hear on television? Apparently in some places they are. Learn something new everyday. I just am having a hard time wrapping my head around how you collect taxes on something that isn't supposed to exist. Seems like one of those laws that looks good in an academic sense but is pretty impossible to implement in reality. lawyers 
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Wait, aren't gains from illegal operations taxable as well? Or is that some dumb thing you just hear on television? All gains are taxable. To skirt the 5th, there has to be a way to pay those taxes without admitting guilt, so that is what you usually hear about.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:but if you know they won't be put back in, you're not engaging in rehabilitation. You're engaging in retribution...just in a more humane context. Now we're talking prison reform. I can support the idea that prisons need improvement in many areas while still recognizing the societal value of incarceration for some offenders. I guess I'm not actually disagreeing with retribution in the justice system, I'm just saying that rehabilitation should be given a high priority. I don't see any contradiction in recognising that a person is unlikely to be released but still giving them access to similar rehabilitation resources. I think it's partly for them but also partly for the rest of us. It's important that we don't dehumanise people, even bad people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
Adenoid Dan posted:I guess I'm not actually disagreeing with retribution in the justice system, I'm just saying that rehabilitation should be given a high priority. OK, so we actually agree here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Apparently in some places they are. Learn something new everyday. I just am having a hard time wrapping my head around how you collect taxes on something that isn't supposed to exist. Seems like one of those laws that looks good in an academic sense but is pretty impossible to implement in reality. I always assumed that the IRS just looked the other way so long as they were paid, in the same way that undocumented immigrants can pay taxes with the use of an IRS provided tax ID number. They're obviously working illegally here in the US, but it's not the job of the IRS to enforce immigration laws.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
^^^ Yeah pretty much. The IRS doesn't want anything to stop someone from paying their taxes. ActusRhesus posted:Apparently in some places they are. Learn something new everyday. I just am having a hard time wrapping my head around how you collect taxes on something that isn't supposed to exist. Seems like one of those laws that looks good in an academic sense but is pretty impossible to implement in reality. You can get a Tax ID. A lot of illegal immigrants pay income taxes this way. Other departments aren't allowed access to the IRS databases for this reason.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:I always assumed that the IRS just looked the other way so long as they were paid, in the same way that undocumented immigrants can pay taxes with the use of an IRS provided tax ID number. They're obviously working illegally here in the US, but it's not the job of the IRS to enforce immigration laws. yeah, a lot of the disconnect is because the IRS is generally dealing in civil with some quasi criminal law (and a small amount of actual criminal law) and civil and criminal law...might as well try to get a kitten and a turtle to gently caress. It really just boils down to "we want to tax the gently caress out of people...whenever possible."
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
Taxing people on their income = "tax the gently caress out of people wherever possible"
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:but if you know they won't be put back in, you're not engaging in rehabilitation. You're engaging in retribution... That's weird, wasn't there a third one you named? Oh gosh, I just can't think of it, but maybe it would offer a good reason for holding someone who cannot be rehabilitated indefinitely, and the distinction between it and retribution would provide valuable insight into a justice system without retributive aims.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:That's weird, wasn't there a third one you named? Oh gosh, I just can't think of it, but maybe it would offer a good reason for holding someone who cannot be rehabilitated indefinitely, and the distinction between it and retribution would provide valuable insight into a justice system without retributive aims. You're an idiot. Not because of the point you made, but because of the way you made it. Why not just say what you mean instead of keeping the dumb poo poo going? What type of response are you really trying to illicit?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:That's weird, wasn't there a third one you named? Oh gosh, I just can't think of it, but maybe it would offer a good reason for holding someone who cannot be rehabilitated indefinitely, and the distinction between it and retribution would provide valuable insight into a justice system without retributive aims. Except long-term prison sentences don't really have much of a general deterrent impact on serious malum in se type crimes. You see much more deterrent effect impact on lower level offenses. No one really thinks "Oh hey, I *would* rape someone...but I don't want to go to jail." Unless you are talking "Specific deterrence" as in "they can't re-offend if they are in jail" but the difference between specific deterrence and retribution really comes down to academic hair splitting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
I think intent has to come into the equation at some point with regards to how society handles criminality. If the intent of the system is simply retribution or revenge then I disagree with it, I think it is wrong for an individual or society to seek revenge on others because I think it simply creates more net-harm. If, on the other hand, society does something such as imprisonment of a criminal with the goal of rehabilitation, confinement for the prevention of greater harm to society as a whole or to deter future harmful actions from its members it is justified in inflicting some harm because the goal is a reduction in net-harm. Of course you have to be careful in how you do that because to some extent you are trying to predict the future and in many cases predicting the future is a very difficult thing to do.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Except long-term prison sentences don't really have much of a general deterrent impact on serious malum in se type crimes. You see much more deterrent effect impact on lower level offenses. Being in prison deters one from committing crimes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:I think intent has to come into the equation at some point with regards to how society handles criminality. If the intent of the system is simply retribution or revenge then I disagree with it, I think it is wrong for an individual or society to seek revenge on others because I think it simply creates more net-harm. If, on the other hand, society does something such as imprisonment of a criminal with the goal of rehabilitation, confinement for the prevention of greater harm to society as a whole or to deter future harmful actions from its members it is justified in inflicting some harm because the goal is a reduction in net-harm. Of course you have to be careful in how you do that because to some extent you are trying to predict the future and in many cases predicting the future is a very difficult thing to do. I'd agree with a lot of this, except there is a big difference between retribution and revenge. Careful how you use those terms. I get what you're saying and agree to a point, but in this discussion word choices are really important and there is a huge difference between retribution and revenge.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
Also, no, it really doesn't come down to hair-splitting. If your purpose is to punish someone, making prison uncomfortable suits your purpose. If your purpose is to incapacitate someone from committing crimes and you reject retribution, making prison uncomfortable is actually wrong. In terms of how the justice system should be structured, there's miles of difference between retribution and preventing someone from committing a crime.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:Being in prison deters one from committing crimes. We're going to lock you up so you can't do this again. As stated...there's a big difference between general and specific deterrence, and the difference between specific deterrence and retribution is pretty academic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I'd agree with a lot of this, except there is a big difference between retribution and revenge. Careful how you use those terms. I get what you're saying and agree to a point, but in this discussion word choices are really important and there is a huge difference between retribution and revenge.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:I for one am not at all clear on what the difference between retribution and revenge is. Retribution is a totally fair punishment enacted by a fair and civilized dispassionate state, revenge is unfair, highly emotional, and usually illegal and carried out by a non-state actor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:Also, no, it really doesn't come down to hair-splitting. If your purpose is to punish someone, making prison uncomfortable suits your purpose. If your purpose is to incapacitate someone from committing crimes and you reject retribution, making prison uncomfortable is actually wrong. In terms of how the justice system should be structured, there's miles of difference between retribution and preventing someone from committing a crime. Making prison uncomfortable is retributive, but retributive justice doesn't actually rely on any kind of vengeful and punitive harm for the sake of harm to the individual in question. Put it another way: if we could guarantee that - without actually modifying any aspect of their individual situation - the offender would never commit the crime again and that others would not be inclined to commit the crime either, would it be wrong to in some way seek retribution from the offender by modifying some aspect of their individual situation? If your answer is "no", congrats, you believe in retributive justice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:I for one am not at all clear on what the difference between retribution and revenge is. Well yesterday AR was making the argument that retribution is important so victims can feel good about having revenge. But that didn't catch on, so today retribution is the same as restraining someone from committing more crimes and anyone who says otherwise is a pedant.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
Kalman posted:the offender would never commit the crime again and that others would not be inclined to commit the crime either YOU ARE LITERALLY DESCRIBING DETERRENCE
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:Also, no, it really doesn't come down to hair-splitting. If your purpose is to punish someone, making prison uncomfortable suits your purpose. If your purpose is to incapacitate someone from committing crimes and you reject retribution, making prison uncomfortable is actually wrong. In terms of how the justice system should be structured, there's miles of difference between retribution and preventing someone from committing a crime. You are presuming that one has to make prison uncomfortable for it to be punishment, and can't, as I do, simply view prison in and of itself as adequate punishment. Having seen what prisons in other countries, even other "first world" countries look like, yeah. No thanks. That's not consistent with our values. One doesn't have to want lovely prisons to be a retributivist. Keep the libraries, keep the educational programs, etc. etc. There seem to be a lot of assumptions going on here. If you have questions about what I actually think about a given question, e.g. should prisons be leaky poo poo holes? Please ask, but drawing inaccurate conclusions that "because someone believes X they must also believe y" is part of why this thread is such a piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:Well yesterday AR was making the argument that retribution is important so victims can feel good about having revenge. But that didn't catch on, so today retribution is the same as restraining someone from committing more crimes and anyone who says otherwise is a pedant. That is the opposite of what he said today. And it isn't about victims feeling good about "having revenge" - it's about victims having their harms recognized as valid and worth taking seriously.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:Well yesterday AR was making the argument that retribution is important so victims can feel good about having revenge. But that didn't catch on, so today retribution is the same as restraining someone from committing more crimes and anyone who says otherwise is a pedant. Actually, no. That's not what I said at all. Revenge is personal. Retribution is societal. A revenge based system would look like vigilante justice. Letting the victim bring charges, giving the victim veto power over sentences, plea deals etc. etc. Which some people in the vicitm's rights lobby want, and I oppose for obvious reasons. Retribution recognizes that crimes have an impact on society, most immediately the victims, and sometimes "punishment" or, to put it another way "accountability" is the only way those scars can heal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:today retribution is the same as restraining someone from committing more crimes and anyone who says otherwise is a pedant. Kalman posted:That is the opposite of what he said today. ActusRhesus posted:the difference between specific deterrence and retribution is pretty academic. ???
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 23:11 |
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Actually, no. That's not what I said at all. It sounds like retribution is revenge in the form of an institution.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 18:05
|
|