|
Elotana posted:but then I remember the guy in Miami who got arrested something like 60 times for trespassing at the convenience store where he worked. How the gently caress does that work?
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 23:05 |
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:ten years for taking a human life? Possibly less with early parole? I can't say I agree. That's because you're still dragging your knuckles behind the rest of the populace who have realized extended sentencing does jack poo poo to deter crime. How much time have you served to be such an authority on the topic?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
Kalman posted:So why should the grand jury have indicted? To postpone the riots long enough for people to stop paying attention.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:ten years for taking a human life? Possibly less with early parole? I can't say I agree. I'm not really surprised, but more importantly, why do you guys think you're going to like trick me into confessing a deep love of retributive justice? You're the second person to try and do this in the last two pages. Do you not believe people have principles different from yours? I mean I think you're deeply wrong, but I don't think you're lying to yourself about what you think. Is it so much to give me the same consideration?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
Pyroxene Stigma posted:That's because you're still dragging your knuckles behind the rest of the populace who have realized extended sentencing does jack poo poo to deter crime. How much time have you served to be such an authority on the topic? you'd have a point if I were arguing purely from a deterrent perspective. But I'm not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:I'm not really surprised, but more importantly, why do you guys think you're going to like trick me into confessing a deep love of retributive justice? You're the second person to try and do this in the last two pages. Do you not believe people have principles different from yours? I mean I think you're deeply wrong, but I don't think you're lying to yourself about what you think. Is it so much to give me the same consideration? Because whether you realize it or not, a lot of what you say does actually incorporate retributive philosophy. You just don't like the label.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:No, the argument I'm making is that human beings have rights and you can't take them away without a good reason! "He made us sad" isn't a good reason, even if he made you sad by killing someone! "We have to do this to stop him killing people" is a good reason as well as "We have to do this so everyone knows they can't kill people" and "We have to do this so that he'll not kill people in the future" is also a good reason. Sadness, no, not a good reason. Why can't you take them away? Cause it makes you feel sad? The only moral argument is my moral argument
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Because whether you realize it or not, a lot of what you say does actually incorporate retributive philosophy. You just don't like the label. Considering that, again, two people including yourself have tried to use some lame Socratic bullshit to find a specific example of this and failed, I hope you don't mind if I continue rolling my eyes until they detach from their optic nerves.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:The entire concept of human rights has no objective validity I respectfully disagree.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:Considering that, again, two people including yourself have tried to use some lame Socratic bullshit to find a specific example of this and failed, I hope you don't mind if I continue rolling my eyes until they detach from their optic nerves. 30.5 Days posted:I agree, having harsh sentences is unnecessary because there is no deterrent or rehabilitative benefit. Having, you know, any sentence, that's another kettle of fish. There's your example.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:There's your example. You're saying that having a sentence for a crime has no deterrent benefit over not having a sentence? What is your argument, precisely?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:There's your example. Inconsistency detection failed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:You're saying that having a sentence for a crime has no deterrent benefit over not having a sentence? What is your argument, precisely? you seemed, in that sentence, to suggest that punishments (just not harsh ones) might be appropriate even when there is no deterrent or rehabilitative aim. If that's not what you meant, then I take it back, but that does sound like what you were saying.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:you seemed, in that sentence, to suggest that punishments (just not harsh ones) might be appropriate even when there is no deterrent or rehabilitative aim. If that's not what you meant, then I take it back, but that does sound like what you were saying. I was saying that I agree that harsh sentences have no deterrent benefit. Having SOME sentence, however, does have a deterrent benefit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:I was saying that I agree that harsh sentences have no deterrent benefit. Having SOME sentence, however, does have a deterrent benefit. I'm really not sure any sentence has an identifiable deterrent effect on murder. Most people who commit murder aren't making a careful risk benefit analysis. They want the other person dead. your biggest mistake here is you are assuming the murderer is a rational actor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I'm really not sure any sentence has an identifiable deterrent effect on murder. Most people who commit murder aren't making a careful risk benefit analysis. They want the other person dead. Er, are you saying that the existence or nonexistence of laws has no effect on whether or not people murder each other?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
Pyroxene Stigma posted:That's because you're still dragging your knuckles behind the rest of the populace who have realized extended sentencing does jack poo poo to deter crime. How much time have you served to be such an authority on the topic? So let me get this straight. Someone decides for reasons that they don't like your sister. Guns her down and gets rung up on murder 1. You would be completely fine with them walking at 10 years served?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:Er, are you saying that the existence or nonexistence of laws has no effect on whether or not people murder each other? In the case of murder? Yes. People don't "not kill other people" because its illegal. they do it because most people aren't sociopaths.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
Genocide Tendency posted:So let me get this straight. Maybe a murder victim's next of kin isn't the best person to make decisions about how criminals are treated for all of society.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
Genocide Tendency posted:So let me get this straight. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=158odrczKbI#t=5m28s
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:Maybe a murder victim's next of kin isn't the best person to make decisions about how criminals are treated for all of society. which is why they aren't allowed to. But letting the victim drive the train, and taking the vicitm's views into consideration when trying to find a system of justice that balances the safety of the community, the values of the community, the healing of the victim, and the rights of the accused are two very different things. I'm really baffled by all the victim hate going on here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
Aren't there ways to actually like study this poo poo? So many issues people love to go into their study and sit and think by the fire and use their ethics and reason to determine what is best, but why not actually study it scientifically? Or as scientifically as social sciences allow. Of course to get the answer of "what justice system is best" we need to start from a goal. I'd say the goal of a justice system is to reduce the overall rates of crime in society. Finding prison system that both acts as a deterrent to prevent crime, and effective rehabilitation to prevent more crimes seems like it would be the goal? Can we not use actual data to find out what level of "harshness" is required to act as a deterrent and how effective that is in deterring crimes? Can we not use actual testing and studies to find better and better ways to rehabilitate? From what I've read on the subject it seems for most crimes the harshness of the prison has little effect on deterring crime, but rather the likelyhood of getting caught and convicted. And prisons that actually treat inmates with respect and more like patients have an objectively measurable superior rate of rehabilitation and massively lower rates of re-offence. I remember a video where some american warden was touring some Scandinavian prison and he was so grumpy and shocked at how nice everything was and how no one was being tortured and everything looked just like apartments or a school rather than filthy animal cages in some 3rd world zoo. He couldn't argue with the superior stats in every measurable category but was still against it because it was "just going too far" and it was just too nice for prisoners and "what would the victims think?".
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:which is why they aren't allowed to. I know, which is why I'm confused by the remainder of this post- I responded to a poster who literally said "if your family was murdered you would be upset by a reasonable justice system that is primarily concerned with its benefits to society" by saying "yes and that's why if my family was murdered I wouldn't be allowed to decide what happens next". And you agree with that sentiment but still felt the need to put a "but" afterward. Which is weird. ActusRhesus posted:I'm really baffled by all the victim hate going on here. I'd like to think you weren't talking about me but I know better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Of course to get the answer of "what justice system is best" we need to start from a goal. We are literally arguing about what that goal should be. Some posters think that goal should balance the needs of society with how satisfied the victim is with how hard the offender was punished. Some people think the needs of society should be the only consideration. That conflict is literally the conversation that is taking place right now, on this page.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
The problem with "ignoring how the victims think" entirely is that it tends to have collateral consequences in the form of victims, and those sympathetic to them, losing faith in the system. Which can also have consequences.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:We are literally arguing about what that goal should be. Some posters think that goal should balance the needs of society with how satisfied the victim is with how hard the offender was punished. Some people think the needs of society should be the only consideration. That conflict is literally the conversation that is taking place right now, on this page. that's quite an inaccurate oversimplification.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:The problem with "ignoring how the victims think" entirely is that it tends to have collateral consequences in the form of victims, and those sympathetic to them, losing faith in the system. Which can also have consequences. Citation needed for this straw man.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
You understand how quotation marks work, right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:Citation needed for this straw man. You really need a citation for the principle that people unhappy with results in the justice system sometimes resort to vigilante justice in the worst case, or civil unrest in the best case? Well...for starters... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
Genocide Tendency posted:So let me get this straight. That's the problem, isn't it? This system capitalizes on the irrationality of victims to justify its pointless brutality.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:Citation needed for this straw man. As I said before, its like the original loving purpose of having a justice system, if you need a citation for that you should stop posting in this thread and actually learn what you're talking about.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
ActusRhesus, do you think that life sentences without parole are unjust and should be abolished?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:How the gently caress does that work? In Miami Gardens, store video catches cops in the act posted:Earl Sampson has been stopped and questioned by Miami Gardens police 258 times in four years. quote:One video, recorded on June 26, 2012, shows Sampson, clearly stocking coolers, being interrupted by MGPD Sgt. William Dunaske, who orders him to put his hands behind his back, and then handcuffs him, leads him out of the store and takes him to jail for trespassing. DARPA fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Dec 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:ActusRhesus, do you think that life sentences without parole are unjust and should be abolished? Narrow it down. What offense are we talking about, and are we talking mandatory life sentences, or discretionary life sentences, and what are the checks in place? Is there a right to sentence review, for example? And are we talking actual or constructive?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
Say no... Say no... Say no... :popcorn:. Edit. Oh, "Wooosh".
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Narrow it down. What offense are we talking about, and are we talking mandatory life sentences, or discretionary life sentences, and what are the checks in place? Is there a right to sentence review, for example? And are we talking actual or constructive? I mean you're saying no, right? Because even if all the controls and exceptions are in place, someone somewhere will serve life without parole.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Narrow it down. What offense are we talking about, and are we talking mandatory life sentences, or discretionary life sentences, and what are the checks in place? Is there a right to sentence review, for example? Basically life sentence existing as a mandatory period, let's say 10 years, for the worst crimes, then annual evaluation for rehabilitation success and possible release to society, with possible "trial runs" of a weekend leave, for example. Some people will endure rehabilitation treatment for 25 years and still go "I'll murder all the women with an axe", thus showing that they can't be released, so they can be contained possibly forever if need be. Refer to: Nordic "life sentences" that have practically never been for life, but ranging from 5-20 years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
When people get angry at the justice system it's from perceptions that the punishment wasn't fair relative to other punishments, that the justice system was inconsistent. When one person gets 100 years for murder and someone else gets 5 years for murder that's a huge inconsistency and it of course makes the victims think their loss wasn't as important as that other person's. It's about the consistency not the severity. With a consistently rehabilitative prison system people become use to that being the norm and then judge the sentencing of crimes relative to each other. If you live in a society where the punishment for theft is lopping off a hand and some rich guy was punished with having to wear a symbolic glove for a month while your poor brother a few years ago had both his hands lopped off you'd be pissed, you'd be demanding the rich guy at least lose a hand and hell he stole more than your brother did so why not lose both hands?? The exact same situation could play out in a more progressive society where the punishment for serious theft is a year of treatment but a politician's son only had to serve a month while a minority had to serve 2 years for a lesser theft. It's not so much about the severity of the punishment but the relative consistency with the punishment when compared to other similar crimes and compared to more/less serious crimes. If the normal prison sentence for genocide was 10 years people wouldn't get mad when Hitler "only" got 10 years, they'd be mad when Stalin only got 2.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:I mean you're saying no, right? Because even if all the controls and exceptions are in place, someone somewhere will serve life without parole. Do I think there are some crimes so heinous that they warrant a life sentence? Yes. However, life without parole should be obviously limited to the most heinous crimes, ones that show a clear break with humanity. Not even "all murders." Only the most heinous. I do not support mandatory life sentences (or really mandatory minimums of any stripe), I don't think judges should be elected so that sentencing is done fairly without fear of "will this anger the voters" and I think there needs to be a check on the system like an independent sentence review board to make sure that sentences are being issues consistently throughout the state. Go ahead and call me hitler now. By the way, since parole is discretionary, most courts have ruled being denied parole isn't a sentence enhancement. Your sentence is your sentence. If you are eligible for parole, that's treated as a separate issue.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 23:05 |
|
|
Vahakyla posted:Basically life sentence existing as a mandatory period, let's say 10 years, for the worst crimes, then annual evaluation for rehabilitation success and possible release to society, with possible "trial runs" of a weekend leave, for example. Norway is a great model, but they also have a much different society and economy, so you can't really say what works there would work here. Their socialism model also has a huge impact on recidivism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 20:40
|
|