|
ActusRhesus posted: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. What is the argument for a life sentence without parole? I mean, if they can be released, they will, and if they can't at all, then they won't be, basically. What is the positive effect the option without parole has? I don't oppose life sentences in themselves, if they let people out when they can be let out and try to ensure that no one dies in prison due to old age. In other words, letting even the worst out towards their twilight when they are unable to do any of the heinous deeds they were up to. I saw your answer to the Norwegian thing, and there is some point to that, but I still don't see how the option for parole is negative in any way in the US.
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 19:08 |
|
|
Vahakyla posted:What is the argument for a life sentence without parole? I mean, if they can be released, they will, and if they can't at all, then they won't be, basically. What is the positive effect the option without parole has? The rationale would be a pure retributive response: some crimes (the exceptional cases) are just so awful we don't want to ever entertain the possibility of their release. (Especially when if you are parole eligible in a lot of places there are all sorts of nuances as to how early you may be eligible.) Some people have committed such a great offense against not only the victim, but society as a whole, that they have forfeited their right to be part of society ever again. I guess my overall philosophy is "focus on rehabilitating those who can be rehabilitated...but some people can't and adopting a philosophy of "we're sending you to jail because what you did is wrong" is not necessarily barbaric. But oh yeah...while people are in prison, don't treat them like animals." I didn't realize this was a radical view.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:The rationale would be a pure retributive response: some crimes (the exceptional cases) are just so awful we don't want to ever entertain the possibility of their release. (Especially when if you are parole eligible in a lot of places there are all sorts of nuances as to how early you may be eligible.) Some people have committed such a great offense against not only the victim, but society as a whole, that they have forfeited their right to be part of society ever again. Where is the exact cut-off between a normal crime that a person is able worthy of being rehabilitated and a "heinous" crime where they must be locked up forever no matter what?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:The rationale would be a pure retributive response: some crimes (the exceptional cases) are just so awful we don't want to ever entertain the possibility of their release. (Especially when if you are parole eligible in a lot of places there are all sorts of nuances as to how early you may be eligible.) Some people have committed such a great offense against not only the victim, but society as a whole, that they have forfeited their right to be part of society ever again. I'm not too far from your views, but I do oppose it when there is no option for parole, since retribution is not something I support. Rehabilitation and Containment are valid reasons for incarceration, but the need for both can cease at some point, thus release to the society should follow, either fully or in limited forms such as weekend leaves, test leaves, half way releases and what have you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Where is the exact cut-off between a normal crime that a person is able worthy of being rehabilitated and a "heinous" crime where they must be locked up forever no matter what? Demanding exactitude in human affairs of this nature is pointless.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Where is the exact cut-off between a normal crime that a person is able worthy of being rehabilitated and a "heinous" crime where they must be locked up forever no matter what? I suppose it would start with the amount of suffering inflicted on the victim, and what, if any mitigators were present. It's why most states that still have the death penalty require the jury or whoever does the sentencing to first find a specific aggravating factor that warrants capital punishment, and then listen to the defendant's mitigating evidence as well and decide whether, on a whole, the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors. I suspect it wouldn't be hard to take that model and apply it to parole ineligibility (though right now most "without parole" offenses are specifically ineligible by statute...so to allow the sentence to decide whether or not parole would be possible would require some statutory changes.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
Run prisons like a hospital. Treat people until they are better, hold/quarantine them for minimum amounts of time depending on the case to make absolutely sure. Also practice preventive medicine and use your experience treating people to better diagnose problems before they even need a hospital stay. \/ Almost every single argument against such a prison model ends up boiling down to this dog whistle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Norway is a great model, but they also have a much different society Hmm, my "coded language" alarm is going off for some reason
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Run prisons like a hospital. Treat people until they are better, hold/quarantine them for minimum amounts of time depending on the case to make absolutely sure. Also practice preventive medicine and use your experience treating people to better diagnose problems before they even need a hospital stay. The problem with your analogy is that in a hospital setting some people are terminal, and doctors don't try to cure them. so is shower buttrape island the new hospice?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Hmm, my "coded language" alarm is going off for some reason widespread socialism and a greater social safety net.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article1957716.html This was posted on the previous page, but it's a perfect view of what needs to be reformed. A police officer can illegally arrest you on camera, lie about it, get caught lying about it, and then nothing happens except to target you for bringing it up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:The problem with your analogy is that in a hospital setting some people are terminal, and doctors don't try to cure them. Nah the analogy still holds up. People who can't be cured stay in the hospital, or are moved to long term care facilities to better suit their needs. Buttrape is not required by anyone. A comprehensive system should be able to process all sorts of people and move them to the correct facilities, but they should always be treated with care, never tortured, never allowed to become victims of crime them selves while under the state's care. If someone can't be rehabilitated I'm fine with them staying in prison forever. The US system scares the poo poo out of me because it just locks people up, tortures them, then releases them with the system knowing full well this person is now an even worse monster and will absolutely re-offend but they sat in prison for an arbitrary time so out they go. In many cases I think people should be locked up longer, as long as needed until they won't be a danger to society when released. And obvious release should be a gradual thing with many stages between "totally locked up" and "totally free and unsupervised". The two main problems I have with north american prisons and justice system in general are that the conditions are absolutely barbaric, and many people that shouldn't be imprisoned are, and many people who really should be imprisoned aren't. I mean simply eliminating the official and unofficial torture from prisons would be a huge step forward alone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Nah the analogy still holds up. People who can't be cured stay in the hospital, or are moved to long term care facilities to better suit their needs. Buttrape is not required by anyone. A comprehensive system should be able to process all sorts of people and move them to the correct facilities, but they should always be treated with care, never tortured, never allowed to become victims of crime them selves while under the state's care. We actually agree about more than you realize.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
Meanwhile, in San Francisco: http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/sf-cops-found-guilty-in-corruption-case/Content?oid=2913570 SF Examiner posted:SF cops found guilty in corruption case
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted: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. So no one has ever taken the law into their own hands because they didn't think the penalty for a crime was severe enough?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:So no one has ever taken the law into their own hands because they didn't think the penalty for a crime was severe enough? I'm really not worried about vigilante justice, it won't even fit on the same graph compared to the death and violence caused by the current prison and police systems. It seems like a total red-herring. And people strongly base their emotional sense of what is the "right punishment" based on existing punishments in society. Is it a problem? Is there data showing incidents and severity of "vigilante justice" go up when societies introduce more humane/rehabilitative prison systems?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I'm really not worried about vigilante justice, it won't even fit on the same graph compared to the death and violence caused by the current prison and police systems. It seems like a total red-herring. And people strongly base their emotional sense of what is the "right punishment" based on existing punishments in society. I don't think there's any society that has gone too far in doing rehabilitative justice that would cause this effect, vigilante justice is absolutely rampant in part of the world where the criminal justice system isn't sufficiently functional to provide retributive justice though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
DARPA posted:He's black. I'm actually physically stunned at this level of racism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:
There is a very narrow, pragmatic one, based on how things are rather than how they should be: IIRC juries are far more likely to pick life sentence w/o possibility of parole in place of capital punishment than life sentence w/possibility of parole --- or at very least, in New York, that in some cases juries wouldn't be able to chose such a punishment was considered by the Court of Appeals enough to render the death penalty regime unconstitutional:http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._LaValle quote:The Court held that Section 400.27(10) [2] of the New York Criminal Procedure Law was unconstitutional. That section addressed what would happen if jury deadlocked–that is could not agree–on the penalty to be imposed: life without the possibility of parole, or death. In that circumstance the trial judge would be empowered to sentence the defendant to as little as 20 years to life or as much as life without parole. Moreover, the statute required the judge to instruct the jury as to what would occur if they deadlocked.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:There is a very narrow, pragmatic one, based on how things are rather than how they should be: IIRC juries are far more likely to pick life sentence w/o possibility of parole in place of capital punishment than life sentence w/possibility of parole --- or at very least, in New York, that in some cases juries wouldn't be able to chose such a punishment was considered by the Court of Appeals enough to render the death penalty regime unconstitutional:http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._LaValle Yeah, the whole death penalty jury thing throws a lot of odd curve balls into the mix. I generally don't think juries should be involved in sentencing at all with the exception of the death penalty, if you are going to have it at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
LorneReams posted:http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article1957716.html That's absolutely amazing. Anyone who hasn't read the article should.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Hmm, my "coded language" alarm is going off for some reason You're really reaching here man.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
Cole posted:You're really reaching here man. The answer always seems to be "oh wow we can't afford a safety net" but we were perfectly willing to provide a safety net as long as it was only for white people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
still reaching.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
its really quite shocking how many of America's problems are directly caused by racism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 06:26
|
|
|
Did we miss this? And can we talk more about practices than statutes for a minute? It's passed the IL House and Senate, and is sitting on the governor's desk, so to speak. http://www.ibtimes.com/illinois-passes-bill-makes-it-illegal-record-police-1744724 quote:A new bill passed last week in Illinois would make it a felony to secretly tape any “private conversations," with steeper punishments for those surreptitiously recording the police. Critics of the proposed law claim it would scare citizens from recording interactions with law enforcement, following a number of high-profile police killings caught on camera. So you now have the choice in Illinois: A. Try to keep your camera out of view, be inconspicous, and commit a felony. B. Have your recording device in view, and have it deleted, confiscated, or smashed. And probably also get charged with this anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 08:53
|
|
|
Miltank posted:its really quite shocking how many of America's problems are directly caused by racism. racism is a symptom not a cause
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 11:46
|
|
|
repeating posted:Did we miss this? And can we talk more about practices than statutes for a minute? It's passed the IL House and Senate, and is sitting on the governor's desk, so to speak. the bill itself isn't a problem...the steeper penalties for taping law enforcement is the problem. I get the theory behind secret recording bans (though I think they are stupid...I don't see an expectation of privacy in conversations you have with another person) but if anything there should be an exception for "when dealing with a public official" (not just a cop, but any public official) not a greater penalty.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 11:47
|
|
|
So is there a general feeling that police conduct is the same as it's been for a long time and the main difference is increased awareness of how many of these incidents go down because of ubiquitous availability of cell phone recording and websites and social media to post the videos?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 12:00
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:the bill itself isn't a problem...the steeper penalties for taping law enforcement is the problem. I thought the Supreme Court already ruled on this?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 12:41
|
|
|
I don't really think any of this is a problem if you just do what the police officers tell you. If they don't want you to film them, don't film them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 12:54
|
|
|
LorneReams posted:I thought the Supreme Court already ruled on this? not quite. the statute that the Illinois supreme court found unconstitutional was an eavesdropping statute where NO party was aware of the recording. (ie the recorder was not part of the conversation) SCOTUS declined to take the case. This statute appears to involve recording done by a person who was party to the conversation. So they seem to have tailored the statute to comply without he court's ruling somewhat
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 13:56
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:if anything there should be an exception for "when dealing with a public official" (not just a cop, but any public official) not a greater penalty. As a reasonable human, you must be saying that you're ActusRhesus. Yeah that's fine with me as long as it protects public officials. /conflictofinterest E: #suckadick
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 14:01
|
|
|
repeating posted:As a reasonable human, you must be saying that you're ActusRhesus. Yeah that's fine with me as long as it protects public officials. EDIT: wait. no, I said exactly what I meat. If you are going to have a law banning recordings, there should be an exception for recordings of public officials, not a greater penalty. As in..it's legal to record public officials. As in...they are not protected. How is that "suckadick" worthy? Do you even read what I type, or do you have some software program that "find/replaces" everything I type with "RAWR I AM HITLER" ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 14:07 on Dec 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 14:04
|
|
|
Miltank posted:its really quite shocking how many of America's problems are directly caused by
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 14:10
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:sorry...I meant to say "NOT" be an exception...which you probably could have figured out if you had read in context, since I was obviously taking issue with the greater penalty for cop recordings. But keep assuming I'm hitler, That's cool. /lawyertalk \realpeopleconversation I'm not assuming you are Hitler. Keep embarassing yourself with that nonsense as much as you want. I'm not stopping here as this is a point that you've obviously personally invested yourself in. The problem is, you're part of the problem. I want to help you understand my viewpoint, but you don't want to understand anyone's PoV. You have your own. And you're terrified to let go of it. You're too focused on distinctions of law. You are disconnected from reality. You don't understand how your actions effect people. E: it's not that hard to find terrible opinions that you hold, because all of your opinions are terrible /necroedit so i sound smart E2: I AM THE LAW repeating fucked around with this message at 14:14 on Dec 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 14:11
|
|
|
Ultimate Prosecutor 13.0 V2x Gold Fatal!ty Edition 2015 Pro
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 14:20
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:widespread socialism and a greater social safety net. Yeah, nothing you've put forward is a good argument for why the US couldn't adopt the Norwegian model. The US is the wealthiest nation in the world, not only can it afford a more just and effective justice system, it can also afford a robust welfare system. It's just that bombing impoverished villages half the world away is more important.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 14:39
|
|
|
repeating posted:As a reasonable human, you must be saying that you're ActusRhesus. Yeah that's fine with me as long as it protects public officials. Learn how to read
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 14:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 19:08 |
|
|
Jarmak posted:Learn how to read #learnhowtogofuckyourself e: rear end in a top hat (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 14:54
|
|