|
ActusRhesus posted:That is a really disgusting and baseless thing to say and it does absolutely nothing to advance the conversation. If you honestly think I can spend the bulk of my time looking at autopsy photos of 14 year olds, interviews of molested kids, and courtrooms filled with victim's families and think "woo hoo! Job security!" Then your level of faux internet crusader of justice outrage has really just reached the point of self-parody. Nice to see you're able to get worked up about something, given the thought of thousands of innocent people behind bars did nothing to move you. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 14:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 11:50 |
|
|
ThePhenomenalBaby posted:Who was the first scumbag lawyer? Like historically. This concept had to come from somewhere. Well it goes back to at least Shakespeare, because I know what ideas he had about them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 14:43
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Look no further than the prosecutor's table.  ∃(x): isProsecutor(x) ∀(x): isProsecutor(x) => isLiterallyEvil(x) A sound theory. E: also "[in dramatic narrative voice] Fatal Sins against the Notion of Justice" Syenite fucked around with this message at 15:13 on Aug 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 14:45
|
|
|
Adenoid Dan posted:The thing that really matters is preventing more victims, and I'd rather leave that up to scientific study than gut feelings. Which scientific studies are you relying upon? I agree some people have rehabilitative potential. Some do not. Should a person convicted of a violent offense who shows no sign of remorse get 5-10 ? PostNouveau posted:Well it goes back to at least Shakespeare, because I know what ideas he had about them. Inaccurate. "Kill all the lawyers" was step one in creating chaos, frequently quoted out of context. Shakespeare had quite a bit of respect for the bar. LeJackal posted:Look no further than the prosecutor's table. I agree such behavior is unacceptable. How often do you think that occurs?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I agree such behavior is unacceptable. How often do you think that occurs? Too often. Also, you should probably take some time off from posting to work on yourself, since you agree that your behavior is not acceptable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:We also have violent crime rates well above the national average in our three largest metropolitan areas. And you immediately leap to defend the status quo again by deflecting. Do you believe that the justice system from law enforcement to criminal proceedings to incarceration share no culpability in crime rates?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 15:18
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Inaccurate. "Kill all the lawyers" was step one in creating chaos, frequently quoted out of context. Shakespeare had quite a bit of respect for the bar. I dunno, seems to be open to interpretation there. He did love to crack on lawyers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:And you immediately leap to defend the status quo again by deflecting. Do you believe that the justice system from law enforcement to criminal proceedings to incarceration share no culpability in crime rates? I think that is good for most people to think about. On the one side you think that they probably do since everyone gets paid if people go to jail and people get to keep their jobs. On the other hand the system is suppose to be "moral". I would definitely say that some parts of the country have problems with organized corruption doing this in the justice system, and other parts not so much. However to say that they all do, I think would be taking it way too far. Therefore, crime rates maybe at some local levels yes, that may influence at the national level, but not all crimes. Also not everything that is a crime is reported, but that is a whole different conversation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Too often. On what grounds do you make that accusation? Edit: Pohl, these are the kind of worthless attack posts I mentioned earlier. It's very difficult to stay civil when this is where the thread inevitably goes. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 15:40 on Aug 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
ThePhenomenalBaby posted:Who was the first scumbag lawyer? Like historically. This concept had to come from somewhere. Cato the Younger. ozmunkeh posted:Nice to see you're able to get worked up about something, given the thought of thousands of innocent people behind bars did nothing to move you. I don't think it's a lack of emotional response so much as it is a view of it on a statistical level. When you say "a half a percent" it sounds way less severe than "seven thousand five hundred people." In my line of work (AML investigation) there's a similar dichotomy - we might have something like a 0.1% "miss" rate where someone doesn't detect money laundering, and 0.1% of those turn out to be terrorist financing, and 0.1% of those turn out to be critical in enabling attacks, so hearing "one in a billion" sounds one way, while "the time we dropped the ball and 150 people got blown up" sounds way different. FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 15:46 on Aug 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Cato the Younger. Cato the Younger was a real poo poo-heel of a politician, but must of his actual legal work was prosecuting corrupt public officials and people who profited from Sulla's proscriptions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:Well it goes back to at least Shakespeare, because I know what ideas he had about them. Nvm saw the other posts. Thanks to everyone for bringing some clarity to some jokes way older than any of us.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Edit: Pohl, these are the kind of worthless attack posts I mentioned earlier. It's very difficult to stay civil when this is where the thread inevitably goes.  "Won't somebody think of the poor powerless prosecutors that willfully ruin subvert justice without consequence?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 16:09
|
|
PostNouveau posted:I dunno, seems to be open to interpretation there. He did love to crack on lawyers. That's a great reinterpretation from a random MIT comp sci person- it's bending over backward to get to the reading he wants. I particularly like him derailing into shrinkwrap agreements rather than explain his tortured reinterpretation of the subsequent lines. edit: ha! quote:Seth Finkelstein is a software developer and Internet activist.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 16:17
|
|
Mr. Wookums posted:Don't know why you're on such a high horse when you have such lovely views on gun ownership. These two may actually be related.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:
You surely have evidence that AR does that, right? I mean, given that you've accused her specifically of doing so? You wouldn't just be accusing her because she's a prosecutor, would you? I mean, that'd be like me saying "because LeJackal likes guns, he's a white supremacist Stormfronter who ejaculates to the thought of shooting black people." I mean, that last is probably true in your case, but if I was going to say it was true, I'd have evidence it was beyond "LeJackal likes guns."
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
Kalman posted:You wouldn't just be accusing her because she's a prosecutor, would you? I mean, that'd be like me saying "because LeJackal likes guns, he's a white supremacist Stormfronter who ejaculates to the thought of shooting black people." Well I thought that was how things are done in D&D, right? Good for the goose is good for the gander. (You're doing it in your own loving post.) Mr. Wookums posted:Don't know why you're on such a high horse when you have such lovely views on gun ownership. I don't see how treating the 2nd Amendment consistently with the others is lovely, but w/e.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:That's a great reinterpretation from a random MIT comp sci person- it's bending over backward to get to the reading he wants. I particularly like him derailing into shrinkwrap agreements rather than explain his tortured reinterpretation of the subsequent lines. Yeah. If you look at the entire Shakespeare cannon, rather than in out if context line, there are a lot of references to the law. Measure for Measure leaps to mind, as does Merchant of Venice. Makes sense because Shakespeare was pretty litigious.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
Everyone should hate lawyers. I know I do. Hope that helps with this argument.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
Re: Shakespeare Killing All Lawyers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1i0MNOwNNsM Video was taken in 1990, and dude somehow made it look like he was holding a smartphone veritcally.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:For low level offenses perhaps. For a person with multiple homicides? There's specific deterrence. If they are in jail it's harder for them to kill anyone else. That's what you're dealing with, but the vast, vast majority of people are in prison for far lesser offenses. You specifically said: ActusRhesus posted:We also have violent crime rates well above the national average in our three largest metropolitan areas. Many people in prison does not mean many people unfairly incarcerated. While what's "fair" is up for debate, the real issue is that the state you represent (and every other state) has people in prison that shouldn't be there as a matter of public policy. The prison sentences handed down for even minor felonies - even non-violent felonies, not sure why you're trying to obfuscate "people in prison" and "violent crime" - are generally excessive, and the prisons themselves lack the rehabilitative services for people in them (not to mention being downright dangerous and inhumane). This is a clear recipe for recidivism, and is just plain expensive. And then there's the matter of policy before people even reach the criminal justice system. You mention living in a metropolitan area with a significant minority population. What is the unemployment rate in the neighborhoods accounting for the highest concentration of crime? Youth unemployment? Average income? Can you possibly deny that the lack of opportunity, much of it perpetrated by systematic racism, is a major driver of crime rates?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
I don't think I've ever denied that higher poverty rates = higher crime rates.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I don't think I've ever denied that higher poverty rates = higher crime rates. Never claimed that you did, just that you handwave the systemic root cause of a lot of crime by saying that most people in prison are there fairly. And since you did say that most people in prison were there fairly, that would mean you largely agree with the length of sentences being handed down for most crimes despite a lot of evidence for that being counterproductive. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 18:17 on Aug 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Never claimed that you did. No it doesn't? You can think that a bunch of people should be in prison while disliking how long they are in for. Also almost every post you've made in this thread is you trying to play some sort of stupid "gotcha!" game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:No it doesn't? You can think that a bunch of people should be in prison while disliking how long they are in for. Then you don't think they should be in prison. How is this not obvious? If there are 100 people imprisoned for 10 years per year (and no other sentences), there would be prison population of 1,000 people. If a fair sentence is, let's call it 5 years, there are 500 people in prison unfairly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Then you don't think they should be in prison. How is this not obvious? Can you explain your math a bit more.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Then you don't think they should be in prison. How is this not obvious? edit: Clearly this allows people to have contradictory beliefs, but since people do in fact have contradictory beliefs, this doesn't seem like a problem to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
twodot posted:If you think X then you think Y is always a poo poo argument. It's reasonable to apply logic and intuition to what people are saying, but you simply can't dictate to people what they believe. "I don't believe the thing you are claiming I believe" is a total refutation of any such argument. If you think you've understood someone's position, and you want to test that belief, you ask them if you've understood it, not try to tell them that you know what they believe better than they do. It is the only logical conclusion. Someone cannot say that there are "not many people unfairly incarcerated" if they disagree with current sentencing standards, because then they would believe that there are in fact many people unfairly incarcerated as under fair guidelines they would have already been released. e: It is also relevant that this is a discussion with a lawyer who has used these sorts of logical quibbles in this very thread. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 18:39 on Aug 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
Or how about: "I don't think 25 to life is unfair for a murder 1 is unfair...but I do think 5 for possession is...which is why I give the latter defendant accelerated rehabilitation and diversionary programs!" How many times do I have to say that? Yes. I wish more prosecutors would make use of the diversionary programs we use. Edit: also remember a lot of people are allowed to plea to lesser charges. So what they are "in for" and what they "actually did" are not always the same.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Or how about : "I don't think 25 to life is unfair for a murder 1 is unfair...but I do think 5 for possession is...which is why I give the latter defendant accelerated rehabilitation and diversionary programs!" Then you do think that many people are unfairly incarcerated. Is it so hard to admit you were wrong and/or misspoke when you get called out on it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:It is the only logical conclusion. Someone cannot say that there are "not many people unfairly incarcerated" if they disagree with current sentencing standards, because then they would believe that there are in fact many people unfairly incarcerated as under fair guidelines they would have already been released. Even ignoring that, you can think current sentencing standards are too long by, as an example, an hour, and still, consistently, think not many people are unfairly incarcerated. You need to focus on whether stated beliefs are good, not attempt to skip ahead to a bad, unstated belief by poorly extending other people's own beliefs. The worst part of the "your belief is inconsistent" argument, is that they can easily become consistent (assuming you were right, which you're not) by simply deciding that "Yes, you're right, I should think current sentencing standards are appropriate", which is the opposite of what you're trying to achieve. twodot fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Aug 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Then you do think that many people are unfairly incarcerated. Is it so hard to admit you were wrong and/or misspoke when you get called out on it? Perhaps I would if you would stop putting words in my mouth and playing asinine gotcha games.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
Also, discussing "people" in the abstract is beyond worthless. Use specific cases. Because talking about the multitudes of people unfairly sentenced is really subjective. I don't think, for example, 5, 10, or even 5,000 unfair sentences in Texas requires a fundamental overhaul in Massachusetts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Also, discussing "people" in the abstract is beyond worthless. "Please ignore broad trends, instead we need to focus on each individual case so I can nitpick them away."
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Also, discussing "people" in the abstract is beyond worthless.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Dr Pepper posted:"Please ignore broad trends, instead we need to focus on each individual case so I can nitpick them away." Pretty much. Whether or not something is "fair" is pretty fact specific. (And completely subjective) ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Aug 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
twodot posted:I think there's two levels to have discussions around unfair sentencing, one is "The US has a super hosed up number of people in prison, we should do something about that", something can include economic, legal, and other reforms that would reduce the rate we put people in prison. Another is "The sentencing guidelines/requirements for crack possession in Georgia are racist and garbage and should be lowered". The first one requires that we talk about people and statistics, the second one can talk about individual cases and states (though crack possession sentencing is garbage everywhere). Actually I don't know if they are separate. I've seen reports that in terms of rates of people arrested & convicted, the US isn't really that far above others. What does set the US apart is that sentencing is much longer than equivalent crimes in other countries. This adds up to having more people in prison even if the number of people entering prison is not that different.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Actually I don't know if they are separate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 11:50 |
|
|
Dr Pepper posted:"Please ignore broad trends, instead we need to focus on each individual case so I can nitpick them away." But if you post about a specific case then you're arguing by annecdote and we shouldn't rush to judge the individuals involved, so obviously any individual case can't be used to discuss a trend...and so on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 19:26
|
|
