|
FAUXTON posted:Right, I knew all of that to begin with. Why, though? Is it just arbitrary threadshitting disagreement? Or do you have some kind of rationale with which to discuss and/or debate this difference? The question was, "name one reason why felons shouldn't be allowed to vote." so I gave a reason. "Not instantly agreeing with people" isn't threadshitting. Its debate and discussion.
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 04:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 12:20 |
|
|
Whether a democracy is allowed to is one thing, whether it should is something else entirely. Engage with the latter discussion or gently caress off
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
Considering "Mississippi wanted to" was also the justification for slavery, disenfranchisement of blacks, disenfranchisement of women, roundabout disenfranchisement with literacy tests, and poll taxes, do you see why it's not a compelling reason all on its own? E: can use smaller words if you don't know and don't care what the above means, let me know VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 04:37 on Aug 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:"Not instantly agreeing with people" isn't threadshitting. Its debate and discussion. Lots of people have disagreements, the difference between them and making GBS threads is that they're making their rationale clear rather than just saying "I don't know what that means and I don't care, I just disagree."
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Considering "Mississippi wanted to" was also the justification for slavery, disenfranchisement of blacks, disenfranchisement of women, roundabout disenfranchisement with literacy tests, and poll taxes, do you see why it's not a compelling reason all on its own? "Because [State/Nation] wanted to..." is also the causation for every one of the best laws ever written. FAUXTON posted:Lots of people have disagreements, the difference between them and making GBS threads is that they're making their rationale clear rather than just saying "I don't know what that means and I don't care, I just disagree." What do you not understand about my rationale?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:"Because [State/Nation] wanted to..." is also the causation for every one of the best laws ever written. How do you know what are the best laws and what are the worst laws, since in a democracy both are passed because enough people wanted to.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 04:49
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:What do you not understand about my rationale? You don't have any rationale for claiming the concept of the social contract is something it isn't. There's nothing to "not understand."
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 04:53
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:How do you know what are the best laws and what are the worst laws, since in a democracy both are passed because enough people wanted to. Ask D&D, apparently. FAUXTON posted:You don't have any rationale for claiming the concept of the social contract is something it isn't. There's nothing to "not understand." The question was whether or not there was any rationale for the denial of the right to vote to felons. You're definitely "not understanding" something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:The question was whether or not there was any rationale for the denial of the right to vote to felons. You're definitely "not understanding" something. Claiming the social contract terminates at a guilty verdict isn't a rationale, because it has no basis in thousands of years of thought on the subject. You might as well be saying convicts lose the right to vote because the moon is made of cheese or because Abe Vigoda is an alien. You aren't understanding what the social contract is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 05:14
|
|
|
frajaq posted:Here's the full video of the above gif I like the Talk poo poo Get Hit tude the cops have, also the part where the fat guy in blue gets punched in the face, and everyone being like yeaahh she's fine don't worry about it after the lady gets tased. Uhh fat guy is being choked too at one point, then the nice slam to the ground, yeah, yeah that's a pretty good WSHH video Remove the uniforms, stick em in a Denny's at 3AM, fits right in
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 05:41
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Claiming the social contract terminates at a guilty verdict isn't a rationale, because it has no basis in thousands of years of thought on the subject. You might as well be saying convicts lose the right to vote because the moon is made of cheese or because Abe Vigoda is an alien. You aren't understanding what the social contract is. Go back and read my posts, and if you still can't infer from them the point I made I can explain it again. It will be a few days. I doubt you're trying to create an argument with me over the nuance of various philosophical opinings on the concept and accepted definition of "The Social Contract" because Im sure you understand what a goober that would make you seem like. Also, if your alt account isn't NEWTRINO you hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 05:57
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Go back and read my posts, and if you still can't infer from them the point I made I can explain it again. It will be a few days. Your posts say "I think convicts should lose the right to vote because breaking the law is breaking the social contract," which is an example of you appropriating a well-defined concept to try and borrow its credibility for a fairly backwards point of view. Cue me asking you to explain your theory on how the social contract stops at the jailhouse gate, given that your premise is about as well-supported as claiming black cats are sorcerers in disguise, followed by you saying you don't know what it is and that you don't care, just that you're going to disagree without actually saying why you disagree. I mean, I'm trying to gain some insight as to why you think social contract is just another term for law and you're just being stubborn about details. I don't really know why you're doing that but it comes off like you're trying to troll the cop thread by just staking out some extreme position and claiming certitude without any justification whatsoever beyond "well that's just my opinion, man."
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 06:11
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Which scientific studies are you relying upon? I didn't say I had studies, I said gut feelings aren't a replacement for them. I don't know how long individual sentences should be. We should look at what works, offer support and rehabilitation, and make sure there's a place and support in society for them when (if) they get out. Diversionary programs don't replace those services, they need to be available to everyone. Not that it'll happen any time soon. What works is something we can find by studying the problem, not with tough on crime rhetoric. Or we can have people sign a Social Contract when they turn 18 (retroactively sign it for them for serious crimes), and then exile them if they break it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 06:53
|
|
|
Don't some of the European systems have a post-service review like a parole board where they can recommend additional time (for the more serious offenses, it isn't like someone is going to be looped through jail for 30 years for shoplifting) if someone doesn't really seem to have made amends?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 07:00
|
|
|
That seems reasonable, and necessary.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 07:19
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Don't some of the European systems have a post-service review like a parole board where they can recommend additional time (for the more serious offenses, it isn't like someone is going to be looped through jail for 30 years for shoplifting) if someone doesn't really seem to have made amends? I brought it up earlier today, but Norway has a maximum sentence of 21 years that can be given at one time (military courts are exempt and can give life sentences). After the sentence is up, your progress is reviewed and they decide whether it's okay to release you or if you need more time added. Anders Breivik is most likely going to spend his life in prison because he's completely unrepentant and has been manipulating prison staff with constant complaints, protests, and hunger strikes. It's even possible to be released early if they feel that you've made a sufficiently fast turnaround in behavior and are ready to be released earlier than expected. I think Norway also has much less stigma against criminals than the United States does, so someone with a criminal record isn't demonized and denied opportunities as much as they would be here. Want to turn a convicted felon back to a life of crime? Deny him legal employment for being a convicted felon!
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 08:18
|
|
|
sugar free jazz posted:I like the Talk poo poo Get Hit tude the cops have, also the part where the fat guy in blue gets punched in the face, and everyone being like yeaahh she's fine don't worry about it after the lady gets tased.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 10:29
|
|
|
Twitter shitposter (shitweeter?)/BLM activist Shaun King "exposed" as being white, http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...to-be-biracial/ which is curious cause he always looked obviously white to me. Also who thinks that weird half goatee thing looks good? FAUXTON posted:Your posts say "I think convicts should lose the right to vote because breaking the law is breaking the social contract," which is an example of you appropriating a well-defined concept to try and borrow its credibility for a fairly backwards point of view. You're acting like his position and arguments are extreme or fringe here but I've never actually heard any other argument in favor (of disenfranchisement), like what he's posting is The argument and rational behind the law as far as I know. semper wifi fucked around with this message at 11:58 on Aug 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 11:41
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Don't some of the European systems have a post-service review like a parole board where they can recommend additional time (for the more serious offenses, it isn't like someone is going to be looped through jail for 30 years for shoplifting) if someone doesn't really seem to have made amends? Are you actually arguing for indefinite terms of incarceration?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 13:37
|
|
|
semper wifi posted:Twitter shitposter (shitweeter?)/BLM activist Shaun King "exposed" as being white, racists live by the one drop rule, die by the one drop rule
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 13:46
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Are you actually arguing for indefinite terms of incarceration? Not that I agree with it, ethically, but isn't civil commitment exactly that?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 13:47
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:Not that I agree with it, ethically, but isn't civil commitment exactly that? Not quite. With civil commitment there is a mental health aspect. "He's an rear end in a top hat who can't stop taking other people's poo poo" wouldn't qualify
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 14:00
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:I brought it up earlier today, but Norway has a maximum sentence of 21 years that can be given at one time (military courts are exempt and can give life sentences). After the sentence is up, your progress is reviewed and they decide whether it's okay to release you or if you need more time added. Anders Breivik is most likely going to spend his life in prison because he's completely unrepentant and has been manipulating prison staff with constant complaints, protests, and hunger strikes. It's even possible to be released early if they feel that you've made a sufficiently fast turnaround in behavior and are ready to be released earlier than expected. I think Norway also has much less stigma against criminals than the United States does, so someone with a criminal record isn't demonized and denied opportunities as much as they would be here. This all sounds good except that Norwegian recidivism rates appear to be not significantly different than US recidivism rates. (Not rearrest rates. Recidivism, defined as actually being punished again for something new.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 14:35
|
|
|
Kalman posted:This all sounds good except that Norwegian recidivism rates appear to be not significantly different than US recidivism rates. So they're keeping prisoners incarcerated for shorter periods in more humane conditions, and providing more opportunities for those who get out without any negative consequences. So why shouldn't we follow suit? What exactly is the point of the draconian sentences and hellish conditions of American prisons, since they don't seem to be working for deterrence. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 15:04 on Aug 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 14:53
|
|
|
Kalman posted:This all sounds good except that Norwegian recidivism rates appear to be not significantly different than US recidivism rates. Can I see your source? Not that I don't believe you, since you seem to be carefully choosing your words, but I want to compare that to other literature I see. Also, as has been alluded to, recidivism as you have defined is not the only metric of a (more) successful rehabilitation system; and if it is to be believed that some people are simply career criminals, it is possible to contrast and compare systems with identical recidivism rates.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 15:07
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:So they're keeping prisoners incarcerated for shorter periods in more humane conditions, and providing more opportunities for those who get out without any negative consequences. So why exactly shouldn't we follow suit? Isn't it true that Norway's prisons are so overcrowded they are sending prisoners to other countries? Where they will be jailed by wardens who don't speak their language? Won't that directly interfere with their rehabilitation models ? Isn't the Norwegian government pushing for harsher sentencing laws? And aren't the prisoners Norway intends to outsource primarily "foreigners" Quite the utopia they've got there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 15:08
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Isn't it true that Norway's prisons are so overcrowded they are sending prisoners to other countries? Where they will be jailed by wardens who don't speak their language? Won't that directly interfere with their rehabilitation models ? Source on any of this? Because it's funny that you demand specifics and evidence on points that contest yours, but when you contest others we get this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
ActusRhesus seems to have left out why Norway needs the extra space. Norway is undergoing major prison renovations because they actually maintain their prisons, unlike the US. So, temporarily, they are low on space.quote:A deal for several hundred prison places would allow Norway to avoid overcrowding and maintain its standards while prison renovation work costing up to 4.4 billion crowns ($700 million) is carried out. source
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:Source on any of this? Because it's funny that you demand specifics and evidence on points that contest yours, but when you contest others we get this. DARPA posted:ActusRhesus seems to have left out why Norway needs the extra space. Norway is undergoing major prison renovations because they actually maintain their prisons, unlike the US. So, temporarily, they are low on space. That's only part of it. Your own link acknowledges there is a backlog even before the maintenance is set to begin. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29123468 quote:in addition the growing queue of convicts needing prison spaces, which currently stands at 1300 is adding pressure to the demand on detention space.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Isn't it true that Norway's prisons are so overcrowded they are sending prisoners to other countries? Where they will be jailed by wardens who don't speak their language? Won't that directly interfere with their rehabilitation models ? Yet none of this speaks to the success of the system in rehabilitating prisoners or producing beneficial social outcomes. In fact, this argument is packed with strawmen, breathless hyperbole, and emotional appeal and is low on actionable information. Why is it that outcomes are never really the driving factor behind your arguments, instead focusing on the necessity of punishment and the emotional satisfaction of conviction? Edit: Seriously, why are you so quick to attack and denigrate a justice system that is held up with high praise internationally because it might have a few flaws? archangelwar fucked around with this message at 15:38 on Aug 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:That's only part of it. Your own link acknowledges there is a backlog even before the maintenance is set to begin.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Yet none of this speaks to the success of the system in rehabilitating prisoners or producing beneficial social outcomes. What factors would you use to determine if a system is good at rehabilitation? You've already said recidivism is at best an incomplete measure.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
computer parts posted:What factors would you use to determine if a system is good at rehabilitation? You've already said recidivism is at best an incomplete measure. Shorter sentencing, lower incarceration rates, success at preventing institutionalization of inmates, better social outcomes for former inmates, lower crime rates, better reintegration into society, lower unemployment among former inmates, less social dependence for former inmates, happier people, happier families, more social cohesiveness, etc. etc. etc. Recidivism is also a success metric, and I have yet to find a corroborating source for Kalman's claim, but I can't validate the specificity of the claim against sources showing a significant disparity between recidivism rates in the US vs Norway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Yet none of this speaks to the success of the system in rehabilitating prisoners or producing beneficial social outcomes. In fact, this argument is packed with strawmen, breathless hyperbole, and emotional appeal and is low on actionable information. Why is it that outcomes are never really the driving factor behind your arguments, instead focusing on the necessity of punishment and the emotional satisfaction of conviction? Because I hardly think "ship the foreign prisoners to another country where they don't speak the language, won't benefit from our praised rehabilitation services and won't be able to get family visitation" is a great model. Not to mention it woul violate US equal protection laws.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
DARPA posted:I don't expect a lawyer to understand probability (do you even need a stats class to get a law degree?). Combine their humane, rehabilitative, short sentences with Little's Law and 300 extra beds can easily resolve the backlog. By adding more service capacity everyone moves through the system with less wait time. I'm not sure Little's Law applies here. For Little's Law to apply you would need to know that rate of departure is faster than or equal to rate of arrival. It's a finite space. The fact that even pre maintenance they have a 1500 convict backlog suggests this is not the case. In the Little's law store example you just "turn away" the excess. You can't do that with prisons. Sorry if I'm incorrect here. But I'm not sure you can apply that model here where arrival rate is unknown. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 16:15 on Aug 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
Is there anyone with experience pertaining to how Norway makes a determination to release or retain a prisoner after, for example, the 21 year maximum? I think it would help prune off the "indefinite" line of argument if, you know, there's a process and criteria on hand to say "it's defined by these goals, because it's not designed to be a finite time-out so much as a rehabilitative system." Do they have a checklist where the prisoner needs to take vocational training if unskilled, exhibit remorse, undergo substance abuse counseling, talk through their problems if they have underlying issues, and so on? I know some prisons in the US have programs like that but at the end of the day those are "things a prisoner can do while waiting for release" and not "steps a prisoner needs to complete in order to be released," and it seems that's a difference between the time-oriented penal system in the US and the rehabilitation/reintegration oriented systems in some other countries.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
However, in your model you would need to be prepared for the fact some people will never meet the rehabilitative criteria. Are you OK giving someone an indefinite prison sentence?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
Edit. Quote is not edit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
semper wifi posted:Twitter shitposter (shitweeter?)/BLM activist Shaun King "exposed" as being white, I wonder what you think this means? Can you explain?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 12:20 |
|
|
SedanChair posted:I wonder what you think this means? Can you explain?  I'm going to stop posting about Norway now. This needs room.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 16:00
|
|