|
21stCentury posted:Then again, i wonder, what does a banker have to gain or give back to society that needs him in prison? A Banker who steals billions and is found out is pretty hosed. What does jail time do to him? I figured the state would seize the financier's assets except for a hard cap of $1000, ban them from working any sort of financial job, guarantee them Section 8 housing credits and food stamps if they need it, and force them to attend state-paid psychiatric sessions. Basically, you'd force them to live the life of the people whose livelihoods they destroyed and demonstrate they understand what happened. It's a learning experience for them, and prevents them from being in a position to take advantage of people without exposing them to the punitive and barbaric nature of prison. Not that I'm saying violent offenders would need prison, just saying that's what I think rehabilitative sentences would be for white-collar financial criminals. It's (in my mind) the same notion as a rehabilitative sentence for a violent criminal involving a ban on owning weapons while forcing them to make reparations to victim(s) and attend psychiatric sessions (while also being on house arrest or whatever means to keep them out of prison but still prevent violent activity as best as possible). It's still a punishment, but it's not entirely punitive, and hell, you could even make the ban on financial work/owning a weapon/whatever temporary (X number of years) to show that a person is restored their rights after a certain amount of time without. Of course, the financier will probably have people more than willing to float them money until they can work in the industry again, which is why it should probably be permanent, since then they'd be forced to take up a different line of work since they demonstrated they can't be trusted with money. I never understood why people treated white collar large-scale crime as less serious than individual theft; if I ripped off a liquor store for $500, yeah I still deserve to be punished, but the guy who destroyed 500 families financially and robbed countless children of future education by bankrupting their families' savings definitely made a larger negative impact. It's like what Authorman said, it's the same concept as a guy with a gun, just without a need for violence due to birthright.
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2010 16:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 11:23 |
|
|
If someone commits a violent crime, we aim to rehabilitate them in some way (in name only for the majority of the time at the moment) and take away their ill-gotten gains from their crime and their ability to commit crime again (felons can't own guns for X amount of time/forever depending on the state). Maybe seizing ALL assets is excessive, but taking any assets and cash tied to their financial crimes and preventing work in the financial industry does not strike me as eye-for-an-eye in any way. You're taking away their ill-gotten gains and preventing them from committing the same crime. How else do you 'rehabilitate' someone who will likely still have millions, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars, and their freedom, besides at least taking away their method of crime (abusing finance)? Again, this was within the context of rehabilitative justice, wherein prison time would be reserved for I don't even know what, but whatever 21st was talking about which I got the impression meant that people who committed petty crimes or even violent crimes wouldn't necessarily be jailed but would go through counseling and job skills training or something other than the current system. How is what I said at all different from having a violent offender make amends to the victim or the affected community? It's not like the assets seized from a white collar criminal would just go poof or instantly into state coffers, the idea would be that it would go towards reparations towards those defrauded or the community of those defrauded or something similar (though I did not at all frame it that way initially). Especially when you consider that a white collar criminal's crimes at the highest levels will likely exceed their personal net worth, I'm very confused how this is viewed as eye-for-an-eye. If I steal something, I expect to pay for it. This is property-related, this is vastly different than literal eye-for-an-eye or violent crime in general. Tempora Mutantur fucked around with this message at 17:14 on Aug 10, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2010 17:06
|
|
|
mew force shoelace posted:Setting up poetic justice for crimes works for poems. It is not the basis of a real justice system. If my crime revolved around abusing my job in the finance sector, and I made 70% of my personal net worth by that abuse, and that abuse was deemed illegal, you're calling it 'poetic justice' if the state seizes 70% of my personal net worth and says I can't have a job in the finance sector again (or for X years)? EDIT: And we're not even looking at the amount of financial damage my abuses may have caused nor the livelihoods I may have destroyed.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2010 17:16
|
|
|
shotgunbadger posted:I don't think HE is, I think the definition of poetic justice is. Also seriously stop already, eye-for-eye justice is not how civilized justice systems work, no matter what the crime. How is it vengeance-based to say, "You cannot keep the wealth you illegally made?" That's what I'm asking at this point. I concede that I poorly worded what I said initially because I didn't mean to make it sound like, "MAKE THE RICH BOY LIVE POOR HAW HAW!" but it clearly did sound that way. Now I'm asking you a very specific question that poetic justice does not fit at all. I am saying take away the personal gain the white collar criminal earned for their crime. This is the same as someone who is caught for theft is forced to return the goods they stole. That is not vengeance-based. That is restoring things to the point they were at prior to the crime. Vengeance-based would be saying now the victim gets to do to you what you did to them; that's poetic justice (sort of, but hey, you're misusing it too so whatever). So in other words, how is it poetic justice to disallow white-collar criminals from keeping the wealth they illegally created?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2010 17:27
|
|
|
Epiphany. Thanks, Mew. I see how this is incongruent with my desire to see a system that does not screw those who are penalized by law, since the example of penalizing a drunk driver by removing their ability to drive to work instead of rehabilitating them through recovery programs furthers the problem in society ("hey! now that you got a DUI and lost your means to get to work, why not drink yourself into a coma!") and a similar effect on bankers would be the same thing in concept, regardless of the damage caused, and as s0meb0dy pointed out the fix is to overhaul the justice system, not build on it as an example of how things should be.
Tempora Mutantur fucked around with this message at 17:51 on Aug 10, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2010 17:40
|
|
|
s0meb0dy0 posted:It's a hilarious double standard. No one would THINK of seizing all of their wealth and prohibiting them from working in that industry. Yeah, I see that now.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2010 17:48
|
|
|
HidingFromGoro posted:
Ugh, the comments on this article are infuriating. So many people in this country are so hosed, both in terms of being crushed by the system and in terms of being subhuman shitstains who think being tough on crime works.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2010 16:20
|
|
|
Ridiculous that he lost 18 years because some prosecutor wanted to keep his stats high. Does Texas pay citizens who were wrongly convicted, and will his felon status be revoked so he can vote and enjoy being a citizen again?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2010 21:58
|
|
|
Shang Yang posted:I have never taken an intro to philosophy class, so I have no idea what week two would consist of. I have no idea what dada is, and it's besides the point. All you've got are collateral complaints that don't speak to the topic. You can't have a serious discussion on this topic without proper consideration of philosophy. I keep myself on topic, and only digress in order to explain my point; see if you can't do the same. You are incapable of looking at issues outside of a vacuum, you ignore all evidence pointing to why your views on drugs are wrong, you have no empathy for the brutalities the victims of your viewpoint are subject to, and you use absolutely broken logic in your own views. You're not like most regressives who start with an incorrect foundation and then at least build valid arguments on top of it (which are of course immediately invalidated thanks to the invalid premise), you start with an invalid premise and then you pile on still more invalid arguments. In your world, we're a 50.1% popular vote away from mandating the killing of the other 49.9% of the nation; what the law says is the law and that's that since All The People Have Spoken! Example: Shang Yang posted:As it stands, your personal opinion of the government's role has been rejected. Both commoners and the upper class of judges and prosecutors have concluded that the the government may regulate what you put in your body. Your suggested deal is meaningless, because you are talking outside your station. We are not equal parties here; your position has been rejected, and I doubt you have any special authority or experience when it comes to drug or food regulation. You are not an island, and you will be regulated by men of quality; do not pretend that you can somehow do whatever you want to the people and institutions around you. You have made no valid arguments, then you continue to say others are ignoring your points when you are only providing false or otherwise proven-wrong premises for discussion. Contrary to what you want to believe, Shang, popular decisions are not always accurate or correct, despite having been made. For example, creatures similar to yourself have outlawed gay marriage. While I don't want you to spew still more diarrhea onto my beloved forum for jerks, I will muse that your opinion on that subject would likely rile me as the rest of your terrible posts have. You are a poor observer and commentator on the state of social situations for the reasons above (and likely others that I've not picked up on). No one can have a serious discussion with you because you're the worst parts of a petulant child and a demagogue combined. No matter how much you will reality to change, Shang Yang, it will not. You can call a spade an enema, but at the end of the day you're still just shoving a spade up your rear end. Claim you're not a gimmick all you want but you sure do spew bullshit and spawn ire like the troll you clearly are: Shang Yang posted:[Judges and prosecutors] are of a superior quality because they are moral giants who deal with the most weighty concerns imaginable. Courts determine what is and what ought to be, they divine the true meaning of the various laws and constitutions, and as a class of nobles they preside over the citizenry while keeping an eye to the good. Go troll somewhere else, because for someone to seriously believe what you're saying, and to have millions of people believe it, would mean that hundreds millions more would suffer and, hopefully, eventually, rise up violently to destroy the blight on humanity that is you.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2010 18:07
|
|
|
Medieval Thinker, before you post about the garnish-wages thing again I would like you to draft a budget for someone who earns $8.25 USD/hour, breaking down pre-tax and post-tax income, and then post-tax post-garnishment income, and how you would spend that money in an itemized breakdown that displays how you'd reach goals like: -Enough food to stay fed -Housing -Transportation to job -Ability to have at least some form of leisure to mitigate stress Tempora Mutantur fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Nov 22, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2010 20:46
|
|
|
I'm confused by the dates on the pardons and by my own ignorance of how pardons work. Are those token gestures saying, "Hey, that sucks that you guys had to deal with it, but now we've pardoned you so your record is clear!" or are they charges that the people never went to jail for and were pardoned before the sentences could be carried out, or is this a nod to the fact that we have some stupidass laws on the books that shouldn't be enforced ever, or what?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2010 21:36
|
|
|
HidingFromGoro posted:The first one. Is that normally how presidential pardons work? I had assumed that a presidential pardon would be something (beneficially) life-altering for the people pardoned, not a stupid pat on the head for having their lives disrupted.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2010 22:08
|
|
|
duck monster posted:Just in my hometown, the 1988 Fremantle prison riot in Australia burnt a huge chunk of the ancient and frankly brutal old prison to the floor, led to 18 serious injuries (Including by pouring shitloads of boiling water on some guards heads) involved kidnapped screws, and generally was a pretty violent and messed up riot. I'm all for violent revolt, don't get me wrong, but Australia has a vastly different, and in many ways better, culture than America. In America, people don't generally question the media's reason why violence occurred, let alone want to understand why violence occurred, let alone want to prevent violence from occurring. This also doesn't touch on the many powerful interests that can and will do everything in their power to silence popular opinion on positive reform, if such a will for reform was to ever start to gain power in America. We use prisons as a loop hole to continue slavery once slavery was outlawed. I don't think Australia used prisons for that reason, but I could be wrong. Tempora Mutantur fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Dec 13, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2010 17:30
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:They're right to a degree, from my perspective. I would love nothing more than to be able to return to university, though it is financially impossible. If I could get the same education for free in prison I would very much consider committing some crimes to do so. Thank you for demonstrating the problem with virtually every voter: they think, "Someone has something I don't! gently caress THAT PERSON AND TAKE THAT poo poo AWAY!" instead of, "Hey, how come that person has something I don't when both of us should have that something? Why don't we both have that something? It's not like the guy in the box is keeping me away from free education complete with complimentary chance of raping. Hm. Who, who is keeping free education away from everyone? Who?"
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2010 17:25
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:I don't think it should be taken away, quite the opposite. For the few people I think are actually worth locking up for everyone's safety I think it should be mandatory. You were referencing the idea that people consider education a "reward" for criminals and you said they were right to a degree. That's what I'm referring to as a problem in the framing of how education for prisoners is viewed. Otherwise it appears we're in agreement.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2010 20:19
|
|
|
nnnnghhhhgnnngh posted:A twelve year old in adult prison. Jesus Christ. I would love to know how much Lundy's family spent on a lawyer versus how much Gingerich's family did considering Lundy is spending his time in juvie yet is 15 and is the person who orchestrated the crime by all accounts. Apparently Gingerich somehow waived his ability to be tried as a juvie which is loving hilarious that such a thing is even possible, and disgusting that the prosecutor is effectively saying, "Well, that's pretty lovely, but I have no problem destroying this kid's life for another W on my record so we're gonna keep going after an adult conviction until we absolutely cannot do so."
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2011 23:11
|
|
|
HidingFromGoro posted:There's a way to do it; but it involves doing a whole bunch of other things you probably don't want to do, risking serious injury, costing a whole lot of money at the end, and probably catching a charge or two in the process. He won't get the full-on four-blank-walls-and-no-control-over-your-time experience, though! EDIT: but seriously Kingsbury you should do what HFG suggests
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2011 22:59
|
|
|
PTBrennan posted:The more I read about humanity and the way we treat one another the more depressed I get. Cheer up! One day, we'll all be dead! 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2011 23:58
|
|
|
DMBFan23 posted:I never said anything of the sort. You, however, implied through sarcasm that it was more than a few bad apples, and are now trying to move the goalposts pretty far away because it is looking very much like the source for your original statement is "gut feeling". The Cops on the Beat thread series has what amounts to case studies on police brutality; it also has statistics answering the derail you continued in the first-post link aptly named http://www.injusticeeverywhere.com/. On that note, I need to read D&D less, because content should be far more important than civility instead of shitposters being allowed to shitpost so long as they're nice about it. Tempora Mutantur fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Apr 20, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2011 17:48
|
|
|
Positive Optimyst posted:The line has to be drawn somewhere. Can someone please link one of the many studies that proves harsh penalties are in no way an effective deterrent to crime? Maybe even the ones showing that recidivism is related to the (lack of) rehabilitative services of prisons more than anything else?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2012 18:13
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:This isn't the thread for this, but this quote right here is bullshit. People will make irrational choices, often against there own interests. Hell I do that all the time by staying up too late browsing these very forums. You are correct in the literal sense, but in the context of his post, he implied rational as in, "what a person in their own circumstance thinks is rational."
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2012 19:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 11:23 |
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:...Whatever happened to Hiding From Goro, anyway? Does anyone know? Is this a taboo topic? ToxicSlurpee posted:Yeah well at least there they aren't killing people. Joke or not, this is unironically an example of the mindset that leads to such lovely conditions in our justice system.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2015 01:47
|
|