|
SedanChair posted:Be honest how many people have you helped send to prison for weed. I don't care that it's "not a priority" for you I just want you to admit you ruin lives for no reason. People ruin their own lives, like I'd get your argument if it was actually an addictive substance, but if you want to risk loving up your life just to get high you have no one to blame but yourself.
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 05:48 |
|
|
Dum Cumpster posted:Maybe people's lives are so lovely that they don't care about ruining them and making them worse can't really be helping society? So if your life is lovely enough crime is just carte blanc not your fault? How far down the rabbit hole does this go?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Well, the stats on marijuana arrests versus usage suggest that different populations bear a different burden when it comes to getting high, so this doesn't work as an ethical principle unless you want to codify "twice as good for half as far" as something other than an unfortunate reality. I agree with you enforcement has been unequal and lovely, thats a seperate issue that needs addressing though as it pervades most aspects of the justice system not just drug laws. I take issue with the "its totally wrong to punish me for breaking a law that I knew about and willingly flaunted" attitude.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
Dum Cumpster posted:What attitude are you talking about? I'm saying that it doesn't help us to punish people who choose to get high. I don't get high. I already said he would have a point if he were talking about addictive substances, because in many cases its like criminalizing a disease. Treatment programs need to be prioritized for actual addiction issues.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
CheesyDog posted:Slavery used to be legal - can you tell me if those who followed the law and returned escaped slaves ruined lives? are you equating slavery to not being able to smoke weed?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
CheesyDog posted:I'm not seeing an answer You're an idiot, thats more of an answer then that question deserves. The Warszawa posted:Well this is the thing - the people who are arrested and prosecuted are flouting the law to the same extent and with the same knowledge as their peers who are not arrested or prosecuted or are just told "put it out"/"throw it away"/whatever (I am obviously a huge square in this department). If both groups are at fault for the consequences they experience, it stands to reason that they are fully blameworthy in spite of the difference of their consequences. If the former group bears responsibility for the consequences of being arrested and prosecuted - the life-ruining aspect - they are then blameworthy because of the aspect that results in that consequence. I can really only see that as a moral argument if the case is that the unequal treatment of the less prosecuted group caused the more prosecuted group to have a false expectation that there were no consequences for the act. In this case I think instead of relieving of the more prosecuted group of responsibility in this case it just makes the fact that certain groups are getting away with flouting the law more reprehensible because they're breaking the law then relying on privileged status to get away with that. If that makes sense.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Dum Cumpster posted:How is people people in jail for smoking weed helping society? Doesn't, should be legalized
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
Dum Cumpster posted:Then I really don't understand your reply to SedanChair. I actually try to think of the consequences of the mechanisms through which I obtain a desired outcome rather than just the outcome and what other results those mechanisms produce when applied to other situations. "I don't like this law so we should ignore it" is not a good mechanism and can produce lots of bad results. There's obviously times when laws are immoral to the point where disobeying them is the correct course of action, "bad policy" is not the breaking point there.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:I'm not trying to play gotcha, I just want to make sure I'm understanding: the more prosecuted group is blameworthy for the greater consequences as the less prosecuted group is, provided that the more prosecuted is aware of the discrepancy in treatment? Yes, assuming the greater consequences are actually in keeping with the law. The second group getting away with flouting the law due to privileged status is the actual problem that should be addressed.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Well because of the discretion afforded to cops, prosecutors and judges, both outcomes are well in keeping with the law. Very rarely does a kid straight up say "do you know who my daddy is?" - there are just assumptions both conscious and unconscious that guide the decisionmaking process. There are different perceptions of behavior as compliance or noncompliance based on these assumptions, and that affects things too. Ahh, I think I see your point more clearly now, I was translating your earlier post mostly into a objection based on the principle of the law being predictable. That problem exists for all laws though, and I think speaks more to the ugly side of discretion then it does with the ethical considerations of enforcing specifically drug laws.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Actus, the issue with racism is that it takes one person handling the case to have an unconscious bias - the cop, the prosecutor, the judge - and the result is tainted. I've been wondering lately how much of it really is actually caused by the economic result of systemic racism. Clearly not all of, but I don't think think the class issue (with the cycle of poverty inflicted on minorities being a direct cause) and its intersection with inequalities in the justice system gets examined enough. Probably because its way easier to jump to blaming the actors in the criminal justice system then examining a pervasive societal problem. Likewise how much racism against blacks is not so much a result of prejudices that blacks are criminals, but rather prejudices that blacks are poor, and then prejudice against the lower class being attached to them. Obviously not all of it, but I think it plays into the issue and I'm curious how much. To be clear I'm not saying that the problem is classism instead of racism, what I'm speculating about is the nature of the racism.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
JohnGalt posted:I'm kinda hoping you're trying to be funny and I just am not getting it. Lets not get crazy here, jaywalkers should be shot on sight
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Arguably, The problem is, as I think was pointed out, that it requires the caller to have reasonably foreseen the police were just gonna roll up and blow the guy away instead of handling it properly. Which despite I'm sure people in this thread will jump to "that should be a given", it really isn't at all. Also it would put the prosecutor in the amusing position of having to argue that not only are the police so inept that they don't own agency over their own actions, but this is obviously the case to the point the public at large should be reasonably aware of it. Even then... unless there's some way to define proximate cause in a contributory way in Ohio it seems really hard to get over the hump that this poo poo sandwich belongs to the cops.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2014 14:59
|
|
|
WorldsStrongestNerd posted:Lol at middle class white dnd posters not understanding that strong property rights are needed for society to function. Yes if someone steals your tv you can just have daddy buy you a new one no big deal. That store owner absolutely can't have people shoplifting without consequence. First his insurance will go up to the point of being unaffordable if he keeps filing claims. Second there are people who will rob him blind and not give a poo poo about a summons in the mail. Third even if the perp is caught, the property may never be recovered. Most stores have tight margins and can't obsorb that cost. I'm utterly confused by people's inability to extrapolate the results of a single occurrence into consequences resulting from making that single occurrence systemic. I'm also thoroughly confused by people who hold rights to be absolute with no respect to circumstance despite managing the interaction and compromise between competing rights being one of the foundational purposes of society.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
anonumos posted:Not true. If more minorities were armed and ready to defend themselves from cops, police departments would move to become even more militarized. poo poo, that's the justification for it NOW, despite falling police mortality rates. Being a cop is actually safer than ever, but the call for more heavy handed tactics is ongoing. For example, rather than setting up a fair distance away from Tamir Rice, ascertaining his intent and assessing the situation, they rolled right up on the gazebo and blew him away with minimal (if any) warning. Their first act of engagement was to shoot. This is justified by the imaginary danger that officers were in, because we all know how dangerous America is because of guns in everyone's hands. To be fair, the Tamir Rice situation is much more about the Vet cop being an idiot and driving right up on him combined with the Rookie being a idiot manchild who panicked and should have never been allowed a gun or a badge in the first place then it is about heavy handed tactics and militarization.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
anonumos posted:"Bad apples"? loving come on, man. what?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:I think he's referring to leaving out the 'spoils the bunch' part of the quote. The systematic issue that people are up in arms about, and that is coming up again with the Tamir Rice situation, isn't that some poorly screened dumbass shot a kid. It's that some poorly screened dumbass shot a kid, then the rest of the department closed ranks and vehemently defended said dumbass for shooting a kid and the state attorney's office is (probably) going to let the dumbass get away with it. The whole thing is just loving tragic, the reports on the guy make him sound mentally ill, and the video makes sure seem like authentic panic the way the idiot falls on his rear end then scrambles across the ground to get away. I blame the department more for giving that guy a badge and a gun more than I blame the guy. The guy who drove up so close is at fault too, but criminally? I mean he should be disciplined for incompetency, but I'm not really sure he should be expected to anticipate that his partner was going to freak out and shoot a 12 year old.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
Slipknot Hoagie posted:Interestingly enough, one of the only ways to get a concealed carry permit in NY is to carry large sums of money or jewelry with you. Simply wanting to preserve your life from mortal threat is not enough, you have to demonstrate that you are carrying valuables. So money is worth more than human life, and worth much more when it comes to certain kinds of humans. Or maybe its because those people are at higher risk because they're targets? edit:gently caress, beaten
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
Pomp posted:Just because it's the only thing american police are trained to do doesn't mean it's required. Well brutality implies that its excessive and cruel so its loving useless, of course if its excessive then its wrong, its like saying "killing is wrong when its murder" Or should I just assume you're being a poo poo and using the word brutality when you mean violence so you can use loaded language.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
Pomp posted:Not only have I answered that over and over again, you've actually answered my own question over and over again that you can't tell the difference between "I don't think the police should use force" and "I don't think the police should use excessive force." Why is it moral for the police to use force to defend property but not the owner of the property?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Because they are highly trained and held to the highest of standards of conduct. I'm guessing this is intended as a joke, but in case it isn't thats a functional argument not a moral one.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
CheesyDog posted:According to 538, 1100 police-committed killings occur on average annually. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest there are vastly more civilian-police interactions in a year then home invasions
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:You appeared to be advocating firing police while accepting their illegally collected evidence at the same time. If you're taking that back, great. You know the US is pretty much alone in throwing out illegally obtained evidence right?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:It sounds like retribution is revenge in the form of an institution. The most base reason the justice system exists at a societal level is to replace the system of familial revenge with something that is dispassionate, fair, and not cyclic.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:I imagine you meant to say basic but I think you said it right by accident. I said it exactly how I meant it
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:Yes? Like, of course? I'm not sure what kind of situation you're describing. I guess like a battered wife murdering her husband, should we put her in prison at all since she only had the one. However, if murdering your abusive husband had no repercussions it would no doubt be more common. Obviously, AR's "I would murder you with this axe but then I'd go to prison" example only goes so far: if murdering people with axes literally was not a crime, then more people would probably murder others with axes. So attaching some sentence is necessary for deterrent reasons. Why? What is incorrect about punishing someone according to what they deserve?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:Considering that you're talking about reducing the quality of living for another human being, I don't think the onus is on me to explain why it's wrong, it's on you to explain what benefit society derives from it. Considering that you're talking about extraneous punishment above and beyond what is necessary to reduce crime and rehabilitate criminals, I'm not certain what argument could be made that doesn't immediately devolve into platitudes. I'm not sure platitudes means what you think it means, cause it doesn't mean "wrong".
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:I just looked up the word and saw that I was, in fact, misusing it. I meant to say that I'm not sure what argument could be made that doesn't immediately devolve into substanceless emotional statements about how crimes make you feel bad. So is the only arguement you're making about retributive sentencing that its inefficient use of resources? Cause I thought you were making substanceless emotional statements about how it makes you feel bad.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Pomp posted:I'd like to hear your justification for evidence collection not being held to the same standard as getting prosecuted, ya' toady. I'd like to hear your justification for why it is. The purpose of the exclusionary rule is to remove the incentive for misconduct by throwing out the evidence. No other country besides the US does this. It does not make sense to throw out evidence that is collected in good faith because the cop doesn't have a disincentive if he actually thinks he/she obeying the law. I'm concerned about the potentially abusive pathways that open up if you make it to easy to claim good faith, but from a purely legalistic standpoint there's a good reason it was 8-1.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2014 10:17
|
|
|
Zeno-25 posted:Why would the magazine be removed from the gun, set right to the side if the accused man was raising his weapon intending to fire it? Even if the mag ejected itself after being dropped, they wouldn't end in a position that resembles being placed neatly together. Best case is the officer unloaded it after the incident thereby tampering with evidence at a homicide scene. What the gently caress? of course they're going to clear a hot weapon
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
Cole posted:Maybe it was a flip phone and the cop was caught way off guard that someone possessed such a relic. Oh the old gun shaped flip phone gag... Gets em every time
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2014 05:19
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Gun nuts, police, and military have existential fears about "others" and see the world as a life or death kill or be killed battle again the enemy. Your home/city/country could be attacked by "them" at any moment. If not wanting to personally shoot and kill "them" they support others doing it for them, keeping us safe. That or maybe some of us have actual experience with people trying to kill us and having to make life or death decisions at a moment's notice.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
Well this thread has gone full truther (as if it already hadn't).Pohl posted:That happens so often. I'm surprised you are still alive. Do you really not comprehend that there are milgoons to whom that was a regular occurrence in their life? Or that its a lot easier to have empathy for someone placed in a similar situation (even someone who made the wrong decision) having had those experiences?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
El Scandelouse posted:http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=28872 This fellow apparently testified and was found dead. That WaPo article is amazing, its basically "people on the internet speculated this guy was killed for knowing something", then the entire article runs down how every piece of evidence and every person involved on both sides of the michael brown shooting says thats ridiculous, and then ends with "but I guess we'll never know". I think the fact the first link is to a site that bills itself "The magazine of record for the last days" kind of speaks for itself
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 05:48 |
|
|
SedanChair posted:Relating military experiences to police experiences is irrelevant and deeply troubling. I suppose, if you're an idiot with neither who is trying to compare Band of Brothers to Cops . But since I'm actually talking about the much more granular comparison of being in a moment where you think someone is trying to kill you (real or perceived) and having to make the decision to kill or not thats a pretty stupid thing to say. Especially since I'm speaking in the context of explaining why one group has the tendency of having empathy for the other. edit: grammar Jarmak fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Dec 26, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2014 19:20
|
|