|
CommieGIR posted:Oh, shut up. The point is your opinion of Israel shouldn't play into whether or not he gets granted parole or not. It should only be based on what it is for everyone else. Is he going to reoffend? No. He won't possibly have the capacity. If he's met the legal standard for release he should be released. CommieGIR posted:What about murderers? Since its very likely some of the assets he stole might have gotten people killed. Um, yeah, we parole murderers.
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 16:08 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
Remorse is only considered in so far as it has to do with recidivism. In addition, remorse is one of those things I think is shittiest and most manipulable about the parole system. Cry some tears, say you found Jesus, and you get out quicker than a guy who disagrees with the level of punishment he got for the crime. It is mostly a show, but then, so are almost all aspects of our system when it comes to rehabilitation. quote:There is a very large difference in intent between Manning and Pollard. Pollard sold secrets and actively courted foreign nations. This means Pollard committed an additional crime, which was the sale of the secrets. From a national security standpoint, though, broader release of the information is more damaging, and Manning released more than was necessary to just do whistle-blowing. She didn't even know everything she was releasing. It isn't inappropriate to note that if you want to be super-harsh on Pollard you give ammo to those who want to be harsh towards Manning--and Snowden.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:Not so, see Charles Manson. What do you mean by 'not so'? CommieGIR posted:True, the main problem being that Manning and Snowden was just releasing for general release, they didn't (as far as we know) seek to sell such assets or, even worse, arrange weapons sales with foreign nations like Pollard. Yes, as i said, that means Pollard committed an additional crime. The idea that either Manning or Snowden would be likely to not do this again, though, is far less precisely because they were ideological, though. If your argument is to imprison people because they don't feel any remorse, then that will really obviously apply to Snowden and I think to Manning, though I don't know too much about her psyche now.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
What Madoff did wasn't related to the financial meltdown. He ran a Ponzi scheme. CommieGIR posted:
There isn't any whistleblower protection that would ever cover a wide-scale release of documents the way that either Snowden or Manning did. I agree that a stronger whistleblower pipeline might have made Snowden more likely to route his information through them, but I don't know if it would have. He didn't try to, for example, hand the stuff over to the ACLU or a congressperson he thought would be sympathetic, and he didn't really know enough about the information to redact it himself when dealing with the journalists. There's never going to be a point when what Snowden did wouldn't be a crime; there might be a time where Snowden might do something different and get the information out in a more controlled way. But this is going to turn into Snowden if we talk about it much more, and I have no interest in talking about it more. I'm just saying that from an end-results perspective, the difference between selling secrets or giving them away ideologically is moot. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Jul 30, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
tsa posted:Tomatoes tomatoes. There's other examples so whatever. It also was directly related to the meltdown as well, it wasn't some huge coincidence they blew up at the same time. No, more like tomatoes and red bowling balls. And it blew up because his clients asked for too much money as a result of the financial meltdown. he had no part in causing it, his cheat was a totally simple ponzi scheme. If there are other examples that are actually accurate, use those. Gravel Gravy posted:Do you not feel that a lack of remorse is an issue when it comes to Manson's parole hearings? Yeah, I do. It would be even if we didn't have a parole system that leaned too heavily on the theatrics, as I said. I think maybe you think i'm saying something that I'm not. I'm saying that, ideally, remorse should only be considered in so far as it impacts recidivism, unless you're into the prison-as-punishment thing. If you are, then we just fundamentally disagree. Manson doesn't have remorse and is very likely to reoffend because of that lack of remorse.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:How exactly does your concept of "rehabilitation" work if the subject is in no way rehabilitated from the state that they committed the crimes to begin with? No, again, if someone isn't rehabilitated but doesn't have any capacity to commit that crime anymore, then whether or not they feel bad about it is completely immaterial. Do you think Pollard is likely to go out and commit espionage again after being released?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:But "recidivism" here is only a matter because there is literally no chance that Pollard will be able to commit the same acts he did before because there is no way he would be let near a Hot Pocket wrapper from the CIA cafeteria. And because he definitely doesn't have any relevant secrets anymore, or documents he stashed away, that would mean anything. What is the argument for keeping him locked up, due to lack of remorse? Why should that mean he stays in prison? Again, if this is just a moral thing for you--that if he's not sorry for what he did he should be punished for it--then we have a fundamental disagreement. Gravel Gravy posted:You're confusing treason with a common crime. No, because anyone who committed espionage might have secrets they haven't yet revealed, for one thing. And recidivism isn't the only factor--deterrence is overblown, but it is also a real thing. 30 years is a hell of a lot of deterrence.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:I'm not saying he should remain. If there were any reason to it would have been mentioned by now since the year of his parole was known long ago. I'm sorry, I don't understand what you've been arguing, then. What is confusing you about that?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:I've just been going along with My Imaginary Barney the Dinosaurs gimmick, you seemed to have jumped in on a tangent. No clue what this means but it sounds very internet. quote:I suppose how the statements contradict each other. They don't, though. If it were argued that Pollard still knew secrets that were unrevealed, then that'd be a reason to lock him up longer. You said by my recidivism reasoning, nobody would ever get locked up for espionage. But someone who just committed espionage obviously might have more unrevealed secrets. After 30 years, Pollard doesn't--or at least, nobody at all is arguing that he does. OwlFancier posted:While he may not be able to specifically commit espionage I would argue that if he does not grasp that what he did was wrong, he will probably try to commit other antisocial acts in the future, and thus probably shouldn't be inflicted on the general population. This reasoning could be used to lock up a veritable shitload of people forever. It sucks.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:
How you determine that 'someone had no need to commit it' part is the tricky bit. But all you said was "he will probably try to commit other antisocial acts in the future, and thus probably shouldn't be inflicted on the general population" which would justify locking up a ton of people, and even justify pre-emptively locking up a ton of people. quote:If you need to use it to lock up a shitload of people that is evidence that you need a better solution. If prison is failing to rehabilitate massive numbers of people who are driven to crime because of their situation, that shows prison does not remove their need to commit crime, because it doesn't put them in a situation where not committing crime is a practical way of life. And that's the situation we have. Gravel Gravy posted:There is very little room for wishy-washiness in national security or criminal justice. That's cool dude. Not sure what wishy-washiness you're seeing, but whatevs.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:Quit mixing up general criminal justice with espionage and treason, it's tiresome. We're talking about the criminal sentencing and paroling of Pollard for the crime of of espionage, which was conducted through the general criminal justice system.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:You're trying to draw a connection between a person robbing a convenience store multiple times to treason. He wasn't convicted of treason. Edit: Also treason has a minimum sentence of only 5 years.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:A person who is for a thing but understands it's limits or a person who is against a thing but understands when it might be nessecary is a much better way of going about thinking of people rather than using lazy short word labels. It's dumbing down of political discourse and reducing everything to black and white helps nobody. It's sometimes useful to have a binary distinction. Pro and anti-death penalty are that way. There are some people who trust the state to use the death penalty wisely and well, and others who think that it's corruptive and that if you sanction it, you'll always have abuses of it. I'm definitely in the latter camp. If for some reason you think 'pro' and 'anti' are horrible words here for some bizarre reason, okay, but one group thinks the death penalty is ok to use sometimes and the other group thinks it categorically isn't. Also, there are shitloads of criminals who did things entirely for the money without giving a single poo poo about anyone who might get hurt. If that's your standard for the death penalty you'll execute a ton of people.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:No, I am situationally for and against the death penalty. What pro and anti-death penalty mean, in common language, is "Are you in favor of the death penalty being allowed in any circumstances"? If this makes you uncomfortable, I don't know what to say. You're in favor of the death penalty in some circumstances, not others. This is true of every single death penalty supporter.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Pro Life/Pro Choice. No, everyone isn't pro-life and pro-choice. This is you not understanding what those words mean. Pro-choice means that a woman should have the choice on whether or not to abort her fetus, a choice made in concert with a doctor, without any considerations about health or rape. Pro-life means that you oppose abortion as a choice. There is a small amount of wiggle room in that pro-life people may allow it if it is risky to the mother's life, or if the fetus will be born dead, but that's a variety inside the pro-life position, not a confusion between the two. There really is a binary here. I am opposed, totally, to the death penalty. Under no circumstances, ever, should it be used. That is what 'anti-death penalty' means. Those people who believe it may be productive in some instances are pro-death penalty. This is not some attempt to homogenize the opposition, it's just a simple description of positions. I don't care about the distinction between you, who wants to execute people on your vague ideas that they will do further antisocial acts and are irredeemable, and someone else who wants to execute murders because he feels they're redeemable. Both positions have the same flaw.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:
He wasn't tried or convicted for treason. Ograbme posted:Is this actually true? No, it has a five year minimum sentence, there are other crimes with much higher minimums. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 16:30 on Aug 1, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 16:08 |
|
|
JonathonSpectre posted:LOL at "Why is treason so bad guys? It's just another minor mistake like jaywalking!" Again, he wasn't prosecuted for treason so I don't get why we're talking about treason in the first place. And treason has a five year minimum sentence. Rape of a child up to 12 usually starts at 10 years. I think that's appropriate--there can be a lot more extenuating circumstances for treason than there can be for child rape. What criteria are you using to claim this? Obdicut fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Aug 1, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2015 16:49
|
|