Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

When the revolution comes, first against the wall...Follow

#27 Oct 29 2009 at 9:42 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,211 posts
Oh the humanity... not the wall! Anything but the wall...
#28 Oct 29 2009 at 9:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Heh... I see ThiefX has never been in a wealthy GOP school district.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#29 Oct 29 2009 at 10:01 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Tare wrote:
Why didn't he do his homework?

I would expect a parent to be involved in Grade 6.


Well it's little more than a good opportunity to maximize videogame time.
#30 Oct 29 2009 at 10:04 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Bardalicious wrote:
it seems that we are tending towards a more slippery slope of "all punishment is harmful to children"


Won't be long now and people won't get sent to prison for murder. They just won't get their positive reinforcement cookie.


Well if prison is for punishment, then they shouldn't be.

Stupid antecedent, stupid consequent.
#31 Oct 30 2009 at 1:53 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,086 posts
I'm very sad, but when I read this post I was reminded of the film "Kindergarten Cop" and Arnie shouting "YOU LACK DISCIPLINE!" to the children.

#32 Oct 30 2009 at 5:06 AM Rating: Default
I predict that in the future, punishment for crimes is abolished. Rapists and murderers no longer go to prison, but end up in some fancy, advanced councilling program, then released a few months later after they have learned their mistake and are deemed harmless to the public. They will then be good folks who live happily ever after.

No punishment, just correctional programs.

Edited, Oct 30th 2009 6:14am by McGame
#33 Oct 30 2009 at 5:28 AM Rating: Excellent
McGame wrote:
I predict that in the future, punishment for crimes is abolished. Rapists and murderers no longer go to prison, but end up in some fancy, advanced councilling program, then released a few months later after they have learned their mistake and are deemed harmless to the public. They will then be good folks who live happily ever after.

No punishment, just correctional programs.


It's funny because in most cases of petty crime or vandalism, restorative justice is far more efficient, beneficial to society, and cheap, than prison. In cases of drug use, rehabilitation and councelling and much more efficient, beneficial to society, and cheap than prison. In most criminal cases save for murder and rape, prison is actually the most inefficient, detrimental to society, and expensive solution.

And you know the reason why despite decades of research proving those things over and over again we still use prison? Because of people like you, and arguments like these.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#34 Oct 30 2009 at 7:32 AM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
And you know the reason why despite decades of research proving those things over and over again we still use prison? Because of people like you, and arguments like these.


Well, technically he specified rapists and murderers, and I'm pointing this out to you purely to preempt his returning and subsequent gloating about it.

That said

Quote:
No punishment, just correctional programs.


This is a false dilemma.

Even purely in the cases of first-degree and unrepentant rapists and murderers, there is no imperative or need for us to punish them. There is also no need for us to correct behavior which will not be corrected. The choice of retributive versus restorative justice is a ludicrously ******* simple and incomplete enumeration of how to effect justice.
#35 Oct 30 2009 at 7:49 AM Rating: Good
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Quote:
And you know the reason why despite decades of research proving those things over and over again we still use prison? Because of people like you, and arguments like these.


Well, technically he specified rapists and murderers, and I'm pointing this out to you purely to preempt his returning and subsequent gloating about it.


Hmm, no, technically he said "I predict that in the future, punishment for crimes is abolished", using rape and murder as the most extreme examples of said crimes. I can't find any clue to him implying that his statement applied only to those and that these examples were exclusive.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#36 Oct 30 2009 at 7:49 AM Rating: Decent
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Even purely in the cases of first-degree and unrepentant rapists and murderers, there is no imperative or need for us to punish them.


Which leaves the only other option on the table - isolation from the rest of society. Prison may be considered a form of punishment (deprivation of freedom) or rehabilitation (inmate work programs and the like), but at its core, it's primary purpose serves to isolate such criminals from the rest of society either until such reform / correction can be made or, in some cases, indefinitely.
#37 Oct 30 2009 at 8:20 AM Rating: Good
BrownDuck wrote:
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Even purely in the cases of first-degree and unrepentant rapists and murderers, there is no imperative or need for us to punish them.


Which leaves the only other option on the table - isolation from the rest of society. Prison may be considered a form of punishment (deprivation of freedom) or rehabilitation (inmate work programs and the like), but at its core, it's primary purpose serves to isolate such criminals from the rest of society either until such reform / correction can be made or, in some cases, indefinitely.


My take on it is that it's not something worth fighting for. In some utopian theory, I broadly agree with pensive that punishment is not the best course of action for people who an barely the consequences of their action. But in reality, it doesn't matter. People who rape, people who commit sexual offences on minors, people who commit what most would consider atrocious crimes, should really be the last ones we "fight" for.

What we should do is isolate the "horrendous" cases from the vast majority of cases, which are quite banal. These are the ones that cost the society a disproportionate amount of fund, for whom prison is a revolving door at best, and a Crime University at worst. If we're ever going to argue for restorative justice, or for treating drug use as mental health issue, we have to start with the lowest level of offending. Accepting the other's side premise that this system would be viable for rapists and murderers is the best way to lose the argument for another generation. Let them rot in jail while we sort out the others. Once we're done with those, we can move on the more problematic cases.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#38 Oct 30 2009 at 8:27 AM Rating: Good
On the other hand, getting someone to stop raping is more important than stopping someone from committing tax fraud.
#39 Oct 30 2009 at 8:29 AM Rating: Decent
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Even purely in the cases of first-degree and unrepentant rapists and murderers, there is no imperative or need for us to punish them.


Which leaves the only other option on the table - isolation from the rest of society. Prison may be considered a form of punishment (deprivation of freedom) or rehabilitation (inmate work programs and the like), but at its core, it's primary purpose serves to isolate such criminals from the rest of society either until such reform / correction can be made or, in some cases, indefinitely.


Let them rot in jail.


Kinda seems we agree then.
#40 Oct 30 2009 at 8:30 AM Rating: Decent
Kavekk wrote:
On the other hand, getting someone to stop raping is more important than stopping someone from committing tax fraud.


And yet the latter is so much more within reach.
#41 Oct 30 2009 at 8:31 AM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Phoenix wrote:
I can't find any clue to him implying that his statement applied only to those and that these examples were exclusive.


Nono, I mean, if he's smart, then that's what he "meant" you see. It's clearly just "intended" to be a condemnation of severe crimes without actually making some vapid generalization about the methods of punishment in general - clearly.

Stubs wrote:
Which leaves the only other option on the table - isolation from the rest of society.


Precisely, and as long as this is your reason, it's not retributive. It's practical and even has room to be nominally compassionate, but there's no reason at all to have malice in one's heart. Prison is just something we do as a necessary evil. In the terms of the justice ideal especially that formulation is helpful, but the attitude of a jailor can't help but influence the practice, also.

I don't see any reason we can't have a dilemma between restorative justice and.. pragmatic justice (I guess) instead of acting as if retribution is the place of a government at all.
#42 Oct 30 2009 at 8:33 AM Rating: Good
Kavekk wrote:
On the other hand, getting someone to stop raping is more important than stopping someone from committing tax fraud.


I'm not sure restorative justice is all that efficient against tax fraudsters.

I agree with what you're saying, but it doesn't really contradict my point. Putting someone in jail for 30 years will pretty much guarantee he won't rape for 30 years. It works in "stopping him raping". It'll be expensive and will ruin that guy's life, but in terms of preventing harm in the short-medium term, it's relatively efficient.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#43 Oct 30 2009 at 8:37 AM Rating: Good
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
On the other hand, getting someone to stop raping is more important than stopping someone from committing tax fraud.


I'm not sure restorative justice is all that efficient against tax fraudsters.

I agree with what you're saying, but it doesn't really contradict my point. Putting someone in jail for 30 years will pretty much guarantee he won't rape for 30 years. It works in "stopping him raping". It'll be expensive and will ruin that guy's life, but in terms of preventing harm in the short-medium term, it's relatively efficient.


Sure, but we don't lock people up for 30 years for rape, as I assume you know. Should we be actively advocating increased sentences for rapists alongside our restorative justice for small time crooks?

Quote:
I'm not sure restorative justice is all that efficient against tax fraudsters.


I assume you could just take a really hard look at their taxes in future.

Edited, Oct 30th 2009 2:43pm by Kavekk
#44 Oct 30 2009 at 8:56 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Should we be actively advocating increased sentences for rapists?
For repeat offenders? Fuck yes.

Edited, Oct 30th 2009 10:56am by Uglysasquatch
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#45 Oct 30 2009 at 8:56 AM Rating: Good
Kavekk wrote:
Sure, but we don't lock people up for 30 years for rape, as I assume you know. Should we be actively advocating increased sentences for rapists alongside our restorative justice for small time crooks?


Short answer: yes.

Long answer: The "rapist" situation is another facet of prison which is problematic. Sticking someone in jail for 30 years without psychological treatment, or opportunities for education, or any opportunity to do something productive for society is a waste of time and ressources, in my opinion. I do think that jail sentences for rape, for lots of sexual offences, and for quite a few murder cases, should be increased. Part of the reason they are so short is jail overcrowding, of course, which would be solved through restorative justice for small-time offenders. Another part is the fact that jail is so basic nowadays that sticking someone in there for 30 years would effectively end their any chance they might have of being properly reintroduced in society.

I personally think the whole concept of jail should be changed, and that this change should be effected with a lengthening of prison sentences for certan crimes, and an abolition of prison sentences for others. I agree with Pensive that the whole "punishment" aspect should pretty much be done away with. It's hard not to generalise on this subject since there are so many kinds of offences, or reason why people commit those crimes, and of offenders. But I think the solution should be tailored to the problem. The prison today is far too generalist, it's a blanket solution for a problem which has dozens, if not hundreds, of facets. If we start adapting solutions to problems, we have a much better chance to diminish the harm in society. And we should use all the tools available to us, psychology, drugs, education, punishment, etc... Being locked in a box for 5 years will work on some people. Others might request, and should be offered, chemical castration. Others probably need to go on strong pharamceutical drugs. There might be some people that we just don't know how to help, and they should be treated accordingly.

But, fundamentally, the idea that the best way to deal with "criminals", any and every criminal, is to stick them all together in one enclosed space and then release them in society without any help or supervision, is as retarded as can be. It's the kind of **** Varrus would come up with.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#46 Oct 30 2009 at 8:57 AM Rating: Good
Kavekk wrote:
Quote:
I'm not sure restorative justice is all that efficient against tax fraudsters.


I assume you could just take a really hard look at their taxes in future.


Tax fraudsters should be hit where it hurts them the most.

In the balls.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#47 Oct 30 2009 at 8:57 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,909 posts
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
In most criminal cases save for murder and rape, prison is actually the most inefficient, detrimental to society, and expensive solution.


I disagree. It's much more expensive to kill them.
#48 Oct 30 2009 at 8:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Gangbangers and hit men aside, murderers have among the lowers recidivist rates of any criminal category, even when you control for time spent in prison.

Just throwin' that out there.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#49 Oct 30 2009 at 9:09 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,909 posts
Samira wrote:
Gangbangers and hit men aside, murderers have among the lowers recidivist rates of any criminal category, even when you control for time spent in prison.

Just throwin' that out there.


I'd argue that one murder is much more damaging to society than several petty crimes committed over a lifetime.
#50 Oct 30 2009 at 10:02 AM Rating: Good
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
I am always surprised when people want to make prison more draconian--not providing either therapy or education programs, especially for prisoners that are eventually going to leave. I know people get pissy when they hear that prisoners get to do correspondence college and such but really, that's part of preventing recidivism and has been shown to be more effective than not giving them anything to do at all. And I think that restorative justice can definitely be effective with many types of crimes.
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#51 Oct 30 2009 at 10:08 AM Rating: Decent
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
I am always surprised when people want to make prison more draconian--not providing either therapy or education programs, especially for prisoners that are eventually going to leave. I know people get pissy when they hear that prisoners get to do correspondence college and such but really, that's part of preventing recidivism and has been shown to be more effective than not giving them anything to do at all. And I think that restorative justice can definitely be effective with many types of crimes.


I absolutely think prisoners should be given constructive ways to occupy their detention. Work programs, education programs, therapy, etc... are all good. But when I hear stories of "rec rooms" with TV and computers with potential internet access, I think the concept has been taken a bit too far.

Of course, I've never actually SEEN a TV in prison, so there's that.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 259 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (259)