Political Crossfire Forums

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7657

British boy wrote: I didn't say that she didn't commit a crime. I was arguing that you should seek to address the social causes that made her turn to crime in the 1st place.

The cause is irrelevant to the end result when it comes to whether or not someone broke the law.

British boy wrote: surely if you could negate the reason that led to people committing crimes then there will be less crime,

What do you mean, "led to crime"? Poverty? Starvation? Homelessness? There are millions of people living in those conditions everyday who do not break the law. If they can do it, why can't this woman?

British boy wrote: allowing you to focus on the social outcasts that will cause crime regardless.

Like a preemptive strike on criminals?

:tsk:

I can't touch them until they're charged.

British boy · Joined: 12 Aug 2006 Posts: 325 Location: London

Quote: Like a preemptive strike on criminals?
I can't touch them until they're charged.
I never said a preemptive strike. I said once you have resolved the social causes of crime then you are free to focus prison sentences on those who will break the law regardless of any initiatives you put into place to combat it. They still got to commit the crime.

Quote: The cause is irrelevant to the end result when it comes to whether or not someone broke the law.
So removing her need to commit the crime, which stops the crime from occurring, isn't preferable to allowing her to commit the crime and then busting her?
Not only is my way more effective, it doesn't drain taxation nearly as much and yields much lower crime rate figures.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7657

British boy wrote: I never said a preemptive strike. I said once you have resolved the social causes of crime then you are free to focus prison sentences on those who will break the law regardless of any initiatives you put into place to combat it. They still got to commit the crime.

There are no "social causes of crime", there are social situations, and then there are crimes; the two are completely different issues. Crime is crime. There is no "social cause", there is only the actions, and the consequences.

British boy wrote: So removing her need to commit the crime,

The "need to commit the crime"? There is no "need to commit crime", there is only the crime itself. She stole, therefore she broke the law. It's irrelevant if she, or her children, are starving. The fact still remains, she stole, therefore she must suffer the consequences of her actions.

British boy wrote: which stops the crime from occurring, isn't preferable to allowing her to commit the crime and then busting her?

The only thing preferred, is rule of law. I personally don't care why you did it, but if you did it, then you did it, and are guilty.

British boy wrote: Not only is my way more effective, it doesn't drain taxation nearly as much and yields much lower crime rate figures.

You want to lower crime? Get rid of laws. The less laws, the less crime. That is the only effective way to reduce crime. So long as there are laws, there will be criminals. If you want to get rid of crime, then you have to get rid of laws. Since crime and laws are not separable, then crime is a necessary evil to the stability of society.

zentrait · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 532

People... Citizens, break the law every day... get drunk... run red lights, go over the speed limit, get stoned, get geeked, pirate movies, pirate music, ...etc. And the ones who get caught, hell...this is a million dollar industry in fines alone. Why are we incarcerating 3rd time drug offenders?... wouldn't this be considered a stable clientele?

I don't think we are looking at rehabilitation... only creation of a larger violent criminal society. 2 million people out of 300 million is almost a drop in a bucket, but when we start looking at 65 million, think of all the license plates we could be shelling out... do we really want a war on drugs? How far are we willing to go to rid ourselves of drugs... are we willing to put 1/4 of our society behind bars? How about focusing all these resources on bettering our failing education system?

Crime punishment should be relative, violent offenders need to be analyzed, studied... while keeping them safe from society, thief's should be educated and given a fair chance to succeed on their own, drug addicts should be given proper treatment and rehabilitated... the war on drugs should end. This whole concept as given us streets full of gangs, and a black market like no other. No reason for us to bang bang it out to claim turf... just opening up a legit store downtown of the finest seems honest enough.

Want to start getting rid of laws? Start with The Eighteenth...

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7657

zentrait wrote: Why are we incarcerating 3rd time drug offenders?

Because they broke the law.

British boy · Joined: 12 Aug 2006 Posts: 325 Location: London

I just don't see how someone can prefer prison sentences rather then rehabilitations. Not all criminals have pathological tendancies to commit crimes and anyone who treats them like they do has a very warped oulook on law and order.
However I agree that once someone has broke the law there should be genuine disincentive.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7657

British boy wrote: I just don't see how someone can prefer prison sentences rather then rehabilitations. Not all criminals have pathological tendancies to commit crimes and anyone who treats them like they do has a very warped oulook on law and order.

It has nothing to do with pathological tendencies, it has everything to do with consequences for actions.

If you want consequences to act as a deterrent, then the consequences have to be tough, swift, and have the intent to punish. For punishment, I would prefer forty lashes over a slap on the wrist.

British boy · Joined: 12 Aug 2006 Posts: 325 Location: London

LostSoul3412 wrote: British boy wrote: I just don't see how someone can prefer prison sentences rather then rehabilitations. Not all criminals have pathological tendancies to commit crimes and anyone who treats them like they do has a very warped oulook on law and order.

It has nothing to do with pathological tendencies, it has everything to do with consequences for actions.

If you want consequences to act as a deterrent, then the consequences have to be tough, swift, and have the intent to punish. For punishment, I would prefer forty lashes over a slap on the wrist.
Is there any evience that prison actually acts as a deterrent? America has one of the largest incarceration statistics in the world. That hasn't decreased the amount of crime otherwise eventually there would alot less in jail.
You have a system that will give life sentences, after "3 strikes", regardless of the actual crimes committed. I cannot see how you can say that is not excessive.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7657

British boy wrote: Is there any evience that prison actually acts as a deterrent?

I'm not talking about prison, I'm talking about the purpose of punishment.

British boy wrote: America has one of the largest incarceration statistics in the world. That hasn't decreased the amount of crime otherwise eventually there would alot less in jail.

More people, more criminals.

British boy wrote: You have a system that will give life sentences, after "3 strikes", regardless of the actual crimes committed. I cannot see how you can say that is not excessive.

I like the three strikes rule. If you break the law, and are found guilty three times, then you show an utter disregard for the law, and a lack of personal responsibility and lack of respect for the law. If you cannot respect the standards of society, then society should not tolerate that individual.

zentrait · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 532

LostSoul3412 wrote: I like the three strikes rule. If you break the law, and are found guilty three times, then you show an utter disregard for the law, and a lack of personal responsibility and lack of respect for the law. If you cannot respect the standards of society, then society should not tolerate that individual.

This is my problem... these are non-violent crimes. The three strike rule is a complete disaster, locking up for life non-violent criminals. Hell, the law itself is hypocritical, I mean, why don't we start locking up 3rd time DUI's for life? They cause more fatalities then non-violent drug users do. What is this insane, inbreed, brainwashed idea that we should rid our streets of drug users by locking them up behind bars...for what? So we can forget about them? ... they'll always be there, where they are really educated on how to be a violent criminal and then many years later released back into society. I hate to say it, but the community of 65 million drug users is the society... we must deal with it in this respect. Saying some one disrespects the law because of an addiction is like saying you're disrespecting your own body by being hungry... makes no sense. Sure ...it is the law... please, how many laws aren't broken by everyday citizens... I go to work everyday, I pay my bills, I pay my taxes, I have a roof over my head, I eat... and I break laws.

Gus · Joined: 17 Jun 2005 Posts: 7253 Location: Tampa, FL

I think it is important to remember that the criminal justice system doesn't determine if someone is innocent or guilty--it determines if jurors think someone is innocent or guilty. A verdict does not translate to fact, so considering that we execute people based on guilt ad populum, I don't think we are too "soft" on anyone.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7657

zentrait wrote: locking up for life non-violent criminals

But criminals none the less.

zentrait wrote: Hell, the law itself is hypocritical, I mean, why don't we start locking up 3rd time DUI's for life?

Good question, I think we should.

zentrait wrote: Saying some one disrespects the law because of an addiction is like saying you're disrespecting your own body by being hungry... makes no sense.

I never said anything about any addiction, I said they broke the law... three times, as such, they deserve to be removed from society.

zentrait wrote: Sure ...it is the law... please, how many laws aren't broken by everyday citizens... I go to work everyday, I pay my bills, I pay my taxes, I have a roof over my head, I eat... and I break laws.

Innocent until proven guilty.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7657

Gus wrote: I think it is important to remember that the criminal justice system doesn't determine if someone is innocent or guilty--it determines if jurors think someone is innocent or guilty.

Which, under the American legal system, determines whether or not someone is guilty or not guilty. The system does not deal at all with innocence, merely lack of guilt.

Gus wrote: A verdict does not translate to fact

Never claims to, but it does establish justice.

zentrait · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 532

LostSoul3412 wrote: But criminals none the less.
only because law determines they are 'criminals'... locking these type of non-violent criminals up does nothing to change 'society', does nothing to curb drug use in the states... it will continue and always continue. You can not take drugs out of society, drug use it part of society.

LostSoul3412 wrote: I never said anything about any addiction, I said they broke the law... three times, as such, they deserve to be removed from society.
This is the society...

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7657

zentrait wrote: only because law determines they are 'criminals'...

... which means they're criminals.

Is there another medium for this beyond the law?

zentrait wrote: locking these type of non-violent criminals up does nothing to change 'society', does nothing to curb drug use in the states... it will continue and always continue. You can not take drugs out of society, drug use it part of society.

No one's talking about drugs.

zentrait wrote: This is the society...

Care to explain?

zentrait · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 532

LostSoul3412 wrote: No one's talking about drugs.

Care to explain?

We have to be talking about drugs, this makes up 40% of the prison population, and do I have to explain that we are a nation of drug users?... :shock:

British boy · Joined: 12 Aug 2006 Posts: 325 Location: London

Drug addiction is a disease, even your AMA says so...
So locking people up because of medical conditions is what we're into now?

Blenderhead00 · Joined: 26 Oct 2006 Posts: 62

Whatever happened to exile as a form of punishment? it would be great for generally undesirable people we cant justify killing.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7657

zentrait wrote: We have to be talking about drugs, this makes up 40% of the prison population, and do I have to explain that we are a nation of drug users?... :shock:

Perhaps you have, but I've been talking about the purpose and justification of criminals; for this debate, the crime itself is rather irrelevant.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7657

British boy wrote: Drug addiction is a disease, even your AMA says so...
So locking people up because of medical conditions is what we're into now?

No, we're locking people up for consuming/possessing a substance that is illegal within the country. No one is locked up for merely being an addict, they're locked up for acting on that addiction.