|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
Leisher 
Top 3%, yo.
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 26651
Joined: May 2004
|
 |
Posted on: Apr. 03 2013,11:06 |
|
    |
Yeah, I'm kind of ok with this story.
HE stabbed his buddy in the back and paralyzed him.
The court wants him to compensate his victim or suffer the same fate.
Where's the problem?
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
Malcolm
I disagree.
Group: Privateers
Posts: 27168
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Apr. 03 2013,11:15 |
|
|
1) If this is about justice, the monetary compensation shouldn't be an option.
2) If you're going to have a vengeance-based justice system, why even bother with judges and all that other shit?
3) Laws of retribution open the door to arbitrary punishments, which I always find stupid.
4) He's been in jail for a decade already. Why is this paralysis thing being talked about just now?
5) He was fucking 14 when he did it.
6) This is the same judicial system that still executes people for witchcraft. I openly question every fucking decision they make by default.
--------------
Diogenes of Sinope:
"It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
"Other dogs bite only their enemies, whereas I bite also my friends in order to save them."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC:
"Better dead than smeg."
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
Leisher
Top 3%, yo.
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 26651
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Apr. 03 2013,11:46 |
|
|
QUOTE 1) If this is about justice, the monetary compensation shouldn't be an option.
Why?
Do you mean just in this case or cases/crimes against a person's physical well being? What about financial crimes? Is compensation off limits there too?
Why can't he be ordered to pay for the obvious costs the victim incurred?
Should it fall solely on the victim or society?
QUOTE 2) If you're going to have a vengeance-based justice system, why even bother with judges and all that other shit?
What vengeance? Don't want to be paralyzed? Don't stab your friends in their back. 
What punishment do you support? Jail time only? (I'm not saying that's unacceptable, but what amount equals paralyzing someone for life, and giving them all the fun/bills that go with it?)
QUOTE 3) Laws of retribution open the door to arbitrary punishments, which I always find stupid.
Actually, without retribution, punishments are completely arbitrary.
The average murderer spends 7 years in prison here in the U.S. (That stat might be out of date as I heard it about a decade ago.) What mathematical formula did they use to determine that's the proper punishment?
Telling someone that you have to pay to cover all of your victim's costs seems pretty fucking logical to me.
The eye for an eye part seems rather "vengeful" yes, but aside from forcing them to work until they can pay back their victim, other punishments are just arbitrarily assigned.
QUOTE 4) He's been in jail for a decade already. Why is this paralysis thing being talked about just now?
No clue why they'd bring it up now. I've no idea how their legal system works, but if I had to guess, I'd go with "not well".
QUOTE 5) He was fucking 14 when he did it.
Point? You want to talk about arbitrary, let's discuss the magical change that occurs here in the states when you go from 15 to 16, 17 to 18, and 20 to 21. Fucking wizardry.
My point is that at 14, if you stick someone with a knife, you probably have a good idea of what you're doing. Do you understand the long term consequences? No, but why should your victim be victimized again to give you a break?
QUOTE 6) This is the same judicial system that still executes people for witchcraft. I openly question every fucking decision they make by default.
Like I said, "not well". Let's be honest though, the folks in charge over there don't believe that shit. They let the nutjob local yokels do shit like that to keep them appeased and looking somewhere other than up...
The two main points to pull out of my goofing above are:
1. Why not have a system that makes the convicted criminal responsible for the financial cost of his/her crimes?
2. What isn't arbitrary about anyone's punishment system? I think "an eye for an eye" is a lot less arbitrary than a guy who robs a gas station getting 21 years, a murderer getting 10 years, and a guy who runs a pyramid scheme getting 14 years.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
Malcolm
I disagree.
Group: Privateers
Posts: 27168
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Apr. 03 2013,12:12 |
|
|
QUOTE Why not have a system that makes the convicted criminal responsible for the financial cost of his/her crimes?
Because then the rich mofos get off easier. Â Want to stab someone in the back? Â Costs a quarter million to do it and make the legal troubles go away.
QUOTE You want to talk about arbitrary, let's discuss the magical change that occurs here in the states when you go from 15 to 16, 17 to 18, and 20 to 21. Fucking wizardry.
I've said many times the U.S. has one of the most tangled, useless legal systems in the world. Â It's slow, it's inefficient, it's biased, and it's shit.
QUOTE I think "an eye for an eye" is a lot less arbitrary than a guy who robs a gas station getting 21 years, a murderer getting 10 years, and a guy who runs a pyramid scheme getting 14 years.
If, a couple years into a prison term, you find out someone was wrongly convicted (which happens a fucking shitload), you can let him out. Â Did he just get fucked out of a couple years of his life? Â Yeah. Â Does he have a shot at resuming his life? Â Maybe, maybe not. Â If you decide to cut off his hand or gouge out his eye, how do you plan to undo that punishment?
I'm not saying severe physical punishment, even death, shouldn't be on the table. Â On the contrary, it's vital to keep capital punishment around when you're confronted with incontrovertible evidence that someone needs to be removed from the gene pool or list of living things. Â It's something that ought to be used sparingly, though.
I say the primary goal of a system of law isn't keeping the karmic scales balanced when an individual is wronged. Â Sharia barely qualifies as a "system of law."
Edited by Malcolm on Apr. 03 2013,12:12
--------------
Diogenes of Sinope:
"It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
"Other dogs bite only their enemies, whereas I bite also my friends in order to save them."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC:
"Better dead than smeg."
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
Leisher
Top 3%, yo.
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 26651
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Apr. 03 2013,12:38 |
|
|
QUOTE Because then the rich mofos get off easier. Want to stab someone in the back? Costs a quarter million to do it and make the legal troubles go away.
I didn't say all other punishments were eliminated if you could just pay up.
Also, I see financial punishment as more than just one set amount. This paralyzed guy needs his home and all future homes modified for his handicap. Ditto for cars. Maybe his office needs ramps. Hospital bill should be paid for if they are related to his injury. None of that even touches the emotional scaring.
QUOTE If, a couple years into a prison term, you find out someone was wrongly convicted (which happens a fucking shitload), you can let him out. Did he just get fucked out of a couple years of his life? Yeah. Does he have a shot at resuming his life? Maybe, maybe not. If you decide to cut off his hand or gouge out his eye, how do you plan to undo that punishment?
You can't say that, and then this:
QUOTE I'm not saying severe physical punishment, even death, shouldn't be on the table. On the contrary, it's vital to keep capital punishment around when you're confronted with incontrovertible evidence that someone needs to be removed from the gene pool or list of living things. It's something that ought to be used sparingly, though.
People who have confessed to crimes, even folks who weren't under duress by shitty cops/lawyers, have been found innocent years later.
What do we do for those folks in your system after they've been "capitally punished"?
QUOTE I say the primary goal of a system of law isn't keeping the karmic scales balanced when an individual is wronged.
What do you think the primary goal is or should be for legal systems?
Why do you think it should only focus on punishment, and not allow for the making of amends? Why victimize the victim again?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
Malcolm
I disagree.
Group: Privateers
Posts: 27168
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Apr. 03 2013,13:19 |
|
|
QUOTE I see financial punishment as more than just one set amount.
I hope all your criminals can afford this.
QUOTE You can't say that, and then this:
Why not? Â Take the dude that shot up the Batman cinema. Â Dozens of witnesses, as clear as humanly possible. Â Same for the psycho in Norway that thinks his country's whiteness or whatever was getting diluted by brown people. Â If the Newtown kid lived, I'd say he'd fit in this category as well.
QUOTE People who have confessed to crimes ... have been found innocent years later. Â What do we do for those folks in your system after they've been "capitally punished"?
Nowhere did I say that capital punishment should be based solely on one individual's testimony, let alone when it's the accused.
QUOTE What do you think the primary goal is or should be for legal systems?
From here. Â The primary goal of a codified system of law is to have us rise above the state of nature. Â I generally go by Tommy Hobbes who parlays that into saying that law is there to make the enforcement of social contracts a possibility. Â I find social contracts that follow the Code of Hammurabi-esque sharia law to be insane. Â Why? Â Try applying them to cases of medical malpractice with "inflicting equal pain upon the perpetrating party" as the true end.
"So, doctor, we see that you fucked up in 1 of your last 100 surgeries and cost someone the use of their hands. Â We're going to permanently maim yours." Â Think of situations where a roofer or mechanic fucks up and costs someone their life. Â How about the engineers that neglected the highway bridge that collapsed a couple miles from my apartment a few years back? Â You going to kill one of them for every person that died? Â But oh, you say, those people didn't intend to murder anyone? Â Well, fuck me, but it turns out that killing someone, even if you don't mean it, is a crime. Â Guess this dude ought to die, then. Even if we expand the scope beyond murder, it only gets more complex.
Should the issue of recompense be ignored? Â Hell, no. Â If the convicted has the means to make financial restitution, then he ought to foot 100% of the bill for the consequences. Â But it shouldn't be the driving factor.
Edited by Malcolm on Apr. 03 2013,13:29
--------------
Diogenes of Sinope:
"It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
"Other dogs bite only their enemies, whereas I bite also my friends in order to save them."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC:
"Better dead than smeg."
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 8
|
Leisher
Top 3%, yo.
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 26651
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Apr. 03 2013,13:47 |
|
|
QUOTE I hope all your criminals can afford this.
Who said they need to?
Why lock Bernie Madoff up in a prison waiting to die? Let him earn money to pay back his victims. Eliminate parts of his sentence once he completes the task. That's a guy who, by all rights, shouldn't have a penny to his name once he gets to a prison cell, but he has knowledge and skills that could be put to use to make amends. Allow him that chance.
If Joe Blow doesn't have the skills, and his crimes were non-violent, get him out of a cell, and give his tasks to make amends.
If they were violent, work out a way they can be separated from society, while also making amends. Make the amends portion of their punishment part of the conditions of their release instead of just making it a set time frame.
We could go on and on and on about the details of setting up a proper, or "fairer", system but why waste the time? Stick to the general themes.
I am simply saying that having more specific punishments/amends/whatever you want to call it that actually fit your crime over arbitrary lengths of time in "time out" is better. I think we should make convicted criminals attempt to make amends. It sure as hell will make them feel regret more than getting pounded in the ass by their cell mate.
QUOTE hy not? Take the dude that shot up the Batman cinema. Dozens of witnesses, as clear as humanly possible. Same for the psycho in Norway that thinks his country's whiteness or whatever was getting diluted by brown people. If the Newtown kid lived, I'd say he'd fit in this category as well.
Great. When video exists of the criminal committing the crime, and he/she is caught on the scene red handed, your contrary arguments work. That covers 1% of all cases.
QUOTE Nowhere did I say that capital punishment should be based solely on one individual's testimony, let alone when it's the accused.
You don't need to as a confession is basically all a jury needs in our current system.
QUOTE From here. The primary goal of a codified system of law is to have us rise above the state of nature. I generally go by Tommy Hobbes who parlays that into saying that law is there to make the enforcement of social contracts a possibility.
No. I want to know what YOU think should be the purpose of the legal system. You're creating it, not Tommy Hobbes. What do you want out of it? For example: My general purposes would be punishment, separation from society, and making amends. I do not believe our current legal system address the third part of that, and the first part is completely arbitrary.
QUOTE I find social contracts that follow the Code of Hammurabi-esque sharia law to be insane. Why? Try applying them to cases of medical malpractice with "inflicting equal pain upon the perpetrating party" as the true end.
"So, doctor, we see that you fucked up in 1 of your last 100 surgeries and cost someone the use of their hands. We're going to permanently maim yours." Think of situations where a roofer or mechanic fucks up and costs someone their life. How about the engineers that neglected the highway bridge that collapsed a couple miles from my apartment a few years back? You going to kill one of them for every person that died? How about the dudes that had a heart attack at the Heart Attack Grill or whatever that place was? Kill those chefs. But oh, you say, those people didn't intend to murder anyone? Well, fuck me, but it turns out that killing someone, even if you don't mean it, is a crime. Guess this dude ought to die, then.
None of that applies to this discussion. You're trying to confuse the issue to match your argument. Muddying the details only drags this discussion out longer. If I took this back to the case that spawned the topic, the kid didn't slip and stab his friend in the back. Negligence is off the table.
But if you really wanted to argue it, negligent homicide can be just as bad as regular old homicide. Purposely selling someone a house built on an old indian burial ground knowing it'd put them and their family in harm's way is just as bad as haunting and tormenting them yourself.
That's why I said things should be based on a case by case basis. The arbitrary minimum and maximum sentences should be gone. Unfortunately they're necessary in our current system to prevent corruption and incompetence from allowing guilty folks from getting light punishments or unequal punishments.
QUOTE But it shouldn't be the driving factor.
No it shouldn't, but is it really? Perhaps that's why they had the guy serve all those years first? Again, neither of us know their legal system, so maybe that's how it worked or maybe they just past a new law that makes this case relevant or maybe someone just thought it'd be funny to fuck with this guy. Who knows?
My argument is that we should be doing more in our system to make criminals make amends, and not just sit in a jail cell on the taxpayer's dime doing nothing, but raping, watching TV, working out, and getting a free education.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 9
|
Malcolm
I disagree.
Group: Privateers
Posts: 27168
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Apr. 03 2013,15:33 |
|
|
QUOTE Why lock Bernie Madoff up in a prison waiting to die? Let him earn money to pay back his victims. Eliminate parts of his sentence once he completes the task.
While I'm intrigued by the notion of putting someone's skills to use for free as a penalty, I question how I can trust Bernie to add up so much as a bar tab without someone double-checking all his work.
QUOTE We could go on and on and on about the details of setting up a proper, or "fairer", system but why waste the time?
Because the details are where the fucking devil lives. Â The biggest I can think of is: what are "amends" when putting a definite dollar amount on something can be difficult? Â Or how about Bernie where the amount of cash he took was so astronomical, that he'd be hard put to pay it off if he worked until the day he died?
QUOTE You don't need to as a confession is basically all a jury needs in our current system.
I'll debate the stupidity of juries in the U.S. legal system another day. Â But I sure as shit don't want a jury of my peers deciding my verdicts, I'll take a jury of legal scholars.
QUOTE I want to know what YOU think should be the purpose of the legal system.
If I had to pick one thing as THE overriding purpose, I'd say it's deciding what to do with the criminals in the long term. Â Recompense is certainly on the board, and a major item, but I'm far more worried about the offenders and when/if they get released back into society. Â How do you make the call about whether or not they can contribute, or at the very least present no harm, to everyone else? Â How do you go about encouraging them to do so? Â What do you do with those who can't or won't?
QUOTE My argument is that we should be doing more in our system to make criminals make amends, and not just sit in a jail cell on the taxpayer's dime doing nothing, but raping, watching TV, working out, and getting a free education.
Fuckloads of them shouldn't be there in the first place. Â But granted that a few should, you make it clear to them that you don't have time to deal with their childish bullshit. Â They can find a way to peacefully coexist within a reasonable society, or they get tossed out by death or exile. Â That's if you don't want them to cost you cash over the long term. Â How much are you willing to spend on the outcasts, hoping they'll learn to play nice? Because sometimes that shit is well worth it.
--------------
Diogenes of Sinope:
"It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
"Other dogs bite only their enemies, whereas I bite also my friends in order to save them."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC:
"Better dead than smeg."
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 10
|
Leisher
Top 3%, yo.
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 26651
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Apr. 04 2013,08:22 |
|
|
QUOTE I question how I can trust Bernie to add up so much as a bar tab without someone double-checking all his work.
Someone would obviously be watching him.
Don't forget, he wouldn't be "free" during this process.
QUOTE Because the details are where the fucking devil lives.
Yeah, but the details are for when you're actually creating a system. Why do I want to debate details of a system that never existed or will exist? We're simply debating theory.
QUOTE The biggest I can think of is: what are "amends" when putting a definite dollar amount on something can be difficult? Or how about Bernie where the amount of cash he took was so astronomical, that he'd be hard put to pay it off if he worked until the day he died?
This is easy. All costs can be shown and should be re-payed except emotional damage. Would that be arbitrary? Depends on the crime. For Madoff, if he can pay off the original amount he stole, I say you call it a day because he didn't commit a physical act of violence. For the guy who stabbed his buddy, I think the emotional payment should be substantial as he forever changed his life and took away a LOT of life experiences.
QUOTE But I sure as shit don't want a jury of my peers deciding my verdicts, I'll take a jury of legal scholars.
Dumb strategy. You're going to be obviously guilty. You want people that can be fooled by a smooth talking attorney.
QUOTE If I had to pick one thing as THE overriding purpose, I'd say it's deciding what to do with the criminals in the long term. Recompense is certainly on the board, and a major item, but I'm far more worried about the offenders and when/if they get released back into society. How do you make the call about whether or not they can contribute, or at the very least present no harm, to everyone else? How do you go about encouraging them to do so? What do you do with those who can't or won't?
Now see, here's the interesting part to me. This is the core of this debate, and where it doesn't just seem you're being contrary for the sake of being contrary.
Look at our current stupid ass system. "You've served ten years in jail with the worst human beings society has churned out, while they rape you, beat you up, teach you to survive within a violent world, etc. NOW you're ready to go back into society as a peaceful, fully functioning human being."
Beyond stupid.
I think being forced to make amends will help a rational person connect the dots and see the physical and emotional damage they caused. That will help them rehabilitate more than getting gang raped in the showers.
I see lots of former prisoners truly repentant for their crimes, and those are the ones who need to be given second chances. Being exposed to their victim's pain will help those who have some humanity reach that point, and weed out those who don't, and shouldn't be back in society.
QUOTE Fuckloads of them shouldn't be there in the first place. But granted that a few should, you make it clear to them that you don't have time to deal with their childish bullshit. They can find a way to peacefully coexist within a reasonable society, or they get tossed out by death or exile. That's if you don't want them to cost you cash over the long term. How much are you willing to spend on the outcasts, hoping they'll learn to play nice? Because sometimes that shit is well worth it.
The current system treats all criminals the same, and that's the wrong way to do things.
I love the three strikes laws, and think it should apply to violent offenders. Get caught three times, and we send you to the worst prison imaginable. No TVs, just the most basic of services to fill your needs until you die. You've proven you're not worth a damn to society, so this is society's way of telling you to go fuck yourself. (I'd rather put two in the back of their heads, but this is more "humane".)
(What do we do with three strike non-violent offenders? Not pot possession, but BIG non-violent crimes? Life in the next place?)
For first and second time violent offenders, we'd have maximum security prisons that most closely resemble our current prisons. I'm thinking we turn these over to Apple. They can dump their factories in China, and use these violent offenders to make their iPads and iPhones. Now these guys are working off their debt and their conditions will be worse than our current jails.
For non-violent folks, I'd make their prisons resemble an indoor mall. They'd have cells and such, but within the prison would be places they can be employed. They'd live and work within this prison until their debt is paid off. Comfortable enough so that it's not full of rape and hate, but completely lacking of freedom and a real life. (So Bernie Madoff could go to work in a supervised office and use his skills to try and pay back his victims.
Now we're treating prisoners better...and worse. Plus, a lot of tax money could be saved if we let corporations run these prisons. (We'll run the max one though, and it'll be the cheapest to run as they don't need TVs, weights, good food, etc.)
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 11
|
TPRJones
I saw The Fault in our Stars opening night.
Group: Privateers
Posts: 12384
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Apr. 04 2013,08:51 |
|
|
Here's a thought: put convicts to work on assembly lines make Apple products. Â Pay them some small hourly wage similar to what is paid in the Chinese factories, but take a large percentage of that to pay off their restitution. Â Everything else goes into escrow until they get out, at which point they can use it to get their life started again.
We get some jobs brought back to the US, Apple gets cheap labor, victims get restitution, and released convicts have a nest egg. Â Everyone wins. Â Slavery? Â Not a problem, the 13th specifically allows for it as a punishment for a crime.
Of course making prisons profitable brings with it a whole other set of problems, but we've already got all those problems thanks to CCA and GEO.
EDIT: Heh, okay, that's what I get for opening up all the unread threads at once, and not refreshing before replying. Â I end up saying what someone else said in the meantime.
Edited by TPRJones on Apr. 04 2013,08:56
--------------
Vidi Perfutui Veni
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 12
|
Malcolm
I disagree.
Group: Privateers
Posts: 27168
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Apr. 04 2013,08:59 |
|
|
QUOTE The court-appointed trustee estimated actual losses to investors of $18 billion.
There are countries whose GNP isn't that much. Did he jab a gun into their ribs and swipe the cash? No, he came up with something much more dangerous and efficient.
QUOTE You want people that can be fooled by a smooth talking attorney.
No, I want people that can't be fooled.
QUOTE Get caught three times, and we send you to the worst prison imaginable.
Eh, a bit too simple a rule, but in the ballpark.
QUOTE ...just the most basic of services to fill your needs until you die
That list changes depending on who you ask.
QUOTE I'd rather put two in the back of their heads, but this is more "humane".
I'd argue the reverse. Death is far more humane.
--------------
Diogenes of Sinope:
"It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
"Other dogs bite only their enemies, whereas I bite also my friends in order to save them."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC:
"Better dead than smeg."
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 13
|
Leisher
Top 3%, yo.
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 26651
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Apr. 04 2013,13:27 |
|
|
(TPRJones @ Apr. 04 2013,11:51)
QUOTE EDIT: Heh, okay, that's what I get for opening up all the unread threads at once, and not refreshing before replying. Â I end up saying what someone else said in the meantime.
Great minds...
QUOTE There are countries whose GNP isn't that much. Did he jab a gun into their ribs and swipe the cash? No, he came up with something much more dangerous and efficient.
But why not let him try? Why the defeatist attitude? Tell him once he gets their money back, legally, he's free.
QUOTE No, I want people that can't be fooled.
I think you missed the part where you're guilty.
QUOTE Eh, a bit too simple a rule, but in the ballpark.
Yeah, it's not perfect, but you know what? Nobody gets arrested and imprisoned wrongly three times for violent crimes. Even if you didn't do the third, but did do the first two, who gives a shit? Acceptable losses.
QUOTE That list changes depending on who you ask.
I would ask a doctor what they need to live, and what's the minimum stimulation/activity needed to not go insane. That's what they deserve and what they get.
QUOTE I'd argue the reverse. Death is far more humane.
Depends on the prison. In my vision, death would be more humane, but don't tell the hippies that. Currently, the prison system is a paradise for some, hell on Earth for others.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 14
|
Malcolm
I disagree.
Group: Privateers
Posts: 27168
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Apr. 04 2013,14:11 |
|
|
QUOTE But why not let him try? Why the defeatist attitude? Tell him once he gets their money back, legally, he's free.
Uh, no. Â His restitution involves more than just the cash he stole. Â Technically, the dude who takes your money at gunpoint is being more honest. Â He can try all he wants. Â Babysitting his efforts seems more trouble than its worth, but I suppose if you had a problem that he could handle and the verification of his solution was brainless enough, he can try all he wants. Â I'd not expect much from him, personally.
QUOTE I think you missed the part where you're guilty.
No, I've factored that into the equation as well.
QUOTE I would ask a doctor what they need to live, and what's the minimum stimulation/activity needed to not go insane.
Isn't that the current system, in theory? Â Don't doctors (especially shrinks) still wildly disagree over those two things?
QUOTE Nobody gets arrested and imprisoned wrongly three times for violent crimes.
I simply can't support a rule where it's "alright, after X times you go to shit jail, regardless." Â While it's insanely unlikely someone would get habitually framed for things they didn't do or had legit force classified as illegal, a sanity check from the right brain should always be a requirement. Â Not the "does this make everyone feel good" bullshit hippie part of the right brain. I mean the bit that absorbs lots of info at once without you working the controls and yielding a response. Â You always need to filter for crazy, even if the check is cursory.
QUOTE Currently, the prison system is a paradise for some...
Yep, making a generic "place people don't want to go" that doesn't blatantly trample or remove "basic human rights" is about as impossible a task as I can think of, even without tacking on "and also magically gives criminals a chance to reform." Â The worst category of prison should be one in which death is promotion. Â You can scale down from there according to the offense's severity.
Edited by Malcolm on Apr. 04 2013,14:13
--------------
Diogenes of Sinope:
"It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
"Other dogs bite only their enemies, whereas I bite also my friends in order to save them."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC:
"Better dead than smeg."
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 15
|
TPRJones
I saw The Fault in our Stars opening night.
Group: Privateers
Posts: 12384
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Apr. 04 2013,16:44 |
|
|
Okay, how about this: simulated eye-for-an-eye. Â Don't actually chop off a guys legs for causing someone to lose their legs, instead they are sentenced to a period of time where they must suffer the same problems through other means. Â In this case a spinal block on an injection timer would do the trick. Â Most other things short of death could be similarly simulated. Â Also require restitution and whatnot, but this way the long-term effects of the punishment can be mediated if circumstances warrant.
Edited by TPRJones on Apr. 04 2013,16:44
--------------
Vidi Perfutui Veni
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 16
|
|
|
| Post Number: 17
|
Leisher
Top 3%, yo.
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 26651
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Apr. 04 2013,21:45 |
|
|
QUOTE Uh, no. His restitution involves more than just the cash he stole. Technically, the dude who takes your money at gunpoint is being more honest. He can try all he wants. Babysitting his efforts seems more trouble than its worth, but I suppose if you had a problem that he could handle and the verification of his solution was brainless enough, he can try all he wants. I'd not expect much from him, personally.
I still don't understand why you're so against letting him try, especially since you've gone on record as saying "making amends" isn't a bad idea.
Hell, if he gets back 10% of each victim's money, that's 100% more than nothing.
QUOTE Isn't that the current system, in theory? Don't doctors (especially shrinks) still wildly disagree over those two things?
Great question. Is it "in theory"? I honestly don't know.
Is it "in practice"? Fuck. No.
My point is everything aside from water, a cot, three squares, an hour of yard exercise, and maybe some magazines is too much.
QUOTE I simply can't support a rule where it's "alright, after X times you go to shit jail, regardless." While it's insanely unlikely someone would get habitually framed for things they didn't do or had legit force classified as illegal, a sanity check from the right brain should always be a requirement. Not the "does this make everyone feel good" bullshit hippie part of the right brain. I mean the bit that absorbs lots of info at once without you working the controls and yielding a response. You always need to filter for crazy, even if the check is cursory.
I disagree. I know for a fact both of us can envision a scenario where we would take someone's life for their first ever transgression against our person or someone else's. This is three chances, and ending their life isn't even on the table. Just imprisonment.
Let me make it easier:
-Each strike must be from different incidents. (No charging someone with three violent crimes from one specific incident.)
-Only violent felonies count. Simple assault or its ilk would be exempt.
QUOTE Yep, making a generic "place people don't want to go" that doesn't blatantly trample or remove "basic human rights" is about as impossible a task as I can think of, even without tacking on "and also magically gives criminals a chance to reform."
Agreed. It's where our current system fails, and why we need to recreate it with more emphasis on rehabilitating first timers, and allowing criminals to make amends. One of the big flaws of our prison system is that the criminals don't see what their crime has done to their victims. How do you learn regret for them? You only learn it for yourself when you drop the soap.
QUOTE Okay, how about this: simulated eye-for-an-eye. Don't actually chop off a guys legs for causing someone to lose their legs, instead they are sentenced to a period of time where they must suffer the same problems through other means. In this case a spinal block on an injection timer would do the trick. Most other things short of death could be similarly simulated. Also require restitution and whatnot, but this way the long-term effects of the punishment can be mediated if circumstances warrant.
Love this idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
