Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

...And Justice For All

ironmaiden
Posts: 456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2013 10:48:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
So I don't know how many people understand the so called "justice" system. Most people don't really know that many criminals have committed dozens, maybe even hundreds, of crimes; this is no exaggeration. The punch line--if they get caught, they can plead guilty for one of those crimes and get whatever punishment it equates to.

For example, my grandpa once had his car stolen. Funny thing, he watched the police pursue the carjackers who had stolen it on the news. The carjackers ended up being trapped, and ditched the car--which ended up smashing into a tree--then proceeded to run into the doors of a mall...the dogs chased them down and latched onto the woman's face. Anyways, it turns out the woman had been involved in three armed carjackings. She pleaded guilty to the last one--and got three years in prison.

So is this "justice?" Now, I understand it would be economically challenging to add up all those years in prison and give it to the offender (all those years of keeping a prisoner alive on our tax dollars), but is three years really fair? After those three years, that carjackers going to commit more armed carjackings. It isn't fair to the public for those guys to be let out of jail after such a light punishment.

Would the death penalty be a good alternative, if the criminal has committed enough crimes? Why can't we just take one more scumbag out of the equation? But then we get into the whole ethics thing...it's kind of a catch 22.

What are your ideas? Discuss.
"I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being that his is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question. 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?"
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 12:21:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/23/2013 10:48:59 PM, ironmaiden wrote:
So I don't know how many people understand the so called "justice" system. Most people don't really know that many criminals have committed dozens, maybe even hundreds, of crimes; this is no exaggeration. The punch line--if they get caught, they can plead guilty for one of those crimes and get whatever punishment it equates to.

For example, my grandpa once had his car stolen. Funny thing, he watched the police pursue the carjackers who had stolen it on the news. The carjackers ended up being trapped, and ditched the car--which ended up smashing into a tree--then proceeded to run into the doors of a mall...the dogs chased them down and latched onto the woman's face. Anyways, it turns out the woman had been involved in three armed carjackings. She pleaded guilty to the last one--and got three years in prison.

So is this "justice?" Now, I understand it would be economically challenging to add up all those years in prison and give it to the offender (all those years of keeping a prisoner alive on our tax dollars), but is three years really fair? After those three years, that carjackers going to commit more armed carjackings. It isn't fair to the public for those guys to be let out of jail after such a light punishment.

Would the death penalty be a good alternative, if the criminal has committed enough crimes? Why can't we just take one more scumbag out of the equation? But then we get into the whole ethics thing...it's kind of a catch 22.

Certainly repeat criminal activity is best dissuaded by harsher penalties. This is why the right winger's three strikes policy eradicated crime in the 1980s, why insurmountably high prison sentences for crack possession won the drug war and why there are no murders in death penalty states...

What are your ideas? Discuss.

If only we were all as wise and learned as you, oh wise one whose depth and perception are unrivaled even by Hammurabi or Nebuchadnezzar, perhaps all the instances of human evil and depravity would be no more.
ironmaiden
Posts: 456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 11:30:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2013 12:21:28 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/23/2013 10:48:59 PM, ironmaiden wrote:
So I don't know how many people understand the so called "justice" system. Most people don't really know that many criminals have committed dozens, maybe even hundreds, of crimes; this is no exaggeration. The punch line--if they get caught, they can plead guilty for one of those crimes and get whatever punishment it equates to.

For example, my grandpa once had his car stolen. Funny thing, he watched the police pursue the carjackers who had stolen it on the news. The carjackers ended up being trapped, and ditched the car--which ended up smashing into a tree--then proceeded to run into the doors of a mall...the dogs chased them down and latched onto the woman's face. Anyways, it turns out the woman had been involved in three armed carjackings. She pleaded guilty to the last one--and got three years in prison.

So is this "justice?" Now, I understand it would be economically challenging to add up all those years in prison and give it to the offender (all those years of keeping a prisoner alive on our tax dollars), but is three years really fair? After those three years, that carjackers going to commit more armed carjackings. It isn't fair to the public for those guys to be let out of jail after such a light punishment.

Would the death penalty be a good alternative, if the criminal has committed enough crimes? Why can't we just take one more scumbag out of the equation? But then we get into the whole ethics thing...it's kind of a catch 22.

Certainly repeat criminal activity is best dissuaded by harsher penalties. This is why the right winger's three strikes policy eradicated crime in the 1980s, why insurmountably high prison sentences for crack possession won the drug war and why there are no murders in death penalty states...

What are your ideas? Discuss.

If only we were all as wise and learned as you, oh wise one whose depth and perception are unrivaled even by Hammurabi or Nebuchadnezzar, perhaps all the instances of human evil and depravity would be no more.

Why the sarcasm?
"I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being that his is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question. 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?"
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 11:32:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
You know, that mimicry thing actually applies to so much. It's basically human retardation at its greatest. Good to know I inspire the ol' primordial in you, ironbitch.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 11:32:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2013 11:30:31 AM, ironmaiden wrote:
At 12/24/2013 12:21:28 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/23/2013 10:48:59 PM, ironmaiden wrote:
So I don't know how many people understand the so called "justice" system. Most people don't really know that many criminals have committed dozens, maybe even hundreds, of crimes; this is no exaggeration. The punch line--if they get caught, they can plead guilty for one of those crimes and get whatever punishment it equates to.

For example, my grandpa once had his car stolen. Funny thing, he watched the police pursue the carjackers who had stolen it on the news. The carjackers ended up being trapped, and ditched the car--which ended up smashing into a tree--then proceeded to run into the doors of a mall...the dogs chased them down and latched onto the woman's face. Anyways, it turns out the woman had been involved in three armed carjackings. She pleaded guilty to the last one--and got three years in prison.

So is this "justice?" Now, I understand it would be economically challenging to add up all those years in prison and give it to the offender (all those years of keeping a prisoner alive on our tax dollars), but is three years really fair? After those three years, that carjackers going to commit more armed carjackings. It isn't fair to the public for those guys to be let out of jail after such a light punishment.

Would the death penalty be a good alternative, if the criminal has committed enough crimes? Why can't we just take one more scumbag out of the equation? But then we get into the whole ethics thing...it's kind of a catch 22.

Certainly repeat criminal activity is best dissuaded by harsher penalties. This is why the right winger's three strikes policy eradicated crime in the 1980s, why insurmountably high prison sentences for crack possession won the drug war and why there are no murders in death penalty states...

What are your ideas? Discuss.

If only we were all as wise and learned as you, oh wise one whose depth and perception are unrivaled even by Hammurabi or Nebuchadnezzar, perhaps all the instances of human evil and depravity would be no more.

Why the sarcasm?

Because you're an idiot, duh.
ironmaiden
Posts: 456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 11:39:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2013 11:32:14 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
You know, that mimicry thing actually applies to so much. It's basically human retardation at its greatest. Good to know I inspire the ol' primordial in you, ironbitch.

I'm sorry, was I ever talking to you? You have to jump into every single thread and start insulting people for no apparent reason, don't you? You call people trolls and then go to the next thread to post ten times in a row saying random things. Hah! What a hypocrite!
"I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being that his is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question. 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?"
Tophatdoc
Posts: 534
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 11:56:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/23/2013 10:48:59 PM, ironmaiden wrote:
So I don't know how many people understand the so called "justice" system. Most people don't really know that many criminals have committed dozens, maybe even hundreds, of crimes; this is no exaggeration. The punch line--if they get caught, they can plead guilty for one of those crimes and get whatever punishment it equates to.

For example, my grandpa once had his car stolen. Funny thing, he watched the police pursue the carjackers who had stolen it on the news. The carjackers ended up being trapped, and ditched the car--which ended up smashing into a tree--then proceeded to run into the doors of a mall...the dogs chased them down and latched onto the woman's face. Anyways, it turns out the woman had been involved in three armed carjackings. She pleaded guilty to the last one--and got three years in prison.

So is this "justice?" Now, I understand it would be economically challenging to add up all those years in prison and give it to the offender (all those years of keeping a prisoner alive on our tax dollars), but is three years really fair? After those three years, that carjackers going to commit more armed carjackings. It isn't fair to the public for those guys to be let out of jail after such a light punishment.

Would the death penalty be a good alternative, if the criminal has committed enough crimes? Why can't we just take one more scumbag out of the equation? But then we get into the whole ethics thing...it's kind of a catch 22.

What are your ideas? Discuss.

In America, justice is a recurring joke. I once got pulled over and I thought shouldn't this police officer be looking for the one in two criminals that get away with murder in this city. Oops, maybe him writing me a ticket for my headlight is more important than catching a murderer.

American justice ruthless and harsh to the victims of crimes. Aren't prisons where criminals learn how to become better criminals? After all people are able to break the law where they are supposed to be rehabilitated. Drug dealing, fights, and rapes where they are supposed to be getting rehabilitated; imagine that. What a joke.
"Don't click on my profile. Don't send me friend requests. Don't read my debates. There are many interesting people on DDO. Find one of them. Go find someone exciting and loquacious. Go click on their profile. Go send them friend requests. Go read their debates. Leave me alone." -Tophatdoc
ironmaiden
Posts: 456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 12:09:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
First serious post in this thread, thank you:)

At 12/24/2013 11:56:20 AM, Tophatdoc wrote:
At 12/23/2013 10:48:59 PM, ironmaiden wrote:
So I don't know how many people understand the so called "justice" system. Most people don't really know that many criminals have committed dozens, maybe even hundreds, of crimes; this is no exaggeration. The punch line--if they get caught, they can plead guilty for one of those crimes and get whatever punishment it equates to.

For example, my grandpa once had his car stolen. Funny thing, he watched the police pursue the carjackers who had stolen it on the news. The carjackers ended up being trapped, and ditched the car--which ended up smashing into a tree--then proceeded to run into the doors of a mall...the dogs chased them down and latched onto the woman's face. Anyways, it turns out the woman had been involved in three armed carjackings. She pleaded guilty to the last one--and got three years in prison.

So is this "justice?" Now, I understand it would be economically challenging to add up all those years in prison and give it to the offender (all those years of keeping a prisoner alive on our tax dollars), but is three years really fair? After those three years, that carjackers going to commit more armed carjackings. It isn't fair to the public for those guys to be let out of jail after such a light punishment.

Would the death penalty be a good alternative, if the criminal has committed enough crimes? Why can't we just take one more scumbag out of the equation? But then we get into the whole ethics thing...it's kind of a catch 22.

What are your ideas? Discuss.

In America, justice is a recurring joke. I once got pulled over and I thought shouldn't this police officer be looking for the one in two criminals that get away with murder in this city. Oops, maybe him writing me a ticket for my headlight is more important than catching a murderer.

Right, there's no balance. You're forced to pay a fine you may not be able to afford while there's some homicidal maniac loose. Makes me feel so safe.

American justice ruthless and harsh to the victims of crimes. Aren't prisons where criminals learn how to become better criminals? After all people are able to break the law where they are supposed to be rehabilitated. Drug dealing, fights, and rapes where they are supposed to be getting rehabilitated; imagine that. What a joke.

Agreed.
"I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being that his is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question. 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?"
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 12:26:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2013 11:30:31 AM, ironmaiden wrote:
At 12/24/2013 12:21:28 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/23/2013 10:48:59 PM, ironmaiden wrote:
So I don't know how many people understand the so called "justice" system. Most people don't really know that many criminals have committed dozens, maybe even hundreds, of crimes; this is no exaggeration. The punch line--if they get caught, they can plead guilty for one of those crimes and get whatever punishment it equates to.

For example, my grandpa once had his car stolen. Funny thing, he watched the police pursue the carjackers who had stolen it on the news. The carjackers ended up being trapped, and ditched the car--which ended up smashing into a tree--then proceeded to run into the doors of a mall...the dogs chased them down and latched onto the woman's face. Anyways, it turns out the woman had been involved in three armed carjackings. She pleaded guilty to the last one--and got three years in prison.

So is this "justice?" Now, I understand it would be economically challenging to add up all those years in prison and give it to the offender (all those years of keeping a prisoner alive on our tax dollars), but is three years really fair? After those three years, that carjackers going to commit more armed carjackings. It isn't fair to the public for those guys to be let out of jail after such a light punishment.

Would the death penalty be a good alternative, if the criminal has committed enough crimes? Why can't we just take one more scumbag out of the equation? But then we get into the whole ethics thing...it's kind of a catch 22.

Certainly repeat criminal activity is best dissuaded by harsher penalties. This is why the right winger's three strikes policy eradicated crime in the 1980s, why insurmountably high prison sentences for crack possession won the drug war and why there are no murders in death penalty states...

What are your ideas? Discuss.

If only we were all as wise and learned as you, oh wise one whose depth and perception are unrivaled even by Hammurabi or Nebuchadnezzar, perhaps all the instances of human evil and depravity would be no more.

Why the sarcasm?

Obviously it's being pointed out that draconian punishment schemes have historically failed. If you are still wondering how a draconian punishment scheme could possibly fail, consider this: From the fact that even Draco (who made almost every crime have the death penalty as the default punishment) could not deter all crime, we can infer that there will always be some people who cannot be deterred from crime, no matter what. Thus, we can infer that their motive to perform these crimes is perceived as greater than any punishment - this can be seen in many cases, where people are willing to strap a bomb to themselves and run into a crowd to kill people. However, not everyone commits crimes, therefore this motive does not exist in all people. A justice system, if operating purely in the interests of public safety (as opposed to operating in the interests of retribution, as your proposed system seems to do), should therefore focus on finding and eliminating this motive (also known as "rehabilitation"). As I've pointed out several times before, look at what Norway does. Their methods seem to be fairly effective.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
ironmaiden
Posts: 456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 1:16:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2013 12:26:22 PM, drhead wrote:
Obviously it's being pointed out that draconian punishment schemes have historically failed. If you are still wondering how a draconian punishment scheme could possibly fail, consider this: From the fact that even Draco (who made almost every crime have the death penalty as the default punishment) could not deter all crime, we can infer that there will always be some people who cannot be deterred from crime, no matter what.

You have a point here. I am aware that some criminals don't care what the punishment may be. Some also believe they will never be caught. Or, they simply take the gamble. There will always be people that can't be deterred from crime. However, there are people who can.

Thus, we can infer that their motive to perform these crimes is perceived as greater than any punishment - this can be seen in many cases, where people are willing to strap a bomb to themselves and run into a crowd to kill people.

Very true. Yet, not all people are suicidal. Most criminals don't really want to die. That's why when they rob a house, they usually wait till they know everyone is out of that house. They don't want to deal with any possible threat. And I could bet that if the punishment for murder or rape was torture or execution, many people would think twice about committing that crime.

However, not everyone commits crimes, therefore this motive does not exist in all people. A justice system, if operating purely in the interests of public safety (as opposed to operating in the interests of retribution, as your proposed system seems to do), should therefore focus on finding and eliminating this motive (also known as "rehabilitation"). As I've pointed out several times before, look at what Norway does. Their methods seem to be fairly effective.

I think that it would be a miracle if the US could pull that off. It seems like some people--particularly ones with mental issues, people living in the streets, etc.--would want to go commit a crime so that they could get all this special treatment.

I could understand trying this with someone who committed a smaller crime, such as assault, theft, etc. But once a murderer, always a murderer. I don't think anyone guilty of murdering an innocent man should be let out in the streets, even if he's "rehabilitated." For all we know, someone can pretend to be a normal human being and be let out of jail, just to go on a killing spree again. I think a robber could be rehabilitated, but a murderer can't, and even if he can, he still *murdered* someone.
"I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being that his is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question. 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?"
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 1:35:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2013 11:56:20 AM, Tophatdoc wrote:
At 12/23/2013 10:48:59 PM, ironmaiden wrote:
So I don't know how many people understand the so called "justice" system. Most people don't really know that many criminals have committed dozens, maybe even hundreds, of crimes; this is no exaggeration. The punch line--if they get caught, they can plead guilty for one of those crimes and get whatever punishment it equates to.

For example, my grandpa once had his car stolen. Funny thing, he watched the police pursue the carjackers who had stolen it on the news. The carjackers ended up being trapped, and ditched the car--which ended up smashing into a tree--then proceeded to run into the doors of a mall...the dogs chased them down and latched onto the woman's face. Anyways, it turns out the woman had been involved in three armed carjackings. She pleaded guilty to the last one--and got three years in prison.

So is this "justice?" Now, I understand it would be economically challenging to add up all those years in prison and give it to the offender (all those years of keeping a prisoner alive on our tax dollars), but is three years really fair? After those three years, that carjackers going to commit more armed carjackings. It isn't fair to the public for those guys to be let out of jail after such a light punishment.

Would the death penalty be a good alternative, if the criminal has committed enough crimes? Why can't we just take one more scumbag out of the equation? But then we get into the whole ethics thing...it's kind of a catch 22.

What are your ideas? Discuss.

In America, justice is a recurring joke. I once got pulled over and I thought shouldn't this police officer be looking for the one in two criminals that get away with murder in this city. Oops, maybe him writing me a ticket for my headlight is more important than catching a murderer.

http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net...

"I get happy every time I see a speed trap, because I assume it means all criminals have been locked up, you've caught the guys who broke into my car on three separate occasions and my stolen property will be returned shortly, right shittheads? Good job guys, take a break and make some scratch for the city. Because why the hell else would you be sitting on your @ss in a ditch if that wasn't the case?

People who speed are awesome. The last thing this world needs is more slow drivers. Traffic jams occur because of idiots braking prematurely.

And when you pull people over, how about doing it in a place that doesn't obstruct traffic? You know what's just as "unsafe" as speeding? Having to swerve into another lane because your stupid car is blocking traffic. Every time I pass another cruiser parked in two lanes, backing up traffic for miles, it makes me punch myself in the jaw until I pass out."


American justice ruthless and harsh to the victims of crimes. Aren't prisons where criminals learn how to become better criminals? After all people are able to break the law where they are supposed to be rehabilitated. Drug dealing, fights, and rapes where they are supposed to be getting rehabilitated; imagine that. What a joke.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Tophatdoc
Posts: 534
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 2:32:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2013 12:26:22 PM, drhead wrote:
At 12/24/2013 11:30:31 AM, ironmaiden wrote:
At 12/24/2013 12:21:28 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/23/2013 10:48:59 PM, ironmaiden wrote:
So I don't know how many people understand the so called "justice" system. Most people don't really know that many criminals have committed dozens, maybe even hundreds, of crimes; this is no exaggeration. The punch line--if they get caught, they can plead guilty for one of those crimes and get whatever punishment it equates to.

For example, my grandpa once had his car stolen. Funny thing, he watched the police pursue the carjackers who had stolen it on the news. The carjackers ended up being trapped, and ditched the car--which ended up smashing into a tree--then proceeded to run into the doors of a mall...the dogs chased them down and latched onto the woman's face. Anyways, it turns out the woman had been involved in three armed carjackings. She pleaded guilty to the last one--and got three years in prison.

So is this "justice?" Now, I understand it would be economically challenging to add up all those years in prison and give it to the offender (all those years of keeping a prisoner alive on our tax dollars), but is three years really fair? After those three years, that carjackers going to commit more armed carjackings. It isn't fair to the public for those guys to be let out of jail after such a light punishment.

Would the death penalty be a good alternative, if the criminal has committed enough crimes? Why can't we just take one more scumbag out of the equation? But then we get into the whole ethics thing...it's kind of a catch 22.

Certainly repeat criminal activity is best dissuaded by harsher penalties. This is why the right winger's three strikes policy eradicated crime in the 1980s, why insurmountably high prison sentences for crack possession won the drug war and why there are no murders in death penalty states...

What are your ideas? Discuss.

If only we were all as wise and learned as you, oh wise one whose depth and perception are unrivaled even by Hammurabi or Nebuchadnezzar, perhaps all the instances of human evil and depravity would be no more.

Why the sarcasm?

Obviously it's being pointed out that draconian punishment schemes have historically failed. If you are still wondering how a draconian punishment scheme could possibly fail, consider this: From the fact that even Draco (who made almost every crime have the death penalty as the default punishment) could not deter all crime, we can infer that there will always be some people who cannot be deterred from crime, no matter what. Thus, we can infer that their motive to perform these crimes is perceived as greater than any punishment - this can be seen in many cases, where people are willing to strap a bomb to themselves and run into a crowd to kill people. However, not everyone commits crimes, therefore this motive does not exist in all people. A justice system, if operating purely in the interests of public safety (as opposed to operating in the interests of retribution, as your proposed system seems to do), should therefore focus on finding and eliminating this motive (also known as "rehabilitation"). As I've pointed out several times before, look at what Norway does. Their methods seem to be fairly effective.
Those tactics would work in Northern Europe. But Northern Europe is not the United States.Norway doesn't have the same history of violent crimes as the United States has had. Norway's justice system is based on the lack of crime. Norway has not had the slum/ghetto/project atmosphere which breeds violent crime. A more adequate system to look at would be Japan. Japan has dramatically reduced gang activity since the 1960s. In the post-World War 2 era Japan, it had allegedly over tens of thousands of Yakuza gangs roaming the streets and causing mayhem. The Japanese police became very aggressive in stopping crime and still are aggressive. The Japanese conviction rate exceeds over 99%. The Japanese police are more personal and intimate with the neighborhoods they police. Japan also tends to have more aggressive policing of prisons. But the level of crime has dramatically decreased.
"Don't click on my profile. Don't send me friend requests. Don't read my debates. There are many interesting people on DDO. Find one of them. Go find someone exciting and loquacious. Go click on their profile. Go send them friend requests. Go read their debates. Leave me alone." -Tophatdoc
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 3:39:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2013 2:32:16 PM, Tophatdoc wrote:
At 12/24/2013 12:26:22 PM, drhead wrote:
At 12/24/2013 11:30:31 AM, ironmaiden wrote:
At 12/24/2013 12:21:28 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/23/2013 10:48:59 PM, ironmaiden wrote:
So I don't know how many people understand the so called "justice" system. Most people don't really know that many criminals have committed dozens, maybe even hundreds, of crimes; this is no exaggeration. The punch line--if they get caught, they can plead guilty for one of those crimes and get whatever punishment it equates to.

For example, my grandpa once had his car stolen. Funny thing, he watched the police pursue the carjackers who had stolen it on the news. The carjackers ended up being trapped, and ditched the car--which ended up smashing into a tree--then proceeded to run into the doors of a mall...the dogs chased them down and latched onto the woman's face. Anyways, it turns out the woman had been involved in three armed carjackings. She pleaded guilty to the last one--and got three years in prison.

So is this "justice?" Now, I understand it would be economically challenging to add up all those years in prison and give it to the offender (all those years of keeping a prisoner alive on our tax dollars), but is three years really fair? After those three years, that carjackers going to commit more armed carjackings. It isn't fair to the public for those guys to be let out of jail after such a light punishment.

Would the death penalty be a good alternative, if the criminal has committed enough crimes? Why can't we just take one more scumbag out of the equation? But then we get into the whole ethics thing...it's kind of a catch 22.

Certainly repeat criminal activity is best dissuaded by harsher penalties. This is why the right winger's three strikes policy eradicated crime in the 1980s, why insurmountably high prison sentences for crack possession won the drug war and why there are no murders in death penalty states...

What are your ideas? Discuss.

If only we were all as wise and learned as you, oh wise one whose depth and perception are unrivaled even by Hammurabi or Nebuchadnezzar, perhaps all the instances of human evil and depravity would be no more.

Why the sarcasm?

Obviously it's being pointed out that draconian punishment schemes have historically failed. If you are still wondering how a draconian punishment scheme could possibly fail, consider this: From the fact that even Draco (who made almost every crime have the death penalty as the default punishment) could not deter all crime, we can infer that there will always be some people who cannot be deterred from crime, no matter what. Thus, we can infer that their motive to perform these crimes is perceived as greater than any punishment - this can be seen in many cases, where people are willing to strap a bomb to themselves and run into a crowd to kill people. However, not everyone commits crimes, therefore this motive does not exist in all people. A justice system, if operating purely in the interests of public safety (as opposed to operating in the interests of retribution, as your proposed system seems to do), should therefore focus on finding and eliminating this motive (also known as "rehabilitation"). As I've pointed out several times before, look at what Norway does. Their methods seem to be fairly effective.
Those tactics would work in Northern Europe. But Northern Europe is not the United States.Norway doesn't have the same history of violent crimes as the United States has had. Norway's justice system is based on the lack of crime. Norway has not had the slum/ghetto/project atmosphere which breeds violent crime. A more adequate system to look at would be Japan. Japan has dramatically reduced gang activity since the 1960s. In the post-World War 2 era Japan, it had allegedly over tens of thousands of Yakuza gangs roaming the streets and causing mayhem. The Japanese police became very aggressive in stopping crime and still are aggressive. The Japanese conviction rate exceeds over 99%. The Japanese police are more personal and intimate with the neighborhoods they police. Japan also tends to have more aggressive policing of prisons. But the level of crime has dramatically decreased.

What about the recidivism rate? It doesn't matter how often you can throw people in jail, we're talking about how often people return to jail after being put in jail at least once.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 5:45:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/23/2013 10:48:59 PM, ironmaiden wrote:
So I don't know how many people understand the so called "justice" system. Most people don't really know that many criminals have committed dozens, maybe even hundreds, of crimes; this is no exaggeration. The punch line--if they get caught, they can plead guilty for one of those crimes and get whatever punishment it equates to.

For example, my grandpa once had his car stolen. Funny thing, he watched the police pursue the carjackers who had stolen it on the news. The carjackers ended up being trapped, and ditched the car--which ended up smashing into a tree--then proceeded to run into the doors of a mall...the dogs chased them down and latched onto the woman's face. Anyways, it turns out the woman had been involved in three armed carjackings. She pleaded guilty to the last one--and got three years in prison.

So is this "justice?" Now, I understand it would be economically challenging to add up all those years in prison and give it to the offender (all those years of keeping a prisoner alive on our tax dollars), but is three years really fair? After those three years, that carjackers going to commit more armed carjackings. It isn't fair to the public for those guys to be let out of jail after such a light punishment.

Would the death penalty be a good alternative, if the criminal has committed enough crimes? Why can't we just take one more scumbag out of the equation? But then we get into the whole ethics thing...it's kind of a catch 22.

What are your ideas? Discuss.

I would say that objectively you are correct. The Aristotelian definition of Justice is 'To each man their due', this means that the accused, the guilty, and the victim all deserve their due. The victim deserves to be given their due in the sense that they know the wrong(s) committed against them are redressed and that the person will be taken off the streets for a reasonable amount of time (depending on the crime). The accused obviously usually already get their due, trial with a jury by your peers, innocent until proven guilty, ATC, etc. The guilty also deserve their due though, they shouldn't be subjected to cruel or unusual punishment and still deserve some basic human rights, although I tend to agree with you that giving the minimum prison sentence for each of the three car jackings is lenient and fair, not cruel or unusual or violating basic human rights. Now only 1/3 of the victims are getting their due, while the other 2/3 are not, and the guilty is getting more due then deserved.
Tophatdoc
Posts: 534
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 5:48:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2013 3:39:03 PM, drhead wrote:
What about the recidivism rate? It doesn't matter how often you can throw people in jail, we're talking about how often people return to jail after being put in jail at least once.

Recidivism rate by itself is minor compared to the conditions which spawn the rate. Norway has never produced the same type of first time offenders as we see in the United States, Russia, or even the Vatican(highest crime rate in the world). As I was trying to get at; every country does not have people that follow the law or respect it for that matter.

The degrees in following the law are different compared to a country's values or lack thereof. In Norway, it would be rare to find people who get into car accidents; then immediately have an altercation afterwards. This however is common in Russia where car accidents commonly produce altercations or worse shootouts. In the United States, it is uncommon for people to go to that extreme. But there are many Americans who will intentionally insult public authorities when simply being questioned. This condition does not exist in Norway or other Scandinavian countries. People tend to follow the letter of the law in the Scandinavian countries.

Scandinavian countries tend to be more passive than other countries. This is why they were the first countries to get rid of corporal punishment. Their prisons will not work in other countries because majority of people don't obey the law to the same degree as they do in Scandinavian countries.
"Don't click on my profile. Don't send me friend requests. Don't read my debates. There are many interesting people on DDO. Find one of them. Go find someone exciting and loquacious. Go click on their profile. Go send them friend requests. Go read their debates. Leave me alone." -Tophatdoc
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 5:48:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Rehabilitation is nice and all, but it isn't the goal of the justice system. The goal of the justice system is simply to give each party their due (the accused, the guilty, and the victim). Giving too lenient of punishments does not give the victim their due, giving too harsh of punishments is not giving the guilty their due, there has to be a reasonable middle ground, and in this case I think the ruling was unfair, in the guilty party's favor.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 7:10:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2013 3:39:03 PM, drhead wrote:

What about the recidivism rate? It doesn't matter how often you can throw people in jail, we're talking about how often people return to jail after being put in jail at least once.

Fvck the recidivism rate. It is misleading.

As a convicted felon, I can tell you this:
Getting in trouble with the law is a black mark of death.
If it hadn't been for me living with my mom when I got out of jail, I would have had to commit crimes to feed and clothe myself, either in jail or on my own.

It took me six months to get a job, of which I lied at the interview about having a conviction. I got an interview because the application didn't ask me about criminal history.

And, yes, McDonald's didn't hire me, because of the crime, even though it says disclosure doesn't bar me from employment, it obviously did.
Even Burger King, where I had an "in" with the manager wouldn't hire me.

Pure and simple, the reason recidivism is so high, is because people/jobs/society doesn't believe in second chances. Although, I think it matters what crime was committed, in part.
My work here is, finally, done.