• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Breakdown In Civil Order

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
37,007
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Bu that's not all.
Gascon has been widely criticized for his controversial juvenile diversion program launched in December. In a memo to staff, he directed prosecutors not to pursue charges against minors for a wide range of offenses, including sexual battery, burglary, vehicle theft, assaults or robberies, barring they did not result in serious injury or were committed while in commission of a firearm, The Times reported.
Those are some rather serious offenses that you can get away with if you are a minor. I mean sexual battery and other assaults? Burglary and robbery? Grand theft auto? Those need to be prosecuted regardless of the age of the offender. 15 and 16 year olds should not be getting away with all that.

Did you miss the part about diversion programs?
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
32,058
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
Despite some right-wingers' screeching about compassion for crime victims, I notice a lack of interest in restitution and Restorative Justice
Restorative justice repairs the harms caused by crime. When victims, offenders and community members meet to decide how to do that, the results can be transformational.

It emphasizes accountability, making amends, and — if they are interested — facilitated meetings between victims, offenders, and other persons.

This is the sort of thing that makes me suspect that their real feelings about crime victims are very different.

I've long thought that many right-wingers consider crime a kind of rebellion, to be ruthlessly suppressed.
I've been a fan of RJ since I first heard about it and did a little research on it. Seems like a very promising program.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
28,259
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
The problem here isn't a lack of authoritarianism (sorry, it's called "rule of law" when it happens to people who you want to dehumanise); It's a lack of compassion, which you are demonstrating far more effectively than is acceptable for a person with pretentions to being civilised.
Is that a lack of compassion for the violent attacker or for the victim of his assault?
Both.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
28,259
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
The problem here isn't a lack of authoritarianism (sorry, it's called "rule of law" when it happens to people who you want to dehumanise); It's a lack of compassion, which you are demonstrating far more effectively than is acceptable for a person with pretentions to being civilised.
Is that a lack of compassion for the violent attacker or for the victim of his assault?

This does seem to be the policy difference. What’s best for the criminals vs. what’s best for the victim / public safety.
Nope.

The difference is what's best for society as a whole, vs. what's most satisfying to revenge fantasists without helping anyone.

Two wrongs don't make a right; A violent criminal suffering a long and unpleasant jail sentence isn't helping their victims.

Creating a situation in which crime is uncommon is a massively more effective approach than creating a situation in which crime is common, but often harshly punished.

The assumption that harsh punishment deters crime has been comprehensively shown to be false, and that should surprise nobody. Criminals don't consider the possible punishments for their crimes before they commit them. Criminals don't expect to be caught.

Back in the days when you could be hanged for stealing a loaf of bread, bread was still frequently stolen. But never when bread was available to all, free of charge.
 

Trausti

Deleted
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
9,784
The problem here isn't a lack of authoritarianism (sorry, it's called "rule of law" when it happens to people who you want to dehumanise); It's a lack of compassion, which you are demonstrating far more effectively than is acceptable for a person with pretentions to being civilised.
Is that a lack of compassion for the violent attacker or for the victim of his assault?

This does seem to be the policy difference. What’s best for the criminals vs. what’s best for the victim / public safety.
Nope.

The difference is what's best for society as a whole, vs. what's most satisfying to revenge fantasists without helping anyone.

Two wrongs don't make a right; A violent criminal suffering a long and unpleasant jail sentence isn't helping their victims.

Creating a situation in which crime is uncommon is a massively more effective approach than creating a situation in which crime is common, but often harshly punished.

The assumption that harsh punishment deters crime has been comprehensively shown to be false, and that should surprise nobody. Criminals don't consider the possible punishments for their crimes before they commit them. Criminals don't expect to be caught.

Back in the days when you could be hanged for stealing a loaf of bread, bread was still frequently stolen. But never when bread was available to all, free of charge.

The state has a monopoly on violence with the understanding that it will use it. If does not, then the people will. Surely, what would be best for the criminal is to avoid vigilante justice. And incarcerating criminals protects the public. These last few years of lax on crime policies makes that abundantly clear.
 
Last edited:

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
28,259
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
The problem here isn't a lack of authoritarianism (sorry, it's called "rule of law" when it happens to people who you want to dehumanise); It's a lack of compassion, which you are demonstrating far more effectively than is acceptable for a person with pretentions to being civilised.
Is that a lack of compassion for the violent attacker or for the victim of his assault?

This does seem to be the policy difference. What’s best for the criminals vs. what’s best for the victim / public safety.
Nope.

The difference is what's best for society as a whole, vs. what's most satisfying to revenge fantasists without helping anyone.

Two wrongs don't make a right; A violent criminal suffering a long and unpleasant jail sentence isn't helping their victims.

Creating a situation in which crime is uncommon is a massively more effective approach than creating a situation in which crime is common, but often harshly punished.

The assumption that harsh punishment deters crime has been comprehensively shown to be false, and that should surprise nobody. Criminals don't consider the possible punishments for their crimes before they commit them. Criminals don't expect to be caught.

Back in the days when you could be hanged for stealing a loaf of bread, bread was still frequently stolen. But never when bread was available to all, free of charge.

The state has a monopoly on violence with the understanding that it will use it.
To the absolute minimum degree necessary.
If does not, then the people will. Surely, what would be best for the criminal is to avoid vigilante justice.
What would be best would be to be able to be successful without resorting to crime at all.
And incarcerating criminals protects the public.
Does it?
These last few years of lax on crime policies makes that abundantly clear.
That's the popular feeling.

It's contradicted by the evidence, though.

Crime isn't increasing. Reporting of crime is; Fear of crime is; Actual crime? Not so much.
 

Hermit

Cantankerous grump
Joined
Nov 14, 2017
Messages
1,567
Location
Ignore list
...incarcerating criminals protects the public. These last few years of lax on crime policies makes that abundantly clear.
Bullshit.

Violent_crimes_per_100,000_population_in_the_USA_1960_-_2019.png


The data for this graph come from the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. The UCR is produced from data received from over 18,000 law enforcement agencies voluntarily participating in the program. You can find them here. Good luck finding a correlation between incarceration and crime rates.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,337
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Two wrongs don't make a right; A violent criminal suffering a long and unpleasant jail sentence isn't helping their victims.

I know you do not want criminals punished but bribed so they don't commit more crimes. Basically pay thugs protection money.
It's a stupid idea.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,337
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Did you miss the part about diversion programs?
Those are ok for minor stuff like petty shoplifting. And also for first offenders. Not things like assaults, robberies or DUIs. And not for repeat offenders either.
 
Last edited:

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,337
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
This is the sort of thing that makes me suspect that their real feelings about crime victims are very different.
I do not think the wishes of most victims of crime are to have some sort of Kumbaya moment with the perp, which is what these "restorative justice" fantasies sound like. Nor do I think society is well-served by abandoning punitive measures for serious crimes.
Now, a lot of stuff is criminalized that really should not be. Minor moving violations should be classified as infractions, not misdemeanors. Things like marijuana and consensual sex work should be completely legal.
But if you rob somebody, you should go to prison. If you murder somebody, you should go to prison for a long time.

I've long thought that many right-wingers consider crime a kind of rebellion, to be ruthlessly suppressed.
Left wingers are not that different. They want so-called "restorative justice" for Mekhi Speed, but not Derek Chauvin.
Left wingers betray their opposition to long prison sentences when they protest over Jason Van Dyke being released after three years in prison.
Activists detained amid downtown protest over Jason Van Dyke release
WGN9 said:
The early release of ex-Chicago cop Jason Van Dyke, convicted of killing Laquan McDonald, has enraged several civil rights groups, many of whom protested downtown Thursday evening.
Why are they so against "restorative justice" here and insist on long custodial sentences and other "right wing" punitive measures?
Several activists breached the lobby of the Federal Building Courthouse
I thought breaching a federal government building was a big deal. Or is that only when right wingers do it?
I bet these people will not be prosecuted, or if so, will be given a slap on the wrist.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,337
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
They often talk about "personal responsibility", meaning that everything bad that one suffers is one's fault.
I am not a right winger, but I do believe this is a straw man right winger attitude, not a real one.

When you do stupid things, often the consequences you suffer are your own fault. You rob a pizzeria and a customer shoots you dead, that's your fault for trying to rob a place with a gun.
But if the customer who confronted the robber was shot, that would not be his fault. If an innocent bystander were shot, that would not be his or her fault either. Both would be the fault of the robber who would be facing murder charges.
 

Hermit

Cantankerous grump
Joined
Nov 14, 2017
Messages
1,567
Location
Ignore list
Note that the data stops at 2019.
Derec, it is easy to support one's assertion with carefully selected small samples. Your assertion that these last few years of lax crime policies - that is to say lower rates of incarceration - results in a higher crime rate is an instance of confirmation bias at best. To put it less charitably, it is an egregious example of cherry picking. You need to apply it to the big picture to make it stick. There is no way that the data this graph, spanning 69 years, is based on make it possible, but feel free to try matching incarceration rates with crime rates. I'll wait.
Note also that the decrease since early nineties correlates with actions like the much maligned Crime Bill.
Not quite. The rate of crimes plateaued in 1991 and started dropping by 1993. The House of Representatives passed Clinton's Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act in August 21, 1994.

Even more telling is the fact that incarceration rates began rising sharply in 1975 while the rates of violent crimes also increased until they plateaued 16 years later.

U.S._incarceration_rates_1925_onwards.png
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
28,259
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Two wrongs don't make a right; A violent criminal suffering a long and unpleasant jail sentence isn't helping their victims.

I know you do not want criminals punished but bribed so they don't commit more crimes.
You don't "know" any such thing.
Basically pay thugs protection money.
It's a stupid idea.
If that were "basically" my position, I would agree.

But it's not.

Luckily for you, it's not unlawful to subject a strawman to assault occasioning grievous bodily harm.
 

Trausti

Deleted
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
9,784
...incarcerating criminals protects the public. These last few years of lax on crime policies makes that abundantly clear.
Bullshit.

Violent_crimes_per_100,000_population_in_the_USA_1960_-_2019.png


The data for this graph come from the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. The UCR is produced from data received from over 18,000 law enforcement agencies voluntarily participating in the program. You can find them here. Good luck finding a correlation between incarceration and crime rates.
Uh, the liberal policies of the 60's and 70's produced such a shocking increase of crime we got Charles Bronson movies and Escape from New York. It's the Manhattan difference between Breakfast at Tiffany's and Taxi Driver. As Derec pointed out up thread, Biden's crime bill of the early 1990's starts the trend downward. To protect the public, you put the bad guys in prison.
 

Hermit

Cantankerous grump
Joined
Nov 14, 2017
Messages
1,567
Location
Ignore list
...incarcerating criminals protects the public. These last few years of lax on crime policies makes that abundantly clear.
Bullshit.

Violent_crimes_per_100,000_population_in_the_USA_1960_-_2019.png


The data for this graph come from the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. The UCR is produced from data received from over 18,000 law enforcement agencies voluntarily participating in the program. You can find them here. Good luck finding a correlation between incarceration and crime rates.
Uh, the liberal policies of the 60's and 70's produced such a shocking increase of crime we got Charles Bronson movies and Escape from New York. It's the Manhattan difference between Breakfast at Tiffany's and Taxi Driver. As Derec pointed out up thread, Biden's crime bill of the early 1990's starts the trend downward. To protect the public, you put the bad guys in prison.
Movies as evidence that increased incarceration rates reduce crime rates? You've got to be joking. Try to find a correlation between the two. I provided the graphs for it. Here is the second of the pair again:

U.S._incarceration_rates_1925_onwards.png
 

Trausti

Deleted
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
9,784
...incarcerating criminals protects the public. These last few years of lax on crime policies makes that abundantly clear.
Bullshit.

Violent_crimes_per_100,000_population_in_the_USA_1960_-_2019.png


The data for this graph come from the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. The UCR is produced from data received from over 18,000 law enforcement agencies voluntarily participating in the program. You can find them here. Good luck finding a correlation between incarceration and crime rates.
Uh, the liberal policies of the 60's and 70's produced such a shocking increase of crime we got Charles Bronson movies and Escape from New York. It's the Manhattan difference between Breakfast at Tiffany's and Taxi Driver. As Derec pointed out up thread, Biden's crime bill of the early 1990's starts the trend downward. To protect the public, you put the bad guys in prison.
Movies as evidence that increased incarceration rates reduce crime rates? You've got to be joking. Try to find a correlation between the two. I provided the graphs for it. Here is the second of the pair again:

U.S._incarceration_rates_1925_onwards.png
You still seem to be forgetting about this.

 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
20,065
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Uh, the liberal policies of the 60's and 70's produced such a shocking increase of crime ...
Yes, the "liberal policy" of spewing lead into the air because of putting tetraethyl lead in gasoline. How Lead Caused America's Violent Crime Epidemic
Shit man, even Biden referenced the liberal crime policies of the 60's in the video above.
I don't care how much hippie-punching he did in that speech.
 

Trausti

Deleted
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
9,784
Uh, the liberal policies of the 60's and 70's produced such a shocking increase of crime ...
Yes, the "liberal policy" of spewing lead into the air because of putting tetraethyl lead in gasoline. How Lead Caused America's Violent Crime Epidemic
Shit man, even Biden referenced the liberal crime policies of the 60's in the video above.
I don't care how much hippie-punching he did in that speech.
I'm sure you don't.
 

Trausti

Deleted
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
9,784
1993 is like a miracle year. I don't care for the current dementia man in the White House. If we could have 1993 Biden back, that would be great.


SDT-2013-05-gun-crime-1-1.png
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
20,065
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
This is the sort of thing that makes me suspect that their real feelings about crime victims are very different.
I do not think the wishes of most victims of crime are to have some sort of Kumbaya moment with the perp, which is what these "restorative justice" fantasies sound like. ...
I'm disappointed with the lack of research that I find here.

An important part of restorative justice, and one that impresses me about it, is that the criminal must accept that he/she has done wrong to his/her victims.
Restorative justice views crime as more than breaking the law – it also causes harm to people, relationships, and the community. So a just response must address those harms as well as the wrongdoing. If the parties are willing, the best way to do this is to help them meet to discuss those harms and how to about bring resolution. Other approaches are available if they are unable or unwilling to meet. Sometimes those meetings lead to transformational changes in their lives.
Looking at this, I get the impression that many right-wingers respect criminals who refused to accept that they did anything wrong, and also that they think that crime victims are somehow at fault for letting the crimes happen to them. I say the latter bit because they don't seem to be in favor of doing anything direct for crime victims.

  • To review: restorative justice...
  • is a different way of thinking about crime and our response to crime
  • focuses on repairing the harm caused by crime and reducing future harm through crime prevention
  • requires offenders to take responsibility for their actions and for the harm they have caused
  • seeks redress for victims, recompense by offenders and reintegration of both within the community
  • requires a cooperative effort by communities and the government
Inclusion: Restorative justice processes are more inclusive than the traditional criminal justice processes. They actively invite all affected parties--victims, offenders, and community members--to participate in resolving the crime.

Encounter: Restorative justice places a high value on having the victim and offender encounter one another. This encounter might be done directly in a meeting between the two (and perhaps others as well) with a facilitator assisting them. It can be done indirectly through exchange of letters, videos and by messages delivered by a third party.

Amends: Restorative justice seeks to repair the harm done by crime. Whenever possible this repair should be done by the persons responsible for the harm. That is why restorative justice values efforts by offenders to make amends.

Reintegration: Crime causes injuries. It also can result in both the victim and offender experiencing stigmatization. Therefore, restorative justice places a high value on the reintegration of the victim and of the offender. The goal is to have them become whole, contributing members of their communities.
There is plenty more at that site.

Derec said:
Now, a lot of stuff is criminalized that really should not be. Minor moving violations should be classified as infractions, not misdemeanors. Things like marijuana and consensual sex work should be completely legal.
I actually agree with that.
 

Trausti

Deleted
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
9,784
This is the sort of thing that makes me suspect that their real feelings about crime victims are very different.
I do not think the wishes of most victims of crime are to have some sort of Kumbaya moment with the perp, which is what these "restorative justice" fantasies sound like. ...
I'm disappointed with the lack of research that I find here.

An important part of restorative justice, and one that impresses me about it, is that the criminal must accept that he/she has done wrong to his/her victims.
Restorative justice views crime as more than breaking the law – it also causes harm to people, relationships, and the community. So a just response must address those harms as well as the wrongdoing. If the parties are willing, the best way to do this is to help them meet to discuss those harms and how to about bring resolution. Other approaches are available if they are unable or unwilling to meet. Sometimes those meetings lead to transformational changes in their lives.
Looking at this, I get the impression that many right-wingers respect criminals who refused to accept that they did anything wrong, and also that they think that crime victims are somehow at fault for letting the crimes happen to them. I say the latter bit because they don't seem to be in favor of doing anything direct for crime victims.

  • To review: restorative justice...
  • is a different way of thinking about crime and our response to crime
  • focuses on repairing the harm caused by crime and reducing future harm through crime prevention
  • requires offenders to take responsibility for their actions and for the harm they have caused
  • seeks redress for victims, recompense by offenders and reintegration of both within the community
  • requires a cooperative effort by communities and the government
Inclusion: Restorative justice processes are more inclusive than the traditional criminal justice processes. They actively invite all affected parties--victims, offenders, and community members--to participate in resolving the crime.

Encounter: Restorative justice places a high value on having the victim and offender encounter one another. This encounter might be done directly in a meeting between the two (and perhaps others as well) with a facilitator assisting them. It can be done indirectly through exchange of letters, videos and by messages delivered by a third party.

Amends: Restorative justice seeks to repair the harm done by crime. Whenever possible this repair should be done by the persons responsible for the harm. That is why restorative justice values efforts by offenders to make amends.

Reintegration: Crime causes injuries. It also can result in both the victim and offender experiencing stigmatization. Therefore, restorative justice places a high value on the reintegration of the victim and of the offender. The goal is to have them become whole, contributing members of their communities.
There is plenty more at that site.

Derec said:
Now, a lot of stuff is criminalized that really should not be. Minor moving violations should be classified as infractions, not misdemeanors. Things like marijuana and consensual sex work should be completely legal.
I actually agree with that.
Yes! Tell the rape victim, or the parents of a murdered child, or the assaulted grandma to meet and befriend the criminal predator. Just say you're sorry. All is better. Fucking genius.
 

Hermit

Cantankerous grump
Joined
Nov 14, 2017
Messages
1,567
Location
Ignore list
Your peak incarceration mirrors your low for violent crime.
What graphs are looking at? The low point of crime rates was in 1961, when the incarceration rate was also at a historical low.

Anyway, as I mentioned a short time ago, picking one data point that supports an assertion and ignoring others that do not is an egregious example of cherry picking. There is no way that the data the two graphs represent can be made to show that lower rates of incarceration - result in higher crime rates, or vice versa. The fact that incarceration rates rose sharply in the years spanning 1974 and 1991 while the rates of violent crimes also increased significantly (from 461 to 758 per 100,000 of the US population) in the same years makes it difficult, to say the least.

But do try. I'll wait.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
20,065
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
(me on restorative justice)
Yes! Tell the rape victim, or the parents of a murdered child, or the assaulted grandma to meet and befriend the criminal predator. Just say you're sorry. All is better. Fucking genius.
A silly caricature of RJ. An important part of it is paying attention to victims' concerns. If all that crime victims ever want is "Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill!" then RJ would take a form that reflects that.

Restitution | Restorative Justice

Victim Support and Restorative Justice | Restorative Justice

Working Respectfully with Victims | Restorative Justice

Restorative Justice 101 for Victims – Just Alternatives

-

Phase-out of leaded petrol brings huge health and cost benefits – UN–backed study | | UN News
Ridding the world of leaded petrol, with the United Nations leading the effort in developing countries, has resulted in $2.4 trillion in annual benefits, 1.2 million fewer premature deaths, higher overall intelligence and 58 million fewer crimes, according to a new study released today.

End Of Leaded Gasoline: World Has Stopped Using Toxic Additive : NPR
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
28,259
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Crime isn't increasing. Reporting of crime is;
Is this a joke?
No, it's a fairly simple and straightforward statement of fact. Do you have any evidence at all that I am wrong?
So you suggest there are heaps of dead bodies that no noticed before May 2020?
No, I mean non-batshit crazy strawman type evidence.
 

Trausti

Deleted
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
9,784
Crime isn't increasing. Reporting of crime is;
Is this a joke?
No, it's a fairly simple and straightforward statement of fact. Do you have any evidence at all that I am wrong?
So you suggest there are heaps of dead bodies that no noticed before May 2020?
No, I mean non-batshit crazy strawman type evidence.

What straw man? You think there weren’t excess homicides in the last two years? And how often do you think people report the smaller stuff when they know police won’t do anything about it?
 

Hermit

Cantankerous grump
Joined
Nov 14, 2017
Messages
1,567
Location
Ignore list
1993 is like a miracle year. I don't care for the current dementia man in the White House. If we could have 1993 Biden back, that would be great.


SDT-2013-05-gun-crime-1-1.png
More cherry picking. Those eight years of dropping crime rates were preceded by 18 years where crime rates and incarceration rates rose simultaneously, and another 10 years where crime rates rose significantly while incarceration rates remained almost unchanging before that. Given your assertion of harsher punishment reducing crime neither should have happened. If you were right, the trends shown in the graph below would be mirror images of each other, at least approximately so. That is not even remotely the case.

Incarceration-Violent-crime-rates-per100-000-in-the-USA-1960-2014.png
 

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
Joined
Jul 7, 2014
Messages
4,235
Location
It's a desert out there
Gender
Agenderist
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Two wrongs don't make a right; A violent criminal suffering a long and unpleasant jail sentence isn't helping their victims.
I'm pretty sure that a violent criminal serving a long and unpleasant jail sentence protects other innocent people from becoming victims.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
21,301
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
I'm pretty sure that a violent criminal serving a long and unpleasant jail sentence protects other innocent people from becoming victims.
But what about their freedom???
Protecting other people is the the other people's own responsibility, just ask any anti-vaxer!
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
28,259
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Two wrongs don't make a right; A violent criminal suffering a long and unpleasant jail sentence isn't helping their victims.
I'm pretty sure that a violent criminal serving a long and unpleasant jail sentence protects other innocent people from becoming victims.
Yeah, but that's because you believe that "violent criminal" is a class of unperson, rather than an action by a real human person.

Most violent crime isn't perpetrated by people who are fundamentally evil or cruel; It's their circumstances, not their personality types, that make them commit crimes.

One (of many) ways to change a person's circumstances in an attempt to ensure that they commit fewer violent crimes in future is to lock them up. It's one of the least efficient, and least effective - violent criminals often commit further violent crimes while in jail. That their victims might also be criminals, should not mislead us into believing that their crimes while in jail are any less serious than those committed in wider society.

The problem here is that right-wing authoritarians think that they could, if only the bleeding heart liberals would let them, eliminate almost all crime by simply identifying and incarcerating the criminals, leaving the honest, upright and law abiding people free.

But as Solzhenitsyn observed,

The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart -- and through all human hearts.

You cannot incarcerate all the "bad guys", because we are all, given the wrong circumstances, the "bad guys".

The sooner this crazy false dichotomy of good people and evil people dies in a fire, the better. It's one of the most harmful mistakes granted to us by monotheistic religion.

There are a tiny number of genuine psychopaths and other people who either do not resile from evil, or actively seek to be evil. That minuscule population doesn't need jail, it needs secure psychiatric care.

Everyone else just needs to be placed in circumstances where it is preferable for them to eschew crime as a way of life. The least effective way to achieve this is the threat of incarceration; The second least effective is incarceration itself.
 

TSwizzle

Let's Go Brandon!
Joined
Jan 8, 2015
Messages
6,808
Location
West Hollywood
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Another murder perpetrated by a "homeless" person;

A homeless serial criminal accused of murdering an ad creative after following her into her apartment knifed the woman 40 times with one of her own knives - and had a sexual motive for doing so, a court heard. Assamad Nash was charged with sexually-motivated burglary by prosecutors Monday, as it was revealed his victim Christina Yuan Lee was found topless in the bathtub of her Chinatown apartment Sunday. The charge suggests a possible motive for the brutal murder, which shocked NYC and raised fresh questions about New York state's bail reforms, after it was revealed Nash was a serial criminal on bail for robbery when he allegedly killed. Nash has three additional open criminal cases - one for assaulting a Brooklyn man, 63-year-old David Elliot, in a subway station. He has been arrested multiple times for assault, possession of drugs and harassment over the last two years. He was due back in court for the Elliot case next month and is currently being held in Bellevue hospital for psychiatric evaluation. Elliot, who works at Rutgers University, told The New York Post he was shocked the 'clearly' mentally ill Nash was free to roam the streets after attacking him at Grand Central Station. 'I was watching the news at 5 o'clock, and I seen them taking him out of the apartment and I said, 'That's the guy that f***ing hit me!'' Elliot said. 'He shouldn't have been out on the streets — hell no.'

Daily Mail

And of course, the SJW can't resist an opportunity to stoke the non existent race angle. Pathetic.

Residents near the victim's building in Chinatown held a rally on Monday to decry violence against the Asian community.
 

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
Joined
Jul 7, 2014
Messages
4,235
Location
It's a desert out there
Gender
Agenderist
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Yeah, but that's because you believe that "violent criminal" is a class of unperson, rather than an action by a real human person.
Bullshit. Don't tell me what I think. How about you get off of your fucking high-horse and ASK me about my views instead of inventing them out of whole cloth?

I think nothing of the sort. On the other hand, the overwhelming majority of people do NOT EVER commit violent crimes of any sort. While there is certainly an element of circumstances involved, many violent criminals are NOT "poor downtrodden souls just trying to eat". Many of them are simply selfish, opportunistic predators who do not care about the harm they do to other people.

Setting wolves loose among the sheep is a horrible, reckless, and inhumane view. Shooting all canines on sight because they might be wolves is *also* a horrible, reckless, and inhumane view. But keeping the wolves separated from the sheep is a very good idea, and having some reasonable triage in place to identify whether a given canine is a wolf, a random starving mutt, or a sheepdog is an excellent idea.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,955
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Another murder perpetrated by a "homeless" person;

A homeless serial criminal accused of murdering an ad creative after following her into her apartment knifed the woman 40 times with one of her own knives - and had a sexual motive for doing so, a court heard. Assamad Nash was charged with sexually-motivated burglary by prosecutors Monday, as it was revealed his victim Christina Yuan Lee was found topless in the bathtub of her Chinatown apartment Sunday. The charge suggests a possible motive for the brutal murder, which shocked NYC and raised fresh questions about New York state's bail reforms, after it was revealed Nash was a serial criminal on bail for robbery when he allegedly killed. Nash has three additional open criminal cases - one for assaulting a Brooklyn man, 63-year-old David Elliot, in a subway station. He has been arrested multiple times for assault, possession of drugs and harassment over the last two years. He was due back in court for the Elliot case next month and is currently being held in Bellevue hospital for psychiatric evaluation. Elliot, who works at Rutgers University, told The New York Post he was shocked the 'clearly' mentally ill Nash was free to roam the streets after attacking him at Grand Central Station. 'I was watching the news at 5 o'clock, and I seen them taking him out of the apartment and I said, 'That's the guy that f***ing hit me!'' Elliot said. 'He shouldn't have been out on the streets — hell no.'

Daily Mail

And of course, the SJW can't resist an opportunity to stoke the non existent race angle. Pathetic.

Residents near the victim's building in Chinatown held a rally on Monday to decry violence against the Asian community.
What do you feel should have been done differently with Nash's case?
 

TSwizzle

Let's Go Brandon!
Joined
Jan 8, 2015
Messages
6,808
Location
West Hollywood
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
What do you feel should have been done differently with Nash's case?

I don't know the details of this case but I would say that releasing him (a violent, serial criminal) onto the streets was not a good judgement call considering he was "homeless".
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,955
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
What do you feel should have been done differently with Nash's case?

I don't know the details of this case but I would say that releasing him (a violent, serial criminal) onto the streets was not a good judgement call considering he was "homeless".

So homeless people, once arrested for a violent crime, or for multiple crimes, should never be released?

And what are the quotation marks supposed to stand for? I'm normally pretty easy to get along with, but I hate political doublespeak, I hate dogwhistle phrases, and I hate it when people are coy for no reason. We aren't dating, we're trying to have a discussion. Just say what you mean, and we can evaluate the merits of your argument like honest men. What is the policy position that you want the county of Los Angeles to adopt?
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
28,259
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Bullshit. Don't tell me what I think
I didn't. I told you what you told me you think.

If you are embarrassed by the subtext of your statements to the point of being enraged when it's explicitly responded to, then perhaps you should start examining your biases and improving your assumptions.

Forcefully repeating those biases and assumptions, as part of berating me for pointing them out, is just underlining your thoughtlessness and disinclination to reconsider things that you mistakenly take as axiomatic.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,955
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
What do you feel should have been done differently with Nash's case?

I don't know the details of this case but I would say that releasing him (a violent, serial criminal) onto the streets was not a good judgement call considering he was "homeless".

So homeless people, once arrested for a violent crime, or for multiple crimes, should never be released?

Where in my post did I say that?
You said he should not be released. That's all you said. On what basis would he be "kept", and for how long? You didn't specify, you just said that "releasing him... was not a good judgement call". If what you meant was "releasing him [before a well-defined period has expired]... was not a good judgement call, you should both say so, and explain what the circumstances of his detention should have looked like. What kind of law are you even advocating for, here? I can't argue for or against a position you refuse to define.

I ask again:

What is it you want changed?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TSwizzle

Let's Go Brandon!
Joined
Jan 8, 2015
Messages
6,808
Location
West Hollywood
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
You said he should not be released.

That's right, that's actually what I said to a question posed about Nash. I did not say "So homeless people, once arrested for a violent crime, or for multiple crimes, should never be released?"

I don't play these games, jog on.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,955
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
You said he should not be released.

That's right, that's actually what I said to a question posed about Nash. I did not say "So homeless people, once arrested for a violent crime, or for multiple crimes, should never be released?"

I don't play these games, jog on.
So what are you saying? That Nash alone should have been held, but the law not otherwise changed?

I ask...

again...

What is the policy you want changed, and from what to that?

I agree that legal issues are not a game. People's lives are not a game. Imprisonment and murder are most certainly not games.

So what kind of game are you playing here? Insisting that someone ought to have been for imprisoned longer than they were, but refusing to explain why?
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
11,493
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Irony is dead.
IKR? Jesus... @Emily Lake went from "criminals are not unpersons" to "criminals are unpersons" in the span of a single post
WTF? Not even a little bit. Analogies are not literal. Stop being intentionally dumb.
You are the one who posted with language likening humans to animals here.

I know I call some people "plague rats", but even that is in the immediate reality of their continuing shitty behavior.

You're branding people for life.
 

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
Joined
Jul 7, 2014
Messages
4,235
Location
It's a desert out there
Gender
Agenderist
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Bullshit. Don't tell me what I think
I didn't. I told you what you told me you think.
No, you literally told me what I think. I in no way implied or suggested that violent criminals are not people.

If you are embarrassed by the subtext of your statements to the point of being enraged when it's explicitly responded to, then perhaps you should start examining your biases and improving your assumptions.

Forcefully repeating those biases and assumptions, as part of berating me for pointing them out, is just underlining your thoughtlessness and disinclination to reconsider things that you mistakenly take as axiomatic.
I'm embarrassed by your insistence on attributing malice to other people in order to bolster your moral high horse.

Abolishing prisons completely is a dumb fucking idea, one that clearly endangers innocent people. Similarly, having excessive sentences in prisons that are rampantly violent for minor or nonviolent crimes is also a dumb fucking idea. Reforming sentencing guidelines and how we treat different classes of crimes so that there's reasonable triage to balance the risk to the general populace against the type of restitution is a good idea.

But your approach, of just getting rid of prisons altogether is stupid.
 
Top Bottom