Justice

[ntluser]

I think we are agreed that if a crime is committed that justice can only be seen to be done if the criminal is caught and punished.

It's also true to say that in a crime where a murder takes place, the execution of the criminal concerned is only acceptable when we can be 100% certain that there is no chance of mistaken identity and no chance of the offender being re-habiitated, because in the event a mistake is made the State has violated the rights and extinguished the life of an innocent person, which is unacceptable.

In the case of imprisoning correctly convicted criminals, there is the issue that when they leave, they will not be in a position to take advantage of job opportunities because of their criminal record and their lack of training. The result therefore is that they go back to crime and re-offend.

I think a balance could be drawn by sending convicted criminals to prison as punishment, but also by having a compulsory post-prison organisation, which deals with their rehabilitation and training.

In that way criminals can see that the State is on the one hand punishing them for their crime, but on the other hand is preparing them for their re-entry into society as a productive citizen.

I think it would also be useful if the government ran small businesses, which solely employed ex-criminals to give them the opportunity to make a positive contribution. Hopefully in this way we could prevent them re-offending and get them out of the habit of committing crime.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Scarlett

In a country where the criminal generally knows more than the victim about what the law is this is exactly what the situation is. I witnessed a shoplifter and gave pursuit and managed to hold them until the shop staff can got there. All the girl was shouting, in between her 'I'm innocent' speech, was that she would do us all for assault, that shop staff said that all they can do is to stand in front of the people and keep your arms at you side. and get in there way as they run.

Yet another example of how the law and it's application needs to change

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by ntluser

I think we are agreed that if a crime is committed that justice can only be seen to be done if the criminal is caught and punished.

It's also true to say that in a crime where a murder takes place, the execution of the criminal concerned is only acceptable when we can be 100% certain that there is no chance of mistaken identity and no chance of the offender being re-habiitated, because in the event a mistake is made the State has violated the rights and extinguished the life of an innocent person, which is unacceptable.

In the case of imprisoning correctly convicted criminals, there is the issue that when they leave, they will not be in a position to take advantage of job opportunities because of their criminal record and their lack of training. The result therefore is that they go back to crime and re-offend.

I think a balance could be drawn by sending convicted criminals to prison as punishment, but also by having a compulsory post-prison organisation, which deals with their rehabilitation and training.

In that way criminals can see that the State is on the one hand punishing them for their crime, but on the other hand is preparing them for their re-entry into society as a productive citizen.

I think it would also be useful if the government ran small businesses, which solely employed ex-criminals to give them the opportunity to make a positive contribution. Hopefully in this way we could prevent them re-offending and get them out of the habit of committing crime.

Top idea!
I am, contrary to what some might think, in favor of re-rehabilitation but I strongly believe that crime should also be punished. That is the way that (stupid/short sighted/impulsive) humans are educated, just think about how children are taught right from wrong- rewards and punishments- if rewards don't work then you try punishment. Many criminals are no different to children, they are impulsive, irrational and have a short 'horizon'.
Before anyone says that we should then 'reward' criminals with re-hab only, I would point out that they, unlike children, are adults and while you can 'con' kids with rewards to get them to behave, adults cotton onto that kind of thing very quickly-so we need punishment to go before reward in that case.

[Jerrek]

Scarlett:

I agree that both are wrong but if someone is still alive, then at least you can attempt to make things up to them, pay compentsation, let them start to rebuild their lives not much I know but...
Come on. Both are equally unacceptable. Who is going to pay compensation anyways? *I*? Because you sure as hell have no right to use MY taxes for that. Perhaps the jury? Perhaps the judge? Come on. You're debating the judicial process now. It is the judicial process' responsibility to make sure they don't sentence anyone that is innocent. I'm not about to let the fear of sentencing someone that is innocent do so much harm by keeping violent criminals that should be dead, alive. It simply does not justify it. If you're THAT scared, or if it happens THAT often, then you *seriously* need to re-evaluate your judicial system, because there is *major* flaws in it.

what about those who have a large amount of money and can afford good Lawyers ?
Yeah, what about them?

then the police are under a lot of pressure to show results and at that point, mistakes can be made (and have been made)
Then you need to really fix your judicial process. You're trying to solve problem A by applying a totally irrelevant solution to problem B.

And we don't vote for the party that is most benificial to ourselves ? I know that I vote for the party that most closely matches my philosophy.
Right, but WHY EXTEND THAT RIGHT to those that are HARMFUL to society? MAn, don't you guys want to PROTECT yourself and your families? What the hell is wrong with you? /banghead

Well cannot just be taken away from you, you have to effectivly surrender it by taking part in criminal activity and then getting caught. What I am saying is that maybe you lose the right to vote when inside but once released it is restored to you. i.e. it is not for life.
Certainly not. MAYBE after you've been good for 25 years AFTER your release. I do NOT want someone that has harmed society to say how society should be government. They've demonstrated once that they are a harm to society, and revoking their right to vote for life really isn't causing me sleepless nights.

What happens if the person coming in is your home help but she forgot to tell you she was coming in today...
Then shooting her wouldn't be self-defense, would it? Unless she attacks you, or you feel threatened. Then it is quite justified.

In a country where the criminal generally knows more than the victim about what the law is this is exactly what the situation is. I witnessed a shoplifter and gave pursuit and managed to hold them until the shop staff can got there. All the girl was shouting, in between her 'I'm innocent' speech, was that she would do us all for assault, that shop staff said that all they can do is to stand in front of the people and keep your arms at you side. and get in there way as they run.
And that is why your laws are ****ed up. And, that is why I would keep a shot-gun or a hand-gun with me. You come into the store and try to rob me, I'll give you the money, wait for you to turn around, and then make some circulation holes in some vital organs. We don't need these trash in society. (And watch: now some will defend the criminal again)

But how does killing someone really punish them ?, they're out of it but there are other people life, friends and relations etc. who are also punished (by having someone removed from there lives) for the crime of the criminal.
Oh please, it is universally considered a punishment. If you now want to sound some nutty professor and debate the meaning of life, by all means. I'm not interested.



Liberals, understand this: When there is a question whether I or some other thug will survive, I will always win the decision.

[downquark1]

Liberals, understand this: When there is a question whether I or some other thug will survive, I will always win the decision

Yes, but the thug is also thinking that

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by downquark1

Yes, but the thug is also thinking that

But they are already thinking that while (atm) we are hamstrung in our dealings with them.

[Jerrek]

Rephrase: When there is a question whether I or some other thug will survive, "I" will always be the result of the decision when I'm making it.

[Scarlett]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Scarlett:

I agree that both are wrong but if someone is still alive, then at least you can attempt to make things up to them, pay compentsation, let them start to rebuild their lives not much I know but...
Come on. Both are equally unacceptable. Who is going to pay compensation anyways? *I*? Because you sure as hell have no right to use MY taxes for that. Perhaps the jury? Perhaps the judge? Come on. You're debating the judicial process now. It is the judicial process' responsibility to make sure they don't sentence anyone that is innocent. I'm not about to let the fear of sentencing someone that is innocent do so much harm by keeping violent criminals that should be dead, alive. It simply does not justify it. If you're THAT scared, or if it happens THAT often, then you *seriously* need to re-evaluate your judicial system, because there is *major* flaws in it.

And if you think that you judicial system is so perfect that it will *never* make a mistake then IMO you are talking about something that doesn't exist. One state sponsered murder of an innocent person is one too far.

Are you saying that your perfectly happy with the idea of 'friendly fire' i.e. when some innocent people die needlessly.
Because you actually manage to kill 20 real criminals every day, its fine that you kill an innocent bystander a day as well ?

Originally Posted by Jerrek

what about those who have a large amount of money and can afford good Lawyers ?
Yeah, what about them?

Have you looked at the racial makeup of Death row ? in general the white middle class American can afford a lawyer who, even though they cannot get the accused off the murder charge can at least keep them off death row. it tends to be that other classes of American Citizen cannot afford the good lawyers and therefore end up with the death sentence FOR EQUIVILENT CRIMES.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

then the police are under a lot of pressure to show results and at that point, mistakes can be made (and have been made)
Then you need to really fix your judicial process. You're trying to solve problem A by applying a totally irrelevant solution to problem B.

Isn't the Juditial process there to impliment justice ? Therefore, if justice is not being served then the judicial process need's to be resolved. There is not problem A and problem B. If the police make m,istakes then this needs to be addressed by the courts BEFORE we chop heads off.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

And we don't vote for the party that is most benificial to ourselves ? I know that I vote for the party that most closely matches my philosophy.
Right, but WHY EXTEND THAT RIGHT to those that are HARMFUL to society? MAn, don't you guys want to PROTECT yourself and your families? What the hell is wrong with you? /banghead

I do want to protect my family and myself but I recognise that this cannot be done by exluding people from society. They may have done harm in the past but whats to say that we cannot reform them. The worst thing that I can think of doing is forcing them to look to criminal means to live because we have taken away their ability to funciton as a member of that society.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Well cannot just be taken away from you, you have to effectivly surrender it by taking part in criminal activity and then getting caught. What I am saying is that maybe you lose the right to vote when inside but once released it is restored to you. i.e. it is not for life.
Certainly not. MAYBE after you've been good for 25 years AFTER your release. I do NOT want someone that has harmed society to say how society should be government. They've demonstrated once that they are a harm to society, and revoking their right to vote for life really isn't causing me sleepless nights.

What else would you take away I wonder ? Where do you stop ? When does the line between fair punishment e.g. Justice. and excessive punisment lie ? lets face it, someone commits a crime for which they receive a 6 month sentance at HMP. they leave after 3 months (good behaviour) but are not allowed to vote for another 25 Years Thats IMHO goes WAY beyond the bounds of fair justice.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

What happens if the person coming in is your home help but she forgot to tell you she was coming in today...
Then shooting her wouldn't be self-defense, would it? Unless she attacks you, or you feel threatened. Then it is quite justified.

Unless you thought that she was a burgler or a rapist, whos to say, after all they wont be able to speak in there defence and if you've given the people that power through the law then how can you condem someone for using that power.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

In a country where the criminal generally knows more than the victim about what the law is this is exactly what the situation is. I witnessed a shoplifter and gave pursuit and managed to hold them until the shop staff can got there. All the girl was shouting, in between her 'I'm innocent' speech, was that she would do us all for assault, that shop staff said that all they can do is to stand in front of the people and keep your arms at you side. and get in there way as they run.
And that is why your laws are ****ed up. And, that is why I would keep a shot-gun or a hand-gun with me. You come into the store and try to rob me, I'll give you the money, wait for you to turn around, and then make some circulation holes in some vital organs. We don't need these trash in society. (And watch: now some will defend the criminal again)

Against pre-meditated Murder ? which I believe that you have indicated that _you_ would do. Certainly I'd defend them, I believe that I have a few spare flak jackets here somewhere. Even if you did this, you would become no better than they are and then _YOU_ would become eligable for the death penilty that you are so keen on.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

But how does killing someone really punish them ?, they're out of it but there are other people life, friends and relations etc. who are also punished (by having someone removed from there lives) for the crime of the criminal.
Oh please, it is universally considered a punishment. If you now want to sound some nutty professor and debate the meaning of life, by all means. I'm not interested.

Liberals, understand this: When there is a question whether I or some other thug will survive, I will always win the decision.

What is it that you have against Liberals ? Is it because we would prefer to ask questions BEFORE shooting ?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Graham

Zero Tolerance? Doesn't work. It just results in harassment and moving the problem elsewhere instead of solving it.

It appears to have worked in NY.
By targetting all crime, no matter how "small", this sent a signal that if you commit a crime, you will be caught.
Because of this, police started targeting turnstyle dodgers on the subway, which in turn cut the number of muggings/rapes/crimes on the subway, because most of the people comitting these crimes, jumped the turnstyles.
Quickly the criminals realised that the subway was a police patrolled area and no longer committed those crimes.
These petty criminals were feeding higher up criminals and this simple action by the police helped reduce crime elsewhere.
They didn't go elsewhere because they knew "elsewhere" was also patrolled. Basically the police gave the criminals' too much "bother" by actually bothering to catch them, and made them realise it was pointless to carry on.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

And, that is why I would keep a shot-gun or a hand-gun with me. You come into the store and try to rob me, I'll give you the money, wait for you to turn around, and then make some circulation holes in some vital organs. We don't need these trash in society. (And watch: now some will defend the criminal again)

Thankfully we don't have as bad a gun problem in the UK as you do over there.
If guns are freely available, and the criminal thinks you may have one. What's to stop them coming in and just shooting you first?
It's happening in South Africa on an increasing frequency. Rather than risk being shot, a criminal will break into your home while you are sleeping, shoot you and your wife, and your kids, then freely help themselves to your stuff, knowing you can't shoot them because you are dead.

That's one of the reasons why the police over here generally want to keep their guns to a specially trained unit. Because if the crims think a PC is armed, then he's more likely to arm himself and shoot first.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Also notice that I said that there is no difference between falsely sentencing a man to death or life imprisonment. Both are WRONG.

I entirely agree that both are "wrong", but in *one* case the mistake can be *corrected*!

Can you figure out which one that is???

Originally Posted by Ramrod

I don't see anywhere in the article where it's author claims or implies that his is the 'one true way', I think you are putting words into his mouth.

I think you should read that quote again!

"The purpose of a sentence is punishment." Full stop. End of story.

....So are you saying that you don't have anything against the ideas (that I have highlited) expressed in the article, it's just that you don't like it because you believe it is setting itself up to be 'the one true way' ?

I quote again:

"Nothing about rehabilitation, remorse or socioeconomic disadvantage. Nothing about the bad effects that the punishment might have on the offender or, for that matter, its good effects..."

If that is the foundation that these proposals are based on, then whatever other "good intentions" it may have, they will be tainted by this.

The parts you highlighted are, as I pointed out before, simply window dressing. They are a sugar coating to try to convince the reader that the core is more palatable in the hope that it wont stick in their throat.

But it sticks in mine, so excuse me if I spit it back out.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Liberals, understand this: When there is a question whether I or some other thug will survive, I will always win the decision.

Right Wing Reactionary Conservatives PLEASE try to COMPREHEND this...

If it comes down to a question between someone harming or killing me and my harming or, in the ultimate exingency, killing them, I will *also* win the decision!

However, unlike you, I will *NOT* do this as a deliberately pre-meditated act!

I will *NOT* "exact revenge" by kicking seven bells out of them!

I will *NOT* attack someone who is *running away*.

I will not lie in wait and set a trap to give me an *excuse* to remove someone from the world!

I will not calmly sit down and decide that the world will be a better place if *that person* is no longer alive in it!

I think that anyone who is *capable* of thinking in such a way is as much a danger to society as that "thug" whom they despise so much!

NOW DO YOU UNDERSTAND???

Originally Posted by Xaccers

It appears to have worked in NY.

You're right. It *appears* to have worked in NY.

But have a read of http://www.atsic.gov.au/issues/Law_a...eport/2ztp.asp (there are several pages to the report, the "next" link is in the top right hand corner of the page).

Does that sort of thing *really* sound like such a great idea after all??

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Graham

You're right. It *appears* to have worked in NY.

But have a read of http://www.atsic.gov.au/issues/Law_a...eport/2ztp.asp (there are several pages to the report, the "next" link is in the top right hand corner of the page).

Does that sort of thing *really* sound like such a great idea after all??

Its interesting, the author writes as if arresting drug users and dealers etc is a bad thing...