Justice

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Graham

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

Can you figure out which one that is???

Ooo Ooo Ooo! I can! I can!

There's one hell of a difference between locking an innocent person up and killing them!
It's a bit hard to bring a dead person back to life when you find out they're innocent 5 years after they've been sentanced.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

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

Curiously I read it as the author thinking that using a blanket "arrest everybody and sort them out later" policy was a "bad thing"...!

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Ooo Ooo Ooo! I can! I can!

Well done, have a gold star!

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Graham

Curiously I read it as the author thinking that using a blanket "arrest everybody and sort them out later" policy was a "bad thing"...!

But it's not like that, yes there are mistakes and bad handling things like not appologising after raiding a house to find it's not involved in any crime.

It's lines like a heroine user who'd never been arrested before was arrested 5 times. Wow! A heroine user actually arrested! Shock horror! You know I thought that's what is supposed to happen...

Do you think they should ignore drug users?
The statistics mentioned in the article show that arrests for all crimes had increased, so they aren't concentrating on the petty crimes at the expense of more serious ones


PS Thanks for the gold star

[paulyoung666]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

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.

exactly , start at the bottom with the petty things and work upwards , as soon as the crims realise they have nowhere to hide then the problem will disapear eventually

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Graham

I think you should read that quote again!

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



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.

I find it strange that you cannot see the need for punishment in a justice system. It is, after all, a criminal 'justice' system, not a criminal 'rehabilitation' system (not that I have anything against rehab).
How are we to have justice done if the criminal is not punished?

[Ramrod]

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??

Hmmm....one of the papers cited in that link as possible reason why zero tolerance dosn't work seems to actualy show that it does. As doesthis paper (and many others that I found)

[Pierre]

Exactly.


So here is justice for me, and if I'm on the jury panel, this is what I'd want:

- death penalty for: 1st degree murder, rape, kidnapping, treason

- no sentence over 15 years. If it exceeds 20 years, sentence to death instead

- prisoner loses the right to vote for the rest of his life

- all prisoners will pay their own room and rent for as long as they have assets to do so, if they can't, they can be put to work

- unlimited self-defense. End-of-discussion. If the thug ends up dead, so much better. No need for lengthy, crappy appeals to protect the criminals.

I think that is an excellent policy. Unfortunately we have something over here called the European Bill of Human Rights which means that there will never be any kind of punishment of these types. Even though criminals choose to live outside society and threaten society the toss pots in Brussels seem to think they should still be afforded all these lovely rights. But what about murder victims right to life? or burgulary victims right to defend his property - these, it would seem, are secondary.

Islam comes in for some heavy criticism but under Islamic law the criminal can be punished the same way he committed the crime "Eye for an Eye". I read about an Iranian man who threw acid in a womans face because she refused to marry him, causing blindness and disfugurement. So the court decided that he should have the same done to him. - Now thats justice.

[downquark1]

- prisoner loses the right to vote for the rest of his life

I think this rather defies the point of democracy. If the majority of people are criminals then technically the government should reflect that.

- unlimited self-defense. End-of-discussion. If the thug ends up dead, so much better. No need for lengthy, crappy appeals to protect the criminals.

As mentioned the criminal KNOWS what he plans to do and therefore can have a bigger gun and the element of surprise. So it's more likely you would end up dead.

[Pierre]

I think this rather defies the point of democracy. If the majority of people are criminals then technically the government should reflect that.

If this was the case we would be in state of anarchy. Democracy should only be for the positive contributing members of society.

As mentioned the criminal KNOWS what he plans to do and therefore can have a bigger gun and the element of surprise

Not sure what your point is here, are you agreeing that as the criminal knows what he is doing if he is injured or killed in the act then he should not have any comeback?

If so - I agree

[ntluser]

Originally Posted by downquark1

I think this rather defies the point of democracy. If the majority of people are criminals then technically the government should reflect that.

As mentioned the criminal KNOWS what he plans to do and therefore can have a bigger gun and the element of surprise.

I thought the government already did reflect it!! But do I do agree about your point about removing the votes of criminals.

As for criminals in general, work on the premise that if you have something of value they will want to take if from you and prepare accordingly. I find having a large dog works wonders with door-to-door salesmen, Jehovah's Witnesses etc and the moment somebody strange appears within scenting range of the front door the dog tells me.

When the pizza man calls, he rings the door bell and retreats to the front gate until the dog has been put away.and that's only on the basis of the dog's bark.

No doubt others will have their own favoured way of dispensing with the unwelcome criminal intruder.

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

If this was the case we would be in state of anarchy. Democracy should only be for the positive contributing members of society.

Well, in that case you could say dumb people can't vote, jobless people, homemakers etc. Kinda defies the point of a free democracy.

Not sure what your point is here, are you agreeing that as the criminal knows what he is doing if he is injured or killed in the act then he should not have any comeback?

If so - I agree

I'm saying.
If you carry a gun with you it would probably be small and pocketed because you can't expect to be jumped on 24 hours a day. When a criminal attacks you he KNOWS he is going to do it, so he can have a bigger gun and just shoot you in back and anyone around who might see. 1 on 1 you don't stand a chance because he can make the first move. And of course the larger the legal guns the more people he can kill quickly.

[Pierre]

Well, in that case you could say dumb people can't vote, jobless people, homemakers etc. Kinda defies the point of a free democracy

No, my point is if people offend against society, they should not have a say in how that society is run. They have given up their right by being a criminal.

I'm saying.
If you carry a gun with you it would probably be small and pocketed because you can't expect to be jumped on 24 hours a day. When a criminal attacks you he KNOWS he is going to do it, so he can have a bigger gun and just shoot you in back and anyone around who might see. 1 on 1 you don't stand a chance because he can make the first move. And of course the larger the legal guns the more people he can kill quickly.

That hasn't really got anything to do with the point I was making. I was saying that if a criminal attacks you or enters your home to rob you. He should relinquish his rights because he is knowingly threatening you or your home. So that if you defend yourself or defend your home and he is killed or injured in the process he has no come back and cannot sue you as is the case today.

[downquark1]

That hasn't really got anything to do with the point I was making. I was saying that if a criminal attacks you or enters your home to rob you. He should relinquish his rights because he is knowingly threatening you or your home. So that if you defend yourself or defend your home and he is killed or injured in the process he has no come back and cannot sue you as is the case today.

Fair point, I lost sight of the issue

Originally Posted by Pierre

No, my point is if people offend against society, they should not have a say in how that society is run. They have given up their right by being a criminal.

I think this would be dangerous, it would lead to people digging up dirt on people to destroy their political opinion. A corrupt government could easily manipulate this to reduce opposition.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by downquark1

I think this would be dangerous, it would lead to people digging up dirt on people to destroy their political opinion. A corrupt government could easily manipulate this to reduce opposition.

and how is that different to the situation atm? They do that already anyway.