Heh. Most that have it never seem to carry it out. If done, sometimes it takes ten to fifteen years. I understand the need for appeal time to be sure of guilt but punishment should be swifter. It should also be more prominently "displayed".
I would tend to agree with this. If the punishment is administered while the crime is still fresh in peoples' minds, I think it would make a difference.
OTOH, if there is no "smoking gun", but a circumstantial conviction for a serious crime, I have no problem with throwing the perp in jail for life without parole, in the event that something surfaces that may exonerate him. If that happens, so be it. He should then receive restitution from the municipality. (I also understand the realities of this, and the massive volumes of "lost" evidence. )
Originally posted by Raydar: He should then receive restitution from the municipality.
I do agree. In this case it is too bad he put himself into an environment which is known to be specifically dangerous for those that rape children, surrounded by people who have no respect for official justice.
Heh. Most that have it never seem to carry it out. If done, sometimes it takes ten to fifteen years. I understand the need for appeal time to be sure of guilt but punishment should be swifter. It should also be more prominently "displayed". I have heard that argument before from anti death penalty advocates. By that reckoning though, no punishment would be a deterrent.
Anyone know what the stats are on repeat offenders of executed felons?
I might be surprised but I doubt there are any repeat offenders. I am an advocate and believe executions should be advertised, publically observed and shown on the evening news. Those who commit such crimes have a right to know what awaits them. I know they believe they'll not be caught. Surprise!
One armed thieves also steal 50% less.
------------------ Ron Count Down to A Better America: http://countingdownto.com/countdown/196044 Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun?
My Uncle Frank was a staunch Conservative and voted straight Republican until the day he died in Chicago. Since then he has voted Democrat. Shrug
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 04-28-2014).]
This form of justice some of you speak of has already been tried. We have already been there. We moved on because it doesn't work.
Did hanging horse thieves stop horse thieves from stealing horses back then? Or cars 200 years later?
There are still countries today practicing this way of thinking, the same as they have been practicing it for 2,000 years. How is it working out for them? No more stealing, rapes, or murder in those countries?
P.S. I HATE defending the rights of these low-lifes.
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 04-28-2014).]
Originally posted by Boondawg: This form of justice some of you speak of has already been tried. We have already been there. We moved on because it doesn't work. Did hanging horse thieves stop horse thieves from stealing horses back then? Or cars 200 years later?
What ? No source ?
quote
Originally posted by Boondawg: There are still countries today practicing this way of thinking, the same as they have been practicing it for 2,000 years. How is it working out for them? No more stealing, rapes, or murder in those countries?
You say we moved on. How is that working out for us ? No more stealing, rapes, or murder here ? To be clear, the form of justice of which I speak does not include the "butt buddy" in the original post. Do you feel punishment is not a viable method of deterrent ? It deters me. Even if it is just as simple as a speeding fine. There is proof that rehabilitation is not working. (Is that the method you think we moved on to ?)
Originally posted by Boondawg: This form of justice some of you speak of has already been tried. We have already been there. We moved on because it doesn't work. Did hanging horse thieves stop horse thieves from stealing horses back then? Or cars 200 years later?
quote
Originally posted by cliffw:What ? No source ?
Source: U.S. History. Horses kept right on getting stolen. Even kids grew up knowing horse stealin' would get you hung, yet some grew up to become criminals & steal horses.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw:
You say we moved on. How is that working out for us ? No more stealing, rapes, or murder here ? To be clear, the form of justice of which I speak does not include the "butt buddy" in the original post. Do you feel punishment is not a viable method of deterrent ? It deters me. Even if it is just as simple as a speeding fine. There is proof that rehabilitation is not working. (Is that the method you think we moved on to ?)
MY point was made pretty clearly. I'm talking about vigilante punishment, not lawful punishment. Rule Of Law, remember?
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 04-28-2014).]
The Rule Of Law has nothing to do with "feelings". The danger of "Feelings" is probably why we have the Rule Of Law in the first place...
True. Justice.
"What does the phrase ''justice is blind" mean'?
"Answer:Justice means to be right or fair. So it should be safe to say the term "justice is blind" basically just explains that justice is based on who is right or who is wrong. Innocence or guilt. There is no bias or prejudice as to the type of person that you are or where you come from."
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 04-28-2014).]
Did hanging horse thieves stop horse thieves from stealing horses back then? Or cars 200 years later?
Well, it does stop those particular individuals. But death for theft is heavier than eye for an eye, and if we cut off their hand here today we'd likley have to give them disability for the rest of their life afterwards...
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 04-28-2014).]
I am disgusted by the people that would seemingly support a system under "an eye for an eye."
It brings up an interesting point; How do people see ourselves as a species in 5,000?, 10,000?, 100,000 years? Are we destined as a species to never be "enlightened"?
Or in the future we will just "breed out" (through genetic/medical manipulation) any traits deemed "undesirable" to The State? From guidelines determined by.......The People?
State & People Approved........People? And we're grumbling about freedom now.
People must always have the choice to be who they want to be. Even bad.
The solution is to catch the bad in the person it's happening to, not the one watching it.
Maybe a good start would be to somehow make being bad fruitless.
I do not think this is as cut and dry as some would like to paint it. I think one can be glad it happened yet not support it. I think in all honesty it might boil down to whether anybody feels sorry for the child rapist. Well do you?
quote
Originally posted by Boondawg:
The Rule Of Law has nothing to do with "feelings". The danger of "Feelings" is probably why we have the Rule Of Law in the first place...
I don't understand your response to my post. I don't see the problem with being glad the S>O>B> got raped, I would not weep if he had been killed, might even smile. The rule of law has not been breached by MY feelings, I have nothing to do with it.
A crime may have been committed against the rapist by other rapists so the rule of law can once again work and they too can be punished.
I am not an expert but I have to wonder if prison butt justice is even a crime down there. Basically you have a bunch of homos doing homo things, and the original child rapist is a known homosexual child predator so who knows what really happened, might be tough to convict but the "rule of law" is there for him regardless
That fancy fighting crap is all good when it is in a gym with all your training buddies and a bunch of choreographed moves, (just like WWE). But in the real world a guy with a gun has the upper hand, unless he is stupid enough to walk up to the guy like they did in these "scenarios". 21 foot rule. Of course the fancy fighting guy could start throwing Ninja stars.
Originally posted by Boondawg: I HATE defending the rights of these low-lifes.
I don't see that you are. I see it as your discussing methods of crime solution.
quote
Originally posted by Boondawg: Source: U.S. History. Horses kept right on getting stolen. Even kids grew up knowing horse stealin' would get you hung, yet some grew up to become criminals & steal horses.
Do you know what a horse meant back in the day, to a lawful owner ? Almost as much as a house does today. It could even mean life or death There was a reason horse thieves were dealt with so harshly. If not life or death, you try existing without a car. Then there were no bus lines, no interstate travel conveniences much less roads. Even to an outlaw, heck ... did any outlaw not need a horse ? Yes, there is a reason why horses kept being stolen. As well as a reason for stiff deterrent. Do you ever see a person frack with a porcupine twice ? A rattle snake ? Even person who knew a loser that did ? "Some" is key. Are you suggesting there was no deterrence ? What would have been a better method ? While your at it, instead of killing terrorists, tell us how to make 'em respect the rights of other people. Why did horse theft wane ? There value was replaced by cars. US history is a good source that cars keep on getting stolen. MY point was made pretty clearly. I'm talking about vigilante punishment, not lawful punishment. Rule Of Law, remember? [/QUOTE] YOUR point was not made even murky clear. I am the one who meant to be clear when I responded to your thoughts.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: To be clear, the form of justice of which I speak does not include the "butt buddy" in the original post.
I was talking about rule of law, which included hanging horse thieving bastages. A system you claim never worked and that we moved on. Your source, US History, teaches us that cars keep getting stolen even though we have a "new better 'rule of law' justice". Your argument is weak, WEAK.
That fancy fighting crap is all good when it is in a gym with all your training buddies and a bunch of choreographed moves, (just like WWE). But in the real world a guy with a gun has the upper hand, unless he is stupid enough to walk up to the guy like they did in these "scenarios". 21 foot rule. Of course the fancy fighting guy could start throwing Ninja stars.
Kevin
He's putting on a show for the audience. But Krav Maga is some pretty potent stuff. It was developed specifically for use by the Isreali Special Forces. Google it.
I don't understand your response to my post. I don't see the problem with being glad the S>O>B> got raped, I would not weep if he had been killed, might even smile. The rule of law has not been breached by MY feelings, I have nothing to do with it. .
Thoughts. The point may be, in the sense you are part of society you do have something to do with it. Or more specifically if you were directly in a place of power to influence, or if a person who was thought as you do, justice may not be "blind" or fair.
Thoughts. The point may be, in the sense you are part of society you do have something to do with it. Or more specifically if you were directly in a place of power to influence, or if a person who was thought as you do, justice may not be "blind" or fair.
I believe that one can have thoughts and emotions about an individual or an event and not let that effect the decision they make when in a position of power over the outcome of a trial etc. Every single being on this planet has opinions and thoughts and emotions.
Sorry but I find the irony of this child rapist getting raped humorous. I disagree that I have anything to do with it and thought I spelled it out well in my previous post. I think people may just be overzealously attempting to jump on a perceived hypocrisy.... for whatever reason.
I believe that one can have thoughts and emotions about an individual or an event and not let that effect the decision they make when in a position of power over the outcome of a trial etc. Every single being on this planet has opinions and thoughts and emotions. Sorry but I find the irony of this child rapist getting raped humorous.
.
They could successfully suppress them sure. Many dont, or dont care to, or maybe pretend to. Funny is different things to different people too. My point isnt about hypocricy. I think we are somewhat talking about different things as if they are the same. We both made points, so did Boonie, we are all correct in some way. The subject is fairly complicated.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 04-29-2014).]
I think the notion that laws serve as any kind of deterrent is a little naive. Laws don't prevent anything, they simply provide a consequence for actions deemed unacceptable by those who make the laws, who don't happen to necessarily represent the best interest of the common citizen. The United States has the most laws and the highest crime rate and the most prisoners of any other country in the world. That doesn't really speak well for laws serving as a deterrent to much of anything. And that's not saying there isn't a particular demographic of the population that might comply with laws out of fear of the consequences, but I doubt those people would act much differently in the absence of those laws.
I think the notion that laws serve as any kind of deterrent is a little naive. Laws don't prevent anything, they simply provide a consequence for actions...
Consequences deter, and consequences motivate. I mean even in basic tests with animals like mice and dogs this is true. I dont think it is less true for humans. But humans may have more of a determination to gamble, and more reasoning going into what is worth what punishment. Also some just dont think much:
"Patrolman Patrick Brown stopped a car for swerving on Route 22 east at Route 523. The vehicle was driven by Carmen Reategui, 34, of Whitehouse Station.
Brown had Reategui perform a series of standardized field sobriety tests, which she failed, police said. Reategui was arrested and taken to headquarters for processing. She ended up charged with driving while under the influence of alcohol, failure to stay in her lane and failure to provide a vehicle insurance card.
Reatequi then called Nina Petracca, 23, of Dunellen for a ride. ... Petracca said she had driven to headquarters and Serrone noticed that Petracca displayed signs of intoxication so he had her do sobriety tests in the lobby of the building and she failed.
Later both drivers called Ryan Hogan, 33, of Whitehouse Station for a ride. Once he arrived at the station, Sgt. Carlos Ferreiro asked him how he arrived, and he stated that he drove. As the officer explained the potential liability form to Hogan, Ferreiro detected the odor of alcohol coming from him and noticed that he, too, appeared to be drunk, police said.
After Hogan failed sobriety tests, he was also charged with DWI."
Consequences deter, and consequences motivate. I mean even in basic tests with animals like mice and dogs this is true. I dont think it is less true for humans. But humans may have more of a determination to gamble, and more reasoning going into what is worth what punishment. <snip>
You can say it all day, but that doesn't make it true. The statistics speak for themselves. And the mice and dogs comparison is a bit unrealistic and over simplified. Even dogs and mice will violate rules and suffer consequences under the right circumstances. People are just willing to accept the risks. And even your example about how people just don't think, it's not relevant to the conclusion- whatever the reason, laws and consequences don't deter. If they do, you have to be able to reconcile how this country with it's mountains of laws on the books can have the largest number of incarcerations. That simply does not represent the conclusion that laws prevent anything.
You can say it all day, but that doesn't make it true. The statistics speak for themselves. And the mice and dogs comparison is a bit unrealistic and over simplified. Even dogs and mice will violate rules and suffer consequences under the right circumstances. People are just willing to accept the risks. And even your example about how people just don't think, it's not relevant to the conclusion- whatever the reason, laws and consequences don't deter. If they do, you have to be able to reconcile how this country with it's mountains of laws on the books can have the largest number of incarcerations. That simply does not represent the conclusion that laws prevent anything.
It is true. Yes it was simplistic and thats why I used it. Positive and negative reinforcement. People speed everyday because they think they wont get caught, also they think 5 or 10 over is ok in the cops eyes. Well of course people have to follow the laws. Like boonie said too much reward or "fruits" given for bad behavior, they are still responding to consequences. Corruption neuters alot of what should happen. Corruption that is not stopped undermines everywhere. But make anything and everything legal, remove societal structure and things will change quite quickly.
Even dogs and mice will violate rules and suffer consequences under the right circumstances. People are just willing to accept the risks. And even your example about how people just don't think, it's not relevant to the conclusion- .
I agree they will under the right circumstances. What I said and the article about some people "just dont think" is relevant. Those type of scenarios are exceptions. They also serve to prove that once intoxicated folks cant make decent decisions.
It seems as though you're missing the point that it's not relevant *why* people ignore the law. The fact that they *do* ignore the law is the point. It makes no difference why. It's not laws that deter, it's society. In Japan for example, people simply do not drive after drinking alcohol in -any- quantity. Yes, they have strict laws, but so do we. The difference is that their society rejects the idea of drinking and driving. People going out drinking plan ahead and just simply do not do it. Our society makes celebrities out of many law-breakers. Many law breakers flaunt their actions and gain more celebrity. Look at that toolbag Justin Bieber. He flaunts his actions, defying the law, and what happens? He gets more and more free publicity. Sorry, we're just not going to agree on this.
It seems as though you're missing the point that it's not relevant *why* people ignore the law. The fact that they *do* ignore the law is the point. It makes no difference why. It's not laws that deter, it's society. In Japan for example, people simply do not drive after drinking alcohol in -any- quantity. Yes, they have strict laws, but so do we. The difference is that their society rejects the idea of drinking and driving. People going out drinking plan ahead and just simply do not do it. Our society makes celebrities out of many law-breakers. Many law breakers flaunt their actions and gain more celebrity. Look at that toolbag Justin Bieber. He flaunts his actions, defying the law, and what happens? He gets more and more free publicity. Sorry, we're just not going to agree on this.
It is relevant. I dont see that you actually disagree with me you just focus on part of it ans see it differently. Bieber, an example of corruption allowing these things, society making celebrities out of law breakers too. You take this to mean the laws dont deter, I say they dont deter as well as in a society that already, external to the laws, "rejects the idea of drinking and driving".
You know what the answer is then? Societies values, morals, families, etc. All that stuff nobody wants to hear, its too preachy.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
-John Adams
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 04-29-2014).]
Originally posted by Taijiguy: I think the notion that laws serve as any kind of deterrent is a little naive. Laws don't prevent anything, they simply provide a consequence for actions deemed unacceptable by those who make the laws ...
Seems like you are splitting hairs. Laws do not serve as a deterrent but their penalties do. I am pretty sure that speeding fines (and the legal consequences making insurance more expensive) keep me from speeding. When I was a youngster, the threat of a minor class misdemeanor seemed to be an acceptable risk to getting caught with pot.
Seems like you are splitting hairs. Laws do not serve as a deterrent but their penalties do. I am pretty sure that speeding fines (and the legal consequences making insurance more expensive) keep me from speeding. When I was a youngster, the threat of a minor class misdemeanor seemed to be an acceptable risk to getting caught with pot.
I wasn't splitting hairs, when I said "laws" I was also implying the related consequences for those laws.
Having said that, I guess with further consideration I would have to concede that laws and punishment may have a certain preventative aspect, but I think it's limited. 2.5 in a response to one of my posts made the comment about things being very different without laws and consequences and I had to consider that for a few minutes. And I have to concede that it's probable that they would, but I don't know how much. We already have aspects of our society where theft is perfectly acceptable- the government taking our money and property *is* theft in its purest sense. But that not withstanding, I can't imagine that we wouldn't reform ourselves as a society to compensate. Just because there may not be a law about it wouldn't mean that stores would cease to exist, or be free to implement there own methods to prevent theft (which they already do).
I dunno, I'd have to think about it, it would seem that it's some of both- that some laws/punishments deter, while others don't. The question then becomes, which ones and why.
)
