|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 20 2016 14:03 SK.Testie wrote:No, isn't that just a simple mathematical fact? X amount of crimes are committed. Y amount of people are caught. Z is the amount of people successfully prosecuted and found guilty. X is much higher than Y. Y is higher than Z. In any ideal country though, all crimes are caught so X should = Z: X = Z in ideal country (roughly at least without getting overly technical) This piss poor attempt doesn't even account for unreported crimes etc. Correct? Anecdotal stuff etc + Show Spoiler +
Your anecdotal evidence doesn't hold up. I've seen criminals with extremely long rap sheets out committing crime. There is a community actually paying known criminals with taxpayer money to not commit crime. Is that a smart move? Capitulation to lower standards for the nation? That sounds like capitulation to me.
I came from a town where if a murder happens once every 20 years give or take a decade or two. I live in Toronto now, and while Toronto likes to suppress it's true crime numbers and tries to not jail people, there was a night last fall where 4 people got stabbed in my area. And I wondered to myself.. "wait.. when did I get used to this lowering of standards for society?"
Your "math" has nothing to do with incarceration and everything to do with conviction. Overincarceration means we have too many people in prisons. Underconvinction means we do not solve 100% of crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. These two facts are far from irreconcileable. Arguing that we need to keep people in jail longer because not every criminal is caught, as that congressman did, is a nonsequitor that conflates the two issues with entirely different causes and solutions. Incarceration is a function of three things: criminals correctly caught, innocents incorrectly caught, and the length of time they're imprisoned.
For example, I can create a scenario with totally great conviction (that's 100% accurate and never fails) but terrible underincarceration: we solve 100% of murders properly and put people in jail for 1 day. Presto, horrible underincarceration of murders, but great conviction! X = Z in your "math."
That representative might as well have started talking about America's debt problems, that's about how relevant conviction statistics are to felon voting rights and mandatory minimum sentencing.
|
This undercarcerated / overcarcerated debate is a perfect example of the utterly ludicrous rhetoric of contemporary politics. The paramount goal of society should be to have 0 prisoners. Zero. The percentage of perpetrators you've managed to catch and put away does nothing to alleviate the culture of crime. Having large numbers of young males in prison in fact perpetuates this culture on multiple levels. It's like putting out fire with gasoline then discussing how efficient you're being at it.
The point of crime prevention is to create social conditions where crime isn't an extremely appealing (and often the only available) career choice for vast amounts of the less-well-to-do population.
Also, outlawing victimless "crimes" (like putting stuff into your own body) generates criminals out of nowhere, derailing the lives of perfectly ordinary people who've never harmed anyone. What if having a dog suddenly became illegal? Would you have your dog put down? I'm sure a scientific case could be made that having animals in the home is more dangerous than smoking weed.
|
On May 20 2016 23:24 Kickboxer wrote:
This undercarcerated / overcarcerated debate is a perfect example of the utterly ludicrous rhetoric of contemporary politics. The paramount goal of society should be to have 0 prisoners. Zero. The percentage of perpetrators you've managed to catch and put away does nothing to alleviate the culture of crime. Having large numbers of young males in prison in fact perpetuates this culture on multiple levels. It's like putting out fire with gasoline then discussing how efficient you're being at it.
The point of crime prevention is to create social conditions where crime isn't an extremely appealing (and often the only available) career choice for vast amounts of the less-well-to-do population.
Also, outlawing victimless "crimes" (like putting stuff into your own body) generates criminals out of nowhere, derailing the lives of perfectly ordinary people who've never harmed anyone. What if having a dog suddenly became illegal? Would you have your dog put down? I'm sure a scientific case could be made that having animals in the home is more dangerous than smoking weed.
I think you could argue cleaning gutters to be a public safety concern in that regard.
|
Roof work is one of the more dnageorus occupations iirc, along with lumbrejacks, fishing, and I forget the rest.
certain drugs are dangerous in that people who take them are much more likely to then cause harm to others.
iirc something like half of all crimes are committed while under the influence of alcohol.
|
On May 20 2016 23:24 Kickboxer wrote:
This undercarcerated / overcarcerated debate is a perfect example of the utterly ludicrous rhetoric of contemporary politics. The paramount goal of society should be to have 0 prisoners. Zero.
easy there fella, I would also like to shit jelly beans and spit 100 dollar bills. That is my paramount goal. But the world dont work that way.
|
There are plenty of drug users who are productive and functional members of society. Getting caught with crack does not automatically label you an addict.
It's funny that Portugal was mentioned. Drugs are not legal but they are decriminalized in Portugal. As a result, they have lower rates death and disease from drug abuse and drug related crime.
The war on drugs in America is a race related issue. It was created to oppress minorities. Law enforcement is more abundant in poverty areas where there are more minorities.
There is a racial imbalance on who is being punished for drugs even though white people are just as likely to be drug users.
Poverty itself creates an imbalance of law on drugs. People in poverty do not have the same advantages of averting the law as typically white middle class people do. They do not have powerful allies, insular neighborhoods with limited police patrol, wealth to selectively choose their suppliers, etc etc.
People in poverty typically cannot afford to keep their vehicle in accordance with the law. Therefore, being pulled over with a broken tail light will be inevitably lead to a drug possesion charge.
Therefore, by targetting poverty for drug related crimes you are indirectly targetting minorities.
Not to mention laws on drugs are completely arbitrary and nake no sense at all. Alcohol is one of the most ridiculous and abusive drugs in existence. Yet we see no quarrel there.
|
On May 20 2016 23:48 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2016 23:24 Kickboxer wrote:
This undercarcerated / overcarcerated debate is a perfect example of the utterly ludicrous rhetoric of contemporary politics. The paramount goal of society should be to have 0 prisoners. Zero. easy there fella, I would also like to shit jelly beans and spit 100 dollar bills. That is my paramount goal. But the world dont work that way.
I have to agree with his point though, the goal for a government should be to create a system that prevents and limits incarcerations. The unobtainable goal should be zero, not to find a way to make the process profitable and efficient. Efficiently will be gained by having fewer incarcerations.
|
On May 21 2016 00:27 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2016 23:48 Rebs wrote:On May 20 2016 23:24 Kickboxer wrote:
This undercarcerated / overcarcerated debate is a perfect example of the utterly ludicrous rhetoric of contemporary politics. The paramount goal of society should be to have 0 prisoners. Zero. easy there fella, I would also like to shit jelly beans and spit 100 dollar bills. That is my paramount goal. But the world dont work that way. I have to agree with his point though, the goal for a government should be to create a system that prevents and limits incarcerations. The unobtainable goal should be zero, not to find a way to make the process profitable and efficient. Efficiently will be gained by having fewer incarcerations.
This is likely something conservatives could perhaps disagree with though. The idea that the government ought to condition people into behaving a certain way such that no one gets arrested could people some people's eyes squint. Somewhat irrelevant to the underlying point people are making, but came to mind.
|
Norway28665 Posts
On May 20 2016 14:36 SK.Testie wrote:My last post wasn't about drug crimes. It was about total crimes only. The article states that it has an under incarceration problem. I don't see how that's refutable. You went into the .. 'do you know how many people are in for drugs?!' Yes. It says so on the FBI sheet. There's a lot of people in for a laundry list of crimes as the list shows. Do you think the police are pulling in these people at random? The people smoking crack or doing weed know that it is currently illegal where they are doing it. That's a choice. One where personal accountability comes into play. Is smoking crack worth the risk? Apparently it was. It was a really shitty decision on their part too. I don't seem like it, but my heart really does bleed for people who started life off in fucked up situations and live a fucked up life that pretty much starts them off with PTSD. But I also think that above all else, a country has to be a nation of strict laws and law enforcement. On the anecdote + Show Spoiler +And you're clearly not naive. What is this story? How naive are you with this story about a man 'picking up a J' but not knowing where it came from? 'oh I just saw a J. Thought I'd pick that up'. Wait, since when is picking up random joints or cigarettes even remotely a good idea or shows good judgment? You believed that? When's the last time you found a joint walking around lol. And when's the last time you wanted to pick up said cigarette butt or joint you found?
Unless you've lied in the past, you've done drugs in the past. You were lucky and not caught (I assume), but do you really think your society would have been a better society if you had been caught and punished for the actions of your younger self that you now regret and wish could be undone? I mean, I know this isn't a discussion about legality of drugs but about whether it's a goal that everyone should get punished severely for breaking the law, but if you are unable to see the slightly hypocritical tendencies (wishing others get punished for crimes you yourself committed but did not get punished for) then can you at least see how your drug experiences and lack of punishment can to some degree constitute this whole 'white privilege' thing you seem to think isn't a real thing? 
|
On May 21 2016 00:27 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2016 23:48 Rebs wrote:On May 20 2016 23:24 Kickboxer wrote:
This undercarcerated / overcarcerated debate is a perfect example of the utterly ludicrous rhetoric of contemporary politics. The paramount goal of society should be to have 0 prisoners. Zero. easy there fella, I would also like to shit jelly beans and spit 100 dollar bills. That is my paramount goal. But the world dont work that way. I have to agree with his point though, the goal for a government should be to create a system that prevents and limits incarcerations. The unobtainable goal should be zero, not to find a way to make the process profitable and efficient. Efficiently will be gained by having fewer incarcerations.
Sure, but measured obtainable goals should be how to solve the problem and you will get closer where you need to be rather than simply sitting there and saying we are going to have 0 incarcerations and that is our goal. Having a goal you can't meet is a bad way to plan for anything.
I dont think incarceration itself is the problem. You gotta put bad people away sometimes, its the overwillingness to incarcerate as a solution thats the problem. You cant have a system that actively wants to keep people out of jail either imo. It
|
My stance isn't hypocritical. I went through the system with the police. I have a mugshot from when I was in my teens. How do you think I was treated by them? Harsh, but fair. My white privilege didn't save me when they caught me breaking the law.
I think you're under estimating the police and how reasonable they are versus what some departments put up with. Some deal with a warzone. Others deal with a peaceful and quaint little town. If they see someone show them proper respect and dignity, they are usually quite understanding and lenient regardless of the persons colour. At the time I didn't show them proper respect or dignity, I was more fearful because "oh fuck I got caught doing something pretty bad. I'm probably pretty fucked now" And I was fucked. Quite fucked indeed.
|
On May 21 2016 01:23 SK.Testie wrote:
My stance isn't hypocritical. I went through the system with the police. I have a mugshot from when I was in my teens. How do you think I was treated by them? Harsh, but fair. My white privilege didn't save me when they caught me breaking the law.
Are you in jail right now ?
Yeah...
|
I do think that something lost is the US incarceration rate is that while I would say we need to reduce the number of crimes, particularly non-violent crimes, that exist, they aren't filling our jails as one would say. Such as this Stat from Biff:
On May 20 2016 20:27 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I find absolutely fascinating that anyone could even talk about under incarceration in the US, while the country has such a gigantic problem with over incarceration. The statistics in the US are absolutely mad:
698 people in jail for 100K citizen.
In Norway where I live it's 71
In Germany 78
In France 100
In Canada 106
Even if you eliminate the 46% of offenses labeled "drug offenses" you see that our stats would be much higher, which means we are NOT comparable to those countries. Others even argue that non-violent possession is closer to only 20% of the prison population. Which makes the difference all the more stark.
What is actually going on in America is, for lack of a batter phrase, a lack of social cohesion, which diversity is thought to contribute to (although it has other benefits) not unlike the one that France, Germany, and Norway are epically mishandling in the Arab refugee crises. And, a large part of our prison population is, IMO caused by the attempt to impose standards that, while often aspirational, are not going to work out well for large swaths of the population; whether they are inner city minorities, or the Budnys.
|
On May 21 2016 01:24 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2016 01:23 SK.Testie wrote:
My stance isn't hypocritical. I went through the system with the police. I have a mugshot from when I was in my teens. How do you think I was treated by them? Harsh, but fair. My white privilege didn't save me when they caught me breaking the law. Are you in jail right now ? Yeah...
Do you think police are locking up first time offenders that show them proper respect and seem like genuinely good kids because of what they did for years and years?
|
On May 21 2016 01:27 SK.Testie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2016 01:24 Rebs wrote:On May 21 2016 01:23 SK.Testie wrote:
My stance isn't hypocritical. I went through the system with the police. I have a mugshot from when I was in my teens. How do you think I was treated by them? Harsh, but fair. My white privilege didn't save me when they caught me breaking the law. Are you in jail right now ? Yeah... Do you think police are locking up first time offenders that show them proper respect and seem like genuinely good kids because of what they did for years and years?
I dont have to think, They are doing it all the time lol.
edit: we are talking about the US here btw
Canada is mad chill. I blaze on the street on weekends all the time. Never had a problem as long as I wasnt bothering anyone and wasnt to overt about it.
|
On May 21 2016 01:27 SK.Testie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2016 01:24 Rebs wrote:On May 21 2016 01:23 SK.Testie wrote:
My stance isn't hypocritical. I went through the system with the police. I have a mugshot from when I was in my teens. How do you think I was treated by them? Harsh, but fair. My white privilege didn't save me when they caught me breaking the law. Are you in jail right now ? Yeah... Do you think police are locking up first time offenders that show them proper respect and seem like genuinely good kids because of what they did for years and years?
Yes. Canada's justice system is a very different thing.
|
I cant count the times i have smoked in a car among being on other drugs. I don't do drugs anymore as a lifestyle choice. But i do no not think the government should control what you put in your own body.
I don't agree on everything around white privilege but the war on drugs is specifically an example of privilege. I'm just going to be honest that I probably would have gotten caught on all the crazy shit i did in my college years if i was an inner city black teen.
|
On May 21 2016 00:34 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2016 00:27 Plansix wrote:On May 20 2016 23:48 Rebs wrote:On May 20 2016 23:24 Kickboxer wrote:
This undercarcerated / overcarcerated debate is a perfect example of the utterly ludicrous rhetoric of contemporary politics. The paramount goal of society should be to have 0 prisoners. Zero. easy there fella, I would also like to shit jelly beans and spit 100 dollar bills. That is my paramount goal. But the world dont work that way. I have to agree with his point though, the goal for a government should be to create a system that prevents and limits incarcerations. The unobtainable goal should be zero, not to find a way to make the process profitable and efficient. Efficiently will be gained by having fewer incarcerations. This is likely something conservatives could perhaps disagree with though. The idea that the government ought to condition people into behaving a certain way such that no one gets arrested could people some people's eyes squint. Somewhat irrelevant to the underlying point people are making, but came to mind.
Conservatives do this more than anyone by constantly attempting to legislate morality.
|
On May 20 2016 22:46 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2016 22:33 TMagpie wrote:
The issue with prison in the US is lack of commitment.
If something was so bad that the person needs to be given maximum punishment just kill him. If you believe the person can still be reformed and will be safe for society then just give him a few years with a big staff of experts to teach them to be better. But this cowardly way of punishing people with life sentences or even 10-20 year sentences is just awful. If will take 20 years to fix them just kill them already. There is a long list of flaws with this plan, but the most evident one is that our justice system is imperfect. It is estimated that we have around a 2%-3% error rate with our current executions, which means people are executed for crimes they are not guilty of. Until that is 100% accurate, we cannot even think about increasing the number of capital punishments. And then there are all the other flaws like lack of deterrents, abuse of the system, lacking public defense, the private prison system encouraging harsh punishments to make higher profits. And that issue that how we treat criminals relates directly the type of people we are as a whole.
You don't seem to understand what I am saying.
I'm not saying we need more capital punishment, I'm saying that we need to commit to what we imagine a punishment system should be and stick to it.
Do you really think putting someone in prison for 20-40 years will reform them? Or will it make them so far behind the times in both training, education, and work experience that they can only have jobs that don't make enough forcing them back to crime.
Either you only put them in jail for 4-5 years believing they can be reformed, or you execute them. Spending billions of resources to just put someone in a box for a hundred years does nothing to make the world a better place. And if you honestly do not think that the person can be reformed in 4-5 years, not successful mind you, just reformed--then you just execute them.
The issue in the US is that we want to use years of servitude as punishment instead of reform. We don't put someone in jail for 20 years because we believe that specific person needs 20 years of training and counseling to become a normal citizen again--we do so because we are an angry vindictive and cruel society who wants people to feel pain if they do anything to cross us. So either try to reform them, or kill them. Making a system that forces people to be trapped in a cycle of imprisonment, poverty, and slavery is more cruel than simply enforcing capital punishment. It hurts the people in it, it hurts the citizens paying for it, and it only makes the problem of crime worse.
If you're agains capital punishment then that is fine--but don't put someone in a box of violence and hate for 20-80 years and expect them to be fixed. Short prison terms or execution--those are the only real options for "punishment."
|
Norway28665 Posts
On May 21 2016 01:23 SK.Testie wrote:
My stance isn't hypocritical. I went through the system with the police. I have a mugshot from when I was in my teens. How do you think I was treated by them? Harsh, but fair. My white privilege didn't save me when they caught me breaking the law.
I think you're under estimating the police and how reasonable they are versus what some departments put up with. Some deal with a warzone. Others deal with a peaceful and quaint little town. If they see someone show them proper respect and dignity, they are usually quite understanding and lenient regardless of the persons colour. At the time I didn't show them proper respect or dignity, I was more fearful because "oh fuck I got caught doing something pretty bad. I'm probably pretty fucked now" And I was fucked. Quite fucked indeed.
sorry about making a wrong assumption. point largely stands though (not the hypocritical part)- I find it quite likely that your white privilege saved you more than you recognize.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
