|
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 21 2016 02:57 SK.Testie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2016 02:48 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 21 2016 02:27 SK.Testie wrote:On May 21 2016 02:18 GreenHorizons wrote:
So perhaps you're thinking we have an over incarceration of petty criminals and an underincarceration of more serious offenders? It depends. Theft isn't a petty crime, nor is destruction of private property. Nor is distribution of drugs etc. Not paying a parking ticket on time and then having to pay more and more and more because of it is a little suspect. Again: I prefer how Singapore handles things than I do Portugal. Both are successful in their own way despite vastly different approaches. However: In the USA's case I think you'd need to go the Portugal route first to avoid open murder of a large swath of people because you know.. genocide is kind of a dick move, and then implement Singapore rules from the top with an address to the nation and a leniency period so that everyone knows what's going to go down if you're still a drug offender in X years. It would cut the cartel business drastically and give many of the most impoverished communities a better hope for the future imo. If USA goes the route of Portugal, I see them becoming socialist more akin to Venezuela. Always trying to do too much for its populace to keep them happy to keep getting votes while the debt just grows and grows and grows. People simply trying to get the most out of the country, rather than trying to contribute the most to it. This of course, will come after The Great Wall of Trump is built. In Singapore, there is a mandatory death sentence if you carry more than 200 grams of cannabis resin. 200 grams of cannabisAnd you like how they handle drugs? That's pretty fucking disturbing. Look at the number of executions they carry out. It's virtually 0 and their crime rate is extremely low. If you extrapolate that to America maybe they might have 50-100 drug executions a year. That's a small price to pay for dealing a major blow to cartels that will kill a much larger % of people than 50-100. It's complex and my solution is not even half baked. But again, I think Singapore is the ideal. It destroys the cartels market in America, cripples gangs and their revenue. It makes sure communities aren't devastated by drugs and shows a true caring for your community and country.
Oh yeah? So let say, you make a career, move to Singapore and have a son. Your son turns a bit stupid and unconscious, as young men are sometimes, and brings back some cannabis from Canada after a holiday. Not much, 200 grams. Perfectly plausible scenario. Mother of a friend knew someone who lost a partner in Indonesia because he got caught trafficking cannabis and ended up executed.
He would be put to death, and it would be mandatory. You would have a dead son, a grieving wife, maybe other kids with lives utterly devastated, friends traumatized. According to you that's totally worth it and you think it's a great system, because there is less cannabis in Singapore. Time to get your priorities straight, mate.
You call the death of "virtually 0 people" (which is not true, Singapore is among the cities that executes the most people compared to their population) a small price?
I call it a fucking horrendously high price. You have an unfair system that punishes with a barbaric practice what is a minor offense, you have people getting killed by hanging, and all of that to fight cannabis.
Personally, I would simply refuse to live in, or, in the case of Singapore, simply visit a place that treats human being like that and that has such a disgusting idea of "justice".
And no, the result doesn't amend the death of "virtually 0" people (who are not 0 at all). If you get to lower crime by absurdly disproportionate sentences, it's not justice anymore, it's terror. Maybe you think that's great, maybe you have never lived in a country that obtained results through terror.
|
On May 21 2016 03:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Oh yeah? So let say, you make a career, move to Singapore and have a son. Your son turns a bit stupid and unconscious, as young men are sometimes, and brings back a bit of cannabis from Canada after a holiday. Not much, 200 grams. Perfectly plausible scenario. Mother of a friend knew someone who lost a partner in Indonesia because he got caught trafficking cannabis and ended up executed.
two...HUNDRED grams? Testie's son knows what's up! Sounds like a scenario where Donald made America great again.
|
On May 21 2016 03:20 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2016 03:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Oh yeah? So let say, you make a career, move to Singapore and have a son. Your son turns a bit stupid and unconscious, as young men are sometimes, and brings back a bit of cannabis from Canada after a holiday. Not much, 200 grams. Perfectly plausible scenario. Mother of a friend knew someone who lost a partner in Indonesia because he got caught trafficking cannabis and ended up executed.
two...HUNDRED grams? Testie's son knows what's up! Sounds like a scenario where Donald made America great again.
I know at least 20 people who have had 200 grams of cannabis in their possession at one point of their life. If that's the only thing you come up with, let say 30 grams of morphine or 15 grams of heroin (maybe said son is really not doing well at that point of his life), death penalty is also mandatory. Feeling better?
Thing is, even if it were 20 kg, it would be the same problem. Applying death penalty because it gets a result for something that REAAAAALLY doesn't deserve it is NOT what justice is supposed to be. From the moment you lose all sense of proportionality because, hey, that means less cannabis, it's, as I said, not justice anymore, but terror. Personally, I wouldn't want to live in a place that function that way. The state represent all of us; if my state was hanging a kid because he had 200 grams of cannabis, I would feel that a murder has been committed in my name (in the case of Singapore, it's probably different since it's a brutal dictatorship. Probably also a good system).
It's like solving a parking problem by saying: "If someone parks his car there, he will be hanged". You wouldn't have anybody parking there. But the problem is that even if nobody ended up hanged, it would be horrific.
|
Hash pieces can range between the 100 to 300 grams perfectly, so yeah, and i know plenty of people who had had one at some point in their lives, or several times. Most of the time they wouldn't buy it only for themselves, but so they could self-sustain their smoking habit.
|
I would be fucked if i went to singapore lol. I never liked canabis very much, but I've done probably about any drug you can think of, plus obsecure research chemicals.
There is such a myth that everyone who does drugs is some parasite of society. I understand drugs can destroy some lives, but those people typically have underlying issues. There are many recreational users that never had issue with addiction. I haven't done anything besides alcohol the last couple years.
So me going through a phase of recreational drug use means i should be executed? You would be wiping out the majority of the educated youth if that's the case.
|
On May 21 2016 02:57 SK.Testie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2016 02:48 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 21 2016 02:27 SK.Testie wrote:On May 21 2016 02:18 GreenHorizons wrote:
So perhaps you're thinking we have an over incarceration of petty criminals and an underincarceration of more serious offenders? It depends. Theft isn't a petty crime, nor is destruction of private property. Nor is distribution of drugs etc. Not paying a parking ticket on time and then having to pay more and more and more because of it is a little suspect. Again: I prefer how Singapore handles things than I do Portugal. Both are successful in their own way despite vastly different approaches. However: In the USA's case I think you'd need to go the Portugal route first to avoid open murder of a large swath of people because you know.. genocide is kind of a dick move, and then implement Singapore rules from the top with an address to the nation and a leniency period so that everyone knows what's going to go down if you're still a drug offender in X years. It would cut the cartel business drastically and give many of the most impoverished communities a better hope for the future imo. If USA goes the route of Portugal, I see them becoming socialist more akin to Venezuela. Always trying to do too much for its populace to keep them happy to keep getting votes while the debt just grows and grows and grows. People simply trying to get the most out of the country, rather than trying to contribute the most to it. This of course, will come after The Great Wall of Drumpf is built. In Singapore, there is a mandatory death sentence if you carry more than 200 grams of cannabis resin. 200 grams of cannabisAnd you like how they handle drugs? That's pretty fucking disturbing. Look at the number of executions they carry out. It's virtually 0 and their crime rate is extremely low. If you extrapolate that to America maybe they might have 50-100 drug executions a year. That's a small price to pay for dealing a major blow to cartels that will kill a much larger % of people than 50-100. It's complex and my solution is not even half baked. But again, I think Singapore is the ideal. It destroys the cartels market in America, cripples gangs and their revenue. It makes sure communities aren't devastated by drugs and shows a true caring for your community and country.
Singapore doesnt have those problems just because of draconian laws. + Show Spoiler +although their effectiveness is not to be underestimated
|
What do Trump supporters think of Trump jumping in the debate on Fox News if Hillary continues to go back on her word and refuses to do the California debate?
|
On May 21 2016 03:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
What do Drumpf supporters think of Drumpf jumping in the debate on Fox News if Hillary continues to go back on her word and refuses to do the California debate?
To be fair if I was Hillary I would duck that debate to. There is nothing to gain for voters and seeing how this campaign has evolved.. or rather devolved, there is only shitflinging to be done at this point.
And said shit flinging will only hurt her in the general election so biting the bullet on being accused of weasling out of the debate is the less better pill to swallow.
Still there is the chance she gets pressured into it. Let see.
|
On May 21 2016 03:37 SolaR- wrote:
I would be fucked if i went to singapore lol. I never liked canabis very much, but I've done probably about any drug you can think of, plus obsecure research chemicals.
There is such a myth that everyone who does drugs is some parasite of society. I understand drugs can destroy some lives, but those people typically have underlying issues. There are many recreational users that never had issue with addiction. I haven't done anything besides alcohol the last couple years.
So me going through a phase of recreational drug use means i should be executed? You would be wiping out the majority of the educated youth if that's the case.
Same here haha. Go to any festival and it's rife with drug use. Most of those are perfectly fine people who quit after their youth.
|
On May 21 2016 03:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2016 02:57 SK.Testie wrote:On May 21 2016 02:48 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 21 2016 02:27 SK.Testie wrote:On May 21 2016 02:18 GreenHorizons wrote:
So perhaps you're thinking we have an over incarceration of petty criminals and an underincarceration of more serious offenders? It depends. Theft isn't a petty crime, nor is destruction of private property. Nor is distribution of drugs etc. Not paying a parking ticket on time and then having to pay more and more and more because of it is a little suspect. Again: I prefer how Singapore handles things than I do Portugal. Both are successful in their own way despite vastly different approaches. However: In the USA's case I think you'd need to go the Portugal route first to avoid open murder of a large swath of people because you know.. genocide is kind of a dick move, and then implement Singapore rules from the top with an address to the nation and a leniency period so that everyone knows what's going to go down if you're still a drug offender in X years. It would cut the cartel business drastically and give many of the most impoverished communities a better hope for the future imo. If USA goes the route of Portugal, I see them becoming socialist more akin to Venezuela. Always trying to do too much for its populace to keep them happy to keep getting votes while the debt just grows and grows and grows. People simply trying to get the most out of the country, rather than trying to contribute the most to it. This of course, will come after The Great Wall of Trump is built. In Singapore, there is a mandatory death sentence if you carry more than 200 grams of cannabis resin. 200 grams of cannabisAnd you like how they handle drugs? That's pretty fucking disturbing. Look at the number of executions they carry out. It's virtually 0 and their crime rate is extremely low. If you extrapolate that to America maybe they might have 50-100 drug executions a year. That's a small price to pay for dealing a major blow to cartels that will kill a much larger % of people than 50-100. It's complex and my solution is not even half baked. But again, I think Singapore is the ideal. It destroys the cartels market in America, cripples gangs and their revenue. It makes sure communities aren't devastated by drugs and shows a true caring for your community and country. Oh yeah? So let say, you make a career, move to Singapore and have a son. Your son turns a bit stupid and unconscious, as young men are sometimes, and brings back a bit of cannabis from Canada after a holiday. Not much, 200 grams. Perfectly plausible scenario. Mother of a friend knew someone who lost a partner in Indonesia because he got caught trafficking cannabis and ended up executed. He would be put to death, and it would be mandatory. You would have a dead son, a grieving wife, maybe other kids with lives utterly devastated, friends traumatized. According to you that's totally worth it and you think it's a great system, because there is less cannabis in Singapore. Time to get your priorities straight, mate. You call the death of "virtually 0 people" (which is not true, Singapore is among the cities that executes the most people compared to their population) a small price? I call it a fucking horrendously high price. You have an unfair system that punishes with a barbaric practice what is a minor offense, you have people getting killed by hanging, and all of that to fight cannabis. Personally, I would simply refuse to live in, or, in the case of Singapore, simply visit a place that treats human being like that and that has such a disgusting idea of "justice". And no, the result doesn't amend the death of "virtually 0" people (who are not 0 at all). If you get to lower crime by absurdly disproportionate sentence, it's not justice anymore, it's terror. Maybe you think that's great, maybe you have never lived in a country that obtained results through terror.
Your post is too much of an emotional appeal.
1. Why did I raise such a retard son that brought drugs to a country that literally says, "Hey btw, we're going to kill you if you bring that in." How stupid can my son be? Of course I'd be devastated. "I know someone who did this in a country clearly saying not to do this and died".
2. The country sees drugs as a degradation of the community. It lowers community trust and respect. To them, it's not a small crime. I think it's inarguable to say that people do not make worse decisions on drugs and aren't more harmful to themselves and others. They feel that drugs are harmful to the mind and body and people cannot be trusted with them. When you choose to do certain drugs, you put yourself and others at risk. Singapore is a beautiful and wildly successful country. My time there was fucking excellent. Everywhere I went was clean, orderly, and awesome.
3. Yes, people who break X law are going to have to die. If you love your country and want to be a part of it, you give it at least the very base respect of following the laws within said country. I think you have to put country before individuals, because what's good for the individual may be very harmful to the country in the long run. But what's good for the country should in effect be very good for the individual. Right now I'd say Singapore is wildly successful as a country.
4. I don't consider that a form of terror. If someone is truly that enthusiastic about drug use, they can learn a language and move away. The construct of what the leaders of Singapore have in mind for the country is a clear no tolerance policy. I see it as a very reasonable view to have on drugs. Again, Portugal is a polar opposite. Their view on drugs is quite reasonable as well. Both systems are fine. I personally prefer Singapore's. Whereas I assume most people in this thread would vastly prefer Portugal.
|
On May 21 2016 03:47 SK.Testie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2016 03:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 21 2016 02:57 SK.Testie wrote:On May 21 2016 02:48 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 21 2016 02:27 SK.Testie wrote:On May 21 2016 02:18 GreenHorizons wrote:
So perhaps you're thinking we have an over incarceration of petty criminals and an underincarceration of more serious offenders? It depends. Theft isn't a petty crime, nor is destruction of private property. Nor is distribution of drugs etc. Not paying a parking ticket on time and then having to pay more and more and more because of it is a little suspect. Again: I prefer how Singapore handles things than I do Portugal. Both are successful in their own way despite vastly different approaches. However: In the USA's case I think you'd need to go the Portugal route first to avoid open murder of a large swath of people because you know.. genocide is kind of a dick move, and then implement Singapore rules from the top with an address to the nation and a leniency period so that everyone knows what's going to go down if you're still a drug offender in X years. It would cut the cartel business drastically and give many of the most impoverished communities a better hope for the future imo. If USA goes the route of Portugal, I see them becoming socialist more akin to Venezuela. Always trying to do too much for its populace to keep them happy to keep getting votes while the debt just grows and grows and grows. People simply trying to get the most out of the country, rather than trying to contribute the most to it. This of course, will come after The Great Wall of Trump is built. In Singapore, there is a mandatory death sentence if you carry more than 200 grams of cannabis resin. 200 grams of cannabisAnd you like how they handle drugs? That's pretty fucking disturbing. Look at the number of executions they carry out. It's virtually 0 and their crime rate is extremely low. If you extrapolate that to America maybe they might have 50-100 drug executions a year. That's a small price to pay for dealing a major blow to cartels that will kill a much larger % of people than 50-100. It's complex and my solution is not even half baked. But again, I think Singapore is the ideal. It destroys the cartels market in America, cripples gangs and their revenue. It makes sure communities aren't devastated by drugs and shows a true caring for your community and country. Oh yeah? So let say, you make a career, move to Singapore and have a son. Your son turns a bit stupid and unconscious, as young men are sometimes, and brings back a bit of cannabis from Canada after a holiday. Not much, 200 grams. Perfectly plausible scenario. Mother of a friend knew someone who lost a partner in Indonesia because he got caught trafficking cannabis and ended up executed. He would be put to death, and it would be mandatory. You would have a dead son, a grieving wife, maybe other kids with lives utterly devastated, friends traumatized. According to you that's totally worth it and you think it's a great system, because there is less cannabis in Singapore. Time to get your priorities straight, mate. You call the death of "virtually 0 people" (which is not true, Singapore is among the cities that executes the most people compared to their population) a small price? I call it a fucking horrendously high price. You have an unfair system that punishes with a barbaric practice what is a minor offense, you have people getting killed by hanging, and all of that to fight cannabis. Personally, I would simply refuse to live in, or, in the case of Singapore, simply visit a place that treats human being like that and that has such a disgusting idea of "justice". And no, the result doesn't amend the death of "virtually 0" people (who are not 0 at all). If you get to lower crime by absurdly disproportionate sentence, it's not justice anymore, it's terror. Maybe you think that's great, maybe you have never lived in a country that obtained results through terror. Your post is too much of an emotional appeal. 1. Why did I raise such a retard son that brought drugs to a country that literally says, "Hey btw, we're going to kill you if you bring that in." How stupid can my son be? Of course I'd be devastated. "I know someone who did this in a country clearly saying not to do this and died". 2. The country sees drugs as a degradation of the community. It lowers community trust and respect. To them, it's not a small crime. I think it's inarguable to say that people do not make worse decisions on drugs and aren't more harmful to themselves and others. They feel that drugs are harmful to the mind and body and people cannot be trusted with them. When you choose to do certain drugs, you put yourself and others at risk. Singapore is a beautiful and wildly successful country. My time there was fucking excellent. Everywhere I went was clean, orderly, and awesome. 3. Yes, people who break X law are going to have to die. If you love your country and want to be a part of it, you give it at least the very base respect of following the laws within said country. I think you have to put country before individuals, because what's good for the individual may be very harmful to the country in the long run. But what's good for the country should in effect be very good for the individual. Right now I'd say Singapore is wildly successful as a country. 4. I don't consider that a form of terror. If someone is truly that enthusiastic about drug use, they can learn a language and move away. The construct of what the leaders of Singapore have in mind for the country is a clear no tolerance policy. I see it as a very reasonable view to have on drugs. Again, Portugal is a polar opposite. Their view on drugs is quite reasonable as well. Both systems are fine. I personally prefer Singapore's. Whereas I assume most people in this thread would vastly prefer Portugal.
Which drug would you want to see get special treatment like opium does in Singapore? Also are you talking about the guilty until proven innocent parts too?
|
On May 21 2016 03:47 SK.Testie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2016 03:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 21 2016 02:57 SK.Testie wrote:On May 21 2016 02:48 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 21 2016 02:27 SK.Testie wrote:On May 21 2016 02:18 GreenHorizons wrote:
So perhaps you're thinking we have an over incarceration of petty criminals and an underincarceration of more serious offenders? It depends. Theft isn't a petty crime, nor is destruction of private property. Nor is distribution of drugs etc. Not paying a parking ticket on time and then having to pay more and more and more because of it is a little suspect. Again: I prefer how Singapore handles things than I do Portugal. Both are successful in their own way despite vastly different approaches. However: In the USA's case I think you'd need to go the Portugal route first to avoid open murder of a large swath of people because you know.. genocide is kind of a dick move, and then implement Singapore rules from the top with an address to the nation and a leniency period so that everyone knows what's going to go down if you're still a drug offender in X years. It would cut the cartel business drastically and give many of the most impoverished communities a better hope for the future imo. If USA goes the route of Portugal, I see them becoming socialist more akin to Venezuela. Always trying to do too much for its populace to keep them happy to keep getting votes while the debt just grows and grows and grows. People simply trying to get the most out of the country, rather than trying to contribute the most to it. This of course, will come after The Great Wall of Trump is built. In Singapore, there is a mandatory death sentence if you carry more than 200 grams of cannabis resin. 200 grams of cannabisAnd you like how they handle drugs? That's pretty fucking disturbing. Look at the number of executions they carry out. It's virtually 0 and their crime rate is extremely low. If you extrapolate that to America maybe they might have 50-100 drug executions a year. That's a small price to pay for dealing a major blow to cartels that will kill a much larger % of people than 50-100. It's complex and my solution is not even half baked. But again, I think Singapore is the ideal. It destroys the cartels market in America, cripples gangs and their revenue. It makes sure communities aren't devastated by drugs and shows a true caring for your community and country. Oh yeah? So let say, you make a career, move to Singapore and have a son. Your son turns a bit stupid and unconscious, as young men are sometimes, and brings back a bit of cannabis from Canada after a holiday. Not much, 200 grams. Perfectly plausible scenario. Mother of a friend knew someone who lost a partner in Indonesia because he got caught trafficking cannabis and ended up executed. He would be put to death, and it would be mandatory. You would have a dead son, a grieving wife, maybe other kids with lives utterly devastated, friends traumatized. According to you that's totally worth it and you think it's a great system, because there is less cannabis in Singapore. Time to get your priorities straight, mate. You call the death of "virtually 0 people" (which is not true, Singapore is among the cities that executes the most people compared to their population) a small price? I call it a fucking horrendously high price. You have an unfair system that punishes with a barbaric practice what is a minor offense, you have people getting killed by hanging, and all of that to fight cannabis. Personally, I would simply refuse to live in, or, in the case of Singapore, simply visit a place that treats human being like that and that has such a disgusting idea of "justice". And no, the result doesn't amend the death of "virtually 0" people (who are not 0 at all). If you get to lower crime by absurdly disproportionate sentence, it's not justice anymore, it's terror. Maybe you think that's great, maybe you have never lived in a country that obtained results through terror. Your post is too much of an emotional appeal. 1. Why did I raise such a retard son that brought drugs to a country that literally says, "Hey btw, we're going to kill you if you bring that in." How stupid can my son be? Of course I'd be devastated. "I know someone who did this in a country clearly saying not to do this and died". 2. The country sees drugs as a degradation of the community. It lowers community trust and respect. To them, it's not a small crime. I think it's inarguable to say that people do not make worse decisions on drugs and aren't more harmful to themselves and others. They feel that drugs are harmful to the mind and body and people cannot be trusted with them. When you choose to do certain drugs, you put yourself and others at risk. Singapore is a beautiful and wildly successful country. My time there was fucking excellent. Everywhere I went was clean, orderly, and awesome. 3. Yes, people who break X law are going to have to die. If you love your country and want to be a part of it, you give it at least the very base respect of following the laws within said country. I think you have to put country before individuals, because what's good for the individual may be very harmful to the country in the long run. But what's good for the country should in effect be very good for the individual. Right now I'd say Singapore is wildly successful as a country. 4. I don't consider that a form of terror. If someone is truly that enthusiastic about drug use, they can learn a language and move away. The construct of what the leaders of Singapore have in mind for the country is a clear no tolerance policy. I see it as a very reasonable view to have on drugs. Again, Portugal is a polar opposite. Their view on drugs is quite reasonable as well. Both systems are fine. I personally prefer Singapore's. Whereas I assume most people in this thread would prefer Portugal.
Strangely enough, the idea of someone getting hanged for almost no reason (and actually, also for good reasons: death penalty is a fucking disgrace) is an emotional issue to me.
1. You think that people behave cleverly and rationally all the time? Some kids are a bit fucked up at some point, and turn out perfectly normal later (and even if they didn't, I wouldn't hang them). I know a lot of young people who are completely unconscious of the risk they take on a daily basis.
2. Yeah, and they have no problem with alcohol. No hypocrisy there at all. And again, proportionality of sentences. That's a fucking basis of any democratic justice system (which of course, Singapore doesn't have). Your time in Singapore was great and it's clean. It's also a horrible dictatorship, denounced by Amnesty and other human right organizations. That apparently keep order by killing people. Wonderful.
3. Well, that sounds wonderful. I really want to go there. I guess same could be say about, for example North Korea. I heard it's very ordered too, and if you live there, you could at least respect the rules. Oh, ok, they are both dictatorship, but North Korea is not as successful because it wasn't turned into a bankster heaven. Too bad for Kim.
4. I am not enthusiastic about drugs. I am totally open for discussing criminalization of drugs, as long as the sentence has something to do with the harm done. So my position is just that I find a country murdering people for minor offenses despicable. And a justice system based on deterrence by terror, even if you don't like the term (for me the prospect of getting killed for owning cannabis is terror, I'll keep the word), purely and simply medieval.
|
On May 21 2016 01:25 cLutZ wrote: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: Show nested quote +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 E ven 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.
Another big problem is recidivism. The amount of ex-convicts who go back to jail is very high in the US compared to the rest of the world.
Which leads to the prison population growing and growing as new convicts enter and old convicts return at a rate as high as 3 out of 4.
|
On May 21 2016 03:47 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2016 03:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
What do Drumpf supporters think of Drumpf jumping in the debate on Fox News if Hillary continues to go back on her word and refuses to do the California debate? To be fair if I was Hillary I would duck that debate to. There is nothing to gain for voters and seeing how this campaign has evolved.. or rather devolved, there is only shitflinging to be done at this point. And said shit flinging will only hurt her in the general election so biting the bullet on being accused of weasling out of the debate is the less better pill to swallow. Still there is the chance she gets pressured into it. Let see.
There's so much bad press around crazy Bernie and his supporters that I really think she won't catch nearly the flak she did before. I mean, she doesn't even need to win California, just get by with 40% of the vote. And she's ahead in polls. This whole idea of her needing to show up is silly. Let our nominee continue her general election campaigning. It's over. We already know what the two candidates are about.
|
On May 21 2016 03:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
What do Trump supporters think of Trump jumping in the debate on Fox News if Hillary continues to go back on her word and refuses to do the California debate?
WHAT?? Hillary doesn't want to debate with someone who base his campaign exclusively on name calling and personal attacks when she doesn't need to?
She is clearly crooked. Vote Trump!
In all seriousness, why would she? The Sanders campaign has been a total disgrace for weeks if not months and there is not much to debate anymore. I am certain that if she thought she could discuss platform and projects, she would go (it would be positive for everyone as it would allow her to talk about her program, which she needs to do, but apparently that doesn't interest either Bernie or his supporters.
|
If you're going to have strict drug control. I think it is the duty of the government to prevent drugs from coming into our country in the first place. In my opinion it is completely unfair to punish the user when drugs are so accessible. The government is failing on their part if that is the route they want to go.
|
On May 21 2016 03:57 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2016 01:25 cLutZ wrote: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 E ven 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. Another big problem is recidivism. The amount of ex-convicts who go back to jail is very high in the US compared to the rest of the world. Which leads to the prison population growing and growing as new convicts enter and old convicts return at a rate as high as 3 out of 4.
Which is also a problem based on incentives. For profit prisons want people to go to prison. They have 0 interest in rehabilitating them.
|
I know there's some preliminary experiments in changing the incentives; (like bonuses to the prison if there's a low recidivism rate or somesuch) but I don't know if they're working well in practice, and most stuff hasn't gotten tested well yet anyways.
|
On May 21 2016 04:06 SolaR- wrote:
If you're going to have strict drug control. I think it is the duty of the government to prevent drugs from coming into our country in the first place. In my opinion it is completely unfair to punish the user when drugs are so accessible. The government is failing on their part if that is the route they want to go.
The problem goes further: drugs are gonna come in if there is a market. Mexicans smugglers build submarines and put drugs in people's bodies, good luck for stopping them.
The other utter failure of the drug war is that it has turned a whole half of South America into total chaos. It's not only a disaster in the US, it's a catastrophe for Mexico, Columbia and the whole of Central America.
I don't get for the life of me why the US haven't stopped this madness a long time ago. And I would be pretty pissed off if I were Mexican and had my country ruined for the machisto fantasies of american politicians.
|
On May 21 2016 04:02 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2016 03:47 Rebs wrote:On May 21 2016 03:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
What do Drumpf supporters think of Drumpf jumping in the debate on Fox News if Hillary continues to go back on her word and refuses to do the California debate? To be fair if I was Hillary I would duck that debate to. There is nothing to gain for voters and seeing how this campaign has evolved.. or rather devolved, there is only shitflinging to be done at this point. And said shit flinging will only hurt her in the general election so biting the bullet on being accused of weasling out of the debate is the less better pill to swallow. Still there is the chance she gets pressured into it. Let see. There's so much bad press around crazy Bernie and his supporters that I really think she won't catch nearly the flak she did before. I mean, she doesn't even need to win California, just get by with 40% of the vote. And she's ahead in polls. This whole idea of her needing to show up is silly. Let our nominee continue her general election campaigning. It's over. We already know what the two candidates are about.
Too bad the whole chair throwing thing turned out to be straight propaganda, like the booing of Nina, and many other stories out of Nevada. Not that Hillary supporters would own spreading it for the intent purpose of saying what you just said.
On May 21 2016 04:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2016 03:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
What do Trump supporters think of Trump jumping in the debate on Fox News if Hillary continues to go back on her word and refuses to do the California debate? WHAT?? Hillary doesn't want to debate with someone who base his campaign exclusively on name calling and personal attacks when she doesn't need to? She is clearly crooked. Vote Trump! In all seriousness, why would she?
She said she would.
The biggest problem people have with her is not trusting her word. You think any Bernie supporters are going to trust the other crap she's said if she thinks she doesn't have to keep her word on something this small?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
