|
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 04:09 zlefin wrote:
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.
Well, considering that for profit prison are managed by gigantic corporations and that both politicians and judges are elected with campaign funded with corporate money, we can safely say that the problem is never gonna be solved.
|
On May 21 2016 04:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2016 04:02 Mohdoo wrote: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. Show nested quote +On May 21 2016 04:05 Biff The Understudy wrote: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?
Bernie said that he would support whoever would faces Trump (apparently he is less crazy than his troops). Let see how it goes.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On May 21 2016 03:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2016 03:47 SK.Testie wrote: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.
People have moved on so I'll spoiler this.
+ Show Spoiler +
1. No, I agree people are often irrational. But either my numbers are wrong (I'm just going by wiki on the execution #'s) is that they've murdered 2 people in the last 3 years.
2. It's not my say on what's hypocritical in their nation. I am simply saying which method I see is best for a stable nation and what I see as better communities.
3. NK is not capitalist and is a totalitarian dictatorship where people are basically property of the state.
4. You can find that despicable. I find it a sad, but admirable attempt to keep the country on the right track. I do not see it as terror. I see it as a serious deterrence. I don't think all medieval ways were necessarily wrong. They did what they thought was best at the time.
To GH: I have no say in the hypocrisy. I can simply say what I prefer. I don't know how to get around what has already been grandfathered in.
|
Prison systems are a write off for civil society. Attempting to make them profitable will always be easy prey for corruption.
|
On May 21 2016 04:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2016 04:02 Mohdoo wrote: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. Show nested quote +On May 21 2016 04:05 Biff The Understudy wrote: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?
And she said she would while there was still a race to be had I assume?
Ofcourse you won't accept that the race is over so I understand how the argument doesn't make sense to you but for those who live in reality it is pretty clear why Hillary is not interested in a debate with Bernie.
|
On May 21 2016 04:11 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +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.
That is exactly why if we decriminalize drugs it would basically suffocate the black market. Just decriminalize and regulate like we do with alcohol but with stricter rules. Regulate the quantity that you can buy per month, depending on the drug.
In turn, you would create new jobs, something else for the government to tax and could use that money for public services. In the meantime, drug related crimes would be reduced significantly. People with drug addiction would then be treated for their illness instead of punished for it. It's a win/win
|
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.
Its still a question of whether recidivism is a problem with the system, or is it a problem of the law setting the line at a place those people are just likely to step over. I personally think its the latter, rather than the former in a majority of cases.
|
On May 21 2016 04:16 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2016 04:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 21 2016 04:02 Mohdoo wrote: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: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? And she said she would while there was still a race to be had I assume? Ofcourse you won't accept that the race is over so I understand how the argument doesn't make sense to you but for those who live in reality it is pretty clear why Hillary is not interested in a debate with Bernie.
Well it's not over until the convention, I'm just waiting for Bernie to mention that "pledged delegates" are not required to vote for the candidate they are pledged toward either (like super delegates).
An 80/20 California (however unlikely) would potentially give him the pledged delegate lead as well. Funnily enough, if Hillary supporters actually believed that she couldn't lose and in turn didn't bother to vote, that 80/20 becomes all the more possible.
Also if by the convention Hillary is down in every poll as opposed to just a few, the super delegates simply may not want to tie onto a sinking ship. If there's one thing Hillary's shown she can be consistent on, it is starting at her peak popularity and only going down from there. Being tied with Trump means she would need an unprecedented performance out of her to not lose by a significant margin.
|
On May 21 2016 04:26 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2016 03:57 Gorsameth wrote: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. Its still a question of whether recidivism is a problem with the system, or is it a problem of the law setting the line at a place those people are just likely to step over. I personally think its the latter, rather than the former in a majority of cases.
If you give an ex-convict 0 support when they release it is a matter of time until they fall back to their old ways. Or depending on their circumstance be forced into it just to survive.
Not talking about stuff like carrying 50g of weed around but for things like robbery/theft/violence ect. Crimes that are actual crimes.
|
|
|
in fairness, some gun free zone laws are dumb.
gun free zones only work if there's actual security and entrance/exit control to ensure the gun freeness happens.
otherwise it doesn't really help (possible exception: bars)
|
Any person or business should be able to inform people that they will be asked to leave the property if they are carrying a fire arm. Even colleges that receive federal or state funding. People can be ask to leave private property for any number of reasons. I fail to see the argument that a fire arm is some magical thing that is above this request.
|
TL's very own SJW Plansix strikes again.
User was warned for this post
|
regarding prisons I hate to say it but Robocop is becoming a reality. Next comes the for profit police departments and we all know how that works out
|
On May 21 2016 05:05 parkufarku wrote:
TL's very own SJW Plansix strikes again.
People having the rights to tell people to get off their property is the opposite of a SJW.
|
I have a clear record of being pro-gun ownership with reasonable laws. This movement by the NRA and gun nuts to limit the rights of businesses and colleges to control their own private property is some hot garbage.
|
I dont really care about gun free zones. I am for the 2nd amendment, but i could go either way on that one. Pretty indifferent on it actually.
|
i appreciate georgia's governor blocking the campus carry law personally
|
On May 21 2016 05:15 ticklishmusic wrote:
i appreciate georgia's governor blocking the campus carry law personally
That law was very stupid and only served to protect the small number of gun owners who feel need to display their fire arms in an effort to make people uncomfortable.
|
On May 21 2016 04:55 Plansix wrote:
Any person or business should be able to inform people that they will be asked to leave the property if they are carrying a fire arm. Even colleges that receive federal or state funding. People can be ask to leave private property for any number of reasons. I fail to see the argument that a fire arm is some magical thing that is above this request.
I'm not entirely disagreeing, but want to note a couple things:
Public universities (which aren't just partly funded by, but literally owned by, the state) should probably run by the same rules as the state in general.
Places that are "public accomodations" should allow generally legal products to be brought in imho; with possible exceptions of course. Not sure if it would apply to guns. Though now tha tI think about it; i don't think this is the case anyways, and they can and do exclude whatever stuff they want.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
