|
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 June 16 2016 23:33 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2016 22:53 SK.Testie wrote:
Actually, I do care about data. But you're not doing enough to convince people of your argument when you dodge direct questions. You are not following through to the end on your arguments. I have 100 more questions lined up after you satisfy my first and most important question as we go down the road of social inequality. But it is intentionally not being answered. I will put it in bold again.
Again, that's a meaningless talking point that I can attack in 10 different ways. Incarceration rates or disparities do not prove that the law is not working as intended. Just because a crime is non-violent doesn't mean it's not harmful. Stealing money isn't violent, but it's harmful. Property damage isn't violent to a person, but it's harmful. Both of these things are extremely harmful to communities and social cohesion. It lowers community trust and builds suspicion and anger.
In order to be thrown in prison, you probably have to break a law as a general rule. You can literally never win people to your side unless you show the law, policy, or person that is racist in intent. You are not showing that at all. You are not answering a simple, direct, honest question. If the law is not racist or has a nefarious intent, you will not win people to your cause or side. I feel I'm being very clear on this statement but it is purposefully being ignored. If you do show that, we can attack that law or policy together.
America has stricter standards and higher quality police forces than most of the world. In Kenya and maybe even some parts in Mexico I can rape a girl and pay the officer enough to look the other way. I can't do that America. *Sigh* fine I'll bite. The intent of a law isn’t the only thing that should matter when you are evaluating whether or not it is a racist law. There is a concept in constitutional law called disparate impact, which allows laws to be declared unconstitutional/in violation of the civil rights act if they have a disproportionate effect on protected classes, such as racial groups. While there are some laws which I believe have a direct racist intent (e.g., voting ID laws, where legislators have been taped saying their purpose is to prevent minorities from voting), there is also a problem when a law has a disparate impact. I think the biggest problem with the justice system, however, is that laws are enforced in a racially prejudiced manner. For example, black people use drugs at a similar rate to white people, but they are prosecuted for it far more often. This is in part because the war on drugs is targeted at minority communities. Furthermore, when people of color are convicted they receive much harsher sentences then white people who commit similar crimes. The decision of the judge who recently sentenced Brock Turner is an example of this. The judge felt empathy toward Turner, and gave him a lighter sentence (6 mos. in jail) as a result. Black defendants in similar circumstances generally get much longer sentences. When Corey Batey committed a similar crime while black (college athlete, raped an unconscious woman) he received a sentence of 15 – 20 years in prison. Finally, you seem to take it for granted that the sole purpose of the criminal justice system is to punish people by taking away their personal freedom. In my opinion, this is not how the justice system should function. A well designed justice system should have three goals 1) punish people for committing crimes; 2) rehabilitate offenders; 3) protect society from harmful people. Of the three goals, putting people in prison is only really useful with respect to 3). When you think about it, putting people in prison is a weird way of dealing with crimes. It’s expensive for the state, prevents offenders from being with their families, makes it harder for offenders to get jobs, etc. It should only be used as a last resort for dangerous people. Nowhere in the constitution or its amendments is something enshrined like disparate impact, so I find your inclusion of "constitutional law/declared unconstitutional" very quizzical. The Civil Rights Act was passed as a regular law and relates to anti-discrimination statutes like the ADA. You can look back to cases like Ricci vs DeStefano to see plaintiffs arguing a latent contradiction between constitutional guarantees of equal protection of the laws and disparate impact. Specifically look to Scalia's concurrence.
|
The problem in America is jail is used as a "punishment" and not a solution.
Why even sentence someone for 100 years? Even 20 years is damn near close to a death sentence. How do you expect someone to go back to work after being pulled out that long?
If the person is so dangerous that being put in rehab is not enough why not just put a bullet in their head?
Either you give short jail sentences or you execute. The US policy of long term jail sentences is a barbaric system.
|
On the contrary, jails in the US are very much a solution.
A solution for cheap labour and revenue.
|
On June 17 2016 00:14 WolfintheSheep wrote:
On the contrary, jails in the US are very much a solution.
A solution for cheap labour and revenue.
Forced labor as a punishment has been tried and failed. There is no way to force people to work against their will and not create an abusive system.
|
The problem is people will abuse the system if you are too lenient. It is human nature, and to some extent you can see it even within animals. I know i would have, when i was younger. If you're not strict on theft what is going to deter them from stealing food when they are hungry or steal that video game they wanted but couldn't afford.
How do you balance it? How do you be fair while at the same time detering people from comitting the crime in the first place? There are so many variables that go into this that i don't think anyone could give a firm answer.
It terms of court/judging that will always be arbitrary as long as you have so many different judges making their own rulings. You will always have sporadic and inconsistent data with so many different people making their own rulings, as each judge is ingrained with their own value system which will always be different than the next.
If you were to change something, it would have to be with the judacial system and the court process. I don't know what you could implement to fix it.
|
On June 16 2016 23:35 Plansix wrote:
I worked in probation about a year and saw a lot of the problems and solutions first hand. IMO the best way to solve the problem is alternative punishments for non-violent crimes that also allow the person to obtain skills. Drug addiction should be focused around treatment and social services to get the person back on their feet. The sales of drugs of small amounts of drugs can be dealt with community service, job training and social work. Its longer term, takes more work and will have tons failures. But the system where we lock people up for 5-10 years at a time and hope they improve isn’t really successful either. Sensible and I have little to argue here. Though a % of drug busts are because cops want an offender off the streets whom they know is harmful, but they can only get them on a lesser drug charge. As to the drug offenses stats, what % of those are harmful as well. So of the 46% in federal prisons for drug related offenses, what % of those are potentially 'victimless'. Is it the majority? 39%? 24%+? Or a minority, 15%? etc. I genuinely don't know. I know driving under the influence is a pretty sizable portion.
But mostly we need to move beyond the mentality that anyone who commits any crime must be “punished”. Victim-less crimes like drug addiction that do not result in any one being harmed shouldn’t be treated any differently that public intoxication. We treat people with alcoholism with a lot more humanity, tbh.(If they did not drive while drunk).
I don't think drugs are victim-less crimes. All the information is out there in the world telling you that if you do drugs, there will be adverse effects on yourself. By being a member of society and you doing crack or meth you are lowering the standards of your community and then making the community pay for your own mistakes should you become addicted or suffer adverse health effects. Which is unfair to the rest of society. If people in a poor white community feel that they must get addicted to meth to have a good time, I feel 0 pity or obligation to help those people. No one forced them to do meth. I would rather wall myself off from that community and simply move to a better area. They weren't smart enough to stay away from it, so they must pull themselves out of it.
We need to remove the childish, macho, tough on crime, war on drugs attitude from the discussion. Tough love only works in moderation.
Not necessarily. Tough on crime works extremely well for Singapore and I loved that place.
I want to be clear that despite every response I have given to your post, I do agree with most of what you say here and you feel that you are not incorrect and you've made a strong case and I can see the pattern of why this method is most beneficial to society as a whole.
|
On June 16 2016 23:27 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2016 23:21 Surth wrote:On June 16 2016 22:53 SK.Testie wrote:
In order to be thrown in prison, you probably have to break a law as a general rule. You can literally never win people to your side unless you show the law, policy, or person that is racist in intent. You are not showing that at all. You are not answering a simple, direct, honest question. If the law is not racist or has a nefarious intent, you will not win people to your cause or side. I feel I'm being very clear on this statement but it is purposefully being ignored. If you do show that, we can attack that law or policy together.
America has stricter standards and higher quality police forces than most of the world. In Kenya and maybe even some parts in Mexico I can rape a girl and pay the officer enough to look the other way. I can't do that America. You are being purposefully ignored (or mocked) because you are an idiot. How do you prove that a law is racist? Doesi t have to say "black people should be thrown in prison more oftne because we hate black people" in order to count as racist? THAT ISNT HOW RACISM WORKS, KIDDO. I've uploaded an article and two book chapters for you (and anyone else if you want, ill leave it up for 24 hours). feel free to argue that the policy described in the article about San Francisco is not racist in intent. America has stricter standards? Does it have standards ten times as strict as Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Luxembourg and so on? LOL. And of course you can get away with rape in America, you just have to play sports for an elite university. BUt sure, delude yourself into thinking that America incarcerates ten times as many people as most of Europe because they care so much about justice. edit: http://www7.zippyshare.com/v/36hswQBD/file.html Dude you complain that this thread is bad, but you don't really live up to your own standard. Stop insulting people, and writing so angerly and self-righteous. That kinda shit is what turns this thread into garbage.
Twice already I've started a reply to him to make him understand that he's mucking up the discussion and that he's got a really shitty, arrogant attitude. Twice I've just hit the back button so as to not make things worse... but it turns out I'm not the only one.
Mostly it's just personal attacks vs Testie, an inability to construct solid arguments ("read this, read this! i'm not going to take it upon myself to construct my own arguments, explain myself and quote the relevant parts of the source i'm linking") and in general just bogging down an otherwise interesting discussion.
|
If you feel sympathetic towards the drug addict is irrelevant to how the problem of their drug addiction is addressed. Laws and their punishments are not based on what makes us feel good or we like, its based on remedying the problem. Addiction isn’t something that is solved by jail time. It is solved through therapy and providing the person the skills to deal with their addiction. Sending them to jail just assures that they will emerge with the same problem, less of a support network and be very likely to become addicted again. That isn’t a solution.
|
I don't think Trump is fundamentally different from the rest of the Republicans. He just says aloud what they suggest, and he does it in a supremely vulgar, unsubtle way (hence his reputation of "saying it as it is" even though he lies basically all the time). The thing is that this difference of presentation might be a really big deal and a disaster for the GOP. Republicans have made a living of exploiting with half words and allusions the fears and demons of white America. By being so unsubtle, Trump will probably alienate independent voters and minorities for a very long time, even though the content of his discourse is not as radically new as it looks.
|
On June 17 2016 00:03 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2016 23:33 Mercy13 wrote:On June 16 2016 22:53 SK.Testie wrote:
Actually, I do care about data. But you're not doing enough to convince people of your argument when you dodge direct questions. You are not following through to the end on your arguments. I have 100 more questions lined up after you satisfy my first and most important question as we go down the road of social inequality. But it is intentionally not being answered. I will put it in bold again.
Again, that's a meaningless talking point that I can attack in 10 different ways. Incarceration rates or disparities do not prove that the law is not working as intended. Just because a crime is non-violent doesn't mean it's not harmful. Stealing money isn't violent, but it's harmful. Property damage isn't violent to a person, but it's harmful. Both of these things are extremely harmful to communities and social cohesion. It lowers community trust and builds suspicion and anger.
In order to be thrown in prison, you probably have to break a law as a general rule. You can literally never win people to your side unless you show the law, policy, or person that is racist in intent. You are not showing that at all. You are not answering a simple, direct, honest question. If the law is not racist or has a nefarious intent, you will not win people to your cause or side. I feel I'm being very clear on this statement but it is purposefully being ignored. If you do show that, we can attack that law or policy together.
America has stricter standards and higher quality police forces than most of the world. In Kenya and maybe even some parts in Mexico I can rape a girl and pay the officer enough to look the other way. I can't do that America. *Sigh* fine I'll bite. The intent of a law isn’t the only thing that should matter when you are evaluating whether or not it is a racist law. There is a concept in constitutional law called disparate impact, which allows laws to be declared unconstitutional/in violation of the civil rights act if they have a disproportionate effect on protected classes, such as racial groups. While there are some laws which I believe have a direct racist intent (e.g., voting ID laws, where legislators have been taped saying their purpose is to prevent minorities from voting), there is also a problem when a law has a disparate impact. I think the biggest problem with the justice system, however, is that laws are enforced in a racially prejudiced manner. For example, black people use drugs at a similar rate to white people, but they are prosecuted for it far more often. This is in part because the war on drugs is targeted at minority communities. Furthermore, when people of color are convicted they receive much harsher sentences then white people who commit similar crimes. The decision of the judge who recently sentenced Brock Turner is an example of this. The judge felt empathy toward Turner, and gave him a lighter sentence (6 mos. in jail) as a result. Black defendants in similar circumstances generally get much longer sentences. When Corey Batey committed a similar crime while black (college athlete, raped an unconscious woman) he received a sentence of 15 – 20 years in prison. Finally, you seem to take it for granted that the sole purpose of the criminal justice system is to punish people by taking away their personal freedom. In my opinion, this is not how the justice system should function. A well designed justice system should have three goals 1) punish people for committing crimes; 2) rehabilitate offenders; 3) protect society from harmful people. Of the three goals, putting people in prison is only really useful with respect to 3). When you think about it, putting people in prison is a weird way of dealing with crimes. It’s expensive for the state, prevents offenders from being with their families, makes it harder for offenders to get jobs, etc. It should only be used as a last resort for dangerous people. Nowhere in the constitution or its amendments is something enshrined like disparate impact, so I find your inclusion of "constitutional law/declared unconstitutional" very quizzical. The Civil Rights Act was passed as a regular law and relates to anti-discrimination statutes like the ADA. You can look back to cases like Ricci vs DeStefano to see plaintiffs arguing a latent contradiction between constitutional guarantees of equal protection of the laws and disparate impact. Specifically look to Scalia's concurrence.
I was thinking Equal Protection Clause => Civil Rights Act => prohibits disparate impact, but I was wrong. My con law is rusty.
Still, I think disparate impact should be something which is considered when laws are evaluated, even if it isn't a constitutional issue.
Also, to reiterate, I think prejudice in how laws are *enforced* is the bigger issue in the criminal justice system.
|
Portugal has decriminalized many things regarding drugs in a way which has had positive impacts on drug use.
The best way to wage war on drugs is to undermine the amount of people consuming drugs in the first place.
|
I think it also needs be noted that you can be a drug user without being an addict. At the same time, you can be addict and still be a productive member of society.
Everyone is not the same, and just because you're caught with drugs doesn't automatically make you a piece of shit.
|
On June 17 2016 00:34 Plansix wrote:
If you feel sympathetic towards the drug addict is irrelevant to how the problem of their drug addiction is addressed. Laws and their punishments are not based on what makes us feel good or we like, its based on remedying the problem.
Perfect response, agreed. Even despite the difference in sentiment.
Addiction isn’t something that is solved by jail time. It is solved through therapy and providing the person the skills to deal with their addiction. Sending them to jail just assures that they will emerge with the same problem, less of a support network and be very likely to become addicted again. That isn’t a solution.
And now the only disagreement that may possibly arise is methodology. Whereas I would prefer Singapore to enforce strict standards where everybody knows the drill and you would prefer a more nuanced and humane course of action. I could argue that those who got addicted knew what they were getting themselves into, and I'm not sure how effective rehab is considering many people 'relapse'. Giving skills and a job is most definitely preferrable. I don't know what rates people stay 'clean' or how often it stays for life.
|
On June 17 2016 00:24 SolaR- wrote:
The problem is people will abuse the system if you are too lenient. It is human nature, and to some extent you can see it even within animals. I know i would have, when i was younger. If you're not strict on theft what is going to deter them from stealing food when they are hungry or steal that video game they wanted but couldn't afford.
How do you balance it? How do you be fair while at the same time detering people from comitting the crime in the first place? There are so many variables that go into this that i don't think anyone could give a firm answer.
It terms of court/judging that will always be arbitrary as long as you have so many different judges making their own rulings. You will always have sporadic and inconsistent data with so many different people making their own rulings, as each judge is ingrained with their own value system which will always be different than the next.
If you were to change something, it would have to be with the judacial system and the court process. I don't know what you could implement to fix it.
I'm not saying no jail time. What I'm saying is that you either rehabilitate or you execute. Enslaving people or disproportionally imprisoning people helps neither the criminal nor society as a whole.
This is the actual issue at hand. If it's a deterrent that is needed to prevent people from doing stupid things, then short jail time makes sense because you can still recover from that. But going 20+ years in jail because you murdered someone and society doesn't trust you around them--then you might as well execute them.
|
The answer to "How can we deal with drugs without mass imprisonment?" is the same as it is for so many of America's problem.
Look at the rest of the world.
Now not everything works everywhere and not every works at all, but drug use is a problem all across the world and some countries manage to deal with it better the others. Learn to look around at what others are doing that might work for the US.
|
On June 17 2016 00:44 TMagpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2016 00:24 SolaR- wrote:
The problem is people will abuse the system if you are too lenient. It is human nature, and to some extent you can see it even within animals. I know i would have, when i was younger. If you're not strict on theft what is going to deter them from stealing food when they are hungry or steal that video game they wanted but couldn't afford.
How do you balance it? How do you be fair while at the same time detering people from comitting the crime in the first place? There are so many variables that go into this that i don't think anyone could give a firm answer.
It terms of court/judging that will always be arbitrary as long as you have so many different judges making their own rulings. You will always have sporadic and inconsistent data with so many different people making their own rulings, as each judge is ingrained with their own value system which will always be different than the next.
If you were to change something, it would have to be with the judacial system and the court process. I don't know what you could implement to fix it. I'm not saying no jail time. What I'm saying is that you either rehabilitate or you execute. Enslaving people or disproportionally imprisoning people helps neither the criminal nor society as a whole. This is the actual issue at hand. If it's a deterrent that is needed to prevent people from doing stupid things, then short jail time makes sense because you can still recover from that. But going 20+ years in jail because you murdered someone and society doesn't trust you around them--then you might as well execute them.
Sigh, are you that "laws cannot be enforced unless you are willing to kill people" guy or was that someone else?
I cannot express how hard I facepalmed at your post.
Do a tiny bit of research into how hard it is to apply a death sentence, the time it takes to go through the full legal track and the fact that even the tiniest of error margins means your executing innocent people.
Middle age men who are sentenced to death die of old age before their sentence is carried out, that is how hard it is (and for good reason).
|
On June 17 2016 00:43 SK.Testie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2016 00:34 Plansix wrote:
If you feel sympathetic towards the drug addict is irrelevant to how the problem of their drug addiction is addressed. Laws and their punishments are not based on what makes us feel good or we like, its based on remedying the problem. Perfect response, agreed. Even despite the difference in sentiment. Show nested quote +Addiction isn’t something that is solved by jail time. It is solved through therapy and providing the person the skills to deal with their addiction. Sending them to jail just assures that they will emerge with the same problem, less of a support network and be very likely to become addicted again. That isn’t a solution. And now the only disagreement that may possibly arise is methodology. Whereas I would prefer Singapore to enforce strict standards where everybody knows the drill and you would prefer a more nuanced and humane course of action. I could argue that those who got addicted knew what they were getting themselves into, and I'm not sure how effective rehab is considering many people 'relapse'. Giving skills and a job is most definitely preferrable. I don't know what rates people stay 'clean' or how often it stays for life.
That may be your view on addiction, but it is not shared by the medical community or people who treat addiction. And as someone who had worked in criminal justice, you vastly overestimate the skills and information that the most drug addicts have. They do not have basic skills you and I take for granted. I have worked thirty year olds who could barely read or fill out the court paperwork. Your hard line stance on drug addiction is a product of having limited or no exposure to the problem.
|
On June 17 2016 00:44 TMagpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2016 00:24 SolaR- wrote:
The problem is people will abuse the system if you are too lenient. It is human nature, and to some extent you can see it even within animals. I know i would have, when i was younger. If you're not strict on theft what is going to deter them from stealing food when they are hungry or steal that video game they wanted but couldn't afford.
How do you balance it? How do you be fair while at the same time detering people from comitting the crime in the first place? There are so many variables that go into this that i don't think anyone could give a firm answer.
It terms of court/judging that will always be arbitrary as long as you have so many different judges making their own rulings. You will always have sporadic and inconsistent data with so many different people making their own rulings, as each judge is ingrained with their own value system which will always be different than the next.
If you were to change something, it would have to be with the judacial system and the court process. I don't know what you could implement to fix it. I'm not saying no jail time. What I'm saying is that you either rehabilitate or you execute. Enslaving people or disproportionally imprisoning people helps neither the criminal nor society as a whole. This is the actual issue at hand. If it's a deterrent that is needed to prevent people from doing stupid things, then short jail time makes sense because you can still recover from that. But going 20+ years in jail because you murdered someone and society doesn't trust you around them--then you might as well execute them.
I can see the logic behind it, and your proposition make sense. It would solve the problems on so many levels, however, i dont think many people would want to go down that road including myself. It just feels evil or heartless, despite how logically sound it is. And this is coming from someone (me) who usually has a lot of apathy on stuff like this.
|
On June 17 2016 00:53 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2016 00:44 TMagpie wrote:On June 17 2016 00:24 SolaR- wrote:
The problem is people will abuse the system if you are too lenient. It is human nature, and to some extent you can see it even within animals. I know i would have, when i was younger. If you're not strict on theft what is going to deter them from stealing food when they are hungry or steal that video game they wanted but couldn't afford.
How do you balance it? How do you be fair while at the same time detering people from comitting the crime in the first place? There are so many variables that go into this that i don't think anyone could give a firm answer.
It terms of court/judging that will always be arbitrary as long as you have so many different judges making their own rulings. You will always have sporadic and inconsistent data with so many different people making their own rulings, as each judge is ingrained with their own value system which will always be different than the next.
If you were to change something, it would have to be with the judacial system and the court process. I don't know what you could implement to fix it. I'm not saying no jail time. What I'm saying is that you either rehabilitate or you execute. Enslaving people or disproportionally imprisoning people helps neither the criminal nor society as a whole. This is the actual issue at hand. If it's a deterrent that is needed to prevent people from doing stupid things, then short jail time makes sense because you can still recover from that. But going 20+ years in jail because you murdered someone and society doesn't trust you around them--then you might as well execute them. I can see the logic behind it, and your proposition make sense. It would solve the problems on so many levels, however, i dont think many people would want to go down that road including myself. It just feels evil or heartless, despite how logically sound it is. And this is coming from someone (me) who usually has a lot of apathy on stuff like this.
It is one of ideas that sounds viable, but the reality is impossible and messy. We already have a terrible error rate in convictions as it is. And then you need to find people to perform the executions, which is unlikely since it is just drug addiction or petty crimes. And figure out how to execute them in compliance with currently laws and ethical standards. We can’t even perform lethal injections because no one makes the drugs and drug companies discontinue drugs that prisons start using. And doesn’t even touch on the ways this could be abused by the courts.
The reality is that executions a popular idea with people, as long as they do not have to be involved in any way what so ever.
|
We ought to bring back firing squads and hanging for conducting executions. Lethal injection is turning into shit show. Let's keep it simple.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
