|
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 December 15 2013 04:06 WhiteDog wrote:
Do you envision the society that your view would create ?
You don't need to envision anything. Look up Sweden on Wikipedia.
(http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/11/sweden-closes-prisons-number-inmates-plummets)
Literally every country which has applied the rehabilitation approach instead of the "drive him through the village and hang him" approach has not only done great with it but also saved a shitload of money.
|
On December 15 2013 04:13 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2013 04:11 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 15 2013 04:05 KwarK wrote:
Your average person can't afford to give the judge a choice between prison (paid for by the state which probably won't fix anything) and probation + therapy etc (paid for by the parents and may actually turn him into a productive member of society) but that doesn't change the fact that in this case, if the experts are to be trusted, the judge made the optimal decision. Less money means fewer options which means prison might be the optimal outcome for other people but it doesn't mean that the law would be unfairly pursuing those without money while letting off those with. So by that logic you are saying that exact thing - if you have the money, you can buy your way out of prison. That's a terrible precedent. You're specifically stating that the rich should have this option but the poor should not. I'm not saying the rich should have this option and the poor should not. I'm saying the rich do have this option and the poor do not. In the news today, wealth creates options. You're viewing it as buying your way out of punishment, I don't see it that way.
And why should the judicial system accept those inequalities ? You know it's in the constitution that everybody should be equal before justice ?
On December 15 2013 04:15 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2013 04:06 WhiteDog wrote:
Do you envision the society that your view would create ? You don't need to envision anything. Look up Sweden on Wikipedia. (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/11/sweden-closes-prisons-number-inmates-plummets)
This is totally wrong, totally wrong, please use your brain please. In Sweden, closing prison is the norm, so being rich or poor, the justice treat you equally in letting you out of jail and fixing the problem through other means. It is still justice, altho less hard than in the US.
|
On December 15 2013 04:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2013 03:59 sam!zdat wrote:i've never claimed that On December 15 2013 03:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 15 2013 03:43 sam!zdat wrote:On December 15 2013 03:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 15 2013 03:31 sam!zdat wrote:On December 15 2013 03:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
A general complaint of the US justice system is that mandatory minimums are too strict and that they dis-proportionally hurt the poor and minorities. And now here we are now saying the opposite - that the law is too lax and discretion is being abused. it's not the opposite duh. your second sentence is a corollary of your first. Lack of discretion vs too much discretion. Opposites. what's the point of the complaint jonny. use your brain. hint: On December 15 2013 03:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
dis-proportionally hurt the poor and minorities. now let's ask ourselves jonny how do they do that? What are you disagreeing over? There's a bad outcome - disparate impact. Often mandatory minimums are cited as a cause. Here, lack of a minimum is a cause. It is a different thing causing the same outcome. the point is that the justice system is systematically biased against the poor. the mechanism by which that occurs is that the rich can afford lawyers who can play tricks with the system in order to get their clients more lenient judgments. this is an example of that. so the two things that you mention are the same complaint. it's completely consistent. edit: i grew up with these people and there is a pervasive culture of entitlement. they've been gaming the system so long they come to expect it and believe they are above the law. you guys don't know what it's like in texas I still don't see why you think mandatory minimums and judicial discretion are the same thing.
the latter is the mechanism by which the former becomes an instrument of bias
edit: you are trying to say that if there was an automatic justice system with no human intervention that just proceeded by algorithms and stuff that would be better?
|
United States43611 Posts
On December 15 2013 04:06 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2013 04:05 KwarK wrote:
Your average person can't afford to give the judge a choice between prison (paid for by the state which probably won't fix anything) and probation + therapy etc (paid for by the parents and may actually turn him into a productive member of society) but that doesn't change the fact that in this case, if the experts are to be trusted, the judge made the optimal decision. Less money means fewer options which means prison might be the optimal outcome for other people but it doesn't mean that the law would be unfairly pursuing those without money while letting off those with. Do you envision the society that your view would create ?
Imagine a society in which poor people with drug problems go to prison and never get out while the rich get rehab when it's even viewed as a problem. Imagine a society in which poor people die of preventable illnesses while the rich are able to squander their wealth on diminishing gains and end of life care. Imagine a society in which poor people are forced to live in poor areas with shitty schools and condemn their children to a poor life while the kids of the rich have much greater prospects. Imagine a world in which legal expertise is bought and sold, where a more expensive lawyer translates to legal favouritism. Imagine a world where you have to pay for healthcare, education, housing, conflict resolution.
|
United States43611 Posts
On December 15 2013 04:16 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2013 04:13 KwarK wrote:On December 15 2013 04:11 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 15 2013 04:05 KwarK wrote:
Your average person can't afford to give the judge a choice between prison (paid for by the state which probably won't fix anything) and probation + therapy etc (paid for by the parents and may actually turn him into a productive member of society) but that doesn't change the fact that in this case, if the experts are to be trusted, the judge made the optimal decision. Less money means fewer options which means prison might be the optimal outcome for other people but it doesn't mean that the law would be unfairly pursuing those without money while letting off those with. So by that logic you are saying that exact thing - if you have the money, you can buy your way out of prison. That's a terrible precedent. You're specifically stating that the rich should have this option but the poor should not. I'm not saying the rich should have this option and the poor should not. I'm saying the rich do have this option and the poor do not. In the news today, wealth creates options. You're viewing it as buying your way out of punishment, I don't see it that way. And why should the judicial system accept those inequalities ? You know it's in the constitution that everybody should be equal before justice ?
You're equating justice with retribution. I don't agree with that and therefore don't believe your point has merit.
|
On December 15 2013 04:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2013 04:06 WhiteDog wrote:On December 15 2013 04:05 KwarK wrote:
Your average person can't afford to give the judge a choice between prison (paid for by the state which probably won't fix anything) and probation + therapy etc (paid for by the parents and may actually turn him into a productive member of society) but that doesn't change the fact that in this case, if the experts are to be trusted, the judge made the optimal decision. Less money means fewer options which means prison might be the optimal outcome for other people but it doesn't mean that the law would be unfairly pursuing those without money while letting off those with. Do you envision the society that your view would create ? Imagine a society in which poor people with drug problems go to prison and never get out while the rich get rehab when it's even viewed as a problem. Imagine a society in which poor people die of preventable illnesses while the rich are able to squander their wealth on diminishing gains and end of life care. Imagine a society in which poor people are forced to live in poor areas with shitty schools and condemn their children to a poor life while the kids of the rich have much greater prospects. Imagine a world in which legal expertise is bought and sold, where a more expensive lawyer translates to legal favouritism. Imagine a world where you have to pay for healthcare, education, housing, conflict resolution.
And you agree with all that ? You find it fair ? Just ?
On December 15 2013 04:18 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2013 04:16 WhiteDog wrote:On December 15 2013 04:13 KwarK wrote:On December 15 2013 04:11 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 15 2013 04:05 KwarK wrote:
Your average person can't afford to give the judge a choice between prison (paid for by the state which probably won't fix anything) and probation + therapy etc (paid for by the parents and may actually turn him into a productive member of society) but that doesn't change the fact that in this case, if the experts are to be trusted, the judge made the optimal decision. Less money means fewer options which means prison might be the optimal outcome for other people but it doesn't mean that the law would be unfairly pursuing those without money while letting off those with. So by that logic you are saying that exact thing - if you have the money, you can buy your way out of prison. That's a terrible precedent. You're specifically stating that the rich should have this option but the poor should not. I'm not saying the rich should have this option and the poor should not. I'm saying the rich do have this option and the poor do not. In the news today, wealth creates options. You're viewing it as buying your way out of punishment, I don't see it that way. And why should the judicial system accept those inequalities ? You know it's in the constitution that everybody should be equal before justice ? You're equating justice with retribution. I don't agree with that and therefore don't believe your point has merit.
Not at all. Most society put less people than the US in prison, this doesn't mean there are no justice in those : justice can only exist when everybody has to respond before its act when the social norm is broken.
But the social norm can be set wherever you want to. You can discuss the morality of the norm, say that overall the norm is retarded in the US (and we would agree on that) and that overall the judicial system is more about retribution than anything.
But justifying that ONE kid, because he is rich, is not supposed to respond for an act that would lead another kid in prison for life is certainly not justice.
|
On December 15 2013 04:06 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2013 03:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 15 2013 03:43 sam!zdat wrote:On December 15 2013 03:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 15 2013 03:31 sam!zdat wrote:On December 15 2013 03:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
A general complaint of the US justice system is that mandatory minimums are too strict and that they dis-proportionally hurt the poor and minorities. And now here we are now saying the opposite - that the law is too lax and discretion is being abused. it's not the opposite duh. your second sentence is a corollary of your first. Lack of discretion vs too much discretion. Opposites. what's the point of the complaint jonny. use your brain. hint: On December 15 2013 03:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
dis-proportionally hurt the poor and minorities. now let's ask ourselves jonny how do they do that? What are you disagreeing over? There's a bad outcome - disparate impact. Often mandatory minimums are cited as a cause. Here, lack of a minimum is a cause. It is a different thing causing the same outcome. Lack of minimum is NOT the cause. The problem is not even that the kid was released, it is that he was released on the ground that his condition (being rich lol) made him not entirely responsible for his actions, while others in different conditions are considered responsible. I don't see the word "justice" in any of your posts because using that word would force you to think about this court sentence relatively to others (yeah that is justice, it's the social norm in action on all of us, and everybody is supposed to be equal before it) and not only on the specific situation of that kid.
I don't think he was given a lax sentence because he had a specific condition (affluenza). The argument was that he behaved poorly because he was, well, a spoiled brat and that he could be rehabilitated while on probation. That's not a different argument (at least to me) than a poor minority committing a crime because he grew up in a neglectful household. It's about bad upbringing and the potential to be rehabilitated at a young age. The way that relates to minimum sentences is that mandatory minimums are a normal societal response to these news stories, which could have an opposite effect here of hurting the poor more than the rich.
Equal treatment is certainly a part of justice. But I think there's more to justice than just that.
|
Norway28747 Posts
it's completely fucked to have a system which dooms a large segment of society to poverty unless they are exceptional and then the same system having someone avoid jail because he happens to be rich. I do however agree with the idea that jail is largely useless and rehabilitation should be the focus of the penal system. Essentially, I'm actually fine with this guy getting 10 years probation and not having to go to jail - I just think the same logic should be applied to every member of society. Where this sentence basically completely fucks up is by trying to qualify "future potential for societal contribution", an attempt which greatly, greatly conflicts with the idea that all men are created equal. Not that all men are necessarily created equal, but society taking the route that they are not sets a very dangerous precedent.
I'm fine with stating that this guy wasn't responsible for his actions, as I don't think anyone really is, and I want this reflected through political change entirely swapping punishment for rehabilitation within the penal system across the entire board. But the notion that the rich are not responsible for their actions while the poor are responsible for their actions - if anything it's more the other way around - is absurd.
|
but he WON'T be rehabilitated while on prohibition because his parents are the reason he's a spoiled shit in the first place. he's going to keep on being an entitled asshole
|
On December 15 2013 04:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2013 04:06 WhiteDog wrote:On December 15 2013 03:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 15 2013 03:43 sam!zdat wrote:On December 15 2013 03:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 15 2013 03:31 sam!zdat wrote:On December 15 2013 03:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
A general complaint of the US justice system is that mandatory minimums are too strict and that they dis-proportionally hurt the poor and minorities. And now here we are now saying the opposite - that the law is too lax and discretion is being abused. it's not the opposite duh. your second sentence is a corollary of your first. Lack of discretion vs too much discretion. Opposites. what's the point of the complaint jonny. use your brain. hint: On December 15 2013 03:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
dis-proportionally hurt the poor and minorities. now let's ask ourselves jonny how do they do that? What are you disagreeing over? There's a bad outcome - disparate impact. Often mandatory minimums are cited as a cause. Here, lack of a minimum is a cause. It is a different thing causing the same outcome. Lack of minimum is NOT the cause. The problem is not even that the kid was released, it is that he was released on the ground that his condition (being rich lol) made him not entirely responsible for his actions, while others in different conditions are considered responsible. I don't see the word "justice" in any of your posts because using that word would force you to think about this court sentence relatively to others (yeah that is justice, it's the social norm in action on all of us, and everybody is supposed to be equal before it) and not only on the specific situation of that kid. I don't think he was given a lax sentence because he had a specific condition (affluenza). The argument was that he behaved poorly because he was, well, a spoiled brat and that he could be rehabilitated while on probation. That's not a different argument (at least to me) than a poor minority committing a crime because he grew up in a neglectful household. It's about bad upbringing and the potential to be rehabilitated at a young age. The way that relates to minimum sentences is that mandatory minimums are a normal societal response to these news stories, which could have an opposite effect here of hurting the poor more than the rich. Equal treatment is certainly a part of justice. But I think there's more to justice than just that.
"Justice is a concept of moral rightness based ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, equity and fairness, as well as the administration of the law, taking into account the inalienable and inborn rights of all human beings and citizens, the right of all people and individuals to equal protection before the law of their civil rights, without discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, color, ethnicity, religion, disability, age, wealth, or other characteristics, and is further regarded as being inclusive of social justice."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice
|
On December 15 2013 04:16 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2013 04:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 15 2013 03:59 sam!zdat wrote:i've never claimed that On December 15 2013 03:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 15 2013 03:43 sam!zdat wrote:On December 15 2013 03:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 15 2013 03:31 sam!zdat wrote:On December 15 2013 03:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
A general complaint of the US justice system is that mandatory minimums are too strict and that they dis-proportionally hurt the poor and minorities. And now here we are now saying the opposite - that the law is too lax and discretion is being abused. it's not the opposite duh. your second sentence is a corollary of your first. Lack of discretion vs too much discretion. Opposites. what's the point of the complaint jonny. use your brain. hint: On December 15 2013 03:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
dis-proportionally hurt the poor and minorities. now let's ask ourselves jonny how do they do that? What are you disagreeing over? There's a bad outcome - disparate impact. Often mandatory minimums are cited as a cause. Here, lack of a minimum is a cause. It is a different thing causing the same outcome. the point is that the justice system is systematically biased against the poor. the mechanism by which that occurs is that the rich can afford lawyers who can play tricks with the system in order to get their clients more lenient judgments. this is an example of that. so the two things that you mention are the same complaint. it's completely consistent. edit: i grew up with these people and there is a pervasive culture of entitlement. they've been gaming the system so long they come to expect it and believe they are above the law. you guys don't know what it's like in texas I still don't see why you think mandatory minimums and judicial discretion are the same thing. the latter is the mechanism by which the former becomes an instrument of bias edit: you are trying to say that if there was an automatic justice system with no human intervention that just proceeded by algorithms and stuff that would be better?
Mandatory minimums take away from judicial discretion...
To your edit - I don't see how you'd interpret my comments that way. I cited mandatory minimums, which are rather automatic, as having a disparate impact.
|
Rehabilitation works far better than prison for everyone but monied prison interest, but if the US is going to adopt that idea, starting with rich kids is about the worst way you could do it.
Don't forget guys, OPPORTUNITY and HARD WORK are there for the rest of us.
|
On December 15 2013 04:24 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2013 04:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 15 2013 04:06 WhiteDog wrote:On December 15 2013 03:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 15 2013 03:43 sam!zdat wrote:On December 15 2013 03:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 15 2013 03:31 sam!zdat wrote:On December 15 2013 03:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
A general complaint of the US justice system is that mandatory minimums are too strict and that they dis-proportionally hurt the poor and minorities. And now here we are now saying the opposite - that the law is too lax and discretion is being abused. it's not the opposite duh. your second sentence is a corollary of your first. Lack of discretion vs too much discretion. Opposites. what's the point of the complaint jonny. use your brain. hint: On December 15 2013 03:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
dis-proportionally hurt the poor and minorities. now let's ask ourselves jonny how do they do that? What are you disagreeing over? There's a bad outcome - disparate impact. Often mandatory minimums are cited as a cause. Here, lack of a minimum is a cause. It is a different thing causing the same outcome. Lack of minimum is NOT the cause. The problem is not even that the kid was released, it is that he was released on the ground that his condition (being rich lol) made him not entirely responsible for his actions, while others in different conditions are considered responsible. I don't see the word "justice" in any of your posts because using that word would force you to think about this court sentence relatively to others (yeah that is justice, it's the social norm in action on all of us, and everybody is supposed to be equal before it) and not only on the specific situation of that kid. I don't think he was given a lax sentence because he had a specific condition (affluenza). The argument was that he behaved poorly because he was, well, a spoiled brat and that he could be rehabilitated while on probation. That's not a different argument (at least to me) than a poor minority committing a crime because he grew up in a neglectful household. It's about bad upbringing and the potential to be rehabilitated at a young age. The way that relates to minimum sentences is that mandatory minimums are a normal societal response to these news stories, which could have an opposite effect here of hurting the poor more than the rich. Equal treatment is certainly a part of justice. But I think there's more to justice than just that. "Justice is a concept of moral rightness based ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, equity and fairness, as well as the administration of the law, taking into account the inalienable and inborn rights of all human beings and citizens, the right of all people and individuals to equal protection before the law of their civil rights, without discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, color, ethnicity, religion, disability, age, wealth, or other characteristics, and is further regarded as being inclusive of social justice." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice
Great, so you agree with me then?
|
On December 15 2013 04:28 farvacola wrote:
Rehabilitation works far better than prison for everyone but monied prison interest, but if the US is going to adopt that idea, starting with rich kids is about the worst way you could do it.
Don't forget guys, OPPORTUNITY and HARD WORK are there for the rest of us.
Is this really the first case of rehabilitation chosen over prison?
|
On December 15 2013 04:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2013 04:24 WhiteDog wrote:On December 15 2013 04:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 15 2013 04:06 WhiteDog wrote:On December 15 2013 03:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 15 2013 03:43 sam!zdat wrote:On December 15 2013 03:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 15 2013 03:31 sam!zdat wrote:On December 15 2013 03:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
A general complaint of the US justice system is that mandatory minimums are too strict and that they dis-proportionally hurt the poor and minorities. And now here we are now saying the opposite - that the law is too lax and discretion is being abused. it's not the opposite duh. your second sentence is a corollary of your first. Lack of discretion vs too much discretion. Opposites. what's the point of the complaint jonny. use your brain. hint: On December 15 2013 03:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
dis-proportionally hurt the poor and minorities. now let's ask ourselves jonny how do they do that? What are you disagreeing over? There's a bad outcome - disparate impact. Often mandatory minimums are cited as a cause. Here, lack of a minimum is a cause. It is a different thing causing the same outcome. Lack of minimum is NOT the cause. The problem is not even that the kid was released, it is that he was released on the ground that his condition (being rich lol) made him not entirely responsible for his actions, while others in different conditions are considered responsible. I don't see the word "justice" in any of your posts because using that word would force you to think about this court sentence relatively to others (yeah that is justice, it's the social norm in action on all of us, and everybody is supposed to be equal before it) and not only on the specific situation of that kid. I don't think he was given a lax sentence because he had a specific condition (affluenza). The argument was that he behaved poorly because he was, well, a spoiled brat and that he could be rehabilitated while on probation. That's not a different argument (at least to me) than a poor minority committing a crime because he grew up in a neglectful household. It's about bad upbringing and the potential to be rehabilitated at a young age. The way that relates to minimum sentences is that mandatory minimums are a normal societal response to these news stories, which could have an opposite effect here of hurting the poor more than the rich. Equal treatment is certainly a part of justice. But I think there's more to justice than just that. "Justice is a concept of moral rightness based ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, equity and fairness, as well as the administration of the law, taking into account the inalienable and inborn rights of all human beings and citizens, the right of all people and individuals to equal protection before the law of their civil rights, without discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, color, ethnicity, religion, disability, age, wealth, or other characteristics, and is further regarded as being inclusive of social justice." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice Great, so you agree with me then?
You said equal treatment is part of justice, but that there's more to it than "just" that. I give you a definition that says that justice take into account the "inalienable and inborn right of all human being and citizens", the "right of all people and individuals to equal protection", "without discrimination on the basis of race...age, wealth...".
What's needed to be clarified ?
|
On December 15 2013 04:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2013 04:28 farvacola wrote:
Rehabilitation works far better than prison for everyone but monied prison interest, but if the US is going to adopt that idea, starting with rich kids is about the worst way you could do it.
Don't forget guys, OPPORTUNITY and HARD WORK are there for the rest of us. Is this really the first case of rehabilitation chosen over prison?
No, not really. People just tend to forget that the frontpage of tabloid magazines isn't an 1:1 representation of what's actually going on in the world.
I think the "affluenza defense" used in this specific case is close to a novelty. It's true that people with less money in their pockets have less options in life, but in most western industrialized countries you are probably not treated especially unfair because you are poor.(in court)
|
United States43611 Posts
On December 15 2013 04:24 sam!zdat wrote:
but he WON'T be rehabilitated while on prohibition because his parents are the reason he's a spoiled shit in the first place. he's going to keep on being an entitled asshole
So your objection to it is not with the concept itself but because you disagree with the expert opinion given to the judge in the courtroom?
You might as well say "but he shouldn't be imprisoned because he's not guilty". If you're just going to change the scenario at will then you're wasting everyone's time in the debate. The judge didn't choose to not rehabilitate him because his parents were rich, the judge, on the recommendation of experts in the court, chose to rehabilitate him at the expense of his parents.
|
On December 15 2013 04:40 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2013 04:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 15 2013 04:28 farvacola wrote:
Rehabilitation works far better than prison for everyone but monied prison interest, but if the US is going to adopt that idea, starting with rich kids is about the worst way you could do it.
Don't forget guys, OPPORTUNITY and HARD WORK are there for the rest of us. Is this really the first case of rehabilitation chosen over prison? No, not really. People just tend to forget that the frontpage of tabloid magazines isn't an 1:1 representation of what's actually going on in the world.
Or maybe it is you that deny the fact that this release was defended on the ground that he was rich and not that justice is too hard on kids.
|
Norway28747 Posts
I have certainly yet to see an american article stating how a multiple times drug-offender (much more innocent than manslaughter after DUI anyway) was given an extremely light sentence due to his or her upbringing from a poor uneducated drug-using family located in the bad side of town with only crappy public education available and no real prospects from the future etc.
|
United States43611 Posts
On December 15 2013 04:28 farvacola wrote:
Rehabilitation works far better than prison for everyone but monied prison interest, but if the US is going to adopt that idea, starting with rich kids is about the worst way you could do it.
Don't forget guys, OPPORTUNITY and HARD WORK are there for the rest of us.
You find a way to convince the US public to spend their tax dollars trying to help people and rehabilitation would be great. But they'd much rather pay for punishment, just the reality of the situation. The rich can afford to front the money for the rehab out of pocket while saving the state a fortune in prison, the poor cannot and would need public aid. Just because the public are too dumb to make a sensible public policy doesn't mean society should spite itself to apply shitty policy equally. At the heart of this you have a 16 year old who you can help, and helping him saves society a fortune (prison is crazy expensive), and people wanting to make him a 5th victim of his own stupidity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
