|
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 04:33 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?
Well this thread is full of Europeans commenting on how broken our punishment system is, and they are mostly right. Throughout the vast majority of the US, rehab is pushed aside in favor of retribution, and one need only look at repeat offender rates in combination with original sentencing to see this. The point is that situations in which the offender is given a lighter sentence in pursuit of rehab are relatively rare in comparison to their alternative, and though this kid is hardly the first to receive such a sentence, his case is one of the first in public, popular, and recent memory to spur debate over the use in "seeing people burn" for their crimes. That the culprit is a white affluent male speaks volumes insofar as just how "progressive" our society really is.
And KwarK, you may disagree, but I Iegitimately think that one of the paths toward progress leads through giving rich white people a taste of the system they so strongly hold over everyone alongside proclamations of opportunity. There would be a great deal of value in having a rich white kid publicly be forced into the prison loop, just so the Iron Curtain of Suburban Idealism has something to object.
|
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
Have you ever killed 4 people? Do you know whats going on in the kids head?
There is a big difference between not caring about drunk driving and not caring about killing 4 people.
|
On December 15 2013 04:40 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +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.
yeah i don't trust that shit sorry
|
United States43611 Posts
On December 15 2013 04:54 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2013 04:40 KwarK wrote: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. yeah i don't trust that shit sorry
Then why trust the evidence that he did it at all? You're disagreeing with the fundamentals of the scenario. I could equally claim that probation is far too harsh and he should be let go because he's innocent, and with about as much evidence as you. The experts testified in court and the judge made a ruling based upon his assessment of the situation under their advice. If you're going to discard all of that and make up your own scenario then you're going to end up talking alone.
|
As someone originally from DFW, I agree with samizdat's take on Texas. I don't understand how people are claiming that this is the US developing a more progressive justice system when its being selectively applied. There is a class warfare... and the rich are most certainly winning.
The whole prospects to reform allowance for judges to consider is sickening.
|
United States43611 Posts
On December 15 2013 04:50 farvacola 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? Well this thread is full of Europeans commenting on how broken our punishment system is, and they are mostly right. Throughout the vast majority of the US, rehab is pushed aside in favor of retribution, and one need only look at repeat offender rates in combination with original sentencing to see this. The point is that situations in which the offender is given a lighter sentence in pursuit of rehab are relatively rare in comparison to their alternative, and though this kid is hardly the first to receive such a sentence, his case is one of the first in public, popular, and recent memory to spur debate over the use in "seeing people burn" for their crimes. That the culprit is a white affluent male speaks volumes insofar as just how "progressive" our society really is. And KwarK, you may disagree, but I Iegitimately think that one of the paths toward progress leads through giving rich white people a taste of the system they so strongly hold over everyone alongside proclamations of opportunity. There would be a great deal of value in having a rich white kid publicly be forced into the prison loop, just so the Iron Curtain of Suburban Idealism has something to object.
You see nothing wrong with sentencing a 16 year old more harshly than is really needed because you think it would help a bunch of people who aren't involved in his case for the greater good?
You think 16 year olds are about to be less retarded because of an example they're unlikely to even hear about?
|
On December 15 2013 05:02 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2013 04:50 farvacola wrote: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? Well this thread is full of Europeans commenting on how broken our punishment system is, and they are mostly right. Throughout the vast majority of the US, rehab is pushed aside in favor of retribution, and one need only look at repeat offender rates in combination with original sentencing to see this. The point is that situations in which the offender is given a lighter sentence in pursuit of rehab are relatively rare in comparison to their alternative, and though this kid is hardly the first to receive such a sentence, his case is one of the first in public, popular, and recent memory to spur debate over the use in "seeing people burn" for their crimes. That the culprit is a white affluent male speaks volumes insofar as just how "progressive" our society really is. And KwarK, you may disagree, but I Iegitimately think that one of the paths toward progress leads through giving rich white people a taste of the system they so strongly hold over everyone alongside proclamations of opportunity. There would be a great deal of value in having a rich white kid publicly be forced into the prison loop, just so the Iron Curtain of Suburban Idealism has something to object. You see nothing wrong with sentencing a 16 year old more harshly than is really needed because you think it would help a bunch of people who aren't involved in his case for the greater good? You think 16 year olds are about to be less retarded because of an example they're unlikely to even hear about?
I see just as much wrong with it as I do with every case in which retribution is given center stage, and that's the point. This isn't about changing the offenders or their constituent age group, it is about exposing the flaws in a system that many who enjoy similarly affluent lives hold up as a beacon of justice. Do I really need to remind you that Texas and the demographic it's leadership represents is full to the brim with people who entirely believe that the US justice and penal system is the best in the world bar none?
|
On December 15 2013 04:59 Livelovedie wrote:
As someone originally from DFW, I agree with samizdat's take on Texas. I don't understand how people are claiming that this is the US developing a more progressive justice system when its being selectively applied. There is a class warfare... and the rich are most certainly winning.
The whole prospects to reform allowance for judges to consider is sickening.
You want equality in the justice system. Everyone does but atm money buys better laywers experts so the question becomes this.
Do we punish everyone harshly because the poor cant avoid it
Or
Do we try and work towards everyone being able to be rehabilitated
Ofc ideally money shouldn't matter in court but atm it does but why should everyone else suffer for that.
ps.
For what its worth I don't agree with no sentence at all. Ofc 20 years is insane for a 16y old but a few weeks in prison probably wouldn't hurt to drive the point home for the kid without overly damaging.
|
On December 15 2013 05:02 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2013 04:50 farvacola wrote: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? Well this thread is full of Europeans commenting on how broken our punishment system is, and they are mostly right. Throughout the vast majority of the US, rehab is pushed aside in favor of retribution, and one need only look at repeat offender rates in combination with original sentencing to see this. The point is that situations in which the offender is given a lighter sentence in pursuit of rehab are relatively rare in comparison to their alternative, and though this kid is hardly the first to receive such a sentence, his case is one of the first in public, popular, and recent memory to spur debate over the use in "seeing people burn" for their crimes. That the culprit is a white affluent male speaks volumes insofar as just how "progressive" our society really is. And KwarK, you may disagree, but I Iegitimately think that one of the paths toward progress leads through giving rich white people a taste of the system they so strongly hold over everyone alongside proclamations of opportunity. There would be a great deal of value in having a rich white kid publicly be forced into the prison loop, just so the Iron Curtain of Suburban Idealism has something to object. You see nothing wrong with sentencing a 16 year old more harshly than is really needed because you think it would help a bunch of people who aren't involved in his case for the greater good? You think 16 year olds are about to be less retarded because of an example they're unlikely to even hear about?
It isn't about the 16 year olds... its about the politicians creating reform when one of their kids goes to jail. Right now the system is working as intended for them. No reason to change. If this "child" I notice that you keep calling him that, is truly a product of affluenza there is no reason to think that his behavior doesn't encompass all aspects of his life instead of what he does behind the wheel anyways.
|
On December 15 2013 05:09 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2013 04:59 Livelovedie wrote:
As someone originally from DFW, I agree with samizdat's take on Texas. I don't understand how people are claiming that this is the US developing a more progressive justice system when its being selectively applied. There is a class warfare... and the rich are most certainly winning.
The whole prospects to reform allowance for judges to consider is sickening. You want equality in the justice system. Everyone does but atm money buys better laywers experts so the question becomes this. Do we punish everyone harshly because the poor cant avoid it Or Do we try and work towards everyone being able to be rehabilitated Ofc ideally money shouldn't matter in court but atm it does but why should everyone else suffer for that. ps. For what its worth I don't agree with no sentence at all. Ofc 20 years is insane for a 16y old but a few weeks in prison probably wouldn't hurt to drive the point home for the kid without overly damaging.
We aren't working towards everyone being rehabilitated if we are considering socioeconomic factors like potential. Real change will not be accomplished by rehabilitating rich kids and punishing poor kids. So punish everyone so change comes.
|
On December 15 2013 04:57 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2013 04:54 sam!zdat wrote:On December 15 2013 04:40 KwarK wrote: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. yeah i don't trust that shit sorry Then why trust the evidence that he did it at all? You're disagreeing with the fundamentals of the scenario. I could equally claim that probation is far too harsh and he should be let go because he's innocent, and with about as much evidence as you. The experts testified in court and the judge made a ruling based upon his assessment of the situation under their advice. If you're going to discard all of that and make up your own scenario then you're going to end up talking alone.
different categories of expert opinion
|
On December 15 2013 04:59 Livelovedie wrote:
As someone originally from DFW, I agree with samizdat's take on Texas. I don't understand how people are claiming that this is the US developing a more progressive justice system when its being selectively applied. There is a class warfare... and the rich are most certainly winning.
People are mixing two things up. Getting bailed out unjustly because you are a rich person and bribe a judge is of course not good. No one is claiming that. But in this case the kid got a mild sentence because the judge acknowledged that his social background impaired his judgement. And that's why people think it's progressive.
Again, this is not the case of "rich kid got an extra cookie because he's so super-rich". In fact that kind of "affluenza defense" is probably a novelty. Milder circumstances are regularly claimed in cases where people come from a bad social background and act out of despair.
Here in Germany, for example, juvenile law can be applied if a person is technically an adult,if there are special circumstances that raise doubt that a person is mentally mature enough. These exceptions are often applied to people who are addicted, have criminal parents a background of mistreatment or whatever. I have never heard of a case in which juvenile law was applied to an adult which came from a upper class family.
|
There seems to be a bifurcation of the arguments: Some argue from the "punishment/rehabilitation" side of things, others argue "equality of justice". Since the piece was about a ruling in court, I think the "equality of justice" has a very strong case: The court is where existing laws are administrated, not a place for making a political stance on "punishment/rehabilitation". The "punishment/rehabilitation" is a political job. Lets not conflate the two things, since they are not necessarily overlapping. You cannot use the ruling in this case as a political stance unless you can provide jurisprudence to back up the assertion. Neither can you critizise the legal system for following what is seen by some as bad legislation.
|
United States43611 Posts
On December 15 2013 05:07 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2013 05:02 KwarK wrote:On December 15 2013 04:50 farvacola wrote: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? Well this thread is full of Europeans commenting on how broken our punishment system is, and they are mostly right. Throughout the vast majority of the US, rehab is pushed aside in favor of retribution, and one need only look at repeat offender rates in combination with original sentencing to see this. The point is that situations in which the offender is given a lighter sentence in pursuit of rehab are relatively rare in comparison to their alternative, and though this kid is hardly the first to receive such a sentence, his case is one of the first in public, popular, and recent memory to spur debate over the use in "seeing people burn" for their crimes. That the culprit is a white affluent male speaks volumes insofar as just how "progressive" our society really is. And KwarK, you may disagree, but I Iegitimately think that one of the paths toward progress leads through giving rich white people a taste of the system they so strongly hold over everyone alongside proclamations of opportunity. There would be a great deal of value in having a rich white kid publicly be forced into the prison loop, just so the Iron Curtain of Suburban Idealism has something to object. You see nothing wrong with sentencing a 16 year old more harshly than is really needed because you think it would help a bunch of people who aren't involved in his case for the greater good? You think 16 year olds are about to be less retarded because of an example they're unlikely to even hear about? I see just as much wrong with it as I do with every case in which retribution is given center stage, and that's the point. This isn't about changing the offenders or their constituent age group, it is about exposing the flaws in a system that many who enjoy similarly affluent lives hold up as a beacon of justice. Do I really need to remind you that Texas and the demographic it's leadership represents is full to the brim with people who entirely believe that the US justice and penal system is the best in the world bar none?
Punishing him for his class now?
|
On December 15 2013 04:22 Liquid`Drone wrote:
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.
The point is this isn't setting a precedent for the poor people to get out, etc. While what you're preaching may be even more ideal than what we have now, if we're going to be trying to move in that direction, it's silly to start with this man as the example. It's sending the completely wrong message.
On December 15 2013 05:23 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2013 05:07 farvacola wrote:On December 15 2013 05:02 KwarK wrote:On December 15 2013 04:50 farvacola wrote: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? Well this thread is full of Europeans commenting on how broken our punishment system is, and they are mostly right. Throughout the vast majority of the US, rehab is pushed aside in favor of retribution, and one need only look at repeat offender rates in combination with original sentencing to see this. The point is that situations in which the offender is given a lighter sentence in pursuit of rehab are relatively rare in comparison to their alternative, and though this kid is hardly the first to receive such a sentence, his case is one of the first in public, popular, and recent memory to spur debate over the use in "seeing people burn" for their crimes. That the culprit is a white affluent male speaks volumes insofar as just how "progressive" our society really is. And KwarK, you may disagree, but I Iegitimately think that one of the paths toward progress leads through giving rich white people a taste of the system they so strongly hold over everyone alongside proclamations of opportunity. There would be a great deal of value in having a rich white kid publicly be forced into the prison loop, just so the Iron Curtain of Suburban Idealism has something to object. You see nothing wrong with sentencing a 16 year old more harshly than is really needed because you think it would help a bunch of people who aren't involved in his case for the greater good? You think 16 year olds are about to be less retarded because of an example they're unlikely to even hear about? I see just as much wrong with it as I do with every case in which retribution is given center stage, and that's the point. This isn't about changing the offenders or their constituent age group, it is about exposing the flaws in a system that many who enjoy similarly affluent lives hold up as a beacon of justice. Do I really need to remind you that Texas and the demographic it's leadership represents is full to the brim with people who entirely believe that the US justice and penal system is the best in the world bar none? Punishing him for his class now?
I'm not sure where the punishing part comes in.
|
On December 15 2013 05:23 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2013 05:07 farvacola wrote:On December 15 2013 05:02 KwarK wrote:On December 15 2013 04:50 farvacola wrote: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? Well this thread is full of Europeans commenting on how broken our punishment system is, and they are mostly right. Throughout the vast majority of the US, rehab is pushed aside in favor of retribution, and one need only look at repeat offender rates in combination with original sentencing to see this. The point is that situations in which the offender is given a lighter sentence in pursuit of rehab are relatively rare in comparison to their alternative, and though this kid is hardly the first to receive such a sentence, his case is one of the first in public, popular, and recent memory to spur debate over the use in "seeing people burn" for their crimes. That the culprit is a white affluent male speaks volumes insofar as just how "progressive" our society really is. And KwarK, you may disagree, but I Iegitimately think that one of the paths toward progress leads through giving rich white people a taste of the system they so strongly hold over everyone alongside proclamations of opportunity. There would be a great deal of value in having a rich white kid publicly be forced into the prison loop, just so the Iron Curtain of Suburban Idealism has something to object. You see nothing wrong with sentencing a 16 year old more harshly than is really needed because you think it would help a bunch of people who aren't involved in his case for the greater good? You think 16 year olds are about to be less retarded because of an example they're unlikely to even hear about? I see just as much wrong with it as I do with every case in which retribution is given center stage, and that's the point. This isn't about changing the offenders or their constituent age group, it is about exposing the flaws in a system that many who enjoy similarly affluent lives hold up as a beacon of justice. Do I really need to remind you that Texas and the demographic it's leadership represents is full to the brim with people who entirely believe that the US justice and penal system is the best in the world bar none? Punishing him for his class now?
No, punishing him for his crime.
|
Norway28747 Posts
FabledIntegral, I agree with that. I think this ruling, in the american societal/legal context, is absolutely abhorrent. But it's not so much about the ruling as it is the american societal/legal context - I can picture a society where this ruling makes sense and is good, but I cannot picture a situation where punishment positively correlating with poverty being good. It becomes even worse when the society does very little to actually combat poverty.
|
United States43611 Posts
Justice is meant to be blind. If you have a 16 year old you can rehabilitate and you have an offer to fund the rehabilitation and not taking it will ruin his life and cost the state a fortune then the externalities (his class, the message it sends, some broad plan to change society etc) are not relevant.
|
But justice clearly isn't blind, and pretending otherwise only further exacerbates injustice and inequality.
|
Norway28747 Posts
Kwark, you disagree with law being supposed to have a preventive effect? This is "the message that is being sent", that rich people can get away with committing crimes that poor people cannot. How is that an okay message to send? Unless you actually believe that rich people should be allowed to commit crimes that poor people should not be allowed to?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
