| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On June 16 2016 13:59 oBlade wrote: Do you know that most people in the US are white? I know that the body count is high, most perpetrators are white males, and the risk continues. Therefore to reduce the risk, since we don't know which exact mentally ill white males will snap next, we should address the population as a whole, knowing that the risk is there. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4825 Posts
On June 16 2016 13:38 Danglars wrote: I leave on an ugly picture, read but don't comment for months on a regular picture, return on a stranger picture ... what is this curse? The picture ... it's like Hillary's had an adulterous past and her left hand is trying to bat down or push away a former lover from the picture. He's the colored face (no racism intended) in the otherwise grayscale display. I'm nonplussed. LA Times I know it's only a fevered dream among the conservative punditry, but if there was ever a candidate you would dump at the convention... I mean if these numbers and his recent head to head polls stay the same for the next 5 weeks, maybe the GOP could avoid electoral disaster on other levels. Alas. He earned it, and we all suffer. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5674 Posts
On June 16 2016 14:07 Doodsmack wrote: I know that the body count is high, most perpetrators are white males, and the risk continues. Therefore to reduce the risk, since we don't know which exact mentally ill white males will snap next, we should address the population as a whole, knowing that the risk is there. We have databases of hundreds of thousands of people now, are you trying to argue against those or is this just for you to be sarcastic? | ||
|
Surth
Germany456 Posts
On June 16 2016 10:18 SK.Testie wrote: "Do the right thing" is vague and idealistic because people have different interpretations of what the right thing is. And where do you begin to make the change? The laws themselves are written fairly I would argue to apply to all citizens. So then what is the proposed solution? For all I know the USA jails so many people because it has the most effective goddamn law enforcement in the world. LOL, man what a high-information voter you are. Yes, the USA jails so many people because it has the most effective goddamn law enforcement in the world. Personally, I think the only law should be "watch Spike Lee's Do The Right Thing". You should do that Testie! maybe it will help you! And besides, it is a great movie. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23322 Posts
| ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On June 16 2016 15:38 Surth wrote: LOL, man what a high-information voter you are. Yes, the USA jails so many people because it has the most effective goddamn law enforcement in the world. Personally, I think the only law should be "watch Spike Lee's Do The Right Thing". You should do that Testie! maybe it will help you! And besides, it is a great movie. "For all I know"... Besides being snarky and contributing absolutely nothing to the discussion, how about trying to actually think? I myself am trying to wrap my head around which legislations in the USA are bad and need to be abolished in order to solve problems. Barring that, which laws would be required? This thread is a good read but it gets bogged down with Europeans who think they're better than everyone else and make their snarky comments on their high horse, treating the USA like it's uncivilized or something.. kind of annoying. Please don't. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 16 2016 18:46 Incognoto wrote: "For all I know"... Besides being snarky and contributing absolutely nothing to the discussion, how about trying to actually think? I myself am trying to wrap my head around which legislations in the USA are bad and need to be abolished in order to solve problems. Barring that, which laws would be required? This thread is a good read but it gets bogged down with Europeans who think they're better than everyone else and make their snarky comments on their high horse, treating the USA like it's uncivilized or something.. kind of annoying. Please don't. Considering he is responding to a guy from Canada that thinks our jails are full due to our police being really good at their jobs, the snark seems appropriate. | ||
|
SolaR-
United States2685 Posts
All I'm hearing is rhetoric and preaching. Demonstrate the evidence and more people might be inclined to agree with you. I'm not saying our prisons are a problem or not. It just seem like Testie was willing to question his opinions if you provided convincing evidence. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2012/us-incarceration.aspx | ||
|
Surth
Germany456 Posts
On June 16 2016 18:46 Incognoto wrote: I think a lot, just not when I enter this thread. This thread should be closed for good, it is a travesty. Besides being snarky and contributing absolutely nothing to the discussion, how about trying to actually think? And if you want a really simple policy suggestion of what to change: end the war on drugs. It wouldnt get rid of the problem by any stretch, but it would probably cut the amount of prisoners in the US by a good 10 to 15 percent at least. Solar: Testie doesnt give a shit about data, although he often acts like he only cares about the truth and is objective and blah blah blah. But hey, here, have some data: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/33/Prisoner_population_rate_world_map.svg/2000px-Prisoner_population_rate_world_map.svg.png If you want to know more, you may want to read, for example, Parenti's Lockdown America. I can send you a chapter as pdf if you want too! But you'll have actually have to read it instead of dismissing outright because it was written by a leftist professor! You can also google yourself around a bit with terms such as "prison warehousing populations" to get an idea of what makes the American prison system in such dire need of reform. Spoiler: America does not have ten times as many prisoners as the average western European country because policemen are doing such a bangup job, LOL. | ||
|
SolaR-
United States2685 Posts
On June 16 2016 22:29 Plansix wrote: The national incarnation rate is easily available to review. We have the highest in the world by population and a large amount of those are minorities. And most of it is not for violent crimes. http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2012/us-incarceration.aspx I am aware of those statistics. But how do you prove what is driving that? Correlation does not imply causation. I am not trying to argue against your assertions, but instead promote a discourse where we can actually learn something and perhaps our opinions on the topic can evolve. Do you or anyone else have any data to support your assertions or at least provide an intellectual perspective on the subject? To be blunt, those stats don't tell me anything. | ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
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. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offenses.jsp http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/14/politics/court-fines-poor-people-doj/ It is a cycle that affects the poorest members of our country most severely, while leaving the well off untouched. Long term it will only lead to a growing prison population that we cannot sustain and that poor population believing the system is rigged against them. And when the majority of a group of people believe the system is rigged, they resist it. Normally on mass and violently. | ||
|
SolaR-
United States2685 Posts
On June 16 2016 23:01 Plansix wrote: Having the largest incarceration rate of the entire world by population is inherently harmful to the US. Specifically because around 50% of those in prison are for drug offenses of a non-violent nature. These prison systems are harmful because drug offenses that carry jail time are generally committed by poor citizens with limited economic options. The jail time and criminal record further limit their options, leading to them reoffending. On top of that, there are fees and fines associated with these crimes, which follow the defendants even after release. Sometimes they are returned to prison due to being unable to pay the fines. https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offenses.jsp http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/14/politics/court-fines-poor-people-doj/ It is a cycle that affects the poorest members of our country most severely, while leaving the well off untouched. Long term it will only lead to a growing prison population that we cannot sustain and that poor population believing the system is rigged against them. And when the majority of a group of people believe the system is rigged, they resist it. Normally on mass and violently. Okay, I can understand that people can get lost in the system where they cannot recover. The system imposes strict penalties on non violent crimes. Perhaps there should be more focus on rehabilitation than harsh penalties for those crimes. The problem is how do you implement that without affecting other policies. If you are less strict on drug crime how do you police and keep drugs off the streets when there has been an increase in heroin abuse among young adults. How do you enforce strict penalties to prevent people from doing this while at the same not being too strict to destory their lives? Or, for example, many of you support a ban on guns or stricter penalties on guns. Many black men in poverty carry firearms already. So, how would you enforce this rule without sending more african americans to jail? Same example with Clinton's policies on crack cocaine. He wanted to clean up the streets by enforcing strict penalities on the drug, however, as a result you see much more black men in jail for a non violent crime. So the point is, how do you enforce law and policies for the betterment of society without negatively affectings it's citiziens? How do you have both? | ||
|
Surth
Germany456 Posts
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 | ||
|
SolaR-
United States2685 Posts
On June 16 2016 23:21 Surth wrote: 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. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13995 Posts
On June 16 2016 16:06 GreenHorizons wrote: So the DNC had already internally declared Hillary the nominee in May 2015 if Guccifer 2 is to be believed. Is Hillary's camp/DWS going with denial or dismissal? If you think back to may 2015 it did seem like no one serious would go against HRC for the nomination so I think the party was just trying to get ahead of the ball with trying to fix the image of their presumptive nominee. | ||
|
Mercy13
United States718 Posts
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. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 16 2016 23:20 SolaR- wrote: Okay, I can understand that people can get lost in the system where they cannot recover. The system imposes strict penalties on non violent crimes. Perhaps there should be more focus on rehabilitation than harsh penalties for those crimes. The problem is how do you implement that without affecting other policies. If you are less strict on drug crime how do you police and keep drugs off the streets when there has been an increase in heroin abuse among young adults. How do you enforce strict penalties to prevent people from doing this while at the same not being too strict to destory their lives? Or, for example, many of you support a ban on guns or stricter penalties on guns. Many black men in poverty carry firearms already. So, how would enforce this rule without sending more african americans to jail? Same example with Clinton's policies on crack cocaine. He wanted to clean up the streets by enforcing strict penalities on the drug, however, as a result you see much more black men in jail for a non violent crime. So the point is, how do you enforce law and policies for the betterment of society without negatively affectings it's citiziens? How do you have both? 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. 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). We need to remove the childish, macho, tough on crime, war on drugs attitude from the discussion. Tough love only works in moderation. | ||
|
Dark_Chill
Canada3353 Posts
On June 16 2016 23:20 SolaR- wrote: Okay, I can understand that people can get lost in the system where they cannot recover. The system imposes strict penalties on non violent crimes. Perhaps there should be more focus on rehabilitation than harsh penalties for those crimes. The problem is how do you implement that without affecting other policies. If you are less strict on drug crime how do you police and keep drugs off the streets when there has been an increase in heroin abuse among young adults. How do you enforce strict penalties to prevent people from doing this while at the same not being too strict to destory their lives? Or, for example, many of you support a ban on guns or stricter penalties on guns. Many black men in poverty carry firearms already. So, how would you enforce this rule without sending more african americans to jail? Same example with Clinton's policies on crack cocaine. He wanted to clean up the streets by enforcing strict penalities on the drug, however, as a result you see much more black men in jail for a non violent crime. So the point is, how do you enforce law and policies for the betterment of society without negatively affectings it's citiziens? How do you have both? Keep in mind that being harder on drugs has not kept drugs off the street. Weed is already being cleared up, just undercut the illegal market with safer and higher quality products. Instead of sending people to jail for selling drugs, maybe try and invest more in schools or trade stuff so that poor people can get the education necessary to compete in the job market. Instead of sending people to jail for taking drugs, maybe send them to rehab. The gun problem is basically impossible, there are so many guns already in circulation there's no way to ban them. Stricter penalties are fine (I still can't believe there's no extensive course on firearms you have to take, nor long-ass background checks), but again don't try and develop policies which will affect people who don't have a choice but to carry firearms (guns protect people from other people with guns I guess). Law and policies are meant to affect citizens. But if you see a law isn't working or doesn't make sense, then you change it. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Afreeca Starleague
Snow vs EffOrt
Wardi Open
PiGosaur Monday
LiuLi Cup
OSC
The PondCast
CranKy Ducklings
Maestros of the Game
Serral vs herO
Clem vs Reynor
[BSL 2025] Weekly
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
Look, gun violence is trending down in the US. 
