|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Some small part, at least. It only took a fucking nutjob virtually stalking and harassing several families personally to actually get enough to nail one of these fuckers.
|
He didn't turn over those documents because it'll probably put himself deeper in the hole, so it's probably a win in his book.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Interesting article from a couple days ago - US military killed about 70 civilians in Syria two years ago using a poorly conceived airstrike. Kind of similar to the Afghanistan story, although more questionable since it kind of looks like no one can agree to why they decided to just drop bombs on a clear "women and children" target.
In the last days of the battle against the Islamic State in Syria, when members of the once-fierce caliphate were cornered in a dirt field next to a town called Baghuz, a U.S. military drone circled high overhead, hunting for military targets. But it saw only a large crowd of women and children huddled against a river bank.
Without warning, an American F-15E attack jet streaked across the drone’s high-definition field of vision and dropped a 500-pound bomb on the crowd, swallowing it in a shuddering blast. As the smoke cleared, a few people stumbled away in search of cover. Then a jet tracking them dropped one 2,000-pound bomb, then another, killing most of the survivors.
It was March 18, 2019. At the U.S. military’s busy Combined Air Operations Center at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, uniformed personnel watching the live drone footage looked on in stunned disbelief, according to one officer who was there.
“Who dropped that?” a confused analyst typed on a secure chat system being used by those monitoring the drone, two people who reviewed the chat log recalled. Another responded, “We just dropped on 50 women and children.”
An initial battle damage assessment quickly found that the number of dead was actually about 70.
The Baghuz strike was one of the largest civilian casualty incidents of the war against the Islamic State, but it has never been publicly acknowledged by the U.S. military. The details, reported here for the first time, show that the death toll was almost immediately apparent to military officials. A legal officer flagged the strike as a possible war crime that required an investigation. But at nearly every step, the military made moves that concealed the catastrophic strike. The death toll was downplayed. Reports were delayed, sanitized and classified. United States-led coalition forces bulldozed the blast site. And top leaders were not notified.
The Defense Department’s independent inspector general began an inquiry, but the report containing its findings was stalled and stripped of any mention of the strike.
“Leadership just seemed so set on burying this. No one wanted anything to do with it,” said Gene Tate, an evaluator who worked on the case for the inspector general’s office and agreed to discuss the aspects that were not classified. “It makes you lose faith in the system when people are trying to do what’s right but no one in positions of leadership wants to hear it.”
Mr. Tate, a former Navy officer who had worked for years as a civilian analyst with the Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Counterterrorism Center before moving to the inspector general’s office, said he criticized the lack of action and was eventually forced out of his job. Source
I suppose "dafuq" is a good way to describe my reaction to this. Not the first nor the last instance of a mistaken civilian killing, but this one seems more bizarre than usual.
|
A legal officer flagged the strike as a possible war crime that required an investigation. But at nearly every step, the military made moves that concealed the catastrophic strike. The death toll was downplayed. Reports were delayed, sanitized and classified. United States-led coalition forces bulldozed the blast site. And top leaders were not notified.
The Defense Department’s independent inspector general began an inquiry, but the report containing its findings was stalled and stripped of any mention of the strike.
“Leadership just seemed so set on burying this. No one wanted anything to do with it,” said Gene Tate, an evaluator who worked on the case for the inspector general’s office and agreed to discuss the aspects that were not classified. “It makes you lose faith in the system when people are trying to do what’s right but no one in positions of leadership wants to hear it.”
Must be horrific to genuinely be surprised by this only after being a party to the slaughter of dozens of innocent women and children. Real eye opener to what US schools coerced those kids into pledging allegiance to every day.
|
Definitely in line with the "nobody knows what they're doing or why Trump's doing what he's doing" administration. Not that Democrats have any legs to stand on with this one, so yeah, it's more of an "oh, interesting" or a "really, we've killed even more civilians in the Middle East than previously thought, that's fucked up".
I'd be really cool with it if we stopped just bombing other countries for fun. That'd be great.
|
On November 16 2021 08:33 NewSunshine wrote: Definitely in line with the "nobody knows what they're doing or why Trump's doing what he's doing" administration. Not that Democrats have any legs to stand on with this one, so yeah, it's more of an "oh, interesting" or a "really, we've killed even more civilians in the Middle East than previously thought, that's fucked up".
I'd be really cool with it if we stopped just bombing other countries for fun. That'd be great.
Yes, this seems more like a military fuckup. But if anything, Trump actually pushed for drawing OUT of wars. It even worked out beautifully in Afghanistan, where he gave the orders and Biden took the blame when Taliban took over in a flash (it would obviously happen anyway, they had years to prepare and no real opposition).
I fear that far too many of these horrible incidents never reach the public eye. We are lucky for every one which gets out.
|
On November 16 2021 06:31 LegalLord wrote:Interesting article from a couple days ago - US military killed about 70 civilians in Syria two years ago using a poorly conceived airstrike. Kind of similar to the Afghanistan story, although more questionable since it kind of looks like no one can agree to why they decided to just drop bombs on a clear "women and children" target. Show nested quote +In the last days of the battle against the Islamic State in Syria, when members of the once-fierce caliphate were cornered in a dirt field next to a town called Baghuz, a U.S. military drone circled high overhead, hunting for military targets. But it saw only a large crowd of women and children huddled against a river bank.
Without warning, an American F-15E attack jet streaked across the drone’s high-definition field of vision and dropped a 500-pound bomb on the crowd, swallowing it in a shuddering blast. As the smoke cleared, a few people stumbled away in search of cover. Then a jet tracking them dropped one 2,000-pound bomb, then another, killing most of the survivors.
It was March 18, 2019. At the U.S. military’s busy Combined Air Operations Center at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, uniformed personnel watching the live drone footage looked on in stunned disbelief, according to one officer who was there.
“Who dropped that?” a confused analyst typed on a secure chat system being used by those monitoring the drone, two people who reviewed the chat log recalled. Another responded, “We just dropped on 50 women and children.”
An initial battle damage assessment quickly found that the number of dead was actually about 70.
The Baghuz strike was one of the largest civilian casualty incidents of the war against the Islamic State, but it has never been publicly acknowledged by the U.S. military. The details, reported here for the first time, show that the death toll was almost immediately apparent to military officials. A legal officer flagged the strike as a possible war crime that required an investigation. But at nearly every step, the military made moves that concealed the catastrophic strike. The death toll was downplayed. Reports were delayed, sanitized and classified. United States-led coalition forces bulldozed the blast site. And top leaders were not notified.
The Defense Department’s independent inspector general began an inquiry, but the report containing its findings was stalled and stripped of any mention of the strike.
“Leadership just seemed so set on burying this. No one wanted anything to do with it,” said Gene Tate, an evaluator who worked on the case for the inspector general’s office and agreed to discuss the aspects that were not classified. “It makes you lose faith in the system when people are trying to do what’s right but no one in positions of leadership wants to hear it.”
Mr. Tate, a former Navy officer who had worked for years as a civilian analyst with the Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Counterterrorism Center before moving to the inspector general’s office, said he criticized the lack of action and was eventually forced out of his job. SourceI suppose "dafuq" is a good way to describe my reaction to this. Not the first nor the last instance of a mistaken civilian killing, but this one seems more bizarre than usual.
It's really sickening how the military, much like the police, are given free reign to investigate and exonerate themselves of their own crimes, if they aren't covered up completely. If another country had bombed 70 civilians on American soil we would quite literally invade their country, perhaps try to raze it to the ground, and feel perfectly justified in doing so. But I am guessing reactions to this will be oh well some brown people killed. It certainly won't receive 2 weeks of press like 10 people dying at a rap concert.
...Off topic rant because I can't sleep: I am so tired of the all pervasive worshipping of soldiers as "heroes". Ironically I wonder if this contributes to the absurdly high suicide rates among veterans: the two-facedness of calling them heroes while sending them to do villainous or pointless things. Sometimes I wonder if America deserves to feel the horrors of war on its own soil, if only to stop us from inflicting them every where else.
|
On November 16 2021 18:37 Starlightsun wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2021 06:31 LegalLord wrote:Interesting article from a couple days ago - US military killed about 70 civilians in Syria two years ago using a poorly conceived airstrike. Kind of similar to the Afghanistan story, although more questionable since it kind of looks like no one can agree to why they decided to just drop bombs on a clear "women and children" target. In the last days of the battle against the Islamic State in Syria, when members of the once-fierce caliphate were cornered in a dirt field next to a town called Baghuz, a U.S. military drone circled high overhead, hunting for military targets. But it saw only a large crowd of women and children huddled against a river bank.
Without warning, an American F-15E attack jet streaked across the drone’s high-definition field of vision and dropped a 500-pound bomb on the crowd, swallowing it in a shuddering blast. As the smoke cleared, a few people stumbled away in search of cover. Then a jet tracking them dropped one 2,000-pound bomb, then another, killing most of the survivors.
It was March 18, 2019. At the U.S. military’s busy Combined Air Operations Center at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, uniformed personnel watching the live drone footage looked on in stunned disbelief, according to one officer who was there.
“Who dropped that?” a confused analyst typed on a secure chat system being used by those monitoring the drone, two people who reviewed the chat log recalled. Another responded, “We just dropped on 50 women and children.”
An initial battle damage assessment quickly found that the number of dead was actually about 70.
The Baghuz strike was one of the largest civilian casualty incidents of the war against the Islamic State, but it has never been publicly acknowledged by the U.S. military. The details, reported here for the first time, show that the death toll was almost immediately apparent to military officials. A legal officer flagged the strike as a possible war crime that required an investigation. But at nearly every step, the military made moves that concealed the catastrophic strike. The death toll was downplayed. Reports were delayed, sanitized and classified. United States-led coalition forces bulldozed the blast site. And top leaders were not notified.
The Defense Department’s independent inspector general began an inquiry, but the report containing its findings was stalled and stripped of any mention of the strike.
“Leadership just seemed so set on burying this. No one wanted anything to do with it,” said Gene Tate, an evaluator who worked on the case for the inspector general’s office and agreed to discuss the aspects that were not classified. “It makes you lose faith in the system when people are trying to do what’s right but no one in positions of leadership wants to hear it.”
Mr. Tate, a former Navy officer who had worked for years as a civilian analyst with the Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Counterterrorism Center before moving to the inspector general’s office, said he criticized the lack of action and was eventually forced out of his job. SourceI suppose "dafuq" is a good way to describe my reaction to this. Not the first nor the last instance of a mistaken civilian killing, but this one seems more bizarre than usual. It's really sickening how the military, much like the police, are given free reign to investigate and exonerate themselves of their own crimes, if they aren't covered up completely. If another country had bombed 70 civilians on American soil we would quite literally invade their country, perhaps try to raze it to the ground, and feel perfectly justified in doing so. But I am guessing reactions to this will be oh well some brown people killed. It certainly won't receive 2 weeks of press like 10 people dying at a rap concert. ...Off topic rant because I can't sleep: I am so tired of the all pervasive worshipping of soldiers as "heroes". Ironically I wonder if this contributes to the absurdly high suicide rates among veterans: the two-facedness of calling them heroes while sending them to do villainous or pointless things. Sometimes I wonder if America deserves to feel the horrors of war on its own soil, if only to stop us from inflicting them every where else.
Worshipping soldiers has been done everywhere since the beginning of humakind. There are not that many ways to convince people to kill and be killed for you, and this one works. It seems do be don more in the US than in other western countries, though.
|
On November 16 2021 22:10 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2021 18:37 Starlightsun wrote:On November 16 2021 06:31 LegalLord wrote:Interesting article from a couple days ago - US military killed about 70 civilians in Syria two years ago using a poorly conceived airstrike. Kind of similar to the Afghanistan story, although more questionable since it kind of looks like no one can agree to why they decided to just drop bombs on a clear "women and children" target. In the last days of the battle against the Islamic State in Syria, when members of the once-fierce caliphate were cornered in a dirt field next to a town called Baghuz, a U.S. military drone circled high overhead, hunting for military targets. But it saw only a large crowd of women and children huddled against a river bank.
Without warning, an American F-15E attack jet streaked across the drone’s high-definition field of vision and dropped a 500-pound bomb on the crowd, swallowing it in a shuddering blast. As the smoke cleared, a few people stumbled away in search of cover. Then a jet tracking them dropped one 2,000-pound bomb, then another, killing most of the survivors.
It was March 18, 2019. At the U.S. military’s busy Combined Air Operations Center at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, uniformed personnel watching the live drone footage looked on in stunned disbelief, according to one officer who was there.
“Who dropped that?” a confused analyst typed on a secure chat system being used by those monitoring the drone, two people who reviewed the chat log recalled. Another responded, “We just dropped on 50 women and children.”
An initial battle damage assessment quickly found that the number of dead was actually about 70.
The Baghuz strike was one of the largest civilian casualty incidents of the war against the Islamic State, but it has never been publicly acknowledged by the U.S. military. The details, reported here for the first time, show that the death toll was almost immediately apparent to military officials. A legal officer flagged the strike as a possible war crime that required an investigation. But at nearly every step, the military made moves that concealed the catastrophic strike. The death toll was downplayed. Reports were delayed, sanitized and classified. United States-led coalition forces bulldozed the blast site. And top leaders were not notified.
The Defense Department’s independent inspector general began an inquiry, but the report containing its findings was stalled and stripped of any mention of the strike.
“Leadership just seemed so set on burying this. No one wanted anything to do with it,” said Gene Tate, an evaluator who worked on the case for the inspector general’s office and agreed to discuss the aspects that were not classified. “It makes you lose faith in the system when people are trying to do what’s right but no one in positions of leadership wants to hear it.”
Mr. Tate, a former Navy officer who had worked for years as a civilian analyst with the Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Counterterrorism Center before moving to the inspector general’s office, said he criticized the lack of action and was eventually forced out of his job. SourceI suppose "dafuq" is a good way to describe my reaction to this. Not the first nor the last instance of a mistaken civilian killing, but this one seems more bizarre than usual. It's really sickening how the military, much like the police, are given free reign to investigate and exonerate themselves of their own crimes, if they aren't covered up completely. If another country had bombed 70 civilians on American soil we would quite literally invade their country, perhaps try to raze it to the ground, and feel perfectly justified in doing so. But I am guessing reactions to this will be oh well some brown people killed. It certainly won't receive 2 weeks of press like 10 people dying at a rap concert. ...Off topic rant because I can't sleep: I am so tired of the all pervasive worshipping of soldiers as "heroes". Ironically I wonder if this contributes to the absurdly high suicide rates among veterans: the two-facedness of calling them heroes while sending them to do villainous or pointless things. Sometimes I wonder if America deserves to feel the horrors of war on its own soil, if only to stop us from inflicting them every where else. Worshipping soldiers has been done everywhere since the beginning of humakind. There are not that many ways to convince people to kill and be killed for you, and this one works. It seems do be don more in the US than in other western countries, though.
The sad thing is they are not killing and being killed for us, the American people. They're doing it mostly for the benefit of moneyed interests, although I guess that has also been true since time immemorial.
|
On November 15 2021 17:53 Broetchenholer wrote:
So, in your book, when someone gets into a brawl with a gun holder, they forfeit their life? You make it sound like he was the defending himself from a vicious mob out for blood. If I go to a bar in the US, get insulted by some guy throw a punch hitting him and get shot dead, is my killer acting in self defense? That poor boy had to shoot two people dead, because he got hit once with a skateboard. If that is the threshold for deadly force in the US, why hasn't he killed more people? Guns are turning Americans into pussies so afraid of the world that they would rather take lives then lose control for a second.
I mean. If they *initiate* a brawl with anyone they pretty much do. If you think you can attack me or my fiance in a bar unprovoked and don't have a fairly high % chance of dying, you are a fool. I will strike you on the head with whatever I have on hand, likely a bottle or heavy glass, and you have a high % chance of death or grievous injury. Those two are treated the same in the law for good reason: The defending side really doesn't have control over which outcome occurs. Sometimes an artery is struck, sometimes its not, sometimes a person has a thick skull, sometimes thin.
On November 15 2021 23:21 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2021 23:16 Taelshin wrote: @Sunshine He never crossed state lines with an a gun, this is a lie that has been told so many times it's painful. Good, I guess we can all go back to what we were doing then, because the real issue here was that he crossed state lines to kill people, not that he killed people. It's settled.
You seem totally ignorant of the area he was in. He literally was employed in Kenosha. Several family members of his, including his father, appear to live in Kenosha. Antioch-IL and Kenosha are the small town equivalent of Arlington and DC (its probably less travel time for Kenosha). The average protester in Kenosha is likely to have lived further from and had less ties to the community than he did.
On November 16 2021 00:36 Zambrah wrote:
It takes a lot more effort to travel the 100 miles and degrades the defense that he was there to protect businesses because there’s no reason he should have particular attachment to businesses far from his home. That he spent a bunch of time traveling to a place he doesn’t have any reasonable attachment to with murder weapons and proceeded to murder with the murder weapons indicates he did not murder people for self defense, or at best willfully put himself in a dangerous situation with the intent to use deadly force to murder people.
Easier to cry self defense when it’s your home, but driving to your cousins home an hour away with a gun intending to shoot some robbers? That’s a lot more homicide-y.
Why do people keep repeating this insane lie? Its a 15 minute drive, where he worked, had family, etc etc.
Also, having a gun isn't a provocation. By most reports there were 100+ people open carrying in Kenosha on day 3, only one got attacked. Notably, he was attacked when he got separated from his group, and cornered by a crazy person (I know of almost no sources that dispute this about dead person #1). That is basically classic predator behavior. Rosenwhatever found a calf isolated from the herd and tried to kill it. Trying to understand the incident without that framing is not going to get you anywhere near the truth.
|
On November 17 2021 15:55 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2021 17:53 Broetchenholer wrote:
So, in your book, when someone gets into a brawl with a gun holder, they forfeit their life? You make it sound like he was the defending himself from a vicious mob out for blood. If I go to a bar in the US, get insulted by some guy throw a punch hitting him and get shot dead, is my killer acting in self defense? That poor boy had to shoot two people dead, because he got hit once with a skateboard. If that is the threshold for deadly force in the US, why hasn't he killed more people? Guns are turning Americans into pussies so afraid of the world that they would rather take lives then lose control for a second.
I mean. If they *initiate* a brawl with anyone they pretty much do. If you think you can attack me or my fiance in a bar unprovoked and don't have a fairly high % chance of dying, you are a fool. I will strike you on the head with whatever I have on hand, likely a bottle or heavy glass, and you have a high % chance of death or grievous injury. Those two are treated the same in the law for good reason: The defending side really doesn't have control over which outcome occurs. Sometimes an artery is struck, sometimes its not, sometimes a person has a thick skull, sometimes thin.
I dont know if Your description of US law here is accurate, maybe in some states. But this is the very reason why many people I know do not consider US to be a safe country. You can be hurt by police or a civilian and americans, somehow consider this to be ok because of "reasons".
In many European countries, we have vastly different threshold for self-defense and expectations of how people deal with one another. In Poland You would get probably 10-20 years for killing a man in a bar fight and a judge would not really be interested in "who started it". Now I am aware this is US thread and I respect that but people from all over the world are posting here. And as You can see in many countries the expectations and norms of social interactions differ greatly.
EDIT: Fixed some typos.
|
Your saying if someone attacks you in Poland, And its proven by the evidence and born out in trial, That the judge will not consider that in his ruling(assuming its not a jury trial) ?
EDIT :How I worded this might be an unfair characterization of what you are saying but maybe you could instead elaborate on what actually would constitute self defense in Poland, or at what point it would be reasonable to use deadly force to repel an attacker? .
|
On November 17 2021 21:10 Taelshin wrote: Your saying if someone attacks you in Poland, And its proven by the evidence and born out in trial, That the judge will not consider that in his ruling(assuming its not a jury trial) ?
EDIT :How I worded this might be an unfair characterization of what you are saying but maybe you could instead elaborate on what actually would constitute self defense in Poland, or at what point it would be reasonable to use deadly force to repel an attacker? .
I would think there are simply very few to no situations where lethal force is the minimum necessary response to deal with a threatening situation, and as thus judges will require a lot of evidence to show that that lethal force was indeed only used in self defense, and does not surpass the self defense. It is similar here.
Simply put, judges in europe tend to value human life, even that of people who might have done something bad, pretty highly.
The prevailing thought in the US appears to be that once you have started something, you deserve everything you get and more.
|
On November 17 2021 21:17 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2021 21:10 Taelshin wrote: Your saying if someone attacks you in Poland, And its proven by the evidence and born out in trial, That the judge will not consider that in his ruling(assuming its not a jury trial) ?
EDIT :How I worded this might be an unfair characterization of what you are saying but maybe you could instead elaborate on what actually would constitute self defense in Poland, or at what point it would be reasonable to use deadly force to repel an attacker? . I would think there are simply very few to no situations where lethal force is the minimum necessary response to deal with a threatening situation, and as thus judges will require a lot of evidence to show that that lethal force was indeed only used in self defense, and does not surpass the self defense. It is similar here. Simply put, judges in europe tend to value human life, even that of people who might have done something bad, pretty highly. The prevailing thought in the US appears to be that once you have started something, you deserve everything you get and more.
I'd say it's because the US has a very different goal when it comes to law enforcement, i.e. deterrence in the form of punishment, whereas most European countries have rehabilitation as a central goal.
|
@silv "The prevailing thought in the US appears to be that once you have started something, you deserve everything you get and more"
I like how you said this and it's something to think about for sure, good post.
|
On November 17 2021 21:26 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2021 21:17 Simberto wrote:On November 17 2021 21:10 Taelshin wrote: Your saying if someone attacks you in Poland, And its proven by the evidence and born out in trial, That the judge will not consider that in his ruling(assuming its not a jury trial) ?
EDIT :How I worded this might be an unfair characterization of what you are saying but maybe you could instead elaborate on what actually would constitute self defense in Poland, or at what point it would be reasonable to use deadly force to repel an attacker? . I would think there are simply very few to no situations where lethal force is the minimum necessary response to deal with a threatening situation, and as thus judges will require a lot of evidence to show that that lethal force was indeed only used in self defense, and does not surpass the self defense. It is similar here. Simply put, judges in europe tend to value human life, even that of people who might have done something bad, pretty highly. The prevailing thought in the US appears to be that once you have started something, you deserve everything you get and more. I'd say it's because the US has a very different goal when it comes to law enforcement, i.e. deterrence in the form of punishment, whereas most European countries have rehabilitation as a central goal.
Out of curiosity, what do those European countries do to try and rehabilitate criminals, and does it result in successfully reintroducing them back into the population and lower the recidivism rate? Because in the United States, we definitely don't focus on rehabilitation.
|
Northern Ireland23827 Posts
‘Fuck around and find out’ seems to be a pretty well-established part of US legal doctrine, and indeed the wider cultural norms.
|
On November 17 2021 22:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2021 21:26 EnDeR_ wrote:On November 17 2021 21:17 Simberto wrote:On November 17 2021 21:10 Taelshin wrote: Your saying if someone attacks you in Poland, And its proven by the evidence and born out in trial, That the judge will not consider that in his ruling(assuming its not a jury trial) ?
EDIT :How I worded this might be an unfair characterization of what you are saying but maybe you could instead elaborate on what actually would constitute self defense in Poland, or at what point it would be reasonable to use deadly force to repel an attacker? . I would think there are simply very few to no situations where lethal force is the minimum necessary response to deal with a threatening situation, and as thus judges will require a lot of evidence to show that that lethal force was indeed only used in self defense, and does not surpass the self defense. It is similar here. Simply put, judges in europe tend to value human life, even that of people who might have done something bad, pretty highly. The prevailing thought in the US appears to be that once you have started something, you deserve everything you get and more. I'd say it's because the US has a very different goal when it comes to law enforcement, i.e. deterrence in the form of punishment, whereas most European countries have rehabilitation as a central goal. Out of curiosity, what do those European countries do to try and rehabilitate criminals, and does it result in successfully reintroducing them back into the population and lower the recidivism rate? Because in the United States, we definitely don't focus on rehabilitation.
I think you might be best helped here by googling something like "difference between US and German prisons" There are a bunch of good articles and videos about this.
Now, personally, i haven't been to prison, but from what i know German prisons are actually focused on rehabilitation instead of punishment. So less getting locked up in tiny cells getting raped while doing slave labor and more having a nice room that you are not allowed to leave, while getting job training during the day. Prisoners in German prisons are viewed as humans who made bad decisions and who need to get the tools to not do that again once they leave.
What certainly also helps is that we generally do not publish the full names of criminals in papers, and once people leave prison, they are once again viewed as normal members of society. They do not have to disclose that they were in prison if they do not wish to, they can vote in elections, and other similar stuff.
We also imprison a lot fewer people, and for shorter periods of time in compared to the US. A "life" sentence here usually means about 15 years, instead of actually being stuck in prison for the rest of their lives. There are some exceptions here, people who are deemed so dangerous that they are expected to always do crimes once they leave prison can be put into "Sicherheitsverwahrung" where they are actually stuck for live.
There are a lot of differences which all start from the basic difference of the whole system being designed to get people reintegrated into society as contributing members, instead of producing repeat customers. And sure, i doubt everything is perfect, but it is leaps and bounds better than the horror that is the US "justice" system.
|
On November 17 2021 22:38 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2021 22:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 17 2021 21:26 EnDeR_ wrote:On November 17 2021 21:17 Simberto wrote:On November 17 2021 21:10 Taelshin wrote: Your saying if someone attacks you in Poland, And its proven by the evidence and born out in trial, That the judge will not consider that in his ruling(assuming its not a jury trial) ?
EDIT :How I worded this might be an unfair characterization of what you are saying but maybe you could instead elaborate on what actually would constitute self defense in Poland, or at what point it would be reasonable to use deadly force to repel an attacker? . I would think there are simply very few to no situations where lethal force is the minimum necessary response to deal with a threatening situation, and as thus judges will require a lot of evidence to show that that lethal force was indeed only used in self defense, and does not surpass the self defense. It is similar here. Simply put, judges in europe tend to value human life, even that of people who might have done something bad, pretty highly. The prevailing thought in the US appears to be that once you have started something, you deserve everything you get and more. I'd say it's because the US has a very different goal when it comes to law enforcement, i.e. deterrence in the form of punishment, whereas most European countries have rehabilitation as a central goal. Out of curiosity, what do those European countries do to try and rehabilitate criminals, and does it result in successfully reintroducing them back into the population and lower the recidivism rate? Because in the United States, we definitely don't focus on rehabilitation. I think you might be best helped here by googling something like "difference between US and German prisons" There are a bunch of good articles and videos about this. Now, personally, i haven't been to prison, but from what i know German prisons are actually focused on rehabilitation instead of punishment. So less getting locked up in tiny cells getting raped while doing slave labor and more having a nice room that you are not allowed to leave, while getting job training during the day. Prisoners in German prisons are viewed as humans who made bad decisions and who need to get the tools to not do that again once they leave. What certainly also helps is that we generally do not publish the full names of criminals in papers, and once people leave prison, they are once again viewed as normal members of society. They do not have to disclose that they were in prison if they do not wish to, they can vote in elections, and other similar stuff. We also imprison a lot fewer people, and for shorter periods of time in compared to the US. A "life" sentence here usually means about 15 years, instead of actually being stuck in prison for the rest of their lives. There are some exceptions here, people who are deemed so dangerous that they are expected to always do crimes once they leave prison can be put into "Sicherheitsverwahrung" where they are actually stuck for live. There are a lot of differences which all start from the basic difference of the whole system being designed to get people reintegrated into society as contributing members, instead of producing repeat customers. And sure, i doubt everything is perfect, but it is leaps and bounds better than the horror that is the US "justice" system.
Wow. That all sounds like the kind of mindset and structure that a first-world country ought to have. Thank you for sharing!
|
|
|
|
|