|
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 |
On November 17 2021 18:30 Silvanel wrote:
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.
The US is not a "safe" country because we have a permanent criminal underclass that simply isn't present in most other developed nations.
On November 17 2021 21:17 Simberto wrote:
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.
The US system has, largely, evolved in recognition that who the police and justice system are dealing with most of the time are career criminals and not people in the wrong place at the wrong time. As a result, it IS a particularly harsh system, and it will appear unfair to normal people who see someone as possibly being in the wrong place at the wrong time (think Nic Cage's character in the prison plane movie). But it also has evolved a strong self-defense rule so long as you are restrained, because we recognize these crazy career criminals are all about, and a reasonable person can't be expected to tell if they are dealing with A or B. You are allowed to defend yourself with appropriate force, but you are expected to stop at that. If you hit a guy and he's down, you don't kick him.
On November 18 2021 05:43 KwarK wrote:
One of the things that annoys me about US prisons is charging for communication with the outside world. It’s not controversial that inmates that maintain normal social connections are far more likely to reenter society successfully. Maintaining regular communication with family, friends, children etc. is key to rehabilitation. And yet prisons charge extortionate prices to let inmates Skype their families. Even if Skype really did cost $1/minute that would be money well spent on crime reduction. The fact that it’s free and yet they charge through the nose for it makes me suspect that they’d prefer repeat offenders (regular customers).
The success should be evaluated on the long term outcomes of the prisoners. A prison that only prepares occupants for more prison is actively damaging society, prisoners are expensive to incarcerate and the cycle of arrest, charge, sentence etc. each time someone is released can’t be cheap either. Given my tax dollars are paying for it I would much rather they prioritize efficient long term cost reduction than retribution. That may mean subsidized accommodation, free cell phones, jobs programs etc. for former inmates but I’d prefer to pay for that than much more expensive alternatives.
This theme also follows to our incarceration system. Because an overwhelming % of people in their are really bad guys who probably committed dozens of crimes before they even got picked up, it treats them as really bad guys.
|
|
|
On November 18 2021 07:27 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2021 07:14 cLutZ wrote:On November 17 2021 18:30 Silvanel wrote:
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. The US is not a "safe" country because we have a permanent criminal underclass that simply isn't present in most other developed nations. On November 17 2021 21:17 Simberto wrote:
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. The US system has, largely, evolved in recognition that who the police and justice system are dealing with most of the time are career criminals and not people in the wrong place at the wrong time. As a result, it IS a particularly harsh system, and it will appear unfair to normal people who see someone as possibly being in the wrong place at the wrong time (think Nic Cage's character in the prison plane movie). But it also has evolved a strong self-defense rule so long as you are restrained, because we recognize these crazy career criminals are all about, and a reasonable person can't be expected to tell if they are dealing with A or B. You are allowed to defend yourself with appropriate force, but you are expected to stop at that. If you hit a guy and he's down, you don't kick him. On November 18 2021 05:43 KwarK wrote:
One of the things that annoys me about US prisons is charging for communication with the outside world. It’s not controversial that inmates that maintain normal social connections are far more likely to reenter society successfully. Maintaining regular communication with family, friends, children etc. is key to rehabilitation. And yet prisons charge extortionate prices to let inmates Skype their families. Even if Skype really did cost $1/minute that would be money well spent on crime reduction. The fact that it’s free and yet they charge through the nose for it makes me suspect that they’d prefer repeat offenders (regular customers).
The success should be evaluated on the long term outcomes of the prisoners. A prison that only prepares occupants for more prison is actively damaging society, prisoners are expensive to incarcerate and the cycle of arrest, charge, sentence etc. each time someone is released can’t be cheap either. Given my tax dollars are paying for it I would much rather they prioritize efficient long term cost reduction than retribution. That may mean subsidized accommodation, free cell phones, jobs programs etc. for former inmates but I’d prefer to pay for that than much more expensive alternatives. This theme also follows to our incarceration system. Because an overwhelming % of people in their are really bad guys who probably committed dozens of crimes before they even got picked up, it treats them as really bad guys. What the rest of the world is learning is that this is false. Most are not "bad guys" but in situations that create "bad guys". By shifting this mind set instead of creating more and more "bad guys" and training them on how to be worse, you help them to never become "bad guys" or not continue to be. This is no theoretical, there is tons of articles and data on it working, just all those in the USA making bank off tge current broken system want it worse not better because that is what benifits them.
Despite its judgmental, baseless assumptions, cLutZ's post accurately reflects the attitude of many Americans, that our system should be allowed to punish people not according to due process and not in proportion to actual convictions, rather because we should just assume huge numbers of people that end up incarcerated are serial criminals who should be crushed in perpetuity because we can just assume that they deserve it.
|
United States41985 Posts
Most of the people in prison agreed to a plea bargain because the system is so hopelessly stacked against them and additional charges are tacked on for anyone with the nerve to ask for a trial with a jury of their peers. A lot of them are innocent.
|
Oh come on guys. The US has a for profit prison system, so if all that mumbojumbo about rehabilitation was actually optimal, free market capitalism would ensure that the prison system provided that. RIGHT?!
|
On November 18 2021 07:59 Acrofales wrote:
Oh come on guys. The US has a for profit prison system, so if all that mumbojumbo about rehabilitation was actually optimal, free market capitalism would ensure that the prison system provided that. RIGHT?!
The long arm of the law works best when attached to the invisible hand of the markets.
|
Slavery is still legal in the united states as long as you charge them with crimes first.
|
On November 18 2021 07:33 farvacola wrote:
Despite its judgmental, baseless assumptions, cLutZ's post accurately reflects the attitude of many Americans, that our system should be allowed to punish people not according to due process and not in proportion to actual convictions, rather because we should just assume huge numbers of people that end up incarcerated are serial criminals who should be crushed in perpetuity because we can just assume that they deserve it.
I mean, the US used to have a system that was more like the system I think would be ideal for a higher percentage of citizens, but it was overwhelmed by organized crime and/or grudge vigilantism on a few occasions which resulted in the system we currently have.
The first big event that overwhelmed the system was prohibition, which really enabled the creation of ethnic organized crime organizations which just overwhelemed the system. Depending on the area, ethnic enclaves of Italians, Irish, or Borderers (in most cases) established vast criminal networks that just were impenetrable. And the people would be repeat offenders, and wouldn't flip on bosses because of short sentences. And even worse, the networks persisted even after prohibition was repealed. These old gangs were similar to our modern South/Central American cartels in many ways. So things were hardened, and a lot of these networks eventually got broken up, lost influence, etc. And these same harsh terms generally kept cities quiet for a while.
Then there was a pretty big reform movement, whereby a lot of this harshness was eased...and what resulted was another crime wave of a different sort. This one focused more on gangs that were smaller, but often less precise in their violence, which terrified people even more, resulting in another push for harshening. But the old harsh ways weren't fashionable anymore, so we invented new ones, most importantly, super long sentences.
|
On November 18 2021 16:39 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2021 07:33 farvacola wrote:
Despite its judgmental, baseless assumptions, cLutZ's post accurately reflects the attitude of many Americans, that our system should be allowed to punish people not according to due process and not in proportion to actual convictions, rather because we should just assume huge numbers of people that end up incarcerated are serial criminals who should be crushed in perpetuity because we can just assume that they deserve it. I mean, the US used to have a system that was more like the system I think would be ideal for a higher percentage of citizens, but it was overwhelmed by organized crime and/or grudge vigilantism on a few occasions which resulted in the system we currently have. The first big event that overwhelmed the system was prohibition, which really enabled the creation of ethnic organized crime organizations which just overwhelemed the system. Depending on the area, ethnic enclaves of Italians, Irish, or Borderers (in most cases) established vast criminal networks that just were impenetrable. And the people would be repeat offenders, and wouldn't flip on bosses because of short sentences. And even worse, the networks persisted even after prohibition was repealed. These old gangs were similar to our modern South/Central American cartels in many ways. So things were hardened, and a lot of these networks eventually got broken up, lost influence, etc. And these same harsh terms generally kept cities quiet for a while. Then there was a pretty big reform movement, whereby a lot of this harshness was eased...and what resulted was another crime wave of a different sort. This one focused more on gangs that were smaller, but often less precise in their violence, which terrified people even more, resulting in another push for harshening. But the old harsh ways weren't fashionable anymore, so we invented new ones, most importantly, super long sentences.
Why do you think the US has these vast criminal networks of dangerous career criminals, while other nations have far less of that?
And why do you think your current system actually effectively deals with them?
|
On November 18 2021 17:09 Simberto wrote:
Why do you think the US has these vast criminal networks of dangerous career criminals, while other nations have far less of that?
And why do you think your current system actually effectively deals with them?
1. The melting pot is a myth. Ethnic enclaves are real. Putnam was right. And certain populations are violence predisposed via culture or other.
2. Incapacitation.
|
|
|
Norway28558 Posts
On November 18 2021 17:27 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2021 17:09 Simberto wrote:
Why do you think the US has these vast criminal networks of dangerous career criminals, while other nations have far less of that?
And why do you think your current system actually effectively deals with them? 1. The melting pot is a myth. Ethnic enclaves are real. Putnam was right. And certain populations are violence predisposed via culture or other. 2. Incapacitation.
What is 'other'?
|
Northern Ireland23831 Posts
On November 18 2021 17:27 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2021 17:09 Simberto wrote:
Why do you think the US has these vast criminal networks of dangerous career criminals, while other nations have far less of that?
And why do you think your current system actually effectively deals with them? 1. The melting pot is a myth. Ethnic enclaves are real. Putnam was right. And certain populations are violence predisposed via culture or other. 2. Incapacitation.
Can you not have both a melting pot and ethnic enclaves, it just takes a time for absorption?
It’s my understanding that groups like the Irish, Italians, Poles etc are still proud of their heritage, but aren’t seen as ethnically distinct in nearly the same way as in the past.
|
On November 18 2021 17:27 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2021 17:09 Simberto wrote:
Why do you think the US has these vast criminal networks of dangerous career criminals, while other nations have far less of that?
And why do you think your current system actually effectively deals with them? 1. The melting pot is a myth. Ethnic enclaves are real. Putnam was right. And certain populations are violence predisposed via culture or other. 2. Incapacitation.
Just making sure I understand the argument for 1.
Are you saying that the vast criminal networks in the US are the result of ethnic enclaves? Could you be a bit more specific about what you mean here?
|
In my (uneducted) opinion the source of most US problems with orgnized crime are drugs and war on drugs. I mean orgnized crime needs stable supply of money and drugs provide that in abundance. Since drugs are flowing in US mostly from spanish speaking countries (Columbia, Mexico etc.) it is only natural that trafficers will establish themselves mostly in spanish speaking communities.
Also as pointed above there are people in US that profit on crime and incarceration, so it isnt in everyones intrests to fix things.
Also on similiar topic - US yearly overdose deaths toped 100k between April 2020 and Aprli 2021:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59253091
|
|
|
On November 18 2021 18:58 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2021 17:27 cLutZ wrote:On November 18 2021 17:09 Simberto wrote:
Why do you think the US has these vast criminal networks of dangerous career criminals, while other nations have far less of that?
And why do you think your current system actually effectively deals with them? 1. The melting pot is a myth. Ethnic enclaves are real. Putnam was right. And certain populations are violence predisposed via culture or other. 2. Incapacitation. What is 'other'?
Yeah, implying racial minorities are culturally predisposed to violence sucks, but “other” really skyhooks that post into a whole other domain of implication.
|
On November 18 2021 07:33 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2021 07:27 JimmiC wrote:On November 18 2021 07:14 cLutZ wrote:On November 17 2021 18:30 Silvanel wrote:
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. The US is not a "safe" country because we have a permanent criminal underclass that simply isn't present in most other developed nations. On November 17 2021 21:17 Simberto wrote:
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. The US system has, largely, evolved in recognition that who the police and justice system are dealing with most of the time are career criminals and not people in the wrong place at the wrong time. As a result, it IS a particularly harsh system, and it will appear unfair to normal people who see someone as possibly being in the wrong place at the wrong time (think Nic Cage's character in the prison plane movie). But it also has evolved a strong self-defense rule so long as you are restrained, because we recognize these crazy career criminals are all about, and a reasonable person can't be expected to tell if they are dealing with A or B. You are allowed to defend yourself with appropriate force, but you are expected to stop at that. If you hit a guy and he's down, you don't kick him. On November 18 2021 05:43 KwarK wrote:
One of the things that annoys me about US prisons is charging for communication with the outside world. It’s not controversial that inmates that maintain normal social connections are far more likely to reenter society successfully. Maintaining regular communication with family, friends, children etc. is key to rehabilitation. And yet prisons charge extortionate prices to let inmates Skype their families. Even if Skype really did cost $1/minute that would be money well spent on crime reduction. The fact that it’s free and yet they charge through the nose for it makes me suspect that they’d prefer repeat offenders (regular customers).
The success should be evaluated on the long term outcomes of the prisoners. A prison that only prepares occupants for more prison is actively damaging society, prisoners are expensive to incarcerate and the cycle of arrest, charge, sentence etc. each time someone is released can’t be cheap either. Given my tax dollars are paying for it I would much rather they prioritize efficient long term cost reduction than retribution. That may mean subsidized accommodation, free cell phones, jobs programs etc. for former inmates but I’d prefer to pay for that than much more expensive alternatives. This theme also follows to our incarceration system. Because an overwhelming % of people in their are really bad guys who probably committed dozens of crimes before they even got picked up, it treats them as really bad guys. What the rest of the world is learning is that this is false. Most are not "bad guys" but in situations that create "bad guys". By shifting this mind set instead of creating more and more "bad guys" and training them on how to be worse, you help them to never become "bad guys" or not continue to be. This is no theoretical, there is tons of articles and data on it working, just all those in the USA making bank off tge current broken system want it worse not better because that is what benifits them. Despite its judgmental, baseless assumptions, cLutZ's post accurately reflects the attitude of many Americans, that our system should be allowed to punish people not according to due process and not in proportion to actual convictions, rather because we should just assume huge numbers of people that end up incarcerated are serial criminals who should be crushed in perpetuity because we can just assume that they deserve it.
Yeah it is sad because attitudes like this is why we have the system we do and why the US is dangerous. People are people the world over. Even with career criminals it is not because there is something uniquely wrong about Americans, but the system leads to those outcomes.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Been watching a couple of videos of the administration making fanfare over signing the "bipartisan" infrastructure bill that was agreed upon months ago but only just signed this week. The enthusiasm definitely feels contrived in light of what the bill managed not to be, but I can forgive the Biden folks for trying to play it as a win. Notably, the comments and ratings on YouTube are abysmally unfavorable, and it's probably the reaction to things like those on sponsored content (i.e. YT-pushed news releases) that are driving the dislike button removal.
Most disingenuous, though, was the fact that the Biden administration decided that this would be a good time to start parading around Kamala Harris for what seems like the first time in a year of being a VP. Had the same vibe as that time that Clinton was sending out the "what if I ran?" feelers in 2020, with the same universal response of "fuck off" from the commenters at large.
Edit: Should post some examples I suppose. 1 2
|
On November 18 2021 00:32 Taelshin wrote:
@Artisreal Are you asking me or Simberto, sorry I didn't use the forum quote function when I quoted his post. My opinion/answer is I'm not sure and that's why I liked the post it gives room for thought.
@artisereal Geeze my bad I missed also you were asking about the Arbery case, honestly Haven't had a chance to watch it and there for I'm not informed to really talk about it, but I will def be Watching it when I get the chance.
Sorry, I think I was first posting without the quote, apologies.
Yes I was referring to a different case, will be on the lookout if/when this comes up again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
