Former gang member with 106 convictions back behind bars (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10789129)
You gotta wonder, how society puts up with garbage like this?
How many convictions does a person need before we decide to throw away the key or simply terminate the problem person?
Rather shocking. Society has to have the right to protect itself against incorrigible criminals. Should be in for life.
Before my out what?
Just kidding. :P
I'm against the death penalty, but life in prison? Yes, please.
Quote from: Dobermonster on March 01, 2012, 08:19:14 PM
Before my out what?
Just kidding. :P
I'm against the death penalty, but life in prison? Yes, please.
I can arrange that I have access to a dungeon!
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on March 01, 2012, 06:48:22 PM
Rather shocking. Society has to have the right to protect itself against incorrigible criminals. Should be in for life.
Is it really worth it, to let this person loose on society just to see if he has reformed? Someone in authority ought to be held accountable if they let him out and he harms someone else.
I'm not sure about incurring the cost of life imprisonment, I am quite happy to put him down.
Quote from: Stevil on March 01, 2012, 08:25:18 PM
I'm not sure about incurring the cost of life imprisonment, I am quite happy to put him down.
I'm inclined to think the same.
I wouldn't kill him. I'd lock him up and have him do at least 8 solid hours of work a day in order to earn his 'board'. Prisoners who were dangerous offenders used to be put to work building things, constructing things, doing manual, menial jobs. Now, it seems like they're just stuck in a cell and allowed to read, write, or watch TV. Is it any wonder so many of them prefer jail? Send this idiot someplace that'll make his time useful.
Quote from: Amicale on March 01, 2012, 08:39:33 PM
I wouldn't kill him. I'd lock him up and have him do at least 8 solid hours of work a day in order to earn his 'board'. Prisoners who were dangerous offenders used to be put to work building things, constructing things, doing manual, menial jobs. Now, it seems like they're just stuck in a cell and allowed to read, write, or watch TV. Is it any wonder so many of them prefer jail? Send this idiot someplace that'll make his time useful.
Like some remote island of sorts? ;)
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 01, 2012, 08:43:05 PM
Quote from: Amicale on March 01, 2012, 08:39:33 PM
I wouldn't kill him. I'd lock him up and have him do at least 8 solid hours of work a day in order to earn his 'board'. Prisoners who were dangerous offenders used to be put to work building things, constructing things, doing manual, menial jobs. Now, it seems like they're just stuck in a cell and allowed to read, write, or watch TV. Is it any wonder so many of them prefer jail? Send this idiot someplace that'll make his time useful.
Like some remote island of sorts? ;)
I think that's been done on a couple of occasions and in the end the inmates took over. ;D
Quote from: Tank on March 01, 2012, 09:07:58 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 01, 2012, 08:43:05 PM
Quote from: Amicale on March 01, 2012, 08:39:33 PM
I wouldn't kill him. I'd lock him up and have him do at least 8 solid hours of work a day in order to earn his 'board'. Prisoners who were dangerous offenders used to be put to work building things, constructing things, doing manual, menial jobs. Now, it seems like they're just stuck in a cell and allowed to read, write, or watch TV. Is it any wonder so many of them prefer jail? Send this idiot someplace that'll make his time useful.
Like some remote island of sorts? ;)
I think that's been done on a couple of occasions and in the end the inmates took over. ;D
But I LIKE Australia, so it all worked out for the best, amirite? :D
Quote from: Amicale on March 01, 2012, 09:23:09 PM
Quote from: Tank on March 01, 2012, 09:07:58 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 01, 2012, 08:43:05 PM
Quote from: Amicale on March 01, 2012, 08:39:33 PM
I wouldn't kill him. I'd lock him up and have him do at least 8 solid hours of work a day in order to earn his 'board'. Prisoners who were dangerous offenders used to be put to work building things, constructing things, doing manual, menial jobs. Now, it seems like they're just stuck in a cell and allowed to read, write, or watch TV. Is it any wonder so many of them prefer jail? Send this idiot someplace that'll make his time useful.
Like some remote island of sorts? ;)
I think that's been done on a couple of occasions and in the end the inmates took over. ;D
But I LIKE Australia, so it all worked out for the best, amirite? :D
Definitely perfect in the case of Australia, it was America that went wrong ;) :D
Quote from: Tank on March 01, 2012, 09:24:55 PM
Quote from: Amicale on March 01, 2012, 09:23:09 PM
Quote from: Tank on March 01, 2012, 09:07:58 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 01, 2012, 08:43:05 PM
Quote from: Amicale on March 01, 2012, 08:39:33 PM
I wouldn't kill him. I'd lock him up and have him do at least 8 solid hours of work a day in order to earn his 'board'. Prisoners who were dangerous offenders used to be put to work building things, constructing things, doing manual, menial jobs. Now, it seems like they're just stuck in a cell and allowed to read, write, or watch TV. Is it any wonder so many of them prefer jail? Send this idiot someplace that'll make his time useful.
Like some remote island of sorts? ;)
I think that's been done on a couple of occasions and in the end the inmates took over. ;D
But I LIKE Australia, so it all worked out for the best, amirite? :D
Definitely perfect in the case of Australia, it was America that went wrong ;) :D
Well, see, I time traveled and told them to send the inmates to the Arctic to duke it out with the polar bears, but they took a wrong turn crossing the Atlantic...
C'est la vie... ;D
Quote from: Dobermonster on March 01, 2012, 08:19:14 PM
Before my out what?
(https://fbcdn-photos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/425417_10150571879776448_549006447_9250681_559679341_a.jpg)
Quote from: Scissorlegs on March 02, 2012, 12:11:46 AM
Quote from: Dobermonster on March 01, 2012, 08:19:14 PM
Before my out what?
(https://fbcdn-photos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/425417_10150571879776448_549006447_9250681_559679341_a.jpg)
Argument by jpg, the forum just reached a new low :-[ ;)
it was a good jpeg though, it made me chuckle.
people like John Gillies definitely should never be allowed back out into society.
How many convictions does it take before you realize that you suck as a criminal?
Quote"I have known this man for 10 years. He will hurt again. I hope it's not my family and not yours but some family will suffer due to his release. Keep John in prison and away from us, I beg you. He will hurt again."
The above pretty much tells us all we need to know about this man.
If the people letting him out were made accountable, then they would think twice about unleashing this beast on society.
But our government in their infinitely wise ways, not only keep releasing him but they reward him
QuoteGillies was one of four Mongrel Mob members paid $325,000 by the Crown in 2000 after claiming they were tortured and abused by guards at Hawkes Bay's Mangaroa Prison.
Which leaves me wondering, were any of Gillies' victims paid any money? There never seems to be financial compensation for the victims, just the criminals.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 01, 2012, 08:36:55 PM
Quote from: Stevil on March 01, 2012, 08:25:18 PM
I'm not sure about incurring the cost of life imprisonment, I am quite happy to put him down.
I'm inclined to think the same.
I agree with you both.
Over crowding jail cells, free meals, t.v, etc. I dont want my taxes going to that. Just kill the scum.
And what about the innocent man on death row? Is his death worth the implied justice in killing the guilty?
That's the issue I have with the death penalty. Life imprisonment at least means that if someone is innocent, they still have time to find evidence, make their case, and not have to live every day in knowledge of their impending death.
Quote from: Dobermonster on March 03, 2012, 12:23:43 AM
And what about the innocent man on death row? Is his death worth the implied justice in killing the guilty?
That's the issue I have with the death penalty. Life imprisonment at least means that if someone is innocent, they still have time to find evidence, make their case, and not have to live every day in knowledge of their impending death.
Over 100 convictions, do you think he has been incorrectly found guilty 100 times?
That wasn't the point. The mere existence of the death penalty invites mistakes - and yes, mistakes have been made. You can't say "Oh, we'll only do it to the *really* guilty people", because every innocent man was at one time considered guilty. Does that make sense?
I don't see how any civilized society could even contemplate the death penalty and gangs are an economic and social problem which can easily be prevented by a society concerned with prevention instead of punishment.
Quote from: Dobermonster on March 03, 2012, 02:38:03 AM
That wasn't the point. The mere existence of the death penalty invites mistakes - and yes, mistakes have been made. You can't say "Oh, we'll only do it to the *really* guilty people", because every innocent man was at one time considered guilty. Does that make sense?
What if we restricted the death penalty to people who had been convicted of more than 10 serious crimes where people had been raped or hurt with a weapon. In this way a person convicted of raping 10 people would then be put down.
The alternative would be to either keep them locked up (at huge expense to society), or attempt to rehabilitate, let them out and hope they don't rape their 11th victim.
Quote from: Will on March 03, 2012, 06:18:53 AM
I don't see how any civilized society could even contemplate the death penalty and gangs are an economic and social problem which can easily be prevented by a society concerned with prevention instead of punishment.
I don't see why the death penalty is uniquely barbaric.
I think that in general the death penalty should not be an option. It is too tinged with racism and inaccuracy. But I think that the death penalty can be just. Ratko Mladic deserves to die. I don't think there is anything barbaric about taking him to the tallest tree in Bosnia and hanging him high.
Quote from: Will37 on March 03, 2012, 10:00:30 AM
Quote from: Will on March 03, 2012, 06:18:53 AM
I don't see how any civilized society could even contemplate the death penalty and gangs are an economic and social problem which can easily be prevented by a society concerned with prevention instead of punishment.
I don't see why the death penalty is uniquely barbaric.
I think that in general the death penalty should not be an option. It is too tinged with racism and inaccuracy. But I think that the death penalty can be just. Ratko Mladic deserves to die. I don't think there is anything barbaric about taking him to the tallest tree in Bosnia and hanging him high.
same goes for Saddam Hussein, Moammar Gadhafi, Bashar Assad etc etc. I've got to agree with you, Stevil, SD and others. If someone's committed mass murder or many violent crimes, I don't see why the death penalty is barbaric. But only in cases of extreme or persistent violence where there can be no doubts over someone's guilt.
Quote from: Stevil on March 03, 2012, 07:59:00 AM
The alternative would be to either keep them locked up (at huge expense to society), or attempt to rehabilitate, let them out and hope they don't rape their 11th victim.
To execute or not: A question of cost? (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29552692/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/execute-or-not-question-cost/)
Quote"It's 10 times more expensive to kill them than to keep them alive," though most Americans believe the opposite, said Donald McCartin, a former California jurist known as "The Hanging Judge of Orange County" for sending nine men to death row.
Does the death penalty cost less than life in prison without parole? (http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001000)
QuoteRichard C. Dieter, MS, JD, Executive Director of the Death Penalty Information Center, said the following on June 7, 2010, in his testimony before the Pennsylvania Senate Government Management and Cost Study Commission, available at www.deathpenaltyinfo.org:
"The death penalty is the most expensive part of the system on a per-offender basis. Millions are spent to achieve a single death sentence that, even if imposed, is unlikely to be carried out. Thus money that the police desperately need for more effective law enforcement may be wasted on the death penalty...
The principal reason why the death penalty is so expensive can be summed up in one phrase: 'death is different...' Every stage of a capital case is more time-consuming and expensive than in a typical criminal case. Jury selection takes much longer; more mental health and forensic experts will be needed; two trials will be required - one for guilt and one for sentencing; and the appeals will be far more complex, focusing on both the conviction and the death sentence. Two attorneys are usually appointed for the defense, so that issues of guilt and sentencing can be separately explored. The prosecution has to respond with equal or greater resources since they have the burden of proof...There is no reason the death penalty should be immune from reconsideration, along with other wasteful, expensive programs that no longer make sense."
I don't know how I feel about the death penalty since I gave up my Bible centered world view. Truth is I'm unsure about a lot of things I used to feel very strongly about. However if the issue is one of cost I think there's plenty of evidence that execution costs a lot more than life in prison without parole. I also think it should cost more, much more because the burden on the state to prove their case should be very high.
Another argument I ascribe to for keeping them alive is that we can study them. The most abhorrent crimes are made by people with abnormal minds - either psychologically or neurologically. If there's to be any hope that such minds can be understood and even corrected, we must have data and long-term research. In other words, even if life terms were more expensive than any variation of the death penalty, it can be considered as an investment in research that will, in the long-term, benefit society in terms of prevention and treatment. If we merely cull the abnormal without understanding it, then it is guaranteed that the culling will continue indefinitely.
The cost of the death penalty is dependent on the legal system in place.
In USA, the cost is exorbitant, with appeals process and free legal representation.
In China, the cost is a single bullet, which gets charged to the family of the deceased.
These are both extremes, but my point is that the death penalty does not have to be expensive.
The cost of setting these people free, back into society to kill or rape again, is a far greater cost.
Also, keep in mind, with a life-time in prison, it's more likely that a murderer/scumbag might eventually disclose information that can help solve other crimes or lock other scumbags away.
If you kill a serial killer 3 years after he commits his crime, you extinguish the possibility that, after 40 years in jail, he might re-think informing the authorities about where he hid the rest of the bodies. There are a lot of revelations that have come from criminals who've been locked away for 20+ years. Once they're dead, everything they know is dead too.
Quote from: Stevil on March 03, 2012, 06:49:35 PM
The cost of setting these people free, back into society to kill or rape again, is a far greater cost.
I agree that violent offenders shouldn't be allowed "back into society to kill or rape again". Thats pretty much a non-brainier. However I don't think the issue is one of
if we don't Kill em we have to let them go. Life in the pen is not back into society. We can deal with them without killing them.
Now cost is a different issue. Yes we could make it cheaper for the state to kill people but should we? Do you trust the court system that much?
As an atheist and skeptic I believe in the axiom "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". I think I would also put that on the state in a capital case. Extraordinary sentences require extraordinary evidence. Theres no mulligan with capital punishment so great pains need to be taken to make sure its the right choice. That just can't be done on the cheap.
Quote from: Will37 on March 03, 2012, 10:00:30 AMI don't see why the death penalty is uniquely barbaric.
I believe it to be barbaric because of it's use in a system intended to be about justice, prevention, and treatment for the benefit and stability of society. Consider what it is to sentence someone found guilty. We remove people from society temporarily both as a way to deter the individual from acting in such a way again and to deter such behavior from others. It is, like any other punishment, a way to correct behavior.
What behavior does state murder correct? It certainly doesn't correct the behavior of the guilty, as the guilty lacks behavior after death. And, as studies have repeatedly demonstrated, the death penalty in no way deters crime. In fact, perhaps coincidentally, it's in states with the death penalty that we see the highest rates of murder.
There are generally two arguments aside from this which are supplied to defend the death penalty: permanent removal and the so-called justice argument.
The permanent removal argument essentially states that there are some individuals who by their very nature are so counter to the stability of society that our only choice is to kill them lest we see them damage society further. I don't buy this for two reasons: 1) we have life imprisonment, and 2) many of our our prisons lack even the most basic psychological or sociological or behavioral treatment. It's not like we try to fix people before sentencing them to death. We stick them in a building with bars and we essentially forget about them, even though it's been documented than many people on Death Row are of low IQs including people who are legally mentally handicapped.
The justice argument, I think, is the most dangerous argument. Essentially, the justice argument is one pulled right from ancient Abrahamic traditions and religions: lex talionis, or 'an eye for an eye'. This argument goes that because these people took a life their life is somehow automatically forfeit. I would argue this is a rationalization of vengeance, and that vengeance has no place in the justice system because justice is for the good of the many whereas vengeance is about satisfying our baser want for violent reciprocation.
There are also, of course, many instances of innocent people being put to death because our system is imperfect. A wrong imprisoned man can be set free; a dead man cannot.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on March 03, 2012, 12:24:43 PMsame goes for Saddam Hussein, Moammar Gadhafi, Bashar Assad etc etc. I've got to agree with you, Stevil, SD and others. If someone's committed mass murder or many violent crimes, I don't see why the death penalty is barbaric. But only in cases of extreme or persistent violence where there can be no doubts over someone's guilt.
What purpose does it serve? It doesn't work as a deterrant. It doesn't bring back those they've killed, it just brings us a little closer to their level, as they carried out their mass murders often with the permission of the state.
Quote from: Will on March 04, 2012, 04:29:22 AM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on March 03, 2012, 12:24:43 PMsame goes for Saddam Hussein, Moammar Gadhafi, Bashar Assad etc etc. I've got to agree with you, Stevil, SD and others. If someone's committed mass murder or many violent crimes, I don't see why the death penalty is barbaric. But only in cases of extreme or persistent violence where there can be no doubts over someone's guilt.
What purpose does it serve? It doesn't work as a deterrant. It doesn't bring back those they've killed, it just brings us a little closer to their level, as they carried out their mass murders often with the permission of the state.
I don't personally think that killing a mass murderer brings us any closer to their level at all. People like the above have murdered thousands just for disagreeing with them or wanting some level of personal freedoms. I don't feel the need to uphold the basic human rights of people who don't believe that anyone else deserves the right to life.
I guess it should be down to what victims and their families want in these cases, if I'd have been brutally tortured by a dictator or members of his secret police or a sadistic mass murderer or had members of my family killed by them for no good reason, I don't know how I'd feel. But if people who have suffered such things want to see the perpetrators dead I don't see any problem with that. I doubt too many in Libya shed a tear for Gadhafi, or too many in Iraq for Saddam when they were killed. I don't see this as an issue of taking any moral highground, merely of making sure that victims of such people feel that justice has been done. That would be the purpose of such a sentence. If victims generally didn't want the death sentence, then let the dictator or mass murderer live.
I also don't think wanting an eye for an eye is any more down to Judaism than turning the other cheek is due to Christianity, both philosophies are centuries older. I think justice is an innate human concept linked to a desire for fairness, scientists have observed similar behaviour in monkeys
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3116678.stm
I am not in the least worried about someone's subjective opinion of human rights. Everything is a right in my opinion, and our society leaders must infringe on our rights in order to have a stable and functional society.
The safety of ourselves and our loved ones must be paramount to all other decisions. As members of society, we want our society members to be safe. There are some people, it seems that will always create undue danger to the average person in society. What purpose does it add to society in locking these people up in a prison for their entire lives? The economic cost is huge, lets say $50K per year for 30 years = $1.5 Million dollars. That money could go a long way towards helping out some of the victims of violent crimes, or towards helping the homeless, or towards rehabilitation clinics for those people that are not beyond help.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on March 04, 2012, 10:29:56 AM
Quote from: Will on March 04, 2012, 04:29:22 AM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on March 03, 2012, 12:24:43 PMsame goes for Saddam Hussein, Moammar Gadhafi, Bashar Assad etc etc. I've got to agree with you, Stevil, SD and others. If someone's committed mass murder or many violent crimes, I don't see why the death penalty is barbaric. But only in cases of extreme or persistent violence where there can be no doubts over someone's guilt.
What purpose does it serve? It doesn't work as a deterrant. It doesn't bring back those they've killed, it just brings us a little closer to their level, as they carried out their mass murders often with the permission of the state.
I don't personally think that killing a mass murderer brings us any closer to their level at all. People like the above have murdered thousands just for disagreeing with them or wanting some level of personal freedoms. I don't feel the need to uphold the basic human rights of people who don't believe that anyone else deserves the right to life.
I guess it should be down to what victims and their families want in these cases, if I'd have been brutally tortured by a dictator or members of his secret police or a sadistic mass murderer or had members of my family killed by them for no good reason, I don't know how I'd feel. But if people who have suffered such things want to see the perpetrators dead I don't see any problem with that. I doubt too many in Libya shed a tear for Gadhafi, or too many in Iraq for Saddam when they were killed. I don't see this as an issue of taking any moral highground, merely of making sure that victims of such people feel that justice has been done. That would be the purpose of such a sentence. If victims generally didn't want the death sentence, then let the dictator or mass murderer live.
I also don't think wanting an eye for an eye is any more down to Judaism than turning the other cheek is due to Christianity, both philosophies are centuries older. I think justice is an innate human concept linked to a desire for fairness, scientists have observed similar behaviour in monkeys
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3116678.stm
I'm friends with a Bosniak (Bisnian Muslim) girl. She's really a very kind, funny person. Very good humored. At least during the day. At night from what her roommate says, she still occasionally screams in her sleep. I've never heard her say a bad word about anybody, including the Bosnian Serbs (led by Mladic) who tried to murder her family. But when Mladic was captured the first facebook status update from her that I saw was a picture of him and her comment: 'Why isn't this animal in chains!?!'
It's bad enough that Mladic gets an international platform to spout his dribble and proudly proclaim that her was merely 'defending his country' by raining hell down on cities full of woman, children, and unarmed men. But that's justice. THAT separates us from men like Mladic. The fact that we will give him a platform to attempt to prove his innocence. An opportunity never given to the hundreds of thousands of raped, tortured, and murdered victims of the regime and army her served so faithfully.
Putting an end to our burden,and the burden of his living victims, of having to share the same plane of existence as a man like him does not put us on his level or bring us anywhere closer to it. And to suggest it does is absurd. There is no comparison between legally executing a man who has brought unspeakable evil to our world and continues to use every opportunity afforded him to defend and promote his villainy (not an insignificant thing in in the current political climate in Bosnia still) and the indiscriminate mass murder of innocent people. Totally different. Both in the aim and the process.
^great post Will37, I agree 100%^
Quote from: Too Few Lions on March 03, 2012, 12:24:43 PM
same goes for Saddam Hussein, Moammar Gadhafi, Bashar Assad etc etc. I've got to agree with you, Stevil, SD and others. If someone's committed mass murder or many violent crimes, I don't see why the death penalty is barbaric. But only in cases of extreme or persistent violence where there can be no doubts over someone's guilt.
But how do we determine which leaders would get the death penalty? All leaders should live by the same rules, so would it be only those who give orders against their own people or would it also be leaders that give orders against other nations when innocent civilians are murdered. Also should leaders from nations that enable the mass murdering psychopathic leaders be subjected to the same scrutiny as those who commit the actions. I personally think leaders should be highly accountable for the deaths of civilians or those that enable horrendous events to take place, if they were we would probably not face half the military problems we do now.
Quote from: Crow on March 04, 2012, 10:08:48 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on March 03, 2012, 12:24:43 PM
same goes for Saddam Hussein, Moammar Gadhafi, Bashar Assad etc etc. I've got to agree with you, Stevil, SD and others. If someone's committed mass murder or many violent crimes, I don't see why the death penalty is barbaric. But only in cases of extreme or persistent violence where there can be no doubts over someone's guilt.
But how do we determine which leaders would get the death penalty? All leaders should live by the same rules, so would it be only those who give orders against their own people or would it also be leaders that give orders against other nations when innocent civilians are murdered. Also should leaders from nations that enable the mass murdering psychopathic leaders be subjected to the same scrutiny as those who commit the actions. I personally think leaders should be highly accountable for the deaths of civilians or those that enable horrendous events to take place, if they were we would probably not face half the military problems we do now.
that's a very good question Crow, like all things in life the issue isn't black and white. I'm just saying on a personal level I don't have a problem with the death penalty in extreme cases of mass murder, repeated violent brutality or crimes against humanity. Quite where you draw a line with defining that I don't know. I agree that people who fund, arm and tacitly support such brutal dictators should also be held to account.
Quote from: Amicale on March 01, 2012, 08:39:33 PM
I wouldn't kill him. I'd lock him up and have him do at least 8 solid hours of work a day in order to earn his 'board'. Prisoners who were dangerous offenders used to be put to work building things, constructing things, doing manual, menial jobs. Now, it seems like they're just stuck in a cell and allowed to read, write, or watch TV. Is it any wonder so many of them prefer jail? Send this idiot someplace that'll make his time useful.
I couldn't agree more. Slave labour ;D
No. NO. Everyone has the potential to mature and change, till the day they die. I hate to be quoting Jesus on this, but we shouldn't forgive this man 7 times. We should forgive him 77 times. 777 times. There is no tipping point.
I probably won't pray for him, but I believe that he can become a better person.
Quote from: Tank on March 01, 2012, 09:24:55 PM
Definitely perfect in the case of Australia, it was America that went wrong ;) :D
Oh that was a low blow -- you know ours were mostly religious loons!
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on May 27, 2012, 03:27:58 AM
Quote from: Tank on March 01, 2012, 09:24:55 PM
Definitely perfect in the case of Australia, it was America that went wrong ;) :D
Oh that was a low blow -- you know ours were mostly religious loons!
The Simpson's episode featuring Australia makes me ponder a bit, we're portrayed dishing out the corporal punishment even though we don't do it, don't do torture or capital punishment. Ye I know it's the Simpsons and Sweden probably doesn't have naked females directing traffic either. It's doesn't bother me, I just find it a bit odd, incongruous I suppose, us being portrayed this way in US popular culture when the US is so much harsher.
Quote from: RenegeReversi on May 27, 2012, 02:02:25 AM
No. NO. Everyone has the potential to mature and change, till the day they die. I hate to be quoting Jesus on this, but we shouldn't forgive this man 7 times. We should forgive him 77 times. 777 times. There is no tipping point.
I probably won't pray for him, but I believe that he can become a better person.
Would you like to be the one to appologise to the victims?
Well he had committed rape 776 times but we thought he might change so we forgave him, let him free and hoped for the best
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on May 27, 2012, 04:34:07 AM
It's doesn't bother me, I just find it a bit odd, incongruous I suppose, us being portrayed this way in US popular culture when the US is so much harsher.
It's your accents -- they're so damn macho and, to us, macho means two-fisted, blood and guts, take no prisoners, shoot first ask questions never, etc, etc. You're victims of vocal stereotyping.
Quote from: Stevil on May 27, 2012, 04:40:59 AM
Quote from: RenegeReversi on May 27, 2012, 02:02:25 AM
No. NO. Everyone has the potential to mature and change, till the day they die. I hate to be quoting Jesus on this, but we shouldn't forgive this man 7 times. We should forgive him 77 times. 777 times. There is no tipping point.
I probably won't pray for him, but I believe that he can become a better person.
Would you like to be the one to appologise to the victims?
Well he had committed rape 776 times but we thought he might change so we forgave him, let him free and hoped for the best
Yes. I will apologize to the victims. In time he may apologize too, or he may not. But I will
not, I will
NOT destroy him. No man shall be deprived of the chance to change and mature. No man is beyond redemption. It is the victims, after all, who have not forgiven him, but only they will be able to do so. Once he has become a better man, he is free to go.
Quote from: RenegeReversi on May 27, 2012, 05:34:05 AM
Yes. I will apologize to the victims. In time he may apologize too, or he may not. But I will not, I will NOT destroy him. No man shall be deprived of the chance to change and mature. No man is beyond redemption.
So when you set free this man whom has raped 776 people, he then goes into society and rapes No 777
You will go to No 777, tell them that it was you who let this person go, you will tell them that you valued this rapist's potential for change more than the safety of the public.
You will tell the 777 victim that it is unfortunate but sometimes the offenders do repeat again, but that you are not giving up on the rapist and that you will let them go into society again and hope that they have changed and do not rape No 778?
Quote from: RenegeReversi on May 27, 2012, 05:34:05 AM
Once he has become a better man, he is free to go.
How can you judge that he has become a better man? How can you know that he won't re-offend? Is messing up the life of the next victim worth it?
If you were the government, is it your job to ensure individuals get ample opportunity to change or is it your job to keep society functional and safe?
Quote from: RenegeReversi on May 27, 2012, 05:34:05 AM
Quote from: Stevil on May 27, 2012, 04:40:59 AM
Quote from: RenegeReversi on May 27, 2012, 02:02:25 AM
No. NO. Everyone has the potential to mature and change, till the day they die. I hate to be quoting Jesus on this, but we shouldn't forgive this man 7 times. We should forgive him 77 times. 777 times. There is no tipping point.
I probably won't pray for him, but I believe that he can become a better person.
Would you like to be the one to appologise to the victims?
Well he had committed rape 776 times but we thought he might change so we forgave him, let him free and hoped for the best
Yes. I will apologize to the victims. In time he may apologize too, or he may not. But I will not, I will NOT destroy him. No man shall be deprived of the chance to change and mature. No man is beyond redemption. It is the victims, after all, who have not forgiven him, but only they will be able to do so. Once he has become a better man, he is free to go.
It's not about forgiveness or even culpability. My own view is that it is Impossible for anyone to be ultimately responsible for their own actions. Rehabilitation is worthwhile even from a pragmatic perspective as the cost of incarceration is high as is the social cost of re- offending. Where someone represents a serious danger to society, then society will keep them locked- up on the principle of self- preservation. It is perfectly possible to forgive someone without feeling it prudent to release them.
Quote from: En_Route on May 27, 2012, 10:52:44 AM
Quote from: RenegeReversi on May 27, 2012, 05:34:05 AM
Quote from: Stevil on May 27, 2012, 04:40:59 AM
Quote from: RenegeReversi on May 27, 2012, 02:02:25 AM
No. NO. Everyone has the potential to mature and change, till the day they die. I hate to be quoting Jesus on this, but we shouldn't forgive this man 7 times. We should forgive him 77 times. 777 times. There is no tipping point.
I probably won't pray for him, but I believe that he can become a better person.
Would you like to be the one to appologise to the victims?
Well he had committed rape 776 times but we thought he might change so we forgave him, let him free and hoped for the best
Yes. I will apologize to the victims. In time he may apologize too, or he may not. But I will not, I will NOT destroy him. No man shall be deprived of the chance to change and mature. No man is beyond redemption. It is the victims, after all, who have not forgiven him, but only they will be able to do so. Once he has become a better man, he is free to go.
It's not about forgiveness or even culpability. My own view is that it is Impossible for anyone to be ultimately responsible for their own actions. Rehabilitation is worthwhile even from a pragmatic perspective as the cost of incarceration is high as is the social cost of re- offending. Where someone represents a serious danger to society, then society will keep them locked- up on the principle of self- preservation. It is perfectly possible to forgive someone without feeling it prudent to release them.
I agree with this because we can't read minds. Thus we can never know if an historical recidivist has truly turned over a new leaf. The individual can be kept in a more sympathetic environment than a prison but still separate from society where he would possibly be in danger anyway.
I have given some thought to this. A man who commits a crime, especially a violent one like rape, and who intends to do it again, presents a problem to justice. In a perfect world, these things would not happen, but I don't believe that such things can ever be completely prevented through social justice or prisons. In this world, it would seem, there is pain, and things like rape and evil things of that nature do happen.
So how to proceed, given this information? Prisons are a deterrent from such actions and crimes, but if the goal of a prison is indeed rehabilitation, the life in prison without the possibility of parole is an admittance of failure on the part of justice. I do believe that prison time is important to have, but I can not find myself lumping criminals like this into a simple "scum of the earth" category and leaving them to rot.
Criminals are not defined apart from their victims. Both are human beings, and both act according to rules of human nature, emotion, and the tangle of beliefs and habits that make them, them. It could be that in time, a better understanding of criminal psychology will enable us to help criminals to become functioning members of society.
If I were running the prison system, I would hold him in prison until he showed the emotional maturity and self-awareness of an individual that does not commit rape. There is no perfect measurement that can validate this to a perfect level of accuracy, but that doesn't mean that reason and intuition do not play a part in helping determine whether an individual is fit for reintegration. You don't need a Q.E.D. proof that a prisoner will not rape again to believe that he won't.
Of course, if I do release him, and he does commit rape, then yes I will apologize to the victim. From your words, you seem to be implying that my apology is not good enough, but I think that speaks more for the mentality of the victim who is not willing to forgive. That kind of attitude will not forgive, and holds on to pain, even though it is more beneficial to let it go. So my answer is yes, I will let him go after a reasonable ascertainment of his ability to reintegrate, and I apologize to all victims, regardless of who they are.
The mistake, however, lies in thinking that I am to blame for the pain that they are feeling. I myself would be solely responsible for letting him out. He would be solely responsible for any rape he might commit. And the victim is solely responsible for whether they are hurt or not.
Quote from: RenegeReversi on June 03, 2012, 12:39:18 AM
I myself would be solely responsible for letting him out. He would be solely responsible for any rape he might commit.
But you letting him out of prison and into society allows him the opportunity to rape someone whom might otherwise had a wonderful life. You say that you take no responsibility for the safety of the public and the threat you introduced by putting this repeat offender back there.
Quote from: Stevil on June 03, 2012, 06:15:12 AM
Quote from: RenegeReversi on June 03, 2012, 12:39:18 AM
I myself would be solely responsible for letting him out. He would be solely responsible for any rape he might commit.
But you letting him out of prison and into society allows him the opportunity to rape someone whom might otherwise had a wonderful life. You say that you take no responsibility for the safety of the public and the threat you introduced by putting this repeat offender back there.
But RR (or anyone else) isn't responsible for another persons actions and should never be accountable for another person, there is nothing stopping that individual from rape even if you do lock them up either.
Quote from: Crow on June 03, 2012, 06:44:57 PM
Quote from: Stevil on June 03, 2012, 06:15:12 AM
Quote from: RenegeReversi on June 03, 2012, 12:39:18 AM
I myself would be solely responsible for letting him out. He would be solely responsible for any rape he might commit.
But you letting him out of prison and into society allows him the opportunity to rape someone whom might otherwise had a wonderful life. You say that you take no responsibility for the safety of the public and the threat you introduced by putting this repeat offender back there.
But RR (or anyone else) isn't responsible for another persons actions and should never be accountable for another person, there is nothing stopping that individual from rape even if you do lock them up either.
I personally hold my government responsible for letting repeat offenders out. I would like to see criminal charges laid down against the people that make the decision to let them out, especially if there is evidence to show that the person is likely to commit rape or other violent attacks on people in society again.
I find it sickening when this happens. To think that another member of society pays with their life because someone let these type of people (monsters) out.
I can't fathom the idea, Oh it wasn't my fault that he raped No 778, I just let him out. I accept no responsibility for what he does on the outside.
QuoteIf I were running the prison system, I would hold him in prison until he showed the emotional maturity and self-awareness of an individual that does not commit rape. There is no perfect measurement that can validate this to a perfect level of accuracy, but that doesn't mean that reason and intuition do not play a part in helping determine whether an individual is fit for reintegration.
::)
::)
Quote from: Stevil on June 03, 2012, 08:56:26 PM
I find it sickening when this happens. To think that another member of society pays with their life because someone let these type of people (monsters) out.
I agree. IMO some have to be very closely watched ^
I don't think its an individuals fault if these people are let out and commit the offense I hold the legal system accountable, if that system isn't up to scratch (I don't think there is a perfect system anywhere) then we as society need to sort it out, it isn't the governments fault either, they are made up of useless fuck wits (bit harsh) trying to further their careers who consistently without fail deliver short term solutions that make people think something is being done but in reality the bare minimum is being achieved if that.
Ultimately it is society at large that is at blame, by blaming the government for certain problems we aren't creating any solutions just adding more. A current example of this is people in all western countries who are complaining that there isn't enough manufacturing or produce being created in their country and blame the government for it, this has absolutely nothing to do with the government and is nothing they can do without forcing business away. the solution to this is with the people to vote with their pockets, to buy products and food that are made in their own country especially if that means spending £50 on a tee rather than £10, western society is capitalist whether we like it or not and the flow of capital quickly adjusts market trends.
The same thing applies to the legal system, even though it isn't dependent upon the flow of money in the same way there is still the defense system that you need to get on side as they are hugely influential and are entirely money influenced (don't bother with lawyers/barristers its the business owners, share holders, and directors you need to win). Protests are useless and are perceived as a nuisance, petitions still have a lot of weight in the UK (don't know about other countries) and is one of the best ways to get a topic discussed in parliament, the only problem is that most of these petitions are not backed by respectable organisations, industry heavyweights, scientific research, and majority public opinion. Do this and you will achieve something worthwhile. Its a lot of hard work and requires capital and industry influence but with the right commitment then something will be achieved. Otherwise its just pointless moaning.
Quote from: Stevil on May 27, 2012, 07:19:05 AM
Quote from: RenegeReversi on May 27, 2012, 05:34:05 AM
Once he has become a better man, he is free to go.
How can you judge that he has become a better man? How can you know that he won't re-offend? Is messing up the life of the next victim worth it?
While I'm sure some few people do turn their lives around, from what I've seen and experienced in life the rule that the only sure predictor of the future is the past generally holds true. And while this may be sad for the rare person who does truly reform, I also think there are some things that shouldn't be forgiven -- things that can't be fixed or undone, like murder and rape. They may no longer be the sort of person who does that, but they did it before and still have to pay for it.
QuoteIf you were the government, is it your job to ensure individuals get ample opportunity to change or is it your job to keep society functional and safe?
I'd vote for keeping society functional and safe as the Gov'ts job. The job of giving individuals opportunities to change belongs with society and, far more, with the individual himself.
Quote from: RenegeReversi on June 03, 2012, 12:39:18 AM
If I were running the prison system, I would hold him in prison until he showed the emotional maturity and self-awareness of an individual that does not commit rape. There is no perfect measurement that can validate this to a perfect level of accuracy, but that doesn't mean that reason and intuition do not play a part in helping determine whether an individual is fit for reintegration. You don't need a Q.E.D. proof that a prisoner will not rape again to believe that he won't.
I'm sorry, but emotional maturity and self awareness? You think that rapists are just...immature?
QuoteThe mistake, however, lies in thinking that I am to blame for the pain that they are feeling. I myself would be solely responsible for letting him out. He would be solely responsible for any rape he might commit. And the victim is solely responsible for whether they are hurt or not.
Just to clarify, the victim of the rape would bear the sole responsibility for how they feel about being raped? Like, if the rape is damaging to them, it is their fault for feeling that way? Is that what you're really saying?
Quote from: Stevil on March 01, 2012, 05:33:43 AM
Former gang member with 106 convictions back behind bars (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10789129)
You gotta wonder, how society puts up with garbage like this?
How many convictions does a person need before we decide to throw away the key or simply terminate the problem person?
I tend to think of this from a different perspective. I doubt anyone is under the illusion anymore that the criminal justice system is designed or functions primarily to rehabilitate criminals. In truth, based on recidivism rates, it seems more to do the opposite, releasing criminals that are even worse than the ones put away.
Instead of thinking of this as either keep imprisoning or put to death, I think of this more as what we can actually do to reform and rehabilitate. What are other countries doing that are helping to release more stable, productive members of society from prison? What can we do differently, and how can we go about changing from what we have now to a better system? Clearly this gang member is not, in his current condition, capable of being a productive, stable member of society. What could be done to change that? Education, perhaps? Giving him a job to do that, instead of being menial, is fulfilling? There are certainly options.
Quote from: Will on July 12, 2012, 03:11:27 AM
What could be done to change that? Education, perhaps? Giving him a job to do that, instead of being menial, is fulfilling? There are certainly options.
Problem is you don't want to reward this behaviour i.e. if a person wants some training or a job, all they need to do is commit a crime and then the government will pay them with skills and a job.
Quote from: Stevil on July 12, 2012, 04:02:09 AMProblem is you don't want to reward this behaviour i.e. if a person wants some training or a job, all they need to do is commit a crime and then the government will pay them with skills and a job.
I'm less concerned about the justice of the situation and more concerned about the practicality of it. The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Our crime rates, while lower than they were in decades gone by, are still far higher than comparable industrialized nations. We criminalize things that need not be criminalized, our private prison system is sucking up funds from states that don't have the money to spend, and ex-cons are essentially second-class citizens, rarely able to find decent work even after having paid their debt to society. I believe this situation we're in is unsustainable.
Most people in prison have inadequate education. Most people in prison are going to leave prison into a situation where crime is the only method by which they can survive. Most people in prison are in such a harsh environment that they have even less humanity in them leaving than they did when they were originally incarcerated.
We need some kind of change, and I refuse to allow that change to be an increased rate of the death penalty until we've actually tried some alternatives. My personal moral objections to capital punishment aside, it's not what we should be doing as a society.