I agree--sort of. While they probably recognize the possibility of getting caught, I don't think things like gangbangers killing each other is a case of calculating the odds. Good point, but I'm not so sure that rehabilitation is part of the system. In fact, I'm not convinced it's ever worked.
I don't think so. https://www.apnews.com/3a2dd2e78b26427b971b06f406433195 https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/...rtes-war-on-drug-suspects-in-the-philippines/
Philippines? Could you have gotten any further the U.S.? Maybe like the Dr. Congo where some pay for breaking military rule and law with a limb.. That would have made far more of a splash in my book Or we could simply put the hyperbole away and use our countries laws and examples of overreach..
Well for starters we aren't mowing people down in the street for drugs But if you insist on focusing on drugs, then talk China and opium. They witnessed first hand what that substance did to their people and country.. At one time Opium Wars
The point of a discussion is to make your point clear to others. When someone says your point is not clear, the response should not be, my position is clear and always has been. I outlined exactly how you failed to communicate your point to Doombug. This is a thread about abolishing prison. Doombug outlined a moral case for imprisonment. You responded only by listing people you didn't think deserved imprisonment. I'm telling you, that's not making your point clear. Your issue with the justice system seems to be the type of people who qualify for incarceration. That's now finally clear. It wasn't previously. In your first post, you said that the funds that are used to fund prisons should be used in more useful ways. That does not tell me that you think prison is useful. Kinda the opposite, right? Your next post you say that many people convicted are innocent. In what way does that express the opinion that prison is useful? You take a pause to attack someone's religion in your next post. I don't think that makes it clear that you think prison is useful. Next up you ask what type of people should be hanged. Definitely not making anything clear there. Finally, five posts in you make a distinction between violent criminals and non violent criminals after I made an attempt to restate your argument. That's a little bit of clarity, but you wipe it all away in your next post by once again claiming that violent criminals are often innocent. Another comment about religion, and then right into more people you think are innocent. What do you think should actually happen with AOC's suggestion that we do away with prison. Should we be looking for some alternative way to sentence crimes? Is your beef just with the fallibility of the system? Human error is not something you can engineer out of a system that relies on human subjective opinion. Our justice system is dependent on intent, and that's not something you can measure objectively. As for the Auden quote, it's a platitude. Evil happens to everyone. There is no one in your life that hasn't experienced some type of injustice. Including to yourself, I'm sure. Do you do evil as a result?
Would that such practices were applied to the many criminals in government. The criminals in government have free passes all the time.
Of course it's a platitude--it's a poem from 1939. Platitudes are often artful ways to express things, possibly explain things. A violent person is never innocent. However, there are very many examples of an innocent person being convicted of crimes he never committed. As with CP5 there are many examples of innocent persons being coerced into pleading guilty to crimes they never committed. I'm not for abolishing prison, but I am very much in favor of overhauling many of the most egregious abuses of authority practiced by our so-called criminal justice system. I've already noted that prison is necessary ONLY for confining predatory humans. Must I say it again for you to understand? I've already said that alternative sentences help society. Must I say it again? Are you just trying to stir things up, or simply offer shallow nonsense?
That's not what platitude means. Careful. I'm sure I can come up with plenty of violent people who committed no crimes (at least none that you would consider worthy of incarceration.) Mohammad Ali comes to mind. Do you know what he was incarcerated for? Predation is not limited to violent behavior. Not to mention situations in which predation wasn't the motive. There have been quite a few times in which a non violent person's incompetence or negligence resulted in violence.
No. I'm simply frustrated with our current level of politics in which simple platitudes are used to tear down very complex systems with little thought as to why those systems currently work as they do. "Do away with prison" is not a simple suggestion. The criminal justice system, like all of our societal systems, is an incredibly complex web of solutions that have been designed over time in reaction to many different problems. Because the system has a time component, some of those problems have been long forgotten...because they don't exist any more...because the system solved them. But that doesn't stop a bar tender from the Bronx with little to no understanding of the system as a whole from suggesting that we destroy the entire system in order to solve the problems she currently perceives. This "do away with prison" plan is currently in action. Its impact is playing out in major American "sanctuary" cities right now. The result: mentally ill people, drug addicts, and violent criminals, homeless in the streets, spreading violence, feces, and disease all over society. These are problems that have long been ameliorated by previous societal systems. Were those previous systems the "right" solution to the problem? Maybe not, but the identification of the problem is no big deal. It's the solution to it that's the sticky part. So when you bring up people wrongly incarcerated, I think, so what? What impact does that actually have on society as a whole? What's the change in that impact going to be when the system is changed? Simple solutions to problems are usually accompanied by negative consequences. What are they? Are they worse than the negative consequences you're trying to solve? Do modern politicians EVER think in that way? It doesn't seem that way.
What impact does the false imprisonment of innocent people have on society? Firstly it tells people that the criminal justice system is rigged and more often delivers gross injustice. That is not good for any society, and it flies in the face of any claims that in the US all men stand equal before the law. It belies the false claims that we are a nation of laws and not men.
More often than what? And every Justice system in the history of Justice systems has been rigged. The entire point of the system is to promote a specific set of values to the exclusion of others.
Yeah that's a claim you're going to have to back up with evidence, please. After all, every person accused of a crime punishable by incarceration for more than six months has a constitutionally protected right to a trial by jury. That means a jury of peers all had to agree that justice was being served by the sentence. You're going to have some hard work to do to prove that the majority of them are wrong. Maybe you plan on arguing against democracy? If you somehow manage to prove that claim, then we can compare this system with any other in the world that you think delivers better performance. Is there some god you plan on appealing to that can objectively administer justice in a way that more often delivers justice? Would it still be justice if more often the majority disagrees with you? I don't think we'll get there though because your claim resembles the post modern claim that denies the possibility of such a thing as justice.
