Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Well now, is it honestly so absolute? If it's an isolation v. congregation thing, then why not have the prisoners congregate in several small room groups with rotating meal times rather than plop them all in one large cafeteria? This would cut down on violence, make gang activity harder to carry out, and make the guards' jobs easier. It's a hell of a lot better to full lockdown 10 prisoners in one smaller dining room than 2000 in a cafeteria.

Awesome, let's do it.

Oh, wait, the prisons are private businesses now, nevermind.

[Truean]

I totally agree that it's worth it, but I suspect it's not feasible at all.
Some jails just want costs at a minimum and don't care about long term effects.

Rather they simply aren't going to do it.... Feasible or not....

Nobody wants to pay for Justice so we don't have it....

As for not caring about long term effects, they've been saying that for years. Welcome to the long term of 30-40 years ago... that nobody cared about. It'll just get worse.

Well now, is it honestly so absolute? If it's an isolation v. congregation thing, then why not have the prisoners congregate in several small room groups with rotating meal times rather than plop them all in one large cafeteria? This would cut down on violence, make gang activity harder to carry out, and make the guards' jobs easier. It's a hell of a lot better to full lockdown 10 prisoners in one smaller dining room than 2000 in a cafeteria.

Awesome, let's do it.

Oh, wait, the prisons are private businesses now, nevermind.

Speaking of problems to fix....

[Skyrunner]

So many things wrong and mired into various systems and frameworks, making them unchangable.
For example... cotton subsidiaries. The government originally gave those to use it for army uniforms. Now, it doesn't need as much, but they lobby and it stays put. Another money leak D:

Note- this may not be still true, as I read it in a book a couple years ago.

Or... S.Korea's octopus-like supercompanies. Lots of stuff D:

[Fenrir]

How do European and Asian countries tend to run their prisons? Do other nations have a system that works? or, at least, works better?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Let's just say that you don't want to go to prison in China.

[Frumple]

From what I understand a number of the European countries seem to be doing better in a lot of ways. Not sure about the Asian countries, but their situation (beyond the penal system) in general seems a bit worse (with exceptions, of course) off, so I imagine they're probably not doing as well as the European ones. Which probably means a lot of them are still doing better than the states, but I haven't heard enough to say either way.

It's hard to make good comparisons, though, as a fair amount of that has as much to do with sentencing as the actual prison conditions. Sweden doesn't have a full percent of their population behind bars, ferex, whereas the states hit one in a hundred a few years back.

There's a lot we could do better, but two of our biggest problems (drug law and the privatized prisons -- as true notes, can probably tack on insufficient support for the non-privatized ones in there somewhere, too) have some serious backing trying to keep 'em entrenched.

[Dutchling]

The European prison system is good enough to make WTF about how horrible it is in the USA.

Let's just say that you don't want to go to prison in China.

Getting raped in the Land of Freedom and Democracy® makes the rape okay I guess?

[ChairmanPoo]

The intruder is instigating. They instigated when they intruded, hence the name. Lethal force does not imply murder. Lethal force implies killing. Murder is a legally defined crime, killing is an act which is sometimes in line with that crime and other times is not.

No, the intruder has broken into your home. If you start a fight with him, you are the instigator and attacker, and he has a right to defend himself from you. Being a robber does not deprive him of any rights, it makes him guilty of a crime. Nothing more.

He instigated a situation in which you're potentially in danger, and justified to respond with force. You can be sure I wont sit calmly while the intruder goes about his things, and hope he's just about getting some small cash for pizza, or something, instead of beating me up or killing me, and raping my family. What you are arguing for is simply ridiculous, that we should wait until this obviously hostile stranger has begun overt violence against us to defend ourselves against him.

This is not to say that any violent action is fair game (executing them while they are down is out of the question, let alone torturing them), but I think allowing the homeowner first strike without warning is common sense. It'd be regarded as self defense in most western nations, too.

[kaijyuu]

Thinking a home invader is going to rape/murder is about as ludicrous as thinking a mugger wants anything other than your wallet. The vast majority of injuries from these sort of things occur when the person getting robbed fights back. Comply and there won't be a knife in your stomach.


For a home invasion, the safest route for all involved (if you notice them first) is to sneak to a phone and call the police. Then grab a baseball bat or that nifty display sword on your wall and inform them of who you just telephoned. There are numerous ways you can gain the upper hand without violently attacking them when their back is turned. All you need to do is scare them into running away, and then no one gets hurt, which is way worse than your TV or computer getting smashed.

[Sheb]

It'd be regarded as self defense in most western nations, too.

Well, not in Belgium nor in France (for the case where I'm sure). And I seriously doubt anywhere in the EU for that matter. Shooting someone without warning isn't self-defense.

You don't have to wait for him to attack you to defend yourself, but only to be threatening (searching your drawers for jewelry isn't threatening.) And then, you shouldn't try to kill him (Well, if he has a gun drawn I guess you're excused, but criminals mostly don't use guns around here).

[ChairmanPoo]

Thinking a home invader is going to rape/murder is about as ludicrous as thinking a mugger wants anything other than your wallet

You're very mistaken. It's becoming very usual for burglars to deliver massive beatdowns to homeowners who have the bad luck of being at home. Here's a link to a high profile case
And here is another

The vast majority of injuries from these sort of things occur when the person getting robbed fights back. Comply and there won't be a knife in your stomach.

I know from first-hand experience that this is simply untrue, and know I'm not the only one to have had this kind of experience in the area. Real thieves and muggers aren't Robin Hood types. They're maladjusted sociopaths who are not above engaging into violence if the slightest thing fails to go their way, or if they just had a bad day.

Well, not in Belgium nor in France (for the case where I'm sure). And I seriously doubt anywhere in the EU for that matter. Shooting someone without warning isn't self-defense.

Remember Tyler Juett? He got killed while trying to rob a house in the UK. And sure enough, they tried to charge the homeowner: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6449940/Man-appears-in-court-charged-with-killing-burglar.html

But... in the end, common sense prevailed, and he was let go.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/apr/19/burglary-murder-charge-dropped


AFAIK, for the most part these kind of incidents tend to be regarded as justified, in general, barring aggravating circumstances (eg: coup de graces and/or chasing fleeing invaders). Which is reasonable. I think that people have a right to be able to defend themselves, their families, at their homes. This is not to say that vigilantism should run rampant, but that if a guy breaks into someone's home and gets killed, then it's certainly not murder, it's justified homicide at worst.

[Sheb]

Both of your exemple are from Spain, so they may not be totally relevant.

I think you're missing a key disctinction we do. We totally understand someone shooting a robber to defend himself if that robber is attacking him. That doesn't mean you should shoot first, without warning.

Your british exemple is also irrelevant. The prosecution dropped the case because it appeared their witness had been lying. Moreover, the robber had weapons, and were attacking him. It's not like a killed a defenceless thief in cold blood and was acquitted in trial.

[kaijyuu]

Thinking a home invader is going to rape/murder is about as ludicrous as thinking a mugger wants anything other than your wallet

You're very mistaken. It's becoming very usual for burglars to deliver massive beatdowns to homeowners who have the bad luck of being at home. Here's a link to a high profile case
And here is another

Key word: High profile. Big red flag right there that it's an outlier. Gimme some actual statistics, including things that aren't published in the newspapers, and I'll change my stance on the risks.

The vast majority of injuries from these sort of things occur when the person getting robbed fights back. Comply and there won't be a knife in your stomach.

I know from first-hand experience that this is simply untrue, and know I'm not the only one to have had this kind of experience in the area. Real thieves and muggers aren't Robin Hood types. They're maladjusted sociopaths who are not above engaging into violence if the slightest thing fails to go their way, or if they just had a bad day.

The difference between a sociopath and a sadist is a sociopath won't stab you unless they have reason to. Conceivable that you're their punching bag for the day to let out some frustrations, but how does that change how you should act? The best way to protect yourself in a mugging is to make sure things DO go their way. Once they're out of sight, you're safe, if a bit lower on cash.



Anyway my point is attacking them is a stupid thing to do, and not just because your TV is worth infinitely less than their life and limb. Always, always, always, ALWAYS for your own safety as well as theirs, get them out without a fight. If this means cowering in a corner, so be it. Even if we screw moral concerns, you have no goddamn good reason to attack the robber unless they are actively threatening you or someone else, simply because your stuff isn't worth the risk. If you DO have means to intimidate them out, use them of course, but be prepared to run and not actually fight. Period.



Curious: Do you condone the use of booby traps, like razor wire? Note that security alarms will result in less property damage due to not having to get the blood out of your carpet.

[GlyphGryph]

Kaijyuu, I'm not entirely sure if understand the full impact of home invasions on some people. It's a lot more akin to rape than it is to simple theft (in kind, not in degree, before you imply that I'm saying that).

It is an intense, terrifying violation of sacrosanct space by a hostile enemy, and if your safety is paramount, yes - you should let them do whatever they want. Fighting back is more likely to get you hurt.

But many people value preserving that sanctity over a risk to their own lives.

Would you advocate potential victims avoid resistance because it might get them hurt?

Or do you believe there's some sort of cutoff other than (immediate threat to life and limb) that makes aggressive resistance acceptable?

[ChairmanPoo]

Both of your exemple are from Spain, so they may not be totally relevant.

Right, because Spain is totally not Europe. Africa ends at the Pyrenees, I forgot 

I think you're missing a key disctinction we do. We totally understand someone shooting a robber to defend himself if that robber is attacking him. That doesn't mean you should shoot first, without warning.

So you're going to... issue a challenge, so that he has a chance of killing YOU instead?
Don't be ridiculous. You assault the tresspasser with whatever you have as soon as you see him. It makes no difference that we're talking about a gun than about a knife. If anything, with the latter it would be even more justified to attack without warning.

Your british exemple is also irrelevant. The prosecution dropped the case because it appeared their witness had been lying. Moreover, the robber had weapons, and were attacking him. It's not like a killed a defenceless thief in cold blood and was acquitted in trial.

You obviously haven't followed that case, but it wasn't like you describe it. The case was dropped because it was common sense. The man stepped into the kitchen, and stabbed the intruder. The fact that one of the witnesses was lying is irrelevant to this part, as he was lying about the homeowner pursuing him in the street, which WOULD have been going outside the boundaries of home defense. As for the dead thug, he was found AFTERWARDS to have been armed. This is again, another point FOR attacking first without warning. You don't want to give the other guy a chance to pull his piece. Just assume he IS armed and attack him.

Key word: High profile. Big red flag right there that it's an outlier. Gimme some actual statistics, including things that aren't published in the newspapers, and I'll change my stance on the risks.

Do your own research. This stuff has been going around here A LOT for the last ten years. You want official stats? Go google them, I have better things to do.

The difference between a sociopath and a sadist is a sociopath won't stab you unless they have reason to. Conceivable that you're their punching bag for the day to let out some frustrations, but how does that change how you should act? The best way to protect yourself in a mugging is to make sure things DO go their way. Once they're out of sight, you're safe, if a bit lower on cash.

Or badly bruised. Or dead. Your best chance is to run away so that they don't get a chance at you at all. Again, most muggers aren't reasonable, logical people.

Anyway my point is attacking them is a stupid thing to do, and not just because your TV is worth infinitely less than their life and limb.

But not infinitedly more than my life and limb. Even putting my personal goods as secondary after the physical safety of a home invader is stretching it a lot.

Always, always, always, ALWAYS for your own safety as well as theirs, get them out without a fight. If this means cowering in a corner, so be it. Even if we screw moral concerns, you have no goddamn good reason to attack the robber unless they are actively threatening you or someone else, simply because your stuff isn't worth the risk. If you DO have means to intimidate them out, use them of course, but be prepared to run and not actually fight. Period.

PRECISEDLY because I care about my own safety, I'd empty my gun in their general direction as soon as I saw them. In case they decide to get violent, which, again, is not unusual. It's even reasonable, from their point of view: hey, let's beat up a bit the guy covering in the corner. Who knows, maybe he has a safe somewhere, or we can get his credit card's account number out of him. Again this is not a hypothetical scenario. It does happen. Acting like a fucking sheep going to the slaughter doesn't dissuade them out of treating you like one.

Curious: Do you condone the use of booby traps, like razor wire? Note that security alarms will result in less property damage due to not having to get the blood out of your carpet.

Have I commented anything about booby traps, or razor wire? Why do you put stuff I haven't said into my mouth?