Print

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

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Sergarr]

It could also mean that since the EU system is flawed, criminals are released to often.

Clearly this must mean that in EU, people get shot on the street much more often, since there are much more criminals in the society!

Oh wait.

[Baffler]

The US incarceration rate has very little to do with wrongful imprisonment and practically ruddy everything to do with with shitpoor legislation.

Aye. Minimum sentences and the drug war are mostly to blame.

[FearfulJesuit]

The lack of funding for prisons and vengeful streak of the average US voter don't help, either, because they increase recidivism.

[smjjames]

You know, for those countries in Europe without life sentences, how do you deal with particularily large crimes or repeat offenders like serial killers?

[Zangi]

Tough on crime!

[ggamer]

You know, for those countries in Europe without life sentences, how do you deal with particularily large crimes or repeat offenders like serial killers?

kill the shit out of them

jk, I actually didn't know EU didn't have life sentences. Why is that?

[Sheb]

Even recidivists tends to calm down when they're old. We may not have life sentences, but we can keep them in jail 'till their 60's. Or lock them up forever if they are insane.

ggamer: It varies from country to country.

[smjjames]

You know, for those countries in Europe without life sentences, how do you deal with particularily large crimes or repeat offenders like serial killers?

kill the shit out of them

jk, I actually didn't know EU didn't have life sentences. Why is that?

Actually, I think it's just a few, like Belgium, and maybe Netherlands, those are the only two I actually know of.

[FearfulJesuit]

IIRC, countries without life sentencing will have a psychiatrist review you every few years or so and decide whether you're fit to be a productive member of society again. I believe this is how it happens in Norway, because Anders Breivik didn't get technically a life sentence, just one that's conditional on a psychiatrist saying he's free to go, which will never happen.

[Darvi]

So basically the opposite of releasing them for good behaviour?

[RedKing]

By the way, currently in North Carolina there is a referendum for an amendment that would "allow" accused criminals not facing the death penalty to waive their right to a fair trial. Yeah. The fuck. I voted against it, and so should any other NC forumites.

EDIT: Alright, to be a bit more fair, it is supposed to allow judge trials instead of giving you no trial, but both of those things are bad. Perhaps worse, the wording says nothing about allowing judge trials.

Yeah, my GF mentioned that one to me (I haven't voted yet), and I was like "dafuq?" How'd that end up on the ballot without making the news??

Although interestingly enough, we're the ONLY state that does not allow a defendant to waive their right to a jury trial. And it passed the State house 104-1. But fuck 'em...because I know exactly who will be pushed to waive their trial rights.


As to the bit about libel/slander laws, then those need to be revised. If you can prove someone stated something that was completely wrong, then they should have no grounds whatsoever to sue for libel. It does society a grave disservice when liars are allowed impunity to deceive and mislead the public. Personally, I'd say the penalty for lying in a political ad should involve genitalia, an anvil and a hammer, but that's just me.

[Darvi]

I don't think most genitalia can even carry a hammer, RK...

[Frumple]

Yeah, the problem is mostly specifically with lying, RK. With that, you have to not only prove inaccuracy, but intent. They have grounds to sue for libel because being called a liar is a considerably worse statement in regards to character than being, say, incompetent (not fact-checking, allowing yourself to be fed false information (p.s. this is why you have low-rung political people give you information, in case they need be thrown under a bus)), mistaken, or misinterpreting information.

They (probably) don't have grounds for suing when the statements made are said to be flat wrong, but they may if it is said that the statements are made flat wrong knowingly. And the latter can be incredibly hard to prove in court.* Which, I would posit, is why news groups and whatnot don't explicitly say that. They stick to what they can reliably prove -- inaccuracies, mistakes, misinterpretations, and falsities (but, not necessarily fabrications, because, again, intent).

*E: Especially when you're dealing with incredibly experienced lying scumbags who will happily and nonchalantly deny every iota of intent that can be dragged out.

[scriver]

You know, for those countries in Europe without life sentences, how do you deal with particularily large crimes or repeat offenders like serial killers?

Here in Sweden we have "life sentence" which is limited to twenty years, and you generally have much shorter penalties than in the US. Our prison system is very rehabilitation-focused and strives towards letting prisoners live as normal a life as possible (Our prison system also doesn't believe that horrible living standards should be part of the system), prisoners are offered education, mental and drug therapy, and are encouraged to recognise and break the thought and action patterns that has led them there. As an effect, the number of Scandinavian repeat offenders is much lower than in the US - in other words, we deal with repeat offenders by trying to make sure they don't relapse into crime or drug abuse in the first place. I honestly don't know what the policy is for those who relapse despite this - it would probably depend on the nature of the crime.

Now, I'm a lot more hazy on the topic of how crazies are dealt with, so the rest should be taken with a grain of salt. Anyway, If a criminal is deemed mentally unstable enough to be considered legally insane, he is instead sent to a mental institution, the prison-likeness of it depending on the nature of the crime. Usually for a set time and once again at most twenty years to begin with, with longer times possible if they cannot pass mental examination.

[smjjames]

Yeah, the problem is mostly specifically with lying, RK. With that, you have to not only prove inaccuracy, but intent. They have grounds to sue for libel because being called a liar is a considerably worse statement in regards to character than being, say, incompetent (not fact-checking, allowing yourself to be fed false information (p.s. this is why you have low-rung political people give you information, in case they need be thrown under a bus)), mistaken, or misinterpreting information.

They (probably) don't have grounds for suing when the statements made are said to be flat wrong, but they may if it is said that the statements are made flat wrong knowingly. And the latter can be incredibly hard to prove in court.* Which, I would posit, is why news groups and whatnot don't explicitly say that. They stick to what they can reliably prove -- inaccuracies, mistakes, misinterpretations, and falsities (but, not necessarily fabrications, because, again, intent).

*E: Especially when you're dealing with incredibly experienced lying scumbags who will happily and nonchalantly deny every iota of intent that can be dragged out.

Its not like American politicians lie any more than European politicians do though.