Print

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

[Reelya]

Especially "former USSR". Unless you're pretty young they didn't cover provinces of the USSR in highschool.

[Kagus]

Arpaio had a personal prison called "tent city" that used the Arizona heat as a form of punishment against prisoners.  Anyone who was held there (or their families) can sue the city of Phoenix and almost automatically win.  Its cost the city government millions of dollars.  Arpaio running for senate is like Chris Christie running for president... what did he expect to happen?

I remember that. "This is a prison, not a hotel", "I don't want to see repeat customers". I also remember thinking that that was the right way of doing things, and y'know, mentally congratulated the dude for "Being tough on crime".

Funny to think about.

[Reelya]

Arpaio had a personal prison called "tent city" that used the Arizona heat as a form of punishment against prisoners.  Anyone who was held there (or their families) can sue the city of Phoenix and almost automatically win.  Its cost the city government millions of dollars.  Arpaio running for senate is like Chris Christie running for president... what did he expect to happen?

I remember that. "This is a prison, not a hotel", "I don't want to see repeat customers". I also remember thinking that that was the right way of doing things, and y'know, mentally congratulated the dude for "Being tough on crime".

Funny to think about.

One of the problems that you might not be aware of is that Tent City was not a prison, it was a holding area for suspects. Arpaio was rounding up people he didn't like and holding them in gulag-like conditions without proper charges or a trial.

"being tough on crime" is one thing, but having the police just round people up and chuck them out in tents in the desert in shackles while you do the paperwork isn't a good thing.

The guy basically instigated his own UN-human-rights-treaty-violating torture system for people who hadn't been convicted of any crime.

[wierd]

A cursory examination of crime and its causal factors will poignantly reveal that "punishment" should not be the function of a CORRECTIONAL system.

Crime exists when at least some portion of the population either must resort to "out of bounds" means to sustain themselves, or when such methods are faster and easier than legitimate means. (such as when lawyers run everything, and you have to sign a 50 page affidavit to get a glass of water, excluding the local water works from any and all legal reprisals or blame for any conditions that might arise from drinking that glass of water, including but not limited to, drowning, poisoning, or allergic reaction-- Or less bombastically, when there are real and purposefully enacted barriers to entry into "accepted society", which is true both for trade obstructing legal bodies, and for harsh restrictions on immigration from less developed countries.)

"Tough on crime" is an absurdity.  "tough on recidivism" would be a much better goal, but that assumes that you combat the recidivism through reform of both criminals and the system that creates them, such that the crimes cease happening with such frequency, and not via the greedy-ai method of killing all criminals on sight so that they cannot commit more crimes.

[Egan_BW]

The real greedy-ai answer is to legalize everything.

[smjjames]

It's worth noting that, within 24 hours of Gillum winning the Democratic primary, his Republican opponent DeSantis told a group of supporters to not "monkey this up" by electing Gillum, who he regarded as an "articulate spokesman".

Yeah, I saw that. DeSantis's campaign says that he obviously meant 'making a wrong choice', but didn't say anything about poor choice of words.

Not surprised to hear such rhetoric from a Republican, especially one embracing Trump to the degree DeSantis is.

[Trekkin]

A cursory examination of crime and its causal factors will poignantly reveal that "punishment" should not be the function of a CORRECTIONAL system.

This is true. A more rigorous examination less concerned with poignancy might factor in the effect that the possibility of punishment has on the cost/benefit analyses performed by people considering whether or not to commit crimes and lead to the conclusion that punishment is more effective than rehabilitation for certain kinds of crime (at a guess, white-collar crime in particular.)

[Frumple]

Yeah, I saw that. DeSantis's campaign says that he obviously meant 'making a wrong choice', but didn't say anything about poor choice of words.

Not surprised to hear such rhetoric from a Republican, especially one embracing Trump to the degree DeSantis is.

Yeeaah, I hadn't started the day wanting to how the GOP nom could further reduce my already negative respect for 'im, but life gives you little surprises like racist fuckwit jibberjabber from a governor candidate whether you want it or not.

Really wish I had the energy (and time, since stumping for black guy in this shithole would probably be riskier than I could afford, so I'd want to do it somewhere else and that means travel) to campaign, bleh.

[wierd]

A cursory examination of crime and its causal factors will poignantly reveal that "punishment" should not be the function of a CORRECTIONAL system.

This is true. A more rigorous examination less concerned with poignancy might factor in the effect that the possibility of punishment has on the cost/benefit analyses performed by people considering whether or not to commit crimes and lead to the conclusion that punishment is more effective than rehabilitation for certain kinds of crime (at a guess, white-collar crime in particular.)

Which is as good a justification as any for capital punishment as a form of last resort effort to prevent otherwise unavoidable recidivism of heinous criminality. (such as serial murderers and the like.)

However, drawing where capital punishment becomes sensible or not quickly gets mired in the quagmire of inbiasedly evaluating whether or not a particular subject can indeed be reformed by a correctional system or not, and whether or not life imprisonment (and its associated costs) is not a better solution.

You cannot just look at one end of the spectrum (white collar), and not the other (heinous crime caused by non-correctable defect or impulse).  There is a decided possibility that the danger of being shot full of significantly less humane chemicals than were used in the past will curb such behavior from this latter group; but how do you quantify it?

[smjjames]

Yeah, I saw that. DeSantis's campaign says that he obviously meant 'making a wrong choice', but didn't say anything about poor choice of words.

Not surprised to hear such rhetoric from a Republican, especially one embracing Trump to the degree DeSantis is.

Yeeaah, I hadn't started the day wanting to how the GOP nom could further reduce my already negative respect for 'im, but life gives you little surprises like racist fuckwit jibberjabber from a governor candidate whether you want it or not.

Really wish I had the energy (and time, since stumping for black guy in this shithole would probably be riskier than I could afford, so I'd want to do it somewhere else and that means travel) to campaign, bleh.

In the context, I did get that he meant 'don't screw this up', but there's still double context because he's running against an African-American. Haven't heard much (or looked up atm) of his rhetoric other than this particular case, so, I can't really judge, but it was definetly a very poor choice of words.

[Reelya]

A cursory examination of crime and its causal factors will poignantly reveal that "punishment" should not be the function of a CORRECTIONAL system.

This is true. A more rigorous examination less concerned with poignancy might factor in the effect that the possibility of punishment has on the cost/benefit analyses performed by people considering whether or not to commit crimes and lead to the conclusion that punishment is more effective than rehabilitation for certain kinds of crime (at a guess, white-collar crime in particular.)

Which is as good a justification as any for capital punishment as a form of last resort effort to prevent otherwise unavoidable recidivism of heinous criminality. (such as serial murderers and the like.)

However, drawing where capital punishment becomes sensible or not quickly gets mired in the quagmire of inbiasedly evaluating whether or not a particular subject can indeed be reformed by a correctional system or not, and whether or not life imprisonment (and its associated costs) is not a better solution.

Capital punishment should be used sparingly, otherwise people will escalate their crimes further because they have nothing to lose at that point. If you're already facing death penalty charges for a lesser crime you'd be more likely to kill someone to cover it up further, or kill additional people if every killing was already a death-penalty charge.

[wierd]

A cursory examination of crime and its causal factors will poignantly reveal that "punishment" should not be the function of a CORRECTIONAL system.

This is true. A more rigorous examination less concerned with poignancy might factor in the effect that the possibility of punishment has on the cost/benefit analyses performed by people considering whether or not to commit crimes and lead to the conclusion that punishment is more effective than rehabilitation for certain kinds of crime (at a guess, white-collar crime in particular.)

Which is as good a justification as any for capital punishment as a form of last resort effort to prevent otherwise unavoidable recidivism of heinous criminality. (such as serial murderers and the like.)

However, drawing where capital punishment becomes sensible or not quickly gets mired in the quagmire of inbiasedly evaluating whether or not a particular subject can indeed be reformed by a correctional system or not, and whether or not life imprisonment (and its associated costs) is not a better solution.

Capital punishment should be used sparingly, otherwise people will escalate their crimes further because they have nothing to lose at that point. If you're already facing death penalty charges for a lesser crime you'd be more likely to kill someone to cover it up further.

Agreed; because the primary purpose of a correctional system is to provide correction for a systemic problem. In this case, criminality.  The most effective correction to petty crime is to reform the system that causes the petty crime's incidence, such that the rate of incidence is minimized; eg, if people are pushing over gas stations and liquor stores so that they can buy their baby formula and pay the rent, threatening them with ever increasing legal threat is not the correct solution; social reform to permit people to actually meet their family's basic needs legitimately is.

[Trekkin]

A cursory examination of crime and its causal factors will poignantly reveal that "punishment" should not be the function of a CORRECTIONAL system.

This is true. A more rigorous examination less concerned with poignancy might factor in the effect that the possibility of punishment has on the cost/benefit analyses performed by people considering whether or not to commit crimes and lead to the conclusion that punishment is more effective than rehabilitation for certain kinds of crime (at a guess, white-collar crime in particular.)

Which is as good a justification as any for capital punishment as a form of last resort effort to prevent otherwise unavoidable recidivism of heinous criminality. (such as serial murderers and the like.)

However, drawing where capital punishment becomes sensible or not quickly gets mired in the quagmire of inbiasedly evaluating whether or not a particular subject can indeed be reformed by a correctional system or not, and whether or not life imprisonment (and its associated costs) is not a better solution.

You cannot just look at one end of the spectrum (white collar), and not the other (heinous crime caused by non-correctable defect or impulse).  There is a decided possibility that the danger of being shot full of significantly less humane chemicals than were used in the past will curb such behavior from this latter group; but how do you quantify it?

If I can't just look at one end of the spectrum of crimes, you can't just look at one end of the spectrum of punishments; not all punishment is capital, nor are all criminals forced to steal to sustain themselves. Horses for courses, no?

It's easy to forget, when looking at prison reform and so forth, that the point of a correctional system is to minimize crime; we can design humane constraints into it, but ultimately we're looking for the argmin of crime rather than the argmax of justice if only because the former is quantifiable. Yes, the threat of punishment is a poor incentive when the end result of not committing crime is untenable suffering, but that does not necessarily mean that deterrence fails everywhere, and when it succeeds, it's more effective than post hoc correction since it prevents the crime that would begin the corrections process as well as the possible future crimes correction would prevent.

[redwallzyl]

A cursory examination of crime and its causal factors will poignantly reveal that "punishment" should not be the function of a CORRECTIONAL system.

This is true. A more rigorous examination less concerned with poignancy might factor in the effect that the possibility of punishment has on the cost/benefit analyses performed by people considering whether or not to commit crimes and lead to the conclusion that punishment is more effective than rehabilitation for certain kinds of crime (at a guess, white-collar crime in particular.)

Which is as good a justification as any for capital punishment as a form of last resort effort to prevent otherwise unavoidable recidivism of heinous criminality. (such as serial murderers and the like.)

However, drawing where capital punishment becomes sensible or not quickly gets mired in the quagmire of inbiasedly evaluating whether or not a particular subject can indeed be reformed by a correctional system or not, and whether or not life imprisonment (and its associated costs) is not a better solution.

Capital punishment should be used sparingly, otherwise people will escalate their crimes further because they have nothing to lose at that point. If you're already facing death penalty charges for a lesser crime you'd be more likely to kill someone to cover it up further, or kill additional people if every killing was already a death-penalty charge.

The real main reason to not have is is the possibility of sentenceing an innocent person. It's hard to reverse death.

[Egan_BW]

If it were possible to reverse death, would execution be justified?