Print

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

[Frumple]

It's a bad feeling to read an article which you generally agree with, and which highlights important issues, until they come to their proposals.  Then suddenly you realise that the person writing it is a fruitbat.

Seemed less crazy than a lot of folks advocating the current system. Probably more indicative of the problem at hand than anything else. When your opposing a position that's utterly batshit insane, being merely fruitbat level doesn't seem that bad

Emphasis not mine.  This is just... urgh.  The prison system is inhumane, so we should revert to a far more draconian measure.

I think th'fellow's point was that would be far less draconian measures, from an overall perspective, than what's already occuring. A, "Yes, it would be worse in some ways, but the aggregate would improve," kind of thing.

Th'person also wasn't necessarily advocating that, just saying that if going that far was what it took to fix (or at least screw up less) the prison system, then that's how far people should be ready to go, because the current system is worse. I can understand that position, though it's definitely a damn sight far from (even remotely) ideal.

EDIT: To put it in a numbers perspective, the guy's saying that if we're killing a few hundred (or even a few thousand) people each year and castrating a number of others, that's better than having over two hundred thousand people raped, many of them serially, in that same time frame. To say nothing of the millions ruined for life from the legacy of a felony charge.
E2, for clarity: Utterly frakking horrific either way! I can understand holding the position, though.

The only way to sustainably curb the supply of guns is to reduce demand for guns, and the easiest way to do that would be to legalize narcotics.

There is... no explanation for this.  None.

I think the guy was saying earlier (or perhaps later in the article) that the primary cause for the increase in gun demand was because of how drugs were being peddled (re: the kill-the-competition escalation issue). Presumably by removing the cause of gun demand (violence due to how criminalized narcotics are being sold), the demand would reduce. Probably a bit of strawman involved with that.

Surely he could use this comparison to advocate use of prison in fewer cases, and various other measures for less serious crimes rather than "Death penalty/castration or nothing"?

I think he, well, was. It was a case of, "This is what happens when you stop throwing every damn body in prison, people!" The ramped up reaction to violent crimes was a separate point.

Abolishing prisons and releasing all the prisoners would amount to a deregulation of criminal punishment. It would mean letting the private sector determine how best to prevent ourselves from getting robbed. In high finance, the laissez-faire approach has proved to be a disaster; for petty crime, it would be a boon.

What the heck.  Seriously, what.  I prefer free market capitalists to... free world magicists?  I'm not even sure what to call this.

Second admendment-ists, I think. His "liassez-faire approach" to criminal punishment would probably be "carry a gun and be ready to use it." Or maybe remove the restrictions on boobytrapping your home or something. Crap along those lines.

Vigilantism, in other words. Which... yeah. That's (more than) a bit crazy. Possibly better than the current system for significant amounts of the US population, but pretty damn far from ideal.

[Heron TSG]

Hrm... I can come up with a few ideas here. I don't know all the different types of crimes, so this won't be very in-depth. Also, I am no expert.

Property theft: Equal repayment, plus indemnity. Criminal covers the court fees.

Physical harm: Criminal covers hospital fees, indemnity for emotional trauma and/or money lost due to missing work if severe enough. Criminal covers the court fees.

Murder: A tricky one, because there are so many types. I'll break this one up a bit.

     Involuntary Manslaughter: Pay for the funeral, plus a large indemnity. Prison time possible.

     Voluntary (is that the word?) Manslaughter: Pay for the funeral, plus a large indemnity. Prison time. Perhaps 3-10 years, depending on the degree.

     Murder: Pay for the funeral, plus a large indemnity. Prison time. 7-15 years, depending on the circumstances.

     Multiple Murder: Pay for the funerals, plus a large indemnity. 10-20 years, depending on the circumstances.

Rape: Criminal pays for any reconstructive surgery or other related medical fees. Indemnity for emotional and other damages. Prison time assured, 5-15 years depending on the circumstances.

Two notes: Neither life in prison nor the death penalty is an option.

It's not perfect, and probably has gaping holes in it. Let's fix it. I want to know what Bay12 thinks a good justice system looks like. (Note that I haven't gone into how prisons should work, because I simply have no idea. Feel free to input on that, too!)

[Realmfighter]

What if they have no money? How is this system with lots of prison time different then the current system with lots of prison time?

[Heron TSG]

Forgot to mention. Prison sentence lengths are being added.

EDIT: @Money problems - Well, fuck. Ideas? At least in the case of property theft, the 'equal value' should be easy to come up with. Not sure how to deal with this particular issue, but I will say that I believe there are advantages to using penalties that do not entirely remove the perpetrators from public society.

[Realmfighter]

I'm personally of the Prisons as crime universities persuasion (I even have Linkies!) so I can't support the jail time. I understand when you're removing someone from the world because you fear that they'll do further harm. But that argument doesn't really makes sense with the common way of dealing with criminals, throw them in jail until they say they're sorry because we have more poor bastard who need to be put away. And on the money front most of that would put someone into debt. Who collects? Is there interest? What's the punishment for not being able to pay?

[Heron TSG]

It does pose a problem of disproportionate penalty to poorer folk, who could not pay the fines so easily as the super-rich. If not fines or prisons, then what? Manual labor? A slap on the wrist? It may be the hour of the night, but not much is coming to me.

[Descan]

All I can think of is indentured servitude, wages garnished, black mark on your records for as long as you aren't paying (ooh that one has promise! but can be easily turned into a vicious cycle too.), or stuff like that.

Uhhhm. Yeah.

[scriver]

So make fines proportional to the criminal's wealth.

[G-Flex]

Proportional how, and how would you make even that fair? To a poor person, any fine is significant, whereas to a very rich person even taking away half their assets won't exactly make them destitute. Quite frankly, if someone worth $20M can murder someone and still have $5M in the bank, it's probably worth it to them, despite losing 75% of their assets.

[Realmfighter]

Assuming I get to do what ever I please in my fantasy Utopia I will say that for whatever reason no one feels it necessary to steal. Communism, Star trek replicator machine, whatever. Therefore every crime, be it murder, theft or rape ceases to have at least a small justification. At that point I would categorize any action that harms another human being as a crime. Anyone who commits a crime will be judged safe or unsafe to the community as a whole, if considered safe they will go through Mandatory rehabilitation while remaining free to live in society. Those deemed unsafe will be kept in a prison where the focus is either providing the quickest route to be free from these antisocial urges or if that's deemed impossible then a comfortable place to live their lives in a place where they won't be able to hurt anyone.

Dreams destroyed in 3,2,1...

[Heron TSG]

America, as an example country, is not a fantasy utopia. Nowhere is.

[Realmfighter]

We're debating how to improve the justice system. If we propose anything said here then your political opponent would say you supported criminals and you wouldn't be able to change anything. If your only reason to dislike my idea is that it's impossible than I am quite pleased.

[G-Flex]

To be fair, he brings up some valid points that are potentially feasible even in realistic scenarios: Proactively go after the causes of crime (environmental, sociological, psychological, etc.), and provide sentencing that focuses on protecting the community when necessary while also reducing recidivism and reforming people into productive members of society.

[Vector]

America, as an example country, is not a fantasy utopia. Nowhere is.

I see what you did there :3

[Heron TSG]

Okay, Realmfighter.

1. Apparently people do feel it necessary to steal sometimes.
2. Most places aren't communist, and most communist countries are horrible dictatorships.
3. We have no Star Trek replicators.
4. There are other reasons for crime than hurting people, I imagine. (Except murder, but that usually has a motive.)