Its a question of law
-
I agree with a large part of what you're saying. For one, marijuana use was made legal in Canada a few years ago, certainly not so much to "allow people" to start using it, but to decriminalize its possession and use. That's an argument a lot of people seemed to be missing when it was still at the discussion stage. I never agreed that it was fair for a kid caught with pot ending up with a criminal record, which automatically disqualified him from many types of jobs for the rest of his life.
trønderen wrote:
Imprisonment serves a single purpose: Revenge! Vengeance!
That I disagree with. Off the top of my head - it's enough to act as a deterrent for many people who otherwise might give into a life of crime, and - perhaps most importantly - it's about protecting the rest of society from a potentially dangerous individual. Some people need more than a slap on the wrist. Ultimately it's all about the severity of the crime, which really has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. I'm a rather opinionated guy, and I could write a lot on this topic (both agreeing and disagreeing with some of what you wrote) but for brevity's sake, I'm just gonna leave it at that. :-)
I agree with everything you said on the subject. As for marijuana, it should not have been listed as a schedule one drug, like heroin, in the first place. Back in the day, the US federal government had to go all out with the propaganda machine in order to convince enough states to sign on to that ridiculous idea. People stoned on marijuana do not change into drug crazed maniacs, as per the propaganda at the time. They are more likely to zone out and forget what ever is was they were planning to do. Studies back then and since then has shown that alcohol is ultimately worse, and some of those people actually do become maniacal. Question: What's the difference between a drunk person and a stoned one? Answer: The drunk may blow past the stop sign at the intersection like it is not there. The stoned person will stop and wait for it to turn green. One of those will get people killed. The other is just annoying to the rest of us.
INTP "Program testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never to show their absence." - Edsger Dijkstra "I have never been lost, but I will admit to being confused for several weeks. " - Daniel Boone
-
When a person is convicted of a crime, the common options available for society are shaming, restitution, correction, prevention, and vengeance. Shaming is no longer practiced in most modern countries (you don't see people in the stocks very often these days). Restitution is appropriate for crimes involving money (theft, burglary, damage to property, embezzlement, etc.). In other cases (assault, bodily harm, etc.) restitution may be part of the punishment but should not be all of it. Correction is appropriate when the "root cause" of the crime is known. It is the "Holy Grail" of criminology, but despite many theories being propounded and much money being spent, we are no closer to understanding the "root causes" of crime than we were in the distant past, to say nothing of finding a cure. If all else fails, we can, at least, keep the criminal away from the rest of us, which is the purpose of prisons. Finally, let's not ignore the role of vengeance in human affairs. It is probably better to let the Law mete out a measured amount of vengeance to a criminal than have people start blood feuds that can go on for generations. Our legal systems are far from perfect, but most Western countries are at least trying to make the punishment fit the crime.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
I agree with you. I once read about a law somewhere that required a burglar, or monetary thief, to pay the victim 2 or more times the amount they stole from them. That sounds like a reasonable punishment punishment to me.
INTP "Program testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never to show their absence." - Edsger Dijkstra "I have never been lost, but I will admit to being confused for several weeks. " - Daniel Boone
-
I agree with you. I once read about a law somewhere that required a burglar, or monetary thief, to pay the victim 2 or more times the amount they stole from them. That sounds like a reasonable punishment punishment to me.
INTP "Program testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never to show their absence." - Edsger Dijkstra "I have never been lost, but I will admit to being confused for several weeks. " - Daniel Boone
That is the Biblical law (Exodus 21 verse 37 - Exodus 22 verse 3).
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
-
When a person is convicted of a crime, the common options available for society are shaming, restitution, correction, prevention, and vengeance. Shaming is no longer practiced in most modern countries (you don't see people in the stocks very often these days). Restitution is appropriate for crimes involving money (theft, burglary, damage to property, embezzlement, etc.). In other cases (assault, bodily harm, etc.) restitution may be part of the punishment but should not be all of it. Correction is appropriate when the "root cause" of the crime is known. It is the "Holy Grail" of criminology, but despite many theories being propounded and much money being spent, we are no closer to understanding the "root causes" of crime than we were in the distant past, to say nothing of finding a cure. If all else fails, we can, at least, keep the criminal away from the rest of us, which is the purpose of prisons. Finally, let's not ignore the role of vengeance in human affairs. It is probably better to let the Law mete out a measured amount of vengeance to a criminal than have people start blood feuds that can go on for generations. Our legal systems are far from perfect, but most Western countries are at least trying to make the punishment fit the crime.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
Shaming is no longer practiced in most modern countries (you don't see people in the stocks very often these days).
National Geographic had (maybe still has) a TV series called "Taboo". In one of the early seasons, one episode addressed "Justice", and one of the case studies was from Huston, Texas, where you could be sentenced to walk up and down along the highway, carrying a big sign: "I did so-and-so". You can't deny that this is explicit shaming, humiliation. (I guess that denying that Huston, Texas, lies in a "modern country" would be unacceptable politics in the Lounge... :-)) It looks like this Taboo episode was produced in 2003, so it is almost 18 years old. Maybe the practice has ended today. But 18 years ago, it was practiced, and in the episode, there are some strong defenders of it. So it probably didn't disappear immediately after the publication of the NGT TV program.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
Charge money for being in prison. Don't we do that already?
We do. But it's charged to the taxpayers, not the individuals in prison. Well, those individuals are probably also taxpayers, but what they pay individually doesn't even come close to covering their own costs.
Nowadays in the US of A, with those profit-oriented, commercial prisons: Aren't prisoners rented out as working slaves to big industry as slave workers? According to the reports I have heard about this business, the prisoners are "paid" for their work - typically less than USD 4/day. I have my doubts that the "employers" (i.e. the big businesses buying the slave workers) get away with paying USD 4 for a day's work. The commercial prison most likely is paid a lot more. So you could very well say that the prisoner pays for his stay, by the true value of his work less USD 4/day. One of the my sources tell that since this "Prison Industry Enhancement Certification Program" was instated in 1979, the number of inmates have increased by more than a factor of seven - from 300.000 to 2,2 million. That certainly does not reflect the crime being 7+ times higher today. Actually, the level of crime hasn't increased very much at all; it is just used far more as an eyecatcher for selling news reports. It is worth noting that Penal labor in the United States - Wikipedia[^] includes this is article in a series on slavery.
-
I agree with everything you said on the subject. As for marijuana, it should not have been listed as a schedule one drug, like heroin, in the first place. Back in the day, the US federal government had to go all out with the propaganda machine in order to convince enough states to sign on to that ridiculous idea. People stoned on marijuana do not change into drug crazed maniacs, as per the propaganda at the time. They are more likely to zone out and forget what ever is was they were planning to do. Studies back then and since then has shown that alcohol is ultimately worse, and some of those people actually do become maniacal. Question: What's the difference between a drunk person and a stoned one? Answer: The drunk may blow past the stop sign at the intersection like it is not there. The stoned person will stop and wait for it to turn green. One of those will get people killed. The other is just annoying to the rest of us.
INTP "Program testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never to show their absence." - Edsger Dijkstra "I have never been lost, but I will admit to being confused for several weeks. " - Daniel Boone
John R. Shaw wrote:
What's the difference between a drunk person and a stoned one?
I remember the argument actual police forces were trying to make when the law had passed, but was not yet into effect - claiming that it was being rushed, they weren't ready, and they did not have the equipment or training needed to catch someone driving stoned. WTF? Some people have been driving stoned long before the law came into effect...were police forces admitting they couldn't catch those people then? To that end, the law didn't change anything - it was illegal to drive stoned before, and it still is after. What was there to get "ready" for?
-
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
Shaming is no longer practiced in most modern countries (you don't see people in the stocks very often these days).
National Geographic had (maybe still has) a TV series called "Taboo". In one of the early seasons, one episode addressed "Justice", and one of the case studies was from Huston, Texas, where you could be sentenced to walk up and down along the highway, carrying a big sign: "I did so-and-so". You can't deny that this is explicit shaming, humiliation. (I guess that denying that Huston, Texas, lies in a "modern country" would be unacceptable politics in the Lounge... :-)) It looks like this Taboo episode was produced in 2003, so it is almost 18 years old. Maybe the practice has ended today. But 18 years ago, it was practiced, and in the episode, there are some strong defenders of it. So it probably didn't disappear immediately after the publication of the NGT TV program.
I'm aware of similar cases, which is why I wrote most modern countries. Shaming can be very effective - if done in the correct forum. There was a case of a man who had the nasty habit of exposing himself in public. His sentence was reported in the local paper (read by about 100,000 people), but as he had a common name, he could ignore it. When it was reported in the newsletter of his professional association, read by only a few hundred people personally known to him, he became suicidal.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
-
I agree with some of what you say. Depending on the offense, sending someone to jail or prison should be the last option. Putting a bunch of career criminals together in one place is probably not a good idea. For some of them, but not all, it is like sending them to school on how to be a better criminal. On the other hand, I have also met people who had been to prison and now live a normal law abiding life. Some people just seem to have to have the experience before they understand why should avoid it. I read an article a couple of yeas ago that impressed me quite a bit. I forget which country it was. What they did was change their law and started treating drug addiction as a sickness. Which makes sense to me. They had to go through mandatory rehabilitation. But the drug dealers were punished severely, as if they had committed murder. Which they may have done indirectly, if not literally. Of course this line of action worked, because it actually made sense. Hopefully, other countries will pick up on this logical solution to this big societal problem. The number of people in the USA that are in prison minor drug offenses is ridiculous.
INTP "Program testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never to show their absence." - Edsger Dijkstra "I have never been lost, but I will admit to being confused for several weeks. " - Daniel Boone
John R. Shaw wrote:
The number of people in the USA that are in prison minor drug offenses is ridiculous.
Reasons aside, I do believe the US has been named as the one country with the most inmates per capita. And yes, minor drug offenses probably accounts for a significant part of those numbers.
-
When a person is convicted of a crime, the common options available for society are shaming, restitution, correction, prevention, and vengeance. Shaming is no longer practiced in most modern countries (you don't see people in the stocks very often these days). Restitution is appropriate for crimes involving money (theft, burglary, damage to property, embezzlement, etc.). In other cases (assault, bodily harm, etc.) restitution may be part of the punishment but should not be all of it. Correction is appropriate when the "root cause" of the crime is known. It is the "Holy Grail" of criminology, but despite many theories being propounded and much money being spent, we are no closer to understanding the "root causes" of crime than we were in the distant past, to say nothing of finding a cure. If all else fails, we can, at least, keep the criminal away from the rest of us, which is the purpose of prisons. Finally, let's not ignore the role of vengeance in human affairs. It is probably better to let the Law mete out a measured amount of vengeance to a criminal than have people start blood feuds that can go on for generations. Our legal systems are far from perfect, but most Western countries are at least trying to make the punishment fit the crime.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
Our legal systems are far from perfect, but most Western countries are at least trying to make the punishment fit the crime.
There's still a long way to go in that respect. Compare time served by mere hackers against rapists and murderers. Heck, does Ed Snowden deserve to live a life of exile? Julian Assange?
-
Nowadays in the US of A, with those profit-oriented, commercial prisons: Aren't prisoners rented out as working slaves to big industry as slave workers? According to the reports I have heard about this business, the prisoners are "paid" for their work - typically less than USD 4/day. I have my doubts that the "employers" (i.e. the big businesses buying the slave workers) get away with paying USD 4 for a day's work. The commercial prison most likely is paid a lot more. So you could very well say that the prisoner pays for his stay, by the true value of his work less USD 4/day. One of the my sources tell that since this "Prison Industry Enhancement Certification Program" was instated in 1979, the number of inmates have increased by more than a factor of seven - from 300.000 to 2,2 million. That certainly does not reflect the crime being 7+ times higher today. Actually, the level of crime hasn't increased very much at all; it is just used far more as an eyecatcher for selling news reports. It is worth noting that Penal labor in the United States - Wikipedia[^] includes this is article in a series on slavery.
I'm of two minds. On one hand, if people are deserving to be in prison, why not put them to work. I don't see why they should get paid for it. They're otherwise not going to be productive anyway, and that's not useful to anyone. On the other, when the prison system gets so twisted they have an actual incentive to keep more people incarcerated - then the system isn't working.
-
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
Our legal systems are far from perfect, but most Western countries are at least trying to make the punishment fit the crime.
There's still a long way to go in that respect. Compare time served by mere hackers against rapists and murderers. Heck, does Ed Snowden deserve to live a life of exile? Julian Assange?
A rapist or murderer does extreme damage retail. A "mere hacker" does (mostly) small damage wholesale. A hacker can also cause major damage wholesale. For example, how many people would die if a hacker brought down the electrical grid in your area, or if a hacker published sensitive data regarding ongoing intelligence operations? I won't comment on specific cases, as that would be verging too closely to "politics in the lounge".
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
-
A rapist or murderer does extreme damage retail. A "mere hacker" does (mostly) small damage wholesale. A hacker can also cause major damage wholesale. For example, how many people would die if a hacker brought down the electrical grid in your area, or if a hacker published sensitive data regarding ongoing intelligence operations? I won't comment on specific cases, as that would be verging too closely to "politics in the lounge".
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
I understand your line of reasoning, but how many actual, real-life instances have there been of hackers affecting people (on a large scale, as you're suggesting would be possible) in the same way a murder affects one person (and that person's social circle)? But then, I remember an article from the BBC a few months ago in which the NHS mentioned people have died on an operating table because some ransomware prevented staff from accessing hospital records. Now that, I have no problem sending those responsible with the rapists and murderers.
-
John R. Shaw wrote:
What's the difference between a drunk person and a stoned one?
I remember the argument actual police forces were trying to make when the law had passed, but was not yet into effect - claiming that it was being rushed, they weren't ready, and they did not have the equipment or training needed to catch someone driving stoned. WTF? Some people have been driving stoned long before the law came into effect...were police forces admitting they couldn't catch those people then? To that end, the law didn't change anything - it was illegal to drive stoned before, and it still is after. What was there to get "ready" for?
I agree, that makes no sense. A officer with any experience at all can tell when somebody is stoned. As for stopping someone, the first sign is the strong odor eliminating from the vehicle. When the state of Colorado made it legal, they obviously were not prepared either. Because all they did was modify their existing laws to include being stoned. More accurately they just decided that being stoned was the same as being drunk and applied the same laws. Which goes to show, that they had no idea what the difference was.
INTP "Program testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never to show their absence." - Edsger Dijkstra "I have never been lost, but I will admit to being confused for several weeks. " - Daniel Boone
-
John R. Shaw wrote:
The number of people in the USA that are in prison minor drug offenses is ridiculous.
Reasons aside, I do believe the US has been named as the one country with the most inmates per capita. And yes, minor drug offenses probably accounts for a significant part of those numbers.
:-D And here I thought we were number one.
INTP "Program testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never to show their absence." - Edsger Dijkstra "I have never been lost, but I will admit to being confused for several weeks. " - Daniel Boone
-
Scenario: You have a debt you have been unable to pay for what ever reason. Courts: You are going to jail until you repay the debt. Interesting solution. If you are in jail, then you are not making money. Of course, I have known people who were in jail and had work release. If that is the case, then they are probably golden. Why? If they were renting and have friends or family to move their things to storage. Then they can stop paying rent. After all, the government is now providing room and board. So not having to pay rent, electric, water and whatever, mean they can raise the money for the debt. Of course, most of what they save is coming out of the public coffers (taxes) to support them. Issue: If they do not get work release, then they are not making any money and cannot repay the debt. While we are still paying for their room and board. Question: I have always wondered if debtors prison hand a work release program or was indentured servitude the only way out? What are your thoughts?
INTP "Program testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never to show their absence." - Edsger Dijkstra "I have never been lost, but I will admit to being confused for several weeks. " - Daniel Boone
Yes, I will be happy to share with you the experience of cooperation with one such company. Our small firm has remained incredibly pleased and proud to work with such professionals in their field as Eternity Law International. What did we need? We needed comprehensive support for a new IT project. And someone from our acquaintances recommended this company to us. What can I say about the result? Everything was done in the best possible way and in record time. All our wishes were heard, as well as the guidelines of the company.