Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Penal Enlargement
#11
(04-07-2018, 07:49 PM)AdminGG Wrote: Difficult again right? If you are a child rapist, that should probably follow you around till you die. That was a terrible decision you made. There are some things I don't think you can come back from. Raping kids is one of them.

To quote Joe Rogan from one of his standup specials "No ones like: I used to know a dude who fucked kids once, but hes cool now".

You seem to imply that child rape is worse than any other kind of rape? I am not going to defend child rape for a second, but in my mind all rapists are equally awful.

This idea that one terrible crime is quantifiably worse than another seems to be a fairly common one, but it feels pretty misguided to me.

(04-07-2018, 07:49 PM)AdminGG Wrote: But yeah for lesser crimes (I.e. not murder and rape I guess?) there should be some sort of "get it off your record in time" system.

I think they have had a lot luck in Portugal decriminalizing drugs. Rather than spending a huge amount of money of prosecuting drug users, they spend that money on helping them overcome their addictions. https://youtu.be/Y7LKfLxVtzE

By comparison, the USA have very harsh drugs laws, focusing on punishing drug users. This has cost a huge amount and solved almost nothing. Once you are labeled as a criminal it is almost impossible to get a job. You are down a hole, can't get out resort to drugs again, get caught again, get stuck in jail for the most of your life (due to the previously mentioned three strike law). Then you get out, and you are too old to work/have no skills experience. So... resort to drugs.

Most of this cycle is due to the stigma of being labeled a criminal. So I would agree that minor crimes should "get it off your record in time", but maybe they should never make it to your record in the first place?
Reply
#12
I know you already gave your interpretation, but:

What is the nature of prison?
[Image: Nsi2Ruz.png]
Reply
#13
EDIT: Fuck while I was writing this 3 other replies were written and I haven't read them yet and jesus christ
(08-07-2018, 09:48 PM)████ Wrote: I think he's pretty high on the risk of re-offending scale tbh. Can he just live a normal family life now?

So I think being raised in a household with an insane mother obsessed with quantifying how much each family member was possessed by satan and a handful other related issues in the family were huge contributers to his mass murder. After being separated from that and being in jail for over 10 years he's not the same person he was.

That said, if he had served his 16 non-parole years in jail (his minimum non parole time) then the rest of his sentence on parole, then it'd be a similar situation. Not a huge fan of his 0.9 million dollar payout
Reply
#14
(09-07-2018, 06:59 PM)Jargonion Wrote: I know you already gave your interpretation, but:

What is the nature of prison?

Nature of prison now, or what I would ideally want it to be?

In my (admittedly uneducated) opinion prison seems to be a place you are sent to be isolated from society as a form of punishment, so that you can think about your actions. Kinda like a naughty corner for adults.

I would rather it was a place you are sent to be isolated from society if you are a danger to it, so that you can be helped to rejoin society (through education or apprenticeships etc). Obviously you can't force people to want to learn, so you have to give them the choice. But if they choose not to I don't see why they should be reintroduced to society. For crimes that don't make you a danger to society (e.g. white collar crimes like fraud), I am not sure prison makes sense. I feel like there should be more productive ways to discourage them, and I feel like when prison is just used for punishment, it wastes the potential output of its occupants, which is a poor investment for the society as a whole.

One idea I heard recently which I quite liked was to teach inmates about conservation and get them to help doc out with trap runs or maintaining tracks etc.
Reply
#15
(09-07-2018, 06:34 PM)Kalazarc Wrote: Kalazarc Wrote:
But in the case of David Bane and OJ Simpson, they didn't make mistakes, they made choices.

Although, having said that... Free will is an illusion, and what is a "choice" if not a mistake of nature.

But for this kind of discussion, it is somewhat necessary to assume that people have agency.

Yeah sort of feel like we're living in the matrix of the illusion of libertarian free will, and there aren't any pills for us to take. Just Morpheus being all mysterious
Reply
#16
(09-07-2018, 06:51 PM)Kalazarc Wrote: You seem to imply that child rape is worse than any other kind of rape? I am not going to defend child rape for a second, but in my mind all rapists are equally awful.

No fucking duh Sherlock. 0/10 you made me post to clarify.


(09-07-2018, 06:51 PM)Kalazarc Wrote: This idea that one terrible crime is quantifiably worse than another seems to be a fairly common one, but it feels pretty misguided to me.

Why?


(09-07-2018, 07:19 PM)Kalazarc Wrote: One idea I heard recently which I quite liked was to teach inmates about conservation and get them to help doc out with trap runs or maintaining tracks etc.

Pretty good idea. Might as well save the environemnt and preserve the country while you are getting your act together.
Liams Wrote:make a car out of scrap metal from genie lamps
Reply
#17
(09-07-2018, 06:51 PM)Kalazarc Wrote: You seem to imply that child rape is worse than any other kind of rape? I am not going to defend child rape for a second, but in my mind all rapists are equally awful.
?
Reply
#18
(09-07-2018, 09:07 PM)AdminGG Wrote:
(09-07-2018, 06:51 PM)Kalazarc Wrote: This idea that one terrible crime is quantifiably worse than another seems to be a fairly common one, but it feels pretty misguided to me.
Why?

Try to justify why one crime is worse than another. It gets real messy real quick. It is all about perspectives. Some things you can quantify with financial cost etc, but have fun arguing one person's emotional damage is more important than another's.

Also, what is the point of judging one crime is worse than another? If the crime is bad enough to justify your removal from society, what is the point in having more categories above that?
Reply
#19
(09-07-2018, 09:46 PM)Kalazarc Wrote: Also, what is the point of judging one crime is worse than another? If the crime is bad enough to justify your removal from society, what is the point in having more categories above that?

Well yeah, when we are at that level then for sure there's no reason to keep breaking shit down into categories. I just saying put the kids safety up a bit higher in the grand scope of things I guess?

I'm not qualified and should read a book.
Liams Wrote:make a car out of scrap metal from genie lamps
Reply
#20
(09-07-2018, 09:44 PM)████ Wrote:
(09-07-2018, 06:51 PM)Kalazarc Wrote: You seem to imply that child rape is worse than any other kind of rape? I am not going to defend child rape for a second, but in my mind all rapists are equally awful.
?

(09-07-2018, 10:06 PM)AdminGG Wrote: I just saying put the kids safety up a bit higher in the grand scope of things I guess?

Why? Kids and adults are both people aren't they? You could argue that a child is defenseless, that they don't know their rights, that they don't know they are being taken advantage of. This is a valid argument. But imagine if you had just been raped. You know your rights. You know you have been abused. You know you should have been able to defend yourself. But you couldn't. Now you not only have the weight of what has happened to you, but also the knowledge of how wrong it was, how you ought have been able to stop it. Can we even imagine how cripling that must feel?

Or... you could argue that a child has more potential than an adult, that they haven't been worn down by life yet and therefore, all going well, they have more to offer over the remainder of their life than an adult would. That they will have to live with the knowledge of their abuse for longer. Again, a very valid point. But an adult has already been invested in. They should already be at the point where they are being productive. The harm to an adult is a larger loss in terms of prior investment.

So, I would argue that both scenarios are terrible. And without knowing the specifics of each case, it seems misguided to me to class one as worse than the other.

I just realised the counter to my argument is that the average adult is more capable of defending themself than the average child. So in retrospect, I agree with

(09-07-2018, 10:06 PM)AdminGG Wrote: I just saying put the kids safety up a bit higher in the grand scope of things I guess?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)