Crime and punisment

[ScytheBearer]

 

 

Depends on who ya ask.... In the US, certain parties think that requiring bail, is racist...... so, unless you are charged with a particularly violent crime, you get arrested, and then released....

 

I believe the punishment SHOULD fit the crime. If you get drunk, drive anyway, and end up killing someone, then YOUR life should be forfeit as well. Murder? Yep, you are done. And no more 20 plus years of appeals either. You get convicted, you get ONE appeal, and if your conviction is upheld, you are executed the next day.

 

Age? That's a tough one. If you are old enough to know the difference between right and wrong, and recognize the potential consequences of your actions...... then you should be able to be charged as an adult. (do an adult crime, do adult time.) And no more of this 'not guilty by reason of insanity', or, excusing crimes due to mental issues, or bad upbringing, etc. Do the crime, do the time. End of story.

Once again, HeyYou initiates his commentary by regurgitating propaganda as fact, and by doing so, lies. Nobody says "requiring bail is racist". What is said, and what is borne out by the facts, is that the way bail is applied is in fact, racist.

 

Since 1984, in at least six different sessions of US Legislative bodies, bail reform has been proposed. The testimony before Congress in each case presents evidence that the amount of melanin a person possesses directly correlates to the amount and frequency of bail. The evidence further demonstrates that, for the exact same crimes, the location of ones residence is also a factor in excessive bail amounts, with inner city offenders, who are predominately melanin rich, being assessed higher bail than suburban offenders, who are predominately melanin poor. The evidence presented to Congress further demonstrates that pretrial confinement because of an inability to pay these excessive bail amounts overwhelmingly affects the melanin endowed.

 

The truth is that "certain parties think" the application of bail needs to be based on something more than the whimsical belief system of some judge. A google search for "congressional records, bail reform" will provide the reader with an overwhelming volume of testimony before those bodies, the testimony which I have simply summarized here.

 

And once again you mince words. I do not differentiate between "bail is racist", and "how bail is applied is racist", it's semantics, and in the end, result is the same, for a fair few crimes these days, NO bail is adjudicated.

 

 

With your deliberate unwillingness to apply simple differentiation between "bail is racist" and "the application of bail is racist", you demonstrate to the world the lack of depth in your thinking. Such a glorious demonstration of the shallowness in your thinking provides the world with a reasonable and sound basis for dismissing you, your comments, and your opinion.

 

You also tell us all that the propaganda of racism is satisfactory for your purposes. You protest and call it "mincing words", but words are important. Words and phrasing both shape and demonstrate ones thinking. I need not call you racist, your choice of words and wording, and your defense of racist wording, says more about your beliefs than your shallow protestations.

[showler]

"that police baton is racist because it is used to hit people of color more often than white people".

 

Nope, the baton is a thing. It's the guy using the baton who is racist.

[Pagafyr]

 

Debate is feeble. I refer to reasons for that extend to find out the mental maturity of the person who is being judged for committing a crime.

Soo if a person whit low mental maturity comits a crime lets say a robery they will give a low sentence, fine

but when it comicts something worse liek a murder, simple one no other nasty stuf but whit clear intentions, what we do.

 

Pagafyr.

We who have to listen to the case unfold, telling us all about the person and the crime, have to decide to give them a penalty that will wake them from their mental egotistical state and/or completely ignorant mental maturity to bring them down or up to reality. Then hopefully they will realize the pain they caused people. If they sense nothing, they belong in an institution where they can do no one harm again. A nice padded cell for mentally inept offenders. It is the judges prerogative how to sentence the criminal at the end of the trial.

 

 

How do you know that for a fact? "know the judicial system in every part of the world is incompetent at best of the cases?"

 

Where do you get your information?

 

Do you spend a lot of your time sitting in the audience at a court room during which time the people who are being challenged to prove them selves innocent?

 

In that one i was a little harsh soo i say sorry, but i will say that is still a lot of imcompetence in the Justice system (loopholes,excepcions,ect..)like in every legal sytem heck even in my crafht there a lot of rings to jump. but if you wanna some information about my critic here https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/corruption/criminal-justice-system.html .

 

Pagafyr.

 

I know from experience how difficult court cases being tried can be. I was injured in a way that needed special attention. The people who were responsible pointed the finger at every one I knew and claimed it happened before they caused any injuries to me. My lawyer eventually won. But at the time I wasn't even aware, not close to being conscious enough to speak in my own defense. There were cases awaiting trial that got out of having to go to court.

 

There are cases that can exceed all time limits and give many cases that do not get seen in a reasonable amount of time. When that happens it gives real criminals a way to avoid ever being prosecuted. The jurisprudence debated is: if a trial doesn't get started within a certain amount of time the lawyers can get their client's case dropped and that lets the person who committed a crime go free without ever being tried.

 

Or are you getting all your information about the workings of the *your spelling* "judial" systems all around the world second hand; like many of us do?

Dont be a grammar shark, english is my 3º lenguage and my computer keep trying to make it spanish,

And yes and no..... i need to learn a S*** load of laws that makes somethimes no sense .yes

I found some judjes that understand that the laws are crazy YES .

I was in a curt room luckily no.

I need to still do what the law says or get either fired or/and fined Yes

 

I apologize for speaking out on your equipment giving you spelling troubles. I understand.

 

Are you planning a career in the judicial system?

 

There are online websites that have a list of laws that are truly weird from all around the world. Are you referring to that kind of law when you say they are crazy laws?

 

Do you know that laws are, that were written, were to provide what is known as; what a criminal act is? Crazy is a mild way of putting it if we are talking about those kinds of weird laws.

[HeyYou]

 

 

 

Depends on who ya ask.... In the US, certain parties think that requiring bail, is racist...... so, unless you are charged with a particularly violent crime, you get arrested, and then released....

 

I believe the punishment SHOULD fit the crime. If you get drunk, drive anyway, and end up killing someone, then YOUR life should be forfeit as well. Murder? Yep, you are done. And no more 20 plus years of appeals either. You get convicted, you get ONE appeal, and if your conviction is upheld, you are executed the next day.

 

Age? That's a tough one. If you are old enough to know the difference between right and wrong, and recognize the potential consequences of your actions...... then you should be able to be charged as an adult. (do an adult crime, do adult time.) And no more of this 'not guilty by reason of insanity', or, excusing crimes due to mental issues, or bad upbringing, etc. Do the crime, do the time. End of story.

Once again, HeyYou initiates his commentary by regurgitating propaganda as fact, and by doing so, lies. Nobody says "requiring bail is racist". What is said, and what is borne out by the facts, is that the way bail is applied is in fact, racist.

 

Since 1984, in at least six different sessions of US Legislative bodies, bail reform has been proposed. The testimony before Congress in each case presents evidence that the amount of melanin a person possesses directly correlates to the amount and frequency of bail. The evidence further demonstrates that, for the exact same crimes, the location of ones residence is also a factor in excessive bail amounts, with inner city offenders, who are predominately melanin rich, being assessed higher bail than suburban offenders, who are predominately melanin poor. The evidence presented to Congress further demonstrates that pretrial confinement because of an inability to pay these excessive bail amounts overwhelmingly affects the melanin endowed.

 

The truth is that "certain parties think" the application of bail needs to be based on something more than the whimsical belief system of some judge. A google search for "congressional records, bail reform" will provide the reader with an overwhelming volume of testimony before those bodies, the testimony which I have simply summarized here.

 

And once again you mince words. I do not differentiate between "bail is racist", and "how bail is applied is racist", it's semantics, and in the end, result is the same, for a fair few crimes these days, NO bail is adjudicated.

 

With your deliberate unwillingness to apply simple differentiation between "bail is racist" and "the application of bail is racist", you demonstrate to the world the lack of depth in your thinking. Such a glorious demonstration of the shallowness in your thinking provides the world with a reasonable and sound basis for dismissing you, your comments, and your opinion.

 

You also tell us all that the propaganda of racism is satisfactory for your purposes. You protest and call it "mincing words", but words are important. Words and phrasing both shape and demonstrate ones thinking. I need not call you racist, your choice of words and wording, and your defense of racist wording, says more about your beliefs than your shallow protestations.

 

And once again you show me just WHY it was I put you on ignore the first time. Your "holier than thou" and "I am smarter than you." 2nd grade antics have lost their appeal. So, Bye Bye. Too bad really, I was actually beginning to think you might be a reasonable human being. Seems I was wrong. Ah well. No real loss.

[ScytheBearer]

 

 

 

 

Depends on who ya ask.... In the US, certain parties think that requiring bail, is racist...... so, unless you are charged with a particularly violent crime, you get arrested, and then released....

 

I believe the punishment SHOULD fit the crime. If you get drunk, drive anyway, and end up killing someone, then YOUR life should be forfeit as well. Murder? Yep, you are done. And no more 20 plus years of appeals either. You get convicted, you get ONE appeal, and if your conviction is upheld, you are executed the next day.

 

Age? That's a tough one. If you are old enough to know the difference between right and wrong, and recognize the potential consequences of your actions...... then you should be able to be charged as an adult. (do an adult crime, do adult time.) And no more of this 'not guilty by reason of insanity', or, excusing crimes due to mental issues, or bad upbringing, etc. Do the crime, do the time. End of story.

Once again, HeyYou initiates his commentary by regurgitating propaganda as fact, and by doing so, lies. Nobody says "requiring bail is racist". What is said, and what is borne out by the facts, is that the way bail is applied is in fact, racist.

 

Since 1984, in at least six different sessions of US Legislative bodies, bail reform has been proposed. The testimony before Congress in each case presents evidence that the amount of melanin a person possesses directly correlates to the amount and frequency of bail. The evidence further demonstrates that, for the exact same crimes, the location of ones residence is also a factor in excessive bail amounts, with inner city offenders, who are predominately melanin rich, being assessed higher bail than suburban offenders, who are predominately melanin poor. The evidence presented to Congress further demonstrates that pretrial confinement because of an inability to pay these excessive bail amounts overwhelmingly affects the melanin endowed.

 

The truth is that "certain parties think" the application of bail needs to be based on something more than the whimsical belief system of some judge. A google search for "congressional records, bail reform" will provide the reader with an overwhelming volume of testimony before those bodies, the testimony which I have simply summarized here.

 

And once again you mince words. I do not differentiate between "bail is racist", and "how bail is applied is racist", it's semantics, and in the end, result is the same, for a fair few crimes these days, NO bail is adjudicated.

 

With your deliberate unwillingness to apply simple differentiation between "bail is racist" and "the application of bail is racist", you demonstrate to the world the lack of depth in your thinking. Such a glorious demonstration of the shallowness in your thinking provides the world with a reasonable and sound basis for dismissing you, your comments, and your opinion.

 

You also tell us all that the propaganda of racism is satisfactory for your purposes. You protest and call it "mincing words", but words are important. Words and phrasing both shape and demonstrate ones thinking. I need not call you racist, your choice of words and wording, and your defense of racist wording, says more about your beliefs than your shallow protestations.

 

And once again you show me just WHY it was I put you on ignore the first time. Your "holier than thou" and "I am smarter than you." 2nd grade antics have lost their appeal. So, Bye Bye. Too bad really, I was actually beginning to think you might be a reasonable human being. Seems I was wrong. Ah well. No real loss.

 

 

If tolerance and defense of equality and equity make me appear "holier than thou", so be it. If taking the time to educate myself makes me seem "smarter than you", it cannot be helped. If, in addressing you and your regurgitated rhetoric, I come across as using "2nd grade antics", then I have successfully reduced to communications to your level.

 

As for blocking me, not having to wade through your hateful an hate filled rhetoric will be nice. However, your loss as a rule by which to measure the depth (or lack thereof) of our thinking will be sorely missed.

[Pagafyr]

There is book with words that describe a thing called bad.

 

A law is something that was written to recognize establish something bad happened.

 

It doesn't describe the evaluation arrived at about a person that did something bad, it only puts the act in a category to show the act, of one or more people, was bad.

 

Crime is a word that has a definition to address what kind of act someone does. A crime. What they did falls into the category CRIME so they can be judged for what they did.

 

For example; maybe someone took a chicken that belonged to a neighbor without asking or paying a tribute for an exchange for the worth of the chicken.

 

Another example: They killed the chicken and ate it for dinner. If the chicken was a child's pet that is another kind of a crime. Killing a chicken than falls under a family pet fowl's Murder.

 

The title of this debate could be referred to in a court of law as...

 

A Murder most Fowl.

The lawyers will debate as to what the penalty for stealing and killing the chicken will be for the Thief and murderer! Two counts! One of which could have been resolved if the chicken had not been a child's pet and/or returned.

 

Only because the chicken wasn't for sale and it was killed... the mores the pity. Now two counts if it is the same chicken in both cases. Mores the pity. All debates in court are for resolving what degree of severity the crime is.

 

All fouls against the person who committed one or both acts.

 

Pick your position.

 

Prosecutor or Defendant.

 

Let the debate begin!

 

Murder most Fowl!

[TomHPS]

As someone who has worked in criminal justice in the UK for several years, I might have some insight into this.

it is worth reforming some people?

Absolutely. Recidivism rates plunge dramatically when offenders have a support network, and broader holistic intervention (such as education, jobs, and therapy). The trouble with some crimes is that by their very nature (crimes against children, for example) it isolates people, both from their families and broader society. Many self-induce isolation, and it leads them back to their old cycle of offenders. Isolation is not conducive to rehabilitation.

 

It is fair for the victims to let the criminals be free without punishment?

 

That depends on the offence and the impact on wider society. Victims tend to allude to disproportionate punishments for their perpetrator, either by opting for a reconciliatory outcome or a life/death sentence when one is not warranted.

 

Is the punishment equal to the crime?

 

No, because (at least in the UK), each offender's case is prosecuted on its own merit (including aggravating and mitigating factors), and judges have powers of discretion, so long as their sentence follows the Sentencing Council's guidelines. Some sentences are believed to be unduly lenient but rarely manifestly excessive, and it all comes down to the judge on the day and their view of your offence(s) on whether you get a custodial sentence or not. There is a distinct lack of consistency in sentences by virtue of this.

 

At what age is a person truly responsible for their actions?

 

Here in the UK, the age of criminal responsibility is 10. Do I think your average 10-year-old has adequate foresight? Not on your life. Do I think 10 is too young for prison? Depends on the individual and their criminal history.

 

Doing nothing will lead to vigilantes?

 

Depends on the society and how they view their police/prosecution bodies. The UK tends to be far more laid back than France or the USA, and we don't tend to protest on a wide scale about criminal justice reform. We do have vigilante groups that hunt paedophiles and people that target children for grooming, but it's mainly non-violent and the police are notified immediately.

 

Do we care enough nowadays?

 

No. We are a society that has moved away from traditional and shared values to one of secularism and moral relativism. This has been excesscerbated by mass immigration from people with varying cultures and values, the proliferation of the internet, dishonest media, and globalism.

We tend to think of people who commit crimes or have a criminal past as being sullied or "the other" and somehow different from the rest of us. The average person commits 3 crimes a day, and I firmly believe that our worst deeds do not define us, and it's not so much about the mistake, but the recovery and what you do to rehabilitate yourself. There is no such thing as "good" and "bad" people, we're all just people. We are the collective accumulation of our good and bad deeds. Most people have more deeds in the good category. Others, in the bad. If you want to see an improvement in crime, tackle it from a "broken windows" policy, invest in jobs and education is areas that have the highest incidences of criminality, disincentivise single motherhood and make men responsible for their children.

Edited February 7, 2023 by TomHPS

[ScytheBearer]

Generally, it is only when people believe they have no other choice that they turn to preying on others to survive. When people are systematically denied opportunities, they will invariably turn to crime and criminality to survive. The Italian Mafia in America blossomed out of the backlash against Italian immigrants. The Irish Mob in America flourished from the backlash against Irish immigration. The Chinese Tongs in America sprang from the backlash against the importation of Chinese Labor, The Vietnamese Mob arose from the backlash against Vietnamese refugees following America's involvement in Vietnam.

Do you begin to see the pattern? These groups were all systematically denied opportunities and they all resorted to old and familiar criminal histories to survive.

Today, America's inner city black and brown youths are forming violent gangs for mutual support and protection. These gangs do not exist because these youths have a desire to die or spend their lives in prison, but because they believe they have no other choice to survive.

Today, the refugees from America's War on Drugs are showing up at the borders. These refugees are there because they believe they have no alternative to survive elsewhere. To these folks, the risk of dying in the desert or being imprisoned in America is preferable to their lack of opportunities at home.

Today, the refugees from Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan are showing up at the borders. They have seen the truncation of rights and freedoms in their native countries and view the risks to their lives crossing an ocean and a desert and the potential for imprisonment as criminals to be a very real alternative to their loss of liberties at home.

Americans put people on reservations with substandard education, living conditions and few opportunities, and then complain that these people don't "join mainstream society".

Americans create "red line" districts in their cities and town, and then refuses to fund education, provide services like clean water, sewage treatment and trash removal, and refuse to provide equitable home loans in these areas. Then Americans call these areas "blighted" and blame those that live there for their condition.

Americans return helpless people to their repressive homelands, and then wonders why those people begin to hate America.

Americans under fund education, then wonders why their youth can't compete in the international job market, or find the country named for Simon Bolivar on a map.

The old saw is "God loves stupid people, because he creates so damned many of them". Well, by that same measure, Americans love criminals, because America, the land "of the people, by the people, for the people", "the land of the free", creates criminals at a horrific rate. In simpler terms, America's White, Anglo-Saxon Protestants, the silent majority who sit on your couches and complain, create the very criminals you despise.

What was that definition of insanity? Repeating the same actions again and again and again, and expecting a different outcome.

Maybe Americans needs to start implementing and employing Justice and equity under the law before they create the criminals, instead of after.

[MrJoseCuervo]

 

 

Are you an American or American't?

 

 

Age is no excuse, but I do believe parents should be held responsible and receive the same punishment as the child.

 

Expect more from people. When you do, they usually deliver. This is why the racism of low expectations by leftists is so damaging.

[lordmogul]

Outside of very specific cases crime is the result of opportunity. Or rather the lack thereof. (the kind of truly deranged minds are that kind of exception)

If crime is the only way out, people will take that way.

Criminals don't become criminals because that is what they want to be. It starts with a small step and goes deeper from there.

 

And the same applies for rehabilitation. It creates opportunity for (former) criminals to reintegrate into society and live a non-criminal life.

The education and training that gives the criminal a way to find a job and a home once released. Gives them the opportunity to gain friends and colleagues as a social net.

 

Punishments aren't a flat thing, but adjusted to the criminal and the circumstances of the crime.

For the age, that obviously differs from place to place and even person to person. Not uncommon to have specially adjusted laws for criminal minors. Which can be applied after the point they are considered adults.