Mass Murder by Blade, you Vast Idiots

[JohnnySocko]

I want to point out that arrested for a sex crime ≠ convicted of a sex crime ≠ the perpetrator of a sex crime. There is a prevalent and imo colossally dangerous presumption that conviction equals guilt. As I've said before ... if you want to become truly frightened, study the machinery of jurisprudence in the USA.

...and beyond that, even if/when convicted, the punishments handed shows unarguable bias:
see sentencing for cannabis convictions and capital punishment sentencing by race, sex, region, et....

so perhaps I'm probably not adding anything substantive here; but I find it interesting how the two sides: liberals & conservatives point to individual rights when it suits their arguments/agendas:
Left: Abortion (individual right to do what you want with your own body)
Right: Guns (right for a individual to bear arms)

point being:
- we can twist any argument any way we want....
- laws, punishment, deterrence, enforcement, and public safety are independent variable in some ways and complex co-dependent variables in other ways

 

[cannabineer]

Oh, I understand that being arrested for something doesn't mean you did it.

But, how do you suggest we send people to jail after a guilty verdict is read, without presuming they're guilty? I can understand having reasonable doubt in certain cases, but a lot of cases are pretty straight forward too.

Being convicted of something doesn't mean one did it either.
However, I accept the compromise by which we sentence convicts.
I'm not arguing against jailing convicts (although HOW we do it could be a whole 'nother can of worms!)
But I am personally going to be careful and not use "convict" and "criminal" interchangeably. "Convict" is afaik a legally definite term. It means one was found guilty after a trial. "Criminal" is vaguer and more evocative, quite prone to moral and emotional loading, and thus a favorite of the new breed of demagogues. It's only a small step from there to deploy phrases like "the criminal mind", exposing agenda I have repeatedly discerned: pigeonholing people for life, positioning them for a more or less subtle persecution.

 

[kelly4]

Being convicted of something doesn't mean one did it either.
However, I accept the compromise by which we sentence convicts.
I'm not arguing against jailing convicts (although HOW we do it could be a whole 'nother can of worms!)
But I am personally going to be careful and not use "convict" and "criminal" interchangeably. "Convict" is afaik a legally definite term. It means one was found guilty after a trial. "Criminal" is vaguer and more evocative, quite prone to moral and emotional loading, and thus a favorite of the new breed of demagogues. It's only a small step from there to deploy phrases like "the criminal mind", exposing agenda I have repeatedly discerned: pigeonholing people for life, positioning them for a more or less subtle persecution.

What about someone who is definitely a criminal, but not convicted? An illegal alien, for example.

 

[Beefbisquit]

Being convicted of something doesn't mean one did it either.

Absolutely. I would say that most cases that end in a guilty verdict are actual cases where a guilty verdict SHOULD have been read. There will always be exception.

However, I accept the compromise by which we sentence convicts.
I'm not arguing against jailing convicts (although HOW we do it could be a whole 'nother can of worms!)

I think focusing on actual rehabilitation should be the key. Prisons and jails are just training camps for criminals.

But I am personally going to be careful and not use "convict" and "criminal" interchangeably. "Convict" is afaik a legally definite term. It means one was found guilty after a trial.

Sounds right.

"Criminal" is vaguer and more evocative, quite prone to moral and emotional loading, and thus a favorite of the new breed of demagogues. It's only a small step from there to deploy phrases like "the criminal mind", exposing agenda I have repeatedly discerned: pigeonholing people for life, positioning them for a more or less subtle persecution.

What would you call a person who steals for a 'living', but hasn't been caught and prosecuted? Is that person not still a criminal, just one that hasn't been caught?

 

[Dr Kynes]

*Off topic*

Welcome back dude, I was thinking for the last while "where is Bear?"

Better call the milk carton printer and cancel the order, he thought I was nuts putting a polar bear on the carton anyways.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Being convicted of something doesn't mean one did it either.
However, I accept the compromise by which we sentence convicts.
I'm not arguing against jailing convicts (although HOW we do it could be a whole 'nother can of worms!)
But I am personally going to be careful and not use "convict" and "criminal" interchangeably. "Convict" is afaik a legally definite term. It means one was found guilty after a trial. "Criminal" is vaguer and more evocative, quite prone to moral and emotional loading, and thus a favorite of the new breed of demagogues. It's only a small step from there to deploy phrases like "the criminal mind", exposing agenda I have repeatedly discerned: pigeonholing people for life, positioning them for a more or less subtle persecution.

are you intimating that an individual who commits a brazenly anti-social unacceptable act, for example, armed robbery, is not likely to re-offend?

in my opinion, one who is willing to step across the line to such an act is likely to step over that line in many way, possibly even becoming a habitual line-stepper.

being willing to engage in REAL, SERIOUS crime suggests that one might in fact be willing to engage in crime later, after "rehabilitation" in our "justice system"

the perpetrators some crimes, like rape and pederasty are notorious for their high rates of re-offense, and thus the need for added punishment, and possibly the institution of a death penalty for repeat offenders.

the "Track your local sex offender" web sites are spurious and destructive to community though, especially the ones that dont distinguish between Statutory Rape (where the "victim" is not a complainant and the crime is found only in legalisms) Forcible Rape (which is Real Rape Rape) Sodomy (which is a bullshit religious and moral judgement) and Pederasty, which should result in a hanging.

all "sex crimes" are not even crimes, the sexual offender tracking databases should no more track streakers (yep, thats a sex offense too) 19 year-olds who engage in consensual shagging with 17 year-olds, or people who get caught engaging in assplay or watersports in their own homes. it's a waste of time and resources, but real, serious, sexual offenses should be heavily penalized, carry a social stigma, and as a result of their extremely high recidivism rates, they should be monitored for an extended period of time, though usually not for life.

 

[Dr Kynes]

What would you call a person who steals for a 'living', but hasn't been caught and prosecuted? Is that person not still a criminal, just one that hasn't been caught?

no, we usually call him "Mr President."

 

[Beefbisquit]

no, we usually call him "Mr President."

OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH snap.

 

[Dr Kynes]

 

[Pinworm]

2 snaps, and a circle!!

 

[Dr Kynes]

2 snaps, and a circle!!

actually that deserved the legendary Zorro Snap in Z formation.

 

[Pinworm]

actually that deserved the legendary Zorro Snap in Z formation.

Because for the lulz.

 

[cannabineer]

are you intimating that an individual who commits a brazenly anti-social unacceptable act, for example, armed robbery, is not likely to re-offend?

No. However, what possibly legitimate sort of jurisprudence works from likelihood?
Isn't the cornerstone of our modern system of justice the presumption of innocence until the act in question has been established by a jury of peers to the unanimous removal of their any reasonable doubt?

in my opinion, one who is willing to step across the line to such an act is likely to step over that line in many way, possibly even becoming a habitual line-stepper.

being willing to engage in REAL, SERIOUS crime suggests that one might in fact be willing to engage in crime later, after "rehabilitation" in our "justice system"

the perpetrators some crimes, like rape and pederasty are notorious for their high rates of re-offense, and thus the need for added punishment, and possibly the institution of a death penalty for repeat offenders.

the "Track your local sex offender" web sites are spurious and destructive to community though, especially the ones that dont distinguish between Statutory Rape (where the "victim" is not a complainant and the crime is found only in legalisms) Forcible Rape (which is Real Rape Rape) Sodomy (which is a bullshit religious and moral judgement) and Pederasty, which should result in a hanging.

all "sex crimes" are not even crimes, the sexual offender tracking databases should no more track streakers (yep, thats a sex offense too) 19 year-olds who engage in consensual shagging with 17 year-olds, or people who get caught engaging in assplay or watersports in their own homes. it's a waste of time and resources, but real, serious, sexual offenses should be heavily penalized, carry a social stigma, and as a result of their extremely high recidivism rates, they should be monitored for an extended period of time, though usually not for life.

I don't think the death penalty is either necessary or useful in today's penal system. Imo a much higher priority is to excise the conflict of interest presented by the industrialization of the judicial/penal complex. Courts of criminal law feeding jails-for-profit that have become powerful lobbies ... become a much more serious issue than revenge fantasies upon the egregious lawbreakers. There is shockingly little public dscourse about this massive encroachment of corruption at the systemic level.

 

[Dr Kynes]

No. However, what possibly legitimate sort of jurisprudence works from likelihood?
Isn't the cornerstone of our modern system of justice the presumption of innocence until the act in question has been established by a jury of peers to the unanimous removal of their any reasonable doubt?

if one has been convicted of armed robbery 3 times in the past, logic dictates that the 4th armed robbery will occur soon, and as such, the perp should not be released on probation or the laughably misnamed "Parole".

if the courts actually did their jobs in even a halfassed manner, richard alan davis would have NEVER been released to rape and murder polly klaas, and in fact he would not have been out on parole when he kidnapped raped and robbed a woman (an adult this time) which was the case he was facing when the courts "ROR'ed" him (Release on Own Recognizance, a tool usually reserved for non-violent offenses, like jaywalking or shoplifitng).

our legal system, which has NEVER been a "Justice System" is an abject failure, but some forms of criminality are clearly related to compulsive behaviours, while others are simply a result of an anti-social criminal mindset.

compulsive predators like davis deserve to be put down like rabid dogs, and anti-social career criminals, as well as impulsive fools who just try to crime their way from one bad choice to another should be locked up until they either learn to behave like civilized people, or die in prison.

I don't think the death penalty is either necessary or useful in today's penal system.

the death penalty is the only real solution for a legal system that releases career criminals, violent compulsive predators, and gangbangers with stunning regularity, while keeping kids caught with a doobie in a triple-max slam where they will never see daylight, and they gotta give 30 menthol Kools to a prison cutter for a surgical shine job just so they can see who's creeping up in the dark.

Imo a much higher priority is to excise the conflict of interest presented by the industrialization of the judicial/penal complex. Courts of criminal law feeding jails-for-profit that have become powerful lobbies ... become a much more serious issue than revenge fantasies upon the egregious lawbreakers. There is shockingly little public dscourse about this massive encroachment of corruption at the systemic level.

it has ever been thus.

the quaker cultists have been using the US prison system as their playground for more than a century, corporations are just starting to get a taste of the sweet powertrip that comes from running a prison for your own ends rather than society's needs

 

[Beefbisquit]

if one has been convicted of armed robbery 3 times in the past, logic dictates that the 4th armed robbery will occur soon, and as such, the perp should not be released on probation or the laughably misnamed "Parole".

if the courts actually did their jobs in even a halfassed manner, richard alan davis would have NEVER been released to rape and murder polly klaas, and in fact he would not have been out on parole when he kidnapped raped and robbed a woman (an adult this time) which was the case he was facing when the courts "ROR'ed" him (Release on Own Recognizance, a tool usually reserved for non-violent offenses, like jaywalking or shoplifitng).

our legal system, which has NEVER been a "Justice System" is an abject failure, but some forms of criminality are clearly related to compulsive behaviours, while others are simply a result of an anti-social criminal mindset.

compulsive predators like davis deserve to be put down like rabid dogs, and anti-social career criminals, as well as impulsive fools who just try to crime their way from one bad choice to another should be locked up until they either learn to behave like civilized people, or die in prison.

Yep.

the death penalty is the only real solution for a legal system that releases career criminals, violent compulsive predators, and gangbangers with stunning regularity, while keeping kids caught with a doobie in a triple-max slam where they will never see daylight, and they gotta give 30 menthol Kools to a prison cutter for a surgical shine job just so they can see who's creeping up in the dark.

I want to want the death penalty for some people. The fact that it exists means it can be misused, and there's no few greater injustices than having your life taken wrongfully.

IMO, if there's irrefutable evidence, e.g. video, witnesses, etc. there should be a means to do away with certain types of criminals, e.g. serial killers, etc.

it has ever been thus.

the quaker cultists have been using the US prison system as their playground for more than a century, corporations are just starting to get a taste of the sweet powertrip that comes from running a prison for your own ends rather than society's needs

Jail in the USA scares the living fuck out me. The prisons don't sound fun either, but the jails.... fuck that noise.

 

[cannabineer]

if one has been convicted of armed robbery 3 times in the past, logic dictates that the 4th armed robbery will occur soon,

Dissenting opinion. It is the distinction between "likely", which i do not contest, and "certain", which you imply. Dismissing that spurious certainty is a judicial tenet that i think we need to defend against all comers.

and as such, the perp should not be released on probation or the laughably misnamed "Parole".

I agree that parole is misnamed. It should come with a complete reinstatement of civil rights. I don't think putting notionally dangerous likely recidivists into a sort of "not really paroled" pool where that are neither imprisoned nor free is morally sound. I advocate paroling them and allowing for a life sentence should they be convicted again.

if the courts actually did their jobs in even a halfassed manner, richard alan davis would have NEVER been released to rape and murder polly klaas, and in fact he would not have been out on parole when he kidnapped raped and robbed a woman (an adult this time) which was the case he was facing when the courts "ROR'ed" him (Release on Own Recognizance, a tool usually reserved for non-violent offenses, like jaywalking or shoplifitng).

our legal system, which has NEVER been a "Justice System" is an abject failure, but some forms of criminality are clearly related to compulsive behaviours, while others are simply a result of an anti-social criminal mindset.

compulsive predators like davis deserve to be put down like rabid dogs, and anti-social career criminals, as well as impulsive fools who just try to crime their way from one bad choice to another should be locked up until they either learn to behave like civilized people, or die in prison.


the death penalty is the only real solution for a legal system that releases career criminals, violent compulsive predators, and gangbangers with stunning regularity, while keeping kids caught with a doobie in a triple-max slam where they will never see daylight, and they gotta give 30 menthol Kools to a prison cutter for a surgical shine job just so they can see who's creeping up in the dark.



it has ever been thus.

the quaker cultists have been using the US prison system as their playground for more than a century, corporations are just starting to get a taste of the sweet powertrip that comes from running a prison for your own ends rather than society's needs

Horrific case studies will always be with us. I don't think tossing out the baby (the people who will not reoffend despite stats forecasting a likely reoffense) with the bathwater (the horrific examples) is worthy of civilized society, and the horrific examples don't merit that sweeping approach. My biggest beef with the death penalty is that it is an absolute power that corrupts absolutely. I don't willingly give that to the judges, and certainly not to the incarceration tycoons. If someone has committed and has been convicted of a crime whose quality andor quantity strongly recommends his removal from society, life without parole will serve the purpose amply and without giving the wardens of our penal system that excess of power. The judges simply need to conjure the collective cojones to demand of the prison corporations adequate facilities, including solitary cells for the previous death row candidates ... or deny them the customers. I imagine a judge can specify the point of imprisonment. Imagine the fun that could ensue if prisons vied for J. D. Slammer ratings and the attendant custom!

 

[Beefbisquit]

Dissenting opinion. It is the distinction between "likely", which i do not contest, and "certain", which you imply. Dismissing that spurious certainty is a judicial tenet that i think we need to defend against all comers. I agree that parole is misnamed. It should come with a complete reinstatement of civil rights. I don't think putting notionally dangerous likely recidivists into a sort of "not really paroled" pool where that are neither imprisoned nor free is morally sound. I advocate paroling them and allowing for a life sentence should they be convicted again.

Horrific case studies will always be with us. I don't think tossing out the baby (the people who will not reoffend despite stats forecasting a likely reoffense) with the bathwater (the horrific examples) is worthy of civilized society, and the horrific examples don't merit that sweeping approach. My biggest beef with the death penalty is that it is an absolute power that corrupts absolutely. I don't willingly give that to the judges, and certainly not to the incarceration tycoons. If someone has committed and has been convicted of a crime whose quality andor quantity strongly recommends his removal from society, life without parole will serve the purpose amply and without giving the wardens of our penal system that excess of power. The judges simply need to conjure the collective cojones to demand of the prison corporations adequate facilities, including solitary cells for the previous death row candidates ... or deny them the customers. I imagine a judge can specify the point of imprisonment. Imagine the fun that could ensue if prisons vied for J. D. Slammer ratings and the attendant custom!

For certain grievous crimes, I don't feel that life in prison is fiscally justified. Even in a 'civilized' society. Let someone who hasn't committed an atrocity get the $50,000+/year it cost to keep some scumbag alive in prison.

http://www.lanecounty.org/departments/sheriff/corrections/pages/corfaq17.aspx

Apparently, in Oregon, after overhead, booking operation fees, and support services are removed from the cost of keeping an inmate it's $130/day.

For a 30 year sentence, that's $1.5 MILLION dollars, to keep some scumbag alive.

$5.00 gets you x4 7.62mm rounds.... just sayin'.

I totally advocate firing squad too.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Dissenting opinion. It is the distinction between "likely", which i do not contest, and "certain", which you imply. Dismissing that spurious certainty is a judicial tenet that i think we need to defend against all comers. I agree that parole is misnamed. It should come with a complete reinstatement of civil rights. I don't think putting notionally dangerous likely recidivists into a sort of "not really paroled" pool where that are neither imprisoned nor free is morally sound. I advocate paroling them and allowing for a life sentence should they be convicted again.

i'm not suggesting, as shrill leftist hyperbolic moonbats often do, that somebody should get "25 to life for stealing a slice of pizza", but examining that one case is illustrative:
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/10/local/la-me-pizzathief10-2010feb10

this piece of shit was convicted of the following:
(juvenile record not included, but is implied to be extensive)

Armed Robbery
Attempted Robbery (separate case)
Grand Theft Auto
Felony Drug Possession (intent to sell)

since Armed Robbery (and Attempted Robbery) are both violent felonies, when he and his homey engaged in Robbery By Threat or Intimidation against a group of children, that too is a THIRD violent felony, all in the Robbery group. he should have been adjudicated a Career Criminal and should have been sent away for the mandated 25-life.

he was no Les Miz style starving orphan, snatching a slice off the pizza joint's counter and running, he threatened and intimidated, then robbed children, with an accomplice, while drunk.

even now he routinely violates his parole, and engages in shit that should put him back in slam, yet he remains at large.

they never tell the whole story.

Horrific case studies will always be with us. I don't think tossing out the baby (the people who will not reoffend despite stats forecasting a likely reoffense) with the bathwater (the horrific examples) is worthy of civilized society, and the horrific examples don't merit that sweeping approach. My biggest beef with the death penalty is that it is an absolute power that corrupts absolutely. I don't willingly give that to the judges, and certainly not to the incarceration tycoons. If someone has committed and has been convicted of a crime whose quality andor quantity strongly recommends his removal from society, life without parole will serve the purpose amply and without giving the wardens of our penal system that excess of power. The judges simply need to conjure the collective cojones to demand of the prison corporations adequate facilities, including solitary cells for the previous death row candidates ... or deny them the customers. I imagine a judge can specify the point of imprisonment. Imagine the fun that could ensue if prisons vied for J. D. Slammer ratings and the attendant custom!

the problem with "life without parole", is that it is NOT life without parole.
one idiot governor or president can pardon the bastard decades later, he can escape (yes, it happens all the time), somebody can fuck up and transfer him to club fed, even in prison he can still indulge his love of RRRRRape, helping to turn young lads like Padawanbater from misdemeanor scofflaw potheads into deviant predatory RRRRRRape machines jacked up on Milk-Plus, and out cruising for some of the old Ultraviolence.

i dont have confidence in the legal system to keep common robbers and murders locked up, why should i trust them with MONSTERS like ted bundy, richard alan davis, jeffery dahmer or Lindsay Lohan?

 

[Dr Kynes]

For certain grievous crimes, I don't feel that life in prison is fiscally justified. Even in a 'civilized' society. Let someone who hasn't committed an atrocity get the $50,000+/year it cost to keep some scumbag alive in prison.

http://www.lanecounty.org/departments/sheriff/corrections/pages/corfaq17.aspx

Apparently, in Oregon, after overhead, booking operation fees, and support services are removed from the cost of keeping an inmate it's $130/day.

For a 30 year sentence, that's $1.5 MILLION dollars, to keep some scumbag alive.

$5.00 gets you x4 7.62mm rounds.... just sayin'.

I totally advocate firing squad too.

rope is even cheaper, and you can use it over and over.

it's the environmentally friendly choice.

 

[Beefbisquit]

i'm not suggesting, as shrill leftist hyperbolic moonbats often do, that somebody should get "25 to life for stealing a slice of pizza", but examining that one case is illustrative:
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/10/local/la-me-pizzathief10-2010feb10

this piece of shit was convicted of the following:
(juvenile record not included, but is implied to be extensive)

Armed Robbery
Attempted Robbery (separate case)
Grand Theft Auto
Felony Drug Possession (intent to sell)

since Armed Robbery (and Attempted Robbery) are both violent felonies, when he and his homey engaged in Robbery By Threat or Intimidation against a group of children, that too is a THIRD violent felony, all in the Robbery group. he should have been adjudicated a Career Criminal and should have been sent away for the mandated 25-life.

he was no Les Miz style starving orphan, snatching a slice off the pizza joint's counter and running, he threatened and intimidated, then robbed children, with an accomplice, while drunk.

even now he routinely violates his parole, and engages in shit that should put him back in slam, yet he remains at large.

they never tell the whole story.




the problem with "life without parole", is that it is NOT life without parole.
one idiot governor or president can pardon the bastard decades later, he can escape (yes, it happens all the time), somebody can fuck up and transfer him to club fed, even in prison he can still indulge his love of RRRRRape, helping to turn young lads like Padawanbater from misdemeanor scofflaw potheads into deviant predatory RRRRRRape machines jacked up on Milk-Plus, and out cruising for some of the old Ultraviolence.

i dont have confidence in the legal system to keep common robbers and murders locked up, why should i trust them with MONSTERS like ted bundy, richard alan davis, jeffery dahmer or Lindsay Lohan?

rofl...