The ISIS offensive in Iraq

[gourimoko]

Sidenote:

I supported the death penalty until I realized that it costs more to do it than life, that many prisoners would rather die than spend life in prison and that when you go for death you very rarely get it anyways and you pay out the nose to try.

Optimus really nails this point. I also supported the death penalty until I had to sit down and really do some critical thinking and determine how I could, logically, support a policy that likely kills substantial numbers of innocent people, unjustly; targets minorities, particularly Blacks, unfairly; and costs more to society?

At that point, it just no longer made sense.

I want people that cause suffering to suffer themselves. With nearly zero exceptions, prisoners say that prison is fucking awful. What I'd really like to think is that these guys get killed in prison, but it's far more rare than I'd like.

I don't agree with this. It's unethical.

Prison is a horrible place to begin with; this shouldn't be compounded with abuse, rape, and murder.

What we sentence individuals to should be the totality of their punishment. I'm not in favor of having sub-societies of violence that only work to recidivism rather than rehabilitation and simply just punishment.

 

[The Oi]

I supported the death penalty until I realized how many innocent people the government kills every day, so whether or not you are really guilty is immaterial to them.

Yeah, that too.

Prison is a horrible place to begin with; this shouldn't be compounded with abuse, rape, and murder.

I'm being graphic and personal here to make a point, which I'm sure you'll understand, but...

You're telling me that if someone raped your young daughter and attempted to murder her by slitting her throat, got arrested and then got sentenced to something less than life, you wouldn't wish that person would get raped or murdered in prison?

What we sentence individuals to should be the totality of their punishment. I'm not in favor of having sub-societies of violence that only work to recidivism rather than rehabilitation and simply just punishment.

Yeah, I mean...I'm not saying I want guards killing these people, but if the animals want to kill each other while they have nothing else to do and we no longer have to pay for their existence and the parents of the kids they raped or murdered get to breathe a sigh of relief...whatever.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Hate crime laws don't address which is ethically worse.

I think they do implicitly, and certainly some of the advocates for such laws take that position. I've even had to brief that issue, so I know the "which is worse" argument has been made.

The laws are meant as a deterrent to groupthink (discriminatory and prejudiced beliefs) potentially leading to violence and murder.

They don't deter mere thought at all, or even "thoughts that potentially lead to violence and murder." You can have all those thoughts you want as long as you don't act on them. Once you act on them, there are already laws on the books that proscribe those underlying acts of violence, and create the deterrent.

I get what you're saying, but that's not how hate crimes work.

It's certainly one way they work. If this perpetrator made comments to the police that he killed these victims because he hates Muslims and wants them all to die, that would support a hate crime charge. If you want to argue "that's not how it works", you may want to read some cases.

 

[Sebastian]

Sidenote:
With nearly zero exceptions, prisoners say that prison is fucking awful. What I'd really like to think is that these guys get killed in prison, but it's far more rare than I'd like.

There are exceptions:

 

[gourimoko]

You're telling me that if someone raped your young daughter and attempted to murder her by slitting her throat, got arrested and then got sentenced to something less than life, you wouldn't wish that person would get raped or murdered in prison?

Jigo, you're hitting very very close to home with my actual life and just might not realize it. (not my daughter but someone exceptionally close to me)

I've had to testify in court, and was actively involved as a key witness, as part of a child rape case and yes the guy went to prison, and no the duration of time was not long enough in my eyes. I wanted him dead for what he did to a young girl for most of her life -- and the motherfucker is actually out on the streets right now.

What I might personally want to happen, or even try to bring about, doesn't speak to what is right or ethical or just. Because in such a situation, my personal viewpoint would outweigh what is right or just or ethical.

That's why we have courts, and legal systems, and society determines what is a fair and just punishment for a crime.

Yeah, I mean...I'm not saying I want guards killing these people, but if the animals want to kill each other while they have nothing else to do...whatever.

Because prisons of men are not and should not be akin to a collection of animals.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

What we sentence individuals to should be the totality of their punishment. I'm not in favor of having sub-societies of violence that only work to recidivism rather than rehabilitation and simply just punishment.

Well, yes and no. I'm not in agreement with the kind of random additional violence that Optimus talks about. I'd say that the better course is simply to increase the length of incarceration if you believe it isn't long enough.

But an inherent part of any punishment is the social cost of people changing their behaviors towards you because of the act you committed. Fear of prison shouldn't be the only thing prospective criminals should worry about. They should also worry about society viewing them (correctly) as felons, employers being less willing to hire them, potential mates viewing them more negatively, etc..

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

That's why we have courts, and legal systems, and society determines what is a fair and just punishment for a crime.

The nature of living in society forces us all to respect in a legal sense the validity of judgments made by legislatures, courts, etc.. Nothing requires us to agree that society, legislatures, or the courts got it "right", or that the punishment awarded was either fair or just.

 

[The Oi]

Jigo, you're hitting very very close to home with my actual life and just might not realize it. (not my daughter but someone exceptionally close to me)

I've had to testify in court, and was actively involved as a key witness, as part of a child rape case and yes the guy went to prison, and no the duration of time was not long enough in my eyes. I wanted him dead for what he did to a young girl for most of her life -- and the motherfucker is actually out on the streets right now.

What I might personally want to happen, or even try to bring about, doesn't speak to what is right or ethical or just. Because in such a situation, my personal viewpoint would outweigh what is right or just or ethical.

That's why we have courts, and legal systems, and society determines what is a fair and just punishment for a crime.

Well society and the courts failed you and that girl in that case. Because anyone who commits rape or molests a child should be out of society's hair for life. Those are actions that are representative of flaws that are hard-wired into those people. So if society and the courts can't punish those people appropriately, then I'm a fan of the prisoners handling it themselves.

I'm not calling for institutional policies used to ensure these guys get raped or murdered. I'm just saying that it would please me to know that it's happening, ethical or otherwise.

Because prisons of men are not and should not be akin to a collection of animals.

Rapists, child molesters and serial killers are no better than animals. In fact, they're far worse. When animals kill, they kill to survive. When rapists and child molesters rape and molest they do so for pleasure. When serial killers kill they do so for power.

If these people can be made gone, they can GTFO.

Anyways...we're way off the rails here.

 

[gourimoko]

I think they do implicitly,

Not explicitly. That isn't the intent of the legislature when passing these laws and it's easy to go back and reference such arguments.

I think you and others think this is implied because you don't agree with the primary argument, that the government should specifically target hate-based violence.

and certainly some of the advocates for such laws take that position.

Certainly.

I've even had to brief that issue, so I know the "which is worse" argument has been made.

Anecdotal. I'm not really concerned with whether or not the argument can or would be made. That argument might be valid, I don't know, I haven't evaluated it.

They don't deter mere thought at all,

Never said they did.

or even "thoughts that potentially lead to violence and murder."

Why? How do you know this? Based on what?

You can have all those thoughts you want as long as you don't act on them.

That's what "leads to violence" means.

Once you act on them, there are already laws on the books that proscribe those underlying acts of violence, and create the deterrent.

....

It's certainly one way they work. If this perpetrator made comments to the police that he killed these victims because he hates Muslims and wants them all to die, that would support a hate crime charge. If you want to argue "that's not how it works", you may want to read some cases.

I have 'read some cases,' but it appears you're still not really aware of how hate crime laws work if you think the bolded is a necessity to pursue a hate crimes charge.

Again, I'm not following this case, and don't want to get dragged into an argument about it; but it seems your criteria for what is a hate crime and what isn't doesn't reflect reality.

To quote ABC News:
"It's a hate crime when violence is tinted with discrimination.

The FBI defines it as "a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias."

He doesn't have to admit that bias to police.

 

[gourimoko]

The nature of living in society forces us all to respect in a legal sense the validity of judgments made by legislatures, courts, etc..

Okay...

Nothing requires us to agree that society, legislatures, or the courts got it "right", or that the punishment awarded was either fair or just.

Right..

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Anyways...we're way off the rails here.

Actually, considering the thread title, talking about the appropriate punishment for rapists, murderers, and child molesters has brought the thread right back on the rails.

 

[gourimoko]

Well, yes and no. I'm not in agreement with the kind of random additional violence that Optimus talks about. I'd say that the better course is simply to increase the length of incarceration if you believe it isn't long enough.

But an inherent part of any punishment is the social cost of people changing their behaviors towards you because of the act you committed. Fear of prison shouldn't be the only thing prospective criminals should worry about.

I never said it should be..

They should also worry about society viewing them (correctly) as felons, employers being less willing to hire them, potential mates viewing them more negatively, etc..

What are you disagreeing with me about? Is not the above entailed in being charged with a felony and going to prison? Did I have to enumerate all of the consequences of that?

 

[OptimusPrime]

How the government should punish violent criminals like that isn't something I've considered much. But I do know if more people were armed and vigilant about their own defense, many of these violent criminals would be killed by their victims or those around them, so then they would be out of society's hair.

I don't oppose the death penalty to protect people like that. I oppose it to protect people like me and you. I should feel safe that because I haven't committed violence against someone else, I don't have to worry about the state murdering me. But that's exactly what could happen.

Hell, my driver's side window on my car is broken right now where it won't roll down. If I get pulled over and the cop doesn't like that I have to open the door to give him my license, he or she might blow my fucking brains out right there, claiming I was reaching for a weapon. They are not accountable to anyone, and it happens several times every day. Scum like that should have no say over who should live or die.

 

[gourimoko]

Well society and the courts failed you and that girl in that case.

It did... definitely.

Because anyone who commits rape or molests a child should be out of society's hair for life.

I totally agree, if you can prove it. In this case, the guy admitted to it under interrogation.

Those are actions that are representative of flaws that are hard-wired into those people. So if society and the courts can't punish those people appropriately, then I'm a fan of the prisoners handling it themselves.

In my personal case, I have personal bias.

But the prisoners aren't privy to the information in the case; they have no idea if the guy is guilty or not, or what the circumstances were.

Our prison system shouldn't even allow that type of action to happen, remotely; but we deliberately create such an environment, that increases recidivism.

I'm not calling for institutional policies used to ensure these guys get raped or murdered. I'm just saying that it would please me to know that it's happening, ethical or otherwise.

Indeed.

Rapists, child molesters and serial killers are no better than animals. In fact, they're far worse. When animals kill, they kill to survive. When rapists and child molesters rape and molest they do so for pleasure. When serial killers kill they do so for power.

If these people can be made gone, they can GTFO.

I agree.. But I don't think using the prison system is the way to go about doing it. Just have tougher sentencing guidelines.

Anyways...we're way off the rails here.

Big time.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I have 'read some cases,' but it appears you're still not really aware of how hate crime laws work if you think the bolded is a necessity to pursue a hate crimes charge.

Where the fuck did I ever say it was "necessary"?? You asked about statements made to a cop, and I said "You could use comments he made to the arresting officer as part of the proof of his motive towards the victims, for example." That is completely accurate. Such statements are relevant to determinations of motive, but they're certainly not conclusive or necessary to such proof. I never said otherwise.

Again, I'm not following this case, and don't want to get dragged into an argument about it; but it seems your criteria for what is a hate crime and what isn't doesn't reflect reality.

To quote ABC News:
"It's a hate crime when violence is tinted with discrimination. The FBI defines it as "a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias."
He doesn't have to admit that bias to police.

None of that contradicts a damn thing I said. I said in this case, the police had he and his wife stating what his motive was, and also had corroborating evidence from other neighbors stating that his actions regarding his parking spot prior to this incident, and with respect to neighbors other than just Muslims, were frightening/potentially violent as well. That alone is not determinative, but it is certainly relevant evidence as to motive.

On the flip side, if he had made a direct comment of shooting these people because they were Musllm, then proving this was a hate crime would be much easier. It is not necessary to have a direct statement from the perpetrator, but it certainly helps establish that case.

That shouldn't be remotely controversial, so I can only surmise that you're disagreeing just to be disagreeable.