who's for harsher penalties and punishment for criminals?

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb

Originally posted by: Rebasxer
Armed robbery as a capital crime.....its not a violent crime, why should it be a capital offense...you people are crazy.

Fixed...

Capital

Are you suggesting that armed robbery should be a capital crime or not?

If you are suggesting not (as I suspect you are), then you are an idiot.

Good catch. Capitol crimes are committed by those in Gubmint service...such as Senators and Representatives...

 

[alkemyst]

our penalities are plenty harsh, it's just too many bleeding hearts (and it's most of you guys) that want everyone to have do-overs. Hell look at half our posts about those looking to screw a merchant over something they bought, used and just want to return because they are done using it.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
I think penalties for virtually all crimes should be short, but etremely painful/difficult. Public flogging in the town square for small crimes like minor theft, vandalism, etc. and a week max of backbreaking work followed by someone kicking the everloving shit out of you every night for virtually every other more serious crime. After that, the punishment is over. Brutal, I know, but penalties will be short and we'll be mostly rid of the prison industry.

People respond to pain when they won't respond to anything else. Nature built pain into the human species so that each individual could learn not to do things that are damaging to it. If this mechanism was not successful in its purpose then no one would make it past childhood to even become a criminal in the first place. Pain is our preprogrammed cue to alter our behavior. Why not use that built-in tendency to society's advantage?

If only that pesky 8th Amendment didn't exist!

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
I think penalties for virtually all crimes should be short, but etremely painful/difficult. Public flogging in the town square for small crimes like minor theft, vandalism, etc. and a week max of backbreaking work followed by someone kicking the everloving shit out of you every night for virtually every other more serious crime. After that, the punishment is over. Brutal, I know, but penalties will be short and we'll be mostly rid of the prison industry.

People respond to pain when they won't respond to anything else. Nature built pain into the human species so that each individual could learn not to do things that are damaging to it. If this mechanism was not successful in its purpose then no one would make it past childhood to even become a criminal in the first place. Pain is our preprogrammed cue to alter our behavior. Why not use that built-in tendency to society's advantage?

If only that pesky 8th Amendment didn't exist!

We'll just have to reassess what we consider cruel or unusual. I say it's only cruel if it's unnecessary. By definition it can't be unusual if it's the standard practice.

 

[nakedfrog]

We should probably get rid of fair and speedy trials, too, since we already know they're guilty in a lot of cases. And if we already know they're guilty, we can go ahead and just search all their belongings, too.

 

[ric1287]

All I want is a jail system that doesn't seem like summer camp with the occasional gang rape. 20 hour solitary lockdown everyday, 4 hours for education/labor/showers. No fucking TV or internet. No gyms. Nothing even remotely entertaining other than some books.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
I think penalties for virtually all crimes should be short, but etremely painful/difficult. Public flogging in the town square for small crimes like minor theft, vandalism, etc. and a week max of backbreaking work followed by someone kicking the everloving shit out of you every night for virtually every other more serious crime. After that, the punishment is over. Brutal, I know, but penalties will be short and we'll be mostly rid of the prison industry.

People respond to pain when they won't respond to anything else. Nature built pain into the human species so that each individual could learn not to do things that are damaging to it. If this mechanism was not successful in its purpose then no one would make it past childhood to even become a criminal in the first place. Pain is our preprogrammed cue to alter our behavior. Why not use that built-in tendency to society's advantage?

If only that pesky 8th Amendment didn't exist!

We'll just have to reassess what we consider cruel or unusual. I say it's only cruel if it's unnecessary. By definition it can't be unusual if it's the standard practice.

Too bad you have two hundred years of jurisprudence to fight. I'm not trying to be a dick, but no judge in his or her right mind (no less five of them!) are going to start bucking the trend at this point, especially with a lot of the most important 8th Amendment cases coming in the 1800s.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Too bad you have two hundred years of jurisprudence to fight. I'm not trying to be a dick, but no judge in his or her right mind (no less five of them!) are going to start bucking the trend at this point, especially with a lot of the most important 8th Amendment cases coming in the 1800s.

Oh, I know it'll never happen. It might not even work, but what we're doing doesn't really work either. The idea of prison as a growing, profit-earning business just pisses me off so much I'm trying to find a workaround that would completely derail it. There shouldn't be anyone out there who wants there to be even more prisoners in the system. The entire country should be unified in the desire to render incarceration completely unnecessary due to the lack of lawbreakers to imprison. Yet that's the situation when you talk about people who have a stake in the prison "industry".


It pisses me off to no end when I hear people talk about how happy they are that a new prison is coming to an area and all the "jobs" it will bring. Do these people even stop to think about what that means?

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
The entire country should be unified in the desire to render incarceration completely unnecessary due to the lack of lawbreakers to imprison.

Gee, let's not ask for the completely impossible or anything.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
The entire country should be unified in the desire to render incarceration completely unnecessary due to the lack of lawbreakers to imprison.

Gee, let's not ask for the completely impossible or anything.

Perhaps, but maybe we'll get closer if we honestly strive toward the highest mark possible.

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
I think it's pretty barbaric. The way I look at it, you put dangerous people in jail to separate them from society, that way they can't harm anyone else. I don't look at it so much as punishment

If you cut off their hands they can't harm anyone else either. And it's cheaper than prison.

 

[0roo0roo]

we are up to what? 3 million inmates?

 

[episodic]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
I think it's pretty barbaric. The way I look at it, you put dangerous people in jail to separate them from society, that way they can't harm anyone else. I don't look at it so much as punishment

If you cut off their hands they can't harm anyone else either. And it's cheaper than prison.

You have not watched prisonbreak have you?

 

[Crono]

I think "eye for an eye" should be the spirit of the law, not the letter, or at least not in most cases. If someone is guilty of stealing, they should pay, but pay greater than what was stolen.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
if you are found guilty without any doubt whatsoever (caught at the scene, on camera, DNA, etc), you should be punished eye for an eye.

kill someone, death penalty.
rob someone, you get your hand cut off.
rape someone, you get your dick cut off.
assault someone, you get the shit beat outta you.
no jail time. you just get thrown back out on the streets because i highly doubt you'll be able to rape someone again without your penis.
we'll save so much money on jailing these criminals.

so what say y'all?

I say you're just about the biggest idiot on ATOT.

Though I'm guessing their will be a lot less traffic after we blind everyone who is caught driving drunk.
And I won't have to listen to that criminal Rush Limbaugh when we cut out his tongue.

 

[alkemyst]

Here's a new angle that's brewing...the 'terrorist watch list' is a list of names that homeland security has compiled. The idea behind it is these people are 'interested' or 'of note'...there is not supposed to be any sanctions against them as they were never tried/etc.

However; they stopped allowing them to fly a while ago and the problem is the list is mostly just names...not much other info.

The newest aspect is they are talking about not allowing anyone on this list to purchase firearms.

Now the kicker is all it takes is a phone call to Homeland Security with the right kind of story to get someone added to this list. There really isn't a way to get off of it.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: alkemyst
Here's a new angle that's brewing...the 'terrorist watch list' is a list of names that homeland security has compiled. The idea behind it is these people are 'interested' or 'of note'...there is not supposed to be any sanctions against them as they were never tried/etc.

However; they stopped allowing them to fly a while ago and the problem is the list is mostly just names...not much other info.

The newest aspect is they are talking about not allowing anyone on this list to purchase firearms.

Now the kicker is all it takes is a phone call to Homeland Security with the right kind of story to get someone added to this list. There really isn't a way to get off of it.

Not to worry. According to BlahBlahYouToo theory of criminal punishment it will be easy to spot those on the terrorist watch list. They will be the ones without hands.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
we are up to what? 3 million inmates?

I see a new franchise, Kentucky Fried Fingers,,,,err,, Kentucky Grilled Fingers.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
if you are found guilty without any doubt whatsoever (caught at the scene, on camera, DNA, etc), you should be punished eye for an eye.

kill someone, death penalty.
rob someone, you get your hand cut off.
rape someone, you get your dick cut off.
assault someone, you get the shit beat outta you.
no jail time. you just get thrown back out on the streets because i highly doubt you'll be able to rape someone again without your penis.
we'll save so much money on jailing these criminals.

so what say y'all?

I say you're just about the biggest idiot on ATOT.

Though I'm guessing their will be a lot less traffic after we blind everyone who is caught driving drunk.
And I won't have to listen to that criminal Rush Limbaugh when we cut out his tongue.

am i a nominee for the darwin award with this thread techs?

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
we are up to what? 3 million inmates?

I see a new franchise, Kentucky Fried Fingers,,,,err,, Kentucky Grilled Fingers.

Puts a whole new meaning to "Finger Lickin Good!"

 

[SirStev0]

your first statement is the greatest argument against it.

To absolutely conclusively prove guilt is an extremely rare thing. Such a hypothetical situation is one of the useless debate strategies that many people often employ.

But even if there was absolute proof motive needs to be considered. What if it was self defense, what if it was in defense of a loved one, what if it was in defense of a complete stranger. What if it was in the defense of someone who was condemned to death. By your own perfect plan alone, any executioner would also be guilty.

People need to learn to stop arguing absolutes and start trying to come up with rational ways to deal with all the complex issues we really face.

 

[SirStev0]

Originally posted by: Spartan Niner
I'm for e-thugs and roving gangs of mercenaries. Anyone want to start the ATOT branch? I hear the side benefits are lots of hookers and blow.

Your ideas intrigue me and I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.

 

[OogyWaWa]

firstly, OP's 'eye for an eye' is no where even close to 'eye for an eye'

secondly, despite all the evidence that can be given to prove guilty, I still think it is wrong. If ONE person had their cock cut off, was killed, etc. and it somehow turned out to not be the truth, the system has failed. False positives happen all the time.

The real solution is to stop jailing non-violent criminals.

 

[Inferno0032]

I always get looks when I say this, but eye for an eye really seems to be the only "fair" (god arbitrary words suck in philosophy) method of punishment.

You shouldn't be able to take from someone else, what society couldn't in turn take from you.

If you are able to take someone's life, why shouldn't the same be able to be done to you?

Violent crime, and various crimes would drop immensely. There would be no prison for a refuge for free food and shelter.

Yes, barbaric, I suppose "stooping" to their level, but, really, it seems to be the fairest. I'm not arguing whether it's the most right, but it appears to be fairest.

EDIT- obviously taking ideal situations in context here, there will always be grey areas, (self defense, etc), I'm referring to true guilty situations. Grey areas are why this punishment isn't particularly practical.

 

[Inferno0032]

Originally posted by: OogyWaWa
firstly, OP's 'eye for an eye' is no where even close to 'eye for an eye'

secondly, despite all the evidence that can be given to prove guilty, I still think it is wrong. If ONE person had their cock cut off, was killed, etc. and it somehow turned out to not be the truth, the system has failed. False positives happen all the time.

The real solution is to stop jailing non-violent criminals.

This is the big dilemma for eye for an eye.