Crime and punishment...

Wolf_1989 said:
As I sit here, I have a loaded Ruger 44mag and a tomahawk in reach, and there's a 107 lb half-german shepherd next to me. Nothing escapes his attention.
Click to expand...
I have perhaps the friendliest dog around, a Golden Retriever. That said, the slightest unrest sets him off, squirrels, raccoons, what ever, he is alert and "on watch" with a "BIG BARK". Sig P220 .45 at side table and Mossberg within reach. Los Angeles can be a tough town.
 
Thor's the same way; generally a big teddy bear but he has a mouth like a cannon.

I don't expect him to be an attack dog. Just let me know if someone/thing is messing around out there.
 
Wolf, you make many excellent points. I almost hope some criminals try to start something with some of the people here--a few less scumbags to deal with, and the German Shepherd will be well-fed. :)

But I have to say that capital punishment is a tough thing for me, ideologically. Generally, I don't make a big scene against it, but I have a couple problems. I was a staunch supporter until, one day, a friend of mine appealed to my more libertarian side. They asked me what right the state has to kill a person? Is their right founded through the collective will? And if so, is democracy more than a pluralist totalitarianism? I still am not entirely sure how to respond.

In certain cases such as this, as I said, I would like nothing more than for those two b@stards to be shot dead by a firing squad of the victims' family and friends. But can I justify that to myself intellectually while still keeping my belief in liberty and freedom from the state intact? It's a question of gut vs. reason for me.

Chris
 
I would compromise for a life-in-prison sentence for capitol crimes, but... no parole.

BUT I'd like to see sex offenders used in labs for product testing instead of innocent animals.




Thor on guard duty:
Thor.jpg
 
As far as weapon confiscation from law abiding citizens, all I can say that is I totally condone people using any force necessary to protect their rights, and although a conflict with local law enforcement would be horrible, I don't see what the option is. I wouldn't disarm if I had broken no laws. That seizure was unconstitutional and totally un-American.
 
I'd like to think that if something really majorly bad went down in this country, most cops would side with the people.

But the stories coming out from the NOLA P.D.'s behavior after Katrina hit, make me wonder if that's just wishful thinking.
 
Perhaps if nonviolent drug offenders didn't go to prison, then we would have the money and space to lock up the serious scumbags and throw away the key. Canada, believe it or not, does not allow repeated sex offenders out of prison. They are there for life. Belgium actually uses chemical castration, which is a scary sounding term, but essentially they force parolees to use a drug that kills their libido.

I too have a problem with the death penalty under certain circumstances, although I am glad that Ted Bundy fried--he did escape from police custody on two occasions. Anyone who murders 100 women should be killed. That is just undeniable.

On the other hand, in some ways, death row is too easy. Some bastards should rot in a nasty cell for the rest of their days and be forced to drop their soap in the shower. It is a fate worse than death.
 
uduman said:
Perhaps if nonviolent drug offenders didn't go to prison, then we would have the money and space to lock up the serious scumbags and throw away the key. Canada, believe it or not, does not allow repeated sex offenders out of prison. They are there for life.
Click to expand...

I agree with that, and good for Canada! :thumbup:
 
Wolf_1989 said:
0K.

IMO, TPTB actually want more crime, as:

It makes more $ for the lawyers,

more money for the doctors who treat the victims,

more excuses for more gun/knife control,

and more excuses to further their agenda of creating a totalitarian police state.




Occam's razor applies. If they truly wanted to nip crime in the bud, they'd enact a zero tolerance policy for heinous crimes such as murder, rape, child molestation.

But they don't. And that led me years ago to the conclusion I posted. Yes I'm cynical. Oh well.



Now I reckon I'll crawl under the porch.
Click to expand...
I have the dog and the loaded shotgum amd the willingness to shoot.
I support capital punishment.

However:

Occam's Razor suggests that the most sipmple simplest explanation applies - yes? If so, what makes conspiracy more simple a cause, or the prime cause, than incompetence, stupidity, and neglect?

The argument also assumes the unproven; namely, that all henious crimes are committed by those with prior convictions - of some, unspecified type. We know better. Do they repeat? Sure they do, but they all start somewhere. And isn't the typical murderer a guy killing his "significant other" in a "crime of passion"?
 
Wolf_1989 said:
to fact #2:

The-Powers-That-Be are jumping at every opportunity for more gun/knife control because they are allegedly "determined to end violent crime".
Click to expand...
Not a fact -- unless the majority of Congress and the President are not in the TPTB category. Most of the new dems in Congress ran as pre-gun and have records that support that stance. While there are enough clowns out there who confuse inanimate objects with causes of behavior, there is no unitary group of PTB.
 
tyr_shadowblade said:
Our legal system seems to think that the best solution is simply to outlaw honest citizens' means of self protection against these animals. But the animals don't care about going back to prison, so they feel free to ignore any and all laws pertaining to weapons and violence.
Click to expand...
As more and more states pass concealed carry, home-as-castle, and "no duty to retreat" laws.
 
Wolf_1989 said:
I agree.

In the old days they had something called "The Gallows". Public execution was an excellent deterrent.
Click to expand...
100% deterrence as to the person hanged, which is why I support it. Otherwise, no deterrence. The bad guys did/do not assume they will be caught, not beong the brightest bulbs in the patch. They were picking pockets (hanging offense) at the hangings.
 
Wolf_1989 said:
I'd like to think that if something really majorly bad went down in this country, most cops would side with the people.

But the stories coming out from the NOLA P.D.'s behavior after Katrina hit, make me wonder if that's just wishful thinking.
Click to expand...
You are talking about the consensus most corrupt department in the country.
 
namaarie said:
But I have to say that capital punishment is a tough thing for me, ideologically. Generally, I don't make a big scene against it, but I have a couple problems. I was a staunch supporter until, one day, a friend of mine appealed to my more libertarian side. They asked me what right the state has to kill a person? Is their right founded through the collective will? And if so, is democracy more than a pluralist totalitarianism? I still am not entirely sure how to respond.
Chris
Click to expand...

Excellent point, Chris! I'm a libertarian myself. It's a conundrum for me as well. While I want due justice and support the removal of cancers on society, what right does the government have to take a life? I guess under TRUE libertarianism. people would be able to protect themselves. Conflicts like this would not go to trial. They would end with the bad guy shot full of holes. Or, if you want a small local government to take care of it, a trial by peers would probably mean a tree, a noose, and a shallow grave in the peet bog.
My politics are hypothetical, really. I think we have the raw materials on both sides in our government to forge a great society...I just think both of the parties are too covered in soot and grime to be effective.
 
Don't forget that a lot of the confiscations in NOLA were made by Blackwater men that had been deputized. I'm not sure what their understanding of the law was or were they just following orders?
 
I do not trust the government that can't get my mail to me on time, keep the roads in reasonable shape, or even figure out how much it's supposed to pay me every two and a half weeks, to decide who lives and who dies. Until they display competency with basic tasks I'll be opposed to the death penalty -- not the principle, merely the practice.

If I want to lock someone up and throw away the key, this will cost taxpayers around $30,000 per year in WA state. Costs vary a bit by location. Incarceration is not cheap.

I no longer believe that there is a "right" answer to the question of dealing with criminals. I'm not even sure that there are any (feasible) good ones. We're left with the best thing available to us, which is humane incarceration and an attempt at rehabilitation. We often fail at both, for a variety of reasons.

If anyone has any solutions that are at least as acceptable ethically and financially and are more effective, do not be shy about describing them.
 
Uduman posited an intriguing idea by saying that, perhaps, non-violent drug offenders shouldn't get jail time. Personally, I think that would be an excellent idea. Frankly, I think our nation's drug laws are some of the greatest displays of idiocy that the free world could ever produce. They're so completely arbitrary. For instance, marijuana has been shown time and again to have way less negative effect on people than alcohol or tobacco, which are legal and accepted. Not even close.

I can tell you that, from my perspective, I'd rather the legal system worry more about violent people and less about drug offenders. I know this is a tricky topic, but I think that. Most of the people in prison are there because of drug charges. Is that really the most important criminal threat? I guess I don't think so. If we must have national drug laws (should it be the states' realm?), I think they should be based on studies of how harmful the drug really is, in many ways--physical, emotional, addiction, etc. should be considered.

Is this thread drift? :) Not too bad, because the abundance of drug convictions are a serious problem in our legal and prison systems. It seems like a major stumbling point, and maybe a place where progress could be made.

Also, great point, Dave. My thoughts exactly. I've actually heard that it is, overall, cheaper to incarcerate a person for life than it is to execute them. The legal process it takes to get there is so incredibly long and tedious and expensive that lifelong incarceration actually costs less. I guess when you think about how high legal fees are nowadays, it's not a far-fetched notion.

Great conversation! This is what the Cantina's all about.

Chris
 
Great discussion, guys:) Chris, I'm with you on the drug laws. I personally do not partake of drugs. However, it doesn't take a math wiz to see that housing, feeding, etc all of these drug users squanders wealth that could be used doing other things. Think about what could be done with the war on terror (actually taking it TO the terrorists in their caves) or social relief for disaster victims with the capitol used to house non-violent drug offenders. Furthermore, the cells wouldn't be so full. We wouldn't have to pick and choose who we throw in a cage or not. "Well, we're a little short on space, and you only ALMOST beat him to death with that lead pipe. Promise you won't do it again?..ok, off ya go."

Hot damn, I'm learning stuff today:):P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top