ally Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 I don't have kids. I'm not entirely sure I want them anyway, my response was merely in the hypothetical. Students that assault teachers should be expelled, not beaten. The idea that any parent would allow a stranger to physically assault their children is mind-boggling to me. If the kid needs a spanking, that's YOUR job as the parent. Too many parents nowadays are relegating all their responsibilities to teachers. They view them as babysitters whose job it is to raise their kids. I went to school with kids whose parents felt that way. Do some of this shit yourself. You make a good point about parents pawning off they're responsibility. I'm all for discipline in the classroom. I just happen to believe that it starts in the home Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadScreamingGallery Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 Im sorry to hear this. I have lost many to death but not like this. Lets hope she is in a better place. Im sure she is! Thank you Desperado. She was a wonderful person and, as you say, she is probably in a better place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Klu Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 I understand how you feel, and I DO see your logic. Problem is, WE are paying for their lives when we don't need to. Prison costs, you know? If the taxpayers don't foot the bill, fine. Otherwise, shave their genitals off, 1/16th of an inch at a time till they bleed to death. That should take care of the punishment issue. in my scenario, your tax dollars pay for services rendered. Prison costs are high due to non-violent offenders getting large sentences, when they could just do community service or something actually worthwhile. The taxpayer angle is just a self serving excuse for the most part. Foreign aid or farm subsidies are some things one could/should bitch about if taxdollars were truly the central argument. ...but since you mention genital mutilation, I'll assume it's vengeance rather than fiscal policy. You wouldn't fault me for arriving at that conclusion, would you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ally Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 Thank you Desperado. She was a wonderful person and, as you say, she is probably in a better place. It must be awful for you Mad. I won't dwell on this but, my thoughts are with you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyPage1977 Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 Good point, But I think you just need more community involvement. I think in our socieites we have a tendency to shy away from criminals. For example, if you're sitting on a train or a bus, and there's some asshole thug sitting in the back seat mucking up, then in our society we'll try to keep well away from them and not draw attention to ourself because we don't want to have to deal with that guy. But in countries like India or China, especially very populous countries, quite a few people on that bus or train would've told that guy to shut up and behave himself In those countries, the public plays a greater role in people's behaviour. Why didn't we kill the folks that we sent to Australia in the first place...... It sucks that we must endure their constant whining now...... Freakin' Crim-animals!!! kidding.... really...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainsbarre Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 Why didn't we kill the folks that we sent to Australia in the first place...... It sucks that we must endure their constant whining now...... Freakin' Crim-animals!!! kidding.... really...... You need psychiatric help... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmie ray Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 Sorry to be so clueless, but this is something I hadn't learned or heard before. Was Australia a penal colony, years ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zepyep Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 Hi all, From 1788 until 1823, the Colony of New South Wales was a penal colony. This meant that there were mainly convicts, marines and the wives of the marines although free settlers started to arrive in 1793. In 1823, the British government established a New South Wales parliament by setting up a Legislative Council as well as a Supreme Court under the New South Wales Act 1823 (UK). This Act is now seen as a first step towards a 'responsible' Parliament in Australia. It was also intended to establish English law in the colony with the establishment of NSW criminal and civil courts. However, there were significant departures from English law when the first cases were heard in the courts. The first civil case heard in Australia, in July 1788, was brought by a convict couple. The convicts successfully sued the captain of the ship in which they had been transported for the loss of a parcel. In Britain, as convicts, they would have had no rights to bring this case forward. KB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainsbarre Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 Is that your best comeback? "Back that thing up" *yawn* you're boring next... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 Serial killers, rapists, pedophiles, and any combination of the three deserve to die. Why? You're a 14-year-old girl. You're out, it's 6:00 pm EDT, you're not even a quarter of a New York block from home, but you're walking alone. Up comes Johnny, that serial killer pedophile rapist recently escaped from maximum security prison. Suddenly, you're his newest victim. Good thing they catch him, too bad they're too late to save you. You're victim number... 30... not counting the large number of young girls he victimized before he first went to prison. Johnny should be allowed to live? Uh... no. He's already escaped the prison where's he was supposed to serve 3 life terms. He barely served 2 years. Personally, I don't want to pay for his meals and his cot and his psychological profiling. I got no problem, however, paying for his death. Hell, I'll volunteer to throw the switch. Oh wait, it has to be humane, now. It's all lethal injection bullshit. Uh... no. Not for Johnny. IMO, Johnny should be brutally tortured, raped, then slowly and painfully murdered (you know, Hostel-style, only with guilty people as the victims), but hey... we live in the 21st century. But I ask... at least let me throw the switch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Action Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 in my scenario, your tax dollars pay for services rendered. Prison costs are high due to non-violent offenders getting large sentences, when they could just do community service or something actually worthwhile. The taxpayer angle is just a self serving excuse for the most part. Foreign aid or farm subsidies are some things one could/should bitch about if taxdollars were truly the central argument. ...but since you mention genital mutilation, I'll assume it's vengeance rather than fiscal policy. You wouldn't fault me for arriving at that conclusion, would you? I was being facetious there, something that a couple of you didn't pick up on. I still maintain that bullets are far cheaper than housing useless scum for decades. You cannot send convicted murderers out to do community service, for fuck's sakes! Did it ever occur to you that they are the most likely ones to escape and kill again? What "useful" purpose can they fulfill? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmie ray Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 Hi all, KB This quote, which I probably botched, must have come from another thread. I'd be interested in more on this, thank you. It's rather interesting, although it conflicts with my proposal. Were the convicts kept isolated from the later settlers, or become citizens of the new country? Were they given pardon to help the building process? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Del Zeppnile Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 Prison costs are high due to non-violent offenders getting large sentences, when they could just do community service or something actually worthwhile. I firmly believe that when it comes to incarcaration of criminals, there needs to be huge distinction between violent (crimes against the person) and non violent (crimes against property, or other non violent drug offenses). For the violent criminals no punishment is too harsh. I would even say that the "use a gun" in a crime laws should be even more enhanced. I would put an armed robber in prison for 30 years or more.Even when no one is harmed in the robbery. But when it comes to your garden variety thief or guy supporting a drug habit; as long as he did not also use a gun or other means of violence, then let's find a way to keep him out of prison. Maybe on a work detail as some suggest. But byy putting non-violent offenders into our prisons, we only turn them into violent offenders by the time they get out of prison. And of course I don't think that major drug dealers or gang leaders should get the benefit of not going to prison. Just the guy who steals my car or TV to support a habit. Let's try and fix these people, but the others we'll send them away for a long time. Oh and when it comes to white collar criminals, I believe they are much more effectively punished by taking away all of their priveleges than putting them in prison. House arrest, no drivers license and HEAVY FINES and other economic punishments probably work best, and save millions for the taxpayers. Because what sense does it make to over flow our prisons with non-violent criminals and then be forced to do 'early release' of VIOLENT criminals by court order, when the prisons become overcrowded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadScreamingGallery Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 It must be awful for you Mad. I won't dwell on this but, my thoughts are with you Thanks Ally. Sometimes it is awful. Thankfully, I'm able to compartmentalize and I've been blessed with a positive, peaceful personality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ally Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 Thanks Ally. Sometimes it is awful. Thankfully, I'm able to compartmentalize and I've been blessed with a positive, peaceful personality. All of us here can vouch for that Mad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dzldoc Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 *yawn* you're boring next... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Klu Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 I was being facetious there, something that a couple of you didn't pick up on. I still maintain that bullets are far cheaper than housing useless scum for decades. You cannot send convicted murderers out to do community service, for fuck's sakes! Did it ever occur to you that they are the most likely ones to escape and kill again? What "useful" purpose can they fulfill? I rock at picking up facetiousness. Clearly you're at fault for not providing enough facetiousnossity for the publics satisfaction. Such is the word of Klu. btw, I drew a reasonably clear line advocating comm service for non-violent offenders, and hazard duty like a stroll through an Afghan minefield* for convicted killers....so yea, it did occur to me. *not soviet army style, but with some disarming/marking gear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Action Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 I rock at picking up facetiousness. Clearly you're at fault for not providing enough facetiousnossity for the publics satisfaction. Such is the word of Klu. btw, I drew a reasonably clear line advocating comm service for non-violent offenders, and hazard duty like a stroll through an Afghan minefield* for convicted killers....so yea, it did occur to me. *not soviet army style, but with some disarming/marking gear Fair enough, Oh Big One. Perhaps we simply had a case of "communication breakdown". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadScreamingGallery Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 All of us here can vouch for that Mad. Aw, thanks Ally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 I firmly believe that when it comes to incarcaration of criminals, there needs to be huge distinction between violent (crimes against the person) and non violent (crimes against property, or other non violent drug offenses). For the violent criminals no punishment is too harsh. I would even say that the "use a gun" in a crime laws should be even more enhanced. I would put an armed robber in prison for 30 years or more.Even when no one is harmed in the robbery. But when it comes to your garden variety thief or guy supporting a drug habit; as long as he did not also use a gun or other means of violence, then let's find a way to keep him out of prison. Maybe on a work detail as some suggest. But byy putting non-violent offenders into our prisons, we only turn them into violent offenders by the time they get out of prison. And of course I don't think that major drug dealers or gang leaders should get the benefit of not going to prison. Just the guy who steals my car or TV to support a habit. Let's try and fix these people, but the others we'll send them away for a long time. Oh and when it comes to white collar criminals, I believe they are much more effectively punished by taking away all of their priveleges than putting them in prison. House arrest, no drivers license and HEAVY FINES and other economic punishments probably work best, and save millions for the taxpayers. Because what sense does it make to over flow our prisons with non-violent criminals and then be forced to do 'early release' of VIOLENT criminals by court order, when the prisons become overcrowded.While I disagree with sending a destitute knife-armed robber to jail for 30-years (just my reasoning I guess), this is one of the best posts I've ever read. Cheers And may the world actually start to see sense again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zepyep Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 Hi all,hi Del, If I may responded,with respect and not a personal attack,as has been so 'recent' on this board,.... I firmly believe that when it comes to incarcaration of criminals, there needs to be huge distinction between violent (crimes against the person) and non violent (crimes against property, or other non violent drug offenses). For the violent criminals no punishment is too harsh. I would even say that the "use a gun" in a crime laws should be even more enhanced. I would put an armed robber in prison for 30 years or more.Even when no one is harmed in the robbery. But when it comes to your garden variety thief or guy supporting a drug habit; as long as he did not also use a gun or other means of violence, then let's find a way to keep him out of prison. Maybe on a work detail as some suggest. But byy putting non-violent offenders into our prisons, we only turn them into violent offenders by the time they get out of prison. And of course I don't think that major drug dealers or gang leaders should get the benefit of not going to prison. Just the guy who steals my car or TV to support a habit. Let's try and fix these people, but the others we'll send them away for a long time. Oh and when it comes to white collar criminals, I believe they are much more effectively punished by taking away all of their priveleges than putting them in prison. House arrest, no drivers license and HEAVY FINES and other economic punishments probably work best, and save millions for the taxpayers. Because what sense does it make to over flow our prisons with non-violent criminals and then be forced to do 'early release' of VIOLENT criminals by court order, when the prisons become overcrowded. Human beings for the most part are not like this.nor will they be in the future.That is not the way the world or most people are wired.There is also a diving line how we treat crimes,the white color,who ruins peoples lives and may send them down that road they would not travel down,never get what society asks,thought I know they get other ways,... And those who kill/rape and take away,what can never be replaced,they get our protection,..... Thanks Del,KB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainsbarre Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 If I may responded,with respect and not a personal attack,as has been so 'recent' on this board,.... Wow, that's a nice change for you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 Wow, that's a nice change for you... You're different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattmc1973 Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 I firmly believe that when it comes to incarcaration of criminals, there needs to be huge distinction between violent (crimes against the person) and non violent (crimes against property, or other non violent drug offenses). For the violent criminals no punishment is too harsh. I would even say that the "use a gun" in a crime laws should be even more enhanced. I would put an armed robber in prison for 30 years or more.Even when no one is harmed in the robbery. But when it comes to your garden variety thief or guy supporting a drug habit; as long as he did not also use a gun or other means of violence, then let's find a way to keep him out of prison. Maybe on a work detail as some suggest. But byy putting non-violent offenders into our prisons, we only turn them into violent offenders by the time they get out of prison. And of course I don't think that major drug dealers or gang leaders should get the benefit of not going to prison. Just the guy who steals my car or TV to support a habit. Let's try and fix these people, but the others we'll send them away for a long time. Oh and when it comes to white collar criminals, I believe they are much more effectively punished by taking away all of their priveleges than putting them in prison. House arrest, no drivers license and HEAVY FINES and other economic punishments probably work best, and save millions for the taxpayers. Because what sense does it make to over flow our prisons with non-violent criminals and then be forced to do 'early release' of VIOLENT criminals by court order, when the prisons become overcrowded. You know what Del? I agree with you!! Now that's a change! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.