American society

Diuretic said:
Well, most of it. Australia became a dumping ground for British convicts because you cranky colonials insisted on self-government and told the Brits to dump their garbage elsewhere :D Anyway, my state was the only one (as a province) that was settled by free settlers and had no convict origins. Yes, it makes us feel superior to the rest of the mob here :clink:



Well from an outsider's point of view the US criminal justice system seems quite brutal. It also seems intricate and complex and in parts - by no means all - quite corrupt. But you do seem a bloodthirsty lot, lots of revenge in your system.
Click to expand...

Really?

I once read that people in France were scared to go over to America. It's a violent place, sure.

The US justice system imprisons a lot of people. A LOT of people. In some states anyone caught with a certain amount of drugs is put in prison for life with no chance of parole.

That's not as bad as singapore, which usually executes such people, however.
 
Last edited:
Diuretic said:
Deterrence has two flavours - specific and general. Specific deterrence depends on apprehension of the individual, it's not possible to be punished until you get caught. When you get caught and you're sentenced (at least in my jurisdiction) the judge will let you know in his or her sentencing remarks, exactly how much of it you're getting because you got caught. The general part relates to the rest of us. We see someone go down and think, "uh-oh....". But it still depends on apprehension. If law enforcement is inefficient and ineffective and the chances of apprehension are minimal then the idea of punishment is highly abstract. If law enforcement is efficient and effective and the likelihood of getting caught is high then punishment becomes a reality and is a more effective deterrent.
Click to expand...

Americans have a tendency to respond to innefective enoforcement with harsher sentences. I mean, think about the RIAA case. Most civilized nations balk at the idea of suing children and college students and sending it to the record companies. But it was not a faceless beaurocracy that handed out the 200K fine against that single mother, it was normal citizens, a jury.
 
Watermark said:
I never said punishment didn't deter crime.
Click to expand...


You said this.

"The only two pragmatic reasons for a society to even have a punishment system are for reform and deterrence. Yet, society has it's greatest support the retribution system, which is pointless."

You're trying to make a false distinction between retribution and punishment. They're really just different emotive colorations of the same actions.

Your propagandist technique goes thusly:

1. Create a SHAME FACTOR for a fraudulently created false distinction.
2. Label all instances of the class with the fraudently create false category., even legitimate ones.
3.Proceed to rant and rail.
 
Watermark said:
Really?

I once read that people in France were scared to go over to America. It's a violent place, sure.

The US justice system imprisons a lot of people. A LOT of people. In some states anyone caught with a certain amount of drugs is put in prison for life with no chance of parole.

That's not as bad as singapore, which usually executes such people, however.
Click to expand...


There is a segment of this US society who would love to off people for these crimes. They then defend people like Rush Limpballs when he abuses drugs. They only want it enforced against the people they dont like.
 
The thesis seems a bit shaky. France has some of the worst prisons in the western world. Protection from police in much of Europe does not exist.

Watermark said:
I am constantly critiscized for not recongnizing mere retribution as a useful reason to meter out punishment. The only two pragmatic reasons for a society to even have a punishment system are for reform and deterrence. Yet, society has it's greatest support the retribution system, which is pointless.
Click to expand...

Restitution to the victim, not the state, should be the point of the justice system.
 
AssHatZombie said:
You said this.

"The only two pragmatic reasons for a society to even have a punishment system are for reform and deterrence. Yet, society has it's greatest support the retribution system, which is pointless."

You're trying to make a false distinction between retribution and punishment. They're really just different emotive colorations of the same actions.

Your propagandist technique goes thusly:

1. Create a SHAME FACTOR for a fraudulently created false distinction.
2. Label all instances of the class with the fraudently create false category., even legitimate ones.
3.Proceed to rant and rail.
Click to expand...

Punishment does not have to be metered out because of retribution. If pure punishment is to be levied out, it should only be done so for the deterrence factor. While the criminals are being punished, we should try to reform them and educate them so that we can reduce the recividism once they're out of prison.
 
RStringfield said:
The thesis seems a bit shaky. France has some of the worst prisons in the western world. Protection from police in much of Europe does not exist.



Restitution to the victim, not the state, should be the point of the justice system.
Click to expand...

True. I never really meant it as a general rule. France is one of the more social conservative states in Europe but I get your point.

Restitution is a good idea. However, there must also be punishment and at least an attempt at reform.

I mean, what's a rapist supposed to do to give restitution to the victim? Maybe the victim can sue him in civil court afterwards, but it's unlikely that many such criminals have money worth going after.
 
Restitution is only viable for small crimes like petty theft. Restitutive punishment does, however, show a much lower rate of recividism than simply locking people in jail.
 
Watermark said:
Punishment does not have to be metered out because of retribution. If pure punishment is to be levied out, it should only be done so for the deterrence factor. While the criminals are being punished, we should try to reform them and educate them so that we can reduce the recividism once they're out of prison.
Click to expand...

The point is that "retribution" is an emotionally centered word, and is irrelevant as a descriptor. It doesn't matter what you call the punishment, or from what emotional center you feel it draws it's power. People change when they hit rock bottom.
 
They may change for a while, Asshat. But hurting someone usually won't have permanent effects on their antisocial disorder. In fact, criminals usually have higher recividism rates once they've been in jail without reform. Longer sentences increase, not decrease, recividism.

Retribtuion/deterrence (if you must equate the two) is backwards looking. Reform is forwards looking. You need both.
 
Watermark said:
They may change for a while, Asshat. But hurting someone usually won't have permanent effects on their antisocial disorder. In fact, criminals usually have higher recividism rates once they've been in jail without reform. Longer sentences increase, not decrease, recividism.

Retribtuion/deterrence (if you must equate the two) is backwards looking. Reform is forwards looking. You need both.
Click to expand...

SHut up, goody two shoes. You're an idiot.
 
Watermark said:
Assfuck, do you even think whenever you write stupid shit down? It doesn't seem like it.
Click to expand...

You just make things up. Deterrence is not backward looking, reform is not forward looking. We need both and have been and will be attempting both. Stop being a stupidass pollyanna moron. Capiche, toolbox?
 
Why is retribution backwards looking? It's punishment for a crime that happened in the past.

Why is reform forward looking? Because it's an attempt to solve future problems. I stole the concept out of encyclopedia brittanica. Take your complaints to them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top