Zierro

You should be flattered that you have minions. I spent most of my days standing in Lumby asking for followers and nobody would listen. :cry:

I don't agree with his way of life but at least he isn't causing harm, except for the industry which is already [bleep]ed anyway. I have no more of a problem with him than I do with hardcores and gangsters. It's all just as stupid.

Okay, you've made yourself clear that retributive system has helped people, but seriously, at the cost of getting rid of prisons? It just isn't worth the risk. Why can't we have both systems? Offenders are jailed and kept away from the rest of society, but they can still make amends to their victims? Also, I still maintain my opinion that the restorative system is the easier way out, as an alternative. Of course we're going to disagree on these grounds though. I mentioned threats to society - murderers and rapists. I said they aren't worth the risk of being put on the streets. You said they should be made into useful members of society: Yes, it's worth money to keep murderers and rapists away from the rest of society. Also, I have said that those programs could be used for petty crimes. But criminals who are a threat shouldn't be pampering around, continuing to do more crime. No, they should be taught how to be a productive member of society And again, how is it possible to obtain the statistics for all the crimes that have been prevented because of jail's existence? Ha, probably because if you do plan and deliberate one, you're probably going to consider the consequences and realize it's not worth it. What about the rest of society? Your system seems to focus only on specific individuals, whereas jail is there to protect every citizen from being killed, raped, mugged, etc. How does that prove that criminals aren't deterred by jail? For all you know, those criminals would have ended up in jail even sooner if they didn't fear the consequence at all. It just shows that some of them aren't fearing it enough to prevent them from doing the crime they were arrested for. You're just showing me that crime is still a big thing. Nothing about how things would be if jail was to not exist. I already know this. Jail does not help as much as we want it to, but it still helps which is worth the lives it saves, at least in my opinion. Let's look at the word DETER: to turn aside, discourage, or prevent from acting. Does jail discourage crime? Does it lock criminals away and prevent them from getting more chances at committing more crimes? Does it scare a lot of potential criminals out of doing what they were thinking about? If you answer yes to any of these, then it looks like jail is a deterrent after all. You're denying the fact that people decide to go against their urges to fight, steal, sexually harass, drink while drunk, etc. because they don't deem it worth going to jail over - something I have literally heard many people talk about - and you're telling me to open my mind? I think this says everything that needs to be said about our debate.

No-bakes are one of my favorite cookies. They really go to show how misleading looks can be. :uhh:

I'm pretty sure I was just saying some people can never be fixed with your recreational program. Some people will still commit crimes, even after they've been "safely released". Firstly, you can never repair the harm done. A woman who gets raped has been raped. No amount of counseling or talking to the perpetrator will change that. Secondly, I am favoring a system that aims to prevent these people from becoming victims in the first place. My focus is to minimize the amount of victims - because we all know it's impossible to stop crime completely. That's good to know not everyone would be eligible. This was one of my main grievances. I think a lot of people haven't done anything to deserve the harshness of imprisonment, but those who are a big threat to society should not be given more chances to re-offend. Didn't you say in the last page that these people should get a chance to be cured and safely released though? Well the more I look into it, the more ridiculous it sounds. You're complaining about spending money to prevent some of these people from ever becoming victims in the first place, and you'd rather use it to give them some psychological closure and make them feel a little more accepting of the fact that they have been raped. You're also using a very extreme example of how the recreational system changed a few people's lives for the better (PS: The drunk driver didn't purposely kill anybody. I think he knew he did wrong as soon as he found out his drunk driving caused a death). But anyways, I could just as easily throw a random story at you about how jail has helped some guy become a better person. I'd like to hear about how those recreational programs typically go. Also, this is a little off topic but I'd like to bring up the deterrent thing again. Isn't it possible that criminals who have been caught and incarcerated, chose to lessen the severity of their crimes based off of their fear of punishment? For example, some guy wanted to rob a store one day. He didn't want to get into too much trouble in case something did go wrong, so he decided to just point his gun around for intimidation instead of his original plan of shooting and looting. In this case, your statistics only account for the amount of people who have been sent to prison - nothing about how severe the crimes would've been if it wasn't for jail being in the back of their heads.

I'd like to put it this way: Humanity is not self-actualized. Our capabilities are tremendous. We can achieve great technological advancements, change the detrimental opinions of entire civilizations, help save others' lives, and the most important - just being a good person in general. But saying we can is not the same thing as saying we do. This stuff does happen, but I don't think it happens enough. There are too many things holding us back like bad habits, misconceptions, lack of empathy, etc. If we could progress past these obstructions, then I'd be happy with the state society is in.

It will and it has stopped people from committing crimes. There are many people out there who have the urge to commit the crime but are not willing to throw away years of their life away because they don't want to be away from their family, lose their job, live in a cell, have that data on their personal record, deal with other criminals, etc. There are some people out there who do think they would get caught if they were to commit crime so they don't take the risk. Has anybody ever heard this before: "That's not worth going to jail over."? I do agree about the peace of mind though. Also, I see jail as something that serves to be more of a punishment than a deterrent. Even if it didn't prevent potential crimes on a daily basis, it would still serve to discourage that immoral behavior. In other words, it sets a good precedent for how our society should run. Do a bad deed and a bad thing happens to you. Keep your nose clean and you have nothing to worry about - you're doing things right. *Awaits being called a barbarian for discouraging the killing of the innocent.* O:) They wouldn't be released? How would you know if they were "cured" or not until they've proven it? It's not exactly that hard to pretend or even legitimately think that you're fine, then get released back into society and your old habits still surface. Which has happened before. I don't see why criminals who take innocent humans' lives deserve another shot at civilization - another chance to strike. I think if we have the chance to prevent more deaths and rapes, we should take it. And it goes beyond the whole forgiveness thing - we're simply talking about disabling murders from happening. I guess it just comes down to me having a lot of empathy towards innocent people and potential victims, but you have a lot for the serial killers, the people who crossed the line and shown no empathy towards people who have done nothing wrong to them. The right to live in peace VS the right to walk amongst society at the risk of re-offending. I think the innocent have earned their right more.

Rape, murder, theft, etc. is what you're defending. Lol nice straw man Lol that was the joke man. :shades: And what about the many that haven't changed after therapy?

Yes, it's worth money to keep murderers and rapists away from the rest of society. Also, I have said that those recreational programs could be used for petty crimes. But criminals who are a threat shouldn't be pampering around, continuing to do more crime. Rape, murder, theft, etc. is what you're defending. :wink:

I disagree. Saving human lives and virginities is more than enough justification. Rocco, I'm pretty busy with other posts. Besides, what was there to say to that? I've already repeated myself long enough. My point is that jail scares some people out of doing crimes. The statistics you are showing me are irrelevant to that fact, let alone disprove it. I've witnessed people wanting to steal cars and whatnot if they didn't have to go to jail. But again, I'm not saying it deters everybody from committing crimes.

That's because you slap the label of "evidence" on a floppy hypothesis, like you do with all your sexist debates. Sorry for not accepting some kind of pseudo-science. Do you also think there aren't people out there who would do crimes if there was no jail to stop them? I really don't get why you people think a bunch of statistics prove that jail's existence has never prevented a single crime (How could you even have statistics for crimes that have been prevented?). The word I'm looking for is non-sequitir I think.

You are comparing India and Nepal to America. The justice system isn't the only difference responsible for their crime rates. Isn't there more opportunity for crime in places like America? With all the drug trafficking, gangs, and other American stuff. Imprisonment is an effective deterrent because there are a lot of people who would do crimes if they didn't have jail to fear. In other words, if there was no jail, more people would commit crimes. You really don't think people want to steal cars, get into fights, etc. but are held back because that consequence is there? I heard kids wanting to in school, but they never would because they weren't willing to go to jail over it. I'm not the one denying facts here. A revamp of the system would be nice. There are a lot of people who get put away for petty things, so I kind of like the program idea for petty crimes. But then again, there are just some people who just aren't worth the risk to the rest of society.

The penile system is not the only factor that dictates the crime flow. Like I said before, cultures are different so it's not wise to judge them all the same. America is a more wily culture than most others, so I'm really not surprised that our jails are full. And maybe American cops and judges are more corrupt over here too? Unless you can compare the crime rate of an America with jail and an America without it, you don't have much to work with statistic-wise. By the way, a barely effective deterrent is a lot better than no deterrent, especially when we're dealing with innocent lives and virginities.

Go to a prison, ask the convicts why they committed the crime when they knew about jail. They'll tell you that they didn't think they'd get caught. It's as simple as that, and it's widely accepted in the criminal justice field. I'm going to stop replying to this thread because it'll just turn out like the last one. Suffice it to say no one is changing their minds on the topic I never argued about them thinking they wouldn't get caught. My argument was that there are people who have never committed a crime because they were afraid of the jail punishment, which proves that jail is a deterrent for crime. The fact that some people don't think they will get caught and end up doing the crime regardless of the punishment only shows that jail is not a deterrent for EVERYBODY.

There are more drunk teen accidents in the US, and harsher drinking laws. What's up with this correlation? Does this imply that harsh drinking laws do not prevent teens from dying of alcohol poisoning, crazy stunts, drunk driving, etc.? No, the age limit probably saved tons of lives because plenty of kids have been denied the purchase and had to go to bed sober that night. American teens are just an extremely wily bunch, so that's why you see all these accidents. I get a feeling that if the drinking age was 16, you'd see even more though. And if the drinking age in European countries was 21, I doubt the amount of drunk teen accidents would rise. When comparing and contrasting countries, you have to realize that the cultures are not the same. That variable changes from country to country. This is a big example of how correlation doesn't = causation. I mean, how can you say jail doesn't deter crime in America when you don't have statistics of the crime rate of an America where jail doesn't exist? Seriously, all the statistics I've been seeing are half-baked and don't prove anything. It's funny when people manipulate science to try to certify their point because it cannot stand on its own. I don't fall for it though.

Well sorry for the ones too stupid to realize that they're not invincible. But as for the other ones, the ones who think about stealing a car but end up not doing it because they don't want to do the time, they have been deterred. Of course nothing will stop crime entirely. The point is to at least minimize it.

Look at how wrong you are. Statistics has shown time and time again that the whole "arrhhh revenge and retribution" philosophy for criminals simply does not work as a deterrent, at all. In fact, and as an example, in the U.S (a country that eats the whole "an eye for an eye" [cabbage] up) over 2/3 of the criminals end up getting re-arrested within 3 years of release, and half get charged with a new crime. In contrast, Norway, which has one of the (if not the) highest prison standard in the world, where they truly focus on prison education and rehabilitating their criminals, hardly anybody gets re-arrested (I'm too tired to look up actual statistics right now, but it's unbelievably low). That's not the only problem with the U.S. prison system though, where both racism, torture and prison rape is pretty much guaranteed. It's one of the things about the country that makes me sick to my stomach. Lol at your statistics. Can you tell me exactly how many people thought about committing a crime but didn't go through with it because they were afraid of jail? If not, then I'm afraid you don't have this groundbreaking evidence that punishment is not a deterrent you guys love bringing up so much. I think simple logic is enough to tell us, if there is an undesirable consequence, we are less likely to do something.

I agree. I believe in civility, but not an imaginary realm where people who kill and rape innocent people can just be negotiated with and then they'll kindly stop. When you just slap wrists and turn the cheek, what is holding them back from committing the crime? Obviously their conscious isn't enough. So, if you DON'T want those crimes to happen, the only logical decision would be to really do your best to scare them out of doing it. But then we got that group of "philanthropists" on their high horses yelling, "An eye for an eye makes the world go blind! Yo gabba gabba!" If you really want to be civilized, discouraging immoral behavior is a good starting point.

Kick Ass It really shocked me how a movie like that could fit so much violence and brutality in it.

Flintstone chewables are delicious. I think those vitamins taste better than most candies.

Don't go to TIFers for fashion advice. :shock:

I got half way through it but then gave up. I'm chaotic good, but questions the test was throwing at me didn't really give me the chance to show it. Plus morality is a really hard thing to try and classify like this. One man's good deed could be one man's sin. For example, I think it's more of a sin to let a serial killer go free than it is to kill him. Most people would probably disagree with me.

1613

Probably because they're pathetic.

The internet really brings out the sadist in people. It makes you realize how people actually act when their reputation isn't on the line. I try to use the internet in a positive way. Exchanging information and ideas, helping people out if they have a random question, yelling at evil-doers and explaining to them why the path of righteousness is a more ideal choice. So really it's just whether you choose to have a good or an evil alignment. Chaotic good here ftw. :shades: