Zierro

I just went over this. You're claiming that if we have jails, and some crimes still happen, that suggests to us that jail doesn't work. You are completely ignoring the number of people who do not commit crimes and will never go to jail because they are too afraid to commit crimes because of it. And although the number of people like that would be hard to measure, that does not automatically make it 0. You're absolutely right - there is a lot more to Criminal Justice than most people assume. :lol: If they are around the innocent, they have more of an opportunity to harm the innocent. If they are around other criminals, they will find out better ways to harm the innocent, but what use is that when you're in jail? Either you're proposing we keep each inmate in his own individual area or we let them all free. Neither of them seem realistic. Yeah, the system isn't perfect, but at least you're preventing them from harming anymore innocent people, even if only temporarily. Even if it doesn't affect the actual prisoners (which I never said), it can set an example for people who otherwise would've went to jail if there were no example. But like I said before, just the fact that we're discouraging crimes by not rewarding them should be obligatory, even if it does not deter every single criminal out there - it can set an example for other criminals. Punishment is an incentive to not commit crime, and whether the criminal uses that incentive or not, it does not change the fact that it's still an incentive to not commit crime. Also, I think you misinterpreted me. I was pointing out how if we never had jails, of course there would be no such thing as re-jailing. They made an obvious claim and then for some reason said it supported the fact that jails do not deter crime. That's not how you find out whether jails deter crime or not. If you really wanted to prove that, you'd have to compare a world without jails and a world with jails. Until we can do that, all we can do is make educated guesses, going by the simple logic that people are affected by consequences. Nothing you brought up has disproved that, and it's what the entire debate is about. Again, your experts prove nothing other than how they are pseudo-intellectuals. Of course criminals, people who have committed crimes despite the punishment, don't use cost-benefit calculation (otherwise they wouldn't be criminals, would they?). But non-criminals, such as the people who have not committed crimes but would have if there were no negative consequences, do use the cost-benefit calculation. And that is who deterrents are mainly aimed at - the people who are affected by them and can be deterred, as opposed to the people who can't. They are to prevent otherwise-future-criminals from becoming criminals. Your references of "experts" who are just throwing facts out there and giving support which are complete non sequiturs. Criminal Justice is very relevant to the psychology of criminal behavior.

A large prison population does not disprove the fact that prisons deter crime. There are so many other variables to account for. The crime rate could have just went up in general. For all you know, if there weren't any prisons, the crime rate could be even higher (and I bet it would be). If you can find data that shows us that nobody has ever been affected by consequences, then I guess I'm wrong. But until then, you, nor your "experts" have not proven anything. You are just picking numbers and applying them to your argument where they do not fit. Separating criminals from the rest of society causes more harm than good? How so? I believe that preventing murderers from having the opportunity to murder again is a good thing. Yes, and I bet any of us could name plenty of people who would steal food, clothes, furniture, etc. on a regular basis if they knew they weren't going to be punished. Like I said, just because there are exceptions, does not mean punishment doesn't deter crimes. If punishment deterred even one crime, then the statement, "Punishment deters crime," would be true. Although, I'm pretty sure we're speaking in the thousands here, not just one person. For example, saying that "people eat potatoes" is a true claim. Just because every single human being does not eat potatoes does not mean that the statement is false. I've repeatedly said that there are some people who are not affected by punishments. Incarceration is associated with increased recidivism? You don't say?! Does it really take an expert to tell us that, because we have jails, being jailed a second time is more likely? How does this suggest that jail never affected anyone's choices? A big part of this that you keep overlooking are the people who would have possibly committed crimes if punishment didn't exist. Supposedly? Put a mouse in a box with two buttons. One that gives him food and one that shocks him. After a week, which do you think he is more likely to press? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning Uh oh, looks like our expert references are disagreeing with each other. They can't both be right, so why assume that "experts" hold so much credibility, especially in a field as complex as psychology? I can appeal to authority just as easily as you can, and my references actually make sense. We should really be looking into the arguments and what is being said, rather than who's saying it. I agree with this part. It's exactly what I proposed. We can use a mixture of both methods, but getting rid of jails is just insane.

Yeah, competition is a major aspect in MMO's. When you start a few years after everybody else, you're severely handicapped. Especially in RS when the older players got to pick up rares off the floor, but newer players have to spend millions to acquire them.

This is exactly what my Spanish teacher said. And she was a white lady with English as her first language.

And I'm talking about hypothetical school kids because it was a hypothetical example. What's wrong with that? Change the word "students" with "adults" and the point would still stand. That's probably because it's impossible to measure how many people there have been who thought to themselves, "I'm not going to do this because I'm afraid of going to jail." Unless they all openly admit it to the public, it's impossible to know the statistics behind that. Just the idea of it alone is enough proof to say it works though. Consequences dictate our course of actions on a daily basis. When you teach a baby right from wrong, usually the parent uses a mild but effective punishment such as a slap on the hand - and it eventually works. The baby does not like getting slapped when it touches electrical wires, so it ceases the action that leads to the uncomfortable feeling. Also, I'm pretty sure if you saw somebody walk into an electrical fence and get shocked, you would avoid that area. This is just how human beings, and even animals, generally function. Obviously not everyone's minds are going to be that simple. But like I said before, just the fact that we're discouraging crimes by not rewarding them should be obligatory, even if it does not deter every single criminal out there - it can set an example for other criminals. Punishment is an incentive to not commit crime, and whether the criminal uses that incentive or not, it does not change the fact that it's still an incentive to not commit crime. They are the people who have not been deterred, either because the punishment was too light or they are just too strong-willed of criminals. This isn't an accurate means of showing us whether jail deters crime or not, because it's ignoring the fact that there are people who have never went to jail because they are too afraid to commit crimes. For all you know, there might be millions of people out there who would've committed crimes if jail didn't seem like such an unpleasant experience to them. Just because there's no way to find out that number doesn't automatically make it 0, which seems to be what you're implying. Also, this is irrelevant to the deterrent argument, but if the people who are already in jail are more likely to commit crimes whenever they get the opportunity, that's showing us that it's probably a good idea to keep them away from the rest of society. Jail has other purposes other than deterring. Wait a second. Are you saying restorative justice is a better alternative than jail altogether? Instead of sending rapists to years of prison, they should just have to apologize to the women and then go on about their day, probably raping other women in the near future? Justice isn't limited to only giving the victims peace of mind. A big part of it is to prevent the crimes from happening in the first place, whereas restorative justice is only after the damage has been done. Criminals would have absolutely nothing to fear. Perhaps a mixture of restorative justice and prison would be okay, but having it as the only method of justice just seems ridiculous. What would their incentive to not commit a crime be then? You give criminals the benefit of the doubt far too much. I'm pretty sure it's possible to convince some people not to commit crimes, but just because it doesn't work for every single criminal does not mean the system is a failure.

Yes, but unfortunately some members of society need something more than morals, education, good upbringings, etc. to prevent them from doing wrong. For example, you can try to teach a whole class about why stealing is wrong, but the students' opinions of the matter will still differentiate, and thus their morals will too. As primal as the idea of a scare tactic sounds, I believe it's an efficient (and reasonable) way of maintaining some order in society when all else has failed. And let's not forget: It's all for a good cause - not a bad one. It's for the purpose of protecting the lives of the innocent - not an excuse to make people suffer. I'd love it if we never had to resort to punishments. I'd love it if people just didn't feel the need to attack the innocent. But sadly that's not the world we live in. There could be. I'm completely open to bigger and better methods of accomplishing things, but I just haven't heard of anything of the sort yet. What is? A minor deterrent is still better than no deterrent. Like I said above, I'm open to new ideas but jail is all we have right now.

If somebody says something criticizing that you don't like, you have the ability to criticize their criticism - to point out why they are wrong. It's a beautiful thing. When you disallow criticisms, right or wrong, you're just simply hindering the communication process. Gtfo elitist. You may take that as offensive spam, but it's actually illustrating a point. TIF is fine. And just because somebody has only been here since 2007 doesn't mean they can't read the posts from before they signed up, which I ironically find less interesting than the modern day stuff. Maybe it's just because I know the modern users more so I'm more comfortable with the forums nowadays. That might be the reason you're so fond of the older forums as well. I'm not saying the forums are perfect, but I'm very happy with them. It's a great medium for expressing ideas, and what you're proposing pretty much goes against that. I find this to be quite an unfounded claim. Perhaps new users are more likely to stay in a forum that advocate destructive moaning, because new users are generally those types of people? It's really anyone's guess. Also, who's to say that having more users is a good thing? PS: You keep making a point of moderators being intelligent people. I'm not saying that they're stupid or anything, but they are human and have been known to make mistakes. Just because a moderator labels something as spam does not automatically make it so.

My apologies then. It's a common argument I've seen for the deterrent thing, so I assumed that's what you were speaking about. Still though, thinking that laws don't affect people's behavior is just about as big a stretch as they come. There may have been criminals who didn't think they would get caught, but there's also been people who did not partake in crimes because they were afraid of getting caught. Surely we don't have to debate over this simple fact, do we?

Every state is created equal.

Do some looking, it's a common sentiment/research finding in the CJ field. I'm aware that "states with death penalties don't have a smaller crime rate", but that doesn't prove anything. This is definitely a case where correlation doesn't imply causation. I mean, it's simple logic to know that people (and even animals) are more likely to do something if they benefit from it and less likely to do something if it harms them. Yes, of course there are some people out there who are not swayed by whatever punishments may be out there, but it's such a huge stretch to believe that never once did somebody change their mind about committing a crime because they feared the law. Do you really think if we just stopped putting people in jail and fining them the crime rate wouldn't get any higher? It doesn't have to be that way. I simply think there are cases where people get off too lightly. I also believe there are cases where people get way too harsh of a punishment for petty crimes though. I don't think punishments should be disproportionate.

Regardless of whether you're right or wrong, it doesn't change how your tone was. You said people who do not believe global warming deserve to die from global warming. You don't see anything wrong with that? "If global warming was a proven fact instead of just a hypothesis, then people would suddenly start believing it." Why does this surprise you? Let's think about if god were to come down to earth for a second here. Do you think all the atheists in the world should deserve to suffer? No, I suspect you'd be fighting at the front of the line to get your prayers answered. :roll: On a more serious note, you can't expect people who didn't believe in global warming to not want help if it was proven to them, just as you cannot expect atheists to not want help if god revealed himself. Bottom line is that you act like not believing global warming is immoral, which is pretty ridiculous.

Wheelchair basketball? Now that's hardcore.

Well said. I wanted to say pretty much the same thing, but didn't know how to word it. Very well said. <3:

They still discourage it, which should be obligatory. By merely slapping their wrists, it's almost like encouraging it. That's like saying, "It's stupid to tell kids to wear condoms, because they won't anyways." That doesn't mean that you shouldn't discourage unsafe sex. Also, saying it isn't a deterrent at all is quite a bold and convenient claim. How do you know this? You know that there has never been a person who thought, "Damn, I want to do this crime but I don't want to get punished for it so I won't."?

Exactly. That's why I never understood "two wrongs don't make a right". They do, because they discourage immoral actions from happening.

5794

I never found those ones scary. The scary GIFs on that site are the ones of people dying. They freak me out so bad, but yet I can't look away.

^^Wow, that's pretty disturbing. They're not really discouraging the crimes at all. I have a story. My friend's mom got robbed at gunpoint and they stole her prescription medication. Then one day some cops found the robbers with it and the robbers lied and said that she sold it to them (her name being on the bottles), so she was arrested.

In all my years of Wikiing I haven't found any major errors. That's not to say there aren't any; they just aren't very prevalent.

Ha, I didn't know two years was such a big difference to everyone. In my opinion, age is almost completely irrelevant. It's the maturity of the individual that matters. I have a 16-year-old friend who is well beyond the majority of adults I know in terms of maturity.

Honestly, I don't see anything wrong with that. It's better to form a relationship off of the bond you two have when conversing than something as simple and shallow as a mere physical attraction - which is what most normal relationships are founded on (and they generally aren't very successful). Of course things would run much smoother if you lived closer, but that's just an obstacle you can overcome if your affection proves to be strong enough.

Okay thanks for the opinions. And oops, just realized this probably should have been in the "Looking for a new game thread". Sorry. :?

Iron Maiden - Wasted Years

Cool, I hope it is. I remember making a thread on this forum suggesting something like Randomly Generated Scenarios being made into a whole skill instead of a mini game. Of course I don't play anymore, but I still think it's an update that RS needs and will prove to be a lot of fun.

Yeah, I'm definitely gonna get the Mass Effects eventually. I beat Fallout 3 and that's not something I think I could replay. Although I might get the new Fallout coming out. What about Dragon Age though? Is it better than the Mass Effects or no?