More babbling topics, for the sake of board activity.

I'm curious as to what most people answered to the Rehabilitation and Imprisonment questions of the political compass thread.

I'm trying to figure out why people seem to think the government has any responsibility whatsoever to rehabilitate people. In general, I'm sick of people treating the government like it should be some parenting body or moral authority. I would say our whole legal system is the thing I hate most about this country. People need to sack up and stop putting the government in charge of their personal freedom. You don't have the right to be stored and fed and taken care of when you decide that you don't wish to be a participating member of the society. Law is meant to protect people from victimization, yet most of the prison population consists of offenders in victimless crimes. Other countries think we're an overly criminal people because of our ridiculous prison population, but we're not, we're just assholes who lock up people for bullshit charges.

We are indeed to idiotic to ever intelligently reform our prison system (or do away with it completely), so I guess we'll continue to piss away our tax dollars.

And another thought: Years later, I'm still disgusted about what happened to Martha Stewart, and I don't even like Martha Stewart. It made me see clearly that people treat confinement as a means of unusual punishment instead of as a means to protect society. The only justification to lock someone in a cage is if they are an imminent threat to society.

So yea, fuck big government and shit.

I would like to see more alternatives to prison. Particularly for women. I have no idea where I saw the stats but it said a stupidly high percentage of women were sent to jail for low level, non violent crimes. I am a believer in community service. A decent amount of hours enforced and something to fit the crime. Prison is supposed to be rehabilitation but originally it was a Victorian styled idea. I think it needs revamped to join the 21st century. Still folks away doesn't solve much. I have no beef with the law but rather the application of it particularly in sentencing. I think this a problem both our countries have.

I personnally believe that the penal system of legal punishment is the best option currently available to our society. I concur that rehabilitation, rather than revenge should be it's primary objective, but it would simply be both impractical and unnecessarily dangerous to allow someone who has been proven to be both willing and able to forego the law to retain all of his freedoms (and the underlying ability to further damage society that comes from them) while he is rehabilitated.

Well I am quite interested in the notion of curfews and ankle tag whatsits if we can make it workable. Of course I don't mean they should get it easy because they aren't in prison. We need to make a good parallel system for non prison sentences.

I have been thinking about this since England and Wales are having a major crisis with prison space and having to use police stations and let some people off with no prison sentence. It has been all over the news. I feel it should have been prepared for a bit better.

I was saying that the government should not have the responsibility to rehabilitate. Since you think they do, does that mean you support big government and governmental parenting?

The entire penal system should have the purpose of protecting people from inflicting their will onto others, not protecting people from themselves. This means legalized drug use and a stronger death penalty for repeat offenders of victim-based crimes. Thus cutting our prison population by over 90%.

does that mean you support big government and governmental parenting?

Absolutely not. I simply cannot think of any entities as suited to the reintegration of criminals into society than the embodiement of society itself. The government can stay the fuck out of businesses and things like property disputes, but criminality is something I don't mind leaving up to The Man™


Jail is perfect for protecting people from themselves, though - just look at mental hospitals.

Yes, the government is certainly for protecting us from criminality. But, I'm not seeing you make a case for why they have a duty to rehabilitate and reintegrate criminals. When did people decide that they have a RIGHT to be rehabilitated and reintegrated when after they turn to a life of crime?

If there was a shortage of people, the concept might be productive, but seriously, we need to stop spending billions of dollars on sheltering those who do not wish to be a part of society.

I'm not seeing you make a case for why they have a duty

That would be because I don't believe they do. The role simply suits it best. There is no obligation for the government to take it up.

When did people decide that they have a RIGHT to be rehabilitated and reintegrated when after they turn to a life of crime?

When we realized eye for an eye, for all of its catchyness, tends to leave the whole world blind.
If there was a shortage of people, the concept might be productive, but seriously, we need to stop spending billions of dollars on sheltering those who do not wish to be a part of society.

A pragmatic view... but I tend to value human life at "infinity dollars" when trying to decide if an action is MORAL or not, like Health Care. You know what? Next time you break a leg, just die of hemoragging. It's not like there's a shortage of people

I myself lean more toward rehabilitation than pure punishment or confinement. It's better to steer a person in the right direction so that when they get out of prison, they can be a more productive member of society.

I think it can be taken too far, ie A Clockwork Orange, but I don't think some counseling is out of the question. After all, if you lock a criminal up for 10 years, but don't do anything to change the behavior that got them there in the first place, they'll probably commit another crime. Even if they hate prison, no progressive steps were made, so they just think "Well, this time I won't get caught." In fact, you gave them 10 years to think about how to escape being caught next time.

Obviously there are exceptions. It's better to keep someone like Jeffery Dahmer or Charles Manson away from society just as a precaution, because they're obviously so far off the rocker anyway that even with rehabilitation they could easily revert to their previous state.

Are you like a druggie anarchist, Fuck?

Two main points I want to make:

1. "An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind." This statement is originated for the sake of anti-vigilantism. The concept of authority makes it irrelevant.

2. I wouldn't die from a broken leg. You want to know why? I can afford the LUXURY of health care. That's right, immortality isn't a right. Medicine and proper medical treatments of luxuries that should be dictated by the free market. The problem with socialized health care is that it lowers the quality of treatment for everyone. If the government dictates what it thinks my treatment should be, do you think we'll have nearly as many proper tests done on a regular basis? Would I be able to go in for a checkup whenever I feel like it? Despite not actually having anything wrong with me?

Let's look at it like this. If the government was in charge of being the source of televisions for every household, would anyone have a fancy big screen LCD? No, we would all have the same cheapest solution, but at least everyone would be equal. Luckily, we have a free market.

You do not have the right to live forever, you do not have the right to be pampered back into society after making the choice to break the laws.

Guess what? Idealism is flawed, I'm sorry not everyone gets a perfect life of eternal health and happiness.



I hate drugs, and I hate anarchy. So, probably not?

Unless you mean, am I opposed to laws REGARDING drugs... in which case, yes I certainly am.

I think everyone has a right to be aided by society to be a benefit to society. What is the point of leaving people out in a wilderness? What possible use are they then? The drain on public money to maintain punishments like prison seems wasteful in the extreme. If we continued in that direction we would be as well to go back to the days of castles and fortified towns with bands of brigands wandering the countryside setting fire to things.

I think I have to disagree with basic healthcare being a luxury. It is a flawed system but I think it is a great one here. I am completely stunned that people have to worry about money before they can see a doctor in your country That is just insane. People not getting treatment because they fear the cost. I think society benefits from investing in healthcare. Happier healthy people are more productive. I think the luxury of healthcare is more wasteful than free healthcare. How many tests are done that are unnecessary simply to make the patient pay out more cash. You pay taxes you expect to see benefits. That is a more obvious one here in the UK. It is public money. Why shouldn't it be used on the public? What else do you think it should be spent on?

You seem to fixate on healthcare providing immortality. It may allow people to live to their full lifespan but I think the focus is more on the quality of life rather than the quantity. Though if they live longer can they not benefit society more? Our retirement age has moved.

Hell no. It's a moral principle that is shared by almost every people on Earth since we came out of the fucking MIDDLE AGES - if someone does something to you, it does NOT justify doing it to them.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Doesn;'t matter if you are fucking GOD, smiting someone who has performed evil achieves NOTHING.


[uqote=FuckChrist]2. I wouldn't die from a broken leg. You want to know why? I can afford the LUXURY of health care.[/quote]
Please get the fuck out of society if you consider society a means to be exploited rather than a ressource to be shared. You contribute nothing.
Let's look at it like this. If the government was in charge of being the source of televisions for every household, would anyone have a fancy big screen LCD? No, we would all have the same cheapest solution, but at least everyone would be equal. Luckily, we have a free market.
....I like how you pulled that out of your fucking ass. If the government controlled the means of production (communism - that IS what you're "subtily" referring to is it not?) then it WOULD, in fact, have the the option of giving everyone big screen lcds - when the state controls all production, labor costs NOTHING.
P.S. you DON'T have a free market. Government regulation exists.

2. I wouldn't die from a broken leg. You want to know why? I can afford the LUXURY of health care.

Please get the fuck out of society if you consider society a means to be exploited rather than a ressource to be shared. You contribute nothing.

Let's look at it like this. If the government was in charge of being the source of televisions for every household, would anyone have a fancy big screen LCD? No, we would all have the same cheapest solution, but at least everyone would be equal. Luckily, we have a free market.

....I like how you pulled that out of your fucking ass. If the government controlled the means of production (communism - that IS what you're "subtily" referring to is it not?) then it WOULD, in fact, have the the option of giving everyone big screen lcds - when the state controls all production, labor costs NOTHING.
P.S. you DON'T have a free market. Government regulation exists.

Okay that post got out of hand and now I can't delete the midle part for some reason. just disregard it. Or answer it twice. I don't care.

First of all, most of your arguments are sort of wild and out there, so I'm not sure if you were drunk while writing this.

1. I'm not even sure where to start with this. You're basically advocating the concept that no one should be punished for anything. Go tell the public that removing serial killers from society accomplishes nothing. I don't even know if I'm meant to be taking this seriously. We're not talking about revenge here (which I'm against), we're talking about protecting people from criminal behavior. If people do not wish to live by the rules society has laid out, they should be removed from society. I'm sorry if you think this "achieves NOTHING", but it in fact achieves a lot.

Eye for an eye represents the first known written concept of law. Hammurabi's Code. It was a major breakthrough at the time. You have to remember, they didn't have the means to provide for things like prisons and other bullshit. It was a list of acceptable punishments for crimes, before then.. if someone were to cut out your eye, you probably would have just killed them outright.

You're smarter than this: "Two wrongs don't make a right". I thought a "wrong" was something that hurts society, I guess you have a different definition. Killing a serial killer isn't "a wrong", unless you're some kind of religious nut that thinks society is an irrelevant aspect of humanity. But then you wouldn't actually have ANY concept of right or wrong, other than the 10 commandments I guess?

2. Failure to understand the words "free market". I'm not talking about a theoretical concept of a free market, I'm talking about our US free market, as the word is used in common language. It's still called "the free market" here, maybe they use a different terminology where you live.

Your statement about contributing nothing or exploiting society didn't make sense at all. Socialized medicine is for people who contribute nothing and exploit society. Here in America, we exchanges goods and services for money, which are then exchanged for other goods and services, such as medical procedures. I'm not sure how you think that implies contributing nothing.

About LCD tvs: Oh, labor costs nothing? I'm not sure where you're pulling that from, but I'll play along. I guess the higher end resources and man hours don't mean anything to you? So, what about the R&D? Does a monopolized commodity that makes no profit have any incentive to offer a good product? Without a competitive market, we would have black and white tube TVs.

You're wasting my time. Form some competent arguments, or stop trying to argue.

Really, I wouldn't normally bother going ad hominem, but it's fucking insulting to see you make these ridiculous points. It's even more insulting in the way you made them.

...always nice when a post starts off with an ad hominem attack. No, I wasn't drunk. Are you presently on any intoxicating substance? I guess it IS nice for it to be out there and established before we move on to serious things.
[i]
Eye for an eye represents the first known written concept of law. Hammurabi's Code. It was a major breakthrough at the time. You have to remember, they didn't have the means to provide for things like prisons and other bullshit. It was a list of acceptable punishments for crimes, before then.. if someone were to cut out your eye, you probably would have just killed them outright.



[/i]
And? Are you saying it is still valid or are you just attempting (pathetically) to give me a history lesson on mesopotamia? I KNOW they didn't have any better - I'm not judging THEIR code of laws, I'm judging your statement that killing/locking away without rehabiliation anyone who breaks the law is acceptable.

You're smarter than this: "Two wrongs don't make a right". I thought a "wrong" was something that hurts society, I guess you have a different definition.


You kind of chose the wrong (heh) word to make a snide remark like that.



wrong (rông, rng)
adj.
1. Not in conformity with fact or truth; incorrect or erroneous.
2.
a. Contrary to conscience, morality, or law; immoral or wicked.
b. Unfair; unjust.
3. Not required, intended, or wanted: took a wrong turn.
4. Not fitting or suitable; inappropriate or improper: said the wrong thing.
5. Not in accord with established usage, method, or procedure: the wrong way to shuck clams.
6. Unacceptable or undesirable according to social convention.

Pick one. Killing someone, ANYONE, in ANY situation, is wrong in practically EVERY sense of the word. Isolating him with no chance of redemption is equally contrary.


Killing a serial killer isn't "a wrong", unless you're some kind of religious nut that thinks society is an irrelevant aspect of humanity.




What the fuck kind of logic is this? This line of thought is both fallacious and, quite frankyly, LUDICROUS. Get the fuck out of my face with that trash.

Human life has a value that is NOT attributed to it by society. We're not fucking animals, property of the State to be killed whenever we displease IT. The State has no RIGHT (as you seem to be fucking HARD about) to KILL anyone. It has the right to prevent them from causing harm, but inb a world where prisons are available this is simply NOT the appropriate choice.





But then you wouldn't actually have ANY concept of right or wrong, other than the 10 commandments I guess?
I'm a fucking atheist. I live by my own rationnally-defined moral code. What is "wrong" is what society deems to be wrong, because it is society that judges any action. Without society "right" and "wrong" are meaningless, we are just beasts acting on our instincts. Come on FC, philosophers realized the social contract is what defines our morality CENTURIES ago.


2. Failure to understand the words "free market". I'm not talking about a theoretical concept of a free market, I'm talking about our US free market, as the word is used in common language. It's still called "the free market" here, maybe they use a different terminology where you live.




That has absolutely no bearing on the discussion at hand. Get that semantics bullshit out of here.


Your statement about contributing nothing or exploiting society didn't make sense at all. Socialized medicine is for people who contribute nothing and exploit society. Here in America, we exchanges goods and services for money, which are then exchanged for other goods and services, such as medical procedures. I'm not sure how you think that implies contributing nothing.





WHEN YOU PIRATE MP3S YOU DOWNLOAD COMMUNISM.
Are you a caricature from the 50's? Cuz your spiel labels you as so.



About LCD tvs: Oh, labor costs nothing? I'm not sure where you're pulling that from, but I'll play along. I guess the higher end resources and man hours don't mean anything to you?
not to a communist state that decides it wants lcd tvs


So, what about the R&D? \

Again, not to a communist state that decides it wants lcd tvs




Does a monopolized commodity that makes no profit have any incentive to offer a good product?

It's implied in the social contract of a communist nation that participation in productive activities is a requirement for remaining in said nation. That is only incentive needed. I find it deliciously ironic that you can sit there and bash coommunism without understanding the first fucking thing about it. No wonder half the shit around you is Made in China now.



Without a competitive market, we would have black and white tube TVs.

That's cool. I can make baseless Without X we would have Y statements too.

Without cereal we'd have bananas!

Half the time, you're completely contradicting everything you're saying.

"Pick one. Killing someone, ANYONE, in ANY situation, is wrong in practically EVERY sense of the word. Isolating him with no chance of redemption is equally contrary."

+

"What is "wrong" is what society deems to be wrong, because it is society that judges any action. Without society "right" and "wrong" are meaningless, we are just beasts acting on our instincts."

Way to make two contradictory arguments back to back.



"That has absolutely no bearing on the discussion at hand. Get that semantics bullshit out of here."

No shit! You're the one who brought up semantics, and I ripped you for it. So, you come back and pretend I'm the one who brought it up?


I'm guessing you're conceding the other points, because you didn't bother to explain how purchasing health care out of pocket means is "exploiting" or "contributing nothing". Then again, I'm not even sure where you were trying to come from with that.

It's cute that you think the people decide what kind of luxuries they receive in a communist society. I'm pretty sure you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to communism. The monopolized commodities comment wasn't related to communism. That was simple business. If you don't understand the correlation between a competitive market and technology, then I don't even know what to say. Stay in school?

Some of the stuff I've been saying isn't even that hard to debate, but you've been shooting yourself in the foot this whole time. Sometimes you're just missing the point completely. Let me get you back to the opening post.

A. Is it the government's responsibility to reintegrate criminals into society?

B. Do people have the RIGHT to live forever?

Those are the two main points in this topic. It's not like I have a stake in the matter one way or another. I'm completely open to adopting the strongest argument, but you haven't even bothered to try. All you've done is slander and try to make some argument that I am a leech on society for wanting to pay for my own health care, to provide the services I see fit. Which is most likely the most nonsensical thing I've ever seen you say.