291–300 of 373 posts
I'm always amazed at this country in which incarcerating someone for 10 years (!!) for non violent drug dealing is economical, but public healthcare and education aren't.
Not to mention that due to understaffed and over budget facilities, rehabilitation programs are generally the first things to get cut.
Look it up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He did give him back his life. But how is it possible that his life was at risk at all? Why a 10 year sentence for taking drugs? The government should simply not have that power.
Its kind of ironic that most law and order folks would consider this an example or dirty cops being dirty or privilegeor whatever. The fact is, this stuff doesn't really seem to happen anymore unless you're the Prime Ministers wife or something
"Look at the cute cop who let me go with a warning after trafficking drugs" XOXO
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe not for you, but what if your son/daughter was missing meals? Moreover, you can see other people eating just fine, and no one will hire you? Also consider that the people you "murder" likely "had it coming" and were rapists, terrorists, blasphemers, or otherwise cultural heretics...until and unless you've been in those exact situations, it's incredulous that you'd not do what many other humans would do/have don…
People who say they wouldn’t murder people for food are saints. I would definitely do it. I like living more than I like other people living. However, I wouldn’t murder anyone in anyone in a modern civilized society. Why not just use social services? And if that doesn’t exist, then steal. Even if you’re caught they’ll be obligated to give you food. Society needs to devolve to far far below what is the US standard bef…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think for all the criminals that are going to be released back into society at some point, recidivism should be at the top of our mind, not punishment. If you can stop them from doing it again by locking them up in comfort for 10 years instead of discomfort for 20, then that is what we should do (assuming that doesn’t cause more people to do it in the first place).
> If you can stop them from doing it again by locking them up in comfort for 10 years instead of discomfort for 20, then that is what we should do. You're never going to stop many of them from reoffending. Even the "best" rehabilitation programs have crime rates far above the general population. The additional 10 years is 10 more years where they can't hurt innocent people. The justice system exists for the benefit o…
By this logic we should just never release them. Should we keep the 80% that would not reoffend locked up to prevent the 20% that would from doing so?
Should we increase the sentence from 10 to 20 years to make that ratio 60% to 40%? Then we prevent more crime, and the would be criminals are off the street longer.
Maybe if we decrease the comfort of the cells and general state of the prisons, we can get the rate to 20% to 80%? Then we can practically say we’re justified to keep those 80% off the street.
> Why would you ever assume that? Punishments absolutely have a deterrent effect.
Because most people aren’t stopped by the deterrent effect. It’s perfectly possible the net negative effect of locking people up for a longer time is larger than the extra deterrent effect [1].
[1]: https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterr...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That man gave you your entire life back. It's not just the time you would have served, but it would have ruined so much of the rest of your life too.
He did give him back his life. But how is it possible that his life was at risk at all? Why a 10 year sentence for taking drugs? The government should simply not have that power.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s some strange bias that lets people get worked up about this one already-convicted dealer but pass over in silence the pharmaceutical companies that designed these opioids to be so addictive and marketed them so aggressively so that doctors would over-prescribe them.
I don’t know anyone who is ignoring their culpability. There has been an enormous amount of litigation against pharmaceutical companies in relation to opioids, resulting in tens of billions of dollars in settlements.
> kicked out of my parents house for being a stupid 17yr old That's child abuse in my book. If you are a parent, you are responsible for your children. That's it. No age limit. Nothing. They need a place? You are responsible for providing them a place to live. This isn't to say you have to be responsible for their crimes, but you should never be allowed to force your child out of your house. YOU brought them into thi…
That's pretty harsh. Children turn into adults, and not all of them turn out great. As a parent my responsibility is to get them to adulthood with as much chance of success as it is possible for me to provide. At some point they do absolutely become responsible for their own decisions. Do I ever want to find out what it would take to throw my own child out of the house? Of course not. Am I going to toss them out when…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People who say they wouldn’t murder people for food are saints. I would definitely do it. I like living more than I like other people living. However, I wouldn’t murder anyone in anyone in a modern civilized society. Why not just use social services? And if that doesn’t exist, then steal. Even if you’re caught they’ll be obligated to give you food. Society needs to devolve to far far below what is the US standard bef…
So you steal and the person tries to murder you. Do you defend yourself? Even a push can knock the person over, hitting their head. Congratulations, you are a murderer.
So unless I know the core of your argument, I’m not sure how to respond to this digression.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some statistics here: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2023.html ~60% of the state prison population (~600k of ~1m) are imprisoned for a violent crime. Much higher than I would have guessed.
One of the article's key points is that violent crime does not mean "caused physical harm" and that entire categories of crime are considered violent by law, whether or not any violence was perpetrated during the commission. "The fourth myth: By definition, “violent crime” involves physical harm The distinction between “violent” and “nonviolent” crime means less than you might think; in fact, these terms are so widel…