0 tolerance / 3 strikes / etc

[Andra_Jenny]

Instead of arguing in absolutes by way of penalizing perpetrators, how about a paradigm shift by where we incarcerate not for a term, but until the prisoner has by his/her own behavior, say improving themselves educationally or vocationally as well as voluntarily seeking counseling, proved that they wish to resume their place in society as a productive member of a larger community? I submit that the nasty nasties will never make the effort and hence will never be returned to free society to prey upon it.

 

[GulfCoastAquarian]

.

 

[Andra_Jenny]

Yes, but it would not be a prison, but a fully functioning society albeit, one with fewer rights, privacy, etc., but one which could lend an air of normalacy (a word?). White collar, blue collar, let them take their families if they wish. A world in which those who choose to disobey the rules of an ordered society can go and live in a world populated by people who are similarly authority challenged.

Who would decide? Our good friends the liberals. We could give them all the problems of the world in one basket and let them apply all the happy horseshit they want. Then if they really could cure the evils of the world like they say they can... At least they'd be off our backs!

 

[Mischka]

First, you are suggesting that the families of wrongdoers be exiled from normal society and sent to live in this Brave New World of yours, simply because they are related to the convicted person? How terribly civilized of you.

Second, how on earth did you decide that liberals would back this program? I doubt mainstream GOPers would even buy this one.

Third, I would love to see the day where one side of the political spectrum gives up control to the other, simply to see if their ideas work.

[You'll note the italicized words, Todd. Subtle message, don't you think? ]

 

[Andra_Jenny]

Who said exiled from normal society?
Who said this would not be a mirror of society?
Just a different part of the city.
Which Liberals?
Well the god-damned ivory-tower academics for one who keep giving us their redefinitions of what a man is, what a woman is, what a crime is, what free speech is, what a gun is, what is is...

 

[Rand al'Thor]

"Yes, but it would not be a prison, but a fully functioning society albeit, one with fewer rights, privacy, etc., "

How about a society that affords humans ALL the rights we deserve, rather than stripping them for the good of "society", which itself has no life or rights to go with them?

Why not base criminality on demonstrable harm, since an immoral action is one that causes harm? If we did this rather than liegislate morality, there would be less crime.

I for one will not give any of MY rights, since no government has the right to take them away.

Rand al'Thor

"Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses." - Ayn Rand

 

[Ally C]

Instead of arguing in absolutes by way of penalizing perpetrators, how about a paradigm shift by where we incarcerate not for a term, but until the prisoner has by his/her own behavior, say improving themselves educationally or vocationally as well as voluntarily seeking counseling, proved that they wish to resume their place in society as a productive member of a larger community? I submit that the nasty nasties will never make the effort and hence will never be returned to free society to prey upon it.

I submit that this course of action is folly because:

Well the god-damned ivory-tower academics for one who keep giving us their redefinitions of what a man is, what a woman is, what a crime is, what free speech is, what a gun is, what is is...

You've just offered a definition / opinion which seems closed to debate. Are you offering an inflexible and totalitarian model for criminal offenders? Or are you just offering it for everyone else. Are your definitions and perceptions 'pure' [as in 100% acceptable and feasible for all]? No doubt you may think they are, in which case you've single handedly redefined humankind / society. I thought you were opposed to redefinitions. Care to elaborate?

 

[willywanker]

Yes, but it would not be a prison, but a fully functioning society albeit, one with fewer rights, privacy, etc., but one which could lend an air of normalacy (a word?). White collar, blue collar, let them take their families if they wish. A world in which those who choose to disobey the rules of an ordered society can go and live in a world populated by people who are similarly authority challenged.

Sorry to bring up history, but your little experiment has already been tried. England used Austraila as a penial colony where people had to live amoung like people and govern themselves.

Didn't work then, won't work now. You can not 'socialize' true criminals. And while I will not say there are not innocent people in prison, I'd say 98% of those there deserve to be there.

Would you like for these 'reformed' persons to live in a halfway house next door to you? Would you trust the guy convicted of sex crimes to take care of your kids while you worked? He's 'reformed' now, right? While I would agree that reform of our current system is needed, I lean the other direction. If criminals knew that 'doing the crime meant doing ALL the time', we might really have deterance.

Just one man's opinion.

 

[Ally C]

willy

... and there ends the debate. Many thanks.