(1/1000)^3 is the odds we kill a completely innocent man of all crimes. However if the person has committed two and we convict him on a 3rd, by your numers, there is a 1/1000 chance we kill the wrong person.
That said, firstly I don't beleive in the death penalty, and I don't believe in the 3-strike law. I take rehabilitation over incarceration, and that I'd much rather send them to some island or something than throw them in a prison for life.
Last edited by Lebanese Dragon; 12-12-2011 at 07:49 AM.
Yes, theft of a candy bar is a serious threat to society.Originally Posted by RandBlade
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Theft is a serious threat to society.
Right. Theft of candy bars will collapse society as we know it.
Well, considering the amount of chubbies in the US, that might even be true if those guys don't get their snacks anymore. Didn't think that far ahead!
Death to the Carbohydrate Abductors!
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
It's a strawman anyway; each crime must be a felony, and for theft to be a felony, the items stolen must be worth more than an x amount of money (usually about $100-200).
Hope is the denial of reality
Shhh. Don't let truth get in the way of self righteousness.
the charges can be bumped up to felony based on previous history (google Kenneth Payne), which is kinda, sorta, the direction the conversation was going. There are lots of different circumstances that can result in felony charges without taking into account the value of the theft (pretending to have a weapon is a common one).
I know, I know, truth sucks
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
If you pretend to have a weapon, then it's incredibly dishonest to claim that the reason the person is getting imprisoned is because he stole a candy.
Hope is the denial of reality
Ding.
luckily the candy case didn't a weapon, or threat of one.
it was just another example that showed your claim to be bullshit
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I don't understand why you're so upset, OG. They mostly pull this shit on blacks to begin with, and let's face it, darkie deserves every hit darkie can take, am I right?
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Charged for breaking parole for the same crime. Try again.Mr. Payne, who has spent almost seven years in prison, was on parole for felony theft when he put the Snickers down the front of his pants at the grocery.
Hope is the denial of reality
I googled that Payne case, can't find much but what I've seen says he had TEN PRIOR CONVICTIONS. Guess you'd rather strip away inconvenient context though?
The case is also in Texas and has been attacked for being abnormally harsh. How anyone can then pretend that this is the default punishment is beyond me.
Anyway, we all know that the right of a criminal with a dozen convictions to be free takes precedence over society's right to not become victim to more crimes. What kind of an inhumane society believes that someone who commits a crime every single time he gets let out of prison should be forced to remain in prison!!!
Hope is the denial of reality
Which would be a different charge, and was unrelated to the decision to push for felony. Here, lets quote a different part of the article.
But prosecutors bumped the theft to a felony because of Mr. Payne's history, which includes 10 convictions, including theft, criminal mischief, assault and possession of a controlled substance. One of those convictions was for stealing a bag of Oreo cookies.the prior convictions is the entire context of the discussion at this point, what the fuck are you reading?
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I'm not sure why someone with 10 prior convictions, who commits a crime again while still on parole should be subjected on the innocent public though? He clearly won't stop breaking the law.
Yeah, because these decisions are made in a vacuum and don't reflect the totality of the guy's record.
Hope is the denial of reality
none the less, it shows it is possible to have a felony charge without taking into account the value of the product, which is what you were trying to claim was not possible
and we're back to Rand's (unanswered) question of whyAnyway, we all know that the right of a criminal with a dozen convictions to be free takes precedence over society's right to not become victim to more crimes. What kind of an inhumane society believes that someone who commits a crime every single time he gets let out of prison should be forced to remain in prison!!!Or as you two seem to favor, lock it up out of sight and out of mind.
WTF
the felony charge does reflect from the persons record (record of course being separate from current release stipulations). thats the whole point. your claim that you can't be charged with a felony for a candy bar theft is false
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 12-12-2011 at 03:40 AM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Can you explain why he shouldn't be shot?
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Seems like Texas did a good job. Don't hear me say that very often. Wish we'd treat criminals half as seriously as that.
Theft is theft, the scale is irrelevant to me.
Nessus: Death penalty is irreversible, same as chopping off people's hands. Otherwise I'd support the latter for repeat thieves.
hows that for ignoring context
but we proceed in circles now, since I could have easily replied with another remark about LittleFuzzy's comments on zero tolerance being a good fit in this discussion
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
That's fine, but you've already said he is lebensunwertes leben, ergo...He shouldn't be killed? I don't understand what exactly you think can be reversed in his case, given the language you've used.
I do like the mutilation fetish, though
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
In theory when it's time to decide whether or not a person should be locked away for life under the three strikes rule he should get separate trials for deciding whether the previous convictions count as strikes. Or something.
RB, on the matter of irreversible, locking someone up for years is also irreversible. The strain on their health is irreversible. The effects on their ability to function--ie. the negative effects brought on by being stuck in a prison and having fuck all in the way of rehabilitation--are potentially irreversible. Prison-rape and assault are irreversible. Why're you trying this reversibility cop-out? And why on earth would you want to reversibly chop off someone's hands? Explain that part because it sounds frickin' bizarre to me
I heard the other day about a prison that contained twice as many prisoners as it was designed for, where mentally ill inmates were crowded in cages waiting for some place to crash. I dunno how true that is alas.
Just for the record, I get why someone might want to harshly punish a person who keeps committing crimes. I'm personally more interested in finding out why that person is committing crimes 1. in the first place and 2. repeatedly. It's possible we're doing something wrong somewhere in that process. Norway etc etc.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Scale and context both matter... life would be boring in a perfect world. To be honest I don't mind some crime, I don't even know if i want a crime free society so much as i want to strive for such a thing. Especially if it means such tight governmental control. 3-strike law is BS, we probably gain more as a society letting criminals back out after punishment so the good tihngs they do do, interact with their family, possibly work, can off set some of the crimes they committed. As opposed to bein' locked up and used in such a mechanical one-dimensional manner. Which I do support having prisoners work.. i just find it a danger that those who have ability to put people in jail are profiting of said work.. creates a moral hazard.
If it's not good practice, then you've shown your lack of commitment to quality discussion on these boards many times over by focusing the thrust of your arguments down channels that support the conclusions you agree with.
Another example is Rand who, when I suggested he include data from the opposition in his conclusions when discussing the UK vetoing the EU's financial decision, asked if I was stupid.
My conclusion is that you cannot apply the same standard of quality thinking to your internet discussions that you do to your professional life.
That's not true. It's a rather weird claim to make up.
He was speaking for Hazir at the point, not speaking towards you momo. The "pfft" was still there, but it wasn't via name calling.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
First of all, I didn't take offense! Secondly: Rand, I didn't take the time to actually read that post again, my bad.
Anyhow, the point I was trying to make was it's human nature to favour data that supports your point; which Loki rightly pointed out is probably not the best practice.
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/20...n-brooklyn/?hp
Clearly the moral thing to do is to let career criminals out on the street time and time again.
Hope is the denial of reality
Not Tom SelleckSo which bits should we mutilate on which customers, doctor?
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote