PDA

View Full Version : Supreme court protects police; Georgia teens still 85% inbred retards



jubei33
30th April 07, 11:21 PM
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/30/scotus.chase/index.html

Court: High-speed chase suspects can't sue police

Ruling protects police from lawsuits by suspects who lead them on chases
Supreme Court rules 8-1 against Georgia teen paralyzed in crash
Police car rammed teen's car off road; teen had been driving 100 mph
Country to teen: "What the fuck are you retarded!?"

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday gave police officers significant protection from lawsuits by suspects who lead them on car chases.

The justices ruled 8-1 against Georgia teenager Victor Harris, who was left a quadriplegic after a police vehicle rammed his car off the road in 2001.

A police officer used "reasonable force" when ramming the teen's speeding car, the high court ruled. A videotape of the pursuit played a key role in the decision
.....
He continued, "Far from being the cautious and controlled driver the lower court depicts, what we see on the video more closely resembles a Hollywood-style car chase of the most frightening sort, placing police officers and innocent bystanders alike at greater risk of serious injury."

Harris, 19 at the time, was driving on a suspended license, when he refused to pull over for speeding. The police video shows him accelerating at speeds more than 100 mph, leading officers across two counties outside Atlanta. He can be seen crossing the double yellow line on the road to pass about three dozen cars.

At one point, Harris is shown pulling into a shopping center parking lot, with Scott, a Coweta County deputy, and two colleagues trying to block him. Harris then hits Scott's vehicle while fleeing. The officer radios his supervisor, requesting permission to use potentially deadly force to stop Harris.

==================================

Well on the plus side, at least in this obvious (probably unfortunate) circumstance we have confirmation that its definitely a bad idea to go on a high speed chase with the police.

And at least he wont breed....

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
30th April 07, 11:25 PM
Fuck you, I can't walk anymore.

ironlurker
30th April 07, 11:26 PM
Before you know it, you won't be able to sue McDonalds for getting hurt when you pour their coffee on your groin.

ICY
30th April 07, 11:28 PM
Police should not pursue speeders. They can take down their license plate # and deal with them later.

WarPhalange
30th April 07, 11:29 PM
Wow, 19 and his life is over. That really sucks. Then again, the dick did it to himself.

WarPhalange
30th April 07, 11:34 PM
Police should not pursue speeders. They can take down their license plate # and deal with them later.

They have to pursue them to get the license plate in the first place.

Question!
30th April 07, 11:40 PM
Also, if the car is stolen, or they dump the car, the license plate might not be of any use.

ICY
30th April 07, 11:46 PM
They have to pursue them to get the license plate in the first place.

There is an amazing new technology you may not have heard of referred to as "photography", it is truly amazing.

WarPhalange
30th April 07, 11:59 PM
Please elaborate.

This ought to be good.

ICY
1st May 07, 01:24 AM
Photo radar works to catch people speeding, if that's what your goal is. You send the fine to them in the mail.

jubei33
1st May 07, 01:28 AM
Police should not pursue speeders. They can take down their license plate # and deal with them later.

what about people with warrants, Or expired/ suspended licenses?

ICY
1st May 07, 01:42 AM
How does that change the danger to the public in the situation concerned?

If the plate is valid, there will be an address attached to it.

Question!
1st May 07, 01:43 AM
I think all policemen should be issued with rocket launchers to destroy the fleeing vehicle.

ICY
1st May 07, 01:46 AM
I suppose I should point out that I think police should all be placed under citizen's arrest and summarily executed at the same time, but that's besides the point at hand.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
1st May 07, 02:08 AM
That's not very fascist of you.

ICY
1st May 07, 06:21 AM
No, no it's not...depending on how you look at it.

Bukow
1st May 07, 07:32 AM
The 19 year old was just stupid, but wtf was a cop thinking that justified, in his mind, a 100 mph car chase to pull over a speeder? ("It's dangerous to speed, so let's both do it!" ?)

Like Cracky said, they had a video of the whole thing, and at that point they could've added a (felony) Fleeing and Eluding charge to a warrant for the driver.

Thinkchair
1st May 07, 07:40 AM
Police should not pursue speeders. They can take down their license plate # and deal with them later.


I think the assumption is, if the police try to pull you over for speeding, and you try to get away, you are probably guilty of something more serious.

Thinkchair
1st May 07, 07:42 AM
I suppose I should point out that I think police should all be placed under citizen's arrest and summarily executed at the same time, but that's besides the point at hand.

Why?

Shawarma
1st May 07, 07:53 AM
Because he is OUTRAGEOUS!

WarPhalange
1st May 07, 08:49 AM
Photo radar works to catch people speeding, if that's what your goal is. You send the fine to them in the mail.

Yes, but how do you catch the fucking license plate if he just sped by you? Ever hear of motion blur?

Bukow
1st May 07, 09:29 AM
I think the assumption is, if the police try to pull you over for speeding, and you try to get away, you are probably guilty of something more serious.

Yeah, you're Fleeing and Eluding. That's more serious. So issue a warrant.

Shu2jack
1st May 07, 09:39 AM
Yeah, you're Fleeing and Eluding. That's more serious. So issue a warrant.

Who are you going to issue the warrent to? What if the car was stolen?

Neildo
1st May 07, 10:26 AM
Photo Radar can't see the suspended licence.

I say, speed trap cameras with laser guns. 100+/mph? pewpewpew!

Shu2jack
1st May 07, 11:07 AM
Seriously, if the court ruled the other way I can see:

Bad Guy: Oh shits, the cop wants me to pull over for a minor traffic offense, but I *insert serious crime committed* and driving a car not registered to me!

Bad Guy: Wait! I know! I will just drive 100 mph and, providing I don't crash, I get away free because the cops won't pursue me!

Neildo
1st May 07, 11:28 AM
Then my plan comes to fruition.


PEWPEWPEW

Shu2jack
1st May 07, 11:54 AM
Then my plan comes to fruition.


PEWPEWPEW

Your idea intrigues me. Can it work on drivers who use a cell phone while driving?

Steve
1st May 07, 02:05 PM
Then my plan comes to fruition.


PEWPEWPEW

We don't even have to wait for the development of the laser technology, just use this:

q5Y5-Zw5TW0

Kein Haar
1st May 07, 02:15 PM
Photo radar works to catch people speeding, if that's what your goal is. You send the fine to them in the mail.

There are sometimes affirmative defenses to speeding.

And sometimes the registered owner is not the one driving.

And sometimes there are no plates.

And sometimes the plates are obscured.

And sometimes the car has been recently sold, and the registration not updated.

And sometimes there are dealer plates with no meaningful registration information.

And sometimes the SOS screws up and there is simply "no record" due to a data-entry typo, and you need the VIN (particulalrly common).

And sometimes plates are stolen, and not reported.

And sometimes the whole car is stolen...and not yet reported.

*****

And let's say I chase some dude through someone else's house. That "someone" can still sue. Just not the flee-er.

That's fair.

Neildo
1st May 07, 02:51 PM
We don't even have to wait for the development of the laser technology...

l8InNKWYvDY

Steve
1st May 07, 03:09 PM
Teh win!^^

Bukow
1st May 07, 04:24 PM
Who are you going to issue the warrent to? What if the car was stolen?

You issue the warrant for the driver of the car, after some basic investigation. You don't just assume that the car is stolen.

If a cop tries to stop a jaywalker, and the jaywalker runs, can the cops start shooting at them because the person "is probably a rapist/murderer/armed robber?"

Neildo
1st May 07, 05:16 PM
No, but he's resisting arrest, so i would say the taser should be deployed.

http://ndato11.googlepages.com/taser.gif

Judah Maccabee
1st May 07, 05:17 PM
If a cop tries to stop a jaywalker, and the jaywalker runs, can the cops start shooting at them because the person "is probably a rapist/murderer/armed robber?"

No, the court ruled in 1984 that the police can't shoot unarmed, fleeing suspects.

The court ALSO said in this most recent ruling that the dangers inherent in ramming a speeding car were far different than those in shooting at a suspect.

Neildo
1st May 07, 05:20 PM
While reading that, this came to mind:

4zfZSyEO230

ICY
1st May 07, 05:33 PM
The opposing arguement seems to be based entirely on the presumption of guilt of serious crime based on committing a misdemeanor. What a fantastic justice system we would have if that were applied universally, to everyone committing a misdemeanor.

WarPhalange
1st May 07, 06:01 PM
My solution: Make cars not be able to go over ~75mph. What, you want to race? Buy the racing version of your Honda Civic or whatever. Should cost more, (but not an arm and a leg) and you have to register it (also should be fairly easy to do). I'm relying on normal people wanting to save those few extra bucks and not wanting to go through the hassle of registering something extra. The people who want to race aren't usually the ones going on high-speed chases, are they? I'm assuming (although I don't know this) that they have half a brain and only race when the cops aren't around or on legal tracks. So that shouldn't be much of a problem.

Seriously, my car's speedometer goes to 140mph. When am I ever going to need to go that fast?

Steve
1st May 07, 06:31 PM
Seriously, my car's speedometer goes to 140mph. When am I ever going to need to go that fast?

When Armageddon rains down on the peoples of this cursed land?

http://imgred.com/http://www.cloakanddagger.de/media/IMAGES_05/OCTOBER/OCT_07/armageddon.jpg

Yeah, old pic. Sue me.

Question!
1st May 07, 06:33 PM
Cracky, I think the presumption of guilt comes not from committing the misdemeanor, but in fleeing and eluding.

ICY
1st May 07, 06:51 PM
Irrelevant.

Thinkchair
1st May 07, 07:24 PM
The opposing arguement seems to be based entirely on the presumption of guilt of serious crime based on committing a misdemeanor. What a fantastic justice system we would have if that were applied universally, to everyone committing a misdemeanor.

It is just common sense. If the police come after you and you flee, then chances are you have already committed a more serious crime. Sluggy, I just do not see your ideas working in the real world. You basically want to make cops powerless arrest people. When do you believe it is okay for the police to give chase? Do you think they should ever use force?

ICY
1st May 07, 07:43 PM
If they witness a crime being committed, THAT IS SERIOUS (read VIOLENT), then they should pursue and use force. Otherwise, they should not.

WarPhalange
1st May 07, 07:49 PM
What the fuck are you on?

"Oh shit, we just caught him stealing, however non-violently."
"Then let him go. We can catch him later, by uh... taking a picture."
"Oh... ok."

So basically if you commit a non-violent crime and run away, you're safe and have nothing to worry about from the cops?

frumpleswift
1st May 07, 08:00 PM
It is just common sense. If the police come after you and you flee, then chances are you have already committed a more serious crime. Sluggy, I just do not see your ideas working in the real world. You basically want to make cops powerless arrest people. When do you believe it is okay for the police to give chase? Do you think they should ever use force?

While Cracky is a bit off the deep end here (when is he not?) You are treading on very dangerous ground with this statement.

If he runs he must be guilty? Most people have an instinctive fear of the police, and I have known many cops who get a sick amount of pleasure out of this fear. Plus you have the whole history of racism, and racial tensions between the police and minority groups.

Bukow
1st May 07, 08:07 PM
Cracky, I think the presumption of guilt comes not from committing the misdemeanor, but in fleeing and eluding.

Cracky's right, that is really messed up.

There's never a presumption of guilt; people are presumed innocent. People could run from the cops for a whole variety of reasons, and it's not safe to assume that they are doing it for the very worst reason -- nor to make that assumption justify a policy set to apply to every situation.

Bukow
1st May 07, 08:12 PM
While Cracky is a bit off the deep end here (when is he not?) You are treading on very dangerous ground with this statement.

If he runs he must be guilty? Most people have an instinctive fear of the police, and I have known many cops who get a sick amount of pleasure out of this fear. Plus you have the whole history of racism, and racial tensions between the police and minority groups.

Yeah, exactly. That same kinda thinking would allow the cops any sort of invasive measure, because, what do you have to hide, if you are innocent?

This whole thread reminds me of some of the bullshit Fleeing & Eluding and Resisting/Obstructing Arrest cases I've seen. The deck is totally stacked against defendants in those cases. Cops have plenty of power, and laws that absolutely favor their side. Talk of powerless cops never really connects with reality at any given point.

Shu2jack
2nd May 07, 07:42 AM
1) You guys are right, assuming guilt is dangerous ground. Look at it like this - If cops do not give chase to criminals, then criminals will know that all they need to do is remove ways to be tracked (stolen car/weapon) and drive through town at 100 mph. We would effectively be telling cops they can not do their job and to let people get away.


2) If the cop DID arrest you falsely or violated your civil rights, take him to court and make some money off the department. Seriously, RUNNING from the police makes no sense. I am out-manned, out-gunned, and got nifty toys.

Thinkchair
2nd May 07, 08:09 AM
While Cracky is a bit off the deep end here (when is he not?) You are treading on very dangerous ground with this statement.

If he runs he must be guilty? Most people have an instinctive fear of the police, and I have known many cops who get a sick amount of pleasure out of this fear. Plus you have the whole history of racism, and racial tensions between the police and minority groups.

No. I am not saying the person is guilty. But it is likely. If someone flees from law enforcement it is safe to assume something else is going on. There are other possibilities, sure. But I think most people would conclude something is up if you are fleeing from the police. I do not see this as dangerous ground at all. Personally, when I have been asked to pull over, the cop usually just gives me a ticket. I have never had a bad experience with police (and I look pretty ethnic). I am sure there are bad cops out there, but I think you are sidestepping the issue by playing the race card (and police brutality card).

Thinkchair
2nd May 07, 08:12 AM
Cracky's right, that is really messed up.

There's never a presumption of guilt; people are presumed innocent. People could run from the cops for a whole variety of reasons, and it's not safe to assume that they are doing it for the very worst reason -- nor to make that assumption justify a policy set to apply to every situation.

This is not presumption of guilt, it is just police responding to suspicious behavior, which is part of their job. If they end up arresting you, you still have your day in court under the assumption of innocence. The arguments you and cracky are making are simply specious.

Kiko
2nd May 07, 08:15 AM
From http://www.bash.org/ , so probably not true...

< Alkivar> we're on our way back from partying in NYC over the weekend ... it was like sunday afternoon we're headed back west
< Alkivar> we're cruisin... maybe 130-140mph
< Alkivar> flew past a trooper on the side of the road
< Alkivar> trooper lights up ... siren blasting ... chasing us down the highway
< Alkivar> we're both like should we stop ... there's no way he can catch up to us
< Alkivar> we decided to be good and stop
< Alkivar> cop catches up to us ... comes out gun drawn ... pissed as hell
< Alkivar> walks up to the side of the car and goes
< Alkivar> "SON CAN I SEE YOUR PILOT'S LICENSE"
< Alkivar> Jason pulls out his fucking pilot's license
< Alkivar> cop's jaw hits the fucking ground
< Alkivar> most stunned face I've ever fucking seen
< Alkivar> in this practically a whimper goes "get the fuck out of here"
< Alkivar> no ticket... too embarassed apparently
< Alkivar> I'll never forget that day long as I live
< Alkivar> I was sure we were goin to jail

Kiko
2nd May 07, 10:41 AM
Oh, and if the cops didn't chase this guy (http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070502/NEWS01/705020374)
he might be dead now, or have killed someone else.

Kein Haar
2nd May 07, 11:41 AM
I think the respective sides should square off and go tit-for-tat with anecdotes illustrating why police should and should not chase someone.

And then there should be some people representing "the middle ground" explaining why there should be flexible policies which lend themselves to making the appropriate pursuit decision as the circumstances dictate.

And it could go on 4EVER, which would be AWESOME.

And Cracky could troll.

frumpleswift
2nd May 07, 11:52 AM
My anecdote is both pro and con:

8Zp6ILYvzb4

Neildo
2nd May 07, 11:57 AM
5Q9e_we6VDI

Neildo
2nd May 07, 12:06 PM
Surprise ending:

8D1gS98DUSE

PizDoff
2nd May 07, 05:54 PM
Cracky, what is suitable punishment to speeders?

What about people that endanger other motorists, lawn ornaments, children and soft cuddly animals while conducting improper driving?

I'd like your view on these things.

Gezere
3rd May 07, 05:03 PM
My anecdote is both pro and con:

8Zp6ILYvzb4
This was excessive but part of me feels that Rodney King did deserved a little ass whomping.

As an American who is used to living abroad I have always admired the Polizei in Germany. The simply didn't fuck around. They say, you do. If you do not the beat the hell out of you, or shoot you. There was no police brutality (I think that might have changed, I know it was being discussed before I left). I remember a solider being drug up to the up to the main gate at Bad Krueznach (1AD HQ at the time) handcuffed and getting the shit kicked out of them by the polizei. What happened was the soldier was downtown causing a scene the Polizei were trying to escort him out and he swung and hit one, they were working to subdue him and he was biting and spiting. The got him cuffed dragged him to the gates, while beating his ass, dropped him off to the gate guards said, "Good Evening" and thats was that.

Gezere
3rd May 07, 05:06 PM
Keinhaar,

I thought I read about a device that was suppose to disable the care engine so you don't risk a blow out and possible big crash with spike strips. Got any info on that or where it is in development?

DerAuslander108
4th May 07, 02:19 PM
This was excessive but part of me feels that Rodney King did deserved a little ass whomping.

As an American who is used to living abroad I have always admired the Polizei in Germany. The simply didn't fuck around. They say, you do. If you do not the beat the hell out of you, or shoot you. There was no police brutality (I think that might have changed, I know it was being discussed before I left). I remember a solider being drug up to the up to the main gate at Bad Krueznach (1AD HQ at the time) handcuffed and getting the shit kicked out of them by the polizei. What happened was the soldier was downtown causing a scene the Polizei were trying to escort him out and he swung and hit one, they were working to subdue him and he was biting and spiting. The got him cuffed dragged him to the gates, while beating his ass, dropped him off to the gate guards said, "Good Evening" and thats was that.

You have to love the efficiency of it all.

Kein Haar
4th May 07, 05:34 PM
Asia,

No clue.

Well, strike that. Isn't it something that the car was supposed to drive over, and something screwed with the electrical system?

My dept. is very....corporate. Our budget is devoted towards things like paperless communication, in-car printers for crash reports, decor, commemorative patches and key-chains, golden shrines created in the image of our commanders etc.

We have a Stephen Covey quote on a plaque hanging on the wall.

We haven't had a lick of defensive tactics training in at least 3 years.

Felony stops? Negative.

Police driving? Nah.

They'll be happy to wash their hands of you if you fuck those things up though!

Disabling a car? Asia, that is is far, far, FAR too aggressive. Maybe if they shot another cop....on our own dept....on duty...and threatened to kill more. Maybe.

And having a debriefing after hostage situations, or bank robberies..."Eh...what are the odds it'll happen again?".

/vent

frumpleswift
4th May 07, 05:57 PM
You have to love the efficiency of it all.

And the politeness.

ICY
4th May 07, 10:08 PM
Cracky, what is suitable punishment to speeders?

I don't believe in punishment in any context.


What about people that endanger other motorists, lawn ornaments, children and soft cuddly animals while conducting improper driving?

If they ACTUALLY endanger someone, meaning not that they MAY have if someone WERE there to be endangered, but that there really was someone who almost got harmed, then fines are a good consequence.

frumpleswift
4th May 07, 10:12 PM
I don't believe in punishment in any context.

"We don't believe in rules or discipline man. We've tried absolutely nothing and we're all out of options."

Cormoran
4th May 07, 11:16 PM
There's usually lots of talk on current affairs programs here about how fines don't work. I tend to agree, you get the fine a good month after the incident and don't even remember what it was that you did wrong. It's gone from punishment to minor inconvenience.

Knave
4th May 07, 11:36 PM
Greetings.

Old but still relevant educational video on the subject.

Fhq0NDkUViQ

Consequently, I almost never have any sympathy for people that get injured/killed by police, because they always seem to do something incredibly stupid to bring it on themselves.

Neildo
4th May 07, 11:51 PM
DONT MOVE

lemme just get my

DONT MOVE OR WE WILL SHOOT YOU

its cool man lemme just get my

BLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAM
BLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAM

reload

BLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAM
BLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAM

BLAM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amadou_Bailo_Diallo

WarPhalange
5th May 07, 12:39 AM
Wow. 41 shots? Those cops must play a LOT of video games.

Thinkchair
5th May 07, 08:33 AM
I don't believe in punishment in any context.



If they ACTUALLY endanger someone, meaning not that they MAY have if someone WERE there to be endangered, but that there really was someone who almost got harmed, then fines are a good consequence.


Society would fall apart.

Kein Haar
5th May 07, 10:07 AM
I guess I don't really believe in "punishment" per se, either.

I would actually not be opposed to there being fineless tickets, for example.

Accruing enough would still suspend one's license, which is still a misdemeanor, which which should deter you from driving [thus continuing to drive like an asshole]. The "punishment" may come for your insurance carrier, or a possible seizure of the car if you continue driving, but it wouldn't come from the gov't in the form of jacking up fines and jail sentences. That's for most traffic things, mind you.

Another example. There was this 15 year old with HIV who was in denial he had it, and was going around fucking his peers.

The kid was very, very troubled, and I cant imagine a punishment which would really suit that kind of thing. But fact is, he needed to be kept outta society one way or another. And I see no sense in making his quarantine a horrible experience for the rest of his life.

As it is, however, he'll be roaming the countryside in short order AND not recieve much of a punishment. Best of both worlds, I guess. :\

Kein Haar
5th May 07, 10:14 AM
Wow. 41 shots?


If the 4 cops each had 11 shots, they wouldn't have even emptied their mags.

And if you were familiar with semi-autos, you'd know how easy it is to quickly empty one.

I would estimate the whole thing took about 4 seconds.

Training dictates you shoot til the subject stops.

It's not as EXTREEEEME as the sarcastic observer tries and likes to imagine.

Cormoran
5th May 07, 10:37 AM
looking at that wikipedia thing i gotta say, 41 shots? bah, that's nothing!

120 shots fired, shot one of their own men, shot up their own patrol cars and fired into innocent civilians homes' just for good measure.

All that and they STILL didn't kill the suspect. 4 out of 120 shots fired in his general direction hit him.

Oh well, atleast if the deputies get fired they got all the requirements for evil henchmen, trigger happy and no ability at all to aim a weapon

WarPhalange
5th May 07, 12:47 PM
If the 4 cops each had 11 shots, they wouldn't have even emptied their mags.

And if you were familiar with semi-autos, you'd know how easy it is to quickly empty one.

I would estimate the whole thing took about 4 seconds.

Training dictates you shoot til the subject stops.

It's not as EXTREEEEME as the sarcastic observer tries and likes to imagine.

Just like in... video games!!!!

Thinkchair
5th May 07, 01:02 PM
Another example. There was this 15 year old with HIV who was in denial he had it, and was going around fucking his peers.

The kid was very, very troubled, and I cant imagine a punishment which would really suit that kind of thing. But fact is, he needed to be kept outta society one way or another. And I see no sense in making his quarantine a horrible experience for the rest of his life.

As it is, however, he'll be roaming the countryside in short order AND not recieve much of a punishment. Best of both worlds, I guess. :\

I think punishment has three inportant components: deterrence, protection of the public, and revenge. In order to deter others from doing what this 15 year old did, we should be harsh with him, and make his punishment highly unpleasant. Personally I do not care if he is distrubed or not. As far as I am concerned he still made the decision to infect other people with a deadly disease. There are plenty of distrubed people with aids who would never consider doing such a thing. I also feel that society has a right to make him suffer in some way for his crime. He has acted against society, and society is justified in seeking some level of revenge. Finally he must absolutely be prevented from continuing this kind of behavior. Put him in jail for the rest of his life. I have absolutely no sympathy for such an individual. My concern is with the people he intentionally infected.

Cormoran
6th May 07, 02:05 AM
much easier and cheaper way of fixing that kid.

turn him into a eunuch. no expensive state paid gaol time needed, makes sure he can't commit the offense again, and he's punished.

ICY
7th May 07, 06:13 AM
I think punishment has three inportant components: deterrence, protection of the public, and revenge.

If you think revenge is a legitimate pursuit...I can see why your rep is where it is.

Shu2jack
7th May 07, 07:30 AM
If you think revenge is a legitimate pursuit...I can see why your rep is where it is.

Says the man who thinks.....


I suppose I should point out that I think police should all be placed under citizen's arrest and summarily executed at the same time, but that's besides the point at hand.

Thinkchair
7th May 07, 07:38 AM
If you think revenge is a legitimate pursuit...I can see why your rep is where it is.


I think there are many who would agree with me.

frumpleswift
7th May 07, 05:23 PM
I think there are many who would agree with me.

I fundamentally disagree with the mentality of punishment as revenge. When you raise children you don't strike them in anger, and you don't discipline them because you are pissed, you punish to teach.

Yes criminals are not children, they are adults. But, when the laws they have violated are "just" or necessary for a safe society (another issue of discussion entirely) they are obviously broken in some manner that needs fixing. (Okay there are cases where this is not true either, but when are things ever simple)

I think punishment should focus on rehabilitation, and if a person is deemed so far gone that rehabilitation is totally impossible then execution or permanent imprisionment should be considered.

Thinkchair
7th May 07, 05:33 PM
I fundamentally disagree with the mentality of punishment as revenge. When you raise children you don't strike them in anger, and you don't discipline them because you are pissed, you punish to teach.

Yes criminals are not children, they are adults. But, when the laws they have violated are "just" or necessary for a safe society (another issue of discussion entirely) they are obviously broken in some manner that needs fixing. (Okay there are cases where this is not true either, but when are things ever simple)

I think punishment should focus on rehabilitation, and if a person is deemed so far gone that rehabilitation is totally impossible then execution or permanent imprisionment should be considered.

I think use of punishment as revenge for social catharsis is useful. Mind you, I am not talking about lopping off people's hands, or using torture. But I believe many gain some amount of satisfaction knowing that people who commite murder, or rape, will experience discomfort while in prison. It may be unchristian, but it feels good.

I also think that deterance is a useful side effect of revenge.

frumpleswift
7th May 07, 05:51 PM
It may be unchristian, but it feels good.

Not being Christian, that does really enter into it for me. However, I do think that taking enjoyment in someone elses punishment is rather fucked up.


I also think that deterance is a useful side effect of revenge.

Well...if you want to go with the detterance effect, our current system is exceptionally ineffective, because we just lock people away, out of sight. If you want to go for deterrence, I believe that public shaming types of punishment are more effective, but only if the criminal in question or other would be criminals are capable of being shamed. This is not really all that possible in a culture that tends to romanticize the criminal element.

I also believe that criminal punishments should be geared to make ammends for the crime as much as possible (much more possible in the case of theft/destruction of property, not so much when it comes to murder or rape)

Thinkchair
7th May 07, 06:23 PM
Well...if you want to go with the detterance effect, our current system is exceptionally ineffective, because we just lock people away, out of sight. If you want to go for deterrence, I believe that public shaming types of punishment are more effective, but only if the criminal in question or other would be criminals are capable of being shamed. This is not really all that possible in a culture that tends to romanticize the criminal element.

I also believe that criminal punishments should be geared to make ammends for the crime as much as possible (much more possible in the case of theft/destruction of property, not so much when it comes to murder or rape)

I agree that our culture glorifies criminal life. I think shame might not be the way to go. But if you televised the sentencing for variious crimes that might make some people think twice before commiting them. I would also be open to public caning.

WarPhalange
7th May 07, 07:22 PM
The biggest factors in a punishment's deterance are its certainty, i.e. what are the chances of being caught? and its swiftness, i.e. do I have to wait 5 years before my trial starts?

frumpleswift
7th May 07, 07:28 PM
The biggest factors in a punishment's deterance are its certainty, i.e. what are the chances of being caught? and its swiftness, i.e. do I have to wait 5 years before my trial starts?

A quick certain slap on the wrist is still not a deterant. Other than that, yes, certainty and speed are major factors. Again, as in raising children and puppies you punish quickly, sternly, and without anger.

WarPhalange
7th May 07, 09:02 PM
Duh. I think locking them up for a while is punishment enough, it's just that a lot of the time you can get away with it and even then it takes a while before you are punished, so you get over it.

jubei33
7th May 07, 11:50 PM
I agree that our culture glorifies criminal life. I think shame might not be the way to go. But if you televised the sentencing for variious crimes that might make some people think twice before commiting them. I would also be open to public caning.

They already do and it doesnt seem to have much effect. (ie court tv, cops et,al)

As far as the revenge aspect goes, I dont think that rehab has ever seriously been utilized as part of corrections. Revenge is a very serious, if not unspoken, aspect of our system. Sentencing is a very good indicator sometimes of not the severity of crime, but more the political desire to punish certain groups of people. Even after a criminal is released after serving their time, they will most likely be placed back into the same circumstances that encouraged their criminality in the first place. Couple this with the added possiblity of never getting a decent job.

Shaming works well in many cultures, like the Japanese, for instance. The puritans also used the pillory to an effect, but that was usually a death sentance, rather than public shaming. The most effective example I can think of would be the amish in their communities.

Question!
8th May 07, 03:25 AM
Maybe forced buttsecks should be a legal punishment. Punishment and Shaming!