Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 4:20 am
gms - are you serious? That is a set of simplistic remedies for a set of serious problems, except maybe the 9th circuit.
All of these have been tried in the past and lead to worse problems than they solve. History is full of countries that had hideous punishments for crime. It simply makes things worse because it brutalizes the society. From what I can see, you are talking about vengeance, not justice - and that creates a major cycle of violence. Much of modern civilization and the reason we can live peacefully is because we have broken the cycle of vengeance.
I would like you to give the reference on '35% of the prison population' are illegals, though I could believe it.
Judges for life is an attempt to de-politicize the court process. It isn't perfect but it does work better than having them re-elected i.e. up for sale, every couple of years. For really bad ones, impeachment is always an option.
Criminals honestly don't give a flip how bad jail is, because they aren't thinking about getting caught - in fact, the majority of them aren't thinking period. I agree that shooting people who commit the sort of crimes you are talking about seems just, but you better be *damn* sure that they did it before you do it. See recent DNA evidence for how often the police get it wrong. I, for one, do *not* want to give the police / courts that much power. The whole premise of the setup of this country was to prevent that.
On the illegals question, that is a simplistic as the "send them back to Africa" solution that was tried after the civil war as a way to deal with the slave population. It would cost far more to "send them back" than we can afford, not counting the economic and social disruption caused by the sort of witchhunt mentality it would take to make it effective.
BTW, please respond to my arguments, not simply the fact that I disagree. I won't assume, but I will say that I often find that people who make simplistic statements about problems resort to ad hominem style attacks which is only appropriate in the Flame On section of the forum. I am making the assumption that you are not such a person (or a wouldn't bother responding).
Also, please support, with something other than your own opinion, why such actions would have a positive impact on society. When doing so, you might want to ask why things like welfare were instituted in the first place and how that problem could be solved in a different way.
All of these have been tried in the past and lead to worse problems than they solve. History is full of countries that had hideous punishments for crime. It simply makes things worse because it brutalizes the society. From what I can see, you are talking about vengeance, not justice - and that creates a major cycle of violence. Much of modern civilization and the reason we can live peacefully is because we have broken the cycle of vengeance.
I would like you to give the reference on '35% of the prison population' are illegals, though I could believe it.
Judges for life is an attempt to de-politicize the court process. It isn't perfect but it does work better than having them re-elected i.e. up for sale, every couple of years. For really bad ones, impeachment is always an option.
Criminals honestly don't give a flip how bad jail is, because they aren't thinking about getting caught - in fact, the majority of them aren't thinking period. I agree that shooting people who commit the sort of crimes you are talking about seems just, but you better be *damn* sure that they did it before you do it. See recent DNA evidence for how often the police get it wrong. I, for one, do *not* want to give the police / courts that much power. The whole premise of the setup of this country was to prevent that.
On the illegals question, that is a simplistic as the "send them back to Africa" solution that was tried after the civil war as a way to deal with the slave population. It would cost far more to "send them back" than we can afford, not counting the economic and social disruption caused by the sort of witchhunt mentality it would take to make it effective.
BTW, please respond to my arguments, not simply the fact that I disagree. I won't assume, but I will say that I often find that people who make simplistic statements about problems resort to ad hominem style attacks which is only appropriate in the Flame On section of the forum. I am making the assumption that you are not such a person (or a wouldn't bother responding).
Also, please support, with something other than your own opinion, why such actions would have a positive impact on society. When doing so, you might want to ask why things like welfare were instituted in the first place and how that problem could be solved in a different way.