Even if I totally agreed with you, there aren't only murders in prisons, they make up an incredibly small part of the population. A person who robs a bank and is arrested and all the money recovered. What does the bank get out of this person being miserable for 20 years? How is that beneficial? They got the money back and the guy is put away so he can't rob other banks. Taking efforts to rehabilitate him is absolutely the correct way to go.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2015 |OT2| Pls print
- Thread starter ivysaur12
- Start date
- Status
Even if I totally agreed with you, there aren't only murders in prisons, they make up an incredibly small part of the population. A person who robs a bank and is arrested and all the money recovered. What does the bank get out of this person being miserable for 20 years? How is that beneficial? They got the money back and the guy is put away so he can't rob other banks. Taking efforts to rehabilitate him is absolutely the correct way to go.
Personally, I think the system needs massive overhaul and actually be rehabilitative.
Crimes where the criminal presents no actual danger to other citizens, or would be under little to no threat of retaliation, should not be jailed 24/7. They should have to attend day or weekend programs, be rehabilitated/counseled/treated.
- Restores people.
- Keeps communities from having adults robbed from it
- Keeps families together.
If someone is dangerous and will cause harm to other citizens, or is much safer being locked up due to their crime having a high chance of retaliation, then they should be jailed.
Ultimately however, our system should be self aware that it is imperfect, and that there is a chance that the person we have jailed is innocent in terms of sending them back out the way we found them, instead of worse. We should not allow people to mentally atrophy while jailed. I have no problem with supplying prisoners entertainment, it will keep jailed persons mentally engaged and occupy their time with something other than what they do. We already allow books, games and movies aren't more luxurious, it's just that books are older and more 'accepted' entertainment.
edit: also, our years-long punishments need to go way the fuck down. They've gotten stupidly high, and all it does is basically time capsule people and sends them back out into a society they don't understand.
Crimes where the criminal presents no actual danger to other citizens, or would be under little to no threat of retaliation, should not be jailed 24/7. They should have to attend day or weekend programs, be rehabilitated/counseled/treated.
- Restores people.
- Keeps communities from having adults robbed from it
- Keeps families together.
If someone is dangerous and will cause harm to other citizens, or is much safer being locked up due to their crime having a high chance of retaliation, then they should be jailed.
Ultimately however, our system should be self aware that it is imperfect, and that there is a chance that the person we have jailed is innocent in terms of sending them back out the way we found them, instead of worse. We should not allow people to mentally atrophy while jailed. I have no problem with supplying prisoners entertainment, it will keep jailed persons mentally engaged and occupy their time with something other than what they do. We already allow books, games and movies aren't more luxurious, it's just that books are older and more 'accepted' entertainment.
edit: also, our years-long punishments need to go way the fuck down. They've gotten stupidly high, and all it does is basically time capsule people and sends them back out into a society they don't understand.
Manmademan
Member
Incarceration is more than simple "exclusion." making a poor decision that lands you behind bars for 10 years means that not only are you unable to make that decision again for the forseeable future, you are unable to make ANY decisions on your own for the term of your incarceration. What you eat, what you wear, when you sleep, how you worship, what you do, who you can socialize with, when you can see your family, what material you can and cannot read is up to someone else. You have all the autonomy of a five year old for a decade or more. Is that NOT justice? Seems that way to me.
If you're asking that said inmate be kicked in the balls every day on top of that because you need "closure", you're not asking for justice, you're asking for something else because you get off on seeing someone else humiliated. That's not the business of the state. The business of the state is making sure that person is in a position to positively contribute when their rights are restored.
I won't entertain the rest of your fantasyland scenario for obvious reasons.
This one is ABSOLUTELY True. You can end up in prison for decades on assault or robbery charges- it doesn't take 20 years to learn "not to do that" and inmates over the age of 25 or so rarely end up going back in for similar crimes once they're out.
brainchild
Banned
I agree that he certainly isn't going to be converting anyone to socialism that wasn't already ok with it anytime soon, but that's not really what he's trying to do.
Bernie believes that most Americans already believe what he believes, and right or wrong, that's the notion that he's running with for his campaign. He's not trying to convert people, he's trying to show them that they've already been converted and have already accepted it as a part of their daily lives.
Bernie believes that once most Americans realize that they side with him, they'll line up to support him. That's the impetus behind his 'grassroots movement'.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I consider the justice systems purpose to prevent crimes not exact moral retributions. People go to jail to prevent them from harming others.
If we can stop that faster why not? What does "punishing" them do? Isn't the purpose of that to change them and stop them from harming?
There's certain crimes I don't understand why we even lock people up for. The crimes ate so minor all hail does is make people feel good without changing the person transgressing
Coriolanus
Banned
The grievances of those wronged should be assuaged with reparations, not with vengeance. A productive member of society is one put in a position where he can work towards repairing the harm he caused, which will then have a direct and tangible benefit to the harmed parties, something that simply locking a person up can never provide. If the family still needs closure beyond that, then they should seek a psychologist, psychiatrist or some other form of help. There is absolutely no reason for the state to entertain their bloodlust, especially since it'll invariably be inflicted on innocents.
And yes, if it was truly possible to rehabilitate a person in ten minutes, with no chance of recidivism whatsoever, of course i'd be willing to accept that. Why wouldn't I? The individual that practiced the harm no longer exists.
We usually give prisoners amenities because it decreases the risk of prison riots, btw. Also facilitates rehabilitation, since it's a reward that can be given or taken away as needed.
It baffles me that there still are property crimes conducted without violence that can result in jail terms. We got rid of debtor's imprisonment, and yet that still stands.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
I fucking hate tenure, some college professors are fucked up dudes who deserve to be in a breadline and not have permanent employment.
Manmademan
Member
tenure isn't permanent employment. but what does that have to do with the subject of the thread?
Except most of the liberals who do agree with him on policy are not lining up behind him. Hillary beats him amongst self-identified liberals.
People do not vote on policy, especially in primaries which is even more personality driven than general elections. This is something Bernie fans don't seem to understand.
You can't keep pushing POLICY POLICY POLICY which Bernie for some reason keeps doing. No one cares about that for the most part in primaries.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Nothing, it's some bullshit happening in the life of a friend that pisses me off to no end.
In those cases, is there not usually some kind of just cause to terminate them?
Keep in mind that a lot of voters also need to be very aware of electability, a loss could completely fuck them over. Agreeing with a candidate's stances is far from the only thing that goes into deciding who to vote for.
So, the victim's family gets a percentage of his future earnings?
I think our sense of where this balance is depends almost entirely on policy. We're not coming up with this stuff out of nowhere. We have this idea of what a proportionate punishment is and that guides us in seeking retribution. That is, I don't think there's much reason to think that the wronged parties are going to feel themselves cheated by a much more lenient system; their ideas of what kinds of retribution they have a right to are going to be shaped by the sorts of punishments they see in cases they have more distance from.
This is sort of where the ratcheting of criminal punishments comes from, right? If you want to punish someone for a particularly heinous crime, what you aim for is to punish them more than people are punished for somewhat less heinous crimes. Nobody's actually trying to work out from scratch how much punishment is the right amount.
I think we make ourselves better if we adopt a less retributivist criminal justice policy. We will produce citizens who demand less blood when wronged.
History may very well be repeating itself:
Bernie was fired up and gave a great speech, where as Hillary's was rather wooden (or "flat", as in 08) and in my estimation (given the accurate press coverage), quite possibly negated some of the bounce she got from the Benghazi hearings.
I'm pleased to see the press isn't trying to spin this, with the Washington Post saying the following:
The small YouTube audience (currently around 10k views for first part of each speech) is unequivocal in their support for Bernie, over Hillary, with many, many comments in his favor, with very little support for Hillary (Hillary Pt #1, Bernie Pt #1). Given Hillary's vocal, rock solid support on GAF, I'm a little surprised there's very little push back elsewhere online (based on Facebook and YouTube).
Bernie was fired up and gave a great speech, where as Hillary's was rather wooden (or "flat", as in 08) and in my estimation (given the accurate press coverage), quite possibly negated some of the bounce she got from the Benghazi hearings.
I'm pleased to see the press isn't trying to spin this, with the Washington Post saying the following:
Washington Post said:
The small YouTube audience (currently around 10k views for first part of each speech) is unequivocal in their support for Bernie, over Hillary, with many, many comments in his favor, with very little support for Hillary (Hillary Pt #1, Bernie Pt #1). Given Hillary's vocal, rock solid support on GAF, I'm a little surprised there's very little push back elsewhere online (based on Facebook and YouTube).
Daniel B·;182907227 said:
All the contrasting performances show is that Bernie can't get past the primary and feels he has to go negative on Hillary to even hope to gain any traction, whereas Hillary is already taking the rhetoric to the Republicans. I'm not sure the primary electorate on the Dem side - outside the hardline Bernie supporters - is open or welcoming to Democrats attacking their own in this primary since they're very much aware the real enemy is the Republicans - hence Biden's trial balloons about "Republicans are our friends" falling utterly flat. Biden knew his only hope was to go negative on Hillary if he got in, and he properly judged the electorate's mood and stayed away.
Manmademan
Member
Daniel B·;182907227 said:
Bernie Sanders leads hillary substantially in the 18-29 demographic- something like 80%-20%, possibly more. This demographic is quite vocal online and the most likely to comment on platforms like youtube and facebook, but is notorious for failing to show up to polls.
Hillary is far and away ahead of bernie sanders in every other demographic by margins just as wide.
This contest is over. Sorry buddy.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Bernie still has a shot if it turns out that Hillary actually murdered Vince Foster.
Otherwise, no.
Otherwise, no.
Black Republican
Member
i keep forgetting Rubio is leaving the senate either way. Obviously if hes not president what his fallback plan? run for Governor in another 4 years? He's still very young.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Remember back in 07 when Pelosi introduced Obama as "the next president of the United States" before his Jefferson Jackson Dinner? Fun times.
I believe Obama broke the mould on that one and given that Bernie has already smashed Obama's rally numbers, be prepared to eat your words
.Manmademan
Member
Daniel B·;182909474 said:I believe Obama broke the mould on that one and given that Bernie has already smashed Obama's ralley numbers, be prepared to eat your words
What you believe is immaterial, given that it doesn't appear to be backed up by any sort of facts.
Daniel B·;182907227 said:
I don't think you are reading the dinner properly.
Bernie pissed a lot of people off. He and his supporters stayed for his speech - then left. That's not what this is about, and all he is doing is pissing off the local democrats instead of building up a base of support.
Obama didn't do that - he put time and money in, and he won with a lot of votes of ordinary democrats in Iowa. Bernie isn't, he's just to his usual 20%, very vocal crowd that only cares about him.
Coriolanus
Banned
That's one of the several venues that a focus on reparations allows, yes.
RustyNails
Member
I like that option. But what about accusations of "indentured servitude" in response to that solution? That's why I didn't bring it up...
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
TERFs outraged at people attempting to "censor" Germaine Greer for being a fuckface who preaches hate towards trans women is sure something considering that Greer trying to make trans women unemployed in the 90s.
The silliest thing about the whole socialism thing is that he's not even a democratic socialist. He's not looking to replace capitalism entirely, and he supports the Nordic model. That's social democracy! He's a social democrat. He could have avoided so much drama if he just called himself a social democrat.
I also don't know why he didn't just point to Canada instead of Denmark. We've had universal health care for decades, the official opposition in the previous parliament (the NDP) is a social democratic party, and we haven't become a dictatorial commie wasteland.
Then again, my tinfoil hat theory is that he's running an educational campaign to help shift the Democrats into a more progressive position, so maybe the needlessly radical messaging is by design. It's less about winning people over, more about getting progressives to think about these distinctions at all, given how far behind the US is in even having these conversations, and how center-right the Democratic establishment has become overall.
Coriolanus
Banned
It's why you establish legal limits and safeguards, keeping checks on the procedures. Same as everything else.
I mean, if one really feels inclined to push that angle, community service can be argued to be indentured servitude.
That's okay, because Trump hates all things brown and it has been paying off quite well for him.
shinra-bansho
Member
I don't really know why Sanders is going to make educating the people about socialism a plank of his campaign. Or why he even keeps referring to himself as such. Sanders isn't really a socialist anyway, for the most part. He's just a very liberal social democrat; with a few tendencies towards a democratic socialist control of production of things like healthcare.
EDIT: Oh I missed that post before when I was writing this, but yes, I basically concur. A social democrat is not a democratic socialist, and for the most part Sanders follows capitalist economics.
EDIT: Oh I missed that post before when I was writing this, but yes, I basically concur. A social democrat is not a democratic socialist, and for the most part Sanders follows capitalist economics.
Interesting. Reminds me of break up the big banks as some sort of solution. These slogans seem to be rallying cries that preach to the already converted but that don't actually address the underlying problem.
That's the thing - Bernie needs to make sure he gets the message out that his democratic socialism isn't socialism, but instead includes many of the things that most americans enjoy today, he just wants to expand it and grow it.
It's something I thought we all wanted Democrats to do post 2008.Educate the populace that all of the incredibly socialist policies that made America great in the past have not only been a success but can be even moreso of a success if we keep at it.
It's something I thought we all wanted Democrats to do post 2008.Educate the populace that all of the incredibly socialist policies that made America great in the past have not only been a success but can be even moreso of a success if we keep at it.
Right, it's just sort of weird to get really hung up on a word with the baggage of "socialism" when every other Democrat has settled on "progressivism" for this.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
I just find that mindset of his so patently wrong that it frustrates me to see this opportunity get squandered. He's completely confusing support of commonplace populist policies with support for socialism*. You don't have to be a socialist* to support more affordable college tuition, increased banking regulations, criminal justice overhaul, etc. That's why Hillary is able to mop the floor with him because she can just mimic the same populist positions for different reasons and then he's got nothing to distinguish himself unless he more openly advocates for an alternative worldview. And if the debate is any indication of his ability to do that, I don't slot him as being much more effective at it than the Occupy Wall Street stuff.
And the bolded is exactly the problem that turns off so many people from his campaign and supporters. It's this logic that the only reason people aren't supporting him is because of self-delusion or ignorance; 'you support Bernie already you just don't know it yet'. That's inherently demeaning and is what leads to so many bad encounters where his supporters try to teach people what they believe.
*or whatever word we think should be used*
shinra-bansho
Member
I mean his "democratic socialism" isn't democratic socialism either for the most part. It's social democracy. And regardless of what he says on the debate stage he's mostly a capitalist.
He said he is not a capitalist on MTP.
Call it stubbornness, but I think he also just wants to rescue the concept of socialism itself from all the ignorance surrounding it. Conservatives have been able to define anything resembling socialism as anti-american and against American principles for decades. Arguing for progressive policies is hard today because those against it can easily just say "if it sounds like socialism and it looks like socialism, then by god it's socialism. And socialism is EVIL!"
Damn, that's some quotable shit.
shinra-bansho
Member
There's clearly far too much Hilliteracy.
I'm aware of what he's said.
But ultimately, his policies and positions don't seem to indicate that he wants to convert the US to a socialist economic system*, he just wants to regulate the capitalist system that currently exists far more towards more egalitarian distribution.
*For the most part, on certain services he seems to want this.
And_Gignac
Member
They had to leave early because the buses where about to go, according to asistants. Seems more like, yet again, poor organization from Sanders camp.
And no, its actually 40-45% in Iowa.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
Well sure, there's multiple objectives here that I might be conflating.
Increasing acceptance of the word socialist: I think this is an important thing to do but not a necessary thing to do. Regardless, he's done a poor job at doing this. He can talk all he wants about how he's shifting from introduction to persuasion, but if his introduction was bad I'm not sure why I should be excited about his ability to persuade. Particularly since your ability to persuade is also contingent on how you introduced yourself/your argument.
Selling specific policies or positions to voters: Although I would concur that he has helped push the overall Democratic party to the left with relation to the nominating process (Hillary and company have certainly made some dramatic turns), it's hard to distinguish between how much of that was already organically happening and what was a result of his campaign. Criminal justice reform has developed by itself, and I think more populist economic positions have as well after the fallout of '08.
Selling an alternative political philosophy/worldview: I think this is probably the most important thing to do in terms of impact and long-term benefits. It's one thing to get everyone to subscribe to your specific policy positions, it's another to convince them of a value system that will help them make decisions about future issues or problems in a different way. He's also largely failed to accomplish this too.
In my opinion of course.
Increasing acceptance of the word socialist: I think this is an important thing to do but not a necessary thing to do. Regardless, he's done a poor job at doing this. He can talk all he wants about how he's shifting from introduction to persuasion, but if his introduction was bad I'm not sure why I should be excited about his ability to persuade. Particularly since your ability to persuade is also contingent on how you introduced yourself/your argument.
Selling specific policies or positions to voters: Although I would concur that he has helped push the overall Democratic party to the left with relation to the nominating process (Hillary and company have certainly made some dramatic turns), it's hard to distinguish between how much of that was already organically happening and what was a result of his campaign. Criminal justice reform has developed by itself, and I think more populist economic positions have as well after the fallout of '08.
Selling an alternative political philosophy/worldview: I think this is probably the most important thing to do in terms of impact and long-term benefits. It's one thing to get everyone to subscribe to your specific policy positions, it's another to convince them of a value system that will help them make decisions about future issues or problems in a different way. He's also largely failed to accomplish this too.
In my opinion of course.
Retromelon
Member
DONALD TRUMP: ELECT HILLARY PRESIDENT, YOU HAVE A COUNTRY THAT GOES TO HELL
http://www.inquisitr.com/2519529/donald-trump-elect-hillary-president-you-have-a-country-that-goes-to-hell/
#Hillhathnofurylikeamogulscorned
http://www.inquisitr.com/2519529/donald-trump-elect-hillary-president-you-have-a-country-that-goes-to-hell/
#HillNo
#Hillhathnofurylikeamogulscorned
Based on my own observations, Bernie Sanders is possibly one of the most respectful politicians out there, so if his speech wasn't significantly delayed (according to GAF post), I'm sure he would have stayed for the other speakers. He should have perhaps taken the opportunity to say as much, at the end of his speech.
But, let's get to the heart of the matter. Is there anyone that claims politicians and the party they belong to, as a general rule, truly represent the people and not their own agendas? Why should we tolerate the "political class" and just accept it as a part of life? All politicians should be like Bernie Sanders, who are purely concerned with what is best for the American people, at large, and not themselves. special interests and party structures. However, I have no doubt that Bernie cannot win the Presidency without support from the Democratic party, who would also do just fine with him as President.
Although Hillary is absolutely what I would class as an "establishment" politician and I totally believe, she would not govern primarily with the interests of everyday Americans in mind, she would certainly be a safe choice and our democracy would hopefully improve a little. As an establishment politician, the question is whether she can fire up the public sufficiently to reclaim Congress, which is obviously essential, to enact any of her policies. I know Bernie would have no trouble eliciting that fire.
Just thinking about potential firsts just for shiggles for potential candidates:
Hilary Clinton:
- First Female President
- First First Lady to also be a President
- Bill becomes the first First Gentleman.. or whatever they go with.
- Chelsea becomes the first person in the United States to have both of her parents be President.
Bernie Sanders:
- First Jewish president
Bobby Jindal:
- First Indian-American president
- First Louisiana Governor to be elected President
Jeb! Bush:
- First immediate family to have 3 members become President
- Even though 3 Bushes would have been president when elected, Jeb! would need to be elected to two terms to exceed FDR's solo 4 terms.
- Father and sons would hold office in terms that exist in 4 different decades
- Unless Jeb takes a VP spot, Bush Sr would still hold the most elected office terms in the white house at 3 (2 VP, 1 Pres)
Ben Carson:
- first medical doctor to be elected president (Harrison was in college but dropped out)
Marco Rubio:
- first facial expression to be elected president
Hilary Clinton:
- First Female President
- First First Lady to also be a President
- Bill becomes the first First Gentleman.. or whatever they go with.
- Chelsea becomes the first person in the United States to have both of her parents be President.
Bernie Sanders:
- First Jewish president
Bobby Jindal:
- First Indian-American president
- First Louisiana Governor to be elected President
Jeb! Bush:
- First immediate family to have 3 members become President
- Even though 3 Bushes would have been president when elected, Jeb! would need to be elected to two terms to exceed FDR's solo 4 terms.
- Father and sons would hold office in terms that exist in 4 different decades
- Unless Jeb takes a VP spot, Bush Sr would still hold the most elected office terms in the white house at 3 (2 VP, 1 Pres)
Ben Carson:
- first medical doctor to be elected president (Harrison was in college but dropped out)
Marco Rubio:
- first facial expression to be elected president
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Sure.
shinra-bansho
Member
I'm kind of curious, has Chelsea Clinton ever said one way or another whether she ever intends to seek elected office?
It's pretty bad. I wouldn't normally ask; i just don't think it's very focused.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked