London Riots - OR - What's your favourite thing about Hitler?

[Sonny Bonds]

I challenge all you crazy people to a game of quake 3. Winner gets to decide what to do with the rioters. If you win, you get to treat them like animals and if we win, we treat them like human beings. Me and calin will pwn/frag your asses.

Does not agreeing with your views make them crazy people?

[ddq]

When their views include throwing petty criminals into gladiatorial areas, um... yes. I mean, fuck, "lets just put all criminals in an arena and commercialize their deaths"? Are you serious? These are human beings you're talking about. Hell, the treatment you're suggesting is inhumane even for animals.

I think the critical rift in our schools of thought is that you have the notion that the instant a person breaks the law, they forfeit their human rights, and, in fact, their very humanity. You believe that if someone is acting against society, or even not working to benefit society, that they should be "punished to the full extent of the law", which you interpret to mean "massacred for the enjoyment of the holy elite". Such a totalitarian enforcement of societal conformance will not lead to utopia, but will inevitably prompt revolution from those whose basic human decency is affronted by an utterly oppressive and misguided justice system.

/hippie rant

[Sonny Bonds]

When their views include throwing petty criminals into gladiatorial areas, um... yes. I mean, fuck, "lets just put all criminals in an arena and commercialize their deaths"? Are you serious? These are human beings you're talking about. Hell, the treatment you're suggesting is inhumane even for animals.

I think the critical rift in our schools of thought is that you have the notion that the instant a person breaks the law, they forfeit their human rights, and, in fact, their very humanity. You believe that if someone is acting against society, or even not working to benefit society, that they should be "punished to the full extent of the law", which you interpret to mean "massacred for the enjoyment of the holy elite". Such a totalitarian enforcement of societal conformance will not lead to utopia, but will inevitably prompt revolution from those whose basic human decency is affronted by an utterly oppressive and misguided justice system.

/hippie rant

I don't think anyone here ever said petty criminals should instantly be tossed in an arena.

Whether or not the debate about gladitorial battles is serious, there needs to be another approach to repeat offenders and perpetrators of capital crimes. There is a certain political correctness in especially European nations regarding the approach to these people. Being soft on crime is not the answer. In my country for example, you got people with a criminal record of 200 offences. They are a burden to society, especially after they're offered housing, a job and endless possibilities of bettering their life.

So how do you deal with these people? My suggestion: The three strikes you're out system. It gives them the chance to focus up and better their life after their past mistake. Its almost an offer they can't refuse, if they do, its their fault.

[WHAM]

When their views include throwing petty criminals into gladiatorial areas, um... yes. I mean, fuck, "lets just put all criminals in an arena and commercialize their deaths"? Are you serious?

Now, you see, that's not what is being said. See the distinction between two levels of crime in the tirade I've linked below.
Shoplifting a candy bar is petty crime, but a full-blown riot with looting and violence is NOT petty crime.
http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/yabb/index.php?topic=44166.msg590446#msg590446

[kconan]

  So to summarize WHAMland's justice system using a visual aid:

  Petty crime:
 

  More than petty crime:
 

[WHAM]

Perhaps overtly simplified, but in essence, yes.
Love the pics, kconan! 

[Tabata]

Great pics, kconan!

But caution - otherwise WHAM becomes megalomaniac,
because it's not that far to this:



(translation: May the games begin!)

[InCreator]

Having watched a load of documentaries of prisons all over the world, I guess imprisonment as rehabilitative method has failed pretty much and works only for innocent/dumb people who kill someone while driving drunk, shot spouse's lover or made some other humanly mistake like this. Shit happens.
But for true hardboiled criminals, it's just a way of life and they spend most of it in prison, going back again and again. And we make it work.

Which - to me - sounds really cowardly. So lawful citizens pay taxes every month just to "keep those monsters away from me" and therefore provide lifetime support for criminals, often till one side dies. So what the fuck?

I jump onto arena/execution/Hammurabi's Code boat. I, as a member of society that created laws and vowed to follow them, do not want to pay ransom (in form of holding up prison system) to people who just want to be a dick and undermine that agreement of our civilization. Also, justice should stop existing as a business. All lawyers should be on strict, ocassionally controlled government payroll so justice would be universal to everyone and not better for ones who can employ more/better lawyers.

Also, I'm quite sure that public whipping or some other form of instant justice would work far better than 2-6 or whatever months of prison when someone steals something or so. It would also greatly reduce amount of bureaucracy and workload of justice system which in turn will raise quality and fairness of justice on other crimes.

E: Am I preaching Sharia law somewhat? Well, maybe muslims got that one right.

[Calin Leafshade]

Prisons are certainly not perfect but studies have shown that harsher punishments do not act as a deterrent. However prison *does* work to rehabilitate about 50% of the time. (recidivism rate is about 50% in the UK, 60% in the US).

In fact studies have shown that one of the reasons for recidivism (thats being rearrested after being released) is the violent culture within prisons and the assault levels (70%) between prisoners. So realistically *making* them fight each other is unlikely to help.

(Also the death penalty doesnt work as a deterrent either and it costs a *fortune*)

[WHAM]

In fact studies have shown that one of the reasons for recidivism (thats being rearrested after being released) is the violent culture within prisons and the assault levels (70%) between prisoners. So realistically *making* them fight each other is unlikely to help.

So if they are afraid of the threat of fighting one another in prison, they try not to commit more crimes after release.
But you are saying that if we make the violence among inmates mandatory and show it to the whole wide world on TV in a way that everyone knows exactly what awaits them after arrest on hard crime charges, that somehow would NOT deter crime?

I am confused, Calin...

(Also the death penalty doesnt work as a deterrent either and it costs a *fortune*)

A 9mm bullet or three in the head is not that expensive. It's the "humane" way to administer the punishment that is costly, and unnecessary. As is the waiting time on death row.
These issues are easy to fix if we take human rights away from those who commit hard crime.

[InCreator]

Damn, I actually agree with WHAM now. I've always thought that law & order is non-negotiable and I'd rather have less civil rights but a strong leader (Absolute monarch or something of the kind) leading the country than bunch of corrupted, backhand-dealing parties. At least if things go wrong, there's clear who to blame and if somebody has to be shot, no fuckin lawyer can obstruct justice if king says otherwise.

Right and wrong isn't as abstract and relative as hippies and pacifists try to make it.
Say, you kill and hack 9-year old kid to pieces, bullet into the head is absolutely what you deserve. WHAT IS SO difficult to understand here?

Also, criminal intent should be the line between harsh and not punishments, instantly tripling the punishment. You steal or loot, murder or beat -- there's no friggin way it can happen by accident.

[WHAM]

I somehow feel this is in order.
http://oglaf.com/media/comic/Fountain_of_Doubt.jpg
(Warning, do not browse the rest of that site, it's mostly porn)

[Babar]

Something of a tangent off the tangent this thread is already on, but I always thought that all these "humane" methods of capital punishment were mostly nonsense, and only really there to "protect" the people watching. Wouldn't a well placed bullet to the head, or a properly done decapitation result in death a whole lot quicker (almost instantaneously) rather than gas chambers or lethal injections (where we don't really know what is happening about pain and feeling and stuff in the condemned person's body)?


PS: Your link doesn't work properly for me, WHAM.

[InCreator]

Can be argued, but if we'd have gallows and 20 looters hanging publically in London right now, there wouldn't be even thought of a riot for next 50 years.

[Calin Leafshade]

ok so now we are hanging people in the streets of london now? On Oxford Street next to the post office perhaps.

Well since we are quite literally going back to the *dark ages* now I'd like to ask if anyone thinks that they were a time of harmony with no crime or violence. No, they weren't. In fact they were brutal times some of the worst in history because violence was used to supress the public.

Punishments like this Do Not Work. All they do is make the populace more angry at the government. This is exactly what we are seeing in the middle east currently and exactly what happened in europe. If you execute the public for relatively minor crimes then they just get angry and overthrow the government.

I'd rather have less civil rights but a strong leader (Absolute monarch or something of the kind) leading the country than bunch of corrupted, backhand-dealing parties. At least if things go wrong, there's clear who to blame and if somebody has to be shot, no fuckin lawyer can obstruct justice if king says otherwise.

You name a single, just, autocratic leader and I'll name 100 who were assholes.

Right and wrong isn't as abstract and relative as hippies and pacifists try to make it.

Actually right and wrong *are* abstract and relative. That's why our legal systems change over time. We used to hang people for homosexual behaviour. We *killed* people for being gay. We also used to keep slaves. We also believed that it was ok to torture people for information (some still do).

Say, you kill and hack 9-year old kid to pieces, bullet into the head is absolutely what you deserve. WHAT IS SO difficult to understand here?

The reason that judges dont hand down "Cap the bitch in the ass" as a sentence and blow them away in the court room is that you need to be sure they did it. You can't take back a bullet to the brain.

I love how blasé you are about sentencing people to death. The judge and jury have to live with that for the rest of their lives. There have been numerous miscarrages of justice which means that the state *killed innocent people*. You're ok with that?

Also, the death penalty *doesn't work* as a deterrant. The figures show that countries with the death penalty have more violent crime (The USA included) than those that dont.

[WHAM]

1. Dark Ages were brutal times becuse life WAS brutal then. Law enforcement was a joke. Criminal investigation did not exist. People were burnt as witches for chrissakes! You can't compare those times to today, because that was in THE PAST!

2. In middle east the situation is quite different. The dividing of wealth is far more unbalanced and people living in porverty over there actually DO live in poverty, while in Europe living in porverty means you can's afford more than three big-macs per week, you ONLY have an old 19" TV, and you'r apartment needs more paint to look nice. In middle east people live under quite literal tyranny. Funny, that's just like europe did IN THE DARK AGES you spout so much about Calin.

3. If punishments were tougher, crime would be deterred. As a result of this, quality of criminal investigation would go up as more resources are available per case. As a result of this, error rates in judgements go down.

I admit, no perfect system can be created. Mistakes WILL be made and innocent people will eventually be found guilty and punished. Now we must think: does the number of innocent lives lost due to such mistakes weigh more than those innocent lives saved when hardcore criminals who might have been released back into the system are now put down like animals instead?

I believe the lowered hard-crime rates would make the system far more manageable, cheap and practical.

And Calin, when you say "you can't take back a bullet", how much good does it do when you CAN take back a life sentence? People have spent decades in maximum security prisons and have later been found innocent. Do these people just suddenly bouce back into the society? Get jobs? Social lives? Homes? An iPod?

F*** NO! (Well, maybe Amnesty International will get them the iPod if they do some publicity stunts for them) They spend the rest of their lives as social outcasts, miserable and hateful for the wrong that was done to them.

Yeah... That's MUCH better, safer and cheaper than my "final solution". There is NO WAY these people, after being released, would seek any kind of revenge on society AT ALL!

[Matti]

Aside from that, I'm astounded how anybody can actually defend them. Oh they are such poor souls. Their lives are so oppressive, so hard, in comparison to people dying from starvation and disease in Kenyan refugee camps. It's not fair how they're given the chance at a free education.

I tell you why: Because you know SHIT about them. They all live their individual lives and you know SHIT about their lives. Don't try to pigeonhole all the looters. That isn't any better than saying jews are greedy or black people are inferior.

And why the hell do you have to compare their lives to those of Kenyan refugees? Should it make somebody happy that - in comparison to others - they don't have to starve to death? No, why should it! It doesn't make your everyday life any better! And actually you're stating that their lives aren't that good if you're saying that they aren't that bad in comparison.

It's not fair their life is served to them on a silver platter. Society must change! Actually no fuck that, why don't they change their attitude and be grateful for living in a country that strives to do everything for them?

So you actually tell people to change their attitude to fit in whatever society they live in? What a stupid suggestion.

Oh, and could you point me towards that silver platter? I've never seen it..

And it is the GOOD people who can resist mob mentality, can identify it and can respond to it in a calm and collected manner. It is the BAD people, who cannot control their emotions, their greed and their violence. To be more precise: their ANIMALITY.

It is these people we could do without, it is these people we should, indeed, we MUST control and contain.

GOOD vs BAD? Rioters = animals? What the hell?! I recommend not going to church anymore, those guys there poison your very thoughts.

Law abiding = Good you say? A concentration camp overseer does act according to the law - and that makes him a good person? Sorry to bring in the Nazis here, but it illustrates my point quite well. Also, InCreator seems to favor leadership and they knew how to do it.

I think all who are caught and found guilty of looting and violence should get their names and faces and even home addresses posted all over the media and the internet. I can imagine the future of these people, going into job interviews and getting turned down due to their criminal history so they will have to live in misery for the rest of their short days.

Ah, if only the world were so perfect...

THAT would be a perfect world for you? I'd say in a perfect world there'd be no need for crimes. But shooting and imprisoning criminals seems to be the favored alternative to cutting the roots for crimes to most people it seems.

Can be argued, but if we'd have gallows and 20 looters hanging publically in London right now, there wouldn't be even thought of a riot for next 50 years.

Disagreed! There'd be a civil war! And if I'd live there I would fight!


I don't want to defend the rioters but I don't want to attack them either. I don't know their individual lives. There might be people who burn down buildings cause they don't know what to do with their day and there might be people who grab a DVD player cause they can't afford one. I don't blame the latter. But one thing is for sure, some of the opinions here are what makes the world a worse place than it could be, not some random looter who steals a fucking TV.

[Calin Leafshade]

1. Dark Ages were brutal times becuse life WAS brutal then. Law enforcement was a joke. Criminal investigation did not exist. People were burnt as witches for chrissakes! You can't compare those times to today, because that was in THE PAST!

We learn from the past. It's what we do.

If you want to use more recent history, the best examples of the kind of justice system you are talking about are Stalinist russia, Nazi germany, Pre-Revolution France, Iran, North Korea, China. They all have/had summary execution and a lack of appeals system for the convicted.

3. If punishments were tougher, crime would be deterred. As a result of this, quality of criminal investigation would go up as more resources are available per case. As a result of this, error rates in judgements go down.

How many times do I need to say this. *Tougher punishments do not act as deterrents*, you just get more people in prison. In the US for instance (which has very tough sentences)  about 1% of their population are in prison at any one time.

I admit, no perfect system can be created. Mistakes WILL be made and innocent people will eventually be found guilty and punished. Now we must think: does the number of innocent lives lost due to such mistakes weigh more than those innocent lives saved when hardcore criminals who might have been released back into the system are now put down like animals instead?

And if you were falsely convicted of murdering your family? Would you be happy to be led to the gallows knowing that your utopia was complete? It just happened to kill innocent people.

And Calin, when you say "you can't take back a bullet", how much good does it do when you CAN take back a life sentence? People have spent decades in maximum security prisons and have later been found innocent. Do these people just suddenly bouce back into the society? Get jobs? Social lives? Homes? An iPod?

Well it doesn't have to be decades but ask someone who was falsely convicted for murder. Ask them if they would rather have spent the years in prison dead instead and see what they say.

Yeah... That's MUCH better, safer and cheaper than my "final solution". There is NO WAY these people, after being released, would seek any kind of revenge on society AT ALL!

I *literally* cannot believe you just used the phrase "final solution". I am stunned.

[InCreator]

Also, the death penalty *doesn't work* as a deterrant. The figures show that countries with the death penalty have more violent crime (The USA included) than those that dont.

Exactly why?
* It is non-argumentable fat that dead scum cannot commit crime anymore. Death is final.
* As for lowering number of new major crimes, I don't think death penalty would encourage them any way. So we have no repeating offenders (dead!) and no additional new ones (compared to pre-death penalty).

So, with crime, it surely does sound like reduction via simple logic. But additional benefits are:
1) No  upkeep for those heavy criminals since they're dead
2) Most prisons double as learning centers for lifetime criminals. With "masters" executed, the probability of petty thief turning into hardcore gangster in prison should lower too. Especially since repeated offense it might cost his life

And as for violence, many prisons actually do employ violent despotic regime, where some of elder prisoners are in charge of others and get some benefits from guards for reducing hassle. Since they have no guns or handcuffs, imagine what's the driving power behind other prisoners obeying... And... it works!

Dark Ages, you say it as it was bad somehow. People have used this or another way to police lands for at least 7000 years, and it wasn't endless crime wave at all. Open any history book! Only major difference between then and now is science and technology -- you cannot really rob someone on forest road and escape, because police can use cars or choppers to reach you quickly - and whining hippies who made justicidal system a joke that doesn't deter even 8-year old kids from looting shops. And hell, I can scare 8-year old with pure words. Tells how weak the laws and punishments are!

Disagreed! There'd be a civil war! And if I'd live there I would fight!

So mr. Matti would start a civil war for.... his right to -- loot shops and burn cars. I'd hang you too. Especially if you burned my car and looted my shop because one of your criminal buddies got what he deserved -- or even if not and it was mistake. Gives you still no right to burn the town!

[WHAM]

@Matti - regarding the nazi metaphor

Think about it this way: if the Nazis had won the darn war, WOULD that person have been seen as a bad person today? It's the winners who write and shape history, and since the War ended the way it did, those things are now looked down on. But I digress: comparing 1940's world to modern world is just as ridiculous as comparing the dark ages to modern days. These are different times and different things are effective now.

Also, for the record: I haven't gone to church since I finished 9th grade in 2005. It was mandaroty on christmas to go to church, but at heart I am an atheist. Religion is of no matter in thus subject and I find it silly you even brought it up when we are taling about laws and their meaning in relation to the recent riots, when these matters are and should remain completely separate from religious matters.

@ Calin:
1. And all of the examples you mention were ineffective in solving crimes and finding the correct criminal because the technology and sciences weren't even born, or were in their infancy. The comparison is invalid.

3. No we don't get more people in prison because we KILL them. Isn't my view on this quite obvious already?

On killing innocents: is it any better when I get, wrongfully, accused of murdering my family today and I end up in jail for the rest of my life, suffering from prison violence, my life in ruins? Yeah, that WOULD be much better... Oh, wait. NO IT WOULDN'T!!!   Even if I spent only a few months in prison, the lenghty trial in courts, the media and publicity and the outcry would still mean I would have lost my friends, my job, my home, everything. So what, I'll just be a happy puppy and go back and start over, not at all pissed off? NO! I would F****G commit suicide rather than go through that!

Lastly: "Final Solution" is a phrase that consists of two words. Just like the swastika, their meanings and sources are many and using them does not have any relation to the historical figures or events you are quite clearly referring to. Feel free to be stunned, but please do not be childish. They are and have always been mere words and symbols, nothing more.

So mr. Matti would start a civil war for.... his right to -- loot shops and burn cars. I'd hang you too. Especially if you burned my car and looted my shop because one of your criminal buddies got what he deserved -- or even if not and it was mistake.

Agreed. Hanged for the greater good of the public, crime: dissention and encouragement of people to riot agains government, with potential to damage to public property and threat for human life