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

[Snarky]

Even if we were to grant that the system of law enforcement you propose would be (a) morally acceptable and (b) effective, have you completely failed to consider the kind of government these practices would lead to?

We'd then have in place a system where the state can arrest you, give you a summary trial (you were arguing earlier that removing all those tedious rights of appeal and other safeguards was a crucial part of your proposal), and then torture and execute you. Where government officials are used to having the power to kill people. Where people lose their human rights if declared criminal.

Do you seriously not think that those in government would abuse these powers? Declare their political opponents traitors, prosecute protesters as rioters and terrorists, threaten criminal investigations to get people to do what they wanted? Since you apparently believe that only the threat of violence keeps people from doing bad things, what would keep those in power, those who decide what's a crime and what isn't, from doing whatever they liked? And what kind of people do you think would be attracted to those positions where they would get to kill and abuse others?

A state under your laws would be a scary, unpleasant place. And that's not just speculation...

I get the impression you don't know a lot of history, but a crash course in the politics of absolutist regimes won't take you long. Spend the weekend on Wikipedia and read up on Argentina's Dirty War, The Soviet Union's Red Terror and Great Purge, the French Revolution and its Reign of Terror, the Cultural Revolution as well as numerous purges in China, the Nazis' Night of the Long Knives, the role of Stasi in East Germany (or just watch The Lives of Others), Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Iran under the Ayatollahs and Libya under Qaddafi, and finally - since you seem to be such a big fan - check out the history of the Roman Empire to see the kind of bloodbaths its system of government entailed.

What you'll find include many of the most infamous state atrocities in history, and if you pay attention it should open your eyes to the benefits of living under a more liberal, humane regime. Historically, harsh criminal penalties have nearly always gone hand in hand with equally harsh political repression and bloody political struggles that make the London riots seem like a nice little cookout.

Do they not make you read Nineteen Eighty-Four in school these days?

[Monsieur OUXX]

Even if we were to grant that the system of law enforcement you propose would be (a) morally acceptable and (b) effective

It's neither of those, so the argumentation need not go further.
I especially emphacise on b). It just doesn't work to lock people up, it only makes things worse.
The greatest trick of people in favor of "autority" is to make it look like it's the others who are laxists, even though it's actulaly them who are sabotageing law and order.

[WHAM]

Khris: The point you make has been discussed before, and just like before, it boils down to this:

Is it truly such a bad thing that some innocents die by mistrial if the fact that we also get rid of thousands upon thousands of legit hard-line criminals who would have potentially repeated their offense upon release, killing more innocents, or destroying lives in other indirect ways.

And in cases where the prison sentence is a life sentence or otherwise very long sentence, how is death a worse option that the prolonged imprisonment? If you've spent decades in prison, there is hardly any chance for such a person to redeem a functioning life afterwards, and most of those people released after long prison sentences live the rest of their lives in misery. However, during their imprisonement, they are a massive drain on taxpayer money, which could otherwise be put to... I don't know... How about more resources put into making sure we accuse the right person instead of the current system where the law enforcement is quite overstretched in pretty much all countries, and the money and resources that could go into this is used to keep inmates clothed, fed, housed and healthy.

As I've said before: we are but humans, we cannot really create the perfect system for this, but would it not be better to distribute our resources a bit differently when it comes to handling crime? Instead of bleeding taxpayer money to maintain prisons, we get rid of the prisoners more quickly, release the resources and create a better justice system with that money instead.

And again, as mentioned before, when it comes to the government / police misusing its power, there already exists internal investigation departments to ensure such wrongdoing is weeded out. This is another area that could be reinforced with the money released from the prison system overhaul, to again ensure a more just legal process.

Ang once more: how is it worse if a government misuses its power to kill opposition compared to imprisoning the opposition for life / prolonged time? How different is the end result for such a government?

[Babar]

The point you make has been discussed before, and just like before, it boils down to this:

Is it truly such a bad thing that some innocents die by mistrial if the fact that we also get rid of thousands upon thousands of legit hard-line criminals who would have potentially repeated their offense upon release, killing more innocents, or destroying lives in other indirect ways.

I guess it does, and in the case of (most, probably?) people in this thread who are opposing you, including myself in this particular point, I'd say that No, I'd say such a thing would be completely and totally unacceptable, and in this way the SYSTEM ITSELF would have no claim or right to call itself "just", and I'd be among those protesting (probably not looting,  though).

[Calin Leafshade]

The thing is that you are suggesting *removing* alot of the safe guards that reduce current miscarriages of justice. The amount that you kill could be *much* higher than it currently is.

[WHAM]

Or it *could* be far less.
My observation so far is this: the current system is inadequate and does not produce wanted results, thus, a different system should be tried. In my opinion, a more radical system.

It coul go well, it could go bad. There is no way to tell and unless humanity one day tries to change, we will never find out.

[ddq]

It has been tried, see Snarky's post.

[Calin Leafshade]

You dont understand. *His* authoritarian dictatorship will be totally different.

[ddq]

Oh, I apologize. I look forward to the day when WHAM and his perfect, incorruptible übermensch finally stamp out all those sub-human miscreants through the elimination of that pesky little thing called freedom.

[WHAM]

Oh, I apologize. I look forward to the day when WHAM and his perfect, incorruptible übermensch finally stamp out all those sub-human miscreants through the elimination of that pesky little thing called freedom.

Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein WHAM!
Heil! Heil! Heil!

[Monsieur OUXX]

Well actualy it is a whole philosophical current that states that freedom is a plague rather than a blessing.
On the paper it sounds good (see Nietzsche and all his followers), but in real life it sucks.

[Nickel]

I never spend money for weapons, nor did I ever kill anybody. So either I'm violating my nature and should recieve a treatment or nature doesn't play a fucking role in people's thoughts.

Increator didn't say that murder was natural which is what you are implying.   I'll bet you did eat yesterday and everyday before that and so directly caused countless organisms to be killed so that you could consume them. 

So your point is that Increator made a very banal statement that is worth ignoring? Alright then.

I don't think it's reductive and simplistic to explain human behavior as motivated by the structure of the society they live in...

I think it's just plain wrong; people are motivated by their emotions and their desire to maintain and improve their well being. [...]  The only affect one's culture and societal structure may have is to color one's perception of "well being".

And how can you try to achieve "well being"? You have to play by the rules, respectively transgress them if they force you into a miserable life. So all your thoughts and with them your emotions have to deal with and - in this way - become results of the structure of the society you live in.

Here is a link to what appears to be part of a psychology text book that explains this and backs it up with studies and actual data rather than just espousing psychobabble. 

You're joking, right?

The recent riots can be understood in these terms.  The participants were motivated by the opportunity to enhance their "well being" by

1.  Experiencing pleasure
2.  Acquiring material goods

Those unhallowed creatures! Didn't they learn that this is sin against God Almighty?
Seriously, I think those are the most reasonable motivations there are.

and because of the lack of fear of the consequences.   The lack of fear is due to the relatively mild punishment for such behavior and low likelyhood of any one individual being held accountable ("they can't arrest us all" mindset).

This is some very funny logic: Someone did something because he wasn't restrained from doing so!

Although the ultimate punishment is not appropriate it is sensible to discuss the appropriate consequences of rioting, looting, etc ought to be.  It is also foolish and naive to believe that fear of consequences and their severity do not motivate or disincentivize  people.   

For all of you law-and-order fans in here: A society like this, i.e. a capitalistic, competition-based one, will always produce losers. You may want to beat them, you may want to shoot them, they will always be there and some of them will always try to get what they want in a way the state doesn't permit.

PS From my side the discussion with WHAM is over.

[WHAM]

I want the last word too!

[InCreator]

Let's end this with a picture instead, says more than thousand words or something:



This is the message we send out right now. In EU, it's even worse.

EDIT!
I just realized that there is an institution that will provide way better numbers in rehabilitated vs. not scale, works same way as imprisonment (i.e. uses taxpayer money), but provides results.

It's called military. Why gladiators vs poor lions, when lawbreakers can actually serve the country and pay the dues to society?

We need military all the time, everywhere. It should be separated unit, something like French Foreign Legion, but I think it would work. Far better than hotel "barbed wire" anyway... Plus, teach prisoners alot about taking really care of themselves and provide instant job with honest life once term is served. And get the adrenaline out where needed.

[Ali]

Those comparisons are inane. Free housing? Comparing the social benefit of spending in both areas could be meaningful, but this is just propagandist and uninformative.

Also, if you lived in a civilised country the kids would get free heath and dental care.

[InCreator]

Well this is Michigan. I don't live in US and we do have free healthcare here.

[veryweirdguy]

Also, if you lived in a civilised country the kids would get free heath and dental care.

That's exactly what the terrorists want you to think. Why do you hate freedom Ali?

[Ali]

Well this is Michigan. I don't live in US and we do have free healthcare here.

So if it's "worse in the EU" but kids do get free healthcare in your country then I guess Estonian prisoners are given some kind of super-expensive immortality serum?

Also, if you lived in a civilised country the kids would get free heath and dental care.

That's exactly what the terrorists want you to think. Why do you hate freedom Ali?

No time to answer that, I have to go and encourage some women to have abortions. Then have Lesbian marriages.

[WHAM]

Hey, this picture pretty much explains what I was trying to say!
We waste money pampering criminals, when that money could be used to educate children and improve society.

Prisons are housing, built and maintained by governments using taxpayer money, and it is in prisons that even MORE taxpayer money is used to "better the lives of criminals to help them adjust and rehabilitate them into society". What a crock of shit!  

Finland: yes, children get free healthcare and dental care.

HOWEVER: the government is looking to, again, cut the money provided to parents through childcare support to cut on spendings. They have been nipping away at the funds which are used to support the elderly. It was just on the news too: public healthcare is looking at some cuts, so that those who are "less sick" will pay for all of their own medicine, whereas they used to get a portion of their medicinal bills paid by the government. Gee whiz! I could NOT have thought of a better place to cut spendings!

HAVE A FUCKING GANDER HERE!
http://unlockingamerica.blogspot.com/2008/08/finland.html

That story is not a bleeding joke there! That is REAL!

[Ali]

Isn't that article arguing that liberal prison policies are cheaper and more effective?

We waste money pampering criminals, when that money could be used to educate children and improve society.

Rehabilitating criminals is one of the ways in which we are trying to improve society.

Let me remind you, once again, that criminals are the same species as you and me. And the place they live is also called 'society'.