US politics: just for you

[The Anti-Targ]

People should get exactly the punishment that is handed down to them by the justice system, no more no less. Prison violence, whether guard on inmate or inmate on inmate, is a bug not a feature. I find it pretty distasteful that anyone looks forward to any prisoner getting harmed during the course of their prison sentence. That's not justice.

If you want to bring back sentences that involve non-fatal corporal punishment then make a rational case for whipping, caning, stoning, putting people in the stocks, electrocution of sensitive bits or whatever. But don't try to make inmate on inmate violence something to be celebrated.

Edited July 14, 2023 by The Anti-Targ

[Kalbear]

If you are happy to support extra judicial violence in prison you are by default happy to support an carceral system that does not rehabilitate and has no interest in doing anything other than being cruel.

 

[Durckad]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

But that's not the point. The point is, if you are a judge and your social circle includes a lawyer who has a case on your docket then you should recuse yourself because of conflict of interest. But also, yes for the time someone is a judge they need to be pretty careful about their social connections with people in the legal profession they might be seeing in court.

Judges are indeed people, not robots and it is clear most people have biases that they cannot set aside however much they claim they can. It's exactly why conflict of interest rules exist. The system needs to minimise to the greatest extent possible the influence of bias on decisions that have massive impacts on the lives of the accused and the victims / plaintiffs and defendants.

And also, the thing is... he's not just a judge. He's a judge on the Supreme Court, one of the most powerful and influential legal institutions in the country. I don't think it's too much to ask that maybe as a requisite for that job, MAYBE you should be held to slightly higher standard than a regular circuit court judge or whatever, which may include slightly more scrutiny of your friends and acquaintances. 

[JGP]

19 minutes ago, Kalnak the Magnificent said:

If you are happy to support extra judicial violence in prison you are by default happy to support an carceral system that does not rehabilitate and has no interest in doing anything other than being cruel.

 

 

[rolls eyes and laughs]

I'm not too dialed in on the US carceral system, but re: ours, I support bail reform as its unduly onerous, rehab, and frankly think only legitimately dangerous or repeat offenders should be there. 

Try again.

[Larry of the Lawn]

7 hours ago, JGP said:

 

[rolls eyes and laughs]

I'm not too dialed in on the US carceral system, but re: ours, I support bail reform as its unduly onerous, rehab, and frankly think only legitimately dangerous or repeat offenders should be there. 

Try again.

Yeah but you also support "the beats", right?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Jesus...

Quote

Rep. Eli Crane, R-Ariz. referred to Black people as "colored people" Thursday in floor debate over his proposed amendment to an annual defense policy bill, prompting a stern rebuke from the former chair of the Congressional Black Caucus.

“My amendment has nothing to do with whether or not colored people or Black people or anybody can serve,” said Crane, who is in his first term. “It has nothing to do with any of that stuff.”

Lawmakers were debating a series of GOP-backed amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act, which the House aims to pass by the end of the week.

Crane said his amendment would prohibit the Defense Department from considering race, gender, religion, political affiliations or "any other ideological concepts" as the sole basis for recruitment training, education, promotion or retention decisions.

"The military was never intended to be, you know, inclusive. Its strength is not its diversity. Its strength is its standards," said Crane, 43, a combat veteran.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/rep-eli-crane-refers-black-americans-colored-people-house-floor-rcna94200

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

19 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Jesus...

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/rep-eli-crane-refers-black-americans-colored-people-house-floor-rcna94200

Had this fuckwad be around in the late 40s early 50s he would have called racial integration “ideologically driven”.  What a piece of shit.

[JGP]

2 hours ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Yeah but you also support "the beats", right?

 

Given the scare quotes you, what, think that makes me unenlightened I suppose. Never did bother unpacking whether it's upbringing, background, personality, or a combination thereof, but yeah, always been an equal opportunist when it comes to physical confrontation. Hell, it can even be self correcting-- was for me once in my uncouth youth.

Guys like Rhodes, McInnes, etc, put me firmly in camp world would be a better place if they'd caught some hands along the way, in principle like the guy who gave me and my daughters a hurry the fuck up handwave 8ish years ago when we were on a crosswalk in Calgary. Didn't even have to hit him but bet he hasn't done that again.

[Liffguard]

1 hour ago, JGP said:

 

Given the scare quotes you, what, think that makes me unenlightened I suppose. Never did bother unpacking whether it's upbringing, background, personality, or a combination thereof, but yeah, always been an equal opportunist when it comes to physical confrontation. Hell, it can even be self correcting-- was for me once in my uncouth youth.

Guys like Rhodes, McInnes, etc, put me firmly in camp world would be a better place if they'd caught some hands along the way, in principle like the guy who gave me and my daughters a hurry the fuck up handwave 8ish years ago when we were on a crosswalk in Calgary. Didn't even have to hit him but bet he hasn't done that again.

Right, but the issue isn't whether or not you feel sympathy for those people specifically, but whether it's desirable to have a prison system in which indiscriminate violence between prisoners is assumed as a matter of course.

[Zorral]

15 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I’m not overly troubled by this and I would imagine that if you looked at other justices you would find similar.  Judicial clerks are like little families.  They have reunions and stay in touch, which, you know, makes sense?

What it looks like is admitting the entire judiciary at all levels are the problem.

[JGP]

32 minutes ago, Liffguard said:

Right, but the issue isn't whether or not you feel sympathy for those people specifically, but whether it's desirable to have a prison system in which indiscriminate violence between prisoners is assumed as a matter of course.

As a matter of course, nah, but I’m not talking about indiscriminate am I. :p

[mormont]

3 hours ago, JGP said:

Didn't even have to hit him but bet he hasn't done that again.

He almost certainly has. Deterrence is a poor influencer of behaviour even when meted out by the state. By a random person on the street? The chance that this incident affected that person's behaviour long term, however satisfying the idea is to you, is practically nil.

[Larry of the Lawn]

4 hours ago, JGP said:

 

Given the scare quotes you, what, think that makes me unenlightened I suppose. Never did bother unpacking whether it's upbringing, background, personality, or a combination thereof, but yeah, always been an equal opportunist when it comes to physical confrontation. Hell, it can even be self correcting-- was for me once in my uncouth youth.

Guys like Rhodes, McInnes, etc, put me firmly in camp world would be a better place if they'd caught some hands along the way, in principle like the guy who gave me and my daughters a hurry the fuck up handwave 8ish years ago when we were on a crosswalk in Calgary. Didn't even have to hit him but bet he hasn't done that again.

First off, I used quotes because I was quoting a phrase you used that I've never heard before and therefore wouldn't use, and wasn't exactly sure what it means other than being related to a beating.  I think it's ok to as an individual, punch a Nazi or whatever.  I don't think violence is particularly useful for solving problems, but I suppose it has its place.  

What I am very much against is the state allowing, tacitly condoning, or not actively trying to stop violence in prisons.  It's disgusting.  And I don't understand people cheering that on.  Because if it can take place against awful people that I wish bad things to happen to, it's happening to everyone else there as well.  I don't think social darwinism + violence suddenly becomes ok in prison.  

It doesn't make anyone safer.  It has nothing to do with me thinking you are or aren't enlightened.  I think crime is bad and we should prevent it by eliminating or reducing the reasons that crimes happen.  I don't think that will get rid of all of it, but I do know that violence in prisons does nothing to that end, and is likely detrimental to creating a world I'd like to live in. 

I know you're Canadian, but our prisons here are pretty horrible, we have the world's largest prison population, and if anyone is susceptible to violence there then everyone in there is.  I refuse to believe we have that large an incarcerated population because they all deserve to be there.  I don't think violence has any place in rehabilitation.  It's a shitty cycle that has to be broken, and I'm not going to condone it.

I think some people deserve to die and that execution can be a fair punishment in some cases.  I also think that my feelings on things like that aren't rational, and don't serve to make the world any better.  I do not support giving any state the authority or power to kill people, or commit violence against them, whether they've been determined to be a "criminal" or not.  We also have a pretty shitty record of incarcerating innocent people.

Eta: oh yeah, our criminal justice system is incredibly racist as well.   I just don't have much of a tolerance for cheering on violence in this system, even against those who may well deserve it, because the collateral costs are much higher.  I don't want all the baggage that comes with trying to make sure we're only torturing or beating the Real Bad Guys.  Because we've seen time and time again we are not capable of gauging that, and (eta2) all it would do is make me feel better in my lizard brain, while likely making things shittier overall.  

Edited July 14, 2023 by Larry of the Lake

[JGP]

15 minutes ago, mormont said:

He almost certainly has. Deterrence is a poor influencer of behaviour even when meted out by the state. By a random person on the street? The chance that this incident affected that person's behaviour long term, however satisfying the idea is to you, is practically nil.

I occasionally wonder about the rarified circles you inhabit, mormont.

[JGP]

3 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

First off, I used quotes because I was quoting a phrase you used that I've never heard before and therefore wouldn't use, and wasn't exactly sure what it means other than being related to a beating.  I think it's ok to as an individual, punch a Nazi or whatever.  I don't think violence is particularly useful for solving problems, but I suppose it has its place.  

What I am very much against is the state allowing, tacitly condoning, or not actively trying to stop violence in prisons.  It's disgusting.  And I don't understand people cheering that on.  Because if it can take place against awful people that I wish I'll things to happen to, it's happening to everyone else there as well.  I don't think social darwinism + violence suddenly becomes ok in prison.  

It doesn't make anyone safer.  It has nothing to do with me thinking you are or aren't enlightened.  I think crime is bad and we should prevent it by eliminating or reducing the reasons that crimes happen.  I don't think that will get rid of all of it, but I do know that violence in prisons does nothing to that end, and is likely detrimental to creating a world I'd like to live in. 

This is all more than fair, I respect it. 

Totally didn't mean to derail the thread, btw. Was just frustrated with Rhodes comparatively skating. Prison rarely isolates white supremacists from their respective organizations, but that's a whole other thing.

 

3 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

I know you're Canadian, but our prisons here are pretty horrible, we have the world's largest prison population, and if anyone is susceptible to violence there then everyone in there is.  I refuse to believe we have that large an incarcerated population because there are they all deserve to be there.  I don't think violence has any place in rehabilitation.  It's a shitty cycle that has to be broken, and I'm not going to condone it.

I think some people deserve to die and that execution can be a fair punishment in some cases.  I also think that my feelings on things like that aren't rational, and don't serve to make the world any better.  I do not support giving any state the authority or power to kill people, or committ violence against them, whether they've been determined to be a "criminal" or not.  We also have a pretty shitty record of incarcerating innocent people.

All of this applies to Canada as well, just smaller scale.

[Larry of the Lawn]

12 minutes ago, JGP said:

This is all more than fair, I respect it. 

Totally didn't mean to derail the thread, btw. Was just frustrated with Rhodes comparatively skating. Prison rarely isolates white supremacists from their respective organizations, but that's a whole other thing.

 

All of this applies to Canada as well, just smaller scale.

He's going away for 18 years.  That's nothing to sneeze at.  It's over a quarter of a normal persons life, being spent somewhere no one wants to be.  I wouldn't wish that on the worst people I know.  It's not like he's going in some kind of vacation. 

If it wasn't so shitty I'd wish everyone had to spend like a mandatory 2 months in jail.  I think if that was the case there we would see a drastic reduction in incarcerations and sentence length.  Just going to reiterate one more time that there's no benefit to society to be had from a 25 year sentence vs an 18 year one.  

[JGP]

17 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

He's going away for 18 years.  That's nothing to sneeze at.  It's over a quarter of a normal persons life, being spent somewhere no one wants to be.  I wouldn't wish that on the worst people I know.  It's not like he's going in some kind of vacation. 

Freedoms he's taken for granted in the outside world will be restricted, certainly. In regard to white supremacists, the freedom to associate should also be restricted rather than be reduced to a factor come parole hearing time. I'm all for intervention, personally, but once your white fragility has risen to the point you're helping spearhead the overthrow of a democratically elected government, I don't know. It's a tough one.

 

17 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

If it wasn't so shitty I'd wish everyone had to spend like a mandatory 2 months in jail.  I think if that was the case there we would see a drastic reduction in incarcerations and sentence length.

mormont would disagree with you here lol

 

17 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Just going to reiterate one more time that there's no benefit to society to be had from a 25 year sentence vs an 18 year one.  

Since we're reiterating [and yes, I know my opinion doesn't matter but we're talking right] I would've been fine with 18 years if 18 was the max, as I think most people would've. 25 was the max the State was asking for, 25 is what should've been meted out to Rhodes and the like considering the nature of his/their crimes. That's all. 

Edited July 14, 2023 by JGP

[Larry of the Lawn]

7 minutes ago, JGP said:

Freedoms he's taken for granted in the outside world will be restricted, certainly. In regard to white supremacists, the freedom to associate should also be restricted rather than be reduced to a factor come parole hearing time. I'm all for intervention, personally, but once your white fragility has risen to the point you're helping spearhead the overthrow of a democratically elected government, I don't know. It's a tough one.

 

mormont would disagree with you here lol

 

Since we're reiterating [and yes, I know my opinion doesn't matter but we're talking right] I would've been fine with 18 years if 18 was the max, as I think most people would've. 25 was the max the State was asking for, 25 is what should've been meted out to Rhodes and the like considering the nature of his/their crimes. That's all. 

Yeah but why?  Why is the max punishment allowable necessary here?  On the spectrum of sedition, was this the absolute worst they could have done?  Genuinely curious here.  Like what about this crime puts it on the most egregious end of the sedition scale?

Edit: and of course your opinion counts, if it didn't I wouldn't even respond 

Edited July 14, 2023 by Larry of the Lake

[JGP]

2 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Yeah but why?  Why is the max punishment allowable necessary here?  On the spectrum of sedition, was this the absolute worst they could have done?  Genuinely curious here.  Like what about this crime puts it on the most egregious end of the sedition scale?

Hmn... Ok.

Put Drumpf losing the election aside as that goes more to opportunity. If I had to pare it down to the core, I'd submit he deserved the max allowable per charge because of his motivations. 

[Zorral]

20 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Yeah but why?  Why is the max punishment allowable necessary here?

Because his desire to kill ME.

And he's not going away for 18 years at all.  We know how this works. Especially if a fascist is potus in two years he'll be pardoned and out of jail free.

Edited July 14, 2023 by Zorral