Bronx teen confesses to roasting kitten

[Paxter]

Furthermore, you have claimed that Aborigines are 48 times as likely to engage in criminal acts. There is only two possible explanations for a fact like that, much like there are only two possible explanations for the higher crime rate amongst African Americans: the first explanation is that black people are innately morally inferior to white people and thus more likely to engage in crime. That would be the racist explanation.

The other explanation is the racism explanation: That African-Americans and Aborgines are the subject of racism and thus more likely to be placed in the sort of economically and socially disadvantaged postion that makes crime seem reasonable, and also (perhaps more importantly) more likely to be arrested and prosecuted by the criminal justice system.

So either Australia is a nation of racist dicks, just like America, or black people are evil.

Firstly, I didn't make a claim. I stated a statistical and verifiable fact (link). I didn't just pluck that number out of the air. Secondly, I never stated that "Aborigines are 48 times as likely to engage in criminal acts". I stated that: "In my home state of Western Australia, Aboriginal juveniles are 48 times more likely to be imprisoned than White Australian juveniles".

Thirdly, I have never tried to claim that there is not a degree of racism in Australia. There must be a reason (other than the innate moral inferiority argument) why an Aboriginal child aged between 10 and 14 will, on average, be charged 11 times by police. Quite possibly, it is linked to the economic and social oppression of which you speak. But I do find it highly offensive when you suggest that we, as a country, treat Indigenous people like dogs. They are human beings with full legal rights and are not treated as part of our country's fauna.

Because crimes have penalties. See my contention is that animal abuse is a far more serious crime than the law currently treats it, and thus should have a stronger penalty, a penalty that more accurately reflects the crime.

I am not so sure about this. Your argument is not that the penalty reflects the crime [of killing a "companion" animal]. Your argument is, and has always been, that the penalty should reflect the crime [of killing a "companion" animal] plus the fact that the characteristic of "pet-murderer/animal-abuser" is highly correlated with committing a different and far more serious crime later in life.

You agreed with me on this point earlier in the thread, so I'm not sure why you are changing your mind now:

I said:

There is a high correlation between being an animal-abuser and committing other crimes later in life. You therefore argue that much stricter penalties should be in place.

You responded:

Yes.

[Undead Dungeon Master]

Firstly, I didn't make a claim. I stated a statistical and verifiable fact (link). I didn't just pluck that number out of the air. Secondly, I never stated that "Aborigines are 48 times as likely to engage in criminal acts". I stated that: "In my home state of Western Australia, Aboriginal juveniles are 48 times more likely to be imprisoned than White Australian juveniles".

Same difference. Doesn't change my argument any.

Thirdly, I have never tried to claim that there is not a degree of racism in Australia. There must be a reason (other than the innate moral inferiority argument) why an Aboriginal child aged between 10 and 14 will, on average, be charged 11 times by police. Quite possibly, it is linked to the economic and social oppression of which you speak. But I do find it highly offensive when you suggest that we, as a country, treat Indigenous people like dogs. They are human beings with full legal rights and are not treated as part of our country's fauna.

So basically you got offended because you decided that my use of an idiom was meant literally. When i said that your country treat Aborigines like dogs, I meant you treat them poorly, as evidenced by things like their massively higher imprisonment rate. I did not mean that you LITERALLY treat them like dogs.

But hey, don't let a little bit of common sense get in the way of your mock outrage.

I am not so sure about this. Your argument is not that the penalty reflects the crime [of killing a "companion" animal]. Your argument is, and has always been, that the penalty should reflect the crime [of killing a "companion" animal] plus the fact that the characteristic of "pet-murderer/animal-abuser" is highly correlated with committing a different and far more serious crime later in life.

You agreed with me on this point earlier in the thread, so I'm not sure why you are changing your mind now:

I said:

There is a high correlation between being an animal-abuser and committing other crimes later in life. You therefore argue that much stricter penalties should be in place.

You responded:

Yes.

Yeah, okay. Dude, what's your point? You're trying to play gotcha with me, but you're being an ass about it. Obviously being black is nothing like being guilty of the crime of animal abuse, and obviously the correlation between being black and being in prison is nothing at all like the correlation between being a childhood animal abuser and later sociopathy.

So why would you make an argument that hinges on equating being black with being an animal abuser?

I think you did because you're a sophist and you're trying to make a straw-man out of my argument by twisting my words around.

[Paxter]

Obviously being black is nothing like being guilty of the crime of animal abuse, and obviously the correlation between being black and being in prison is nothing at all like the correlation between being a childhood animal abuser and later sociopathy.

I am simply trying to make the point that a criminal justice system should not be based on correlations, probabilities or likelihoods. The legislature should not impose stricter penalties simply because someone is more likely, based on historical data, to commit a more serious crime that they have never committed before.

Animal abusers are more likely than the average person to commit crimes that they have never committed before. Indigenous people are more likely than the average person to commit crimes that they have never committed before. Does that warrant stricter penalties for either of these groups of people? No.

[Undead Dungeon Master]

I am simply trying to make the point that a criminal justice system should not be based on correlations, probabilities or likelihoods. The legislature should not impose stricter penalties simply because someone is more likely, based on historical data, to commit a more serious crime that they have never committed before.

Well then most of the laws in America need to be changed, because that is exactly what many features of the American criminal justice system -- generally considered the best in the world -- are based on.

This is why the second felony always nets a higher punishment than the first felony, because two felonies establishes a pattern that predicts future behavior. It's also why killing a police officer is a greater crime than killing your neighbor, because historical data indicates that cop-killers are far more likely to commit many more crimes than other killers.

Now I understand why the American criminal justice system works like this -- American justice is based on a dual philosophy of Kantian moral absolutism and Jamesian pragmatics, and it makes pragmatic sense to consider historical trends in law enforcement. Essentially the American system takes these factors into account because it makes the system more effective.

What I'd like to hear from you is a good, rational argument as to why the state should not consider these things. Why should we not apply knowledge about crime and criminals to the design of the criminal justice system? Why do you think the criminal justice system should be irrational? Why should it be based on arbitrary assertions formed through "pure reason," which seems to be the suggestion underlying your assertion?

Animal abusers are more likely than the average person to commit crimes that they have never committed before. Indigenous people are more likely than the average person to commit crimes that they have never committed before. Does that warrant stricter penalties for either of these groups of people? No.

Hold on, just one post ago you corrected me when I said you claimed Aborigines were more likely to commit crimes and claimed that your data only said they were more likely to be imprisoned. Now you are claiming they are more likely to commit. What's up with that?

This is still a disingenuous argument based in a very obvious fallacy of a bad analogy. You are still saying that being an aborigine is like being an animal abuser. Which, frankly, is an argument so disgustingly racist that I find it exceptionally difficult to take you seriously and even harder to treat you with anything other than utter, sneering contempt. I want you to understand that when you first made this argument, I posted links to it to several other websites and emailed them to friends, and you've been mocked as a racist retarded idiot by all of those people. So everybody I know sees the same thing in your argument that I do: racist asshattery. I don't know why you can't see it, but your argument is really and truly disgustingly racist and I find it hard to believe that you aren't a white supremacist or some other sort of assclown along those lines.

But I'm trying really hard to give you the benefit of the doubt here.

You are completely ignoring two very important and relevant factors, factors so blatantly obvious that I must assume that you are intentionally ignoring them in some lame attempt to troll me -- which would make you a racist troll -- because honestly your spelling and grammar are too good for you to be as stupid and blind as you would have to be to simply be overlooking these factors. The factors are:

1) Action v. Accident

Being an indigenous person is an accident of birth. It is not the result of choice or action. Animal abusers are not a group determined by an accident of birth, but rather are a group of people guilty of a crime. Aborigines aren't guilty of anything simply for existing. Likewise the only people who belong in the group "animal abusers" are people who have abused animals, so this is not a group you can be born into it. You enter it through your own volition

2) Cause of Correlation

We both seem to agree that the higher imprisonment rates for Aborigines in Western Australia is a function of racism in Australian society, and not a function of some innate quality of Aborigines. It is the racism of the white power system that privileges white children and penalizes black children, leading to black children being punished more severely and more often than white children. Meanwhile the correlation between animal abuse and later crimes is founded on the psychology necessary to torture and mutilate (or burn alive) animals. It's not societies fault there is a high correlation between animal abuse and sociopathy, it just happens to be that most sociopaths start with animals.

Animal abusers are guilty of abusing animals, and should be punished for abusing animals. We both agree on this point, correct? We only disagree on whether we should consider the statistical trend correlating animal abuse to rape and murder when determining the appropriate punishment for abusing animals. You seem to think that we should ignore this important data point, though for the life of me I can't figure out why.

So why even mention aborigines unless you intend to make the argument that being black is in of itself a crime that people should be punished for? Your entire argument only makes sense if we assume that being black is a criminal act, which is why I think you're either a troll or a racist or possibly both.

[Paxter]

Hold on, just one post ago you corrected me when I said you claimed Aborigines were more likely to commit crimes and claimed that your data only said they were more likely to be imprisoned. Now you are claiming they are more likely to commit. What's up with that?

My correction was simply because you used the "48 times more likely" out of context. That particular number should only be used in connection with Aboriginal juveniles living in WA.

1) Action v. Accident

Being an indigenous person is an accident of birth. It is not the result of choice or action. Animal abusers are not a group determined by an accident of birth, but rather are a group of people guilty of a crime. Aborigines aren't guilty of anything simply for existing. Likewise the only people who belong in the group "animal abusers" are people who have abused animals, so this is not a group you can be born into it. You enter it through your own volition

Of course I understand that you cannot enter into the group of "Indigenous person" of your own volition. However, my question for you remains the same. Why should we place stricter penalties on animal-abusers for a crime that they have never committed, when we do not (and for good reason) place stricter penalties on, for example, Indigenous people for crimes that they have never committed? Note that, in both cases, the person who has the characteristic is likely to commit the crime, based on historical correlations, but has never committed the crime.

Note also that my answer to the question is: we shouldn't place stricter penalties on either group. Your argument seems to be "we should place strict penalties on one group for a crime they have never committed, but not the other".

2) Cause of Correlation

We both seem to agree that the higher imprisonment rates for Aborigines in Western Australia is a function of racism in Australian society, and not a function of some innate quality of Aborigines. It is the racism of the white power system that privileges white children and penalizes black children, leading to black children being punished more severely and more often than white children.

Minor point (but I think you know this anyway): they are not punished more severely and more often because of racism (ETA: it is an indirect rather than a direct link). They are punished more often because they commit more crimes (e.g. as I stated earlier, an Aboriginal child aged between 10 and 14 will, on average, be charged 11 times by police). However, the reasons for committing those crimes may or may not be connected with issues of racism-related social/economic oppression.

Meanwhile the correlation between animal abuse and later crimes is founded on the psychology necessary to torture and mutilate (or burn alive) animals. It's not societies fault there is a high correlation between animal abuse and sociopathy, it just happens to be that most sociopaths start with animals.

OK. This is really the key point of difference between us. You think that punishing animal abusers for crimes they have never committed is OK because the correlation between animal abuse and later crimes is founded on the psychology necessary to torture and mutilate (or burn alive) animals. However, you believe that stricter penalties on Indigenous people for crimes they have never committed is not warranted because these Indigenous people cannot help the fact that they are the subject of discrimination. In contrast, I simply believe that no-one should be penalised for a crime that they have never committed.

Animal abusers are guilty of abusing animals, and should be punished for abusing animals. We both agree on this point, correct? We only disagree on whether we should consider the statistical trend correlating animal abuse to rape and murder when determining the appropriate punishment for abusing animals. You seem to think that we should ignore this important data point, though for the life of me I can't figure out why.

I think we should ignore this data point because we would playing guessing games. We don't know that all animal-abusers have the capacity to commit rape/murder. Just like we don't know that all aboriginal youths will go on to commit crimes.

Your entire argument only makes sense if we assume that being black is a criminal act, which is why I think you're either a troll or a racist or possibly both.

I have never stated that being an Indigenous person is a criminal act, and I am truly sorry if you have inferred that from my arguments. It is a truly offensive proposition which I would never endorse, particularly after having worked at Aboriginal Legal Service and observed the almost hopeless situations in which many Aboriginal youths find themselves. I simply cannot understand how you can justify placing stricter penalties on people for crimes that they have never committed and that we do not know they have the capacity to commit.

[zollo]

Well then most of the laws in America need to be changed, because that is exactly what many features of the American criminal justice system -- generally considered the best in the world -- are based on.

This just made my weekend. Got to love selfconfidence.

[kiko]

Well then most of the laws in America need to be changed, because that is exactly what many features of the American criminal justice system -- generally considered the best in the world -- are based on.

Wait! What? Considered by whom? Considered best based on what exactly?

I'm going out on a limb and suspect that you never really left your country/city/street/basement, but for some reason someone supported your superiour complex. My bet would be on your mother, but that is just baseless guessing. It might as well be a loving father or a well meaning sister.

eta: damn you , Zollo!

[sologdin]

best based on what

most persons imprisoned, both per capita and in absolute terms, in world history. in the US, best always = most. best criminal justice = most prisoners (not least crime--the US loses that one by a large margin).

it's either the best at catching Evildoers, or it's the most totalitarian carceral system ever devised.

because of the high proportion of narcotics offenses (and non-narcotics crimes causaully determined by narcotics addiction) as well as immigration offenses, and because of the race disproportions present at each stage, from legislation, through investigation, arrest, prosecution, conviction, sentence, and on to actual imprisonment, and because of the OJ fact pattern where the rich can buy an acquittal but the poor get locked up regardless of guilt--because of all that crap, plus more, i lean toward the latter.

[Humble Asskicker]

i lean toward the latter.

Laws are like cobwebs, for if any trifling or powerless thing falls into them, they hold it fast, but if a thing of any size falls into them it breaks the mesh and escapes.

-Anacharsis

All in the game.

-The Wire

A witty saying proves nothing.

-Voltaire

A facility for quotation covers the absence of original thought.

-Dorothy L Sayers

*sigh*

[IheartTesla]

Wait! What? Considered by whom? Considered best based on what exactly?

Come on kiko, we have one of the largest prison population per capita in the world. Clearly this shows our justice system has a high rate of success in incarcerating people. If that isnt a metric in calling it the best in the world then I dont know what is.

Although I hear the Chinese have better death penalty laws than we do.

[kiko]

Okay, I know you and Solo were facetious to some extend. But I find the thought process justice system = prisons telling.

[potsherds]

Okay, I know you and Solo were facetious to some extend. But I find the thought process justice system = prisons telling.

It should. That's exactly the thought process I assume UDM used to arrive at such an absurd conclusion. And it's a very large part of the general American attitude towards the same, which is why, frankly, the American 'justice' system sucks so much.

By the by UDM, that was a hysterically funny statement, depending on your sense of humour. :P