07-01-2004 19:09									#31
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

It is very easy to believe that the answer to crime is to lock criminals away.

But that is an idea which palls very quickly indeed if you get at all close to the administration of criminal justice.

The main reason is that when you get close to criminals they stop seeming like demons. But you also start to see some of the dispiriting realities about prisons.

For one thing they are hideously expensive.

Which might not be so bad if there was any evidence at all that locking lots of people away for longer reduced the level of crime. But there is no such evidence.

The most dispiriting thing of all, though, is when you look at who make up the prison population. Because you find that the overwhelming majority are just inadequate folk who have done rather pettty things but in respect of whom no one has yet been able to figure out some lesser treatment which is sufficiently punitive.

The whole thing is depressing.

We have politicians at present (in the UK) who like the cheap political return of advocating long sentence and who have been taking us down the US route with an ever growing prison population. But they baulk at building ever more prisons and paying out yet more billions. So we have been trying to find ways to cut down on numbers.

But it is really hard to do because of the sort of reactions from the public that you express.

	07-01-2004 19:15									#32
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Last edited by Aivo˝so on 07-01-2004 at 19:24

	07-01-2004 19:38									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

It is the soicalist liberals who have created the major punishment problem with the "everyone is special and deserves infinate chances" idea, and then it is also their fault for causeing and perpetuating the original crime problem due to their insane social views. Just my opinion though

I do agree that hard time prisons should be for the major criminals. One reason prisons are so expensive, besides the fact that they are far to comfortable, is that they house the wrong people. We build too many prisons to encmopass to broad a scope of criminals. If we have murders AND credit card scammers in the same prison, all have to be held in the same state of security to protect the integrity of the whole facility.

I suggest more specific prison types. There used to be alot of prisons in America that were just regular buildings surrounded by barbed wire that were just big farms. Inmates would go out and work all day to grow the food they eat, and then would go back to the "barracks" at night. These cost alot less money to build and maintain. You don't actually save money by growing your own food, but it does give the inmates something to do besided form gangs and stab each other all day doing nothing. They could probobly be used to maintain the whole facility, minus fences. I would even suggest that since labor, and farming is not unusual punishment, is involved it should count as time. You sort of get double your punishment without eating too much of a persons life away. It is not a chain gang though, can't sell their food outside the prison and do not work off prison property to avoid corruption.

That suggestion would be for non-violent offenders with lets say, no more than a five year sentance. I think the piggest prison problem is idleness. For the lifers in "pound me in the arse prison," throw away the key. By definition we have given up on these people, or rathe they have given up on us.

	07-01-2004 20:18									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

You can nibble at the cost of locking people away but, short of transportation (and we have no empty land left for that) no one in three centuries has ever made it any less than enormous.

The problem about locking up the wrong people is another conundrum.

What happens is that some inadequate soul gets into trouble. They come in for some minor punishment like a fine. Their inadequacy does not go away nor do their circumstances change. So after a while they transgress again. The courts bend over backwards not to impose a prison term but eventually a bench of magistrates or a judge pots them. And for every subsequent offence the overwhelmingly likely sentence is a slightly longer term than was last imposed.

And there is also a problem about agreeing exactly who the "right" people to lock away are. Some fear violence so they advocate prison where offences involve violence. Some want property protected hence the 30 year sentences tend to be large robberies (the great train robbers held records for length of sentence here for many years). Others dislike recidivism so you get the three counts and out type of idea.

In the end politicians pander to all and any of this depending on what the last headline catching incident was.

There is one thing which I believe would be worth doing in this area. Which is for politicians to have a go at educating folk to see criminals clearly for what they are - rather than leaving them with demon status. And to explain a bit about the benefits (cost and practicalities mostly) of shorter sentences and less stringent regimes.

But the only thing which would really start making this less depressing would be for someone, somewhere, to come up with an alternative form of punishment.

A task which, despite half a lifetime desultorily thinking about it, is beyond me.

	07-01-2004 20:31									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I gave you an alternate form, vut after work I will expand.

	07-01-2004 20:40									#36
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

EST, Good posts, I agree to some extent.

Hey, I don't mean we should all get mad and throw them to pits and destroy the keyes. But here, I'm talking about pedophiles who are guilty, who tortured victims and had sex with little boys, and was punished with nothing. Not even fines! That is WRONG. I might add, that this person was convicted in the 70s for same crimes. I was talking to this with my dad, and he said he heard in the news he had over 200 counts of molesting.. that's not little porking around. Icing to the cake was when court ordered that the man must have his sex toys and torture tools back! Even the original 3.5 years is a joke. Sure this man is sick, not normal. But it's no excuse, we can't let sexual predators like these walk in the streets just because we believe in good side of humans, and that everyone has something good in them. It really doesn't help when he goes around and gets new victims. I can not stand the idea of relapses in this case. Alcoholics have them and that's normal. Pedophiles, violent criminals, it's unacceptable. HOw about 15 years of prison and no vacations either. I think that's justified after porking kids on 200 counts that we know of, plus torturing few. and only because he's obviously sick, otherwise I'd throw him in the slammer for life. He's multiple offender and not first timer. He will not stop. He is now free and he will continue his sick ways I'm sure.

I have a suggestion. We categorize criminals into different problems, and then make them different prisons. There they can have that special treatment and help for their problem. Pedophiles in their own prison, at least now they won't be killed by other inmates, and then therapy all the way. But hard punishments.

Violent criminals should be categorized even more, we can't throw them in one place or all hell brakes loose.

Murderers and killers, I have absolutely no problem with them getting life sentences, if the case is clear murder motivated by money, or hate, and not some kind of other things that might little justify his act. If you murder someone gold blood because you want his money, I think you don't deserve another chance to get around in the society. That's it. Prisons should be humane though, and prisoners should be treated like humans and give them opportunities to study in there, have hobbies and things like that and not be beaten and stuff.

But the way it is now is no way to go. No way, this is not laalaa land, this is a place where serious crimes take place, killings, beatings, rapes, you have to go to jail for it, you just have to. And if you murder few people, you can't get out in 7 years, you can't. That's just plain wrong. The only motivation can not be rehabilitating them back to society. There must be sign of punishing and paying back for what you did. If you murder two people we can't pat on their heads 'well you are in pain we know, we will help you'. What is one human life worth of, when it's wrongfully taken? Not much!

	07-01-2004 20:44									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Also, the punishments must be parallered to what the society thinks about it. If society wants to give out life sentences for murders, it must be followed. If the justice system still decides to give few years, then there is a contradiction. What happens then, is vigilantism. You can be sure, that this pedophile will be beaten badly x 100 by people. This is what we don't want as civilized society, we want to avoid people taking justice into their own hands.

Also we are now only worrying about the criminals, who are humans too. What about the victims? We are effecient about forgetting them.

I view these as if it happened to me. It's easy to say 'well 3.5 years is enough and justified', but when it hits me, I'll be looking at it differently. Why should we look it like that? Because that's the victims perspective, and victim is the one getting screwed here.

	07-01-2004 20:58									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Shi Huangdi This is something i have never understood about Europe. If something like that happened in the United States, that guy would net get out for at least a few decades.

That's not really true. Attempted murder doesn't get you very long sentences and with plea bargining and time off for good behavior, you could expect to serve less than five years, I expect.

	07-01-2004 21:01									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Jack_www Many say that this is the reason why crime has gone down in California, because we lock up all the criminals.

Yes, but that ignores the fact that crime also went down by the same margin in states that didn't "get tough on crime." Crime isn't deterred by greater or lesser punishments, but by the mere fact of punishment itself. A more important factor is the state of the economy. If it is easy to work and suppotr yourself without resorting to crime, it is's easier to keep a job, and not have to turn to crime cuz you can't find a job, then crime goes down. That's what happened in the '90s. Since the recession began, crime, in almost every state, has begun to rise again.

	07-01-2004 21:04									#40
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Why not? If a minor knows right and wrong then he should be charged as an adult. If you kill or rape, I don't care if you are 12.. you should go away for a loooong time.

So we won't let them vote or be held liable for a contract, because they are too young to fully understand the implications of their action, we can still send them to prison as adults? If you're gopnna treat kids as adults, don't do it half-assed. Get rid of age-of-consent laws, drinking ages, driving ages, working ages, etc. Either kids are fully competent or they aren't.

	07-01-2004 22:25									#41
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Once again Che chimes in with an idealistic but unrealistic solution. Kids at 10 know it is wrong to kill people. Though I don't want kids in prison at that age, but when they turn eighteen they get their facilities upgraded.

And once again, while it may be easier to fall into the trap of crime when times are bad, it is no excuse to go pillaging. Your econimic situation has no link to your criminal activity as they are thinking people capable of making decisions, unless you suggest poor people are not capable of bieng rational. Most poor people are not killers and theives, so it is possible. We all have mosters to wrestle with, some greater than others and poverty is just another one.

On another note, we fail in reforming anyone because we try to reform everyone. Wyhy reform a person with a life sentace? Focus on the people that can be saved like youth offenders and petty criminals.

	09-01-2004 15:46									#42
	Suffering from ads?

Ok, everyone who thinks it's a good idea to forgive every person all the time, what would you give to this person, todays winner from the 'let's kill strangers'.
just today.
57 year old man was killed in downtown area of city. He left behid 3 year old daughter and his wife died too earlier to decease, so 3 year old is orphan now.
So what happened? He was walking in parking lot, and there were a group of young men drinking heavily. Yes, it's legal here to drink where you want, you have the right to do it. Anyway, they got into argument, and 27 yo guy decided to punch the old man, who fell instantly to the ground. Then he took a large knife (15cm long blade) and stabbed him into his ribs, behind armpit piercing lounges and heart. A big blade, stabbing an old man with clear intent to kill. He died very soon after from bleeding very badly in the middle of the day in downtown parking lot.

Crap happens. But what are we going to do with this person? Paper says, he was earlier convicted from 2 SERIOUS batteries, regular battery and other smaller crimes. Listen, serious battery here means, that you have to use a weapon to attack, knife, baseball bat and USE it, and injure someone badly. This man is 27, wtf is he doing walking the streets???? IF HE WAS IN PRISON where he belonged! The 3 year old girl would still have her other parent, her father! **** this ****!

Now, they are seeking the HUGE 8 500 euro money for mental pain and traumas and what not. 8 500 euros? That's nothing! But they won't get it, maybe half from that. They will announce the actual punishment later, but I tell you, this ****ing savage killer will be out in ... less than 5 years. Because he was drunk, they will reduce his sentence, so maybe 4 years. Justice? HELL NO!

I want the person to say it's enough of a punishment to go and say that to the little girl who then turns 7 or 8 and starts school that 'hey, the baddie who brutally killed your daddy, we just let him out. Ok, I need to go bye'.

	09-01-2004 16:37									#43
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Nothing much left unsaid. I agree with many of the posts and being a finn I can certainly relate to your feelings Pekka. It's nice to see that sense of justice is a live in Finland...though not well.

What puzzles me is that great majority of people I've come to contact with actually agree on harder sentences etc. but...nothing is happening. So, who are the conservatists who wish to preserve this injustice? It seems to me that they're politicians not citizens. This doesn't surprise me the least, finnish politics have always shown incredible inefficiency at dealing with REAL issues. Now, politics tend to be inefficient in general. But in Finland it's really getting dangerous.

Although I agree that crime is no simple consept to be solved simply by hardening sentencies or stacking more prisoners into jail I must oppose the current system(in Finland) because of its injustices. Pekka's examples are from real life and they are totally outrageous and unacceptable. We may not redeem the life of a victim but we must redeem his/her rights.

I support re-education and general forgiveness towards "smaller" crimes. Crimes NOT committed against the freedom of life. But getting just a couple of years from murder is perversion of justice. I find it very difficult to understand. I suppose the sense of justice in Finland has not yet developed to meet the standards of modern society. We rather blame the system than the individual. Resulting all offences from the falses of the system, unprogressice communitarian ideal that is still judging our criminals...many thanks to communists and alike. However, sooner or later this is going to change, or Finland is in SERIOUS trouble. In fact, I think, this is already a serious problem. But with time such a perversion of justice will lead to worse.

I'm doing what I can to change things...but I'm not planning to raise my children in this environment. I hope that in future I will be able to provide them safer environment somewhere else if finnish people show no respect for inalienable rights of men.

	09-01-2004 16:47									#44
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Shai-Hulud, I agree with you all the way. Your post was like from the more intelligent version of me .

	09-01-2004 16:49									#45
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Also, I realize these kind of crimes happens everywhere all the time. But how the justice system handles the cases, that's what bothering me, because these are not exceptions, these are rule how they always go.

	09-01-2004 17:09									#46
	Support Apolyton

Pekka, you are right to be outraged. Senseless brutality outrages me too, and virtually everybody else.

But outrage is a very poor basis upon which to base a criminal justice system.

If we could see into the future we could lock up the tiny number of people who are going to commit murders before they do so. But we can't see into the future. And to lock up for life every person who commits a serious assault just on the off chance that later they may commit a murder would be ludicrously disproportionate.

As for the length of sentence now that the murder has been commited, well it turns out to make sense to balance quite a number of factors.

One of those factors is straightforward punishment. Everyone wants this man to be punished for his actions.

But another factor is the risk he poses to others. If the court believes he may do this again, once released, the sentence will be much longer.

In a case where the court thinks he does not pose a risk to others the proposition that a very long period in prison represents a satisfying punishment does not stand up when you look hard at it. The extra tedium of the fifth, sixth, thirteenth, thirtyth year is just not that big a deal.

And you pay a lot for the (dubious) satisfaction of imposing such sentences.

You pay in money (because it is hideously costly to keep someone under lock and key, you pay in the lost chance that the murderer, after release, will enrich other lives (that of his own children, say), you pay by making him a much harder prisoner to control (someone whose release is not impossibly distant has an incentive to behave), you pay because someone locked up for long enough becomes unable to function when (finally) released - and I could go on with a longish list of similar points.

Now you ask, what will the little girl think about a release after a few years imprisonment?

Well she may well feel particularly vindictive. That is not invariably the case but it is certainly entirely possible.

Well the short answer is that society takes upon itself the right to mete out justice. We have moved on from personal vendetta. And that has been a good idea. So we do not resolve questions of sentence by turning to the people whose emotions are the most engaged. Instead we seek a measured and rational response.

In England our courts have, in recent years, taken care to establish what the feelings are of the victims so as properly to measure the extent of the damage the criminal has done. And I think that it has proved generally helpful to give a voice to victims in that way. But that is a different matter to making vindictiveness the main plank of sentencing.

Anyway, enough from me. The simple fact is that criminal sentencing turns out to be a complex matter. So that just letting a sense of outrage determine what is done works very badly.

And I recommend to you to curb your sense of outrage for another reason. The thing to remember is that the incidents you read of in the papers, or see reported on television, are incredibly rare events. In your whole life there will be just a handful of such cases in your country. Which has 5 million people. The chance that one of these incredibly rare events will ever directly affect you is so small as to be nil.

But if outrage ever drives the Finnish criminal justice system it is not a remote possibility that you will be affected but a certainty. And I assure you, in that case you won't like it.

	09-01-2004 17:28									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Yeah, emotions should be kept aside when sentencing. BUt even then, I can't see nothing but a big failure with these cases. It's an outrage enough that some people are capable of such acts, but it's too much if the bigger outrage is caused by the justice system. There needs to be atmosphere where we can say 'justice will be done'.
NOT 'his karma is ruined!'.

I'm not saying shoplifters should get DP, in fact I don't believe in DP at all. I'm even ready to not go all the way of sentencing to the end of the natural life.

But, we need to get some sense to this. This is nonsense. Our Prisoners something organisations that is responsible for taking care of the prisoners and handling that business, even they have opposed many times releasing a dangerous prisoners. It has been all over papers and they say 'he is dangerous, we can not let him out!' and they like plead to everywhere. But there is always that one who don't listen and says 'we can not keep him any longer, he has served his time' which was a joke from the beginning, and the person is then released, only to be caught later on from horrific crimes. Then the papers say 'We told you so'.

This is everyday, this is the rule, not exception and that's what's wrong. We don't even have the means to stop these things from happening. We don't have any scale. Let's get 40 years maximum sentence, so now we have scale, not 12 years and even then using the lower scale from that joke.

And these acts are not incredible rare, they are every day. We have got warnings from .. I don't know it wasn't the UN but anyway, that we don't punish violent criminals in here and that violence is a problem. It's not just something I make up or read from the tabloids, it's reality, and the people know it and say it.

If these kinds of things happen and onc eagain the rule plays and victims get screwed over and criminals get a pass, it's clear that justice system is not working correctly. We can be analytical about it and all that, but it's not working and that's all that matters. I don't care if it means we have to direct money from the taxes to hold more prisoners and longer time I don't care. Let it cost. First priority needs to be securing the society, and helping the victims and let the justice be done, not being sissies about it. I think this is just common sense.

	09-01-2004 18:13									#48
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Do you know the figure for the number of murders in Finland last year, Pekka? I had a quick look on the internet but found nothing.

How to manage a criminal justice system is discussed and disagreed about in every country in the world. And no universally held view has emerged on any aspect.

One of the topics often discussed is the question of deterrence. And it is easy to imagine that stiff sentencing may help.

But again that turns out, when you look at it, just not to stand up. You can't demonstrate deterence by way of any statistical overview and if you look at individual crimes it is pretty well impossible to work out what, if anything, might have deterred their commission.

Take the two cases you site in this thread. Paedophilia is a hideous thing. Those who practice it seem under a compulsion to do so. How do you deter compulsive behaviour?

And the car park incident. What would stop the guy from getting drunk, from picking a quarrel, and from getting into a murderous rage? If anything is clear in these weird and mindless type of case (they happen all over, not just in Finland) it is that once in the rage the murderer can hardly be thinkng at all. How to influence someone who has gone berserk?

Murder is a particularly clear illustration of this point. Because the overwhelming majority of murders - a percentage in the high nineties - take place within families. Husbands of wives, parents of children, children of parents. I have defended five people accused of murder and each was of that kind. In these cases the emotions which culminate in the killing brew for years. The notion that anything at all could deter the person once the emotional pressure cooker is ready to blow is just unreal.

The only conclusion I myself have reached on any of these things is that if you take an overall look at countries which go in for liberal criminal justice policies - and Finland sounds to be one such - and you then compare those societies overall to any country where a harsh criminal justice systems is employed I always conclude that it is the liberal country where I would much prefer to live not the one with the harsh policies.

I would be hard put to it to work out the exact whys and wherefors of that. But it does suggest to my mind that liberal criminal justice policies are a symptom of societies where the relationship between the state and the individual are, overall, on a comparatively good footing. Whereas harsh criminal justice tends to go arm in arm with other, less justified, forms of repression.

That exercise confirms what the statistics show. That there is no known case where liberal criminal justice policies demonstrably impact badly overall on society at large or on quality of life. If liberal criminal justice was invariably associated with a crime ridden society then they would soon disappear. But, in fact, however liberal or however harsh the criminal justice regime, crime rates seem largely unaffected.

	11-01-2004 20:03									#49
	Remove this text

It is very true that statistics show that harsh sentences do little or no good when crime rates are concerned. However since harder sentencies often don't affect crime rates in positive or negative ways, we should look into other issues. Prisoners are costly, especially here in Finland. But this CAN be helped(more productive labour for prisoners, less luxuries etc.) and even if the costs remain high we must meet the crime with proper punishment. I think it's also a question of human rights. What kind of appreciation does a justice system show to human rights if they persist on judging murderers to few years sentences?

Trader's posts makes a lot of sense. I'm against death penalty and twenty year sentences from shoplifting. An idea that the state is given right to murder individual on any basis, is somewhat repulsive. That is, in time of peace.
I believe in flexibility when justice is served. I actually believe that none of our views on liberal criminal justice are so very different. But I must demand respect of freedom of life, also in form of harder punishments.
We should look closely into the development of justice system, not to let our emotions to irrationally effect in hardening sentencies and giving more power to the system.
However the negative effects(both ethically and economically) of not punishing our criminals may be severe as well. A certain moral decay will probably result from both overly hard or overly liberal justice system.

	11-01-2004 23:23									#50
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Here in the US, in most instances, intoxication can not be used as a mitigating factor with regards to sentencing of violent crimes.

In most states a person's criminal record is sealed away when he reaches the age of majority. Juveniles also can not receive sentences that stretch beyond the date of the attainment of legal majority, usually their 21st birthday. Older teens however may be tried as adults by court order, in which case they may receive adult sentences.

	11-01-2004 23:30									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by East Street Trader Murder is a particularly clear illustration of this point. Because the overwhelming majority of murders - a percentage in the high nineties - take place within families. Husbands of wives, parents of children, children of parents. I have defended five people accused of murder and each was of that kind. In these cases the emotions which culminate in the killing brew for years. The notion that anything at all could deter the person once the emotional pressure cooker is ready to blow is just unreal.

This used to be the case in the USA, but since the 1960s the percentage of murders committed during the commission of other crimes has steadily risen. Currently about 50% of murders in the US arise not out of inter-personal conflicts within families or among friends, but instead occur during the course of another crime - rape, burglary, robbery, car theft, drug dealing, and etc., or as "random" acts of violence committed for the thrill of it.

	12-01-2004 04:08									#52
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara So we won't let them vote or be held liable for a contract, because they are too young to fully understand the implications of their action, we can still send them to prison as adults? If you're gopnna treat kids as adults, don't do it half-assed. Get rid of age-of-consent laws, drinking ages, driving ages, working ages, etc. Either kids are fully competent or they aren't.

Hurrah!
But you might need a decent social system because an 8-year-old can't do quite as much work as an 18-year-old, if only because of lack of experience.
I'm up for all of that above. Rather than skirting the issue of teaching responsibility by waiting for kids to figure it out for themselves, we should probably teach them responsibility!
If they're gonna be stupid and make mistakes, then they're gonna be stupid and make mistakes, regardless of their age.
We learn from experience, after all.

Kids. They develop and learn stuff, of course, but we shouldn't treat them as 'inferior beings'. Maybe they haven't come to understand themselves like we have? Well, maybe so! But none of us here is omniscient, we all do learn.
Treat them as people. Learning people. Have patience with them and impart to them your kindness, and they'll probably develop into well-learned and effective people.

	12-01-2004 04:29									#53
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Presuming you can define what a 'crime' is...
(Is drug-taking an offence? Is Incest and offence?)
The idea is quite simple.
Rehabilitate who you can and kill who you can't.

Of course, one of the problems (if not THE problem) I have with the current authority system is that those with power are always presumed correct in their judgements.
The system whose laws preach right from wrong,
The parent who disciplines dissent,
Even those dangerous fundys and their omnipotent god.

But presuming you know right from wrong...
For those who are 'wrong', try to make them 'right'.
For those who cannot be made 'right', rid the world of their wrong - permanently.
For those who are right - goodo!
Of course if dissent is criminal then all this goes out the window.

So I'd support only two levels:
1. Rehab
2. Death
And possibly a 3rd level: Was that really a crime?
I mean, what's the difference to a credit card scam and someone using a credit card to buy Civ 3?

	12-01-2004 07:10									#54
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Ok, everyone who thinks it's a good idea to forgive every person all the time,

Forgiveness requires contrition. The person must admit that he was wrong, and that he is fully responsible. They should also be willing to make some form of restitution to the victims.

How willing would people be to commit crimes if they had to undo the damage they caused, or if it cannot be undone to see the effects that their actions have on others? I think there is much to be said for shame as a deterrent.

As for vigilante justice, I once worked with a supervisor who was arrested for assault after deliberately smashing his car into the car of a pedophile. He said it was the only satisfaction he would ever receive. Such is the danger of lax sentences.

However, I would contest some of E-Nova's assumptions regarding the death penalty. Are there really people who cannot be reformed? The problem with thet death penalty is that it sometimes indicts innocents, of whom we cannot save if they are killed.

quote: The system whose laws preach right from wrong, The parent who disciplines dissent, Even those dangerous fundys and their omnipotent god.

If one cannot trust the judgments of those in power for lesser cases, why should we trust them when someone's life is at stake?

	12-01-2004 17:59									#55
	Tired of ads?

Todays winner is the guy who raped a middle aged woman in city, in the middle of the drive-way!



Anyway, no one helped the poor woman, because everyone knows if you lay your hands on the rapist, you WILL get harder punishment thatn the rapist and that's a fact, not just a joke. Why get criminal record for that?
****ed up.

And the rest of bystanders where sissies who should will have their karma recked forever if they have one.

	12-01-2004 19:21									#56
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Oncle Boris 2. Crime commited by minors should not be counted

I don't see any reason for this...

A couple years ago, 3 12 year old boys raped some girl. They were cought, but as they were filmed as they were walking around with police excort, they were smiling, because they knew nothing could happen to them anyway

I wouldn't be surprised if they did it several times after this


I think there were a smilular (sp?) crime in England about 6 years ago, were two 10 year old boys wanted to feel how it was to kill someone, so they decided to kill some little girl. IIRC they later said they had to do it at that time, if they did it later they'll just get to jail because of it...

	12-01-2004 23:43									#57
	Put an end to popups!

I think if you see a rapist in action, punch his teeth in and kick his butt, you should get a medal for it, not punished. If you do permanent damage to the rapist, or assault, or anyone who is doing a violent crime and you're there to stop it, then you get sentenced for using too much force. If the rapist survives with bruises and few broken bones, you get a medal.

	13-01-2004 13:21									#58
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: If one cannot trust the judgments of those in power for lesser cases, why should we trust them when someone's life is at stake?

Yes, why should we Enigma? You seem to support reasoning and criticism against authority but at the same time you'd be ready to give authority power to violate human rights...as also discussed in previous threads. What would this "new authority" represent and why should it be so trustworthy?

quote: Anyway, no one helped the poor woman, because everyone knows if you lay your hands on the rapist, you WILL get harder punishment thatn the rapist and that's a fact, not just a joke.

This is also one of our national specialities. It is very much common knowledge that the criminal justice of Finland protects the rights of offender, rather than the rights of the victim. In comparison, to say USA, where the justice system protects victim at the expense of criminal's rights. Now, there should be something in between.
Anyway, it's really quite worrying that people are not (really) allowed to defend their fellow men against offence. That right is priviledge of the state. But since we're living in a democracy state can not be presumed to watch every street corner, and neither it should. So, now we REALLY are at the point we're self defence is, if not forbidden then at least disfavoured. And anyone who defends victim may very well become criminal himself.
It's absolutely ridiculous.

	14-01-2004 09:38									#59
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Death penalty is the solution. you all get jiggy with the sparks and we will consider joining your circle jerk international jobfactories for academic jurists.

	14-01-2004 11:51									#60
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Oncle Boris What kind of fascists are you guys? The crime rate in the US is the highest of the Western world, and the death penalties/life sentences are sure doing nothing against it. And about the 'three strikes you're out law': it does make some sense, but: 1. As long as using drugs is a crime, this law can only suck 2. Crime commited by minors should not be counted 3. And I sincerely think it should only apply to violent crimes and/or very major frauds or thefts, even if they are non-violent. Sending a father or a mother to jail because he stole a TV is the best thing to do if you want to cook brand new criminals with their children. In Quebec, everyone is pissed off because the federal forced us to abandon our 'young offenders law', which was much less strict and gave more results in reintegrating them.

Why must you continue this masquerade as the Boris of the OT? You are not Boris.