11 Jan 12
Originally posted by DasaThis is actually a topic close to my heart and contrary to my liberal beliefs I have a quite draconian outlook on dealing with violence. I believe that sentencing for violent crime compared to say fraud or other "money" crimes is ridiculously lenient.
Should violent groups of people be allowed to exist in civilized society?
My view is that any persistent violent offenders should be taken out of civilised society and allowed to live the rest of their violent lives with similar minded people within a secure area (island?)
I would include ALL acts of violence; towards people, animals and property - since in my opinion/experience violece is violence whatever its manifestation.
What is a persistent offender? 3 strikes and out seems fair.
As regards the police and army I would expect the highest restraint to be used and absolute minimum violence to achieve objectives.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
11 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by wolfgang59I would agree with you in part (I am also highly liberal and libertarian in my political/social outlook)
This is actually a topic close to my heart and contrary to my liberal beliefs I have a quite draconian outlook on dealing with violence. I believe that sentencing for violent crime compared to say fraud or other "money" crimes is ridiculously lenient.
My view is that any persistent violent offenders should be taken out of civilised society and allowed ...[text shortened]... d expect the highest restraint to be used and absolute minimum violence to achieve objectives.
but there are parts of your suggestions I couldn't condone/agree with.
I would agree that the proportionality of sentences is out of whack, and that violent and sexual offenders
often don't get sentences proportionate to their crimes.
And I would also agree that the police and army should use the highest restraint and try at all times to
minimise casualties.
However...
I object to any sort of 3 strikes and your out rules on principle and on practical grounds.
They inevitably cause more problems than they solve and cause miscarriages of justice.
But they also limit the ability of the legal system to deal with cases on an individual and proportional basis.
We are supposed to have highly experienced and trained judges for the purpose of setting the sentences
in our courts and there is no point in having them if you prescribe from on high a tick box, one size fits all,
sentencing system.
I would have to disagree that all acts of violence should be treated equally and I certainly don't (apart from
the odd wistful daydream) think that violent offenders should be sent to some penal colony where they can
pass the time bumping each other off. (particularly in a system where you have not removed the possibility of
a miscarriage of justice and will inevitably end up sending innocent people to such a facility.)
Finally on a practical matter, if the objective is to minimise such violence occurring in the first place then the
thing to do is improve living conditions, support, and education universally, (but especially for the poor and
underprivileged) as well as promoting secularism and rationality.
Simply introducing harsher penalties for the perpetrators of crime has no or negative effect on reducing instances
of such crime.
11 Jan 12
Originally posted by avalanchethecatThat is just too bad that they are following a violent religious group.
Ubertroll is back I see.
As I see it, the main error in your (and I use this term in the loosest possible sense) 'reasoning', Dasa, is that you are pre-judging people based on the actions of other people who just happen to follow the same religion as they. Is this prescribed in the Vedas?
They will all have to be terminated to protect the peace lovers and
those who wish to do good rather than those who just want to do
harm and rape 70 virgins. Amen. 😏
11 Jan 12
2 edits
Originally posted by DasaObviously, people in a society need to be protected from those who act violently. That is why countries have police forces and prisons.
Should violent groups of people be allowed to exist in civilized society?
But what do we do when a given country's criminal justice system fails, or it becomes inhumane? What happens if civil war breaks out? Should the rest of the world do nothing while blood is being shed? Or should other countries put their own people's lives on the line in an effort to stop the violence?
As an example, we could look at the thing Dasa's concerned about. What if a country is taken over by a violently repressive Taliban-like regime? What should the international community do about it? What if the instability resulting from eliminating that regime is likely to lead to chaotic anarchy or a terrible civil war?
11 Jan 12
Originally posted by MelanerpesYou are talking like a liberal. I say just terminate the bastards. 😏
Obviously, people in a society need to be protected from those who act violently. That is why countries have police forces and prisons.
But what do we do when a given country's criminal justice system fails, or it becomes inhumane? What happens if civil war breaks out? Should the rest of the world do nothing while blood is being shed? Or should other c ...[text shortened]... ng from eliminating that regime is likely to lead to chaotic anarchy or a terrible civil war?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
11 Jan 12
Originally posted by MelanerpesThat might depend on the ability of the potentially intervening countries to actually do something beneficial about it.
Obviously, people in a society need to be protected from those who act violently. That is why countries have police forces and prisons.
But what do we do when a given country's criminal justice system fails, or it becomes inhumane? What happens if civil war breaks out? Should the rest of the world do nothing while blood is being shed? Or should other c ...[text shortened]... ng from eliminating that regime is likely to lead to chaotic anarchy or a terrible civil war?
Recent history does not indicate that we actually do have a coherent or effective strategy for actually improving a
country or reducing violence.
In an ideal world of course we would intervene and stop the violence and bring peace and stability...
In reality, I would need to see a specific and convincing plan for how in a particular instance we would ensure we
did actually make things better. There is no point expending the resources and lives lost during a war or 'intervention'
unless we actually have a reasonable expectation of actually making a worthwhile difference.
I also think that in these situations, democracy is seriously overrated.
Democracy relies on a population of well educated and informed individuals who are free to both vote for whomever they
want but also have the capacity to make educated and informed choices as to who they want to vote for and know the
value of democracy and freedom.
We struggle with this in the west, trying to impose it on uneducated medieval rabble like the Afghans is a disaster waiting
to happen.
People often criticize the British empire, but one thing we did (brutally at times but still) was impose law and order and peace.
The number of different peoples who we held in check stopping them from killing each other is so often overlooked.
We created whole countries that exist today from disparate tribes and kingdoms and imposed order and law and that lasted
for a long time. Those countries who subsequently have embraced democracy and have systems of law and order that used to
be part of the empire got those systems and the belief in and desire for democracy from us.
Of course the way the Empire broke up (or rather got broken up) left many countries without leadership before they were ready.
And there are many modern day problems that stem from this fact.
The fact is that many developing countries would be better off under the rule of western powers, possible collectively.
So that we can build the infrastructure, impose law and order, make sure that there is enough food, water, and decent housing,
an economy, decent healthcare, an end to the corruption these places are rife with, and to build a decent education system.
So that the people in these countries can expect to live till they are 70 or 80 yrs old and have a comfortable safe life while doing so
and not (in some cases) consider themselves lucky to reach 40 after a life of violence and trauma.
After a generation or two of living in peace with law and order and a self supporting economy and an educated populace THEN you
hold elections and devolve government to them.
However the investment of resources needed to do this is politically untenable in the west atm and you would have to do it by
force because the peoples of these countries would never allow us to effectively rule them for that long without rising up and fighting back.
They want self rule and they want it now, so let them have it, and try to slowly and patiently nudge them over the decades towards
something more like civilisation.
Provide them with aid and try to build up their infrastructure, try to build secular schools that will teach science and reason and not theism and
irrationality.
Try to make them see us as allies and not enemies.
Unless you really can see a way for us to impose such things on them with military force.