RE: Sanitized Execution

RE: Sanitized Execution (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

NorthernGent -> RE: Sanitized Execution (8/5/2006 10:33:05 AM)
WyrdRich, Not at all. That's what you're taking from my post. I never said criminals are victims - I said we all play a part in creating the causes of crime because we construct society. To solve a problem you have to get to its root. Locking people up and throwing away the key is the preferred answer because it absolves the rest of society of blame (in the minds of the right-wingers that is). It doesn't take a genius to realise that this preferred method is just not working, our jails are bursting at the seams. The root problem is the imbalance in society and the age of rampant consumerism. It is a cast-iron fact that the majority of crime is committed by the poorest socio-economic groups in society - this should tell you how to reduce crime. The problem the right have with tackling poverty is the redistribution of wealth and they could never accept that. Life is about circumstance and it doesn't take much to completely change the course of your life. It's a fine line. Let's hope you never fall on hard times. Regards

WyrdRich -> RE: Sanitized Execution (8/5/2006 10:44:51 AM)
I don't live in your imaginary communist utopia (Communism is another topic entirely) where everybody is happy because thay are equal and nobody ever does bad things. Didn't I use the word naive earlier?

NorthernGent -> RE: Sanitized Execution (8/5/2006 11:01:07 AM)
Wyrd, This is what makes right-wingers the amazing creatures they are. I mention social justice and you scream "communism!". Too much "reds under the bed" propaganda. I invariably find that the people so quick to judge communism and socialism do not understand either ideology. It is nothing to do with naivety - it is simply recognising that rampant consumerism is divisive and unhealthy for society. Regards

WyrdRich -> RE: Sanitized Execution (8/5/2006 11:15:33 AM)
NG Actually, you mentioned redistribution of wealth and I mentally added that to other things said elsewhere and called a spade a spade. I understand leftist idealogy quite well. And I have rejected it as a nifty dream that leads to stagnation and/or oppression every time it is tried.

agirl -> RE: Sanitized Execution (8/5/2006 11:17:04 AM)
I prefer the removal of convicted violent offenders from their freedom from a purely selfish angle. I prefer the thought that savage individuals are held at bay. Not with death. That's short-sighted and self-serving. I know it. In that ideal world that I know doesn't exist....the causes and reasons that some people are this way, will be eliminated and there will be measures that can be taken to nullify the horrific way some people behave toward others. I'll never be a good person myself. I'd like some black and white views sometimes, I think it'd be more peaceful in some ways. agirl

NorthernGent -> RE: Sanitized Execution (8/5/2006 11:29:35 AM)
Hi agirl, Well, we're only so far down the evolutionary path and based on what we see around us it's hard to imagine a world that actually cares about social welfare. Things will change, however. Capitalism is finite just like any other political ideology. It is only 400 years ago that there was a general consensus that the world was doomed due to the population growth at that time - they couldn't grasp that we could develop the tools to produce more food to sustain us because they were viewing the world based on their limited knowledge of what is achievable. In the same way, we don't understand what is achievable and so we view certain scenarios as utopian dreams. I fully believe that there is more to humans than war and greed. With the right guidance, things will come good :-) Regards

NorthernGent -> RE: Sanitized Execution (8/5/2006 11:32:17 AM)
WyrdRich, The left is a whole spectrum of political thought so to lump it as one and say you understand it doesn't make a great deal of sense. Redistribution of wealth is not peculiar to Communist ideology. The old Labour Party believed in redistribution of wealth but it also believed in private enterprise. The two are not mutually exclusive. Regards

agirl -> RE: Sanitized Execution (8/5/2006 11:57:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Hi agirl, Well, we're only so far down the evolutionary path and based on what we see around us it's hard to imagine a world that actually cares about social welfare. Things will change, however. Capitalism is finite just like any other political ideology. It is only 400 years ago that there was a general consensus that the world was doomed due to the population growth at that time - they couldn't grasp that we could develop the tools to produce more food to sustain us because they were viewing the world based on their limited knowledge of what is achievable. In the same way, we don't understand what is achievable and so we view certain scenarios as utopian dreams. I fully believe that there is more to humans than war and greed. With the right guidance, things will come good :-) Regards Hey again NG, I'm going through one of my idealistic phases at the moment, (all that hoping, wishing and thinking)......the trees are awfully hard to see through and the wood appears so far away. The best times are when there is clarity of thought and right now it's terribly clouded. Regards, agirl

NorthernGent -> RE: Sanitized Execution (8/5/2006 12:27:34 PM)
agirl, Those trees can be a nuisance at times :-) Idealism and optimism are two qualities you should strive to keep hold of. Living a life based on strong values and the belief that some day they are achievable is far better than simply accepting what is going on around us. History is progress and the things that appear to be unobtainable now will be achievable as we progress. Regards

Alumbrado -> RE: Sanitized Execution (8/5/2006 12:38:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent It's not a case of treating violent criminals as victims as one poster put it. It boils down to whether or not you believe society has a responsibility to all citizens. This will be dictated by your view on how we are shaped i.e. are we a product of the society in which we live or are people determined by genetics. My own opinion is we are a product of the society in which we live. We are shaped by what goes on around us and it follows that we all have an impact on each other's lives in many ways - from the types of Government we elect to interaction during schooling to the levels of social justice we create in our societies. Thus, although not obvious, we all have a role in creating crime as a result of the societies we construct. It follows we have a duty to rehabilitate criminals rather than hang them or lock them up and throw away the key. Regards. There is a difference between having a responsibility to all members of society, and interpreting that responsibility to be preferential treatment for those members who are the most difficult to get along with. When there are effective means developed of rehabilitating or curing the violent among us with a high degree of certainty, we can look forward to eliminating a lot of the current trappings of the CJ system... but in the here and now, wishful thinking about magic solutions is far from productive. And taking limited real world resources away from those who need help but haven't become criminally violent, in order to throw them voodoo style in hopes of changing the future, seems counter-intuitive.

NorthernGent -> RE: Sanitized Execution (8/5/2006 12:59:52 PM)
Alumbrado, Forget about individuals for a second. The well-being of the collective society we live in is dependent upon laying the right foundations for society i.e. all of us. If we run a society where wealth distribution is disproportionate it will foster resentment and certain groups will resist conforming with the norms that are excluding them from a reasonable standard of living. According to the International Crime Victimisation Survey, England and Wales tops the list in Europe for burglary, car theft, physical and sexual assault with almost twice the rates of France and Denmark. Why is that? Was it about England that breeds such high levels of crime? The common denominator is our distribution of wealth - we have a much greater divide between rich and poor. Here is a quote from the same survey conducted in 1999: The internationally recognised Luxembourg Income Study calculated that 21 per cent of the UK population in 1999 were living in households whose income was less than 60 per cent of median earnings. In contrast, those countries with lower rates of violence tend to have a lower proportion of households living in poverty. Some 13 per cent of German households lived on less than 60 per cent of median earnings in 2000. In Sweden, the figure was 12 per cent, in Belgium 16 per cent and in Finland 12 per cent. Regards

Alumbrado -> RE: Sanitized Execution (8/5/2006 1:14:14 PM)
I would agree that society could benefit if there were more resources available to persons whom we might label disadvantaged.... But as a theory of crime causation, the link between lack of wealth and criminality is woefully inadequate to explain the Kennedys.[;)] And I'm no fan of wastebinning, no matter how much money we throw into the wastebin along with the people... it is a growth industry I'd just as soon see go away. If you are familiar with the work of Dr. Otnow-Lewis or C. Ray Jeffery, those are the sorts of approaches where I would like to see some of the re-distributed wealth put to good (read non-bureaucratic) use.

NorthernGent -> RE: Sanitized Execution (8/5/2006 1:30:35 PM)
Alumbrado, It's simply about affording people the same levels of opportunity (particularly education and employment opportunities). There must be areas in the US where heavy industry has been the mainstay for decades and at some point factories and works yards have closed down. If the Government doesn't do its job and regenerate the area the result will be decay in environmental and human terms leading to crime, alcoholism, drug abuse etc. I'm sure the Kennedys could have got by without one of their 60 yachts and the money invested in such areas instead. I am not familiar with the works you mentioned so can't comment. Regards

WyrdRich -> RE: Sanitized Execution (8/5/2006 2:10:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent There must be areas in the US where heavy industry has been the mainstay for decades and at some point factories and works yards have closed down. If the Government doesn't do its job and regenerate the area the result will be decay in environmental and human terms leading to crime, alcoholism, drug abuse etc. Sure, let's take Flynt Michigan for an example. Michael Moore did one of his masterful propaganda movies about the area (Roger and Me). Then read the book "Rivethead" by Ben Hamper. He appears in the movie (the mental hospital patient playing basketball). Though Moore was well aware of it, you won't learn in his film that the alcoholism and drug abuse considerably pre-dated the closing of those plants. Anybody remember the quality of GM products in the late 70's/early 80's? So you believe that the government should require GM to maintain factories where the local workforce believes coming to work high/drunk is an entitlement? And then somehow coerce the public to buy the crap that comes off the line? This is a root of our disagreement. That is NOT the governments job. It's funny (to me at least) that you will comment to someone in agreement about being "evolved" and yet support an economic system that attempts to negate evolution. Doesn't evolution require some adaptations to succeed, while others fail? If we have a system where nobody can fail, doesn't that imply that none can really succeed either? Strikes me as ironic.

NorthernGent -> RE: Sanitized Execution (8/5/2006 2:17:14 PM)
WyrdRich, As your post is based on the premise that redistribution of wealth hinders evolution feel free to explain why you believe this to be the case. Regards

WyrdRich -> RE: Sanitized Execution (8/5/2006 2:46:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent WyrdRich, As your post is based on the premise that redistribution of wealth hinders evolution feel free to explain why you believe this to be the case. Regards Let me put on my cold-blooded capitalist hat for a moment and disregard my belief that social welfare is a matter for independent and private organizations (which use competing methods in a natural selection of their own). Individual A (me for ease of this) and Individual B (you for the same reason) leave equivalent schools and both take jobs at the local mill/factory/mine. I take night classes and put my annual bonus in a nice mutual fund. You hang out at the pub after work and squander the bonus on week in Amsterdam. My education gets me promoted to the office, I marry a smart woman studying to be nurse and we have 2 children. You build a bit of seniority with the union, marry the first girl you get pregnant and have 9 children. Years pass, I leave the firm to start my own business, pay off my home and build a considerable nest-egg that will allow my children to attain a much higher level of education before they enter the workforce. You build seniority with the union and continue pissing your disposable income away at the pub. The plant closes. My adaptation clearly leaves me in the better position for a changing environment. Evolution dictates that you and your family should now starve to death (I said it was a cold-blooded hat...) Instead, my taxes go up, redistibuting what I have worked for into the food stamps, medical care, housing stipends and whatever else your lazy ilk can suck up. My taxes might be high enough that I can no longer fully fund the education of my children and they must compete against your kids for financial aid (which also comes from my taxes. Since you have more and poorer children they go to school on my dime.

NorthernGent -> RE: Sanitized Execution (8/5/2006 3:02:10 PM)
WyrdRich, It seems to me your post is based on your belief that unemployment/lack of success is a result of personal drive. I can't agree with this. Let's look at it another way. Two people have exactly the same drive. One is born in the black community in New Orleans and one is born in high-society LA. One will have greater success as a result of greater opportunity. Also, I don't know the answer to this so I'm asking the question rather than trying to make a point - in all honesty, what is the chance of a non-white of high intelligence born in one of the poorest communities in say Detriot, New York or Philadelphia climbing the social ladder? They can't pay for education and many of their friends are involved in petty crime due to a lack of opportunity. What is the percentage chance of such a person succeeding (in terms of how we define success)? Regards

WyrdRich -> RE: Sanitized Execution (8/5/2006 3:36:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent WyrdRich, It seems to me your post is based on your belief that unemployment/lack of success is a result of personal drive. I can't agree with this. Let's look at it another way. Two people have exactly the same drive. One is born in the black community in New Orleans and one is born in high-society LA. One will have greater success as a result of greater opportunity. Also, I don't know the answer to this so I'm asking the question rather than trying to make a point - in all honesty, what is the chance of a non-white of high intelligence born in one of the poorest communities in say Detriot, New York or Philadelphia climbing the social ladder? They can't pay for education and many of their friends are involved in petty crime due to a lack of opportunity. What is the percentage chance of such a person succeeding (in terms of how we define success)? Regards Google Condi Rice and look into her background.... The last time I was unemployed, 40 people showed up to apply for 1 job opening. I've been with the company for 6 years now. There are other factors and tragic situations can come to anyone but I have NEVER been unable to find some kind of work when I wanted it. If that meant street vending, then that was what I did. Your hypothetical LA socialite and New Orleans poor person scenario seems to come out of a vacuum, they were born to those circumstances because of the choices made in their families in earlier generations. I know too many people who have created good lives from nothing to believe it is impossible. And I've watched people piss away every advantage a youth can have because they are unwilling to put forth the effort themselves.

Level -> RE: Sanitized Execution (8/5/2006 4:17:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent WyrdRich, Not at all. That's what you're taking from my post. I never said criminals are victims - I said we all play a part in creating the causes of crime because we construct society. To solve a problem you have to get to its root. Locking people up and throwing away the key is the preferred answer because it absolves the rest of society of blame (in the minds of the right-wingers that is). It doesn't take a genius to realise that this preferred method is just not working, our jails are bursting at the seams. The root problem is the imbalance in society and the age of rampant consumerism. It is a cast-iron fact that the majority of crime is committed by the poorest socio-economic groups in society - this should tell you how to reduce crime. The problem the right have with tackling poverty is the redistribution of wealth and they could never accept that. Life is about circumstance and it doesn't take much to completely change the course of your life. It's a fine line. Let's hope you never fall on hard times. Regards As Rich said, some of us have fallen on hard times, and we didn't become criminals. I was injured several years ago, and lost my job. Stayed unemployed for a couple of years, lived in a one-bedroom apartment, had peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for meals more than once. What I never did was rob anyone, or sell dope (though I had more than one "friend" bang on my door wanting pain pills)... I held on, kept working on my rehab, kept job hunting, and finally got things going right again. Your life is what you make it. Oh, I am against the death penalty, by the way [:D].

Alumbrado -> RE: Sanitized Execution (8/5/2006 4:29:35 PM)
Any analysis of a situation should include looking at those from similar backgrounds who do not fit the stereotype...both the Kennedys, who have every financial/educational/social advantage, and repeatedly turn out as criminals, and success stories from the less than wealthy environments. There is a link between wealth and criminality, but no great success at showing it to be a directly causal one, in a manner that would support Marxist solutions. (And BTW, that isn't a perjorative term, that is the name of that school of thought within criminology). Yes, where there is decay, there is increased crime, but the 'weed and seed' programs have not convinced me that we can simply unring that bell, and induce a lack of criminality via throwing money at an area. Some of the more progressive notions in current criminology, start off by admitting to a certain inevitable level of crime, and work from the premise of reducing multiple factors that combine to elevate that level more than need be.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

3.515625E-02