Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Head Shop >

Crime and Stigma

Page: 1 2 3(4)

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

14:23 / 02.03.02

quote:Originally posted by bitchiekittie:
you do your brand of shit flinging, Ill do mine

I would, but my foolish ramparts of sophistry collapse before the logical acuity of the "rolling-around-on-the-floor-screaming-and-wetting-oneself" attack.

BK, you seem unable to understand that the law cannot be constructed entirely around your "love for your child", laudable though it is. Which is to say, law enforcement cannot alert you, trusting as it does your good nature, of the presence of a chimaeric army of sex offenders (remember, kiddies, that included homosexuals until what? 1973 or thereabouts?) in your street. Nor is it terribly reassuring that somebody who was imprisoned for a "tiff" - which I assume involved affray, common assault or at the least a breach of the peace - feels entitled as a result of their love of their child to "carry a blade".

Essentially, you are demanding that the law indulge your personal predilections at the expense of others. And to see that as incoherent is not to have one's entire life neatly sorted out in boxes, "neatly folded and organised", merely to believe that to be anything resembling just the justice system has to.

16:43 / 03.03.02

Bitchiekittie: fair enough; like I say, while your desire for names and addresses isn't rational or evidence-based, it is understandable.

20:46 / 03.03.02

I seem to remember reading articles somewhere that indicated that those registries are rarely kept up to date. Most offenders change addresses with little notification to law enforcement. Some are more doggedly pursued. Some are not.

22:04 / 03.03.02

There is always a conflict when dealing with crime between trying to decide between retribution, prevention, justice and compassion. As Cherry Bomb points out, everyone has different experiences and so its hard to go from the personal to the general without pause for thought.

I don't know how to make the decisions that address the suffering that victims go through while at the same time remaining humane. I do know that we have to try.

Regrettable Juvenilia

10:17 / 04.03.02

Er, bitchiekittie, could you explain why this perfectly valid point:

quote:Originally posted by The Haus where nobody goes:
And, for that matter, why "violent offenders"? An individual with a talent for embezzlement and fraud can cause a lot more human misery than someone whose talents lie in purse-snatching...

...deserved the following response?

quote:Originally posted by bitchiekittie:
haus - simply put, fuck off

I don't really see how Haus can be at fault this time, unless I've missed him posting something more inflammatory and you were responding to that.

10:22 / 04.03.02

quote:Originally posted by Cherry Bomb:
bitchie, as I said, I agree that people need to have consequences for their actions. However if we are looking at PREVENTING crime, we MUST look beyond the individual who comitted the crime and examine society as a whole as well. Because there are social factors that influence crime, and that's a fact.

so we just take the burden of accountability off of peoples shoulders simply because theyve lived a shit life?

alcoholism is a disease, however, people caught drinking and driving lose their rights and serve time. its certainly not their fault that they are possibly genetically predisposed to alcoholism or that they fell prey to it, but they are still expected to serve the sentence for doing it in illegal circumstances, and if they kill someone while under its effects they can be charged with murder just as if they were sober. (not that Im making excuses, Im not a big fan of drinking at all)

And I don't think it's fair for you to take your individual experience of the American Penal system, and your uncle's, and apply that to the entire system. It's not realistic. I have heard absolute horror stories from people who have been to jail. So, my experience all ready differs from yours. It's not an accurate way to judge the system as a whole.

sorry I didnt make it clear enough, but I was joking. although I do think, absolutely, that cable, among other things, could be better spent on rehabilitation

There are more people in jail in the U.S. right now than at any other time. Do you honestly think that the reason for that is simply because there are more criminals? I think this is something that should be looked it.

no, I think its about the legal system and all of its many flaws. people are getting screwed, going to jail for relatively harmless crimes while truly dangerous people are walking right out of there, repeatedly. drastic changes need to be made, now

10:32 / 04.03.02

flyboy - we all are adult enough to understand the physical level of the content we are discussing, which does not involve mere threat or theft. to equate sexual assault with purse snatching is more than a bit offensive

10:40 / 04.03.02

I think Haus was comparing purse-snatching with fraud and embezzlement, not with sexual assualt.

10:46 / 04.03.02

Bitchikittie, Cherry made it clear that she was taking the long-term view, looking at wider prevention strategies. It's a perfectly valid viewpoint.

I wish Barbeloids would stop talking about alcohol dependence as a 'disease'; to do so overly medicalises it. There's a genetic component, sure, but that goes for pretty much any aspect of personality or behaviour. Genetic loading + element of free will still = responsibility for that element of free will.

I don't think Cherry's suggesting that individuals be devolved of responsibility for their actions; merely that, when meting out 'punishment', we think of possible root causes of their behaviour and try to address that within their rehabilitation. In the long-term, utopian view, we might also look at ways in which society might be changed in order to reduce levels of crime, alcoholism, etc. Better housing, raised minimum wage, decent welfare state, etc., etc.

Some of the faults lie within the legal system but I suspect some of your frustration stems from the fact that it genuinely isn't easy to assess/predict who's a) dangerous, and b) 'deserving'. The authorities are condemned every time a 'mistake' is made, yet there's no way, other than hindsight, to eliminate the element of chance...

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

10:57 / 04.03.02

Kit Kat Club:
I think Haus was comparing purse-snatching with fraud and embezzlement, not with sexual assault.

Indeed. However, I see the point. The problem might be said to lie either in my poor choice of words, or BK's rather fluid forms of self-expression.

The point being that it was argued (by, I believe, the lady herself) that recidivist perpetrators of "violent crimes" should not be released into the community without safeguards. Purse-snatching, as it involves a crime perpetrated by one individual against another through a physical act not not necessarily one involving physical harm, even if it is, I think, acceptable as an "act of violence". Mugging might be a better example, however. My bad.

The last time I was mugged, I lost about £100 in cash, my credit cards, driver's licence, some personal effects and a very nasty handkerchief, and received some nasty bruising and a bloody nose. Conversely, if at the age of 55 I were to find that some high-up in my company had ransacked the pension fund to stay afloat, I would be out of pocket by perhaps £3-500,000 assuming a decent promised salary and decent longevity, with very little chance of seeing it again and a horribly uncertain future, a very real risk of homelessness.....you get the idea.

Of course, there are nastier muggings and less nasty defraudings. But the idea of a "victimless" crime being so just because nobody gets hurt is a fairly curious one.

Now, why should muggers (a) be incarcerated permanently and corporate raider (b) not be so? It just seems a bit peculiar...

[ 04-03-2002: Message edited by: The Haus where nobody goes ]

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

11:08 / 04.03.02

Ah, yes, here we are:

and yes, I think that all repeat, violent offenders (whether the nature of the crime is sexual or not) should be denied release for life.

Morlock - groupie for hire

11:09 / 04.03.02

Bk, I can understand your feelings, I suspect I'd feel the same way in a similar situation. However the point of these arguments is more to argue about what should be done, not what people want done. Headshop, rather than heartshop. That would be why the logic seems rather cold.
For the record, if I was in your Police-officer's shoes I hope I would be able to stop myself passing on information that wasn't already publicly available. If you choose to enforce the law, you have to enforce it all the time, not just when it suits you.

Was going to say more but I've fallen behind already. Arse

11:17 / 04.03.02

One of the things Haus is pointing out is the abitrary nature of punishments (in his example, incarceration) for various classes of crimes. Conservatives have long claimed that the U.S. judicial system could be played like a fiddle by anyone with a half-decent lawyer.

Two remedies were proposed for this: Mandatory minimum sentences and "3 Strikes" laws. Basically, mandatory minimums are just what they sound like: If so-and-so is convicted of such-and-such crime, the judge is legally bound to remand so-and-so for at least this-and-that period of time. There's no such thing as judicial discretion regarding mitigating factors, youth of defendent, etc. This situation comes up most often in the case of federal drug offenses, adn given the "War on Drugs," these mandatory minimums are quite harsh. There are hundreds of examples on the web, I'm sure.

"3 strikes" is usually a State law, and usually reads something like "if so-an-so is convicted of 3 felonies, he goes to prison forever without possibility of parole." (Arthur Lee of Love is in prison under this rule) 3 strikes was of course instituted with the laudable goal of getting violent recidivists off the streets, but has resulted in numerous cases of non-violent offenders being incarcerated for life.

Another area of arbitariness that has yet to be rectified by legislation is the split between "white collar" and "blue collar" crime. Embezzlers, tax cheats, etc. aren't likely to srve prison time, and if they do, they serve it in cushy minimum security prisons (incidentally, does anyone know anything about the privatization of the corrections system in the U.S.? More and more prisons are being run by private companies.). I hate to bring up Enron, but as Haus said, these executives deprived their employees of their retirement savings. Granted (a) you shouldn't be so stupid to invest in one stock (b) the stock market is absolutely FULL of things that would be called Fraud in any sane society, but surely these execs will be punished to the full extent of the law. Which in Texas, is the death penalty, right? Equal punishment for all in Texas. Yee-hah! Good old Kenny-boy's gettin' a lethal injection!

Or not.

Page: 1 2 3(4)