Dark Lord Potter Forums
Go Back   Dark Lord Potter Forums > Common Room > Politics
Donate Register Rules Library List IRC Chat FAQ Members List Social Groups Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Donate to DLP Scryer Banner

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-25-2017, 12:06 AM   #41
silentclock
Headmaster
 
silentclock's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Kentucky
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,061
DLP Supporter Donor Star
Lol, pretty sure you're just trolling, but I'll indulge you one more time. Mostly because your way of thinking is legitimately baffling, and I'd like to dissuade anyone reading the thread from following it.

Quote:
'Muh criminal justice system'. Why are people not capable of taking responsibility for their own actions in your eyes? The justice system is always the excuse, but it's almost never the correct excuse.
Of course people need to take responsibility for their actions. In a scenario where someone commits a crime and everyone does their job properly, there will be some form of punishment. I don't disagree with you there. Where I think you're raving, however, is with this notion that everyone who commits a crime should be treated equally. Committing a crime doesn't give us carte blanche to continually punish an individual who has paid his due through a period of incarceration. I've described for you twice the framework which courts use to determine whether depriving a group of people of a right is constitutionally permissible. I'll not bother to do it again, because I suspect you'd continue to ignore it.

Quote:
Firstly, let me stop you there, buddy. If you break the law, are you not consenting to have you rights taken away? You don't follow the laws of the land, yet you expect for the country to still accept you with open arms and gift-baskets? I don't understand what kind of attorney believes criminals that commit actual crimes, with full knowledge that they commit these crimes, are needed owning firearms of any sort or being capable of communicating on the internet.
Again, it's a little more complicated than, "Criminal commit crime; criminal no get rights!" There are certain classes of people whom we deprive of certain rights under certain circumstances. It requires a constitutional analysis of the right at issue and what the government is trying to achieve. No matter how many times you insist otherwise, it is a complex legal issue.

Quote:
No, that's 100% factually untrue. I think you're confusing non-violent with a misdemeanour, which won't land you anything close to crime at the federal and state level.
Yeah, about that... wrong again. The first link contains the Bureau of Prisons' percentages of inmates by crime. In the federal system, drug offenders far outstrip all others. The second link has some charts which show the broader picture. You'll note that non-violent offenders far outweigh violent ones in local jails in addition to federal prisons. In fairness, local jails are also where misdemeanants are held, which will throw off those numbers somewhat for purposes of determining the exact number of felons by type.

"Ah ha," I bet you're thinking, "Violent offenders outnumber non-violent ones in state prison!" This is correct. But what it doesn't account for is probation, parole, and diversion. Not all felons serve all, or indeed any, of their sentences. Upwards of 35% of convicted felons are sent directly to probation without ever going to prison. And guess what? It's not the violent ones who tend to get probated. Non-violent felons who receive probated sentences are still felons under the law--they're just not accounted for in incarceration statistics. So yes, it's absolutely true that most felons are non-violent. At both the state and federal level.
silentclock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2017, 12:19 AM   #42
Darth_Revan
Secret Squirrel
 
Darth_Revan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: The Empire City
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,763
DLP Supporter Donor Star
Quote:
Originally Posted by tikkier2000 View Post
I still think the biggest problem with this entire argument is the implementation. It doesn't matter if a decision regarding the law is made or not if enforcing a law would be almost completely impossible.

So we come to the decision that sites or the Internet is a public space and people can be kicked off for what they say. Or we come to the decision that convicted felons can't use the Internet. Tell me, how would this be enforced?

With the first example, it's child's play to create a new account. People do it all the time. 12-year-old's have been doing it since Facebook started. With the second example, that's just ridiculous. I can't think of any feasible way to enforce that. What poor bastard's job would that be? Not to mention that I can't think of an effective way to do it anyway.

Please, if anyone's got ideas to this solution, throw them my way. I just can't foresee any way to enforce whatever decision the courts may come to.
This particular argument is specific to felony sex offenders, not all convicted felons. It's about denying sex offenders access to the platforms they use to commit sex crimes.

As for enforcement, it's actually fairly simple. You get an order from the court when you're released forbidding you from accessing social media, then you do periodic checks and if they violate the order, they get thrown back in prison.

---------- Post automerged at 00:19 ---------- Previous post was at 00:13 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by LightLordPotter View Post
No, it wasn't even close to being statistically correct, let alone legally correct.
It was, actually, but I have zero confidence in your ability to recognize it, given your apparent lack of understanding on this issue.

@silentclock is a public defender. I work on the enforcement side of the equation. Both of us know what we're talking about. You don't.
__________________

Peace is a lie, the greatest lie there is. The truth is strife. Struggle. Pain. Suffering.

And from that turmoil, power. The power to bend the universe to my will.

- Revan, Dark Lord of the Sith
Darth_Revan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2017, 12:40 AM   #43
silentclock
Headmaster
 
silentclock's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Kentucky
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,061
DLP Supporter Donor Star
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Revan View Post
This particular argument is specific to felony sex offenders, not all convicted felons. It's about denying sex offenders access to the platforms they use to commit sex crimes.

As for enforcement, it's actually fairly simple. You get an order from the court when you're released forbidding you from accessing social media, then you do periodic checks and if they violate the order, they get thrown back in prison.

It was, actually, but I have zero confidence in your ability to recognize it, given your apparent lack of understanding on this issue.

@silentclock is a public defender. I work on the enforcement side of the equation. Both of us know what we're talking about. You don't.


Most of my clients would be waaay better off getting banned from social media. If I never had to see another picture of a client holding a wad of cash in one hand and a pistol in the other, I'd be quite pleased. Also, I'd love to not see any more statuses where a client calls the judge a bitch. Or maybe if they could at least make that shit private.
silentclock is offline   Reply With Quote
Thumbs Up 1 Thumb Up
Old 06-25-2017, 12:46 AM   #44
Innomine
Auror
 
Innomine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: New Zealand
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 629
DLP Supporter Donor Star
High Score: 4,500
Send a message via AIM to Innomine Send a message via MSN to Innomine
Hmm, I think @LightLordPotter is pretty much a textbook case of the Dunning Krueger effect.

Quote:
In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias, wherein persons of low ability suffer from illusory superiority when they mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority derives from the metacognitive inability of low-ability persons to recognize their own ineptitude. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, low-ability people cannot objectively evaluate their actual competence or incompetence.

As described by David Dunning and Justin Kruger, the cognitive bias of illusory superiority results from an internal illusion in people of low ability and from an external misperception in people of high ability; that is, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others." Hence, the corollary to the Dunning–Kruger effect indicates that persons of high-ability tend to underestimate their relative competence, and erroneously presume that tasks that are easy for them to perform also are easy for other people to perform.
Innomine is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2017, 12:52 AM   #45
tikkier2000
Squib
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Northern Hemisphere
Gender: Female
Posts: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Revan View Post
As for enforcement, it's actually fairly simple. You get an order from the court when you're released forbidding you from accessing social media, then you do periodic checks and if they violate the order, they get thrown back in prison.
It's not that simple when it comes to the Internet.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/2...nformation-age

The laws we have for that in place are pretty ridiculous and ineffective. Like we're stuck in the '90s.

I am curious about what kind of legal precedent there is to argue both sides of the argument. (Our original discussion topic, I should say.) I can't claim to work in public defending and I'm definitely not going to law school, but other than the original example from the first post, is that the only example of this debate being brought regarding more traditional media that offers a same quandary? I did some research and found examples like billboards, but I'm wondering if there's already a similar legal precedent here that I am up too late to find.
__________________
"Show me a hero and I'll write you a tragedy." -F. Scott Fitzgerald

"I am the poor white, fooled and pushed apart,
I am the Negro bearing slavery's scars.
I am the red man, driven from the land,
I am the immigrant clutching the hope I seek -
And finding only the same old stupid plan
Of dog eat dog, of mighty crush the weak." -Langston Hughes, Let America Be America Again
tikkier2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2017, 01:53 AM   #46
LightLordPotter
Disappeared
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 48
Quote:
Yeah, about that... wrong again.
http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.r...ourceID=004339

Definitely....

Quote:
Of course people need to take responsibility for their actions
Then what do you argue for? You seem to be continually attempting to beat some ambiguous point into my head, but why? You're coming at me with a statistic, yet you don't know what it means. It's like you googled it then said, "yea, he definitely won't look at it". Please, stop trying so hard.

Quote:
Again, it's a little more complicated than, "Criminal commit crime; criminal no get rights!" There are certain classes of people whom we deprive of certain rights under certain circumstances. It requires a constitutional analysis of the right at issue and what the government is trying to achieve. No matter how many times you insist otherwise, it is a complex legal issue.
I agree with the part where it is complex. But do you think it's fair that taxpayers should pay when one of these idiots breaks the law? Do you think the people that abide the law deserve the thousands of dollars in taxes just to incarcerate these people? You seem to put criminals on some kind of pedestal as if they matter more than the average person. To me, you seem more like a crook than a lawyer, but I guess that's most criminal defence lawyers.

Quote:
@silentclock is a public defender. I work on the enforcement side of the equation. Both of us know what we're talking about. You don't.
Public defender. AKA he makes chump change in order to let people that break the law off easily. He will say anything for his narrative to be correct, even present facts in an obvious bias manner. Not a single ounce of objectivity, eh?

Quote:
Hmm, I think @LightLordPotter is pretty much a textbook case of the Dunning Krueger effect.
I think that's the text book definition of an Ad Hominem. So you're incapable of creating arguments? You have to rely on self-diagnosis? How cool, I bet you take online quizzes super seriously.

Quote:
You're one angry, bitter little man aren't you? Also a liar, who thinks you can correct a law professional about legal terms, but that's just a bonus.
All the Ad Hominem today, eh? It's crazy how many people here think that Criminals are just victims, the disillusionment with reality is unreal, it's like you all have about as much Self-Awareness as Elliot Rodger.

Quote:
Hmmm. Let's see, all I got is a torrent of fallacies, childish tantrums and not even one evidence shown to defend your claims. At least I got a bingo on the fallacies card.
Funny how you call a discussion "a childish tantrum" when that is exactly what you're doing. I think I lost brain cells reading your post, you essentially call me wrong, give no evidence as to why, make an insult like this is some kind of Indy!Harry fic where he is calling Voldemort moldyshorts. Then rinse and repeat for a couple more points.

"Ur wrong cuz ur wrong". I didn't realise that no one was capable of having a decent discussion without relying on Ad Hominem.

---------- Post automerged at 01:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:48 AM ----------

Quote:
Hold on, whatever happened to second chances?
They are given second chances though, and a huge percentage go back to being criminals anyways. It's pointless to waste tax dollars for funding the second chance if they won't even stick to it, nor is it the tax payer's job in the long run.
LightLordPotter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2017, 03:03 AM   #47
tikkier2000
Squib
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Northern Hemisphere
Gender: Female
Posts: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by LightLordPotter View Post
They are given second chances though, and a huge percentage go back to being criminals anyways. It's pointless to waste tax dollars for funding the second chance if they won't even stick to it, nor is it the tax payer's job in the long run.
You're right. It isn't the taxpayers' jobs to help criminals. It isn't the government's job to make sure people don't commit crimes. But you know who's job it is?

The parents. The families.

But no one wants to talk about that. No one wants to talk about broken families and higher divorce rates and rising poverty rates. Because God forbid anyone take responsibility for anything. Do you really want to face this problem? Because newsflash, the actual problem is a lot more nuanced then people who fuck up deserve to be fucked up in return.

And as @silentclock has so helpfully pointed out, you apparently lack the ability to comprehend this.

Because the problem is the sentences, the attitude of the justice system, the decisions of the criminals, the criminal's upbringing, the fucking education system because they don't think finances and parenting are things that should be taught. Look, you can blame everyone under the sun, but that doesn't change the fact that being as harsh as possible, nailing everyone to the cross, does not work. All you have to do is look at our sorry excuse for retention rates.

A second chance just to fuck it up, huh? Well when the offender has no resources and no reason to clean himself up, why would he? No one wants to hire him and it leaves crime as the last resort, especially in impoverished neighborhoods.

Maybe, God forbid, it's about mercy. Maybe it's about trying to reach out to someone who doesn't have it as good as you do. You can't help everyone, and you can't help those who don't want help, but does that mean you just stop? Well, I don't want to know what it feels like to lose your faith in other people.
__________________
"Show me a hero and I'll write you a tragedy." -F. Scott Fitzgerald

"I am the poor white, fooled and pushed apart,
I am the Negro bearing slavery's scars.
I am the red man, driven from the land,
I am the immigrant clutching the hope I seek -
And finding only the same old stupid plan
Of dog eat dog, of mighty crush the weak." -Langston Hughes, Let America Be America Again
tikkier2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2017, 03:42 AM   #48
LightLordPotter
Disappeared
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 48
Quote:
The parents. The families.
But the Parents and the Families are just as much in danger of these people.

Quote:
No one wants to talk about broken families and higher divorce rates and rising poverty rates.
Well, the thread isn't about that. But, here's an idea, the criminal should have thought about all of this beforehand. **gasp**. I know right? Personal responsibility! This is why people laugh at America, you're all too thin-skinned to get anything done. It's always about second and third chances and not about protecting the people you already have. The only one that does a better job than us at this is Sweden and Germany.

Quote:
Maybe, God forbid, it's about mercy.
Maybe they should show some mercy for others before receiving it—Hm?
LightLordPotter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2017, 05:12 AM   #49
Xiph0
Administrator
First Tovarisch
 
Xiph0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: People's Republic of California
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,771
While he's being a dick, I'm going to consider it a weight lifting exercise for argumentation skills around here. I believe in you guys.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by happyg View Post
As far as I can tell, Sree is some kind of racist joke.
Xiph0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2017, 05:41 AM   #50
tikkier2000
Squib
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Northern Hemisphere
Gender: Female
Posts: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by LightLordPotter View Post
But the Parents and the Families are just as much in danger of these people.
That isn't even close to my argument, you realize. I'm saying you're grossly oversimplifying why people commit crimes and judging them on a narrow, frankly naive worldview. I'm saying upbringing has a huge impact on how children turn out. The high rates of fatherless homes correlates with the high rates of criminal behavior.

Quote:
Well, the thread isn't about that. But, here's an idea, the criminal should have thought about all of this beforehand. **gasp**. I know right? Personal responsibility! This is why people laugh at America, you're all too thin-skinned to get anything done. It's always about second and third chances and not about protecting the people you already have. The only one that does a better job than us at this is Sweden and Germany.
Thin-skinned. Well, Mr. "an argument isn't Ad Hominem", I love the hypocrisy here. You do make a point that America has history of turning a blind eye until we can't anymore. I'll admit it because it's true. But you're acting as if anyone who's ever broken the law is somehow not citizens anymore. Protecting the ones we already have? Guess what? That includes criminals.

It's detrimental to society to have so many people incarcerated. You're saying to punish them so they stop. Well, considering cruel and unusual punishment is off the table from the get-go, what does that leave? Locking people up or mandatory service work or taking rights away. That is literally the only options left. How do you propose to punish people further? Prison sentences are already ridiculously long and a lot of repeat offenders simply don't care anymore.

Taking away rights theoretically could work, except only a few of those are on the table anyway. Right to bear arms, which is already a penalty anyway. (And I hate to burst your bubble, but criminals don't buy guns legally anyway. I know, shocker, criminals don't follow laws, but what can ya do?) But most of our rights are God given and are still allowed to criminals.

Okay, service work. Except, no one actually wants criminals to work for them. They're untrustworthy. The government could use them, but that's only possible if they have a reason to need workers. And not paying them? Violation of rights once again.

Quote:
Maybe they should show some mercy for others before receiving it—Hm?
You do realize that isn't how mercy works, right?

mercy: compassion or forgiveness shown toward someone whom it is within one's power to punish or harm Synonyms include: leniency, grace, forgiveness, humanity

Mercy implies you've got a right to hurt someone, got a right for retribution, but you don't. Having intent to assault someone but deciding not to? That's not mercy, that's not being an asshole.
__________________
"Show me a hero and I'll write you a tragedy." -F. Scott Fitzgerald

"I am the poor white, fooled and pushed apart,
I am the Negro bearing slavery's scars.
I am the red man, driven from the land,
I am the immigrant clutching the hope I seek -
And finding only the same old stupid plan
Of dog eat dog, of mighty crush the weak." -Langston Hughes, Let America Be America Again

Last edited by tikkier2000; 06-25-2017 at 05:45 AM.
tikkier2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2017, 07:01 AM   #51
ScottPress
Chief Warlock
The Horny Sovereign
 
ScottPress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: The Holy Moose Empire
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,500
High Score: 1,826
@LightLordPotter

You throw around words like hypocrisy and ad hominem as if they're magic words that make you seem smarter just because while resorting to personal attacks yourself, which makes you hypocrite squared.

Another thread, another anecdote, huh? Dismissing counterarguments as 'anecdotes' doesn't counter the argument, it just makes you look silly.

On the issue of taxpayers paying for criminals. How do you suppose this should be handled? The government's money is tax money. Thus, indeed, taxpayers for incarceration. But you seem to think that incarceration is some privilege that had working taxpayers grant to criminals. Yes, you're on paying to shelter, feed, clothe and provide medical care to criminals. You're also paying to keep filthy criminals locked up and away from you. Do you propose that criminals pay for their incarceration? How are they supposed to do that? Lend them out as cheap labor, with salary going to their incarceration costs? My vindictive side says yes, sentence murderers and kiddie fuckers to do the filthiest jobs there are -but then there'd be protests. Criminals are taking the jobs of law abiding citizens! So you're kinda fucked. Society chooses to err on the side of not tyranny in this case. Though I guess just executing criminals would do the tri- oh wait, US already does that.

You seem very hawkish when it comes to dealing with criminals. Have you ever downloaded something? Littered in public? Not cleaned up your dog's shit? Called someone a cunt on the Internet? Run a red light? I guarantee, you're not a saint. Maybe you didn't get caught. Maybe the transgression isn't classed as a crime. Or maybe you are in fact unblemished. Good for you. That doesn't mean you can cast people you think beneath you into a shithole. The western civilization has decided a while ago that dictatorship generally doesn't work.

(and just to end on a joke, the world has much better reasons to laugh at America right now than your criminal justice system)
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Iron Rose in Discord
we gotta teach scott contouring
it's the only way he'll have any tits
Source ^

Last edited by ScottPress; 06-25-2017 at 07:09 AM.
ScottPress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2017, 07:35 AM   #52
silentclock
Headmaster
 
silentclock's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Kentucky
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,061
DLP Supporter Donor Star
Quote:
Originally Posted by LightLordPotter View Post

You realize that the link literally proves my point, right? The chart with the breakdown of federal and state inmates shows that the percentage of violent offenders has been in the 40's since 1997. You know that 47% is less than 50%, right? So, you know, a minority. And again, that doesn't even account for parolees and people on probation/diversion.

But hey, if you want to link to the first google hit without even checking to make sure it doesn't torpedo your argument, then by all means continue do so.

Quote:
Then what do you argue for? You seem to be continually attempting to beat some ambiguous point into my head, but why? You're coming at me with a statistic, yet you don't know what it means. It's like you googled it then said, "yea, he definitely won't look at it". Please, stop trying so hard.
I provided the statistics because you said I was wrong that nonviolent felons outnumbered violent ones. You were incorrect, as I've proven with my sources and now your own. And that's relevant because you argued that non-violent felons were some negligible group of people and that it didn't matter if they got caught up in the punishment of the violent ones.

Quote:
I agree with the part where it is complex. But do you think it's fair that taxpayers should pay when one of these idiots breaks the law? Do you think the people that abide the law deserve the thousands of dollars in taxes just to incarcerate these people? You seem to put criminals on some kind of pedestal as if they matter more than the average person. To me, you seem more like a crook than a lawyer, but I guess that's most criminal defence lawyers.
...So you think the cost of incarceration is excessive? I happen to agree. It's very expensive to imprison someone. So I guess we'd be in agreement that we should imprison fewer people, right? It would be an easy way to save some tax money. You know how we might achieve that? By not criminalizing certain acts, which aren't generally criminal, on the basis of status.

Quote:
Public defender. AKA he makes chump change in order to let people that break the law off easily. He will say anything for his narrative to be correct, even present facts in an obvious bias manner. Not a single ounce of objectivity, eh?
Got me there, lol.

Quote:
All the Ad Hominem today, eh?
Not really. There's a difference between "this guy is making bad arguments, as we've demonstrated through statistics; he also happens to be an idiot," and "this guy is an idiot; therefore, his argument is wrong." We've seen examples of the former in this thread, justifiably I think, but not the latter. No one has attacked your arguments by attacking you. No one has needed to. There are no ad hominems here, no matter how hard you cry otherwise.
silentclock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2017, 07:42 AM   #53
LightLordPotter
Disappeared
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 48
Quote:
You throw around words like hypocrisy and ad hominem as if they're magic words that make you seem smarter just because while resorting to personal attacks yourself, which makes you hypocrite squared.
Making a lot of assumptions there, buddy. You throw around a lot of buzzwords and don't understand the definition of them.

Quote:
Dismissing counterarguments as 'anecdotes'
No, I'm dismissing the fact that he uses some ambiguous drunk guy as an excuse for all criminals being off the hook.

Quote:
sentence murderers and kiddie fuckers to do the filthiest jobs there are -but then there'd be protests.
I'd rather just execute them altogether. You take a life, your life gets taken, it's not that hard to understand or comprehend.

Quote:
Criminals are taking the jobs of law abiding citizens!
Even if your idea somehow worked out despite the absolutely horrendous reliance on the criminals themselves. I doubt anyone would protest people doing shit jobs if they no longer have to pay the murderer's weight in gold.

Quote:
Have you ever downloaded something?
I buy steam games and I download them if that's what you're referring to. I hardly see the relevance though.

Quote:
Littered in public?
Probably, but I'm not exposing myself in public or killing people. There's a pretty fine line between the two, which makes your anecdotes completely idiotic.

Quote:
Called someone a cunt on the Internet? Run a red light?
Where do you get from A to B there, buddy?


Quote:
That doesn't mean you can cast people you think beneath you into a shithole. The western civilization has decided a while ago that dictatorship generally doesn't work.
But I'm not stating anyone's beneath me. I'm saying that the justice system is too focused on reform and not punishment.

Quote:
(and just to end on a joke, the world has much better reasons to laugh at America right now than your criminal justice system)
I suppose, when you have people walking around in pussy hats.

---------- Post automerged at 07:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:36 AM ----------

Quote:
that we should imprison fewer people, right? It would be an easy way to save some tax money. You know how we might achieve that? By not criminalizing certain acts, which aren't generally criminal, on the basis of status.
Was genuinely agreeing with you until you came to this conclusion. Not only would this cause massive issues (say, you legalised the selling of Cocaine or some other horrendous drug that ruins lives), but it's also not thought out in the slightest.

Quote:
ou realize that the link literally proves my point, right? The chart with the breakdown of federal and state inmates shows that the percentage of violent offenders has been in the 40's since 1997. You know that 47% is less than 50%, right?
Then you're having a completely different argument, as you're quoted as saying that the total amount of people incarcerated for non-violent crimes outweighs the amount incarcerated for violent crimes, which is factually untrue.
LightLordPotter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2017, 07:47 AM   #54
Immet
Slug Club Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by tikkier2000 View Post
You're right. It isn't the taxpayers' jobs to help criminals. It isn't the government's job to make sure people don't commit crimes.
No, LightLordPotter is wrong. It is the government's (and thus taxpayer's) job to make sure people don't commit crimes.

The government governed/guided school system is supposed to teach people to not commit crimes and give them skills to give them other options than crime, part of new definitions of crimes should include awareness campaigns to stop people committing crimes and a large part of the criminal justice system should be to reduce recidivism.

The government has responsibility in many areas to reduce crime. And it is also the government's job to help people accused of crime to make sure they have a fair trial and justice.

And more importantly, if you help the criminals that don't have options other than crime, then they are much less likely to commit crimes in the future and there will be less crime.

Whereas if you have this moral idea in your mind that anyone who commits a crime for any reason should be ground into the dirt or killed, then anyone who accidentally commits a crime has nothing to lose and is then free to commit any crime they want since they will be killed anyway.
Immet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2017, 07:49 AM   #55
silentclock
Headmaster
 
silentclock's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Kentucky
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,061
DLP Supporter Donor Star
Quote:
Originally Posted by LightLordPotter View Post
Was genuinely agreeing with you until you came to this conclusion. Not only would this cause massive issues (say, you legalised the selling of Cocaine or some other horrendous drug that ruins lives), but it's also not thought out in the slightest.
I referred specifically to status crimes (ex. convicted felon in possession of a firearm). Selling dope is criminal to everyone--it doesn't change based on status. I never said we should legalize it.

Quote:
Then you're having a completely different argument, as you're quoted as saying that the total amount of people incarcerated for non-violent crimes outweighs the amount incarcerated for violent crimes, which is factually untrue.
It's still a majority, even if we look only at incarceration. But my argument has always centered around the felon label, which is attached to a great number of people on probation or parole who aren't reflected in the incarceration statistics. The very link that you posted states that as of 2012, 47.7% of people imprisoned at both the state and federal level were violent offenders. The remaining 52.7% were nonviolent. Now tell me: which of those is the larger number?
silentclock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2017, 08:26 AM   #56
SmileOfTheKill
Headmaster
Magical Amber
 
SmileOfTheKill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Florida, Sigh...
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by LightLordPotter View Post
I agree with the part where it is complex. But do you think it's fair that taxpayers should pay when one of these idiots breaks the law? Do you think the people that abide the law deserve the thousands of dollars in taxes just to incarcerate these people? You seem to put criminals on some kind of pedestal as if they matter more than the average person. To me, you seem more like a crook than a lawyer, but I guess that's most criminal defence lawyers.

Public defender. AKA he makes chump change in order to let people that break the law off easily. He will say anything for his narrative to be correct, even present facts in an obvious bias manner. Not a single ounce of objectivity, eh?
I'm confused, do you even know what the side benefits of a defender is? It isn't just to defend guilty people, it is also to make sure guilty people are charged properly. You don't want the prosecution getting lazy and failing to do their job with investigating everything that matters. You need to have the defenders to check their work so on the off case there is something wrong, it is solved. We are paying the defenders not just to defend criminals but to defend innocent people as we make sure to secure that guilty verdict was done justly.


I can kind of understand your general distaste for criminals, even if it is very black and white, but I don't get why you are hating on the defenders. They are needed. The hell are we supposed to do? Assume the prosecutors are always right?
__________________
"All they do is expound their store of knowledge. They excite themselves with their ranting; their disapproval swells them with a feeling of importance and sick victory, they thrive on spoiling the pleasure and trashing the creativity of others."
The Minister shares her opinion of critics. ~ Kino's Journey

Last edited by SmileOfTheKill; 06-25-2017 at 08:45 AM. Reason: I've been up for 20 hours, I can't use words.
SmileOfTheKill is offline   Reply With Quote
Thumbs Up 2 thumbs up
Old 06-25-2017, 08:42 AM   #57
Invictus
Heir
 
Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Cidade Maravilhosa
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by LightLordPotter View Post
You just linked the first thing that came to you on Google, since you didn't even bother to explain what's what with this research. And it still proves you wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LightLordPotter View Post
Then what do you argue for? You seem to be continually attempting to beat some ambiguous point into my head, but why? You're coming at me with a statistic, yet you don't know what it means. It's like you googled it then said, "yea, he definitely won't look at it". Please, stop trying so hard.
Not an argument, just you trying to dismiss what he said by ignoring the context or its very clear meaning. Troll.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LightLordPotter View Post
I agree with the part where it is complex. But do you think it's fair that taxpayers should pay when one of these idiots breaks the law? Do you think the people that abide the law deserve the thousands of dollars in taxes just to incarcerate these people? You seem to put criminals on some kind of pedestal as if they matter more than the average person. To me, you seem more like a crook than a lawyer, but I guess that's most criminal defence lawyers.
Again you say that defending criminals letting keep their basic rights as human beings is putting them on a pedestal. Unfortunately for you, and fortunately for a lot of people that understand what this is, the United States is a country that follows the Rule of Law, and is very clear that Constitutional laws still apply to criminals even if there are some changes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LightLordPotter View Post
Public defender. AKA he makes chump change in order to let people that break the law off easily. He will say anything for his narrative to be correct, even present facts in an obvious bias manner. Not a single ounce of objectivity, eh?
If you don't like lawyers son, and what they stand for, why defend anything about US Criminal Justice? Just eliminate all rights and Guarantees. I do like that you said this literally before sperging about ad hominems.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LightLordPotter View Post
I think that's the text book definition of an Ad Hominem. So you're incapable of creating arguments? You have to rely on self-diagnosis? How cool, I bet you take online quizzes super seriously.
All of your claimed data is either fake or only in your head, meanwhile half of your posts are ad hominem. But you still believe that NO YOU is feasible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LightLordPotter View Post
All the Ad Hominem today, eh? It's crazy how many people here think that Criminals are just victims, the disillusionment with reality is unreal, it's like you all have about as much Self-Awareness as Elliot Rodger.
I'm sorry. Disillusionment? Truly. I worked for criminals both as a private lawyer, worked against them as the accusation, I visited a jail, and dealt with the police plenty of time. I can bet that silentclock has plenty more of experience. So unlike you, we know how the process works, why it's there and it's consequences. The fact that you believe that being a criminal removes your basic rights as human being isn't supported by any respectable law theorist, and why, I believe you do well to bring Rodger. Angry little man that wants the death of those that 'wrong him systematically'. That's not familiar at all for you, is it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LightLordPotter View Post
Funny how you call a discussion "a childish tantrum" when that is exactly what you're doing. I think I lost brain cells reading your post, you essentially call me wrong, give no evidence as to why, make an insult like this is some kind of Indy!Harry fic where he is calling Voldemort moldyshorts. Then rinse and repeat for a couple more points.

"Ur wrong cuz ur wrong". I didn't realise that no one was capable of having a decent discussion without relying on Ad Hominem.
You're using Harry Potter fics now for examples... Nice. Let's see all your examples of ad hominem and being a childish little shit.

Quote:
"Ur wrong cuz ur wrong".

gish gallop less gish gallopy

'Muh criminal justice system'.

Do you have a citation for some dude pissing on a wall in public

I don't understand what kind of attorney believes criminals that commit actual crimes, with full knowledge that they commit these crimes, are needed owning firearms

Public defender. AKA he makes chump change

I think I lost brain cells reading your post, you essentially call me wrong, give no evidence as to why, make an insult like this is some kind of Indy!Harry fic where he is calling Voldemort moldyshorts

your anecdotes completely idiotic
Look at this fine, fine list. Best of all, I don't even have to provide context for them, since you gave them none. So, you little angry hypocrite, gonna start defending your arguments or just keep attacking other people to try to make everyone ignore the holes they just pointed out in your points?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LightLordPotter View Post
They are given second chances though, and a huge percentage go back to being criminals anyways. It's pointless to waste tax dollars for funding the second chance if they won't even stick to it, nor is it the tax payer's job in the long run.
No, right thing is just locking them up forever without trying and keep paying what... US$ 50-70,000 thousand dollars a year by inmate. That's what fiscal eficiency is, not trying to turn an expense in someone that gives income.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4472929/ - They're not even a majority, so again, from a financial only point of view, you're also being a moron and denying basic human rights for no reason.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LightLordPotter View Post
Making a lot of assumptions there, buddy. You throw around a lot of buzzwords and don't understand the definition of them.
The fact that you don't explain how or why he is wrong or what the words means, makes it very clear you're the one that doesn't know what's going on.


Quote:
Originally Posted by LightLordPotter View Post
No, I'm dismissing the fact that he uses some ambiguous drunk guy as an excuse for all criminals being off the hook.
No, you're lying since he didn't say that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by LightLordPotter View Post
I'd rather just execute them altogether. You take a life, your life gets taken, it's not that hard to understand or comprehend.
Your logic is oustounding, astounding and outstanding, oh Hamburabi. That you have no idea what to do with other criminals shows how well thought and considered is your point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LightLordPotter View Post
Even if your idea somehow worked out despite the absolutely horrendous reliance on the criminals themselves. I doubt anyone would protest people doing shit jobs if they no longer have to pay the murderer's weight in gold.
Slavery. You mean slavery son.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LightLordPotter View Post
I buy steam games and I download them if that's what you're referring to. I hardly see the relevance though.

Probably, but I'm not exposing myself in public or killing people. There's a pretty fine line between the two, which makes your anecdotes completely idiotic.
That's not what anedoctes are. Again. Go read a dictionary. And I'm sure you never took something without permission or illegally download something. I like how you equate accidental exposure to murder. Boy, we sure should start shooting parents and siblings that accidentally let their kids see their genitalia.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LightLordPotter View Post
But I'm not stating anyone's beneath me. I'm saying that the justice system is too focused on reform and not punishment.
Your entire point is that anyone that committed a serious enough crime, and apparently you're the only that can correctly judge when that line is crossed and can be as awful as pissing near someone, should become sub-human legally.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LightLordPotter View Post
I suppose, when you have people walking around in pussy hats.
Yes, freedom of expression, what a horrible horrible thing. It's that and not the deep racial imbalance, daily mass shootings, widespread gang control of jails among other issues that makes the US problematic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LightLordPotter View Post
Then you're having a completely different argument, as you're quoted as saying that the total amount of people incarcerated for non-violent crimes outweighs the amount incarcerated for violent crimes, which is factually untrue.
Go re-learn your numbers. Your own link clearly states that you're wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LightLordPotter View Post
Well, the thread isn't about that. But, here's an idea, the criminal should have thought about all of this beforehand. **gasp**. I know right? Personal responsibility! This is why people laugh at America, you're all too thin-skinned to get anything done. It's always about second and third chances and not about protecting the people you already have. The only one that does a better job than us at this is Sweden and Germany.
The thread isn't about your delusions of cheap revanchism against imaginary monsters either. But I will bite. Point out who does a good job with criminals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LightLordPotter View Post
Maybe they should show some mercy for others before receiving it—Hm?
DA EDGE. It cuts me!

The fact that you can't understand that a good justice system isn't about masturbating hate boners but ensure pacific coexistence as much as possible and a cohesive society that doesn't fray at its edges is sad.

Last edited by Invictus; 06-25-2017 at 12:49 PM.
Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Thumbs Up 4 thumbs up
Old 06-25-2017, 08:36 PM   #58
The Pro
Seventh Year
 
The Pro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Depths of Tartarus
Age: 16
Gender: Male
Posts: 227
Okay, so I gotta ask. Why does this keep happening? Some newbie joins DLP, starts posting a lot in a short amount of time when it's clear they don't fully understand the system(s) here, then inevitably get banned.

This LightLordPotter is the latest example. He's obviously a typical layman, yet he talks about subjects like he's an expert when it's painfully apparent that his knowledge is neophyte at best.

So why? Why does this keep happening?
__________________
“Here's to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They're not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you can't do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.”

The Pro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2017, 08:48 PM   #59
Solfege
Professor
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: East Coast & the South
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 458
Why do laymen newbs keep talking, or why do we let it go as far as it does before they get banned?

The former clearly because their strong sense of righteousness (and HPfanfic is so much of that wish-fulfillment) leads them on. The latter because it's amusing and, sometimes, instructive.
Solfege is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2017, 09:47 PM   #60
Xiph0
Administrator
First Tovarisch
 
Xiph0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: People's Republic of California
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Pro View Post
Okay, so I gotta ask. Why does this keep happening? Some newbie joins DLP, starts posting a lot in a short amount of time when it's clear they don't fully understand the system(s) here, then inevitably get banned.

This LightLordPotter is the latest example. He's obviously a typical layman, yet he talks about subjects like he's an expert when it's painfully apparent that his knowledge is neophyte at best.

So why? Why does this keep happening?
*reads your post*
*looks at your age*

Same reason I didn't ban you straight off the bat. DLP can be a place people grow on as long as they stay within certain guard rails. Many of us started out posting shitty and simply because the average age of the site has gone up into the upper 20's doesn't mean we're going to come down on the newer, younger members for making the mistake of being arrogant or know-it-all. We were all there once upon a time. I joined at 17, go read my early posts. It's a tire fire. DLP helped shape my thinking, and I won't deprive people of that simply because they irritate me a little. 17 year old me would irritate me too.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by happyg View Post
As far as I can tell, Sree is some kind of racist joke.
Xiph0 is offline   Reply With Quote


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2nd amendment / gun discussion thread: Keep it in here LogrusMage Politics 1443 07-26-2017 09:48 PM
We didn't really need the 4th Amendment anyway, right? Nukular Winter Politics 36 05-18-2011 11:17 PM
SCotUS Incorporates the 2nd Amendment into the 14th Rin Politics 10 07-04-2010 12:42 AM
Prometeus - The Media Revolution Link Real Life Discussion 0 11-24-2007 02:22 PM
Media Players Murton Real Life Discussion 37 07-21-2006 05:55 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright ©2005 - 2016 DLP Group. All rights reserved.
No personal intellectual property on this site may be used without the credit and express permission of the respective authors.