First time Offenders

[porterjack]

I think she's referring to a crime that would actually land someone in prison, an offense that would mean just jail time the person should just serve out their time.

fair enough

 

[edgray]

Ed you can't just restructure society that way, it is impossible to stop people from committing crimes altogether, that would mean changing Human nature, the way we think and feel, it simply cannot be done, as long as there are human beings there will always be a need for prisons, and for a military, and I do believe that some criminals would be far better off serving in the military than in Prison.

Yes we're told that all the time. By the very people that would lose out by restructuring.

Human nature doesn't know what a crime is. Hell, no one even knows what human nature is yet.

All crimes are just problems that society hasn't figured out how to deal with. And they're not even attempting to figure them out. It's not in their interest to do so. Why? Because if there were no criminals, the govts would lose a significant part of their power. Also it would take man power which as a resource is scant because theres no money in it. There's money to be made in fighting crime, but not in stopping it.

We may never be able to cut crime completely, but we could reduce it to the point of insignificance.

Firstly, legalise ALL drugs. In the UK, for example, 75% of crime is reported to be drug related. So that's a massive slice taken care of right there. Drug related theft - gone. Drug related violence, gone. Organised crime, gone.

Secondly, legalise prostitution. This leads to many pointless convictions.

Thirdly, stop marginalising people. Inclusive societal structures would improve citizen relations and make it harder for people to commit a crime. Think of society like a team. People tend not to fuck with members of their own team. However, right now, society is so divided its no wonder there are problems.

Fourthly, eradicate poverty. Poverty seems to be related, tho to what extent many people disagree on. It's highly controversial, but I think it's no coincidence that over 50% of inmates in the US earned less than 10,000$ in the year before they went to prison. Middle class people do not commit offenses at the same rate as working class people. There's our target right there.

Fifthly, and most importantly, remove this foolish notion that competition is good for humans. It's not. It's a condition that brings out the very worst of human behaviour. We know this by looking at the world as it is right now. We live in competing societies, societies that have to then compete globally. And look what we have: constant wars around the globe. People fighting over nonsense. People are competing for scraps falling off the rich elites tables - it's no wonder that some people want to cheat the system. We're raised to see our fellow citizens essentially as enemies. Is it any wonder that such a large amount of people don't think twice about harming them?

Those are just a few starting ideas. I'm sure if the situation was properly address, it could be achieved, and it might be a lot easier than people think.

I remember an experiment that was conducted in Scotland a few years back on this motorway. If you were speeding, and unhappy face was displayed on large LED screens as you went past. This one small gesture cut down speeding on that piece of road drastically. How ridiculously easy. There's no money in that tho, so the project went nowhere. Govts do not want to eradicate crime, and citizens need an enemy.

Just some ideas....

 

[dkwrtw]

So your Idea of eliminating crime is making everything legal? Also you can't simply ERADICATE poverty, if the things you say should be done COULD be done we would already live in a perfect world, humans are be nature violent, and they are by nature assholes, you're living in a fantasy world if you think all of this could be done.

 

[darkangel]

Because if there were no criminals, the govts would lose a significant part of their power.

How would the Government lose a significant part of their power? It doesn't take but 1 or 2 police officers to arrest an offender usually but it costs the tax payers to house them and feed them. And how many jobs would be lost if there were no criminals?

Criminals= Jobs
No Criminals= let's get real. This is far from a perfect world and I don't see it happening.

 

[edgray]

So your Idea of eliminating crime is making everything legal? Also you can't simply ERADICATE poverty, if the things you say should be done COULD be done we would already live in a perfect world, humans are be nature violent, and they are by nature assholes, you're living in a fantasy world if you think all of this could be done.

Only make legal what's pointlessly illegal. Obviously if something is directly harming another person then no. Assault, murder, rape, theft, these will remain illegal. But drugs? Just no! It's pointless having them illegal.

I just looked up online - in the UK there is an average of 180,000 drug offenses for every 100,000 people!! That's insanity!

Eradicating poverty is a piece of cake. By my last calculation (done a couple of years ago), and this is only for the UK mind, the GDP of Great Britain, if divided up equally, would amount to over 16k PER PERSON (that includes children and OAPs). This is well above the poverty line for everyone. This shows the resource is there. It's only how it's distributed that isn't working. Currently in Britain I believe it's around 30% of the country are below that line because the top 5% are taking so much of it. Thats easily fixable.

Also, human's aren't violent in nature. "Human nature", if such a thing even exists, would have to apply to everyone. I don't know a single violent person. Not one single person. And I know a decent amount of people from all walks of life. Almost all of the people I know steer clear of violence of any kind. It's not in human's nature to fight otherwise we'd all be doing it.

How would the Government lose a significant part of their power? It doesn't take but 1 or 2 police officers to arrest an offender usually but it costs the tax payers to house them and feed them. And how many jobs would be lost if there were no criminals?

Criminals= Jobs
No Criminals= let's get real. This is far from a perfect world and I don't see it happening.

The govt needs it's voting population to have enemies. It's the oldest trick in the book. Why do you think we have a war on terror? Its nothing to do with the practically non-existant threat of terror. It's all to do with control. Make people fear an enemy and offer them the solution and viola, you can do what you want because you've got the power. Governments have been making people scared for centuries. It's how they maintain power. Why do you think so many people in the US are now after this whole minimal government thing? It wasn't talked about under Bush, because he kept you all petrified of a non-existant enemy.

As for criminals creating jobs, this is very true. But it's a waste of man power. There are better uses for that man power than incarceration.

Changes in society already affect crime statistics. Look at crime in the US. Crime over there has been dropping for years, believe it or not. Burglary and assault are continuing to drop.

The only reason its impossible to envisage a crime free world is if you believe that criminals are born criminals. If you understand that people are not born criminals, then you can see the possibility.

 

[dkwrtw]

Only make legal what's pointlessly illegal. Obviously if something is directly harming another person then no. Assault, murder, rape, theft, these will remain illegal. But drugs? Just no! It's pointless having them illegal.

I just looked up online - in the UK there is an average of 180,000 drug offenses for every 100,000 people!! That's insanity!

Eradicating poverty is a piece of cake. By my last calculation (done a couple of years ago), and this is only for the UK mind, the GDP of Great Britain, if divided up equally, would amount to over 16k PER PERSON (that includes children and OAPs). This is well above the poverty line for everyone. This shows the resource is there. It's only how it's distributed that isn't working. Currently in Britain I believe it's around 30% of the country are below that line because the top 5% are taking so much of it. Thats easily fixable.

Also, human's aren't violent in nature. "Human nature", if such a thing even exists, would have to apply to everyone. I don't know a single violent person. Not one single person. And I know a decent amount of people from all walks of life. Almost all of the people I know steer clear of violence of any kind. It's not in human's nature to fight otherwise we'd all be doing it.



The govt needs it's voting population to have enemies. It's the oldest trick in the book. Why do you think we have a war on terror? Its nothing to do with the practically non-existant threat of terror. It's all to do with control. Make people fear an enemy and offer them the solution and viola, you can do what you want because you've got the power. Governments have been making people scared for centuries. It's how they maintain power. Why do you think so many people in the US are now after this whole minimal government thing? It wasn't talked about under Bush, because he kept you all petrified of a non-existant enemy.

As for criminals creating jobs, this is very true. But it's a waste of man power. There are better uses for that man power than incarceration.

Changes in society already affect crime statistics. Look at crime in the US. Crime over there has been dropping for years, believe it or not. Burglary and assault are continuing to drop.

The only reason its impossible to envisage a crime free world is if you believe that criminals are born criminals. If you understand that people are not born criminals, then you can see the possibility.

Yes there are the resources, BUT People should only receive what they are willing to WORK for, why should a person who contributes nothing to society be given the same funds as a person who works their hands to the bone to be a productive member of society? If everyone were just GIVEN everything it would simply promote laziness, why work or contribute in any way when you can do NOTHING and be given the same as someone who does work? It wouldn't work Ed, and deep down you know it.

 

[Kyle B]

Eradicating poverty is a piece of cake. By my last calculation (done a couple of years ago), and this is only for the UK mind, the GDP of Great Britain, if divided up equally, would amount to over 16k PER PERSON (that includes children and OAPs). This is well above the poverty line for everyone. This shows the resource is there. It's only how it's distributed that isn't working. Currently in Britain I believe it's around 30% of the country are below that line because the top 5% are taking so much of it. Thats easily fixable.

Also, human's aren't violent in nature. "Human nature", if such a thing even exists, would have to apply to everyone. I don't know a single violent person. Not one single person. And I know a decent amount of people from all walks of life. Almost all of the people I know steer clear of violence of any kind. It's not in human's nature to fight otherwise we'd all be doing it.

That's nice and dandy, but what if people want to make more money than 16k per year?

Also you say humans aren't violent by nature. I just find that very difficult to believe. If you left people in their natural state, they'd easily get into conflict over something.

 

[darkangel]

As for criminals creating jobs, this is very true. But it's a waste of man power. There are better uses for that man power than incarceration.

What??? Are you trying to say that prison employees are a waste of man power???

Changes in society already affect crime statistics. Look at crime in the US. Crime over there has been dropping for years, believe it or not. Burglary and assault are continuing to drop.

And?

The only reason its impossible to envisage a crime free world is if you believe that criminals are born criminals. If you understand that people are not born criminals, then you can see the possibility.

Not true ed. Illegal activity has been around forever and a day. I can compare it to other things that have been around that long but I won't. The fact remains that there are going to be criminals for many many years to come and I really think that for nonviolent first time offenders there should be an option to go into the military rather than jail. It would be much more beneficial in many ways as I've already explained some of them...

 

[anathelia]

Yes we're told that all the time. By the very people that would lose out by restructuring.

Human nature doesn't know what a crime is. Hell, no one even knows what human nature is yet.

All crimes are just problems that society hasn't figured out how to deal with. And they're not even attempting to figure them out. It's not in their interest to do so. Why? Because if there were no criminals, the govts would lose a significant part of their power. Also it would take man power which as a resource is scant because theres no money in it. There's money to be made in fighting crime, but not in stopping it.

We may never be able to cut crime completely, but we could reduce it to the point of insignificance.

Firstly, legalise ALL drugs. In the UK, for example, 75% of crime is reported to be drug related. So that's a massive slice taken care of right there. Drug related theft - gone. Drug related violence, gone. Organised crime, gone.

Secondly, legalise prostitution. This leads to many pointless convictions.

Thirdly, stop marginalising people. Inclusive societal structures would improve citizen relations and make it harder for people to commit a crime. Think of society like a team. People tend not to fuck with members of their own team. However, right now, society is so divided its no wonder there are problems.

Fourthly, eradicate poverty. Poverty seems to be related, tho to what extent many people disagree on. It's highly controversial, but I think it's no coincidence that over 50% of inmates in the US earned less than 10,000$ in the year before they went to prison. Middle class people do not commit offenses at the same rate as working class people. There's our target right there.

Fifthly, and most importantly, remove this foolish notion that competition is good for humans. It's not. It's a condition that brings out the very worst of human behaviour. We know this by looking at the world as it is right now. We live in competing societies, societies that have to then compete globally. And look what we have: constant wars around the globe. People fighting over nonsense. People are competing for scraps falling off the rich elites tables - it's no wonder that some people want to cheat the system. We're raised to see our fellow citizens essentially as enemies. Is it any wonder that such a large amount of people don't think twice about harming them?

Those are just a few starting ideas. I'm sure if the situation was properly address, it could be achieved, and it might be a lot easier than people think.

I remember an experiment that was conducted in Scotland a few years back on this motorway. If you were speeding, and unhappy face was displayed on large LED screens as you went past. This one small gesture cut down speeding on that piece of road drastically. How ridiculously easy. There's no money in that tho, so the project went nowhere. Govts do not want to eradicate crime, and citizens need an enemy.

Just some ideas....

I agree that these things would definitely help lower crime rates. I guess the hardest part is implementation. Not so much the first two, as I believe that making drugs/prostitution legal, and taxed would help cut the government's debt by a significant amount. The others seem a little harder. How would you go about eliminating poverty, for example? Job creation would be a start, but with so much technology these days, people are losing their jobs to machinery and robots and whatnot all the time. I actually read an article on cracked.com the other day (and yes, I realize it's a humour website) about such jobs as firefighters and lifeguards and I think even police and military jobs can and are beginning to be replaced by AI. If we could find more jobs for PEOPLE to do, I think that would help.

The other problem is finding a way to make impoverished people WANT to take these jobs. For a lot of people (and I know I can't speak for all of them.) that are making little to no money, they don't seem to even care about bettering themselves. If they can get a nice welfare check from Uncle Sam every month, why should they work for their money? It's a hard issue to deal with, but I think if we could get people with brains and an interest in better society in positions of power, we might be able to find solutions. I was just wondering if you had any ideas of your own.


I'd love to live in a utopian society (or even something infinitely better than what we live in now), it's just a matter of what we need to do in order to get there.


EDIT: http://www.cracked.com/article_18759_6-iconic-jobs-that-are-going-away-forever.html (edited to cite the article I mentioned.)

 

[KimmyCharmeleon]

I don't really know if I'd send them to an army, but a boot camp might help them get in line I guess.

 

[edgray]

Yes there are the resources, BUT People should only receive what they are willing to WORK for, why should a person who contributes nothing to society be given the same funds as a person who works their hands to the bone to be a productive member of society? If everyone were just GIVEN everything it would simply promote laziness, why work or contribute in any way when you can do NOTHING and be given the same as someone who does work? It wouldn't work Ed, and deep down you know it.

There are very few people unwilling to work, and those that are unwilling are most likely so because they're better of on benefits.

That example was just to show that the resources ARE there to pull every single person out of poverty.

That's nice and dandy, but what if people want to make more money than 16k per year?

It was just an example to show the resources are there. I'm not proposing giving everyone a flat rate at all. I'm just highlighting that the ONLY reason we have poverty is because of the greed of the upper levels of society.

Also you say humans aren't violent by nature. I just find that very difficult to believe. If you left people in their natural state, they'd easily get into conflict over something.

War is generally considered to be a very recent phenomenon in human terms. Sure, there will always be conflict, but if violence is such an integral part of human nature, EVERYONE would be violent. This just simply isn't true, so therefor it's not a part of human nature.

What??? Are you trying to say that prison employees are a waste of man power???

Of course. Man power that could be used elsewhere for much better impact on society. At this moment in time they're a necessary evil, but thinking beyond that there are much better things that manpower could be put to.

And?

That example was showing that it is possible to lower crime rates. Crime dropped under the Bush administration because of a big change in US society. That change was the introduction of the politics of fear.

Not true ed. Illegal activity has been around forever and a day. I can compare it to other things that have been around that long but I won't. The fact remains that there are going to be criminals for many many years to come and I really think that for nonviolent first time offenders there should be an option to go into the military rather than jail. It would be much more beneficial in many ways as I've already explained some of them...

That's not true at all. Laws haven't been around forever, and for something to be illegal there has to be a law making it so. Morals have, but not laws. Once upon a time humans would behave according to the morals of their tribe/society. Laws are a pretty recent invention in human terms. And laws are there simply to protect a massively faulty social hierarchy. Change the structure of society and you can eliminate the causes of crime.

I simply don't see how producing more state-sanctioned murderers is of any benefit to society whatsoever.

I agree that these things would definitely help lower crime rates. I guess the hardest part is implementation. Not so much the first two, as I believe that making drugs/prostitution legal, and taxed would help cut the government's debt by a significant amount. The others seem a little harder. How would you go about eliminating poverty, for example? Job creation would be a start, but with so much technology these days, people are losing their jobs to machinery and robots and whatnot all the time. I actually read an article on cracked.com the other day (and yes, I realize it's a humour website) about such jobs as firefighters and lifeguards and I think even police and military jobs can and are beginning to be replaced by AI. If we could find more jobs for PEOPLE to do, I think that would help.

The other problem is finding a way to make impoverished people WANT to take these jobs. For a lot of people (and I know I can't speak for all of them.) that are making little to no money, they don't seem to even care about bettering themselves. If they can get a nice welfare check from Uncle Sam every month, why should they work for their money? It's a hard issue to deal with, but I think if we could get people with brains and an interest in better society in positions of power, we might be able to find solutions. I was just wondering if you had any ideas of your own.

I'd love to live in a utopian society (or even something infinitely better than what we live in now), it's just a matter of what we need to do in order to get there.

EDIT: http://www.cracked.com/article_18759_6-iconic-jobs-that-are-going-away-forever.html (edited to cite the article I mentioned.)

Welfare is part of the problem, but it's a necessary evil in a society based on job scarcity. Capitalism needs people to have to compete for jobs, otherwise labour would cost too much. We can't even contemplate removing welfare until there is the possibility for 100% employment, which there isn't right now.

Another problem is that most jobs for the very lower levels of society stink - they're poorly paid, seriously long hours and are tantamount to exploitation in comparison to other jobs. They barely even cover living expenses. Think of a minimum wage worker. They work just as long and hard as everyone else, for a fraction of the money. They're forced to live in cheap accommodation, skimp on things like food and clothes. They are basically forced to live to work. Who on Earth would want that situation?

Accountable posted a very interesting video some time ago, that showed that society is making a huge mistake in how it remunerates workers. Studies have shown that for mechanical tasks (jobs that would ordinarily be very low paid) increasing salary improves workers output. Whereas creative jobs, jobs the middle classes would have, output is completely unaffected by salary level. And what do we currently do? Punish mechanical tasks with low pay and reward creative tasks with unnecessarily high salaries.

There's so much that needs to be done in society, there should be zero unemployment. But the money isn't there. And that really is the issue of all this. It all boils down to our utterly ridiculous monetary system and it's distribution.

 

[Meirionnydd]

What do you all think about giving young first time Offenders the option of going into the Military instead of Jail/Prison?

I think it's a good idea. It would cut down on prison population and would surely straighten them out and give them a better chance at life upon their release than jail/prison would. There's many things that they could learn that they wouldn't in jail/prison. It would also cut down the chance of them committing more crimes imo.

I don't think this is a very good idea. To start, you haven't really specified what types of offenses would be covered here. Are we talking about minor offenses? Because if we are, there are many types of punishment options at the hands of judges that stop short of prison time (community corrections, suspended sentences, fines, community service, restorative justice... etc.) that would just be as effective.

Also, to my knowledge, there is no empirical of statistical data that indicates that sending offenders into the military will reduce the recidivism rate. This is just blind speculation on your part, just because something 'seems' like the better option, doesn't make it so.

Also, the idea of giving offenders military training and access to a wide range of lethal hardware seems slightly strange to me.

Yes we're told that all the time. By the very people that would lose out by restructuring.

Human nature doesn't know what a crime is. Hell, no one even knows what human nature is yet.

All crimes are just problems that society hasn't figured out how to deal with. And they're not even attempting to figure them out. It's not in their interest to do so. Why? Because if there were no criminals, the govts would lose a significant part of their power. Also it would take man power which as a resource is scant because theres no money in it. There's money to be made in fighting crime, but not in stopping it.

We may never be able to cut crime completely, but we could reduce it to the point of insignificance.

Firstly, legalise ALL drugs. In the UK, for example, 75% of crime is reported to be drug related. So that's a massive slice taken care of right there. Drug related theft - gone. Drug related violence, gone. Organised crime, gone.

Secondly, legalise prostitution. This leads to many pointless convictions.

Thirdly, stop marginalising people. Inclusive societal structures would improve citizen relations and make it harder for people to commit a crime. Think of society like a team. People tend not to fuck with members of their own team. However, right now, society is so divided its no wonder there are problems.

Fourthly, eradicate poverty. Poverty seems to be related, tho to what extent many people disagree on. It's highly controversial, but I think it's no coincidence that over 50% of inmates in the US earned less than 10,000$ in the year before they went to prison. Middle class people do not commit offenses at the same rate as working class people. There's our target right there.

Fifthly, and most importantly, remove this foolish notion that competition is good for humans. It's not. It's a condition that brings out the very worst of human behaviour. We know this by looking at the world as it is right now. We live in competing societies, societies that have to then compete globally. And look what we have: constant wars around the globe. People fighting over nonsense. People are competing for scraps falling off the rich elites tables - it's no wonder that some people want to cheat the system. We're raised to see our fellow citizens essentially as enemies. Is it any wonder that such a large amount of people don't think twice about harming them?

Those are just a few starting ideas. I'm sure if the situation was properly address, it could be achieved, and it might be a lot easier than people think.

I remember an experiment that was conducted in Scotland a few years back on this motorway. If you were speeding, and unhappy face was displayed on large LED screens as you went past. This one small gesture cut down speeding on that piece of road drastically. How ridiculously easy. There's no money in that tho, so the project went nowhere. Govts do not want to eradicate crime, and citizens need an enemy.

Just some ideas....

What about white collar crime? It's not just the 'poor' that commit crime, though invariably they are the ones most likely to be caught.

I don't think crime can be completely eliminated. Crime is purely a social construction, and its definitions and nature changes considerably over time. However, crime can be reduced, particularly 'street crime', which is spawned by poverty and chronic disadvantage. Your suggestions would be a very good start.

 

[darkangel]

I don't think this is a very good idea. To start, you haven't really specified what types of offenses would be covered here. Are we talking about minor offenses? Because if we are, there are many types of punishment options at the hands of judges that stop short of prison time (community corrections, suspended sentences, fines, community service, restorative justice... etc.) that would just be as effective.

I specified more than once NON violent crimes that will put a person in jail/prison. If you read the whole thread before posting you would already know that. And so far we haven't seen any of those options that you stated working to stop first time offenders from committing further crimes. Plus dontcha think that if a system doesn't work then it should be changed or should we just give up on first time offenders, put them in jail/prison and have the outside world forget they exist and/or not care about giving them an option to redeem themselves, learn a trade (cuz you can go to school while in the military or after one gets out with the money they receive) and do something positive for themselves that would benefit them and our countries?

Also, to my knowledge, there is no empirical of statistical data that indicates that sending offenders into the military will reduce the recidivism rate. This is just blind speculation on your part, just because something 'seems' like the better option, doesn't make it so.

I am going by personal experience of people I know who have been given the military option, taken it and wound up as businessmen with their own small businesses. Again if you had read the whole thread I wouldn't have to be repeating myself.

Also, the idea of giving offenders military training and access to a wide range of lethal hardware seems slightly strange to me.

If you hadn't noticed when you're in the military there is strict hard training to use these things and they teach you discipline which they don't in jails/prisons. The military slaps people into reality, good physical shape, and gives people morals. Something that obviously is lacking in first time offenders.

So your opinion is keep going the way we are so that our jails/prisons stay over populated, support these offenders while in Jail and hope that maybe (and I'm just throwing this number out there) 1 out of 100 don't do it again? Yeah right! That seems to be working just perfectly. :sarcasm

When something isn't working we try to fix it correct? Then what is wrong with trying to fix the system that is now in place?

 

[dkwrtw]

There are very few people unwilling to work, and those that are unwilling are most likely so because they're better of on benefits.

That example was just to show that the resources ARE there to pull every single person out of poverty.

Yes we COULD pull every single person out of poverty if we wanted to just start giving free handouts to anyone and everyone who has done nothing to contribute to society, whilst taking away from people who have put in a lifetime of hard work to get where they are today. The people who are on the UPPER LEVELS of society have EARNED their way there for the most part, they got there through hard work and discipline, went through years and years of schooling and scraped and clawed their way to the top. I have pretty much nothing, but I'm not angry or bitter towards the people that do, because most of them have EARNED what they have, and all that they've worked their entire lives for should not be taken away to be distributed amongst people who haven't put in that hard work. And I know many, MANY people who are unwilling to work, there are so many people who just want to sit around collecting government aid that they've don't need and have done nothing to deserve, it's sickening how many able bodied people would rather collect a welfare check than put in an honest day's work.

 

[darkangel]

That's not true at all. Laws haven't been around forever, and for something to be illegal there has to be a law making it so. Morals have, but not laws. Once upon a time humans would behave according to the morals of their tribe/society. Laws are a pretty recent invention in human terms. And laws are there simply to protect a massively faulty social hierarchy. Change the structure of society and you can eliminate the causes of crime.

I simply don't see how producing more state-sanctioned murderers is of any benefit to society whatsoever.

Bet you thought I was going to just blow off your post. I'm not talking about the Stone Age and you know that. For at least 50-100 if not more years Laws have been around and so have criminals. So you think that changing the structure of society is the answer? That's pure utter nonsense ed. It will not happen in our lifetime anyway. To think otherwise is foolish. We have changed the structure of society as the years have gone on and all it has done is bring in more criminals. Should we make more things legal that shouldn't be just to make life better for criminals? And to negate punishments for immoral things that a lot of people do? No ed. That's not how a society works or at least not in the US. We shouldn't conform to the bad things that some people do just to keep them out of jail. Sounds to me that's what you're saying.

Your last statement is so way out there. First off there is no state sanctioned murderers. The military is run by the government. And in war you do what you have to do to protect your fellow servicemen. If you were being fired upon would you just raise the white flag and submit yourself to another country to the way that they handle captured military personnel? No you fight for your life. That doesn't make one a murderer. You protect yourself and others in the military during war and if that means you have to kill someone that is trying to kill you then that's what you do. From what I can tell you are opposed to war and that has clouded your thoughts. War has been around forever too and it's not going away anytime soon.

 

[Meirionnydd]

I am going by personal experience of people I know who have been given the military option, taken it and wound up as businessmen with their own small businesses. Again if you had read the whole thread I wouldn't have to be repeating myself.

I read that part. But sadly, a small piece of anecdotal evidence isn't going to convince me. If you had actual statistical or empirical data clearly suggesting that military service is able to do a better job of rehabilitating offenders than prison, then I might be convinced.

But you don't have any data or actual evidence on this, because no criminologist would have ever conducted such a study.

If you hadn't noticed when you're in the military there is strict hard training to use these things and they teach you discipline which they don't in jails/prisons. The military slaps people into reality, good physical shape, and gives people morals. Something that obviously is lacking in first time offenders.

Offenders actually do have a good sense of morality. Just because someone offends doesn't mean they are completely immoral, or inhuman, as some people on this forum are trying to suggest. Also, you've just mentioned a set of generic traits that military service can offer people, which again, isn't exactly proven. It's good to say, "the army can make you moral", but how?

The military can also get you physically fit, but you have to an adequate level of fitness to join the military in the first place. What do you do with the offenders that cannot join because they aren't fit enough?

Given the right resources, a prison can do an effective job at rehabilitating offenders. Also, if we're talking about first-time, non-violent offenders, why are we even sending them to prison in the first place?

So your opinion is keep going the way we are so that our jails/prisons stay over populated, support these offenders while in Jail and hope that maybe (and I'm just throwing this number out there) 1 out of 100 don't do it again? Yeah right! That seems to be working just perfectly. :sarcasm

When something isn't working we try to fix it correct? Then what is wrong with trying to fix the system that is now in place?

1 in 100? Well actually, even in the United States, the recidivism rate is about 50/100. In other western countries, the number is slightly lower. There is a general consensus that imprisonment is ultimately counterproductive, and offenders, particularly minor offenders, should be diverted from the imprisonment altogether.

While the prison population has risen steadily throughout the West in the past 30 years, none have really had the same problem as the United States when it comes to prison overcrowding. To fix your problem, maybe it would be wise to utilize the diversionary methods that so many other criminal justice systems across the world do.

Prison isn't always an option, and you don't need to send people into the military to sort them out either. You should get your head around the concept that offenders aren't necessarily evil and without morality. Like I said earlier, there are many punishment options before prison that are cheaper, won't contribute to prison overcrowding, are much cheaper and have a demonstrated effectiveness.

 

[edgray]

Yes we COULD pull every single person out of poverty if we wanted to just start giving free handouts to anyone and everyone who has done nothing to contribute to society, whilst taking away from people who have put in a lifetime of hard work to get where they are today. The people who are on the UPPER LEVELS of society have EARNED their way there for the most part, they got there through hard work and discipline, went through years and years of schooling and scraped and clawed their way to the top. I have pretty much nothing, but I'm not angry or bitter towards the people that do, because most of them have EARNED what they have, and all that they've worked their entire lives for should not be taken away to be distributed amongst people who haven't put in that hard work. And I know many, MANY people who are unwilling to work, there are so many people who just want to sit around collecting government aid that they've don't need and have done nothing to deserve, it's sickening how many able bodied people would rather collect a welfare check than put in an honest day's work.

No, I'm talking about govt handouts. I'm taking about getting everyone employed. There should be no unemployment, full stop. There's always something to do.

No one on the upper levels earned their money. The far majority inherited it off their parents. The rest got their through differential advantage of being born into better circumstances than everyone else.

There's one simple fact that backs up this hypothesis, and that's Social Mobility. Look into it, and look how the statistics show that if you're born poor, you'll die poor. Irrelevant of how hard you work.

It's a myth that they got their through hard work. Being clever, sure. People get rich by getting other people to do their work for them. You employ people, and you pay them less than the sum of their produce, and you profit. That is how you get rich. No one makes it rich by themselves.

And also, the whole concept is flawed. There are only so many hours in a day, no one can work THAT hard that they deserve millions. No one.

Also, some careers are simply rewarded better. And that's fucked up. I like the use nurses as an example. A nurse is one of the most vital jobs in society. Yet, they can only ever earn so much. Yet a stockbroker, who is actually paid to make society worse (yes, that's what they do) and redistribute wealth from the bottom to the top, have no limit on their remuneration. That's what needs to be changed. I'm not talking about hand outs. I'm talking about fair remuneration based on need to society, not on how much profit you can make some one.

Bet you thought I was going to just blow off your post. I'm not talking about the Stone Age and you know that. For at least 50-100 if not more years Laws have been around and so have criminals. So you think that changing the structure of society is the answer? That's pure utter nonsense ed. It will not happen in our lifetime anyway. To think otherwise is foolish. We have changed the structure of society as the years have gone on and all it has done is bring in more criminals. Should we make more things legal that shouldn't be just to make life better for criminals? And to negate punishments for immoral things that a lot of people do? No ed. That's not how a society works or at least not in the US. We shouldn't conform to the bad things that some people do just to keep them out of jail. Sounds to me that's what you're saying.

Changing society is THE ONLY WAY. And society is changing, little by little. Of course I wouldn't expect landmark change to occur in my lifetime. It will take generations to get us out of this mess we're in.

I disagree on their being more criminals. Crime, in the US anyhow, is on the decline, so how do you back that statement of yours up?

What I'm saying essentially is this:

Humans are products of their environments and their cultures. We need to figure out a societal structure that limits the bad side and pushes the positive side. Currently, we're pushing the bad side. Competition brings out the worst in people, especially competition in an environment of such scarcity.

Change the environment to produce fewer criminals. That's all I'm saying. We create criminals by how we live. Locking them up isn't productive for anyone.

Your last statement is so way out there. First off there is no state sanctioned murderers. The military is run by the government. And in war you do what you have to do to protect your fellow servicemen. If you were being fired upon would you just raise the white flag and submit yourself to another country to the way that they handle captured military personnel? No you fight for your life. That doesn't make one a murderer. You protect yourself and others in the military during war and if that means you have to kill someone that is trying to kill you then that's what you do. From what I can tell you are opposed to war and that has clouded your thoughts. War has been around forever too and it's not going away anytime soon.

No that statement was spot on.

The military aren't defending anything noble. If they were, why are there so many innocent casualties these days? They are simply there to KILL. To MURDER. INNOCENT PEOPLE. How can you not see that?

100,000 + iraqis. Killed. Murdered. By the military. Every year thousands of innocent Afghanis.

That is state-sanctioned MURDER. There is NO JUSTIFICATION for their deaths. NONE WHATSOEVER.

And the death toll is rising. In countries all over the world.

By creating more military personnel, you're creating more murderers.

War hasn't been around forever, not in human terms. We're talking maybe 5,000 years or so at a push. Which is a drop in the ocean in Human history terms.

I'm not a pacifist. I'm not against war as a tool of defense. The last war fought defending freedom was WWII. That was a looong time ago. Every war since then has been about money and power and NOTHING to do with noble causes.

 

[BornReady]

Firstly, legalise ALL drugs. Secondly, legalise prostitution.

:thumbup Absolutely! It isn't the governments role to protect people from themselves.

Eradicating poverty is a piece of cake. By my last calculation (done a couple of years ago), and this is only for the UK mind, the GDP of Great Britain, if divided up equally, would amount to over 16k PER PERSON (that includes children and OAPs). This is well above the poverty line for everyone. This shows the resource is there. It's only how it's distributed that isn't working. Currently in Britain I believe it's around 30% of the country are below that line because the top 5% are taking so much of it. Thats easily fixable.

I agree distribution of wealth is way out of kilter. However there must be some uneven distribution to make an economic system sustainable. I'm not sure how much is necessary but I'm guessing the highest paid members of society should make at least twice the lowest paid members.

In my understanding, GDP measures total production regardless of the various uses to which that production can be put. For example, some of the production is used to provide farmers with tractors. We can't divide up the farmer's tractors among everyone. And it wouldn't be fair to count the farmer's tractor as part of his 16k. That's just the cost of production.

If we take these two factors into consideration then the poorest people in society are going to get much less that 16k. But your point is well taken. The situation can definitely be improved. I'm just not sure we're at a point yet where we can eradicate poverty.