This will be fun using Tranq Darts that way you don't get prison time for murder pose with them for a couple of snap shots & hang the pic on your Trophy wall lol
I think you still get prison time for tranq darts. Also murder, depending on whether you got this "tranquilizer" specially made from a pharmacy or from a zoo, where tranq darts are made, 90% of which would make a human sleep until it becomes a spooky ghost.
Fun fact, it wouldn’t be better, you backwards, retarded sociopath.
Obvious bullshit follows:
I'm pretty sure enslavement is the most useful situation (for society) for convicted criminals to be in. They could be more effective/productive, I think, if they are treated a bit more humanely (guards actually protecting them from violence, for example), which would probably require a bit less freedom.
But I'm thinking if their living conditions are a bit more regulated (for safety and productivity reasons), while in their diminished free time they are given more privileges (but less freedom- keep them in single cells, but give them an intranet to communicate with other inmates in regulated prison forums; cheap television/video games), their slavery production would greatly increase. You could work them twelve hours a day every single day, and give them the rest of their time to veg out, or gain an education if they wish.
Obviously you'd have to incentivize the work to maximize the output. Hence the electronic entertainment they could be allowed (you'd be surprised how something so small means so much to someone in prison), provided they hit work and behavior quotas.
Obviously this wouldn't fix the truly deranged, violent scum in prison. But it could keep the ones on the border from becoming worse, while also providing free labor to society in a much more efficient way.
Ah, let's get to this. Firstly, harsh penalties don't work. They just don't. People never think they're going to get caught, and many crimes are crimes of passion or desperation. Harsh penalties are the kind of thing we have to appease backwards, retarded twats who see someone do a bad thing and want to do a bad thing to them because their trog brain demands it. These penalties are just going to, in general, mean long prison sentences where, as you say, it contributes to their criminality, or kill innocent people if it's the death penalty.
You can't help "people who made a conscious choice to murder/rob for their lives"? That's fucking grim, mate, and properly sociopathic. Many people have stolen or murdered without being lost causes. We can see people who went to prison for things like that still be decent people. How the fuck does, say, murdering the dude abusing your child, or robbing a bank to help you deal with your girlfriend's medical bills mean you're irredeemable?
What about people who do it because of drug addictions or mental illness? What about people who do it because there's no other real options in their area? It is fucking ridiculous to say we can't help criminals because they chose to do crime, and a true sign of how much of a backwards retard you are. That is not all they know or want in the slightest, you fucking cunt. Most people don't choose to commit crime because they fucking love violence or crime or whatever fucked up, backwards reason you've thought up.
And yeah, I did show my opinion. I was against prison gladiators. That's an opinion. My opinion was that what you said was nonsensical gibberish. Did you mean to say "Solution"? Because I don't need to have one to shoot down your theory, firstly, but secondly, I'd adopt a sort of rehabilitation-based Nordic method of prisons, given their low recidivism rates.
So, in conclusion, now that I know you better, you're a backward, retarded sociopath.
Finally some proper action around here.
At least give me a tl;dr, I don’t think anyone really wants to read the whole essay, Socrates.
Juuust a little footnote, but if you go to prison and join a "faction", it doesn't have to be for selfish reasons. Well, I guess yeah, selfish in the sense that it's something you do in order to not die or get raped. Fact of the matter is, prison is one of the roughest neighborhoods you can go into, literally everyone there is ostensibly a criminal. Very few people there don't have connections and agendas in the outside world that they must attend to, and the flow of organized crime doesn't stop in a prison, it just sort of stagnates in a pool.
What do you do in a world where not everyone's right in the head, where some people legitimately are sociopaths with reptoid brains, where it's considered completely reasonable to hate someone just for being a different race and/or looking at you funny? The first instinct you might have would be to seek protection with the biggest people you can find who won't push you around too much. That's a big reason why gangs are so powerful in prison, why there are so many repeat offenders even in rehabilitation-focussed prisons, and why it's incredibly hard to serve long sentences without committing yet more crimes, unless you want to suffer abuse of all sorts all day every day. Even if you're not a full-blooded member of any gang, you're at least going to have to do some favors that serve to illicit ends if you want to get by, or have "trustworthy" friends, considering how humans can't spend a year alone, without socializing, and not go insane.
people are gonna go fucking crazy if you lock them up and don't allow them to walk around.
if anything, the opposite model is true. there's been success in encouraging pro-social behaviour like cooking and cleaning with other inmates in an "apartment complex"-style model, and places that do that generally have lower rates of recidivism and less violence in the prison
Going owing off your last suggestion, wouldn’t it be even better to keep gang-related criminals in separate prisons from other “normal” prisoners altogether?
There's always gonna be those that "slip through the cracks" so to speak. Even if you process people based on previous history or whether or not the current crime committed is gang oriented, there is no way to know for sure if someone who shoplifted/punched-out their wife (random examples) isn't in a gang outside of jail 100% of the time.
Also, what would you do if the seemingly "normal" prisoners create factions of their own? Prison life is prison life in the end.
If we filter out criminals with gang history, those who are found guilty for gang-related crimes, and those who have gang insignia, that eliminates the vast majority of gang members from the rest of the prison system. It’s not like gangsters go out of their way to hide their gang affiliation. A few lone gangsters slipping through are powerless without their organization, and they can always be removed when found out. It isn’t a perfect system, but it’s better than nothing. As for normal prisoners, hopefully most of them will form healthy relations with their fellow inmates without the pressure of established gang culture.
No, that's stupid. Forcing everyone into solitary confinement is not only akin to torture, but going to fuck them up mentally. People committing crimes doesn't mean you can take away all their human rights, Flux.
Did I say that? Or are you being childish again, because we both know I didn't say that? The latter? Good to know, Miz.
I don't feel like reading the screeds of someone who thinks Star Wars is political satire, but I work in a law office and that's not really the reality of most criminals. The overwhelming majority tend to be poor and uneducated, and rarely do they have a proper chance at life.
Harsh prison sentences and subhuman conditions work, and that's why Brazil has such a low crime rate.
God I hope this I'm Wooshing here,
Brazil Has an astonishingly high crime rate, we got deaths in the hundreds each day just for violent crime, and our police is prone to massacres, search Bangu Massacre and you'll see, and pretty much any thug has access to military grade hardware, even though we have strict disarmament laws, which are useless, So anywhere short of Syria we Probably have a higher crime rate than most countries.
But then again, I do hope this is sarcasm.
It gets more obvious the more you read what Klam's arguing here, Chips. Try again.
I can't get really mad. To tell you the truth, I'm just impressed you can read at all.
Malk doesn't care about Brazilians.
Yeah, the fact that the maximum prison sentence for crime during peacetime is 30 years has nothing to do with that at all. Further proof that leftists like malk have had their brains melted and dripped out of their ears from all the communism.
Sure, Brazillians have to deal with more shit, so it's understandable they have an emotional response to crime. However, as I feel I shouldn't have to tell you, being emotional about something doesn't mean you're right, which, come on, you already knew, right?
I can't speak to every Brazilian, but the general consensus is that a good thug is dead one, but then again there is a considerable portion of the economical elite that panders to the criminals as "victims of society", such thinking is frowned upon in large sections of the main body of the Brazilian populous, and there's the indoctrinated people which comprises mostly of family and close acquaintances of those criminals, which defend them, that sentiment is aggravated since the majority of police officers here mostly shoot to kill, and pretty much don't care all that much about collateral damage.
A sum of my thoughts, I do stand with the police in most aspects, I've lived my whole life surrounded by the military, so I'm more comfortable and dare say regimented towards that belief, but I'm no blind sheep, whilst I do agree vehemently that more aggressive and violent action should be taken in the interest of public security, as far to suggest an Orwellian state, I'm no fool to believe that this course of action would be classified as morally "good", or even undertaken in the guise of the greater good, it would simply be a power grab, and the suffering of the many would transform into the suffering of the few.
TL;DR
Yeah, most Brazilians don't give a shit about "backgrounds" or a "lack of choice"
Seems like this site has gained more talkative Brazilian members lately. Cool.
Before you and Zass showed up, the only Brazilian that was on here was a violent mental patient called UndeadLover. Last time she posted, she said she had just been released from the asylum. Hasn't posted since though.
While that's a possibility, If she's really mentally unstable she likely got indoctrinated into one of the churches here, I have to say, those fucks make even ISIS recruiters look like amateurs.
Ah, sweet, the retard's still got some fight in him. Nice. Well, to start, you're the kind of retard who thinks you can "join crime". You don't, by the way. You do crime. Let's look at it simply, here.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! *rolls on the floor, laughing* We clearly disagree about this. I don't even need to tell you that people have, indeed, working brains and that they do evil shit because they want to, in the majority of cases. Or do you think that someone who abuses children, kills, robs and generally act like assholes do so out of "desperation and passion"? Because that's the shit you'll see happening on my country on an almost daily basis. People generally join crime because they think it's the best option, and even if they did so out of "desperation" and "passion", it doesn't mean they are any less evil for resorting to murder, robbery or whatever other crime they do.
Many, many crimes are crimes of passion, that seems pretty obvious. Second hand murder and many assault cases are simply this, where people got mad and shit happened. This was bad, and they got unreasonably mad, but this isn't an indicator of being beyond redemption in any way, you fucking cretin. Then, we have people who rob, prostitute or sell drugs because they are in fact, drug addicts who are desperate for money. All of those roll into "desperation", clearly. Are these people evil? Evil is a frivolous moral concept, and not one you brought up. We're discussing "beyond help". And can you help these people? Yes, clearly, you braindead cunt.
Also, people here actively find ways to lesser the penalities on people who truly don't deserve them, so don't come give me your bullshit. When a woman kills an abusive husband, or a man kills a pedophile who's harrassing their kids, they are usually helped by the authorities and generally respected, if not totally acquited on a self-defense basis.
And no, people don't get acquitted because their crime was morally in the right, you idiot. That would lead to a breakdown in the rule of law due to the judiciary fucking up and becoming all powerful. We have countless examples where people are punished for crimes where they didn't deserve it, not even taking into account those who are later found innocent. Looking back at the specific pedophile example, in R v Dear (1996), not only was the dude murdering the guy molesting his daughter, he didn't even land the killing blow, which was the dude offing himself by opening up the stab wounds the father had put in him. The law doesn't magically change because people are good or evil, and no, we don't get to just get people off because they're nice people, that's a breakdown of rule of law entirely, you fucking retard. You don't understand even the simplest concepts of law, it seems, so maybe shutup about them.
No, that's being realistic. In a society where people are generally corrupt and crime is perpetrated on a cultural basis, you can't help everyone. Not everyone will follow the example you've set, it doesn't matter how great your fucking school system is, how many jobs you are creating. There are always people who will take the "shortcut", this is a great part of criminality on Brazil. People join these factions and commit crimes willingly.
Aah, with that next paragraph,we see you're quickly realizing you've picked a terrible cause and are rapidly backing away from "These people can't be helped" to "Not all these people can be helped".The former, which you said, is sociopathic. The latter isn't what you said, and is basic logic. Don't back away and cower because you made a shit point, retard.
The fucking penalities exist to discourage crimes on the first place. If everyone with a good excuse was left off the hook, how exactly do you think the fucking judiciary system would work? Will everyone give hands and dance like in Highschool Musical? That's the most stupid thing i've heard all day.
And again, you're backing away from your point. It's not that these people shouldn't be punished. It's that these people aren't at a point where "they can't be helped". That's the key point hey, you fucking simpleton, not "No punishments should exist." But, it's funny how you say that it's nonsense to say we shouldn't punish people with a good excuse, right after "Also, people here actively find ways to lesser the penalities on people who truly don't deserve them, so don't come give me your bullshit", so which is it, fucktard?
People are warned all around about drugs, mentally ill people are generally issued to the proper medical facilities. So because you have no other options in the area it automatically excuses robbing and infernizing people's lives? There's a thing called a bus. There are people in favelas who work honestly but still have to live with fucking thugs who strip them of their security and money because money and power is all they care about. Perhaps they're fucking desperate too, hm? Perhaps they can't find any work, even the most inglorious one, because they're desperate and passionate about controlling people, drug traffick and money? You're the only one retarded here, bro. You can't compare Ireland or whatever first world country you live in with Brazil in the least.
Jesus, did you call me bro? Fuck, now I know you're a backwards retard. But no, people who are mentally ill are not generally issued to the proper medical facilities. How fucking idealistic can you be right after bitching at me for that? Do you honestly think that people, many of whom are homeless, poor or drug addicted, all just magically get medical help? Does the fairy come down and save them? You fucking imbecile.
https://www.mentalhealthreform.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Homelessness-and-mental-health-report.pdf
That's a statistic showing in my own country, Ireland, 25% of homeless people have "severe mental health problems". So, unless you genuinely think Brazil is far, far better at getting the mentally ill help, then it seems that mentally ill people generally don't get sent to the appropriate facilities, you backwards savage.
People are "warned about drugs"? OK, sure. So? Does that change the fact that if someone commits a crime to get drug money because they're addicted, they're not beyond saving? No? Well then, shut the fuck up. The fact that they were warned about it doesn't change the fact that these people can be helped with their drug addiction, and aren't beyond helping, you sociopathic fuck.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Pack up your things and go to CoG, i suspect you live in their magical Soviet Union too and have to deal with criminal unicorns all day. Do you think there's no government campaign here, eh? That people are magically misunderstood, what with all the popular campaigns against pedophilia, alerting the effects of drugs, the education trips to poor places, the donations, public schools organizing projects to help poor people, events to get funds to donate, more events, conscientization on public and private schools. More conscientization, help, more conscientization, help.
Do you think this helped anyone, SteveRandomKeyboardNumbers? Young people are still joining gangs and terrorizing people in buses, movimentated streets, waiting for defenseless people to get out of the bank, killing policemen cowardly while they're defenseless, killing people needlessly after a robbing. Killing, robbing, killing, killing. Sometimes innocent people go to prison only to be further educated by these criminals and yes, they make a fucking conscious choice of joining these factions for selfish reasons, not because they're fucking "passionate and desperate".
Sure, those can help people. So? Do they help everyone? Does everyone who needs money and education get it, and then get work? No? Well if not, there's unemployment, and lack of education, and financial difficulties, and debt, and all these still exist, and lead to people who are desperate for money committing crime. Are they wrong to do so? Yes. Does that mean they're beyond saving? No. With rehabilitation, they can be made better. Your entire argument seems to be from a lack of empathy towards criminals built up from an emotional reaction to living in a society where it's made shit because of said criminals. Understandable, perhaps, but no less wrong.
You displayed your opinion alright, on a post that wasn't serious to begin with.
Instead of insulting, maybe you should actually show your opinion.
Oh, I'm sorry, which one is it? Or did you fuck up and go back on your words as you fumble around like a retard? Pick one.
The thing is that the nordic method of prisons work only due to several factors: - Rehabilitation, as you said, they put the prisoners to work and reintegrate in society. This wouldn't work in Brazil due to the following: *Crime education by "veteran" criminals. *Endemic corruption on culture. *Widespread rejection by society of former criminals. Rehabilitated people would get out only to find themselves rejected on any jobs they try to take, and would obviously resort to crime again. *It would be exploited as fuck and people would think we are letting them easily off the hook. Public opinion would go against rehabilitation very quickly and you would have criminals pretending to be good people only to get out earlier. That is, if they don't get out in SIX MONTHS, as they usually do. - Education. I probably don't need to explain that one. - Culture. Nordic culture cannot compare to brazillian in any regards. They are generally more educated, less prone to resort to criminality and have a generally stable government in society. Please, tell me where you find these things in brazillian society, a crazy backwards clusterfuck of religiosity, ultra conservatism and endemic corruption.
Aah, a proper argument. Now this is tasty enough. Unfortunately, it's not really on point. See, the issue I have with what you said is that you said that these people are beyond helping. That's wrong. Now, you've once again changed point to "My country is too fucked up to help these people", which I'm afriad is a different argument you're pussy footing to.
What YOU spouted here is nonsensical gibberish. A combination of good education, public policies and harsher penalities would diminish crime considerably and is the most advisable course of action where i live. If you don't think so it's probably because you live in Europe(TM), where USA banks all your defense shit while you spend your money on retarded internet policies and public services. And yes, you need another good solution to shoot down my theory, instead of throwing idealistic (or should i say, retarded) shit all over the place about how there are good people and blah blah blah, as if that was going to solve shit.
https://nij.gov/five-things/pages/deterrence.aspx#note1
There's a note with an attached article on how, as a fact, harsher penatlies don't deter. Feel free to try find proof that they do, but you won't. Better education and public policies, sure, I'm all for them, but the facts show that harsh penalties don't help.
So in conclusion, I now understand where you're coming from. You're from a shitty country with serious crime problems, and thus, you have an emotional, illogical reaction to that. You're angry and emotional about criminals, which while understandable, isn't correct. Because you're angry, you dehumanize these people and avoid obvious solutions while dancing back and forth between the points you fail to understand,and trying to excuse your behavior. You're emotional, and while I get that, it maens you should quiet down and let the smart people talk.
Yeah, because those have mitigating factors, mainly self-defence. However, that also applies to a pedophile being assaulted by an angry parent, it's not about morality. Morality and law are separate topics, and yeah, if you do something illegal but moral, that's sending you to jail. This isn't hard, but no, law is not morality.
First and foremost, saying that a person is emotional just by deeming their response uncivilized or uncouth, does not bring favor towards your argument, Also even though I agree with most that Zass said, Reeling on crude terms and name calling also doesn't favor your argument, that statement applies even more to you Steve, since you claim the intellectual "high ground",.
Now towards my point, there are several types of criminals, or people who deviate from the norm, since most crimes revolve around petty larceny or internal squabbles, yes that includes people that bludgeon their wives with a golf trophy, i would call them situational offenders, they via a myriad of factors take their "passion" or "need" take over their hesitation, committing minor crimes towards others, but not brake their initial Indoctrination of right and wrong, that's why in most domestic abuse cases, the perpetrator feels guilty about it, even thought he was well in control of his actions and knew the implications of the act and the consequences it would bring.
The second one is murky at best, it's for the people that did receive the usual "good" and "bad" indoctrination, but thought their lives were able to break free from it, be it via various opportunistic ventures into the Illegal, or even via another process of indoctrination like police work, that prepares an officer to take somebodies life to preserve the greater good.
The third one is the "classic" "psico/sociopaths" the ones who for some reason don't subject towards the impression of strict values into them, some even find joy in subverting and breaking said values, and the fourth, the most dangerous of them all, the ones who did receive indoctrination, but not the usual run of the mill "do no harm" routine, they were breed in a environment that exalts violence and criminality and saw themselves drawn and molded by it.
With that out of the way I do believe you can see the dilemma, if I think these structures of humans are so well defined, I must have a solution for each one of them, but to that I say no, it doesn't matter how well you know human society, you will never know a human well enough to completely put him into a category, you can see a pattern in anything, if you stare long enough into it, but it'll never be enough to supersede the primary tenant of human existence, change, so how do I support anything definitive and rigid as more punitive sentences and a harsher police force, simple to beat an enemy you must fight him, but to win a war you must conquer him, With a extensive employment of better education for most people, and employing a stable ideology that appeases the seven "sins" of man, you can greatly diminish the chances of crime taking place, which in turn affects the first group that now receives less situations to commit a crime, that affects the second group, that now receives even less chances to completely break free from the initial conditioning, and that's just by getting better education and infrastructure, but now there are the criminals that don't benefit of this added infrastructure.
But all that is meaningless without order, and by the end of the day be it in a democracy or a dictatorship, order will always be dictated by force, the only difference it's the subtlety of it, and I'm afraid to say I may not be the best to talk about order in other countries, which may or may not benefit from added poisant, but here the people are predisposed towards strong leaders, and care little of uncouth methods of control, one great example is the war on Paraguay which saw the death of most of it's population by Brazilian hands, before it several skirmishes were on the rise on our borders from multiple countries, after it they continued, of course, but on a severely diminished level than before, we also had a military dictatorship, that was and still is regarded by many as one of the best governments that we had, even thought you could be snatched away in the middle of the night and none would be the wiser, why you ask, like I said before the suffering of the few is preferable to the suffering of the many, and freedom and security aren't synonyms, one comes at the cost of the other, eventually we will reach a level that this sort of argument will be moot, or we will all die from the flames of war and anarchy, whichever comes first.
Bug off, don't be lazy and read the damn thing.
P.S. I'm not a moral high ground fuck that doesn't bloody curse, I just believe that any argument worth having must be a civil one, otherwise it's just ork debauchery.
The person isn't "emotional" because of their wording, they're emotional because their logic is based in "My society is made shit by criminals, thus, I'm angry about it and fuck those criminals". Sorry for the confusion.
Your overall analysis of the situation is actually very interesting overall, and I really don't have much to argue with. I agree with your policy on reducing crime, up until the point of harsh punitive sentences, which if I'm being completely honest, I don't see how you manage to get to. I understand that you'd deal with Category 1 and Category 2 prisoners, however, this idea doesn't happen overnight. These systems aren't in place now, and thus, the punitive punishments aren't really effective, as they hit all categories rather than category 3. In a situation where we had the systems discussed in place to help filter out crime from Category 1 and 2, there might be discussion to be had on punitive, but that goes back to the above stated point that simply, punitive matters don't work, and will still hit those from 1 and 2 who simply don't get helped through your methods.
Still, very interesting and enjoyable read. You're as wrong as Zass, but at least polite and willing to make a legitimate argument rather than white and bitch like him. Good to meet you, anyhow, you'll make a worthier adversary than him. A Zass 2.0 in ethnicity and ideology.
Just a Summary of my point there, or rather, what I would've liked to say if I didn't type that wall text, just off work after spending roughly 30 hours awake, ("Poisant" what am I a French cheese-eating surrender monkey), Unto the TL;DR.
I do agree that on an individual level, harsher sentencing doesn't work, neither does stickily punitive judgments, especially on group 1, that given the surroundings that they are situated, they are most likely to find themselves drawn to the "dark side", groups 2 and 3 hardly change on reformative or punitive systems, and G4 thrives on a punitive system and is, at most times, unaffected by the reformative one.
So I agree on the Punitive system now for developing countries like my own for the following reason, much like the first industrial revolution in Europe, having an ineffective, or even destructive system doesn't mean that it'll produce bad results in the future, By having an extremely cheap prison system and a more Orwellian police would result in a temporary rise in criminality, rebellion, and a large dip on overall happiness, but that approach would allow more funds to be diverted elsewhere, and also bring about a whole new type of workforce, akin to slavery, yes, but for a "good" reason this time, diverting the additional resources into a more expansive and strong urban infrastructure, and a more "direct" educational system would result in roughly 30 years, in a new generation that would live in a stable and more developed world, and after it you could start to decrease the punitive sentencing since most of group 2 and 4 would be extinct.
But giving any thought as in human rights, and rehabilitation, without taking into consideration the overall society is frankly erroneous, after all even with the rampant torture, death, and rape that happens commonly in our prison system, there are a lot of people that prefer to stay inside than outside, and one thing you said is correct, most people here do hate criminals, so seeing them die/suffer is a surefire way to gain a large morale boost towards the general populace, making it easier to implement better and more rigid education.
I Would like to point out, that this is a best case scenario, not including Immigration and religious fanaticism, of course those would pose serious problems, but since were genocide our own people in the process, why not adopt a Serbian policy eh?
TL;DRTTL;DR
Jabba's palace without the hot twi'leks
Punitive prison systems don't mean cheaper systems. In fact, the opposite seems to be true. You're not diverting resources, you're spending more on consistently taking care of prisoners who continue to stay in jail rather than are able to get out and become working citizens who pay back to the system. You're not saving money to spend on upgrading the country in more helpful ways, you're wasting money on a broken system.
Good job pointing out your fetish prisoners again. Please show me how we can help them, taking in mind that rehabilitation system wouldn't work.
OK, "fetish prisoners" is a new and stupid concept. That's a lot of prisoners with mental illness. Looking at America, for example, over half. So not a small category, dipshit. That number jumps for drug addicts, so you're not doing yourself any favors here.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/04/more-than-half-of-prisoners-are-mentally-ill/389682/
Anyhow, how to help them? Better substance abuse programs, better mental health programs, more focus on separating criminals based on likelihood of recidivism to stop career criminals teaching others, job programs to help teach and educate prisoners and give them skills to work, and having better government programs to help support them afterwards in finding jobs, for starts.
For your next example, that's a case of self-defense. That's not the courts helping someone. That's self-defense. If that woman was a notorious pedophile, and was attacked in her home by an angry parent and she stabbed him, she'd also get off for self-defense. Self-defense isn't tied to morality, you've failed completely to understand the concept. No court would convict someone for defending themselves, no matter whether they're moral or not.
In regards to the people who made a conscious choice, again, they can. The mentally ill can be treated, the addicted helped with cures, and those who committed crimes of passion aren't usually likely to do it again depending on circumstances. You seem to be ignoring the circumstances behind the choice, and to be labeling everything a result of the choice as if none of it matters because "PEOPLE BAD! PEOPLE MAKE BAD CHOICE!" Please try harder.
Oh, this whole "Brazillian prisoners don't have mental health issues!" is such tripe, but I guess, if you're really going to dick around and pretend like it's not a problem, I'll get facts.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3925183/
And there's the facts, then. You're wrong, the majority of people in Brazillian jails have mental illness. Fuck off and learn about facts, you idealistic "No one in jail is insane, there's government programs!" jerk off.
No, it doesn't, but it shows that many people get involved in this world despite being warned not to. You're also spitting idealistic shit about them robbing drug money as if i cared about their reasons for terrorizing people in the first place.
OK, so you don't care about the reasons people are criminals. That's good, that's honest. Well, if you don't care, you're not going to be part of the solution, because dealing with the reason is how we deal with crime. You just care about punishing criminals, because you're, say it with me, emotional. But yeah, warning people doesn't matter. Just because you warned someone doesn't change the fact that they're savable, unless your newest argument is "If you do drugs, fuck you, we warned you, I don't give a shit about your life anymore" which fits the sociopath vibe I get.
You talk about helping these people, but i see you can't provide a working solution. And i prefer to live in a safe country rather than get sticked to the mud because you like to rant about angel prisoners.
Better drug rehabilitation programs. You mention it slightly below, body.
There are rehabilitation clinics for addicted here, but they are really expensive. Not that it matters, i never put the reasons for them doing it into discussion. Addicted people do indeed need a proper system for them, but i never talked about them. You are the one bringing it up.
You did, actually, since addicts are a lot of criminals who choose crime, and you said were "beyond saving". So yeah, you don't get to weasel out of this one. But anyhow, it's financially safer to deal with drug users this way. As it is, the vast majority of money spent on drug addicts is about keeping them in prison, and whenever they get out, they recede with rates of like 90%, and then we're back to paying for them. Drug programs would be a good investment, since 95.6% of the money we spend on substance abuse is spent of the prison bit.
The thing is, just because they have dificulties, it doesn't excuse their acts in any way. This is your whole point here and the most ridiculous way to get someone to feel guilty. These people could find work somewhere, no matter how bad. But they chose to disrespect the law to the detriment of the majority of the population. If there is a working solution to help them, please do provide. If not, we'll have to disregard them as collateral damage.
I never said it did, idiot. I never brought up guilt. I don't think it excuses their actions, that's something you made up. I said these people can be saved, and harsh punishments don't help them deal with this, it fucks them up further, as now, they're far more likely to commit crime and that spreads. But anyhow, it's absurd to say that "All unemployed people are only unemployed because they didn't try hard enough", that's not only ridiculous, but fucking sociopathic.
In regards to the point about the gladiators, yeah, your first post was a joke, but the "Instead of insulting, show your opinion" and "You showed your opinion" posts weren't in that initial one, they were separate and later on, retard. Try again and stop making excuses.
I pity you. Your self esteem must be very low to feel the need to insult others and win arguments through plain, boring humiliation tactics. It's starting to get real old.
I mean, I genuinely have never been told my self esteem is too low. Too high, definitely, sure, but never too low. This couldn't be so blatantly false that it's kind of satisfying, but good to know. I'll try get my esteem up.
My opinion was, from the very beggining, that to solve the problems of Brazil you need a combination of good education, public policies and harsh penalities. You fail to offer any real proof against it when you basically flail about good people who can still be helped (again, as if that was going to solve shit) and then dodge the subject when i just debunked the only good argument by pointing out that it wouldn't work on my country for several reasons. You then try to make yourself look like a winner by constantly insulting and mocking the people whom you're discussing with, which is really tiring and won't go nowhere.
I did, actually, if you'll look at the link I showed, harsh penalties don't work. That argument was made and facts were shown for it, you just seem to have skipped over it. Fear isn't a good way to prevent misdeeds, the evidence stands against it. Try again.
"You should leave the discussion for smart people." - Guy that literally mistyped means in the same phrase.
Aah, was typing fast and eating pancakes, shame.
Anyhow, overall, your argument is ultimately based in the entire of punitive punishments being good, which the evidence shows they are, backed by nonsense like Brazil helping all prisoners with mental illness, which the evidence shows they aren't, which is all because you're upset your country's shit. You're at the intellectual level of a fucking cockroach, and I'm glad you have your shithole country to yourself. Good luck getting stabbed in the favelas, lad.
For starters, you assume a great many things by saying that prisoners are there because they had no other option. You ignore organized crime and how much of a damage they are doing. Especially because said organized crime is pretty much safely established in my country. Rehabilitation works, of course, when your prison complexes aren't overflowing, rebelling, your money isn't tight and your criminal factions aren't pretty much warlords on favelas heavily armed and with help from corrupt sects of the public government.
No, I don't. Nothing I'm saying speaks to all prisoners. Many prisoners are there because they're irredeemable scumbags who should never see the light of day. But no, rehabilitation doesn't not work when prison complexes are overflowing and money is tight. It's the opposite. Rehabilitation means that prisons won't be overflowing, because you'll actually be rehabillitating people rather than saying "OK, your time is up, go out and commit more crime until you're caught and then we'll see you again", and rehabilitation is overall cheaper than punitive, which means people are just staying in prison.
Second, i don't live in USA, which has a different culture, education system and welfare.
True, but that doesn't really speak to your favor, given you seem to understand that Brazil is in a worse situation, so the statistics should hold. Anyhow, there's Brazillian stats further down.
Third, i just pointed out that drug addicts would be placed under a different system to rehabilitation, should it be feasible. This doesn't mean they won't get punishment for what they did. Because, yeah, that a great deal of them are in this situation is their fault. They were clearly warned before about what would happen, but still did it anyway. So yes, call me a sociopath for punishing people for robbing, killing and raping, regardless of reasons.
This all draws back to you saying "And you can't really help those who made a conscious choice to murder/rob for their lives", not that we should never punish people for doing wrong. So firstly, in regard to drug addicted prisoners, you're acknowledging that what you said was wrong, and you can help some of those people. Secondly, yes, it seems sociopathic to punish people for committing crime if they were heavily addicted rather than trying to help them. Addiction is an illness, and tends to be tied to straight up mental illness. As satisfying as it can be to damn these people, they're often just fucked up, not evil, and they need help. Not all of them, some of them are just awful people, but many if not most aren't.
First, and most important, is that everything you're pointing out requires a hella lot of money.
Better mental health programs would be great, to those with actual mental problems and who want to be helped.
More focus on separating criminals based on likelihood of recidivism is a good point. I agree.
Job programs to help teach and educate prisoners and give them skills to work is another good point, but still ignores the great percentage of people who commit crimes willingly and won't heed these. Still, giving them a chance is fair.
Finally, i agree that the government is inefficient, but you fail to recognize that we need a more immediate solution than rehabilitation. Our prison complexes are overflowing and we are well past the point of just employing rehabilitation policies when factions will clearly exploit them. I think that the situation requires an immediate, harsh response and then good public policies afterwards, some of which you presented here.
Everything I pointed out doesn't really require a lot of money overall. I mean, like 95.6% of money spent of substance abuse is being spent on dealing with prisoners. If even a fraction more of this money was put towards preventation and rehabilitation, it would be cheaper overall. You want a quicker solution, but there isn't one. Harsh punishments don't deter crime as the statistics show, and just trap what criminals can be saved in the system and lead to your systems being overburdened. This isn't a quicker solution even though it's often peddled as "Let's get tough on crime", but the opposite.
In regards to your two articles, firstly, fuck, dude, I don't speak Portugese or whatever and Google translate is bad, you're not making this easy. Anyhow, in the twelve shots one, a known rapist who had threatened to murder her was breaking into her house, that definitely falls under the purview of self-defense. I genuinely can't understand the facts of the other one, so you'll need to translate that. Either way, judges can go easier or harsher on people, yes, but that doesn't mean they can disregard the law, as that leads to a breakdown of rule of law, a principle we've had since Montesquieu. If someone breaks the law, judges aren't allowed to not punish them because they feel pity. That's simple facts.
I think you are missing the point here. The mentally ill need a better treatment, but already have an average one, there is no cure for addiction save their own will and choice, which won't happen miraculously as you seem to think, and i have yet to see this majority of passionate criminals which you talk about, because they either are really silent or just a minority not vocal enough.
No, willpower is necessary to help those with mental illness, but that doesn't change the fact that they don't get good enough treatment, and they can be helped with better treatment. Thus, they are not beyond help. In regard to the passionate criminal, they're not silent at all, I don't know how you could think that. Anyone in jail for second-degree murder or many people in jail for assault or any spur of the moment crime falls under this. Not all are good, but a moment of anger doesn't mean a person can't be rehabilitated.
You didn't notice this is just in the state of São Paulo and isn't a nationwide statistic.
If a statistic exists in a part of Brazil, it can generally be assumed to be similar across the rest of Brazil if there's no reasons it wouldn't be. It's how statistics work. For instance, 2% of the world has green eyes. We didn't check everyone in the entire world, we took a sample size, and from that, we could calculate relatively what it's like world wide. That's what's happened here.
You're also ignoring that my whole point was about the criminal organizations on the first place, and i pointed it several times during my rant, as well on my answer to your needless insults on my joke. But you like to dodge things to prove your points, it seems. As well as disregard the fact that people have different worldviews than your own.
For individual crimes, that's true. Unfortunately, crime has already become largely organized and almost institutionalized in Brazil, so i doubt your solutions there would help. I know this simply because we brazillians are a cheating kind who love to exploit things.
Individual crimes are what leads to organized crime. Individuals committing crimes are what organized crime is, just many on an organized scale. If we attack individual crimes, we cut out the legs of organized crime. There's still an issue, sure, but less.
"And you can't really help those who made a conscious choice to murder/rob for their lives."
"People can be saved if they are given opportunity, and that's great."
Oh, for fuck's... at this point, you've casually abandoned the main point of contention I had to begin with. Which, let's clarify, wasn't made in the first post about gladiators, which was a joke, but was made afterward, when not joking. So you've pretty much just admitted defeat, and shifted the argument to "Punitive measures are necessary".
"Well, in my opinion they work under certain circunstances, and those were already presented. If you still disagree because you saw a bunch of statistics of people with mental problems imprisoned in São Paulo, then that's your problem, but calling people "retarded, backward sociopaths" for it just shows that you're a moron who can't really stand anything different than what you think is right."
So you acknowledge that it doesn't work in many situations, most going by the mentally ill statistic, yet you still advocate it, despite there being no evidence it's effective at anything? You must realize that's absurd.. It doesn't work with all the situations I pointed out, with mentally ill, drug addicted, situational criminals or the like.
I think you just proved my post right, congratulations.
Um... you say that in responding to one of the things YOU said, that I was quoting. So, I guess you didn't recognize your own words and thought I was insulting you for being European? That... that wasn't happening.
Well, mate. If you lived in fear of being robbed and killed, you'd be cold about them too.
I absolutely would be, yeah. That doesn't mean I'd be right. I understand why you're emotional about it, but that doesn't change the fact that it's wrong.
Good luck collecting the coins for your golden pot, leprechaun.
Umm... OK. So, I get that you're throwing back the nationality thing at me. But I'm telling you to go get murdered in your crime-ridden streets, and you're wishing me good luck collecting gold coins. That's not really an effective comeback. I'd love to go collect coins and to have a golden pot. I've insulted you for a real, terrible thing that might happen, and you just kind of made reference to the fact that my people invented leprechauns.
How can we implement rehabilitation and all of your other given solutions effectively at a point where prisons lack space, the state lacks the money and the several criminal organizations have already established themselves firmly at a country? If you opt for a rehabilitation system right off the bat, even with the added sugestions you mentioned, you'll just have your system exploited by the already established factions and it will result in nothing but offenders getting free without punishment or any "redemption".
Again, you are underestimating how much money such a system would take to implement. First, we have to hire the professionals to teach/oversee these prisoners, then we have to build a space or a new wing on the prison to place these studies or work, which means the public construction of a new room or an entire wing (depending of what you wish them to do) for all the prisons around Brazil, then we have to buy materials and/or tools for these people to work with (which may break, get lost, etc), then we have also to get living conditions in prison better, which might take up building more cells to another prison entirely.
In the long term you might argue that it is less costly, but in the short term it is not. Not for a country with it's resources tied.
It actually wouldn't take that much money, and that could be solved by borrowing money to help pay for this, and then overall saving enough money to easily pay that back. Brazil's debt isn't even that high, the US has a larger debt as a percentage of its GDP, at 105.4% of it, than Brazil's, at 83.98%.
No, it is you who got my meaning wrong. You can't help people who don't want to be helped. Those who made a conscious choice to murder, rape and kill for whatever fucked up reasons they had can't be helped. Those who are forced by circumstaces (e.g: couldn't possibly find a job, was forced by a faction), might still be helped, as you pointed out.
That was what you said about "passionate" people, whom i still have to see anywhere.
Not what you said, buddy. You clearly said people who make a choice to do that shit can't be helped. So now, you're admitting that what you initially said was wrong and not what you meant, declaring me winner of this shit show, and then quickly moving the goals to this new argument.
So you told me what i just typed.
OK, so hang on, you're casually admitting defeat on the key point we started arguing over, and just shrugging it off? OK, I'll happily take victory over it and continue arguing over the smaller details.
Hm, so because they were doing so to buy more of the substance it excuses their crime and you are a sociopath if you punish them? I disagree.
No, you're a sociopath if you torture people when it's factually inefficient and unlikely to help rehabilitate them. You're torturing people at the cost of society itself, and that's sadistic.
Where are you getting this statistic?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/08/14/we-cant-afford-to-ignore-drug-addiction-in-prison/?utm_term=.8b63108e3f59
It's a US statistic, sure, but to stress, the statistics hold a semi-universal status across the board, with other countries, including Brazil, being comparable.
Everything you pointed out is better in the long term, true, but requires a lot of money to implement. You don't get to stop paying for the system already implemented (punitive) immediately, so you have to get your money from elsewhere. You have to either build entire new wings in your prisons or build another facilities entirely, which also takes into account the workers and construction materials. Then you have to hire new professionals to oversee these prisoners, then buy materials for work/studies. You also need to make their living conditions better (if you really want to be effective) which would raise the cost before your work/study routine begins to pay off.
Borrowing money to help with investment that will pay off and be worth a lot more isn't beyond the pale, here. At this point, you're admitting my way is better and more efficient, you're just wondering where you'd get the money to implement it.
You forget i want i quicker solution to my situation, and there is one.
First, we need to disregard the basic human rights of members of greater factions (e.g: PCC) whom are imprisoned. You torture them and get them to leak information. Then either spy on them, or deter them from making any major moves or really comunicate with people outside of prisons. This is especially true in the case of cellphones because they usually use those to communicate with outside elements of their organization, or you can let them but spy and pinpoint their chain of command until you leave them in anarchy or at the very least utter confusion and infighting.
OK, at this point if you do this, you've fucked Brazil. Torture is not only immoral, but it doesn't lead to good information, and now you're not even helping anyone. You're also fucking Brazil up in the eyes of the world, and sanctions and such are going to be placed on it for torturing prisoners, which would cripple the country.
Then procceed to attack major bases of said organizations, as is the case of favelas, generally slaughtering or imprisoning as much of their members as you can. The really aim of those, however, is to force them to move out of their positions in such places, which are usually used as a source of revenue and where they draw a great part of their manpower from. So we have cleaned the favelas, for now.
Of course, it would be stupid to just dislodge them and leave the place so they can establish themselves again, so we establish a working garrison there, for the time being.
So hang on, the money you spend on this massive surge of police hirings and then the establishment of a major police presence is more than enough to fund my more efficient idea. You've completely ignored the financial cost of your own actions.
These people usually respond to power, so when these organizations are put into this position, there will be inevitable infighting into place. If you isolate the prisoners who work for said factions, they will most probably seize power for themselves into the prison (which at least facilitates and narrows down things a lot).
Any statistical evidence people respond to this whatsoever, or is that just something you made up?
This is the harsh penalties part.
Now that the influence of these organizations on the outside was weakened, and the factions influencing prison sectors are narrowed down to a regional/local level, we separate them, as you said yourself, on likelihood of recidivism (though not necessarily this at first, it can also be that just the "bad seeds" are isolated at first, and then from there on the recidiveness).
Separating people based on recidivism isn't a harsh penalty.
Outside of prisons, you previne people from joining crime by investing further into education and offering more jobs and opportunity, the latter relying on the economy overall and incentives from the state.
Sure, this is good, but it goes better with the rehabilitation rather than just keeping the criminals stuck in their criminal lifestyle and stopping more people from entering.
Overall, i'd say it solves the problem of factions influencing things externally and exploiting rehabilitation from the get go, while also allowing your fetish prisoners their dream life. It still requires a lot of funds, that i admit, but your solution isn't exactly cheap to implement either.
Your system actually doesn't help deal with any of this. It requires a shit ton of money firstly, money that could be better spent on my program, and it'll require alienating a country from the rest of the global community in something that wouldn't even be efficient.
Is that so?
My theory was that to solve the problems of my country, i needed harsh penalties. Your theory was that harsh penalties didn't work.
That you answered a bait that i set up because i knew you'd get angry and start an emotional, idealistic argument as all lefties do, is solely your fault. kek
Actually, you said something stupid as a joke, I insulted you for that, you made a real point, I insulted you for that, and at this point, you've abandoned your original point. So you've lost the argument, and now seem to be trying to shift to "Well, I'm on a whole different argument now" while trying to downplay the fact you lost on the facts so you can shift the goalposts.
Not that I'm against this, of course. Arguing's kind of my thing.
Eh, who said that such things would be implemented permanently? Your rehabilitation system works just fine if you have the conditions set right by cracking down on organized crime.
You didn't, but it doesn't work short term either, so I don't know why you want to do it at all.
It's not wrong that they kill, rob and rape because they have their reasons for it, but it's wrong when you want to punish them more for doing so, continuously, and pretty much unmolested by the current judicial system.
Yes, it is wrong, they're wrong when they do it. That's not my argument. It is wrong, however, when you want to punish them needlessly if it won't help us or society, and will in fact damage society by meaning this person is now stuck in a life of costing us money rather than contributing.
What? Steve, did you even read it?
"A combination of good education, public policies and harsher penalities would diminish crime considerably and is the most advisable course of action where i live." Is what i said to you, the rest of the rant is an insult.
No, you put in it quotation marks in your post that was 20 hours before this one, and then said something like "Oh, you've proven my point" as if I said that, because it's in quotation marks. Then I explained to you that wasn't something I've said, it was something you said that I was quoting in my post, and now you're seeming to pretend you never made that mistake and that you knew the whole time it was you. That's clearly not true.
I couldn't care less about Ireland. It currently has nothing remotely remarkable or interesting for me aside from leprechauns.
Maybe i could do a joke about your independence? Nah, i personally wish Ireland just remained with the United Kingdom because that shit on the map is pure and confusing bordergore but also because the current Britain is not as cool as 19th Century United Kingdom without Ireland.
Well, not that i want your help anyway. No irish need apply.
Really? I mean, that's pretty dull, we're a pretty powerful place for our size, all this considered. You could make a joke about our independence, but I don't know how it'd really work. "Haha, you have independence from your oppressors!" Not really a joke, just something I'd agree with and be happy. I guess the fact you think Ireland made the UK cool is nice, good to know.
This thread is going to go on forever, I did realize what Steve was doing before even entering the thread, and I do believe that Zass did as well, but we Brazilians hate leaving a fight, especially one that we are so clearly winning, and we have a little bit of difficulty in letting it go.
That's such bullshit, I've engaged every point that's been made so far, I just don't let people put to rest the founding, stupid statements that started this thing without admitting defeat with them. But fuck it, this dude's literally advocating for a final solution, and apparently it's impossible I have strong feelings that you don't start mass murdering people.
That's Not Fear I smell is it?
Good to know I have you on record saying its arrogant to think that as an Irishman, I have the right to tell Brazillians they shouldn't do their own Final Solution. At this point, you must have realized you're incredibly wrong and are just arguing out of spite for Steve. Steve-spite, if you would.
As Mizal said, definitely not.
It wouldn't take much money, you just need to borrow and then save to pay it back.
Right, Steve, right.
Yeah, you need to borrow the money, and then have the savings you're getting from your rehabilitation scheme pay it off. Simple system, it's what pretty much all countries to. Borrow, invest in your country, have the profits from that pay off your loan with money to spare.
What you presented here are people who didn't have a choice and were forced by cirscumstances (e.g: drug addiction, pressed by larger organizations, etc, etc). I was talking about people who commit crimes simply because they want to, which consists of a large part of the criminal sector and the greatest offender of public order.
You can play dumb as much as you want, but the truth is you focused on an argument presented this whole time and not the theory. Instead, you got so angry at being trolled you started using bold letters.
People who have drug addictions, mental health problems or the like still have a choice, that's obvious. They're not magically forced to do crime, it's just a pressure put upon them.
Oh, and bold letters aren't like capitalizations, they're not to show I'm angry. They're to help make it easier to read so it's more obvious what I'm saying and what I'm quoting, since that was hard for you at a certain point.
Hmm? So i was right, Steve, you are short sighted and can't see the whole picture.
I have a theory, so i present two arguments to back it. You say my theory doesn't work, and attack my two arguments.
I present other arguments during our fight, you continue attacking the original two like the blind dog you are, but the other arguments are still there.
In short, i lost nothing there, you are just trying to save face.
No, not really. You say something stupid, I insult it. You say it's a joke, and say something else stupid. I insult it, and explain why what you said was stupid. You slowly abandon that stupid point, while shifting the argument onto other things. The original argument was been lost by you, you've just moved onto other points, which I'm happy to continue arguing about, it's just that you've abandoned the initial statement I insulted and took issue with, which fine, yeah, I've won on that point, then.
Didn't i just admit the rehabilitation system is more effective on the long term, or are you just trying to frame me on an emotional and pointless argument to make yourself look better?
Also, i never argued into harsh penalties for all. Kek.
See, it's these points where you can clearly see you back peddle and retreat constantly from your point. It starts as "People who choose to do crime can't be saved", and then you fall back to "Harsher penalties are what we need" and that falls to "Harsher penalties are good for now, but ultimately inefficient, yet I want them anyway", then to "Ugh, fuck, I guess some small amount of people should have harsh penalties" and finally to "Fine, a bit of harsh punishments, then rehabilitation", all while you try to regroup and act as if this new point you've retreated to is where you've always been.
I don't even need to talk about torture being immoral, again, more emotional bullshit.
You are arguing just one of the things i suggested, as to make yourself look better and a "winner", i think it's already clear you "lost".
What? I've argued with every bit of what you suggested that was stupid. Now you're getting upset that I successfully pointed out that torture was a stupid suggestion, to which your comeback is apparently "Ugh, you're just arguing to make yourself look better!" No, I'm arguing because your wrong, and your idea was bad. Defend it or don't and go off to lick your wounds, but don't waste my time with complaining about how mean it is when I'm right.
I love how you keep dodging issues to make your points look better, Steve.
Your rehabilitation system wouldn't work from the start because it would be exploited and would generally lead nowhere. I argued here that said criminal organizations are already too powerful, and that we need a harsh solution to break down this power into small groups to make your solution work.
Do I? It seems you're the one who makes a point of rehabillitation costing a lot, but when it's your turn ignore cost. And even now, you ignore dealing with the cost of your plan. You haven't explained where you're finding the money for this, you're running because your plan is bad and doesn't work.
Nevertheless, you've actually provided no evidence for how it would be exploited, and you've said it's more efficient long-term, so it's blatantly false saying it would lead no where. I've also already explained how this would cut out the legs of criminal organizations, thus damaging them.
Good, so you agree with me that the rehabilitation system works nicely and that the state could help prevent further crimes by offering incentives in education and jobs.
He should also understand that while the nordic prison system has some merit on wealthy and educated countries, it is simply beyond ridiculous considering rehabilitation on "backwards sociopathic" countries like Brazil.
Yes, the rehabilitation system is right, but you've already said it doesn't work for Brazil. Make up your mind.
So i guess my torture was wrong. Good, that doesn't disprove the entire point. I talked about dismantling crime organizations first, using "harsh penalties" (kek), and then implementing your rehabilitation system.
Which draws us back to what i said earlier:
A combination of good education, public policies and harsher penalities would diminish crime considerably and is the most advisable course of action where i live.
Yes, your scheme was wrong, and my rehabilitation system is right. Glad you can admit it. But unfortunately, you still seem to think harsh penalties works, even though it doesn't, as the one time you tried to explain how to implement them, you fucked up and have admitted you're wrong, while again, failing to understand harsh penalties don't work.
Actually, you assumed things and insulted me, so i decided to bait you into an unwinnable argument by being really vague about my motives and objectives. You assumed things and started pointing out what you thought existed.
So now you realize you've been tricked into a pointless discussion that was set up so you would technically lost anyway, so you try to save face by spewing more of your "smug superiority" bullshit and dodge what i really meant.
Aww, is that what you think has happened? That's adorable. We both know this wasn't you purposefully trying to be vague to have an argument. This was me insulting you, you getting upset and trying to defend yourself, than my systematically pushing you back as you abandoned your point. "People can't be saved! No, that was wrong. Some people can't be saved, and rehabilitation doesn't work! No, not that, I'm wrong again. Rehabilitation works after harsh punishments! No, let me... FUCK!" This has been you scampering backwards the entire trip as you try to turn this losing battle into some victory by pretending you were trying to be an idiot who can't make a solid point.
Prove that it doesn't work in the short term. Preferably by regarding my whole point instead of cherrypicking.
Well first, it's actually up to you to prove your own point. You can't just go "Unicorns exist, prove me wrong!" and claim victory when no one can prove unicorns don't exist at all. But sure, I'll still happily do that. You were wrong with it working short term because what you wanted relied on torture, firstly, but also, psychologically punishments don't really have the desired effect. Here's a psychology article on it:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/feeling-our-way/201401/punishment-doesnt-work
So you agree with me about doing it if it's efficient. Which then makes this argument in my favor.
You haven't even come close to getting to that. You got to "Torture could be moral if it helps!" before admitting it wouldn't help and you were wrong. Another admission that you're failing.
In regards to the point, you made the quote, and then said that I was the one who had just proven the point, implying I said it. That's wrong.
Well, that's pretty civil from you, potato farmer.
It's 2018 and my country's first world unlike your shithole, so we actually don't have that much potato farming. I go to college and live a nice life, like a normal Irish dude.
"Yeah, you need to borrow the money, and then have the savings you're getting from your rehabilitation scheme pay it off. Simple system, it's what pretty much all countries to. Borrow, invest in your country, have the profits from that pay off your loan with money to spare."
I would point out what Chips' did, but he beat me to it:
Well, that just proves how you know shit about economy or the costs of running a national prison system, Having a larger debt/GDP ratio doesn't mean that a country is more or less financially capable, the US economy is roughly 10 times larger as Brazil while having less than 60% more population than here, but that's not the single problem with your sentence, having a rehabilitation procedure would cost an astronomical amount of money, especially on a system so fucking broken as ours, and rehabilitating only works if there's something to come back from when you leave prison, in the shitstorm we're in it wouldn't mean anything.
And to top it all off, DO YOU KNOW HOW HARD IT IS FOR A COUNTRY TO "SIMPLY BORROW MONEY", the FMI is already at our throats for austerity plans and to borrow money to improve the conditions of people who broke the law, and not to improve our shitty educational or health systems, now that would be the day would it?
So your "borrow money" solution to "It's expensive, you know" is plain stupid.
"People who have drug addictions, mental health problems or the like still have a choice, that's obvious. They're not magically forced to do crime, it's just a pressure put upon them.
Oh, and bold letters aren't like capitalizations, they're not to show I'm angry. They're to help make it easier to read so it's more obvious what I'm saying and what I'm quoting, since that was hard for you at a certain point."
People still have freedom of choice, my little troll, so they still need to be held accountable for what they do. Of course, you already know this, you just like to dodge what people really mean.
"No, not really. You say something stupid, I insult it. You say it's a joke, and say something else stupid. I insult it, and explain why what you said was stupid. You slowly abandon that stupid point, while shifting the argument onto other things. The original argument was been lost by you, you've just moved onto other points, which I'm happy to continue arguing about, it's just that you've abandoned the initial statement I insulted and took issue with, which fine, yeah, I've won on that point, then."
> Was already explained that he lost because he was intentionally misdirected.
> Pulls a half-assed argument about winning on an argument basis, ignoring that the objective of the discussion is the theory.
> Still brags about winning.
top kek
"See, it's these points where you can clearly see you back peddle and retreat constantly from your point. It starts as "People who choose to do crime can't be saved", and then you fall back to "Harsher penalties are what we need" and that falls to "Harsher penalties are good for now, but ultimately inefficient, yet I want them anyway", then to "Ugh, fuck, I guess some small amount of people should have harsh penalties" and finally to "Fine, a bit of harsh punishments, then rehabilitation", all while you try to regroup and act as if this new point you've retreated to is where you've always been. "
Yeah, Steve, whatever you rationalize to keep your "I win" child thought alive.
"What? I've argued with every bit of what you suggested that was stupid. Now you're getting upset that I successfully pointed out that torture was a stupid suggestion, to which your comeback is apparently "Ugh, you're just arguing to make yourself look better!" No, I'm arguing because your wrong, and your idea was bad. Defend it or don't and go off to lick your wounds, but don't waste my time with complaining about how mean it is when I'm right."
No, you argued about torture. Not about isolating the prisoners, or the real thought proccess. You are just dodging things to make yourself look better, as you always do.
"Do I? It seems you're the one who makes a point of rehabillitation costing a lot, but when it's your turn ignore cost. And even now, you ignore dealing with the cost of your plan. You haven't explained where you're finding the money for this, you're running because your plan is bad and doesn't work."
I acknowledged the costs of my plan and yours, you didn't. I acknowledged the existence of a capable security force on Brazil already, given the current investments in the area. I acknowledged the existence of organized crime and how your system would be exploited anyways.
Solving the economic issue is impossible for either of us, so this is why i provided further arguments against implementing the rehabilitation system from the get go, which you ignored.
Now you have no way to disagree with my solution, because it also includes yours and everything which has already been cleared out in this discussion, so you try to look like a "winner" (again), by pointing out something in which you fail too.
"Nevertheless, you've actually provided no evidence for how it would be exploited, and you've said it's more efficient long-term, so it's blatantly false saying it would lead no where. I've also already explained how this would cut out the legs of criminal organizations, thus damaging them."
Oh, is there no evidence? Like, fucking large criminal factions already operating things from inside prisons, restablishing themselves in favelas and generally attacking policemen while unarmed? I guess they would just sit around while you implement rehabilitation then. LOL
It's already been made clear you're trolling and ignoring the situation in favor of an idealistic argument, but since you won't admit you've lost, continuing this discussion is useless.
"Yes, the rehabilitation system is right, but you've already said it doesn't work for Brazil. Make up your mind."
Classic Steve, trying to dodge the point with his flawed tactics.
I said that the rehabilitation system wouldn't work on Brazil for several reasons:
*Crime education by "veteran" criminals, which is solved or atenuated by reassigning them on recividism or simply by identifying them as members of a greater faction. For this to work, we need to weaken the established criminal factions so that they don't simply slip through the cracks and work under your established system, so that they can get out of prison in less time and with better living conditions because you like to think they can be redeemed too.
*Endemic corruption on culture can't really be helped immediately, but can be atenuated by education, which i already presented.
*Widespread rejection by society of former criminals. Rehabilitated people would get out only to find themselves rejected on any jobs they try to take, and would obviously resort to crime again. This can only be helped by changing people's views about criminals, which requires putting a satisfactory hamper to the ever present threat of factions (another plus to my argument, yay!), issuing better education (oops, already pointed this out), offering the opportunity of job to these prisoners (public policies, something i pointed out too)
*It would be exploited as fuck and people would think we are letting them easily off the hook. Public opinion would go against rehabilitation very quickly and you would have criminals pretending to be good people only to get out earlier. That is, if they don't get out in SIX MONTHS, as they usually do. So now that we have successfully attacked the favelas and hampered the efforts of organized crime, public is on our side or at the very least neutral to this solution.
- Education. Oops, it's part of my proposed solution, try again!
The only thing remaining is culture, but since you disregard this too, you can't speak shit.
Also, you didn't really address these points, i addressed them all.
Also, you lost.
"Aww, is that what you think has happened? That's adorable. We both know this wasn't you purposefully trying to be vague to have an argument. This was me insulting you, you getting upset and trying to defend yourself, than my systematically pushing you back as you abandoned your point. "People can't be saved! No, that was wrong. Some people can't be saved, and rehabilitation doesn't work! No, not that, I'm wrong again. Rehabilitation works after harsh punishments! No, let me... FUCK!" This has been you scampering backwards the entire trip as you try to turn this losing battle into some victory by pretending you were trying to be an idiot who can't make a solid point."
Aww, Steve is mad he can't win his internet fight.
"Well first, it's actually up to you to prove your own point. You can't just go "Unicorns exist, prove me wrong!" and claim victory when no one can prove unicorns don't exist at all. But sure, I'll still happily do that. You were wrong with it working short term because what you wanted relied on torture, firstly, but also, psychologically punishments don't really have the desired effect. Here's a psychology article on it:"
So you ignore that i told you the point didn't rely on torture at all and that it was a bait to see if you would cherrypick like you always do or address the whole point.
I N T E R E S T I N G~
Also, don't pretend you didn't realize by now.
"It's 2018 and my country's first world unlike your shithole, so we actually don't have that much potato farming. I go to college and live a nice life, like a normal Irish dude."
>Steve
>Normal
lmao
You can keep answering if you want to. It's really boring discussing something with someone who clearly doesn't know anything about the country he's talking about and keeps talking about right or wrong despite being a moron.
Now go grab something to eat, you clearly need it after defecating this much on the thread. Though i suspect this is a collateral effect of your irish subconscious on mismanaging your food.
Already responded to Chips, don't steal other people's arguments, it makes you look intellectually inferior. Never the less, yes, borrowing money to invest in things that will have larger returns than the costs is a good business move.
"People still have freedom of choice"
"What you presented here are people who didn't have a choice and were forced by cirscumstances "
Contradicted yourself, bud. Do they have a choice, or do they not have a choice?
Well no, I criticized what you said. You argued about that. That's what we argued. Then that slowly shifted into an argument about rival ideologies, which I'm still criticizing, and you're still losing at, because your ideology crumples the moment you mention what it is. Look at the torture thing. As soon as you mention that's what you believe, it's easily dissected and you're forced to admit you're wrong and don't have a clue what you're on about.
Yeah, the torture part was part of your suggestion about harsh punishments. I've also pointed out with an article that psychologically, harsh punishments don't work. I didn't argue about isolating prisoners based on recidivism, because that's not part of harsh punishments, as you yourself said, and that's not something I disagree with. I disagree with harsh punishments, that's what we're arguing about.
It's adorable you think that when you fuck up you can successfully pretend that it wasn't you fucking up and mentioning something stupid, but that it was bait. If you say something stupid, and I point it out, that's not cherry picking. That's an essential bit of your plan. The rest of it is either nothing to do with harsh punishments, the thing we're arguing about, or covered by the fact that psychologically they don't work, the fact it's expensive as shit and you haven't explained where you get money for that, and that rehabilitation is more efficient, something you've admitted. So you admit I'm right about it being efficient, and your solution is as expensive, yet you seem to ignore it anyway, talking about criminal organizations, a point I already addressed.
Is that supposed to be an insult? I mean, it's true by the quality of life I have. Overall, it's not, but I sure as shit wouldn't want to be normal. I mean, given how I do, I tend to lean above normal, because I'm pretty great, but that's besides the point.
Is Irish people not being able to cook a stereotype? Pretty sure that's England. Nevertheless, again, it's not really an insult. You might as well point out that we have more ginger people, like that's an insult. Try again, though. I can help you, if needs be, there's more obvious points to hit the Irish on.
I decided to leave the argument because what I already said what I thought, but this?
"It actually wouldn't take that much money, and that could be solved by borrowing money to help pay for this, and then overall saving enough money to easily pay that back. Brazil's debt isn't even that high, the US has a larger debt as a percentage of its GDP, at 105.4% of it, than Brazil's, at 83.98%."
In fact, having a better prison system would be detrimental since now prisoners would have a better life inside bars than out in the open.
The more I think about this subject the more I'm drawn towards the Final solution of sorts, if it worked before, it can now, one example I can think from the back of my mind is the take over of most favelas by a joint effort of our security forces (we literally drove tanks up the hill) but weren't allowed to pursue the criminals who escaped because "that wasn't their mission", flash forward two years, those same fucks who got away are now returning and slaughtering, not killing, slaughtering police officers and civies alike in the favelas, and now the PO's are scared to even return fire, because the commie media paints them as bandits, fucking hell I wished WW3 would hurry the fuck up, because we need a reset.
You're misunderstanding what a rehabilitation system is. It isn't just a nicer life in prison, it's a prison system that's actively designed to get people back on the streets as working citizens rather than focusing on punishing them. As well as this, the population difference just shows that America is a far better economy, not just a larger one. Still not particularly relevant to the GDP thing.
Still, I'd like to focus on your Final solution of sorts. Once again, the evidence shows that while everyone initially got pissy with Steve like bitches, his opponents are literally arguing for a final solution and bitching about "commie media". Now we can all collectively take in a deep breath, realize Steve was in the right and when you don't support him you'll end up with some pseudo-Nazi dipshit, and go about our day.
Steve, the only reason you care about prisoners and write threads about them is that you'll probably wind up in prison yourself for being on drugs all the time, clearly the acts of a raging and pathetic little loser.
-Rattler
If you have the rich text editor on, you should have the appropriate buttons available to you at the top of the text window.
If you have it turned off, you're going to have to waste time doing stuff like this <i> for italics </i> or <b> for bold </b> and similar tags.
Nevermind, it seems disabling Rich Text Editor disables the buttons for the forum too.
No idea who you are or where you've dragged yourself up, but this is the first thing about prisoners I've done, and no, I just have empathy for people. You should try it at some point, it feels really nice.
You should definitely listen to what Mizal here is saying.
The only time I ever see you put any sought of time and effort into forums is now, writing posts ceaselessly long, only about prisoners. Sorry to say it, but I don't have the time to talk loud-mouth druggies. Insufficient fools like you only think about themselves, and they never pay any attention to anybody else.
No, that's not what Mizal is saying at all. Mizal's saying literally the exact opposite, that I argue about EVERYTHING, and that I always do this and just argue for argument's sake. You've somehow catastrophically missed her point in the most hilarious manner, you fucking retard. You are an entirely new level of spastication.
Haha, You're going to come at me and say that I'm a retard, well, you don't even know what it's like to be mentally or physically challenged, you ignorant coward. I know many people with disabilities and they are much nicer than you. The only reason people full of stupidity like you are happy to sit down and complain sporadically at random posts is that you have nothing else better to do, your either wasting your time writing about prisoners and drug addicts like yourself, or you are trying to make yourself look good by complaining to posts that you find offensive to your own ignorance.
I don't know what it's like to be mentally or physically challenged, you're right. I have no idea, I'm neither of those things. I'm glad you're one of the two so you can tell me what it's like.
I will happily take making a bunch of money, you're not painting a horrific picture of growing older.
Thanks, Miz. Now I have two, so I hydra'd it.
Was that the situation we were discussing? Or does pointing out a fucked up incident where rehabilitatrion isn't going to happen, where it's fucked up to the point where the reader gets emotional, a good way of arguing? Emotions, other than the traditional satisfaction and joyful fury, aren't for arguments, Miz, no matter how upsetting crime can be.
Sorry, is me pointing out that you're using an emotional argument a "set of moves"? That's exactly what you did, so it's hardly a strawman.
Don't be an emotional child, we both know the argument wasn't "Crimes done because of passion or desperation mean they're not bad", but it was "Criminals who act because of passion or desperation" aren't beyond saving.
So your response is that you're being stupid, but because I cherry-picked examples to show situations where the "Criminals aren't able to be helped" doesn't work, you're allowed to be stupid?
I mean, I guess you are, but still, weak response.
Not what I do. My argument is to show exceptions to the rule, the rule being "Criminals are beyond helping". Exceptions to that rule breaks what he said. However, "Not all criminals are beyond helping" does not get broken by exceptions, because it's not absolute. I'm not saying all criminals can be helped, thus, the only real argument you have is "Ugh, this is sad and makes me upset", which again, isn't much.
I like how you're pretending to be smug and uninvolved, but everyone knows you have a deep hatred of Steve that makes you shake with rage lol.
Because you fuck Ford.
Malk beat me to it to the Ford thing, but you have to put on the pants of Ford, so hitting you is like hitting a down syndrome kid.
But eh, I'm in a good mood, let's do it. Go punch a wall and break your fist again, you backwards mental case. Hopefully you're one of the nutcases who offs themselves rather than continues to live as the weird sex-slave whatever of the disappointment to his actually badass military parents that is the autistic Ford.
You guys are weird and freaks, but I don't inherently hate you. I'm friends with an ace fuck like you in real life, she's not too bad.
Glad to see you've all been very productive as usual.
