Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 87109	2008-02-08 06:36:00	Pilots stabbed in hijack bid	Bantu (52)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
638682	2008-02-15 21:01:00	And yes, there was racism, so let's not have indignant protestations, please... Well then I must have no idea what racism is. Go home Somali high jacker isn't racist. Go home for being a filthy Somalian is racist.(in regards to all Somali's) I haven't seen any such statements. Referring to someone's country or heritage isn't racist, even if you are expressing a negative viewpoint, Other wise a positive view would also be offensive,merely because there country of origin was mentioned. And if anyone thinks merely making mention of someone's country or heritage or skin is a crime in itself then we are truly ruined. Go home Somali high jacker should be considered no more offensive then telling your cousin to go back to Rotorua. Now for something completely different. Stick the fat ugly crazy cow on a slow boat to whatever cesspit she came from. we owe her nothing.	Metla (12)
638683	2008-02-15 21:12:00	Well then I must have no idea what racism is. Go home Somali high jacker isn't racist. Go home for being a filthy Somalian is racist.(in regards to all Somali's) I haven't seen any such statements. Referring to someone's country or heritage isn't racist, even if you are expressing a negative viewpoint, Other wise a positive view would also be offensive,merely because there country of origin was mentioned. And if anyone thinks merely making mention of someone's country or heritage or skin is a crime in itself then we are truly ruined. Go home Somali high jacker should be considered no more offensive then telling your cousin to go back to Rotorua. Now for something completely different. Stick the fat ugly crazy cow on a slow boat to whatever cesspit she came from. we owe her nothing. Amen	Cicero (40)
638684	2008-02-16 04:35:00	If you go to prison you lose your liberty. That is the punishment - you lose that right. Prisoners are still part of our society when they are in prison. Understood but I'm not sure I agree with that last sentence. Often people are imprisoned so that they 'no longer pose a threat to society'. How can we say that and they are still a part of society? That is not logically correct. As I said in a previous thread, recidivist offenders who make a point of being anti-social shouldn't expect the rights and privileges of the very society in which they choose to deny the rights and liberties of those who do follow the rules. They have chosen to not follow the rules so I have every right, as a victim and law-abiding member of that same society, to deny them a number of rights, beyond just the loss of liberty. Retributive? Of course it is - and why not? I didn't chose to be a victim - it is they who chose to commit an offence. You do the crime, then you do the time! I'm simply taking the majority / populist stance here (based on the 90% of the population who said lets get tougher on criminals) but you seem to walk to a different beat....we need people with opposing views otherwise it would be a very dull world! But.... They still enjoy a great many protections and rights and that is for a good reason - which is the history of tyranny and oppression that western civilisation has grown from. We give prisoners rights because we have found that if we mistreat the people in society who don't fit in for whatever reason then we start moving back toward the Dark Ages. I think you are mistaking the Dark Ages for the Middle Ages. The Dark Ages are merely referred to as that given the lack of written history available (destroyed by the Vandals and/or Vikings perhaps or some other undocumented tribe?). It was the Middle Ages where suspected witches were burnt at the stake and a general prejudice existed for anyone considered 'different'. History aside, there is a difference between prejudice without basis (which is what you are implying with your reference to the Dark Ages) and prejudice against recidivist offenders - the recidivist offender has proved time and again that he does not want to follow the rules of society and in my opinion he gave up his rights when he chose, many a time, not to obey those rules. You say 'for whatever reason' - I think recidivist offending against one's own society is a perfect reason for the rest of society to display prejudice against him/her. People who 'don't fit in' - the difference here is the recidivist offender chose not to fit in, it is not a case of unbiased prejudice as you are hinting at. Some people are beyond help. Period. I realise we are debating the same points over and over but I cannot stand idly by without letting the people who read this know that your views are not widely held - they may be widely held in the criminal legal fraternity, but trying telling your opinions to murder / burglary / assault victims and see how far you get! Surely you aren't surprised by my and others reaction? Thanks for the references - I shan't waste a moment in looking up those books! :) A	andrew93 (249)
638685	2008-02-16 10:19:00	andrew93 Getting tougher on crime won't solve any problem - but it will certainly introduce new problems. This is because criminal behaviour is part of the human condition. It cannot be stamped out. Human beings are individual entities - but live in collectives (beyond the family collective) to obtain certain gains. This introduces a tension between the individuals' needs and wants - and their duty toward the collective. So wherever we have societies and laws - we will have dissidents and criminals. If we tighten the straitjacket of law; then we will produce more criminals. How we treat crime and recidivism is a balancing act - a classic divergent problem. There is no single, simple solution - but only a balance of tensions. In the case of criminal law, the tension is between individual rights and the rights of the many. Criminal trials balance the tension between the concept of doubt against the needs of the victim. And so on. No radical change will address criminality. It will just be a radical change and will produce injustice. A perfect example is the three strikes legislation in the United States. Discretion was taken from judges and the black letter of the law was applied without human discretion or involvement - and a great many injustices have been the result. With no noticeable effect on crime rates. (A Guide for the Perplexed - by E.M. Schumacher has a good chapter on divergent/convergent problems.) Deane	Deane F (8204)
638686	2008-02-16 10:25:00	The only freedom which counts is the freedom to do what some other people think to be wrong. There is no point in demanding freedom to do that which all will applaud. All the so-called liberties or rights are things which have to be asserted against others who claim that if such things are to be allowed their own rights are infringed or their own liberties threatened. This is always true, even when we speak of the freedom to worship, of the right of free speech or association, or of public assembly. If we are to allow freedoms at all there will constantly be complaints that either the liberty itself or the way in which it is exercised is being abused, and, if it is a genuine freedom, these complaints will often be justified. There is no way of having a free society in which there is not abuse. Abuse is the very hallmark of liberty. -- Former Lord Chief Justice Halisham	Deane F (8204)
638687	2008-02-16 10:42:00	Interesting. Per your latest quote : "these complaints will often be justified". If we all agreed it would be very boring....	andrew93 (249)
638688	2008-02-16 16:17:00	andrew93 Getting tougher on crime won't solve any problem - but it will certainly introduce new problems. I can't agree with that. Well maybe a little bit. But we need to get tough first before we can get 'tougher'. At the moment it is way to lenient for prison or punishment to act as any detterent or rehabiltation. I could name a few examples but it's too early in the morning.	rob_on_guitar (4196)
638689	2008-02-16 19:15:00	But we need to get tough first before we can get 'tougher'. At the moment it is way to lenient for prison or punishment to act as any detterent or rehabiltation. Well, there is plenty of history in New Zealand of our prisons being tough, hard places where prisoners performed hard labour. It didn't work then - what makes you think it will work now? I could name a few examples but it's too early in the morning. I'm sure you could name a few well publicised examples. But the news media advances a story line with such cases and have no interest about reporting anything about the justice system that actually works.	Deane F (8204)
638690	2008-02-16 19:41:00	Now first of all I have to say I am not perfect. If I was than every person on this planet would agree with me would they not? Secondly I believe that it all boils down to what a person will tolerate. There are some things I will and others I will not. Do I think I should give capital punishment for the first person whom walks on my property and takes fruit off a tree? Probably not but this is where it starts. I was lucky enough to have Parents rather than Caregivers. There were a number of lessons I learned as I grew up. 1:- My Father taught NEVER to touch anything that did not belong to me. This I took to be Brothers toys, fruit from a tree and as I grew older I applied this to all other possesions. 2:- My Father also, when I first started driving, told me to treat everyone else on the road as an idiot. 3:- My Mother may have possibly given me the best lesson. I forget what it was about but I complained to Mother that "whatever" was not fair. She looked me straight in the eye and said, "Who promised you that life has to be fair." It may be time to introduce a parenting law in so far as you can not get married or partner and have chlidren unless you know how to bring them up. Do I think this will work? NO!!!!!! But you have to have a licence to have a dog do you not?	Sweep (90)
638691	2008-02-16 19:42:00	Well, there is plenty of history in New Zealand of our prisons being tough, hard places where prisoners performed hard labour . It didn't work then - what makes you think it will work now? I'm sure you could name a few well publicised examples . But the news media advances a story line with such cases and have no interest about reporting anything about the justice system that actually works . I think it would work because at the moment being soft isn't . Police crime stats show crime on the rise again since mid 2005 (mainly violent offences and drugs) . And thats just the crime that gets reported . I also have alot of worked related info that i can't share since August 03 that deals with alot of violence . Most of the people caught just don't care about being caught . They know they will just get a slap on the wrist and probably walk away with PD or a fine or something similar . As for media, no news is good news . Bad news sells, good news doesn't unless it was a mistake . These are just my views, but really, hard labour is not a punishment . Isolation is a good non violent punishment . There are alternatives . Nobody wants to try them though .	rob_on_guitar (4196)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18