NSG Senate Lobby: Four Scones and Seven Pastries Ago

[Kouralia]

Put them into witness protection.

Literally spend government money on protecting notorious criminals? How about no?

As opposed to metaphorically spending government money protecting notorious criminals?

How the hell do you even do that?

[Ainin]

Literally spend government money on protecting notorious criminals?

Yes.

[Phocidaea]

Literally spend government money on protecting notorious criminals?

Yes.

Why?

[The Nihilistic view]

Yes.

Why?

I suppose we could not give criminals food or water for a week after conviction and they would die, but that still leaves the cost of a place to keep them for that time and the wages of the guards.

[Kouralia]

Yes.

Why?

Because that's the government's job. To protect its citizens.

"The measure of a civilization is how it treats its weakest members."

This includes those who are morally weakest.

[The Liberated Territories]

I disagree, a little Social Darwinism never hurt anybody. Praise Darwin!

[Aragon-Francho]

I have found the solution to prison violence!

http://www.alternet.org/drugs/switzerla ... m-and-safe

[Skeckoa]

I have found the solution to prison violence!

I am pretty sure that pot is legal, although I am not sure about whether it is or not in the prison system. Really, do we segregate people in prison like they do in California? Keeping gang members locked up is tricky business.

I mean it's not an often such a sentence is needed. I think in the UK there is only about 50 people serving life without parole for being deemed a danger to the public. The point is though it is rarely needed but is sometimes appropriate.

I mean, I don't mind prison caps, it is quite a sight to see someone get a 593 year sentence (which tends to happen in countries with no death penalty like here in Aurentina)

[New Zepuha]

Lol 593, at that point you may as well just say life. We calculated with rothschild his sentence would ultimately be around 73 years. Seeing as he is already in his early 70s....

[Uiiop]

I disagree, a little Social Darwinism never hurt anybody. Praise Darwin!

Criminals can still fuck. Don't praise Darwin's name in vain heretic.

[Placenza]

I disagree, a little Social Darwinism never hurt anybody. Praise Darwin!

It does hurt when there's no class collaboration.
Social Darwinism and Class Collaboration: A Force for Good and Prosperity.

[New Bierstaat]

Why?

Because that's the government's job. To protect its citizens.

"The measure of a civilization is how it treats its weakest members."

This includes those who are morally weakest.

The government's job is to protect the rights of its citizens. Protecting them from dangerous criminals falls under this category.

Also, someone tell me what the point of making murder, rape, etc. illegal if we don't punish the offender according to the crime.

[Aragon-Francho]

Because that's the government's job. To protect its citizens.

"The measure of a civilization is how it treats its weakest members."

This includes those who are morally weakest.

The government's job is to protect the rights of its citizens. Protecting them from dangerous criminals falls under this category.

Also, someone tell me what the point of making murder, rape, etc. illegal if we don't punish the offender according to the crime.

I don't understand either, what I think, but if any pro-rehabilitationists say otherwise, is so that they have a "second chance".

[Minarchist States]

I disagree, a little Social Darwinism never hurt anybody. Praise Darwin!

It does hurt when there's no class collaboration.
Social Darwinism and Class Collaboration: A Force for Good and Prosperity.

Pff what have the poor ever done for me.

[The Nihilistic view]

It does hurt when there's no class collaboration.
Social Darwinism and Class Collaboration: A Force for Good and Prosperity.

Pff what have the poor ever done for me.

Well I don't know where I would be without my 483 strong household staff.

[People Who Say Ni]

Because that's the government's job. To protect its citizens.

"The measure of a civilization is how it treats its weakest members."

This includes those who are morally weakest.

The government's job is to protect the rights of its citizens. Protecting them from dangerous criminals falls under this category.
Also, someone tell me what the point of making murder, rape, etc. illegal if we don't punish the offender according to the crime.

There are varying opinions on what the role of a government is: my view is that if the government can intervene and increase the quality of life for the majority, it should. The law is what is responsible for keeping people on account with their social responsibilities and granted human and civil rights.

[New Bierstaat]

The government's job is to protect the rights of its citizens. Protecting them from dangerous criminals falls under this category.
Also, someone tell me what the point of making murder, rape, etc. illegal if we don't punish the offender according to the crime.

There are varying opinions on what the role of a government is: my view is that if the government can intervene and increase the quality of life for the majority, it should. The law is what is responsible for keeping people on account with their social responsibilities and granted human and civil rights.

I respectfully disagree. The role of government, in my opinion, is to protect the natural rights of its citizens in the least intrusive manner possible. I believe the government has no place deciding what a person's social responsibilities are.

It is my belief that the government is for all the citizens, not just the majority. I have governed in that manner; I have worked under the counsel of many prominent leftists and rightists throughout my tenure as president, and I hope that my successor, whether he/she be a leftist or rightist, will follow my example in this. A government that only cares about the majority disrespects the rights of every citizen that finds himself/herself in the minority. I am the president not only of libertarians, monarchists, reformists, and moderates, but also of communists, socialists, social democrats, independents, and Stalinists. They have rights regardless of whether their candidate won the election, and I intend not only to respect but to defend those rights regardless of whether my personal beliefs dictate that disrespecting those rights would benefit my group, which has clearly shown itself to be, at present, the majority.

[Yanalia]

There are varying opinions on what the role of a government is: my view is that if the government can intervene and increase the quality of life for the majority, it should. The law is what is responsible for keeping people on account with their social responsibilities and granted human and civil rights.

I respectfully disagree. The role of government, in my opinion, is to protect the natural rights of its citizens in the least intrusive manner possible. I believe the government has no place deciding what a person's social responsibilities are.

It is my belief that the government is for all the citizens, not just the majority. I have governed in that manner; I have worked under the counsel of many prominent leftists and rightists throughout my tenure as president, and I hope that my successor, whether he/she be a leftist or rightist, will follow my example in this. A government that only cares about the majority disrespects the rights of every citizen that finds himself/herself in the minority. I am the president not only of libertarians, monarchists, reformists, and moderates, but also of communists, socialists, social democrats, independents, and Stalinists. They have rights regardless of whether their candidate won the election, and I intend not only to respect but to defend those rights regardless of whether my personal beliefs dictate that disrespecting those rights would benefit my group, which has clearly shown itself to be, at present, the majority.

What does that have to do with protecting released criminals from abuse?

[Maryginia]

Wait, we have a nother lobby threead?

[Minarchist States]

I respectfully disagree. The role of government, in my opinion, is to protect the natural rights of its citizens in the least intrusive manner possible. I believe the government has no place deciding what a person's social responsibilities are.

It is my belief that the government is for all the citizens, not just the majority. I have governed in that manner; I have worked under the counsel of many prominent leftists and rightists throughout my tenure as president, and I hope that my successor, whether he/she be a leftist or rightist, will follow my example in this. A government that only cares about the majority disrespects the rights of every citizen that finds himself/herself in the minority. I am the president not only of libertarians, monarchists, reformists, and moderates, but also of communists, socialists, social democrats, independents, and Stalinists. They have rights regardless of whether their candidate won the election, and I intend not only to respect but to defend those rights regardless of whether my personal beliefs dictate that disrespecting those rights would benefit my group, which has clearly shown itself to be, at present, the majority.

What does that have to do with protecting released criminals from abuse?

Quiet, the president is speaking.

[New Bierstaat]

I respectfully disagree. The role of government, in my opinion, is to protect the natural rights of its citizens in the least intrusive manner possible. I believe the government has no place deciding what a person's social responsibilities are.

It is my belief that the government is for all the citizens, not just the majority. I have governed in that manner; I have worked under the counsel of many prominent leftists and rightists throughout my tenure as president, and I hope that my successor, whether he/she be a leftist or rightist, will follow my example in this. A government that only cares about the majority disrespects the rights of every citizen that finds himself/herself in the minority. I am the president not only of libertarians, monarchists, reformists, and moderates, but also of communists, socialists, social democrats, independents, and Stalinists. They have rights regardless of whether their candidate won the election, and I intend not only to respect but to defend those rights regardless of whether my personal beliefs dictate that disrespecting those rights would benefit my group, which has clearly shown itself to be, at present, the majority.

What does that have to do with protecting released criminals from abuse?

Nothing. It's a response to Ni's comment on the role of government.

My question is: why are the rights of criminals more important than the transgressed rights of their victims?

[Pesda]

There are varying opinions on what the role of a government is: my view is that if the government can intervene and increase the quality of life for the majority, it should. The law is what is responsible for keeping people on account with their social responsibilities and granted human and civil rights.

I respectfully disagree. The role of government, in my opinion, is to protect the natural rights of its citizens in the least intrusive manner possible. I believe the government has no place deciding what a person's social responsibilities are.

It is my belief that the government is for all the citizens, not just the majority. I have governed in that manner; I have worked under the counsel of many prominent leftists and rightists throughout my tenure as president, and I hope that my successor, whether he/she be a leftist or rightist, will follow my example in this. A government that only cares about the majority disrespects the rights of every citizen that finds himself/herself in the minority. I am the president not only of libertarians, monarchists, reformists, and moderates, but also of communists, socialists, social democrats, independents, and Stalinists. They have rights regardless of whether their candidate won the election, and I intend not only to respect but to defend those rights regardless of whether my personal beliefs dictate that disrespecting those rights would benefit my group, which has clearly shown itself to be, at present, the majority.

Well, I suppose you're better than Queen Elizabeth.

[Aragon-Francho]

What does that have to do with protecting released criminals from abuse?

Nothing. It's a response to Ni's comment on the role of government.

My question is: why are the rights of criminals more important than the transgressed rights of their victims?

Apparently because equality is more important than justice.

[Pesda]

Honestly, why should we care about punishment at all? We should focus all efforts on rehabilitation. If a person is unable to be rehabilitated, we should not devote our resources to making them miserable we should simply keep them in house arrest and under constant surveillance, or if they are really dangerous simply keep them away from the populace as a whole. Treating somebody terribly because they did wrong is ridiculous. Not to repeat hackneyed phrases, but two wrongs do not make a right

So we should try to keep people like Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, Sirhiy Tkach, and Pedro Rodriguez Filho under tight regulations? No, they deserved death.

No they did not.

[Yanalia]

What does that have to do with protecting released criminals from abuse?

Nothing. It's a response to Ni's comment on the role of government.

My question is: why are the rights of criminals more important than the transgressed rights of their victims?

I question that protecting those who have been properly rehabilitated by the justice system from further abuse is a violation of the rights of victims.