Mass shooting in Texas church prevented by attendees

[Greed and Death]

The thing is we excessively punish minor drug offenses but let violent criminals off with a slap on the wrist.
We do things the exact opposite way we should.

Decriminalize personal drug use but MASSIVELY increase the sentences for serious violent crimes, and repeated violent crimes.

The criminal justice system is supposed to rehabilitate people. While some people can't be changed, most can. I don't think putting people away forever will achieve that aim.

As long as the people caught for blunts are the people who don't vote the way I like it works for me.

Do as I say, not as I do.

Do as I say especially if you do not look as I do.

[Chernoslavia]

You're proposing to violently curtail people's rights to try and protect society from violence. Seems to me you'd be better off preventing violence in the first instance.

Ah yes, if you fill your violence meter then you can't be rehabilitated, well known science fact.


Alternatively, abolish prisons.


The part where you put them in prison.

Putting people in prison for violent crimes is not wrong.
Sure try to stop people from going down a criminal path in the first place, but should that fail, society should be protected.

Letting violent criminals victimize whoever they want without removing them from society is insane.

We already do it, and it is a horrible idea with horrible consequences.

Being part of society entails not commuting violent crimes against it.

He like Gormwood are apologists for evil doers.

[Novus America]

Putting people in prison for violent crimes is not wrong.
Sure try to stop people from going down a criminal path in the first place, but should that fail, society should be protected.

Letting violent criminals victimize whoever they want without removing them from society is insane.

We already do it, and it is a horrible idea with horrible consequences.

Being part of society entails not commuting violent crimes against it.

He like Gormwood are apologists for evil doers.

Yes. He would rather punish us by taking away our rights, than punishing this monster.

[Chernoslavia]

Why people do violent things is a complex, controversial matter. That can be different for different people.

You're proposing to violently curtail people's rights to try and protect society from violence. Seems to me you'd be better off preventing violence in the first instance.

Some people however reach a pint beyond rehabilitation.

Ah yes, if you fill your violence meter then you can't be rehabilitated, well known science fact.

Sure try to give people better education and economic opportunities and all. To But convicted criminals who are a danger to society should stay incarcerated.

Alternatively, abolish prisons.

And what is so horrible about places violent convicted criminals who are a danger to society in prison for life with the possibility of parole?

The part where you put them in prison.

We all live in a nation of laws, you do bad and illegal stuff to people, you serve time in prison, rehabilitation should be available when needed. What your proposing however (abolishing prisons) is batshit insane.

[Ifreann]

You're proposing to violently curtail people's rights to try and protect society from violence. Seems to me you'd be better off preventing violence in the first instance.

Ah yes, if you fill your violence meter then you can't be rehabilitated, well known science fact.


Alternatively, abolish prisons.


The part where you put them in prison.

Putting people in prison for violent crimes is not wrong.

Of course it is.

Sure try to stop people from going down a criminal path in the first place, but should that fail, society should be protected.

Fail people, then take away their rights. Very cool. I'm sure that'll work out great.

Letting violent criminals victimize whoever they want without removing them from society is insane.

You can only remove people from society by killing them.

We already do it, and it is a horrible idea with horrible consequences.

Your current system is horrible with horrible consequences.

Being part of society entails not commuting violent crimes against it.

But violently imprisoning people is fine?

[Ifreann]

He like Gormwood are apologists for evil doers.

Yes. He would rather punish us by taking away our rights, than punishing this monster.

You want to imprison people indefinitely. You want this even though it obviously isn't working. And you say that your motivation is to protect society, but if that's so then why continue to pursue a failed system?

Could it be because you also want to take away people's rights to punish them, because you believe them to be monsters?

[Novus America]

Putting people in prison for violent crimes is not wrong.

Of course it is.

Sure try to stop people from going down a criminal path in the first place, but should that fail, society should be protected.

Fail people, then take away their rights. Very cool. I'm sure that'll work out great.

Letting violent criminals victimize whoever they want without removing them from society is insane.

You can only remove people from society by killing them.

We already do it, and it is a horrible idea with horrible consequences.

Your current system is horrible with horrible consequences.

Being part of society entails not commuting violent crimes against it.

But violently imprisoning people is fine?

Okay, if you create a system in which no violent crimes every occur, which is safe and stable let me know. Until then we need prisons. I am all in favor of crime prevention but crimes still do happen and violent criminals must be held accountable.

And yes when you choose to commit violent crimes, you lose many rights. The fact is you decided to break your end of your contract to society. You therefore choose to forfeit those rights.
Violence, controlled by the representative government is necessary for society to function.
It should be within the context of laws and due process but violence is sometimes a necessary evil.

Not all violence is equally bad you know.

And I am not against the death penalty in extreme cases, but putting dangerous criminals in prisons or mental institutions does at least limit the damage they can do to everyone else.

[Chernoslavia]

Yes. He would rather punish us by taking away our rights, than punishing this monster.

You want to imprison people indefinitely. You want this even though it obviously isn't working. And you say that your motivation is to protect society, but if that's so then why continue to pursue a failed system?

Could it be because you also want to take away people's rights to punish them, because you believe them to be monsters?

I'm pretty sure our prison system despite it's many flaws has always worked as a deterrent for most people from committing horrible crimes. I don't call that a failed system.

[Novus America]

Yes. He would rather punish us by taking away our rights, than punishing this monster.

You want to imprison people indefinitely. You want this even though it obviously isn't working. And you say that your motivation is to protect society, but if that's so then why continue to pursue a failed system?

Could it be because you also want to take away people's rights to punish them, because you believe them to be monsters?

My system has not been tried. We do not do it, so you cannot say it is not working.
I am not continuing to pursue the existing system, I want to radically reform it.

What is not working is letting violent criminals out of prison even when they are still violent.
Tell me how often to people in prison commit crimes against people outside of the prison?

And yes, there is a punitive factor as well.

[Ifreann]

Of course it is.

Fail people, then take away their rights. Very cool. I'm sure that'll work out great.


You can only remove people from society by killing them.


Your current system is horrible with horrible consequences.


But violently imprisoning people is fine?

Okay, if you create a system in which no violent crimes every occur, which is safe and stable let me know. Until then we need prisons. I am all in favor of crime prevention but crimes still do happen and violent criminals must be held accountable.

You can't have a system without violence while you're still violently imprisoning people. Prisons aren't some neutral feature that exists in another reality, separate from our own. They are violent by their very nature.

And yes when you choose to commit violent crimes, you lose many rights. The fact is you decided to break your end of your contract to society. You therefore choose to forfeit those rights.
Violence, controlled by the representative government is necessary for society to function.
It should be within the context of laws and due process but violence is sometimes a necessary evil.

Only a few minutes ago you said that there's nothing wrong with imprisoning designated bad people. Now you're saying that sometimes violence is a necessary evil. So imprisoning people is, you must agree, evil. So, is it necessary? Well it clearly isn't working to protect society from violence, so if it is then that can't be its purpose.

Not all violence is equally bad you know.

And yet you want to imprison everyone who does something violent indefinitely.

And I am not against the death penalty in extreme cases, but putting dangerous criminals in prisons or mental institutions does at least limit the damage they can do to everyone else.

No, it limits the people against whom they could commit further violence.

---

You want to imprison people indefinitely. You want this even though it obviously isn't working. And you say that your motivation is to protect society, but if that's so then why continue to pursue a failed system?

Could it be because you also want to take away people's rights to punish them, because you believe them to be monsters?

I'm pretty sure our prison system despite it's many flaws has always worked as a deterrent for most people from committing horrible crimes. I don't call that a failed system.

This tiger repels rocks.

[Ifreann]

You want to imprison people indefinitely. You want this even though it obviously isn't working. And you say that your motivation is to protect society, but if that's so then why continue to pursue a failed system?

Could it be because you also want to take away people's rights to punish them, because you believe them to be monsters?

My system has not been tried. We do not do it, so you cannot say it is not working.
I am not continuing to pursue the existing system, I want to radically reform it.

Slightly adjusting who gets incarcerated and for how long is still basically the same system.

What is not working is letting violent criminals out of prison even when they are still violent.

Is being violent some kind of inherent property of a person?

Tell me how often to people in prison commit crimes against people outside of the prison?

I could put you in prison and thus stop you from ever hurting anyone outside that prison. Do you think that that's a good idea?

And yes, there is a punitive factor as well.

That doesn't protect society. You're proposing hurting people because you want them to hurt.

[Novus America]

Okay, if you create a system in which no violent crimes every occur, which is safe and stable let me know. Until then we need prisons. I am all in favor of crime prevention but crimes still do happen and violent criminals must be held accountable.

You can't have a system without violence while you're still violently imprisoning people. Prisons aren't some neutral feature that exists in another reality, separate from our own. They are violent by their very nature.

And yes when you choose to commit violent crimes, you lose many rights. The fact is you decided to break your end of your contract to society. You therefore choose to forfeit those rights.
Violence, controlled by the representative government is necessary for society to function.
It should be within the context of laws and due process but violence is sometimes a necessary evil.

Only a few minutes ago you said that there's nothing wrong with imprisoning designated bad people. Now you're saying that sometimes violence is a necessary evil. So imprisoning people is, you must agree, evil. So, is it necessary? Well it clearly isn't working to protect society from violence, so if it is then that can't be its purpose.

Not all violence is equally bad you know.

And yet you want to imprison everyone who does something violent indefinitely.

And I am not against the death penalty in extreme cases, but putting dangerous criminals in prisons or mental institutions does at least limit the damage they can do to everyone else.

No, it limits the people against whom they could commit further violence.

---

I'm pretty sure our prison system despite it's many flaws has always worked as a deterrent for most people from committing horrible crimes. I don't call that a failed system.

This tiger repels rocks.

My goal is not a system without violence. My goal is to control violence, not eliminate it.

Again not all violence is equally bad.

And something need not be 100% effective to be necessary or better than the alternative.
Placing violent criminals in prison is better than letting them commit more crimes against innocent people.

“it limits the people against whom they could commit further violence.”
Besides they fact that is by default limiting the damage they can do, this is a good thing.

[Chernoslavia]

Okay, if you create a system in which no violent crimes every occur, which is safe and stable let me know. Until then we need prisons. I am all in favor of crime prevention but crimes still do happen and violent criminals must be held accountable.

You can't have a system without violence while you're still violently imprisoning people. Prisons aren't some neutral feature that exists in another reality, separate from our own. They are violent by their very nature.

And yes when you choose to commit violent crimes, you lose many rights. The fact is you decided to break your end of your contract to society. You therefore choose to forfeit those rights.
Violence, controlled by the representative government is necessary for society to function.
It should be within the context of laws and due process but violence is sometimes a necessary evil.

Only a few minutes ago you said that there's nothing wrong with imprisoning designated bad people. Now you're saying that sometimes violence is a necessary evil. So imprisoning people is, you must agree, evil. So, is it necessary? Well it clearly isn't working to protect society from violence, so if it is then that can't be its purpose.

Not all violence is equally bad you know.

And yet you want to imprison everyone who does something violent indefinitely.

And I am not against the death penalty in extreme cases, but putting dangerous criminals in prisons or mental institutions does at least limit the damage they can do to everyone else.

No, it limits the people against whom they could commit further violence.

---

I'm pretty sure our prison system despite it's many flaws has always worked as a deterrent for most people from committing horrible crimes. I don't call that a failed system.

This tiger repels rocks.

I got news for you Ifrean, the whole world is a violent place and the fear of being punished keeps it from becoming more violent. You're not offering any solutions other than to not punish people for any wrong doing, which anyone with half a brain is able to tell is a bad fucking idea.

As he previously said, not all violence is the same. Some are in self defense. Quit it with the strawmans.

Then let's try to limit who they could commit violence to as much as possible while getting them help for their mental illness. Abolishing prisons will just lead to more people getting hurt.

Sure, come back when you got a better argument.

[Ors Might]

You can't have a system without violence while you're still violently imprisoning people. Prisons aren't some neutral feature that exists in another reality, separate from our own. They are violent by their very nature.


Only a few minutes ago you said that there's nothing wrong with imprisoning designated bad people. Now you're saying that sometimes violence is a necessary evil. So imprisoning people is, you must agree, evil. So, is it necessary? Well it clearly isn't working to protect society from violence, so if it is then that can't be its purpose.


And yet you want to imprison everyone who does something violent indefinitely.


No, it limits the people against whom they could commit further violence.

---

This tiger repels rocks.

I got news for you Ifrean, the whole world is a violent place and the fear of being punished keeps it from becoming more violent. You're not offering any solutions other than to not punish people for any wrong doing, which anyone with half a brain is able to tell is a bad fucking idea.

I’d reckon addressing the factors that lead people to being violent would be pretty helpful regardless of your opinions on punishment as a valid goal. Just punishing people alone isn’t useful to society.

[Novus America]

My system has not been tried. We do not do it, so you cannot say it is not working.
I am not continuing to pursue the existing system, I want to radically reform it.

Slightly adjusting who gets incarcerated and for how long is still basically the same system.

What is not working is letting violent criminals out of prison even when they are still violent.

Is being violent some kind of inherent property of a person?

Tell me how often to people in prison commit crimes against people outside of the prison?

I could put you in prison and thus stop you from ever hurting anyone outside that prison. Do you think that that's a good idea?

And yes, there is a punitive factor as well.

That doesn't protect society. You're proposing hurting people because you want them to hurt.

It is not slightly changing then, but okay?
If it makes things better why is that bad? If it keeps them from harming more innocent people it is good.

And I bet my system would reduce the rate of violent crimes against innocent people.
Perfection is not the goal, reducing violent crimes against innocent people is.
As long as it makes a meaningful reduction why not?

And a policy need not have only one goal or motive.

[Chernoslavia]

I got news for you Ifrean, the whole world is a violent place and the fear of being punished keeps it from becoming more violent. You're not offering any solutions other than to not punish people for any wrong doing, which anyone with half a brain is able to tell is a bad fucking idea.

I’d reckon addressing the factors that lead people to being violent would be pretty helpful regardless of your opinions on punishment as a valid goal. Just punishing people alone isn’t useful to society.

I agreed with Novus on this. Ifrean however suggests we do away with imprisonment entirely.

[Novus America]

I got news for you Ifrean, the whole world is a violent place and the fear of being punished keeps it from becoming more violent. You're not offering any solutions other than to not punish people for any wrong doing, which anyone with half a brain is able to tell is a bad fucking idea.

I’d reckon addressing the factors that lead people to being violent would be pretty helpful regardless of your opinions on punishment as a valid goal. Just punishing people alone isn’t useful to society.

Of course. But holding people strictly accountable for violent crimes and addressing factors that increase violent behaviors are not mutually exclusive. They are complementary.

The best way to deal with it is to approach it from both sides, simultaneously.

Reduce the number of people who commit violent crimes in the first case.
And then incapacitate the people who do still commit violent crimes, so as to limit the violence they can commit in the future.

[The Emerald Legion]

You're proposing to violently curtail people's rights to try and protect society from violence. Seems to me you'd be better off preventing violence in the first instance.

Ah yes, if you fill your violence meter then you can't be rehabilitated, well known science fact.


Alternatively, abolish prisons.


The part where you put them in prison.

Putting people in prison for violent crimes is not wrong.
Sure try to stop people from going down a criminal path in the first place, but should that fail, society should be protected.

Letting violent criminals victimize whoever they want without removing them from society is insane.

We already do it, and it is a horrible idea with horrible consequences.

Being part of society entails not commuting violent crimes against it.

Abolish prisons. Legalize lethal self defense everywhere and encourage gun ownership.

[Ifreann]

You can't have a system without violence while you're still violently imprisoning people. Prisons aren't some neutral feature that exists in another reality, separate from our own. They are violent by their very nature.


Only a few minutes ago you said that there's nothing wrong with imprisoning designated bad people. Now you're saying that sometimes violence is a necessary evil. So imprisoning people is, you must agree, evil. So, is it necessary? Well it clearly isn't working to protect society from violence, so if it is then that can't be its purpose.


And yet you want to imprison everyone who does something violent indefinitely.


No, it limits the people against whom they could commit further violence.

---

This tiger repels rocks.

My goal is not a system without violence. My goal is to control violence, not eliminate it.

Again not all violence is equally bad.

But it is evil. Right? Or are you walking that back?

And something need not be 100% effective to be necessary or better than the alternative.
Placing violent criminals in prison is better than letting them commit more crimes against innocent people.

That's a false dichotomy, though, both in that criminals in prison can harm other people, and in that alternative to prisons doesn't have to be "do nothing".

“it limits the people against whom they could commit further violence.”
Besides they fact that is by default limiting the damage they can do, this is a good thing.

Like I said in another post, I could throw you in prison and stop you from harming anyone outside that prison. Good idea?

---

You can't have a system without violence while you're still violently imprisoning people. Prisons aren't some neutral feature that exists in another reality, separate from our own. They are violent by their very nature.


Only a few minutes ago you said that there's nothing wrong with imprisoning designated bad people. Now you're saying that sometimes violence is a necessary evil. So imprisoning people is, you must agree, evil. So, is it necessary? Well it clearly isn't working to protect society from violence, so if it is then that can't be its purpose.


And yet you want to imprison everyone who does something violent indefinitely.


No, it limits the people against whom they could commit further violence.

---

This tiger repels rocks.

I got news for you Ifrean, the whole world is a violent place

These "That's just the way the world is!" arguments are so tiresome. We can change the world, how do you not realise that? We've done it before, we're doing it now.

---

Slightly adjusting who gets incarcerated and for how long is still basically the same system.


Is being violent some kind of inherent property of a person?

I could put you in prison and thus stop you from ever hurting anyone outside that prison. Do you think that that's a good idea?


That doesn't protect society. You're proposing hurting people because you want them to hurt.

It is not slightly changing then, but okay?
If it makes things better why is that bad? If it keeps them from harming more innocent people it is good.

It doesn't make things better.

And I bet my system would reduce the rate of violent crimes against innocent people.
Perfection is not the goal, reducing violent crimes against innocent people is.
As long as it makes a meaningful reduction why not?

Because "innocent" people aren't the only ones who count.

And a policy need not have only one goal or motive.

I hardly think that hurting people just because you think they're bad is a very good motive.

[Ifreann]

I’d reckon addressing the factors that lead people to being violent would be pretty helpful regardless of your opinions on punishment as a valid goal. Just punishing people alone isn’t useful to society.

I agreed with Novus on this. Ifrean however suggests we do away with imprisonment entirely.

I think it's an idea worth considering. Locking people up clearly isn't working.

[Novus America]

My goal is not a system without violence. My goal is to control violence, not eliminate it.

Again not all violence is equally bad.

But it is evil. Right? Or are you walking that back?

And something need not be 100% effective to be necessary or better than the alternative.
Placing violent criminals in prison is better than letting them commit more crimes against innocent people.

That's a false dichotomy, though, both in that criminals in prison can harm other people, and in that alternative to prisons doesn't have to be "do nothing".

“it limits the people against whom they could commit further violence.”
Besides they fact that is by default limiting the damage they can do, this is a good thing.

Like I said in another post, I could throw you in prison and stop you from harming anyone outside that prison. Good idea?

---

I got news for you Ifrean, the whole world is a violent place

These "That's just the way the world is!" arguments are so tiresome. We can change the world, how do you not realise that? We've done it before, we're doing it now.

---

It is not slightly changing then, but okay?
If it makes things better why is that bad? If it keeps them from harming more innocent people it is good.

It doesn't make things better.

And I bet my system would reduce the rate of violent crimes against innocent people.
Perfection is not the goal, reducing violent crimes against innocent people is.
As long as it makes a meaningful reduction why not?

Because "innocent" people aren't the only ones who count.

And a policy need not have only one goal or motive.

I hardly think that hurting people just because you think they're bad is a very good motive.

Eliminating evil is not realistic.
Reducing it is.

And you have yet to propose an alternative to prisons that actually works well enough to protect innocent people that can replace them entirely. Until you do, your argument is invalid.

Sure the rights of innocent people are not all that matters.
Convicted violent criminals do get some rights, but forfeit some rights.

And people in prison have much less ability to commit crimes against people outside prison.

And sure in theory arresting people because they might commit crimes might work, but it violates the principle of due process. What I am proposing does not.

Not all restrictions on rights are justified, but some restrictions on rights are necessary unfortunately. Because some rights are mutually exclusive.

It is a balance.
And the best way is to only take away the rights of people who already violated the rights of others.

[Novus America]

I agreed with Novus on this. Ifrean however suggests we do away with imprisonment entirely.

I think it's an idea worth considering. Locking people up clearly isn't working.

Locking people up does work in many cases.
And propose an alternative that works better, and is mutually exclusive to prisons, and I am all ears. But you have failed to offer a feasible alternative that replaces them entirely.

[Neu California]

I think we should take discussion of prisons and prison policy to a new thread. It seems tangential to this one

[Farnhamia]

I think we should take discussion of prisons and prison policy to a new thread. It seems tangential to this one

An excellent idea.

[Chernoslavia]

I agreed with Novus on this. Ifrean however suggests we do away with imprisonment entirely.

I think it's an idea worth considering. Locking people up clearly isn't working.

No it's a batshit insane idea that's going to get a lot of people killed. Locking people up however has kept violent criminals from continuing to hurt more people if they were to have faced no repercussions.