| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/13/2008 07:07:21 PM · #201 |
Somehow I get the feeling that this is a neverending debate. Can't we just agree to disagree and leave it at that. Nothing is going to be accomplishment at this rate!
|
|
|
|
08/13/2008 07:13:09 PM · #202 |
Originally posted by Judi:
Somehow I get the feeling that this is a neverending debate. Can't we just agree to disagree and leave it at that. Nothing is going to be accomplishment at this rate! |
What do you think of the Norwegian prison? I think this is a conrete project whose merits we could discuss. |
|
|
|
08/13/2008 07:17:26 PM · #203 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Do you like to see yourself on the good side of a battle between good and evil? Does this give you a feeling of superiority? Serious questions.
|
There is no good in man. Only varying shades of evil. |
|
|
|
08/13/2008 07:20:33 PM · #204 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Originally posted by Judi:
Somehow I get the feeling that this is a neverending debate. Can't we just agree to disagree and leave it at that. Nothing is going to be accomplishment at this rate! |
What do you think of the Norwegian prison? I think this is a conrete project whose merits we could discuss. |
I am not going to put my opinion on that one. And I think there has been enough people putting their opinions on it....when will you realise that your opinion isn't necessarily the right one and that others have already expressed their opinion. Can't you just leave it at that?
|
|
|
|
08/13/2008 07:27:36 PM · #205 |
Originally posted by Judi:
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Originally posted by Judi:
Somehow I get the feeling that this is a neverending debate. Can't we just agree to disagree and leave it at that. Nothing is going to be accomplishment at this rate! |
What do you think of the Norwegian prison? I think this is a conrete project whose merits we could discuss. |
I am not going to put my opinion on that one. And I think there has been enough people putting their opinions on it....when will you realise that your opinion isn't necessarily the right one and that others have already expressed their opinion. Can't you just leave it at that? |
This is not about right or wrong. It's about different possibilities to deal with crime. I think the topic is important enough to be discussed. As far as I can remember, only  thegrandwazoo shared his views on the Norwegian prison. I'd be interested in hearing yours and those of others, too.
Message edited by author 2008-08-13 19:27:44. |
|
|
|
08/13/2008 08:04:50 PM · #206 |
Here is an article that may be germaine to the question. It doesn't specifically talk about the Norwegian prison you referenced, but it does provide some context for the Norwegian CJ system. article 1 It is an article from 2-07.
I can't speak to its credibility(maybe someone from Norway can comment) but only point it out as a counter to the argument that their incarceration/enforcement techniques are working out well for them.
Interesting discussion...I don't feel prison is primarily for reform, nor is it truly a deterrent. Rather it is a way to protect law-abiding citizens and provide justice for the victims.
One other point--earlier it was posted that hundreds of cases have been overturned after review of DNA evidence. Check out the innocenceproject.org for information. 218 total, 154 in the last 8 years. Significant numbers? Yes, but not as many as I expected, and barely 'hundreds'. |
|
|
|
08/13/2008 08:21:06 PM · #207 |
Originally posted by mpeters:
Here is an article that may be germaine to the question. It doesn't specifically talk about the Norwegian prison you referenced, but it does provide some context for the Norwegian CJ system. article 1 It is an article from 2-07.
I can't speak to its credibility(maybe someone from Norway can comment) but only point it out as a counter to the argument that their incarceration/enforcement techniques are working out well for them. |
We have to be careful not to mix up two issues here. One is about catching criminals in the first place (this is what your article refers to), the other one is how to treat them after they have been caught (which is what the video and article I posted refer to). I'd be interested in finding out what caused the rise in crime in Oslo. The article says it's mainly organized crime, something we haven't really discussed yet here. (Those are probably the most rational criminals. Prison terms are something they merely factor into the business model.)
Originally posted by mpeters:
Interesting discussion...I don't feel prison is primarily for reform, nor is it truly a deterrent. Rather it is a way to protect law-abiding citizens and provide justice for the victims. |
Interesting point. Since the protection is only temporary I would assume that you see the main purpose of prison in providing justice for the victims. This may be an important factor for "personal" crimes like rape or murder. What about crimes like theft (e.g. from a supermarket), forgery, copyright infringement, etc.? I don't think that there are any victims for these cases who could get satisfaction from seeing the perpetrator being punished. What about crimes that have no victims (as discussed earlier)? |
|
|
|
08/13/2008 08:22:01 PM · #208 |
No, Louis pwned him.
Originally posted by kenskid:
Rugman...in the sprit of how the young kids talk today...
..... Louis OWNS you !
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by rugman1969:
That's the best you got? |
That's all there is, because your response is essentially empty. For example, in an effort to discredit Sam, you found it necessary to wholly invent the following:
Originally posted by rugman1969:
My whole point is he is basically saying there is no crime, and criminals should be running around free. |
He said absolutely nothing like that, and you should stop arguing against a point you yourself conveniently made up.
There's little reason to respond to anything else you've said. |
|
|
|
|
|
08/13/2008 08:34:40 PM · #209 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Interesting point. Since the protection is only temporary I would assume that you see the main purpose of prison in providing justice for the victims. This may be an important factor for "personal" crimes like rape or murder. What about crimes like theft (e.g. from a supermarket), forgery, copyright infringement, etc.? I don't think that there are any victims for these cases who could get satisfaction from seeing the perpetrator being punished. What about crimes that have no victims (as discussed earlier)? |
I think any theft is personal. To somebody. Somebody owns that supermarkt.
In fact, when someone steals from Wal-Mart, no doubt because they were picked last for dodgeball in grade school, the costs of goods rise in order to make up for that loss. (they have to pay insurance to make up for stolen goods...the more claims you have..the higher the price...that price is passed on to the consumers)
p.s... I answered your question about 'good vs evil' and you never respond. I think it is pretty funny that you make these snide little comments and ask questions...but never respond after I give my answer. You just move on to your next rant about giving out cotton candy to mass murderers.
Message edited by author 2008-08-13 20:36:25. |
|
|
|
08/13/2008 08:39:54 PM · #210 |
Originally posted by egamble:
I think it is pretty funny that you make these snide little comments and ask questions...but never respond after I give my answer. |
If that makes him funny, you must be the comedian of the year.
Of course nothing's funny about tossing the poor out to die or acts of revenge, or is that your idea of a good time?
Message edited by author 2008-08-13 20:42:27. |
|
|
|
08/13/2008 08:50:57 PM · #211 |
Originally posted by egamble:
p.s... I answered your question about 'good vs evil' and you never respond. I think it is pretty funny that you make these snide little comments and ask questions...but never respond after I give my answer. You just move on to your next rant about giving out cotton candy to mass murderers. |
You wrote
Originally posted by egamle:
There is no good in man. Only varying shades of evil. |
This is a very sad and pessimistic view of the world. You know I disagree with it. What kind of comment did you expect? This isn't anything that's very interesting to argue about. I'm more interested in concrete measures we could take. What do you think of the Norwegian prison, for example?
The part about the "cotton candy to mass murderers" falls into the same category as  rugman1969's straw man arguments. (I like how you added "mass" to the murderers to make it sound even more frightening.) |
|
|
|
08/13/2008 09:27:18 PM · #212 |
I think it honestly comes down to a question. Would you steal the last piece of food from a starving family member?
If you would not, why not?
|
|
|
|
08/13/2008 09:28:58 PM · #213 |
Judi, my heart goes out to you. It was hard reading what you wrote. I truly believe everyone here regardless of opinion want the same thing and that is a safer world. We just have different ideas as to how to go about it. We should all keep this in mind when talking about this subject even if we disagree strongly.
Originally posted by mpeters:
One other point--earlier it was posted that hundreds of cases have been overturned after review of DNA evidence. Check out the innocenceproject.org for information. 218 total, 154 in the last 8 years. Significant numbers? Yes, but not as many as I expected, and barely 'hundreds'. |
So basically the government has 218 counts of unlawful imprisonment (i.e. 19 a year) and according to the ACLU, 129 counts of unlawful imprisonment for just death row inmates (i.e. 3 to 4 a year). With those kind of numbers it's not hard to imagine that the government has killed at least one innocent person over that time. Has the government, state officials, judges or anybody paid for any of these offenses? Why are these stats only viewed as "significant" which has a very emotionless tone to it? There are victims behind these numbers. I'm not singling you out just that in general few people seem to really care about these victims and for the life of me I don't understand why.
Message edited by author 2008-08-13 21:29:43.
|
|
|
|
08/13/2008 09:45:22 PM · #214 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If that makes him funny, you must be the comedian of the year.
Of course nothing's funny about tossing the poor out to die or acts of revenge, or is that your idea of a good time? |
Um. I actually answer your comments and questions that you direct to me. I don't just ignore people after I make a comment.
Also...I never said anything about 'tossing the poor out to die' ...your bleeding heart just can't wrap your mind around the idea of actually helping people instead of only making yourself feel better.
as for revenge...if these people want to break the laws of the land..they deserve whatever they get. |
|
|
|
08/13/2008 09:47:55 PM · #215 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
This is a very sad and pessimistic view of the world. You know I disagree with it. What kind of comment did you expect? This isn't anything that's very interesting to argue about. I'm more interested in concrete measures we could take. What do you think of the Norwegian prison, for example?
The part about the "cotton candy to mass murderers" falls into the same category as rugman1969's straw man arguments. (I like how you added "mass" to the murderers to make it sound even more frightening.) |
Concrete measures?
You don't even think straight before you talk. Before you compare Norway to the United States you have to compare all the differences between countries (population, races, income, etc...)
You can't just say. 'It works here, it will work there'. |
|
|
|
08/13/2008 09:52:01 PM · #216 |
Originally posted by egamble:
You don't even think straight before you talk. Before you compare Norway to the United States you have to compare all the differences between countries (population, races, income, etc...) |
What do you see as relevant differences in this case? The question is whether you let criminals spend the last months of their sentence in an ordinary prison or in a camp as the one in Norway. I fail to see how population, races or income would have any impact on the effect of such a camp. Maybe you'd like to elaborate
Originally posted by egamble:
You can't just say. 'It works here, it will work there'. |
So you think it works in Norway? What factors do you think would make it difficult to replicate the concept in the US? |
|
|
|
08/13/2008 09:54:15 PM · #217 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Originally posted by egamble:
You don't even think straight before you talk. Before you compare Norway to the United States you have to compare all the differences between countries (population, races, income, etc...) |
What do you see as relevant differences in this case? The question is whether you let criminals spend the last months of their sentence in an ordinary prison or in a camp as the one in Norway. I fail to see how population, races or income would have any impact on the effect of such a camp. Maybe you'd like to elaborate
Originally posted by egamble:
You can't just say. 'It works here, it will work there'. |
So you think it works in Norway? What factors do you think would make it difficult to replicate the concept in the US? |
-The two countries are different. Different cultures..different mindsets...not to mention the differences in race, income..etc. These all have factors in crime rates..etc.
-NO. I said that YOU said it worked in Norway. I haven't said that it worked or not, because I haven't watched the video yet. |
|
|
|
08/13/2008 09:56:33 PM · #218 |
Originally posted by egamble:
-NO. I said that YOU said it worked in Norway. I haven't said that it worked or not, because I haven't watched the video yet. |
Then maybe you should watch the video before voicing your opinion on it. |
|
|
|
08/13/2008 10:09:09 PM · #219 |
Seems Louis started the attack by calling Rugman's response a "Strawman Response" instead of just rebutting what Strawma...oh...Rugman posted.
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Originally posted by rugman1969:
Well Louis, this should be enough. We are speaking THEORETICALLY. If you would have read this from the beginning, you would know this. Instead of jumping into a discussion by reading just 2 or 3 posts, you might start at the beginning and read from there. This is theoretical, not actual. So most everything discussed is theoretical. Is this good enough? So yea, the straw man thing is a great defense, but being we are speaking theoretical, that pretty much covers everything said here. This whole thread is based on theoretical talk. Do you get it now? Did I drill the Theoretical word in there enough for you to understand? |
[user]Louis[/user] has been around here longer than you have, he followed the whole discussion and he's well aware of the different opinions voiced. Could we come back to the actual topic instead of attacking people personally? This thread has been very civilized so far.
I'd like to come back to my questions:
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Your argument means that prison is ineffective as a deterrent. So what is the purpose of prison? Keeping criminals temporarily away and then unleashing them again on the population? This doesn't make any sense. Punishing the criminals? With what goal in mind? You argue that they'll turn to crime again anyways. |
Here I asked you some questions. I didn't make any policy suggestions. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts. |
|
|
|
|
|
08/13/2008 10:13:24 PM · #220 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
Seems Louis started the attack by calling Rugman's response a "Strawman Response" instead of just rebutting what Strawma...oh...Rugman posted. |
LOL
|
|
|
|
08/13/2008 10:13:27 PM · #221 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
Seems Louis started the attack by calling Rugman's response a "Strawman Response" instead of just rebutting what Strawma...oh...Rugman posted. |
Rugman attributed statements to me I had never made and then argued against them. How should Louis have reacted? By attributing some made-up arguments of his own to Rugman and then responding to them? ;-) I don't think this is the kind of discussion we'd like to have... |
|
|
|
08/13/2008 10:16:13 PM · #222 |
Originally posted by rugman1969:
I'll take the safety of myself, family and friends over the rights of the criminal. Oh wait, when you are a criminal, you give up your rights. Now, what rights are we talking about? |
I second this, and I agree with Rugman on the above. I guess the only rights remain for a criminal is the rights to gather sympathy. This is a classic story, like when a stray dog gets put to sleep because it had bitten some kid in the playground, you can bet there will be people in the public who sympathizes the dog and ask that it be given a second chance (training, etc). But tho the boy who got his fingers bitten off, the family members will have a different opinion. Perhaps those who voted "second chance" for criminals would share to us whether they had been a victim of crime before? i'm sure you view on this entire topic changes drastically if you have been a direct victim. |
|
|
|
08/13/2008 10:21:01 PM · #223 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Originally posted by kenskid:
Seems Louis started the attack by calling Rugman's response a "Strawman Response" instead of just rebutting what Strawma...oh...Rugman posted. |
Rugman attributed statements to me I had never made and then argued against them. How should Louis have reacted? By attributing some made-up arguments of his own to Rugman and then responding to them? ;-) I don't think this is the kind of discussion we'd like to have... |
i think you should stop saying "i'm interested in hearing your thoughts" if you are interested to listen only to what you are prepared to listen ;) this is looking very much like a controlled discussion with a hidden aim to gather support instead of real opinions, on an issue with a pre-fixed conclusion ;) |
|
|
|
08/13/2008 10:21:22 PM · #224 |
Louis should have said what you just said..."Rugman attributed statements to Sam that he never made...case closed....no Strawman in that statement.
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Originally posted by kenskid:
Seems Louis started the attack by calling Rugman's response a "Strawman Response" instead of just rebutting what Strawma...oh...Rugman posted. |
Rugman attributed statements to me I had never made and then argued against them. How should Louis have reacted? By attributing some made-up arguments of his own to Rugman and then responding to them? ;-) I don't think this is the kind of discussion we'd like to have... |
|
|
|
|
08/13/2008 10:29:00 PM · #225 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
Louis should have said what you just said..."Rugman attributed statements to Sam that he never made...case closed....no Strawman in that statement. |
Straw man is just the technical term for exactly that.
Originally posted by crayon:
i think you should stop saying "i'm interested in hearing your thoughts" if you are interested to listen only to what you are prepared to listen ;) this is looking very much like a controlled discussion with a hidden aim to gather support instead of real opinions, on an issue with a pre-fixed conclusion ;) |
I'm mainly asking questions and I'm happy to hear opinions that disagree with my own (wouldn't be very interesting otherwise). However, I won't start discussing claims I never made. (I mean would you respond if I asked you something like "Why do you want to eat all the babies?". ;-) ) |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/24/2025 09:21:32 AM EDT.
