Zachary Young Posted September 16, 2011 Report Posted September 16, 2011 bloodyminded : The point isn't to make the criminal suffer. The point is to help the victim. Why do you want to inflict suffering on people? Why are you not concerned with helping out the person who has been harmed? Let's say you have a judge that will always convict for the plaintiff. Well no one is going to take this judge seriously. If the judge is unfair no one will pay any attention to his verdict. No one would agree to arbitration under him. The most desired judges would be those who are the most fair. But the system of justice I imagine would be far different from what we have now. It wouldn't be merely a private system which mimicks the current socialist system. Rather, most justice would be handled vigallante style. If you hurt someone, they would probably just hurt you back, and no one would care. Quote
CANADIEN Posted September 16, 2011 Report Posted September 16, 2011 We have way too many cops and they are all paid way too much money. We should get rid of 90% of them and put the rest on the minimum wage. Put cops on minimum wages. Quite the incentive for them to be corrupt. Quote
guyser Posted September 16, 2011 Report Posted September 16, 2011 It's amusing that you justify what the state did to me - I guess some will stop at no lengths to apologize away the sins of the state. Not at all justifying what the state did. I can only surmise you were chraged for something and had to answer for it. If innocent then it sucks, but you have to go and let them try and prove it. But being a no-show means...conviction normally, and max sentence. Being a no show means you dont care. The government had no business telling me where I should be at what time. It's a shame that we have all become so complacent that we accept any state dictate no matter how unnecessary or absurd.It may suck but it is nbot absurd.The Court had asked you stand and account for charges laid, you said "meh, busy , cant make it" with no attempt otherwise. And this is somehow their fault? The only real crime is one that has a victim. There was no reason for me to go to court in the first place. I hadn't hurt anyone. On the other hand I was greatly injured by having my liberty taken away from me. You clearly have never experienced first hand the system of injustice or you would not be so blithe about it. Being locked in a cage for a month is a very serious offence. How would you like it if someone locked you in a cage for a month? Can you imagine a grosser violation of liberty? I have the perfect answer. Tell it to a Judge ! The problem with our society is we have far too many laws. Far too many things are crimes. People who hurt others, people who damage others property, they are criminals and should be dealt with harshly. But if there is no victim there should be no crime. In part I agree. So if we cant find the body, no crime was committed? If we cant find the car, no crime was committed? Quote
CANADIEN Posted September 16, 2011 Report Posted September 16, 2011 Private courts, Knee-jerk (also known as viglante nowadays), justice. Armed groups not accountable to anyone "enforcing the law". Europe once had that... In the Middle Ages. And guess what, Zachary... It worked very well, for those with the most weapons and soldiers. You complain that a cop stopped you for violating a law that was passed by YOUR elected representative. Don't like the law? Lobby to have it changed. Elect people who will change the law. encourage to do so. In your utopian "free" society, the private "cop" will not stop you for violating a law voted by an Parliament you elected. He will stop you because his boss has decided that what you?re doing is against HIS law. You think that a world of private polices and courts will be better? You're naive. Quote
Zachary Young Posted September 16, 2011 Report Posted September 16, 2011 No, clearly in the case of a murder or a stolen car their is a victim. Namely the guy who got murdered or the guy who got his car stolen. Just because there is law doesn't mean it's just. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's immoral. The Law, dickens observed, is an ass. The solution to our problems is not more government, not more laws. Elected officials will never be the answer. The solution is people acting morally. How about we use our heads and consider individual matters ourselves instead of delegating our moral authority to the state? The state is a criminal organization, it cannot seriously accuse others of wrong doing without the most tragic hypocrisy. Quote
guyser Posted September 16, 2011 Report Posted September 16, 2011 No, clearly in the case of a murder or a stolen car their is a victim. . Sorry sir, cant find your wife, I guess there is no crime then. Bye! Sorry Sir, sure you didnt leave your car somewhere? (all said by a private security policing company) Quote
Zachary Young Posted September 16, 2011 Report Posted September 16, 2011 That is exactly what the police do right now. Ever tried to get something stolen back? 'We can't help you'. Police aren't here to help you, they are here to serve the state and it's interests. Quote
guyser Posted September 16, 2011 Report Posted September 16, 2011 That is exactly what the police do right now. Ever tried to get something stolen back? 'We can't help you'. . Not even close to to the truth. Quote
Zachary Young Posted September 16, 2011 Report Posted September 16, 2011 Perhaps your experiences have been different then mine. Care to elaborate? What do you think they are going to do, go knock door to door until they find your stolen property? The cops always make matters worse. Quote
guyser Posted September 16, 2011 Report Posted September 16, 2011 Perhaps your experiences have been different then mine. Care to elaborate? What do you think they are going to do, go knock door to door until they find your stolen property? The cops always make matters worse. No they wont. But they could be compiling a list of thefts from some neighbourhood, see a pattern, set up a trap or servaillance , and catch the guy. They do it all the time. Do you know plenty of people dont bother collecting goods the police find? Cant be bothered and already replaced. Besides, if reported to an insurance company, then restitution has been done . Also means the person who filed the report doesnt own it any longer. Quote
Zachary Young Posted September 16, 2011 Report Posted September 16, 2011 They don't bother reporting it because they realize there's no point. Nothing can be done. Not really the police's fault here - the important thing to understand is that you should defend yourself from crime, the cops can't and won't help you. Secure your valuables and be ready to defend yourself with violence against anyone who would assault you or take your stuff. Be self reliant, don't rely on the government to protect you. Quote
CitizenX Posted September 16, 2011 Report Posted September 16, 2011 It's sad to say but police officer's are glorified tax collectors, and government goons. Quote "The rich people have their lobbyists and the poor people have their feet." The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. - Plato
Argus Posted September 17, 2011 Report Posted September 17, 2011 The largest criminal organization in Canada is our Federal Government. They guilty of billions of counts of theft. Every dollar they steal from us in taxation should be another charge. I've heard this story before. It didn't make any sense before, either. By the way, I work for the Canada Revenue Agency. We're watching YOU! Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted September 17, 2011 Report Posted September 17, 2011 But there wouldn't really be "arrests" and "jails". If someone commits and assault or burgarly, they would have to pay back the victim. So if you steal $1000 you will have to pay back $3000. If you do not have the money you will be forced into indentured slavery with the victim receiving profits from your labour until they are paid back. Hmm. I do have a spare room in the basement... or would the back yard shed be okay for housing... ? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Zachary Young Posted September 17, 2011 Report Posted September 17, 2011 The Canadian Revenue Agency is a gang of thieves. Quote
Argus Posted September 17, 2011 Report Posted September 17, 2011 The point is restitution for the victim. What do you do with rapists? What do they pay their victim? What if they have no money? Does that mean the rapist becomes the 'indentured slave' to the woman he raped? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Zachary Young Posted September 17, 2011 Report Posted September 17, 2011 Yes. Of course the woman wouldn't want to be anywhere near the rapist, so he would actually be held in something sort of like a prison, where he is forced to labour until restitution - quite a lot of restitution - is repaid to the woman. Obviously it's impossible to undo the harm of rape, but I'd say forcing him to work to pay her back say a million dollars would at least empower her in some respect and perhaps help alleviate the damage by some small degree. Quote
Argus Posted September 17, 2011 Report Posted September 17, 2011 The Canadian Revenue Agency is a gang of thieves. We're not a gang, more of a shiftless throng. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Zachary Young Posted September 17, 2011 Report Posted September 17, 2011 Alternatively I think it might be alright for her to have him killed or brutally maimed. It should be up to the victim... if the victim was a Tolstoyist and wanted to just forgive the offender that would be fine. If they wanted monetary restitution that would be fine. If they wanted to inflict harm on the assailant, again it should be up to them. Quote
Argus Posted September 17, 2011 Report Posted September 17, 2011 (edited) Yes. Of course the woman wouldn't want to be anywhere near the rapist, so he would actually be held in something sort of like a prison, where he is forced to labour until restitution - quite a lot of restitution - is repaid to the woman. Obviously it's impossible to undo the harm of rape, but I'd say forcing him to work to pay her back say a million dollars would at least empower her in some respect and perhaps help alleviate the damage by some small degree. A million bucks? That's a lot of incentive for women to lie about being raped. You'll have guys getting falsely accused all over the place and thrown into slave labour camps for years and years while these 'victims' get rich! Edited September 17, 2011 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Zachary Young Posted September 17, 2011 Report Posted September 17, 2011 A million bucks? That's a lot of incentive for women to lie about being raped. You'll have guys getting falsely accused all over the place and thrown into slave labour camps for years and years while these 'victims' get rich! That's why you have 'trials'. Quote
Argus Posted September 17, 2011 Report Posted September 17, 2011 That's why you have 'trials'. Oh right, and trials are perfect? We have innocent people going to jail NOW. You want to give victims a million dollar incentive to lie and falsely charge people with committing crimes they didn't do. And who's paying for these trials anyway? The victim, right? Yeah, those are going to be fair trials, all right. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Zachary Young Posted September 17, 2011 Report Posted September 17, 2011 A judge who was accountable to the market place would be much more careful about not punishing an innocent person. AFter all it could mean his career. If there was a judge or a justice company that routinely had 'show trials' they would quickly go bankrupt and no one would pay any attention to their cases / rulings. Of course it wouldn't be perfect, but at least there would be self correcting mechanisms in place. Much better than our current injustice system. Quote
guyser Posted September 17, 2011 Report Posted September 17, 2011 A judge who was accountable to the market place would be much more careful about not punishing an innocent person. We need a facepalm icon here Zach. Sorry, but that is so wrong.Market place is for profit. Not judicial decisions. Quote
Argus Posted September 17, 2011 Report Posted September 17, 2011 A judge who was accountable to the market place would be much more careful about not punishing an innocent person. AFter all it could mean his career. You forget that it's the VICTIM who hires and pays for the judge. They'd WANT judges who tended to find people guilty all the time. In fact, that would be an incentive for the 'judge' to always find the defendant guilty. That would just get him more business! Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.