cybercoma Posted July 31, 2012 Report Posted July 31, 2012 Heck, if you didn't tell them it was there they wouldn't even know. So what's the problem? Now you're just trolling. I don't actually believe anyone with a straight face would suggest that the government ought to be given the power to implant tracking devices into people surgically without having that person's free (meaning not blackmailed into getting freedom) consent. Quote
cybercoma Posted July 31, 2012 Report Posted July 31, 2012 But hey. If you want to put it into black and white: I'm interested in protecting women from violent sexual predators. And you're more interested in protecting the rights of violent sexual predators. I can live with myself pretty easily on that basis. Can you? What complete garbage. Stop being such an inflammatory jackass. First, castration doesn't stop sexual predators from raping people. And secondly, I'm not interested in protecting the rights of sexual predators. I'm interested in protecting all of our rights, which means not allowing the government to conduct secret surgeries on people, violating their bodies without their consent. You might be completely ok with your government implanting you with things when you're wrongly convicted of a crime, but I'm not ok with them having that authority. Even if a person is rightfully convicted of a crime, I don't believe in giving the state the power to start tinkering with inmates bodies medically for any reason whatsoever. In fact, if you were going to allow the state to do that, why not just have them harvest organs from criminals to save the lives of the innocent. Is that perfectly ethical to you? When you're mulling that over, consider who gets to decide what is criminality and who gets to apply that label. Knocking over a corner store with a gun will get you a prison sentence, while stealing billions out of the economy by tinkering with interest rate numbers gets you absolutely nothing. And you want the government, bought and paid for by the highest bidders to be able to implant people? Unbelievable. Quote
Argus Posted July 31, 2012 Author Report Posted July 31, 2012 Now you're just trolling. I don't actually believe anyone with a straight face would suggest that the government ought to be given the power to implant tracking devices into people surgically without having that person's free (meaning not blackmailed into getting freedom) consent. My point was not that the government should plant them without the prisoner's knowledge. My point was that they do not in any way interfere with anything the prisoner might want to do after release other than commit crimes. They're not noticeable, inflict no inconvenience, no cost, no nothing. 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
punked Posted July 31, 2012 Report Posted July 31, 2012 My point was not that the government should plant them without the prisoner's knowledge. My point was that they do not in any way interfere with anything the prisoner might want to do after release other than commit crimes. They're not noticeable, inflict no inconvenience, no cost, no nothing. So what happens when I pay someone to take out my chip and implant in themselves then I get to go out and commit all the crimes I want with an air tight alibi? Quote
Argus Posted July 31, 2012 Author Report Posted July 31, 2012 What complete garbage. Stop being such an inflammatory jackass. I'm sorry. Is this the guy who spoke favourably of comparing me to Joseph Mengele? First, castration doesn't stop sexual predators from raping people. I await your citation of the many rapes which have taken place by castrated men. Please keep the list to just one page or so. And secondly, I'm not interested in protecting the rights of sexual predators. I'm interested in protecting all of our rights, which means not allowing the government to conduct secret surgeries on people, violating their bodies without their consent.That's fine. But I never made that suggestion. You simply misunderstood what I was saying. When you're mulling that over, consider who gets to decide what is criminality and who gets to apply that label. Knocking over a corner store with a gun will get you a prison sentence, while stealing billions out of the economy by tinkering with interest rate numbers gets you absolutely nothing. We're talking about violent predators at the moment. It's not that I don't have an interest in the lack of moral or ethical values of financiers but that's another topic, and I actually don't see how gps devices would help society much in relation to them anyway. 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 July 31, 2012 Author Report Posted July 31, 2012 So what happens when I pay someone to take out my chip and implant in themselves then I get to go out and commit all the crimes I want with an air tight alibi? I imagine that would be fairly readily detectable in a short period of time. In that case, both of you go to prison. I also think it would be kind of difficult to find someone to do that. Probably need a doctor with X-ray facilities or a scanner of some sort. 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 July 31, 2012 Author Report Posted July 31, 2012 And by the way. You guys do realize that the way society is headed with all our devices we carry around, with the progression of their uses and how tightly they're linked to us that eventually the government is going to be able to track every citizen and keep on record where they were at all times? It's inevitable. And even more so when we start getting the equivilant of our electronic access devices implanted in our skulls. And that too, in inevitable, if not quite so near in the future. 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
madmax Posted July 31, 2012 Report Posted July 31, 2012 The prisons we have are not designed to accomodate the large numbers we have in them today. Why do we have overcrowding yet crime is reported going down? Simple, compare the population of canada in the 70's to today. There's just a bigger pool to draw from and the prison system hasn't adjusted to that. the Maximum Security Prisons are not close to capacity. They are not overcrowded I believe Kingstons Prisons have also been shown to be more economical then the Projected Private Prisons and thus have been given a reprieve just a few short unpublicized weeks ago. However, the Provincially run Prisons for short term prison sentences have been closed down at an Alarming Rate since the PC Harris Conservatives in the late 90s...now another round of closures to fight the deficit will be occurring with no new facilities..... this requires alot more transport of prisoners, but capacity is still not a problem (or so we are told). Quote
madmax Posted July 31, 2012 Report Posted July 31, 2012 As for unreported crime, there is the question of "what do you want done with the person who did this to you?" I had it asked when the police caught a kid who tried stealing. How many people do you think say want nothing done? How about officer's discretion when they don't have enough to go on for an investigation. So there's that aspect, its not as much but its some. 90% of the Unreported Crimes I am aware of are with respect to sexual assault. The women normally seek counselling and help but find the Criminal System far to demeaning with poor results, as often this is a family member or an esteemed member of the community..... So, It still won't create a need for more prison space if there is no reported crime or process towards a criminal conviction. Quote
madmax Posted July 31, 2012 Report Posted July 31, 2012 I'm not a doctor but I believe that castration doesn't just remove the equipment, it removes the desire. I am not a doctor either but my balls aren't located near my frontal lobe ... That said, I would be willing to watch what you can do with two bricks.... Quote
eyeball Posted August 1, 2012 Report Posted August 1, 2012 The prisons we have are not designed to accomodate the large numbers we have in them today. Why do we have overcrowding yet crime is reported going down? Simple, compare the population of canada in the 70's to today. There's just a bigger pool to draw from and the prison system hasn't adjusted to that. It's not so simple at all. Canada's prisons are also filled with the mentally ill. The criminal code is quite specific on what's criminal and hasn't had too much change since inception. If the code were followed to the letter, a large portion of the country would be behind bars. Yes well, given the high number of people in this country who conflate mental illness with criminality at every opportunity and who seem to think that mental illness is a lifestyle choice that is better punished than treated, you might be seeing a whole lot more people behind bars. As for unreported crime, there is the question of "what do you want done with the person who did this to you?" I had it asked when the police caught a kid who tried stealing. How many people do you think say want nothing done? How about officer's discretion when they don't have enough to go on for an investigation. So there's that aspect, its not as much but its some. I heard one of James Holmes victims on the news saying they felt sorry for him and expressed pity for the awful state of mind he must have been in. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
bleeding heart Posted August 1, 2012 Report Posted August 1, 2012 I heard one of James Holmes victims on the news saying they felt sorry for him and expressed pity for the awful state of mind he must have been in. I heard two. I believe it takes real strength of character to summon this type of compassion. Compassion is insight. I don't know that I'd be up to the task, personally. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
Guest Manny Posted August 1, 2012 Report Posted August 1, 2012 I heard two. I believe it takes real strength of character to summon this type of compassion. Compassion is insight. I don't know that I'd be up to the task, personally. Come on, it's not normal. I love you mass murderer, what a bad life you must have had... poor fellow, he's the real victim... YOU PEOPLE MAKE ME SICK!!! It's more likely a psychological syndrome that the victim identifies with their persecutor, like the so called Stockholm syndrome. Quote
bleeding heart Posted August 1, 2012 Report Posted August 1, 2012 (edited) Come on, it's not normal. No. The difficult compassionate stance, by definition, is not normal. I love you mass murderer, what a bad life you must have had... poor fellow, he's the real victim Yeah, that's not a ridiculous caricature at all.... ... YOU PEOPLE MAKE ME SICK!!! That's your issue. It's more likely a psychological syndrome that the victim identifies with their persecutor, like the so called Stockholm syndrome. I seriously doubt it. I can't imagine why you'd care anyway; why it should offend you that some people use forgiveness as a way of dealing with grief. There are worse ways to handle horrible situations. Edited August 1, 2012 by bleeding heart Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
Guest Manny Posted August 1, 2012 Report Posted August 1, 2012 That's your issue. I can't imagine why you'd care anyway; why it should offend you that some people use forgiveness as a way of dealing with grief. I don't have any 'issues', and I don't personally care. It's my opinion that the ones who sympathize with this shooter must be in shock and suffering from a kind of reflex reaction. Quote
bleeding heart Posted August 1, 2012 Report Posted August 1, 2012 I don't have any 'issues', and I don't personally care. It's my opinion that the ones who sympathize with this shooter must be in shock and suffering from a kind of reflex reaction. Well, this is a lot different in tone than yuur initial response, in which "[we] people make you sick." Not that I really give a good goddamn if I make you sick or not, of course. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
Guest Manny Posted August 1, 2012 Report Posted August 1, 2012 Well, this is a lot different in tone than yuur initial response, in which "[we] people make you sick." Not that I really give a good goddamn if I make you sick or not, of course. What you didn't see my little emoticon, indicating it was satire? Thought you got up feeling a bit grouchy today... The main point was not that you make me sick, it was the second paragraph. Quote
bleeding heart Posted August 1, 2012 Report Posted August 1, 2012 What you didn't see my little emoticon, indicating it was satire? Thought you got up feeling a bit grouchy today... The main point was not that you make me sick, it was the second paragraph. Yes, I see now. My apologies. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
TheNewTeddy Posted August 1, 2012 Report Posted August 1, 2012 I'd separate those who do things on purpose (IE murder) from those who do things by accident (IE negligence) I'd also separate those who commit heinous crimes (IE rape) from those who commit other kinds of crime (IE fraud) I'd then take take the murderous rapists and shove 20 of them into a small cell and put a sword in the middle, and let the problem fix itself. Quote Feel free to contact me outside the forums. Add "TheNewTeddy" to Twitter, Facebook, or Hotmail to reach me!
bleeding heart Posted August 1, 2012 Report Posted August 1, 2012 I'd then take take the murderous rapists and shove 20 of them into a small cell and put a sword in the middle, and let the problem fix itself. Well, this sort of thinking only expresses that the strongest and most predatory convicts will win, and thus in a sense be rewarded. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
cybercoma Posted August 1, 2012 Report Posted August 1, 2012 (edited) . Edited August 1, 2012 by cybercoma Quote
PIK Posted August 1, 2012 Report Posted August 1, 2012 (edited) New report out( have not seen it) that says longer time in jail helps keep crime down. But what I would see is 3 step jail. 1st- you go in for a medical and treatment, health and addictions, then you go to building 2 and get a education, then building 3 ,the cell to finish your sentence and think about what you have done. Murder and rape , the hole. Edited August 1, 2012 by PIK Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
CPCFTW Posted August 2, 2012 Report Posted August 2, 2012 (edited) Tear it all down, the system sucks. 1. Hire thousands more police officers and convert prison security and correctional officers into police officers. 2. Place gps tracking implants in all non-violent offenders (with serious crimes) and release them all them under house arrest with extreme supervision (all phones and internet connections tapped and monitored, video cameras installed in house to monitor susicious activity). Wages are garnished to pay a settlement to victims, and offenders have no rights to social assistance. 3. Non-violent offenders of less serious crimes simply have no access to social assistance and have wages garnished to pay for any damages to victims or as a penalty. 4. Construct factories in rural areas with on-site housing, libraries, etc. Fence the facility in and have guards stationed around the proximity and within. Sort of like a mini city that is fenced in. Keep all violent offenders into the prison city to manufacture goods. The offenders will be paid a very low wage and have their wages garnished to pay victims. The produced goods will be sold at a competitive price in world markets (even if at a loss), to pay some of the costs of the correctional system. 5. Rent out our now empty prisons to the US for extra revenues. Not to toot my own horn, but I'm still digging the reforms I proposed. The main objections seem to be centered around charter rights violations of implanting a gps tracking device in serious offenders. It looks like a pretty weak argument to me though. Do I need to tell you how regressive and dangerous the policy of "once a criminal, always a criminal" is? Do you know what it does to a society when one can never fully pay their debts to it? Who said that the devices could never be removed? You'd have to serve a sentence of being tracked just like you currently have a sentence to serve in jail. You would be wrong. In any case, it's against s. 7 of the Charter of Rights anyway, as it infringes upon the security of the person. Not really: 7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. If I were interested in being a contrarian like you, I would have cited S. 12. But who would initiate the charter challenge? Lawyers for some criminals might, but I think that they would be outweighed by the lawyers for those criminals who want to stay out of prison. Edited August 2, 2012 by CPCFTW Quote
Guest Manny Posted August 2, 2012 Report Posted August 2, 2012 Yes, I see now. My apologies. No harm done! I don't take what's said here in this forum personally. Sometimes I do like to play the devil's advocate, a bit. Quote
nimiru Posted August 5, 2012 Report Posted August 5, 2012 Not to toot my own horn, but I'm still digging the reforms I proposed. The main objections seem to be centered around charter rights violations of implanting a gps tracking device in serious offenders. It looks like a pretty weak argument to me though. Who said that the devices could never be removed? You'd have to serve a sentence of being tracked just like you currently have a sentence to serve in jail. Not really: 7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. If I were interested in being a contrarian like you, I would have cited S. 12. But who would initiate the charter challenge? Lawyers for some criminals might, but I think that they would be outweighed by the lawyers for those criminals who want to stay out of prison. Quote
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.