Haligonian Rapists & Boston Bombers

[August1991]

Why should we seek to understand the one (understand the root causes) but simply - PC style - condemn the other?

Is there a difference?

[TimG]

Is there a difference?

In one case the perpetrators belong to a trendy identifiable victim group that is coddled and excused by lefty (mostly white) apologists. In the other the perpetrators harmed someone belonging to a trendy identifiable victim group. Edited May 1, 2013 by TimG

[kimmy]

Why would you contrast "understand the root causes" of one vs "condemn" the other as if they were mutually exclusive?

People condemn both, and want to understand the root causes of both.

This is just a false dichotomy, August.

-k

[August1991]

Why would you contrast "understand the root causes" of one vs "condemn" the other as if they were mutually exclusive?

People condemn both, and want to understand the root causes of both.

This is just a false dichotomy, August.

-k

No, it's not a false dichotomy.

Justin Trudeau referred specifically to "root causes" when trying to understand the bombings in Boston.

As I ask in this OP, how are these Boston bombings different from the rape in Halifax? To me, there's an obvious difference. The Boston bombs were an "attack" on the US State, the American people. The rape in Halifax was an "attack" on a specific young woman.

Kimmy, do you see the difference?

Edited May 1, 2013 by August1991

[kimmy]

Again, what makes you think that people aren't interested in the causes of cases like Rehtaeh Parsons or Steubenville?

What makes you think that the Boston terrorists aren't being condemned by those who wish to find "root causes"?

And when did you stop being able to go more than a couple of posts without referring to the capital-L "Left"?

-k

[August1991]

What makes you think that the Boston terrorists aren't being condemned by those who wish to find "root causes"?

-k

Kimmy, I see a difference between someone who places a car bomb, and someone who posts a forum comment.

IME, there are about 5% of any society who are crazy fanatics. The other 95% go about life peacefully.

Occasionally, the 5% can cause lunacy/difficulty for the other 95%. To me, a civilized society is in part protection against the 5% fanatics.

[August1991]

And when did you stop being able to go more than a couple of posts without referring to the capital-L "Left"?

Like von Mises, I'm allergic to capital L-Left, Socialist, Central.

[kimmy]

Kimmy, I see a difference between someone who places a car bomb, and someone who posts a forum comment.

IME, there are about 5% of any society who are crazy fanatics. The other 95% go about life peacefully.

Occasionally, the 5% can cause lunacy/difficulty for the other 95%. To me, a civilized society is in part protection against the 5% fanatics.

None of which has anything to do with this ridonkulous idea you've come up with that the Boston terrorists haven't been condemned by those who want to know the root causes, or that those who've condemned the Halifax rapists aren't interested in root causes.

Like von Mises, I'm allergic to capital L-Left, Socialist, Central.

-k

[Michael Hardner]

For those following at home - Von Mises is an economist.

[Moonlight Graham]

Why would you contrast "understand the root causes" of one vs "condemn" the other as if they were mutually exclusive?

People condemn both, and want to understand the root causes of both.

This is just a false dichotomy, August.

-k

Agreed. A lot of people keep failing to understand that "understand the root causes" and "condemning" a crime are not mutually exclusive. This boggles my mind. "Understanding the root causes" IN NO WAY WHATSOEVER means appeasement, sympathy, forgiveness, mercy, or being "soft on terror" etc. Why is this so hard for so many people to understand?

[Canuckistani]

Agreed. A lot of people keep failing to understand that "understand the root causes" and "condemning" a crime are not mutually exclusive. This boggles my mind. "Understanding the root causes" IN NO WAY WHATSOEVER means appeasement, sympathy, forgiveness, mercy, or being "soft on terror" etc. Why is this so hard for so many people to understand?

It's just a conservative/right bashing point of anybody that's not just reflexively shoot first, ask questions later. And because it implies that we have a role to play in preventing crime, rather than the answer just being to kill or otherwise punish those we convict of crimes. The mentality wants to reduce everything to simple black and white thinking.

And, they do have a point. I think our justice system takes criminal's past into account too much when sentencing. The most glaring example is the Gladue decision, where there's a native discount for crime because natives often have horrific backgrounds. The primary goal of sentencing should be to keep society safe from the perpetrator, so giving them a shorter sentence because they suffered abuse makes no sense to me. OTOH, the best way to keep society safe is to release prisoners who have been rehabilitated. Someone who suffered abuse should be given all the support in prison to rehabilitate themselves. That might mean they are actually in prison longer (deeper seated issues) than the next person, but criminals should be coming out of prison a better person than when they went in.

[TimG]

And, they do have a point. I think our justice system takes criminal's past into account too much when sentencing. The most glaring example is the Gladue decision, where there's a native discount for crime because natives often have horrific backgrounds. The primary goal of sentencing should be to keep society safe from the perpetrator, so giving them a shorter sentence because they suffered abuse makes no sense to me. OTOH, the best way to keep society safe is to release prisoners who have been rehabilitated. Someone who suffered abuse should be given all the support in prison to rehabilitate themselves. That might mean they are actually in prison longer (deeper seated issues) than the next person, but criminals should be coming out of prison a better person than when they went in.

The most rational statement I have seen on crime and sentencing in a long time. Edited May 1, 2013 by TimG

[Canuckistani]

Where we might differ is that I would have most prisoners, even the murders be released at some point, as they are now. And I would not make prison a hellhole, that just creates harder criminals when they do come out. Prison would be quite pleasant, the punishment is being locked up, that's enough. There would be a lot of rehabilitation efforts available, and prisoners would be held longer if they don't avail themselves of them and can show progress. That support would continue once prisoners are released. There would be a lengthy parole period, but again, with a lot of support to help them stay on the straight and narrow. The hard cases, like Bernardo, say, would of course be held forever, as they are now.

[TimG]

And I would not make prison a hellhole, that just creates harder criminals when they do come out. Prison would be quite pleasant, the punishment is being locked up, that's enough.

Well there is a huge range between hellhole and pleasant. What we want is a prison system that no one wants to return to (simply being locked up is not enough of a disincentive for some people). But I also don't agree with a system where inmates are allowed to abuse each other.

[Canuckistani]

Take a look at the Norwegian system, and especially the "spa" prison they have on on island. They have prisoners working on the ferries to the island, all sorts of amenities, but no escapes. Norway has a very humane prison system, yet a very low recidivism rate.

As I say, I would give all convicted criminals longer probation/parole periods than they get now, with much closer supervision and support. Many people wouldn't need to go to prison in the first place under such a system. If they can keep their act together, great. If not, they spend more and more time in prison. So the ones who don't find it a disincentive would be spending a lot of time there. This is another piece of sentencing. Right now judges give serial offenders shorter sentences as time goes on, because they think incarceration doesn't work anyway. Under my system those people would be spending longer periods in jail as they reoffend. Maybe they don't mind, but it keeps them away from the public. Almost everybody should be given a second chance. But once they're on their fifth chance, maybe not so much.

[Moonlight Graham]

It's just a conservative/right bashing point of anybody that's not just reflexively shoot first, ask questions later. And because it implies that we have a role to play in preventing crime, rather than the answer just being to kill or otherwise punish those we convict of crimes. The mentality wants to reduce everything to simple black and white thinking.

I agree completely. They like acting like tough guys, like cowboys.

The primary goal of sentencing should be to keep society safe from the perpetrator, so giving them a shorter sentence because they suffered abuse makes no sense to me. OTOH, the best way to keep society safe is to release prisoners who have been rehabilitated. Someone who suffered abuse should be given all the support in prison to rehabilitate themselves. That might mean they are actually in prison longer (deeper seated issues) than the next person, but criminals should be coming out of prison a better person than when they went in.

I agree for sure. I think prison should have 3 main functions: 1. keep the public safe from criminals, 2. rehabilitate the criminals, 3. punish the criminals and make them pay back their debt to society and their victims.

Prisoners should be let go when they're rehabbed and no longer pose imminent danger to society. But there also needs to be set amounts of time they must stay in prison also. A very difficult thing though is to have prisoners whose main peers are other criminals to be better people when they are released. Maybe they should be mixing much more with the public as a part of their sentencing. They should be around good role models, not just other criminals and prison guards. This poses many problems though and would be difficult to do for dangerous criminals like murderers or sexual criminals. I would propose something like teaching these prisoners an employable skill (ie: carpentry) and having them work with other normal non-prisoner carpenters while being monitored of course. Maybe they do that now, not sure.

[August1991]

I think prison should have 3 main functions: 1. keep the public safe from criminals, 2. rehabilitate the criminals, 3. punish the criminals and make them pay back their debt to society and their victims.

And I think that a McDonalds has a single function: 1. you don't have the money, you don't get the Big Mac.

All things considered MG, I prefer the Big Mac philosophy of life.

For those following at home - Von Mises is an economist.

Thank you, MH. I'm tired of "team players", and hives. Edited May 4, 2013 by August1991

[kimmy]

And I think that a McDonalds has a single function: 1. you don't have the money, you don't get the Big Mac.

All things considered MG, I prefer the Big Mac philosophy of life.

So on Planet August, prisons would only do one thing? Tell us which 2 of Moonlight's 3 functions you consider unimportant.

Thank you, MH. I'm tired of "team players", and hives.

I have no idea what that even means. Is everybody who disagrees with you part of a "team" or a "hive mind"? Is that what you're saying? I don't believe you. You're currently the #1 guy on the board at trying to divide the world into "teams" and "hives" (you'd normally be #2, but it looks like Shady has been given another "vacation".) "Leftists think this and this and that! That's why I'm not a Leftist! hur de dur!"

And you still haven't gotten around to attempting to defend the premise of the opening post, probably because you've realized that it's beyond hope.

-k

Edited May 4, 2013 by kimmy

[PIK]

I wish the left here would just come out and say the feel for the boys and the victims had it coming to them. These men suppositly followed a group in russia, a group that has no interest in america, their war is 100% with russia. It was just hatred of our way of life. Now we don't need to create a new min istry and a 100 new goverment jobs to figure this out. Sure looking for the cause is something that should be considered in some cases, but this is simple and it does not need to be muddied up. And is that not hwta the UN should be doing, it that not part of thier mandate?

[Argus]

Agreed. A lot of people keep failing to understand that "understand the root causes" and "condemning" a crime are not mutually exclusive. This boggles my mind. "Understanding the root causes" IN NO WAY WHATSOEVER means appeasement, sympathy, forgiveness, mercy, or being "soft on terror" etc.

It can and has.

[kimmy]

I wish the left here would just come out and say the feel for the boys and the victims had it coming to them.

That's a ridiculous straw-man.

-k

[August1991]

So on Planet August, prisons would only do one thing?

More or less. There are consequences to actions: as I say, if you don't have the money, you don't get a Big Mac. Or in less PC terms, "No tickee, no washee."

And you still haven't gotten around to attempting to defend the premise of the opening post, probably because you've realized that it's beyond hope.

My OP raised the phenomenal hypocrisy of Justin Trudeau's comment.

kimmy, imagine if Trudeau Jnr had said, in an interview, that we should all try to understand why the rapists in Halifax behaved as they did. Imagine if Trudeau Jnr had sought publicly to understand the "root causes" of this rape story.

I dislike arguments of the "My opponent would have argued" nature but I suspect that English Canada's Left would have pilloried him, as they did Christie Blatchford. (Look at the comments.)

-----

What was the simple point of my OP?

Why does the Left understand that some psychopaths should be locked away forever and yet in the case of other criminals, we should understand their situation, as if these criminals were a "victim" of circumstance?

According to Trudeau Jnr, we should try to understand Osama bin Laden. And yet, supporters of Trudeau want Russell Williams (for example) locked away forever.

Edited May 5, 2013 by August1991

[BubberMiley]

What was the simple point of my OP?

I'm glad to see you at least realize that it was simple. You could also add "stupid", "wrong", "out to lunch", and "typical of my my posting style."

[kimmy]

More or less. There are consequences to actions: as I say, if you don't have the money, you don't get a Big Mac. Or in less PC terms, "No tickee, no washee."

And yet you declined the opportunity to explain which two items on Moonlight's 3 item list you don't consider important functions of the penal system. Even Rick Perry could get to two, August.

I wish I could say that comparing the penal system to McDonald's is the silliest thing you've said this week, but I don't think it's even in the top 5.

My OP raised the phenomenal hypocrisy of Justin Trudeau's comment.

kimmy, imagine if Trudeau Jnr had said, in an interview, that we should all try to understand why the rapists in Halifax behaved as they did. Imagine if Trudeau Jnr had sought publicly to understand the "root causes" of this rape story.

I dislike arguments of the "My opponent would have argued" nature but I suspect that English Canada's Left would have pilloried him, as they did Christie Blatchford. (Look at the comments.)

Blatchford appears to be arguing against a lynch-mob mentality and pointing out that peoples' information about the Parsons' case has come mostly from the Parsons' family's version of events. I'm unable to access the comments, but I assume that it did not go well for her.

Are you sure it is The Left that pilloried Blatchford? I heard some of the Charles Adler show shortly after Parsons' suicide, and Adlers' right-wing audience seemed enraged too.

What was the simple point of my OP?

Why does the Left understand that some psychopaths should be locked away forever and yet in the case of other criminals, we should understand their situation, as if these criminals were a "victim" of circumstance?

According to Trudeau Jnr, we should try to understand Osama bin Laden. And yet, supporters of Trudeau want Russell Williams (for example) locked away forever.

What do you mean "and yet"? Supporters of Trudeau want Dzokhar Tsarnaev locked away forever too.

Who *doesn't* think that Russell Williams should be locked away forever?

Who *doesn't* think Tsarnaev should be locked away forever?

The only people who'd disagree are people who'd prefer they be executed rather than locked away.

This whole premise that people who want to understand what motivated Tsarnaev don't think he should be punished is just stupid. But I guess on Planet August where prisons are like McDonald's, the idea that we could learn to identify or prevent future radicals from studying Tsarnaev is just too radical. "No tickee no washee" indeed.

-k

[margrace]

These are good ideas but our present government is only into punishment and revenge. They think that rehabilitation is coddling them