|
| Thread: Right to Self Defense, Gun Ownership, and Deterence of Crime |  This thread is pages long: 1 10 20 30 ... 37 38 39 40 41 ... 50 55 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
posted February 02, 2013 09:05 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Instead they want the "poor wittle mistreated victim" who has already raped and killed 5 victims to roam the street and condemn those folks who wish to be able to defend themselves.
Have you actually EVER seen anyone on this forum writing this? Because I honestly never saw a person who thinks so. Here, on other boards, in real life... nowhere.
Maybe it's time to admit that "Loony Liberals" are just a byproduct of your imagination?
Want to prove me otherwise? Quote someone that says criminals should go around unpunished on HC, go ahead.
But it's a lot more gratifying to erect a strawman and then tear it to pieces. You make yourself an unwitting agent in pulling people away from your own viewpoint, but it sure does feel good.
Ultra liberal freak governor Jerry Brown is considering the release of one of the "Manson faimly" murderers because "he earned it" and it is "not fair" for him to still be in prison for the murders of two people.
Poor wittle mistreated murderer. 
Clicky
Quote:
California Gov. Jerry Brown is considering whether to grant parole to a convicted murderer who followed notorious killer Charles Manson, a spokeswoman for the governor said.
Brown's office received a formal recommendation from the state board parole Friday to release Bruce Davis, 70, who would be the first Manson "family" member to secure freedom solely for good behavior.
.....
Davis was sent to prison on April 21, 1972, for the 1969 first-degree murders of musician Gary Hinman and stuntman Donald "Shorty" Shea. Davis is serving a life sentence.
....
Michael Beckman, Davis' attorney, urged Brown to grant parole.
If the case were not connected to Charles Manson, Davis would have already been released by now, Beckman said. He called it "not fair."
"He earned it," Beckman said.
____________
Revelation
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 02, 2013 10:09 AM |
|
|
Is there any connection to the thread title I miss?
Otherwise I think it's a blatantly off-topic post.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted February 02, 2013 03:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Is there any connection to the thread title I miss?
Otherwise I think it's a blatantly off-topic post.
I'm inclined to agree. Pls stay on topic, Elodin.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted February 02, 2013 05:09 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 17:11, 02 Feb 2013.
|
The thread topic is "Thread: Right to Self Defense, Gun Ownership, and Deterence of Crime." And I was attempting to respond to a question directed at me.
Claiming it is not fair to keep a convicted first degree murderer locked up for the duration of his sentence (life, in the above-mentioned case) is certainly not deterring crime, nor is releasing said member of the notorious Manson family. Just the opposite, in fact.
It was stated in the thread that no one thinks of criminals as victims of society or that they should roam free in society. Here we have an instance of a convicted murderer being presented as a "victim" of the criminal justice system in that the argument is being made that it is not fair (he is being victimized) for him to continue to be incarcerated because he has been a "good boy" in prison.
Numerous instances of criminals with a rap sheet half a mile long roaming free in society can be given. There is certainly the liberal mindset in many parts of the US and elsewhere that makes excuses for criminals and that condemns people (and even imprisons them) for defending themselves against attackers. Such an attitude is detrimental to deterrence of crime, and in fact encourages it.
I refer you to an article in the Telegraph, for example.
Clicky
Quote:
The controversy over the jailing of Munir Hussain, who had effectively been kidnapped with his family in his own home, for assaulting one of the burglars responsible has rekindled the debate over householders’ rights. Hussain was released on appeal, his brother remains in prison. That case, along with many others, raises issues of fundamental importance to the concept of law and order in Britain.
It extends far beyond householders’ rights; but that is the immediate issue being discussed in the proverbial pubs and clubs. It was the case of Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer imprisoned in 2000 for shooting dead an intruder at his lonely farmhouse, that first alerted the public to the reality that an Englishman’s home was no longer his castle. Public opinion was further outraged when it emerged that one of the burglars, who was also serving a jail sentence, was to be consulted about Martin’s application for parole. Martin was released in 2003 after serving two-thirds of his five-year sentence.
What this and other cases have conveyed to the public is that, if they have the misfortune to be held up in their homes and are facing the possibility of murder or rape, they have to weigh up their instinct to escape against the prospect of incurring a prison sentence if they harm their attackers. What kind of a dilemma is that? Answer: it is the classic predicament of an innocent citizen who has the misfortune to live in a “liberal”, politically correct society.
The presumption in PC circles is that a criminal – any criminal – is a victim. From the outset, therefore, he is vested with a moral superiority over the non-criminal. The householder being burgled, the pedestrian being mugged, may be model citizens; their persecutor may carry a knife or gun, he may be bent on murder, torture, robbery or rape – but, in the liberal perspective, he is the goody. He is the disadvantaged victim of a capitalist, racist, uncaring society; so the laws of the land must be recalibrated to protect him from the citizenry – the baddies – who expose him to unreasonable temptation by owning houses or mobile telephones or handbags.
.....
____________
Revelation
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted February 02, 2013 05:21 PM |
|
|
|
After 40 years of jail, not letting him out is inhuman, if you ask me. I never understood why US believes whole life in prison is efficient.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 02, 2013 11:10 PM |
|
|
|
I agree. Punishments should be based on what's most efficient for the economy. This also means that I support death penalty in the cases that it becomes more economically efficient than a lifetime in prison.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 03, 2013 12:16 AM |
|
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 03, 2013 10:06 AM |
|
|
Obviously, "fair" in this case is not related to the victims but to a comparison with how the law enforcement system in general deals with lifelong sentences.
What's so difficult to understand there?
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted February 03, 2013 10:25 AM |
|
|
People often are sentenced to prison for the worst thing they have ever done, and not for being dangerous kinds of people. Thus, little to no security benefits for society are achieved from their stay in prison. Of course there are people whose character can be said to be criminal, and who do present a risk to society for as long as they are free, but these are a small minority of those who are now sent to prison. The way prisons are used now assumes that all convicts are criminal characters, which is not only false, but a very inefficient way of trying to achieve security. Aside from failing in humanity, prison does not even perform well at the specific functions of a criminal justice system: deterrence, retribution, security, and rehabilitation.
Prison is no more "shelter" than being locked in a closet is shelter; the food is not nutritious, the vast majority of prisons have neither gyms, meaningful exercise or education of any kind, let alone "free" education. Prison is not a deterrence: for the overwhelming majority, it robs the individual of the chance to live as anything but a criminal. It will turn a mere social misfit (drug user, for instance) into a criminal, and being stuck there guarantees that the prisoner will lose his home, job and almost all possessions. It also guarantees despair, depression and the losses of both hope and humanity.
That's why I can't understand the life prison sentences. Except obvious and extreme cases (ie:Breivik) there should always be given a second chance to anyone; prison means "pay your due", not "end your life in a barbaric way". As for death penalty, as long as justice is not perfect -and will never be-, it should not even be considered.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted February 04, 2013 04:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
People often are sentenced to prison for the worst thing they have ever done, and not for being dangerous kinds of people.
You determine if a person is dangerous by their past actions. They can claim all day long that they have changed but no one can see their hearts. And few hardened criminals ever change.
Quote:
The way prisons are used now assumes that all convicts are criminal characters, which is not only false, but a very inefficient way of trying to achieve security. Aside from failing in humanity, prison does not even perform well at the specific functions of a criminal justice system: deterrence, retribution, security, and rehabilitation.
Actually, most prison systems make excuses for criminals these days. A person has come to see himself for who he is before will ever see he needs to change and makes the effort to change. Liberal prison systems do not "hold up a mirror" for the criminal to see himself in and thus he continues to blame society, the victim, the TV, and everything else instead of blaming himself for his actions.
Quote:
Prison is no more "shelter" than being locked in a closet is shelter; the food is not nutritious, the vast majority of prisons have neither gyms, meaningful exercise or education of any kind, let alone "free" education. Prison is not a deterrence: for the overwhelming majority, it robs the individual of the chance to live as anything but a criminal. It will turn a mere social misfit (drug user, for instance) into a criminal, and being stuck there guarantees that the prisoner will lose his home, job and almost all possessions. It also guarantees despair, depression and the losses of both hope and humanity.
Texas prison food may not be delicious but it is nutritious. And the inmates have recreation yards where they play basketball, volleyball, lift weights, run, or whatever. Actually even in Texas very few inmates hold down a job in prison and there are few labor gangs for work outside the prison any more.
Quote:
That's why I can't understand the life prison sentences. Except obvious and extreme cases (ie:Breivik) there should always be given a second chance to anyone; prison means "pay your due", not "end your life in a barbaric way". As for death penalty, as long as justice is not perfect -and will never be-, it should not even be considered.
I do not see a life sentence as barbaric or a death sentence as barbaric. I consider it idiotic to release violent criminals back into society before their sentence is even complete. If a jury hands down a life sentence the inmate should serve the rest of his days behind bars.
If you read Manson's life story he had MANY second chances. He was a career criminal. The mercy shown to him caused the death of many innocent people.
____________
Revelation
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted February 04, 2013 06:01 PM |
|
Edited by angelito at 08:38, 07 Feb 2013.
|
Quote:
I do not see a life sentence as barbaric or a death sentence as barbaric.
But isn't it the OLD testament which states "an eye for an eye..." and it is called something like "old fashioned" and nowadays christians believe more in the NEW testament?
Quote:
I consider it idiotic to release violent criminals back into society before their sentence is even complete. If a jury hands down a life sentence the inmate should serve the rest of his days behind bars.
There is the problem. The jury hands down a life sentence if the given laws of that country allow to do so. If you have a country where life sentence isn't considered "until death", the judgement would be different. So you only consider laws of the USA here, or do you have laws of other countries also in mind?
Quote:
If you read Manson's life story he had MANY second chances. He was a career criminal. The mercy shown to him caused the death of many innocent people.
You know, one can find a typical example for EVERY statement made, but also examples which tell the opposit.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 04, 2013 07:14 PM |
|
|
|
Just a couple of facts: it's NOT the Jury that hands out life sentence. The Jury only has to decide whether the defendant is GUILTY AS CHARGED or NOT. It's the prosecution that comes up with the charge. If the Jury decides guilty as charged, THE JUDGE then decides the exact penalty within the limit of what is possible. Also, if I'm not wrong, the prosecution can suggest or even demand a certain penalty, but the judge doesn't have to follow that.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted February 04, 2013 07:42 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Just a couple of facts: it's NOT the Jury that hands out life sentence. The Jury only has to decide whether the defendant is GUILTY AS CHARGED or NOT. It's the prosecution that comes up with the charge. If the Jury decides guilty as charged, THE JUDGE then decides the exact penalty within the limit of what is possible. Also, if I'm not wrong, the prosecution can suggest or even demand a certain penalty, but the judge doesn't have to follow that.
Perhaps what you say is correct in Germany, but not in the US. In Texas the defendant decides whether the jury or the judge is to sentence him. In a capital trial a Texas jury always decides between death and life in prison.
The jury must chose between the sentencing options given but can find a defendant innocent if they think the law is unfair. Jury nullification has been recognized in the US from its birth
Quote:
It is not only the juror's right, but his duty, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment and conscience, though in direct opposition to the directions of the court.-- John Adams
Punishment Phase
Quote:
But isn't it the OLD testament which states "an eye for an eye..." and it is cold something like "old fashioned" and nowadays christians believe more in the NEW testament?
"Eye for an eye" means the punishment shall fit the crime. The concept of justice.
Both the Old and New Testament forbid personal vengeance but both uphold the right and duty of the state to punish criminals. Restraining evildoers is one of the primary function of a government.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 04, 2013 08:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Just a couple of facts: it's NOT the Jury that hands out life sentence. The Jury only has to decide whether the defendant is GUILTY AS CHARGED or NOT. It's the prosecution that comes up with the charge. If the Jury decides guilty as charged, THE JUDGE then decides the exact penalty within the limit of what is possible. Also, if I'm not wrong, the prosecution can suggest or even demand a certain penalty, but the judge doesn't have to follow that.
Perhaps what you say is correct in Germany, but not in the US. In Texas ...
Sorry, I forgot that the US begin and end with Texas. GENERALLY the job of the judge is TO PASS SENTENCE, while the job of the jury is to decide over the guilt with a view on the charge, which is the job of the prosecution to formulate.
So basically the prosecution decides about the "ANTE" - you might say, for how many chips the defendant is playing -, the jury decides whether he wins or lose, and the judge decides, IF THE JURY DECIDES THAT THE DEFENDANT LOST, how many chips defendant has to pay within certain predefined limits..
Whether in Texas there is the special case that the jury decides, if the only two options are lose all chips or being removed from the table, is pretty irrelevant here, considering that there isn't even a death penalty in 17 US States, while there are a lot of crimes that have life as highest sentence.
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted February 05, 2013 12:26 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Perhaps what you say is correct in Germany, but not in the US. In Texas the defendant decides whether the jury or the judge is to sentence him. In a capital trial a Texas jury always decides between death and life in prison.
Actually, in the Midwest, northeast, northwest and the vast majority of the remainder of the US... the judge actually is the one that sets the punishment. In fact, if the case is one sided enough the Judge can decide to call the case if one side or the other moves to convict or wave the case. The jury is only there for an uncertain case, and only to decide guilt or innocence. 
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted February 05, 2013 01:15 AM |
|
|
Sentencing laws vary from state to state, but all sentencing laws must conform to the US Constitution and US Supreme Court precedent. My understanding is that the overwhelming majority of states in the US have sentencing passed by the judge in a separate trial, with the exception of capital punishment cases (death penalty) which are sometimes decided by juries. Typically juries are there to determine the facts of the case and recommend a verdict and that's it - the judge determines what the penalty is based on what the law allows, taking in mitigating factors, etc., although I believe the jury has say over whether certain mitigating/aggravating factors ARE to be taken into account.
Anyway, I was curious about Texas because it does buck trends in a lot of cases and I discovered that Elodin is partially right. It is unusual in that Texas is one of the few states which allows jury sentencing in non-capital cases if the defendant asks for it. That is, the defendant gets to choose who (judge or jury) passes sentencing if he/she is found guilty of a non-capital crime. I would suspect that most defendants choose to be sentenced by jury.
Source.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted February 07, 2013 01:17 AM |
|
|
Another example of a homeowner defending himself and his family against three intruders. One dead, one in custody, one on the run.
Clicky
Quote:
One of three men who allegedly broke into a Las Vegas home was reportedly killed by the homeowner, who opened fire on the group.
____________
Revelation
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted February 07, 2013 08:45 AM |
|
|
Quote:
"Eye for an eye" means the punishment shall fit the crime. The concept of justice..
1. Ever heard of resocialisation?
2. You contradict yourself: Someone breaks into your house (stealing), you shoot him to death (killing). How does KILLING fit to STEALING? And NO, a burglar is NO typical murderer...he wants to steal...not to rape or kill. And as far as I know, you are NOT allowed to judge someone for a crime he POSSIBLE could have done...not even in Texas....
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 07, 2013 10:07 AM |
|
|
How about this news?
Driveway Murder
It's fairly obvious, that for every burglary that was successfully avoided by shooting around or just toting a gun, you can find a supposedly preemptive shooting with or without victims that was a fear-fuelled overreaction and more dangerous for everyone in the vicinity than actually helpful.
I mean, everyone should just KNOW that something must be decidedly wrong in a supposedly civilized country when people think "BURGLARY" the second they note a car in their driveway or an unknown person in the vicinity of their home - and pull a gun to shoot the fraggers.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted February 07, 2013 11:16 AM |
|
|
Quote:
How about this news?
Driveway Murder
It's fairly obvious, that for every burglary that was successfully avoided by shooting around or just toting a gun, you can find a supposedly preemptive shooting with or without victims that was a fear-fuelled overreaction and more dangerous for everyone in the vicinity than actually helpful.
NO, that is obviously false. I've produced actual statistics that show merely brandishing a gun is ordinarily enough to make criminals flee. You can't produce evidence that "gunhappy" people preemptively shoot innocent people as often because your statements are false.
Aside from the statistics I've also produced numerous individual cases showing that having a gun does indeed make up safer. Obviously someone who still claims being in possession of a gun does not make you safer than not having a gun is making the claim out of emotion rather than logic or any factual basis at all.
Obviously the homeowner should not have shot the man who merely pulled up into his driveway, especially since he had already started leaving. That is not self defense or defending one's property.
Quote:
I mean, everyone should just KNOW that something must be decidedly wrong in a supposedly civilized country when people think "BURGLARY" the second they note a car in their driveway or an unknown person in the vicinity of their home - and pull a gun to shoot the fraggers.
Yep, what is wrong is called liberalism. Bleeding heart liberals who think it is unfair to keep criminals incarcerated for long periods of time. Those criminals keep raping, killing, and robbing innocent folks and liberals keep blaming society rather than the criminals. That is what is wrong.
Quote:
You contradict yourself: Someone breaks into your house (stealing), you shoot him to death (killing). How does KILLING fit to STEALING? And NO, a burglar is NO typical murderer...he wants to steal...not to rape or kill. And as far as I know, you are NOT allowed to judge someone for a crime he POSSIBLE could have done...not even in Texas....
NO, I've not contradicted myself at all.
If someone breaks into my house I'm not going to hand them a questionnaire to fill out about their intentions. I already know they have evil intentions whether it be mere robbery or harm to me or my family. I'm going to protect myself and my family.
If someone is holding my TV I'm not going to shoot them. Unless they continue to advance on me or my family or make sudden movements or try to reach into their pocket or whatever. However, Texas says you have the right to defend yourself and your property with lethal force. You don't have to stand by and let people steal your stuff in Texas.
So if I happen upon an intruder in my home and he completely cooperates and is not perceived by me to be an imminent threat odds are he will stay alive until the cops get there. If he's feeling frisky he'll be gut shot with 00buckshot at which point he will no longer be a threat.
|
| |
|
|
