Society's going to hell

Post by **SoulQuest1970** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 2:05 pm

sgtnull wrote:Soul: atonement is God's job. our job is to protect society. lock them up and keep them from recommitting.

I think that is what I just said. I wasn't arguing with you. I was agreeing, but elaborating that they can use thier mistake to help others not to make the same one. That can be done on a volunteer basis with kids in trouble or with criminal histories. I never said they had to be let go in order to help others.

Post by **sgt.null** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 5:13 am

oh. we have that program. they have had to tone it down, so it is not as effective.

Avatart: I find that you lean too far to forgive the worst of society. maybe I should be doing that in half?

Post by **Avatar** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 9:35 am

I hope that typo was accidental Sgt.

See, I'm not trying to forgive anybody. But I do want to understand why people do what they do.

If those reasons, once I know them, mean that the act is not as incomprehensible as it was without knowing those reasons, then it's not forgiveness, but mitigation.

*shrug* I find it a little ironic that you whose faith preaches forgiveness is less forgiving than I who have no faith.

--A

Post by **SoulQuest1970** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 2:10 pm

LOL I love that typo. It reminds me of when we lived in Iowa. The stores made thier own signs... markers on posterboard. Someone made a sign for a sale on pop tarts and it read "Pot Tarts." We found this endlessly amusing since no one seemed to notice the mistake because it was not corrected the whole week of the sale. Gotta wonder what was in those. hehe

As for forgiveness and faith. I have faith and I do forgive. There is a difference between forgiving and allowing a dangerous person to go free. Not all people who commit a crime are "dangerous" and some that were dangerous no longer are once things like drugs, poor education, etc are no longer factors. They should still be accountable for thier crimes, but that doesn't mean they can't be forgiven.

Post by **sgt.null** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 4:24 am

as long as we do not mistake forgiveness for a blank slate. and it was atypo. when i get tired i forget to check for such things. avatart does have a ring to it.

Post by **Avatar** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 9:48 am

No it doesn't.

No, it doesn't mean a blank slate. Done cannot be undone. but as SoulQuest said so well,

Not all people who commit a crime are "dangerous" and some that were dangerous no longer are once things like drugs, poor education, etc are no longer factors. They should still be accountable for their crimes, but that doesn't mean they can't be forgiven.

--A

Post by **sgt.null** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 5:16 am

but forgiveness does not mean a reduction in their sentence. if they have truely changed they would see the need to complete their punishment.

Post by **Avatar** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 6:13 am

Hmmm...not necessarily a reduction in ther sentence, but sentencing commensurate with any mitigation that might exist.

--A

Post by **sgt.null** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 3:06 pm

we have that now and it is a crock. we play on the sympathies of the jury as it is. sentencing is already out of whack. until recent we didn't even prosecute women for leaving their kids to die in hot cars...

Post by **Fist and Faith** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 3:15 pm

Oh, the possibilities are endless!!
"Avaslut?"
"Thanks! I'll 'ave two!"

Anywho...
*wiping tears*

sgtnull wrote:but forgiveness does not mean a reduction in their sentence. if they have truely changed they would see the need to complete their punishment.

If they have truly changed, no punishment is necessary. Whenever we can, we need to make sure crimes are not committed. If punishment or counselling has lead to true rehabilitation, and there's no danger of recividism, you're only yelling for revenge. Granted, that doesn't happen all that often, but you're the one who set up this scenario.

Post by **sgt.null** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 3:25 pm

bull. the criminals set up this scenerio. a common fact misplaced by many here. i don't cause recividism, the criminals do. you are asking for special consideration for criminals when they should simply do what the rest of manage every day. any circumstance they encounter is what they do to themselves. why can the majority of us manage not to commit felonies and still be blamed for the ones who do? the criminals go into this with eyes wide open. it is not a surprise that we have prisons for felons, it is as it has always been. but now we make excuses for the inmates and act as it is up to society to somehow fix them. much like the parents who spoil a misbehaving child and ignore the ones who are doing right.

punishment is needed for a crime because that is what is proscribed by society. once you change your evil ways and decide to re-enter society, you need to follow the rules of society.

and why is it up to society to make the worst elements bahve while in society? if you prove unwilling/incapable of conforming to society, why not remove you from that society?

Post by **Fist and Faith** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 3:40 pm

I agree with most of what you just said. I meant you set up the scenario of someone having truely changed. I don't think that happens often. I don't now how you'd prove to me that it did, so I'd feel safe having that person living next door to me. However, if it did happen, what is gained by keeping that person in prison?
-The person is no longer a danger - or, if the crime was something relatively minor, a nuisance - to anyone.
-Keeping a person who is not a danger to society is a drain on our resources/taxes.
-People who are a danger to society could be in that person's cell.

Aside from revenge, I don't see the point.

Post by **sgt.null** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 4:19 pm

i must have misunderstood you somewhere. but if you committ a felony and the time to be served is 20 years, you should do all 20. i have asked for different levels of prison so we can make better determinations. but serious crimes involving violence should serve long sentences. lighter crimes not involving harm to others should have an alternative site to spend their time. leave the real felons to us.

Post by **Avatar** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 5:25 am

Yeah, I pretty much agree. I think that crimes which do not harm people (and do not have the potential to do so), should be punished by far more meaningful means than mere prison. Community service, volunteer work, that sort of thing. Keep the prisons for the people who are killing and raping.

--A

Post by **sgt.null** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 3:20 pm

for a real community service/volunteer thing the goverment will feel the need to create yet another department. and that too will become a black hole of spending. if you want prison reform, you need goverment reform. then we could get people in office who will spend wisely. part of the prison problem is the mandatory drug sentencing laws. the feds pass the laws but provide no cash for the warehousing of the criminals.

Post by **Fist and Faith** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:25 pm

Alas, if you want government reform, you need homo sapiens reform. Heh. No government in human history has been free of bad ideas and/or corruption and/or incompetence.

Post by **sgt.null** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 10:27 pm

well a start would be keeping violent criminals away from society.

Post by **Fist and Faith** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 12:33 am

True enough. Of course, if the government officials are violent criminals...

Hey, I'm just bustin' on ya!

Post by **sgt.null** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 6:01 am

hell locking up goverment officials should be among the first steps. we have a cell open for Bush, Cheney, Rove and Rummy!

Kevin's Watch

Kevin's Watch

Society's going to hell