How does this happen to our country? Our politicians are so corrupt that we would rather have convicts be elected.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175187,00.html

California is one FUCKED UP place.  No offense Invert, but your fellow Californians are nuts.  I hope the San Andreas fault makes that whole place underwater sometime

Crazed, you're dumb.

You guys don't believe in second chances, huh?

[quote author=Topaz link=topic=13195.msg133468#msg133468 date=1131676850]
Crazed, you're dumb.

You guys don't believe in second chances, huh?
[/quote]Not when he is supposed to be setting an example for little kids.  Maybe you'd like to have an immoral bastard running your schools, I wouldn't

[quote author=Topaz link=topic=13195.msg133468#msg133468 date=1131676850]
Crazed, you're dumb.

You guys don't believe in second chances, huh?
[/quote]

Crazed, I agree with you. I am embarrassed of California and I am embarrassed for the whole United States of America.

Topaz, what are you talking about? This guy is a proven wife beater and an illegal drug user. Now he is on the California school board. How many chances should child molesters get with kids, would you give them a 2nd chance?

He beat his wife, and was in possession of illegal drugs.

Tons of people who smoke weed are trustworthy.

Wifebeating doesn't equal child molestation.

Dumb.

It was an analogy smart one...

The point is he not only beat his wife and had drugs in 1998, but when he was released after serving his time he violated his parole and went back to jail.  There is your second chance.

Well, wife-beating and child-beating is a typical conservative thing. Makes sense that he could get elected then?

[quote author=Topaz link=topic=13195.msg133468#msg133468 date=1131676850]
Crazed, you're dumb.

You guys don't believe in second chances, huh?
[/quote]

It would have been different if this had happened some time afterwards, but he was IN JAIL during the campaign.

In other news, anybody hear about the 18 year old that was elected mayor of some town (9k pop) - he's still in highschool!

Getting elected when still in jail is a bit weird. It'd be ok if it was after he got out though.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=13195.msg133505#msg133505 date=1131691276]
Well, wife-beating and child-beating is a typical conservative thing. Makes sense that he could get elected then?
[/quote]Not where I'm from.  Conservative people are generally more family oriented.  The crazy liberals are the ones hopped up on coke beating everyone

I don't really see a problem with this other than his inability to do his job until February 15th.  Let's look at it objectively.  The town voters obviously do not care enough about this spot on the school board to have any clue who they are voting for, or they would have voted for a candidate they had met and spoken to about school issues.  Since they did not, its proof the voters do not care who does the job.  The voters were just as happy to select a random person from their ballot.  Their wishes should be respected and a random applicant should be allowed to attempt to do the job.

The wishes of idiots.  Oye.  W/E, though, I guess.

Personally, weed isn't bad at all, unless you wish to become a doctor or something that involves a good memory, its not like its coke or herione. If my kid was into drugs I'd rather him smoke weed then crack. Not only that, but its good for medical reasons.

And also you can't teach people experiance. They have to make mistakes on their own, and this guy made mistakes. He got caught having weed on him, big fucking deal. Your Government hates it so bad because they can't make money off it, so they make bullshit propagandas saying its worse(sentances when caught having it) then coke.

Also I've heard a guy who raped a girl got out earlier then some one who was caught, and had 3 Marijuana seeds. 

And sure he beat his wife, heck maybe the dumb women deserved it, or maybe she didn't. But he did his time.

And I am pretty sure if invert or any of you who are against this, did somewhat what he did, you'd be begging for forgiveness, and second chances. Quit being hypocrites.

[quote author=WoOdTroll link=topic=13195.msg133541#msg133541 date=1131729621]
Personally, weed isn't bad at all, unless you wish to become a doctor or something that involves a good memory, its not like its coke or herione. If my kid was into drugs I'd rather him smoke weed then crack. Not only that, but its good for medical reasons.

And also you can't teach people experiance. They have to make mistakes on their own, and this guy made mistakes. He got caught having weed on him, big fucking deal. Your Government hates it so bad because they can't make money off it, so they make bullshit propagandas saying its worse(sentances when caught having it) then coke.

Also I've heard a guy who raped a girl got out earlier then some one who was caught, and had 3 Marijuana seeds. 

And sure he beat his wife, heck maybe the dumb women deserved it, or maybe she didn't. But he did his time.

And I am pretty sure if invert or any of you who are against this, did somewhat what he did, you'd be begging for forgiveness, and second chances. Quit being hypocrites.
[/quote]
You've heard that marijuana is good for medical reasons (sure, if you have glaucoma), you've heard that somebody got out of jail for rape faster than marijuana.  Isn't it possible that the antiauthoritarian drug users/sellers use that type of propoganda to help themselves make money?  Unless you can provide sources on how marijuana makes you more healthy.

Nobody deserves to be beaten.  You'd have to be insane for even thinking that.  That's as dumb as defending torture, although it turns out that some people do.  I know people who beat their wives.  I know wives that stick around and take it, because they don't know anything different.  People who beat their wives are horrible people, and I don't see much that would change them.

This really is a rediculous situation, and I don't know how anybody can defend him.  It's just obvious, as it was said, that people vote randomly and don't care what the result is. 

Who said he was in for weed?

You can defend anyone who has made a mistake and completed their punishment.

Unless maybe you are perfect and in a position to hate everyone who makes any mistake ever?

The man beat his wife, what is to say he won't beat kids?  He has already blown his second chance by violating his parole

That's a slippery slope argument and invalid factually.

You cheated on your math exam in 9th grade, what's to say you won't cheat on everything else in life?  You should never be allowed to go to school again.

You were speeding going 41 in a 35 mph zone, putting all other drivers, personal property, city officials all in jeopardy.  What's to say you won't do it again?  You should never be trusted to drive.

You injured someone through negligence by driving while sleepy and spent 12 months in prison.  What's to say you won't do it again?  You should stay in jail the rest of your life.

You voted for someone for governor, he won, then proceeded to ruin the state's economy.  What's to say you won't vote for another sorry person?  You should never be allowed to vote again.

You laughed while drinking some milk and you spewed some out your nostrils.  No more milk for you, ever.

Most of the people and these forums are just like the liberal media, they like to spin things. The idiocy of some people astounds me.

The truth is this guy is a proven criminal!
This wife beating drug using criminal was elected to deal with matters related to children by liberal socialists that wanted to give him a second chance.

This is the #1 thing that is wrong with this country. We need to bring values back to our society. Stop the liberal socialism mind disease that is tearing this country apart.

Why don't we give Osama Bin Laden a second chance, maybe we should elect him next time for president? Or if someone molests or rapes your kid I want you think with an open mind and invite that person for dinner so you can work things out with him you liberal communist.

He's in prison. He's serving his time. You can't carry on punishing people forever, as Grok says, that's a slippery slope.

As for values, how about forgiveness? Rehabilitation? Empathy? Fairness? Equality?

I think your position on this matter is short-sighted, emotive, and skin-deep.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=13195.msg133566#msg133566 date=1131735140]
He's in prison. He's serving his time. You can't carry on punishing people forever, as Grok says, that's a slippery slope.

As for values, how about forgiveness? Rehabilitation? Empathy? Fairness? Equality?

I think your position on this matter is short-sighted, emotive, and skin-deep.
[/quote]

Those are all good value when applied right.
In your case you want to forgive Osama Bin Laden because you think over the years he has rehabilitated so we will show empathy towards him by understanding his situation and stance on things because it would only be fair since a shop lifter gets a second chance so to show equality we will forget about all his crimes against humanity.

Arta is a prime example of the flawed liberal/socialist thinking.
It's embarrassing. Good thing you are English and not American, we have plenty thinkers like you, we don't need more.

I'd let him out, I just wouldnt trust my kid with the guy.  Although, since he wont be in contact with them (much) itd be better than him being a teacher

[quote author=Invert link=topic=13195.msg133569#msg133569 date=1131735710]
Those are all good value when applied right.
In your case you want to forgive Osama Bin Laden because you think over the years he has rehabilitated so we will show empathy towards him by understanding his situation and stance on things because it would only be fair since a shop lifter gets a second chance so to show equality we will forget about all his crimes against humanity.

Arta is a prime example of the flawed liberal/socialist thinking.
It's embarrassing. Good thing you are English and not American, we have plenty thinkers like you, we don't need more.
[/quote]

We caught Osama? I didn't know he was serving him time. Is he getting out soon?

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13195.msg133526#msg133526 date=1131718745]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=13195.msg133505#msg133505 date=1131691276]
Well, wife-beating and child-beating is a typical conservative thing. Makes sense that he could get elected then?
[/quote]Not where I'm from.  Conservative people are generally more family oriented.  The crazy liberals are the ones hopped up on coke beating everyone
[/quote]

Well, the people passing laws to forbid corporal punishment of children, wives and slaves have been liberals. The conservatives are typically for corporal punishment.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=13195.msg133580#msg133580 date=1131737271]
[quote author=Invert link=topic=13195.msg133569#msg133569 date=1131735710]
Those are all good value when applied right.
In your case you want to forgive Osama Bin Laden because you think over the years he has rehabilitated so we will show empathy towards him by understanding his situation and stance on things because it would only be fair since a shop lifter gets a second chance so to show equality we will forget about all his crimes against humanity.

Arta is a prime example of the flawed liberal/socialist thinking.
It's embarrassing. Good thing you are English and not American, we have plenty thinkers like you, we don't need more.
[/quote]

We caught Osama? I didn't know he was serving him time. Is he getting out soon?
[/quote]

We took all his finances away and he is living someplace in a dirt hole and being hunted like a deer so think open minded. Osama has been through so much stress isn't that punishing enough? We should give him a second chance. Don't you think so Mr. Liberal Communist? Poor Osama!

I have an idea! Let's put Osama on welfare since we took all his finances away.

[quote author=Invert link=topic=13195.msg133569#msg133569 date=1131735710]
Those are all good value when applied right.
In your case you want to forgive Osama Bin Laden because you think over the years he has rehabilitated so we will show empathy towards him by understanding his situation and stance on things because it would only be fair since a shop lifter gets a second chance so to show equality we will forget about all his crimes against humanity.

Arta is a prime example of the flawed liberal/socialist thinking.
It's embarrassing. Good thing you are English and not American, we have plenty thinkers like you, we don't need more.
[/quote]

Posts such as this are throughly tedious. Please behave like an adult.

I never mentioned Osama bin Laden. I didn't make this post in relation to war. I wasn't talking about people who have never been caught, tried, or punished for their crimes. I wasn't talking about bin Laden's position, stance, philosophy, actions, or anything else. You are putting lots of rather stupid words in my mouth, and then telling me my thinking is flawed. Isn't that a bit like pushing me over and then calling me clumsy?

I think people who have been caught, tried, punished, have served their punishment and then been released back into society, should have the same rights as everyone else.

If you wish to make an argument that my thinking is flawed, please make a substantive one. Don't just say it is, and expect it to be true. I am receptive to an argument that asserts that my thinking is flawed. I like it when people highlight mistakes in my logic, but only when they are logical themselves; otherwise, the exercise is meaningless. I happen to think that the liberal ideal is very sensible, and I won't accept that it's not just because you use the word derogatively.

[quote author=Invert link=topic=13195.msg133584#msg133584 date=1131737697]
We took all his finances away and he is living someplace in a dirt hole and being hunted like a deer so think open minded. Osama has been through so much stress isn't that punishing enough? We should give him a second chance. Don't you think so Mr. Liberal Communist? Poor Osama!

I have an idea! Let's put Osama on welfare since we took all his finances away.
[/quote]

No because as I pointed out in another thread, that his freedom is what needs to be taken away. He hasn't done his time, plain and simple. Until then we can starting putting your plans into action. Maybe he'll even get welfare but I doubt he'll survive any sentence he will be serving.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=13195.msg133588#msg133588 date=1131738122]
[quote author=Invert link=topic=13195.msg133569#msg133569 date=1131735710]
Those are all good value when applied right.
In your case you want to forgive Osama Bin Laden because you think over the years he has rehabilitated so we will show empathy towards him by understanding his situation and stance on things because it would only be fair since a shop lifter gets a second chance so to show equality we will forget about all his crimes against humanity.

Arta is a prime example of the flawed liberal/socialist thinking.
It's embarrassing. Good thing you are English and not American, we have plenty thinkers like you, we don't need more.
[/quote]

Posts such as this are throughly tedious. Please behave like an adult.

I never mentioned Osama bin Laden. I didn't make this post in relation to war. I wasn't talking about people who have never been caught, tried, or punished for their crimes. I wasn't talking about bin Laden's position, stance, philosophy, actions, or anything else. You are putting lots of rather stupid words in my mouth, and then telling me my thinking is flawed. Isn't that a bit like pushing me over and then calling me clumsy?

I think people who have been caught, tried, punished, have served their punishment and then been released back into society, should have the same rights as everyone else.

If you wish to make an argument that my thinking is flawed, please make a substantive one. Don't just say it is, and expect it to be true. I am receptive to an argument that asserts that my thinking is flawed. I like it when people highlight mistakes in my logic, but only when they are logical themselves; otherwise, the exercise is meaningless. I happen to think that the liberal ideal is very sensible, and I won't accept that it's not just because you use the word derogatively.
[/quote]

I gave you an example of your logic applied to someone else. That showed that it was flawed. You just got all worked up after I proved to you that your logic is flawed.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=13195.msg133590#msg133590 date=1131738269]
[quote author=Invert link=topic=13195.msg133584#msg133584 date=1131737697]
We took all his finances away and he is living someplace in a dirt hole and being hunted like a deer so think open minded. Osama has been through so much stress isn't that punishing enough? We should give him a second chance. Don't you think so Mr. Liberal Communist? Poor Osama!

I have an idea! Let's put Osama on welfare since we took all his finances away.
[/quote]

No because as I pointed out in another thread, that his freedom is what needs to be taken away. He hasn't done his time, plain and simple. Until then we can starting putting your plans into action. Maybe he'll even get welfare but I doubt he'll survive any sentence he will be serving.
[/quote]

That's right! Double standard! What ever happened to equality?
This is good socialist thinking. Hail Hitler.

[quote author=Invert link=topic=13195.msg133594#msg133594 date=1131738530]
I gave you an example of your logic applied to someone else. That showed that it was flawed. You just got all worked up after I proved to you that your logic is flawed.
[/quote]

That's plainly nonsensical. I explained, in the post you quoted but apparently did not read, why your analagy is inaccurate.

[quote author=Invert link=topic=13195.msg133597#msg133597 date=1131738692]
[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=13195.msg133590#msg133590 date=1131738269]
[quote author=Invert link=topic=13195.msg133584#msg133584 date=1131737697]
We took all his finances away and he is living someplace in a dirt hole and being hunted like a deer so think open minded. Osama has been through so much stress isn't that punishing enough? We should give him a second chance. Don't you think so Mr. Liberal Communist? Poor Osama!

I have an idea! Let's put Osama on welfare since we took all his finances away.
[/quote]

No because as I pointed out in another thread, that his freedom is what needs to be taken away. He hasn't done his time, plain and simple. Until then we can starting putting your plans into action. Maybe he'll even get welfare but I doubt he'll survive any sentence he will be serving.
[/quote]

That's right! Double standard! What ever happened to equality?
This is good socialist thinking. Hail Hitler.
[/quote]

What the hell are you talking about?

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=13195.msg133598#msg133598 date=1131738791]
[quote author=Invert link=topic=13195.msg133594#msg133594 date=1131738530]
I gave you an example of your logic applied to someone else. That showed that it was flawed. You just got all worked up after I proved to you that your logic is flawed.
[/quote]

That's plainly nonsensical. I explained, in the post you quoted but apparently did not read, why your analagy is inaccurate.
[/quote]

Fine let's plug in Sadam instead of Osama.
Your logic implies that we should give everyone a second chance and that we should treat everyone equally.

Given the nature of Saddam's crimes, I doubt that he would ever be released from prison (assuming that he's not executed). Thus, he will not have a second chance. I think that's fair, because he is a particularly egregious criminal. Where's the flaw?

[quote author=Invert link=topic=13195.msg133603#msg133603 date=1131739062]
Fine let's plug in Sadam instead of Osama.
Your logic implies that we should give everyone a second chance and that we should treat everyone equally.
[/quote]

We absolutely should give everyone a second chance. There are plenty of cases where people have changed completely. Particulary on death row, many who were young, irresponsible, then get some reading, education, maybe religion, and would make great citizens.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=13195.msg133607#msg133607 date=1131739360]
[quote author=Invert link=topic=13195.msg133603#msg133603 date=1131739062]
Fine let's plug in Sadam instead of Osama.
Your logic implies that we should give everyone a second chance and that we should treat everyone equally.
[/quote]

We absolutely should give everyone a second chance. There are plenty of cases where people have changed completely. Particulary on death row, many who were young, irresponsible, then get some reading, education, maybe religion, and would make great citizens.
[/quote]

So hypothetically, if we catch Osama and he tells us all how sorry he is we should give him a second chance?

If you answer "yes" can we send him to Sweden?

In an idea world, if someone like Saddam or bin Laden could be shown to have been rehabilitated, I would think should have a second chance, yes.

In the real world, their crimes are of such severity that I doubt it's possible for them to show a level of contrition sufficent for people to believe that they are different. Thus, the opportunity of a second chance is unavailable to them. They are, in other words, beyond redemption.

[quote author=Invert link=topic=13195.msg133608#msg133608 date=1131739472]
So hypothetically, if we catch Osama and he tells us all how sorry he is we should give him a second chance?

If you answer "yes" can we send him to Sweden?
[/quote]

Let's not get into particulars of what is required... If he shows that he is rehabilitated, yes, he should be given a second chance.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=13195.msg133611#msg133611 date=1131739677]
In an idea world, if someone like Saddam or bin Laden could be shown to have been rehabilitated, I would think should have a second chance, yes.

In the real world, their crimes are of such severity that I doubt it's possible for them to show a level of contrition sufficent for people to believe that they are different. Thus, the opportunity of a second chance is unavailable to them. They are, in other words, beyond redemption.
[/quote]

You were the one saying that everyone should have the same rights and everyone be treated the same and equally. Now you are saying that not everyone should be treated the same. You are proving my point and I believe contradicting yourself. There had never been solid evidence of people changing or such thing as rehabilitation relating to incarceration. This is why we judge people by the severity of their crime and not by weather they will rehabilitate.

You do not know who is beyond and who is not beyond redemption, just like you don't know weather that that guy that was elected to the school board is beyond redemption.

[quote author=Invert link=topic=13195.msg133617#msg133617 date=1131740886]
There had never been solid evidence of people changing or such thing as rehabilitation relating to incarceration. This is why we judge people by the severity of their crime and not by weather they will rehabilitate.

You do not know who is beyond and who is not beyond redemption, just like you don't know weather that that guy that was elected to the school board is beyond redemption.
[/quote]

I think you make some good points here. I do believe that there have been people changing and / or rehabilitated. I do not think that incarceration in itself typically helps, and therefor, incarceration needs improvements.

And we should not judge people purely by the severity of their crime. There should be two components: Punishment for the crime, and rehabilitation until they are ready for their second chance. This is where the death penalty is so off - the death penalty belongs to the rehabilitation scale, not to the punishment scale.

And you are absolutely right that we do not know who is beyond redemption or not. We can never know; yet we must do our best to determine.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=13195.msg133618#msg133618 date=1131741817]
[quote author=Invert link=topic=13195.msg133617#msg133617 date=1131740886]
There had never been solid evidence of people changing or such thing as rehabilitation relating to incarceration. This is why we judge people by the severity of their crime and not by weather they will rehabilitate.

You do not know who is beyond and who is not beyond redemption, just like you don't know weather that that guy that was elected to the school board is beyond redemption.
[/quote]

I think you make some good points here. I do believe that there have been people changing and / or rehabilitated. I do not think that incarceration in itself typically helps, and therefor, incarceration needs improvements.

And we should not judge people purely by the severity of their crime. There should be two components: Punishment for the crime, and rehabilitation until they are ready for their second chance. This is where the death penalty is so off - the death penalty belongs to the rehabilitation scale, not to the punishment scale.

And you are absolutely right that we do not know who is beyond redemption or not. We can never know; yet we must do our best to determine.
[/quote]

Right, the main reason for all of this is not to rehabilitate someone or to give someone a second chance this whole system is done for our protection everything else is secondary. As human nature we want to eliminate all that is harmful to us, our survival as a stable society is a lot more important than one person being changed and given a second chance.

I think that you're all missing part of the point here :)

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=13195.msg133588#msg133588 date=1131738122]
I think people who have been caught, tried, punished, have served their punishment and then been released back into society, should have the same rights as everyone else.
[/quote]
The person in question, from what I understand, was caught, tried, and started being punished.  He hsan't completed the punishment phase, and has yet to be released.  If he hasn't completed the cycle, then all the arguments here about rehabilitation don't apply to this guy. 

[quote author=Invert link=topic=13195.msg133621#msg133621 date=1131742168]
Right, the main reason for all of this is not to rehabilitate someone or to give someone a second chance this whole system is done for our protection everything else is secondary. As human nature we want to eliminate all that is harmful to us, our survival as a stable society is a lot more important than one person being changed and given a second chance.
[/quote]

You are off. If the system is for your protection, the main priority of it is rehabilitation. How is putting someone behind bars for 10 years, then letting them out, still in the mind of robbing, raping and murdering good for your protection? Changing people so they are no longer harmful to you should be your main focus.

[quote author=iago link=topic=13195.msg133625#msg133625 date=1131745246]
The person in question, from what I understand, was caught, tried, and started being punished.  He hsan't completed the punishment phase, and has yet to be released.  If he hasn't completed the cycle, then all the arguments here about rehabilitation don't apply to this guy. 
[/quote]

Actually, I think he had entered the rehabilitation phase, being released on parole. He did of course show that rehabilitation was incomplete when he violated parole and got put behind bars again...

[quote author=Adron link=topic=13195.msg133628#msg133628 date=1131745789]
[quote author=iago link=topic=13195.msg133625#msg133625 date=1131745246]
The person in question, from what I understand, was caught, tried, and started being punished.  He hsan't completed the punishment phase, and has yet to be released.  If he hasn't completed the cycle, then all the arguments here about rehabilitation don't apply to this guy. 
[/quote]

Actually, I think he had entered the rehabilitation phase, being released on parole. He did of course show that rehabilitation was incomplete when he violated parole and got put behind bars again...
[/quote]

Well, I meant he was in jail :-P

I don't think Osama is free.  He can't move about freely.  He can't speak in large public areas.  If he is found he will be less free, but he isn't free right now either.

Also, I support corporal punishment of children.  I do not support beating, but spanking is fine & dandy with me.  I got spanked a FEW times...that's all it took.  Maybe if kids got their butt spanked a bit more then the country wouldn't be running all rampant with idiotic children graffiting the walls while shooting up on coke.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=13195.msg133626#msg133626 date=1131745669]
[quote author=Invert link=topic=13195.msg133621#msg133621 date=1131742168]
Right, the main reason for all of this is not to rehabilitate someone or to give someone a second chance this whole system is done for our protection everything else is secondary. As human nature we want to eliminate all that is harmful to us, our survival as a stable society is a lot more important than one person being changed and given a second chance.
[/quote]

You are off. If the system is for your protection, the main priority of it is rehabilitation. How is putting someone behind bars for 10 years, then letting them out, still in the mind of robbing, raping and murdering good for your protection? Changing people so they are no longer harmful to you should be your main focus.


[/quote]

Stop talking about rehabilitation unless you can prove it. You are the one that is off, the system is there for protection and the main point of it is not rehabilitation (you would be a fool to believe this) but it's for punishment. The more severe the crime the more severe the punishment, it also works as a deterrent. The jail system removes the criminal from the society while punishing, "rehabilitation" is an option and is not automatic while you are incarcerated.

It's not changing people so they are no longer harmful its scaring people that they are no longer harmful. Here is an analogy: If you speed and get a $500 speeding ticket you are not going to speed next time not because you changed but because you are scared to get another $500 ticket.

[quote author=Invert link=topic=13195.msg133657#msg133657 date=1131752926]
Stop talking about rehabilitation unless you can prove it. You are the one that is off, the system is there for protection and the main point of it is not rehabilitation (you would be a fool to believe this) but it's for punishment. The more severe the crime the more severe the punishment, it also works as a deterrent. The jail system removes the criminal from the society while punishing, "rehabilitation" is an option and is not automatic while you are incarcerated.

It's not changing people so they are no longer harmful its scaring people that they are no longer harmful. Here is an analogy: If you speed and get a $500 speeding ticket you are not going to speed next time not because you changed but because you are scared to get another $500 ticket.
[/quote]

Stop talking about punishment and deterrent unless you can prove it. You are quite right that the system works very badly for rehabilitating people. This is why criminals so often stay criminals. The system thus does not successfully protect society. The system as is, is a failure. Rehabilitation is the only path to success.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=13195.msg133661#msg133661 date=1131753604]
[quote author=Invert link=topic=13195.msg133657#msg133657 date=1131752926]
Stop talking about rehabilitation unless you can prove it. You are the one that is off, the system is there for protection and the main point of it is not rehabilitation (you would be a fool to believe this) but it's for punishment. The more severe the crime the more severe the punishment, it also works as a deterrent. The jail system removes the criminal from the society while punishing, "rehabilitation" is an option and is not automatic while you are incarcerated.

It's not changing people so they are no longer harmful its scaring people that they are no longer harmful. Here is an analogy: If you speed and get a $500 speeding ticket you are not going to speed next time not because you changed but because you are scared to get another $500 ticket.
[/quote]

Stop talking about punishment and deterrent unless you can prove it. You are quite right that the system works very badly for rehabilitating people. This is why criminals so often stay criminals. The system thus does not successfully protect society. The system as is, is a failure. Rehabilitation is the only path to success.
[/quote]

1st of all how can rehabilitation be a path to success let alone the only path if it is unproven in it's ability to succeed at all?

2nd people serving time in jail are proof of punishment. People not in jail are proof of punishment being a deterrent. The systems works great for what it was designed to do, if you read the history of jail (I'm not going to find you any links it is up to you weather or not you want to stay ignorant on the issue) you would see that penitentiaries were built to hold criminals in punishment and not to rehabilitate them. The system punishes the criminals and deters the would be criminals.

Then the question becomes, what is the purpose of jails?  If people aren't going to be rehabilitated, then what's the point?  Instead of putting people in jail, why not kill them all?  I mean, jail obviously isn't a deterrant to those people, and they are going to do it again, so why not protect the people they're going to hurt by killing them?  I don't see much point in locking them up if nothing will change..

Jail is punishment.  It should be rehab...but a hardcore kind, not some psych in there.  These people should be brainwashed, something like Clockwork Orange...good ideas in that movie

Why punish somebody if it's not going to change anything?

In conclusion, our government sucks, Bush sucks, and the war in Iraq sucks[sup]2[/sup]

EDIT:
Okay, to tie this in with jails... if we weren't wasting so much money on the war in Iraq, we could be cleaning up our nation. For example, we could be spending money on programs that prevent crime and morally rehabilitate criminals.

EDIT#2:
Jails should be stricter in determining who they let out. Perhaps we shouldn't sentence criminals to a set amount of time, but instead fixed intervals at which they will be interviewed in order to determine if they are fit to return to society.

[quote author=Ender link=topic=13195.msg133752#msg133752 date=1131819704]
In conclusion, our government sucks, Bush sucks, and the war in Iraq sucks[sup]2[/sup]

EDIT:
Okay, to tie this in with jails... if we weren't wasting so much money on the war in Iraq, we could be cleaning up our nation. For example, we could be spending money on programs that prevent crime and morally rehabilitate criminals.

EDIT#2:
Jails should be stricter in determining who they let out. Perhaps we shouldn't sentence criminals to a set amount of time, but instead fixed intervals at which they will be interviewed in order to determine if they are fit to return to society.
[/quote]
So I assume that you could do a much better job at such situations if you were in charge?

[quote author=Ender link=topic=13195.msg133752#msg133752 date=1131819704]
In conclusion, our government sucks, Bush sucks, and the war in Iraq sucks[sup]2[/sup]

EDIT:
Okay, to tie this in with jails... if we weren't wasting so much money on the war in Iraq, we could be cleaning up our nation. For example, we could be spending money on programs that prevent crime and morally rehabilitate criminals.

EDIT#2:
Jails should be stricter in determining who they let out. Perhaps we shouldn't sentence criminals to a set amount of time, but instead fixed intervals at which they will be interviewed in order to determine if they are fit to return to society.
[/quote]

There were plenty of problems before the war.

There are also the same problems (to a smaller extent) in Canada, and we aren't part of the war. 

And what about con-men who end up in prison? Just because they can appear rehabilitated, they should be allowed back?  How do you measure rehabilitation?

[quote author=iago link=topic=13195.msg133761#msg133761 date=1131824936]
And what about con-men who end up in prison? Just because they can appear rehabilitated, they should be allowed back?  How do you measure rehabilitation?
[/quote]

Ah, excellent questions. How you measure rehabilitation will have to depend on what kind of crimes have been committed. A desire to leave crime behind would be a key component though. Nearing the end of the punishment part of a sentence, a convict would have to be given opportunity to plan their return to society - home, work, etc. Arrangements would have to be made to ensure that they could actually achieve an acceptable life standard. And monitoring would have to be applied for an amount of time afterwards, to verify that there is no return to crime. Obviously, not everyone would be rehabilitated, but the monitoring would ensure a swift return to prison for those. Rehabilitation could also be adapted to previous failures - if someone returned to crime quickly after last attempt, put in more effort this time.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=13195.msg133766#msg133766 date=1131829492]
[quote author=iago link=topic=13195.msg133761#msg133761 date=1131824936]
And what about con-men who end up in prison? Just because they can appear rehabilitated, they should be allowed back?  How do you measure rehabilitation?
[/quote]

Ah, excellent questions. How you measure rehabilitation will have to depend on what kind of crimes have been committed. A desire to leave crime behind would be a key component though. Nearing the end of the punishment part of a sentence, a convict would have to be given opportunity to plan their return to society - home, work, etc. Arrangements would have to be made to ensure that they could actually achieve an acceptable life standard. And monitoring would have to be applied for an amount of time afterwards, to verify that there is no return to crime. Obviously, not everyone would be rehabilitated, but the monitoring would ensure a swift return to prison for those. Rehabilitation could also be adapted to previous failures - if someone returned to crime quickly after last attempt, put in more effort this time.


[/quote]@ how many chances do you draw the line though?

I just want to add something here that no libertarian can argue against.

The only thing that is proven to protect society and stop a criminal from committing any more crime is the death penalty.

We are talking about criminals that were proven unanimously to be harmful to society as a whole by a carefully selected group of unbiased (regarding race or religion) individuals.

Nothing else is as effective financially and in terms of protection of society from those individuals.

But of course not everything was tried. We should consider sending them all to Sweden or Canada and see if that works. Personally I still don't think that would be as effective.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=13195.msg133766#msg133766 date=1131829492]
[quote author=iago link=topic=13195.msg133761#msg133761 date=1131824936]
And what about con-men who end up in prison? Just because they can appear rehabilitated, they should be allowed back?  How do you measure rehabilitation?
[/quote]

Ah, excellent questions. How you measure rehabilitation will have to depend on what kind of crimes have been committed. A desire to leave crime behind would be a key component though. Nearing the end of the punishment part of a sentence, a convict would have to be given opportunity to plan their return to society - home, work, etc. Arrangements would have to be made to ensure that they could actually achieve an acceptable life standard. And monitoring would have to be applied for an amount of time afterwards, to verify that there is no return to crime. Obviously, not everyone would be rehabilitated, but the monitoring would ensure a swift return to prison for those. Rehabilitation could also be adapted to previous failures - if someone returned to crime quickly after last attempt, put in more effort this time.
[/quote]

Although that sounds like a good idea, I don't think it would work.  They'd likely try hard to stay straight until they were no longer being watched, then fall again.  Especially if the offense is for doing/selling drugs (meth, crack, whatever), since odds are people like that will fall right back into the criminal lifestyle. 

The other problem is the cost.  Is it really realistic looking after every person released from prison? 

Just out of curiosity, how does Sweden deal with this kind of thing?  Canada basically has the same broken system as the US, but I'm wondering if other places do things differently. 

[quote author=Invert link=topic=13195.msg133810#msg133810 date=1131850364]
I just want to add something here that no libertarian can argue against.

The only thing that is proven to protect society and stop a criminal from committing any more crime is the death penalty.

We are talking about criminals that were proven unanimously to be harmful to society as a whole by a carefully selected group of unbiased (regarding race or religion) individuals.

Nothing else is as effective financially and in terms of protection of society from those individuals.

But of course not everything was tried. We should consider sending them all to Sweden or Canada and see if that works. Personally I still don't think that would be as effective.
[/quote]

The Death Penalty is not cost-effective. It is cheaper to keep the person in jail for life without parole than to execute them. Search the forum.

[quote author=iago link=topic=13195.msg133819#msg133819 date=1131854368]
Although that sounds like a good idea, I don't think it would work.  They'd likely try hard to stay straight until they were no longer being watched, then fall again.  Especially if the offense is for doing/selling drugs (meth, crack, whatever), since odds are people like that will fall right back into the criminal lifestyle. 
[/quote]

Indeed they will. The watch period would have to be long enough to give them something to lose - something that would make them consider before risking jail. If they just go out of prison to nothing, there's no wonder they come right back in again.


[quote author=iago link=topic=13195.msg133819#msg133819 date=1131854368]
The other problem is the cost.  Is it really realistic looking after every person released from prison? 

Just out of curiosity, how does Sweden deal with this kind of thing?  Canada basically has the same broken system as the US, but I'm wondering if other places do things differently. 
[/quote]

Cost... Well, if it would prevent them from going back into prison, I think it would be profitable. After all, someone in prison is not producing as much usefulness as someone working in society. And no, Sweden is almost as broken. There are a bit of attempts of moving people to more relaxed environments before releasing them, and they can get short time remaining turned into "freedom" with electronic tracking device, but it sure does need work.

[quote author=Invert link=topic=13195.msg133810#msg133810 date=1131850364]
The only thing that is proven to protect society and stop a criminal from committing any more crime is the death penalty.

We are talking about criminals that were proven unanimously to be harmful to society as a whole by a carefully selected group of unbiased (regarding race or religion) individuals.
[/quote]

That is true. That is why "death penalty" is actually filling the rehabilitation part out of punishment, repairs and rehabilitation. Punishment scares people from committing crimes. Repairs attempts to compensate the victim. Rehabilitation makes sure the criminal does not return to crime.

Problem: People on death row sometimes change, in ways to make them at least *seem* very rehabilitated. If they are indeed rehabilitated, using the death penalty on them is a waste. Plus of course that as has been posted before, death penalty isn't all that cost efficient.

People on death row obviously did something bad, why give them a second chance?  (& I mean something REALLY bad)

I think the whole Australia kinda thing could be cool.  MAybe send them to Antartica this time, though.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13195.msg133849#msg133849 date=1131892351]
People on death row obviously did something bad, why give them a second chance?  (& I mean something REALLY bad)
[/quote]

Very poor assumption.  EVERY year people on death row are proven innocent and released based on new evidence or recanted testimony.  What if that is you who was wrongly accused and convicted of something you did not do?  I think you would sing a different tune about punishment and the justice system.

Being convicted is quite different from being guilty.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13195.msg133849#msg133849 date=1131892351]
People on death row obviously did something bad, why give them a second chance?  (& I mean something REALLY bad)
[/quote]

Also, you can get put on death row quick. One wrong decision, when you're upset, drunk, drugged, or in bad company...

[quote author=Grok link=topic=13195.msg133868#msg133868 date=1131905876]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13195.msg133849#msg133849 date=1131892351]
People on death row obviously did something bad, why give them a second chance?  (& I mean something REALLY bad)
[/quote]

Very poor assumption.  EVERY year people on death row are proven innocent and released based on new evidence or recanted testimony.  What if that is you who was wrongly accused and convicted of something you did not do?  I think you would sing a different tune about punishment and the justice system.

Being convicted is quite different from being guilty.
[/quote]Don't most new death sentences have absolute proof of guilt?  i.e. DNA results that do it?

[quote author=Adron link=topic=13195.msg133877#msg133877 date=1131913016]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13195.msg133849#msg133849 date=1131892351]
People on death row obviously did something bad, why give them a second chance?  (& I mean something REALLY bad)
[/quote]

Also, you can get put on death row quick. One wrong decision, when you're upset, drunk, drugged, or in bad company...
[/quote]

How do you suggest dealing with them? 

Like, should people be rewarded for spontaneity, or punished for it?  It seems like if somebody plots to kill their wife who cheated on him might be better off in society than somebody who gets pissed off and kills a stranger?  If the one who killed a cheating wife is free, he's not going to hurt me or anybody else, probably.  If the spontaneous guy is free, he's a risk to me, and my family, and everybody else.  So who really should be free?

Also, in terms of rehabilitation.  Somebody who was upset, drunk, drugged, or in bad company can be perfectly "rehabilitated" for months or years, as long as they don't fall back in that situation.  Then one day, they drink, smoke crack, hang with their old gang/friends, etc., and before you know it they've killed somebody else.  Whereas a person who decided to kill his wife, and planned it out, might really feel bad after doing it. 

The entire first- vs. second-degree murder charges don't really make much sense to me.  Why reward somebody for spontaneity?


To Crazed: DNA can be planted. 

[quote author=iago link=topic=13195.msg133897#msg133897 date=1131930426]
How do you suggest dealing with them? 
[/quote]

Study them, and if they seem salvagable, do so. If not, just get rid of them.


[quote author=iago link=topic=13195.msg133897#msg133897 date=1131930426]
Like, should people be rewarded for spontaneity, or punished for it?
[/quote]

There has to be a punishment part to it to discourage anyone from planning to do it. That could be cruel and unusual just to discourage people from doing it. After that comes the rehabilitation part, where we try to make sure they don't do it again. Punishment should be more severe for considered evils. Rehabilitation probably less.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=13195.msg133918#msg133918 date=1131960984]
[quote author=iago link=topic=13195.msg133897#msg133897 date=1131930426]
How do you suggest dealing with them? 
[/quote]

Study them, and if they seem salvagable, do so. If not, just get rid of them.

[/quote]Cars or people?

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13195.msg133938#msg133938 date=1131995306]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=13195.msg133918#msg133918 date=1131960984]
Study them, and if they seem salvagable, do so. If not, just get rid of them.
[/quote]Cars or people?
[/quote]

People obviously. Who is talking about cars? There are lots of human wrecks walking around, but I think most can be recovered to a useful state for society. And if not, I hear the Chinese are having a lot of success just using spare parts from them.

The way you were talking about people you could've basically used the word cars instead.  People don't work like a machine.  They think.  They manipulate.  Anyone can be evil...cars only break

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13195.msg133977#msg133977 date=1132017559]
The way you were talking about people you could've basically used the word cars instead.  People don't work like a machine.  They think.  They manipulate.  Anyone can be evil...cars only break
[/quote]

Well, the difference between cars and people is not that big. Both have some point when it is better to just get rid of them than to try to fix them up. Both can behave weird and be hard to understand what is wrong with. And both can be harvested for spare parts to make others last longer.

This is what happens when criminals are given a 2nd chance.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175862,00.html

"Before Carlie's death, Smith had been arrested at least 13 times since 1993, mostly on drug offenses, although he was twice charged with committing violence against women.

In one case, he was charged with kidnapping a 20-year-old woman, but was later acquitted. He pleaded no contest in the other case, in which a woman said he hit her in the face with a motorcycle helmet. He was sentenced to 60 days in a county jail.

His only prison time was about 17 months behind bars on drug possession and fraud charges."

I hope some of you understand that protecting society is a far better cause than saving a criminal.

A balanced and fair justice system does protect society. I take issue with your interpretation of this story; I think that that kind of case is the exception, not the rule. The overbearing, unchecked power of the state over the citizen is a much bigger threat to society than criminals. Defendents should be provided with the best defence possible (they currently aren't) and sentences should be proportional (they currently aren't).

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=13195.msg134415#msg134415 date=1132268864]
A balanced and fair justice system does protect society. I take issue with your interpretation of this story; I think that that kind of case is the exception, not the rule. The overbearing, unchecked power of the state over the citizen is a much bigger threat to society than criminals. Defendents should be provided with the best defence possible (they currently aren't) and sentences should be proportional (they currently aren't).
[/quote]

So you are saying we should have more cases like OJ Simpson's case. He had the best lawyers that got him off the hook after he murdered 2 people and murderers should all have their sentences reduced?

Maybe all Jeffrey Dahmers and Ted Kaczynskis and Scott Petersons should go and get themselves a better lower and be found not guilty? How many more exceptions do you want me to list?

I think most criminals get off on some technicality

[quote author=Invert link=topic=13195.msg134398#msg134398 date=1132265745]
[i]"Before Carlie's death, Smith had been arrested at least 13 times since 1993, mostly on drug offenses, although he was twice charged with committing violence against women."

...

I hope some of you understand that protecting society is a far better cause than saving a criminal.
[/quote]

Yes, some day Invert, you really need to understand the priorities. This man has been arrested and punished or freed 13 times, but punishment leads nowhere, he comes right back out and keeps going. And eventually, because he never was rehabilitated, he killed a poor girl.

Punishment does not work.


This man actually belongs to a specific class of offenders too:

[quote] ... he talked of being on drugs while committing the crimes.[/quote]

Being on drugs, punishments might not seem like as big a worry. Or he might think he will be able to get away with his crimes. This tells us how important it is to remove drugs from society.

[quote author=Invert link=topic=13195.msg134422#msg134422 date=1132274225]
Maybe all Jeffrey Dahmers and Ted Kaczynskis and Scott Petersons should go and get themselves a better lower and be found not guilty? How many more exceptions do you want me to list?
[/quote]

Let's see, you have how many people in your country? 200,000,000, maybe?  and you've named 3 exceptions.  That's approximately 0% of the population.  The fact that ~0% of the population can't be rehabilitated means what, exactly?

[quote author=iago link=topic=13195.msg134465#msg134465 date=1132290015]
[quote author=Invert link=topic=13195.msg134422#msg134422 date=1132274225]
Maybe all Jeffrey Dahmers and Ted Kaczynskis and Scott Petersons should go and get themselves a better lower and be found not guilty? How many more exceptions do you want me to list?
[/quote]

Let's see, you have how many people in your country? 200,000,000, maybe?  and you've named 3 exceptions.  That's approximately 0% of the population.  The fact that ~0% of the population can't be rehabilitated means what, exactly?
[/quote]I'd like to see a list of criminals that have been rehabilitated.  I'll make it easy too.  I'd only like to see the names from the last 75 years.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13195.msg134469#msg134469 date=1132290754]
[quote author=iago link=topic=13195.msg134465#msg134465 date=1132290015]
[quote author=Invert link=topic=13195.msg134422#msg134422 date=1132274225]
Maybe all Jeffrey Dahmers and Ted Kaczynskis and Scott Petersons should go and get themselves a better lower and be found not guilty? How many more exceptions do you want me to list?
[/quote]

Let's see, you have how many people in your country? 200,000,000, maybe?  and you've named 3 exceptions.  That's approximately 0% of the population.  The fact that ~0% of the population can't be rehabilitated means what, exactly?
[/quote]I'd like to see a list of criminals that have been rehabilitated.  I'll make it easy too.  I'd only like to see the names from the last 75 years.
[/quote]
I don't know where to get the information.  And it depends on how you define rehabilitated, really. 

But if jail is meant as a deterrant, then everybody who has never been to jail should count for something :P

Just look at everyone who has been arrested at any time and is not currently arrested for those who have been rehabilitated....

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13195.msg134469#msg134469 date=1132290754]
I'd like to see a list of criminals that have been rehabilitated.  I'll make it easy too.  I'd only like to see the names from the last 75 years.
[/quote]

I know some people who went to jail for Alcohol/Drug related charges and because they sobered up in jail they stopped drinking and doing drugs all together. Surely someone sent to jail for drug charges (i.e. posession) is not a threat to society. So how come they are jailed? For their own protection and rehabilitation.

hmm, its had to expression emoition while posintg.
Anyways, I was trying to be sarcastic towards iago when he said Invert only gave 3 examples of criminals that need to die (IMO).  Just trying to prove a point, I don't expect anyone to find all of those people/

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13195.msg134431#msg134431 date=1132279935]
I think most criminals get off on some technicality
[/quote]

Balderdash. Evidence please.

[quote author=Invert link=topic=13195.msg134422#msg134422 date=1132274225]
So you are saying we should have more cases like OJ Simpson's case. He had the best lawyers that got him off the hook after he murdered 2 people and murderers should all have their sentences reduced?

Maybe all Jeffrey Dahmers and Ted Kaczynskis and Scott Petersons should go and get themselves a better lower and be found not guilty? How many more exceptions do you want me to list?
[/quote]

It is more important to ensure that innocent people are not convicted than to ensure that every potentially guilty person is imprisoned. I agree it's terrible that some guilty people get off on technicalities, or by having enough money for uberlawyers, but we have to accept that the mechanisms that allow that to happen also protect the innocent. We mustn't give that up.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=13195.msg134497#msg134497 date=1132324021]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13195.msg134431#msg134431 date=1132279935]
I think most criminals get off on some technicality
[/quote]

Balderdash. Evidence please.
[/quote]This is interestingly hard to do...I'll keep @ it though.

Well, in Canada, unless there's some extreme circumstance (like, killing somebody in jail), you'll never serve more than 75% of your sentence.  My uncle has been a warden for the last 30 years, and he explained that to me.  In his words, "As soon as you walk through the door, bang, 25% of your setence is gone"

That is, in a way, evidence of what Craz3d was saying.  They don't get off completely, but nobody serves more than 75% of their sentence. 

[quote author=iago link=topic=13195.msg134543#msg134543 date=1132345423]
Well, in Canada, unless there's some extreme circumstance (like, killing somebody in jail), you'll never serve more than 75% of your sentence.  My uncle has been a warden for the last 30 years, and he explained that to me.  In his words, "As soon as you walk through the door, bang, 25% of your setence is gone"

That is, in a way, evidence of what Craz3d was saying.  They don't get off completely, but nobody serves more than 75% of their sentence. 

[/quote]:'(
dude killed a dog here yesterday night.  He was a construction worker & got fired so be broke into a house they were working on.  There was a dog, he hung the dog w/electrical wire.  That man is scum, you hand me a gun I would shoot that man.

There was a woman shot in El Paso today.  Her killer should be killed as well, however, I dont feel as emoitional when thinking about her murder.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13195.msg134591#msg134591 date=1132359018]
[quote author=iago link=topic=13195.msg134543#msg134543 date=1132345423]
Well, in Canada, unless there's some extreme circumstance (like, killing somebody in jail), you'll never serve more than 75% of your sentence. My uncle has been a warden for the last 30 years, and he explained that to me. In his words, "As soon as you walk through the door, bang, 25% of your setence is gone"

That is, in a way, evidence of what Craz3d was saying. They don't get off completely, but nobody serves more than 75% of their sentence.

[/quote]:'(
dude killed a dog here yesterday night. He was a construction worker & got fired so be broke into a house they were working on. There was a dog, he hung the dog w/electrical wire. That man is scum, you hand me a gun I would shoot that man.

There was a woman shot in El Paso today. Her killer should be killed as well, however, I dont feel as emoitional when thinking about her murder.
[/quote]

For the ex-construction worker and dog, the dog cannot decide for itself what's right or wrong, while the construction worker, who was acting out of blind rage, can. You probably find yourself less apathetic toward the woman because a dog acts by instinct, and in terms of how we judge right from wrong, is unable to make those types of judgements for itself. Because of that, I believe they are innocent. More or less, the man who murdered the woman probably had incentive to. I'm just assuming though, which I know is bad.

Killing a dog isn't so bad? I hear lots of people kill animals often.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=13195.msg134618#msg134618 date=1132373802]
Killing a dog isn't so bad? I hear lots of people kill animals often.
[/quote]

Because people do it that makes it "not so bad"?

[quote author=Rule link=topic=13195.msg134627#msg134627 date=1132378567]
Because people do it that makes it "not so bad"?
[/quote]

Yeah, I rarely hear people have qualms after squashing mosquitos. I dunno. Maybe it is just the built-in cruelty in humans that allow us to squash mosquitos, cut down trees, even eat apples.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=13195.msg134630#msg134630 date=1132379385]
[quote author=Rule link=topic=13195.msg134627#msg134627 date=1132378567]
Because people do it that makes it "not so bad"?
[/quote]

Yeah, I rarely hear people have qualms after squashing mosquitos. I dunno. Maybe it is just the built-in cruelty in humans that allow us to squash mosquitos, cut down trees, even eat apples.
[/quote]

Well, neither apples, trees, nor mosquitos are highly intelligent conscious mammals. 

Yes, humans regularly kill intelligent animals like pigs for food.  I am not claiming that it justifies the "killing" necessarily, but there is a difference between doing this and murdering an intelligent animal that is part of a family for no reason other than unrestrained anger and hatred.

The latter scenario certainly seems extremely "bad" in every sense of the word.

Personally I take a much greater liking to intelligent animals than most humans -- I can understand why one would be more angry at a dog being murdered in cold blood than perhaps a human.

Word.  Animals for food are ok when they are needed.  I'd be rather upset if someone killed a family member, dog, cat, sister, w/e.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13195.msg134639#msg134639 date=1132386061]
Word.  Animals for food are ok when they are needed.  I'd be rather upset if someone killed a family member, dog, cat, sister, w/e.
[/quote]
I don't see the difference.  Would you be ok with having dog and cat farms, where they breed and kill dogs and cats for food?  It would be done in a completely humain way, of course, the animals would only suffer while they're alive.  Why or why not?

If you think that's bad, then how can you agree with that happening to cows and pigs and sheep?  I mean, are you ok with how they make pork chops? Bacon? Ham?  Those all come from a variety of animals. 

I'm not a vegetarian, and I hold absolutely contradictory beliefs.  I agree that dog/cat farms would be bad, but I'm ok with eating steak and ham.  I'm a hypocrite, and I feel bad about it, but I don't want to give up eating meat.  That's a really tough predicament. 

I do have one limitation, though.  I won't eat veal, aka "tortured baby cow".  I don't have a problem with most meats, but the way veal is produced is disgusting.  That's as close as I come to vegetarianism. 

Considering there's a whole porfession dedicated to defending people in court, and those people are required to take an oath saying they will defend to the best of their ability, I don't think it's too far-fetched that most people serve no or a limited sentence.

[quote author=iago link=topic=13195.msg134647#msg134647 date=1132389385]
I don't see the difference.  Would you be ok with having dog and cat farms, where they breed and kill dogs and cats for food?
[/quote]

If they would only sell good meat dogs here, we could try this recipe:

[pre]
                        Stewed Dog (wedding style)

Recipe By     : Joe Sweeney
Serving Size  : 30   Preparation Time :3:00
Categories    : Ethnic                           Lamb
                 Philippines

   Amount  Measure       Ingredient -- Preparation Method
--------  ------------  --------------------------------
    3      kg            dog meat -- * see note
    1 1/2  cups          vinegar
   60                    peppercorns -- crushed
    6      tablespoons   salt
   12      cloves        garlic -- crushed
      1/2  cup           cooking oil
    6      cups          onion -- sliced
    3      cups          tomato sauce
   10      cups          boiling water
    6      cups          red pepper -- cut into strips
    6      pieces        bay leaf
    1      teaspoon      tabasco sauce
    1 1/2  cups          liver spread -- ** see note
    1      whole         fresh pineapple -- cut 1/2 inch thick

1. First, kill a medium sized dog, then burn off the fur over a hot fire.
2. Carefully remove the skin while still warm and set aside for later (may be
used in other recpies)
3. Cut meat into 1" cubes. Marinade meat in mixture of vinegar,
peppercorn, salt and garlic for 2 hours.
4. Fry meat in oil using a large wok over an open fire, then add onions and
chopped pineapple and suate until tender.
5. Pour in tomato sauce and boiling water, add green peper, bay leaf and
tobasco.
6. Cover and simmer over warm coals until meat is tender. Blend in liver spread
and cook for additional 5-7 minutes.

* you can substiture lamb for dog. The taste is similar, but not as pungent.
** smooth liver pate will do as well.
[/pre]


More tasty recipes can be found here

[quote author=iago link=topic=13195.msg134647#msg134647 date=1132389385]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13195.msg134639#msg134639 date=1132386061]
Word.  Animals for food are ok when they are needed.  I'd be rather upset if someone killed a family member, dog, cat, sister, w/e.
[/quote]
I don't see the difference.  Would you be ok with having dog and cat farms, where they breed and kill dogs and cats for food?  It would be done in a completely humain way, of course, the animals would only suffer while they're alive.  Why or why not?

If you think that's bad, then how can you agree with that happening to cows and pigs and sheep?  I mean, are you ok with how they make pork chops? Bacon? Ham?  Those all come from a variety of animals. 

I'm not a vegetarian, and I hold absolutely contradictory beliefs.  I agree that dog/cat farms would be bad, but I'm ok with eating steak and ham.  I'm a hypocrite, and I feel bad about it, but I don't want to give up eating meat.  That's a really tough predicament. 

I do have one limitation, though.  I won't eat veal, aka "tortured baby cow".  I don't have a problem with most meats, but the way veal is produced is disgusting.  That's as close as I come to vegetarianism. 
[/quote]Culture.  Different culture, different lifestyles.  Cows are sacred in India, some dude might want to shoot you for eating a steak.
You're not a hypocrit, you've just been enculturated to accept dogs and cats as 'friends' & cows as food.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13195.msg134664#msg134664 date=1132415226]
[quote author=iago link=topic=13195.msg134647#msg134647 date=1132389385]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13195.msg134639#msg134639 date=1132386061]
Word.  Animals for food are ok when they are needed.  I'd be rather upset if someone killed a family member, dog, cat, sister, w/e.
[/quote]
I don't see the difference.  Would you be ok with having dog and cat farms, where they breed and kill dogs and cats for food?  It would be done in a completely humain way, of course, the animals would only suffer while they're alive.  Why or why not?

If you think that's bad, then how can you agree with that happening to cows and pigs and sheep?  I mean, are you ok with how they make pork chops? Bacon? Ham?  Those all come from a variety of animals. 

I'm not a vegetarian, and I hold absolutely contradictory beliefs.  I agree that dog/cat farms would be bad, but I'm ok with eating steak and ham.  I'm a hypocrite, and I feel bad about it, but I don't want to give up eating meat.  That's a really tough predicament. 

I do have one limitation, though.  I won't eat veal, aka "tortured baby cow".  I don't have a problem with most meats, but the way veal is produced is disgusting.  That's as close as I come to vegetarianism. 
[/quote]Culture.  Different culture, different lifestyles.  Cows are sacred in India, some dude might want to shoot you for eating a steak.
You're not a hypocrit, you've just been enculturated to accept dogs and cats as 'friends' & cows as food.
[/quote]

That's totally dumb and arbitrary, though! 

What do ya mean?

I mean that there's no logical reason to eat pigs but not dogs.  They're both dumb animals who probably taste good. 

[quote author=iago link=topic=13195.msg134700#msg134700 date=1132438849]
They're both dumb animals who probably taste good. 
[/quote]

That is utterly untrue.  Many dogs are highly intelligent (I'd say far more aware of their surroundings and capable of certain types of problem solving than a significant number of humans). 

Also, pigs aren't "dumb" -- this is a trivial observation if you know anything about wild boars.

Pigs have the intelligence of a 3 year old child. (Or so my hippy sister tells me)

I believe cows and pigs are eaten because we, as people, haven't established bonds with them like we do with cats and dogs.  If you were to grow up with a pig rather than a dog, you'd grow fond of it, wouldn't you?

yes, but i'd still eat it for food.

[quote author=Topaz link=topic=13195.msg134710#msg134710 date=1132443909]
yes, but i'd still eat it for food.
[/quote]

The animal in question would become a part of your family, much like how a newborn baby sister, for example, would.  Are you saying you would eat her, too?

[quote author=Explicit[nK] link=topic=13195.msg134714#msg134714 date=1132444843]
The animal in question would become a part of your family, much like how a newborn baby sister, for example, would.  Are you saying you would eat her, too?
[/quote]
No, stupid, you don't eat babies, they don't have enough meat on them. You have to wait until they're older.

Hitmen, I seem to recall you saying how great eating babies was.

-----

This family my aunt knows in middleish-Virginia is poor, and like 5 years ago or so they ate their dog apparently. My friend has a pet duck too, but I don't think his family is going to eat it. :)

[quote author=Hitmen link=topic=13195.msg134723#msg134723 date=1132450983]
[quote author=Explicit[nK] link=topic=13195.msg134714#msg134714 date=1132444843]
The animal in question would become a part of your family, much like how a newborn baby sister, for example, would. Are you saying you would eat her, too?
[/quote]
No, stupid, you don't eat babies, they don't have enough meat on them. You have to wait until they're older.
[/quote]

:)

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=13195.msg134729#msg134729 date=1132451783]


This family my aunt knows in middleish-Virginia is poor, and like 5 years ago or so they ate their dog apparently.
[/quote]

That is horrible/ridiculous/stupid.  Regardless of how poor they are, there are programs in place so that they won't starve -- it is totally unnecessary to eat a family pet for those reasons.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=13195.msg134703#msg134703 date=1132439217]
[quote author=iago link=topic=13195.msg134700#msg134700 date=1132438849]
They're both dumb animals who probably taste good. 
[/quote]

That is utterly untrue.  Many dogs are highly intelligent (I'd say far more aware of their surroundings and capable of certain types of problem solving than a significant number of humans). 

Also, pigs aren't "dumb" -- this is a trivial observation if you know anything about wild boars.


[/quote]

All right, they're both smart animals.  That proves my point even better :)

Aren't dogs more adaptable to human life though?

So whether or not we should eat an animal should be based on how adaptable they are?  That doesn't seem like much of a criterian..

[quote author=iago link=topic=13195.msg134772#msg134772 date=1132481230]
All right, they're both smart animals.  That proves my point even better :)
[/quote]

I think your point makes sense, I wasn't trying to argue with it -- just had to clear up that neither of those animals are dumb.  However, I'd say dogs are, on average, considerably smarter than pigs. 

Aren't dogs more trainable?  They're certainly more physically capable than pigs.

[quote author=iago link=topic=13195.msg134798#msg134798 date=1132509442]
So whether or not we should eat an animal should be based on how adaptable they are?  That doesn't seem like much of a criterian..
[/quote]

In a way, it does. Animals whose meat is hardly useful, maybe only to cook soup, may not be that great to eat. On the other hand, an animal with fine, tender meat, that can be cooked in any way and still taste great, would make a great meat animal.

I like my bacon.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=13195.msg134866#msg134866 date=1132539506]
[quote author=iago link=topic=13195.msg134798#msg134798 date=1132509442]
So whether or not we should eat an animal should be based on how adaptable they are?  That doesn't seem like much of a criterian..
[/quote]

In a way, it does. Animals whose meat is hardly useful, maybe only to cook soup, may not be that great to eat. On the other hand, an animal with fine, tender meat, that can be cooked in any way and still taste great, would make a great meat animal.
[/quote]

Well, I didnt' mean adaptable to being put into soup, I don't think that was the context anyway :)

[quote author=iago link=topic=13195.msg134883#msg134883 date=1132551369]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=13195.msg134866#msg134866 date=1132539506]
In a way, it does. Animals whose meat is hardly useful, maybe only to cook soup, may not be that great to eat. On the other hand, an animal with fine, tender meat, that can be cooked in any way and still taste great, would make a great meat animal.
[/quote]

Well, I didnt' mean adaptable to being put into soup, I don't think that was the context anyway :)
[/quote]

But when you think about it, it is a long term adaptation. Animals whose meat do not taste well survive in the wild until we cut down their forests. Animals whose meat is great are domesticated and bred and multiply. It is evolution...

[quote author=Adron link=topic=13195.msg134895#msg134895 date=1132561887]
[quote author=iago link=topic=13195.msg134883#msg134883 date=1132551369]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=13195.msg134866#msg134866 date=1132539506]
In a way, it does. Animals whose meat is hardly useful, maybe only to cook soup, may not be that great to eat. On the other hand, an animal with fine, tender meat, that can be cooked in any way and still taste great, would make a great meat animal.
[/quote]

Well, I didnt' mean adaptable to being put into soup, I don't think that was the context anyway :)
[/quote]

But when you think about it, it is a long term adaptation. Animals whose meat do not taste well survive in the wild until we cut down their forests. Animals whose meat is great are domesticated and bred and multiply. It is evolution...

[/quote]

Haha, that's funny in a way, but true, too.  I don't think evolution ever intended good tasting animals to be bred in captivity though ;)

[quote author=iago link=topic=13195.msg135013#msg135013 date=1132677865]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=13195.msg134895#msg134895 date=1132561887]
[quote author=iago link=topic=13195.msg134883#msg134883 date=1132551369]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=13195.msg134866#msg134866 date=1132539506]
In a way, it does. Animals whose meat is hardly useful, maybe only to cook soup, may not be that great to eat. On the other hand, an animal with fine, tender meat, that can be cooked in any way and still taste great, would make a great meat animal.
[/quote]

Well, I didnt' mean adaptable to being put into soup, I don't think that was the context anyway :)
[/quote]

But when you think about it, it is a long term adaptation. Animals whose meat do not taste well survive in the wild until we cut down their forests. Animals whose meat is great are domesticated and bred and multiply. It is evolution...

[/quote]

Haha, that's funny in a way, but true, too. I don't think evolution ever intended good tasting animals to be bred in captivity though ;)
[/quote]

Nor any animal for that matter. :)

Why not?

Because animals aren't meant to be held in captivity.  How would you feel if you were bred to serve one purpose, being to feed others?

Animals don't feel the same way.

Isn't about "how would we feel", we don't. We are higher on the foodchain so we eat them.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13195.msg135070#msg135070 date=1132705514]
Animals don't feel the same way.
[/quote]

Are you sure about that?

[quote author=iago link=topic=13195.msg135013#msg135013 date=1132677865]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=13195.msg134895#msg134895 date=1132561887]
But when you think about it, it is a long term adaptation. Animals whose meat do not taste well survive in the wild until we cut down their forests. Animals whose meat is great are domesticated and bred and multiply. It is evolution...
[/quote]

Haha, that's funny in a way, but true, too.  I don't think evolution ever intended good tasting animals to be bred in captivity though ;)
[/quote]

Evolution never had any intentions. It is blind. Evolution is not an Intelligent Designer...

[quote author=Adron link=topic=13195.msg135102#msg135102 date=1132722618]
[quote author=iago link=topic=13195.msg135013#msg135013 date=1132677865]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=13195.msg134895#msg134895 date=1132561887]
But when you think about it, it is a long term adaptation. Animals whose meat do not taste well survive in the wild until we cut down their forests. Animals whose meat is great are domesticated and bred and multiply. It is evolution...
[/quote]

Haha, that's funny in a way, but true, too.  I don't think evolution ever intended good tasting animals to be bred in captivity though ;)
[/quote]

Evolution never had any intentions. It is blind. Evolution is not an Intelligent Designer...

[/quote]

Using the word "intented" was a figure of speech.  What I meant was that I'm pretty sure that natural selection/evolution doesn't prepare animals to be bred in captivity.

Evolution is just change.  We changed the purpose of those animals.

[quote author=iago link=topic=13195.msg135104#msg135104 date=1132722701]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=13195.msg135102#msg135102 date=1132722618]
Evolution never had any intentions. It is blind. Evolution is not an Intelligent Designer...
[/quote]

Using the word "intented" was a figure of speech.  What I meant was that I'm pretty sure that natural selection/evolution doesn't prepare animals to be bred in captivity.
[/quote]

It does not *prepare* animals for anything, but it does shape them to better suit their role... Natural selection/evolution works all the time, all around. Domesticated animals have been shaped to fit better in with humans over a long period of time.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=13195.msg135121#msg135121 date=1132735416]
[quote author=iago link=topic=13195.msg135104#msg135104 date=1132722701]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=13195.msg135102#msg135102 date=1132722618]
Evolution never had any intentions. It is blind. Evolution is not an Intelligent Designer...
[/quote]

Using the word "intented" was a figure of speech.  What I meant was that I'm pretty sure that natural selection/evolution doesn't prepare animals to be bred in captivity.
[/quote]

It does not *prepare* animals for anything, but it does shape them to better suit their role... Natural selection/evolution works all the time, all around. Domesticated animals have been shaped to fit better in with humans over a long period of time.

[/quote]

The animals tasted good before they were ever domesticated.  As you said,

[quote author=Adron link=topic=13195.msg134895#msg134895 date=1132561887]
But when you think about it, it is a long term adaptation. Animals whose meat do not taste well survive in the wild until we cut down their forests. Animals whose meat is great are domesticated and bred and multiply. It is evolution...
[/quote]

[quote author=iago link=topic=13195.msg135130#msg135130 date=1132751770]
The animals tasted good before they were ever domesticated.  As you said,
[/quote]

Yes, so what evolution has done is make animals with tasty meat. That is how evolution always works - selecting one of multiple alternatives. Tasty meat is a property that helps increase survivability. So is cute looks. Or in some cases, scary looks (flies that look like bees!).

[quote author=Adron link=topic=13195.msg135135#msg135135 date=1132754423]
[quote author=iago link=topic=13195.msg135130#msg135130 date=1132751770]
The animals tasted good before they were ever domesticated.  As you said,
[/quote]

Yes, so what evolution has done is make animals with tasty meat. That is how evolution always works - selecting one of multiple alternatives. Tasty meat is a property that helps increase survivability. So is cute looks. Or in some cases, scary looks (flies that look like bees!).
[/quote]

Bees aren't scary.

But anyway, I'm not sure how "tasty meat" would promote survivability unless animals were being bread by another animals.  And that seems like something so unnatural that it wouldn't even become an evolutionary alternative. 

But apparently, nature DID select it. 

Does that mean that breeding animals in captivity is natural?  It's part of what is supposed to happen?  If we STOPPED breeding cattle, that would be going against nature (even God)?

Based on that, I think that vegetarians should re-evaluate why they don't eat meat.  It's perfectly natural to breed animals in captivity, apparently!

[quote author=iago link=topic=13195.msg135218#msg135218 date=1132852199]
Based on that, I think that vegetarians should re-evaluate why they don't eat meat.  It's perfectly natural to breed animals in captivity, apparently!
[/quote]
I think we should teach them a lesson and start eating vegetarians. How dare they go against the will of god.

[quote author=iago link=topic=13195.msg135218#msg135218 date=1132852199]
But anyway, I'm not sure how "tasty meat" would promote survivability unless animals were being bread by another animals.  And that seems like something so unnatural that it wouldn't even become an evolutionary alternative. 
[/quote]

Maybe consider it as species living in symbiosis...

You'd think animals would evolve to taste nasty, so that people won't eat them.

Actually, some animals do this.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=13195.msg135242#msg135242 date=1132870965]
You'd think animals would evolve to taste nasty, so that people won't eat them.

Actually, some animals do this.
[/quote]

Yes, they do. So taste of animal is a factor in evolution. Sometimes it is positive and sometimes it is negative.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=13195.msg135242#msg135242 date=1132870965]
You'd think animals would evolve to taste nasty, so that people won't eat them.

Actually, some animals do this.
[/quote]

Well, hot peppers, for example, evolved to be really hot so they're uneatable. 

Now people eat them BECAUSE they're hot. 

Stupid peppers :)

[quote author=iago link=topic=13195.msg135288#msg135288 date=1132927182]
[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=13195.msg135242#msg135242 date=1132870965]
You'd think animals would evolve to taste nasty, so that people won't eat them.

Actually, some animals do this.
[/quote]

Well, hot peppers, for example, evolved to be really hot so they're uneatable. 

Now people eat them BECAUSE they're hot. 

Stupid peppers :)
[/quote]WOrd, some people eat some WEIRD stuff (i.e. snails).  I like chile though, yay for weird me.

Yeah, snails are slimy and gross. 

Is that an evolutionary advantage, to protect from from predators?  Or is it just good fortune?  Who knows?

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13195.msg135289#msg135289 date=1132927710]
[quote author=iago link=topic=13195.msg135288#msg135288 date=1132927182]
[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=13195.msg135242#msg135242 date=1132870965]
You'd think animals would evolve to taste nasty, so that people won't eat them.

Actually, some animals do this.
[/quote]

Well, hot peppers, for example, evolved to be really hot so they're uneatable.

Now people eat them BECAUSE they're hot.

Stupid peppers :)
[/quote]WOrd, some people eat some WEIRD stuff (i.e. snails). I like chile though, yay for weird me.
[/quote]

It's an acquired taste.  For example, in my culture (Cambodian), spiders and beatles are delicacies, but that doesn't necessarily mean all Cambodians eat them.  I sure as hell don't, because the mere thought is just stomach-churning, but for the elders, they find it delicious.

I'll try any kind of food, no matter how gross, as long as I know it's been properly prepared (so it won't poison me).  I only worry about catching diseases from weird food that hasn't been prepared right. 

Disclaimer: except for fish.  I refuse to touch most kinds of fish, I hate the smell, taste, and texture of every fish I've ever eaten.  The sound and sight are ok, normally, just to finish off the list of senses. 

[quote author=iago link=topic=13195.msg135782#msg135782 date=1133318243]
Disclaimer: except for fish.  I refuse to touch most kinds of fish, I hate the smell, taste, and texture of every fish I've ever eaten.  The sound and sight are ok, normally, just to finish off the list of senses. 
[/quote]
Haha, me too. Most people think I'm weird, I can barely eat fish sticks, nevermind real fish. Shit's nasty.

Fish is disgusting. It takes like gross chicken, and I hate the feel of it.

Fish is great. I love oven baked salmon. There is little better.

It seems like the people here who listen to heavy metal music are also the people who don't like fish. 

Coincidence? Hmm!

[quote author=iago link=topic=13195.msg135973#msg135973 date=1133461401]
It seems like the people here who listen to heavy metal music are also the people who don't like fish. 

Coincidence? Hmm!
[/quote]

Heavy metal is disgusting. It sounds like a screaming gross chicken, and I hate the feel of it.


Btw, I just had fish au gratin for dinner. Tasty!

[quote author=Adron link=topic=13195.msg135992#msg135992 date=1133472368]
[quote author=iago link=topic=13195.msg135973#msg135973 date=1133461401]
It seems like the people here who listen to heavy metal music are also the people who don't like fish. 

Coincidence? Hmm!
[/quote]

Heavy metal is disgusting. It sounds like a screaming gross chicken, and I hate the feel of it.


Btw, I just had fish au gratin for dinner. Tasty!
[/quote]
I can think of one exception, swedish fish kick ass. Sure they aren't really fish, and they probably aren't swedish either, but mmm. Candy rocks.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=13195.msg135992#msg135992 date=1133472368]
Heavy metal is disgusting. It sounds like a screaming gross chicken, and I hate the feel of it.
[/quote]

You can't headbang to fish, unless you're easily amused.