Not really, but like most things in life, it's a sliding scale between what we accept and what is practical. Not sure the punishment side of prison works but, from personal experience, it's a temporary way of protecting the public. Stress on the word "temporary". Some people would want to solve the problem by killing the criminal. That's the easy way out. Why can't we solve the problem by actually solving the problem?
He's a tricky one because his protests weren't irrational. He reminds me of D-Fens in the film Falling Down. There are commonalities in the lives of people who become terrorists (without coercion) and people who become despots and you see it with McVeigh too. You could almost predict it. But nobody cared enough.
So we have two ways of dealing with it. Either we let him kill scores of innocent people and then we kill him too. Or we put some effort into recognising the danger ahead of time, help him realise his method of protesting isn't the right way, and nobody dies. I know the latter is difficult, requires some intrusion into our lives if we have set off a few warning bells, and is kind of against the freedom I'd rather us have. But ultimate freedom does me no good if someone kills me before I can enjoy it.
Because governments don't want to take the time and effort to actually solve it. Prisons were created to rehabilitate criminals. These days it's used to separate them from the public. I think it's sad how things turned out. People deserve a lot more respect than they get in the prison systems.
Yeah, my grandfather did two and a bit years in prison and it killed him. Somebody sold him some stolen watches and then he sold them on for profit. He said he didn't know they were stolen. But even if he did, he bought some goods and sold them at a profit. And for that he got the same punishment as a murderer; just for less time.
Jails are supposed to be for rehabilitation, not for seclusion. It's sad to see things like that happen to good hearted people.
Is the law where you live, guilty until proven innocent? I once heard that it was like that ages ago in the UK, but I am not up to date or fully informed on the policies of other countries.
The complete opposite. You're presumed innocent until proven guilty here. If there remains reasonable doubt, you can't be charged guilty. What you've got up to in the past never gets revealed until after the verdict (which always struck me as strange. I agree with not judging people by the past, but why they reveal it after the decision, I don't know).
It's only a factor for sentencing, that's why. You don't get a sentence untill after you're proven guilty, and past convictions are used to determine sentence (as they should be). Past convictions should absolutely not be used to prove guilt, that's just plain WRONG.
This isn't an exhaustive list, but I think Sweden, France, Brazil, UK, South Africa, Australia, Iceland, Canada are the countries where you are presumed innocent and won't be executed just because some people think you did it although they don't really know for sure.
Do You Agree With Death Penalty??
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Not really, but like most things in life, it's a sliding scale between what we accept and what is practical. Not sure the punishment side of prison works but, from personal experience, it's a temporary way of protecting the public. Stress on the word "temporary". Some people would want to solve the problem by killing the criminal. That's the easy way out. Why can't we solve the problem by actually solving the problem?
--
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
NothingxCrazy
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
What do you think of Tim McVeigh? Just curious. Read it over if you like, and please comment!
--
dappled
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
He's a tricky one because his protests weren't irrational. He reminds me of D-Fens in the film Falling Down. There are commonalities in the lives of people who become terrorists (without coercion) and people who become despots and you see it with McVeigh too. You could almost predict it. But nobody cared enough.
So we have two ways of dealing with it. Either we let him kill scores of innocent people and then we kill him too. Or we put some effort into recognising the danger ahead of time, help him realise his method of protesting isn't the right way, and nobody dies. I know the latter is difficult, requires some intrusion into our lives if we have set off a few warning bells, and is kind of against the freedom I'd rather us have. But ultimate freedom does me no good if someone kills me before I can enjoy it.
Because governments don't want to take the time and effort to actually solve it. Prisons were created to rehabilitate criminals. These days it's used to separate them from the public. I think it's sad how things turned out. People deserve a lot more respect than they get in the prison systems.
--
dappled
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Yeah, my grandfather did two and a bit years in prison and it killed him. Somebody sold him some stolen watches and then he sold them on for profit. He said he didn't know they were stolen. But even if he did, he bought some goods and sold them at a profit. And for that he got the same punishment as a murderer; just for less time.
--
NothingxCrazy
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Jails are supposed to be for rehabilitation, not for seclusion. It's sad to see things like that happen to good hearted people.
Is the law where you live, guilty until proven innocent? I once heard that it was like that ages ago in the UK, but I am not up to date or fully informed on the policies of other countries.
--
dappled
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
The complete opposite. You're presumed innocent until proven guilty here. If there remains reasonable doubt, you can't be charged guilty. What you've got up to in the past never gets revealed until after the verdict (which always struck me as strange. I agree with not judging people by the past, but why they reveal it after the decision, I don't know).
--
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
NothingxCrazy
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
It's only a factor for sentencing, that's why. You don't get a sentence untill after you're proven guilty, and past convictions are used to determine sentence (as they should be). Past convictions should absolutely not be used to prove guilt, that's just plain WRONG.
--
dappled
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I hadn't thought about that but yes, it makes sense. And I agree it should be that way.
See, I heard it wasn't like that over there. Odd. Maybe they were speaking of another area.
--
dappled
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
This isn't an exhaustive list, but I think Sweden, France, Brazil, UK, South Africa, Australia, Iceland, Canada are the countries where you are presumed innocent and won't be executed just because some people think you did it although they don't really know for sure.