The Left and crime...
- Thread starter MoW
- Start date
JuanCarlos
New member
The only question I have is whether or not there is room for a "center" on crime.
You know, the kind of people who disagree with the death penalty not due to an ideological opposition to execution as a punishment in general, but due to the fact that we've seen evidence that our criminal justice system can and does convict the innocent and executions cannot be undone.
Or who agree with imprisonment in general, and long prison terms when the situation warrants (the idea of a sex offender database, whether we like to admit it or not, is basically an admission that we don't lock up sex offenders for long enough).
Or those who disagree that imprisoning people for consensual crimes, such as choosing the wrong chemical with which to alter their mental state (rather than the right one, because we don't ban them all). The 21st ammendment was an admission that prohibition doesn't work, yet we continue to try the tactic against other drugs.
Then there are those that believe many criminals currently crowding our prison system wouldn't be there if not for the aforementioned prohibition...but also believe that those that still would have hypothetically been there should still have been sent there. Possibly for very long periods of time.
So yeah. A center on crime. It isn't as if everything has to be black and white, tough on crime or soft on crime, Us or Them.
I've got a great idea. Let's end the War on Drugs. Let's stop the policy of strict prohibition which has proven not to work in the past and is, as we speak, proving not to work in the present. Then, once a vast majority of those being funneled into our criminal justice system and our prisons are actual criminals then we can start talking about how they should be treated.
I just think it's hard for me to hold a "tough on crime" stance when our government has made sure that a vast majority of us are criminals.
You know, the kind of people who disagree with the death penalty not due to an ideological opposition to execution as a punishment in general, but due to the fact that we've seen evidence that our criminal justice system can and does convict the innocent and executions cannot be undone.
Or who agree with imprisonment in general, and long prison terms when the situation warrants (the idea of a sex offender database, whether we like to admit it or not, is basically an admission that we don't lock up sex offenders for long enough).
Or those who disagree that imprisoning people for consensual crimes, such as choosing the wrong chemical with which to alter their mental state (rather than the right one, because we don't ban them all). The 21st ammendment was an admission that prohibition doesn't work, yet we continue to try the tactic against other drugs.
Then there are those that believe many criminals currently crowding our prison system wouldn't be there if not for the aforementioned prohibition...but also believe that those that still would have hypothetically been there should still have been sent there. Possibly for very long periods of time.
So yeah. A center on crime. It isn't as if everything has to be black and white, tough on crime or soft on crime, Us or Them.
I've got a great idea. Let's end the War on Drugs. Let's stop the policy of strict prohibition which has proven not to work in the past and is, as we speak, proving not to work in the present. Then, once a vast majority of those being funneled into our criminal justice system and our prisons are actual criminals then we can start talking about how they should be treated.
I just think it's hard for me to hold a "tough on crime" stance when our government has made sure that a vast majority of us are criminals.
Did you really think that we wanted those laws to be observed? . . . We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with. -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
badbob
badbob
Ayn Rand was brilliant -- effin' brilliant!
It is a crying shame that she was never a world leader, like President of the U.S., or a Supreme Court Chief Justice.
(What was her nationality, anyway?)
Damn but we need more people as honest and clear-thinking as she was.
-azurefly
It is a crying shame that she was never a world leader, like President of the U.S., or a Supreme Court Chief Justice.
(What was her nationality, anyway?)
Damn but we need more people as honest and clear-thinking as she was.
-azurefly
MeekAndMild
New member
See my water gun thread.
invention_45
New member
You got that right.