there’s this bread company i love that’s really loud about actively seeking out ex-convicts for employees and it makes me so happy to see, genuinely
Second is, make the government organization be bottom-up, democracy or not.
Most governments make decisions with their bottoms, if that counts
Bottom up, democracy or not?
Maybe I’m just showing my ignorance here, but what bottom up government style doesn’t rely on some form of democracy?
Give everyone the right to have rights.
That’s actually a classic blunder. If you give everyone rights then that implies that they can be taken away
Very true.
Western legal systems are based not on jailing criminals but on keeping the innocent out of jail. This does result in more criminals roaming free but I’ll take that a hundred times over the alternative
The hell they are. Getting accused of ANYTHING in America VERY quickly becomes a matter of providing proof that you are innocent. And not having said proof will probably lead to a guilty verdict. Get a GOOD lawyer. Prosecution will basically fuck off if they have nothing but accusations and your defense lawyer is annoying enough to deal with. Otherwise they will waste as much of your time as they have to in order to make you think it won’t end until you admit to something you didn’t do. They’ll even offer to reduce the false charges. Western legal systems are a fucking joke.
Western legal systems are a fucking joke.
Do not confuse Western and American just because America is to the west. Western European nations operate differently from America which is a 3rd world country with a Gucci handbag.
They’re better than systems that pre-suppose guilt and actually make you prove your innocence.
In those systems by the time you end up charged it’s pretty much too late to do anything but get a softer sentence.
It’s also worth noting that many of our justice system rights in the US have been severely eroded. Like the right to a jury trial, the prohibition on search and seizure without cause, the right to a lawyer, and the prohibition on cruel or unusual punishment. With all of that compromised the predisposition of innocence is itself severely compromised.
But the long arm of the law can’t possibly be tyrannical! 🦖
Absolutely. The right say they’re pro-freedom but they’ll strip you of the right to vote if you smoke weed.
Coincidentally one of the reasons that led to the prohibition of cannabis.
Who smoked weed? Black people, brown people, and when the war on drugs really ramped up…hippies.
Nowadays most rational people realized the war on drugs was bunk and people of all walks and colors smoke weed.
I doubt it’s a coincidence that the states that haven’t decriminalized yet are the ones that still love to hassle PoCs and hippies the most.
It was Mexicans too. It’s where the “lazy Mexican sleeping in the shade” comes from.
If you’re willing to question cannabis legality maybe look at other drugs too. Coca leaves were chewed by native tribes millennia ago to help with long journeys. Kratom was used in Asia to help with long harvest days. Celts were eating shrooms millennia ago.
Humanity has a LONG history of drug use with nothing off-limits and there was no societal collapse from it. It’s the past century puritan ideals that are a serious aberration.
Did you know it’s statistically more dangerous to go horse riding than take Molly? The toilets in the UK Parliament were tested for cocaine and all tested positive. No drug should be illegal.
Ref:
- Chasing the Scream - Johann Hari
- Drugs Without the Hot Air - Prof David Nutt
They also didn’t have highly processed drugs. I think the war on drugs is bad but this isn’t a good argument.
I love how stereotypical Mexicans are portrayed as both lazy and hard working at the same time.
And through yellow lence
Which is why I refuse to call it ‘marijuana.’ It’s a word making it sound Spanish and therefore a threat from down south. It’s from Asia, not Latin America. The name, in English, makes no sense- unless you want to demonize it.
I didn’t actually know that but I suspected it, with indica being one of the two most familiar species.* It was actually a shower thought I had last night, just before I ultimately forgot to take an edible (or ultimately didn’t bother because tbqf these gummies are just revolting).
*I thought sativa might have indicated a south Asian origin but that is actually just the Latin for “cultivated”.
The plant originated in an area that is located in what we call
AfghanistanTibet. According to the Hindu faith, Shiva has to smoke some every day, so he didn’t get mad and destroy the universeActually the earliest known plant was around Tibet 2 million years ago.
Gotcha, will edit.
I think my colleague is Shiva
John Ehrlichman literally admitted it. https://www.vera.org/reimagining-prison-webumentary/the-past-is-never-dead/drug-war-confessional
Just for reference everyone reading has almost definitely committed multiple felonies. Three felonies a day was published 13 years ago, and while the title might be exaggerated, the argument is even more true today.
The great thing about Florida is that the people voted to give them the right to vote back after prison but Republicans in the state’s Congress hated that and did everything they could to stop it.
While voting rights CAN be restored, they ensured that the process to accomplish it was a Byzantine maze that could not be navigated. I don’t just mean it’s hard, I mean it’s impossible because some of the requirements can’t be met (eg they can’t pay all court costs if the government doesn’t know, or won’t say, the amount owed).
Fuck the will of the people I guess.
Your first problem was being in the South. Your second problem was expecting a red state to give rights to people. They’re pretty big on taking them away. Nothing “Civil” about it.
Flordia voters passed a constitutional amendment in 2018 that ended felony voting prohibitions and the state just ignored it.
I agree but it’s important to differentiate between accused criminals and convicted criminals, and what specific diminution of rights we’re talking about. Obviously jury-convicted violent criminals probably will suffer a harsher restriction on their rights than someone accused but not yet convicted of a minor misdemeanor. There will probably be a spectrum of restrictions on rights.
Are there people calling for all rights to be suspended upon indictment? Maybe on the fringes.
Cash bail is a suspension of rights for the poor upon arrest.
During the term of a sentence we suspend some rights and do not return them once someone has served their sentence.
If your nation has imprisoned enough people that allowing those prisoners to vote is a threat, you probably aren’t the good guys.
Well yeah but all democracies have this enshrined in their laws one way or another. So it’s not like something people don’t already know.
literall–
Downvote.
Please don’t literally be a jerk.
You can promote a post even if it uses “literally” in an improper manner.
I hate to tell you this but usage makes definition, most modern dictionaries recognize hyperbole as an intensifier.
Is it grammatically correct? Hell no.
Is it real? Check for yourself.
I remember when this really started taking off about 20 years ago. A warehouse guy where I worked walked into a conference room full of people and declared that “The warehouse is literally full of SHIT!” I was like, “Eeew. That’s disgusting.” A few people laughed. he said, “No, literally!” several more people laughed. Someone explained literally vs figuratively.
It really seemed to take off with the popularity of the Kardashians. I literally blame Kim for this issue.
Is it grammatically correct?
Yes it is. Language is defined by usage, people not liking how a word’s usage has changed doesn’t make it “incorrect” by any stretch of the imagination. Culturally it’s seen as informal, maybe, but there’s no “incorrect”, it’s completely standard now. You wouldn’t avoid teaching ESL students that usage, for example.
Improper ≠ incorrect
So what you’re saying is you didn’t read my post. You repeated literally the main content of my very first sentence like it was the first time written in this thread.
Fair enough, now you’re blocked and I’ll never have to read your drivel again.
My guy you literally said “Hell no [it isn’t grammatically correct]”. I simply said “yes it is” and elaborated, because apparently you didn’t get that part. There is absolutely no “you just said what I said but different” here because I did not, I contradicted you even. You can’t say “yeah usage defines what’s correct and all but also this common usage is incorrect”, that’s just stupid. Even if you mean “non-standard” when you say “correct” it’s still completely wrong, because it is standard. But be a baby I guess.
13th amendment.
Hm? Oh - no reason.
I’m looking at you, 13th amendment.
That’s what a criminal would say
/s just in case.
What is your plan to manage crime without limiting the rights of criminals?
Do you have any idea what rights are we talking about? This is the right for dignity, eatable food, meds, beds, etc.
The goal should be reducing criminality, right? So criminals should have the chance to reeducation and to go back to society. This can only be assured by law, with RIGHTS.
Those who disagree are the capitalist pigs who profit for incarcerating the poor, without any obligation for decent food, medications and lodging.
Do you have any idea what rights are we talking about?
I’m sure there’s more than a few people in here talking about gun ownership.
Yeah I agree, but don’t you think its limiting someone’s rights to imprison them in the first place? That’s my entire point. Every method of reducing criminality other than simply ignoring it requires you to limit the rights of criminals.
Imprisonments takes freedom away from you. That is the price you pay.
Still, it doesn’t make you less human. It shouldn’t.
Humans are bipedal creatures that can walk places. Putting a human in a prison cell takes some of their humanity away.
Imprisonment is not a right, its a control system of the state. They should be the only party allowed to incarcerate, but when they sell it to private corps they can profit from it and it becomes a business, and this is the reason of all our discussion here.
No that has nothing to do with our discussion. Imprisoning someone inherently limits their rights. I didn’t say imprisonment was a right, I’m not sure where you got that from. The point is that imprisoning people is necessary, so limiting the rights of criminals is necessary.
So I don’t think those are the rights OP is referencing exactly. Criminals should absolutely have the right to the things you mentioned, but I think OP was referencing more the right to vote, hold office, etc. In some states (and countries throughout history) those with felony equivalent convictions lose access to civic related rights. This severely limits their ability to participate in and therefore influence political and civic discourse and direction.
No, look at the username in the image. The OP is referring to the right to own guns.
Yeah I remember this post on tumblr and you’re right about what they meant.
Yeah but, how can they fight for the rights I mentioned without the rights you mentioned?
“cRiMe” is not the issue, the unmet needs of people that motivate them to circumvent the system are the issue
I’m generally against cops and “tough on crime” measures but you only have to look at a few high profile criminals to see that some extremely destructive crimes are committed by people whose every conceivable material need is met. Trump in particular is a great example. He’s also a great example of what happens certain crimes are not prosecuted.
No, crime is the issue. I get your point but meeting peoples needs won’t just end crime somehow. It will drastically reduce it, but it will always be an issue.
Adding to what I have read in other comments: access to a free attorney, good prison conditions, possibility do work again after paying for the crime
Same thing as before, just dont block them from voting, serving jury duty, healthcare, jobs, etc after release, prison fees be damned.
You’ll get life, most of it, or execution for murder, rape, significant theft, etc regardless.
Besides, limiting their rights creates more crime, as it locks away job opportunities that would help discourage stealing or killing plus gives them no incentive to work with police & government. If they move to crime again, lock em up again but for much longer. Not hard.
Does that work for you?
So not allowing someone to serve jury duty is limiting their rights, but its not limiting their rights to imprison of execute them? Also, even after being freed some people should have less rights. I don’t care how much time a pedophile served, they should never be allowed to work anywhere near children. A drunk driver shouldn’t be able to drive again for a long time.
Properly dealing with crime forces you to revoke some people’s rights at least temporarily. I’m ok with trying to minimize that after time is served, but there is no changing that.
Made a 5 page response at first literally citing the Universal Declaration of Human rights, but others who responded when i was done did much better at explaining, so I will just add:
There’s no reason to stop inmates from voting except for preconceived notions that they are any less human or competent than anyone else. I promise you they aren’t.
Jury duty? There are already exemptions. Add in prison.
Just being on someone else’s property, whether the government, a school, store, etc is a priviledge.
Same with having a job, much less at a type of institution. My awful vision means i am unable to work in the military. Working in the military was never a right in the first place. Nor is working near or at children’s institutions.
Driving is a priviledge. Visit a city with good public transit, cycleways, & ample walkways & this will be made obvious. If driving feels like a necesity & thus a right, then that’s a problem with your city, but i digress…
Forced labor in prison camps? Basically indentured servitude. Should be voluntary otherwise you lose benefits, nothing like toilets or clothes or food & water for example.
Can’t restrict their ability to read books & learn.
No civil asset forfeiture except to pay off charges from trial (fraud, miney laundering, theft, etc), she even so, when they leave they should be returned a check or cash value equivalent to everything they once owned, minus charges from verdict of course. Otherwise it literally becomes police sponsored theft.
Look dude, its very simple. Putting people in prison is limiting their rights. Therefore, punishing criminals requires limiting their rights to some extent. You don’t need multiple paragraphs, and you certainly don’t need 5 pages.
Let’s say you’re correct: ( ignoring that prison isn’t a right, but a punishment invocable by breaking law) that’s the only right that should be limited. It doesn’t justify removing any other right. Do you agree with that?
Yes, although I think imprisoning someone is limiting more than just one right. And if you don’t count restrictions like not being able drive as a right being limited, then I would agree.
Look dude, it’s very simple: some rights of criminals need to be restricted for practical reasons. Most don’t, and those that don’t shouldn’t be.
Exactly, that’s what I’m saying.
Ok good. I don’t think anyone is really arguing otherwise except for the most hardcore anarchists, who seem like generally unreasonable people. (Like, you’re not going to stop anyone from doing whatever they want? What if what they want to do is create a government that enforces its will on everyone?)
Imprisonment except for life imprisonment is limited in time. It is based and justified on the purposes of criminal punishment. So limiting their rights for the limited time of their punishment is justified and necessary, but not afterwards. Also with capital punishment there is a reason why developed countries have outlawed it.
Punishment in a state of law typically has these purposes: deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, retribution, and restitution
Deterrence comes from the threat of imprisonment or in smaller cases, fines, social work etc.
Incapacitation is given through prison sentences. There is cases where the person is deemed to dangerous to be left out afterwards, so some countries have the institution of preventive detention. It is distinctly different from imprisonment though, because it should not serve as continued punishment. There can be non detentive incapacitations necessary. E.g. sbd. who has molested children would also be barred from working with children after he served his sentence.
Rehabilitation is often negelected in the US and other countries. If the person is to be released after their sentence, the sentence should prepare them from being able to become a law abiding member of society. Taking away their rights to vote and other measures are keeping them out of society, and contradict rehabilitation.
Retribution is the prison sentence. For it to be just, the person has served its retribution with the sentence.
Restitution has to be decided by the court, for how it is possible to compensate the victims. But the victims are not compensated by a permanent discrimination against the perpetrator.
You are literally describing my entire point. Limiting the rights of criminals is justified to some extent.
Working with kids and driving are not inalienable rights, those are privileges bestowed upon you by the state…
deleted by creator
You’re not describing a criminal, that’s an ex-convict
Tell that to “ex-convicts” who can’t vote.
Can’t believe you’re being downvoted. “Same as before…execution for significant theft”
Oh but ok, it’s cool, we’ll have voting rights after. No way someone could be reclassified as a capital criminal via the exact mechanism in the OP.
I mean it’s laudable to not make permanent second class citizens, but it misses the point that you can toss people in a horrendous prison system if your prison system isn’t designed for rehabilitation or treating people with dignity.
Ok, so i didn’t dot every I & cross every T when i was responding to the guy. The OP was talking about when you exit jail, but while in it, but fair enough regardless.
What i basically was saying is the current legal system already hands out verdicts, punishments, & whatnot. The person i was responding to likely doesn’t doubt those, so he shouldn’t doubt them just because people’s rights as humans will be respected.
How about raise the burden of proof and stop courts from delaying a trial until I give up?
