Discussion in 'Politics' started by Agayek, Jun 20, 2017.
Yes, and most criminals we send back on the streets still do crime. What's the point of the quote?
The point of the quote is presumably that it's a pithy way to express the sentiment behind restoring people's rights once they've done their time.
I don't know why you're even still going on this, because things do not work the way you seem to think they work.
Ah, that's the clincher. Our justice system can be very bureaucratic and inefficient, especially when debating Constitutional semantics that have a lot of impact on how things move through the system or whether they do at all. If anything about the Internet and people's rights were to be changed, it would certainly have to be an international effort.
And when considering that, this places itself low on the priority list of international affairs. Among the more pressing matters, this feels like an effort in futility.
On the flip-side, I do think that the argument has some use: changing legal precedent is ridiculously tedious, and changing police precedent even more so. If this can gain attention, other issues concerning law enforcement and the Internet can gain attention that would be a strictly country-by-country basis. (Or concerning 4A rights and the Internet, which almost definitely places itself as important or more important when concerning privacy and a whole slew of other things.)
Maybe in your echo chamber, it doesn't. But certain constitutional rights are restricted when you're a criminal anyways. Allowing one more, that's extremely important to the safety of everyone (y'know, not allowing Paedophiles to use the internet to get more children into their clutches, small stuff like that, I know). You're making a pretty broad generalisation on my whole world view.
Couple of things.
"But certain constitutional rights are restricted when you're a criminal anyways. Allowing one more..." isn't what you said the first time. This is:
Saying "we should infringe on certain rights of convicted felons for public safety/the children/etc." is very different from "criminals should have no rights." For purposes of this discussion, I'll assume you meant the former from the beginning and just intended to be flippant with your first post.
There are a select few instances where we deprive people of fundamental rights due to a prior felony conviction. Disenfranchisement. Prohibitions on felons possessing firearms. And then a bevy of restrictions based on sex offender status (there are others, too, but these are the most common). All are troubling in their own way. A blanket ban on all felons possessing firearms is almost certainly overbroad and not narrowly tailored if it's applied to non-violent offenders. Is the public made any safer by denying a shoplifter who took $501 worth of electronics legal access to a gun? Or what about somebody who wrote bad checks? Of course not, but they get lumped in all the same.
You run in to the same issue with sex offenders, because "sex offender" covers a ridiculously wide range. Sure, the label covers the uncle who sodomizes his nephew thrice weekly, but it also covers the drunk guy taking a whiz in an alley who happens to be seen by a kid. There's no reason to treat the two alike, but we do. Courts make legally bad decisions when dealing with charged cases. Judges don't want to be seen as arming felons or allowing sex offenders to slink off into the night--bad facts make bad law.
That's why courts treat the sex offender registry as a regulatory act rather than a punishment. If they called it a punishment, someone couldn't be compelled to register retroactively. It would violate the proscription on ex post facto laws. Of course it's a punishment, but courts are willing to pretend that it isn't to avoid being seen as easy on sex offenders. Banning someone from the internet, though? Or even regulating the types of sites someone can and can't visit? It's hard to imagine even the most result-oriented of judges writing that such a law is anything other than a punishment. Which would mean that it couldn't be applied retroactively.
Given the first amendment implications, and the current ubiquity of social media, a strong argument (though not necessarily a correct one) could be made that the law here touches on a fundamental right. When the government infringes on a fundamental right, strict scrutiny is triggered. Which means that the law has to be narrowly tailored to meet a compelling government interest. The compelling interest bit is met I suppose, but the narrow tailoring? Not a chance.
And there are a host of other issues, besides. Spitting on the constitution to stick it to a subset of criminals whom you dislike is bad practice.
tl;dr Taking rights away from criminals is legally complex and fraught with constitutional issues. "No rights for teh criminulz" is a sophomoric position.
So because of a minority not being capable of something, the whole system should just stop for them? I don't understand. It's better to be safe than sorry.
Other than the fact that both treat the world as if they're the only ones in it. If you're taking a whiz in a public place and a child sees you, that's on you. It's a risk you knew you were taking. And if you didn't, the world shouldn't stop for one ignorant individual.
Hmm, you're making many assumptions and calling them fact. It makes me wonder what the point of writing a whole paragraph dedicated to gish galloping me does.
HA! What are you even talking about? Honestly, the mouth vomit is pretty hard to read, but I'm going attempt to interpret it the best I can, alright?
1) Social Media may be ubiquitous, but that doesn't make it by any means required for any sort of interaction. It just broadens the proverbial net for any criminal.
But that's the thing, it's not strong. A couple Sex-Offenders don't get to use Facebook, wow, they must really be in danger of having their rights infringed, it's almost as if they infringed on someone else's rights to get ther—Oh wait, they did. The argument relies on the need to appeal to a minority of individuals because they're having a rough time. They're adults, they made their decisions that go them there. The justice system should worry more about punishment than reform, and I feel like people aren't getting that. Nope, they only get that when a Cop shoots an African American and it fits their narrative. But when scumbags like them wanna use the internet? IT'S THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT!!!11!!
Not really, as they're criminals.
How does one get any more pretentious than this?
The justice system's problem is that it's all about punishment and not about reform. I'll grant you that certain areas of crime are more likely to receive lesser punishments in the hopes that it gets people help, most specifically when concerning drugs. A lot of drug offences, unless it's happened multiple times or was more than just simple dealing, get almost no prison time and just mandatory rehab or drug court. But that's because the prisons are too crowded and there's simply not enough resources for them.
Why aren't there enough resources? Because the retention rate is astronomical and admittedly a little shameful. Within 3 years, 2/3 of first time offenders are rearrested, and by 5 years the number jumps to 3/4. Of the 2/3 that are rearrested within 3 years, half of those people were rearrested within the first year and a half after release.
(National Institute of Justice)
Many people, at least of my peers, don't realize the change the justice system went through in the 1970s and 1980s. The attitude we treat our criminals with dramatically shifted, and thus the decades since have seen a 500% rise in incarceration, putting the U.S. by far on the world stage for largest amount of imprisoned citizens. The next closest is Russia, and the gap between us isn't even funny.
Why? Because of few different things, but the two biggest would be changes in sentencing and the War on Drugs.
The Uniform Determinate Sentencing Act of 1976 changed the face of modern imprisonment. This law was passed in California, but it quickly spread to the rest of the country. Before this, California was the most notoriously known state for indeterminate sentencing. This meant that, if a person was convicted of a crime no matter the severity, they would be imprisoned for an indeterminate amount of time until review boards deemed them ready to become contributing members of society. If they weren't, back they went to prison.
This could go on for as long as the state or city deemed necessary--even if the crime was something comparatively petty. For example, those convicted of robbery were treated to the same indeterminate sentence as those convicted of manslaughter. There are always exceptions, but those were reviewed on a case-by-case basis. At the time, most states operated under some variant of this ideology. They might be more or less lax about it, but the same idea prevailed.
Until California passed this law. It shifted the goal of imprisonment from reform to punishment, and the effect was quickly felt. Instead of keeping prisoners until a review board felt they were okay to be let out (meaning they were sure the prisoner wouldn't be back), now sentences were handed down with determinate amounts of time. Say I tossed a store and was handed 7 years. Once I served the 7 years, I was out no questions asked. But no one cared if I'd learned my lesson or if I was just as likely to rob another store when I got out.
One of the big reasons for the shift was how much time, money, and effort it took to truly reform criminals. It was so much easier to simply throw out a number and make the criminal wait it out. (The phrase, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime" ringing any bells?) Especially since there was inevitably going to be an influx of prisoners anyway because of my second point.
The War on Drugs.
When the U.S. government decided to take a harder stance on drug enforcement in the 1980s, it went about it in one of the most ignorant ways imaginable: street-level crime.
My father's been a police-officer for 25 years now, and the last 7 of them have been in narcotics. My city has been plagued by drug problems for a long time now, and our yearly overdose statistics are expected to double this year from 800 to 1,600. (Which in a city of only 280,000 is a shit-ton.) Last week alone my father said there were over 40 ODs. I've heard all the stories and I've heard the entire narcotics division's opinions on the War on Drugs.
It's ridiculous. Street-level drug crime is simply a waste of everyone's time. None of the people arrested for using or low-level dealing get any real jail time anyway because of the lack of room, and all it does is enable the people that use to keep using. Not to mention that jail time isn't what most drug users need. They need reform. Not punishment. At least, for your average drug offence. Participating in cartels, being higher up in the chain of dealers, dealing to minors, or shipping drugs across state lines is a completely separate can of worms, but street corner dealing and especially using just isn't justifiable by nailing offenders the cross for it.
I mean for fuck's sake, 46% of all prisoners were convicted of drug-related crimes. https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offenses.jsp
The people that need to be put away aren't getting any kind of legitimate prison time because there isn't enough room, and the low-level stuff (which is all the police can really get) is acting as the scapegoat. My father freely admits we're losing this "War on Drugs". (They should just call it the War on Addicts and Poverty Stricken Neighborhoods.) There's no way to combat the flow of drugs from Mexico and China because they're pumping in shit like Fentanyl because it's synthetic and easy to make, but that shit is so potent and addictive that you can get a good whiff of it in powdered form and immediately OD.
Opioids and opiates are ridiculously addictive and once you're hooked there's no going back. Some people get clean for almost a decade and can still relapse. Fentanyl is like heroin on steroids. To give perspective, my brother got his wisdom teeth taken out and was given 15 micrograms of the stuff and it put him into conscious sedation. He didn't remember a thing and was loopy as all hell. Not to mention it's cheap to cook up vs. heroin which comes from the opium plant. It costs $7-8,000 to produce a kilo of heroin. It costs $40 and way less time to produce a kilo of Fentanyl.
tl;dr Reform should be the goal, not punishment. We want people to learn their lesson and become contributing members of society if at all possible, not just let them get out and fuck up again. We have to pay for people in prison.
I wasn't talking about the war on drugs though. But now that you mention it, it shouldn't be the tax payer's job to reform these people, nor should it be the governments. The whole reason we have things like good behaviour shortening sentences, community service, etc... is to prevent punishment. If you don't deal out consequence, you look like a joke, and unfortunately, that is what the American justice system has become (ffs just look at Heller Vs DOC and how multiple Supreme Court Justices said that no Americans should have the right to own any kind of firearm). Constitutional rights are important, for citizens that pay their taxes and don't do illegal shit. At the point where you murder or touch little children, you're fair game for a prison butt-blast, I could care less.
Honestly I'm not a very sympathetic person and agree that if you're a rapist or a pedophile, have fun getting your ass shanked in prison because the world could do with one less of you. However, drug related crime is an entirely different monster. I'm not proposing we go back to indeterminate prison sentences, I'm saying we need to fix the problem not put a band-aid over it.
Sometimes that calls for nailing someone's balls to the wall. Sometimes that calls for real help and support.
On the flip-side of that, you're right pointing out that the justice system has gotten lazy and far too lax about certain things. Without punishment, you are a joke, I don't disagree with that. My biggest grudge is really the drug issue because it isn't being handled well at all and it frustrates me to no ends that no one's willing to approach the problem logically.
But that's the thing. It's not a minority. The overwhelming majority of convicted felons committed nonviolent crimes. A lot of them end up on probation or diversion, but they're still felons under the law. Even if you were right about it being a minority, your argument doesn't work from a constitutional perspective. Overinclusiveness, meaning that you've caught people in the net who didn't need to be caught, is fatal under strict scrutiny analysis. In the case of the firearm proscription, there's a readily available less restrictive alternative: criminalize the possession of firearms by violent criminals. The fact that courts have allowed for the overinclusion is compelling evidence that judges, most of whom are elected, will bend the rules of constitutional analysis so as not to be seen as easy on crime. The same applies even more forcefully with their treatment of sex offenders.
The registry is absolutely ruinous to a person. In some cases, for kiddie diddlers and such, that's absolutely justified. For the drunk guy whizzing on the wall, though? Why does society want to ruin his life? There just isn't any reason to equate the two.
Yes, such sweeping assumptions as "people don't like to be seen as pro-sex offender" and "elected officials don't want to give guns back to (even non-violent) felons." Such leaps.
Which is why I'm not fully comfortable in saying that there's necessarily a fundamental right at play here. Just that there's a strong argument. From a first amendment perspective, courts have long held that reasonable time place and manner restrictions are constitutionally permissible. So the question is: is banning someone from social media tantamount to banning them from the public forum? Or is it merely a time place and manner restriction? It's an interesting question.
Sometimes, sure. Now, I get the feeling that you're not capable of holding a nuanced position, but I'll give it a go. Prison is the best way in the world to turn a dumb kid into a lifelong criminal. Another poster shared some recidivism rates above, so I won't repeat them.
As a criminal defense attorney, I'll concede that I'm somewhat biased. I've seen so many clients who were decent people once but got ruined by the criminal justice system. No one is well-served here. It destroys the individual and is expensive as hell to society. Incarceration ain't cheap, and incarceration begets incarceration. Punishment is all well and good in some cases, but don't cut off your nose to spite your face.
The depth of intellectual rigor in your analysis is staggering. The primary issue that I take with your posts is the broad brush you enjoy painting with. It's a simple and comfortable worldview, I suppose, but it really doesn't benefit anyone. Try for a little bit of nuance, yeah?
Want me to use smaller words? Sadly, monosyllabic constitutional analysis is tough to pull off.
LightLordPotter: So, silentclock gave you the legally correct argument, and yet you respond with 'lolwut, the feelz'. Just because you would like to trample on the rights of the accused doesn't mean that's a real thing. It's the Justice system's job to enforce the law, but it's the Justice system's responsibility to protect the rights of the accused just as much as the rights of the innocent. If we don't "do it the right way" and get you "by the book", you go free. That's how it works.
Also, as an aside, if you think we haven't been handing out stiff punishments for the last 25 years, you clearly haven't been paying attention to mandatory minimum sentencing.
Now, I may disagree with silentclock's strict scrutiny interpretation here, because to my mind, banning specific people from specific fora as a result of specific criminal convictions to satisfy a specific governmental interest seems narrowly tailored, I'd have an argument with him about that and the nuances of our legal reasoning.
But your objections were just flat out wrong.
That's a fair argument to have. I could see it cutting either way, honestly. It would depend on how well-crafted the law was. I definitely think one could be drafted to pass constitutional muster.
That's true; minimum sentencing can be ridiculous, but the catch is that it's catching up to us. In fact, just last week the analyst that was recently hired for my police department was fired. He was ex-military, young maybe 25, and thought that all the info he put together would lead to arrests and cases and "saving the world" (I'm being a little pretentious, but he was being very naive).
Especially concerning drugs, which takes up half the cases rolling through the system, a lot of things simply won't get prosecuted or they get shrugged off into drug court and a slap on the wrist because if they did go to court or plead out with standard conventions, the sentence would be ridiculous.
Not to mention that many of the things that already are restricted to convicted felons are painted with a wide brush. I would say that restricting guns to people convicted of non-violent crimes is most likely for looking good and being able to claim plausible deniability if a felon of a non-violent crime bought a gun legally and killed someone.
There's plenty of holes in our current standings, so the idea of restricting social media to registered felons, or even only people convicted of certain crimes... It seems very overreaching.
I honestly can't see this as being enforceable in any shape or form anyway. What about logistics? Are we going to monitor this person for any form of social media? Who's job would that be? Are we writing up computer algorithms for this? It would be such a breach of privacy in every conceivable way even if we decided that the government could take away your privilege to Facebook or Twitter. The actual implementation would far beyond surpass any scrap of Internet privacy a person might have had, and there are plenty of ways around it. Everything about the Internet is adaptable, and you can't convince me that this would even be feasible to enforce in at all.
There are so many other issues when you think of it from a logistical standpoint. That's probably the biggest issue with it.
In my opinion this is complete bullshit.
The whole point of criminal judgements should be to reduce the number of crimes in the future and make society better. There are two things that will reduce crimes in the future- deterrence and rehabilitation.
Deterrence is really important, and it will stop most people from committing crimes. However most criminals either can't judge odds and so think they won't get caught, can't think beyond the short term and so can't conceive of the punishment, are forced into the situation by circumstances or their bad choices, or just don't care.
There will always be a group of people who are undeterred by any punishment, and unless you have permanent jail or death penalty for everything then the person who committed the crime will in all likelihood commit the crime again.
Rehabilitation will give the criminal tools to avoid doing the crime again and give them a way to be useful to society. Societies which focus more on rehabilitation have a much, much lower rate of recidivism and a much lower rate of crime in general.
The plain fact of the matter is that worrying about deterrence more than rehabilitation is less effective than the other way round.
On top of that, if you limit the ability to work of people who in the past committed crimes, then you are making them more likely to commit crimes in the future due to lack of other options.
Of course you may be talking about punishment as an end in and of itself- a moral duty to punish the criminal. Except it isn't effective at deterring people, and it doesn't rehabilitate people by itself. It just makes a bitter criminal who now hates society.
'Muh criminal justice system'. Why are people not capable of taking responsibility for their own actions in your eyes? The justice system is always the excuse, but it's almost never the correct excuse.
And why would they want to? You to realise that Drug-Dealers in possession of firearms/drug users in possession of firearms are incredibly dangerous, right? I wouldn't want my Taxi Driver smoking weed or drinking before the job, let alone a drug-addict allowing possession of a firearm. Your idea that these non-violent offenders being non-violent somehow makes it so that they didn't break the law is flawed, as it's bullshit.
You keep bringing up this ambiguous DrunkGuy anecdote. Do you have a citation for some dude pissing on a wall in public (which is still public exposure, Mr 'Lawyer') and getting registered as a Sex Offender?
I get the feeling that you making gross generalisations in order to prove points pretty much shows that your position is not as nuanced as you think.
Firstly, let me stop you there, buddy. If you break the law, are you not consenting to have you rights taken away? You don't follow the laws of the land, yet you expect for the country to still accept you with open arms and gift-baskets? I don't understand what kind of attorney believes criminals that commit actual crimes, with full knowledge that they commit these crimes, are needed owning firearms of any sort or being capable of communicating on the internet.
If smaller words somehow make the gish gallop less gish gallopy? Sure.
No, that's 100% factually untrue. I think you're confusing non-violent with a misdemeanour, which won't land you anything close to crime at the federal and state level.
---------- Post automerged at 08:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:32 PM ----------
No, it wasn't even close to being statistically correct, let alone legally correct.
Hold on, whatever happened to second chances? Yes, those who break the law have to have some sort of punishment--people can't get off scott-free. But what's with this emphasis on prosecuting all crimes, no matter what they are, to the full extent of the law? That sounds less like justice and a lot more like vindication.
You're not even considering circumstance. It's easy for me to say no one should deal drugs because I'm not the one with no other options. I'm not the one that either sluts myself out or sells drugs. Look, laws still have to be prosecuted regardless of circumstance, but one bad decision should not mean the end of any semblance of a life the criminal could have. What right do you have to judge another person on their decisions? You don't know where they've come from or what situation they're in.
I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the world isn't black and white. You're forgetting that people can be forgiven, and second chances can be granted. In the justice system, you have to pay for your crimes. You have to shoulder that burden your entire life. You've got to live with your mistakes, everyone does. But why is one mistake a damnation? We're not talking murderers or serial-killers or rapists or pedophiles. We're talking drug addicts, and drug dealers that have to make money somehow because they've got kids.
Why does a 20 year old barely-not-a-kid who made a stupid decision have to pay for the rest of his life? Did you never make stupid decisions?
Jesus Christ dude. You can disagree with someone (even if you are wrong and beyond logic), but at least have some class when doing it.
You're one angry, bitter little man aren't you? Also a liar, who thinks you can correct a law professional about legal terms, but that's just a bonus.
Let me give a shot at this. By paragraphs.
1- Not what he said. Not what he defended. Not the point of his arguments. Culpability was never questioned. You're changing the discussion to your subjective views
2- He didn't say non-violent offenders didn't break the law. Just that there are different punishments for different crimes and their effects on society. So you're just lying and putting words on his mouth. Again. But I do want that study of yours that connect spikes of gun violence and DUI offenders.
3- It's not an anedoct, it's called an example. It's so that people that aren't completely stupid can understand the abstract discussion. Congrats on discovering what exposure is, I'm sure that when silentclock mentioned sex offender registry he didn't know that.
4- No, you isn't a viable argument outside the playground. Specially when what you're doing is hilarious projection.
5- I like how you keep jumping between extremes to create this illusion that you either do it your way or somehow people are giving hookers and cocaine to criminals. It's called human rights and basic human decency. Look it up. It's what allows angry little shits spin shit in the net without fearing of being arrested and shot.
6- You're confusing this forum with the playground again.
7- You either don't know how to write misdemeanor and got autocorrected or you're British and the way you're talking about how you know more about the American legal system is funny. You're also not showing any evidence for your claims.
Hmmm. Let's see, all I got is a torrent of fallacies, childish tantrums and not even one evidence shown to defend your claims. At least I got a bingo on the fallacies card.
You make a lot of good points, and certainly in the case of the hypothetical social media monopoly, I come close to agreeing with you entirely.
But today’s internet is far from a monopoly, especially in the case of social media platforms or forums. There are the big players—Facebook, Youtube, Instagram, Twitter, Tumblr—but also more medium size companies or organizations that allow for conversation in a very free way: Medium, HackerNews, Reddit, Wordpress, and more I’m sure I’m forgetting. There are also the comment sections of major newspapers and media companies—those who haven’t eliminated the comment sections, at any rate.
For those people whose views are more marginal: Voat, 4Chan, whatever services alt-right media companies and forums use, etc.
There is currently no shortage of ways to ‘speak’ in the internet. We are currently living in probably the most ‘easy to speak’ era of all time—when else have so many people been able to have their views heard, for good or for bad, than now?
If there are no shortage of ways and places to talk on the internet,
what problem is there for government to solve?
On the broader issue of ‘civil rights’ on the internet.
What specific abuses and issues are you referring to?
People getting bullied on twitter or Facebook?
Or stupid health advice on Instagram?
People getting radicalized on the internet and doing violent things in real life because of it?
If you’re not specific, it’s hard to engage with your argument. Some of these issues seem better solved by the internet equivalent of sex education—tell kids in elementary school how to report people on
Youtube/Facebook/Instagram for harassment or abuse. Some other stuff seems analogous to protected acts in real life, so what regulation would we be doing there that we don’t do in real life?
I still think the biggest problem with this entire argument is the implementation. It doesn't matter if a decision regarding the law is made or not if enforcing a law would be almost completely impossible.
So we come to the decision that sites or the Internet is a public space and people can be kicked off for what they say. Or we come to the decision that convicted felons can't use the Internet. Tell me, how would this be enforced?
With the first example, it's child's play to create a new account. People do it all the time. 12-year-old's have been doing it since Facebook started. With the second example, that's just ridiculous. I can't think of any feasible way to enforce that. What poor bastard's job would that be? Not to mention that I can't think of an effective way to do it anyway.
Please, if anyone's got ideas to this solution, throw them my way. I just can't foresee any way to enforce whatever decision the courts may come to.
Separate names with a comma.