Amen to that.
2 Likes
And it’s really easy to overlook that fact. Really easy.
Finland is also a country of 5 million people. I don’t think that what is applicable in a country can necessarily be applicable in other countries.
In Italy, it’s certainly not the areas plagued by Cosa Nostra, the Camorra, or the ’Ndrangheta where ordinary citizens face the greatest problems
From here Aggressione a Firenze: padre accoltellato davanti al figlio di 10 anni
“A 45-year-old man was attacked in Florence by three youths in front of his 10-year-old son. The assailants, identified as North African youths aged between 17 and 18, stabbed him and struck him with a chain shortly after 3 p.m. in Piazza dei Tigli, in the Isolotto district. The father was taken to the emergency room, while police are searching for the attackers, who were seen in a video that has been circulating on social media”
And from here https://www.lanazione.it/massa-carrara/cronaca/aggredito-padre-morto-massa-lzhp5vfu
“Killed by a mob in front of his 11-year-old son: father dies after scolding a group. The attack in Massa. It happened in Massa. Giacomo Bongiorni, 47, was reportedly surrounded by at least four or five people and, after falling to the ground, went into cardiac arrest. Attempts to revive him were unsuccessful. His 11-year-old son was hospitalized for shock.”
Just to make a few examples. Before the 2019 law, it was basically illegal to defend yourself even in your own home. Or rather, you could do it, but then you would be dragged through all kinds of legal nonsense to “prove” that you should not have acted in self-defense (Because simply refusing to be victimized in your own home was treated as an “unofficial” crime even if, on paper, and on paper only, the right to self defense was granted). Thank God the 2019 law changed things somewhat, but on the street it is still very much the same. My view has always been that it is better to be judged by twelve than carried by six, which is why, after serving in the military, I have always kept weapons.
I certainly don’t look for trouble, right now, but I will deal with them if they show up. Whatever happens after that it’s in God’s hands.
Agree. Our prison population exploded because both political parties in the 1990s wanted to appear “tough on crime.” Longer sentences were passed for almost every crime with the idea that it would deter people from committing crimes. Nope. All it did was keep people in prison twice as long for the same offenses, so of course the prison population soared.
Police budgets also went through the roof with every mayor and governor pushing for more “boots on the ground” to fight crime. More cops certainly equals more arrests, but crime rates didn’t come down. The only thing that changed was the number of people in prison. Then policing tactics changed to stuff like “stop and frisk” just for looking suspicious. This became a major discriminatory tool that put black and brown people in jail on almost any excuse.
State legislatures and Congress passed laws taking away a judge’s discretion in sentencing. Mandatory minimum sentences and “three strikes” laws, like every other anti-crime push from 30 years ago, didn’t deter crime one iota. It simply kept people in prison longer.
Retribution is best left to God, and the state has rules against cruel and unusual punishments. Even prisoners have rights, no matter how heinous the crime. It’s been many years since I was inside an adult prison, but every prisoner is allowed a book (two if one was a religious text), TV was limited to “rec time” in a common area, and PlayStations weren’t invented yet.
If you want to know the actual punishment of prison, it’s the sheer boredom of the place. Every day is the same monotonous routine, the food is always bad (chicken fried fake), and you can’t even sh-t in private.
1 Like
Yeah, I’m not saying they should not have rights. What I was saying is that, in the case of extremely depraved individuals, there should also be an element of retribution. I do not think that is especially controversial, particularly if we value the rights of victims as well.
If you are in prison because you sold drugs out of desperation, your experience there should be very different from that of someone who is in prison because he took pleasure in torturing children. If both offenders are living under the same conditions (and i’m not advocating for cruel and unusual punishment, I’m advocating for harsher punishment for the worst kind of criminals; which is different), then something is clearly wrong
I believe the State has the right to exact retribution.
Again, there should be a distinction: different kinds of criminals require different approaches, and I am not referring only to the length of the prison sentence.
This is especially important because victims have the right to know that justice is being properly carried out.
I don’t think this can be overstated: the more mercy you show to certain types of criminals, the more callous you are being toward their victims.
I am probably on the tougher side of justice in this forum, and agree that the aim of long term incarceration for serious violent crime need not be rehabilitation. Prisons should be secure and efficient. But with your statement here you are advocating for sensory deprivation, which is an active form of torture. That I cannot go along with, even for the worst, not so much out of pity for the offender, but for what it says about us as a decent society.
1 Like
Which is why, in my view, the death penalty may well be the most sensible option for people like that. By the way, I am not talking about sensory deprivation: I would leave them a Bible, and only a Bible. But I do not see why they should be allowed any “fun and leisure” in prison, with a constant supply of new books, films, human companionship, and things of that sort. Prison is not meant to be a “one-star resort” (in other words, a shitty resort). It’s supposed to be a place where, especially if you have committed truly depraved crimes, you suffer the consequences of your actions. If you don’t want to suffer the consequences of your actions, then don’t commit them and seek help for your impulses. It really is that simple.
But if someone is a psychopath with no moral compass, why would he refrain from committing the crimes he wants to commit if he doesn’t believe in post-mortem punishment, and the harshest penalty he can receive in this life is simply being locked away while living like an average hikikomori? Either leave them at the mercy of other prisoners ( and we all know how inmates tend to view child abusers ) or punish them more severely.
But they cannot have it both ways: being protected from the wrath and disgust of other prisoners while also enjoying a steady supply of mental and intellectual entertainment to help pass the time and (on top of managing boredom) not think about what they have done.
Obviously, what I’m describing should apply only to seriously depraved individuals. In the case of a kid who gets caught selling drugs (for example), or something of that kind, the rehabilitative aim should very much take precedence over retribution.
I’m not saying that everyone who ends up in prison deserves to be treated harshly, or that retribution should take precedence over rehabilitation in all (or even most) cases, my reasoning applies only to the really depraved and soulless (metaphorically) individual.