Rape

[Guest Eagle Man]

I think those people just need a good fine tuned attitude adjustment - meaning, you place the rapist in a room with no windows, a camera (so everyone can see what happens to a rapist), and only one door, and then you let in a man like Chuck Liddell and let him adjust the rapist attitude for him. Yes, its breaking the law, but it would be a very effective way of deterring someone from raping another human being.

Only at TSM would someone propose locking a rapist in a room with a mixed martial artist. In addition to beating up rapists in solitary confinement, Chuck Liddell is also available for proms and pizza parties.

 

We will have to become more brutal as a society in order to keep the criminal element in check. Whether this means harsher punishments, or citizens taking the law into their own hands, I don't really know.

We'll build Thunderdomes in each state.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I understand you don't agree with it, but that's how I feel. OK, the remote island thing is a little over the top I admit, but I think you get my point. I don't think tax payers should be responsible for paying for the lives of rapists and murderers.

[snuffbox 0]

Taxpayers need to focus on walls and razorwire for the Mexicans and flamethrowers to clean out the ghettos.

[Guest Eagle Man]

Oh, the ghetto-cleansing, I forgot all about that up there. Man, how do you say that with a straight face?

[Dobbs 3K 0]

The ghetto clearing thing was a joke. I mean, I mentioned Will Farrell in the same sentence. Geez...

[Dobbs 3K 0]

So, to summarize, we're treating kids like shit, walling off Mexico, vasectomizing the poor, and shipping off criminals to Samoa. I hope my one-eighth Jewish heritage is below the minimum when it comes time for you to round 'em up here in Invader's World.

 

I felt I needed to go back and respond to this:

 

- Treating kids like shit? No. But kids do need to have structure and good parenting, something often lacking in today's United States.

- Walling off Mexico? I am in favor of controlling illegal immigration (as you may have noticed, duh). I think that's a completely rational thing to do. I don't know that a wall would be the best way to do it, but it would be better than what we have now.

- Vasectomizing the poor: Never said anything like that. I have suggested in the past that people should possibly have licenses in the US if they want to have children, as I am tired of tax payers picking up the slack for deadbeat parents. Yes, this will never happen.

- Shipping off criminals: Would be better than our current system (and I am only talking about the worst of criminals, in lieu of the death penalty), but don't want to foist them off on the fine people of Samoa. Maybe if it involves Samoa Joe and Umaga beating their asses, but that's about it.

 

Oh, there you go making assumptions, by the way. Believe it or not, I'm actually 25% Jewish by ethnicity. It would've been enough to have been shipped off to a Nazi death camp during Hitler's regime.

[theintensifier 0]

I think those people just need a good fine tuned attitude adjustment - meaning, you place the rapist in a room with no windows, a camera (so everyone can see what happens to a rapist), and only one door, and then you let in a man like Chuck Liddell and let him adjust the rapist attitude for him. Yes, its breaking the law, but it would be a very effective way of deterring someone from raping another human being.

Only at TSM would someone propose locking a rapist in a room with a mixed martial artist. In addition to beating up rapists in solitary confinement, Chuck Liddell is also available for proms and pizza parties.

 

We will have to become more brutal as a society in order to keep the criminal element in check. Whether this means harsher punishments, or citizens taking the law into their own hands, I don't really know.

We'll build Thunderdomes in each state.

Yeah, mock away and don't contribute anything else to the topic.

[snuffbox 0]

Please, intensifier, contribute some more of your shoddily done multi-quote posts.

[Boon 0]

I think those people just need a good fine tuned attitude adjustment - meaning, you place the rapist in a room with no windows, a camera (so everyone can see what happens to a rapist), and only one door, and then you let in a man like Chuck Liddell and let him adjust the rapist attitude for him. Yes, its breaking the law, but it would be a very effective way of deterring someone from raping another human being.

Only at TSM would someone propose locking a rapist in a room with a mixed martial artist. In addition to beating up rapists in solitary confinement, Chuck Liddell is also available for proms and pizza parties.

 

We will have to become more brutal as a society in order to keep the criminal element in check. Whether this means harsher punishments, or citizens taking the law into their own hands, I don't really know.

We'll build Thunderdomes in each state.

Yeah, mock away and don't contribute anything else to the topic.

That's how you get to be TSM's best poster.

[snuffbox 0]

This is a messageboard. We aren't really making world-altering decisions here, intensifier/boon/any other posters sad about a lack of seriousness.

[Guest Eagle Man]

No, they're wrong, I should treat "We will have to become more brutal as a society in order to keep the criminal element in check. Whether this means harsher punishments, or citizens taking the law into their own hands" with gravity.

[theintensifier 0]

This is a messageboard. We aren't really making world-altering decisions here, intensifier/boon/any other posters sad about a lack of seriousness.

Yet you get annoyed when theRE is a lack of seriousness as well.

 

No, they're wrong, I should treat "We will have to become more brutal as a society in order to keep the criminal element in check. Whether this means harsher punishments, or citizens taking the law into their own hands" with gravity.

But of course we are, and you aren't. You still didn't post anything or worth, or have any ideas of your own. How typical.

[snuffbox 0]

Having a filter in one's brain that discards ideas like 'licences for parenthood, need a more brutal society, take the law into our own hands' is a pretty neat thing that most people have.

 

But seriously, intensifier, we've long ago given up on treating the retarded stuff that Invader/etc types like we're seated at a forum discussing world affairs on a cable news channel. Now he only gets the responses that those kind of Neanderthal ideas deserve. Sorry.

[Guest Eagle Man]

Yet you get annoyed when their [sic] is a lack of seriousness as well.

I don't think that's true, but whatever.

 

Oh, and I meant they're right, I should take this fear of vigilante justice seriously. I'm packin' heat already.

 

we've long ago given up on treating the retarded stuff that Invader/etc types like we're seated at a forum discussing world affairs on a cable news channel.

No, we yell and scream and get mad until he digs himself deeper. That's pretty cable news to me.

[Boon 0]

This is a messageboard. We aren't really making world-altering decisions here, intensifier/boon/any other posters sad about a lack of seriousness.

No, they're wrong, I should treat "We will have to become more brutal as a society in order to keep the criminal element in check. Whether this means harsher punishments, or citizens taking the law into their own hands" with gravity.

Hey fuck you guys. Don't lump me in with them. I was being serious.

[theintensifier 0]

Having a filter in one's brain that discards ideas like 'licences for parenthood, need a more brutal society, take the law into our own hands' is a pretty neat thing that most people have.

 

But seriously, intensifier, we've long ago given up on treating the retarded stuff that Invader/etc types like we're seated at a forum discussing world affairs on a cable news channel. Now he only gets the responses that those kind of Neanderthal ideas deserve. Sorry.

I don't agree with any of those. However, I think we need to find a different solution instead of just incarceration.

 

I'm not trying to come across like those you've mentioned, I just enjoy a somewhat serious type of discussion.

 

Yet you get annoyed when their [sic] is a lack of seriousness as well.

I don't think that's true, but whatever.

 

Oh, and I meant they're right, I should take this fear of vigilante justice seriously. I'm packin' heat already.

 

we've long ago given up on treating the retarded stuff that Invader/etc types like we're seated at a forum discussing world affairs on a cable news channel.

No, we yell and scream and get mad until he digs himself deeper. That's pretty cable news to me.

Again with the unnecessary sarcasm. I'd like to hear your suggestion on this problem though.

[theintensifier 0]

This is a messageboard. We aren't really making world-altering decisions here, intensifier/boon/any other posters sad about a lack of seriousness.

No, they're wrong, I should treat "We will have to become more brutal as a society in order to keep the criminal element in check. Whether this means harsher punishments, or citizens taking the law into their own hands" with gravity.

Hey fuck you guys. Don't lump me in with them. I was being serious.

I was too.

[snuffbox 0]

I voted 'yes' on a death-sentence referendum last November. I don't think marjuana-users should be incarcerated. There are two ways of cleaning up the jail problem to some degree.

 

I don't think we need to used failed Soviet ideas, however. Nor do I think such ideas being espoused deserve anything but jokes and sarcasm.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I don't think marjuana-users should be incarcerated. There are two ways of cleaning up the jail problem to some degree.

 

I agree on that point. We shouldn't be jailing a lot of non-violent criminals, since we can use technology to track them now.

[theintensifier 0]

I voted 'yes' on a death-sentence referendum last November. I don't think marjuana-users should be incarcerated. There are two ways of cleaning up the jail problem to some degree.

 

I don't think we need to used failed Soviet ideas, however. Nor do I think such ideas being espoused deserve anything but jokes and sarcasm.

1. I do think they deserve to be locked up if they have an extreme amount of it, like Nate Newton a few years back.

2. ?

[Boon 0]

I voted 'yes' on a death-sentence referendum last November. I don't think marjuana-users should be incarcerated. There are two ways of cleaning up the jail problem to some degree.

 

I don't think we need to used failed Soviet ideas, however. Nor do I think such ideas being espoused deserve anything but jokes and sarcasm.

I feel like this might have been posted somewhere, but what stats are you reading on how many people are in jail for just marijuana possession? Because the numbers I've seen estimate anywhere between 2% - 12%. I'm just wondering what you think.

[snuffbox 0]

In 1994, it was reported that the War on Drugs incarcerates 1 million Americans a year.[11] Of the 1 million drug arrests each year, about 225,000 are for simple possession of marijuana, the fourth most common cause of arrest in the United States[12] In the 1980s, while the number of arrests for all crimes was rising 28 percent, the number of arrests for drug offenses rose 126 percent.[13] The United States has a higher proportion of its population incarcerated than any other country in the world for which reliable statistics are available — reaching a total of 2.2 million inmates in the in 2005.

 

That does come from wiki, but you can check those sources (FBI) on their War on Drugs entry.

 

Re: Nate Newton...should a guy with a couple garbage bags full of comic books be incarcerated as well? That's about the same level of health risk.

[Slayer 0]

The ghetto clearing thing was a joke. I mean, I mentioned Will Ferrell in the same sentence. Geez...

That was your problem, Will Ferrell makes things unfunny

 

This is a messageboard. We aren't really making world-altering decisions here, intensifier/boon/any other posters sad about a lack of seriousness.

Yet you get annoyed when there is a lack of seriousness as well.

You've been hanging out at the Pit too much

[Guest Eagle Man]

Hey, am I still everything that's wrong with TSM even after being gone for a couple of weeks?

[Boon 0]

In 1994, it was reported that the War on Drugs incarcerates 1 million Americans a year.[11] Of the 1 million drug arrests each year, about 225,000 are for simple possession of marijuana, the fourth most common cause of arrest in the United States[12] In the 1980s, while the number of arrests for all crimes was rising 28 percent, the number of arrests for drug offenses rose 126 percent.[13] The United States has a higher proportion of its population incarcerated than any other country in the world for which reliable statistics are available — reaching a total of 2.2 million inmates in the in 2005.

 

That does come from wiki, but you can check those sources (FBI) on their War on Drugs entry.

Does releasing a mere 10% of the prison population solve the overcrowding issue?

And outside of legalization, what do you do with simple possession offenders?

[Guest Eagle Man]

Some nominal fine if it's under x amount. Personally, I don't care if people smoke, as long as it's not encroaching on clean air for me (and others) in public. But don't you need to have a lot on your person to get a prison sentence?

[snuffbox 0]

I'm not sure how much is required (previous record could play into it as well) for a prison term. I assume the jail sentences are a state-by-state thing.

 

The other big problem with the War on Drugs (with marijuana being the focal point, by far) is how many resources it takes away from policing actual violent crime. It isn't just the jail/prison space that is being taken it up but also the incredible amount of money/time/attention that is wasted as well. And, the fact that it turn safe, otherwise lawful, people into 'criminals'.

 

To answer your question, boon, if we cant have outright legalization (which would also produce tax income which, coupled with billions of dollars in reduced spending, would see a marked tax decrease for income, etc) - A small fine graduated up to maybe $100 depending on amount.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Yeah...that's the whole thing. Way too many resources and police man hours are wasted on marijuana, when that money could be better allocated.

 

The cynic in me wonders why the government is so against drug use. A doped up population is easier to exploit and control.

[snuffbox 0]

Pharmaceutical/tobacco/alcohol lobbies would all lose huge money if a) doctors could prescribe a viable, nonaddictive, medicine b) people have the option of smoking something that would 'calm their nerves' without using a plethora of chemicals c) people could purchase a goodtime-enducing product without risk of becoming addicted, violent, or bodily ruined. These lobbies are very powerful in Washington DC.

 

Another reason, a pretty big one, is that leaglization/decriminalization would require politicians to admit they've made a huge mistake.

 

And, with jails/prisons becoming a big business in America it will remain something that is easy to catch/arrest someone for without them putting up resistance. Smokers tend to smoke on a regular basis whereas violent criminals don't attack/rape every hour on the hour, making it easier for your average cop to find.

[Boon 0]

I'm not trying to be a dick, but I'll ask the question again.

 

Does releasing a mere 10% of the prison population solve the overcrowding issue?