Grafitti tagger sentenced to EIGHT years in gaol (1 Viewer)

[murphyad]

Yeah it has worked really well with other crimes. Despite the ridiculously draconian sentences for drug offences in the USA compared to the mild (sometime non-existent) sentences in the EU, the USA has higher rates of drug abuse than most EU countries.

Yeah but context matters too. Despite tougher regulation surrounding alcohol and minors here in Oz than in Europe, we arguably have a more serious problem with teen alcohol abuse. That has more to do with social context than anything else - penalties, whether lesser or greater, seem to make little difference to that fact. So: can we say that drug abuse in the EU would decrease if its sentences were brought up to US standards, accounting for cultural differences? Maybe.

Draconian punishments are also likely to cost more money because people are more likely to plead not guilty and to make numerous appeals when the stakes are high, whereas if the sentence was just some community service people would be much more willing to just accept that they have done the wrong thing and take their punishment.

If people can rationalise a defense after they have committed a crime, why should they have any reason to act irrationally beforehand as you suggest? The mindset that motivates people to appeal a verdict when the stakes are high is the same one motivating them not to commit a crime in the first place when the stakes are high.

Light penalties encourage people to reoffend. Perhaps the additional costs incurred from prosecuting reoffenders offset any gains from lesser sentences. I honestly don't know.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Yeah but context matters too. Despite tougher regulation surrounding alcohol and minors here in Oz than in Europe, we arguably have a more serious problem with teen alcohol abuse. That has more to do with social context than anything else - penalties, whether lesser or greater, seem to make little difference to that fact. So: can we say that drug abuse in the EU would decrease if its sentences were brought up to US standards, accounting for cultural differences? Maybe.

We can't be sure, but do you have any idea what these cultural differences might be? If anything drug taking is more culturally accepted in Europe than the US, and there is less of the religious anti-drug taboo in Europe, so this would not explain higher rates of use in the US.

A better case study would be Portugal where personal use of drugs was legalized and rates of use actually fell.

You can also compare cannabis laws in different states of Australia (where there are few cultural differences). The rates of use are very similar across the board, despite large differences in penalties.

If people can rationalise a defense after they have committed a crime, why should they have any reason to act irrationally beforehand as you suggest? The mindset that motivates people to appeal a verdict when the stakes are high is the same one motivating them not to commit a crime in the first place when the stakes are high.

What are you on about?

Obviously people are in a TOTALLY different state of mind in a courtroom months after the offence than in the heat of the moment when they are actually committing it.

Light penalties encourage people to reoffend. Perhaps the additional costs incurred from prosecuting reoffenders offset any gains from lesser sentences. I honestly don't know.

I doubt it, you have to save a hell of a lot of money on court costs from numerous cases to make up the cost of imprisoning just one person for 2 years.

 

[Calculon]

Fun fact for today: Your toilet seat is approximatel 17 times cleaner than any chopping board in your kitchen. - Funny how that sort of relates to the whole idea that sometimes things aren't what they seem, and just because you, like read it in a magazine or because it's in all the movies, doesn't make it true.

Because we bleach our toilets and we don't bleach our chopping boards.

Duh.

 

[meeatu]

Don't know this for certain, but I'm just saying:

Making an example of this guy by giving him such a massive sentence may convince taggers to refrain from their antisocial behaviour, stopping them from committing the crime and going to prison in the first place. That would equal hundreds of billions of dollars saved, then.

You know you sound like Hitler, or any other merciless dictator, right?

"We can justify abusing human rights and civil liberties, even ruin a few lives completely (as even small prison sentences have been known to do), it's all for the common good after all!"

Wasn't that the mentality behind russian totalitarianism?
"curtailing the right to political opposition for the sake of national progression"?

 

[meeatu]

Because we bleach our toilets and we don't bleach our chopping boards.

Duh.

Fun fact for today: only aproximately 17% of households in the US (the most statistically germ-fearing nation of the world) use bleach in their bathrooms.

:3

 

[murphyad]

You know you sound like Hitler, or any other merciless dictator, right?

"We can justify abusing human rights and civil liberties, even ruin a few lives completely (as even small prison sentences have been known to do), it's all for the common good after all!"

Wasn't that the mentality behind russian totalitarianism?
"curtailing the right to political opposition for the sake of national progression"?

Are you retarded?

Since when is incarceration in this country "curtailing the right to political opposition for the sake of national progression"?

Heavily implied in your post is the idea that imprisonment is wrong full stop. Obviously, however, prison sentences involve a 'lesser of two evils' mentality. To state outright that prison sentences are a breach of human rights and civil liberties is laughable.

 

[meeatu]

Are you retarded?

Since when is incarceration in this country "curtailing the right to political opposition for the sake of national progression"?

Heavily implied in your post is the idea that imprisonment is wrong full stop. Obviously, however, prison sentences involve a 'lesser of two evils' mentality. To state outright that prison sentences are a breach of human rights and civil liberties is laughable.

Point out where I suggested that ALL incarceration is a breach of human rights and civil liberties in a forum about a singular case! Please do!

And to answer your question (and clarify, as you seem unable to make a destinction between examples of similar morally-grounded ideals and what I actually believe THIS CASE [note: still not talking about ALL incarceration] to be an example of - Ie: That was a quote based on the same moral principles that is almost laughably like an appropriation of your mentality to fit the setting of enabling Russian totalitarianism.)

When graffiti taggers are imprisoned for eight years, having both the abillity and the willingness to repay the damage they have done in either cash, or community service, and having pleaded guilty, that is when the legal system is curtailing the right to basic civil liberties for the sake of making an example.

If that sits with your lesser of two evils mentality, then you should be in charge of a nation! Hell yeah! Throw civil liberties and basic human rights down the drain for the sake of the greater good :] You'd make a wonderful dictator!

 

[tommykins]

loladhominem

 

[meeatu]

loladhominem

Quite the opposite really...
An Ad Hominem argument is one where you negate the value of the argument on the basis of the objectionable nature of the person making it.

You'll notice that I comment on the arguments poor moral grounding, and then insult the person for believing the argument to have the moral highground.

I attack the person for their views, not the views because of the person.

That makes me an arsehole, not someone who argues ad hominem.

And I would never deny being an arsehole.