Criminalization

User avatar
spot
Posts: 38194
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Criminalization

Post by spot »

There's a recent thread about race hate that's got me thinking about the history of acceptability. There was a time when genocide was considered a valuable and lawful option for migrants, a time when women had no equal opportunity protection, a time when slavery was just a profitable business choice.

So I wondered what we could predict about today's world that will be looked back on by our descendants with abhorrence. My candidate is criminalization.

A person used to be declared a slave by applying legislation. A person nowadays is declared to be a criminal by applying legislation. In both cases a law is passed which allows the status of slave or criminal to be attributed to a person. Without those laws a person could be neither a slave nor a criminal.

The very concept of such a status - "slave" - appals most people now. I suggest the very concept of the status "criminal" will have get similar reaction in the future.

I also wondered how to get the notion discussed and Bernie Madoff sprang to mind. He's a chap who, had he done two hundred years ago what he did over the last twenty, would have broken no laws whatever and consequently not been a criminal. Now he's been criminalized by the application of laws. He's in jail serving a 150 year sentence.

Bernie Madoff is a criminal because a law exists which says he's a criminal, just as Dred Scott was a slave because a law existed which said he was a slave.

What's appalling isn't Bernie Madoff, it's the law.

In order to classify criminalization as unacceptable behavior at all levels of society I propose we start by petitioning for the immediate release of Bernie Madoff. Nothing he did is even immoral as seen through the eyes of the eighteenth century, there's no reason for the law to have criminalized what he did.

Free Bernie Madoff.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
Oscar Namechange
Posts: 31842
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am

Criminalization

Post by Oscar Namechange »

Hmmmmmmmmmm American law It seems Spot.

Bernie Madoff pleaded guilty to 11 federal felonies and admitted he set up the Ponzi scheme to defraud Investors.

What part of his admission of fraud do you think needs reviewing ?
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

Criminalization

Post by Bruv »

In the vernacular, you do my head in Spot.

Bernie Madoff is a criminal because he mugged the punters out of loads of dosh.

He may have been cuter than the mugger that snatches handbags off old ladies, but whatever label you want to attach what he did was not good.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
User avatar
Oscar Namechange
Posts: 31842
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am

Criminalization

Post by Oscar Namechange »

Bruv;1373803 wrote: In the vernacular, you do my head in Spot.

Bernie Madoff is a criminal because he mugged the punters out of loads of dosh.

He may have been cuter than the mugger that snatches handbags off old ladies, but whatever label you want to attach what he did was not good. Give him a few days and he'll be banging on about Charles Manson being set up Illegally by the FBI...



Bernie Madoff: I Can Live With The Anger of Victims | Benzinga
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
User avatar
theia
Posts: 8242
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 3:54 pm

Criminalization

Post by theia »

oscar;1373804 wrote: Give him a few days and he'll be banging on about Charles Manson being set up Illegally by the FBI...


Or even starting a petition for the rights of golliwogs
Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answers...Rainer Maria Rilke
User avatar
Oscar Namechange
Posts: 31842
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am

Criminalization

Post by Oscar Namechange »

theia;1373808 wrote: [QUOTE=oscar;1373804]Give him a few days and he'll be banging on about Charles Manson being set up Illegally by the FBI...


Or even starting a petition for the rights of golliwogs[/QUOTE] Stop It... You'll give me Idea's :wah:
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38194
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Criminalization

Post by spot »

I'm not sure I got my point across very well by the look of it.

Back in the old days people would have laughed at his victims for being rubes, hicks, gulls. It was a matter of personal evaluation whether you trusted an advisor with money. Then the law stepped in and criminalized financial con-tricks, so everyone dropped their guard and said hey, it'd be illegal to run a Ponzi scheme so this must be a legitimate way to double up every five years, wow. And he took fifty billion dollars, where before the criminalization he'd have been laughed out of town.

The fault is the law that gave the investors their sense of invulnerability, not the con-man. If the laws were revoked the public would do its own job of assessing risk, the way it always used to.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Criminalization

Post by gmc »

posted by spot

A person used to be declared a slave by applying legislation. A person nowadays is declared to be a criminal by applying legislation. In both cases a law is passed which allows the status of slave or criminal to be attributed to a person. Without those laws a person could be neither a slave nor a criminal.




The law is how we regulate our society. We develop laws as a means to control our interaction with each other. Most laws are designed to protect the weak from the strong. We now find slavery abhorrent but people became slaves because they were not strong enough to fend off those stronger than themselves and enslaved weaker tribes when they could. You also have the notion of a free man and laws promulgated to protect his status so they could not be enslaved at the whim of someone more powerful and with courts of appeal where disputes could be settled and the weak get support against those who would abuse their position - the notion that all must obey the law is an old one that got lost a bit in the mists of time in favour of divine right of kings and hereditary rule. You could move from slave to freeman even if born a slave and freeman to slave if you committed a crime, at least in theory.

Slavery is interesting as it took religion to develop the notion that some races were born to be inferior and turned that in to an article of faith to make it easier to keep them subjugated at a time when society was developing the notion that all are equal and challenging the right of someone to rule because of their birth and that no one should be above the law. We still have slavery you know, it's just hidden because of a puritanical reluctance to talk about it, we like to pretend we are better than our predecessors, and we are I think but even so.

Bernie Madoff is a criminal because a law exists which says he's a criminal, just as Dred Scott was a slave because a law existed which said he was a slave.




He's a criminal because he's a liar and a cheat and would be in any time, the criminal law is how we deal with people like him. He's lucky he lives in a civilised time and wasnl;t lynched. . Dred scott was a slave because of a law and also because those who thought it wrong were too weak to prevent it happening. You need society to accept slavery as wrong and then the law will follow. Moreover you need society to accept that a Negro was indeed a human being as good as anyone else and not an inferior form. They dodged the issue by declaring he was not a citizen of the united states and negroes could not be. otherwise it would have meant slavery was unconstitutional. . Law does not exist of itself and has no authority except that which society chooses to give it.

By way of contrast 1772 slavery in england effectively ended as it was judged that slavery as such did not exist in English common law therefore no one could be held a slave. The last serf's in the UK were colliers Until the end of the 18th century the collier was a serf, bound in servitude to his master, the coal owner, almost as tightly as any slave on the cotton plantations of the Americas. Although he could not actually be sold as an individual, - hence not a slave - he and his family were ranked with any other article attached to the colliery to be bought and sold along with lengths of rail or stacks of timber. Once bound to a pit they had no right to move to another place of work and could be brought back to face severe punishment if they tried. Many did just that and were returned in manacles to face the wrath of the owners. Convicted criminals, beggars and other homeless people were gifted as 'perpetual servants' to the masters and, children born to collier families were, on payment by the owner of a small sum of money, bound like their fathers to the owner and his pit for life. It took a change in attitude and fear of rebellion to change that and make it illegal. In reality the weak will always be ruled by the strong, if you want to be free make sure those who would rule are frightened of annoying the peasants too much. Keep standing armies small so they can't be used against the people.

What's appalling isn't Bernie Madoff, it's the law.

In order to classify criminalization as unacceptable behavior at all levels of society I propose we start by petitioning for the immediate release of Bernie Madoff. Nothing he did is even immoral as seen through the eyes of the eighteenth century, there's no reason for the law to have criminalized what he did.


What utter bollocks. Bernie madoff is a liar, a thief and a conman what he did would have got him killed by his irate victims in another age.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38194
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Criminalization

Post by spot »

gmc;1373811 wrote: He's a criminal because he's a liar and a cheat and would be in any time, the criminal law is how we deal with people like him. He's lucky he lives in a civilised time and wasnl;t lynched. . Dred scott was a slave because of a law and also because those who thought it wrong were too weak to prevent it happening. You need society to accept slavery as wrong and then the law will follow.
That's my point in a nutshell, really. What will happen in the future. You need society to accept criminalization as wrong and then the law will no longer exist. It may be there will still be constraint in a few circumstances but I see that in the sense that Broadmoor involves constraint of people who aren't classified as criminal.

Alcoholism isn't treated by locking up alcoholics, it's treated by consensual effort on the part of the alcoholic and his support group. Those who are currently criminalized might well choose to enter that sort of program in order to changer their behavior. The current practice of criminalizing them is barbaric.

It may be that I'm not taking many of you with me on this exploration but that doesn't make me wrong. I need society to accept that a criminalized person is indeed a human being as good as anyone else and not an inferior form.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
theia
Posts: 8242
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 3:54 pm

Criminalization

Post by theia »

spot;1373813 wrote: That's my point in a nutshell, really. What will happen in the future. You need society to accept criminalization as wrong and then the law will no longer exist. It may be there will still be constraint in a few circumstances but I see that in the sense that Broadmoor involves constraint of people who aren't classified as criminal.

Alcoholism isn't treated by locking up alcoholics, it's treated by consensual effort on the part of the alcoholic and his support group. Those who are currently criminalized might well choose to enter that sort of program in order to changer their behavior. The current practice of criminalizing them is barbaric.

It may be that I'm not taking many of you with me on this exploration but that doesn't make me wrong. I need society to accept that a criminalized person is indeed a human being as good as anyone else and not an inferior form.


I don't see a criminalised person as an inferior form and I'm confident that I'm not alone in this. In the 90s I worked in an inner city drop in centre for ex-offenders, the homeless and people who were addicted to drugs and alcohol. I admired them all as fellow human beings. They somehow appeared to be more real than most of us because they had come closer to their pain/darker sides than most of us would dare to go.

However, I believe that when a person commits a cruel act towards another, they should be answerable to our legal system.
Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answers...Rainer Maria Rilke
Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

Criminalization

Post by Bruv »

spot;1373813 wrote: . You need society to accept criminalization as wrong and then the law will no longer exist.Why is it wrong ? Those who are currently criminalized might well choose to enter that sort of program in order to changer their behavior. The current practice of criminalizing them is barbaric. They choose to 'enter the program' by there behaviour ,but not the same as the inmates of Broadmore 'choose'

It may be that I'm not taking many of you with me on this exploration but that doesn't make me wrong.I think you have that right at least I need society to accept that a criminalized person is indeed a human being as good as anyone else and not an inferior form.
Where do you get the idea that anybody thinks that criminals are not human beings ?

Are you equating criminals with slaves ?

Criminality with the slave trade ?

By your reasoning murderers would be 'on the program' and we would just have to be aware they are amongst us, as with the Bernie Madoffs of the world doing their non criminal thing....................just like the wild west ?
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Criminalization

Post by K.Snyder »

spot;1373810 wrote: I'm not sure I got my point across very well by the look of it.

Back in the old days people would have laughed at his victims for being rubes, hicks, gulls. It was a matter of personal evaluation whether you trusted an advisor with money. Then the law stepped in and criminalized financial con-tricks, so everyone dropped their guard and said hey, it'd be illegal to run a Ponzi scheme so this must be a legitimate way to double up every five years, wow. And he took fifty billion dollars, where before the criminalization he'd have been laughed out of town.

The fault is the law that gave the investors their sense of invulnerability, not the con-man. If the laws were revoked the public would do its own job of assessing risk, the way it always used to.Perhaps it would be better suited to suggest the law should have been in place in the old days allowing for the same effect at no expense to morality. A particular morality that would promote a far greater sense of humility and honor than vica versa.

If it's practicality that leaves me little suggestion questionable I'd say the effects can already be observed by the example of the case vs Bernie Madoff.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38194
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Criminalization

Post by spot »

Bruv;1373817 wrote: [quote=spot]You need society to accept criminalization as wrong and then the law will no longer exist.Why is it wrong ?[/QUOTE]The future's not arrived so I'm guessing, but my guess would be that they'd regard criminalization as scapegoating the individual for the failure of society. When society has been fixed, whatever antisocial behavior remains would be regarded as a disease to be cured.

The atavistic error of our times is our continuing simplistic belief in sin. The criminalized are paying the price of our collective failure to discard this corrosive pre-enlightenment monotheist baggage.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
theia
Posts: 8242
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 3:54 pm

Criminalization

Post by theia »

spot;1373824 wrote: The future's not arrived so I'm guessing, but my guess would be that they'd regard criminalization as scapegoating the individual for the failure of society. When society has been fixed, whatever antisocial behavior remains would be regarded as a disease to be cured.

The atavistic error of our times is our continuing simplistic belief in sin. The criminalized are paying the price of our collective failure to discard that corrosive pre-enlightenment monotheist baggage.


In my opinion, society, being a collection of individuals, could only undergo such a change by sufficient individuals examining their own judgments and projections and subsequently bringing their findings to the whole, and for these findings to be accepted by the majority.

I don't believe that transferring the notion of criminalisation, for antisocial behaviour, to a disease that can be cured, would be particularly helpful.
Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answers...Rainer Maria Rilke
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38194
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Criminalization

Post by spot »

theia;1373825 wrote: In my opinion, society, being a collection of individuals, could only undergo such a change by sufficient individuals examining their own judgments and projections and subsequently bringing their findings to the whole, and for these findings to be accepted by the majority.

I don't believe that transferring the notion of criminalisation, for antisocial behaviour, to a disease that can be cured, would be particularly helpful.
If you have a think about it theia, both the first paragraph and the second paragraph would have looked quite reasonable statements (replacing crime-words with slave-words) if written in 1750 about slavery from the point of view of, for example, a sugar plantation owner in Jamaica or a part-owner of a ship engaged in the slave trade.

How do you distinguish your position now from their position then? They were influenced by acceptability, the cultural norm and "it's the way it works". Aren't you?
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
theia
Posts: 8242
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 3:54 pm

Criminalization

Post by theia »

spot;1373826 wrote: If you have a think about it theia, both the first paragraph and the second paragraph would have looked quite reasonable statements (replacing crime-words with slave-words) if written in 1750 about slavery from the point of view of, for example, a sugar plantation owner in Jamaica or a part-owner of a ship engaged in the slave trade.

How do you distinguish your position now from their position then? They were influenced by acceptability, the cultural norm and "it's the way it works". Aren't you?


Yes of course I am...but I like Jung's theory that we spend the first half of our lives struggling to build up our egos and the second half of our lives examining who we really are, a painful and much avoided path for all of us but one which rings true for me. For me, change must come from the inside.

I wasn't quite sure what you meant in the first part of your post above, so I haven't responded to it.
Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answers...Rainer Maria Rilke
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38194
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Criminalization

Post by spot »

theia;1373827 wrote: I wasn't quite sure what you meant in the first part of your post above, so I haven't responded to it. If I reword your post to refer to slavery during its heyday perhaps I'll be clearer. I wondered whether what you wrote differs in reasonableness from what I change it to:

What you wrote discussing criminalization now:In my opinion, society, being a collection of individuals, could only undergo such a change by sufficient individuals examining their own judgments and projections and subsequently bringing their findings to the whole, and for these findings to be accepted by the majority.

I don't believe that transferring the notion of criminalisation, for antisocial behaviour, to a disease that can be cured, would be particularly helpful.

Changed to this, discussing slavery in 1750:In my opinion, society, being a collection of individuals, could only undergo such a change by sufficient individuals examining their own judgments and projections and subsequently bringing their findings to the whole, and for these findings to be accepted by the majority.

I don't believe that abandoning the commercial advantage for British traders and colonists to own and sell black Africans and their descendants as slaves would be particularly helpful. Minimum standards of care have been provided for all slaves through legislation. The property rights of the owners outweigh any remaining disadvantage to the slaves.

I've left your first paragraph untouched - William Wilberforce himself might have written it.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38194
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Criminalization

Post by spot »

Bruv;1373817 wrote: Why is it wrong ?

They choose to 'enter the program' by there behaviour ,but not the same as the inmates of Broadmore 'choose'

Where do you get the idea that anybody thinks that criminals are not human beings ?

Are you equating criminals with slaves ? Criminality with the slave trade ?

By your reasoning murderers would be 'on the program' and we would just have to be aware they are amongst us, as with the Bernie Madoffs of the world doing their non criminal thing....................just like the wild west ?


That's the subject of the entire thread. My argument is that you might just as well have asked "why is slavery wrong" or "why is discrimination against women wrong".

I've not excluded the idea of sectioning people, it depends on what their behavior has been. The inmates of Broadmoor aren't criminals, they're people diagnosed as curably ill by psychiatrists. Broadmoor explicitly refuses to take the incurable. It's a secure hospital.

Previous threads expressing vile prejudice against the criminalized. Throw away the key, Bubba can deal with him, the inmates will know what to do, it goes on and on.

Yes and yes, I'm comparing our detestation of slavery now with how I think our descendants will detest our current criminalization policy when seen from their future perspective.

Why focus on murderers? Why jump to the extreme edge instead of finding the core? Many people are criminalized, few of them are murderers. On the extreme edge I'd expect compulsory indefinite sectioning for voluntary treatment. For the vast majority I'd expect support groups. Looking at Bernie Madoff's case for example, I'm quite keen to get those who would blithely and greedily hand him money to rely instead on their wit and discrimination in future. What he did is only labelled a crime because we've allowed the state to criminalize more and more of us. Bernie Madoff shouldn't be regarded as any more criminal than a fairground shyster. It's shameful that he's in jail.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
theia
Posts: 8242
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 3:54 pm

Criminalization

Post by theia »

spot;1373828 wrote: If I reword your post to refer to slavery during its heyday perhaps I'll be clearer. I wondered whether what you wrote differs in reasonableness from what I change it to:

What you wrote discussing criminalization now:In my opinion, society, being a collection of individuals, could only undergo such a change by sufficient individuals examining their own judgments and projections and subsequently bringing their findings to the whole, and for these findings to be accepted by the majority.

I don't believe that transferring the notion of criminalisation, for antisocial behaviour, to a disease that can be cured, would be particularly helpful.

Changed to this, discussing slavery in 1750:In my opinion, society, being a collection of individuals, could only undergo such a change by sufficient individuals examining their own judgments and projections and subsequently bringing their findings to the whole, and for these findings to be accepted by the majority.

I don't believe that abandoning the commercial advantage for British traders and colonists to own and sell black Africans and their descendants as slaves would be particularly helpful. Minimum standards of care have been provided for all slaves through legislation. The property rights of the owners outweigh any remaining disadvantage to the slaves.

I've left your first paragraph untouched - William Wilberforce himself might have written it.


What I was attempting to say was that "criminal" would merely be replaced with "diseased." In my opinion, precious little would change.

Although, on reflection, surely there are very few of us who could claim to be "disease" free, be it physically or mentally, so maybe it could have a levelling effect?
Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answers...Rainer Maria Rilke
User avatar
Oscar Namechange
Posts: 31842
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am

Criminalization

Post by Oscar Namechange »

spot;1373824 wrote: The future's not arrived so I'm guessing, but my guess would be that they'd regard criminalization as scapegoating the individual for the failure of society. When society has been fixed, whatever antisocial behavior remains would be regarded as a disease to be cured.

The atavistic error of our times is our continuing simplistic belief in sin. The criminalized are paying the price of our collective failure to discard this corrosive pre-enlightenment monotheist baggage. So what you are really saying Is that all the victems of Bernie Maddoff deserve all they get for falling for his fraud and you being such a smartarsse, would never be conned In such a manner?
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

Criminalization

Post by Bruv »

spot;1373829 wrote: That's the subject of the entire thread. My argument is that you might just as well have asked "why is slavery wrong" or "why is discrimination against women wrong".

I've not excluded the idea of sectioning people, it depends on what their behavior has been. The inmates of Broadmoor aren't criminals, they're people diagnosed as curably ill by psychiatrists. Broadmoor explicitly refuses to take the incurable. It's a secure hospital.

Previous threads expressing vile prejudice against the criminalized. Throw away the key, Bubba can deal with him, the inmates will know what to do, it goes on and on.

Yes and yes, I'm comparing our detestation of slavery now with how I think our descendants will detest our current criminalization policy when seen from their future perspective.

Why focus on murderers? Why jump to the extreme edge instead of finding the core? Many people are criminalized, few of them are murderers. On the extreme edge I'd expect compulsory indefinite sectioning for voluntary treatment. For the vast majority I'd expect support groups. Looking at Bernie Madoff's case for example, I'm quite keen to get those who would blithely and greedily hand him money to rely instead on their wit and discrimination in future. What he did is only labelled a crime because we've allowed the state to criminalize more and more of us. Bernie Madoff shouldn't be regarded as any more criminal than a fairground shyster. It's shameful that he's in jail.
GMC answered the question, the law protects the weak.

The victims of crime need protection.

People are not prejudiced against criminals, just the crimes they commit.

Some need treatment, some need punishment, throwing them all into the same prisons is not the answer.

Criminals and criminality can be over analysed. Some need a short sharp punishment not treatment, others need treatment and segregating from the rest of us for our and their safety.

The fairground shyster is a criminal except his crime is less harmful dealing in pennies rather than the millions that Bernie dealt with devastating lives as the consequence.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38194
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Criminalization

Post by spot »

oscar;1373869 wrote: So what you are really saying Is that all the victems of Bernie Maddoff deserve all they get for falling for his fraud and you being such a smartarsse, would never be conned In such a manner?


Yes to the first half. I've never said anywhere whether I thought I would fall for a scheme such as his so I've no idea where the second half came from.

I suggest we bump the thread in fifty years when the trend of history will perhaps be clearer, and see whether I was right. I'm reasonably optimistic that I am.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38194
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Criminalization

Post by spot »

Bruv;1373877 wrote: People are not prejudiced against criminals, just the crimes they commit.No. This site is top-heavy with posters explicitly heaping dung and rabid tabloid-style vituperation on the heads of criminalized people in the most disgracefully prejudiced fashion. As with slaves when there were slaves there's a mass undercurrent of "they're not people, they're animals" to the threads in question. There really are a lot of them, they're why I now think what I think.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
Oscar Namechange
Posts: 31842
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am

Criminalization

Post by Oscar Namechange »

spot;1373908 wrote: Yes to the first half. I've never said anywhere whether I thought I would fall for a scheme such as his so I've no idea where the second half came from.

I suggest we bump the thread in fifty years when the trend of history will perhaps be clearer, and see whether I was right. I'm reasonably optimistic that I am. The thought of you lasting another fifty years ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
User avatar
Oscar Namechange
Posts: 31842
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am

Criminalization

Post by Oscar Namechange »

spot;1373909 wrote: No. This site is top-heavy with posters explicitly heaping dung and rabid tabloid-style vituperation on the heads of criminalized people in the most disgracefully prejudiced fashion. As with slaves when there were slaves there's a mass undercurrent of "they're not people, they're animals" to the threads in question. There really are a lot of them, they're why I now think what I think.


Garbage.

You are the one who seems to find something that is not there In those threads by reeding between the lines and second guessing.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38194
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Criminalization

Post by spot »

oscar;1373912 wrote: Garbage.

You are the one who seems to find something that is not there In those threads by reeding between the lines and second guessing.


I was there. You weren't there but I was there.

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/crime ... eased.html for example.

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/crime ... iller.html

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/curre ... tayed.html

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/crime ... t-fry.html

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/gener ... ished.html

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/gener ... roled.html

That's scratching the surface. I've ignored idiots like Andy, too.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
Oscar Namechange
Posts: 31842
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am

Criminalization

Post by Oscar Namechange »

spot;1373914 wrote: I was there. You weren't there but I was there.

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/crime ... eased.html for example.

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/crime ... iller.html

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/curre ... tayed.html

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/crime ... t-fry.html

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/gener ... ished.html

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/gener ... roled.html

That's scratching the surface. I've ignored idiots like Andy, too.
You have linked threads from members that are no longer here....... Say no more.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38194
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Criminalization

Post by spot »

oscar;1373917 wrote: You have linked threads from members that are no longer here....... Say no more.


I expect they couldn't stand the shame of having their names associated with those posts. The threads are what the site consists of and "disgracefully prejudiced" is putting it mildly.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

Criminalization

Post by Bruv »

spot;1373909 wrote: No. This site is top-heavy with posters explicitly heaping dung and rabid tabloid-style vituperation on the heads of criminalized people in the most disgracefully prejudiced fashion. As with slaves when there were slaves there's a mass undercurrent of "they're not people, they're animals" to the threads in question. There really are a lot of them, they're why I now think what I think.


Although of course, if the people concerned had not committed the crimes........nobody would notice them or care about them, or could pick them out in a bus queue.

Hardly the same as the vituperation (whatever that is) thrown at people who happened to be black.

Can you not see the flaw in your logic ?

Prejudice :is making a judgment or assumption about someone or something before having enough knowledge to be able to do so with guaranteed accuracy, or "judging a book by its cover". The word prejudice is most often used to refer to preconceived judgments toward people.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38194
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Criminalization

Post by spot »

Bruv;1373937 wrote: Can you not see the flaw in your logic ?The current general view is that the people concerned are responsible for their own criminalization. That, I think, is what will change. The new view will be that criminalization is a function of society, not a behavioural aspect of the individual.

The only reason anyone is labelled a criminal is because society has defined them to be a criminal, and the tendency for decades has been to include a progressively higher proportion of the population within that definition. Let's break the mould and dispense with criminalizing people in the first place, there are better ways of running the world than repression.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

Criminalization

Post by Bruv »

spot;1373949 wrote: The current general view is that the people concerned are responsible for their own criminalization. That, I think, is what will change. The new view will be that criminalization is a function of society, not a behavioural aspect of the individual.

The only reason anyone is labelled a criminal is because society has defined them to be a criminal, and the tendency for decades has been to include a progressively higher proportion of the population within that definition. Let's break the mould and dispense with criminalizing people in the first place, there are better ways of running the world than repression.


"The only reason anyone is labelled a criminal is because society has defined them to be a criminal"

Classic......I shall now use a whotsit I declared I never would....ROTFL

Nothing to do with committing an anti social act then ?

While going some way in agreeing that the degree of acts declared crimes might have increased, what do you want to call the rapists, murderers, child molesters, arsonists, armed robbers, cat burglers, as oppossed to the shysters that merely scam vast amounts of money that you don't see as criminals ?
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38194
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Criminalization

Post by spot »

Bruv;1373961 wrote: While going some way in agreeing that the degree of acts declared crimes might have increased, what do you want to call the rapists, murderers, child molesters, arsonists, armed robbers, cat burglers, as oppossed to the shysters that merely scam vast amounts of money that you don't see as criminals ?Disabled? Diseased? I think you fail to recognize that what I foresee as cures for everyone who so much as litters the street would cause lily-livered liberals to pass out with shock. What annoys me is the ineffectiveness of current judicial sentencing. I want every antisocial pest cleansed of his illness in as efficient a manner as possible. The underlying difference between then and now is that by then, nobody will regard the antisocial pest as criminal, merely as unwell.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
theia
Posts: 8242
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 3:54 pm

Criminalization

Post by theia »

spot;1373973 wrote: Disabled? Diseased? I think you fail to recognize that what I foresee as cures for everyone who so much as litters the street would cause lily-livered liberals to pass out with shock. What annoys me is the ineffectiveness of current judicial sentencing. I want every antisocial pest cleansed of his illness in as efficient a manner as possible. The underlying difference between then and now is that by then, nobody will regard the antisocial pest as criminal, merely as unwell.


What do you foresee as "cures?"
Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answers...Rainer Maria Rilke
Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

Criminalization

Post by Bruv »

spot;1373973 wrote: Disabled? Diseased? I think you fail to recognize that what I foresee as cures for everyone who so much as litters the street would cause lily-livered liberals to pass out with shock. What annoys me is the ineffectiveness of current judicial sentencing. I want every antisocial pest cleansed of his illness in as efficient a manner as possible. The underlying difference between then and now is that by then, nobody will regard the antisocial pest as criminal, merely as unwell.


In the style of Spot

'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;

Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.

What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,

Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part

Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!

What's in a name? that which we call a rose

By any other name would smell as sweet;

So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,

Retain that dear perfection which he owes

Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,

And for that name which is no part of thee

Take all myself.

What you are talking about is the reform of the penal system, which I would suggest is happening as we speak.

We no longer punish as we used to with the tawse or stocks, or public shaming.

We are now treating and re-educating more than ever, the slave trade and women's suffrage were resisted too.

As an old fashioned sort of guy, I still think there is a place for swift harsh punishment as an aid to justice.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38194
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Criminalization

Post by spot »

theia;1373974 wrote: What do you foresee as "cures?"


Ah. Well, there's the problem, isn't it.

Let's assume that, in the future, the concept of crime no longer exists: criminalization has been abolished. There are no laws. Assume there's absolutely no privacy either. If you cheat or pollute or lie it will be apparent to everyone, it will draw closer and closer attention to you as you gain notoriety. Most errant people would, I suspect, seek help to treat their behavioural aberration. Most people would behave socially in the first place. Repetitive untreated issues which affect other people - I'm thinking mainly of unsolicited violence - could be brought to a halt by mandatory sectioning while the problem persists.

One reason I see things headed this way is a further assumption, that the society I'm describing will have no wealth differential, no rich or poor, no lack of any material resource to anyone who has need of it. I'm extrapolating the material developments of the last thousand years in taking that on board. This change in wealth distribution is the cure as much as anything else I've noted.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
Oscar Namechange
Posts: 31842
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am

Criminalization

Post by Oscar Namechange »

spot;1373935 wrote: I expect they couldn't stand the shame of having their names associated with those posts. The threads are what the site consists of and "disgracefully prejudiced" is putting it mildly.


No, It's not that they couldn't stand the shame of having their names associated with those posts as you put It.

The only one who should feel any shame here Is you, targeting threads of banned and previous members who can not post here to take you to task. That, I suspect Is the reason you honed In on their threads and not current members.

None the less, It's a low deed just to add weight to your ridiculous argument here.

Regardless of the threads you have posted, they are people, they are entitled to any opinion on any subject they wish. You however, and thankfully have no authority or position to claim their opinions are wrong or right. You have a self, smug, Imposed Importance It seems on this forum and In general.

The law Is there and new laws are Introduced to protect the vulnerable and the weak.

Your ridiculous plea that Maddoff should be released when he pled guilty to deliberately defrauding his victems Is akin to saying that the If a weak man Is beaten senseless In the street, then his aggressor should not be prosecuted because the victim should have fought back,
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Criminalization

Post by gmc »

posted by spot



posted by spot

The only reason anyone is labelled a criminal is because society has defined them to be a criminal, and the tendency for decades has been to include a progressively higher proportion of the population within that definition. Let's break the mould and dispense with criminalizing people in the first place, there are better ways of running the world than repression.


How else do you measure the criminality of someone except in relation to society? A hermit never commits a crime unless the particular society they live in happens o define being a hermit and living outside of society a crime against it. Some acts are by consensus criminal we need the law to define them as such and to take sanction against them. The repression comes about when those who make the laws are themselves not accountable and can go their own way to it so we over the centuries compile a set of laws designed to curb the power of the powerful, the most important being habeas corpus and trial by jury. We have removed the ability of those in power to decide arbitrarily who is guilty and who is innocent.

The current general view is that the people concerned are responsible for their own criminalization. That, I think, is what will change. The new view will be that criminalization is a function of society, not a behavioural aspect of the individual.


What an oppressive world that would be where the individual bears no responsibility for their actions but is a failure of society - how then do you deal with them and who will get to decide their behaviour requires being dealt with or should society as a whole somehow be held accountable for it's failure.

posted by spot

Let's assume that, in the future, the concept of crime no longer exists: criminalization has been abolished. There are no laws. Assume there's absolutely no privacy either. If you cheat or pollute or lie it will be apparent to everyone, it will draw closer and closer attention to you as you gain notoriety. Most errant people would, I suspect, seek help to treat their behavioural aberration. Most people would behave socially in the first place. Repetitive untreated issues which affect other people - I'm thinking mainly of unsolicited violence - could be brought to a halt by mandatory sectioning while the problem persists.




What will you do with those who decide to step outside society's rules and don't care they have a behavioural aberration the notion that they would seek treatment is risible. I'm a dangerous psychopath please lock me up?

So your answer of mandatory sectioning while the problem persists - wait you have just promulgated a law and criminalised a behaviour pattern. Your brave new world world exists only in your fevered imagination. Society cannot function without laws and some activities being viewed as criminal and liable to sanction. All that changes is what we view as criminal.
Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

Criminalization

Post by Bruv »

Wish I had said that.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
User avatar
theia
Posts: 8242
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 3:54 pm

Criminalization

Post by theia »

Bruv;1373992 wrote: Wish I had said that.


Me too :)
Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answers...Rainer Maria Rilke
Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

Criminalization

Post by Bruv »

theia;1373993 wrote: Me too :)


Don't think we could have managed it working together to be honest.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
User avatar
Oscar Namechange
Posts: 31842
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am

Criminalization

Post by Oscar Namechange »

theia;1373993 wrote: Me too :)


And me.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
User avatar
theia
Posts: 8242
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 3:54 pm

Criminalization

Post by theia »

Bruv;1373994 wrote: Don't think we could have managed it working together to be honest.


Not even with the help of half a dozen other FG members? Over a year?



No, okay, you're right.
Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answers...Rainer Maria Rilke
Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

Criminalization

Post by Bruv »

oscar;1373997 wrote: And me.


theia;1373998 wrote: Not even with the help of half a dozen other FG members? Over a year?



No, okay, you're right.


Yeah but we are better looking........I bet
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38194
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Criminalization

Post by spot »

oscar;1373980 wrote: The only one who should feel any shame here Is you, targeting threads of banned and previous members who can not post here to take you to task.On a point of information, none of the members who posted in any of the threads I quoted are banned. All of the accounts which weren't closed at the request of the user are still available for use.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

Criminalization

Post by Bruv »

spot;1374016 wrote: On a point of information, none of the members who posted in any of the threads I quoted are banned. All of the accounts which weren't closed at the request of the user are still available for use.


Many were that old........ man has evolved since they were posted.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
User avatar
Oscar Namechange
Posts: 31842
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am

Criminalization

Post by Oscar Namechange »

spot;1374016 wrote: On a point of information, none of the members who posted in any of the threads I quoted are banned. All of the accounts which weren't closed at the request of the user are still available for use.
Pants, Lady Cop, and Red Glitter were all banned..... Funny enough after getting Into spats with you.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Criminalization

Post by K.Snyder »

I don't think it's a stretch to view the current definition of "criminal" as a health issue...It's apparent the psychological damage that is assumed by people with poor education and health that ultimately leads to a prejudice resembling a fear of disease that's about as ironic as anything I can think of.

Society doesn't want to help they only want to get rid of the problem and it just so happens that locking people up is enough to separate individuals enough to please people. It's not very nice. In fact, it's very aberrant.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38194
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Criminalization

Post by spot »

oscar;1374025 wrote: Pants, Lady Cop, and Red Glitter were all banned.....
Not according to the relevant Moderator Forum threads. Pants admittedly had a one month ban imposed after a screaming fit with Jimbo but it expired. The other two walked off the site and never posted again. I'd agree that they'd previously exchanged frank views with me. Redglitter's departure was sufficiently self-imposed that she deleted her 93 visitor messages on the way out. Neither Redglitter nor lady cop ever received a ban on this site, temporary or permanent.



eta: checking back, lady cop appears to have been banned for several months by the first Site Admin pair and then allowed back at her own request. There was also a username "Portia" which, some moderators surmised at the time, may have been an unauthorised duplicate lady cop account.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
Oscar Namechange
Posts: 31842
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am

Criminalization

Post by Oscar Namechange »

spot;1374035 wrote: Not according to the relevant Moderator Forum threads. Pants admittedly had a one month ban imposed after a screaming fit with Jimbo but it expired. The other two walked off the site and never posted again. I'd agree that they'd previously exchanged frank views with me. Redglitter's departure was sufficiently self-imposed that she deleted her 93 visitor messages on the way out. Neither Redglitter nor lady cop ever received a ban on this site, temporary or permanent.



eta: checking back, lady cop appears to have been banned for several months by the first Site Admin pair and then allowed back at her own request. There was also a username "Portia" which, some moderators surmised at the time, may have been an unauthorised duplicate lady cop account.


All of which is pretty Irrelevant and just pedantic's.

My Issue Is that as a moderator you seem to find It acceptable to dredge up old threads which I can see has no bearing on this thread other than to perhaps show the newbie's how adept you are at waxing lyrical. You know as well as I do, there Is little chance that those members will come back and take you to task which Is why you chose their threads and not others.

What you are attempting to do, by proxy, Is humiliate them In their absence... something I find quite underhand.

As It happens, In an hour of rest, I read through some of those threads, and they all make very good points unlike you Insisting you would have a convicted killer living under your roof. That Is the embarrassing post.... not theirs.

People have opinions based on real life experiences. You however, have a self Imposed Importance on any subject on this forum whilst capable of bigotry as In your Anti-American ditherings.

God forbid one of your children Is ever raped or murdered, you will have an entirely different opinion for the opinions you give on rehabilitation are nothing more than.. 'There for the grace of god, go I '..
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38194
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Criminalization

Post by spot »

You seem impervious to the fact that you keep posting inaccurate information. When I correct it, it's not for your benefit.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!

Return to “Philosophy”