Criminalization

User avatar
Oscar Namechange
Posts: 31842
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am

Criminalization

Post by Oscar Namechange »

spot;1374043 wrote: You seem impervious to the fact that you keep posting inaccurate information. When I correct it, it's not for your benefit. Whatever lifts your skirt Spot.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38218
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Criminalization

Post by spot »

oscar;1374046 wrote: Whatever lifts your skirt Spot.


We could do a deal - you stop lying and I'll stop correcting you.

I'm puzzled that you think there's an expiry date on threads, that they can't be referred to after some notional period. As far as I'm concerned the entire site database is available for bumping or reference whenever the topic's in focus. The current absence of some of the posters is immaterial. What they wrote is as vile and unethical now as it was in the first place.
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;1374080 wrote: We could do a deal - you stop lying and I'll stop correcting you.

I'm puzzled that you think there's an expiry date on threads, that they can't be referred to after some notional period. As far as I'm concerned the entire site database is available for bumping or reference whenever the topic's in focus. The current absence of some of the posters is immaterial. What they wrote is as vile and unethical now as it was in the first place. Lying ???

Good God man. Writing something that Is 33% Inaccurate Is what I would call a mis-judgement, not a deliberate act of lie's. To lie means there was a pre-meditated Intent of misleading. When I was In fact correct that Lady Cop and Red Glitter had been banned.

Still, If we are talking about liars, you will never convince me that you had no other reason for dredging up their threads other than to humiliate them In their absence because you seem to view past threads as YOUR property to use and abuse as you wish.

What they wrote was vile and unethical ? ".... That's your opinion and as I have stated previously, your opinion does not carry the weight you Imagine It does.

So, back to topic...

By Co-Incidence, I listened to an Interview with Jo Yeats Father today. He said that now the trial has ended and her murderer convicted, for them, It had only just begun because his beautiful daughter was never coming home.

From your writings here, that tells me that you have more sympathy for Vincent Tabac and would be quite happy to house him under your roof with your children. No, It Is not their posts that are vile and unethical... It's yours.
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 »

OK Spot.... Here's one for you.

David Parker Ray - The Toy Box Serial Killer | Serial Killers

If you try telling us that you would have this man under your roof with your daughter and grand-daughter, then I will call you a liar.

And you think he could be re-habilitated do you?
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 »

oscar;1374111 wrote: OK Spot.... Here's one for you.

David Parker Ray - The Toy Box Serial Killer | Serial Killers

If you try telling us that you would have this man under your roof with your daughter and grand-daughter, then I will call you a liar.

And you think he could be re-habilitated do you?


You're not reading his posts.

posted by spot

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.






and earlier

On the extreme edge I'd expect compulsory indefinite sectioning for voluntary treatment.


He'd throw them in braodmoor and keep them there until they were safe or dead.

If all are equal who gets to make the laws? Even spot's utopia faces the same dilemma. Happy clappy approaches to society and it's "criminals" only last as long as it takes to get down to specifics and society always defines what is criminal. It's now no longer acceptable for someone to take property that isn't theirs. Not so long ago women had no right to own property and their status in society was set in relation to the man that owned them as a father or husband, they were chattels - we still talk about loose women.. In a theocracy status is defined by god's laws as interpreted by the priests - you can make your own cynical comments on that one. In religious cults you have people who accept their status in that society how free can they be? Spot's cult is a non starter imo.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38218
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Criminalization

Post by spot »

oscar;1374092 wrote: From your writings here, that tells me that you have more sympathy for Vincent Tabac and would be quite happy to house him under your roof with your children. No, It Is not their posts that are vile and unethical... It's yours.
Perhaps what I wrote to lady cop at the time is equally appropriate to your comment above:Why is it, when someone introduces a viewpoint you dislike, that you continually make such personal responses? Why do you invite the poster to endanger - from your point of view - her child? How does that make the points any more or less valid? You took a cool and considered post and gave it a wild-eyed spittle-foamed treatment. There are far better ways of discussing issues than that. You're letting your violent antipathy to criminals extend into a violent antipathy to someone discussing criminality.

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/crime ... #post83919

As for the thread itself, I stand by every word I wrote in it.

To repeat myself regarding Redglitter, she's never been banned on this site. The banning of lady cop by anastrophe and tombstone was for a period in 2005, the lie I referred to was your totally false "targeting threads of banned and previous members who can not post here to take you to task".
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;1374132 wrote: Perhaps what I wrote to lady cop at the time is equally appropriate to your comment above:Why is it, when someone introduces a viewpoint you dislike, that you continually make such personal responses? Why do you invite the poster to endanger - from your point of view - her child? How does that make the points any more or less valid? You took a cool and considered post and gave it a wild-eyed spittle-foamed treatment. There are far better ways of discussing issues than that. You're letting your violent antipathy to criminals extend into a violent antipathy to someone discussing criminality.

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/crime ... #post83919

As for the thread itself, I stand by every word I wrote in it.

To repeat myself regarding Redglitter, she's never been banned on this site. The banning of lady cop by anastrophe and tombstone was for a period in 2005, the lie I referred to was your totally false "targeting threads of banned and previous members who can not post here to take you to task".


Posted by Spot In response to posted thread.

"I wouldn't say anything without meaning it. I may, of course, be mistaken in thinking she poses no more threat than an average member of society, but that's my view. And it was, after all, Lady Cop's suggestion that Koan make exactly such an offer. I'm better placed to make it, having the apartment to hand. The media frenzy, the blood lust and the vigilante threats all bother me far more than the potential risk that I'm mistaken."

So humour us old boy. How exactly do you feel you are qualified to make an assessment on any convicted killer after the experts have made their findings? What exactly makes you qualified?

In the years I have been on this forum, and I do not have as many Idle hours In the day to go trawling through threads, you have littered this forum on crime threads, with what appears to be no sympathy for the victims or their families but sympathy for the poor souls who mutilated some-one;s child. It is that which Is vile and unethical and If you really don't get that, then there Is something wrong with you. The same as this ridiculous thread where you have no thought for the people who's live Maddoff ruined.

I don't care who was banned when, where and why... Sheer pedantic's. What Is wrong Is the way you feel you have ownership of this forum to dredge up what you like, when you like to bolster your ridiculous claims. It's not proving a point In any way. Why not use Andy's threads? Probably because you now he'd post and take you to task.

I would rather be In a room with Red or Lady cop over you any day given this claptrap you have come out with on this thread. As I said before, whoever they are, regardless of their opinions, they are people. People are entitled to opinions. You litter this forum with your opinions yet mock anyone who doesn't agree with you. Rather a Narcissistic trait I feel.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38218
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Criminalization

Post by spot »

oscar;1374164 wrote: I don't care who was banned when, where and why...Then don't make false claims on the subject, you silly person!
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;1374194 wrote: Then don't make false claims on the subject, you silly person! Then why not answer what Is put to you, you silly person.

If a woman walks home late In the dark and gets raped, then should her rapist not be prosecuted because she did not have the sense to get a Taxi?

If A man Is beaten up, should his aggressor not be prosecuted because the man did not take self defence classes?

So, why do you think Maddoff should be not prosecuted because his victims did not take out PHD's In Investment?

Now to your claims of rehabilitation.

I asked, what qualifies you above anyone else's opinion?

As for the nonsence to the threads you posted here.... There Is no reason for them to be linked here, The only thing they have In common Is the word ' crime'.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38218
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Criminalization

Post by spot »

Regarding the rape, the violence and Madoff, the woman has every right to go anywhere at any time in safety, there's no question of "sense" coming into it. The rapist and the other violent person should not ever be released into the community until they pose no more risk than the average member of society. They should be treated on medical grounds if possible, and held on medical grounds even where no treatment is possible, on the basis that they are both sick and dangerous. What currently happens with any violent crime is a maximum term being set. There should never be any maximum term set for anyone held for treatment. The conditions for their release should be a medical judgement based on their medical state.

Madoff, on the other hand, defrauded people. I don't regard that as even an antisocial act, much less a crime. People are desensitised to the danger of fraud by this criminalizing process, they act like headless chickens. In a better world, Madoff should have got a medal for reinforcing the message to the public at large - don't trust con-men.

What I wrote about Karla Homolka was based on news articles at the time, I'm sure I quoted from a few and summarised what I'd found. Equating her with Vincent Tabac is something only you could achieve.
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;1374204 wrote: Regarding the rape, the violence and Madoff, the woman has every right to go anywhere at any time in safety, there's no question of "sense" coming into it. The rapist and the other violent person should not ever be released into the community until they pose no more risk than the average member of society. They should be treated on medical grounds if possible, and held on medical grounds even where no treatment is possible, on the basis that they are both sick and dangerous. What currently happens with any violent crime is a maximum term being set. There should never be any maximum term set for anyone held for treatment. The conditions for their release should be a medical judgement based on their medical state.

Madoff, on the other hand, defrauded people. I don't regard that as even an antisocial act, much less a crime. People are desensitised to the danger of fraud by this criminalizing process, they act like headless chickens. In a better world, Madoff should have got a medal for reinforcing the message to the public at large - don't trust con-men.

What I wrote about Karla Homolka was based on news articles at the time, I'm sure I quoted from a few and summarised what I'd found. Equating her with Vincent Tabac is something only you could achieve.


Balderdash, Piffle, Poppycock and Bollocks.

By you reasoning, the rapist should have got a medal for making the woman more aware to taking Taxi's home at night and the beaten man, more aware to taking self defence classes.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38218
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Criminalization

Post by spot »

oscar;1374206 wrote: Balderdash, Piffle, Poppycock and Bollocks.

By you reasoning, the rapist should have got a medal for making the woman more aware to taking Taxi's home at night and the beaten man, more aware to taking self defence classes.I know why I write here. It's so my children's children can think about the issues I've thought about and decide the extent to which they agree or disagree with me. I find it a convenient place to do that.

Why do you post here, oscar? I'd be hesitant to acknowledge your posts, were they mine.
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;1374209 wrote: I know why I write here. It's so my children's children can think about the issues I've thought about and decide the extent to which they agree or disagree with me. I find it a convenient place to do that.

Why do you post here, oscar? I'd be hesitant to acknowledge your posts, were they mine. Instead of the emotional claptrap that we are fed to believe your posts are somewhat of a treasure chest for your future generations, why not address the analogies put to you?

I repeat, by your reasoning, the rapist could be given a medal for making the victim aware that she should refrain from walking home late at night In the dark again, by your token and absurd claim that Maddoff should be given a medal for making his victems more financially astute In the future.

Pray tell old bean, what is the difference there according to your reasoning? Or Is that far too difficult for you?

If you do not like members of a forum coming back and challenging you and you want to leave something for the fruit of your loins, I suggest you are In the wrong place for the wrong reasons and a blog may be more suitable where you can wax lyrical to your little hearts desire without Interference. However, If you post a thread with absurd claims such as 'Free Maddoff'... you deserve all you get.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38218
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Criminalization

Post by spot »

Violence to the person, oscar. You're fighting for obsolete property rights which I regard as antisocial in the first place, I'm arguing that violence to the person is an indicator of mental dis-ease. Bernie Madoff had nothing to do with violence to the person, he was a confidence trickster in an environment where some people thought they were protected by the law, which just shows how stupid they were.
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;1374213 wrote: Violence to the person, oscar. You're fighting for obsolete property rights which I regard as antisocial in the first place, I'm arguing that violence to the person is an indicator of mental dis-ease. Bernie Madoff had nothing to do with violence to the person, he was a confidence trickster in an environment where some people thought they were protected by the law, which just shows how stupid they were.


Violence can also be emotionally Inflicted pain. People who lost their homes and their lives as a result of Maddoff would be just as affected. The woman who was raped will no doubt never trust a man again. The victim of Maddoff will never trust again. The woman was stupid to walk home late at night In the dark. Maddoff's victems according to you were stupid. Would the rapist have struck If the woman had got a taxi.? Probably not that night. He may just have been an opportunist and took advantage because she was alone In the dark.... Maddoff's crime's were plotted, planned and pre-meditated.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Criminalization

Post by Ahso! »

spot;1373764 wrote: 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.Interesting thought and you may be right about the future.

In the case of Bernie Madoff, it's perhaps to his advantage that he's incarcerated. It may be the best chance he has of remaining alive. Not that life would be his first choice since things fell apart.

I think there's more than one reason for criminalization and incarceration, none of which I necessarily agree with.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple

Return to “Philosophy”