Where do you fit into the Political Spectrum?

[BodyBagz]

I always fail these things........







Your Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: -0.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.28

[K-DOGG]

I think the questionnaires are ******, and made obviously by a *******

I wonder where the scale ticks if you answer this question with "I strongly agree!"

"I�d always support my country, whether it was right or wrong."

towards Right?

Eh, it's just a bit of fun and I'm sure there are more comprehensive tests out there...took one one time which made me think my eyes were going to pop out of my head, it took so long. But, my results were roughly the same as on this one.

I guess the point of it all, past the "fun" part, is just to illustrate that "Left/Right" is, essentially, and illusion, as many factors play into politics.

Was it biased? Probably. Very few things aren't; but it wasn't as obviously slanted in the questions as some others I've seen.

[Furn]

bunch of commies in here!

[billeau2]

Honestly, one of the things about our set-up which pisses me off a little. Once you serve your time, you should have all of your rights reinstated.

There's a whole segment of the population who are silenced because a jury found theme guilty. If one is found guilty of a crime and serves one's time, one has paid one's debt to society and, therefore, should be allowed to reenter society.

If one is not allowed to voice one's opinion in leadership, then one truly has not been allowed to reenter society.

This, in my opinion, is another way, along with gerrymandering districts, and various other "less than obvious" techniques, to essentially control the political voice of the population and keep a select few running the country.

Just another way to help keep the oligarchy in charge.

Amen! absolutely.

[BodyBagz]

Amen! absolutely.

How do you know a rapist, child ******er is ever rehab'd ?

I do agree, after they have served their prison time, they shouldn't be incarcerated further.....but the public should be aware of them. They should never be all the way free.

The victims families never can get any form of justice unless it's via execution

Criminals go on to ''find God'' and obtain all kinds of degrees.....
What about the victims

[billeau2]

How do you know a rapist, child ******er is ever rehab'd ?

I do agree, after they have served their prison time, they shouldn't be incarcerated further.....but the public should be aware of them. They should never be all the way free.

The victims families never can get any form of justice unless it's via execution

Criminals go on to ''find God'' and obtain all kinds of degrees.....
What about the victims

I interpret the situation a little different. As far as "rights" I am talking about the basic rights that citizens have, voting rights, the right to gainful employment. If someone continues to be a danger, part of their rehab should be to do what is necessary to not cause harm. When these two spheres collide, they should come down on the side of caution. t

Using your example, a child ******er does his time, no reason not to let him vote, so that should be fundamental. the other rights should be tied into his treatments, his profile, and statistics. So, can the person be employed? Perhaps in a bakery and not in a child care facility. Can he have a car? perhaps but may have to be monitered.

It gets interesting because things like other people's rights come into play: do people have a right to know that felons are applying for a job? that a child ******er is in the area? part of living in a civilized society is having a way to address those issues and find a happy medium.

[BodyBagz]

I interpret the situation a little different. As far as "rights" I am talking about the basic rights that citizens have, voting rights, the right to gainful employment. If someone continues to be a danger, part of their rehab should be to do what is necessary to not cause harm. When these two spheres collide, they should come down on the side of caution. t

Using your example, a child ******er does his time, no reason not to let him vote, so that should be fundamental. the other rights should be tied into his treatments, his profile, and statistics. So, can the person be employed? Perhaps in a bakery and not in a child care facility. Can he have a car? perhaps but may have to be monitered.

It gets interesting because things like other people's rights come into play: do people have a right to know that felons are applying for a job? that a child ******er is in the area? part of living in a civilized society is having a way to address those issues and find a happy medium.

Respect

I'm just a hardcore victims advocate

Those pieces of shlt had their chance to have a normal life but opted for being destrcutive....and just because they ''find God'' or did their time ''shouldn't'' mean ''all'' is forgiven. Even on legal terms.

CMIIW but felons can never own weapons or be in the same area as other felon for the remainder of their lives ?
Child ******ers can never be around child again (or at least not unsupervised) ?

People know right from wrong, still make the wrong choice and expect shlt to go back to normal.

Their only true regret is getting caught.
Then they act all ''If I could change places ....''
You should see their faces when the judges refuse probation or the lesser sentence
The real them comes out !

Victims don't get that 2nd chance. They're either dead or living with that nightmare on a loop.

[K-DOGG]

Respect

I'm just a hardcore victims advocate

Those pieces of shlt had their chance to have a normal life but opted for being destrcutive....and just because they ''find God'' or did their time ''shouldn't'' mean ''all'' is forgiven. Even on legal terms.

CMIIW but felons can never own weapons or be in the same area as other felon for the remainder of their lives ?
Child ******ers can never be around child again (or at least not unsupervised) ?

People know right from wrong, still make the wrong choice and expect shlt to go back to normal.

Their only true regret is getting caught.
Then they act all ''If I could change places ....''
You should see their faces when the judges refuse probation or the lesser sentence
The real them comes out !

Victims don't get that 2nd chance. They're either dead or living with that nightmare on a loop.

Valid points, indeed, concerning the rights of the victims.

One of the more fascinating things I've read over the years, was how some Native American tribes used to deal with members of the tribe who "committed crimes", under tribal laws.

Without getting too much into it, it basically revolves around the offender paying back to the one they'd wronged or members of the family they'd wronged, if it were "murder", for instance.

I think, in principle, this is a good idea, moreso than incarceration, in a lot of cases. I don't think we focus on rehabilitation at all, in our justice system and not at all, hardly, on restitution for wrongs.

Under minor crimes, like theft, the perp could be forced to replace what was stolen or where damaged, the same, rather than serving jail time. That way, we wouldn't have to pay taxes to house him/her for a certain amount of time; but he/she'd be forced to foot the bill of their crime.

Concerning major transgressions, obviously, you can't "un******" a child or "un****" or "unmurder" someone; but you can have wages from future paychecks garnished for the remainder of your life. You can be forced to hear multiple accounts of **** and ******ation from victims who are willing to talk about it, (with their iden****** concealed, obviously).

The idea is to make the "human" in the criminal feel the weight of their crime in such a way I'm sure a collective of victims could come up with, within reason. Of course in tribe situations, the elders did this and we are short on "elders" to guide us, under our society, just a bunch of politicians who are lobbied by privately owned for-profit-prisons.

Anyway, getting back to the original topic, IMO, taking away a criminal's right to vote, after they are released from serving time, further exiles them from society. If a person feels apart, they are more likely to act as if they are apart and, therefore, become repeat offenders. "Living up to our low-expectations", so to speak.

No, reinstating their right to vote and making it easier for them to find employment is not going to necessarily help rehabilitate them.....but it couldn't hurt.

Our justice system is massively flawed and I am well aware, all too often, offenders get out of jail long before they should in many cases. If we're going to incarcerate, we need to focus more on making the punishment worthy of the crime; but that's where one gets into politics. Small fish are often let go to catch bigger fish, regardless of who the small fish wronged, showing no concern for those victims.

Also, and equally unfortunate, our justice system has shown favoritism to those with enough money or connections to buy the best lawyers as well as the other end of the spectrum, with DA's closing cases too soon with a suitable suspect to quell the masses, only to find out years later, that the convicted wasn't guilty after all.

So, as long as we've got a system which is this imperfect, with innocent men and women being convicted of crimes they didn't commit and losing years of their life, which cannot be returned through no fault of their own, I think we should be scarce in our use of such extreme measures as the death penalty, except where there is absolutely, positively, no doubt as to the guilt of the convicted.

Our justice system also does not take "why" into account, which I think is a flaw, as well; but that's a topic for another thread.

Concluding my original thought, victims rights are very much important; but it is also important to remember, more often than not, before they were criminals, these people were usually "victims" themselves, of one thing or another, which should be taken into consideration.

Did they make a free-will choice to wrong someone else (presuming, of course, they are truly guilty)?

Yes; and they should be punished, accordingly. However, if we follow the statues set out by our system, in order to help them reenter society as contributing members, once their time is served the right taken away from them should be restored, IMO.

If they killed someone while driving drunk, are they to be prohibited from ever buying alcohol again, from ever driving again? From owning a car?

If they were a violent offender, should their rights to bear arms be restored? Probably not.

If they were a child ******er, should they be allowed to be around children? Probably not.

If they were a *** offender, does the community they move to have the right to know it? Probably so.

Although I am reminded of cases where an 18+ year old was charged and convicted for statutory **** of his consensual 17 or 16 year old girlfriend, charged by an angry father or mother.

Should such a man be labeled a "*** offender" and wherever he lives, for the rest of his life, suffer the slings and arrows of people who don't know the whole story?

Once again, we have some major flaws in our justice system.

[billeau2]

Respect

I'm just a hardcore victims advocate

Those pieces of shlt had their chance to have a normal life but opted for being destrcutive....and just because they ''find God'' or did their time ''shouldn't'' mean ''all'' is forgiven. Even on legal terms.

CMIIW but felons can never own weapons or be in the same area as other felon for the remainder of their lives ?
Child ******ers can never be around child again (or at least not unsupervised) ?

People know right from wrong, still make the wrong choice and expect shlt to go back to normal.

Their only true regret is getting caught.
Then they act all ''If I could change places ....''
You should see their faces when the judges refuse probation or the lesser sentence
The real them comes out !

Victims don't get that 2nd chance. They're either dead or living with that nightmare on a loop.

Of course! I have two boys, two younger sisters, and a wife, all whom, along with my two four legged boys I basically live for. I have to ask myself how I would respond if any of them was harmed and someone wanted forgiveness, otherwise I would be a hypocrite.

It is hard and a mark of civilized evolution, only under certain circumstances, imo for a society to be lenient. I don'y buy compulsory leniency, but I do think we have to show real stones and be for rehabilitation.

If you ever want to read something brilliant, Michelle Foucault writes about the history of prison reform. He was an incredible historian. In our own society prison has a purpose for many...one can actually get educated, and even be mentored in a prison environment. Many people who come out of this environment are hard working, determined to make money legally, etc.

There are people beyond help also... We have to make a distinction.

[billeau2]

Valid points, indeed, concerning the rights of the victims.

One of the more fascinating things I've read over the years, was how some Native American tribes used to deal with members of the tribe who "committed crimes", under tribal laws.

Without getting too much into it, it basically revolves around the offender paying back to the one they'd wronged or members of the family they'd wronged, if it were "murder", for instance.

I think, in principle, this is a good idea, moreso than incarceration, in a lot of cases. I don't think we focus on rehabilitation at all, in our justice system and not at all, hardly, on restitution for wrongs.

Under minor crimes, like theft, the perp could be forced to replace what was stolen or where damaged, the same, rather than serving jail time. That way, we wouldn't have to pay taxes to house him/her for a certain amount of time; but he/she'd be forced to foot the bill of their crime.

Concerning major transgressions, obviously, you can't "un******" a child or "un****" or "unmurder" someone; but you can have wages from future paychecks garnished for the remainder of your life. You can be forced to hear multiple accounts of **** and ******ation from victims who are willing to talk about it, (with their iden****** concealed, obviously).

The idea is to make the "human" in the criminal feel the weight of their crime in such a way I'm sure a collective of victims could come up with, within reason. Of course in tribe situations, the elders did this and we are short on "elders" to guide us, under our society, just a bunch of politicians who are lobbied by privately owned for-profit-prisons.

Anyway, getting back to the original topic, IMO, taking away a criminal's right to vote, after they are released from serving time, further exiles them from society. If a person feels apart, they are more likely to act as if they are apart and, therefore, become repeat offenders. "Living up to our low-expectations", so to speak.

No, reinstating their right to vote and making it easier for them to find employment is not going to necessarily help rehabilitate them.....but it couldn't hurt.

Our justice system is massively flawed and I am well aware, all too often, offenders get out of jail long before they should in many cases. If we're going to incarcerate, we need to focus more on making the punishment worthy of the crime; but that's where one gets into politics. Small fish are often let go to catch bigger fish, regardless of who the small fish wronged, showing no concern for those victims.

Also, and equally unfortunate, our justice system has shown favoritism to those with enough money or connections to buy the best lawyers as well as the other end of the spectrum, with DA's closing cases too soon with a suitable suspect to quell the masses, only to find out years later, that the convicted wasn't guilty after all.

So, as long as we've got a system which is this imperfect, with innocent men and women being convicted of crimes they didn't commit and losing years of their life, which cannot be returned through no fault of their own, I think we should be scarce in our use of such extreme measures as the death penalty, except where there is absolutely, positively, no doubt as to the guilt of the convicted.

Our justice system also does not take "why" into account, which I think is a flaw, as well; but that's a topic for another thread.

Concluding my original thought, victims rights are very much important; but it is also important to remember, more often than not, before they were criminals, these people were usually "victims" themselves, of one thing or another, which should be taken into consideration.

Did they make a free-will choice to wrong someone else (presuming, of course, they are truly guilty)?

Yes; and they should be punished, accordingly. However, if we follow the statues set out by our system, in order to help them reenter society as contributing members, once their time is served the right taken away from them should be restored, IMO.

If they killed someone while driving drunk, are they to be prohibited from ever buying alcohol again, from ever driving again? From owning a car?

If they were a violent offender, should their rights to bear arms be restored? Probably not.

If they were a child ******er, should they be allowed to be around children? Probably not.

If they were a *** offender, does the community they move to have the right to know it? Probably so.

Although I am reminded of cases where an 18+ year old was charged and convicted for statutory **** of his consensual 17 or 16 year old girlfriend, charged by an angry father or mother.

Should such a man be labeled a "*** offender" and wherever he lives, for the rest of his life, suffer the slings and arrows of people who don't know the whole story?

Once again, we have some major flaws in our justice system.

The concept elucidated in the example of the Native American Tribe is the concept of shame. If someone has it, and it is socially conditioned to a great degree, they can be made to act for the good and to even compensate one who was wronged. Interestingly enough, universally speaking, The worse punishment one can be given in the traditional ethics of shame, is not death, but banishment. This is a reason why, for example, a Samurai was allowed to commit Sepuka... which was considered a lenient way to absolve oneself.

But most, if not all shame based ethical systems, are based on positive directives and not prohibitions: Consider the difference between traditional Buddhist moral epistemology and Hebrew notions of the same, In Buddhism one is instructed in one "ought" to do through the Eight Fold Path... Right conduct, Right Speech, Right action, etc... In the Old Testament by comparison, one is told what is prohibited and what the punishment is: Thou shall not... and if one does? "You will pay an eye for an eye."

Despite our freedoms our legal system is one of the most represive in the world. I often tell people that statistically we throw more people in jail per capita than anyone else, including China. Then... when someone sort of mutters "umhum...." I say, AND if tomorrow you let every Black person out of jail? We would still have way more people in jail than any other society per capita!

The bottom line is: where Body Bagz, you and I probably all meet in our sentiments is also where the most reform has to take place. The prison industry is powerful and likes having cells filled. Many of the crimes people have to deal with should be handled in the spirit of a social and not a criminal act, and geared towards harsh penalties... If we just resolved to do this, we could tackle the more henious crimes at a later date at the very least.