Where do you fit into the Political Spectrum?

[K-DOGG]

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.

If I could load you up with green K, Billeau, I would. Great compare/contrast between the two cultures. Obviously, the United States being settled by protestants, the Judeo-Christian train of thought is going to be the dominant philosophy, which is our problem, IMO. We have to un-teach ourselves in order to be more effective.

Long road.

[BodyBagz]

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.

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.

You both are better humans than me. I'm pretty much angry right now just thinking about scumbags who are ruining someones life right now

Every person in a civilized country has the opportunity to live a ''good'' life (relatively speaking). No one has to commit a crime. I'm not talking about childish pranks and homeless people shoplifting or the mentally unstable (I'll get to that later).

We know what we don't others to do to us, so why would a person inflict that on someone else ????

''I don't want my mother or daughter ****d, but I'm in the mood to do some raping....''

The mere thought process of committing a crime is enough to get my blood boiling.

Sure, society should be bigger than the low life and show compassion......FOR THE VICTIMS

Letting the victims decide the punishment is a great idea if there are guide lines -

''No Mr Jones. You may not execute this person because this person stole something from you. And no. You cannot even chop off a fingernail. You cannot bring any physical pain to this person. Present you evidence and if it shows beyond ALL DOUBT this person is guilty, you may pass sentence accordingly.''

If the crime is exceptionally heinous and the perp is PROVEN 100000% guilty, let the Hostel games begin. If you can't prove it in a court of law, oh well.

As for American citizens being wrongly incarcerated (or worse), what system is above that ? Even some civilized Eastern countries are guilty of punishing the innocent. Or handing slaps on the wrist for **** or allow worse crimes in the name of a Deity.

In the end, God is supposed to have mercy. His judgement trumps all. Here on Earth, a low life has to expect the worst punishment. Not free medical, cable, access to a gym, decent meals or an education. That good schit is reserved for human beings.

That's how it would be in my world

Oh yeah. The mentally unstable. The violent ones has got to go. DGAF about the voices made you do it.
Non violent ones get a nice cozy room with rubber walls to bounce off of

[billeau2]

You both are better humans than me. I'm pretty much angry right now just thinking about scumbags who are ruining someones life right now

Every person in a civilized country has the opportunity to live a ''good'' life (relatively speaking). No one has to commit a crime. I'm not talking about childish pranks and homeless people shoplifting or the mentally unstable (I'll get to that later).

We know what we don't others to do to us, so why would a person inflict that on someone else ????

''I don't want my mother or daughter ****d, but I'm in the mood to do some raping....''

The mere thought process of committing a crime is enough to get my blood boiling.

Sure, society should be bigger than the low life and show compassion......FOR THE VICTIMS

Letting the victims decide the punishment is a great idea if there are guide lines -

''No Mr Jones. You may not execute this person because this person stole something from you. And no. You cannot even chop off a fingernail. You cannot bring any physical pain to this person. Present you evidence and if it shows beyond ALL DOUBT this person is guilty, you may pass sentence accordingly.''

If the crime is exceptionally heinous and the perp is PROVEN 100000% guilty, let the Hostel games begin. If you can't prove it in a court of law, oh well.

As for American citizens being wrongly incarcerated (or worse), what system is above that ? Even some civilized Eastern countries are guilty of punishing the innocent. Or handing slaps on the wrist for **** or allow worse crimes in the name of a Deity.

In the end, God is supposed to have mercy. His judgement trumps all. Here on Earth, a low life has to expect the worst punishment. Not free medical, cable, access to a gym, decent meals or an education. That good schit is reserved for human beings.

That's how it would be in my world

Oh yeah. The mentally unstable. The violent ones has got to go. DGAF about the voices made you do it.
Non violent ones get a nice cozy room with rubber walls to bounce off of

Your honest about it. I myself feel that way about individuals who harm, kill children. If someone has committed a henious crime and it is incontravertable, obvious to the world, i have no problem with the death penalty.

for 95% or so of the other crime, I do think rehabilitation efforts are merited, but one can certainly justify either side in that debate. Could it be...our very own social conditioning determines our view on crime and punishment?

I grew up in East Harlem, New York City, as a minority white person in a neighborhood that was for the most part Puerto Rican and Black. My parents were *******, in a traditional sense, not this crap we see now a days...My friends were of all colors lol. I often tell people that it would probably be impossible for me to be a racist because I had it drilled into me through experience, that we all bleed red, so to speak.

I mean, if our views are an expression of our experiences then its hard to consider them ethical choices, or even right, or wrong because they are somewhat predetermined. This is very interesting to consider: Here is a true story.

My dad fought in the Marines in the second world war. A lot of the marines were actually sympathetic to the Germans, so they fought the Japanese...My dad was one of the few ***s to join the marines. Well, the marines bond quickly and my father was loved... (I have memories as a kid of him meeting these fat guys from new jersey and they would hug each other and I was like 'what da fvk?')

So, knowing life might be short, the marines were very candid with each other... My father was told by some guys from the midwest that "Hey Davey, I thought ***s had places on their forhead that they had to shave horns off of..." These guys actually, having never met a ***, thought that this was a reality. Of course, when they met my dad, they realized that they had been told a lot of BS.

This"meeting" was a rupture in their respective social programming...It was as much so for my father, because being a nice ***ish boy from the Bronx, he had never met people who grew up outside the city, or who were gentiles I would imagine, because he was raised in a ***ish area in the city.

So my point is simple: Its wonderful when we all are willing to challenge our social programming. Even on an issue as this one, its not about you not being "nice", or if one were to accuse you of "not being well educated" and all the other things people say to try to prove their social conditioning is superior. Its about understanding that there is ultimately no right or wrong here. People do some fvked up **** to each other. And society is left to create a way to deal with it. Who should suffer and how much? the mother who has a young child destroyed? when for example Sweden says "we lock up guy for 10 years." or should the perp be just dealt with? But what of a younger man about 15 who murders? its not so easy in this case... Someone is going to pay for any rehab extended to this individual, the state pays, as in, pays for it, the victims family pays, as they probably do not feel inclined in these efforts... There is no right or wrong so much it would seem to me.

[JimRaynor]

A lot of those questions were loaded questions that didn’t have a simple agree or disagree response to them.

What this test does show is that the *************/**********s are actually oriented toward a balanced center meanwhile the lefty’s are definitely skewed much further left and away from the middle. Just shows how much the Overton window has shifted.


I recall one of the questions being something to the effect of should the good of society rest in corporations prospering or for the workers to prosper. It’s a ****** question because if a corporation prospers then it’s a good sign that workers are prospering as well since corporations employ workers in the tens or hundreds of thousands, in other words they go hand in hand. However, the inclination is to pick that it is more important for workers to prosper which then pushes your overall score to the left, but it’s not black and white like that. If Amazon, Walmart, and Home Depot went out of business tomorrow there would be a lot of non prospering workers.

[BrometheusBob.]

I felt unsure about several of the Qs, I might try again later

But doesn't feel totally off

[BrometheusBob.]

What this test does show is that the *************/**********s are actually oriented toward a balanced center meanwhile the lefty’s are definitely skewed much further left and away from the middle. Just shows how much the Overton window has shifted.

Hard to say because the scale means something different than a traditional left and right thing. Here, libertarian means strictly against government involvement (whether being against government involvement on that particular issue would be a typical ******* or conservative viewpoint).

Eg, Answering against regulations for businesses moves you further down the y-axis, but answering in favor of restrictions on ******** would move you up the y-axis. Both are conservative stances, but one is more authoritarian than the other. (At least I think this is how it works)

The economic axis probably does fit the normal left-right paradigm though

[BrometheusBob.]

Found this example online. Not sure if the particular values can be relied on, some look off to me, but basically the concept is that:
(x-axis)
economic 10 = pure free-market
economic -10 = complete state control of economy

(y-axis)
social lib/auth 10 = dictatorship
social lib/auth -10 = anarchy