Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

And I would put the pasted article in quotes like this.
Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

And yet another question to invoke debate....

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: And yet another question to invoke debate....

    The harsher the punishment, the more chance there is on recidive.

    The 3 strikes you out method (or what Eindar is proposing) only leads to more violent crimes and more chances to people dying in the process.


    If your basic penal-system is based upon revenge (as it is in most of the USA) then the chances are that each and every inmate comes back to haunt you.

    But the basic question about what is justice is not answered with all this, the penal-code and penal system have little to do with justice, justice also has to do with the fact that you can complain about almost anything to a judge to be awarded compensation, justice is equality, justice is the right to speak your peace, justice is balancing right and wrong.

    Justice is about the balance between punishment and retribution.

    There is a reason whu justice is pictured as scales, the reason is the balance on all accounts, not only the victim.
    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

    If you've done 6 impossible things today?
    Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: And yet another question to invoke debate....

      Originally posted by able View Post
      The 3 strikes you out method (or what Eindar is proposing) only leads to more violent crimes and more chances to people dying in the process.
      How can this possibly be true or make sense? People who are incarcerated do not commit crimes out in the community. The only reason an habitual offender law would not do what eindar says is if the law is passed but not enforced. Unfortunately, that is what we have in Indiana now. Although I feel society needs to allow people to reform and rejoin society, I agree with eindar that the habitual offender law needs to be enforced. It is one of the major tools other states and cities use.
      Originally posted by able
      justice is balancing right and wrong.... There is a reason whu justice is pictured as scales, the reason is the balance on all accounts, not only the victim.
      Phooey. Justice is not balancing right and wrong. Justice is doing as much right as possible, and that includes punishment when punishment is deserved. The reason justice is depicted as a blindfolded woman holding a scales is that justice is supposed to weight testimony without prejudice. And then make verdict which falls heavily on the truly guilty party.
      And I won't be here to see the day
      It all dries up and blows away
      I'd hang around just to see
      But they never had much use for me
      In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: And yet another question to invoke debate....

        Originally posted by Putnam View Post
        How can this possibly be true or make sense? People who are incarcerated do not commit crimes out in the community. The only reason an habitual offender law would not do what eindar says is if the law is passed but not enforced. Unfortunately, that is what we have in Indiana now. Although I feel society needs to allow people to reform and rejoin society, I agree with eindar that the habitual offender law needs to be enforced. It is one of the major tools other states and cities use.

        In order to commit that 3rd (or wharever number) offense, you have to be out, ppl incarcerated can not commit crimes (in general).

        If you are on your way to once again steal a loaf of bread because you are hungry, but were caught the previous two times and know you are facing life if you get caught this time, wouldn't that make you change your target and means?
        The use of (heavy) violence becomes an "easier" consideration, seeing as what awaits you when you get caught, in the end the "upgrade" of the risk, makes the "upgrade" of the crime more likely.



        Originally posted by Putnam View Post
        Phooey. Justice is not balancing right and wrong. Justice is doing as much right as possible, and that includes punishment when punishment is deserved. The reason justice is depicted as a blindfolded woman holding a scales is that justice is supposed to weight testimony without prejudice. And then make verdict which falls heavily on the truly guilty party.
        Justice does not equal punishment, penal code is no justice, it is penalty.

        I have no time to go into this deeper but there is a huge difference between the two, an eye for an eye might be seen as "justice" by some, others think that turning the other cheek is "justice".

        Once you proclaim to have cornered the market on what is right and what is wrong, without weight to both sides interests and without hearing both sides and then balance those interests, you have created an "injustice" on itself; who am I to judge?
        So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

        If you've done 6 impossible things today?
        Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: And yet another question to invoke debate....

          Originally posted by able View Post
          Once you proclaim to have cornered the market on what is right and what is wrong, without weight to both sides interests and without hearing both sides and then balance those interests, you have created an "injustice" on itself
          I agree with this, and hope everyone does. Of course it is important to hear both sides and weigh the evidence fairly. But that is the process that leads to the decision. That decision has to be made on the basis of individual responsibility. You cannot spread guilt around. Each accused person much be found guilty or innocent.

          Originally posted by able
          who am I to judge?
          Good point. As a person whose expertise lies with managing computer networks, there are a lot of things you don't know. And I can admit the same. We'd all be a lot happier if we as individuals withheld a lot of our opinions about things we don't know enough about. (though Pacers Digest is exactly the kind of place where we can let go and express opinions that may be half-baked.)

          The greater point, however, is that even if each individual can and should withhold judgment, society cannot afford to. Society must maintain a system of justice that does the job of dividing the guilty from the innocent. I am not at all saying that our current judicial system is a good one -- I'm just saying that a system is necessary.

          Originally posted by able
          If you are on your way to once again steal a loaf of bread because you are hungry
          This is a fiction. Jean Valjean steals a loaf of bread in Hugo's Les Miserable. But people stealing a loaf of bread because they are hungry isn't a big problem in Indianapolis. Mostly they steal cars, drugs, jewelry and bling.


          Originally posted by able
          ...but were caught the previous two times and know you are facing life if you get caught this time, wouldn't that make you change your target and means?

          The use of (heavy) violence becomes an "easier" consideration, seeing as what awaits you when you get caught, in the end the "upgrade" of the risk, makes the "upgrade" of the crime more likely.
          This makes sense, I admit. But the justification for an habitual offender law is borne out by the number of criminals who commit a 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th........felony. Crime would definitely be reduced if those guys were inside after the third.





          Originally posted by able
          others think that turning the other cheek is "justice".

          The concept of "turning the other cheek" is a Christian principle. It does not signify "justice" but "mercy". Jesus taught his followers to show mercy in their own affairs, and to bear abuse as if they had a better place to keep their treasures than this world. But there is nothing in any of the gospels (and that is where the concept of turning the other cheek comes from) to suggest that the civil society should overlook crime.

          Able, I thing we both agree that a "good" society would provide each person with adequate food, shelter, clothing, education, amusement, etc. And that crimes of frustration and rage should be curtailed through more fairness and opportunity before the crime. It is part of the injustice of justice that the silly criminal, by committing the crime, draws ALL the focus onto himself and compels society to view him as the offender when he is, in fact, to some degree, a victim of systemic injustice.
          And I won't be here to see the day
          It all dries up and blows away
          I'd hang around just to see
          But they never had much use for me
          In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: And yet another question to invoke debate....

            Originally posted by Putnam View Post
            Good point. As a person whose expertise lies with managing computer networks, there are a lot of things you don't know.
            And to think I studied law

            Originally posted by Putnam View Post
            Able, I thing we both agree that a "good" society would provide each person with adequate food, shelter, clothing, education, amusement, etc. And that crimes of frustration and rage should be curtailed through more fairness and opportunity before the crime. It is part of the injustice of justice that the silly criminal, by committing the crime, draws ALL the focus onto himself and compels society to view him as the offender when he is, in fact, to some degree, a victim of systemic injustice.
            So justice would also allow you to focus on rehabilitaion, better upbringing, education and so on.

            Justice turns to penal when to many things in society go wrong, countries like Sweden (and I can name quite a few more) have very low crime rates for other reasons then their penal system, which is mainly based on rehabilitation.
            So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

            If you've done 6 impossible things today?
            Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: And yet another question to invoke debate....

              Originally posted by able View Post
              The harsher the punishment, the more chance there is on recidive.

              The 3 strikes you out method (or what Eindar is proposing) only leads to more violent crimes and more chances to people dying in the process.
              Originally posted by Putman
              This makes sense, I admit. But the justification for an habitual offender law is borne out by the number of criminals who commit a 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th........felony. Crime would definitely be reduced if those guys were inside after the third.
              I
              Originally posted by #Eindar
              'm a big fan of making prisons an unenjoyable place to be. You really want to punish and rehabilitate at the same time? Take all distractions away from the confines. No TVs, stereos, or frivolous lawsuits. You get one visit per month for 1 hour. Absolutely nothing comes in from outside, including money or cigarettes. Those are priviledges. You revoked yours. We've got a library chock full of textbooks, self-help books, and classical literature. You can check up on current events via the newspaper, if you're so inclined. If you can't read, class is on Wednesday. Psychiatrists will be available to talk to you about what you did, who you are, and how to become a better human being at your leisure.

              After your third felony or fifth misdemeanor, your stay is indefinite. You will only be released when a panel decides, based on your actions, that you have put forth the effort neccessary to ensure your internal reform and external good behavior.
              First of all, great, great, thread. So much so that I can't even begin to comment on all the stuff I want. Jail overcrowding issue aside, I agree with Eindar and Putnam. If you're on the way to committing your third felony, then society needs to be protectted from you because you're an obvious predator.

              In Indiana, we do have a three strikes, but the way it works is that it has to be for three unrealated felonies.

              That is to say, if you are a career car thief, the third time you get caught doesn't do it. It has to be a different crime in an unrealted incident.

              Hence, car theft, car theft, car theft= NO
              burglary, car theft, felony battery= YES

              But getting to why I posted. Most criminals don't think "Ohh, this may be my third strike, I'd better make it good and be extra violent". Hell, most of them can't even admit, even to themselves, that they did something wrong.

              You wouldn't believe how many jail phone calls I listen to where the inmate says "Yeah, they got me locked up in here" not "I got myself locked up again", which is what they SHOULD say. It's always someone else's fault. They don't think they're doing wrong, so why would they see down the road that they may get caught and it would be their third strike? They don't. Criminals, for the most part, are very short sighted. Very. Short sighted.

              They aren't going to be more violent cause they think it might be their last harrah for a three strikes rule.

              Hell, a LOT of these guys view jail as some kind of social thing. "Hey, guess who I saw in cell 5? Yeah, that guy from down the street!" A lot of them act like jail is no big thing.


              *Sidenote* I'm in a unique position to see both sides of the coin. My nephew was away for Felony cocaine distribution for about a year. It was his second felony. (The other related to drunk driving). He's been out for 3-4 years now. Imagine how fun and easy it's been for him trying to get work where he has to check that felon box on job applications.

              So anyways, in two weeks he will return from a rehabilitative, spiritual, wilderness camp, where he's been for the past month and a half. The change in him is pronounced. Talking to him on the phone is bizarre. He's lucid, repentant and aware of the harm he's done for the very first time ever. It's like I'm talking to a different person. I'll admit, he makes me cry when I talk to him just seeing him coming out of his criminal fog being ashamed of his actions and apologetic for the harm he's done.

              The justice system didn't do that for him, nor do I think it could have. That being said, I wonder how many career predators actually have the desire at some point in their lives to turn things around?

              My nephew made a conscious decision to do so before it was too late. Is three strikes a mark we should strive for, then the hammer comes down? Can people change?

              I always had a pet theory that the reason some prisoners find God and quit being predators is out of sheer boredom of being incarcerated and realizing there are bigger predators than them in jail and they have no one to truly prey upon.

              So anyways, I'm still for the three strikes deal. The burden should be on punitive. I don't think a huge burden should be put on the state to make you a different person that you've decided to be. You provide options,, show them how to better themselves, then leave the rest up to them. They commit a third unrealated felony, then the option of them being back on the street is outweighed by the protection of society as a whole.
              Hey! What're you kicking me for? You want me to ask? All right, I'll ask! Ma'am, where do the high school girls hang out in this town?

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: And yet another question to invoke debate....

                Originally posted by Skaut_Ech View Post


                So anyways, in two weeks he will return from a rehabilitative, spiritual, wilderness camp, where he's been for the past month and a half. The change in him is pronounced. Talking to him on the phone is bizarre. He's lucid, repentant and aware of the harm he's done for the very first time ever. It's like I'm talking to a different person. I'll admit, he makes me cry when I talk to him just seeing him coming out of his criminal fog being ashamed of his actions and apologetic for the harm he's done.
                That is great to hear. Has his family forgiven him and do they trust him now. I certainly don't know your nephew and even though I'm a big law and order type of a guy, I believe in forgiveness, I believe in multiple forgiveness of those close to you. I'm sure he's hurt a lot of people close to him, but it is great to hear he's turned his life around.

                I'll be praying for him

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: And yet another question to invoke debate....

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  Why shouldn't he have been executed?

                  Most people's answer to that, is because of the cost. The only reason capital punishment is so expensive, is because they're allowed as many appeals as they want, up until their number is called.

                  IMO, the number of appeals should be limited.

                  I see no reason why he should have lived. He murdered over a thousand people, a lot of them children. He had no reason to live. He was a waste of space/food/utilities/clothing. He obviously didn't value human life, so why should I value his? He made his bed, and he's sleeping in it.

                  Personally, I'm probably more on the extreme side of capital punishment, punishment all together really, I'll freely admit that.


                  Prisons, as is, does nothing but teach smarter convicts. It's not viewed as a punishment nor a rehabilitation center. I've mentioned him before, but my brother has been in and out of prisons. I'm not talking county places, but in the state/federal system. It doesn't stop him, hell it actually gives him more incentive to keep on snorting. His rap sheet for drugs is longer than my arm, yet the last time he was picked up, he spent no longer than 6mons in there.

                  I think he's been in either for an arrest or parole/probation violation no lower than 8 times. Once he went in for conterfiting money, and he recieved what they called a "10-1" sentence. For every one day he spent in, it counted as ten. So he was sentenced to ten years, and was out in 10mons because of good behavior, which was a joke because he was involved in several fights which caused him to get surgery for a broken nose and teeth problems.

                  Our prison system is a joke. From top to bottom.
                  Have you been to Alcatraz?

                  I'd rather McVeigh, for example, be locked up forever in one of the old Alcatraz isolation units. I was scared to even step into one, for fear that someone would pull a prank and close the door.

                  The death penalty is much easier (and more expensive) for an attention-whore like McViegh than living the rest of his life in isolation, with his only human contact coming when an arm slides food through a small door. That's punishment.
                  Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                  Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                  Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                  Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                  And life itself, rushing over me
                  Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                  Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: And yet another question to invoke debate....

                    Originally posted by Jay@Section19 View Post
                    Have you been to Alcatraz?

                    I'd rather McVeigh, for example, be locked up forever in one of the old Alcatraz isolation units. I was scared to even step into one, for fear that someone would pull a prank and close the door.

                    The death penalty is much easier (and more expensive) for an attention-whore like McViegh than living the rest of his life in isolation, with his only human contact coming when an arm slides food through a small door. That's punishment.
                    Actually for McViegh the death penalty was much cheaper than life long incarceration. He waived almost all of his appeals & his death came quickly.

                    I've addressed the expense issue of the death penalty before & I'll try & locate that thread & post it here.


                    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: And yet another question to invoke debate....

                      Originally posted by Jay@Section19 View Post
                      Have you been to Alcatraz?

                      I'd rather McVeigh, for example, be locked up forever in one of the old Alcatraz isolation units. I was scared to even step into one, for fear that someone would pull a prank and close the door.

                      The death penalty is much easier (and more expensive) for an attention-whore like McViegh than living the rest of his life in isolation, with his only human contact coming when an arm slides food through a small door. That's punishment.
                      Which is why I said I'd like to see a limit of appeals. That's why it's so expensive.

                      It maybe scary for the first time, but after you've been in there a couple weeks, it would seem like home (which it would be). Unless you want to keep relocating them, which would be a hassle and unrealistic, they'd be accustomed to their surroundings and it wouldn't have the same affect. It's like living beside railroad tracks. First time you sleep/stay there, it sounds like you're house is coming down and you can't sleep. After a while you don't even notice.

                      I hate to say it, but keeping them alive serves no purpose. They're a walking dead man. They're a waste of space/money/food/clothing whatever.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: And yet another question to invoke debate....

                        There's an old (late-80's) Christian punk song by Steve Taylor (the guy behind Chevelle, Sixpence None the Richer, and the writer of most Newsboys songs...)

                        Ever hear the sound of a death row chorus?
                        ever see the look of a wolfman prowling the steps?
                        in this deep freeze bunker they store us
                        send away the priest, 'cause they're ain't nothing more to confess

                        She had the innocent eyes of a Renoir lady
                        clutched her black book like an angel nursing a child
                        "It's a quarter to midnight here, baby
                        if you're gonna stare, do it while I'm sleeping"

                        But her eyes, they shone of an innocent way...
                        in her eyes, we glimpsed of an innocent way...
                        and in the days that followed we were under a spell
                        why's the girl visiting a prison cell?

                        Innocence, innocence,
                        innocence lost
                        all souls want it back
                        some uncover the cost
                        innocence, innocence lost
                        break free, look at me
                        is your innocence lost?

                        He'd seen things that a man don't mention
                        sunk into his eyes was a weariness nothing could heal
                        "Don't tell me 'bout your cheap salvation
                        what's a man do when he don't feel nothing?"

                        But her eyes, they shone of an innocent way...

                        She said, "Beyond these bars there are things you can't see"
                        He spoke slowly
                        "Ain't no pardon for me"

                        Innocence, innocence,
                        innocence lost
                        all souls want it back
                        some uncover the cost
                        innocence, innocence lost
                        she said, "Look at me,
                        don't you, don't you lose your innocence
                        don't lose your innocence"
                        he said, "God's own angels couldn't give me hope
                        when you leave me hanging, just leave me enough rope"

                        But her eyes he glimpsed of an innocent way...

                        And on the eve of destruction they were shining the chair
                        outside vigils, inside men were sobbing
                        as she kissed his forehead when the morning had dawned
                        he said softly to her, "I'll see you beyond"
                        Steve wrote, describing the song:

                        "I dreamt up the fictional details, but the core inspiration of this conversion story is a friend who for a number of years has been taking the love of God to those in prison as a volunteer for prison fellowship. 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' (Matthew 25:40)"
                        Keeping them alive just might serve a purpose, even if they are never released to society.
                        Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                        Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                        Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                        Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                        And life itself, rushing over me
                        Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                        Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: And yet another question to invoke debate....

                          Originally posted by Jay@Section19 View Post
                          There's an old (late-80's) Christian punk song by Steve Taylor (the guy behind Chevelle, Sixpence None the Richer, and the writer of most Newsboys songs...)



                          Steve wrote, describing the song:



                          Keeping them alive just might serve a purpose, even if they are never released to society.
                          And putting them to death might also serve a purpose.

                          Ted Bundy will never kill again, John Wayne Gacy will never kill again.... I could go on & on but you get the point.


                          Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: And yet another question to invoke debate....

                            Originally posted by Peck View Post
                            And putting them to death might also serve a purpose.

                            Ted Bundy will never kill again, John Wayne Gacy will never kill again.... I could go on & on but you get the point.
                            True, but max security prisons are secure enough that you can pretty much say the same thing without the DP.

                            I don't want to totally revisit the DP debate but I just feel it's another symptom of the lack of value American society places on Human life. Get pregnant? Have an abortion. Have fairly vague and controversial testimony regarding someone's death wish? Disconnect the feeding tube. Our society says it's wrong to kill someone unless you feel you're in danger - but society kills people who essentially pose a negligible threat to anyone.

                            However - and I've been wondering where to fit this in, what is justice?

                            I don't have an answer BTW but it absolutely changes between societies and over time. I don't think anyone will argue with this.

                            Frex, American West, circa 1868. Hanging a Horse Thief. Today someone steals a horse and they get 2-5 years. Back then you stole a horse from someone in Kansas or Colorado and you subjected the victim to possible death from a variety of causes - thirst/hunger, Indians, etc. Couple that with the fact that Western jails were just that - jails. Small and designed as a temp holding cell.

                            Or let's go back a bit. Today we all recognize any form of forced Human bondage as evil. If you go back to 200 BC that was an accepted part of society - even among many slaves. Most slaves became so by being on the losing side of a battle and if you'd asked them, that was the way it was supposed to be. If you lost the battle, it meant The Gods favored the other guy that day. Captured troops became slaves. They didn't like it much, but they would have considered it just - and if you had rich relatives you might be ransomed. Of course with the Romans you became slaves forever, along with your progeny. Fast forward a few hundred years to the Germanic tribes. Same concept - you lose a battle and you'd become a slave. In this case however you could work your way out of it - or at least your family could. First generation was a slave, 2nd generation (so long as the slave behaved him or herself) was half-free, 3rd generation was a free member of society.

                            Justice was simpler back then. As society becomes more complex, justice does too.

                            Then this question: Should justice reflect the crime committed by the individual or the damage done to society by that crime?

                            Here's a scenario designed for the visceral distaste it brings up (and reflecting a recent Indiana news report): A guy is arrested for possession of child porn. He has literally thousands of images of children - some very young - on his home PC. Maybe he has illicit magazines stacked to the roof in his home. But the individual doesn't have a violent bone in his body, has never approached a child for the purposes of engaging in sexual activity of any kind, is an upper middle-class individual who's active in his community and a contributing member of society.

                            Is it just to throw the book at this guy for having a disgusting fetish where he has never personally harmed - or even though of - harming someone?

                            Or do you decide it's just to throw the book at him because of the damage he and people such as him do to society - the fact that his purchase of online sexual material and magazines supports a disgusting, dangerous industry where children are forced to engage in sexual activity, where young girls are kidnapped and forced to live as sexual slaves - and in some societies where women have little value are even sold by their families for that purpose?

                            I think I know what most people would say but ...

                            Let's transpose that to a suburban couple who live in a nice upper-middle class neighborhood. Their combined incomes are in the upper-5, lower-6 figure range. They own a nice $200,000 home and are active in their school and Church. For the most part, they are positive, contributing members of society. And every weekend, just for a little extra thrill, they like to snort a little cocaine. Do we decide these recreational drug users aren't hurting anyone and justice dictates that they should receive a minor sentence - maybe only a suspended sentence w/ community service? Or do we decide justice dictates a harsher sentence as they support an industry responsible for thousands of deaths, either by OD or simple murder in our society - an industry which IMO has devastated an entire racial class and many of our inner cities?

                            Anyway, I've worked with (not in - with) the court system for quite some time and I don't have a clear idea on what constitutes justice - but I'm pretty sure in our society, that taking a man or woman who our prison system can basically render harmless, strapping them into a chair and administering lethal sedatives isn't justice but vengeance. It provides no benefit to society - only to the family and friends of victims.
                            The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: And yet another question to invoke debate....

                              Originally posted by Peck View Post
                              And putting them to death might also serve a purpose.

                              Ted Bundy will never kill again, John Wayne Gacy will never kill again.... I could go on & on but you get the point.
                              That's an interesting, secular view.

                              I'm pretty sure that imprisonment without the possibility of parole was sufficient to ensure those guys never killed again, though.

                              Regardless, there are many Christians that take the paradoxical anti-abortion, pro-capital punishment (or a pro-war) position that, as DK points out, puts a very twisted view on the value of life. Either life is valuable, or its not. Circumstances don't change that distinction.

                              I don't have a problem with you saying, from a secular perspective, that you don't value other people's lives.

                              I can live with a majority-view that our society doesn't value other people's lives.

                              But I am disturbed by the cherry-picking from the (as usual), misinformed Religious Right.

                              I see no compelling reason for anyone to suffer "capital punishment."
                              Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                              Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                              Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                              Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                              And life itself, rushing over me
                              Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                              Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: And yet another question to invoke debate....

                                Originally posted by Jay@Section19 View Post
                                Regardless, there are many Christians that take the paradoxical anti-abortion, pro-capital punishment (or a pro-war) position that, as DK points out, puts a very twisted view on the value of life. Either life is valuable, or its not. Circumstances don't change that distinction.
                                Capital punishment is exactly what the second word is, punishment. They're being punished for their own actions.

                                Going to war is a personal decision, now that the draft is illegal. It's the consequence of your own action.

                                A child that is aborted as no say, has no voice, has no decision to make. I don't know how you can call that twisted.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X