That bit of make-believe is undone quite simply by your post. You remind clearly the difference between justice and what "people on the right" want.
Quit advocating murder, Wellwisher. Your vendetta fantasies do not license murder.
And, furthermore, I challenge you to explain just what benefit society gets from having the police as a Death Squad, such as you and your fellow conservatives advocate? Just how do you think it right that the police should wander around murdering innocent people? Why would you advocate that? That's terrible, Wellwisher.
I never advocated murder, only retroactive self defense. This is a revisionist's history version of self defense, We blame the present for slavery, so why not place a cop at the scene of the crime, after the fact, even if there is no direct rational connection? Once the cop is place in the past; scene of the crime, he can defend in real time, based on revisionist history. The left already set this precedent of retroactive guilt for something you did not do, and allows retribution for those who were also not even there. I merely extrapolated this to create a balance. I call it revisionists history self defense by proxy.
You have twisted the facts, in liberal fashion, to create fake news. You are trying to take everyone's eye off the ball. If I borrow a cup of sugar from you, is it too much to expect for you to give me back something of equal value? It does not have to be a cup of sugar; eye for an eye, although that will also work. Why is it OK to scam or steal and not be expected to make the situation whole? Does one side have to be the bigger person and always be the one that has to forgive?
The current system is set up for lawyers, who benefit by repeat offenders created by the concept of criminal rights. Helping to restore the victims is not a large part of this equation. The victim did nothing wrong, but has less resources earmarked than those who do the wrong.
Picture this legal scenario, where someone is mugged and their wallet stolen. Culture now has to reimburse the victim for the actions of the criminal, who is currently given excuses and rights. This change will cut into the current budget process. They will either need to downsize or lower the percent going to the criminals.
The three main components of tangible costs are victim costs, criminal justice system costs, and crime career costs. Predatory crimes generated the highest per-offense cost to society with $1.28 million per murder, $41,247 per rape/sexual assault, $21,398 per robbery, and $19,537 per aggravated assault.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2835847/
Say we needed to cut these tangible costs by 50%, while adding new spending connected to making victims whole. How do you do that? The lawyers and police will not take a pay cut. We need other ways to make the criminals pay for the social cost and tab their create, by victimizing others. The criminal starts the cost, and will need to part of the solution. If they were a good citizen there would be no costs. How do you make the criminal like a good citizen while spending more on victims?
How about instead of a private room with benefits, murderers have to work to pay for their own costs, no matter how long it takes. This could justify life in prison. How about if you put a value on a police beating of the suspect, as worth $50,000 against their tab. Some criminals will take the beating, to be released early. This goes a long way to empowering victims. If it buys you a year less in prison, it may be worth it to some.
Crime career costs are also part of the equation. We need to make this career path not worth it. How do you do that? You can't control the black market, to make stealing less profitable. One way is to steal from the thieves, so their time is worth less. Police will shake down career criminals.
The eye on the ball is about criminals creating costs to society. No costs occur until the criminal do their thing. Up to the point the criminal creates a crime, they are equal to an innocent civilian. Once they cross the line, we need to restore and reduce costs.
Say there is finite budget and finite manpower to restore balance, in terms of social costs. The justice system and police cannot deal with all crimes, in a ways that can lower costs, due to limited manpower and resources. The logical way is to look at crime statistics and target the worse crime areas, with your limited resources, so you get the most social bang for the buck. A good approach it to preempt crime ,by adding opportunity costs to the known criminals, to lower the career benefits; harassment.
If you are indoctrinated into liberalism you are conditioned to think crime is justified for certain people. For example, destroying property during riots is OK. There are a 1001 excuses to justify crime for certain leftist groups, most based on revisionist's history. The idea of balance of costs, in the liberal analysis, takes into account the opportunity costs of slavery, so the present day victims stay in deficit, repaying alleged past crimes. The left already does this cost system approach. Their equation is not rational, but then again that is the nature of the confidence game of criminals.
Explain to us why criminals should have more rights when you do a cost analysis? Did I adequately define the premises of your logic?
