Entitled to privacy after being convicted?

SpyMoose said:
Your beef with crack dealers is that they use common capitalistic techniques to build a market for themselves? How about how they sell a product that poses a safety hazard to the consumer!
Click to expand...
I am a leftist, i'd take issue with the entire capitalist system.

And despite its many flaws, i dont think capitalism has so far got away with using violent force to intimidate its consumers, crack dealers are not like the guy you buy marijuana from, theyre criminals who probably have links with a bigger picture and are not averse to using that fact.
 
spaganya said:
FYI - im a police officer - so i have had my share of visiting jails and come in contact with criminals daily. It is because of my job that i am able to say that one of the reasons that violence has reached the heights that it has is because people dont understand the consequences of their actions. You ask a drug dealer on the street nowadays why they do what they do when they know its illegal and wrong, and they will almost always respond "yeah so what? nothing will happen to me other than a few years in jail" they dont seem to care. apparently the consequences that exist now arent enough of a deterrent to crime.
Click to expand...

Ive noticed when the police talk about when people break the law, they always use this excuse that people shouldnt break the law because its "illegal" and "wrong". This is fundamentally flawed.

Who decides what should be illegal and what is wrong? Society? No. The police? No. The church? Not anymore. The politicians? Yes. The thing about this is politicians are usually not in touch with society's opinions, they usually dont have any real concept of why people commit crime. What happens is they get some agenda into their head because they either feel that they must leave their mark on society or they feel that society's culture needs changing, they then force it through parliament by ordering their respective party members to vote in a particular fasion. They then use the police to carry out the agenda, erroding respect for them and use televised "campaigns" (I would call it propoganda) to make the public agree with it.

The police are already the tool of the state, the police are used to control the population. Ive said it once but Ill say it again and that is the police, who used to be there primarilly for protecting and serving society and now being used to carry out political agendas, namely controlling society in every aspect of life, from parenting (smacking) to driving habits (speeding).

There is only one group of people who benefit from all this bullshit and that is the lawyers.

In order to change attitudes, you must first deliver on what people are happy with and make people aware of what the consequences of their actions are through education, not enforcement which just errodes the respect that the police need in order to carry out their job properly. Making criminals out of ordinary people is not the way to go.

As to the issue of using the guy's photo, I think its totally out of order.
 
Captain_Crunch said:
Ive noticed when the police talk about when people break the law, they always use this excuse that people shouldnt break the law because its "illegal" and "wrong". This is fundamentally flawed.

Who decides what should be illegal and what is wrong? Society? No. The police? No. The church? Not anymore. The politicians? Yes.

They then use the police to carry out the agenda, erroding respect for them and use televised "campaigns" (I would call it propoganda) to make the public agree with it.

The police are already the tool of the state, the police are used to control the population. Ive said it once but Ill say it again and that is the police, who used to be there primarilly for protecting and serving society and now being used to carry out political agendas, namely controlling society in every aspect of life, from parenting (smacking) to driving habits (speeding).

There is only one group of people who benefit from all this bullshit and that is the lawyers.

In order to change attitudes, you must first deliver on what people are happy with and make people aware of what the consequences of their actions are through education, not enforcement which just errodes the respect that the police need in order to carry out their job properly. Making criminals out of ordinary people is not the way to go.
Click to expand...

My thought in the whole policing system is this:

Just because you might not agree with the law doesnt mean you should break it. Laws exist to create order in a civilized society. if the laws are unexceptable to you, there are ways to get those laws changed within a system. As i have seen first hand, protests and huge "breaking of laws" doesnt necessisarily result in the changing of that law. it just creates disharmony and chaos.

In order to preserve order i feel laws should be followed and people that break laws should be punished. That might be a catch all but its what i think. Even petty crimes deserve a punishment, no matter how "noble" nor "necessary" the cause (stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving family)...

the system might be flawed but until its changed i follow the rules as they are set. society will dictate when rules are unfair and have them changed accordingly. but just because you think you are above the law because you wrote a lot of bad checks and didnt really "hurt anybody" is bullshieeet... there is no such thing as a victimless crime.
 
I believe that no government can force me to obey laws that I disagree with. If I am caught it is my own choice and I will pay the consequences for my actions. If they state thinks that shaming is an effective punishment then it has the right to use it as long as it is not applied as an unusual punishment that means that every one should have the same chance at getting their face on the board.
 
They can only punish me after I commit the crime not before (unless bush has his way). This is one of the founding principals of American justice along with equal treatment under the law. It a sign of an unhealthy society when different segments of society are treated differently with no opportunity for upward social movement so far this has not become a problem in America because while the extremely wealthy enjoy certain privileges there is the perception that any one can become wealthy through hard work. There is also negative mobility if you commit a crime then you lose some of your privileges that are sometimes mistaken for rights and some of your rights are curtailed as well.
 
ok, the point of laws is not only to control you, it's to protect you. for example, murder is a crime, for the reason of protecting random people like you from those who would kill you for looking at them the wrong way.

there is no such thing as cruel and unusual punishment. like i've read somewheres, if it is not cruel and unusual, then how is it punishment?

and if you don't feel protected by laws, or feel you shouldn't, i'd be glad to rid the world of you so that others aren't polluted by your ideas. (not a thread, just illustrating a point, nobody sue me eh?)
 
captain crunch:

Who decides what should be illegal and what is wrong? Society? No. The police? No. The church? Not anymore. The politicians? Yes.
Click to expand...

Well, according to you I would assume that the politicians are the ones who decide what punishments are implemented for the illegal and wrong acts. In that case, it seems that the current punishment system is just as corrupt as the laws. So perhaps the politicians' decision to avoid "cruel and unusual punishment" is just as out of touch from society as their rules on what crimes is. So perhaps flogging should make a come back as an effective punishment and deterrent? Or perhaps the stocks?
 
mountainhare:

You seem to think that 'criminals' are a seperate group from 'normal' human beings
Click to expand...

they are seperate. the 'criminals' are the group that violated the social contract, the 'normal' human beings are the ones that didn't
 
Quantum Quack said:
Spaganya,
You would say that the degree of premeditation is important to this discussion?
Maybe this could be used as a criteria for the "shaming" of convicted crims.
Click to expand...


my bad i just noticed this submission... in response....

yes it is important. I believe that premeditation is what separates instinct from social deviants. Such as my example of the battered wife who finally just snaps and stabbs her hubby as opposed to the dude on the corner who decided to deal drugs, then shoot up the neighboring drug dealer to get in on his profits.

I believe there are different stages to crime, which i think i stated earlier in this post. Some do crimes with "evil intent" and some do them out of a primal urge or need. (hence why there are distinctions between manslaughter and capital murder....)
 
But if we could all just ignore those laws we didnt like, or opt out of capitalism, or all of these things suggested by hippies and other misguided people, there'd be no need for revolution to violently remove capitalism would there?
 
I disagree with the principal of anarchy because I believe that there has to be some restraints on bullies and way of organizing for specialization. I want a society that encourages the maximum amount of freedom with a minimum amount of security to raise kids safely. I do not feel any particular compulsion to obey any law which I do not agree with other than fear of getting caught. This is why we have a judicial system to prevent people like me with less scruples from harming others who they feel deserve it. The protections for criminals prevent judges from deciding that they do not like convict x so his life is going to be really rough and convict y is nice so his punishment is less. This goes on a little today but it was extremely bad before they added some protections into the system.
 
they dont seem to care. apparently the consequences that exist now arent enough of a deterrent to crime. (Spaganaya)
Click to expand...

Actually, no I don't think so. The real problem is an increasing sense of hopelessness and cynicism, by everyone, not just criminals. Who cares if you are going to jail if you have nothing to lose?

We've lost the core values and attitudes that used to be a lot more evident (at least in Amercican society). Increasing deterrents won't make much difference without compassion, hope and joy of living. The barren cultural wasteland of the 21st century is a perfect breeding ground for criminals and sociopaths. Fix that, you'll fix the crime problem.
 
captain Crunch cool post. The geezer's crimminal record is public property. So is everyone's crimminal record. It belongs to the state. (unless federal crime than it belongs to the Federal gov). Probably insensative that they made Mr. Geezer the poster boy for their anti-cocaine ad but I have to say that if Mr Geezer had such an image problem with the whole cocaine thing in the first place than why was he messing with it and what the hell was the gun for?

I can say with great certainty that cocaine plus gun =danger. For Geezer and his neigbors. People on cocaine are immune to rational behavior and a person running on flared emotions and high with a gun is not a neighbor I want next to me. I would really like to know if my neighbor(s) were pumped on cocaine and caring a gun. It should be public information.

Two reasons it is beneficial for society to know is:

(1) protects neigbors from possible harm
(2) discourages destructive behaivor (like cocaine + gun) through advertising.

Obviously Geezer was not pleased with his face an advertisement for cocaine which suggests he sees it as wrong or precieves that the society that he exists in will see it as wrong and will adjust their behavior towards him based on this.

I don't think it was wrong for the police to post his picture.

The use of advertising is actually in use as a crime deterient on various levels. Sex offenders are posted on a online database for everyone to see. It serves to protect children and discourage sex offenses (which is speculative on how well the 2nd one works but I have heard sex offenders complain about it often at my old job).

When you interview for various jobs you crimminal background is checked. Would you be alarmed if your doctor, lawyer, bus driver (for public transportation including school buses), financial planner, ect was running around with coke and drugs outside of work? I would.

Look at an industry that does not protect against this and how it affects them. And I know this is gonna irked people but it is reality like it or not. The catholic church and sex offenders. I am willing to bet that the Catholic Church does not screen for sex offenders in the clergy which is the reason for the really really percentage of perverts in their priesthood.

What if they did that in 2005? How many kids would be saved a future molestaition if they tweeked that one part of their hiring process? I can tell you for a fact that most child molesters will molest as many children as they can get to if given the opportunity (like catholic priests), and everytime the Catholic Church has or had let one pervert slide he went on to molest not one but dozens of children in all probablity. Multiply that by their pervert factor and you have an example of what can happen---a real life experiment of what can happen, when the information is kept on the low key to protect the criminal.

I think their should be bounderies on what is published and how serious the crime but in the instance of cocaine (espcially coke plus gun) which is a seriously self destructive drug, I think your neighbors have a right to know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top