Export thread

Do you think we should excecute more people? or less people?
Do you support things like castration for rapists? Or cutting off the hands of thieves?
If someone assaults a loved one of yours, would you want to hit them with a wrench in the face until they stop moving?

What offenses would make you say someone should be "locked up and thrown away the key"? Also, what about mental health- do you get angry when a mass murderer is put in a mental health facility instead of prison? Do you get all mad and clench your fists when the "insanity defense" is used?

Death penalty? No idea. While I agree that there are some people for whom there is no hope of rehabilitation, and that for those people it seems a waste of money that could be going to social programs, road repair, paying government employees, etc., in order to keep them in prison for life; I'm often concerned that the wrong people are being executed. How do we know that this person is incapable of rehabilitation, just because a jury of their peers decided they were guilty of a specific crime which was considered heinous enough for the prosecutor to seek the death penalty?

Castration for rapists, cutting off the hands of thieves? No. Is castration going to stop people from committing additional rapes? Maybe. I'm not sure what the stats are on convicted rapists who've been chemically castrated and whether or not they've re-offended. Is cutting the hands off of thieves going to stop people from stealing again? Well... it'll certainly make it much more difficult, but now I'm going to have to pay for a permanent caretaker for this douchenozzle because we cut his damn hands off for stealing something.

Would I want to hit someone with a wrench until they stopped moving if they assaulted someone I love? I'd like to think that I wouldn't even want to do that, but whether I wanted to or not, I wouldn't do it. I'm not the justice system.

Insanity defense? Well, honestly, as with all of these questions, it depends on the specifics of the case.

What I'd really like to see punished more severely? DUI. Especially DUIs that result in injuries to third parties and/or deaths. The issue is, you can't really stop someone from driving drunk if they don't want to stop doing it. You can take away their license and insurance, making them liable for a lot more money if they get in an accident or get caught, but these people are driving drunk, so it's not like they have good reasoning skills in the first place or that the thought of having to pay an outlandish amount of money is going to enter in to their planning for the evening. You can put an interlock device on their car, but that doesn't prevent them from driving someone else's car or from getting someone else to blow into the device. Washington state is starting a new program where interlock devices will have cameras that will snap a photo of the person who actually blows into the device, but it's not like we're going to be able to assign enough cops to go through every photo taken by these devices, in real time, so they can go catch the moron before they hit another car or hit a bicyclist while drunkenly driving a metro bus (happened this week, in Seattle).

Charlie Don't Surf said:

Do you think we should excecute more people? or less people?
Do you support things like castration for rapists? Or cutting off the hands of thieves?
If someone assaults a loved one of yours, would you want to hit them with a wrench in the face until they stop moving?

What offenses would make you say someone should be "locked up and thrown away the key"? Also, what about mental health- do you get angry when a mass murderer is put in a mental health facility instead of prison? Do you get all mad and clench your fists when the "insanity defense" is used?

Click to expand...

The questions in your actual post seem only somewhat related to the question in your thread title.

Punishment in this country is all over the map for what is too harsh or too easy. Baby rapers and rapers in general really get light sentences. And down and out drug users, especially the ones in 3 strike states get sentences that are too harsh.

I'm of the idea that the government should have no say whatsoever on what you may or may not consume.

Calleja said:

I'm of the idea that the government should have no say whatsoever on what you may or may not consume.

Click to expand...

One caveat, for me, as long as it is not overly dangerous. Spoiled food and arsenic in the water supply. Or drugs that make you a danger to society as a whole.

Regulating Beer, Tobacco, Mind Altering Drugs, Sugar, Soda, etc... really comes across as government overstepping their bounds.

Death penalty for all offenses GTA and above.

GasBandit said:

Death penalty for all offenses GTA and above.

Click to expand...

I know a lot of people weren't so hot about IV, but calling for the death penalty seems just a little strong.

You also have to keep in mind that most offenders get long sentences because judges know that the offender will normally serve a fraction of the sentence.

I'd only like to have the ability to Gibbs Smack someone for saying something dumb on the internet. That's all.

jwhouk said:

I'd only like to have the ability to Gibbs Smack someone for saying something dumb on the internet. That's all.

Click to expand...

Dear lord, your arm will fall off the first day. The other one the next day, they how will you do your job of Gibbs Smacking?

I don't support capital punishment, dismemberment, or any other punishments of that sort. I do beleive in life sentences but also beleive that the prison system needs to be improved to a rehabilitative environment and less a hell on earth.

Charlie, most people here agree with you. You're just REALLY bad at making your point. I don't recomend working in any environment that involves people to you.

on a semi related note. If you are traveling through Tanzania never call out Simama, mwizi! thief! when you are traveling through Tanzania unless you want the blood of a stranger on your hands. Especially make sure you don't return to your hotel and find your missing item that was never in your pocket.

Gared said:

What I'd really like to see punished more severely? DUI. Especially DUIs that result in injuries to third parties and/or deaths.

Click to expand...

I'd add a second level to DUI. If you're only a little above the limit you get treated the same way DUI's are currently treated. If you're quite a bit over - to the point you can't realistically claim you thought you were still under the limit, that's an automatic jail sentence.

You kill someone while driving drunk? You get a murder charge. Not manslaughter. Not negligent homicide. Murder.

I know I'm European - and Belgian for that matter - but I seriously wouldn't have a big issue with obligatory alcohol breath testers in every car, all the time. Yes, there are issues for asthma patients and the elderly, diabetes patients and so on - but there are technical workarounds, just like there are cars out there with pedals at the wheels instead of at the feet and so on. Privacy wise, I wouldnt mind, and if it actually helped keep drunk idiots off the road, I'm all in favour. Same for oher drugs, btw. I don't mind people smoking/dirnking/shooting whatever the hell they want, as long as they do it in an environment where they won't be a danger to others. That is, not driving afterwards, not in possession of a gun, not near children, etc.
Punishment in general...Eh. It all depends not only on the crime, but on the individual case. Some murderers can be locked up for life, others just need proper counseling, therapy, help along with some sort of community service, perhaps.

If those alcohol breath testers weren't so testy, it wouldn't be a bad idea.

Even the breathalyzer can pretty wonky sometimes.

Plus I can see it being a possible issue in the event of an emergency.

They should have pricking machines that measure blood alcohol content directly from, y'know, THE BLOOD. Going by the breath is a pretty unreliable system.

All you gotta do is carry a vial of clean blood with you then. Or do you mean the police? Cause they do have more reliable systems.

I mean the police, when they pull you over.They should have a gameboy-sized machine where they see you put a finger in and it just pricks you and uses a drop of blood.

I'm thinking it takes longer to show up in the blood than it does to show up in your breath. I could be wrong though, and hopefully someone will follow up with actual facts. If it was as easy as a blood sugar test, I'm sure that would be the standard.

Shakey said:

I'm thinking it takes longer to show up in the blood than it does to show up in your breath. I could be wrong though, and hopefully someone will follow up with actual facts. If it was as easy as a blood sugar test, I'm sure that would be the standard.

Click to expand...

I'm not a scientist, but I think it has to be in the blood first before it fucks up your brain. Blood goes between your stomach and brain. etc

Charlie Don't Surf said:

I'm not a scientist, but I think it has to be in the blood first before it fucks up your brain. Blood goes between your stomach and brain. etc

Click to expand...

They don't measure your BAC directly, just estimate it. http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4759146_a-breathalyzer-work.html

So I'm guessing you get a quicker reading on the actual BAC level with a breathalyzer than you would a blood test.

DAMMIT I'M A BLOWHARD, NOT A DOCTOR

Shakey said:

They don't measure your BAC directly, just estimate it. http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4759146_a-breathalyzer-work.html

Click to expand...

Yeah, which is why I say it's unreliable and kind of stupid. There are drinks that leave quite a breath behind even before you even feel anything, and drinks that barely leave any and fuck you up. It's really quite silly it's still the standard, if you think about it.

But I'm sure there are technical limitations for them not going directly to the blood. I hope, at least.

Probably has a lot to do with non-doctors extracting blood from people too. Even if it's just a prick, I'm sure there's a lawsuit to be had.[DOUBLEPOST=1357966861][/DOUBLEPOST]But honestly, any amount of drinks more than one is too much. It also doesn't matter what you blow in the roadside test, you'll get tested at the station again. So if you didn't have too many and the breathalyzer is wrong the pee test will clear you. Or what ever they give you. I doubt that ever happens though...

That sounds logical... but considering it's to deter drunk driving, FUCK those whiners.

I seriously can't condone something as fucking illogical, irrational and SELFISH and GAH.

Sorry, drunk driving makes me angry just thinking about it.

I think it's good enough for road side tests. Even if they do pass and the officer doesn't believe they're sober they can still bring them in. The point is it's not good enough for being installed and required for every person.