I think there are way, way more confounding factors.I did live in Singapore after 2008 till 2014.
They have capital punishment for drug crimes.
It works!
Harder to find drugs in Singapore than it is to find girls who will do a 3 sum.
But that's because it's embedded in the country's culture.. some stuff is bad and punishable by death. Play stupid games, you'll win the stupid prize. Most Singaporeans don't want to win the darwin award though unlike Americans.
Car jackers are not the one's you should be fearing when it comes to your safety in the LGBTQ+ community. In fact, they have nothing to do with it. Maybe you meant Christian nationalists instead of car jackers.. or maybe you meant right wing government officials.. God himself hasn't been able to cleanse evil from this country, or the world.. not sure how you think death to car jackers will fix the problem. Specially since the America you want has never existed, as our history is full of evil, bloodshed, and hatred.
Your mythical America is impossible to achieve. The only place you will find the peaceful America you dream of is in death. That is the factual reality you are not grasping. Killing Car Jackers won't achieve anything towards bring us closer to your mythical America. All it will do is increase the number of dead bodies.That's my point..
The country we want has never existed.
The country we live in exists because of guns and fighting back against tyrants and taxes.
Isn't it time to make the country we want to fight back against violent crime, extremist and religious purges?
You must be conflicted, the part of the political spectrum that could possible grant you your capital punishment dreams is the same spectrum is actively waging war on bud light.That's my point..
The country we want has never existed.
The country we live in exists because of guns and fighting back against tyrants and taxes.
Isn't it time to make the country we want to fight back against violent crime, extremist and religious purges?
Fight back against violent crime and extremism with state-sanctioned violence, extremism, and purging, sounds legit.That's my point..
The country we want has never existed.
The country we live in exists because of guns and fighting back against tyrants and taxes.
Isn't it time to make the country we want to fight back against violent crime, extremist and religious purges?
You must be conflicted, the part of the political spectrum that could possible grant you your capital punishment dreams is the same spectrum is actively waging war on bud light.
How's that been working out for humanity so far?Ever hear the phrase.. fight fire with fire?
How's that been working out for humanity so far?
Reminds me of a social media comment I read not long about how we needed to "get medieval on crime." I was thinking, yeah cause crime rates were so much lower in the middle ages...
This thread also reminds me of an old high school "buddy" who went MAGA and back the blue and then unfriended me because I replied to one of his batshit posts to remind him that he had a record for resisting arrest (dude literally tried to fight a cop back in the day and got his ass beat, but I digress).
Point is, these kids made a stupid life choice and they died young for it all on their own. There is no conceivable legal deterrent that could possibly beat what they did to themselves. And yet they did it anyway.
So let's try using our brains to fight crime instead eh?
That's idealism, not realism.Disagree.
I'm a realist.
You can't stop crime 100% but you can lower it by taking career criminals or violent criminals out of the equation permanently.
You keep repeating this as fact when it just isn’t true. Besides your anecdotal story about Singapore provide actual information thet shows lower crime in the US in states that have the death penalty.Disagree.
I'm a realist.
You can't stop crime 100% but you can lower it by taking career criminals or violent criminals out of the equation permanently.
Exactly, the OP's entire premise is bullshit. He conflates auto theft with carjacking, which are two distinct types of crimes. The only violent part of this story is the auto accident that killed the thieves. Having "no sympathy" for reckless criminals is one thing, but he seems to be cheering on their deaths as good public policy.From the title, I honestly thought this would be a Felix thread.
Didn't realize some felt so strongly about car theft as an offense, that they wish death upon those who do it. Bit extreme IMO. In this case, they were kids. No chance for redemption allowed?
This incident was unfortunate and avoidable, but saying, "that's what you fuckers get" ? Jeez.
Disagree.
I'm a realist.
You can't stop crime 100% but you can lower it by taking career criminals or violent criminals out of the equation permanently.
You can stop crime pretty damn close to 100% by making sure everyone's needs are taken care of. Not sure why people still don't get that. Punishment is short-sighted and always has been. Smarten up.Disagree.
I'm a realist.
You can't stop crime 100% but you can lower it by taking career criminals or violent criminals out of the equation permanently.
You can stop crime pretty damn close to 100% by making sure everyone's needs are taken care of. Not sure why people still don't get that. Punishment is short-sighted and always has been. Smarten up.
Deterrent punishment is for people that think ahead. Death penalty if for stupid violent people.Which leads me back to my original question... can you provide any evidence that the death penalty is a deterrent?
You seem to be laboring under the impression that a higher rate of punishment and incarceration reduces crime. Maybe look up incarceration rates and crime in this country, and see if that impression is accurate.
We can fully provide for everyone's basic needs—food, shelter, clothing, and healthcare. If we stop coddling the oligarchs we can afford to do all that along with infrastructure and UBI. After that, the only crime we'd need to deal with would be psychologically damaged people, because what other incentive is there to do crime?I think the most 'realist' stance is to admit you probably need to do both of those things. It's probably impossible to take care of every need of everybody, so there will always be some you need to deal with by imprisonment (aka 'incapacitation' - keeping them away from their potential victims). But if your society is producing an endless stream of murderous maniacs, you probably need to do something more fundamental than just desperately trying to cull them as fast as they appear.
One of the few things Tony Blair ever said that struck me as reasonable was his "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" slogan.
I reverse my position IF the victim gets to pull the trigger. Like point blank, handcuffed and fixated, you just walk up with a 9mm and BAM… And put it on TV too, stream it on youtube.
Isn't that a kind of Jordan Neelyism?
Innocent guy on the way to work gets assaulted by flailing menace.
Innocent guy fights back.. yet gets charged with manslaughter.
Sad thing is I could see it happening to anyone on this forum.. only thing is most of the people on the forum do not use NYC subway to get to work everyday and at least have the safe space of their car.
WITAFIsn't that a kind of Jordan Neelyism?
Innocent guy on the way to work gets assaulted by flailing menace.
Innocent guy fights back.. yet gets charged with manslaughter.
Sad thing is I could see it happening to anyone on this forum.. only thing is most of the people on the forum do not use NYC subway to get to work everyday and at least have the safe space of their car.
wait, you think it is ok to choke someone to death?
I think the jury will find him not guilty.. this isn't an open and shut case.
This one is quite gray and also you have to consider just about every New Yorker won't want to find him guilty because they want to do the same thing - tell those harassing and flailing thugs to fuck off.
It only takes one.. just like you guys keep telling about Trump in Florida (and as much as I hate it).
There is a big gap between fending off and killing off. Involuntary Manslaughter is a thing you know.
You need help.Ofcourse but in this case the perpetrator is a victim and the victim was the clear perpetrator.
Don't be surprised by a NG verdict here.