Terrorists SUCK

[V.W. Singer]

The fact that everyone is so worked up about Terrorism shows that it is in fact quite effective as a tactic. I don't see it as being any more despicable than asking 10,000 young men to charge through a field of barbed wire into the muzzles of machine guns and artillery, nor more immoral than killing 30 or 40 women and children with a cruise missle on the off chance of killing an enemy commander.

Terror has always been a part of waging war. Cities under siege all the way up to the Napoleonic wars were usually given the option of surrendering and receiving relatively good treatment or fighting and being slaughtered to the last dog and cat if they beseigers were force to storm the walls. Another common way to break a siege was to go around killing everyone in the surrounding countryside until the forces in the city could not stand watching it any longer and came out to fight.

Terror tactics are the only available weapon of the weak. Religion has little to do with it except as a recruiting tool and a way of maintaining moral and unity. The Romans considered decimation (killing one person in ten) as a legitimate method of subduing the unruly. Robin Hood was a terrorist, but he is looked upon as a hero because his side won. The British considered the American freedom fighters in the War of Independence to be terrorists who were using force to overthrow a legitimate government. If the British had won, many of them would have been hung for being enemy combatants.

This is not to say that the cause of the current lot of terrorists is just, although given the number of people willing to support them, their objectives, if not their idiology must have widespread appeal. I am only saying that their strategy and tactics are the same ones that people without access to a powerful army usually resort to when they decide to fight. Modern technology has given them the force multipliers that make them more effective than in the past and modern mass media has raised their profile, but little else has changed.

As for the 72 virgins thing, I doubt that most of the people doing the actual fighting are as blindly religious as the western press would like us to believe. They are a mixture of the desperate and the angry. Just like always. Terrorism is a tactic, not a way of life.

[Silus]

Would that be the desperate people who have been documented as doctor's and teachers coming from European countries to enlist in the Jihad? You say religion has little to do with it....ok then what is the reasoning behind the terrorist acts? Which part of it you dont see as despicable? Would that be forcing the uneducated and mentally retarded to carry bomb vest or the act that the terrorist are killing Americans?

[TomOfSweden]

Would that be the desperate people who have been documented as doctor's and teachers coming from European countries to enlist in the Jihad? You say religion has little to do with it....ok then what is the reasoning behind the terrorist acts? Which part of it you dont see as despicable? Would that be forcing the uneducated and mentally retarded to carry bomb vest or the act that the terrorist are killing Americans?

I don't think it's religion that is the problem either. Sure, it's a problem in the sense that Muslims believe in heaven and if their faith is strong enough blowing themselves up is good. But this is just a question of tactic. The world is full of examples of atheist communist terrorists also. Killing Fields in Cambodia!

I think this is very deep. I think terrorism is the tool of the powerless to make an impression in the world, no matter how small. It's like those people on the reality TV shows. Insignificant people who feel their lives are worthless, who just want to fill it with some meaning. To make a difference to someone somewhere.

I think terrorism is the symptom of pure unadulterated spiritual desperation.

Or to put it another way. Let's say a person has a loving wife, a family a good job, a hobby you enjoy and friends you can trust. If you remove all that, what is left to sustain the spirit? We all need goals to work toward. We all need signs that we're getting closer to them. If we aren't our soul dies. Is that so strange?

I think all fanatics are at their core only trying to drown out the sound of their own thoughts reminding them that what they're doing is futile.

[V.W. Singer]

Warfare is alway despicable. Every nation with any kind of military history has indulged in acts equally as horrible as those peformed by the current crop of terrorists. From Hiroshima to the sticking of heads on pikes outsite the city walls, these acts have only one purpose, which is to break the enemy's will to fight through sheer horror. The use of children and the mentally incompetent as bomb carriers is despicable. So is the use of cluster bombs, napalm, thermobaric bombs, anti-personnel mines and torture. Despite the Geneva Convention, everyone has performed atrocities. Is it so much more moral to kill hundreds of civillians by dropping bombs and missles on them as opposed to attaching the bomb on the civillian directly? Is an embargo that stops medicines and food from reaching children and the old any less despicable? So long as we benefit from the use of force on others, we have no right to condemn others for responding in kind. Terror tactics were not invented by the Muslims or any other particular religious group. These tactics are the logical outcome of a certain set of circumstances - an overwhelmingly powerful enemy, lack of equivalent conventional forces, desperation, extreme oppression, extreme poverty. Humane, honourable warfare has never existed.

All else is Point of View. Do we not cheer or laugh when the movie good guy sticks a grenade down the pants of a villain and pushes him into a room full of his colleagues? When the action hero blows up a villa full of drug dealers, who expresses concern for the innocent prostitutes, girlfriends, servants and other employees who get dismembered in the process?

[wmrs2]

No body made me judge or jury in this debate but I just read all the comments made here. This is a very intelligent group of responders. You all bring a good number of facts to light. It is TomOfSweden whom I think sets the debate in its correct light. The rest of us seem to support his position, give or take a little. But, there still remains a frustration among us: how do we deal with these terrorists?

As for the death penalty, it's final and we may get it wrong, but the recidivist rate is low. If the death penalty had been used more intensely with child abusers, many of the crimes against children we hear about on the news would not have occurred. So for me, I choose to put them to death or at least lock them up for life.

It is true, if you do a lot of reading, you might not choose the Christian God as your source of authority for fighting terrorists. That question is mute to citizens of the USA. You may not believe in God. But, by being a citizen you have agreed to defend our country against its enemies. You have two choices, (1) take up the sward and kill hell out of them or (2) win them over to our way of thinking (or both 1 & 2).

When it comes to our Christian values, American's are too tolerant to other ways of thinking. To me our way of thinking is superior to Islam's way of thinking. Let's tell them that. In the end, we may have chosen the incorrect way of thinking. We nevertheless have chosen.

[mkemse]

No body made me judge or jury in this debate but I just read all the comments made here. This is a very intelligent group of responders. You all bring a good number of facts to light. It is TomOfSweden whom I think sets the debate in its correct light. The rest of us seem to support his position, give or take a little. But, there still remains a frustration among us: how do we deal with these terrorists?

As for the death penalty, it's final and we may get it wrong, but the recidivist rate is low. If the death penalty had been used more intensely with child abusers, many of the crimes against children we hear about on the news would not have occurred. So for me, I choose to put them to death or at least lock them up for life.

It is true, if you do a lot of reading, you might not choose the Christian God as your source of authority for fighting terrorists. That question is mute to citizens of the USA. You may not believe in God. But, by being a citizen you have agreed to defend our country against its enemies. You have two choices, (1) take up the sward and kill hell out of them or (2) win them over to our way of thinking (or both 1 & 2).

When it comes to our Christian values, American's are too tolerant to other ways of thinking. To me our way of thinking is superior to Islam's way of thinking. Let's tell them that. In the end, we may have chosen the incorrect way of thinking. We nevertheless have chosen.

Everyone does need ot kepe in mind that not ALL Islamics are Terrorists, just as All Chirsitans are not Religious Fantatics

[ThisYouWillDo]

I was about to ask what wmrs thought about the Blackstone Ratio, and I wiki'd it to check how it was expressed. In doing so, I came across the following quotation from the Bible, which I believe would appeal to him more, and I set it out below, for his comments, if he would be so kind:

And Abraham drew near and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?... That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? And the Lord said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes...

And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake.

Gen. 18:23-32.

Unfortunately, not even 10 good people were found, and we all know what happened next. It is to be hoped that the Lord made no oversight.

Lifetime imprisonment seems right to me.

As for the "social contract" you allude to, whereby members of society "agree" to defend the state in return for their rights as citizens, I recall reaching no such agreement with anyone. I am part of a civilised society because it suits me to be so: I doubt I could survive a week otherwise. Society accepts me and allows me to make a living within it, so long as I do not break its laws. This is not consideration given for value received, it is mutual toleration.

Thus, if I find myself fighting for my country, it will be under duress - not in fulfilment of any agreement.

As for being less tolerant, isn't America already telling the Middle East "You will have democracy, whether you want it or not"?

TYWD

PS. Wow - the Earth just moved for me ... we've just had a small earthquake! Hope I didn't upset Him Above.

[Thorne]

Lifetime imprisonment seems right to me.

One reason why I'm always leery of life in prison: http://www.wpxi.com/news/15400147/detail.html

"Authorities in Indiana say a man accused of kidnapping and raping an 11-year-old Wheeling, W.Va., girl last February has escaped from jail.
Heilman described Ridings as a "career criminal" who was wanted in three other states.
Ridings was named in a one-count federal indictment in Clarksburg, W.Va., last month. The indictment alleges he took a girl from West Virginia to Belmont County, Ohio, to engage in a sexual act with a person under 12."

Just because a criminal is sent to prison doesn't mean he's going to stay there. Who would like to inform that little girl and her parents that this scumbag is out again?

PS. Wow - the Earth just moved for me ... we've just had a small earthquake! Hope I didn't upset Him Above.

I wasn't aware they had earthquakes in the UK. (I assume you mean England/Scotland/Wales.) Hope everyone's OK. As for upsetting Him, you haven't gotten me totally irked with you yet, so I wouldn't think He would be too angry.

[wmrs2]

"And yes I support the Troops, I never supported the War itself"

This is a classic statement usually resulting from hate towards President Bush. Most of the people who hold this position were for the war before Bush won the election in 2000. If Gore had won in 2000 then these same people would be supporting the war. Their hate has consumed their reasoning.

It is not possible to support the troops and not support the President. The above quote does not hide their lack of patriotism. People in my opinion who have real national and religious values would not support the troops, if they thought the war was not just.

Those who use the war as a tool to revenge a political lose in my opinion need a lot of soul searching. Almost everybody in Congress voted for the war. It is not Bush's war. It is the war of all Americans. Our cause is just, our troops are just. thank God, Bush is just.

If Obama or Hillary win the 2008 election, they are going to withdraw the troops just like Bush is beginning to do. Things are not going to change. They will run the war just like our generals tell them to. I will be supporting whichever President is trying to protect our country.

[TomOfSweden]

When it comes to our Christian values, American's are too tolerant to other ways of thinking. To me our way of thinking is superior to Islam's way of thinking. Let's tell them that. In the end, we may have chosen the incorrect way of thinking. We nevertheless have chosen.

I do agree that US moral values are superior to the moral values of the Middle East. But lets attribute those values to those who deserve it. USA and US moral values is the result of the Enlightenment, not Christianity. That much should be painfully obvious if you'd paid attention is school. It is very dangerous to lean back on religious moral superiority, because you're robbing yourself of any leverage with which to win arguments. Since it's all down to faith. You cannot claim your interpretation is better.

And even if you believe your morals stem from Christianity, there's more holes in your argument. The original Christian Bible is just an ever expanding bunch of lose articles of unclear origins. Just because Emperor Constantine put his foot down and created what we now know of as the Christian Bible for political stability doesn't mean that it is in any way clear that is what God had intended. The Bible is very much the work of the evolutionary process of philosophy. Constantine's Bible, the Versio Vulgata didn't become popular until way after the Roman empire was long gone. We also need to understand that new Christian books on the nature of God kept coming even after the Bible was compiled. They're still coming out!

See now why Muhammed thought Christianity was corrupt in 600 AD? It couldn't agree on a single cohesive Bible. It didn't have a single message or any cohesive collection of rules to live by.

Islam is an attempt of an update of Christianity. It was an attempt to create the same religion but less open to interpretation. He was quoted with wanting to create original Judaism before the Christians corrupted it. What he meant was of course not that Christianity was evil, but that there was little or no cohesion and everything was up for debate, which was exactly that which Constantine wanted to achieve by establishing the Versio Vulgata by force. Read up on the Gnostic debate if you don't believe me. None of this is controversial or any kind of secret. Islam is the attempt to sift out that original core of divine truth of Judaism which had become very much unclear in 600 AD.

Of course, (or I should say probably to appease any fundamentalists on the forum) both Islam and Christianity quickly veered away from any original message there might have been, (because much of the original context is lost) and had to adapt to political realities. Christianity today and Christian values are not the result of the message of Jesus. Just as little as Islam today and Islamic values is the result of Mohammed's message.

We do know a lot more about Mohammed than Jesus, so as far as accuracy is concerned Muslims have an easier job. But we know plenty of Islamic rules today go right against what Mohammed explicitly stated. Like the Sharia. Mohammed decreed that every city should have it's own Sharia adapted to local customs. We all know how much this very liberal aspect of Islam is habitually ignored. The idea of a shared common Sharia comes from the Abbasids, the first Muslem empire. It just wasn't practical outside the Arabic tribal peninsula.

It was also forbidden for Christian and Jews to convert to Islam because Muslims should regard them as followers of the exact same faith and equals. More evidence Islam is in it's core liberal. Where as Christians have no idea of which of Jesus's messages have been corrupted over time. At this point so much has happened to the original message that we actually know nothing. We can't even prove if Jesus was one or several men. It's all assumption.

But we know for a fact that Mohammed realised the power of the 10 commandments and it was the prime motivation for him to introduce Judaism in tribal Arabia. Remember that this was in a time of paganism, virtual anarchy and no courts and constantly fluctuating laws based on the whims of minor rulers.

As far as basic religious moral values I'd say Christianity and Islam are identical and interchangeable faiths.

[DOMLORD]

Tom is right here. you can't just base your values on something religion says just because they say so. and even when we look at religions that have nothing to do with christianity the people have pretty much the same moral values and thoughts about things that play into laws and cultural values around the world. look at the collective unconcious theory from Karl Jung. everywhere in most cultures killing is bad, a father who doesn't support his family is the scum of the earth, hurting children is one of the worst offenses any one can commit. even if laws fluctuate these kinds of base moral values are found everywhere in the world.

[ThisYouWillDo]

Just because a criminal is sent to prison doesn't mean he's going to stay there. Who would like to inform that little girl and her parents that this scumbag is out again?

Not me, I admit it.

I would also like your opinion (in addition to wmrs's) on "Blackstone's Ratio": better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.

As for the earthquake, it was a relatively small one, but the biggest we've had in 25 years or so: 5.2 on the Richter scale. Quite a few buildings have been damaged, and one man was injured as a chimney fell through his roof and landed on his bed.

Next one is due in 2023.

(As for offending Him Above, I was really referring to God ... LOL.)

TYWD

[Thorne]

I would also like your opinion (in addition to wmrs's) on "Blackstone's Ratio": better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.

In theory it's a good idea. In real life things are never quite that simple. Ideally the courts should have indisputable proof that someone has committed the crime which they are being tried for, no question. That's why hearsay evidence and evidence which might have been tainted by overzealous police officers or "helpful" citizens is generally not allowed. But the idea of having a vicious criminal's case tossed out of court because of minor procedural errors is taking things to the extreme, I believe.

(As for offending Him Above, I was really referring to God ... LOL.)

Yes, I was aware of that. That was my point. Certainly He is much more patient and forgiving than I (just ask the Church). If you haven't angered me yet, I can't believe you could have angered Him. And if you did, and the earthquake was his way of getting your attention, well then it just proves that He has pretty poor aim!

(Waiting for MY world to rock, now!)

[ThisYouWillDo]

Thorne: But the idea of having a vicious criminal's case tossed out of court because of minor procedural errors is taking things to the extreme, I believe.

I have just realised my question was irrelevant: Blackstone can only apply where there is a question as to a man's guilt. No doubt your child abuser was proved guilty and deserved his lifetime sentence. If the Indiana legal system allows the death penalty, the judge clearly did not think it was appropriate. (If Indiana does not allow the death penalty, then it has been deemed that no criminal deserves to be executed.)

The fact that he managed to escape from gaol does not, in my opinion, mean that he should have been executed. His escape was due to a security weakness in the prison concerned; but no prison is absolutely secure and unless you bring back hanging for minor offences, you'll have to accept the risk that some prisoners will obtain their freedom sooner than intended.

Thorne: ... and the earthquake was his way of getting your attention, well then it just proves that He has pretty poor aim!

LMAO

[Thorne]

No doubt your child abuser was proved guilty and deserved his lifetime sentence.

Actually, in this case he had not yet gone to trial but was being held pending trial. The example was only to show that prison is not necessarily a safe punishment. As for execution, no, I do not propose bringing back hanging for minor offenses. But there have been some cases recently where I honestly wouldn't mind seeing them institute public crucifixions for some criminals.

[Lion]

Said pretty much everything I wanted to except...

It was also forbidden for Christian and Jews to convert to Islam because Muslims should regard them as followers of the exact same faith and equals.

It's not forbidden for them to convert, it's encouraged. However in the Quran, Islam recognizes the two religions. Regarding Islams views towards other faiths, there is only one line in the entire text that says anything about it which is that there should be no compulsion of religion, meaning anyone can decide their own faith and not have to justify it in the face of any other human.

[TomOfSweden]

Said pretty much everything I wanted to except...


It's not forbidden for them to convert, it's encouraged. However in the Quran, Islam recognizes the two religions. Regarding Islams views towards other faiths, there is only one line in the entire text that says anything about it which is that there should be no compulsion of religion, meaning anyone can decide their own faith and not have to justify it in the face of any other human.

I can't find a reference about it on wikipedia. But it was something like 1000 - 1200 AD when the Ottoman Sultan decreed for the first time in Islamic history that Christians and Jews where allowed to convert which went right against the explicit instructions of Mohammed.

And almost all Christians and Jews did convert since they could pay lower taxes. And this allowance was retained as the Ottoman empire grew until it finally encompassed the whole Islamic world. The Islamic tradition of letting non-muslims, (dimmis) pay higher taxes is because they're not expected to give a part of their earnings to charity. The lowered taxes is just a compensation, it's not because of any kind of heirarchy. This is also when wearing the Chador/Burkha becomes a Muslim tradition. This was earlier a purely Christian practice.

Mohammed not only had poetry readings, ie what is the Koran, but he also explained to people how to interpret it, (which did not make it into the Koran and was the basis of the Sharia). A lot of this is saved, and even letters written by Mohammed himself. They can be read at the Topkapi palace in Istanbul. We know quite a lot about Mohammed as a man.

But modern Islam is just like modern Christianity modern inventions. Islam retains very little from the original messages, and in the case of Christianity we don't even know what, if anything is retained from original Christianity.

edit: this is all described in great detail by Karen Armstrong in "the history of God". If you care about religion in the least I recommend it very much. It's a great book. She's extremely diligent when it comes to finding and evaluating evidence and has quickly become one of the worlds most respected authorities on religion. She's a former Catholic nun, and very much still a Christian so don't put her among the recent atheist attackers of religion. She's also the only Christian scholar who has received praise and plenty of prizes for her work on Islam by Middle Eastern religious institutions.

[ThisYouWillDo]

Actually, in this case he had not yet gone to trial but was being held pending trial. The example was only to show that prison is not necessarily a safe punishment. As for execution, no, I do not propose bringing back hanging for minor offenses. But there have been some cases recently where I honestly wouldn't mind seeing them institute public crucifixions for some criminals.

Now you're alarming me. You don't know for certain this man is guilty, yet because he is charged with a most heinous crime, you consider it better that he be executed summarily - possibly crucified (which is one of the worst possible ways of dying, and probably unconstitutional, being "cruel and unusual") - rather than run the risk of him escaping before trial.

Maybe he fled because he knows he has hundreds of unpaid parking tickets. (That is flippant, but I said it demonstrate that you can't even assume guilt when a person escapes from custody.) It seems to me that you've turned the Blackstone Ratio on its head: better that ten innocents suffer than that one guilty person escapes.

TYWD

[Thorne]

Now you're alarming me. You don't know for certain this man is guilty, yet because he is charged with a most heinous crime, you consider it better that he be executed summarily - possibly crucified (which is one of the worst possible ways of dying, and probably unconstitutional, being "cruel and unusual") - rather than run the risk of him escaping before trial.

Maybe he fled because he knows he has hundreds of unpaid parking tickets. (That is flippant, but I said it demonstrate that you can't even assume guilt when a person escapes from custody.) It seems to me that you've turned the Blackstone Ratio on its head: better that ten innocents suffer than that one guilty person escapes.

TYWD

Obviously I'm not making myself clear, here. I am NOT advocating the death penalty for this guy before he's even tried. I was using this as an example of why, sometimes, a prison sentence may not solve the problem. I certainly believe he deserves a fair and unbiased trial to determine IF he is guilty. And even if he should prove to be guilty of this crime, I don't believe I would advocate the death penalty for him anyway, unless he's got a long history of this kind of thing, in which case PERHAPS it might be justified.

As for escaping, I would find it hard to believe that he would break out BEFORE he's tried if he were not guilty of something. Even if it's just parking tickets. I think most jurors would view an escape as a de facto admission of guilt, even if instructed NOT to do so.

And in regards to crucifixion, yes it would be considered cruel and unusual punishment, and is most certainly unconstitutional. But there are some seriously evil people out there who have been convicted of horrible crimes and are languishing in prison while the families of their victims have had their lives completely demolished by these people. (Charles Manson comes to mind off the top of my head.) Sometimes, really, I wish the punishment could fit the crime. Let the criminal get a taste of what his victims endured.

I once read a science fiction story involving virtual reality in which a killer was sentenced to die virtually, seven times. He had to endure a virtual hanging, burning at the stake, disemboweling and several other horrific deaths, without actually being killed or even physically harmed. This would be ideal for some of those really nasty criminals out there, and it wouldn't violate your taboos against capital punishment, either.

[ThisYouWillDo]

Thorne: OK ...

But those "virtual" punishments ...!?? Wouldn't they have the effect of turning the criminal into a gibbering idiot? In what way would this not be cruel and unusual too?

[TomOfSweden]

Thorne: OK ...

But those "virtual" punishments ...!?? Wouldn't they have the effect of turning the criminal into a gibbering idiot? In what way would this not be cruel and unusual too?

Yeah. Exactly. It rests on the assumption that only real pain, (ie pain transferred from the physical body) can count as torture. But if we simulate it, we transfer the same torture to the brain, which is what counts. The sum of the effects from pain transferred to the brain is what torture is. So it would be exactly as inhumane. At least as far as the pain is concerned.

[Thorne]

Thorne: OK ...

But those "virtual" punishments ...!?? Wouldn't they have the effect of turning the criminal into a gibbering idiot? In what way would this not be cruel and unusual too?

To be honest, I wouldn't have a problem turning them into gibbering idiots! When they violated their victims they sacrificed all rights to tender loving care. Remember, I'm talking about the really evil, cruel, murderous criminals who have no regard for the victims they attack or for the consequences of their actions. The kind of person who would rob a convenience store for a few dollars, then kill the clerk just for kicks. They have no redeeming social value in my eyes and are deserving of the most cruel punishments which mankind can devise.

[Thorne]

Yeah. Exactly. It rests on the assumption that only real pain, (ie pain transferred from the physical body) can count as torture. But if we simulate it, we transfer the same torture to the brain, which is what counts. The sum of the effects from pain transferred to the brain is what torture is. So it would be exactly as inhumane. At least as far as the pain is concerned.

I don't know about you guys, but when I was a kid and did something wrong I was punished. The punishment varied with the severity of the action (or inaction) but it was still punishment. And I'll tell you one thing, a swat on the bottom got my attention one hell of a lot faster than standing in the corner.

This is strictly my opinion, but any person who has committed inhumane acts probably shouldn't expect to be treated humanely when he is caught.

[TomOfSweden]

I don't know about you guys, but when I was a kid and did something wrong I was punished. The punishment varied with the severity of the action (or inaction) but it was still punishment. And I'll tell you one thing, a swat on the bottom got my attention one hell of a lot faster than standing in the corner.

This is strictly my opinion, but any person who has committed inhumane acts probably shouldn't expect to be treated humanely when he is caught.

That wasn't my issue. My issue was that if we decide that torture is inhumane, then virtualising it won't make it less inhumane, because it's the same act. I wasn't arguing for or against torture.

[Thorne]

That wasn't my issue. My issue was that if we decide that torture is inhumane, then virtualising it won't make it less inhumane, because it's the same act. I wasn't arguing for or against torture.

I'm not necessarily arguing for torture either. I'm arguing for making the punishment fit the crime. Stop coddling criminals and really punish them for what they've done. I've heard a few ex-cons claim that their lives were much easier in prison than on the streets. There's something radically wrong with that.

[TomOfSweden]

I'm not necessarily arguing for torture either. I'm arguing for making the punishment fit the crime. Stop coddling criminals and really punish them for what they've done. I've heard a few ex-cons claim that their lives were much easier in prison than on the streets. There's something radically wrong with that.

Yeah, well there's a problem there. All the research shows that punishment that fits the crime just breeds more crime. Yeah, I know. It's very counter intuitive. Research shows that opportunity doesn't make the thief. It's a lot deeper than that. Crime is just a symptom of a huge complex problem with marginalised people feeling excluded by society. And they don't feel any more included by society by having a criminal record.

You may feel that we should punish criminals hard for the sake of justice. I really can't argue against that. But don't pretend it'll solve anything or make the world any safer. It's easy to check the statistics. The longer the prison terms the higher the chance of repeat offending. So even if they're not doing any crimes while in jail, they're more likely to do it again once they're out. Or we could have capital punishment for every offence no matter how small. That would fix it. Nothing I'd vote for, but it'll work.

Nobody thinks life in prison is better than on the streets. I don't believe it for a second. I've not personally been to jail, but I have a less than clean and sober background, so I know a large variety of dodgy characters. One of my oldest friends just went to jail for armed robbery. I'm sitting with his latest letter in front of me. No... nobody thinks jail is worth it. It may be easy, but it kills the soul. He's gay and in his jail they've got a club for gay convicts. Funny. I just can't picture how they look. At his jail there's two other gay guys apart from him and they're both convicted murderers. Being a gay murderer just goes against all my preconceptions. I do like having my preconceptions challenged. But this is very difficult for my brain to wrap itself around.

[Thorne]

Crime is just a symptom of a huge complex problem with marginalised people feeling excluded by society. And they don't feel any more included by society by having a criminal record.

I agree with you here, Tom. Most criminals are small time thieves or junkies who steal to support their habits. Their socio-economic situation drives them to crime more often than not. Executing or "torturing" these kinds of criminals would have very little effect on the causes of this kind of crime. There may be ways to fight those causes, through urban development and real rehabilitation efforts, but those things are very expensive and probably not nearly as effective as people would like to believe.

The longer the prison terms the higher the chance of repeat offending. So even if they're not doing any crimes while in jail, they're more likely to do it again once they're out. Or we could have capital punishment for every offence no matter how small. That would fix it. Nothing I'd vote for, but it'll work.

I wouldn't vote for that, either. And I don't necessarily advocate longer sentences, either. What I would like to see is less coddling of prisoners. I don't know what jails and prisons are like in Sweden (and I have no first-hand experiences here, either, thankfully) but many prisons in the US provide medical care for prisoners which is far better than anything that is provided for the poor. While I don't think they should withhold necessary medical care, I don't think a prisoner should be given, for example, sexual-reassignment surgery at the expense of the taxpayers. (See: http://www.oregonlive.com/news/orego...211.xml&coll=7)
I would also like to know who has paid for these lawsuits. Probably the taxpayers again.
As for repeat offenders, there is a county sheriff in Arizona who treats his prisoners more in line with what I've been saying. While not inhumane, his prisoners are not coddled. "For example, he banned smoking, coffee, movies, pornographic magazines, and unrestricted TV in all jails." (http://www.mcso.org/index.php?a=GetM...mn=Sheriff_Bio)
And they absolutely do not like it! And the rate of recidivism is the lowest in the country! People DO NOT want to wind up back in HIS jail!

[TomOfSweden]

And they absolutely do not like it! And the rate of recidivism is the lowest in the country! People DO NOT want to wind up back in HIS jail!

Again. I doubt there's any connection. People don't commit any crimes if they think they'd get caught or convicted. The state of the prisons is irrelevant. I had a period a few years ago when I was very interested in this subject and read any research on it I could find. Now, when I'm not a student any more I don't have access to the research databases for references. Crime is the result of a very complex set of issues. If Arizona has low recidivism it must be based on their programmes where ex-cons find alternative ways to support themselves once they're out, or they simply leave the state and make it somebody else's problem.

Being hard on crime is a traditional right wing, (conservative in USA) issue. Those political parties want to give the impression of being unflinching do'ers rather than having endless debates about what to do. But their "solutions" are only based on what makes the voters feel safe. They're never based on anything that actually works. Again, this I'm sure is because crime is the symptom of a large group of problems which solutions are either too expensive and/or won't fit as a campaign slogans. Instead they do stuff like that sheriff in Arizona. It's pure emotion. It feels good for the voter, but is utterly worthless as far as preventing crime is concerned.

We have the exact same dynamic in our political system in Sweden. Neither side is talking reality, because it's too complex to have a TV debate about. It always gets reduced to mythical abstractions and moral vagueries.

Crime is a very complicated issue with no simple solution. The only really effective way to stop crime is to prevent it from happening in the first place. Once it's done it's only down to harm reduction for everybody involved.