When people think police state, they think it has to have a gestapo or stasi, a national police to enforce laws. It doesn't. A police state is when everything is illegal, and those who oppose the police state are the only ones charged or arrested for these minor "crimes".

Arrested for feeding the homeless:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQZjXDuGh6Y

Arrested for wearing a jacket with a "political message":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkA-rffPVaw

People talk about occupiers trespassing, but I happen to know many of these people actually have campers set up in the county right of way in front of their house, or plants, even political yard signs on pubic property in front of their house on the right of way, yet no charges are ever brought against them, because they are not challenging the police state in their actions.

In both of these videos, I am sure there are hundreds of thousands of people who have done the exact same "crime" and were never arrested. Why?

Who gave the orders for these arrests? The beat cops? No, the orders came from higher up, by people who were afraid of the message being brought.

It also must be noted, that an arrest for "crimes" like these often carry fines ranging from $300 - $3000 and legal fees, as well as community service and/or probation, in addition to the day or two spent in jail, as well as the money needed to get bailed out. Not that it matters, as even $1 is really to much to have to pay to a system for the crime of "trespass with intent to feed".

Arrested for merely documenting protests:

http://www.pixiq.com/sites/default/files/us_dept_of_justice_letter.pdf

May 3, 2012

Dear Attorney General Eric Holder:

The First Amendment has come under assault on the streets of America. Since the Occupy Wall
Street movement began, police have arrested dozens of journalists and activists simply for
attempting to document political protests in public spaces. While individual cases may not fall
under the Justice Department’s jurisdiction, the undersigned groups see this suppression of
speech as a national problem that deserves your full attention.

The alarming number of arrests is an unfortunate and unwarranted byproduct of otherwise
positive changes. A new type of activism is taking hold around the world and here in the U.S.:
People with smartphones, cameras and Internet connections have been empowered with the
means to report on public events. These developments have also created an urgent need for
organizations such as ours to defend this new breed of activists and journalists and protect their right to record.

Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of access to information are vital whether you’re a credentialed journalist, a protester or just a bystander with a camera. In the digital age, these freedoms mean that we all have the right to create and share information using all manner of devices and lawful means.

In this new environment, we must guard these rights and protect the networks that give so many the means to connect and voice their political beliefs. The First Amendment’s protections must extend to everyone.

The right to record is an essential component of our rights at a time when so many of those
witnessing public protests carry networked, camera-ready devices such as smartphones.
Continuous access to the open Internet and social media — over both wired and wireless
networks — is also essential.

We the undersigned call on authorities at the local, state and federal level to stop their assault on people attempting to document protests and other events unfolding in public spaces. We must protect everyone’s right to record.

Sincerely,

Access
American Civil Liberties Union
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Free Press
National Press Photographers Association
New America Foundation
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
Reporters Without Borders
Witness

What you describe is a very old tactic of authoritarian regimes. Cuba does it all the time: everyone steals from their jobs, because the wages aren't enough to buy even food. But only political opponents are arrested for theft, so the regime can claim they are in jail for being common thiefs, not dissidents.

There's even a saying: "to our friends, everything. To our enemies, the law".

It's a bit scary that this selective application of justice is happening in the US, though.

There's even a saying: "to our friends, everything. To our enemies, the law".

Sharp.

It's a bit scary that this selective application of justice is happening in the US, though.

When has it not been happening.

<snip>

Why the hell can't we delete posts anyhow?

Calling America a police state is over the top, but there are some worrying things going on in that ex-leader of the free world.

Calling America a police state is over the top, but there are some worrying things going on in that ex-leader of the free world.

Based off its usage on the Internet, I gather the definition of police state is "Anywhere people I agree with are locked up"? :mischief:

It's easy to complain, but how do we fix this? We need the police.

Arrested for merely documenting protests:

http://www.pixiq.com/sites/default/files/us_dept_of_justice_letter.pdf

TLDR ver: Plz stop! Or don't, we'll still vote for you!

Do you really expect the Republicans to stop the police from openly defying the First Amendment in such cases?

Do you support this activity?

Calling America a police state is over the top, but there are some worrying things going on in that ex-leader of the free world.

It's not a police state for those who obey. For those who defy, it is.

Who has the worlds #1 incarceration rate? The United States!

I listed two videos, from those videos, you can watch hundreds more of ridiculous arrests, such as arrested for selling lemonade and arrested for dancing.

When I was occupying, I was arrested for refusing to give my name. Others were arrested for "making protest signs" and "placing a mat on the street (the guy started to do yoga, Lt. Folette of the SPD had him arrested)" "having an illegal structure (a woman sat down with an umbrella)"

Not only did I see arrest, the police routinely would snatch up property and throw it away, (esp if it was people's signs) or take it to evidence (bookbags, backpacks, etc).

Who has the number one incarceration rate? The United States! But it's not a police state. No no no. Just the country with the number one incarceration rate, (and rising). Why? Because it's not Nazi Germany. :rolleyes:

Jailing a lot of people does not make you a Police State.

Also, you somehow ignored my post asking what we could do to fix this.

Jailing a lot of people does not make you a Police State.

Ok, how about
1) cameras on every corner
2) Police have immunity from prosecution for things like shooting houses full of holes, killing people's dogs, tearing up houses for searches. And please do not tell me they can be sued, BECAUSE THEY CANNOT, unless it is proved they violated the people's civil rights. If it was a mistake, the owner has no recourse!
3) Not only that, but how about that police are allowed to do such things?
4) "border checkpoints" that are 100 miles from the border, such as in the Gila mountains of Arizona that I had to go through.
5) the glorification of the militarization of police. Look at how news and television constantly glorifies the militarization of our police forces.
6) scanners that show your naked body to some random TSA agent, (just watch this technology spread beyond airports, and people will keep justifying it, "well dun' go to a football game if ya dun' wanna be scanned!" "dun' fly if ya dun' wana be scanned" "dun ride a bus, if ya dun wanna be scanned!")
7) the myth of "false arrest". People seem to think that if you are falsely arrested or imprisoned, you can sue. This is true, but it hardly ever works. Most of the time, you do not get squat, you hardly will ever even get an apology, much less any kind of monetary compensations. Some states, like Texas, now require compensation for false imprisonment... $10,000 a year. Yeah, how gracious.
8) civil asset forfeiture: the police can seize any amount of cash or property they deem fit if they believe it is connected to a crime, and seize it as evidence. Getting this property back can be difficult, and require hiring a lawyer, many times which will cost more than the property trying to be reclaimed. Int he meantime, the police may auction of the property , or use the cash, to help their department, including things like pay salaries and benefit packages.

Also, you somehow ignored my post asking what we could do to fix this.

For one, we could start prosecuting officers themselves for the crimes they do. It's a lot like the lynchings of the early 1900's - 1940's. There were "only" a dozen to a couple hundred a year. But the terrifying thing to black people was, there was never a conviction, or even charges pressed.

But i ignored your post, because it showed a complete lack of understanding of what a police state is, I mean seriously:

It's easy to complain, but how do we fix this? We need the police.

What do you mean, how do we fix it? There is no fixing it. Welcome to the police state. You don't get a say in the police state, you just do as you are told, or else.

Is there any country where the police force doesn't treat protesters violently - tear gassing them, kettling them, arresting them on spurious charges, etc? It seems to me that the main difference between a "police state" and "not a police state", in terms of the response to protests, is how often the police actually kill protesters instead of just attacking them using nonlethal means - and even then, it's a difference of degree.

The astronomical incarceration rate of the USA, as well as the level of police violence relative to other developed countries (even after adjusting for differences in homicide rate), leads me to believe that the US has a higher level of "police state" behavior than most other countries in the developed world. Of course, there is a relatively high level of protection of free speech and some other civil liberties. This makes the analysis complicated enough that people on both sides of this issue can each emphasize correct statements about the behavior of US institutions to make their points.

Gas anyone ever actually formulated a coherent theory of the police state? It's just that the definitions we usually encounter, including those here, seem largely rhetoric, so it's pretty hard to actually argue about them one way or the other.

Who has the worlds #1 incarceration rate? The United States!

True, you guys have private for-profit prisons and 25% of the world's prisoners behind bars.

That is pretty worrying for a country that was once hailed as the "leader of the free world", but it's not a reason to call it a police state.

I listed two videos, from those videos, you can watch hundreds more of ridiculous arrests, such as arrested for selling lemonade and arrested for dancing.

When I was occupying, I was arrested for refusing to give my name. Others were arrested for "making protest signs" and "placing a mat on the street (the guy started to do yoga, Lt. Folette of the SPD had him arrested)" "having an illegal structure (a woman sat down with an umbrella)"

Not only did I see arrest, the police routinely would snatch up property and throw it away, (esp if it was people's signs) or take it to evidence (bookbags, backpacks, etc).

Who has the number one incarceration rate? The United States! But it's not a police state. No no no. Just the country with the number one incarceration rate, (and rising). Why? Because it's not Nazi Germany. :rolleyes:

Yeah, your cops have no oversight, so obviously they are going to be abusing their powers. It's unfortunate, but sorry, it's not a police state.

Ok, how about
1) cameras on every corner
2) Police have immunity from prosecution for things like shooting houses full of holes, killing people's dogs, tearing up houses for searches. And please do not tell me they can be sued, BECAUSE THEY CANNOT, unless it is proved they violated the people's civil rights. If it was a mistake, the owner has no recourse!
3) Not only that, but how about that police are allowed to do such things?
4) "border checkpoints" that are 100 miles from the border, such as in the Gila mountains of Arizona that I had to go through.
5) the glorification of the militarization of police. Look at how news and television constantly glorifies the militarization of our police forces.
6) scanners that show your naked body to some random TSA agent, (just watch this technology spread beyond airports, and people will keep justifying it, "well dun' go to a football game if ya dun' wanna be scanned!" "dun' fly if ya dun' wana be scanned" "dun ride a bus, if ya dun wanna be scanned!")
7) the myth of "false arrest". People seem to think that if you are falsely arrested or imprisoned, you can sue. This is true, but it hardly ever works. Most of the time, you do not get squat, you hardly will ever even get an apology, much less any kind of monetary compensations. Some states, like Texas, now require compensation for false imprisonment... $10,000 a year. Yeah, how gracious.
8) civil asset forfeiture: the police can seize any amount of cash or property they deem fit if they believe it is connected to a crime, and seize it as evidence. Getting this property back can be difficult, and require hiring a lawyer, many times which will cost more than the property trying to be reclaimed. Int he meantime, the police may auction of the property , or use the cash, to help their department, including things like pay salaries and benefit packages.

1. The cameras are so cops can catch people running red lights.
2. Police rarely do this. These are just a few isolated incidents.
3. Probably because they need to do these searches and find whatever they can?
4. The border checkpoints are to catch illegal immigrants, which are common hundreds of miles from the border.
5. Glorifies? The media only talks about police pepper-spraying, killing innocent people, and falsely arresting others, and then applies it to every cop.
6. The TSA don't scan peoples bodies because they're perverts they do it because it's their goddam job. Airport security is a bit high, but that's because the police are doing everything they can.
7. So? If you're falsely arrested, you're not in jail. I don't see why you'd need more.
8. Australia, the UK, and Canada have these laws, I assume they're police states too? Besides, they can't take whatever they want; it needs to pass the standard of proof first.

Yes, your points made sense, and were even true to a degree, but it doesn't make the US a police state. Oh, and one more thing:

What do you mean, how do we fix it? There is no fixing it. Welcome to the police state. You don't get a say in the police state, you just do as you are told, or else.

:rolleyes: Then why did you write about it? So that you appear to be a rebel and say that everyone who disagrees with you has been brainwashed by the government?

1. The cameras are so cops can catch people running red lights.
2. Police rarely do this. These are just a few isolated incidents.
3. Probably because they need to do these searches and find whatever they can?
4. The border checkpoints are to catch illegal immigrants, which are common hundreds of miles from the border.
5. Glorifies? The media only talks about police pepper-spraying, killing innocent people, and falsely arresting others, and then applies it to every cop.
6. The TSA don't scan peoples bodies because they're perverts they do it because it's their goddam job. Airport security is a bit high, but that's because the police are doing everything they can.
7. So? If you're falsely arrested, you're not in jail. I don't see why you'd need more.
8. Australia, the UK, and Canada have these laws, I assume they're police states too? Besides, they can't take whatever they want; it needs to pass the standard of proof first.

Yes, your points made sense, and were even true to a degree, but it doesn't make the US a police state. Oh, and one more thing:



:rolleyes: Then why did you write about it? So that you appear to be a rebel and say that everyone who disagrees with you has been brainwashed by the government?

A police state apologist, ladies and gentlemen. Look at this list of justifications for injustice. It's pathetic.


Yeah, your cops have no oversight, so obviously they are going to be abusing their powers. It's unfortunate, but sorry, it's not a police state.

because it's not Nazi Germany?

You can't have police state apologists without a police state, which no one thinks there is.

because it's not Nazi Germany?
If I had to guess, it would actually be because it's not Communist Poland. Which is a fair point - if you compare the United States against 1980s Eastern Bloc regimes, or any other regime commonly thought of as authoritarian, freedom of expression is a lot better protected here.

Of course, our political system is designed in such a way that it doesn't really matter if dissidents are allowed to express their dissent. Even on issues where the majority of the population agrees in principle (e.g. that our healthcare system is deeply flawed and needs reform), the system is incapable of producing anything better that isn't designed as a subsidy towards the major corporations involved in the issue (in this case, health insurance companies). Even this reform may be struck down in the next few days.

Suppose there is a state that allows a relatively high degree of freedom of expression. This expression is essentially useless because the political system is deeply flawed in such a way that it produces a two-party system with no effective competition even when both parties are extremely unpopular. Certain interests within this system successfully arrange for aggressive military spending and the incarceration of a large proportion of the population. Very few of these prisoners are political; nearly all are there due to draconian sentencing on laws that nearly all countries have, particularly drug laws. The police are indeed quite brutal relative to other industrialized countries, but they also aren't easily bribed individually and they rarely harass political dissidents outside of major protests.

Is this a police state? If it is, it's a very sophisticated one that has learned not to bother political dissidents because it's more effective to structure the system so that they aren't a threat even if they aren't crushed. It can pride itself on its "freedom" for not doing this, even though it incarcerates a greater proportion of its population than any other country on the planet, "police states" included.

I would tend to call the US a police state, but it is hard to compare it to other widely-accepted examples of "police states" because it does have some significant elements of a free society.

Exactly. If the U.S. is a police state then a big mac is a steak.

It's an insult to people who actually live under a police state to call the U.S. one, imo.

There's problems with your country, but you're not going to get anywhere with hyperbole

Maybe we need a term for "not exactly North Korea but still far short of what is right".

Lazy Police State?
Police-ish State?

"State"?

Exactly. If the U.S. is a police state then a big mac is a steak.

It's an insult to people who actually live under a police state to call the U.S. one, imo.

There's problems with your country, but you're not going to get anywhere with hyperbole


If a police state is beef, then Nazi Germany was a filet mignon, and America is a big mac. But both are still beef.


Another thought on this: Good German folk didn't feel like they were living a Police state, but he Jews sure did. Ask black people, or Arab-Americans, or Mexicans how they feel about it here. Many will pish-taw, but many have had way too many encounters with the police to say it isn't one.

"State"?
I think we have a winner. Does anyone have a state they wish to use as an example of a non-police state?

I think we have a winner. Does anyone have a state they wish to use as an example of a non-police state?

How about the ones without the highest incarceration rate in the world?
I mean Norway is going to sentence Breivik to 21 years in prison, for killing 69 people. And Norway has one of the lowest crime and recidivism rates.

Here are three challenges:

Norway, Uruguay & Iceland

Please tell me how these would fit the definition of a police state.

What's a worse police state? I'd say Great Britain. 1 camera for every 14 people is disgusting. And four years in prison for a facebook post that led to no crime, is disgusting. (while Rupert Murdoch gets away with an apology before the house of commons for bribing police for selacious stories about people).

I forgot to mention New York's "stop and frisk", where they stop people they deem suspicious and frisk them. A pat down. 90% of the people come up clean, and something like 700,000 people have been subjected to this.
www.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/.../the-scars-of-stop-and-frisk.html

And the Supreme court just ruled that anybody stopped can be asked for proof of citizenship, and many states (like Alabama) want to copy the Arizona law. The law says "stopped for a crime", but, like I noted before, everything is illegal. And worse, can you be asked to show identification for a crime a court later finds you did not commit. By then, it is too late, isn't it? You have already been accosted and held against your will.


Recently, in Aurora, near Denver, 42 people were pulled over, and held at gunpoint, simply for being at an intersection where a bank robber may have been. Not amazingly, all of them were "glad they caught the bank robber". In the American police state, the only people who know it exists, or dislike it, are those who try to claim their rights.
http://www.denverpost.com/commented/ci_20773254


Paypahz pleez.

Also, does anybody seriously believe that police power will shrink over the next 20 years, or will they continue to gain more and more executive powers? And when I say police, I mean all of them, there is a massive amount of them, when including the likes of the CIA, FBI, ATF and DEA, and a whole host of other police agencies.

Yes, we have "stop and frisk" in ONE city. And it's gone under a lot of fire, even I disapprove of it. It's not like we're completely oblivious. We both know what's going one. You're just exaggerating it.

Also, 21 years for killing 69 people doesn't sound like that good of a system IMO.

How about the ones without the highest incarceration rate in the world?
So literally every other state in the world? There can only be one Police State at a time?

Iran stones their prisoners instead of putting them in jail, I guess we should follow their policies to become a better country :dunno:

That, or we could nudge Britain to lock up more people. That would put us in the clear again.

Good German folk didn't feel like they were living a Police state

Those Germans who opposed the Nazi party would have felt like they were living in a police state, they had to be very careful who they said thing too.

Here's a few more articles that make you go "hmmm".

LAPD Pioneers High-Tech Crime-Fighting ‘War Room’ (http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/02/08/lapd-pioneers-high-tech-crime-fighting-war-room/)

OS ANGELES (CBS) — The LAPD is fighting crime from a high-tech war room that gives it eyes all over the city. The surveillance hub is now a model for police forces around the world and KCAL9 got an exclusive tour inside from Chief Charlie Beck.

“We are targets on our own soil,” says Beck. “We have to be ready."

New LAPD Patrol Car To Sport Infrared Night Vision, License Plate Scanner (http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/05/26/new-lapd-patrol-car-to-sport-infrared-night-vision-license-plate-scanner/)

LOS ANGELES (CBS) — If you thought the patrol car in the 1987 action movie “Robocop” was high-tech, wait until you see what L.A.’s finest will be soon be driving.

AOL’s Translogic caught a sneak peek of the new squad car of choice for the Los Angeles Police Department: the Chevrolet Caprice Police Patrol Vehicle (PPV).

Billed as the “sum total of all the law enforcement community has learned about patrol cars to date” by the report, the PPV boasts a 6.0L V-8 engine with 355 horsepower, 18-inch steel wheels, and a host of gadgets that puts any Hollywood squad car to shame.

he Caprice, which replaces the long-used Ford Crown Victoria, is equipped with an infrared night vision camera, automated license plate scanner, and a touch-screen center console that replaces the older computers traditionally used by officers.

lwxm_m9hVsM

Using cameras to monitor crime makes you a police state? You know Los Angeles has high crime rates in many areas, right? I'd be happy to have security cameras installed in my neighborhood.

Thinking you are "targets on your own soil" and responding accordingly makes it a police state.

It is just sad all the video from all those police cameras isn't reviewed by an independent authority to bring criminal charges against the police when they openly violate the law.

That's called being paranoid.

But if that's the definition of a police state, what are we supposed to do, then? Let the crime rate rise? I'd rather have too many cops on the street than too many criminals.

That rather assumes that there is a meaningful distinction between the two, he sneered, with the tedious cynicism that had come to be expected of him.

That rather assumes that there is a meaningful distinction between the two, he sneered, with the tedious cynicism that had come to be expected of him.

Not that I in anyway find your cynicism tedious, but I actually find this example unexpected in the sense that you usually truly mean what you say. The above, while typically clever and funny, I'm not convinced you really hold to be true.

Thinking you are "targets on your own soil" and responding accordingly makes it a police state.

Er, how? If they honestly believe they need to be prepared for those kinds of eventualities, there's nothing inherently dictatorial about it, just very paranoid.

Video footage rarely gets looked at unless a crime has taken place, such as in the Milly Dowler case in the UK, then the footage is peered over looking for clues as to who the killer was.

Video footage rarely gets looked at unless a crime has taken place, such as in the Milly Dowler case in the UK, then the footage is peered over looking for clues as to who the killer was.

This is, to my knowledge, a true statement. Nearly everything that occurs in public places is recorded in some way another, certainly anything that happens near government property, but that doesn't mean the all-seeing all-hearing malicious police technocracy is watching and listening to everything as it happens or even after it happens. Most surveillance footage is never looked at at all unless it might provide information regarding illegal activities that have already occurred.

I doubt most police departments have the resources to pay people to watch the cameras they have access to 24/7.

I guess you could call it a traffic police state :lol:

This is, to my knowledge, a true statement. Nearly everything that occurs in public places is recorded in some way another, certainly anything that happens near government property, but that doesn't mean the all-seeing all-hearing malicious police technocracy is watching and listening to everything as it happens or even after it happens. Most surveillance footage is never looked at at all unless it might provide information regarding illegal activities that have already occurred.

I doubt most police departments have the resources to pay people to watch the cameras they have access to 24/7.

While I'm sure what you wrote is true, doesnt it feel wrong that nearly every public place is being recorded? Do we need to surrender the right to privacy in order to be safe?

It's always worth remembering that we own the state, not the other way around.

It also must be remembered that Rupert Murdoch was paying off police to hack citizens phones for salacious stories.

So do not think it would be above crooked people to also pay off the police to use their cameras for salacious stories and/or blackmail.

So you can say the footage is only looked at if a crime is committed, but
1. everything is illegal
and
2. It can also be used for political purposes. A representative sneaking around with his secretary, let's see if we can pay the police a few dollars, and see what juicy details we can get.

So literally every other state in the world? There can only be one Police State at a time?

I named three countries. Convince me they are police states.

Using cameras to monitor crime makes you a police state? You know Los Angeles has high crime rates in many areas, right? I'd be happy to have security cameras installed in my neighborhood.



Of course you would, you have already outed yourself as a police state apologist. You would give up anything to make you feel safer against the big bad boogy-men that your news media tells you is a threat.

And what kind of crimes do you think they should be used for? Intent to feed the homeless? Illegal lemonade stands? Expired tabs? Jay-walking? Spitting on the sidewalk? Threatening to kill the president? Or is there some crimes the cameras should be used for, and others it should not be used for? Should they be used to make sure everyone drives exactly the speed limit?

I know, how about having the NSA start using it's data-mining to prosecute people who "share music" or lend copies of games to friends? You know, when you buy a game, you actually do not own it, you only have the right to use it yourself. If you lend the DVD the game is on to a friend, you are breaking the law.

What liberties would you not give up for the sake of security?

I named three countries. Convince me they are police states.
I cannot. By the definition you have offered, by definition there can only be on Police State at a time.

I cannot. By the definition you have offered, by definition there can only be on Police State at a time.

pfft. Dodge. You lose.

Wrong, I only lose if you hit me with the ball. Dodging merely stalemates the match, and I must catch the ball in order to win.

I have not outed myself as a police state apologist. You have.

Also, cameras are used to target speeders and people who run red lights. That's a traffic police state, which isn't exactly what you're making up.

And, game sharing isn't a liberty. If the company owns the game, I don't know what liberties you're breaking.

Do you just want a society where you get to do whatever you want without having your actions questioned?

Also, cameras are used to target speeders and people who run red lights. That's a traffic police state, which isn't exactly what you're making up.

Are you replying to something I wrote? I already mentioned how these tools can be, and are, abused.

And, game sharing isn't a liberty. If the company owns the game, I don't know what liberties you're breaking.

You really love the law, no matter how absurd, don't you? If you buy a game, you should be allowed to let a friend borrow it. Let me guess, you have never let a friend borrow a game?

Do you just want a society where you get to do whatever you want without having your actions questioned?

Yeah, read my posts, and understand them, before replying to me. Garbage like this is a waste of my time. It's why I ignored you the first time you posted in this thread.

Then why did you write about it? So that you appear to be a rebel and say that everyone who disagrees with you has been brainwashed by the government?

Yeah, garbage. Now you know why I will not address anything you write on this topic anymore.

we need the police

Yeah. I know. I never said we didn't.

Trolling

I will point out that, by your definition, only certain states in the United States fall under your rubric of a police state. In fact, only three states (Louisiana, Mississippi and Oklahoma) beat out St. Kitts and Nevis. So really the problem is just kicking them out of the Union, and then St. Kitts is the police state.

You said how security cameras could be misused, but they haven't. And you never answered my question about why you even wrote this, but instead tried to dodge it by labeling it as "garbage".

Er, how? If they honestly believe they need to be prepared for those kinds of eventualities, there's nothing inherently dictatorial about it, just very paranoid.They certainly can't be properly prepared for the Zombie Apocalypse unless they have the infrastructure already in place, or are planning to get it in the near future.

Don't you at least find it humorous that the police have no problem at all videotaping everything that goes on in public, but many of them will try to arrest you if you videotape them in public?

NjS9L5BVAl8

9LMKBuGvGUo

This is, to my knowledge, a true statement. Nearly everything that occurs in public places is recorded in some way another, certainly anything that happens near government property, but that doesn't mean the all-seeing all-hearing malicious police technocracy is watching and listening to everything as it happens or even after it happens. Most surveillance footage is never looked at at all unless it might provide information regarding illegal activities that have already occurred.

I doubt most police departments have the resources to pay people to watch the cameras they have access to 24/7.That is because they simply don't have near enough people to properly monitor all the video feeds they already have. There was even a planned program for a while to get citizens to do it for them. There was a thread about it in this forum.

I guess you could call it a traffic police state :lol:

Victoria is a bit like one.

Don't you at least find it humorous that the police have no problem at all videotaping everything that goes on in public, but many of them will try to arrest you if you videotape them in public?

Not as such, no. I would apply some form of benefit of the doubt to the police about videotaping them in public. Even if their reasons for considering it unlawful are "Well police business and stuff don't you know" I'm still willing to accept that with a grain of salt. Taping the police seems kind of like an inherently shady/provocative activity in the first place.

That is because they simply don't have near enough people to properly monitor all the video feeds they already have. There was even a planned program for a while to get citizens to do it for them. There was a thread about it in this forum.

Fair enough, but even then you're looking at London-style surveillance, and that qualifies as some kind of invasion of privacy; I don't know if it's soldiers-in-the-streets-shooting-at-you or friends-and-relatives-disappearing-in-the-night police state invasion of privacy, however.

Not as such, no. I would apply some form of benefit of the doubt to the police about videotaping them in public. Even if their reasons for considering it unlawful are "Well police business and stuff don't you know" I'm still willing to accept that with a grain of salt. Taping the police seems kind of like an inherently shady/provocative activity in the first place.Why isn't it "an inherently shady/provocative activity in the first place" to do it to completely innocent people on a regular basis? Why shouldn't we be able to film the police any time we want when it is well known that the police typically do not prosecute themselves for their own crimes unless there is private video evidence? What makes them so special in a supposedly free and open society that isn't actually a police state that they should be immune from their own methods?

Fair enough, but even then you're looking at London-style surveillance, and that qualifies as some kind of invasion of privacy; I don't know if it's soldiers-in-the-streets-shooting-at-you or friends-and-relatives-disappearing-in-the-night police state invasion of privacy, however.According to the amendments to the last defense appropriation bill, which wasn't vetoed but was protested by the President, the latter is exactly what the federal authorities can now do.

And I doubt there are less video cameras in Manhattan than there are in London, even though most of the former are still private.

Why isn't it "an inherently shady/provocative activity in the first place" to do it to completely innocent people on a regular basis? Why shouldn't we be able to film them anytime we want when it is well known that the police typically do not prosecute themselves for their own crimes unless there is video evidence? What makes them so special in a supposedly free and open society that isn't actually a police state?

:dunno: the same principle that resulted in executive privilege, "social contract", wherein we endow the government with various powers and rights that we as citizens do not have or do not possess to the same extent with the predication that government will use those powers to protect the citizens.

According to the amendments to the last defense appropriation bill, the latter is exactly what the federal authorities can now do. And I doubt there are less video cameras in Manhattan than there are in London, even those most of those are private.

That doesn't actually strike me as so incredibly sinister. If there was ever an occasion for an army to make an appearance in a city's streets, I expect the powers that be would send it there regardless of whether or not they had documents saying they could do so. I say that arguing not that creating such a document is a positive precedent, or not somewhat suspect, but that I don't necessarily believe it's indicative of the federal government conspiring to oppress and assault the citizens. The non-bolded section is functionally irrelevant; law enforcement officials wouldn't see the tapes on those cameras until after a crime was committed.

According to the amendments to the last defense appropriation bill, which wasn't vetoed but was protested by the President, the latter is exactly what the federal authorities can now do.

No one's disappeared, and people who are shot by the police are usually done so for a fair reason.

Romans 13:1-7 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

There is just so much paranoia in this thread. It seems like whenever some bad thing happens it is automatically meaning we are living in a "police state". Do good and you are unlikely to be punished.

I think we have a winner. Does anyone have a state they wish to use as an example of a non-police state?
The Netherlands according to Fox. It's chaos. I live in fear of either the immigrants or drug-barons or prostitutes.

It also must be remembered that Rupert Murdoch was paying off police to hack citizens phones for salacious stories.


This is a false statement, private detectives were paid to hack phones.



So do not think it would be above crooked people to also pay off the police to use their cameras for salacious stories and/or blackmail.

So you can say the footage is only looked at if a crime is committed, but
1. everything is illegal
and
2. It can also be used for political purposes. A representative sneaking around with his secretary, let's see if we can pay the police a few dollars, and see what juicy details we can get.


While it of course possible to get corrupt policemen, if you have proper procedures for accessing this information, then such practices become very difficult.

Far better and less risky to pay a private eye.

Romans 13:1-7 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

There is just so much paranoia in this thread. It seems like whenever some bad thing happens it is automatically meaning we are living in a "police state". Do good and you are unlikely to be punished.


Wait a minute, in this very same book you are quoting, I seem to remember a man named Jesus Christ that was ONLY "doing good" Do you recall what happened to that man in this book?

He was whipped to shreds and crucified.

And I have refrained myself from posting thousands of links of horrible things that happen to good people every day from the police in the United States. These are not just isolated incidents.

I don't understand why you quoted this passage. It is talking about the powers of God. The police are not the powers of God. They are the powers of man.

There is just so much paranoia in this thread.

Last year, 680,000 people in New York City were accosted, and stopped from their daily lives by people with guns and the authority and blessing of the state to use them, as well as the right to take money and subject these people to a court system which costs even more money. 90% These people had done nothing wrong, except look suspicious.

680,000 people in one city alone. So no, it isn't just paranoia. And if it wasn't for people like me and the ACLU, who are "paranoid", it would be left to people like you to determine whether this is an acceptable practice. So these kinds of things must be fought, and brought to the public consciousness, and it is unfortunately a never ending battle, because people with attitudes like yours simply don't care.

This is a false statement, private detectives were paid to hack phones.

Wrong.

Here is a frontline documentary on the subject:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/murdochs-scandal/

He was not just using private detectives, the scandal heavily involved the police departments in the UK.

While it of course possible to get corrupt policemen, if you have proper procedures for accessing this information, then such practices become very difficult.

Far better and less risky to pay a private eye.

Again, at least watch the documentary I posted.


And while I am at it, I will mention this about the police state:

People seem to think the police are for the most part, incorruptible, and only a small minority are the "bad apples"

The fact is, police lie, all the time. Especially when they are writing their police reports. It is only because people have cameras now that expose the frauds of their reports.

I know from experience. And again, I could post 1,000 links to youtube videos where police said the direct opposite of what happened in the video.

People seem to think corruption is an officer taking a manilla envelope stuffed with $100 bills. While that is rare, (as civil asset forfeiture is a more sideways and legal way of doing it), the real corruption happens when their jobs are on the line, and they have a choice: either lie on the report, or be reprimanded.

Wrong.

Here is a frontline documentary on the subject:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/murdochs-scandal/

He was not just using private detectives, the scandal heavily involved the police departments in the UK.


Again, at least watch the documentary I posted.



I can't watch that documentary as I do not live in the US, but I have watched a lot of news on this isuue by those critical of the NOW, I have also watched parts of the Leveson inquiry.

The criticism of the police was not that they hacked phones for the NOW as you claimed, but that while they had evidence they failed to properly investigate the practices of the NOW, because of the cosy relation between the police and press.

I can't watch that documentary as I do not live in the US, but I have watched a lot of news on this isuue by those critical of the NOW, I have also watched parts of the Leveson inquiry.

The criticism of the police was not that they hacked phones for the NOW as you claimed, but that while they had evidence they failed to properly investigate the practices of the NOW, because of the cosy relation between the police and press.

You can't watch PBS.org videos in the UK? Seriously?

As early as 2003, Rebekah Brooks, editor of News of the World, was paying the police for information on people. And what was particularly odious about this, was she admitted it to some investigative board in England looking into the claims, but claimed it was legal, and that was that... ...and for the next EIGHT YEARS nothing was done about it.

So, in 2003, Brooks says it was legal, nothing is done, but you are going to claim that 2003 was the last time it ever happened? I think not.

You can't watch PBS.org videos in the UK? Seriously?

As early as 2003, Rebekah Brooks, editor of News of the World, was paying the police for information on people. And what was particularly odious about this, was she admitted it to some investigative board in England looking into the claims, but claimed it was legal, and that was that... ...and for the next EIGHT YEARS nothing was done about it.

So, in 2003, Brooks says it was legal, nothing is done, but you are going to claim that 2003 was the last time it ever happened? I think not.

And how does this support your claim that Murdoch's former NOW paid the police to hack someones phone?

Of course there should have been an investigation at the time, but there wasn't, because nobody picked up on this snippet in a dreary meeting into press ethics in the house of commons.

We don't know the information passed and this is now subject to a criminal investigation, in which both journalists and police officers are under investigation.

There is no reason why the NOW would pay the police to hack someones phone, when many journalists can do it themselves.

Of course there should have been an investigation at the time, but there wasn't, because nobody picked up on this snippet in a dreary meeting into press ethics in the house of commons.

Nobody picked up on it? Nobody picked up on it? What about the board that heard the testimony? WHY DIDN'T THEY PICK UP ON IT? Isn't that exactly what they were there for?

We don't know the information passed and this is now subject to a criminal investigation, in which both journalists and police officers are under investigation.

:confused:
"Now subject"? It was eight years ago. And what's this "we don't know the information passed"

Why should it even matter what information was passed? Why are you trying justify this? What is your angle? She admitted to paying police for information. I was not aware it was the police departments' business to sell information.


And how does this support your claim that Murdoch's former NOW paid the police to hack someones phone?

There is no reason why the NOW would pay the police to hack someones phone, when many journalists can do it themselves.

Ok, fine, I was wrong, they did not pay police to directly hack phones. They paid them for information. Information, which should not have been for sale, because the police are not information brokers.

The police in America wield too much power. This has always been true, but the Internet and personal recording devices as well as personal media has just made the issue more well-known.

Also, cameras are used to target speeders and people who run red lights. That's a traffic police state, which isn't exactly what you're making up.

I'd just like to point out that those cameras do not and can not target speeders or red light runners. There are no cameras that are used to detect and ticket speeders. And the only ones that ticket red light runners are the big box cameras attached to the ground that flash and take still pictures, which are accompanied by the required red light camera warning signs everywhere.

There are speed cameras (at least in the UK), these and red light cameras are different from surveillance cameras though.

There are speed cameras (at least in the UK), these and red light cameras are different from surveillance cameras though.

There are also "talking" cameras in the UK, which "scold offenders for anti-social behaviour"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6524495.stm

Even though there is something inherently creepy about them, the BBC passes them off as wonderful, packaging it as a way to fight littering.

But I would find it very hard to believe they have not been used to bust pot dealers, or prostitutes, or a host of other victimless crimes.

Just like all the other surveillance techniques. They are packaged as something to fight crimes or behaviors everybody can agree need to be stopped, but they are inevitably used to do anything the government sees fit to protect its own interest.

The Netherlands according to Fox. It's chaos. I live in fear of either the immigrants or drug-barons or prostitutes.

But- But your fascist regime euthanize like millions of you each year!

But- But your fascist regime euthanize like millions of you each year!Well, our doctors really.

Which I also fear.

But I would find it very hard to believe they have not been used to bust pot dealers, or prostitutes, or a host of other victimless crimes.

Well, both of those are illegal, so I don't know what's so bad.

Also, you keep on using the "stop and frisk" activity as an example. Just because it applies to a city doesn't mean it applies to a country.

Wait a minute, in this very same book you are quoting, I seem to remember a man named Jesus Christ that was ONLY "doing good" Do you recall what happened to that man in this book?

He was whipped to shreds and crucified.

And I have refrained myself from posting thousands of links of horrible things that happen to good people every day from the police in the United States. These are not just isolated incidents.

I don't understand why you quoted this passage. It is talking about the powers of God. The police are not the powers of God. They are the powers of man.

The higher powers in this passage is the civil authorities. Yes Jesus was tortured, but he still allowed the civil authorities to punish him, so he knew what was going to happen. Not once did he proclaim his rights or any of that. You must remember that this was written when being a Christian was a case of death and yet we have Paul stating we should be subject to those in power. So we are due to pay our respect to the current government of the day, even if you don't agree with it.

Do you think that Russian Christians living under Stalin should have cooperated with the violent repression of Christian churches?

If you aren't happy with the current state of affairs (I'm honestly not), you can either protest or live with it. But if you protest, remember that if you call America a police state, the opposition won't be willing to compromise.

But I would find it very hard to believe they have not been used to bust pot dealers, or prostitutes, or a host of other victimless crimes.


Yeah because pot dealers and prostitutes are going to go about there business in front of surveillance cameras, especially talking ones.

I hope you can reply but I fear you may be locked up for criticising the police state,

Also, 21 years for killing 69 people doesn't sound like that good of a system IMO.
Have you even seen the prisons in Norway? Thay are rated like 2.5-3 stars hotels! The people the have evrything, so I don't even consider prisons here as a punishment.

Should prison be a punishment?

Should prison be a punishment?

Isn't that the point? It's to prevent people from doing crimes in the first place.

If that is the intent, then it is doing a piss-poor job because of it. I'm too lazy to look for the stats now, but I seem to remember reading that severity of prison sentences (provided they are not completely insane, such as stealing a DVD gets your hands chopped off) has little to no impact on deterring first-time criminals. In fact, due to the legal barriers placed on released criminals, they often find it easier to get sent back to prison where they know they will get basic care, food, shelter, order, and so on.
That is one of the primary reasons I am a fan of the Scandinavian rehabilitation emphasis with regards to criminals.

Should prison be a punishment?
I don't understand how it can be viewed as anything else, in any country.

Prisons which of these should they be

1. Deterrent - fear of stops crime
2. Punishment - justice after crime commited
3. Prevention - stopping people who commit crime commiting futher crime

Yeah because pot dealers and prostitutes are going to go about there business in front of surveillance cameras, especially talking ones.

I hope you can reply but I fear you may be locked up for criticising the police state,

Is your snarkiness appropriate for the chamber?

And you do not have to do the deal in front of the camera, for the camera to be used in an investigation. IT can be used to link you with other people, and to track your comings and goings, etc.

Prisons which of these should they be

1. Deterrent - fear of stops crime
2. Punishment - justice after crime commited
3. Prevention - stopping people who commit crime commiting futher crime

You forgot :

4. Rehabilitation, education and psychological help so that people have a chance to get a new productive life after prison.;)

The higher powers in this passage is the civil authorities. Yes Jesus was tortured, but he still allowed the civil authorities to punish him, so he knew what was going to happen. Not once did he proclaim his rights or any of that. You must remember that this was written when being a Christian was a case of death and yet we have Paul stating we should be subject to those in power.

I guess that is the problem with the Bible then, isn't it? Too open to interpretation to be considered any kind of authority.

So we are due to pay our respect to the current government of the day, even if you don't agree with it.

The abolitionist movement was mostly Christian. Were they bad Christians in this regard?

Actually, you know what? Your argument, to me, is pointless.
1. I read that passage as pertaining to the law of god, not man, and I think most people who would read it would agree with me, actually.
2. Even if some super-biblical scholar argued his way into convincing me it actually was about the law of man, I am not a Christian, therefore, I do not prescribe the Bible as truth or guidance on life.
3. I find the attitude morally repugnant. I will not submit to a crooked government. I will not turn in my neighbors because my government tells me they are bad people. I will not sit idly by while injustices are inflicted on my fellow human beings.

Injustices are inflicted on your fellow human beings? The fellow human beings you speak of are inflicting injustices on society.

Has it ever occurred to you that the law, in fact, is not arbitrary?

Isn't that the point? It's to prevent people from doing crimes in the first place.
I don't understand how it can be viewed as anything else, in any country.
Well, "punishment" to me implies a retributive function, and it does not seem self-evident that this is an a intrinsic aspect of imprisonment. It could in principle be constructed as a solely preventative and rehabilitative measure, with no notion of deserved suffering. In practice, I'll grant you, it seems unavoidable- after all, what is the state apparatus but a big tool for clobbering people that step out of line?- but as you're all aware I've never been one to overly concern myself with practicalities. :mischief:

Either way, the police are meant to stop future crimes, not to punish existing ones. And there may be some issues or technicalities that we may disagree with, and these incidents should be brought up, but the justice the police brings clearly outweighs their legal persecution of even the broadest range of what should be overlooked.

Well, "punishment" to me implies a retributive function, and it does not seem self-evident that this is an a intrinsic aspect of imprisonment. It could in principle be constructed as a solely preventative and rehabilitative measure, with no notion of deserved suffering. In practice, I'll grant you, it seems unavoidable- after all, what is the state apparatus but a big tool for clobbering people that step out of line?- but as you're all aware I've never been one to overly concern myself with practicalities. :mischief:
If that was the case, imprisonment would be used extremely rarely. For example, a very large number of murders are committed as crimes of passion. Assault and Battery both face a similar issue, but those have higher rates of repeat offenders.

If a nation was serious about it's idea that imprisonment is not a punitive measure, they would have to accept the argument that "That murder was really a one time thing, I've never murdered anyone before, and I'm unlikely to murder anyone again." As a legitimate defense.

If you aren't happy with the current state of affairs (I'm honestly not), you can either protest or live with it. But if you protest, remember that if you call America a police state, the opposition won't be willing to compromise.It's worse.

Protester: You're a Police State!
America: Lies, I'm not!
Protester: You so are!
America: Ok, suit yourself.
*barbells cling* (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8g2ni96qrfk)

If that was the case, imprisonment would be used extremely rarely. For example, a very large number of murders are committed as crimes of passion. Assault and Battery both face a similar issue, but those have higher rates of repeat offenders.

If a nation was serious about it's idea that imprisonment is not a punitive measure, they would have to accept the argument that "That murder was really a one time thing, I've never murdered anyone before, and I'm unlikely to murder anyone again." As a legitimate defense.
That sounds pretty reasonable, yeah.

If a nation was serious about it's idea that imprisonment is not a punitive measure, they would have to accept the argument that "That murder was really a one time thing, I've never murdered anyone before, and I'm unlikely to murder anyone again." As a legitimate defense.
Don't see why. You can easily believe that someone who had committed murder has proven to be unfit for living in a human society.

To say that something is a legitimate defence does not mean that it must be accepted unconditionally. By the same token, we accept insanity as a legitimate defence, but you can't just say "Oh, I were right crazy at time, yer honour" and expect it to be accepted without criticism.

Someone who is capable of murder had proven by that very fact that he's a social danger. Just like with the insanity case, the burden of proof lies on the accused's defence - it's they who should present evidence of insanity. I'm not sure that it's possible to prove that someone won't commit a murder again at all (or as likely to commit a murder as any other random citizen). "It was a crime of passion" surely doesn't cut it. People are overwhelmed with multiple passions like jealousy etc. in their lives. After all, if jealousy can drive you to murder, what will happen next time you're overwhelmed by jealousy?

It's not possible to prove that I won't commit murder. For all we know, I could commit dozens of murders. Should I be in prison?

No, but you haven't proven yourself to be morally capable of murder, either, therefore the burden of proof is on me. Someone who had already shown himself to be so, transfers the burden on himself.

It's just like with insanity. For all we know, you could be insane at that very moment (not every mentally ill person is obvious, after all), but we don't send you to the asylum or otherwise proclaim you insane. But if you are doing things that seem to point to a mental illness, well, the burden of proof is on you or your defence to establish that you're not insane.

I have a feeling that we need a prison thread for this, the majority has already overturned the idea of a police state.

No, but you haven't proven yourself to be morally capable of murder, either, therefore the burden of proof is on me. Someone who had already shown himself to be so, transfers the burden on himself.
"Murder" is a very abstract concept, almost meaningless without context. Somebody may have proven themselves to be capable of murder in a given set of circumstances, but it is not immediately obvious if they are capable of murder in other circumstances. Likewise, I have not proven myself to be capable of murder in those circumstances which I have thus far encountered, but how do we know that I will not in the future find myself in circumstances in which I am capable of murder? In each case, critical judgement is called for, rather than jumping to so simplistic conclusions based on sweeping generalisations.

It's just like with insanity. For all we know, you could be insane at that very moment (not every mentally ill person is obvious, after all), but we don't send you to the asylum or otherwise proclaim you insane. But if you are doing things that seem to point to a mental illness, well, the burden of proof is on you or your defence to establish that you're not insane.
Insanity can be clinically diagnosed, while likelihood of committing murder cannot, so I don't think it pays to put much weight on the analogy.

Somebody may have proven themselves to be capable of murder in a given set of circumstances, but it is not immediately obvious if they are capable of murder in other circumstances.
Of course. But if there are circumstances in which you would commit murder (ethically unjustified killing, if you prefer) at all, then I think that a by-default assumption that you are capable of doing it again is justified. Most "sane" motives for committing a murder are perfectly repeatable.

If I see someone running around a street setting random houses on fire, me stopping him, depriving him of his freedom to go around as he pleases, for a while, at least, is preventative. According to your logic, it's punitive (since maybe the house I saw him burn last was the last house in his life he was going to burn), and, in fact, is no more reasonable then depriving anyone else of freedom of movement.

Of course. But if there are circumstances in which you would commit murder (ethically unjustified killing, if you prefer) at all, then I think that a by-default assumption that you are capable of doing it again is justified. Most "sane" motives for committing a murder are perfectly repeatable.
Well, I don't know if we can generalise like that. And even if we could, is it necessarily the case that the proper response is long-term imprisonment? It is not obvious.

Well, I don't know if we can generalise like that.
Frankly, I think we can. Committing murder is a fairly big step over the decency line, so to speak. Would you apply the same logic to two murders, committed separately? I think that cases of murder (ethically unjustified killing) have much more similarities, then differences.

And even if we could, is it necessarily the case that the proper response is long-term imprisonment? It is not obvious.
That I am willing to agree with. But not every preventative measure is proper, either.

Frankly, I think we can. Committing murder is a fairly big step over the decency line, so to speak. Would you apply the same logic to two murders, committed separately?
But, again, "murder" is a pretty abstract concept, it tells us very little about what actually happened. It's like saying that you're having "food" for dinner. We could perhaps say that most murders are of a sort that permit this sort of assumption, and that may well be the case, but that isn't grounds for generalisation.

That I am willing to agree with. But not every preventative measure is proper, either.
Granted.

I consider "murder" to be a fairly concrete thing - "deliberate ethically unjustified killing". It tells me that the murderer had went way over the decency line. Maybe if we define it as "unlawful killing" it is abstract.

I consider "murder" to be a fairly concrete thing - "deliberate ethically unjustified killing".
Those are all very general abstractions. It's like saying "I consider 'sharks' to be a concrete thing- a specimen of the class Chondrichthyes of the superorder Selachimorpha". Might be true, but it doesn't tell you a damn thing about the ominous grey shape in the water.

It tells me that the murderer had went way over the decency line. Maybe if we define it as "unlawful killing" it is abstract.
Exactly, it tells you that they went over the "decency line", past tense. In itself it tells you nothing about whether they're likely to again.

Might be true, but it doesn't tell you a damn thing about the ominous grey shape in the water.
Um, why not?


Exactly, it tells you that they went over the "decency line", past tense. In itself it tells you nothing about whether they're likely to again.
If someone considers it fine to go over decency line in certain circumstances, he will. And "sane" motives for killing people (money, revenge, jealousy) are perfectly repeatable. True, if you decide that the only acceptable moment for killing is 29 Jun 20:35, 2012 you won't repeat it, but in that case you're insane.

Someone who is capable of murder had proven by that very fact that he's a social danger.
I think the implicit assumption here is that most people are incapable of murder. I don't think that's true.

I think the implicit assumption here is that most people are incapable of murder. I don't think that's true.
Whether most people are capable or not, someone who did had already proven that he is capable. Presumption of innocence and all that.

Um, why not?
It could be a basking shark, which is at worst a matter of disinterest, or it could be a great white, which is something that a swimmer may need to think about concerning themselves with. Simply noting that it is a "shark" doesn't resolve this, however expansive a definition we give of "shark".

If someone considers it fine to go over decency line in certain circumstances, he will. And "sane" motives for killing people (money, revenge, jealousy) are perfectly repeatable. True, if you decide that the only acceptable moment for killing is 29 Jun 20:35, 2012 you won't repeat it, but in that case you're insane.
You seem to be implying that the majority of murders are both cold-blooded and pre-meditated, which I am not given to believe is the case. Instead, the majority are either "crimes of passion", which are by their nature circumstantial, or occur when another criminal activity gets out of hand (e.g. a burglary that ends in a shooting), which while certainly indicating a worrisome willingness to commit violence doesn't necessarily suggest that killing is something that is or may become habitual.

You seem to be implying that the majority of murders are both cold-blooded and pre-meditated
Not at all. In fact, I see no reason to treat crimes of passion differently here. People have constant passions in their lives. If a fit of jealousy drives you to murder, what will happen next time you'll have a fit of jealousy?

Same with burglary.

The only case of prison being punitive I can imagine is a case when the criminal is physically unable to do any more murders (paralysis or something).

The only case of prison being punitive I can imagine is a case when the criminal is physically unable to do any more murders (paralysis or something).

Usually when states prosecute old dictators / war criminals it's only for the punitive aspect as well. I mean what harm could Pinochet do when he was arrested? Same for the handful of nazis who still occasionally face the courts.

The punitive aspect is a pretty big part of the Justice system, I'd say.

Usually when states prosecute old dictators / war criminals it's only for the punitive aspect as well.
Good point here. If they're that old, they may fall under "physically unable" category, though.

Well, looks like stop and Frisk is also practiced in Philadelphia, and now, San Fransisco's mayor Ed Lee is considering it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/29/stop-and-frisk-in-san-francisco_n_1639012.html

"This is under consideration as a way to make sure that we keep homicides and some of these other violent crime(s) down," Lee said. "I think we have to get to the guns. I know we have to find a different way to get to these weapons, and I'm very willing to consider what other cities are doing."

In ten years, how many cities will it be?

Not at all. In fact, I see no reason to treat crimes of passion differently here. People have constant passions in their lives. If a fit of jealousy drives you to murder, what will happen next time you'll have a fit of jealousy?

Same with burglary.

The only case of prison being punitive I can imagine is a case when the criminal is physically unable to do any more murders (paralysis or something).

It sounds like you're trying to justify 'murderer' as a category of people, instead of people who commit murderer. As others have pointed out, it doesn't seem to me that murderers are any more or less likely than the average person, ceteris paribus, to commit murder again. And that's why maybe 'murderers' is not a useful category.

I'm certain these cities do so without profiling. Those grannies and young children could be used to transport illegal weapons, just as they supposedly do in airports.

it doesn't seem to me that murderers are any more or less likely than the average person, ceteris paribus, to commit murder again.

So what you are saying is that if we take 1000 people randomly who have committed a murder and randomly 1000 people who have not. A we ensure that all these people are at liberty, you would not expect the 1000 people who have commited murder to commit more than those who have not. That seem's a tad far fetched.