What can I say? I wave my freak flag high.
Never said they ought to be in public.
And that's about all of your post that deserves a response.
So what's wrong with corporal punishment?
- Thread starter Mouthwash
- Start date
What can I say? I wave my freak flag high.
Never said they ought to be in public.
And that's about all of your post that deserves a response.
Lord of Elves
Suede-Denim Secret Police
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 6,976
Uh, alright. I mean, I guess good for you that you don't want to beat people in public. You just want to flagellate them behind closed doors. And somehow this is the point that your brilliant solution to our "crime problem" turns on. We're gonna whip people instead of imprisoning them, even though we don't believe that we have too many people behind bars, because criticizing the authorities who lock the bad people away would be silly.
Deterrence comes from people who have not yet offended seeing what happens to those who do. They need to know what happens in order to fear the consequence.
The consequence must be something bad enough that the individual will do (or not do) almost anything to avoid it.
If we did have flogging, it should be on the regular field trip rotation. Not just public, but mandatory viewing.
The consequence must be something bad enough that the individual will do (or not do) almost anything to avoid it.
If we did have flogging, it should be on the regular field trip rotation. Not just public, but mandatory viewing.
I don't agree with either of those options. Sure, it creates a vicious cycle when companies are allowed to discriminate against ex-cons, but at the same time companies need to be allowed to protect themselves from potentially harmful employees. Not to mention, some jobs almost require the employer to look into a potential employee's criminal record. For example, you wouldn't want anyone with a criminal history of theft working in any field that involves the handling of money or other valuables.
Also, because of the way our criminal justice system works, ex-cons tend to make terrible and unreliable employees even if they have no intention of committing a criminal act against their employer. The criminal justice system simply does not make ex-cons employable. Now, that's not entirely the fault of the ex-cons themselves, but a company shouldn't be made to feel obligated to hire a sub-par employee just because they are an ex-con that needs to get back on their feet.
There's also a level of risk that comes with hiring an ex-con that simply isn't there with an employee with no criminal record. There will always be some lingering doubt about that ex-con you hired as you wonder each day if that's the day they are going to have a relapse and steal from you or assault a customer. Even if they don't cause any trouble on the job, you will always be wondering if that ex-con you hired is going to commit another crime, go back to jail, and leave you hanging with a vacant position that now needs to be filled on extremely short notice.
You know you pro-corporal punishment folks are just begging for a masochist crime wave, right?
Yeah, I know, the folks who like bondage are already committing lots of crimes. Still it was almost a funny joke.
If anyone has any questions about actual flogging/whipping, please shout.
Yeah, I know, the folks who like bondage are already committing lots of crimes. Still it was almost a funny joke.
If anyone has any questions about actual flogging/whipping, please shout.
Lexicus
Deity
Really, I think fascist state is a bit too generous. Barbarian chiefdom has a better feel to it.
Lord of Elves
Suede-Denim Secret Police
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 6,976
Difference?
Lexicus
Deity
Fascist state has a higher degree of specialization/organization. Honestly most barbarian chiefdoms are probably morally superior to fascist states, I decided on barbarian chiefdom because it will probably make Mouthwash more annoyed when he eventually reads this.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
The clue is, barbarians are generally bearded, but fascists are as a rule clean-shaven.
I think the President-Elect can start this process off for us. It is known that his 3rd wife broke immigration laws and perjured herself. I think if he gave her a bare bottomed spanking on national tv, we could see some exciting changes in the administering of justice in this country.
Mussolini's Italy or Saudi Arabia- it's a toss-up, really.
The clue is, barbarians are generally bearded, but fascists are as a rule clean-shaven.
Last edited:
Lexicus
Deity
We might as well roll with the whole "completely degraded the dignity of the office" thing.
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
schlaufuchs
Break My Heart
Pointing out the existence of a lampshade does not constitute an actual rebuttal of said lampshade. As you noted: treating people like criminals tends to turn them into actual criminals.
FWIW i think that lashings are way too anodyne to act as a serious deterrent to crime. A better middle-eastern culture option would be to maim people for crime. I mean, you stand to lose a leg or an arm, so better behave or else.
If only people weren't so starry eyed and liberal, our world would have ridden itself of crime by now ;_;
And since we are at it, i say Baal oven practices may also be beneficial.
If only people weren't so starry eyed and liberal, our world would have ridden itself of crime by now ;_;
And since we are at it, i say Baal oven practices may also be beneficial.
It's not so much that I disagree with you as it is that I think the options you presented wouldn't really be a good solution to the problem. Sure, they may be better for the ex-cons seeking employment, but they wouldn't really be a good deal for the employer. Although, I'll admit that I don't really know what viable solution there would be that would both make it easier for ex-cons to get a legit job, while still allowing employers to get a good idea about who exactly they are hiring.
