If I were the judge, maybe I’d say, “You can do 8 years in jail…or I can give a sentence of X hours of community service. You don’t choose what those hours will be; I will prescribe them.”
He must address an assembly of the school he threatened, apologizing for his act. As a symbolic act of “making it up to them,” he must also pick up trash on their campus, help janitors clean their bathrooms and remove graffiti. It’s a lot easier to do nasty things to nameless, faceless people and the hardest thing is probably to face them and take responsibility.
I’d also have him sit in on their student council meetings or other things where he sees them trying to do positive things for their school. If he were good at a subject (say, math), I’d have him tutoring their students. My point here is that I’d like him to see that he can get “good attention” instead of bad, offer him an idea of how to redirect his energy toward something positive.
He must interview the principal of the school he threatened. He must prepare a report of the fallout from what he did, in terms of monetary and other costs to that school.
He must ride with police as an observer when they enter dangerous parts of town, not knowing who might pull a gun. The police probably have video just like we see on TV these days…routine traffic stop and the perp opens fire with an Uzi. The kid must also attend funerals of any officers killed in action.
He must volunteer at a hospital and see what gunshot victims suffer, help dress the wounds, talk to the families. He must also visit the morgue and face what happens when doctors can’t save the victim.
[/QUOTE]
What law gives the judge the authority to create this type of sentence?
So if two store clerks are hanging out in the break room and one says “If the boss makes us work overtime again this weekend, I’m going to kill him.” how many years of imprisonment would you consider appropriate for this clear threat of premeditated murder?
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
So if two store clerks are hanging out in the break room and one says “If the boss makes us work overtime again this weekend, I’m going to kill him.” how many years of imprisonment would you consider appropriate for this clear threat of premeditated murder?
[/QUOTE]
That obviously calls for capital punishment, but if he didn’t really mean it perhaps just life without possibility of parole.
If I were the other clerk, I would weigh if I thought it was something to report or not. I’ve probably worked with them a while and would have an idea on if he was just fooling around or if I thought it were serious. Of course, this sort of process is impossible if you receive a phone call from a stranger that makes the same sort of threat.
[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
I never said locking up people who are innocent is OK. You just assumed I did so you could distort my position into something terrible. You are a dishonest person.
[/QUOTE]
I didn’t assume anything. I would have been distorting your position if I’d said something like, “you think locking up everyone who hasn’t committed a crime is okay,” which I obviously didn’t. You didn’t specify who ought to be locked up, and neither did I.
I simply pointed out that by your own words you’d be alright with it if everyone was locked up - which you would.
Virtually everyone has committed a crime at some point, especially if you include such things as traffic infractions. You made no representations regarding how serious a crime should be to result in a prison term.
I may indeed be a dishonest person, but I have been nothing but honest in this thread.
[QUOTE=neutron star]
You can’t have it both ways. He was so stupid that he made the call from a cell that could be traced in front of a whole bunch of witnesses, but he was enough of a criminal mastermind that no cop could ever find his gun!
[/QUOTE]
It’s Texas, surely he could find someone to lend him one.
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
I didn’t assume anything. I would have been distorting your position if I’d said something like, “you think locking up everyone who hasn’t committed a crime is okay,” which I obviously didn’t. You didn’t specify who ought to be locked up, and neither did I.
I simply pointed out that by your own words you’d be alright with it if everyone was locked up - which you would.
[/quote]
No, by my words you cannot judge (with some exceptions) a society on the percentage of people in prison. I never said I would be OK with everyone locked up. Do you see the difference between:
a society having a high number of prisoners is almost completely irrelevant to whether it is a good society.
and
[a society would] be doing just fine if everyone was locked up
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
Obviously they’re not the same sentence. Equally obviously, if we assume that the first is true, then the second must be also.
G’head, ask anyone. I’ll wait.
[/QUOTE]
No, because we know that everyone has not been convicted of a crime.
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
Obviously they’re not the same sentence. Equally obviously, if we assume that the first is true, then the second must be also.
G’head, ask anyone. I’ll wait.
[/QUOTE]
Accepting that incarceration and quality are unrelated, raising the incarceration rate must raise the quality level of any country? I don’t follow your logic.
[QUOTE=lobotomyboy63]
Accepting that incarceration and quality are unrelated, raising the incarceration rate must raise the quality level of any country? I don’t follow your logic.
[/QUOTE]
No - accepting that incarceration and quality are unrelated, if everyone is incarcerated, quality is unaffected. I mean “doing fine” in the sense of “not doing worse”. I don’t know that you could correctly take it to mean “doing better”.
How do we know that? You were speaking in general terms when you said “a society having a high number of prisoners is almost completely irrelevant to whether it is a good society”, not specifically about the USA.
Anyway, you’re missing the point. What if everyone has been convicted of a crime?
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
Two, before you advocate the idea of sending people to prison for saying something stupid, you might want to consider the effect it would have for you personally.
[/QUOTE]
There are a lot of people in this thread who REALLY need to think about this point.
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
No - accepting that incarceration and quality are unrelated, if everyone is incarcerated, quality is unaffected. I mean “doing fine” in the sense of “not doing worse”. I don’t know that you could correctly take it to mean “doing better”.
How do we know that? You were speaking in general terms when you said “a society having a high number of prisoners is almost completely irrelevant to whether it is a good society”, not specifically about the USA.
[/quote]
Here is what you wrote:
Who is we?
What if God was real and said it was a moral requirement of existence that all people should shave their body hair?
What if God was real and said it was a moral requirement of existence that all people should shave their body hair?
[/QUOTE]
“We” is the citizens of a good society - in my case, the USA.
As far as your second question goes - I reiterate that you’re completely fucking insane.
If you’re an adult and you don’t yet understand that preventing crimes is better for society than merely punishing offenders, I doubt anything will ever convince you. In any case, I’ve had no chance to even attempt to do so since you refocused the thread into a discussion of semantics and whether I’m a “dishonest person”. :dubious:
[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
I am a citizen of the US, too. Now, have all of the people in the US been convicted of a crime?
[/QUOTE]
Obviously not. That doesn’t address the point, which is what if they were?
…in this thread. In any case, iterate and reiterate are synonyms.
If you have a lot of people locked up, you’re clearly not preventing much crime. You said that doesn’t affect how you view the society, which clearly suggests to me that you’re not interested in crime prevention.
[QUOTE=Cisco]
Most of those states with “age of consent” under 18 are only if the other person is not more than 3 or 4 years older. They’re designed to protect against the ‘boyfriend turns 18 two weeks before the girlfriend’-type scenarios. Comparitively few states allow a 16 or 17 year old to bang, say, a 35 year old.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think that’s correct. According to the chart here, only nine states have 18 as an age of consent. That means in all the other states a 16 or 17 year old can bang a 35 year old. Those ages are not designed to protect a boyfriend or girlfriend who is younger. What you’re thinking of is the age gap provision. For instance, the age of consent in Alabama is 16, but the age gap provision allows a 16 year old to have sex with a 15 year old. A 35 year old could not have sex with a 15 year old, but could have sex with a 16 year old.
[QUOTE=neutron star]
You can’t have it both ways. He was so stupid that he made the call from a cell that could be traced in front of a whole bunch of witnesses, but he was enough of a criminal mastermind that no cop could ever find his gun!
.
[/QUOTE]
Strawman,keeping a gun round a friends house,or having the option to borrow a gun does not make you even reasonably bright let alone a criminal mastermind.
I have no sympathy at all for this loathsome piece of vermin.
I would not be stunned with amazement if jail or no jail this individual goes on to commit more extreme crimes later on in life.
As to all the people who DO seem to feel sympathy for this person would you still feel it was just a prank if he had rung up say a close member of your family and told them that he was going to kill them,let alone commit mass random murder?
If your feelings remain the same then you must truly be a forgiving person at least on the level of a saint.
[QUOTE=Lust4Life]
Strawman,keeping a gun round a friends house,or having the option to borrow a gun does not make you even reasonably bright let alone a criminal mastermind.
I have no sympathy at all for this loathsome piece of vermin.
[/QUOTE]
So you honestly believe that:
A. He was planning this and had a gun hidden at someone else’s house in anticipation?
B. The fact that he was egged on by a bunch of other students to make the call is just an incredible coincidence?
C. If he hadn’t been caught, he would have been the first person EVER to warn a school before he shot it up?
I find it amazing that you are so accurately able to judge someone’s personality and predisposition towards future criminal behavior by a few ill-thought-out spoken words (not even actions) spoken by a teenage mouth. Saying stupid shit that hasn’t been throught through is pretty much a teenager’s job.
I know for a fact that he did less damage than I did smashing up mailboxes as a teenager and I’m hardly still a criminal. How severely would you have punished me?
