Are We Super-Tough on Lawbreakers? Should We Always Be?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jaypeeto4
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
And unfortunately, very true. We want politicians that are “tough on crime.” Most of American primetime television is filled with crime shows that show “criminals” being caught through one piece of evidence. We are told that there is a major crime wave or that there is a major wave in a certain type of crime. We are told that murders, rapes, burglaries are on the rise and that we may all become victims. We think criminals, convicted or not, are less than human. We don’t rehabilitate. We punish and warehouse and forget. We don’t want to remember that these people are just that people. One mistake and you are a felon for life.

In actuality, while we may all be potentially law breakers, most of us wouldn’t want ourselves prosecuted though we have no problem with prosecuting excessively anyone we think is a criminal (ethnicity, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, even just the wrong look all play a factor in the likelihood of someone being arrested as well as the type of crime) I would argue that there are more murders on TV than in the US. We have a psychological need for closure so that when a crime occurs or in this day and age of 24/7 news reporting reported, we want a bad guy caught. We don’t care who but if it fits the stereotype even better because we fill justified in creating and perpetuating that stereotype and so we jump on the bandwagon calling for greater crackdown and harsher punishments, We don’t care if a person is wrongly convicted or falsely convicted or that the crime never actually occured. We want someone to suffer and it has to be someone other than us.

We like are Pharisicalism because it gives us a sense of superiority over others. We pat ourselves on our back that we aren’t like those murders, rapists, pedophiles, frauds, drug dealers, thieves, etc. The thing is most of these crimes are a one time event and the likelihood of recidivism (repeating the same crime or another crime again) is relatively low. Thieves, particularly male, have a window of criminal behavior that ends by 25. Murders, except for serial killers which are rare, usually only have one victim and one perpetrator. Rapists typically rape someone they know, not strangers. Drug dealers are usually low man on the totem pole and need rehabilitation not prison.

I have major issues with the way the US deals with drug crimes. Marijuana, at least federally, has a major prison term attached to it due to its association with Mexicans (I’m putting it mildly but there’s an association that is far cruder and ruder than the fact that a lot of marijuana is produced in Mexico and had everything to do with a stereotype about the Mexican people) *(see the movie from the 1920s called Reefer Madness which where the stereotype is enforced.) Now in some places, drug courts have come into existence. Drug courts take individuals that have been arrested on drug crimes and that are considered a good candidate and put them in a program with a strict schedule of rehabilitation meetings, mandatory UAs, court dates, finding employment and housing that actually works. There are consequences if certain deadlines aren’t met but once these people are in the program, they want to succeed and they do their part. They end up without a conviction and they save taxpayers and the state (I don’t know if the feds have a drug court or not) quite a bit of money. These people stay off drugs, stay sober, and are productive rather than being caught in an endless cycle of addiction and conviction which may end up with them dead rather than rehabilitated.

I think I’ve gone on long enough. Criminal justice is one of my fields so it’s something I’m passionate about.
 
This system won’t go on forever.all this violence on tv has an effect on youth that people want to ignnore.Children in fatherless homes and broken homes have no morals to guide them.They look at tv as being the way like is.They don’t God in the world.They may feel what they are doing is wrong but without God being a reality they don’t see it as an offense.they are able to view crime as a fact of life.Its an irony that we allow such amoral behavior to be shown everywhere then we come down hard on violators.There are going to be some tragic things happening in this society in not the to distant future.Also we are along way from recovering from this bad economy we’re in.
 
You’re right about the economy, Valentino.
It is still horrendous.
I finally got hired yesterday, after over TWO YEARS of looking for work.
Being 50 didn’t help either. And this job “draw plus commission” sales job
is something I’ve never done before, and there is no weekly guaranteed base-pay.
So I am still quite scared, let me tell you.
I’m grateful to have found employment, but still very nervous as to how
this is all going to work out.
I’m behind on my credit card payments and don’t know HOW I will catch up, either,
but I’m certainly going to make every effort.

The article above was scary, and right on the mark, too. I’ve been around for 50 years,
and I’ve seen lots of people do lots of things. These are people who no doubt pride themselves on being upstanding citizens. And in general, they probably are. But all people, without exception, are sinners. I think that jails and prisons should be exclusively for violent offenders. Non violent offenders should be forced to live in halfway houses and made to perform community service of some sort, full time, for 10 years, depending on their offense, and ideally should be made to go to Church, too.
 
Today, Casey Anthony was aquitted of killing her 2 year old daughter.
Personally, I think she got away with murder.
Since she won’t be going to jail for it, she ought to
voluntarily commit herself to a nunnery to live in perpetual penance
and fasting and prayer for the rest of her life. That is, IF she is sorry she did it.

But that brings up another issue.
We all condemn THIS form of murder, that of a 2 year old child.
All of society condemns this.
Unfortunately, another form of willful, deliberate MURDER
is not only NOT illegal in this country, but is actually praised and protected,
namely Abortion. How many of the outraged citizens of America,
who are calling for Casey Anthony’s head on a platter, have themselves had
an Abortion or two or three? How many of these same people who condemn
Casey Anthony are themselves “doctors” who PERFORM abortions?
Something to think about.
And as for Casey Anthony, SHE needs to repent.
 
Jaypeeto4 said:
Today, Casey Anthony was aquitted of killing her 2 year old daughter.
Personally, I think she got away with murder.
Since she won’t be going to jail for it, she ought to
voluntarily commit herself to a nunnery to live in perpetual penance
and fasting and prayer for the rest of her life. That is, IF she is sorry she did it.

But that brings up another issue.
We all condemn THIS form of murder, that of a 2 year old child.
All of society condemns this.
Unfortunately, another form of willful, deliberate MURDER
is not only NOT illegal in this country, but is actually praised and protected,
namely Abortion. How many of the outraged citizens of America,
who are calling for Casey Anthony’s head on a platter, have themselves had
an Abortion or two or three? How many of these same people who condemn
Casey Anthony are themselves “doctors” who PERFORM abortions?
Something to think about.
And as for Casey Anthony, SHE needs to repent.
Click to expand...
IMO Casey Anthony is a disturbed individual who killed her daughter because she got in the way of her freedom.Question.Who made her keep her daughter in the first place?
 
Good question.
I guess what I can’t understand is HOW,
with her daughter MISSING, she could have gone
out to the nightclubs with friends and partied the nights away.
 
**In actuality, while we may all be potentially law breakers, most of us wouldn’t want ourselves prosecuted though we have no problem with prosecuting excessively anyone we think is a criminal **

Saint Paul is often cited, for he wrote that the magistrate “does not bear the sword in vain” but is God’s instrument for wrath toward malefactors.
And true, Paul did say that. There are many Christian writers who cite Saint Paul and advocate extremely tough sentences for offenders. They fail to note, however, that St.Paul himself was a repentant murderer, a murderer of Christians at that!- who was NOT prosecuted by the civil magistrate for his previous crimes against innocent people (Christians that he had had killed). To obey these modern writers, St. Paul would have had to go to the empire’s magistrates, confess himself to be a (repentant) murderer, and INSIST to them that they prosecute him and put him in the dungeon! The fact that Paul committed his murders out of a misguided religious zeal does not change the fact that what he did was barbaric and wrong (Timothy McVeigh, the terrorist bomber, thought that he was saving America from the New World Order by committing his heinous act. He was STILL wrong to do it.)
This is all very thought-provoking, I think. Those who hotly insist on wide use of the death penalty seem to focus on it’s use against murderers, rapists, and violent robbers. Certainly, such people are asking for it by their malicious behavior, but why stop at them? Especially if, as some of those writers (such as Wayne Jackson of the Church of Christ) claim, that to fail to enforce the death penalty is disobedience to the laws of God. After all, God’s Mosaic Law called for the death penalty for many other sins/crimes than just murder. Adultery, sodomy, fornication and many other sins called for the death penalty, as did working on the Sabbath Day.
Also, writers like Jackson insist that even repentant Christians go to the authorities and confess their misdeeds. Now, that would seem to indicate a great deal of humility on their part. But Mr. Jackson fails to note, it seems, that that could cost him or his denomination, entire congregations of believers potentially. Why?
Well, in many parts of the USA, laws against Adultery are STILL on the books.
True, it is rarely prosecuted, if ever, but it is in many places still an offense against the Law of the Land. Does Mr. Jackson want all of the Church of Christ’s repentant adulterers and fornicators to go down to the local sheriff’s office, confess adultery, and insist that they themselves be prosecuted and sent to jail for it?
Or look at Christian TV. Even Catholic TV, such as EWTN.
How MANY TIMES do we see Godfearing, repentant believers on these programs
openly discussing, for example, their past addictions to illegal drugs? Are we not aware
that to USE the illegal drugs, they had to ILLEGALLY OBTAIN the illegal drugs through ILLEGAL means? Are we not aware that such activity, which had to have gone on for a long time in order for them to have been ADDICTS, is serious violation of Law, for which, if the magistrates so chose, these repentant people could be put away for a very long time?
 
part two of post.

I wonder if writers like Mr. Jackson of the Church of Christ understand what they are advocating sometimes. They speak of Christians having the obligation to pay their debt to society, etc. And that’s fine. But does Society have CARTE BLANCHE from God to impose any old penalty at all, regardless of the fairness or unfairness of the penalty? How would justice be served, for example, by putting a peaceful, repentant Christian into a prison, where he is to be daily subjected to an environment filled with horrendous racism, abominably filthy talk, violence, blasphemy, gang activity, sodomy and the likelihood of being raped or murdered? How is that a “fitting” punishment of someone who has dedicated his or her life to Christ and wants to walk according to the Holy Spirit?
One of the guys from my Church, now elderly, told me about something that happened when he was 20. He went into a bar, underage. An officer came in, spotted him, and asked him for an i.d. When he reached to get it, the officer became startled and maced him in the face. Then he subdued him, arrested him, and took him off to the County Jail. Now, this was a naive, nonviolent 20 year old kid. They threw this KID into a big cell filled with violent criminals. 15 of these thugs surrounded him and pulled out their genitals and demanded that he service all of them. They were ready to rape him, all of them, when a huge man of his own Race, intervened, rescued him, and threatened the would-be rapists with death if they bothered him again. He was fortunate.
But how is being gang-raped a fitting punishment for a nonviolent kid who broke the Law by going into a bar and tried to buy some liquor when underage?
To suggest that God would approve of such a “punishment” seems to me
to border on Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit.
Some folks parrot such sayings as “if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime,”
and “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” Well, the first slogan is not from God’s word. There is a certain truth to it, but it is not inspired scripture.
And “an eye for an eye” was an attempt to LIMIT the severity of punishments, not make them more severe. A person who shoplifts, for example, can be put away for years.
Now, shoplifting is very, very wrong and it is stealing. And it should be punished. But, like it or not, sending a person away for years to be subjected to extreme violence, rape, blasphemy, gang-racism and daily abuse, is not in harmony with Biblical principles. In the bible, a person who stole was to pay back the amount stolen or the items stolen, and even to pay it back several times over. When the thieving tax-collector Zaccheus embraced the Lord Jesus, he offered to pay back those he had defrauded four-fold. Jesus said, today salvation has come to this man. Jesus did not instruct Zaccheus to go and turn himself in to the magistrates to be sent to jail in addition. Nor did St. Paul anywhere recorded in scripture, instruct any Christians, some of whom were former thieves, to go and turn themselves in to the magistrates to be civilly punished. They were to repent of their former deeds, and that was it (now, unspoken, is the godly idea of making restitution to those they had stolen from).
I think we all need to respect the need for law and order and honesty and decency.
Violent people need to be removed from Society. They even need to be removed from other offenders, whom they prey upon. There are no easy answers to any of this. The U.S. Bishops issued a document some years back stressing the need, where possible, for rehabilitation instead of retribution/vengeance. The fact that the State has the right to bear the sword against wrongdoing does not give the State Carte Blanche to do whatever it wants. It does not give the State the right to subject people to extreme violence, brutality, rape, stabbing, blasphemy, abuse, subhuman living conditions and horrific filth as punishment or as a way to pay debt owed to Society. And no sinner, however repentant, has any right in this life, to self-righteously sit back and demand extreme and harsh punishments, except for the most violent, incorrigible offenders. Such people should rather consider themselves lucky that their own crimes against the Laws of God (their sins), repented of, are not punished by the civil authorities any more. At
one time, they WERE.
 
Its really a bit pointless.You can’t change society by torturing law breakers or by letting them go free.Society wants to prove its compassion for others by setting criminals free and thereby removing their guilt for their indifference to the truth.They see no other way.If they punish criminals they are punishing what they helped create.
 
I understand what you are saying, Valentino.
However, please don’t make the mistake of believing that all or most unrepentant criminals were made criminals by “Society.” The Bible teaches that the fallen human “heart
is desperately wicked, and who can know it?” We human beings are sinners, with an incredible capacity for doing bad things. It’s just that in today’s world, the punishments are often so severe, and the conditions so subhuman, that offenders are made worse by the punishment, not better. They are further corrupted by it, not corrected.

In reading my most recent posts, on a good night’s sleep, I am uncomfortable with some of the things I unintentionally left unsaid, and don’t want to give the wrong impression to anyone. So let me clarify a few things.
  1. Deliberate Lawbreaking is WRONG; very wrong. I do not condone it.
  2. Though breaking Divine Law is more serious than breaking human law,
    it still must be acknowledged that most human laws are, in fact, harmonious
    with Divine Law, and therefore breaking Society’s laws is also disobedience to God
    (( unless Society’s laws directly command you to break a Divine Law )).
  3. The purpose of laws is the protection of peace, good order, and individual wellbeing.
  4. I do not condemn the idea of punishing deliberate law-breaking. Of course not.
    I am trying to emphasize that punishments should fit the offense and not
    be extreme and destructive, cruel or unusual. Very often these days, they are.
    And, at other times, even the most remorseless and brutal individuals
    get off seemingly scot-free. That’s not right either.
  5. We should not be so harsh in our judgment of offenders that we forget
    that our own mortal sins deserve hell. In other words, we have to be merciful
    as much as is possible. There but for the grace of God go I.
 
We have too many lawbreakers because we have too many laws. The government should have no power to imprison anyone unless that person violates another’s right to life, or liberty, or property - PERIOD. It is unbelieveable, intolerable, and immoral what we have allowed our government to become.
 
We have too many lawbreakers because we have too many laws. The government should have no power to imprison anyone unless that person violates another’s right to life, or liberty, or property - PERIOD. It is unbelieveable, intolerable, and immoral what we have allowed our government to become.
Click to expand...
Do you know how vague that would make the American legal system if all it had to it was three words?

Liberty:
freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.
Click to expand...
So this means morality would be in the eyes of the beholder and it would be up to a vague legal system to see if someone broke a law. A clear example would be that in your legal system pro-life protesters and protesters of gay marriage could be arrested for trying to restrict the freedom of gay couples and women who have abortions.
 
A clear example would be that in your legal system pro-life protesters and protesters of gay marriage could be arrested for trying to restrict the freedom of gay couples and women who have abortions.

actually, it would seem that
that is already well-on-it’s-way to being the case here in the U.S.A. as it is.
 
Jaypeeto4 said:
A clear example would be that in your legal system pro-life protesters and protesters of gay marriage could be arrested for trying to restrict the freedom of gay couples and women who have abortions.

actually, it would seem that
that is already well-on-it’s-way to being the case here in the U.S.A. as it is.
Click to expand...
It should never have to get to such a place where people have to protest against homosexual marriage or abortion.Our society shouldn’t have to protest against abomination and murder.I thought mankind had settle that issues centuries ago.But obviously we’ve forgotten or allowed to be convinced that homosexual marriage is a right and abortion isn’t murder.the Nazis were able to convince good people that Jews were coniving,cheating,and a menace to people and it ok to destroy their livelihood and take away their citizenship.Satan is a sly demon.He is a cunning liar.And he well and alive in America today.
 
We also have ludicrous rules/laws/ bureaucrats-run-amok, such as No-Knock Warrants by the Federal Department of Education who are getting tough on defaulters of school loans.

NO JOKE!

Read on:

firearmscoalition.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=567:department-of-education-swat&catid=19:the-knox-update&Itemid=144

OR, a guy who was shot 60 times when some unidentified home invaders broke into his house while he was asleep after working a night shift. Turned out to be police “investigating” a narcotics dealer.

huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/25/jose-guerena-arizona-_n_867020.html

This story was also reported in the print edition of “Shotgun News” for July 10, 2011, Volume 65, Issue 20, page 8. www.shotgunnews.com

Couldn’t find it on their Web site, though. It looks like the Web page is a week or so behind the mailed print copy.

But you can look up the guy’s name and city on Google. Lots of articles besides Huffington Post. Google: Jose Guerena Tucson

The article(s) were written by Jeff Knox, and you can follow his articles here:

firearmscoalition.org/

and here:

firearmscoalition.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=513:armed-bureaucrats&catid=19:the-knox-update&Itemid=144
 
Excerpt from Jeff Knox: thegunrightswar.com/grw/ ]

(Manassas, VA, March 19, 2010) There is nothing unusual about a federal agency buying guns, particularly a federal agency with law enforcement authority, but when that federal agency is the Office of the Inspector General for the US Department of Education, well, that rightfully raised a few eyebrows. The EDOIG put out a solicitation seeking 27 Remington 870, 12 gauge, pump shotguns with 14 inch barrels and Knoxx (no relation) adjustable, recoil reducing stocks. The document went on to explain that the 14in Remington 870s are the “only shotguns authorized for ED based on compatibility with ED existing shotgun inventory, certified armor and combat training and protocol, maintenance, and parts.”

It should be understood that the Office of the Inspector General of the US Department of Education is tasked with “detection of waste, fraud, abuse, and other criminal activity involving Federal education funds.” They are “bean counters” who catch school employees and contractors with their hands in the cookie jar. A review of their web site reveals a comprehensive collection of stories of the accomplishments and successes of these “Special Agents” and I couldn’t find a single instance of violent resistance to arrest much less justification for deploying deadly force.

Prior to 2002, OIG Special Agents had to either be deputized every year by the US Marshals service or they had to rely on other law enforcement agencies to execute their warrants and make their arrests. In the wake of the 9-11 attacks, the law dealing with arrest powers for IG offices was amended … Those seem like reasonable requirements, but then in the very next paragraph of the law, 25 of the 30 effected IG offices are exempted from the “prove you need it and can handle it” requirements.

This law only applies to the 30 agencies with presidentially appointed Inspectors General. Of those 30 agencies only the IG’s for the Department of Agriculture, the CIA, the Corporation for National and Community Service, the Defense Department, and the Treasury IG for Tax Administration are left to prove their need before the AG can authorize them to have police powers. All of the rest, the departments of Commerce, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs along with the Agency for International Development, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, General Services Administration, NASA, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Office of Personnel Management, the Railroad Retirement Board, the Small Business Administration, the Social Security Administration, and the Tennessee Valley Authority, IGs got their police powers without having to prove need or ability.

Remember that we’re not talking about the agencies themselves or any security needs they might have, but the IG’s offices that look for waste, fraud, and abuse in the management of funds. The EDOIG’s paramilitary buildup could be an unusual case or it could be just the tip of the iceberg. What kind of SWAT team might they have over at HUD or the Department of Labor? Can we expect NASA to be soliciting Barrett rifles to go after the guys who sell the $4000.00 hammers? And what about those “cowboys” over at the Small Business Administration? What kind of arsenal do you suppose they’ve got stashed in the trunks of their fleet of nondescript (armor plated?) Ford Tauruses?

The nation’s first experiment in giving federal bean counters guns and arrest powers was an abject failure known today as the BATFE. Repeating that mistake is a very bad idea. Congress needs to get away from ideas of disarming citizens and focus on disarming bureaucrats instead.
 
Sheriff Arapio has convicts living in tents … good enough for our soldiers in Afghanistan; good enough for convicts.
 
Uh, actually Monte,
Sheriff Arpaio has people living in subhuman conditions and eating food not fit
for human consumption. His inmates are raped, beaten, stabbed, etc.
There have been numerous murders and suicides in his jails.
Nonviolent people are thrown together with racist gang leaders and
other brutal people.
And very important to note, the vast majority of
these people are NOT convicts. They are awaiting trial.
They have not been convicted of anything and
— supposedly — are presumed innocent.
Sheriff Arapaio seems worse than the people in his custody.
He gets pleasure out of what he is doing, and brags about it.
He himself is under investigation.
 
Flavius_Aetius said:
Do you know how vague that would make the American legal system if all it had to it was three words?
Click to expand...
Your vagueness or my simplicity? My simple three words demand clarity from our laws. Government stealing liberty, an “inalienable right,” a gift from God, is unjustifiable for any reason except for the three reasons given. Even if we all agree that a person should go to prison for something that doesn’t fall under those three “vague” words, it is still immoral. We’ve only become guilty of “tyranny of the majority.”

Simplicity of morality is nothing new, Jesus summed up The Law in two simple sentences.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top