Possible fix to rioting?

[chuckiechan]

What you should do is observe them. If they break the law arrest them. Wait the full three days for a bond hearing, and then charge them.

As it is now, they get arrested and walk.

You can't make freedom of speech/assembly contingent on social welfare payments.

 

[Casper]

Do they catch everyone?
No but your punishment wouldn't either.

Yes some mayors and police departments have let things go too far.
But most of the others are withholding force to not escalate the situation.

You need to be more reasonable and drop the malice.

You punish those you catch and convict.

 

[Casper]

What you should do is observe them. If they break the law arrest them. Wait the full three days for avail hearing, and then charge them.

As it is now, they get arrested and walk.

You can't make freedom of speech/assembly contingent on social welfare payments.

Rioting is not connected to freedom of speech and welfare is not a right.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

You punish those you catch and convict.

Sure but you end up being unjust with what you present.
Others are punished too.

 

[Casper]

Sure but you end up being unjust with what you present.
Others are punished too.

ONE MORE F;ING TIME:
Forget the family losing their benefits, make it just the offender.
Now is it just and would it change anything?

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

ONE MORE F;ING TIME:
Forget the family losing their benefits, make it just the offender.
Now is it just and would it change anything?

Nah, it's just not worth the legislative effort.
Probably won't have much of an effect.

When you start taking stuff away from seemingly desperate people, they get more bold.
Probably a really bad idea.

 

[radcen]

Ahhh, but there is an answer for that also.

...and...?

 

[longview]

ONE MORE F;ING TIME:
Forget the family losing their benefits, make it just the offender.
Now is it just and would it change anything?

I have a feeling the court would strike it down, saying something like the
rioting was not the intent, the intent was a protected protest.

 

[Casper]

Nah, it's just not worth the legislative effort.
Probably won't have much of an effect.

When you start taking stuff away from seemingly desperate people, they get more bold.
Probably a really bad idea.

They are desperate people when they riot? Wow! More bold, such as using guns? There is a permanent answer for that boldness.

 

[Casper]

Sure but you end up being unjust with what you present.
Others are punished too.

Not unjust.
No they are not, read what I posted or stop talking.

 

[Casper]

I have a feeling the court would strike it down, saying something like the
rioting was not the intent, the intent was a protected protest.

I disagree, a person involved in a bank robbery is guilty of robbery and murder if someone dies even if they agreed to not use violence. Intent and actual actions are different under the law.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

They are desperate people when they riot? Wow! More bold, such as using guns? There is a permanent answer for that boldness.

Well you may disagree, but consistent escalation isn't going to fix anything.
Unless your ideal is to exterminate or something crazy like that.

Are people who riot criminals, yes, are people who riot wrong, yes.
Should you help escalate the situation to greater heights, no.

 

[Casper]

Well you may disagree, but consistent escalation isn't going to fix anything.
Unless your ideal is to exterminate or something crazy like that.

Are people who riot criminals, yes, are people who riot wrong, yes.
Should you help escalate the situation to greater heights, no.

So you are afraid that those that are criminals and wrong might escalate things, my, my, note to self: Never have Guerrilla have my back in a brawl.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

So you are afraid that those that are criminals and wrong might escalate things, my, my, note to self: Never have Guerrilla have my back in a brawl.

Ok.
Insults don't bother me.

 

[Casper]

Ok.
Insults don't bother me.

Unless they come from rioters, then we better keep them happy. Noted

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Unless they come from rioters, then we better keep them happy. Noted

You have your beliefs and that's fine.
I think you're wrong and I know you won't consider any alternative, except escalation.
Nothing else left to say. :shrug:

 

[Casper]

You have your beliefs and that's fine.
I think you're wrong and I know you won't consider any alternative, except escalation.
Nothing else left to say. :shrug:

I was suggesting an alternative to see what people thought on it, it is why I asked, some of you got all hot under the collar and are afraid that anything we might do will make the rioters mad. Now I see why they feel that they can riot and no one will stop them. Yes, nothing else to say:roll:

 

[matchlight]

Doing that could raise a due process issue. Some Supreme Court decisions have interpreted certain government benefits as property to which the recipient becomes entitled. Government then may not deprive the person of the benefit without due process.

A free country cannot tolerate rioting, any more than it can tolerate the murder of police or judges. Those things are attacks on civil society itself. I think rioters should just be prosecuted for whatever crimes they commit. And if convicted, they should serve the full sentence the laws call for. I would like to see labor used more as punishment for crimes. Some states use chain gangs (the modern version does not use chains), and I think they have a good idea. I'm sure drudgery can be made more unpleasant than just being confined to a cell. Spending many long days toiling and sweating and getting blisters would take all the fun and excitement out of rioting.

 

[chuckiechan]

Rioting is not connected to freedom of speech and welfare is not a right.

No, but the laws are to be applied equally without regard to social status or income.

 

[Casper]

Doing that could raise a due process issue. Some Supreme Court decisions have interpreted certain government benefits as property to which the recipient becomes entitled. Government then may not deprive the person of the benefit without due process.

A free country cannot tolerate rioting, any more than it can tolerate the murder of police or judges. Those things are attacks on civil society itself. I think rioters should just be prosecuted for whatever crimes they commit. And if convicted, they should serve the full sentence the laws call for. I would like to see labor used more as punishment for crimes. Some states use chain gangs (the modern version does not use chains), and I think they have a good idea. I'm sure drudgery can be made more unpleasant than just being confined to a cell. Spending many long days toiling and sweating and getting blisters would take all the fun and excitement out of rioting.

Actually many prisoners volunteer for chain gang work, and yes it is still used. They get out of the prison and get exercise and are paid better, you plan would change nothing. Want to change it throw the book at them for any crimes they committed then make them serve the entire sentence.

 

[Casper]

No, but the laws are to be applied equally without regard to social status or income.

It would be equally applied, if you are not on welfare then there is nothing to lose in that area, equal.

 

[Ikari]

Was thinking how do we deal with rioters, heck some travel long distances to attend a protest which they help turn into a riot. So how about this:
If someone is arrested due to rioting and convicted, not protesting that is different, then they and their immediate family (living in the same home) lose All Government Assistance. No Welfare, no Food Stamps, no assistance for a term of 5 years, no exceptions. Think that would have an impact or just make some even crazier?

First off, you cannot punish people who had nothing to do with the act.

Secondly, mandatory sentencing is stupid

Third, if they do something to the level of being jailed, then they are in jail and cannot collect the government assistance. If what they did is some misdemeanor or whatever, and doesn't require jail time; how is revoking any amount of financial assistance going to help the situation?

Fourth, in a free society where there is freedom of speech, assembly, association, etc. there will be riots from time to time. Those who commit crimes can be found and punished, but you won't be able to completely stop riots from happening in the first place. Not in a free society.

 

[Ikari]

It would be equally applied, if you are not on welfare then there is nothing to lose in that area, equal.

So rich people have more incentive to riot since they will risk less. I guess we already have a system for the rich, so why not. Plus, they're not likely to riot since, as we just mentioned, the system is set up for them.

 

[Casper]

First off, you cannot punish people who had nothing to do with the act.

Secondly, mandatory sentencing is stupid

Third, if they do something to the level of being jailed, then they are in jail and cannot collect the government assistance. If what they did is some misdemeanor or whatever, and doesn't require jail time; how is revoking any amount of financial assistance going to help the situation?

Fourth, in a free society where there is freedom of speech, assembly, association, etc. there will be riots from time to time. Those who commit crimes can be found and punished, but you won't be able to completely stop riots from happening in the first place. Not in a free society.

Firstly, had you read my posts you would know I said limit it to the one doing the crime.:doh

Secondly, why is a mandatory sentence stupid there are valid reasons to loot and riot?

Thirdly, misdemeanor or whatever, what the heck is an whatever, do you mean Felony? Oh if they get no time then there I no punishment and maybe there should be consequences? No?

Freedom of speech is not the same as rioting, if you believe so then you have nothing to add to the discussion. Never said one can stop all of them from occurring, we have laws that punish those that break the law AFTER the fact all the time, this one be one more thing for them to consider before acting stupid.

 

[coldjoint]

First off, you cannot punish people who had nothing to do with the act.

Secondly, mandatory sentencing is stupid

Third, if they do something to the level of being jailed, then they are in jail and cannot collect the government assistance. If what they did is some misdemeanor or whatever, and doesn't require jail time; how is revoking any amount of financial assistance going to help the situation?

Fourth, in a free society where there is freedom of speech, assembly, association, etc. there will be riots from time to time. Those who commit crimes can be found and punished, but you won't be able to completely stop riots from happening in the first place. Not in a free society.

I agree with your first point, but mandatory sentencing can be quite a deterrent. The third could be looked at both ways as a detterent or a bad idea.

Now the fourth, all those videos from Ferguson resulted in 0 convictions(as far as I know) for looting when many could be easily identified. Back to accountability and the wonderful example we have front and center on the highest level.