Possible fix to rioting?

[Casper]

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.

When that becomes a problem let me know, until then ..................:2wave:

 

[Ikari]

I agree with your first point, but mandatory sentencing can be quite a deterrent.

mandatory sentencing is dumb. we have judges for a reason.

The third could be looked at both ways as a detterent or a bad idea.

or something that would just make the matter worse and punish poor people more than others.

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.

yes, sometimes in a crowd, you may get away with something. That doesn't mean we go all draconian. It means, there will be crime, some crime may go unpunished, it sucks, but that doesn't mean we throw the Constitution and the ideals of the Republic away to overpunish certain segments of the population because it will ease our righteous anger.

 

[Ikari]

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

I responded to your first statement, that you had to amend it so quickly early on shows how poorly it was constructed.

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

Mandatory sentencing is lazy and dangerous. First off...maybe there is a valid reason to loot...or a more sympathetic one. Perhaps one has a dying spouse, and the pharmacy has the meds but they are too expensive. So to save his wife, a man takes advantage of a riot and loots the pharmacy for her meds. Maybe some dumb kid takes a Mountain Dew, and while technically "looting", isn't really on the level of property value to constitute a significant punishment, but because we would have "mandatory" sentencing, he gets punished none the less.

We have judges for a reason.

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?

If nothing was done that would require jail time, how is making sure they are destitute, hurting even more, and now more likely to violently lash out going to help anything? Oh...it doesn't.

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.

Freedom of speech is not the same as rioting. Freedom of association is not the same as rioting, freedom of assembly is not the same a rioting. But because we have these, because we recognize the rights and liberties of the individual, there WILL BE rioting.

 

[coldjoint]

mandatory sentencing is dumb. we have judges for a reason.



or something that would just make the matter worse and punish poor people more than others.



yes, sometimes in a crowd, you may get away with something. That doesn't mean we go all draconian. It means, there will be crime, some crime may go unpunished, it sucks, but that doesn't mean we throw the Constitution and the ideals of the Republic away to overpunish certain segments of the population because it will ease our righteous anger.

We have judges to enforce the laws, not rewrite them. If you want equal justice, you need equal enforcement.

 

[chuckiechan]

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.

No, they'd see that I have money and fine the crap out of me. I merely represent a turnip from which to squeeze blood from!

 

[Winchester]

:lamo

So in your world view only people on public assistance of some kind riot?

 

[Ikari]

We have judges to enforce the laws, not rewrite them. If you want equal justice, you need equal enforcement.

No, judges judge the case and severity by which the offender committed the crime. Jury gets to decide guilt or not, the judge, being a judge, sets sentencing. That's how it works.

 

[Casper]

I responded to your first statement, that you had to amend it so quickly early on shows how poorly it was constructed.



Mandatory sentencing is lazy and dangerous. First off...maybe there is a valid reason to loot...or a more sympathetic one. Perhaps one has a dying spouse, and the pharmacy has the meds but they are too expensive. So to save his wife, a man takes advantage of a riot and loots the pharmacy for her meds. Maybe some dumb kid takes a Mountain Dew, and while technically "looting", isn't really on the level of property value to constitute a significant punishment, but because we would have "mandatory" sentencing, he gets punished none the less.

We have judges for a reason.



If nothing was done that would require jail time, how is making sure they are destitute, hurting even more, and now more likely to violently lash out going to help anything? Oh...it doesn't.



Freedom of speech is not the same as rioting. Freedom of association is not the same as rioting, freedom of assembly is not the same a rioting. But because we have these, because we recognize the rights and liberties of the individual, there WILL BE rioting.

You lost all ability to talk with reason with the above in bold. But you are the fish I was looking for, got my limit today. Thanks.

 

[Casper]

So in your world view only people on public assistance of some kind riot?

Nope, but it does not happen often, usually over sports and adult beverages are involved.

 

[Ikari]

You lost all ability to talk with reason with the above in bold. But you are the fish I was looking for, got my limit today. Thanks.

Do you know all situations? No, you don't. You make a blanket statement only so you can make dismissals when you cannot address any argument. Which is what you did here.

run away, it's fine, you've produced no argument to counter anything I said, all you can do is dismiss and run.

 

[Casper]

No, they'd see that I have money and fine the crap out of me. I merely represent a turnip from which to squeeze blood from!

Personal Experience?

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

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?

Not a very American idea. How about just prosecute the rioter for their crimes.

 

[Casper]

Do you know all situations? No, you don't. You make a blanket statement only so you can make dismissals when you cannot address any argument. Which is what you did here.

run away, it's fine, you've produced no argument to counter anything I said, all you can do is dismiss and run.

Yes, You are dismissed, you already said they might have good reason to loot, all that needs to be said.

 

[Casper]

Not a very American idea. How about just prosecute the rioter for their crimes.

I said if they are convicted, what does that mean in Your world?

 

[Ikari]

Yes, You are dismissed, you already said they might have good reason to loot, all that needs to be said.

There might be, I even gave examples. you couldn't counter anything, so you ran away from the argument.

It's fine, it just goes to show that your argument has nothing of substance and cannot stand on its own.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

I said if they are convicted, what does that mean in Your world?

It means that they were convicted not their family. You could always go to those countries that do crap like that. Perhaps North Korea? ANd some of those radical Islamic countries do **** like that as well. I bet ISIS would agree that its a good idea.

 

[Casper]

There might be, I even gave examples. you couldn't counter anything, so you ran away from the argument.

It's fine, it just goes to show that your argument has nothing of substance and cannot stand on its own.

You do not seem to know what dismissed means, among several other things. Run along now, you had your whine, go find some cheese.

 

[Casper]

It means that they were convicted not their family. You could always go to those countries that do crap like that. Perhaps North Korea? ANd some of those radical Islamic countries do **** like that as well. I bet ISIS would agree that its a good idea.

So you have no idea that I have said SEVERAL ties that it will only apply to the rioter, maybe you should read the posts before opening your mouth and looking ...........ignorant of the discussion.

 

[Ikari]

You do not seem to know what dismissed means, among several other things. Run along now, you had your whine, go find some cheese.

I know what it means. It means your argument failed against mine, and you have no other tactic than to run away.

 

[Casper]

I know what it means. It means your argument failed against mine, and you have no other tactic than to run away.

No it means you do not understand what words mean. Claiming victory, the sure sign of a loser.

 

[Ikari]

No it means you do not understand what words mean. Claiming victory, the sure sign of a loser.

That would be running away.

You weren't able to counter my arguement. The only thing you could do is to grab onto my statement that there might be a valid reason to loot. Since I don't know all situations, there could be one in which looting is necessary/justified. I don't know.

But you used that finding away because you couldn't counter the argument.

It's ok, we all have seen the weakness of your argument, but that is what you did. Dismissal because you couldn't engage the argument.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

So you have no idea that I have said SEVERAL ties that it will only apply to the rioter, maybe you should read the posts before opening your mouth and looking ...........ignorant of the discussion.

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?

I read your OP and it said that it applied to the rioter "and their immediate family (living in the same home)". If you cannot remember what you wrote perhaps you should lay off the sauce?

 

[Russell797]

Most rioters get caught up in a mob mentality. It's takes just a few to start a riot but when emotions boil over no threat of punishment even enters the mind of many people. We have more people in jail per capita than just about any other country but we continue to be among the most violent and law breaking on the planet. You have to reduce the conditions under which people feel angry in order to reduce the occurrences of their response. Being proactive is far more effective than the threat of after the fact punishment. Harshening the punishment will do little to deter those who's state of mind is impervious to that threat.

 

[matchlight]

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.

Starting to sentence people convicted of crimes to work on a chain gang would certainly change things in states that do not now use chain gangs. Nothing requires any state to pay convicts anything for their work on a chain gang. See U.S.C. Amendment XIII (authorizing involuntary servitude as punishment for crimes).

 

[jamesrage]

Distance traveled is not a factor in the commission of a crime. You commit a crime in Boston, Boston handles it.

But he is talking about protesters who travel to riot and enacting a punishment that state would not be able to impose like removing welfare aid for the offender and offender's household.Last I check if I go to Boston to attend a protest and end up rioting, then Boston can not tell my home state to not give me or anyone who lives in my house foodstamps..