• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should being at risk of committing a crime lead to an arrest?

SDET

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2015
Messages
7,802
Reaction score
1,610
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Would our streets be safer and violent crime decrease if people who were at risk of committing a crime be proactively arrested? Would you support such an approach?
 
Wouldn't it just be easier to abort them?
 
Would our streets be safer and violent crime decrease if people who were at risk of committing a crime be proactively arrested? Would you support such an approach?

I dunno guy who thinks Pinochet is a hero, maybe they could be arrested, sent to a Nazi Pedophile Apocalypse Cult and disappeared?

By the way, for those of you who don't know what I'm referencing, I recommend the following video:

 
I dunno guy who thinks Pinochet is a hero, maybe they could be arrested, sent to a Nazi Pedophile Apocalypse Cult and disappeared?

By the way, for those of you who don't know what I'm referencing, I recommend the following video:

Your video specifically states that the cult existed through most of the 1960s. Allende had every opportunity to shut them down,
 
Your video specifically states that the cult existed through most of the 1960s. Allende had every opportunity to shut them down,

Did Allende send people there to disappear?

Was the extent of what was going on known to Allende?

Allende was only President from 1970 to 1973.

Pinochet used it from 1973 all the way through to 1985 for disappearing people.

Sorry SDET, but you're not gonna get whitewash the fascist you support.
 
Would our streets be safer and violent crime decrease if people who were at risk of committing a crime be proactively arrested? Would you support such an approach?

Like "precrime" in Minority Report? Oh hell no.
 
Like "precrime" in Minority Report? Oh hell no.

That's exactly what he's referring to. But, you may be surprised to realize you already live in a police state where they actively arrest folks for precrimes.
 
Would our streets be safer and violent crime decrease if people who were at risk of committing a crime be proactively arrested? Would you support such an approach?

No. That is the very definition of tyranny. We are a society governed by the rule of law, not the arbitrary exercise of power sacrificing everyone's liberty in the supposed name of safeguarding the people.

"Well...they might do something. Better take care of them now." Thank goodness we maintained the Common Law traditions when we broke away from England.
 
Would our streets be safer and violent crime decrease if people who were at risk of committing a crime be proactively arrested? Would you support such an approach?

No, I would rather keep a more viable system of law, instead of one that would have the populace revolting in a matter of days.
 
Would our streets be safer and violent crime decrease if people who were at risk of committing a crime be proactively arrested? Would you support such an approach?

Take your fascist dictator worshipping and wildly unconstitutional suggestions elsewhere if you hate America and its freedom so much.
 
Would our streets be safer and violent crime decrease if people who were at risk of committing a crime be proactively arrested? Would you support such an approach?

Depends on whether or not freedom, personal liberty, is a priority to you.

"Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free."
 
Would our streets be safer and violent crime decrease if people who were at risk of committing a crime be proactively arrested? Would you support such an approach?

Not only no...but HELL NO! We do not arrest people for crimes that they "might" commit. That's a load of hogwash and truly is fascist.
 
This was actually a trick question. I wanted to see if anyone would actually support Communist Cuba's law against "dangerousness" (La ley de peligrosidad).
 
Would our streets be safer and violent crime decrease if people who were at risk of committing a crime be proactively arrested? Would you support such an approach?

You should consider watching "Minority Report" with Tom Cruise. An older movie now, it treats the subject of your thread.
 
This was actually a trick question. I wanted to see if anyone would actually support Communist Cuba's law against "dangerousness" (La ley de peligrosidad).

You have a violent dictator in your avatar who did exactly that kind of thing. Nobody here believes your "haha, jk guys".
 
You have a violent dictator in your avatar who did exactly that kind of thing. Nobody here believes your "haha, jk guys".

When someone claims to speak "for everybody", "for all women", "for all people of color", etc., it's necessary to doubt that person's ability to be truthful.
 
Not only no...but HELL NO! We do not arrest people for crimes that they "might" commit. That's a load of hogwash and truly is fascist.

Sure you do. Most every mala prohibita law (the majority of laws) does that for precisely those reasons. DUIs are an example. You arrest someone for driving while drunk because they might injure someone else, not because they did injure someone else.

But, you're right about it being fascist.
 
Sure you do. Most every mala prohibita law (the majority of laws) does that for precisely those reasons. DUIs are an example. You arrest someone for driving while drunk because they might injure someone else, not because they did injure someone else.

But, you're right about it being fascist.

Drunk drivers are arrested because drunk driving is illegal. It is illegal because of the higher potential for causing damage
 
Would our streets be safer and violent crime decrease if people who were at risk of committing a crime be proactively arrested? Would you support such an approach?

I believe there was a movie with similar ideas. Did not go so well.

Just noticed someone beat me to the punch. :bravo:
 
Last edited:
You have a violent dictator in your avatar who did exactly that kind of thing. Nobody here believes your "haha, jk guys".

As long as you were a male in the working class, and kept your mouth shut, things could go pretty much your way under a dictator.
 
As long as you were a male in the working class, and kept your mouth shut, things could go pretty much your way under a dictator.

Oddly enough, the only dictator I have experienced is Raul Castro. But yes, if you are visiting a place run by a dictator, it's a bad idea not to do as you are told. That's why they are called dictators. However, corporate America isn't much freer, but at least one go find a new job if thing go awry. Why must one belong to the working class? Skilled labor can do well under a dictator as well, but not under Communism.
 
Last edited:
Oddly enough, the only dictator I have experienced is Raul Castro. But yes, if you are visiting a place run by a dictator, it's a bad idea not to do as you are told. That's why they are called dictators. However, corporate America isn't much freer, but at least one go find a new job if thing go awry. Why must one belong to the working class? Skilled labor can do well under a dictator as well, but not under Communism.

Skilled labor is the working class IMO. I was thinking more about the intelligentsia, the academics, those involved in learning and universities, the wealthy...the ones the dictators get rid of.
 
Back
Top Bottom