ThePlayDrive
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2011
- Messages
- 19,610
- Reaction score
- 7,647
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I'm baffled here. How is it stealing if we are simply charging them the cost of their incarceration while they are there? Please, explain this to me, perhaps at a level my 5 year old can understand because at 40 I don't get it. What I do get is this:
1. I purchased a home in 2004
2. I took out a loan from a bank to purchase that home.
3. I must make my loan payments each month or the bank will foreclose on the home and eventually sell it to someone else.
4. When the roof leaks I must fix it or pay someone to fix it.
5. When the furnace goes out it's on me.
6. I must pay the utility companies if I want utilities in my home.
7. I must purchase appliances and furniture if I want those things in my home.
8. I must purchase food if I want to cook in my home or go out to eat or hunt and plant a garden or somehow come up with food.
So, now your saying, if I go out and hold a gun up to some guys head and take his money, rape his wife, kill his dog, burn his house, drink his liquor and diddle his cat that I won't have to pay for those things for as long as the judge thinks I should be in jail and that I should receive all those things and expect them as being obligatory simply because I have committed however any crimes it took to get my own self locked up?
Let's review a lesson all of my children know:
1. Every action has an equal & opposite reaction. Yes, physics applies to raising my children.
2. If you commit a wrongful act then you will punish yourself. It is not me grounding them, it is not me placing them in the corner, it is not me smacking their behinds, it is them. I am only the tool that is delivering the punishment.
3. This is called accepting personal responsibility for your actions.
Now, if my kids are grounded does that get them out of their chores or pulling their "fair weight" around the house? Nope, they still gotta do it.
So, why then when someone commits a wrongful act against the general public do we reward them with tons of free stuff and no obligation whatsoever to pay for anything? This is your argument.
I had a guy back in 2002 break into our home (my oldest daughter was 8 months old at the time) while we were home. These guys basically committed a home invasion in all senses of the crime. When we did our research and discovered they owned 2 homes, 1 paid in full and the other over 1/2 way to paid off we went after their arses. Why? Because they deserved it.
The judge sentenced them to prison for burglary and home invasion. We followed up with a nice little civil suit and cleaned them out of the houses. Do I care that the one guy was married and his wife was homeless when we got done with them? Nope, because he should of thought about that when he broke into my house without caring about my family. In the end, I am not the one who made her homeless, he is, through his own actions. I was simply the tool used to carry out the final steps necessary to make it happen.
If people don't want to be resonsible for the cost of incarcerating their spouses then get a divorce.
Personally, I think this idea should go further. We should also make them pay when they get out, if they can't afford it then they have to get a job and make payments with interest until it is paid off.
When you commit a crime I am not making a contract with you that gives you the right to have everything for free. I am not agreeing to loan you the money to live a life that is free of having to pay bills. These guys can work in prison, make it a requirement. Seize their pay until the entire bill is paid off.
Why should taxpayers have to pay for O.J. Simpson's incarceration? Martha Stewart's? Your own when you're thrown in jail for drunk driving? I say that if one has personal assets to cover their own incarceration costs, that should be part of the punishment. If they don't have the assets, no harm. But why should taxpayers pay to incarcerate someone who's broken the law?
Should people in jail have to pay for their incarceration if they have the means?
I'm baffled here. How is it stealing if we are simply charging them the cost of their incarceration while they are there? Please, explain this to me, perhaps at a level my 5 year old can understand because at 40 I don't get it. What I do get is this:
1. I purchased a home in 2004
2. I took out a loan from a bank to purchase that home.
3. I must make my loan payments each month or the bank will foreclose on the home and eventually sell it to someone else.
4. When the roof leaks I must fix it or pay someone to fix it.
5. When the furnace goes out it's on me.
6. I must pay the utility companies if I want utilities in my home.
7. I must purchase appliances and furniture if I want those things in my home.
8. I must purchase food if I want to cook in my home or go out to eat or hunt and plant a garden or somehow come up with food.
So, now your saying, if I go out and hold a gun up to some guys head and take his money, rape his wife, kill his dog, burn his house, drink his liquor and diddle his cat that I won't have to pay for those things for as long as the judge thinks I should be in jail and that I should receive all those things and expect them as being obligatory simply because I have committed however any crimes it took to get my own self locked up?
Let's review a lesson all of my children know:
1. Every action has an equal & opposite reaction. Yes, physics applies to raising my children.
2. If you commit a wrongful act then you will punish yourself. It is not me grounding them, it is not me placing them in the corner, it is not me smacking their behinds, it is them. I am only the tool that is delivering the punishment.
3. This is called accepting personal responsibility for your actions.
Now, if my kids are grounded does that get them out of their chores or pulling their "fair weight" around the house? Nope, they still gotta do it.
So, why then when someone commits a wrongful act against the general public do we reward them with tons of free stuff and no obligation whatsoever to pay for anything? This is your argument.
I had a guy back in 2002 break into our home (my oldest daughter was 8 months old at the time) while we were home. These guys basically committed a home invasion in all senses of the crime. When we did our research and discovered they owned 2 homes, 1 paid in full and the other over 1/2 way to paid off we went after their arses. Why? Because they deserved it.
The judge sentenced them to prison for burglary and home invasion. We followed up with a nice little civil suit and cleaned them out of the houses. Do I care that the one guy was married and his wife was homeless when we got done with them? Nope, because he should of thought about that when he broke into my house without caring about my family. In the end, I am not the one who made her homeless, he is, through his own actions. I was simply the tool used to carry out the final steps necessary to make it happen.
If people don't want to be resonsible for the cost of incarcerating their spouses then get a divorce.
Personally, I think this idea should go further. We should also make them pay when they get out, if they can't afford it then they have to get a job and make payments with interest until it is paid off.
When you commit a crime I am not making a contract with you that gives you the right to have everything for free. I am not agreeing to loan you the money to live a life that is free of having to pay bills. These guys can work in prison, make it a requirement. Seize their pay until the entire bill is paid off.
This is about the dumbest argument ever. You're essentially saying it's ok for the government to convict someone and take all their money. This is STUPID. It's essentially debtors prison and that was done away with for a reason. Also we already pay taxes to cover prisons. Done and done. Already paid for. Taking more money isn't going to alleviate what we have to pay anymore. They're just taking it. That's theft. You may sit there on your high horse you somehow balanced on your soap box and talk down your nose at people, but what we need now is intelligence, reason, and restraint. You may feel happy you "cleaned them out"; but that's just revenge and a sign of what's wrong with our system (BTW, you broke your rule 1 here. If you take more than what was taken from you, that is not a equal reaction. Jesus). You should be able to recoup your losses and that's it. Beyond that is unreasonable and the reason why little old ladies can get millions for spilling coffee in their laps.
There are limits to punishments we should be allowed to put onto people. Reasonable punishments are fine; anything beyond that only goes to break the system down. It's time for us to exercise proper constraint and reason with law enforcement; not go off the retard cliff. We've indulged ourselves well too much on that front and it's time to cut back.
This is about the dumbest argument ever. You're essentially saying it's ok for the government to convict someone and take all their money. This is STUPID. It's essentially debtors prison and that was done away with for a reason. Also we already pay taxes to cover prisons. Done and done. Already paid for. Taking more money isn't going to alleviate what we have to pay anymore. They're just taking it. That's theft. You may sit there on your high horse you somehow balanced on your soap box and talk down your nose at people, but what we need now is intelligence, reason, and restraint. You may feel happy you "cleaned them out"; but that's just revenge and a sign of what's wrong with our system (BTW, you broke your rule 1 here. If you take more than what was taken from you, that is not a equal reaction. Jesus). You should be able to recoup your losses and that's it. Beyond that is unreasonable and the reason why little old ladies can get millions for spilling coffee in their laps.
There are limits to punishments we should be allowed to put onto people. Reasonable punishments are fine; anything beyond that only goes to break the system down. It's time for us to exercise proper constraint and reason with law enforcement; not go off the retard cliff. We've indulged ourselves well too much on that front and it's time to cut back.
Debtors' prison is entirely different. You're kept in jail until you pay your debt. (Until your family pays your debt.) That's not what's being discussed here...at least not my intention in the OP. I applaud TDZ for winning in civil court. It's done all the time and rightly so.
Rule 1 you allege I broke: For every action there is an equal and opposite reactin. How did I break it? Because the monetary value of what they were forced to pay by the courts was greater than the monetary value of the items they destroyed/stole? Let's look at what they stole/destroyed.
In the sense of stole, very little. We were home, fight ensued and many things in the kitchen were destroyed. What they stole was our sense of security, my family's ability to feel safe in their own home, they took a sense of well being, a sense of pride. They invaded our home and stole from us things that can not be given back in a criminal court. They stole those things from my family.
Oh my god. You're gonna cry about "security". For pete's sake, buy a f'n gun. No, you are trying to excuse your gross use of government force against someone by making up namby pamby crap like "boo hoo hoo I feel so unsafe now". You took from them well more then they ever took from you. You just used the courts instead of a gun; that's the only difference. Equal and opposite means you get compensated for what was physically stolen or destroyed. Not made up emotional terms so that you can feel better about your own theft.
What leftist BS this argument is. Jesus we're turning into the French.
Did they use a new bumper for the Ikari? Did that bumper have any knicks or scratches in it like the one that was hit (prior to the accident) as we are all positive it did. What about the trunk? Was it exactly as it was prior to the collision? If not then you got "MORE" than what you had coming to you and you thus milked the system.
As far as your statement on the economy goes, if charging inmates to stay in jail/prison helps to balance the budget and teach them personal responsibility then so be it. It's for the common good. You still have yet to explain how anyone is stealing anything from the inmates. Can we finally have that answer or are you trying to find a way still to twist that perspective into a somewhat rational thought?
No, otherwise a particular state can throw most of citizens to prisons and make a fine busines.
-- Should people in jail have to pay for their incarceration if they have the means?
Why should taxpayers have to pay for O.J. Simpson's incarceration? Martha Stewart's? Your own when you're thrown in jail for drunk driving? I say that if one has personal assets to cover their own incarceration costs, that should be part of the punishment. If they don't have the assets, no harm. But why should taxpayers pay to incarcerate someone who's broken the law?
Should people in jail have to pay for their incarceration if they have the means?
No because they are wards of the state meaning the state is responsible. I support the state going after the proceeds of crime and similar funds if gained through crime though.
Why should taxpayers have to pay for O.J. Simpson's incarceration? Martha Stewart's? Your own when you're thrown in jail for drunk driving? I say that if one has personal assets to cover their own incarceration costs, that should be part of the punishment. If they don't have the assets, no harm. But why should taxpayers pay to incarcerate someone who's broken the law?
Should people in jail have to pay for their incarceration if they have the means?
The trunk mostly works as it did before. Gotta slam it sometimes to make it latch though. The back bumper wasn't in bad condition when it hit. But these sorts of things when damaged are typically bought from a general provider and thus you never find a bumper which is scratched up less you are going to spend extra money in search through a junk yard. If you were being intellectually honest, you would understand why you aren't providing actual argument for "milking" the system. Had I claimed my front dash was the result of the accident and had them replace that; then there would be argument since I would have lied about it in order to get more than that which was damaged. But my trunk and bumper were damaged, and the trunk and bumper were what was fixed and charged to the person's insurance. Plain and simple.
Stealing is money taken in force. You forcibly take money from someone after you forcibly sent them to the place you are now trying to charge them rent for. The services provided are services which are to be provided by the tax payer and we are taxes accordingly. It's a bit insane. Not only so, but you give government profit for throwing people in jail; which is not really a circumstance we should have. You are using government force to remove money from people they earned through their labor. You try to justify it by saying they were in jail and had to pay that. But we put them there, we used force to do so. You can't then say that they have to pay you for it. It's like kidnapping someone and expecting that they pay your rent while they stay bound up in your basement. We have to be careful with the forms of government force we authorize and how much we allow them to take and for what reasons they get to take it. It's all part and parcel with a constrained government. You can't throw people into jail then demand that they pay for it and then if they can't say "that's ok, just get a job when you get out and we'll charge you interest on this and make you pay more for having been thrown in jail".
There are reasonable uses of force, and unreasonable uses of force. Stealing money from people you put into jail is not reasonable. It's not rent, they didn't get a rental contract and agree to it. They were thrown in jail through the use of government force. You can't then charge them for that. Not only is it morally questionable, but it adds incentive to the State for throwing people into jail which shouldn't exist. Their only concern should be justice and proper punishment; nothing more.
Let's take your rental contract scenario here Ikari. When did we sign a contract stating that we would not rape, pillage or plunder? Can you point out to me the contract that says we will go to prison for it if we do those things? Curious where this contract is since you bring it up.
Oh, there isn't one is there. That's because it's called the "Law" and it's written down and enforced after being passed by either our elected officials or a majority vote on a public ballot. Pretty simple concept actually.
Now, if they pass a law that says everyone convicted after such and such date will have to pay rent while they are incarcerated for a crime they are convicted of, then that is the law. People know before hand that they will have to pay if they break the law and as such are subject to said law. No rental contract needed.
As far as your concept of theft goes, since it's beyond your cerebral comprehension skills to get it, let's try looking at it another way.
Let's say that guy who rear ended you did not have insurance and you had to take him to court to get him to pay. Obtain judgement and he still doesn't want to pay. You discover where he works and garnish his check. Are you stealing?
Come on Ikari, are you stealing?
Listen up, one more time, to help you out here TDZ. I realize this is really difficult for you to follow, but you need to concentrate real hard. Read it slowly:
The government is limited in the type of force it can use against the individual. Prisoners are wards of the State because we have put them there through due process of law. The government cannot make any law it wants, and then that's the end all be all. A law must be Constitutional and use only the power granted to the government.
But hey, I'm glad you avoided all my questions; shows exactly how principled and how much integrity you actually have. Good job with your intellectually lazy and dishonest form of debate.
How long have you been in solitary confinement now Ikari? Way to long it appears. Since at least the '90's jails have been chargining convicted inmates for their stays. It is Constitutional to charge them. Your the one swearing that the gov't will just put everyone in jail to make money, go look at your previous posts if you've forgotten already.
And while people may be in jail via due process of the law, it is still a fact that were it not for their own actions they would not be in jail. IE: Don't break the law and you don't go to jail. Thereby if your in jail you put yourself in jail, not the cops, not the prosecutor, not the jury and not the judge. You! It's called taking responsibility for YOUR actions.
Do we need to have a discussion on how a sense of entitlement is guaranteed to lead you to a life of failure too?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?