Cleveland kidnapper Ariel Castro found hanged in cell

• TLCBonaparte wrote on 2013-09-11 14:51

  Quote from RebeccaBlack;1146974:

  There are many people who agree with you and consider the things most people do absolutely absurd. I've personally spoken about how I view jails as inhumane unconditionally and how reforms should be made towards actually rehabilitating people who hurt people rather than letting emotions run wild to the extent of throwing people in cages as punishment because "they deserve it", as if their moral opinion on "deserving" something actually matters as opposed to what's actually best for the world. It's okay for them to be upset and have feelings. It's okay for things and people to offend them. Things and people offend me too. I'm plenty emotional. But I've always considered it inappropriate to run the world on that because we enter the same kind of awful decision making process that caused criminals to rape and murder people themselves. We're just on the other side of it, so it's cool. Socially, at least.
  
  But there's no point in vocalizing pretty much any of these thoughts because they're going to be lost on nearly everyone. People are just going to make even more assumptions, get even more upset, start yelling about how everyone who doesn't agree with them is a monster, and so on. It doesn't accomplish anything as there's no legitimate discussion that will take place. If even one person such as yourself is around to have somewhat of a chance of agreeing, it doesn't even need to be said anyway because you'll already know and won't need to discuss it.
  
  As such, there's no true point in expressing some thoughts until they gain a little bit of mainstream momentum. Instead, sit back and try to enjoy what you can to the best of your ability and wait for the future to potentially open up realistic opportunities.

  
  
  Our justice system came a long way. Originally justice is about payback, an eye for an eye, and that is justice, then it became about what you said, it's about rehabilitation, notice the some of the jails are called "penitentiary", criminals used to be put in cells with trees and whatnot to allow them to meditate on their crimes and repent. It didn't work well, some of the criminals went insane, and now our current justice system is largely a capitalist ones, "paying debt to society" as it were. Crimes are committed against society and actual victims are often not factored into the course other than mere witness, in our justice, the victim is society, and you either way your way out or work off your debt as laborer.
  
  What you are talking about (or want) is probably restorative justice. It is a new concept (to white people) and is seeing limited use in some of the cases in North America, and I agree, that is the way of the future. However you must also accept the fact that some people may simply be unsuitable for a life among other people. Ariel Castro's value infringe on rights of others, you can only repent when you think what you did is wrong. People who refuse to see their crime as wrong doings are unsuited for restorative justice and ultimately like the judge said. unsuited to live in society.
• Silverkun wrote on 2013-09-12 03:37

  Quote from RebeccaBlack;1146974:

  There are many people who agree with you and consider the things most people do absolutely absurd. I've personally spoken about how I view jails as inhumane unconditionally and how reforms should be made towards actually rehabilitating people who hurt people rather than letting emotions run wild to the extent of throwing people in cages as punishment because "they deserve it", as if their moral opinion on "deserving" something actually matters as opposed to what's actually best for the world. It's okay for them to be upset and have feelings. It's okay for things and people to offend them. Things and people offend me too. I'm plenty emotional. But I've always considered it inappropriate to run the world on that because we enter the same kind of awful decision making process that caused criminals to rape and murder people themselves. We're just on the other side of it, so it's cool. Socially, at least.
  
  But there's no point in vocalizing pretty much any of these thoughts because they're going to be lost on nearly everyone. People are just going to make even more assumptions, get even more upset, start yelling about how everyone w[ho doesn't agree with them is a monster, and so on. It doesn't accomplish anything as there's no legitimate discussion that will take place. If even one person such as yourself is around to have somewhat of a chance of agreeing, it doesn't even need to be said anyway because you'll already know and won't need to discuss it.
  
  As such, there's no true point in expressing some thoughts until they gain a little bit of mainstream momentum. Instead, sit back and try to enjoy what you can to the best of your ability and wait for the future to potentially open up realistic opportunities.

  
  
  Maybe. I'm not entirely the same as you in terms of my stance on so-called "justice" and "crimes" and whatever that even means, but you do have a point that most people will simply not listen. And I rarely voice my opinions because I know that, but this time I just got angry. Anyway, you're still pretty cool.
  
  

  Quote from TLCBonaparte;1146980:

  However you must also accept the fact that some people may simply be unsuitable for a life among other people. Ariel Castro's value infringe on rights of others, you can only repent when you think what you did is wrong. People who refuse to see their crime as wrong doings are unsuited for restorative justice and ultimately like the judge said. unsuited to live in society.

  
  
  This is where I really find issue with what you're saying. Did you even read the post you're replying to? I don't think so. Because if you did you would see this much at the least:
  

  People are just going to make even more assumptions, get even more upset, start yelling about how everyone who doesn't agree with them is a monster, and so on.

  
  You mean to tell me that these are not even more "unfit"? Society is full of this, as opposed to the relatively few "criminals." And you do not seem to comprehend the amount of damage it has done. Probably because a world without them would be so different than what you're accustomed to, that very few could even imagine it.
  
  In my eyes, "people" refers to beings that have minds and that use them to think. That's why, when it comes to those who just decide to get all afraid whenever they're told to be, I don't even understand how you can call them "people" at all.
  
  This isn't a new thing, though. It has been this way for a really long time, it's only that it got out of hand when there was nothing left to keep human population in check. Now we have meaningless fear everywhere and it damages everything.
• TLCBonaparte wrote on 2013-09-12 13:56

  Quote from Silverkun;1147281:

  Maybe. I'm not entirely the same as you in terms of my stance on so-called "justice" and "crimes" and whatever that even means, but you do have a point that most people will simply not listen. And I rarely voice my opinions because I know that, but this time I just got angry. Anyway, you're still pretty cool.
  
  
  
  This is where I really find issue with what you're saying. Did you even read the post you're replying to? I don't think so. Because if you did you would see this much at the least:
  
  You mean to tell me that these are not even more "unfit"? Society is full of this, as opposed to the relatively few "criminals." And you do not seem to comprehend the amount of damage it has done. Probably because a world without them would be so different than what you're accustomed to, that very few could even imagine it.
  
  In my eyes, "people" refers to beings that have minds and that use them to think. That's why, when it comes to those who just decide to get all afraid whenever they're told to be, I don't even understand how you can call them "people" at all.
  
  This isn't a new thing, though. It has been this way for a really long time, it's only that it got out of hand when there was nothing left to keep human population in check. Now we have meaningless fear everywhere and it damages everything.

  
  
  First of all - fear is required to survive, all animals fear and some even elect those who fear the most leader because leader must know danger when see it. You speak of fear like it's a bad thing, it's not, movies and TV portrait people who are fearless because fearless is an extraordinary trait rather than the norm, and I will tell you here and now, being fearless is not a good thing.
  
  Now off to the main topic. Who is yelling people who disagree monster? Me? The judge? We didn't accuse him of anything, we simply state the fact that his actions make him unfit to live in a community.It's not out of fear or anger, it's just logic. If you think otherwise, I would like to know how do you think a person who's habit is kidnapping young girls live in society normally?
• Juno wrote on 2013-09-13 02:26
  While it's important not to think some way because simply someone tells you to, it's often a wise shortcut if the person in question is respectable. Thus, on a base level, humans and animals both prefer to conform. A step up, you'll find people who try to decompose the world around them; break it into its parts and inspect them. Rarer still are those that can then piece those together in a way that has practical application, even if it is not holistically perfect.
  
  Basically, it won't do much good to say "don't do this or that" until you can propose a feasible alternative. It's better for someone to follow blindly until they learn how to see for themselves. While I can't say that it's good, it's better than everyone making all their own mistakes and hurting whoever happens to be around. The best feasible option, not the best option entirely. So don't be so hard on people...give them a small step they can reach and they'll probably go even further with it.
• RebeccaBlack wrote on 2013-09-13 16:46

  Quote from Silverkun;1147281:

  Maybe. I'm not entirely the same as you in terms of my stance on so-called "justice" and "crimes" and whatever that even means

  
  I use the words "justice" and "criminal" because everyone knows exactly what they're referring to, but I get what you mean. A lot of things people get thrown in jail for are just personal choices that only affect themselves, too. It could be argued that what I was writing challenges the entire concept of justice as we know it and instead steers it towards something more along the lines of "getting help". But even then, we could go about it differently than we currently do.
  

  Quote from Juno;1147758:

  Basically, it won't do much good to say "don't do this or that" until you can propose a feasible alternative.

  
  Well that's not as hard as it may initially seem because we've already been inadvertently "working on it" for quite some time now. The way to improve things, besides opening up our minds a lot to people on "the other side" and realizing they're still human beings with hobbies, interests and goals, which may take quite some time on a societal level, is to stop throwing down sentences that are of a specified length of time and start treating criminals in the same way we would treat heavy drug abusers that checked themselves into rehab to get clean. They are not evil monsters, they are people who need to find a place and lifestyle suitable for them that does not infringe upon the freedom or security of others.
  
  To go along with that, we would need to reform how we look at people. Right now, as far as psychology goes, we have a horrible tendency of throwing out research that is socially unacceptable. Many individuals will not look at and hold a conversation with a criminal the way they would a noncriminal, so they set themselves up for a situation where they can't get anything done because they're trying to rehabilitate a human but have trouble remembering to see them like one to the fullest extent. We really need to train the professionals in charge of this to view it in a different manner than they are. And it will take large scale, mandatory training to get the job done, honestly. Not only that, we'll have to choose our people wisely. It will also take extensive research as we still have so much trouble figuring out the simplest of things about people. That's no secret.
  
  So yes, it's going to take a reprioritization of finances, time, a proper outlook on criminals, and new ways to solve problems, but it's not going to be so radically different from the sorts of things we're already doing in some other parts of life. We're just going to have to focus on support rather than punishment. It's the same reason we wouldn't beat a kid that misbehaves. It could make him cooperate for a bit, but it could blow up and become far worse than it ever would have normally. And unconditionally, it's a violation of basic rights and something absolutely unnecessary to do.
  
  And it's true, things will get worse before they get better. But then again, the second they announced they weren't cutting the hands off of thieves anymore, I'd imagine a few more people were inclined to steal for a bit as well. That's just how it goes. But now, we've cut crime down lower than ever by continuing to improve human rights, continuing to research, treating people more like people and so on. However, with the recidivism rates it's clear we've also got a very long way to go. I believe this is the way and it's clear that, despite the fact that our punishments are becoming less harsh than they were previously, crime is dropping down to relatively nothing compared to what it used to be back in the day despite the world growing faster than ever.
  
  [video=youtube;c__XWMsz4aU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c__XWMsz4aU[/video]
  
  To me, this is just what we can do right now. There are "better" ways to go about it, but I don't think those are realistic in this society as it stands.