Saudi girl, 13, sentenced to 90 lashes

[BloodEclipse]

The whole problem I have with corporal punishment is that someone is "authorized" to carry out an action that would otherwise be against the law. This kind of goes along with those other threads about LEOs being above the law where they can ignore particular laws to catch a criminal.

I guess you haven't heard of the old saying.

"I brought your @$$ into the world and I can take you out"

I don't want any government telling me what's best for me or my family.
The problem with our country is you can claim anything is offensive and soon it will be legislated behavior.
Just keeping changing the definition of things until you have eliminated them from society.
They try this with guns, slapping Assault to everything. They have done it with smoking, drinking (what is intoxicated) and so many other things.
What some call abuse I call discipline.

 

[Phil502]

Playing devil's advocate here for a minute...

I don't think any INGO'ers said that any punishments should come without a trial, or that this particular punishment matches this particular crime. Only that they wouldn't mind it if judges had the option of issuing corporal punishment to convicted criminals.


Carry on...

I agree, heck I would be happy if they just quit treating them like they are at summer camp.

 

[dross]

I agree, heck I would be happy if they just quit treating them like they are at summer camp.

I know a guy who was in prison for three years for an offense I believe he should never have been convicted of.

I think he'd argue with your "summer camp" theory of prison.

 

[BloodEclipse]

I know a guy who was in prison for three years for an offense I believe he should never have been convicted of.

I think he'd argue with your "summer camp" theory of prison.

Summer camp with benefits?

 

[dross]

Summer camp with benefits?

Blood Eclipse, you vixen!

I never would have suspected you'd consider THAT a benefit. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

[BloodEclipse]

Blood Eclipse, you vixen!

I never would have suspected you'd consider THAT a benefit. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

LOL just trying to inject some humor into a thread that seems lacking in it.
The current generation uses the term "friends with benefits", so I thought it might apply to summer camp as well.

This is more my type. I want to spend my prison time with her.

 

[nawainwright]

The whole problem I have with corporal punishment is that someone is "authorized" to carry out an action that would otherwise be against the law. This kind of goes along with those other threads about LEOs being above the law where they can ignore particular laws to catch a criminal.

I'm with BloodEclipse on this, I don't want the govt telling me what I can and can't do raising my child. There are limits obviously, but think about it, corporal punishment has been used for thousands of years, people are still around and sane. One could argue that some of the most creative people (depending how you define it) have been subject to corporal punishment. Sure, for some it works and others it doesn't.

The beauty is that you're allowed to teach your child the way you want, and I am allowed to teach my child the way I want.

 

[ATF Consumer]

I'm with BloodEclipse on this, I don't want the govt telling me what I can and can't do raising my child. There are limits obviously, but think about it, corporal punishment has been used for thousands of years, people are still around and sane. One could argue that some of the most creative people (depending how you define it) have been subject to corporal punishment. Sure, for some it works and others it doesn't.

The beauty is that you're allowed to teach your child the way you want, and I am allowed to teach my child the way I want.

That's fine and dandy with me...I wasn't referring to corporal punishment in the respect to parent to child...I was referring more to government to citizen.

 

[Phil502]

I know a guy who was in prison for three years for an offense I believe he should never have been convicted of.

I think he'd argue with your "summer camp" theory of prison.

Thats what the prisoners do to each other not what we do to them. I saw a guy named Richard Speck who looked like he was having what he considered a good time.

Tell me what you think when someone you know gets raped or murdered and the offender gets half his sentence off for good behavior.

 

[Bill of Rights]

The whole problem I have with corporal punishment is that someone is "authorized" to carry out an action that would otherwise be against the law. This kind of goes along with those other threads about LEOs being above the law where they can ignore particular laws to catch a criminal.

Would not imprisoning someone against his/her will be such an action?

Similarly, my work vehicle is designated an "authorized emergency vehicle"; as such, when in it, on a call, I am authorized to exceed the speed limit, to ignore directional travel rules, to proceed past indicators which require everyone else to stop, and to block roadways from the passage of other vehicles. When it is you having the heart attack or someone you love bleeding in that upside down vehicle, do you still want no one to carry out actions they are "authorized" to perform which are otherwise unlawful?

I don't mean to be argumentative here. Certain rules are societally agreed to. At present, those do not include judicial corporal punishment. There are simply some cases where I think that that prohibition is incorrectly applied.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[ATF Consumer]

Would not imprisoning someone against his/her will be such an action?

Similarly, my work vehicle is designated an "authorized emergency vehicle"; as such, when in it, on a call, I am authorized to exceed the speed limit, to ignore directional travel rules, to proceed past indicators which require everyone else to stop, and to block roadways from the passage of other vehicles. When it is you having the heart attack or someone you love bleeding in that upside down vehicle, do you still want no one to carry out actions they are "authorized" to perform which are otherwise unlawful?

I don't mean to be argumentative here. Certain rules are societally agreed to. At present, those do not include judicial corporal punishment. There are simply some cases where I think that that prohibition is incorrectly applied.

Blessings,
Bill

While agree with you that confinement is one such action, I think it is the best solution to keep the BG's away from the rest of society. And as had been mentioned earlier, it is more of a problem with judges giving weak sentences, using probation and community service as a replacement for hard time. Do the crime, you should do the time.

As far as the speed limit goes...that's just another one of those victim-less crimes that we have big government attempting to protect us from ourselves. If people speed and cause injury, death or property damage, that is something they should be held personally responsible for and just because one idiot cannot control themselves on the road, doesn't mean the rest of us cannot. People that are cautious, will drive at their own rate of speed, regardless as to what is posted.

 

[Bill of Rights]

While agree with you that confinement is one such action, I think it is the best solution to keep the BG's away from the rest of society. And as had been mentioned earlier, it is more of a problem with judges giving weak sentences, using probation and community service as a replacement for hard time. Do the crime, you should do the time.

As far as the speed limit goes...that's just another one of those victim-less crimes that we have big government attempting to protect us from ourselves. If people speed and cause injury, death or property damage, that is something they should be held personally responsible for and just because one idiot cannot control themselves on the road, doesn't mean the rest of us cannot. People that are cautious, will drive at their own rate of speed, regardless as to what is posted.

In principle, I agree with you regarding speed limits being big government imposing itself, except for the fact that there are well-paid engineers who have calculated out the safe speed for this road or the banking of that curve, beyond which speed the various forces of physics will take a vehicle of average weight off the road and into the house on that corner or off the cliff beyond it. Perhaps these could be called "maximum safe speed advisories" or some such, I don't know, but I DO know that the primary logic failure in your proposed solution is that if Speed Racer decides to drive far faster than that advisory because he thinks he is 17 and immortal (remember those days? I do!) and proves himself wrong.. it matters not who is held responsible, because if Speed Racer lives through the resultant collision, he's 17 and likely has not the wherewithal to be held responsible for anything and if he does not live through it, well... he's dead, too, so upon whom should the responsibility fall for his actions? He's paid for insurance, hopefully....

Personally, I _like_ the idea of community service for certain crimes because that offender is working, earning money, which should then be paid to his victims as recompense for their loss. Why should this bonehead commit a crime and get to sit back and be supported for a period of years? Let him work to pay his way and pay back whatever damage he caused. His sentence is determined by his earning ability: If he's willing to work 80 hrs a week to earn the amount needed to pay for his crime (literally), I see no reason why he should not have a reduced sentence in terms of time. He's still working, he's just cramming the hours he's doing it into a shorter period. I do agree with the elimination of "good time" in favor of truth in sentencing, if that is the punishment we as a society accept.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[ATF Consumer]

In principle, I agree with you regarding speed limits being big government imposing itself, except for the fact that there are well-paid engineers who have calculated out the safe speed for this road or the banking of that curve, beyond which speed the various forces of physics will take a vehicle of average weight off the road and into the house on that corner or off the cliff beyond it. Perhaps these could be called "maximum safe speed advisories" or some such, I don't know, but I DO know that the primary logic failure in your proposed solution is that if Speed Racer decides to drive far faster than that advisory because he thinks he is 17 and immortal (remember those days? I do!) and proves himself wrong.. it matters not who is held responsible, because if Speed Racer lives through the resultant collision, he's 17 and likely has not the wherewithal to be held responsible for anything and if he does not live through it, well... he's dead, too, so upon whom should the responsibility fall for his actions? He's paid for insurance, hopefully....

Isn't that the case whether it's an advisory or a limit by law? The only thing keeping them from speeding is the fear of getting caught and receive a ticket. I agree that it should be an advisory, as you and I know very well, many do not follow it anyway.

Personally, I _like_ the idea of community service for certain crimes because that offender is working, earning money, which should then be paid to his victims as recompense for their loss. Why should this bonehead commit a crime and get to sit back and be supported for a period of years? Let him work to pay his way and pay back whatever damage he caused. His sentence is determined by his earning ability: If he's willing to work 80 hrs a week to earn the amount needed to pay for his crime (literally), I see no reason why he should not have a reduced sentence in terms of time. He's still working, he's just cramming the hours he's doing it into a shorter period. I do agree with the elimination of "good time" in favor of truth in sentencing, if that is the punishment we as a society accept.


Blessings,
Bill

If everyone that was incarcerated was forced to work while serving their sentences, that should reduce the overall burden on the taxpayer, as they would be doing jobs that would otherwise be done by city, state, or federal employees. There needs to be more programs in place, like license plate making. I simply do not agree with simply locking up a criminal and allowing them to take advantage of the many benefits that are currently in place. I understand some of these are in place for rehabilitation, but I am against providing a criminal a free education at the expense of my tax dollars. Jail and prison should certainly not be setup as a day camp.

 

[dross]

Thats what the prisoners do to each other not what we do to them. I saw a guy named Richard Speck who looked like he was having what he considered a good time.

Tell me what you think when someone you know gets raped or murdered and the offender gets half his sentence off for good behavior.

Sentences have gotten progressively harsher over the years, and there is less and less consideration for what you're saying.

Now, I used to know a guy pretty high up on the chain in the Federal prison system and he opened my eyes to some issues. For one, just because they put a wide variety of people in the same prison doesn't mean they're the same type of person. Some crimes are relatively benign, others much worse. Though they do a better job now of segregating, you can still have a wide disparity in the type of criminal forced to live together.

Next, the people who run the prisons are real people with families. To control the prison population you need to have a way to reward and punish. If you can't trade some time for good behavior, you don't give the prisoners an incentive not to do things that make life more dangerous for each other, and for the guards, who haven't been convicted of anything. The "good behavior" is built into the sentence.

It's a myth that life is too easy for prisoners.

Now, the real deterrent is likliehood of getting caught. Or, of being shot by an armed citizen. Making prisons harsher has never worked as a deterrent to crime. The people who end up in prison don't think that way, they tend to be the immediate gratification type, who can't think ahead as to what their actions are, or they are the type that have difficulty controlling their impulses. Unless you're just going to lock everyone up for life for every offense - which would be expensive, but effective - then you must treat different types of prisoners differently, and you must have some kind of program to at least turn some around. The recidivism rates are high to be sure, but they are not 100%. Prison does turn some of them around.

 

[Phil502]

Sentences have gotten progressively harsher over the years, and there is less and less consideration for what you're saying.

Now, I used to know a guy pretty high up on the chain in the Federal prison system and he opened my eyes to some issues. For one, just because they put a wide variety of people in the same prison doesn't mean they're the same type of person. Some crimes are relatively benign, others much worse. Though they do a better job now of segregating, you can still have a wide disparity in the type of criminal forced to live together.

Next, the people who run the prisons are real people with families. To control the prison population you need to have a way to reward and punish. If you can't trade some time for good behavior, you don't give the prisoners an incentive not to do things that make life more dangerous for each other, and for the guards, who haven't been convicted of anything. The "good behavior" is built into the sentence.

It's a myth that life is too easy for prisoners.

Now, the real deterrent is likliehood of getting caught. Or, of being shot by an armed citizen. Making prisons harsher has never worked as a deterrent to crime. The people who end up in prison don't think that way, they tend to be the immediate gratification type, who can't think ahead as to what their actions are, or they are the type that have difficulty controlling their impulses. Unless you're just going to lock everyone up for life for every offense - which would be expensive, but effective - then you must treat different types of prisoners differently, and you must have some kind of program to at least turn some around. The recidivism rates are high to be sure, but they are not 100%. Prison does turn some of them around.

Well even if they have gotten longer, a lot of of the sentences that I see are too short for the crimes commited.

As far as rewarding someone with a "fake long sentence" and a built in good behavior reward, thats false. No way is it run like that. Sure the good behavior deal can keep some guys in line, maybe, most likely you are who you are and your going to slip up eventually, if anything it's a tool to aid overcrowding. As far as the guards are concerned they took that job and know the risks, should they be kept safe, of course, do we alter sentence guidlines for everybody to provide a feel good situation so prisoners are happy, please I don't buy it.

Here's an idea for making prisoners model citizens. Lets make them work 40 hours a week, that way they get used to it. We can also make money on some little things they produce and the like. If someone is going to tell me that sitting around on your *** watching cable tv and working out all day is a tough deal, then that person needs a job in the real world. These idiots would be too tired to get in trouble, like the rest of us are out here.

These guys are here for punishment, rehabilitation is up to them, you can't make a man reform, he has to want to. If they want college credit, they should work for it just like the rest of us. I don't condone cruel punishments but don't tell me we are too rough on them now.


I am not only speaking for myself, I too know people that work in the prison systems.

 

[dustjunky2000]

Strange. Since we Americans are so big on [STRIKE]getting WMDs[/STRIKE] 'liberating' people who live under oppressive regimes, why haven't we gone into Saudi Arabia? Or North Korea? I mean, who has it worse than them?

 

[dross]

Strange. Since we Americans are so big on [strike]getting WMDs[/strike] 'liberating' people who live under oppressive regimes, why haven't we gone into Saudi Arabia? Or North Korea? I mean, who has it worse than them?

Assuming your premise about liberating people (and yes, I understand what you meant by crossing out WMD, but I'll let that pass) just because we liberate one place and people does not create an obligation to liberate another.

A country's first obligation is to its own citizens and interests. Sometimes those interests align with helping another country, sometimes we help another country for humanitarian reasons.

We can't stop oppression in every country. Some we can. Helping the oppressed in one situation creates no moral responsibility to help in another situation.

North Korea is a great example, though. We can't use force against North Korea to aid their enslaved people even if we want to. You see, we didn't use our full power when we might have prevented them from getting nuclear weapons. Now, by using force we might be condemning millions of people in Seoul to a fiery death.

Kind of a cautionary tale, the moral of which is don't let Iran get nukes under any circumstances. Once they have them, our options become extremely limited.

 

[evansvillethompsongunner]

We invade countries over false-flagged intel, but when it comes to the preservation of human dignity and just punishment, we wring our hands and cry out: "oh, oh!" Instead of doing what we should do - invade Saudi Arabia, secure the oil fields and turn that sea of sand into one large pane of glass - we lament at their barbarism and the worst among us simply proffer excuses as to cultural relativism...

 

[dustjunky2000]

LOL I know. I'm just being a smartass. I don't think we should be going into ANY countries unless our very survival is at stake. Sure, supporting causes we are for, and sending aid, but never invading and occupying unless we simply have no other choice.

Personally, I don't think we should be saving anybody. Revolution is only meaningful when it is carried out by those oppressed. We can 'free' and 'liberate' the Iraqis all we want, but unless they want it enough to throw Saddam out themselves, they're never going to appreciate it enough to work for it.

 

[samot]

Im not going o read all 6 or 7 pages, but after reading the OP i could only really think of one word to fix this problem of torture in this obviously wierd cultured country, NAPALM !!!!!!!!!!!!