Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Is there something necessarily wrong with vengeance?

Aside from the old "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"? What does vengeance, alone, actually accomplish?

And again, you are assuming that the criminal is a perfectly rational person who is considering all the pros and cons when that is usually the exact opposite. Criminals aren't rational people

*PEOPLE* aren't rational people. Every member of the human race acts irrationally at times. Every member of the human race is a criminal, as at some point everyone has broken some sort of law, the prime differentiator between a "criminal" and everyone else is *which* laws they broke and *if* they got caught.

I mean, just looking over my own life, I don't think I've done anything particularly wild and out of the ordinary for anyone my age, however if caught and prosecuted and punished to the full extent of the law for every misdeed I've ever committed, I'd certainly be a convicted felon, and so would almost every person on earth.

otherwise they probably wouldn't be criminals and would have found/chosen a better path. If people were perfectly rational we would have no need for laws and everyone would live in harmony.

This assumes that the rational choice is one that follows the law or that the law isn't irrational.

Every rapist would realize that a moments gratification isn't worth 10-20 years in prison and forever being stuck on the sex offender registry, no matter the probability of getting caught.

Lets also not forget how awkward definitions of rape can be too. In some places, an 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old is rape. Having sex while intoxicated can be prosecuted as "rape" (though typically only for a single party). Rape is a terrible, horrible thing, but lets also realize that our laws regarding rape are also not exactly terribly clear or well balanced either.

This is true. Thats basically our whole legal system in a nutshell.

Seriously death penalty for rape? Whats next cutting of hands for stealing? I get it it is horrible and they should be locked up for life with out a doubt, also I am kinda in the boot of saying what you do to them should be done to you..... so throw him in a jail cell with buba with his hands tied for a hour or 2 and then lock him up?

BUTTTT i also believe if you should never kill anyone so I am bias. Committing a crime to punish someone for committing a crime doesn't make it justice. It contradicts my first statement but I just think to the extremes. Like you have to stop at death and dismemberment... or removing pieces of brain.

OgreChubbs wrote:
Seriously death penalty for rape? Whats next cutting of hands for stealing? I get it it is horrible and they should be locked up for life with out a doubt, also I am kinda in the boot of saying what you do to them should be done to you..... so throw him in a jail cell with buba with his hands tied for a hour or 2 and then lock him up?
.

Nothing sends the message that rape is wrong stronger than sanctioning rape.

 Ouze wrote:
Nothing sends the message that rape is wrong stronger than sanctioning rape.

But prison rape is funny! After all, it's not really rape if the victim deserved it!

/sarcasm

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Nothing sends the message that rape is wrong stronger than sanctioning rape.

But prison rape is funny! After all, it's not really rape if the victim deserved it!

/sarcasm

Prison rape could be entirely solved if they would just resist.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well, if the penalty is death and he just decides to kill his victims doesn't that make it more likely that he'll get caught? And victimize less people overall?

We are basically choosing between 2 terrible options. Is it better that he victimize 10 women, and kill some of them, or it better that he victimize 30 but they all remain alive? I'm gonna say less victims is better. After all, if the punishment is less severe he might think he can get away with it more.

After seeing what you have to say about the importance of life on some of the abortion threads, I am completely stunned (but not at all shocked) to see that you support the death penalty -even where it results in more dead victims-.

The level of cognitive dissonance at play here is staggering.

Welcome to the Conservative Worldview TM. Love 'em while they're in the womb, forget about them once they sully themselves passing through a woman's naughty bits.

RE The Topic
Christ. It doesn't really surprise me that this happened, but it is bloody awful. Certain police departments in the US seem to have really toxic cultures. Good to see the Blue Shield is not protecting that one particular guy, but if this is a systemic problem that is really disgusting.

It's not always a case of, "This person is doing something to me I do not want. I could let them, or I could fight."
It's not even always about the potential of physical harm.

Someone shuts off your logic and reasoning by pulling you into a situation that you have little point of reference for. Perhaps they are acting in a way you thoroughly don't expect, or you're trying to catch up with what's happening. It is horrifically easy to find yourself blindsided and pushed along by actions of others without fear of being hurt.

In the simplest of terms, think of any stage act where audience members are unwittingly dragged into the set and the performer has almost complete control. They are not going to get hurt, they could leave. They could certainly refuse. But there are suddenly dozens of pressures that are unfamiliar, confusing. Someone who would tell you to feth off to your face on the street, is suddenly allowing a stranger to direct them.

Some people simply unintentionally shut down to deal with it, even if they do understand what is happening.

What I'm saying is that I could tell you right now that I would fight off an attacker. But all bets are off when I'm not in a situation I comprehend.


Many, many years ago a raging drug addict kicked my door down when I was home alone as a teen. I was accused by one inexperienced police clerk of being too compliant, and perhaps I knew him?
Because if I didn't, why did I calmly stand up, close the door when he was done? I had no answer.

Without relevant training, I venture it's very very difficult to know what you'd do in extraordinary situations.

 Ouze wrote:
I think it's becoming clear it's a matter of "when" that nationwide police bodycams are mandated. It can't happen soon enough - it's good for the police, it's good for the people.

In Sunday's paper, there was a lengthy article concerning the $26 million that the Wauconda, il PD (Wauconda is the ass-end of Lake County, IL) paid out due to officer misconduct last year. Granted, that also includes 2 lawsuits concerning over-turned convictions due to gakky police work. Those two cases aside, imagine how much money the department would have saved with body cams (either firing dumbass cops, preventing dumbass cops from doing dumbass things, or proving that the "victim" was full of gak).

Do it.

 kronk wrote:

In Sunday's paper, there was a lengthy article concerning the $26 million that the Wauconda, il PD (Wauconda is the ass-end of Lake County, IL) paid out due to officer misconduct last year. Granted, that also includes 2 lawsuits concerning over-turned convictions due to gakky police work. Those two cases aside, imagine how much money the department would have saved with body cams (either firing dumbass cops, preventing dumbass cops from doing dumbass things, or proving that the "victim" was full of gak).

Do it.

Unfortunately the 'firing dumbass cops' part doesn't really save them too much money. The victims of the misbehavior/abuse will still sue the county/department. The real hope is it prevents some feth sticks from abusing their power. Of course, those guys should probably not be cops anyway...

 CptJake wrote:

 kronk wrote:

In Sunday's paper, there was a lengthy article concerning the $26 million that the Wauconda, il PD (Wauconda is the ass-end of Lake County, IL) paid out due to officer misconduct last year. Granted, that also includes 2 lawsuits concerning over-turned convictions due to gakky police work. Those two cases aside, imagine how much money the department would have saved with body cams (either firing dumbass cops, preventing dumbass cops from doing dumbass things, or proving that the "victim" was full of gak).

Do it.

Unfortunately the 'firing dumbass cops' part doesn't really save them too much money. The victims of the misbehavior/abuse will still sue the county/department. The real hope is it prevents some feth sticks from abusing their power. Of course, those guys should probably not be cops anyway...

True, but you can get rid of them and prevent future cases.

One would hope...

Has anyone seen any figures out how much it would cost to outfit an average sized PD? I seem to recall that a figure of around $500k (but not entirely sure) or so for Cincinnati, and it's hard not to notice how much smaller a figure that is than $26M.

 CptJake wrote:

 kronk wrote:

In Sunday's paper, there was a lengthy article concerning the $26 million that the Wauconda, il PD (Wauconda is the ass-end of Lake County, IL) paid out due to officer misconduct last year. Granted, that also includes 2 lawsuits concerning over-turned convictions due to gakky police work. Those two cases aside, imagine how much money the department would have saved with body cams (either firing dumbass cops, preventing dumbass cops from doing dumbass things, or proving that the "victim" was full of gak).

Do it.

Unfortunately the 'firing dumbass cops' part doesn't really save them too much money. The victims of the misbehavior/abuse will still sue the county/department. The real hope is it prevents some feth sticks from abusing their power. Of course, those guys should probably not be cops anyway...

Don't just fire, prosecute. In the instance of the cop flipping the high school girl out of the chair-charge him with battery on a minor.

My local PoPo are going to body cams. When Cedar Park, Texas is shifting to body cams EVERYONE should have them. We're practically Mayberry except with Tex Mex and Dell employees.

I am all for body cameras. As a teacher, I would be more than happy to have had cameras (and even microphones) in my classes, especially when dealing with difficult children. The extra back up to my word would have been invaluable.

I'm not massively pro surveillance generally, but I think when there is an exercise of state authority it is not unreasonable to want it on record, especially now that such recording is so cheap and could be installed without much hassle.

 Da Boss wrote:
I am all for body cameras. As a teacher, I would be more than happy to have had cameras (and even microphones) in my classes, especially when dealing with difficult children. The extra back up to my word would have been invaluable.

I'm not massively pro surveillance generally, but I think when there is an exercise of state authority it is not unreasonable to want it on record, especially now that such recording is so cheap and could be installed without much hassle.

Exactly. Its not a cure all, just an additional tool, but it has proven to be helpful.

 cincydooley wrote:
Has anyone seen any figures out how much it would cost to outfit an average sized PD? I seem to recall that a figure of around $500k (but not entirely sure) or so for Cincinnati, and it's hard not to notice how much smaller a figure that is than $26M.

Yes - the cost is often bandied about by detractors, but all it takes is a single adverse lawsuit to more than balance it out, costwise.

I also wouldn't have a problem with federal grants for smaller departments to offset the cost. I'd certainly feel better about something like that, which protects both the public and the police, then the usual assortment of automatic weapons, armored personnel carriers, silencers, grenade launchers, and other equipment the feds usually supply which have in part (in my opinion) fueled the need for body cams in the first place.

I would pay a one-time $100 tax to get the Nation-Wide Police Body Cam initiative rolling.

I'm all in favour of police body cameras, and I think even people who are usually anti-surveillance can get behind them. They help police where false claims might be made about their conduct, and they help victims of police misconduct by providing evidence.

They've started rolling them out in a few places over here (as well as dashboard cams), but they are by no means universal.

One thing I've heard about the cameras in America is that they don't work if the officer raises and aims a gun, as they get obscured by the arms. Seems like a design flaw, but less of a problem over here where its relatively rare for officers who aren't SWAT to carry firearms.

I'm absolutely opposed to mass surveillance, but I'm ok with body cameras. You're still being watched by the cop himself anyway, there's no violation of privacy.

 LethalShade wrote:
I'm absolutely opposed to mass surveillance, but I'm ok with body cameras. You're still being watched by the cop himself anyway, there's no violation of privacy.

Well... it does get sticky at some points, as to the very last item there. In public you have no expectation of privacy (in the US) but what happens to footage of when you go into someone's house for questioning or what have you? Those people are legally innocent. There are definitely some elements that needs to be worked out; but I think we need to do just that.

I would think that that would be covered by the Plain Sight Doctrine, baring the possibility of advanced computer programs that could latter analysis footage from the body cams and possibly notice things that a 'plain sight' human eye would not.

 Ouze wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Has anyone seen any figures out how much it would cost to outfit an average sized PD? I seem to recall that a figure of around $500k (but not entirely sure) or so for Cincinnati, and it's hard not to notice how much smaller a figure that is than $26M.

Yes - the cost is often bandied about by detractors, but all it takes is a single adverse lawsuit to more than balance it out, costwise.

I also wouldn't have a problem with federal grants for smaller departments to offset the cost. I'd certainly feel better about something like that, which protects both the public and the police, then the usual assortment of automatic weapons, armored personnel carriers, silencers, grenade launchers, and other equipment the feds usually supply which have in part (in my opinion) fueled the need for body cams in the first place.

Is that $500k quote fairly accurate? I'm having trouble tracking down info.

I just can't see how it's not a worthwhile expense. Protects the cops and the citizens, and keeps both honest.

Decrease complaints. Weed out the bad ones.

Can't see the negative.

 LordofHats wrote:
I would think that that would be covered by the Plain Sight Doctrine, baring the possibility of advanced computer programs that could latter analysis footage from the body cams and possibly notice things that a 'plain sight' human eye would not.

Such softwares already exist, to some extent. I saw a somewhat scary demonstration of a camera network/software able to recognize faces 100m away, follow someone though a crowded city (and log his path), analyze potential "threats" and call police by itself, and take Twitter/Facebook posts into consideration to find suspects. It probably doesn't work as well in real life, but...
(The speaker said such network was already in place in some cities, such as NY)

Such a system functional enough to work in real life will inevitably be created and probably in the near future. Be ready for the law to take a decade or two to catch up to it existing

Crystal-Maze wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well, if the penalty is death and he just decides to kill his victims doesn't that make it more likely that he'll get caught? And victimize less people overall?

We are basically choosing between 2 terrible options. Is it better that he victimize 10 women, and kill some of them, or it better that he victimize 30 but they all remain alive? I'm gonna say less victims is better. After all, if the punishment is less severe he might think he can get away with it more.

After seeing what you have to say about the importance of life on some of the abortion threads, I am completely stunned (but not at all shocked) to see that you support the death penalty -even where it results in more dead victims-.

The level of cognitive dissonance at play here is staggering.

Its not cognitive dissonance. Its very logical actually.

An unborn child has committed no crime, unless we consider inconveniencing someone just by existing to be a crime(someone who 99% of the time had total control over the baby being conceived)

Someone who has done something so awful, such as rape or murder, has however committed a crime. They have proven they must be removed from society, death is sometimes the only appropriate punishment.

I think he's talking about the innocent people being wrongfully killed vs imprisoned.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Crystal-Maze wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well, if the penalty is death and he just decides to kill his victims doesn't that make it more likely that he'll get caught? And victimize less people overall?

We are basically choosing between 2 terrible options. Is it better that he victimize 10 women, and kill some of them, or it better that he victimize 30 but they all remain alive? I'm gonna say less victims is better. After all, if the punishment is less severe he might think he can get away with it more.

After seeing what you have to say about the importance of life on some of the abortion threads, I am completely stunned (but not at all shocked) to see that you support the death penalty -even where it results in more dead victims-.

The level of cognitive dissonance at play here is staggering.

Its not cognitive dissonance. Its very logical actually.

An unborn child has committed no crime, unless we consider inconveniencing someone just by existing to be a crime(someone who 99% of the time had total control over the baby being conceived)

Someone who has done something so awful, such as rape or murder, has however committed a crime. They have proven they must be removed from society, death is sometimes the only appropriate punishment.

Guess it's a good thing that our legal system is 100% right 100% of the time, huh? Or are those just acceptable deaths?

They are regrettable, you will never have a 100% perfect system. But that fact should not prevent us from using the correct and appropriate punishments where they are warranted.

Thats why our burden of proof is so high, to minimize the error.

So, if imprisoning people for life is worse than killing them, why not do that?