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.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Managing the penal system is still a state responsibility, but in practice large parts of it (at least in the U.S. and U.K.) are subcontracted out to private firms.

That is (albeit often lackluster) Still state supervised, so still a matter of the state.

Then again the US has other more massive problems with incarceration.

De jure the state, de facto not so much.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Managing the penal system is still a state responsibility, but in practice large parts of it (at least in the U.S. and U.K.) are subcontracted out to private firms.

That is (albeit often lackluster) Still state supervised, so still a matter of the state.

Then again the US has other more massive problems with incarceration.

If a tyrant used mercenaries to subdue his people, it would still be they tyrant subduing them.

Isn't that similar to a state paying a corporation to implement their rules?

nareik wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Managing the penal system is still a state responsibility, but in practice large parts of it (at least in the U.S. and U.K.) are subcontracted out to private firms.

That is (albeit often lackluster) Still state supervised, so still a matter of the state.

Then again the US has other more massive problems with incarceration.

If a tyrant used mercenaries to subdue his people, it would still be they tyrant subduing them.

Isn't that similar to a state paying a corporation to implement their rules?

Depends, if, for whatever reasons, the mercs decide not to they do free themselves of guilt aswell.
Power structures tend to make people guilty by partaking in it.
And whilest the majority of guilt does seem to lie in the topbrass, it does not absolve of sin in the partakers or carriers of the system.

Again, de facto v. de jure.

Cynical statement about how the state shouldn't put so many people in prison if it doesn't want to pay out of its own pocket to incarcerate them.

 Manchu wrote:
I am curious how many here called (a) believe Epstein should have been killed by a vigilante (b) do you think the crimes for which he was charged merit the death penalty?

Previously, I thought we were discussing (a) but looking back over the comments above it seems closer to (b).

Given his actions ruined hundreds, if not thousands, of lives I think the death penalty to be appropriate.

But not vigilante justice.

 LordofHats wrote:
Cynical statement about how the state shouldn't put so many people in prison if it doesn't want to pay out of its own pocket to incarcerate them.

You're not wrong. Although it doesn't apply to MCC, private prisons simply shouldn't be a thing.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I am curious how many here called (a) believe Epstein should have been killed by a vigilante (b) do you think the crimes for which he was charged merit the death penalty?

Previously, I thought we were discussing (a) but looking back over the comments above it seems closer to (b).

Given his actions ruined hundreds, if not thousands, of lives I think the death penalty to be appropriate.

But not vigilante justice.

I doubt Really that death even is justified for what he has supposedly done and Run.
Depends on your Outlook of afterlife though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Cynical statement about how the state shouldn't put so many people in prison if it doesn't want to pay out of its own pocket to incarcerate them.

You're not wrong. Although it doesn't apply to MCC, private prisons simply shouldn't be a thing.

State run ones also can have issues.

But generally i agree with you, altough i feel like stricter standards and actual oversight might make private runs decent enough.
Doubt it though.

I do not think Epstein was murdered, however I do believe he was encouraged to seek a way out. He should have been on 24/7 suicide watch at this early stage and wasn't. Billionaire facing 45 years and no bail, that is a hard fall.

 LordofHats wrote:
Cynical statement about how the state shouldn't put so many people in prison if it doesn't want to pay out of its own pocket to incarcerate them.

Who do you think is paying businesses to run prisons, though?

Usually at grossly-inflated rates, too.

$775 a night for a cage with a concrete floor.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Usually at grossly-inflated rates, too.

$775 a night for a cage with a concrete floor.

Just put them in Motel 6 instead..... much cheaper.

 Easy E wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Usually at grossly-inflated rates, too.

$775 a night for a cage with a concrete floor.

Just put them in Motel 6 instead..... much cheaper.

Gulag, state run, atleast then the state actually Profits from the prisoners work.

 Orlanth wrote:
I do not think Epstein was murdered, however I do believe he was encouraged to seek a way out. He should have been on 24/7 suicide watch at this early stage and wasn't. Billionaire facing 45 years and no bail, that is a hard fall.

I don't think he needed any encouragement, and I bet he had his lawyers arguing that it was cruel and unusual punishment to have him under any extraordinary surveillance and deny him his privacy..

The fact of the matter is, he was a rich man who used his wealth and connections to get away with his crimes, doing what he wanted to who he wanted with no fear of consequence (like his previous conviction and jail sentence that wasn't) for the entirety of his life. Now that his crimes finally caught up with him, denied bail, even if ultimately he got off, it'd be years before he wasn't behind bars anymore, and the odds were he was going to spend the rest of his life in jail (probably in isolation the entire time, because what prison population could you put him in, where being an ultra-rich, white, kiddy-diddler wouldn't put a 'shank me here!' on his face?). The goods times were over forever and he would never be king of bigshit mountain again.

Killing himself was the last selfish indulgence he could have, so of course he took it.

 Bookwrack wrote:
Killing himself was the last selfish indulgence he could have, so of course he took it.

How will his deaths affect the trial around his crimes and his "clients". Will it make it easier to access his data and get them, or will it make everything more difficult? Because if by staying alive he could have taken down a few of the people (who financed and protected him, and were probably supposed to do it here too) then that would be an additional thing he could do: Selfish retaliation, now that he has nothing to lose. And he could still commit suicide later.

Look i'd like to ask some of the Brits here a question and i'm trying to be respectful about it. I'm not saying people in England don't care about this stuff it just seems the reaction is muffled compared to how Americans react. It reminds me of seeing coverage of the grooming gangs. If it got out that police officers were covering up a child sex ring every one involved, their lives would be over, they would most likely end up dying by their own hand after getting tired of the unmentionable things that the other inmates are doing to them. I'm not saying that doesn't happen here, you can definitely buy your way out of a lot but eventually you get caught and dealt with. I actually don't think they murdered Epstein I think they let the inmates murder him. If anything America has the opposite problem, its so full of suspicion and conspiracy theories that people end up doing things like shooting up pizza parlors because they think satanic sacrifices are being conducted there by Hillary Clinton as opposed to doing rational things like compiling evidence.

I'm not saying where perfect because obviously we have some terrible problems. What bothers me is I doubt that the queen or the prince are going to be booed, heckled or lose a damn bit of prestige. It seems like theirs not the same outrage I see in America. I hope i'm wrong.

TheOpposition wrote:
It reminds me of seeing coverage of the grooming gangs. If it got out that police officers were covering up a child sex ring every one involved

I suspect the that you are not getting the whole story, which is why you don’t understand the reaction. I assume you are referring to the cases in Rotherham and Oxfordshire? There was no cover up, there was a failure to investigate properly. This was because the police and other authorities assumed that each complaint was motivated by race and that the source was unreliable as it came from young girls in care. This is a massive failure of many services for various reasons, but it is no different to the failures that meant that various people in the US have got away with things. There was no cover up. But I’m not seeing calls for anything to be done about all of the people who had NDAs in the Epstein case. People must have had some idea but chose to take money rather than do anything.

TheOpposition wrote:
Look i'd like to ask some of the Brits here a question and i'm trying to be respectful about it. I'm not saying people in England don't care about this stuff it just seems the reaction is muffled compared to how Americans react.

Conflating Britain and England is not a great start

As for

TheOpposition wrote:
What bothers me is I doubt that the queen or the prince are going to be booed, heckled or lose a damn bit of prestige.

Here's a bunch of news outlets across the political spectrum, including some that really love the royals, making a deal out of Prince Andrew's connections to Epstein. The Queen isn't going to be heckled, but Andrew isn't getting forgotten about. He's not going to be booed, though, because he'll be kept out of booing distance of the general public.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9701502/queen-support-prince-andrew-jeffrey-epstein-dead/
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/aug/12/jeffrey-epstein-is-dead-but-questions-remain-for-prince-andrew
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/jeffrey-epstein-trump-relationship-pedophile-money-wife-clinton-prince-andrew-sex-trafficking-a8995911.html
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1153272/prince-andrew-jeffrey-epstein-files-virginia-roberts-royal-news
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49305967
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7353923/Rage-Jeffrey-Epstein-girls-father.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ico=taboola_feed_desktop_news
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prince-andrew-groped-woman-jeffrey-epstein-papers-allege-mmjnvtfxr
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/08/12/jeffrey-epstein-embroiled-sex-scandal-conspiracy-theories/
https://metro.co.uk/2019/08/11/prince-andrew-attends-church-queen-day-death-jeffrey-epstein-10553447/
https://news.sky.com/story/allegations-about-prince-andrew-made-in-us-legal-case-11781717
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/jeffrey-epsteins-secret-diaries-threaten-18909521

Andrew is barely in the public eye anyway. Royals are only as important as their place in the line of succession. As a young man Andrew was fairly important, but as Charles' family has grown (and grown) he's increasingly irrelevant. Yes, salacious stories about him make news (and his was the first modern high-profile royal divorce which was big news) but people won't 'boo or heckle' him because most people barely know who is is these days.

In 40 years' time, people who are currently unborn won't give two hoots about Harry, the greying ginger brother to the king, because all the royal attention will be on George's young family.

Edit - We're going to have a William on the throne in 2066 aren't we? He'll be 74. I aim to propose that he has to walk around the Norman invasion routes, and we all get to shout 'Le Batard' at him. I mean, I'll be 75 myself but possibly still up for it.

Must suck beeing a royal, all that ramp light until your brother get's the throne and then beeing sidelined.

Must make them wish for the edge of a guillotine and danger.

Brits typically don't feel the need to denounce things that are so obviously reprehensible that they don't require denouncing.

It is taken as read that child-rapists are condemned.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Brits typically don't feel the need to denounce things that are so obviously reprehensible that they don't require denouncing.

It is taken as read that child-rapists are condemned.

That... was not my experience in Britain. It was generally 'if we don't talk about it, it doesn't actually happen.' Especially child or spousal abuse.

 Riquende wrote:
Andrew is barely in the public eye anyway. Royals are only as important as their place in the line of succession. As a young man Andrew was fairly important, but as Charles' family has grown (and grown) he's increasingly irrelevant. Yes, salacious stories about him make news (and his was the first modern high-profile royal divorce which was big news) but people won't 'boo or heckle' him because most people barely know who is is these days.

In 40 years' time, people who are currently unborn won't give two hoots about Harry, the greying ginger brother to the king, because all the royal attention will be on George's young family.

Edit - We're going to have a William on the throne in 2066 aren't we? He'll be 74. I aim to propose that he has to walk around the Norman invasion routes, and we all get to shout 'Le Batard' at him. I mean, I'll be 75 myself but possibly still up for it.

Our current Royal Family has German origins, not French/Norman.

I suspect the that you are not getting the whole story, which is why you don’t understand the reaction. I assume you are referring to the cases in Rotherham and Oxfordshire? There was no cover up, there was a failure to investigate properly.

But there was a cover up. This includes the police arresting the victims even when the the child rapist were caught quite literally with their pants down. This includes the media consciously not reporting it.
https://independencedaily.co.uk/why-labour-is-also-to-blame-for-the-rape-gangs/

This was because the police and other authorities assumed that each complaint was motivated by race

This is what I really don't understand. Are you saying that they thought young girls were pretending to be raped to make Pakistani men look bad?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Here's a bunch of news outlets across the political spectrum, including some that really love the royals, making a deal out of Prince Andrew's connections to Epstein.

Its being portrayed as celebrity gossip while in America we are calling it out as as prince Andrew touching an underage girl and hanging out with a child molester.

The Queen isn't going to be heckled

She could have her son account for what he has done, she could say something, she does nothing, she is a part of it.

Must suck beeing a royal, all that ramp light until your brother get's the throne and then beeing sidelined.

Must make them wish for the edge of a guillotine and danger.

funny man, yea its good having jokes to get us through the dystopian world we live in.

Nothing like a mystery to make me want to hop in the Mystery Mobile and eat some Scooby-Snax...

Post death of Epstein I got curious and was reading up on what eventually happened to the "DC Madam" of about 11 years ago.
She was accused of running a upscale prostitution ring in Washington DC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah_Jeane_Palfrey

She also was found hanged and it was considered suicide.

There are significant differences from Epstein:
She did leave notes and did not die in custody.
It is also worth pointing out that she was not accused of anything involving pedophilia (that I know of... I'm not an expert on her case).

The relevant similarity is: there was much speculation that she might have been able to incriminate politically / financially powerful people.

This got me wondering:

Does anybody have any links to statistical discussion of what fraction of "unfamous" people facing charges of pedophilia kill themselves?
Related:
Any stats on what fraction of famous people facing financial ruin kill themselves?

Thanks ahead of time for any info out there.

Voss wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Brits typically don't feel the need to denounce things that are so obviously reprehensible that they don't require denouncing.

It is taken as read that child-rapists are condemned.

That... was not my experience in Britain. It was generally 'if we don't talk about it, it doesn't actually happen.' Especially child or spousal abuse.

Indeed. When you don't condemn it, it isn't talked about. When it isn't talked about, it is allowed to happen.

 Vulcan wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Brits typically don't feel the need to denounce things that are so obviously reprehensible that they don't require denouncing.

It is taken as read that child-rapists are condemned.

That... was not my experience in Britain. It was generally 'if we don't talk about it, it doesn't actually happen.' Especially child or spousal abuse.

Indeed. When you don't condemn it, it isn't talked about. When it isn't talked about, it is allowed to happen.

I hate to agree, but I have to agree. There are gak-loads of scandals coming to light in recent years.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Brits typically don't feel the need to denounce things that are so obviously reprehensible that they don't require denouncing.

It is taken as read that child-rapists are condemned.

That... was not my experience in Britain. It was generally 'if we don't talk about it, it doesn't actually happen.' Especially child or spousal abuse.

Indeed. When you don't condemn it, it isn't talked about. When it isn't talked about, it is allowed to happen.

I hate to agree, but I have to agree. There are gak-loads of scandals coming to light in years.

I hate to have to say it in the first place. In an ideal world, people would have some empathy and not be gakky to each other. Sadly, this is very far from an ideal world, and so we must speak out and condemn that which is wrong, lest it be allowed to happen in the silence of not talking about it.

So, I'm not in any way shape or form arguing for silence on contentious topics, nor am I claiming that's how it works in Britain.

I mean that we do not engage in performative outrage for social media likes and woke points to anywhere near the extent that those below the 49th North do.