The second half of your second post was mostly what I was asking for at the end of mine. I agree with the thrust of your argument in your first post; forcing people to serve jail time doesn't really work out well for society for most crimes. I'm all for alternatives that might rehabilitate people.

I do rather like the alternative you propose.

I think the clear answer to "which is scarier to a criminal" is prison. The answer to which reduces fears about becoming a repeat victim of crime would sometimes be prison, especially in cases where the experience was personally traumatic.

Here's one issue I see: what's to keep the thief from simply stealing again to pay off his existing debt? Worst case, he still has the same debt to work off, just now he owes it to another person. Best case, he gets away with it, or the victim decides it's not worth the hassle to press charges, etc.

Then he realizes this is a risk-free mode of supporting himself.

You need some way to disincentize that behavior. Probably adding punitive damages, or charging some large fee for the jail time would suffice though.

It'd need to be designed and developed and tested, but it'd probably be worth trying out.

In the case of the Wall Street meltdown, I doubt anyone responsible could even begin to repay the damages in their lifetime, even if they continued to earn at the same ridiculous rate they had been before. If they got to be free, and kept working in the same profession, it seems like we wouldn't have fixed anything at all, especially if they play games with how compensation is done so that it won't be "garnished" (e.g. "renting" a lavish estate for a pittance, allowing all food/clothing/travel/medical expenses to be paid for by the company, etc.).

NetRunner,

Please make a list of the problems associated with crime. Then give me a percent (number addressed / number listed) for proposal #1, and proposal #2

Example crime:
I see you withdrawing money from the ATM and as you are putting money in your pocket, I grab it and run away. The amount lost was $1,000. A week later the cops catch me using a surveillance camera.

1. Our current system which focuses on punishment:
The district attorney presses charges against me, and you are subpoenaed. You have to take off time from work to go to court to testify. The jury finds me guilty, and sentences me to 1 year in jail. You pay taxes to feed, shelter, and pay for my cable TV in jail. So far you are out $1,000 cash, a days work, and approximately ($43.11*365/number of people in your state) in taxes. How do you feel about being mugged? How afraid are you of being mugged in the future?

2. The system I am proposing which focuses on restitution:
You go to the police station and decide to press charges. You voluntarily testify at the trial. You state how much money you lost and how it has impacted your life. The jury finds me guilty, and orders me to pay you $1,000 for the money I stole, $1000 for the impact to my life (psychological and otherwise), and orders me to 100 hours of community service. How do you feel about being mugged? How afraid are you of being mugged in the future?

Now lets assume I don't have $1000 to pay you back (after all I was probably stealing because I don't have much money). You could address this any number of ways, but here is one possible system:

1. Lien against my person
2. Wage garnishment
3. If I have no money, no possessions, no job, then I will be sent to jail. While in jail I will be permitted work release, and the ability to search for jobs. If I find a job, I will be immediately released from jail and proceed with wage garnishment until the debt is paid.
4. If at this point I still have no way to repay the debt, inmate work programs, or term sentencing may apply.

Compare these two systems as the damages become greater and greater (say for bank robber stealing $50,000, or a mugger violently assaulting someone). Now imagine you are a bank CEO who is thinking about committing $5 million fraud.

Which system is scarier to a criminal (someone who doesn't want to work)?
Which system provides more restitution to the victim?
Which system encourages the criminal to re-enter society as a law abiding citizen?
Which system allows the criminal to absolve themselves of their crime?
Which system reduces the fear associated with being a victim of crime?
Which system is less of a monetary drain on society?

>> ^NetRunnerI guess I don't understand what your proposal really even is. Is it to just abolish the idea of criminal justice entirely, and make everything into a civil suit over damages?
What would you do with people who would not, or could not pay?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Yan, can, cook, cut, kitchen, knife, slice, paper, thin, garnish, salad' to 'Yan, can, cook, cut, kitchen, knife, slice, paper, thin, garnish, salad, soom in, soom' - edited by calvados

Doesn't he know that's just a garnish!

>> ^imstellar28:
>> ^Januari:
Changing the world with cynicism and bitterness... one post at a time...
I'm not cynical or bitter, nor am I trying to change the world; I'm making a pointed political criticism. If you are going to vote for Obama...go into it with the truth, don't play pretend and make believe that you are making "positive change". If you favor socialism, fine. But admit it. Stop trying to make your sh t sandwich look appetizing by putting garnishes on it--accept it for what it is.
"Socialism you can believe in"
And more importantly, stop trying to sell your sh t sandwich as a non-sh t sandwich.


Ayn Rand was a Nazi-fucking whore.

A shit sandwich is what we've gotten from conservative values being dominant in this country for 30 years.

Only someone who's lost their objectivity says the problem is that we haven't yet gone right enough.

Back to Rand though -- she got to experience the horrors of Communist Russia. I don't really blame her for deciding, thenceforth, that anything even slightly like Russia was evil.

Problem is, she had a psychological imbalance on the topic of government, pure and simple.

I could forgive it if it weren't for all the fuckwads like you who felt inspired by her delusions.

From your perspective, you've already lost this election. Both candidates are raving socialists by your definition, in the same sense that New Hampshire is a "southern" state to Sarah Palin.

However, no one new has taken office yet, Bush is still President, and we can both agree that he's a big fat shit sandwich. Start the grieving process now, and take a taste of the new sandwich you're about to be offered. If you don't like it, you can in fact exercise your freedom and leave this country for a better one, if you can find one.

If you don't like it, and choose to keep living here in the heartland of socialism, at least stop trying to spread your misery over the fact that you can't seem to win people over to your way of thinking.

>> ^Januari:
Changing the world with cynicism and bitterness... one post at a time...

I'm not cynical or bitter, nor am I trying to change the world; I'm making a pointed political criticism. If you are going to vote for Obama...go into it with the truth, don't play pretend and make believe that you are making "positive change". If you favor socialism, fine. But admit it. Stop trying to make your sh*t sandwich look appetizing by putting garnishes on it--accept it for what it is.

"Socialism you can believe in"

And more importantly, stop trying to sell your sh*t sandwich as a non-sh*t sandwich.

"Who's going to keep the children?"
The state.
"Who's going to pay for that?"
The parents.
"How are the parents going to pay the state for keeping their kids when they can't afford to do it with them living at home?"
Garnishment of wages, confiscation of assets and a lifelong debt with interest exceeding inflation. Failing that, indentured servitude. You can earn a lot more money in an entire working life than you can just during your kids' childhood.

"Being poor does not equal being bad you fucking idiot."
Being poor and choosing to have children anyway makes you a bad person. Bad people are bad parents.

Actually, it would be pretty easy to support a child on minimum wage with a combination of modest living and home schooling. It wouldn't be a fun life, but that's their choice. Unfortunately, so many people are incapable of matching their lifestyle to their means, which is where the state needs to step in to prevent them from failing their children or burdening honest taxpayers.

"Hey, Georgian black people! No credit check so you can drive in bling just like Credit MacDaddy while you aren't paying child support to your baby's mama! And when you can't pay off your car we'll garnish your minimum wage Taco Bell checks and repo that car like a subprime home loan! But for two whole months you'll be riding fat[sic]!"

I'd say it's pretty overt racism. And when did "Mack Daddy" become it's Scottish derivation "MacDaddy"?

"Generally they try garnishing wages first. The showing up with weapons and hauling you off bit happens when you don't show up in court and then disregard a court order and then they give you a "contempt of court" citation."

so.....we agree?

Try not paying taxes next year....see how long it takes IRS agents with fully automatic weapons to enter your residence and confiscate your belongings and take you to jail.


Generally they try garnishing wages first. The showing up with weapons and hauling you off bit happens when you don't show up in court and then disregard a court order and then they give you a "contempt of court" citation.

Usury and indentured servitude are quite similar.

18th century indentured servitude (abolished): You sign a contract that makes you a slave for X years in exchange for safe passage to America.

21st century usury: You sign a contract that puts you in such massive debt that you are a defacto slave because nearly everything you earn will go to the creditor (or else they can reposess your home and let you starve to death on the street)

Fortunately most states have limits on wage garnishment and debtors can escape by declaring bankruptcy (although Bush has tried to restrict bankruptcy as much as Congress will let him). If they ever tried to completely eliminate the notion of bankruptcy, that could probably be overturned on 13th amendment grounds.

The guy in the video reeks of idiocy. I want him slightly dead with a bit of garnish.

Wow omg you're so right, now I can see how wrong I really was. You totally convinced me, specially by garnishing your comment with your very well thought out and grounded offensive remarks [sarcasm/]

You're hopeless, so I'm done discussing this. And just so you know it's already been proven that the dog really has AHS.