@averagejoe1 saidNot on about murder and rape, but anout stealing groceries, aren’t we?
There are two reasons for crime. You absolutely hate someone or something, or you want someone else’s stuff. So, in the first instance, there is not much to do except dictate that everyone live the golden rule.
The answer to someone else’s stuff, is Marxism. If everybody has the same stuff, then there will be no reason to try to get someone else’s stuff. That would save a lot of plundering and theft, and maybe a few killings.
Why do some people steal groceries and some people don’t? What’s the demographics? What’s tempting them astray from the golden rule?
@shavixmir saidI answered that,,,,, to require everyone to live by the golden rule. That would mean, if you, rape, somebody or steal from somebody or commit a crime against somebody, you are not abiding by that rule, and should be punished big-time.
Not on about murder and rape, but anout stealing groceries, aren’t we?
Why do some people steal groceries and some people don’t? What’s the demographics? What’s tempting them astray from the golden rule?
I get what you are asking, and I hope you get what I am saying… It would follow that the person should be prosecuted and sent to a very difficult place to live for a very, very long time. Yes I think I have answered the question.
Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you.
@averagejoe1 saidThat’s what the US has been doing for the last 50 years. How well has it worked, would you say?
I answered that,,,,, to require everyone to live by the golden rule. That would mean, if you, rape, somebody or steal from somebody or commit a crime against somebody, you are not abiding by that rule, and should be punished big-time.
I get what you are asking, and I hope you get what I am saying… It would follow that the person should be prosecuted and sent to a ver ...[text shortened]... e. Yes I think I have answered the question.
Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you.
@shavixmir saidLike I said, OK up to the 60’s, the usual Crime and Punishment. But then. We were overthrown by liberal concepts. Then, Obama , Bernie, and people like you and Marauder started the share the wealth mantra, free everything, give them all housing, which led to going light on crime.
That’s what the US has been doing for the last 50 years. How well has it worked, would you say?
Tell me where I am wrong. No silly Kev stuff please.
@shavixmir saidBut it has worked for hundreds of years.
It’s rather obvious that approach hasn’t worked.
Shav? Shav? What changed!’
@averagejoe1 saidIt hasn’t. That’s the point.
But it has worked for hundreds of years.
Shav? Shav? What changed!’
The US has the largest prison population in the world, and still you’ve got a mwga high crime rate going on.
It’s inbred stupidity to keep on doing the same thing and expect a different bloody outcome.
@averagejoe1 saidYou prefer the days before the Civil Rights Movement with segregation and all that. Why am I not surprised?
Like I said, OK up to the 60’s, the usual Crime and Punishment. But then. We were overthrown by liberal concepts. Then, Obama , Bernie, and people like you and Marauder started the share the wealth mantra, free everything, give them all housing, which led to going light on crime.
Tell me where I am wrong. No silly Kev stuff please.
@AThousandYoung
I assume you are saying that in the early 60's, which I reference above , the civil rights act coincides with the happenings of all the 'hippie' movement, sexual evolution, et al et al, when liberalism blossomed, and came into its own.
Yes, you are correct on this coincidence. Are you saying that one has something to do with the other?
How so? Don't get your drift.
1 edit
@mlb62 saidYes this is obvious. What do you mean by the book? We can't jail everyone. How much money should taxpayers spend to keep shoplifters in jail?
It's pretty obvious that if a criminal is in jail, he/she isn't on the street victimizing more people. We need D.A.s to prosecute and judges to throw the book at repeat offenders..
@wildgrass saidNot being a smarty, but we DO need to deal with cretins, so instead of giving $469B to loser graduates, so that they have a happy life, can we possibly divert that money to more deserving causes? Hire more police, build more prisons, to put them in, maybe 50 to a room, slide dinner under the bars? Upon release, implant the latest gadget into their bodies in a secret place, so that we can monitor them.
Yes this is obvious. What do you mean by the book? We can't jail everyone. How much money should taxpayers spend to keep shoplifters in jail?
Do I make this look too easy? We would OWN them, you understand, All you marxists should certainly go along with that.
@wildgrass saidSpeaking of smarty, WGrass is running g a Kevin Gambit on us, "What do you mean by book"?
Yes this is obvious. What do you mean by the book? We can't jail everyone. How much money should taxpayers spend to keep shoplifters in jail?
Golly,, I just found the def.
hrow the book at
idiom
informal
: to punish (someone) as severely as possible
The judge threatened to throw the book at him if he committed another offense.
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidThat's how you want the Proud Boys to be treated?
Not being a smarty, but we DO need to deal with cretins, so instead of giving $469B to loser graduates, so that they have a happy life, can we possibly divert that money to more deserving causes? Hire more police, build more prisons, to put them in, maybe 50 to a room, slide dinner under the bars? Upon release, implant the latest gadget into their bodies in a secret plac ...[text shortened]... oo easy? We would OWN them, you understand, All you marxists should certainly go along with that.
EDIT - You want to own people now?!
4 edits
@averagejoe1 saidYeah that's what I thought. Just checking. In many cases the book is way too extreme, resulting in long or permanent prison sentences for petty theft.
Speaking of smarty, WGrass is running g a Kevin Gambit on us, "What do you mean by book"?
Golly,, I just found the def.
hrow the book at
idiom
informal
: to punish (someone) as severely as possible
The judge threatened to throw the book at him if he committed another offense.
Leandro Andrade was sentenced to 50 years to life for stealing $153 worth of videotapes. Curtis Wilkerson was sentenced to 25 years to life for stealing a pair of socks. Allan McIntosh similarly received a 25-to-life sentence when he was found with a weapon after being stopped by police for riding his bike with a broken light and not using the crosswalk. Vincent Rico went to prison for life for stealing two pairs of kid’s shoes.
A prison stay in California costs $100,000 a year, and there's an estimated 33,000 people in prison just because of 3 strikes laws "books". That's just one state. You do the math. Yes, these people are criminals, but they are also being removed from the workforce, at an even greater deficit to the economy. Now our tax dollars go towards food and lodging for these petty thieves for life? Why should tax payers pay millions for a guy who steals shoes for his kids?
Throwing the book at shop lifters is way too expensive.