Those aren't people, they're suspects. Duh. And obviously they wouldn't be suspects unless they enjoyed running around hurting people for fun, there's just no other possible way they could have ended up on trial.
Yes, you've got me all figured out. I'm clearly a fascist because I think that people are guilty until proven innocent and that it's wrong for the public to keep tabs on the criminal justice system.
So we're resorting to character assassination now?
I have admitted that my views are perhaps naive, but to go and suggest that I'm a fascict because I believe that criminality can be detected before a crime is committed is ignorant and, quite frankly, dickish.
At what point did I ever suggest people should be punished for crimes they didn't commit? The 'coercion' present in entrapment cases is not equivalent to blackmail. No one is being forced to commit these crimes, the crimes are commited via free will, precipitated only by a means and a suggestion that it might be possible for the crime to take place with little to no risk (a falsehood, created by police or whoever)
I clearly stated that someone busted as a result of entrapement should not be punished to the same extent as someone who commits the same crime under different circumstances. I merely suggested that entrapment could potentially be used to root out criminal behavior and help those who might be desperate enough to commit grievous crimes BEFORE a crime takes place.
In my imaginary world, someone caught under these circumstances would get help in the form of education and therapy, once it's determined that their worldview is twisted enough that they would, in fact, commit a crime if merely given an opportunity.
If you want me to address earlier examples, fine:
To whoever proposed the cop-bribing to get out of a ticket scenario, here is what I feel a responsible citizen should do: (although I don't believe this case falls under what I consider to be acceptable use of entrapement, since it is a minor crime)
CALL THE COP ON HIS BULLSHIT! "So, you want me to bribe you so I don't get a ticket?"
If the cop was operating on the (admittedly unpopular and, according to most of you, unlikely) assumption that he thought he was just doing his job by seeing if the person would take the bait, HIS response should then be to acknowledge that the citizen is doing the right thing, and let him go, without a ticket. That's how I see this type of scenario playing out. Again, I want to re-state that I don't actually see this as an apporpriate use of entrapment.
HOWEVER. I will lay out my thought process a little more clearly:
What I am saying:
If you take an unattended xbox from a Subway and proceed to then keep it or re-sell it.
YOU ARE A THIEF, regardless of who put it there.
If you rob a liquor store
YOU ARE A ROBBER, regardless of who suggested you do it.
If you commit murder
YOU ARE A MURDERER, regardless of who asked you to do it.
There are ALWAYS mitigating circumstances, INCLUDING the nature by which you might have been entrapped, but the fact remains that a right-minded individual SHOULD NOT be driven to commit any of these crimes barring threats of physical violence or other grievous harm.
What I am NOT saying:
- I am NOT saying police should be free to coerce people to commit crime whenever they feel like it.
I believe entrapment methods can be ethically used ONLY when there's REASONABLE reason to believe that the person targetted is a risk to himself and/or others. The suspect is not being unjustly incarcerated nor is the coercion taking place be anything more than a suggestion. If the suspect seeks out the means and takes steps to actually carry out a serious crime, then, steps should be taken to stop the suspect and help them deal with their issues (not incarcerate them for a crime they didn't commit).
- I am NOT saying that this system doesn't have a potential for abuse.
I may be a bit naive, but I'm not retarded. I'm not proposing a free for all, I'm proposing the relaxing of rules to allow for GOOD cops to pursue leads with less risk of dangerous offenders going free on technicalities. The judicial system would still be in place to root out police corruption and so forth.
Finally, yes, allright, I get it, cops can't be trusted to not screw innocent people over. Let's agree to disagree on that point, but please don't call me a fascist because I think that it's possible to change some controversial rules for the benefit of both potential criminals and potential victims.
Look, you're not the only person here who thinks rehabilitation is a good idea. You're just the only one who thinks a good way to go about that is giving the police the ability to set people up.
Do you understand how your plan lowers the standard from "he committed a crime" to "we think he might commit a crime"?
Look, you're not the only person here who thinks rehabilitation is a good idea. You're just the only one who thinks a good way to go about that is giving the police the ability to set people up.
Do you understand how your plan lowers the standard from "he committed a crime" to "we think he might commit a crime"?
Yes, that's the thing, I do. What I'm trying to get across is that I'd rather prevent a murder from taking place rather than be forced to wait until someone dies.
You decry this as me advocating taking away basic rights and freedoms. I'm not, what I hope this would accomplish, however, is taking away someone's freedom to commit murder, or rape.
That's no more character assassination than calling Obama a democrat or Marx a socialist.
Normally, that might work, except for the fact that you and everyone else knows damn well that fascism is known for it's meaning as an epiteth rather than a legitimate political stance. I never advocated ethnic cleansing or placing the needs of the state over those of individuals, except for the fact that I feel potentially dangerous individuals (not "everyone who reads a book about guns" for example), might BENEFIT from intervention by the state.
I'd thank you not to lump me in the same category as crazed dictators like Mussolini and Hitler for daring to have a differing view from yours.
Instead of dismissing my views as irrational because it might be in line with an aspect of what a madman thought, how about you try engaging me in rational debate based on the points I'm actually presenting, rather than those you are trying to portray me as making.
Instead of saying "don't you see you're wrong?" how about giving me examples of why I'm wrong so that we can debate THAT. I have addressed prior examples, why wouldn't I address more?
Romantic Undead on
3DS FC: 1547-5210-6531
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited January 2008
So, the phrase "thought crime" has never entered into your lexicon?
So, the phrase "thought crime" has never entered into your lexicon?
Yes, that's right, all this time, I've been advocating arresting people who have ever thought of committing a crime forever.
Also, the implication behind "thought crime" in the 1984 sense is that pretty much any dissident thought is punishable by severe reprecutions and indoctrination. I'm talking about helping unhealthy individuals.
If you're opposed to trying to teach people who want to cause harm to others that they really shouldn't, because it's possible that he might never actuallyl hurt anyone, then that's fine, I can respect (though disagree) with that point of view. However, I feel that intervention in such cases is better than ignoring a potentially troubled individual until he snaps and hurts people.
Someone brought up a story about a sexual deviant who went to schools DESPITE knowing that what he was doing was wrong, putting himself and potential victims at risk. In my proposed scenario, authorities would have the right to intervene in that case and address the issue before any victimization took place. I don't see how that can be a negative scenario.
Situational forces are powerful. Laying into people through the use of strong situational forces is a ridiculous way of seeing if they are "really" a criminal.
This article and the resulting thread are simply astounding.
But I find it hard to pick a place to jump in with the idea that the woman was or was not working with the police (statements and actions in regards to that disagreeing, etc) in question.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
So, the phrase "thought crime" has never entered into your lexicon?
Yes, that's right, all this time, I've been advocating arresting people who have ever thought of committing a crime forever.
Also, the implication behind "thought crime" in the 1984 sense is that pretty much any dissident thought is punishable by severe reprecutions and indoctrination. I'm talking about helping unhealthy individuals.
If you're opposed to trying to teach people who want to cause harm to others that they really shouldn't, because it's possible that he might never actuallyl hurt anyone, then that's fine, I can respect (though disagree) with that point of view. However, I feel that intervention in such cases is better than ignoring a potentially troubled individual until he snaps and hurts people.
Someone brought up a story about a sexual deviant who went to schools DESPITE knowing that what he was doing was wrong, putting himself and potential victims at risk. In my proposed scenario, authorities would have the right to intervene in that case and address the issue before any victimization took place. I don't see how that can be a negative scenario.
I think George Orwell's spinning in his grave right now by you arguing that 1984's portrayal of thought crime was a good idea in principle but just taken too far in actual implementation. You're arguing that people who so much as 'think' anything that may potentially break some law somewhere should be 'helped', regardless of whether any actual crime is committed. Having a thought about breaking a law != breaking a law.
Hell, I've had thoughts and wild fantasies about punching or otherwise beating the crap out of some idiots in real life to relieve pent up frustration. Doesn't mean I should be arrested for assault since there was no intent to actually follow through on said thoughts.
Something similar but not as idiotically entrapping as topless women is what the police in Amsterdam cooked up last year. To catch gay bashers they used 'lokhomos' (flamboyantly gay dressed undercover cops). Would be fun to see the American police picking up on that practice in the more conservative parts, hell, make a reality show out of it!
Since beating someone up over how he acts is decidedly more evil than showing your dick to an adult woman in public, it would make a lot more sense to me. However, since you can get branded as a sex offender in some states for streaking, it might actually be less severely punished.
Something similar but not as idiotically entrapping as topless women is what the police in Amsterdam cooked up last year. To catch gay bashers they used 'lokhomos' (flamboyantly gay dressed undercover cops). Would be fun to see the American police picking up on that practice in the more conservative parts, hell, make a reality show out of it!
Maybe it's just me but how is this in anyway similar, seeing as how it seems like a really good albeit risky idea?
I think people are just trying to save Romantic Undead from herself/himself at this point.
I don't know. It was only kinda bad before. Then came the "while, what if this guy was a filthy pedophile" argument, and then the "I like Big Brother" stuff, and my god.
Something similar but not as idiotically entrapping as topless women is what the police in Amsterdam cooked up last year. To catch gay bashers they used 'lokhomos' (flamboyantly gay dressed undercover cops). Would be fun to see the American police picking up on that practice in the more conservative parts, hell, make a reality show out of it!
Maybe it's just me but how is this in anyway similar, seeing as how it seems like a really good albeit risky idea?
Well, it depends whether or not the undercover cops deliberately try to pick fights with the guys and ask them to punch them first. If they're just going to a bar and "acting gay" and someone hits them for that, well I don't see that as being a particularly bad reason to arrest someone. If they're going in there talking shit and getting in people's faces at random I can't really say that anymore. Sure you still shouldn't punch someone when they get up in your face and start talking shit at you and whatnot but even an otherwise reasonable and peace-loving person can be provoked to fight if you try hard enough.
Also at that point they're getting hit for picking a fight, not for "looking gay".
Something similar but not as idiotically entrapping as topless women is what the police in Amsterdam cooked up last year. To catch gay bashers they used 'lokhomos' (flamboyantly gay dressed undercover cops). Would be fun to see the American police picking up on that practice in the more conservative parts, hell, make a reality show out of it!
Maybe it's just me but how is this in anyway similar, seeing as how it seems like a really good albeit risky idea?
You could both call it entrapment? 'lokken' is actually the Dutch word for luring, so it would fit that dictionary definition perfectly.
I suspected the thread would have meandered to the general legality and morality of entrapment by now so I thought it would be fun to tell. Legally there is little difference between entrapping a person to buying drugs, public nudity, asking for the service of a prostitute, or beating up a homo, yet we feel the last is more justified.
It's simply because only in that case we catch an offender causing direct physical harm to another being. There are a lot of criminals we could catch if the police used more entrapment in those kind of crimes. In the current situation, only because the suspects are not harming anyone with their crimes does the police dare use entrapment! How weird is that?
Also at that point they're getting hit for picking a fight, not for "looking gay".
I agree that using entrapment for violent crimes is a bad idea, mainly for this reason. You do not want a 'but he started it' argument every time one of these cases reaches court. How do courts deal with fights anyway?
Edit: Arguing about self defense is a bit off-topic maybe.
Something similar but not as idiotically entrapping as topless women is what the police in Amsterdam cooked up last year. To catch gay bashers they used 'lokhomos' (flamboyantly gay dressed undercover cops). Would be fun to see the American police picking up on that practice in the more conservative parts, hell, make a reality show out of it!
Maybe it's just me but how is this in anyway similar, seeing as how it seems like a really good albeit risky idea?
You could both call it entrapment? 'lokken' is actually the Dutch word for luring, so it would fit that dictionary definition perfectly.
I suspected the thread would have meandered to the general legality and morality of entrapment by now so I thought it would be fun to tell. Legally there is little difference between entrapping a person to buying drugs, public nudity, asking for the service of a prostitute, or beating up a homo, yet we feel the last is more justified.
It's simply because only in that case we catch an offender causing direct physical harm to another being. There are a lot of criminals we could catch if the police used more entrapment in those kind of crimes. In the current situation, only because the suspects are not harming anyone with their crimes does the police dare use entrapment! How weird is that?
Okay...seems you don't get entrapment. Entrapment, in the legal sense, is when the person who commits a crime only does so because a law enforcement official encouraged him or her to do so. So, no, the fabulously dressed cops don't come anywhere near that standard, unless you want to argue that they provoke "gay panic" in the guys who attack them. In which case, you may want to really rethink your arguments.
Something similar but not as idiotically entrapping as topless women is what the police in Amsterdam cooked up last year. To catch gay bashers they used 'lokhomos' (flamboyantly gay dressed undercover cops). Would be fun to see the American police picking up on that practice in the more conservative parts, hell, make a reality show out of it!
Maybe it's just me but how is this in anyway similar, seeing as how it seems like a really good albeit risky idea?
You could both call it entrapment? 'lokken' is actually the Dutch word for luring, so it would fit that dictionary definition perfectly.
I suspected the thread would have meandered to the general legality and morality of entrapment by now so I thought it would be fun to tell. Legally there is little difference between entrapping a person to buying drugs, public nudity, asking for the service of a prostitute, or beating up a homo, yet we feel the last is more justified.
It's simply because only in that case we catch an offender causing direct physical harm to another being. There are a lot of criminals we could catch if the police used more entrapment in those kind of crimes. In the current situation, only because the suspects are not harming anyone with their crimes does the police dare use entrapment! How weird is that?
Okay...seems you don't get entrapment. Entrapment, in the legal sense, is when the person who commits a crime only does so because a law enforcement official encouraged him or her to do so. So, no, the fabulously dressed cops don't come anywhere near that standard, unless you want to argue that they provoke "gay panic" in the guys who attack them. In which case, you may want to really rethink your arguments.
I maybe wrong, but my understanding is like this:
Standing on a street corner in a skimpy outfit, waiting for a "john" to proposition you = legal sting
Walking up to a car and offering sex actsin exchange for money = entrapment
Even if he gets his wallet out, if the cop was the onewho made the offer, it is not a valid arrest.
Hence my previous argument of blame the law, not the officers.
Except the law exists for a reason, but it was the OFFICERS who created a situation designed to ENCOURAGE law abiding citizens to break the law, in order to make it look like they were cracking down on crime withouthaving to actually go looking for criminals.
You're making the assumption that he was a law abiding citizen.
To make any other assumption goes against the principles on which this country was founded.
Standing on a street corner in a skimpy outfit, waiting for a "john" to proposition you = legal sting
Walking up to a car and offering sex actsin exchange for money = entrapment
Maybe my understanding of this is a bit shaky, but isn't that because soliciting for sex is, in itself, a crime? I.e., the official is committing a crime simply by the act of offering sex in exchange for money.
Standing on a street corner in a skimpy outfit, waiting for a "john" to proposition you = legal sting
Walking up to a car and offering sex actsin exchange for money = entrapment
Maybe my understanding of this is a bit shaky, but isn't that because soliciting for sex is, in itself, a crime? I.e., the official is committing a crime simply by the act of offering sex in exchange for money.
my understanding was that if the police officer was the one who suggested the crime, then you don't know whether or not the entrapee was actuallyintending on commiting the crime beforehand.
Look, you're not the only person here who thinks rehabilitation is a good idea. You're just the only one who thinks a good way to go about that is giving the police the ability to set people up.
Do you understand how your plan lowers the standard from "he committed a crime" to "we think he might commit a crime"?
Yes, that's the thing, I do. What I'm trying to get across is that I'd rather prevent a murder from taking place rather than be forced to wait until someone dies.
You decry this as me advocating taking away basic rights and freedoms. I'm not, what I hope this would accomplish, however, is taking away someone's freedom to commit murder, or rape.
That's no more character assassination than calling Obama a democrat or Marx a socialist.
Normally, that might work, except for the fact that you and everyone else knows damn well that fascism is known for it's meaning as an epiteth rather than a legitimate political stance. I never advocated ethnic cleansing or placing the needs of the state over those of individuals, except for the fact that I feel potentially dangerous individuals (not "everyone who reads a book about guns" for example), might BENEFIT from intervention by the state.
I'd thank you not to lump me in the same category as crazed dictators like Mussolini and Hitler for daring to have a differing view from yours.
Instead of dismissing my views as irrational because it might be in line with an aspect of what a madman thought, how about you try engaging me in rational debate based on the points I'm actually presenting, rather than those you are trying to portray me as making.
Instead of saying "don't you see you're wrong?" how about giving me examples of why I'm wrong so that we can debate THAT. I have addressed prior examples, why wouldn't I address more?
For one thing, your criminal policy seems to be the same as quotes attributed to Pol Pot and Bismarck: "it is better that ten innocent men suffer than one guilty man escape," as opposed to the foundation of modern justice: "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
That's no more character assassination than calling Obama a democrat or Marx a socialist.
Normally, that might work, except for the fact that you and everyone else knows damn well that fascism is known for it's meaning as an epiteth rather than a legitimate political stance. I never advocated ethnic cleansing or placing the needs of the state over those of individuals, except for the fact that I feel potentially dangerous individuals (not "everyone who reads a book about guns" for example), might BENEFIT from intervention by the state.
I was using fascism to mean fascism, not as an epithet and not as anything you just said. You are arguing in favor of a police-state, you are criticizing government criticism, you are in favor of "guilty until proven innocent and even then still guilty if the state disagrees with the jury" instead of a criminal justice system. Is my meaning clear now? I'm not sure why you thought I meant something other than "fascist" when I called you a fascist.
That's no more character assassination than calling Obama a democrat or Marx a socialist.
Normally, that might work, except for the fact that you and everyone else knows damn well that fascism is known for it's meaning as an epiteth rather than a legitimate political stance. I never advocated ethnic cleansing or placing the needs of the state over those of individuals, except for the fact that I feel potentially dangerous individuals (not "everyone who reads a book about guns" for example), might BENEFIT from intervention by the state.
I was using fascism to mean fascism, not as an epithet and not as anything you just said. You are arguing in favor of a police-state, you are criticizing government criticism, you are in favor of "guilty until proven innocent and even then still guilty if the state disagrees with the jury" instead of a criminal justice system. Is my meaning clear now? I'm not sure why you thought I meant something other than "fascist" when I called you a fascist.
Because to many, if not most, people, including those who read this board, fascism means those things I just said, and you'd be ignorant to believe otherwise. I find it interesting that you opted to call Marx a socialist when many would call him a communist. Why not use the term which he is attributed with creating? Are you afraid that people might take the meaning out of the context you presented and accuse you of labelling Marx using an epiteth, thus weakening the impact you tried to make in accusing me of being a fascist?
YOUR little secret understanding of fascism (of which there is no set, agreed upon definition) does not automatically change the fact that when most normal people read "fascist" they think of the most evil and extreme applications of that label.
You used fascist in an inflammatory way, to denigrate my point of view by likening it to a regime which is known for it's inhumanity and gross violations of human rights.
ALL I have proposed in this thread, is that methods used by police which are called "entrapement", as I understand it, CAN POTENTIALLY (though maybe not realistically) have an appropriate use, and thinking so does not make me akin to Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot or whatever other evil dictator (tm) you unfairly wish to lump me in with.
Something similar but not as idiotically entrapping as topless women is what the police in Amsterdam cooked up last year. To catch gay bashers they used 'lokhomos' (flamboyantly gay dressed undercover cops). Would be fun to see the American police picking up on that practice in the more conservative parts, hell, make a reality show out of it!
Maybe it's just me but how is this in anyway similar, seeing as how it seems like a really good albeit risky idea?
You could both call it entrapment? 'lokken' is actually the Dutch word for luring, so it would fit that dictionary definition perfectly.
I suspected the thread would have meandered to the general legality and morality of entrapment by now so I thought it would be fun to tell. Legally there is little difference between entrapping a person to buying drugs, public nudity, asking for the service of a prostitute, or beating up a homo, yet we feel the last is more justified.
It's simply because only in that case we catch an offender causing direct physical harm to another being. There are a lot of criminals we could catch if the police used more entrapment in those kind of crimes. In the current situation, only because the suspects are not harming anyone with their crimes does the police dare use entrapment! How weird is that?
Okay...seems you don't get entrapment. Entrapment, in the legal sense, is when the person who commits a crime only does so because a law enforcement official encouraged him or her to do so. So, no, the fabulously dressed cops don't come anywhere near that standard, unless you want to argue that they provoke "gay panic" in the guys who attack them. In which case, you may want to really rethink your arguments.
You are correct that I do not argue the latter. That dictionary definition is just not clear about that the luring should be done in an illegal way to be called entrapment. Is there a proper word for the act of 'legally waiting at the right place conveniently dressed like a drug dealer/prostitute/whatever until someone commits a crime in your face' that is not entrapment?
Okay...seems you don't get entrapment. Entrapment, in the legal sense, is when the person who commits a crime only does so because a law enforcement official encouraged him or her to do so. So, no, the fabulously dressed cops don't come anywhere near that standard, unless you want to argue that they provoke "gay panic" in the guys who attack them. In which case, you may want to really rethink your arguments.
You are correct that I do not argue the latter. That dictionary definition is just not clear about that the luring should be done in an illegal way to be called entrapment. Is there a proper word for the act of 'legally waiting at the right place conveniently dressed like a drug dealer/prostitute/whatever until someone commits a crime in your face' that is not entrapment?
Wow. You're not even trying anymore. Your current argument is "everyone should be guilty until proven innocent and should never question the state because fascism is undefined". I'm not sure whether that's hilarious or depressing.
Wow. You're not even trying anymore. Your current argument is "everyone should be guilty until proven innocent and should never question the state because fascism is undefined". I'm not sure whether that's hilarious or depressing.
It's the floppy clown shoe stomping on a face forever, VC.
Wow. You're not even trying anymore. Your current argument is "everyone should be guilty until proven innocent and should never question the state because fascism is undefined". I'm not sure whether that's hilarious or depressing.
yeah ok, go ahead and continue to exagerate my position and purposefully misconstrue my arguments, if that convinces you that you're right when you call me a fascist.
Monitoring someone who shows signs of being a dangerous offender =/= incarceration for a crime not commited.
And when did I say the police should not be held accountable for their actions? Or that the state should never be questioned? In the hypothetical instance that my fantasy policy were to actually take effect, I firmly believe that any gross misuse of these new powers should result in serious reprecussion for the offending officer/district/however high the chain goes.
The goal of my proposed policy is to give the public at large a recourse (via their local police enforcement agency) to address their concerns when it comes to identifying and rehabilitating those with criminal predispositions. I never said this was a perfect solution, just one that I, personally, prefer to the current system, which, in my opinion, allows more crooks to go free than it protects the wrongfully accused.
This isn't a 0 sum proposal. I'm not saying "jail all angsty teenagers". Nor am I saying "kill anyone who thinks differently than me" which is what you seem to be implying my ideas will inevitably lead to.
But by all means, you guys just go on and keep calling me Stalin.
Monitoring someone who shows signs of being a dangerous offender =/= incarceration for a crime not commited. ... identifying and rehabilitating those with criminal predispositions.
In other words monitor and investigate every aspect of every citizen's life without their consent because otherwise how are you going to get the data you need to do these things with any degree of success?
This isn't a 0 sum proposal. I'm not saying "jail all angsty teenagers". Nor am I saying "kill anyone who thinks differently than me" which is what you seem to be implying my ideas will inevitably lead to.
No, you're asking that we get rid of all rights of the accused as well as the entire concept of privacy and then just expect things to go well from there.
But by all means, you guys just go on and keep calling me Stalin.
I never called you Stalin, quit being a retard. You're endorsing a police-state and so I call you a fascist. If you would like not to be called a fascist, I suggest you cease your advocacy of police-states.
Monitoring someone who shows signs of being a dangerous offender =/= incarceration for a crime not commited.
I agree, but monitoring could be a bad thing regardless. Nobody should be legally forced to do anything that might incriminate them, that's a fundamental right. With public place camera surveillance the argument usually goes like 'well he can stay at home', with bank account surveillance 'well he can use cash', with border surveillance 'well he can stay in this country', this list goes on and on. You might as well say 'if you do not want to be monitored, crawl into a box and die' if this keeps adding up.
Which isn't to say monitoring should be absent. People should be able to be voluntarily monitored when it adds to their safety. Arguing where lines are crossed and when the safety gained is nullified by the new risks is a finicky business.
Wow. You're not even trying anymore. Your current argument is "everyone should be guilty until proven innocent and should never question the state because fascism is undefined". I'm not sure whether that's hilarious or depressing.
yeah ok, go ahead and continue to exagerate my position and purposefully misconstrue my arguments, if that convinces you that you're right when you call me a fascist.
Monitoring someone who shows signs of being a dangerous offender =/= incarceration for a crime not commited.
And when did I say the police should not be held accountable for their actions? Or that the state should never be questioned? In the hypothetical instance that my fantasy policy were to actually take effect, I firmly believe that any gross misuse of these new powers should result in serious reprecussion for the offending officer/district/however high the chain goes.
The goal of my proposed policy is to give the public at large a recourse (via their local police enforcement agency) to address their concerns when it comes to identifying and rehabilitating those with criminal predispositions. I never said this was a perfect solution, just one that I, personally, prefer to the current system, which, in my opinion, allows more crooks to go free than it protects the wrongfully accused.
This isn't a 0 sum proposal. I'm not saying "jail all angsty teenagers". Nor am I saying "kill anyone who thinks differently than me" which is what you seem to be implying my ideas will inevitably lead to.
But by all means, you guys just go on and keep calling me Stalin.
You've supported your argument by saying that he might have done it! How is that not guilty until proven innocent.
And don't start on saying the judiciary will sort it out, because the constitution outlaws the arrest of Congressmen on the way to voting for a reason. There's also a reason why the prosecution of Don Siegelman and the investigations of others were a large part of the Gonzales controversy.
Monitoring someone who shows signs of being a dangerous offender =/= incarceration for a crime not commited. ... identifying and rehabilitating those with criminal predispositions.
In other words monitor and investigate every aspect of every citizen's life without their consent because otherwise how are you going to get the data you need to do these things with any degree of success?
I already explained that my proposed system would be based on the contributions of concerned citizens. I never advocated monitoring of ALL citizens, just those showing signs of dangerously criminal behavior as determined by their fellow citizens.
I also acknowledged that this belief is based on what some believe my overly optimistic belief that in general, people would know better than to abuse this power.
Feel free to disagree with me based on that last point, but stop exagerrating my proposal into something it's not.
This isn't a 0 sum proposal. I'm not saying "jail all angsty teenagers". Nor am I saying "kill anyone who thinks differently than me" which is what you seem to be implying my ideas will inevitably lead to.
No, you're asking that we get rid of all rights of the accused as well as the entire concept of privacy and then just expect things to go well from there.
ALL right? I will grant that yes, I would be advocating limiting some rights of the suspected person, until a time it can be determined that the person either is a danger to himself (and appropriate action is taken) or not, at which point, monitoring stops immediately. If any gross violation of that person's rights (which would delineated very carefully in legislature) took place, corrective action would be taken agains the police officers responsible and reparations made to the individual.
You think that's unethical, fine. But again, you're blowing my proposal out of context and trying to make it sound worse than what I am in actuality proposing.
But by all means, you guys just go on and keep calling me Stalin.
I never called you Stalin, quit being a retard. You're endorsing a police-state and so I call you a fascist. If you would like not to be called a fascist, I suggest you cease your advocacy of police-states.
Fine, ok, not Stalin, but I was compared to Pol Pot and Bismark.
Also, stop suggesting that Fascism implies ONLY a police state (which is already an exagerration of my proposal). Fascism also implies non-tolerance of individuality at any cost, up to an including totalitarian regime and the murder of dissidents, regardless of what your personal definition is. If you insist on using the term fascist, then qualify it by saying that my proposal happens to be in line with an aspect of fascism.
IF we, as a society, one day determine that murder and rape is ok, then I'll allow that people should have the freedom to murder and rape.
Monitoring someone who shows signs of being a dangerous offender =/= incarceration for a crime not commited. ... identifying and rehabilitating those with criminal predispositions.
In other words monitor and investigate every aspect of every citizen's life without their consent because otherwise how are you going to get the data you need to do these things with any degree of success?
I already explained that my proposed system would be based on the contributions of concerned citizens. I never advocated monitoring of ALL citizens, just those showing signs of dangerously criminal behavior as determined by their fellow citizens.
I also acknowledged that this belief is based on what some believe my overly optimistic belief that in general, people would know better than to abuse this power.
Feel free to disagree with me based on that last point, but stop exagerrating my proposal into something it's not.
Now THAT'S Stalin.
And While those things you name come with fascism, let's look at what Wiki says: "Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and social interests subordinate to the interests of the state or party." This means that fascism holds public safety over personal rights, just as you advocate. It's first definition is thus: "Anti-individualistic, the fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only insofar as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal will of man as a historic entity."
Monitoring someone who shows signs of being a dangerous offender =/= incarceration for a crime not commited. ... identifying and rehabilitating those with criminal predispositions.
In other words monitor and investigate every aspect of every citizen's life without their consent because otherwise how are you going to get the data you need to do these things with any degree of success?
I already explained that my proposed system would be based on the contributions of concerned citizens. I never advocated monitoring of ALL citizens, just those showing signs of dangerously criminal behavior as determined by their fellow citizens.
Um, that kind of reminds me a lot of the USSR. A lot.
IF we, as a society, one day determine that murder and rape is ok, then I'll allow that people should have the freedom to murder and rape.
If we as a society one day determine that murder and rape are okay I will be 100% convinced I am in the Twilight Zone and will completely refuse to believe in reality. I would never accept it, though.
Posts
Fixed.
I have admitted that my views are perhaps naive, but to go and suggest that I'm a fascict because I believe that criminality can be detected before a crime is committed is ignorant and, quite frankly, dickish.
At what point did I ever suggest people should be punished for crimes they didn't commit? The 'coercion' present in entrapment cases is not equivalent to blackmail. No one is being forced to commit these crimes, the crimes are commited via free will, precipitated only by a means and a suggestion that it might be possible for the crime to take place with little to no risk (a falsehood, created by police or whoever)
I clearly stated that someone busted as a result of entrapement should not be punished to the same extent as someone who commits the same crime under different circumstances. I merely suggested that entrapment could potentially be used to root out criminal behavior and help those who might be desperate enough to commit grievous crimes BEFORE a crime takes place.
In my imaginary world, someone caught under these circumstances would get help in the form of education and therapy, once it's determined that their worldview is twisted enough that they would, in fact, commit a crime if merely given an opportunity.
If you want me to address earlier examples, fine:
To whoever proposed the cop-bribing to get out of a ticket scenario, here is what I feel a responsible citizen should do: (although I don't believe this case falls under what I consider to be acceptable use of entrapement, since it is a minor crime)
CALL THE COP ON HIS BULLSHIT! "So, you want me to bribe you so I don't get a ticket?"
If the cop was operating on the (admittedly unpopular and, according to most of you, unlikely) assumption that he thought he was just doing his job by seeing if the person would take the bait, HIS response should then be to acknowledge that the citizen is doing the right thing, and let him go, without a ticket. That's how I see this type of scenario playing out. Again, I want to re-state that I don't actually see this as an apporpriate use of entrapment.
HOWEVER. I will lay out my thought process a little more clearly:
What I am saying:
If you take an unattended xbox from a Subway and proceed to then keep it or re-sell it.
YOU ARE A THIEF, regardless of who put it there.
If you rob a liquor store
YOU ARE A ROBBER, regardless of who suggested you do it.
If you commit murder
YOU ARE A MURDERER, regardless of who asked you to do it.
There are ALWAYS mitigating circumstances, INCLUDING the nature by which you might have been entrapped, but the fact remains that a right-minded individual SHOULD NOT be driven to commit any of these crimes barring threats of physical violence or other grievous harm.
What I am NOT saying:
- I am NOT saying police should be free to coerce people to commit crime whenever they feel like it.
I believe entrapment methods can be ethically used ONLY when there's REASONABLE reason to believe that the person targetted is a risk to himself and/or others. The suspect is not being unjustly incarcerated nor is the coercion taking place be anything more than a suggestion. If the suspect seeks out the means and takes steps to actually carry out a serious crime, then, steps should be taken to stop the suspect and help them deal with their issues (not incarcerate them for a crime they didn't commit).
- I am NOT saying that this system doesn't have a potential for abuse.
I may be a bit naive, but I'm not retarded. I'm not proposing a free for all, I'm proposing the relaxing of rules to allow for GOOD cops to pursue leads with less risk of dangerous offenders going free on technicalities. The judicial system would still be in place to root out police corruption and so forth.
Finally, yes, allright, I get it, cops can't be trusted to not screw innocent people over. Let's agree to disagree on that point, but please don't call me a fascist because I think that it's possible to change some controversial rules for the benefit of both potential criminals and potential victims.
Do you understand how your plan lowers the standard from "he committed a crime" to "we think he might commit a crime"?
Yes, that's the thing, I do. What I'm trying to get across is that I'd rather prevent a murder from taking place rather than be forced to wait until someone dies.
You decry this as me advocating taking away basic rights and freedoms. I'm not, what I hope this would accomplish, however, is taking away someone's freedom to commit murder, or rape.
Normally, that might work, except for the fact that you and everyone else knows damn well that fascism is known for it's meaning as an epiteth rather than a legitimate political stance. I never advocated ethnic cleansing or placing the needs of the state over those of individuals, except for the fact that I feel potentially dangerous individuals (not "everyone who reads a book about guns" for example), might BENEFIT from intervention by the state.
I'd thank you not to lump me in the same category as crazed dictators like Mussolini and Hitler for daring to have a differing view from yours.
Instead of dismissing my views as irrational because it might be in line with an aspect of what a madman thought, how about you try engaging me in rational debate based on the points I'm actually presenting, rather than those you are trying to portray me as making.
Instead of saying "don't you see you're wrong?" how about giving me examples of why I'm wrong so that we can debate THAT. I have addressed prior examples, why wouldn't I address more?
Yes, that's right, all this time, I've been advocating arresting people who have ever thought of committing a crime forever.
Also, the implication behind "thought crime" in the 1984 sense is that pretty much any dissident thought is punishable by severe reprecutions and indoctrination. I'm talking about helping unhealthy individuals.
If you're opposed to trying to teach people who want to cause harm to others that they really shouldn't, because it's possible that he might never actuallyl hurt anyone, then that's fine, I can respect (though disagree) with that point of view. However, I feel that intervention in such cases is better than ignoring a potentially troubled individual until he snaps and hurts people.
Someone brought up a story about a sexual deviant who went to schools DESPITE knowing that what he was doing was wrong, putting himself and potential victims at risk. In my proposed scenario, authorities would have the right to intervene in that case and address the issue before any victimization took place. I don't see how that can be a negative scenario.
But I find it hard to pick a place to jump in with the idea that the woman was or was not working with the police (statements and actions in regards to that disagreeing, etc) in question.
I think George Orwell's spinning in his grave right now by you arguing that 1984's portrayal of thought crime was a good idea in principle but just taken too far in actual implementation. You're arguing that people who so much as 'think' anything that may potentially break some law somewhere should be 'helped', regardless of whether any actual crime is committed. Having a thought about breaking a law != breaking a law.
Hell, I've had thoughts and wild fantasies about punching or otherwise beating the crap out of some idiots in real life to relieve pent up frustration. Doesn't mean I should be arrested for assault since there was no intent to actually follow through on said thoughts.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Since beating someone up over how he acts is decidedly more evil than showing your dick to an adult woman in public, it would make a lot more sense to me. However, since you can get branded as a sex offender in some states for streaking, it might actually be less severely punished.
I don't know. It was only kinda bad before. Then came the "while, what if this guy was a filthy pedophile" argument, and then the "I like Big Brother" stuff, and my god.
Well, it depends whether or not the undercover cops deliberately try to pick fights with the guys and ask them to punch them first. If they're just going to a bar and "acting gay" and someone hits them for that, well I don't see that as being a particularly bad reason to arrest someone. If they're going in there talking shit and getting in people's faces at random I can't really say that anymore. Sure you still shouldn't punch someone when they get up in your face and start talking shit at you and whatnot but even an otherwise reasonable and peace-loving person can be provoked to fight if you try hard enough.
Also at that point they're getting hit for picking a fight, not for "looking gay".
You could both call it entrapment? 'lokken' is actually the Dutch word for luring, so it would fit that dictionary definition perfectly.
I suspected the thread would have meandered to the general legality and morality of entrapment by now so I thought it would be fun to tell. Legally there is little difference between entrapping a person to buying drugs, public nudity, asking for the service of a prostitute, or beating up a homo, yet we feel the last is more justified.
It's simply because only in that case we catch an offender causing direct physical harm to another being. There are a lot of criminals we could catch if the police used more entrapment in those kind of crimes. In the current situation, only because the suspects are not harming anyone with their crimes does the police dare use entrapment! How weird is that?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181689/
Your welcome.
I agree that using entrapment for violent crimes is a bad idea, mainly for this reason. You do not want a 'but he started it' argument every time one of these cases reaches court. How do courts deal with fights anyway?
Edit: Arguing about self defense is a bit off-topic maybe.
Okay...seems you don't get entrapment. Entrapment, in the legal sense, is when the person who commits a crime only does so because a law enforcement official encouraged him or her to do so. So, no, the fabulously dressed cops don't come anywhere near that standard, unless you want to argue that they provoke "gay panic" in the guys who attack them. In which case, you may want to really rethink your arguments.
I maybe wrong, but my understanding is like this:
Standing on a street corner in a skimpy outfit, waiting for a "john" to proposition you = legal sting
Walking up to a car and offering sex actsin exchange for money = entrapment
Even if he gets his wallet out, if the cop was the onewho made the offer, it is not a valid arrest.
To make any other assumption goes against the principles on which this country was founded.
Maybe my understanding of this is a bit shaky, but isn't that because soliciting for sex is, in itself, a crime? I.e., the official is committing a crime simply by the act of offering sex in exchange for money.
my understanding was that if the police officer was the one who suggested the crime, then you don't know whether or not the entrapee was actuallyintending on commiting the crime beforehand.
For one thing, your criminal policy seems to be the same as quotes attributed to Pol Pot and Bismarck: "it is better that ten innocent men suffer than one guilty man escape," as opposed to the foundation of modern justice: "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
I was using fascism to mean fascism, not as an epithet and not as anything you just said. You are arguing in favor of a police-state, you are criticizing government criticism, you are in favor of "guilty until proven innocent and even then still guilty if the state disagrees with the jury" instead of a criminal justice system. Is my meaning clear now? I'm not sure why you thought I meant something other than "fascist" when I called you a fascist.
Because to many, if not most, people, including those who read this board, fascism means those things I just said, and you'd be ignorant to believe otherwise. I find it interesting that you opted to call Marx a socialist when many would call him a communist. Why not use the term which he is attributed with creating? Are you afraid that people might take the meaning out of the context you presented and accuse you of labelling Marx using an epiteth, thus weakening the impact you tried to make in accusing me of being a fascist?
YOUR little secret understanding of fascism (of which there is no set, agreed upon definition) does not automatically change the fact that when most normal people read "fascist" they think of the most evil and extreme applications of that label.
You used fascist in an inflammatory way, to denigrate my point of view by likening it to a regime which is known for it's inhumanity and gross violations of human rights.
ALL I have proposed in this thread, is that methods used by police which are called "entrapement", as I understand it, CAN POTENTIALLY (though maybe not realistically) have an appropriate use, and thinking so does not make me akin to Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot or whatever other evil dictator (tm) you unfairly wish to lump me in with.
You are correct that I do not argue the latter. That dictionary definition is just not clear about that the luring should be done in an illegal way to be called entrapment. Is there a proper word for the act of 'legally waiting at the right place conveniently dressed like a drug dealer/prostitute/whatever until someone commits a crime in your face' that is not entrapment?
Yep. They're called stings.
It's the floppy clown shoe stomping on a face forever, VC.
yeah ok, go ahead and continue to exagerate my position and purposefully misconstrue my arguments, if that convinces you that you're right when you call me a fascist.
Monitoring someone who shows signs of being a dangerous offender =/= incarceration for a crime not commited.
And when did I say the police should not be held accountable for their actions? Or that the state should never be questioned? In the hypothetical instance that my fantasy policy were to actually take effect, I firmly believe that any gross misuse of these new powers should result in serious reprecussion for the offending officer/district/however high the chain goes.
The goal of my proposed policy is to give the public at large a recourse (via their local police enforcement agency) to address their concerns when it comes to identifying and rehabilitating those with criminal predispositions. I never said this was a perfect solution, just one that I, personally, prefer to the current system, which, in my opinion, allows more crooks to go free than it protects the wrongfully accused.
This isn't a 0 sum proposal. I'm not saying "jail all angsty teenagers". Nor am I saying "kill anyone who thinks differently than me" which is what you seem to be implying my ideas will inevitably lead to.
But by all means, you guys just go on and keep calling me Stalin.
In other words monitor and investigate every aspect of every citizen's life without their consent because otherwise how are you going to get the data you need to do these things with any degree of success?
No, you're asking that we get rid of all rights of the accused as well as the entire concept of privacy and then just expect things to go well from there.
I never called you Stalin, quit being a retard. You're endorsing a police-state and so I call you a fascist. If you would like not to be called a fascist, I suggest you cease your advocacy of police-states.
I agree, but monitoring could be a bad thing regardless. Nobody should be legally forced to do anything that might incriminate them, that's a fundamental right. With public place camera surveillance the argument usually goes like 'well he can stay at home', with bank account surveillance 'well he can use cash', with border surveillance 'well he can stay in this country', this list goes on and on. You might as well say 'if you do not want to be monitored, crawl into a box and die' if this keeps adding up.
Which isn't to say monitoring should be absent. People should be able to be voluntarily monitored when it adds to their safety. Arguing where lines are crossed and when the safety gained is nullified by the new risks is a finicky business.
You've supported your argument by saying that he might have done it! How is that not guilty until proven innocent.
And don't start on saying the judiciary will sort it out, because the constitution outlaws the arrest of Congressmen on the way to voting for a reason. There's also a reason why the prosecution of Don Siegelman and the investigations of others were a large part of the Gonzales controversy.
I already explained that my proposed system would be based on the contributions of concerned citizens. I never advocated monitoring of ALL citizens, just those showing signs of dangerously criminal behavior as determined by their fellow citizens.
I also acknowledged that this belief is based on what some believe my overly optimistic belief that in general, people would know better than to abuse this power.
Feel free to disagree with me based on that last point, but stop exagerrating my proposal into something it's not.
ALL right? I will grant that yes, I would be advocating limiting some rights of the suspected person, until a time it can be determined that the person either is a danger to himself (and appropriate action is taken) or not, at which point, monitoring stops immediately. If any gross violation of that person's rights (which would delineated very carefully in legislature) took place, corrective action would be taken agains the police officers responsible and reparations made to the individual.
You think that's unethical, fine. But again, you're blowing my proposal out of context and trying to make it sound worse than what I am in actuality proposing.
Fine, ok, not Stalin, but I was compared to Pol Pot and Bismark.
Also, stop suggesting that Fascism implies ONLY a police state (which is already an exagerration of my proposal). Fascism also implies non-tolerance of individuality at any cost, up to an including totalitarian regime and the murder of dissidents, regardless of what your personal definition is. If you insist on using the term fascist, then qualify it by saying that my proposal happens to be in line with an aspect of fascism.
IF we, as a society, one day determine that murder and rape is ok, then I'll allow that people should have the freedom to murder and rape.
Now THAT'S Stalin.
And While those things you name come with fascism, let's look at what Wiki says: "Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and social interests subordinate to the interests of the state or party." This means that fascism holds public safety over personal rights, just as you advocate. It's first definition is thus: "Anti-individualistic, the fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only insofar as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal will of man as a historic entity."
Um, that kind of reminds me a lot of the USSR. A lot.
If we as a society one day determine that murder and rape are okay I will be 100% convinced I am in the Twilight Zone and will completely refuse to believe in reality. I would never accept it, though.