# Young Sociopaths



## Jonathan Randall (Jan 15, 2006)

Two teens (apparently the ones) caught on video beating homeless men (one to death) surrendered to authorities in Florida. While it is important to note that in the eyes of the law, an individual is considered innocent until proven guilty, they sure look like the two punks caught on video.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/15/D8F5EREO1.html

If it is indeed them and they are convicted, they should never be released into society again, IMO.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 16, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> Two teens (apparently the ones) caught on video beating homeless men (one to death) surrendered to authorities in Florida. While it is important to note that in the eyes of the law, an individual is considered innocent until proven guilty, they sure look like the two punks caught on video.
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/15/D8F5EREO1.html
> 
> If it is indeed them and they are convicted, they should never be released into society again, IMO.


 A couple of real live tough guys we have here.  I wonder how tough they'll be where they're going?


----------



## MJS (Jan 16, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> A couple of real live tough guys we have here. I wonder how tough they'll be where they're going?


 
Very true!  They're going to be in for a rude awakening if they continue to carry a 'tough guy' attitude when they get to prison.  I'm guessing that they're going to be on the receiving end of a few beatings themselves.

Mike


----------



## Odin (Jan 16, 2006)

An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.....what needs to be looked at is how/why they would want to do something like that?


----------



## MJS (Jan 16, 2006)

Odin said:
			
		

> An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.....what needs to be looked at is how/why they would want to do something like that?


 
Punks that have nothing better to do.  There was an incident in Hartford, CT. not too long ago which invvolved a mentally challenged man, who was sitting in the lobby of his apt bldg. with some groceries that he had just bought.  Some of the neighborhood punks thought it would be funny to assault him, by kicking, punching and throwing some of the soda cans at him.  Needless to say, the man died.  If I remember correctly, he did have a heart history, so that may have ultimately been the cause, but regardless, it was the assault that brought it on.

I wonder if it would phase these people if someone beat to death one of their family members.

Mike


----------



## Fluffy (Jan 16, 2006)

Weak....they will soon learn what it means to be the victom.  Welcome to hard time.


----------



## Lisa (Jan 16, 2006)

Sad...truly sad when human beings do these things to each other, just for the sake of what...enterntainment? because they can?  I don't get it.


----------



## Martial Tucker (Jan 16, 2006)

Odin said:
			
		

> An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.....what needs to be looked at is how/why they would want to do something like that?



Fine....as long as they're locked up while you are looking into it.


----------



## Odin (Jan 16, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Punks that have nothing better to do. There was an incident in Hartford, CT. not too long ago which invvolved a mentally challenged man, who was sitting in the lobby of his apt bldg. with some groceries that he had just bought. Some of the neighborhood punks thought it would be funny to assault him, by kicking, punching and throwing some of the soda cans at him. Needless to say, the man died. If I remember correctly, he did have a heart history, so that may have ultimately been the cause, but regardless, it was the assault that brought it on.
> 
> I wonder if it would phase these people if someone beat to death one of their family members.
> 
> Mike


 
See i dont think thats true,you wouldnt beat someone up because you had nothing to do would you I hope not!(")
Peeps that do this sort of thing are not right in the head you cant be seriously....with children they're behaviour reflects on enviroment and social up bringing serioulsy we're all grown and seem to be intelligent people here,why just constantly punish people,why not instead find out what the hell is going on,''why constantly shoot oncoming missiles when you can just take out the launcher??''


----------



## Martial Tucker (Jan 16, 2006)

Odin said:
			
		

> See i dont think thats true,you wouldnt beat someone up because you had nothing to do would you I hope not!(")
> Peeps that do this sort of thing are not right in the head you cant be seriously....with children they're behaviour reflects on enviroment and social up bringing serioulsy we're all grown and seem to be intelligent people here,why just constantly punish people,why not instead find out what the hell is going on,''why constantly shoot oncoming missiles when you can just take out the launcher??''



Are you saying that we should let these kids go free and focus on what went wrong during their upbringing?


----------



## Odin (Jan 16, 2006)

Martial Tucker said:
			
		

> Are you saying that we should let these kids go free and focus on what went wrong during their upbringing?


 
No i mean try to find out whats going wrong,I dint say free,but obviously punishment is not working if it did them kids would have thought twice about doing what they did...you cant just keep punishing people again and again and again look at the world??it doesnt work.


----------



## Kreth (Jan 16, 2006)

If those kids were dogs they would have been taken out back and shot.


----------



## Odin (Jan 16, 2006)

Kreth said:
			
		

> If those kids were dogs they would have been taken out back and shot.


 
What if that was your child that did that?


----------



## Kreth (Jan 16, 2006)

I don't believe that would ever happen. I taught my kids that actions have consequences.


----------



## Odin (Jan 16, 2006)

Kreth said:
			
		

> I don't believe that would ever happen. I taught my kids that actions have consequences.


 
exactly your children would because they were taught..so ummm why do think them kids did that?


----------



## Odin (Jan 16, 2006)

.....and then would you kill someone just because they were not taught something??????


----------



## Kreth (Jan 16, 2006)

Odin said:
			
		

> .....and then would you kill someone just because they were not taught something??????


I don't think you should have to be explicitly taught, "Don't beat homeless men to death." but maybe that's just me...


----------



## Kacey (Jan 16, 2006)

Kreth said:
			
		

> I don't think you should have to be explicitly taught, "Don't beat homeless men to death." but maybe that's just me...


You would think not... but I teach in a middle school (ages 11-14, with a few 15 year-olds here and there); many of the kids I teach have yet to master basic moral/ethical concepts like "if I don't like it being done to me, I shouldn't do it to others"; rather, they tend to excuse their actions with a shrug or the statement that "_____ did it to me first" (or "everyone else does it").    

This is, at its roots, a societal problem, and until society starts setting better examples for its young, this problem will continue.  The solution is long-term and rooted in education rather than remediation or punishment; remediation is a hit-or-miss proposition in many cases, and punishment, especially jail, can sometimes become a reward rather than a punishment - in jail, one has food, clothing, shelter, a society with clear and easily understandable rules - for some, this is preferable to what they have outside (and for a disturbing many, it is BETTER than what they have outside), so how does that encourage parolees to change their behavior so they don't get sent back?

Does any of this excuse those boys for what they did?  Not in the slightest - it may, at least in part, explain it, but explanation does not excuse.  Should there be consequences for what they did?  Certainly.  Will putting them in jail prevent them in the future?  Maybe... and maybe not.  There are no good answers, but a great many questions that must be asked and solutions that must be implemented before there will be enough change in society to prevent such atrocities from happening.


----------



## Martial Tucker (Jan 16, 2006)

Odin said:
			
		

> No i mean try to find out whats going wrong,I dint say free,but obviously punishment is not working if it did them kids would have thought twice about doing what they did...you cant just keep punishing people again and again and again look at the world??it doesnt work.


Maybe our system of punishiment isn't working well in it's current form, because it is not severe enough. I'm not referring to the death penalty. Rather, I'm referring to a system where, if a person who commits a crime can afford a top-notch lawyer, he can often get off free on either a technicality or a convoluted argument about his motives. Or, if he does do time, the amount is dramatically reduced by the plea-bargain process before the judgement. Even then, parole is often right around the corner if he behaves himself while in prison. 

I'm not saying we shouldn't examine ourselves as a society to try to find the motivation behind such acts, but at the same time, I personally would like to see an abolishment of plea-bargaining, and dramatically reduced or
even elimination of parole for crimes of violence. I think we have gotten far away from the concept of real consequences for inappropriate behavior.

I'm sick and tired of reading about kids killed or abused by known sex-offenders who are walking the streets because some social worker convinced a judge or board that the offender has somehow reformed.

Go ahead and try to find out what went wrong in these kids upbringing. Meanwhile, lock their butts up for a long, long time so they don't do this again.


----------



## kenpo0324 (Jan 16, 2006)

Sad...truly sad when human beings do these things to each other, They should be locked up and the key thrown away and forgotten about..They should never get out of Jail,They need to spend the rest of their life's behind bars.


----------



## arnisador (Jan 16, 2006)

kenpo0324 said:
			
		

> They should be locked up and the key thrown away and forgotten about


 
Because they lack empathy for others?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 17, 2006)

Odin said:
			
		

> See i dont think thats true,you wouldnt beat someone up because you had nothing to do would you I hope not!(")
> Peeps that do this sort of thing are not right in the head you cant be seriously....with children they're behaviour reflects on enviroment and social up bringing serioulsy we're all grown and seem to be intelligent people here,why just constantly punish people,why not instead find out what the hell is going on,''why constantly shoot oncoming missiles when you can just take out the launcher??''


 Please.  Some people are born sociopaths, meaning they lack the ability to empathize with others.  You can rationalize this as being 'sick in the head', but the problem is this...a sickness is something that changes who you are and causes you to do bad things.  Being a sociopath, however IS who you are.  These aren't otherwise good kids, who are 'sick'.  They are bad people, who do bad things BECAUSE they are bad people.

You are obviously an empathetic person.....which explains your complete blindness to the realities involving people who completely lack any sort of ability to look on other people as even 'human'.  No person with the remote ability to be empathetic would think that beating some homeless guy is amusing.  That is the kind of 'entertainment' enjoyed by human jackals.  These two are parasites, pure and simple.  You can spend all the time studying these parasites as you want.....as long as it's from behind bars.



			
				Odin said:
			
		

> No i mean try to find out whats going wrong,I dint say free,but obviously punishment is not working if it did them kids would have thought twice about doing what they did...you cant just keep punishing people again and again and again look at the world??it doesnt work.


 Actually, it's working quite well.  Violent crime in particular and crime in general has been falling in this country (while rising in other parts of the world) for nearly 15 years.  This corresponds with tougher sentencing guidelines and longer sentencing of criminals.  The single model of crime control that has proven to work, over and over again, is incarceration.  

The 'touchie/feelie', 'lets understand and empathize with criminals' sociological criminology theories of the 1960's and 1970's were complete failures, resulting in some of the most violent and crime ridden era's in US history.  It was only after we resolved to view criminals as what they are....criminals, and put them where the belong....prison, that the crime rate started falling.



			
				Odin said:
			
		

> What if that was your child that did that?


 I'd disown my child if they did that, and I'd declare myself a failure as a parent.  Some things are inexcusable, and this is one of them.


----------



## kenpo0324 (Jan 17, 2006)

I'd disown my children if they did that, and I'd declare myself a failure as a parent. Some things are inexcusable, and this is one of them.


----------



## MJS (Jan 17, 2006)

Odin said:
			
		

> See i dont think thats true,you wouldnt beat someone up because you had nothing to do would you I hope not!(")
> Peeps that do this sort of thing are not right in the head you cant be seriously....with children they're behaviour reflects on enviroment and social up bringing serioulsy we're all grown and seem to be intelligent people here,why just constantly punish people,why not instead find out what the hell is going on,''why constantly shoot oncoming missiles when you can just take out the launcher??''


 
Sorry, but you're wrong.  I'm not disputing that they might have a behavior issue, but are you saying that every person who commits a criminal act has a mental disorder??  I dont think so.  

Mike


----------



## Odin (Jan 17, 2006)

*Okay Im going to take a deep breath before I go into this......whhhhh here goes...*
Please. Some people are born sociopaths, meaning they lack the ability to empathize with others. You can rationalize this as being 'sick in the head', but the problem is this...a sickness is something that changes who you are and causes you to do bad things. Being a sociopath, however IS who you are. These aren't otherwise good kids, who are 'sick'. They are bad people, who do bad things BECAUSE they are bad people.
[SIZE=+0][/SIZE] 
[SIZE=+0]*They do bad things because they are bad??im sorry that doesnt make sense,bin laden could be called a bad person but to his followers he's a saint,you can never generalize like that,what you said is just a generalization of someone based upon on act they have undertaken that's would be 5mins of those guys life out of how many in a life time.*


[/SIZE]You are obviously an empathetic person.....which explains your complete blindness to the realities involving people who completely lack any sort of ability to look on other people as even 'human'. No person with the remote ability to be empathetic would think that beating some homeless guy is amusing. That is the kind of 'entertainment' enjoyed by human jackals. These two are parasites, pure and simple. You can spend all the time studying these parasites as you want.....as long as it's from behind bars.

*LOl @ complete blindness!  okay reading your post surly you are the one that is ''completely lacking in any sort of ability to look on other people as human' them kids are human like it or not,what I am saying is that we should invest into what makes a perfectly normal child behave in such away...you need to look at the mind frame.as for thinking that beating someone up is amusing come come now....how many here watch boxing,or ring fight,I Thai box in a ring while others pay to watch me knee someone in the head...why is that okay???there is a chance I could kill someone but people still pay to watch it and I still fight,does that make us all psycho's???*


[SIZE=+0]Actually, it's working quite well. Violent crime in particular and crime in general has been falling in this country (while rising in other parts of the world) for nearly 15 years. This corresponds with tougher sentencing guidelines and longer sentencing of criminals. The single model of crime control that has proven to work, over and over again, is incarceration. 

The 'touchie/feelie', 'lets understand and empathize with criminals' sociological criminology theories of the 1960's and 1970's were complete failures, resulting in some of the most violent and crime ridden era's in US history. It was only after we resolved to view criminals as what they are....criminals, and put them where the belong....prison, that the crime rate started falling.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0][/SIZE] 
[SIZE=+0]*Unless there is sufficient evidence to prove that crime has lowered due to just toughing sentencing guidelines I'm going to have to dismiss that comment there can be hundreds of factors that could lead to crime dropping,including better psychological care.(") and anyhow tougher guidelines the police openly shoot kids on street in brazil if believed they have broken the law and their country is crimeless.*


[/SIZE][SIZE=+0][SIZE=+0]sociological criminology theories of the 1960's and 1970's were complete failures, <---*that was in the 60's  and 70's do you really want me to list how far medical science has gone since then???*
[/SIZE][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0][SIZE=+0]I'd disown my child if they did that, and I'd declare myself a failure as a parent. Some things are inexcusable, and this is one of them.[/SIZE][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0][SIZE=+0][/SIZE][/SIZE] 
[SIZE=+0][SIZE=+0][SIZE=+0]*That is quite sad....wait would that then mean that it would be your fault because you failed your child not their fault for commit the crime???sooooooo then it wouldn't have been them children's fault either it would be their parents...mmmmm I dont think you have thought this through.*[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]


----------



## modarnis (Jan 17, 2006)

>>what I am saying is that we should invest into what makes a perfectly normal child behave in such away...you need to look at the mind frame.as for thinking that beating someone up is amusing come come now....how many here watch boxing,or ring fight,I Thai box in a ring while others pay to watch me knee someone in the head...why is that okay???there is a chance I could kill someone but people still pay to watch it and I still fight,does that make us all psycho's???>>

You make a huge assuption on the facts presented in the news article that these children are normal.  

There is one significant difference in the crime alleged here and organized fighting.  The victim in the crime doesn't get to consent to the conduct.  The two fighters in a ring event choose to be there.  They assume the risk freely.  Comparing the two situations is at best insulting to these victims and at worst an attempt to minimize the vicious nature of the crime by condoning the "sport" mentality  of these miscreant's actions

Surprising unsuspecting victims and beating them to death or near death is a crime.  There is a greater societal interest in protecting the citizenry from criminals who perpetrate these acts than studying and trying to correct their errant behavior


----------



## MJS (Jan 17, 2006)

I'm not disputing that environment and upbringing don't play a part, but thats almost to say that if you grow up in a classy neighborhood and your parents are rich, that the kids won't commit a crime.  We can't always blame a sickness on behavior.  There are people in the world who have no respect for anything or anyone. They may not have a sickness, but simply be bad people.

Mike


----------



## Odin (Jan 17, 2006)

modarnis said:
			
		

> >>what I am saying is that we should invest into what makes a perfectly normal child behave in such away...you need to look at the mind frame.as for thinking that beating someone up is amusing come come now....how many here watch boxing,or ring fight,I Thai box in a ring while others pay to watch me knee someone in the head...why is that okay???there is a chance I could kill someone but people still pay to watch it and I still fight,does that make us all psycho's???>>
> 
> You make a huge assuption on the facts presented in the news article that these children are normal.
> 
> ...


 
I was commenting on the point that was made about violence being amusing,true what you said but when the cockie crumbles people still pay to watch two men beat each over up....I'll give you all a better reply in a minute as im at work and am finding it hard to dodge my manager!!lol


----------



## Kreth (Jan 17, 2006)

Hopefully this is your post, it was difficult to tell who said what...


			
				Odin said:
			
		

> *how many here watch boxing,or ring fight,I Thai box in a ring while others pay to watch me knee someone in the head...why is that okay???there is a chance I could kill someone but people still pay to watch it and I still fight,does that make us all psycho's???*


The difference is, you and your opponent volunteer to be in that ring. It would be a whole 'nother story if you just assaulted some random homeless guy...


----------



## MJS (Jan 17, 2006)

Odin said:
			
		

> I was commenting on the point that was made about violence being amusing,true what you said but when the cockie crumbles people still pay to watch two men beat each over up


 
Maybe I'm just misunderstanding your logic here, but perhaps you can explain how a ring fight is the same as 2 punks beating someone on the street??  As Modarnis said, the ring fight is mutually agreed upon.  Any injuries as a result of the fight, have already been accepted by the 2 fighters.  We have a homeless man, minding his own business, and these 2 punks come up and beat the hell out of him.  A ring fight, as you're speaking of, is most likely going to be a sanctioned event.  This was an illegal act of violence no matter how people try to sugarcoat it.  

Mike


----------



## Odin (Jan 17, 2006)

Kreth said:
			
		

> Hopefully this is your post, it was difficult to tell who said what...
> 
> The difference is, you and your opponent volunteer to be in that ring. It would be a whole 'nother story if you just assaulted some random homeless guy...


 
Okay excuse me for getting annoyed but please read the post above yours...I have already explained what I meant by that comment,It was an example of how violence is entertaining.amusing.....my manger has a meeting in about an hour I'll be back to reply properly in abit,I hate it when i get a good debate going when I have to work!!!!


----------



## MJS (Jan 17, 2006)

Odin said:
			
		

> Okay excuse me for getting annoyed but please read the post above yours...I have already explained what I meant by that comment,It was an example of how violence is entertaining.amusing.....my manger has a meeting in about an hour I'll be back to reply properly in abit,I hate it when i get a good debate going when I have to work!!!!


 
Please explain how a ring fight is the same as an assault on the street?  In the ring, the ref stops the fight before anyone gets seriously injured.  Where is the ref on the street??  I grew up watching slasher/horror movies, but I dont run around after people with an ax!!  I watch UFC, Pride, KOTC, etc., but I dont assault people on the street!

Mike


----------



## Flatlander (Jan 17, 2006)

Odin said:
			
		

> 'why constantly shoot oncoming missiles when you can just take out the launcher??''


If we aren't yet quite sure how to take out the launcher, ought we let the missles drop?  No, I think we're better to shoot them down for the time being.  Once you've sorted out exactly how to take that launcher out, though, let's go do that.....


----------



## Odin (Jan 17, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Please explain how a ring fight is the same as an assault on the street? In the ring, the ref stops the fight before anyone gets seriously injured. Where is the ref on the street?? I grew up watching slasher/horror movies, but I dont run around after people with an ax!! I watch UFC, Pride, KOTC, etc., but I dont assault people on the street!
> 
> Mike


 
Oh for crying out loud!!!!!!THE POINT WAS VIOLENCE CAN BE TAKEN AS ENTERTAINMENT!!!!!!!!!!what is it about that point that you dont understand!!aaarrrrrrragggghhhhhhh!!!!!!!


----------



## modarnis (Jan 17, 2006)

Odin said:
			
		

> Oh for crying out loud!!!!!!THE POINT WAS VIOLENCE CAN BE TAKEN AS ENTERTAINMENT!!!!!!!!!!what is it about that point that you dont understand!!aaarrrrrrragggghhhhhhh!!!!!!!



So is your ultimate point that if violence can be taken as entertainment that violence can't be a crime.  You brought up this seemingly odd argument for the facts.  Don't get irritated when people call you out on it.


----------



## Odin (Jan 17, 2006)

modarnis said:
			
		

> So is your ultimate point that if violence can be taken as entertainment that violence can't be a crime. You brought up this seemingly odd argument for the facts. Don't get irritated when people call you out on it.


 
....................................<----- that is utter unbelief.when did i say that. please read the forum.all of it.then you will see why that point was made.

The point incase you cant be bothered to read...someone said they thought a man beating up another man for fun is wrong....so i bought up ring sports.how hard is that point to understand.And im sorry if thats sounds rude but seriously come on......thats one point that has been repeated again and again...if we all still cant understand,lets just drop that point before i have to resort to drawing diagrams.(")


----------



## Martial Tucker (Jan 17, 2006)

Odin said:
			
		

> Oh for crying out loud!!!!!!THE POINT WAS VIOLENCE CAN BE TAKEN AS ENTERTAINMENT!!!!!!!!!!what is it about that point that you dont understand!!aaarrrrrrragggghhhhhhh!!!!!!!




Of course violence can be taken as entertainment, when both parties are willing, trained participants under controlled conditions. Look at the NFL. That has nothing to do with an unprovoked attack on an unarmed person, and is totally irrelevant. Similarly, sex can certainly be considered entertainment. Some people pay a lot of money to see it in movies. That doesnt mean that rape is an understandable crime.

Life is not a video game. When you beat someone to death or blow his head off, you do not get bonus points, you go to jail. Hopefully forever. NO EXCUSES.


----------



## modarnis (Jan 17, 2006)

Odin said:
			
		

> ....................................<----- that is utter unbelief.when did i say that. please read the forum.all of it.then you will see why that point was made.
> 
> The point incase you cant be bothered to read...someone said they thought a man beating up another man for fun is wrong....so i bought up ring sports.how hard is that point to understand.And im sorry if thats sounds rude but seriously come on......thats one point that has been repeated again and again...if we all still cant understand,lets just drop that point before i have to resort to drawing diagrams.(")



Actually, if you bothered to read my statement, I asked you what your point actually is.  It is clearly not evident from the post you refer to, despite the number of times I reread it.  Sqt Mac had described a spree beating where the purpose was mereley the amusement of human jackals.  You turned it into an analogy between that type of spree violence amusement, and violence in sports entertainment.  Maybe you should reread what Sgt Mac said.  My guess (I don't want to put words on the page for him) he was not talking about entertainment, but rather he was describing the type of criminal amusement people get from dishing out a beating to a helpless victim.  You then came up with a lukewarm apples to oranges analogy


----------



## MJS (Jan 17, 2006)

Odin said:
			
		

> ....................................<----- that is utter unbelief.when did i say that. please read the forum.all of it.then you will see why that point was made.
> 
> The point incase you cant be bothered to read...someone said they thought a man beating up another man for fun is wrong....so i bought up ring sports.how hard is that point to understand.And im sorry if thats sounds rude but seriously come on......thats one point that has been repeated again and again...if we all still cant understand,lets just drop that point before i have to resort to drawing diagrams.(")


 


> Oh for crying out loud!!!!!!THE POINT WAS VIOLENCE CAN BE TAKEN AS ENTERTAINMENT!!!!!!!!!!what is it about that point that you dont understand!!aaarrrrrrragggghhhhhhh!!!!!!!


 
1: You are the one that I'm afraid is missing the point. We have 2 things, ring and street. A ring fight can be entertaining, but again, there is nothing illegal about it. An assault on the street is illegal! How can the 2 be compared when they are 2 completely opposite things? Whats entertaining, to a person with half a brain, about beating someone to death?

2: 





> See i dont think thats true,you wouldnt beat someone up because you had nothing to do would you I hope not!(")
> Peeps that do this sort of thing are not right in the head you cant be seriously....with children they're behaviour reflects on enviroment and social up bringing serioulsy we're all grown and seem to be intelligent people here,why just constantly punish people,why not instead find out what the hell is going on,''why constantly shoot oncoming missiles when you can just take out the launcher??''


 
Please explain how the environment is playing a part? Again, if someone is raised in a wealthy neghborhood, does that exempt them from crime? We have kids who had nothing better to do, so they thought it would be fun or funny to beat a homeless person. 

3:





> that is utter unbelief.when did i say that. please read the forum.all of it.then you will see why that point was made.


 
I believe its the impression that you're giving here.


----------



## Odin (Jan 17, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> 1: You are the one that I'm afraid is missing the point. We have 2 things, ring and street. A ring fight can be entertaining, but again, there is nothing illegal about it. An assault on the street is illegal! How can the 2 be compared when they are 2 completely opposite things? Whats entertaining, to a person with half a brain, about beating someone to death?
> 
> 2:
> 
> ...


 
Okay I've finished work so lets get started.

Fighting is entertainment the people that pay for it are entertained by fighting.....lets that sink in..im not talking about the fighters...now those boys were said to have beat that man up for entertainment, there was a vibe in the forum that seemed to think that this made them evil,how can this be when have the population finds entertainment in violence, maybe these kids could not destabilise between the two,not everyone is right in their head you know,not every one thinks the same way,life effects people differently.
now im not saying its right what they did I was talking about how they could,what mind frame has someone have to be in in order to do an attack like that,surely they must have something wrong with them..thats my point....and dont see how punishment is best way...I dont have an alternative, I joined this debate to see if anyone else had one,or at least what you thought, some of you just ignored my argument and picked one statement as the problem,which is good because it supports my argument ''lets not try to figure out why this person wrote that,no lets just deal with what is in front of us, because thats easier and doesnt need as much brain power'

Im going to ignore your points and just concentrate on the core issues


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 17, 2006)

_*MODERATOR NOTE:*_ Please refrain from insults and keep the conversation polite and respectful.

G. Ketchmark / shesulsa
MT Moderator


----------



## Kreth (Jan 17, 2006)

Odin said:
			
		

> maybe these kids could not destabilise between the two


"I do not think it means what you think it means."


----------



## MJS (Jan 17, 2006)

Odin said:
			
		

> Okay I've finished work so lets get started.
> 
> Fighting is entertainment the people that pay for it are entertained by fighting.....lets that sink in..im not talking about the fighters...now those boys were said to have beat that man up for entertainment, there was a vibe in the forum that seemed to think that this made them evil,how can this be when have the population finds entertainment in violence, maybe these kids could not destabilise between the two,not everyone is right in their head you know,not every one thinks the same way,life effects people differently.


 
So you're saying that these kids could not determine that there is a difference between a ring sport, and taking a baseball bat to someone? Come on.





> now im not saying its right what they did I was talking about how they could,what mind frame has someone have to be in in order to do an attack like that,surely they must have something wrong with them..thats my point....and dont see how punishment is best way...I dont have an alternative, I joined this debate to see if anyone else had one,or at least what you thought, some of you just ignored my argument and picked one statement as the problem,which is good because it supports my argument ''lets not try to figure out why this person wrote that,no lets just deal with what is in front of us, because thats easier and doesnt need as much brain power'



Why does someone need to have a mental inbalance in order to commit a crime? You still have not answered that! Not everyone that commits a crime is mentally disturbed.



> Im going to ignore your points and just concentrate on the core issues


 
Thats fine, but just remember that it was you who brought up the sport debate, not me! I think what you're ignoring, is the fact that I, as well as many others are bringing up some good points, and you are getting frustrated because people disagree with you. You are looking at this from 1 point of view...your point of view, and you're not interested in what anyone else has to say. This is a debate forum sir. That being said, disagreements are going to happen. It is hard at times to always make sure that the readers are understanding what the posters are saying. That being said, if you can't debate in a friendly fashion, not taking shots or sniping at people, then perhaps this debate is not for you.

Mike


----------



## Martial Tucker (Jan 17, 2006)

Odin said:
			
		

> Okay I've finished work so lets get started.
> 
> Fighting is entertainment the people that pay for it are entertained by fighting.....lets that sink in..im not talking about the fighters...now those boys were said to have beat that man up for entertainment, there was a vibe in the forum that seemed to think that this made them evil,how can this be when have the population finds entertainment in violence


Again, the vast majority of the population finds sex entertaining. Thank goodness, only a very small portion of the population would find rape entertaining. They are totally different things. Same basic act, but one is consensual, the other is forced. Your logic would tend to excuse the rapist because society finds sex entertaining.



			
				Odin said:
			
		

> thats my point....and dont see how punishment is best way...*I dont have an alternative*


Then you have no argument. End of story.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 17, 2006)

Odin said:
			
		

> Okay I've finished work so lets get started.
> 
> Fighting is entertainment the people that pay for it are entertained by fighting.....lets that sink in..im not talking about the fighters...now those boys were said to have beat that man up for entertainment, there was a vibe in the forum that seemed to think that this made them evil,how can this be when have the population finds entertainment in violence, maybe these kids could not destabilise between the two,not everyone is right in their head you know,not every one thinks the same way,life effects people differently.


 This is actually getting amusing.  People like watching organized violence because it showcases the best of humanity....physical courage, tenacity, endurance, desire to succeed, and many other positive traits.  The average human, however, is able to distinguish between two courageous human beings, who engage in a contest of strength, skill and courage, and two low life jackals who decide that they will showcase their 'strength' by beating homeless men for entertainment.  The former represents the best in humanity, the later, the absolute WORST! If the average person understands this, instinctively, why is it that you cannot?



			
				Odin said:
			
		

> now im not saying its right what they did I was talking about how they could,what mind frame has someone have to be in in order to do an attack like that,surely they must have something wrong with them..thats my point....and don&#8217;t see how punishment is best way...I don&#8217;t have an alternative, I joined this debate to see if anyone else had one,or at least what you thought, some of you just ignored my argument and picked one statement as the problem,which is good because it supports my argument ''lets not try to figure out why this person wrote that,no lets just deal with what is in front of us, because that&#8217;s easier and doesn&#8217;t need as much brain power'


 Oh, I understand perfectly well the mind frame of someone who does this....I deal with them every day.  They felt entitled to the sense of power they felt in being able to hurt and humiliate another human being.  We call those people 'sociopaths'.  They don't have guilt or remorse, they simply FEAR punishment.  

That is why 'punishment' is the most effective way of controlling these parasites.  Why do you think they beat up homeless men?  Because they are inherently cowards.  These 'men' fear the consequences of attacking someone capable of defending themselves, so they attack the defenseless.  It is clear you are unaware of certain basic realities.  I respect your right to an opinion, but I have the right to point out it is based on greatly flawed logic. 



			
				Odin said:
			
		

> Im going to ignore your points and just concentrate on the core issues


 You mean that you are going to ignore any points to the contrary, and concentrate on the sound of your own voice?  In that case there's not much that I can add.  :asian:


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Jan 17, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Oh, I understand perfectly well the mind frame of someone who does this....I deal with them every day. They felt entitled to the sense of power they felt in being able to hurt and humiliate another human being. We call those people 'sociopaths'. They don't have guilt or remorse, they simply FEAR punishment.


 
Yup, that's why I titled the thread "Young Sociopaths". They have no excuse - excepting that they are rabid dogs. Like many people, I had some pretty bad experiences as a child (which I'm not going to go into online) but these experiences never once put even the thought in my head of taking a baseball bat and beating a homeless man to death. No, these boys were privileged and probably spoiled and have absolutely no excuse for their murderous rampage. Blame society? Blame their parents? No, I don't think so... Blame the little sociopaths.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 17, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> Yup, that's why I titled the thread "Young Sociopaths". They have no excuse - excepting that they are rabid dogs. Like many people, I had some pretty bad experiences as a child (which I'm not going to go into online) but these experiences never once put even the thought in my head of taking a baseball bat and beating a homeless man to death. No, these boys were privileged and probably spoiled and have absolutely no excuse for their murderous rampage. Blame society? Blame their parents? No, I don't think so... Blame the little sociopaths.


 I'm going to throw out a prediction here....these kids came from middle or upper-middle class homes.  They grew up spoiled and pampered.  This isn't the result of mistreatment, it's the result of boys who were given everything but discipline, and brought up to believe that they could get away with whatever they wanted.  

Sociopaths are only concerned with one person....themselves, and anyone who has something they want, whether it be money, sex, or someone else's dignity, is a potential victim.  Do we need to understand these types of people?  Of course....and many of us already intimately do.


----------



## Martial Tucker (Jan 17, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I'm going to throw out a prediction here....these kids came from middle or upper-middle class homes. They grew up spoiled and pampered. This isn't the result of mistreatment, it's the result of boys who were given everything but discipline, and brought up to believe that they could get away with whatever they wanted.
> .



I totally agree, and your post is almost word-for-word what I was getting ready to post also.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Jan 17, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I'm going to throw out a prediction here....these kids came from middle or upper-middle class homes. They grew up spoiled and pampered. This isn't the result of mistreatment, it's the result of boys who were given everything but discipline, and brought up to believe that they could get away with whatever they wanted.
> 
> Sociopaths are only concerned with one person....themselves, and anyone who has something they want, whether it be money, sex, or someone else's dignity, is a potential victim. Do we need to understand these types of people? Of course....and many of us already intimately do.


 
Bingo!

The frightening thing is that the only thing that made these particular attacks unique is that they were caught on tape. Unfortunately, sociopathic punks such as our two young heroes (sarcasm), commit attacks such as this everyday throughout the country.


----------



## Flatlander (Jan 17, 2006)

I can understand some of what Odin is saying, insofar as being overrun with violent media in the formative years can desensitize kids to the reality of violence.  In a way, it is somewhat topical insofar as it may contribute to a _portion_ of the _explanation_.  However, it doesn't really speak to the _solution_, as I don't think that desensitization translates directly to actually committing violence.  There are a few twists and intersections in the road between.  Further, senseless violence such as beating on homeless people has less to do with "media conditioning", and has more to do with young adults unable to understand how to behave appropriately, or lawfully, in society.  I agree with J.R..  This is a parenting issue (mind you, how many things aren't?).  I don't know enough about psychology to know if it's actually fixable.  But there's no way anything less than incarceration is warranted here.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 17, 2006)

*



			People who cannot contain their urges to harm (or kill) people repeatedly for no apparent reason are assumed to suffer from some mental illness. However, they may be more cruel than crazy, they may be choosing not to control their urges, they know right from wrong, they know exactly what they're doing, and they are definitely NOT insane, at least according to the consensus of most scholars (Samenow 2004).
		
Click to expand...

 *
*http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/428/428lect16.htm*

*This article pretty clearly sums up why sociopaths are NOT crazy, that their behavior is a concious choice, and it's not possible to treat sociopathology like an 'illness'.  Simply put, the problem isn't something wrong WITH part of them, it's that they themselves are wrong.  *


----------



## MJS (Jan 17, 2006)

Came across this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10880480/from/RL.3/

I found a few interesting points.

1:





> Someone posted a shot from the 1971 film "A Clockwork Orange," a cult classic science fiction account of a depraved gang.* The movie begins with the gang's just-for-kicks clubbing of a homeless man.*


 
Hmmm...looks like they had nothing better to do that night.  I guess nobody goes around beating people up for the fun of it. 

2: 





> Forensic psychologist Harley Stock said he believes friends and family of teenagers who get into something this antisocial would surely notice changes.


 
Yes, you would figure that parents, friends, etc. would notice a behavior change.  Many times though, it goes un-noticed.


----------



## BlueDragon1981 (Jan 17, 2006)

I agree with some of what Odin is saying also...this is not something that just relates to them. It is becoming a problem in today's society.

They happened to do it so they need to be punished. (maybe even beaten the way they beat their victims....but then you can argue two wrongs don't make a right) We should not just ignore the fact that people today grow up with no discipline at all. I have heard you should not hit your child ever....blah blah blah....experts sometimes make things worse. I was brought up with moderate discipline....well in todays standards strick. We sometimes would have something such as a belt used in our discipline. That combined with my martial arts has gave me a good ground for life. Many kids get away with way to much.

Parents (and i'm not making excuses) are whipped in todays society. A dual income is almost a must. Meaning parents are away. People don't sit down for dinner together any more, etc. The financial strain keeps growing. Stress builds and now they have a great deal to worry about....how am i going to keep my house...how can i save to get my kids through school....and the list goes on. So I believe some of them are so down themselves they may not notice.

Should they get punished. Yes they should in my opinion. Should they be given a chance to redeem themselves. Yes they should.


----------



## Odin (Jan 18, 2006)

So you're saying that these kids could not determine that there is a difference between a ring sport, and taking a baseball bat to someone? Come on.

*No it was just to make a point of violence being entertaining.I don't know the kids nor their mental state so I couldn't tell you if they did,the human mind is a complex thing.*

Why does someone need to have a mental inbalance in order to commit a crime? You still have not answered that! Not everyone that commits a crime is mentally disturbed.

*Your right they don't,but then you have two types of crime (well you have more but for argument sake) you have Morally wrong crimes (i.e. rape or murder etc)then you have crimes that go against the government order of things (i.e. tax dodging,credit card fraud etc)....*
*For someone to commit a moral wrong crime there has to be something wrong with them either emotionally or because of illness because everyone knows that killing a man is wrong everyone knows what happens when you do something like that,for you to actively go up to a man and kill him you have to be psychotic HOW COULD YOU BE ANYTHING ELSE?think about it,why has the child done something like that while another kid sits in the park playing football?what is the difference between the two children what went wrong?*
*see you have temporary insanity aswel anger plays apart in this,I believe everyone in this forum has done something really stupid while extremely angry,either physically or verbally which would be totally out of your character,but you still did it,it may not be killing someone fair enough but then when have you been in a situation where you were really anger and had the choice to?now that last point is in no way reference to what happened with them kids its merely to show how fragile a human mind can be and to shake the image of 'evil people' ....I mean say you were having a bad day,you lost your job you came home early and then found your wife in bed with another man,you go crazy but you don't try and kill him instead you storm out the house as you walk down the street a drunken homeless man throws a cabbage at your head....you snap go mad and roundhouse kick him in the head,he falls hits his head on the curb and dies...you don't know this because you walked off....temporary insanity.*



Thats fine, but just remember that it was you who brought up the sport debate, not me! I think what you're ignoring, is the fact that I, as well as many others are bringing up some good points, and you are getting frustrated because people disagree with you. You are looking at this from 1 point of view...your point of view, and you're not interested in what anyone else has to say. This is a debate forum sir. That being said, disagreements are going to happen. It is hard at times to always make sure that the readers are understanding what the posters are saying. That being said, if you can't debate in a friendly fashion, not taking shots or sniping at people, then perhaps this debate is not for you.

*By that I meant im not going to continually explain one point that was made.....or even that was given as an example,it seems pointless to me,sorry dude,and its not that im not interested I just dont see where that's going,forum are hard to read sometimes since you cant tell tone all the time.*

*TO FORUM-->I'LL TAKE THIS TIME TO SAY PEACE TO EVERYONE,I'LL ADMIT I WAS A BIT HARSH YESTERDAY THROUGH A LITTLE BIT OF FRUSTRATION AND ALL SO I THOUGHT I'D SAY SORRY IF I WAS RUDE TO ANYONE(")......saying that though I really need to thank you mjs...after I left work you had winded me up so bad I needed a drink so I thought forget the gym tonight and instead off I went to a bar with a workmate and then proceeded to chat up the bar manager and got her number,managed to get hustled by a girl playing pool and got her number (so I still kinder won) and got the number of this beautiful Mediterranean girl with a bum that would make you cry,so thanks to you dude I've got dates all week.(")thanks man!*


----------



## Odin (Jan 18, 2006)

Again, the vast majority of the population finds sex entertaining. Thank goodness, only a very small portion of the population would find rape entertaining. They are totally different things. Same basic act, but one is consensual, the other is forced. Your logic would tend to excuse the rapist because society finds sex entertaining.

*So you'd have to be not right in the head then to find rape entertaining then right?(")*

Then you have no argument. End of story.

*Why is that end of story?Im hear to see what others think?why would that be the end of story?...hmmmm did you know (quick fact here) that scientist reckon that the only reason that man has evolved so much compare to other species is due to our ability to communicate better then any other creature on earth,its the sharing of information and idea's that has built our world.good or bad.*


----------



## Odin (Jan 18, 2006)

Kreth said:
			
		

> "I do not think it means what you think it means."


 
Thats that dman auto spell check...whoops i didtnt actually mean to use that word.


----------



## Odin (Jan 18, 2006)

This is actually getting amusing. People like watching organized violence because it showcases the best of humanity....physical courage, tenacity, endurance, desire to succeed, and many other positive traits. The average human, however, is able to distinguish between two courageous human beings, who engage in a contest of strength, skill and courage, and two low life jackals who decide that they will showcase their 'strength' by beating homeless men for entertainment. The former represents the best in humanity, the later, the absolute WORST! If the average person understands this, instinctively, why is it that you cannot?

*My point exactly!! why cant there must be something mentaly wrong with them.Thats what Ive been saying all along,if you cant distinguish between the two you must be mentally ill....evil is a man made word,to me it doesnt exist.No one can be plain evil.*
*So now you've agreed with me what would you do?If's someone is mentaly Ill its not really there fault is it?(")*


Oh, I understand perfectly well the mind frame of someone who does this....I deal with them every day. They felt entitled to the sense of power they felt in being able to hurt and humiliate another human being. We call those people 'sociopaths'. They don't have guilt or remorse, they simply FEAR punishment. 

*If they feared punishment.........then why would they do????Obviously they dont.*
*'sense of power'?yuo cant really generalize everyone I dont think thats true,we dont know these kids,we dont know they're lifes we know of one incident!and known of us were actually there,we read it on the interent.*


----------



## modarnis (Jan 18, 2006)

Odin said:
			
		

> 'sense of power'?yuo cant really generalize everyone I dont think thats true,we dont know these kids,we dont know they're lifes we know of one incident!and known of us were actually there,we read it on the interent.[/B]




You are certainly fond of generalizing that they are mentall ill if they commit offenses.  Sgt Mac is correct in his assessment.  While he and I work in different parts of the criminal justice system, we are both all too familiar with the patterns of behavior of predators.  Luckily for me, as a prosecutor, I deal with these jackals after they are arrested, so I have the benefit of knowing what they are when I meet them.  Sgt, and other officers don't have that luxury on the street.
  Criminals are victim selectors.    Whether its the car left at the convenience store with the keys in the ignition, easy access to a persons personal identifiers for identity theft, the old lady with money out in line at the store, or looking for someone physically weaker to assault, rape, torture, or kill, criminals seek the path of least resistance to ply their trade.  

If they were merely in it for the fun of it, why did they choose a homeless guy instead of a bartender, storekeeper, karate school owner etc?  Short answer, they figured a homeless guy, already somewhat powerless in the grand scheme of the system wouldn't fight back.  My further opinion is that they also figured that people would be less likely to believe a homeless guy's story, than upstanding middle class teens


----------



## Martial Tucker (Jan 18, 2006)

Odin said:
			
		

> *So you'd have to be not right in the head then to find rape entertaining then right?(")*



I will agree with your point only this far: Anyone who enjoys a violent crime (NOT to be confused with a violent sport) is in some way "not right in the head". 

HOWEVER: This does not equate to that person somehow being not responsible for their actions. What it does say is that said person is dangerous to society. This is why we have prisons. To protect the majority of the people from the dangerous ones. Why violent people do what they do is of secondary importance to the indisputable fact that they are dangerous to society, and must be controlled.

You have offered nothing but excuses for people who commit violent crimes, but have offered no alternative to inprisonment. Until you come up with an intelligent alternative, there is really nothing more to discuss.
Feel free to go sit in a psychology library and stare at your navel for a few weeks to try to come up with an explanation as to why some people commit violent crimes. While you are there, you might take a moment to be thankful that we do lock up violent people so that you are safer from being attacked while you ponder on all of this.

BTW, while we're at it, let's just release the big cats from all of the local zoos. Sure, they kill people, but they aren't really aware of what they are doing, so they're not responsible, right? I mean, they can't help who they are. Why keep them locked up in a cage? Let's let them all run free while we try to figure out why they are carnivores, and maybe even how we can convert them to herbivores.


----------



## Odin (Jan 18, 2006)

You are certainly fond of generalizing that they are mentall ill if they commit offenses. Sgt Mac is correct in his assessment. While he and I work in different parts of the criminal justice system, we are both all too familiar with the patterns of behavior of predators. 

*Oh really thats interesting,have you ever spoke to the 'predators' (lol) about their crimes?or why they commited them?*
*A question why do you think them kids did such a thing,and you didnt when you was young,listen man I'll be real maybe Im wrong but I beleive things happen,all things happen for a reason,not a mystic reason but a scientifc reason,if you walked through a park and a ball hit your head,the case wouldnt simply be a ball hit your head, it would be a ball hit your head because it was thrown by a boy in your direction because he was trying to throw it to his mate but you were in the way because you didnt notice the ball because you were thinking of what to have for dinner because lastnigght your wife cooked something rubbish because..because you cannot take things skin deep..I just think that maybe we should look at the reasons behind things.who knows though maybe Im wrong.*

Luckily for me, as a prosecutor, I deal with these jackals after they are arrested, so I have the benefit of knowing what they are when I meet them. 

*Innocent until proven guilty hey??dman that statement you just made really worries me.*


Criminals are victim selectors. Whether its the car left at the convenience store with the keys in the ignition, easy access to a persons personal identifiers for identity theft, the old lady with money out in line at the store, or looking for someone physically weaker to assault, rape, torture, or kill, criminals seek the path of least resistance to ply their trade. 
if they were merely in it for the fun of it, why did they choose a homeless guy instead of a bartender, storekeeper, karate school owner etc? Short answer, they figured a homeless guy, already somewhat powerless in the grand scheme of the system wouldn't fight back. My further opinion is that they also figured that people would be less likely to believe a homeless guy's story, than upstanding middle class teens

*You know that game you played as a kid where you would just keep asking someone why? till they couldnt be bothered to answer anymore,try that with your view of 'the preditors' write it down then read it to yourself,just keep asking why the criminal did the crime then ask why again and than why again and see if you come up with anything...people are people man....regardless of what they have done,im not saying dont punish them Im merely asking if anyone could think of an alternative.its not a simple question it doesnt have a simple answer,if it did we would have found it already.*
*You guys are right though I am a very empathic person.Hey maybe Im wrong maybe we should just lock em up and kill them all hey!king kong syndrome lets just destroy anything we dont understand!yeah!*


----------



## modarnis (Jan 18, 2006)

Odin said:
			
		

> Luckily for me, as a prosecutor, I deal with these jackals after they are arrested, so I have the benefit of knowing what they are when I meet them.
> 
> *Innocent until proven guilty hey??dman that statement you just made really worries me.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Kreth (Jan 18, 2006)

Odin, please learn to use the forum's quote function. Your posts are very difficult to read. Now to a couple of your points.


			
				Odin said:
			
		

> I just think that maybe we should look at the reasons behind things.who knows though maybe Im wrong.



These kids commited a violent crime, showing a complete indifference for human life. What possible justification can there be for that?




> Hey maybe Im wrong maybe we should just lock em up and kill them all hey!king kong syndrome lets just destroy anything we dont understand!yeah!


No one is saying "kill them all." Several of us have said that the perpetrators *in this case* should be dealt with swiftly and harshly.


----------



## Odin (Jan 18, 2006)

Kreth said:
			
		

> Odin, please learn to use the forum's quote function. Your posts are very difficult to read. Now to a couple of your points.
> [/size]
> These kids commited a violent crime, showing a complete indifference for human life. What possible justification can there be for that?
> 
> ...




Yeah no worries,i dont know if I said it before I kind of go on this site when i should be working so I tend to just copy and paster stuff rather then using your quote feature,no worries though I'll bare that in mind.

Okay kill them all is abit strong but their is a vibe of lock them up and forget about it...I just think we should not just take nor judge on face value,I dont believe that some people can just be 'plain evil' the human mind is far to complexed then that...now I dont have an answer,I just think more time should go into research to find out how these things happen and then maybe something can be done to spot the signs of a 'violent crimminal' before they reach the justice system....and then there are all my points on the whole everything happend for a reason thing and people behave in ways that have reflected the lives and childhoods.


----------



## Kreth (Jan 18, 2006)

Odin said:
			
		

> Okay kill them all is abit strong but their is a vibe of lock them up and forget about it...I just think we should not just take nor judge on face value,I dont believe that some people can just be 'plain evil' the human mind is far to complexed then that...now I dont have an answer,I just think more time should go into research to find out how these things happen and then maybe something can be done to spot the signs of a 'violent crimminal' before they reach the justice system....and then there are all my points on the whole everything happend for a reason thing and people behave in ways that have reflected the lives and childhoods.


Research is all well and good, but they have commited a crime, and now they should suffer the consequences...


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Jan 18, 2006)

Dude, what makes you think that people ARENT trying to figure out why people do these things. Hell there are so many sociologists, psychologists, councellors, programs, parole, probation, AA, child protective service workers and ON and ON trying to figure out how to reform these broken people that it seems like theyare trying more to "fix" these people than they are worried about putting them back out on the street while they are still "broken". Maybe the cops+lawyers know better than me, but the rate at which these people recommit crimes after they are let out is high. I dont think you have a real argument here. There are lots of people trying to figure out how to fix these people. Perhaps its like SgtMac said, they arent "broken" in the first place, they were just MADE wrong.


----------



## Odin (Jan 18, 2006)

Kreth said:
			
		

> Research is all well and good, but they have commited a crime, and now they should suffer the consequences...


 
hmmmm maybe im wrong then.


----------



## Flatlander (Jan 18, 2006)

Odin said:
			
		

> hmmmm maybe im wrong then.


Well, consider this.  In Canada, our justice system is predicated on a rehabilitation model, as opposed to pure punishment.  We allow that criminals possess the ability to become rehabilitated.  With that in mind, we allow for early parole after one third of the original sentence is served.  We have no capital punishment.  Young offenders names are prohibited from becoming public.  Penalties are light, multiple sentences are usually concurrent rather than consecutive.  

The result is, too many repeat offences, too many career criminals.  Presumably, the system is constantly seeking ways to improve their rehabilitation programs, yet little progress is being made.

So the real question is, where ought our priorities lie?  My opinion is that the safety of society should remain paramount.  I believe that if someone demonstrates an inability to live within the social paramaters set out by the Criminal Code of Canada, they should lose the priviliges of remaining free within that society.

Further, if someone demonstrates, through repeat offences, that they are unable to become rehabilitated (hey, we all bear responsibility for our willingness to grow and learn), then the we need to consider permanently removing them from our streets.  Is there a cost to society for this?  Yes, of course.  Keeping someone in prison for the rest of their life is an expensive undertaking.  Is it a price that we should be prepared to pay?  When we consider the consequences of the alternative, I suggest that indeed there is value in footing that bill.

I think that the right of the ordinary citizen who chooses to live within the parameters of the law to be protected from criminals far outweighs the right of the criminal who chooses to behave inappropriately to reintegrate into society.  Yes, people make mistakes.  But hey, we still bear responsibility for our actions.


----------



## Flatlander (Jan 18, 2006)

Does this mean that we shouldn't examine the "root causes" of why people make bad choices?  No, of course not.  But the answer, I believe, lies within approaching that problem while at the same time ensuring that the public can enjoy their lives without becoming victims.  Both angles need covering, for the betterment of society.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Jan 18, 2006)

My point too. Well said.


----------



## arnisador (Jan 18, 2006)

*Study: Men Enjoy Seeing Bad People Suffer*



> But a new brain-scanning study suggests that when guys see a cheater get a mild electric shock, they don't feel his pain much at all. In fact, they rather enjoy it.
> 
> In contrast, women's brains showed they do empathize with the cheater's pain and don't get a kick out it.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 18, 2006)

Martial Tucker said:
			
		

> Fine....as long as they're locked up while you are looking into it.


The fact that people sit back and revel at the thought of prisoners, in the United States of America, beacon of light for the rest of the world to follow, being sodomized and abused for like crimes is exactly the same mentality that got these homeless men killed. They didn't feel the homeless men deserved humane treatment for being homeless or less than human. Do we view the abusing punks as sub-human? Probably; so, lets bring them to some real pain. ect.
Sean


----------



## Martial Tucker (Jan 18, 2006)

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> The fact that people sit back and revel at the thought of prisoners, in the United States of America, beacon of light for the rest of the world to follow, being sodomized and abused for like crimes is exactly the same mentality that got these homeless men killed. They didn't feel the homeless men deserved humane treatment for being homeless or less than human. Do we view the abusing punks as sub-human? Probably; so, lets bring them to some real pain. ect.
> Sean


First of all, the homeless men that were attacked did nothing to deserve their fate. The attackers did. They made a concious choice to go out and brutally attack helpless people. Huge difference. It's not "the same mentality".

Secondly, since you quoted me, I never said I "revel" in anyone else's pain or discomfort. I view incarceration of violent people as being 90% "keep them off the streets so they don't do it again", vs. 10% "punishment".
For that matter, I'm sure many hard core criminals don't even view inprisonment as punishment. Fine. I just want them locked up so they don't do it again. I would certainly be curious as to why they did what they did. Perhaps we could learn something useful from such knowledge. But, regardless of their motives, they have proven themselves to be dangerous, and to have a total disregard for the law and their fellow citizens, and for that they should not be running free on the streets.

That's all I ever said, and I stand by that statement.


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 18, 2006)

Martial Tucker said:
			
		

> First of all, the homeless men that were attacked did nothing to deserve their fate. The attackers did. They made a concious choice to go out and brutally attack helpless people. Huge difference. It's not "the same mentality".


 
Actually, it is. There are just different justifications for it. 

Mind you, your justifications may indeed be valid and are most definately more "rational" than those of the criminals in question. However, let's not make this into something it's not. It is psychologically necessary to de-humanize others and emotionally distance ourselves from them --- usually with tell-tale labels like "inhuman", "evil", "monster", "filth", "scum", etc. --- in order to internally justify causing them harm.

For an in-depth study into the nature of both victim and perpetrator psychology, I would suggest picking up Roy Baumeister's _Evil: Inside Human Violence and Cruelty_, in which examines the myth of "evil".

Laterz.


----------



## Martial Tucker (Jan 18, 2006)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Actually, it is. There are just different justifications for it.
> 
> Mind you, your justifications may indeed be valid and are most definately more "rational" than those of the criminals in question. However, let's not make this into something it's not.


I'm sorry, but I made a simple, direct statement that the attackers should be locked up, primarily to protect society from their demonstrated violent tendencies. Not sure how that is "making this into something that it is not"




			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> For an in-depth study into the nature of both victim and perpetrator psychology, I would suggest picking up Roy Baumeister's _Evil: Inside Human Violence and Cruelty_, in which examines the myth of "evil".
> 
> Laterz.


heretic, I have read many of your posts in other debates on this forum, and have come away with the feeling that you are both extremely intelligent and highly educated. That's not to say that I've always agreed with you, but I will say that I might just pick up a copy of the book,since you recommend it, just to try to understand your point, and for an apparently different point of view. Suffice it to say though, my attitude towards incarceration is very "centrally held".


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 18, 2006)

Martial Tucker said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but I made a simple, direct statement that the attackers should be locked up, primarily to protect society from their demonstrated violent tendencies.


 
On that much, we can agree. 



			
				Martial Tucker said:
			
		

> heretic, I have read many of your posts in other debates on this forum, and have come away with the feeling that you are both extremely intelligent and highly educated. That's not to say that I've always agreed with you, but I will say that I might just pick up a copy of the book,since you recommend it, just to try to understand your point, and for an apparently different point of view.



Good times. 

Laterz.


----------



## Akashiro Tamaya (Jan 18, 2006)

Plain and simple Justice  !   Hang em high !  those pychoes that preys on the innocents.  You don't need to stinking phycology or "roots" to determine why they kill and prey on the innocents.  An eye for an eye !


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 18, 2006)

Akashiro Tamaya said:
			
		

> Plain and simple Justice ! Hang em high ! those pychoes that preys on the innocents. You don't need to stinking phycology or "roots" to determine why they kill and prey on the innocents. An eye for an eye !


Yeah and those homeless people feeding off those that work for a living. They Know they can prey on "us". Something should be done about them too... the stinkin' drunks! The Tax money spent trying to help them is worth more than most of their lives: Eye For an Eye!.. and not the biblical call for restraint but the cruel misunderstanding will suffice for those bums!
Sean


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Jan 18, 2006)

So we'll stop putting them in prison and let them all stay at your place.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Jan 18, 2006)

No such thing as Evil? Is it better to torture a child, or to hug that child?

Keep peddling your anti-religion ****.


> A recent review of several studies suggests that spirituality is linked with low suicide rates, less alcohol and drug abuse, less criminal behavior, fewer divorces and higher marital satisfaction (Religion and Clinical Practice, 1996).


----------



## Akashiro Tamaya (Jan 18, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> Is it better to torture a child, or to hug that child?


 
Depends,  is the child a murderer ?  Tortured No !  Executed maybe !


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 18, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> No such thing as Evil? Is it better to torture a child, or to hug that child?


 
Appeal To Emotion

It should also be noted that a rejection of moral relativism is not an affirmation of moral absolutism. This is what is referred to as a False Dilemma.



			
				Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> Keep peddling your anti-religion ****.



To claim I am "anti-religion" is completely absurd, given my posting history on MartialTalk. I regularly quote mystics and luminaries from both contemplative Christianity and Mahayana Buddhism.

It should be noted, however, that there are significant correlations between traditional religion and social persecution, at least on the part of the laity. Specifically, Christians demonstrated overall higher degrees of prejudice than non-Christians and traditional Christians demonstrated overall higher degrees of prejucide than liberal Christians.

Of course, this is just correlation. It tells us nothing about causation.

Laterz.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Jan 18, 2006)

arnisador said:
			
		

> *Study: Men Enjoy Seeing Bad People Suffer*



Guys also get laughs out of giving each other wedgies, seeing guys get hit in the groin, watching people slip and slide on a patch of ice gets a chuckle, the three stooges. Drawing some conclusion that the criminal justice system is flawed because guys laugh at other people in these situations is a BIG leap.


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 18, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> Guys also get laughs out of giving each other wedgies, seeing guys get hit in the groin, watching people slip and slide on a patch of ice gets a chuckle, the three stooges. Drawing some conclusion that the criminal justice system is flawed because guys laugh at other people in these situations is a BIG leap.


 
I think, perhaps, you may be seeing things.

No one on this thread has advanced such an argument.

Laterz.


----------



## Kacey (Jan 18, 2006)

Do I think that what these kids did was criminal and inexcusable?  Most definitely.  Do I think that the reason why they committed this heinous act should be investigated, and possibly have a bearing on the consequences of their behavior?  Yes - because WHY children (or adults, for that matter) would perform such acts is important, not because it excuses it, but because it explains it, at least from the perspective of the perpetrators, and can help dictate what form the consequences should take (e.g. straight jail time, juvenile detention, commitment to a psychiatric facility, etc.) and may identify others of their peer group who may have the same impules.  Also, I think it is necessary to understand why they did this, because understanding why they did it may lead to preventing others from doing the same thing in the future.  

Punishment is not working as a deterrent in this country, and remediation programs are often not researched based, may be effective because of the personality of the person administering them, do not follow participants once they leave the program, as well as other issues.  Education is the key to reducing crimes of all types:  education about the benefits of avoiding crime in the long run, about the effects on victims of crimes, and so on, but unfortunately, such education is not a priority in the face of other issues.  This type of crime is often a societal, rather than individual issue, and prevention is long-term and must be addressed at the societal level; there is no quick fix.  People see crimes occur, and want to see immediate results (jail, fines, community service, etc.), but punitive programs are not working.  A new, effective way to address such issues must be found, and it needs to be universal and begun at early ages... unfortunately, long-term projects requiring long-term funding are not popular with people who want to see quick fixes - which many people incarceration to be.  

According to a professor in a class I took last semester, one state (at least) predicts how much jail space it will need in the future based on rates of behavior problems in 2nd grade students across the state - the money used to project and plan over this time frame could easily be used for prevention instead - but only if people will legislate for it.  It is too late for these boys - they have entered the system, and the system is likely to suck them in and make them unredeemable, if they aren't already - but prevention is the long-term key to reduce, and, potentially avoid, repetition in the future.


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 18, 2006)

Kacey said:
			
		

> Do I think that what these kids did was criminal and inexcusable? Most definitely. Do I think that the reason why they committed this heinous act should be investigated, and possibly have a bearing on the consequences of their behavior? Yes - because WHY children (or adults, for that matter) would perform such acts is important, not because it excuses it, but because it explains it, at least from the perspective of the perpetrators, and can help dictate what form the consequences should take (e.g. straight jail time, juvenile detention, commitment to a psychiatric facility, etc.) and may identify others of their peer group who may have the same impules. Also, I think it is necessary to understand why they did this, because understanding why they did it may lead to preventing others from doing the same thing in the future.
> 
> Punishment is not working as a deterrent in this country, and remediation programs are often not researched based, may be effective because of the personality of the person administering them, do not follow participants once they leave the program, as well as other issues. Education is the key to reducing crimes of all types: education about the benefits of avoiding crime in the long run, about the effects on victims of crimes, and so on, but unfortunately, such education is not a priority in the face of other issues. This type of crime is often a societal, rather than individual issue, and prevention is long-term and must be addressed at the societal level; there is no quick fix. People see crimes occur, and want to see immediate results (jail, fines, community service, etc.), but punitive programs are not working. A new, effective way to address such issues must be found, and it needs to be universal and begun at early ages... unfortunately, long-term projects requiring long-term funding are not popular with people who want to see quick fixes - which many people incarceration to be.
> 
> According to a professor in a class I took last semester, one state (at least) predicts how much jail space it will need in the future based on rates of behavior problems in 2nd grade students across the state - the money used to project and plan over this time frame could easily be used for prevention instead - but only if people will legislate for it. It is too late for these boys - they have entered the system, and the system is likely to suck them in and make them unredeemable, if they aren't already - but prevention is the long-term key to reduce, and, potentially avoid, repetition in the future.


 
Well said, well said. :asian: 

Laterz.


----------



## Akashiro Tamaya (Jan 18, 2006)

The death Penalty is a great deterrent to heinous crimes.  Without it we would have all the John Wayne Gayce,  and the Ted Bundys walking amongst us. One of those two punks is underage.  Chances are he would be set free.  There are countries that would boil these two nutsacks in a heartbeat. 

I don't want to be the Tax payer that is sheltering and feeding the nutbags in prisons because of the numerous appeals which wastes man hours and money.  In other words you want to save a covicted murderer from being annihilated, well then pay for it yourself. 

By treating nutcases in this manner, we are encouraging behavior that will result in a prison sentence. If there is no threat of the death penalty to one who commits a murder, than that person is guaranteed to be provided with a decent living environment until their next parole hearing. 

They are definitely not getting the punishment they deserve.  I say hang im high and dry !!


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 18, 2006)

Akashiro Tamaya said:
			
		

> The death Penalty is a great deterrent to heinous crimes. Without it we would have all the John Wayne Gayce, and the Ted Bundys walking amongst us. One of those two punks is underage. Chances are he would be set free. There are countries that would boil these two nutsacks in a heartbeat.
> 
> I don't want to be the Tax payer that is sheltering and feeding the nutbags in prisons because of the numerous appeals which wastes man hours and money. In other words you want to save a covicted murderer from being annihilated, well then pay for it yourself.
> 
> ...


 
Amusing ideology aside, there are two glaring problems here:

1) State executions cost more than life imprisonments.

2) Capital punishment has not statistically been demonstrated to deter violent crime, most likely because the majority of such crimes are ones of "passion" rather than being premeditated.

Laterz.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 18, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> Guys also get laughs out of giving each other wedgies, seeing guys get hit in the groin, watching people slip and slide on a patch of ice gets a chuckle, the three stooges. Drawing some conclusion that the criminal justice system is flawed because guys laugh at other people in these situations is a BIG leap.


I can't imagine our criminal justice system being flawed in any way.
Sean


----------



## MJS (Jan 18, 2006)

Odin said:
			
		

> So you're saying that these kids could not determine that there is a difference between a ring sport, and taking a baseball bat to someone? Come on.
> 
> *No it was just to make a point of violence being entertaining.I don't know the kids nor their mental state so I couldn't tell you if they did,the human mind is a complex thing.*




*Yes, what you're trying to say.  When I was young, I loved the roadrunner and the coyote.  Of course, the coyote took the majority of the abuse during the entire show.  I found the show entertaining, but still knew better and understood that if I held an explosive in my hand, alot more would happen than my body turning black from the explosion and a circle of birds flying over my head.*



*



			.....saying that though I really need to thank you mjs...after I left work you had winded me up so bad I needed a drink so I thought forget the gym tonight and instead off I went to a bar with a workmate and then proceeded to chat up the bar manager and got her number,managed to get hustled by a girl playing pool and got her number (so I still kinder won) and got the number of this beautiful Mediterranean girl with a bum that would make you cry,so thanks to you dude I've got dates all week.(")thanks man!
		
Click to expand...

* 
:ultracool


----------



## MJS (Jan 18, 2006)

Odin said:
			
		

> Yeah no worries,i dont know if I said it before I kind of go on this site when i should be working so I tend to just copy and paster stuff rather then using your quote feature,no worries though I'll bare that in mind.
> 
> Okay kill them all is abit strong but their is a vibe of lock them up and forget about it...I just think we should not just take nor judge on face value,I dont believe that some people can just be 'plain evil' the human mind is far to complexed then that...now I dont have an answer,I just think more time should go into research to find out how these things happen and then maybe something can be done to spot the signs of a 'violent crimminal' before they reach the justice system....and then there are all my points on the whole everything happend for a reason thing and people behave in ways that have reflected the lives and childhoods.


 
Keep in mind that not everyone is capable to being rehabilitated.  I used to laugh when I would see inmates heading off to AA, Bible study, anger mgt. classes, etc.  First off, I highly doubt that these people were attending these classes before they ended up in jail.  If they were, maybe they would not be there in the first place.  Second, I've seen the same faces over and over.  Rehab does not always work.  If it did, why are they coming back to jail??


----------



## Lisa (Jan 19, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Keep in mind that not everyone is capable to being rehabilitated.  I used to laugh when I would see inmates heading off to AA, Bible study, anger mgt. classes, etc.  First off, I highly doubt that these people were attending these classes before they ended up in jail.  If they were, maybe they would not be there in the first place.  Second, I've seen the same faces over and over.  Rehab does not always work.  If it did, why are they coming back to jail??



I have an uncle who worked in a prison.  After that many years he became a very jaded person when it came to the topic of rehabilitation.  He said seeing the same prisoners come through the system over and over each time claiming to have found god/a 12 step program or whatever made it truly hard to believe that anyone could or would change their ways.  When asked if he ever met one that did, he would say, not in my 30 years experience.


----------



## Martial Tucker (Jan 19, 2006)

Lisa said:
			
		

> I have an uncle who worked in a prison. After that many years he became a very jaded person when it came to the topic of rehabilitation. He said seeing the same prisoners come through the system over and over each time claiming to have found god/a 12 step program or whatever made it truly hard to believe that anyone could or would change their ways. When asked if he ever met one that did, he would say, not in my 30 years experience.



And I wonder how many of those prisoners that he knew in his 30 years of experience were ultimately released early, and then killed someone else......


----------



## MJS (Jan 19, 2006)

Lisa said:
			
		

> I have an uncle who worked in a prison. After that many years he became a very jaded person when it came to the topic of rehabilitation. He said seeing the same prisoners come through the system over and over each time claiming to have found god/a 12 step program or whatever made it truly hard to believe that anyone could or would change their ways. When asked if he ever met one that did, he would say, not in my 30 years experience.


 
Good point Lisa.

IMHO, rehab is only going to work if the person does their part.  Its no different than teaching someone the Martial Arts.  The student comes to the teacher to learn.  The teacher does his/her part, by teaching the student.  Now, its up to the student to do their part, by working on the material on thier own.  If they don't, they have nobody to blame but themselves.  

The programs offered in the jails/prisons, are again IMO, an excuse for the inmate to get out of the cell block for "X" amount of time.  

By constantly seeing repeat offenders, that tells me, that the person has no desire to better themselves.  

Mike


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 19, 2006)

Lisa said:
			
		

> I have an uncle who worked in a prison.  After that many years he became a very jaded person when it came to the topic of rehabilitation.  He said seeing the same prisoners come through the system over and over each time claiming to have found god/a 12 step program or whatever made it truly hard to believe that anyone could or would change their ways.  When asked if he ever met one that did, he would say, not in my 30 years experience.



The environments in prison/jail and the outside are SO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT that this transition from hardened criminal to productive citizen is extremely difficult to make - most reoffend, of course, because three hots and a cot are hard to give up.  Having a record makes getting another productive job with much more than minimum wage and an apartment in the rough part of town damn near impossible.  You can place a safe bet that anyone doing more than two years will most likely have been "institutionalized" and will reoffend.

And I wonder about the quality of in-house rehabilitation programs.  When my ex worked at juvie, the teachers would hardly teach the kids a thing telling them they were worthless pieces of crap and not worth teaching, that once they got into the system they'd likely be in the system to some degree for the rest of their lives, etc.  I'm not saying this happens everywhere. And it must be easy to lose hope when you keep seeing the same faces.

Behaviors are hard to change, especially when no one cares to understand them (most importantly the one who owns them).


----------



## arnisador (Jan 19, 2006)

Akashiro Tamaya said:
			
		

> The death Penalty is a great deterrent to heinous crimes.


 
Evidence for this is at best mixed.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Jan 19, 2006)

A lot of stuff I read on the internet about recidivism talks about how these prisoners got out of prison and couldnt find a job and thats what led them back to crime. While part of me thinks that perhaps if these guys could get a job then they wouldnt reoffend, another part of me thinks that there are plenty of unemployed people who dont commit crimes. It sounds like an excuse to me. You guys didnt fix me and set me loose so its YOUR fault that I robbed, raped, did drugs and so on. Theres a big piece of personal responsibility that seems to be missing. I dont know, just what is rehab supposed to be? I see a lot of "we dont put enough into rehab" but I cant find much that explains what an effective program is supposed to have.


----------



## jdinca (Jan 19, 2006)

Akashiro Tamaya said:
			
		

> The death Penalty is a great deterrent to heinous crimes.


 
Sorry, not the way it's currently enforced. Someone sentenced to death knows that they have 15-20 years before it happens, and they may get a reduced sentence during that time.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 19, 2006)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Evidence for this is at best mixed.


That is completely untrue. In fact the opposite is true. Scucidal people will often times use the state as a method of killing themselves and making a big name for them selves, or take away the the people they feel are a threat to their victim mentality all in the same fell swoop. It is why you constantly hear them beg for death when captured. Its not because they feel they have done something wrong, but because they are completely overwhelmed by their lives and are to cowardly take the initiative and to selfish to spare us all the drama. 
Sean


----------



## Akashiro Tamaya (Jan 19, 2006)

It amazes me that  felons finds "god" while incarcerated or on death row.  Why could they not seek "god" while free, no wait ! I know why because they are too busy doing the deeds they thought they could get away with.


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 19, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> The environments in prison/jail and the outside are SO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT that this transition from hardened criminal to productive citizen is extremely difficult to make - most reoffend, of course, because three hots and a cot are hard to give up. Having a record makes getting another productive job with much more than minimum wage and an apartment in the rough part of town damn near impossible. You can place a safe bet that anyone doing more than two years will most likely have been "institutionalized" and will reoffend.
> 
> And I wonder about the quality of in-house rehabilitation programs. When my ex worked at juvie, the teachers would hardly teach the kids a thing telling them they were worthless pieces of crap and not worth teaching, that once they got into the system they'd likely be in the system to some degree for the rest of their lives, etc. I'm not saying this happens everywhere. And it must be easy to lose hope when you keep seeing the same faces.
> 
> Behaviors are hard to change, especially when no one cares to understand them (most importantly the one who owns them).


 
Bingo. :asian:


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 19, 2006)

Akashiro Tamaya said:
			
		

> It amazes me that felons finds "god" while incarcerated or on death row. Why could they not seek "god" while free, no wait ! I know why because they are too busy doing the deeds they thought they could get away with.


Felons are not stupid they know they will eventually be caught and executed for their crimes. Its part of the reason they are committing them.
Sean


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 19, 2006)

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> The fact that people sit back and revel at the thought of prisoners, in the United States of America, beacon of light for the rest of the world to follow, being sodomized and abused for like crimes is exactly the same mentality that got these homeless men killed. They didn't feel the homeless men deserved humane treatment for being homeless or less than human. Do we view the abusing punks as sub-human? Probably; so, lets bring them to some real pain. ect.
> Sean


 Now, you're being a bit judgemental toward prisoners who sodomize other prisoners.  Perhaps we should understand them more. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





I find it ironic and amusing when I hear someone defend criminals, by attacking the criminal behavior of their fellows.  Of course there's crime and violence in prisons.....It's full of criminals.  That's more proof they shouldn't be on the streets.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 19, 2006)

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> Felons are not stupid they know they will eventually be caught and executed for their crimes. Its part of the reason they are committing them.
> Sean


 Please....criminals commit crime because, at least in western society, it's low-cost.  The odd's of being caught for a particular crime are low.  The odd's of being convicted if you get caught committing a particular crime are low.  The odd's of actually being severly punished for a crime are law.  The average felon commits multiple offenses for every crime he manages to get caught doing.  He commits many more before being convicted.  If he does manage to go to prison for any given offense, it's but a small part of the overall crimes he's committed.  

They do not 'commit' crimes because of punishment, that's asinine, they commit crimes because of the lack of belief that they will be punished.

I'm amazed that, in order to justify criminal behavior and excuse criminals themselves, some people invent entire realities that don't exist.  I'm more interested in understanding the mentality of criminal excusers than in understanding criminals themselves (as criminals aren't that hard to understand anyway).  It's criminal excusers that really mystify me.  Perhaps they just live in a different reality than the rest of us.  Perhaps there exist ivory towers, wherein they are unable to see reality, and are merely force-fed fantasies by others.  Maybe someone could enlighten me.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 19, 2006)

Martial Tucker said:
			
		

> And I wonder how many of those prisoners that he knew in his 30 years of experience were ultimately released early, and then killed someone else......


 Quite a few.  Also, considering murder isn't the only victimizing crime, it is an absolute certainty that virtually EVERY prisoner released went on to victimize society over and over again.  I live in a community of many thousands of people.  However, when a crime is committed, I can count on two hands the number of likely people who committed it.  They represent a very small segment of society, and virtually ALL of the crime.  They commit hundreds of criminal acts a year, before ever being sent to prison, and then they're only sent for 6 months to a 1 year maximum, and are then released on Parole to commit more crimes.

The criminal excusers are either blind to basic reality, or they themselves identify in some way with criminal behavior and are, as such, more empathetic toward the plight of 'criminals' than society itself.  Perhaps criminal excusing mentalities are simply a by-product of counter-cultural thinking.  Either way, it is fundamentally maladaptive.  It's like empathizing with a tumor, and defending it's rights over the main body.


----------



## arnisador (Jan 20, 2006)

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> Felons are not stupid they know they will eventually be caught and executed for their crimes. Its part of the reason they are committing them.



What?

All felons are suicidal?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 20, 2006)

arnisador said:
			
		

> What?
> 
> All felons are suicidal?


 In that case, the death penalty is simply assisted suicide.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 20, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Now, you're being a bit judgemental toward prisoners who sodomize other prisoners. Perhaps we should understand them more.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Just for your info I'm not defending criminals but attacking your point of view.
Sean


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 20, 2006)

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> Just for your info I'm not defending criminals but attacking your point of view.
> Sean


 In order to attack my point of view (which attacks criminals), you have to defend criminals....so there's really no difference. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




At any rate, you've done a very poor job of doing either.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 20, 2006)

arnisador said:
			
		

> What?
> 
> All felons are suicidal?


I didn't say all felons are scuicidal. I said the death penalty is a popular method of scuicide.
Sean


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 20, 2006)

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> I didn't say all felons are scuicidal. I said the death penalty is a popular method of scuicide.
> Sean


 In that case, we should lump it under doctor assisted suicide and be done with this discussion.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 20, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> In order to attack my point of view (which attacks criminals), you have to defend criminals....so there's really no difference.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Disagreeing with you is defending criminals? That's logic for ya! I question your judgment of poor and fair now of course.
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 20, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> In order to attack my point of view (which attacks criminals), you have to defend criminals....so there's really no difference.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Disagreeing with you is defending criminals? That's logic for ya! I question your judgment of poor and fair now of course.
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 20, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> In order to attack my point of view (which attacks criminals), you have to defend criminals....so there's really no difference.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Disagreeing with you is defending criminals? That's logic for ya! I question your judgment of poor and fair now of course.
Sean


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 20, 2006)

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> Disagreeing with you is defending criminals? That's logic for ya! I question your judgment of poor and fair now of course.
> Sean





			
				Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> Disagreeing with you is defending criminals? That's logic for ya! I question your judgment of poor and fair now of course.
> Sean





			
				Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> Disagreeing with you is defending criminals? That's logic for ya! I question your judgment of poor and fair now of course.
> Sean



I think your button is stuck....unless that was meant as a stuttering diatribe.


----------



## arnisador (Jan 20, 2006)

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> I didn't say all felons are scuicidal. I said the death penalty is a popular method of scuicide.



Could there possibly _be _a less efficient method of suicide? Cigarettes work faster!


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Jan 20, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I'm amazed that, in order to justify criminal behavior and excuse criminals themselves, some people invent entire realities that don't exist. I'm more interested in understanding the mentality of criminal excusers than in understanding criminals themselves (as criminals aren't that hard to understand anyway). It's criminal excusers that really mystify me. Perhaps they just live in a different reality than the rest of us. Perhaps there exist ivory towers, wherein they are unable to see reality, and are merely force-fed fantasies by others. Maybe someone could enlighten me.


 
The way to understand those who defend criminals is to realize that most of these defenders have never had a gun in their face or a knife at their throats. Since I've had both, I do not defend violent criminals in any way - I wan't them removed from society. However, I don't think Touch-of-Death really is defending them, just that he is mistaken in believing that while some inmates, such as Gary Gilmore, for example, wish the death penalty that this is the case for more offenders than a very small minority. I disagree with him here, but don't really see him as a defender of criminals.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 20, 2006)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Could there possibly _be _a less efficient method of suicide? Cigarettes work faster!


Back in the day it was more efficiant. However you bring up an interesting point. Most heavy gamblers are chain smokers. Since its so slow to kill ya scuicidal people generaly are a bit more dramatic.
Sean


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 20, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> The way to understand those who defend criminals is to realize that most of these defenders have never had a gun in their face or a knife at their throats. Since I've had both, I do not defend violent criminals in any way - I wan't them removed from society. However, I don't think Touch-of-Death really is defending them, just that he is mistaken in believing that while some inmates, such as Gary Gilmore, for example, wish the death penalty that this is the case for more offenders than a very small minority. I disagree with him here, but don't really see him as a defender of criminals.


 Claiming that they are committing crime because of the death penalty, and equating it with suicide, is a backhanded (and quite bizarre) attempt to declare it mental illness.  

Criminals do not wish to get caught, and Gilmore only wanted to be executed.....because he really didn't have a choice.  The mindset at that point is to assert some control over the process by declaring yourself ready, and picking the method of execution.

At any rate, it's hard to tell what Touch is advocating, as his logic is a bit erratic, starting with the idea that 'crime is suicide'.  Perhaps he could clarify that point.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 20, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I think your button is stuck....unless that was meant as a stuttering diatribe.


If that is what it takes. Again I think the criminal justice system is flawed. Criminals are still bad guys.
Sean


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 20, 2006)

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> If that is what it takes. Again I think the criminal justice system is flawed. Criminals are still bad guys.
> Sean


 Takes to accomplish what?  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Also, our system is flawed....but it's primarily because it's not a 'criminal justice system'.  We have a 'legal system'.  There is a difference.  One involves justice and the truth, the other involves attorneys and court room maneuvering.  As long as we have a system dominated by attorneys, it will rarely be just, and it will hardly ever be about truth.

Of course what ANY of that has to do with 'crime is suicide' I really don't know.  Perhaps you could elaborate.


----------



## Martial Tucker (Jan 20, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Also, our system is flawed....but it's primarily because it's not a 'criminal justice system'. We have a 'legal system'. There is a difference. One involves justice and the truth, the other involves attorneys and court room maneuvering. As long as we have a system dominated by attorneys, it will rarely be just, and it will hardly ever be about truth.



This pretty much sums up the root of the problem. 
Yes, our legal system was created with noble principles and the premise that we are innocent until proven guilty, and we have a right to legal representation when accused. It has turned into a game of influence and negotiation.


----------



## Kreth (Jan 20, 2006)

Prison isn't exactly a deterrent these days. Hell, many prisoners have more cable channels than I do. 
When I was in the Marines, a member of my unit was jailed in Okinawa for assaulting a local. He was kept in a cage which was not tall enough for him to fully stand, nor long enough to lay fully prone. He was allowed out for 1 hour each day, for exercise. Now *that's* a deterrent.


----------



## MJS (Jan 20, 2006)

Kreth said:
			
		

> Prison isn't exactly a deterrent these days. Hell, many prisoners have more cable channels than I do.
> When I was in the Marines, a member of my unit was jailed in Okinawa for assaulting a local. He was kept in a cage which was not tall enough for him to fully stand, nor long enough to lay fully prone. He was allowed out for 1 hour each day, for exercise. Now *that's* a deterrent.


 
I agree!! And IMHO, that is the way *all* prisons/jails should be.  The facility where I worked was an in-take facility.  There are 3 in the state.  Basically, its the in-between place until they're sentenced.  That being said, there was a constant batch of people coming in on a daily basis, right from the street.  They were allowed to come out to the dayroom to eat and then went back to their cell.  I worked 4-12, so at 6:30 pm. they were allowed back out for the next *4 hrs!!!!* 4 hrs. to watch tv, play board games, make a phone call, shower, recreation, etc.  

So to summarize...they commit a crime, get caught, and really have it no harder than when they were out.  They have a roof over their head, food, tv...all the comforts of home.  IMO, 1 hr. a day is all they should get.  In that hour time, is when the shower, phone call, rec. etc, should be done.  Thats it!  To me, what they currently get, is not a deterrent.

Mike


----------



## Akashiro Tamaya (Jan 20, 2006)

Singapore might be a great model for crime and punishment"

Here's a chart that would sent you straight to their S&M parlor:

http://www.corpun.com/sgjur2.htm


Here's what satidfied customers has to say:

http://www.corpun.com/singfeat.htm#experience


The whole procedure:

http://www.corpun.com/singfeat.htm


Gee, I wonder how our street artist Michael Fay is doing ?


----------



## MJS (Jan 20, 2006)

Akashiro Tamaya said:
			
		

> Singapore might be a great model for crime and punishment"
> 
> Here's a chart that would sent you straight to their S&M parlor:
> 
> ...


 
Well, I for one, would certainly think twice before commiting a crime, if I knew that I face the chance of getting hit with a cane.  Don't think we'll see something like that in the US though.  The ACLU, AI and any of the other groups out there that seem to care more about the well being of the criminal than the victim, would certainly have to step in and add their .02

Mike


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 21, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Well, I for one, would certainly think twice before commiting a crime, if I knew that I face the chance of getting hit with a cane. Don't think we'll see something like that in the US though. The ACLU, AI and any of the other groups out there that seem to care more about the well being of the criminal than the victim, would certainly have to step in and add their .02
> 
> Mike


 The problem is the sociological view of crime which renders criminals not responsible for criminal behavior.  As the theory goes, criminals are a victim of social forces, which compel them to commit crime.  As such, it is inhumane to actually require them to be responsible for their actions.  Specifically, you have the Marxians who believe all crime is a product of economic disparity.

Of course, all of this flies in the face of reality, but who ever let that get in the way of a good sociological theory.


----------



## Flatlander (Jan 21, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Specifically, you have the Marxians who believe all crime is a product of economic disparity.


Is this really the Marxist position?  Sort of ignores the faulty wiring that some people come with, doesn't it?  What's the assumption here, that all humans are inherently good, kind people?  *Guffaw, snort* *slapping knee*


----------



## arnisador (Jan 21, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> The problem is the sociological view of crime which renders criminals not responsible for criminal behavior.  As the theory goes, criminals are a victim of social forces, which compel them to commit crime.  As such, it is inhumane to actually require them to be responsible for their actions.  Specifically, you have the Marxians who believe all crime is a product of economic disparity.
> 
> Of course, all of this flies in the face of reality



Surely crime rises when poverty increases? Surely the rise in crim in N.O. after the hurricane is best explained sociologically? One can believe that social forces--including peer pressure--increase crime in general, while still believing that all of us have a moral responsibility to resist it.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 21, 2006)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> Is this really the Marxist position? Sort of ignores the faulty wiring that some people come with, doesn't it? What's the assumption here, that all humans are inherently good, kind people? *Guffaw, snort* *slapping knee*


 That is the assumption.  Marxian criminal theory is that crime is the result of poverty and wealth inequality, period.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 21, 2006)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Surely crime rises when poverty increases? Surely the rise in crim in N.O. after the hurricane is best explained sociologically? One can believe that social forces--including peer pressure--increase crime in general, while still believing that all of us have a moral responsibility to resist it.


 Certain social forces do effect criminal behavior, though the link between poverty and violent crime is not clear cut or self-evident.  Though some crimes are poverty related (such as theft) violent crime shows no clear link with poverty.

The problem with many sociological theories, however, is that they leap to a conclusion not supported by the evidence....That crime is a product of forces outside the control of the criminal. 

The problem is that it's been shown, fairly conclusively, that the most effective crime control models are those that remove criminals from society.  It's been shown again and again that, while crime may be triggered by certain sociological phenomenon, most criminals are inherently different than the average person.  There IS such thing as a criminal, who is prone to commit criminal behavior.  Removing that individual from society reduces crime more effectively than any other method.


----------



## MJS (Jan 25, 2006)

Saw this in todays paper.

http://www.courant.com/hc-beating0125.artjan25,0,1633590.story

Copycats or just more punks that have nothing better to do than beat someone up?

Mike


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 26, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Saw this in todays paper.
> 
> http://www.courant.com/hc-beating0125.artjan25,0,1633590.story
> 
> ...


 I think the 'Bum Fights' phenomenon has a lot to do with the copy-cats.


----------



## Odin (Jan 26, 2006)

this is a random question but relates to this topic......why is it wrong to kill?and why is it wrong to steal?

(do not think i beleive it is not,i just had this debate on another forum and the answers were interesting to say the least)


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 26, 2006)

Odin said:
			
		

> this is a random question but relates to this topic......why is it wrong to kill?and why is it wrong to steal?
> 
> (do not think i beleive it is not,i just had this debate on another forum and the answers were interesting to say the least)


 Because allowing either unchecked would mean the destruction of civilization, and we'd all be thrown back in to living in a pre-civilized brutal existence.

Without laws against some basically universally accepted wrongs, we couldn't live together.


----------



## Odin (Jan 26, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Because allowing either unchecked would mean the destruction of civilization, and we'd all be thrown back in to living in a pre-civilized brutal existence.
> 
> Without laws against some basically universally accepted wrongs, we couldn't live together.


 
How can that be true when a civerlization is formed through killing in the first place.ie

Rome
Greece
Great britain 
USA
Ottoman

All the above empires used or still use killing as a means to continue their civerlization.same for stealing.


----------



## Martial Tucker (Jan 26, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Because allowing either unchecked would mean the destruction of civilization, and we'd all be thrown back in to living in a pre-civilized brutal existence.
> 
> Without laws against some basically universally accepted wrongs, we couldn't live together.




Exodus 20:13-15.... Pretty straightforward


----------



## Flatlander (Jan 26, 2006)

This line of discussion isn't really on topic.  If you'd like to discuss them further, please begin a new thread.


----------



## Odin (Jan 26, 2006)

Martial Tucker said:
			
		

> Exodus 20:13-15.... Pretty straightforward


 
Oh the bible?does it say that in the quran?(")


----------



## Odin (Jan 26, 2006)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> This line of discussion isn't really on topic. If you'd like to discuss them further, please begin a new thread.


 
theres a point to all this trust me.


----------



## Muay Thai Knee (Jan 26, 2006)

Whether it's ring violence or street violence. It all boils down to the same point. People find violence entertaining. There is something inherent in all of us that we take joy out of causing others pain. Slapstick humour is yet another example of this. When they were beating that homeless guy to death. They were probably experiencing the same buzz a professional fighter gets in the ring. It is merely a case of us labelling it as something different, so we can make it acceptable to our own individual moral codes.

We can argue that both fighters have agreed to it, but would this not make them both sociopaths, for revelling in the partaking of violence? We could argue that the homeless man didn't get a choice? However noone here seemed to care he was homeless until he was dead. then there are cries of "What a horrible crime" and "Tragedy". 

The fundamental point, I think, that Odin was trying to make is really quite simple. Without understanding something fully how can we make a judgement on it? We can call these kids sociopaths and lock them up and throw away the key. This would stop them doing it again, but it doesn't stop it ever happening again. Why do things like this happen? Why don't we all think of a way to find out rather than resort to losing our tempers with one another?

As for the civilization question. My definition of a civilization would be a society that did not require police. If we were truly civilized we wouldn't need people to enforce "law" and "order". Civilization is a word we use to make us feel safer than we actually are.


----------



## Kacey (Jan 26, 2006)

There are, I think, several issues going on here.

First, raising children is the responsibility of the community.  The people most immediately responsible, of course, are the parents; unfortunately, many parents allow others to raise their children:  schools, media, gangs, and so on.  Therefore, responding to children who behave inappropriately is also the responsibility of society.  The response to the situation under discussion has yet to be determined.

Second, society exists to protect its members.  Our society, along with many others, has failed in this responsibility.  As the density of human beings increases, the difficulty in providing this protection also increases.  Our society has developed safeguards intended to ensure that the guilty, and *only* the guilty, are punished for their crimes; unfortunately, given the difficulties inherent in the system, the guilty may go free, and the innocent may be punished.  Those who are more familiar with the system are better able to manipulate it for their own ends.  In addition, attempts to streamline and/or standardize the system have led to sentencing guidelines that decrease or remove societal retribution for some offenses, while increasing societal retribution for other offenses well out of proportion (California's 'three strikes' law has created some interesting problems).

Third, many people "walk the walk, but don't talk the talk" - that is, they live by the theory that others should do as they say, but not as they do.  This can be small things - parents requiring children to wear seat belts but not wearing them themselves, for example - the problem lies in the example being set, and the precedent contained within it.  Once a family member, peer, media example, or any other facet of society convinces another that small omissions or commissions of wrong-doing are acceptable, larger ones may become less repugnant than previously, beginning a slide down a slippery slope, as the potential rewards begin to overshadow the potential punishments.  How many parents have told their children they must obey the law, as they run red lights and speed down the freeway?  What impact does that type of double message have on children?

There is not enough information in the article to determine *why *these children committed these atrocities.  I know some people will say that *why* is not important in the fact of the actions themselves, but I say that it is - to determine if there was premeditation, substance abuse, how/why the target was chosen, medical conditions, a whole host of possible causes.  There are several reasons I think that the reasons are important - one, if society cannot determine *why *such events occur, then *prevention* becomes much more difficult; two, while I believe that nothing can excuse these boys' actions, their reasons should be used to help determine the appropriate form of societal retribution (e.g. psychiatric treatment, juvenile detention, adult jail, length of time, etc.); and three, it is necessary to understand how we, as a society, can reach a point where members of the society find it acceptable to make choose to commit such negative actions against other members of society.

We should be outraged by this - and more, we should be working, as a society, to provide remediation for offenders and prevention for everyone else.  Jail is not remediation - it is punishment.  Too many offenders come out of jails possessing no skills with which to do anything but reoffend.  While the ultimate goal should be prevention, remediation is necessary as well - and until those two facets are in place, the problem will remain, and, unfortunately, is likely to continue to grow.


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 26, 2006)

Kacey said:
			
		

> There are, I think, several issues going on here.
> 
> First, raising children is the responsibility of the community. The people most immediately responsible, of course, are the parents; unfortunately, many parents allow others to raise their children: schools, media, gangs, and so on. Therefore, responding to children who behave inappropriately is also the responsibility of society. The response to the situation under discussion has yet to be determined.
> 
> ...


 
Well said, Kacey. :asian: :asian: :asian:


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 27, 2006)

Odin said:
			
		

> How can that be true when a civerlization is formed through killing in the first place.ie
> 
> Rome
> Greece
> ...


 You entirely miss the point.  Civilizations reserve for themselves the power to kill, that's how they exist.  If individuals were to decide that they, as individuals, had the power to kill at will, there would never exist societies.

Moreover, civilizations reserve the power to kill, because some individuals still try and assert their own right to kill at will.  If civilizations didn't authorize the killing of individuals who violate certain laws, then there would be no way of controlling individual criminals.  

All the civilizations you named, used killing to assert and maintain control over individuals.  Perhaps you should study the subject further, and you'll understand the difference between an individual that reserves the decision to kill completely to himself (a criminal) and someone who is authorized, under certain socially acceptable conditions to kill (such as a soldier).  

It is that social authority that allows society to remain cohesive.  The breakdown of society if the state didn't reserve those actions solely for it's self would destroy society, and revert us to primative brigandage.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 27, 2006)

Muay Thai Knee said:
			
		

> Whether it's ring violence or street violence. It all boils down to the same point. People find violence entertaining. There is something inherent in all of us that we take joy out of causing others pain. Slapstick humour is yet another example of this. When they were beating that homeless guy to death. They were probably experiencing the same buzz a professional fighter gets in the ring. It is merely a case of us labelling it as something different, so we can make it acceptable to our own individual moral codes.


 Wrong.  I get enjoyment out of watching two combatants fight each other.  I, however, am disgusted when watching an unprovoked attack against an innocent person.  

Moreover, unlike watching two trained and talented fighters I admire, compete in a ring, when I watch brigands attacking a defenseless person, for their own sick sociopathic pleasure, it makes me physically angry.  I want to to break them in to little pieces.  When I watch a gang of youths attack a homeless man, I want to be the man they inadvertently attacked, so that I can, in turn, administer a beating to them for their efforts.  

That's my emotional response, which is ENTIRELY different than watching two voluntary participants in fight.  As I can guarantee i'm not unique in that, especially among martial artists, I think that indicates that there is a clear distinction inherent in the minds of people as to 'what is pleasureable' and what is not in the form of violence.



			
				Muay Thai Knee said:
			
		

> We can argue that both fighters have agreed to it, but would this not make them both sociopaths, for revelling in the partaking of violence? We could argue that the homeless man didn't get a choice? However noone here seemed to care he was homeless until he was dead. then there are cries of "What a horrible crime" and "Tragedy".


 No, that would presume you entirely misunderstand the definition of 'sociopath'.  Some fighters might be classified as sociopaths, but the vast majority merely enjoy the competition.  Most fighters respect their opponents, and most would not intentionally harm them any more than necessary to win the fight.  Moreover, they aren't cowards.  I think the craven cowardice of it all is part of what revolts us.  

If these men wanted a 'fight' they could have went to any bar in the city.  There are hard men who would ablige them in a moments notice.  Hell, i'd even watch.  But they didn't want a 'fight', they wanted to hurt someone, to make them feel pain, so they could feel pleasure.



			
				Muay Thai Knee said:
			
		

> The fundamental point, I think, that Odin was trying to make is really quite simple. Without understanding something fully how can we make a judgement on it? We can call these kids sociopaths and lock them up and throw away the key. This would stop them doing it again, but it doesn't stop it ever happening again. Why do things like this happen? Why don't we all think of a way to find out rather than resort to losing our tempers with one another?


 Understand?  Oh, I think most of us understand perfectly what was in the minds of these sociopaths.  'Judgement'?  Hah.  If someone came to murder you and your family, are you saying you'd have to 'understand' their motive before defending yourself?  I hardly think so.  Their actions would be enough for you to 'judge them'.

What, exactly, do you want to find out?  What makes two little cowards get sick pleasure from causing pain to another human being?  It's really very simple.  They are defective human beings.  They lack some basic ability to form empathy.  They decided it was their right to extract from another human being, one basically defenseless, what they wanted....which is POWER.  They wanted the power of pain.  They wanted to make him hurt.  Now, I hope this helps clear things up.



			
				Muay Thai Knee said:
			
		

> As for the civilization question. My definition of a civilization would be a society that did not require police. If we were truly civilized we wouldn't need people to enforce "law" and "order". Civilization is a word we use to make us feel safer than we actually are.


 But the very thing you said you 'didn't understand' is why we aren't civilized.  That the world has people like these men in it is the very reason we have police.  However, police and prisons have ensured that these type of people are rarer and rarer in our midst.  We become more civilized every day that we have less and less of these kind of men.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 27, 2006)

Kacey said:
			
		

> We should be outraged by this - and more, we should be working, as a society, to provide remediation for offenders and prevention for everyone else. Jail is not remediation - it is punishment. Too many offenders come out of jails possessing no skills with which to do anything but reoffend. While the ultimate goal should be prevention, remediation is necessary as well - and until those two facets are in place, the problem will remain, and, unfortunately, is likely to continue to grow.


 Rehabilitation rarely works.  Punishment, likewise, doesn't work.  The only crime control model that has proven itself to actually reduce crime, is the incarceration model.  Removing criminals from society works.  I know, that violates everything we want to believe.  

We want to believe there is a solution that will suddenly make people stop being criminals, we want to believe there's a pill, or a set of words quoted in 'therapy' or some other sort of 'solution', but the reality is that many criminals will reoffend no matter how many GED programs, substance abuse programs, psycho-therapy programs, work-release programs, and assistance programs we create.  Crime drops when they are in jail, and raises when they are released.  

We can help some types of criminals more than others, but some will continue to commit crimes no matter what.  What we need to focus on, rather than understanding how to 'fix' criminals, is to predict better which ones CAN be rehabilitated.  Those that can't should be incarcerated for life.

I've been working with criminals for a long time.  I've seen them start as juveniles and work their way to adulthood, in and out of prison.  There is no hope for many of them.  Once they adopt criminal thinking as their thought process, they are criminals for life.  

There will be someone offended by what I just typed.  They will tell me that I just want to 'throw people in jail and throw away the key', they will claim that i'm wrong for not desiring to understand the criminal.  They will proclaim that there must be, SIMPLY MUST be a way of treating criminal behavior like a disease.  One thing they won't do, however, is give one workable answer.  They will, therefore, spend a lot of effort....simply reinforcing my point.


----------



## MJS (Jan 27, 2006)

Muay Thai Knee said:
			
		

> Whether it's ring violence or street violence. It all boils down to the same point. People find violence entertaining. There is something inherent in all of us that we take joy out of causing others pain. Slapstick humour is yet another example of this. When they were beating that homeless guy to death. They were probably experiencing the same buzz a professional fighter gets in the ring. It is merely a case of us labelling it as something different, so we can make it acceptable to our own individual moral codes.


 
There is still a very strong difference between what we're seeing in a sport event held in a ring and someone getting beaten on the street.  The ring fight will stop before serious or fatal injuries occur, whereas the street..well, who is going to stop that?




> The fundamental point, I think, that Odin was trying to make is really quite simple. Without understanding something fully how can we make a judgement on it? We can call these kids sociopaths and lock them up and throw away the key. This would stop them doing it again, but it doesn't stop it ever happening again. Why do things like this happen? Why don't we all think of a way to find out rather than resort to losing our tempers with one another?


 
I'm listening.  What are some of your suggestions?



> As for the civilization question. My definition of a civilization would be a society that did not require police. If we were truly civilized we wouldn't need people to enforce "law" and "order". Civilization is a word we use to make us feel safer than we actually are.


 
Unfortunately, the only place where we would see a perfect society, no crime, etc. is on fantasy island.

Mike


----------



## Muay Thai Knee (Jan 27, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> We can help some types of criminals more than others, but some will continue to commit crimes no matter what. What we need to focus on, rather than understanding how to 'fix' criminals, is to predict better which ones CAN be rehabilitated. Those that can't should be incarcerated for life.
> 
> I've been working with criminals for a long time. I've seen them start as juveniles and work their way to adulthood, in and out of prison. There is no hope for many of them. Once they adopt criminal thinking as their thought process, they are criminals for life.


 
There are many different types of criminals. People commit crimes for different reasons. yet we only really have one way of dealing with all of them. I agree that a very large proportion of people become indoctrinated into their ways and reoffend. With the exception of a very few complete psycho's I do feel that society creates a lot of these problems. I think the key is in not allowing these "sociopaths" to be created in the first place.



			
				MJS said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, the only place where we would see a perfect society, no crime, etc. is on fantasy island.


 
Just because something doesn't exist. Doesn't mean we should not strive to attain it.


----------



## modarnis (Jan 27, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Rehabilitation rarely works.  Punishment, likewise, doesn't work.  The only crime control model that has proven itself to actually reduce crime, is the incarceration model.  Removing criminals from society works.  I know, that violates everything we want to believe.
> 
> We want to believe there is a solution that will suddenly make people stop being criminals, we want to believe there's a pill, or a set of words quoted in 'therapy' or some other sort of 'solution', but the reality is that many criminals will reoffend no matter how many GED programs, substance abuse programs, psycho-therapy programs, work-release programs, and assistance programs we create.  Crime drops when they are in jail, and raises when they are released.
> 
> ...




Well put.  Unfortunately for many the the harsh reality of these truths conflict with the noble concepts they prefer to adopt


----------



## MJS (Jan 27, 2006)

Muay Thai Knee said:
			
		

> Just because something doesn't exist. Doesn't mean we should not strive to attain it.


 
I'm listening.  How do you propose we go about this?  IMO, one of the problems is that certain people have no goals, no desire to make anything of themselves, so instead of attempting to turn their life around, they find it easier to rob and steal.  That being said, there will alwys be a need to have people maintain law and order, but again, I'm willing to listen to any suggestions you may have.

Mike


----------



## Muay Thai Knee (Jan 27, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> I'm listening. How do you propose we go about this? IMO, one of the problems is that certain people have no goals, no desire to make anything of themselves, so instead of attempting to turn their life around, they find it easier to rob and steal. That being said, there will alwys be a need to have people maintain law and order, but again, I'm willing to listen to any suggestions you may have.
> 
> Mike


 
I don't think people not having goals is the real reason why people become criminals. In fact I think for the larger part it is the exact opposite. 

Everyone is different. Yet we always try to use a hollistic approach to dealing with every thing.


----------



## MJS (Jan 27, 2006)

Muay Thai Knee said:
			
		

> I don't think people not having goals is the real reason why people become criminals. In fact I think for the larger part it is the exact opposite.


 
No??  Well, lets see.  Many times people commit crimes to support a habit such as drugs.  Much easier to hold up a bank, store, etc. than get a  job and make something of yourself.  Another possibility is wanting to fit in with a certain group of people, such as a gang.  

By the way, I'm still waiting to hear your suggestions.

Mike


----------



## Muay Thai Knee (Jan 27, 2006)

Okay have been busy at work making something out of myself. LOL 



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Wrong. I get enjoyment out of watching two combatants fight each other. I, however, am disgusted when watching an unprovoked attack against an innocent person.


 
Wrong? Why because I disagree with you? Why do ring fighters get a thrill when they land a punch/kick? It is the same feeling. Just a matter of scale. You choose to call it something else other than that which it clearly is. Simply because you don't want to beleive you are capable of "Evil".



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Moreover, unlike watching two trained and talented fighters I admire, compete in a ring, when I watch brigands attacking a defenseless person, for their own sick sociopathic pleasure, it makes me physically angry. I want to to break them in to little pieces. When I watch a gang of youths attack a homeless man, I want to be the man they inadvertently attacked, so that I can, in turn, administer a beating to them for their efforts.


 
The crux of what you just posted there is so oxymoronic. You'd enjoy beating them up right? It would be fun? It would be Just? Whereas if you really cared about the homeless guy you would not have allowed him to be homeless in the first place. If you ever run for public office your slogan could read *Helping people - NO, Revenge - YES.*



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> That's my emotional response, which is ENTIRELY different than watching two voluntary participants in fight. As I can guarantee i'm not unique in that, especially among martial artists, I think that indicates that there is a clear distinction inherent in the minds of people as to 'what is pleasureable' and what is not in the form of violence.


 
What is pleasureable in terms of violence? Please elaborate...



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> What, exactly, do you want to find out? What makes two little cowards get sick pleasure from causing pain to another human being? It's really very simple. They are defective human beings. They lack some basic ability to form empathy. They decided it was their right to extract from another human being, one basically defenseless, what they wanted....which is POWER. They wanted the power of pain. They wanted to make him hurt. Now, I hope this helps clear things up.


 
...and yet you said you wanted to do the same thing to them as it disgusted you. Could one not argue that you wished power over them in retalliation.



			
				MJS said:
			
		

> No?? Well, lets see. Many times people commit crimes to support a habit such as drugs. Much easier to hold up a bank, store, etc. than get a job and make something of yourself. Another possibility is wanting to fit in with a certain group of people, such as a gang.


 
Agreed many times that is the case. Although it is not always the reason. My point was that we have the exact same system of dealing with everyone despite the reasons for crime differing.



			
				MJS said:
			
		

> By the way, I'm still waiting to hear your suggestions.


 
I get the feeling you are more interested in me posting something that you can disect and critique. All the while bringing nothing to the table yourself. It is not an easy question to answer as my definitions of things will not meet yours. Imagine we could start from scratch and define our own model of a society. Of course this idealistic. But without ideals we are forced into the monotony of stagnation. 

First we would need to define what are crimes. Three I would add...

1) It is a crime to let people go hungry or become homeless.
Let's face facts here. Poverty is the largest cause of all crime. 

2) It is a crime to charge money for education. 
Education should be provided to everyone free of charge until the day that they die. I mean why would we deny people the opportunity to better themselves? It would also get rid of a lot of ignorance.


----------



## Kreth (Jan 27, 2006)

I think the difference comes down to this: In the case of a boxing match or UFC fight, etc; the "thrill" comes from athletic competition. Wannabe thugs beating up defenseless homeless men is just sadism.


----------



## Odin (Jan 27, 2006)

Kreth said:
			
		

> I think the difference comes down to this: In the case of a boxing match or UFC fight, etc; the "thrill" comes from athletic competition. Wannabe thugs beating up defenseless homeless men is just sadism.


 
I think muay thai knee was trying to say that the emothion that you would get from striking someone in a ufc ring would be the same as those  boys experienced when they struck the homeless man,in which case there is very little difference.

we adpot situations so that they fit our own moral code is the term I think he used.


----------



## MJS (Jan 27, 2006)

Muay Thai Knee said:
			
		

> > I get the feeling you are more interested in me posting something that you can disect and critique. All the while bringing nothing to the table yourself. It is not an easy question to answer as my definitions of things will not meet yours. Imagine we could start from scratch and define our own model of a society. Of course this idealistic. But without ideals we are forced into the monotony of stagnation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 27, 2006)

Kreth said:
			
		

> I think the difference comes down to this: In the case of a boxing match or UFC fight, etc; the "thrill" comes from athletic competition. Wannabe thugs beating up defenseless homeless men is just sadism.


Actualy the traditional term is proving. Just as military comanders had their men massacre jewish populations as a proving before fighting the Islamic forces at the time of the crusades. Young thugs practice violence on the defenseless to condition themselves for battle against a real foe. Its helps to be a sadist but that is not the underlying motivation.
Sean


----------



## Bigshadow (Jan 27, 2006)

Odin said:
			
		

> ''why constantly shoot oncoming missiles when you can just take out the launcher??''



Because the incoming missiles are an immediate threat that must be dealt with before you can deal with the launcher.


----------



## Martial Tucker (Jan 27, 2006)

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> Actualy the traditional term is proving. Just as military comanders had their men massacre jewish populations as a proving before fighting the Islamic forces at the time of the crusades. Young thugs practice violence on the defenseless to condition themselves for battle against a real foe. Its helps to be a sadist but that is not the underlying motivation.
> Sean



All these kids were "proving" was that they are total cowards with no appreciation of the value of anything, especially human life. I'll bet heavily that in no way were these kids "training" for any real fight or anything else that involves risk by beating the homeless men. That is patently absurd.
They beat these men for kicks, and picked homeless men because they figured no one would miss, or care enough about homeless people to spend much energy investigating the crime. They didn't count on being caught on videotape.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 27, 2006)

Martial Tucker said:
			
		

> All these kids were "proving" was that they are total cowards with no appreciation of the value of anything, especially human life. I'll bet heavily that in no way were these kids "training" for any real fight or anything else that involves risk by beating the homeless men. That is patently absurd.
> They beat these men for kicks, and picked homeless men because they figured no one would miss, or care enough about homeless people to spend much energy investigating the crime. They didn't count on being caught on videotape.


Young males not having anything to prove. That is an interesting way to look at it. I'm not sure its realistic though.
Sean


----------



## Kacey (Jan 27, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Rehabilitation rarely works. Punishment, likewise, doesn't work. The only crime control model that has proven itself to actually reduce crime, is the incarceration model. Removing criminals from society works. I know, that violates everything we want to believe.


 
I don't disagree entirely; however, I think it depends on the *reason *that the crime was committed.  There is a difference, for instance, between someone who steals for the joy of committing a crime, or the joy of "having" things, and the person who steals to feed hungry children.  The former two may well be beyond rehabilitation; the latter would most likely not have to resort to crime if other options for feeding those children become available.

Also, please note that my primary push is for *prevention*.  In one of my graduate classes last semester, the professor pointed out that several states base their projections of jail space on the reported rates of behavioral problems among the state's second grade students.  Rather than using that money to build jails for those second graders to grow into, that money should be used to provide as many of the students as possible with the skills necessary to avoid becoming criminals in the first place - which, ultimately, should reduce the need for jail space.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> We want to believe there is a solution that will suddenly make people stop being criminals, we want to believe there's a pill, or a set of words quoted in 'therapy' or some other sort of 'solution', but the reality is that many criminals will reoffend no matter how many GED programs, substance abuse programs, psycho-therapy programs, work-release programs, and assistance programs we create. Crime drops when they are in jail, and raises when they are released.


 
I have no such belief.  I teach special education in a middle school that is in a low-income, high-crime neighborhood; I have students whose parents have committed nearly every crime on the books; for that matter, I have (or used to have) students who have committed felonies - that's 11-14 year old children, showing off knives and guns at school, stealing cars (not to joy ride, but to fence), committing assaults... how old do they have to be before people like you give up on them, incarcerate them, and then release them knowing nothing but what they learned in jail?



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> We can help some types of criminals more than others, but some will continue to commit crimes no matter what. What we need to focus on, rather than understanding how to 'fix' criminals, is to predict better which ones CAN be rehabilitated. Those that can't should be incarcerated for life.



I think that this depends on the type of crime, and the amount of damage.  As a taxpayer, I resent the amount of my taxes that go to support a justice system than releases criminals who are incapable of any means of support other than Welfare or returning to crime, that does little help released criminals integrate back into society, but freely allows them to return to the situation which led to the criminal activity in the first place.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I've been working with criminals for a long time. I've seen them start as juveniles and work their way to adulthood, in and out of prison. There is no hope for many of them. Once they adopt criminal thinking as their thought process, they are criminals for life.



This is true - there is no hope for some of them.  However, I do know people who have "adopted criminal thinking as their thought process" and yet learned to live within the law.  How do you separate out those who can learn from those who can't?



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> There will be someone offended by what I just typed. They will tell me that I just want to 'throw people in jail and throw away the key', they will claim that i'm wrong for not desiring to understand the criminal. They will proclaim that there must be, SIMPLY MUST be a way of treating criminal behavior like a disease. One thing they won't do, however, is give one workable answer. They will, therefore, spend a lot of effort....simply reinforcing my point.



I'm not offended - I'm saddened by what this says about our society in general.  My only reason for desiring understanding for criminals is to find ways to help them not be criminals any more, and, if that's not possible, to find ways to prevent others from following the same path.


----------



## Martial Tucker (Jan 27, 2006)

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> Young males not having anything to prove. That is an interesting way to look at it. I'm not sure its realistic though.
> Sean


I never said that. Re-read my post. Touch Of Death compared these kids to midieval would-be warriors by implying that they attacked the defenseless homeless men with bats to somehow train/harden themselves for future battles against more formidable opponents. He referred to this as "proving" 
I said they did it for kicks and I believe they would crap in their pants in a fair fight.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 28, 2006)

Muay Thai Knee said:
			
		

> Okay have been busy at work making something out of myself. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 28, 2006)

Odin said:
			
		

> I think muay thai knee was trying to say that the emothion that you would get from striking someone in a ufc ring would be the same as those boys experienced when they struck the homeless man,in which case there is very little difference.


 If that's what Muay Thai was saying, Muay Thai is wrong.  You are claiming that a man who walks in an beats a 2 year old child, is someone morally on the same level as someone who engages in a ring sport?  

It's asinine.  It's faulty logic, and it's quite frankly, based on some pathological thinking.  Although, he does lend us some insight in to the minds of the men who committed this crime.  They would probably make the same argument, so perhaps Muay Thai is inadvertantly giving us a glimpse.



			
				Odin said:
			
		

> we adpot situations so that they fit our own moral code is the term I think he used.


 That's gibberish, it actually means nothing.  Societies determine a basic standard of behavior, that is clear, but pointing it out doesn't really add anything to the argument or justify the beating of a homeless man.  Moreover, the reason socieities have laws, is prevent people from going in to your home, murdering you, stealing your property and raping your wife.  

Are you arguing that the murdering, rapist thieve has as much right to do that as you have to stop him?  I really doubt you'd even make that argument in anything but the most abstract way.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 28, 2006)

Kacey said:
			
		

> I don't disagree entirely; however, I think it depends on the *reason *that the crime was committed. There is a difference, for instance, between someone who steals for the joy of committing a crime, or the joy of "having" things, and the person who steals to feed hungry children. The former two may well be beyond rehabilitation; the latter would most likely not have to resort to crime if other options for feeding those children become available.


 Yes, but we're talking about two men beating a homless man for pleasure, so lets not lose too much sight of the actually context of this discussion.  

Also, in the US in this day and age, people rarely steal to feed their hungry children.  We provide food for hungry children, the state and federal government pay for it.  In fact, the biggest crime involved there is the drug and alcohol addicted parents who SELL foodstamps and their childrens food to BUY drugs and alcohol.  

In theory, I understand your point, but in point of fact, at least as the developed world is concerned, it's a non issue.



			
				Kacey said:
			
		

> Also, please note that my primary push is for *prevention*. In one of my graduate classes last semester, the professor pointed out that several states base their projections of jail space on the reported rates of behavioral problems among the state's second grade students. Rather than using that money to build jails for those second graders to grow into, that money should be used to provide as many of the students as possible with the skills necessary to avoid becoming criminals in the first place - which, ultimately, should reduce the need for jail space.


 I'd be interested in knowing which state this is.  Sounds like a myth.  A little too contrived.  What likely he is referring to, though a bit dishonestly, is that adult behavior can be predicted in second grade.  Prisons do not build that far ahead, however, as in reality prisons are always overbooked as it is.  Further, you can't predict trends in criminal behavior that far away.  What's money, money is not set aside that far in the future.  Prisons are filled as soon as they are built.  So, building them in anticipation of 2nd grade offenders would presume they were built and remained empty waiting.  That isn't the case. 

At any rate, prevention is a nice buzz word, but the sad fact is, you can't 'prevent' all crime.  Not all crime is the result of lack of education, or lack of opportunities, heck, some aren't even from lack of parental discipline (though that plays a HUGE role).  Some people are just born to be criminals.  I know we find that statement distasteful, but i've been dealing with criminals, intimately for well over a decade.  I can spot often spot a child who is going to grow up to be a criminal.  They have a certain quality....or rather, they lack certain qualities, empathy and guilt, for example.

I also assume your graduate degree is in education, am I correct?



			
				Kacey said:
			
		

> I have no such belief. I teach special education in a middle school that is in a low-income, high-crime neighborhood; I have students whose parents have committed nearly every crime on the books; for that matter, I have (or used to have) students who have committed felonies - that's 11-14 year old children, showing off knives and guns at school, stealing cars (not to joy ride, but to fence), committing assaults... how old do they have to be before people like you give up on them, incarcerate them, and then release them knowing nothing but what they learned in jail?


 Old enough to rob, rape steal and murder.....next question.  By the way, nobody 'gave up on them'.  That's a dodge.  You're excusing their behavior, and blaming someone else for it.  No one MADE them commit a crime.  It was this kind of failed sociological thinking in the 1960's and 1970's that lead to the highest crime rates in US history in the 1970's and 1980's.  Crime didn't go DOWN because people thought like you, it SKY ROCKETED.  

Do the research, treating crime like a disease that needs treatment was an unqualified failure.



			
				Kacey said:
			
		

> I think that this depends on the type of crime, and the amount of damage. As a taxpayer, I resent the amount of my taxes that go to support a justice system than releases criminals who are incapable of any means of support other than Welfare or returning to crime, that does little help released criminals integrate back into society, but freely allows them to return to the situation which led to the criminal activity in the first place.


 Again, I agree.  But you've yet to point to me ONE successful program that will rehabilitate even HALF of offenders, even HALF.  You can't point to one solution that will reduce recidivism.  The best you've got is 'There has to be a way'.  No, there certainly doesn't have to be.  You presume that because we want it bad enough, it will exist.  Probation and Parole were designed to rehabilitate and reintegrate prisoners back in to society.  They are monitored, and trained, and drug tested, and given educational opportunities.  Most reoffend within two months.  Blaming society is a cop out.



			
				Kacey said:
			
		

> This is true - there is no hope for some of them. However, I do know people who have "adopted criminal thinking as their thought process" and yet learned to live within the law. How do you separate out those who can learn from those who can't?


 Many don't learn to 'live within the law' many just learn how better to not get caught by the law.  They merely become more sophisticated in their criminal activity.



			
				Kacey said:
			
		

> I'm not offended - I'm saddened by what this says about our society in general. My only reason for desiring understanding for criminals is to find ways to help them not be criminals any more, and, if that's not possible, to find ways to prevent others from following the same path.


 You blame society, but it's not unique to our society.  In fact, our crime has been falling steadily for about 15 years.  The crime rate Europe has been on a steady incline for the last several years.  This is not a 'US problem', this is a human race problem.

Really, what you should be saying is 'I'm saddened by what this says about humanity as a whole, that so many of us embrace criminal behavior as a viable lifestyle.'  

You're presumption is that criminals are 'victims'.  You talk about 'preventing them' from becoming criminals.  You assume it isn't a concious choice.  Yet, I bet you'd be offended by the suggestion that you aren't capable of making a concious choice.  The reality is that YOU made a concious choice to be where you are, criminals, like wise, and crime, are on one level or another, rational choices.  That's why you can't 'prevent' crime as if it were a disease.  It's not a disease, it's a maladaptive way of looking at the world.  As such you can't 'prevent it' in many cases.




Since we've brought up criminal thinking, let me let you in on a little contrast between the mind of a criminal and the mind of the average person.  In jail, criminals often call those who don't think like criminals 'Square Johns', hence, non-criminal thinking is 'Square John thinking'.


You're walking down the road, and you see a woman drop money out of her purse.  She doesn't see it, but you do.  Contrast

Normal Thinking : Walk up to the woman, and tell her she dropped some money
Criminal Thinking: Wait till she's not looking, and scoop it up and put it in your pocket...better yet, rob her of the rest of her money.


You're in a restaurant, and someone leaves a checkbook on the next table.

Normal Thinking: I walk up and tell the manager someone left their checkbook
Criminal Thinking: When nobodies looking I put it in my pocket, and start writting forged checks.


You're at a party, and some girl has had too much to drink.

Normal Thinking: Try and keep the other guys away from her and try to make sure she gets home safely
Criminal Thinking: Wait till she passes out, and have my way with her.


You hear about a robber down the block getting show by a homeowner

Normal thinking  : Be glad it wasn't my house.  Alternate: Be glad there's one less robber running around.
Criminal Thinking: Be angry at the homeowner, and think that you'll be glad when they ban all those private guns, so that you can be safe breaking in to a house.  I mean, you're just trying to make a living.


You see the police driving down your block.  

Normal Thinking: I'm glad they're patroling my area
Criminal Thinking: I wish those pigs would go somewhere else.  


You hear about a homeless man getting beaten by two men.  You then hear they got arrested and are going to be charged.

Normal Thinking: How could someone beat a defenseless homeless man for pleasure, that is so wrong  Alternate: Those punks need to go to jail
Criminal Thinking: I can't believe they're hassling those boys who were obviously just out having a little fun, blowing off some steam.  It's not any big deal.  People watch violence all the time, what's the difference.  Beating a homeless man, that's one thing, but to send two men to JAIL, that's awful.  It's not me that's corrupt, society is corrupt....man.



Then there's criminal logic.  Such logic basically follows as such 

'Yeah, I shot her, but it's her own fault...I just wanted some money, the dumb broad shouldn't have fought back' genuinely convinced he was justified.

'Anything that's not nailed down belongs to me...anything I can pry loose is not nailed down.'

'I have the right to steal anything I want, you don't have the right to stop me.'

'I have the right to rape any woman I want, you don't have the right to stop me.'

'I have the right to beat anyone I want, with impunity, you don't have the right to stop me.'

'Sure, i'm a rapist, thief, and murderer, but it's the cops that are crooked....They lied to me to get me to confess to a rape and murder.....that's wrong, to lie to a guy like that.'

'I didn't do nuthin', man, this BS' said with the stolen property in his hand.

'You're a jerk for not believing my obvious lie of a story' said with righteous indignation.

'She's lying, I never touched her' said as the woman is being carted away in an ambulance.


Yes, Virginia, criminals do really exist, and they aren't the soft, cuddly, misunderstood criminals too many of us are apparently seeing on TV.  They're the 'break in to your house, steal your TV, slap your mom, and shoot your dog type criminals.'


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 28, 2006)

Martial Tucker said:
			
		

> I never said that. Re-read my post. Touch Of Death compared these kids to midieval would-be warriors by implying that they attacked the defenseless homeless men with bats to somehow train/harden themselves for future battles against more formidable opponents. He referred to this as "proving"
> I said they did it for kicks and I believe they would crap in their pants in a fair fight.


 Exactly.  If they wanted to 'harden' themselves, there was likely a bar right down the street, with dozens of men who would be willing to 'aid' in their 'hardening' process, by allowing them to 'demonstrate' their 'warrior' skills.

Actually, i'm willing to bet they'll get ample opportunity to hone their 'warrior skills' in jail, with other sociopaths and low-lifes, likewise honing their 'warrior skills'.  It's a regular gladiator's school inside.  :rofl:


----------



## MJS (Jan 28, 2006)

Odin said:
			
		

> I think muay thai knee was trying to say that the emothion that you would get from striking someone in a ufc ring would be the same as those boys experienced when they struck the homeless man,in which case there is very little difference.
> 
> we adpot situations so that they fit our own moral code is the term I think he used.


 
I believe that we're well aware what he is trying to say, as this is similar to what you have said in past posts.  Again, however, there are distinct differences between ring and sport.

Mike


----------



## MJS (Jan 28, 2006)

Muay Thai Knee said:
			
		

> Agreed many times that is the case. Although it is not always the reason. My point was that we have the exact same system of dealing with everyone despite the reasons for crime differing.


 
Not always the reason?  Perhaps you can list some other reasons why people would rob and shoot the owners of the mom and pop store, rob a bank, mug someone on the street?  Poverty, drug addiction, unemployment are a few more reasons.  Again, perhaps you can provide more insight.  Don't think that I'm again disecting your posts, but keep in mind, when you engage in a discussion on a forum, people are going to want to discuss.  You're stating that is not always the reason and I'm inquiring as to why you think that.

Mike


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 28, 2006)

Odin said:
			
		

> _I think muay thai knee was trying to say that the emothion that you would get from striking someone in a ufc ring would be the same as those boys experienced when they struck the homeless man,in which case there is very little difference.
> 
> we adpot situations so that they fit our own moral code is the term I think he used. _






			
				MJS said:
			
		

> I believe that we're well aware what he is trying to say, as this is similar to what you have said in past posts. Again, however, there are distinct differences between ring and sport.
> 
> Mike


 
The argument that, because assaulting and beating a defenseless homeless man is violence, and fighting in a ring is violence, they are both the same thing, is like saying that because concensual sex is sexual intercourse and rape is sexual intercourse, they are both the same thing.  They are not only NOT the same thing, most people understand they are WORLD's apart.  

Fortunately, most people find that this line of logic is absurd and morally repugnant. 

However, many rapists would argue that IS correct, they ARE the same thing.  Of course, that would just further illustrates my point about the moral bankrupt nature of that position.

The analogy applies completely, because this act was a power motivated act every bit like rape, it was about victimizing another human being, victimizing them for their own perverse pleasure.


----------



## MJS (Jan 28, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> [/i]
> 
> 
> 
> The argument that, because assaulting and beating a defenseless homeless man is violence, and fighting in a ring is violence, they are both the same thing, is like saying that because concensual sex is sexual intercourse and rape is sexual intercourse, they are both the same thing. They are not only NOT the same thing, most people understand they are WORLD's apart.


 
Agreed.  



> Fortunately, most people find that this line of logic is absurd and morally repugnant.


 
It is obsurd because as you said and I agree, there are distinct differences.  Apparently some people are having a hard time seeing the difference between the 2.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 28, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> It is obsurd because as you said and I agree, there are distinct differences. Apparently some people are having a hard time seeing the difference between the 2.


  That's because some people have developed a real empathetic attachment to the suspects in the case, for whatever bizarre and perverse reason.  Apparently the fact that a homeless man is dead, for the cheap thrill of two human parasites, is a triviality.  

Of course, i'll hear more arguments about the 'need' to understand.  On exactly what level is it necessary we understand the motives that would convince two people it's ok to beat a third to death, simply because they were bored and he was an easy target.  I haven't gotten an answer to that question yet.  

It's clear we understand enough, we understand that these men are capable of beating defenseless people, for the sheer enjoyment of it.  They certainly appeared to be having a good time on the video.  It's also clear that the pain, suffering and death of another human being didn't really give them much pause in their enjoyment, we understand that as well.

As for 'explainations', if they really must have one, maybe a line from 'Con Air' will help

'He's a fountain of misplaced rage. Name your cliche; Mother held him too much or not enough, last picked at kickball, late night sneaky uncle, whatever.' Garland Greene  

Let them pick which one gives them the warm and fuzzies, and makes themselves feel better about being a human being.  Personally, I liked 'Last picked at football', that's what did it.  Darn sports in school.


----------



## MJS (Jan 28, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> That's because some people have developed a real empathetic attachment to the suspects in the case, for whatever bizarre and perverse reason. Apparently the fact that a homeless man is dead, for the cheap thrill of two human parasites, is a triviality.


 
Seems to me, in todays world, people tend to have more sympathy for the criminal than the victim.  The ACLU wants to make sure terrorists in Iraq are being treated not too harshly, but they forget these people thrive on killing.



> Of course, i'll hear more arguments about the 'need' to understand. On exactly what level is it necessary we understand the motives that would convince two people it's ok to beat a third to death, simply because they were bored and he was an easy target. I haven't gotten an answer to that question yet.


 
Oh come on Sgt., sure you have.  Its the same thrill as watching a boxing match!   Just kidding!   Seriously though, I don't think that you'll get that answer.



> It's clear we understand enough, we understand that these men are capable of beating defenseless people, for the sheer enjoyment of it. They certainly appeared to be having a good time on the video. It's also clear that the pain, suffering and death of another human being didn't really give them much pause in their enjoyment, we understand that as well.


 
Agreed.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 28, 2006)

I remember watching the Columbine massacre, and the media aftermath taking place.  One thing that became obvious to me, was the degree to which these men were turned in to some sort of martyrs by the press.  They wanted to remembered in posterity, they wanted their names to be every day words...and we gave them what they wanted.

Now, every two bit parasite, who wants revenge for 'getting picked last at dodgeball' holds these guys up as idols.  WE did that, we did it by spending the last several years, telling everyone how 'Important' it was to understand the thinking of these boy, to understand their motives, and desires.

Now, I want anyone reading this, name to me the names of the two boys who shot up Columbine.  I bet most people can do it easily.




Now....Name two people they murdered.  I bet most of you can't, and that's truly sad.  We are worried about the hopes, dreams, hates and desires of two murderers....and we could care less about the hopes and dreams of the people they killed.  We've twisted our mentality around, and created a perverse new morality that is quite frankly disgusting.  We are telling people, murderers have value, victims don't.

Don't think that's true?

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,1101990503,00.html

Here's what the cover reads 'Monsters next door?  What made them do it?'  As if that's the important issue.  We have those two parasites, smilling faces, huge and in color.  

Their victims, in small little black and white borders, around them....anonymous, there only as context.  Their lives didn't matter, except as props in the sick fantasies of these two boys, and we perpetuated that.  The message we sent?  Only these two mattered, what they did, why they did it.  We could care less about their victims, it's these boys that sell papers.  It's these boys pain we care about, 'they were bullied?', they were angry?  That's what we want to understand, them, them, them, we don't care about the futures they snuffed out that day.  We don't care what might have been, with those children that could now be graduating college, starting a career, having children of their own, have a family.

Still don't believe me?  Come up with a name of any of the victims yet? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





This, MJS, is part of the root of the 'empathize with the killer' movement.   And, yet again, i'll hear how important it is to 'understand' these people, truly understand on an empathetic level.  It wasn't always that way.  There was a day and age we identified with the victims, not the sociopaths.


----------



## modarnis (Jan 28, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Not always the reason? Perhaps you can list some other reasons why people would rob and shoot the owners of the mom and pop store, rob a bank, mug someone on the street? Poverty, drug addiction, unemployment are a few more reasons. Again, perhaps you can provide more insight. Don't think that I'm again disecting your posts, but keep in mind, when you engage in a discussion on a forum, people are going to want to discuss. You're stating that is not always the reason and I'm inquiring as to why you think that.
> 
> Mike


 
And the reality is, in our system of laws, the reason doesn't matter.  There is a distinct difference between motive and intent.  That intent, or mens rea (mental state) is all that matters


----------



## Bigshadow (Jan 28, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> At any rate, prevention is a nice buzz word, but the sad fact is, you can't 'prevent' all crime. Not all crime is the result of lack of education, or lack of opportunities, heck, some aren't even from lack of parental discipline (though that plays a HUGE role). Some people are just born to be criminals. I know we find that statement distasteful, but i've been dealing with criminals, intimately for well over a decade. I can spot often spot a child who is going to grow up to be a criminal. They have a certain quality....or rather, they lack certain qualities, empathy and guilt, for example.


I agree. I believe that a certain amount of criminals are born that way and didn't happen through circumstance. I believe there are sometimes genetic defects that make people criminals.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Do the research, treating crime like a disease that needs treatment was an unqualified failure.


As brutal as it may sound. Society is like a flower garden, there are flowers (the law abiding citizens) and there are weeds (the criminals). To keep a beautiful flower garden, you have to remove the weeds. For it is the weeds that choke out the flowers. You cannot change the weeds into flowers, so they must be plucked. Yes, sometimes flowers become disease ridden and become a threat to the other flowers, so they too must be removed or sometimes they can be nurtured back into good flowers.


----------



## Kacey (Jan 28, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Yes, but we're talking about two men beating a homless man for pleasure, so lets not lose too much sight of the actually context of this discussion.



Indeed... however, I do feel that society (not US society, but Western society) is part of the problem



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Also, in the US in this day and age, people rarely steal to feed their hungry children. We provide food for hungry children, the state and federal government pay for it. In fact, the biggest crime involved there is the drug and alcohol addicted parents who SELL foodstamps and their childrens food to BUY drugs and alcohol.
> 
> In theory, I understand your point, but in point of fact, at least as the developed world is concerned, it's a non issue.


 
Perhaps not where you live - but I have several middle school students whose parents are in jail for either stealing necessities (food, clothing), or stealing other items that were sold to buy necessities (food, clothing, shelter).  I also know dozens of children who eat at school - and only at school, because there is no food at home; therefore, they eat breakfast and lunch, and only on school days.  Other days they go hungry; this is why the school lunch program is continued over holidays.  But it is not enough.  There are many people, adults and children, who are lacking basic necessities - some because they do not qualify for the aid (being technically over the 'poverty line'), some because they do not know how to access the aid, and some because they will not access the aid.  Do all of these people turn to crime?  No... but some do, out of necessity.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I'd be interested in knowing which state this is. Sounds like a myth. A little too contrived. What likely he is referring to, though a bit dishonestly, is that adult behavior can be predicted in second grade. Prisons do not build that far ahead, however, as in reality prisons are always overbooked as it is. Further, you can't predict trends in criminal behavior that far away. What's money, money is not set aside that far in the future. Prisons are filled as soon as they are built. So, building them in anticipation of 2nd grade offenders would presume they were built and remained empty waiting. That isn't the case.



I apparently did not put this data into my notes (or if I did, I can't find it) so I cannot speak to this with more detail.  However, I do recall being shocked by his statement, and that, based on the discussion that ensued, so were many other people in the class.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> At any rate, prevention is a nice buzz word, but the sad fact is, you can't 'prevent' all crime. Not all crime is the result of lack of education, or lack of opportunities, heck, some aren't even from lack of parental discipline (though that plays a HUGE role). Some people are just born to be criminals. I know we find that statement distasteful, but i've been dealing with criminals, intimately for well over a decade. I can spot often spot a child who is going to grow up to be a criminal. They have a certain quality....or rather, they lack certain qualities, empathy and guilt, for example.


 
Being that a large portion of my training is in psychology, I don't disagree that some people are 'born to be criminals'.  They are called sociopaths - people who understand the the rules of society, but don't believe that those rules apply to them.  There are a very small number of true sociopaths in a society - and a lot of people with lawyers who try to get them labeled as sociopaths to excuse their behavior, who erroneously add to the statistics.  However, true sociopaths are as rare as true multiple personalities.  

"Prevention" has been used as a buzzword, true - but that does not negate the fact that proper training (by society, but most especially by parents and other close relatives, who have the greatest influence on young children when their initial values are being formed) can prevent crimes.  I am not speaking to a case-by-case method here; I am referring to societal norms and values, which lead people to devalue being law-abiding in favor of a quick route to success.  An example (fiction, true, but indicative of the point I am trying to make):
"Lazarus enjoyed every minute and wished it were longer.  How peaceful and clean and tree-shaded the city was!  How gently bucolic.

He recalled another time when he had visited his old hometown - what century? - sometime early in the Diaspora, he thought - when a citizen venturing out into its filthy canyon streets wore a steel helmet simulating a wig, a bulletproof vest and codpiece, spectacles that were armor, gloves that covered brass knucks, and other concealed and illegal weapons - but rarely went out into the streets; it was more discreet to stick to transportation pods and go outdoors only in guarded suburbs - especially after dark.

But here and now guns were legal - and no one wore them."

Time Enough for Love, Robert Heinlein, pg 457 (1973)​ One hundred years ago, cultural norms, in the US and other industrialized nations, were different.  People were expected to pull their own weight, and criminal activity was looked upon much more negatively than it is today.  Small crimes are overlooked (like speeding), and that small wedge leads to bigger breaks in cultural norms - to the point where some subcultures look upon lawbreaking as the norm, not the exception.  This is what I am talking about when I say prevention - but it will require a change in society that is broader than any prevention programs currently in place or being proposed, and people will have to drop the "not-in-my-backyard" lack of involvement that allows such norms to flourish "across the tracks" in the "bad" neighborhoods.  The cult of instant gratification also encourages criminal activity - why wait and earn what you want over a long time, if you can get away with stealing it today?



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I also assume your graduate degree is in education, am I correct?



No, it's in psychology, although I am a teacher.  I have a BA in psychology, a teaching certificate, an MA in Counseling, and am in a certification program to become a psychologist.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Old enough to rob, rape steal and murder.....next question. By the way, nobody 'gave up on them'. That's a dodge. You're excusing their behavior, and blaming someone else for it. No one MADE them commit a crime. It was this kind of failed sociological thinking in the 1960's and 1970's that lead to the highest crime rates in US history in the 1970's and 1980's. Crime didn't go DOWN because people thought like you, it SKY ROCKETED.
> 
> Do the research, treating crime like a disease that needs treatment was an unqualified failure.


 
You don't know me any more than I know you - please don't lump me in with a group.  I excuse no one - but not excusing a person's behavior does not automatically make the perpetrator solely responsible.  Too many of my middle school students learn from the example most often in front of them - their parents - that lying, cheating, and stealing are a way of life.  We, as teachers, try to give them another example, but it's an uphill battle.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Again, I agree. But you've yet to point to me ONE successful program that will rehabilitate even HALF of offenders, even HALF. You can't point to one solution that will reduce recidivism. The best you've got is 'There has to be a way'. No, there certainly doesn't have to be. You presume that because we want it bad enough, it will exist. Probation and Parole were designed to rehabilitate and reintegrate prisoners back in to society. They are monitored, and trained, and drug tested, and given educational opportunities. Most reoffend within two months. Blaming society is a cop out.
> 
> Many don't learn to 'live within the law' many just learn how better to not get caught by the law. They merely become more sophisticated in their criminal activity.



See my comments above.  I don't recall pointing out any specific rehabilitation programs - I stated that there are too few programs in place, and that the current incarceration program turns out criminals who have no skills but those needed to reoffend.  Of course the current rehab programs don't work - the only one consistently in place is an attempt to make jail and prison so repulsive that the experience itself will prevent recidivism - a method that has been proven to fail, especially as, for many people, jail it preferable to life outside - clothing, shelter, meals, medical, all provided by the government.  Why stay out?



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> You blame society, but it's not unique to our society. In fact, our crime has been falling steadily for about 15 years. The crime rate Europe has been on a steady incline for the last several years. This is not a 'US problem', this is a human race problem.
> 
> Really, what you should be saying is 'I'm saddened by what this says about humanity as a whole, that so many of us embrace criminal behavior as a viable lifestyle.'



I never said it was US society - I said was society in general, and was referring to Western civilization (so-called).  If I was not clear on that that you read in that I meant US civilization, then I apologize.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> You're presumption is that criminals are 'victims'. You talk about 'preventing them' from becoming criminals. You assume it isn't a concious choice. Yet, I bet you'd be offended by the suggestion that you aren't capable of making a concious choice. The reality is that YOU made a concious choice to be where you are, criminals, like wise, and crime, are on one level or another, rational choices. That's why you can't 'prevent' crime as if it were a disease. It's not a disease, it's a maladaptive way of looking at the world. As such you can't 'prevent it' in many cases.



No, I don't presume that most criminals are victims.  I assume that most criminals live in a society in which crime is more rewarding the being law-abiding - the few who don't fit that profile simply don't care (sociopaths) or get off on the 'rush' of committing a crime (sociopaths and other mentally deranged individuals).   *You *presumed that that was what I meant -  but it wasn't what I said.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Since we've brought up criminal thinking, let me let you in on a little contrast between the mind of a criminal and the mind of the average person. In jail, criminals often call those who don't think like criminals 'Square Johns', hence, non-criminal thinking is 'Square John thinking'.



People who think this way before being jailed are sociopaths.  People who think this way after being jailed have been taught to do so by the society in which they exist - and jail has it's own society, which perpetuates this type of thought - "You have been done wrong by the man, so your only choice is to return the favor".



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Yes, Virginia, criminals do really exist, and they aren't the soft, cuddly, misunderstood criminals too many of us are apparently seeing on TV. They're the 'break in to your house, steal your TV, slap your mom, and shoot your dog type criminals.'



I never said they weren't, nor did I intend to imply it.  You interpreted that from my statements.  However, I do feel that a change in society in general (which I don't see coming any time soon) is the most effective (and probably only effective) form of prevention - but I would rather that the government spend my money on attempts at rehabilitation than on warehousing.  So it's not even 50% effective.  So what?  If it's 1% effective, then, in my opinion, it was worth the money.

You seem to have a particular agenda in this discussion, and that's your right.  It is also my right to have a different one.  If everyone agreed all the time, then this would be a pretty boring board!


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Jan 28, 2006)

Kacey said:
			
		

> Perhaps not where you live - but I have several middle school students whose parents are in jail for either stealing necessities (food, clothing), or stealing other items that were sold to buy necessities (food, clothing, shelter). I also know dozens of children who eat at school - and only at school, because there is no food at home; therefore, they eat breakfast and lunch, and only on school days.



Yeah, because "mom" is either too busy spending her social services money on booze, drugs or going out to the club. And most "food and clothes" stolen on the street (cause ive seen it) are steaks, batteries, razor blades and shrimps that can be traded quick for rock and the girls ive hung with that boost aint doin it because they dont have any clothes to wear. I agree with Sgt. theres no need to steal beyond the fact that theyre spending their governemt cheese on stuff they shouldnt be spendin it on.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 28, 2006)

Kacey said:
			
		

> Indeed... however, I do feel that society (not US society, but Western society) is part of the problem
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Odin (Jan 30, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> [/i]
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
...okay lets try to simplify fo you......when you rape someone and you have sex with someone I assume both times the person involved will climax's right......so therfore even though the two things are different the emothional response is the same at that point???why is this so hard to understand???

I mean really????what more do you want????a diagram maybe??Its not even a matter of opinion Im just shocked as to how hard your finding that point to understand!!!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 30, 2006)

Odin said:
			
		

> ...okay lets try to simplify fo you......when you rape someone and you have sex with someone I assume both times the person involved will climax's right......so therfore even though the two things are different the emothional response is the same at that point???why is this so hard to understand???


 Excuse me, did you just justify the position that rape and consensual sex are the same thing?  AND did you just claim that the emotional response of a rape victim is the SAME as the emotional response of a woman having consensual sex with a PARTNER?!

Forget the ludicrous claim that a rapist is having the same emotional response as a man having sex with a willing partner, I can't believe you just claimed the VICTIM has the same emotional response?!

At best, your defense of that statement might be the fact that you simply 'forgot' about the victim.  At best, at BEST, your intended point was that the emotional response of a rapist and a man having sex is identical (insinuating that having sex with your wife is emotionally the same as holding a knife to a woman's throat and raping her, which is itself an idiotic claim).  

Assuming THAT's your point, it still presumes the victim in the rape process and HER emotional response are IRRELAVENT....a claim i'm SURE a sociopath would make (but nobody else).  

That, in itself, is extremely damning.



I'm hoping what I just read is the result of your apparent inability to articulate, because if I read this correctly, it is, in fact, beyond the pale, and ranks as possibly the most absurd claim i've ever read on Martial Talk.


----------



## Odin (Jan 30, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Excuse me, did you just justify the position that rape and consensual sex are the same thing? AND did you just claim that the emotional response of a rape victim is the SAME as the emotional response of a woman having consensual sex with a PARTNER?!
> 
> Forget the ludicrous claim that a rapist is having the same emotional response as a man having sex with a willing partner, I can't believe you just claimed the VICTIM has the same emotional response?!
> 
> ...


 
For the love of jesus Christ!!

okay try and break down the act in your head....not the whole thing but break it down into little bits...okay...now stg_mac you put that thinking cap on...you take that ignorance cap of for just one minute.....now if you think of the one point....thats one point mac not the whole thing now..just that one point..that you climax.....just climax not the actually sex or anything...,just the climax...did i say just the climax??hold on JUST THE CLIMAX okay....wouldnt the emotion....the human body feels..thats the HUMAN BODY FEELS..you know them messages to the brain....be the same whether the person was raping or being with the his partner.....the emotional response...not what happend before i MEAN IN THAT INSTANCE.when he climaxed just that bit now mac nothing else can we concentrate on that one point...can you do that mac???....which would be the same as when a fighter throws a punch in the street and when a fighter throws a punch in the ring...the same signals would be sent to the brain displaying that same emotional response...all that changes is how you decide to label it......if I could I would love to get a a guy who was a professor in behavioral neurogenetics to sit you down to talk to about how your brain works.now did you get that mac...im not going to get a reply with you taking things out of context now am I??hey??


----------



## Martial Tucker (Jan 30, 2006)

Odin said:
			
		

> ...okay lets try to simplify fo you......when you rape someone and you have sex with someone I assume both times the person involved will climax's right......so therfore even though the two things are different the emothional response is the same at that point???why is this so hard to understand???
> 
> I mean really????what more do you want????a diagram maybe??Its not even a matter of opinion Im just shocked as to how hard your finding that point to understand!!!




Congratulations!     After a year and a half of reading thousands of posts here at MT, and being annoyed by more than a few, you are the FIRST person to qualify for my "IGNORE" list. I don't mind debating with someone who has a different point of view, but you've crossed a line in stupidity and insensitivity with your last post.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 30, 2006)

Odin said:
			
		

> For the love of jesus Christ!!
> 
> okay try and break down the act in your head....not the whole thing but break it down into little bits...okay...now stg_mac you put that thinking cap on...you take that ignorance cap of for just one minute.....now if you think of the one point....thats one point mac not the whole thing now..just that one point..that you climax.....just climax not the actually sex or anything...,just the climax...did i say just the climax??hold on JUST THE CLIMAX okay....wouldnt the emotion....the human body feels..thats the HUMAN BODY FEELS..you know them messages to the brain....be the same whether the person was raping or being with the his partner.....the emotional response...not what happend before i MEAN IN THAT INSTANCE.when he climaxed just that bit now mac nothing else can we concentrate on that one point...can you do that mac???....which would be the same as when a fighter throws a punch in the street and when a fighter throws a punch in the ring...the same signals would be sent to the brain displaying that same emotional response...all that changes is how you decide to label it......if I could I would love to get a a guy who was a professor in behavioral neurogenetics to sit you down to talk to about how your brain works.now did you get that mac...im not going to get a reply with you taking things out of context now am I??hey??


 I am astounded at the gall it takes to claim that because a man climaxes during rape and during consensual sex, then they are emotionally the same thing.

To say nothing of the fact that this simply declares that the victim/woman is entirely irrelavent in this equation.  That only the emotional response of the rapist is what is important and, because he 'climaxes' the same as a man having consensual sex, they are 'emotionally' the same.

And its MY 'thinking cap' that's not on?  I'm the ignorant one?  You're truly astounding.  The instrument has not been invented yet that can measure the level of ignorance in the above two posts you've made.  

Leaving aside your obvious inability to string together a coherent set of sentences, which is annoying but forgiveable, the point that you are apparently trying to make is truly offensive.  

Then you have the gall to call me ignorant?  Perhaps you live in such a distorted world that you are unable to distinguish reason for ignorance, especially if the last two posts are any indication.  I don't know any reasonable person who won't be offended by your 'logic.'


----------



## Odin (Jan 30, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I am astounded at the gall it takes to claim that because a man climaxes during rape and during consensual sex, then they are emotionally the same thing.
> 
> To say nothing of the fact that this simply declares that the victim/woman is entirely irrelavent in this equation. That only the emotional response of the rapist is what is important and, because he 'climaxes' the same as a man having consensual sex, they are 'emotionally' the same.
> 
> And its MY 'thinking cap' that's not on? I'm the ignorant one? :rofl: You're truly astounding. The instrument has not been invented yet that can measure the level of ignorance in the above two posts you've made.


 
Im ignorant because i didnt agree with you????lol okay mac.....hahaha you know what your a funny guy.read everything you wrote!lol


----------



## Odin (Jan 30, 2006)

Im astounded by your inabilty to think outside the box....and your abilty in understanding information that is put infront of you!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 30, 2006)

Odin said:
			
		

> Im astounded by your inabilty to think outside the box....and your abilty in understanding information that is put infront of you!


 I think as more and more people read your last three posts, we're going to find out what the general consensus is on who's head is stuck firmly where.  I think my comments on the matter are far kinder than what you're going to be receiving from others in the near future.


----------



## MJS (Jan 30, 2006)

Odin said:
			
		

> For the love of jesus Christ!!
> 
> okay try and break down the act in your head....not the whole thing but break it down into little bits...okay...now stg_mac you put that thinking cap on...you take that ignorance cap of for just one minute.....now if you think of the one point....thats one point mac not the whole thing now..just that one point..that you climax.....just climax not the actually sex or anything...,just the climax...did i say just the climax??hold on JUST THE CLIMAX okay....wouldnt the emotion....the human body feels..thats the HUMAN BODY FEELS..you know them messages to the brain....be the same whether the person was raping or being with the his partner.....the emotional response...not what happend before i MEAN IN THAT INSTANCE.when he climaxed just that bit now mac nothing else can we concentrate on that one point...can you do that mac???....which would be the same as when a fighter throws a punch in the street and when a fighter throws a punch in the ring...the same signals would be sent to the brain displaying that same emotional response...all that changes is how you decide to label it......if I could I would love to get a a guy who was a professor in behavioral neurogenetics to sit you down to talk to about how your brain works.now did you get that mac...im not going to get a reply with you taking things out of context now am I??hey??


 
Emotion of the man during rape, while he is 'enjoying' himself, is that of control and dominance.  I highly doubt that there is anything compasionate about it on his end.  I highly doubt that the female involved is feeling any love or enjoyment towards what is happening.  Now, if you have two consentual people, the feelings will be much more the same.


----------



## Odin (Jan 30, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Emotion of the man during rape, while he is 'enjoying' himself, is that of control and dominance. I highly doubt that there is anything compasionate about it on his end. I highly doubt that the female involved is feeling any love or enjoyment towards what is happening. Now, if you have two consentual people, the feelings will be much more the same.


 
In all respect.....................did I not just write....about 4 times that I was talking about one instance in that situation and not the whole situation???????


----------



## Odin (Jan 30, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I think as more and more people read your last three posts, we're going to find out what the general consensus is on who's head is stuck firmly where. I think my comments on the matter are far kinder than what you're going to be receiving from others in the near future.


 
........................lol!oh my...okay mac okay...lol:whip: ....


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 30, 2006)

Odin said:
			
		

> ........................lol!oh my...okay mac okay...lol ....


 :rofl: We'll see, won't we?  :rofl:  

Keep in mind nobody forced you to say that rape and concensual sex were emotionally the same thing.  You stepped in to that crap storm all by your wittle wonesome.



			
				Odin said:
			
		

> ...okay lets try to simplify fo you......when you rape someone and you have sex with someone I assume both times the person involved will climax's right......so therfore even though the two things are different the emothional response is the same at that point???why is this so hard to understand???


----------



## Odin (Jan 30, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> :rofl: We'll see, won't we? :rofl:
> 
> Keep in mind nobody forced you to say that rape and concensual sex were emotionally the same thing. You stepped in to that crap storm all by your wittle wonesome.


 
mac please come on lets get back to the debate..your being silly...and once again you showed that you didnt understand the point...dont be mad because you didnt understand something okay...seriously thats not healthy dude.peace.(")


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 30, 2006)

Odin said:
			
		

> mac please come on lets get back to the debate..your being silly...and once again you showed that you didnt understand the point...dont be mad because you didnt understand something okay...seriously thats not healthy dude.peace.(")


 Debate what?  That you think that rape and concentual sex are the same thing?  What exactly is there left to debate?  It's obvious you live in your own little bizarre world.  

Then you try to cover up that idiotic statement (at least I think you were trying to, it's hard to tell when you don't use complete sentences) by claiming that you were just pointing out that a climax is a climax, though what that has to do with ANYTHING, only god knows.  

What's more, if someone can't understand you, it's because you obviously lack the basic ability to form a coherent sentence.  Perhaps you should actually trying using complete sentences for a change, though that alone wouldn't really improve the quality of your logic, if what i've been reading is any indication.

It's truly sad, when I made the Rape/Violence analogy, I truly believed there was no one morally bankrupt enough to actually try and support the argument that rape and concentual sex were morally and emotionally the same thing....I guess you proved me wrong.


----------



## Odin (Jan 30, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Debate what? That you think that rape and concentual sex are the same thing? What exactly is there left to debate? It's obvious you live in your own little bizarre world.
> 
> What's more, if someone can't understand you, it's because you obviously lack the basic ability to form a coherent sentence. Perhaps you should actually trying using complete sentences for a change, though that alone wouldn't really improve the quality of your logic, if what i've been reading is any indication.


 
....mac please stop...look you didnt understand the point i was making so leave it...once again you have posted not what the point i made was but what you thought it was..they are two different things..seriously dude if you dont understand you dont understand....at the end of the day its just your perception on the text that was put infront of you....some might understand it some might not.

lol hey man you should right your own version of the bible based on what you read...lol now that would be entertainment.

now come on lets get back to the debate that everyone was having.


----------



## KenpoTess (Jan 30, 2006)

*Assist Admin Note:

The topic is Young Sociopaths.. Let's keep it there.  Obviously this is a heated and Emotional area.. We are a Family rated Board and don't need to delve into arenas that would not be welcomed here.

Feel free to use the Ignore feature and the RTM button.

Thank you,

~Tess
-MT Assist. Admin
*


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 30, 2006)

Odin said:
			
		

> ....mac please stop...look you didnt understand the point i was making so leave it...once again you have posted not what the point i made was but what you thought it was..they are two different things..seriously dude if you dont understand you dont understand....at the end of the day its just your perception on the text that was put infront of you....some might understand it some might not.
> 
> lol hey man you should right your own version of the bible based on what you read...lol now that would be entertainment.
> 
> now come on lets get back to the debate that everyone was having.


 You've had ample opportunity to attempt to clarify your point.  Instead, you've used your time to attack me for not understanding whatever is you've tried to say.  Perhaps, if you've been misquoted, you should clarify your point.  I wouldn't want to have to stand on what you've said either.

What's more, as you made this point as part of the debate, I think it directly pertains TOO the debate.  Lets recap what's happened so far.  

We were discussing sociopathology, and you tried to make the point that beating an innocent homeless man was emotionally the same as two fighters fighting each other in the ring.

I said that claiming that beating a homeless man being the same as a sporting event, was like saying that consentual sex was the same as rape.  You then attempted to defend that very position.  

So why don't you point out to me where the debate got 'off track', if you want to get back on track with the debate.  I'm more than willing to move this debate in to whatever area you feel more comfortable with.


----------



## modarnis (Jan 30, 2006)

Odin said:
			
		

> ....mac please stop...look you didnt understand the point i was making so leave it...once again you have posted not what the point i made was but what you thought it was..they are two different things..seriously dude if you dont understand you dont understand....at the end of the day its just your perception on the text that was put infront of you....some might understand it some might not.
> 
> lol hey man you should right your own version of the bible based on what you read...lol now that would be entertainment.
> 
> now come on lets get back to the debate that everyone was having.



What perception??  Words mean things.   The climax is a climax logic is as flawed as the ring fight = beat the homeless guy logic


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 30, 2006)

modarnis said:
			
		

> What perception?? Words mean things. The climax is a climax logic is as flawed as the ring fight = beat the homeless guy logic


 Or the 'I said something stupid, so you're the idiot for not understanding what I meant' logic.

I guess it's clear that there's someone willing to defend anything.


----------



## Odin (Jan 30, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> You've had ample opportunity to attempt to clarify your point. Instead, you've used your time to attack me for not understanding whatever is you've tried to say. Perhaps, if you've been misquoted, you should clarify your point. I wouldn't want to have to stand on what you've said either.
> 
> What's more, as you made this point as part of the debate, I think it directly pertains TOO the debate. Lets recap what's happened so far.
> 
> ...


 

lol!!!okay man okay.....you have read that wrong sorry dude i dont know what gave you that impression.sorry if you got the wrong end of the stick but all of what you quoted a bove i dont remeber saying that is merely your perception on what you read since those are not my words....sorry if you didnt understand once again dude but if you dont understand the point I made then thats not my fault...now im going to stop this babble because we just mad kenpotess cross.


----------



## Flatlander (Jan 30, 2006)

Thread locked pending Admin Review.

-Dan Bowman-
-MT Senior Moderator-


----------

