- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Biden stopped the executions of 37 men. Trump's DOJ wants to punish them
Posted on 12/27/25 at 1:45 pm to 4cubbies
Posted on 12/27/25 at 1:45 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
FWIW, my academic work isn’t centered on the carceral system. This thread is unrelated to anything I’m pursuing for my degree.
Same here lol.
quote:
I disagree. Thomas Sowell seems to be doing quite well.
Dr. Sowell could publish anything as he's already made it in the field.
He's the premier conservative economist.
He can go places normal scholars can't.
quote:
All I do is argue with my dissertation committee chair. He’s so frustrating and we disagree about so many things all the time.
You don't say...
quote:
First, can we stop editorializing my alleged opinions?
It's hard not to, you make a blanket statement, and then refuse to explain what you really mean by them.
I've challenged you a number of times on if you consider the Laws of God criticizable, or intended only as punishment.
You know you have refused to clarify this.
Hence it is hard to not draw the conclusions to where your views lead. You are free to correct me if my conclusions are wrong and clarify what your view on that is.
quote:
Second, you claimed this: If more murderers were indeed executed for their crimes even your abstract agrees that it would reduce murders more than prison alone.
That could be true but the abstract certainly doesn’t propose or support that claim.
quote:
FORST (1977), ... INDICATES THAT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT BOTH REDUCES THE CERTAINTY OF MURDERERS BEING CONVICTED FOR THEIR CRIMES,
quote:
THUS THE DEATH PENALTY SEEMS TO PRODUCE LESS DETERRENCE THAN
quote:
THE MORE CERTAIN PENALTY OF IMPRISONMENT.
quote:
I have never suggested this.
Can you give an example of a justifiable incarceration?
One you could vote for on a jury?
0
Posted on 12/27/25 at 1:46 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
4cubbies
Society would be much better off without people like you in it.
Posted on 12/27/25 at 3:36 pm to Powerman
quote:
It doesn't deter the initial crime is her point But there is a necessity to ensure some people never walk freely among us
A person locked away in prison can’t walk freely among society to commit another crime. That in and of itself is a deterrent.
Posted on 12/27/25 at 4:21 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
We already know, conclusively, that harsher punishments do not deter crime
You are truly a really really stupid person if you believe this.
Posted on 12/27/25 at 5:11 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
What matters is the certainty of consequences
So being certain you will fry for your crimes would be a start.
You are advocating for uncertainty.
Posted on 12/28/25 at 9:46 am to dgnx6
quote:
You are advocating for uncertainty.
cubbies believes in the progressive model to fight crime. Reduce charges and don’t actually prosecute or sentence criminals then claim “crime is down”.
Posted on 12/28/25 at 10:11 am to 4cubbies
quote:
Are you seriously claiming that the United Way is a Christian-based organization? FYI - Muslims have an organization called "Red Crescent" that is their equivalent of the Red Cross.
Yes. Especially after a unanimous verdict of guilt, and a unanimous determination that death is warranted, as determined by ordinary citizens from society, not government officials. Try again, dumb cuunt.
Posted on 12/28/25 at 10:18 am to 4cubbies
Serious question. Why weren’t Dylann Roof, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Robert Bowers given commutations? I mean, the death penalty is so unjust and draconian, right? Sounds like selective outrage on 4heifers’ part.
Posted on 12/28/25 at 10:45 am to 4cubbies
Removal from society (or earth) and punishment of serious/serial criminals is an essential aspect of the social contract.
Deterrence and rehabilitation would be great bonus results. But neither is a sine qua non of our criminal justice system.
Deterrence and rehabilitation would be great bonus results. But neither is a sine qua non of our criminal justice system.
Posted on 12/28/25 at 11:17 am to 4cubbies
quote:
We already know, conclusively, that harsher punishments do not deter crime.
False. Studies show that harsher + 'certainty' deters crime. That means when murder = death penalty within 6 months of conviction there is less murder. Today, murder = life imprisonment in majority of cases. When it = death penalty that execution occurs 30-40 years later. You die of old age. No deterance.
This post was edited on 12/28/25 at 11:17 am
Posted on 12/29/25 at 1:04 pm to moneyg
quote:
Try and keep up. This isn't complicated. You asked what the basis of my opinion that you don't care about victims. You asked if my opinion was based on "not equating justice with maximal suffering". I clarified that my opinion is based on your incessant concern about the punishment of violent criminals with very little (probably zero) expressed concern for victims. To put another way, I'm basing my assessment of your beliefs on the history of opinions you've expressed on the subject.
I started a thread about the president wasting taxpayer resources to needlessly inflict increased suffering on people who are no longer public safety threats due to their LWOP sentences. Your response: "What about the victims? You don't care about victims."
How does increasing the suffering of these individuals remedy any harm imposed on victims?
quote:
ah, so now it's not about limiting victims. It's about a limit to government authority.
Limiting state power is part of my position. At one point, that was a staple of conservatism. A government powerful enough to execute its own citizens is a government that also requires extreme oversight and restraint. Caring about victims and being wary of irreversible state power are not mutually exclusive positions.
quote:Why even do this? Why ask me any questions if you reject my answers that don't fit whatever narrative you've crafted about me?
no you don't.
quote:
you ran from the question. Noted.
I answered it. You are not satisfied with my answer. That's a you problem.
Posted on 12/29/25 at 1:05 pm to djsdawg
quote:
Liberals like 4cub do not care about real victims.
I care enough about them to want to actually address and reduce recidivism which is something no one else has even touched in this thread full of faux concern about victims.
This post was edited on 12/29/25 at 1:06 pm
Posted on 12/29/25 at 1:07 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
I care enough about them to want to actually address and reduce recidivism which something no one else has even touched in this thread full of faux concern about victims.
Yes you do.
You care more about the criminals than you do the innocent victims.
Posted on 12/29/25 at 1:10 pm to lake chuck fan
quote:
Your full of criticism but offer no alternatives. Whats your solution?
I've posted numerous times about centering our penal system around rehabilitation instead of revenge.
What We Can Learn From Norway’s Prison System: Rehabilitation & Recidivism
This is typically met with posters posting laughing emojis and saying that we shouldn't try anything Norway does because the US isn't Norway.
Posted on 12/29/25 at 1:11 pm to hogcard1964
quote:
You care more about the criminals than you do the innocent victims.
What evidence exists indicating you care about either?
Posted on 12/29/25 at 1:20 pm to No Colors
quote:
El Salvador was essentially a failed state run by criminal gangs. Until they elected a president who quickly incarcerated approximately 1% of the population in horrific conditions.
Violent crime dropped by over 90%.
Not only did harsh punishment remove the criminals from the equation, it deterred new criminals from taking their place.
You are simply wrong about this.
El Salvador didn’t see violence drop because potential criminals sat down, weighed sentence severity, and determined crime wasn’t worth it. Violence dropped because the government swept huge numbers of people off the streets in an emergency crackdown. When you incarcerate roughly 1% of your population, you are physically removing offenders and suspected offenders from society at scale. That will obviously reduce crime in the short term.
Your analysis overlooks critical issues with El Salvador’s strategy, including the suspension of due process, the detention of individuals without charges or convictions, and the accidental sweep of innocent civilians. The long-term sustainability of this approach also remains unproven.
You can argue that El Salvador made a tradeoff and that it was justified under extreme conditions but you cannot honestly generalize from a state-of-emergency mass roundup in a near-failed state to a claim that “harsh punishment deters crime” in ordinary constitutional systems.
Posted on 12/29/25 at 1:31 pm to McLemore
quote:
Removal from society (or earth) and punishment of serious/serial criminals is an essential aspect of the social contract.
I agree. Incapacitating people who pose an ongoing threat is part of the social contract, and that can mean permanent removal for serious or serial violent offenders.
Once someone has been removed from society, the public safety objective has already been met. At that point, the remaining questions are about how much power the state should exercise, how much suffering is justified, and whether additional punishment serves any purpose beyond moral satisfaction.
quote:
Deterrence and rehabilitation would be great bonus results. But neither is a sine qua non of our criminal justice system.
Treating deterrence and rehabilitation as 'bonuses' prioritizes retribution over anything else. That is a valid moral stance, but it isn't a strategy for reducing crime. Additionally, when punishment is based on desert rather than impact, we lose any clear limit on how much is 'enough.' Desert has no objective measure.
quote:
But neither is a sine qua non of our criminal justice system.
I don’t think a system that explicitly disclaims interest in deterrence or rehabilitation can still claim to be oriented toward the common good. At that point, we’re no longer asking what makes society safer or more just we’re just asserting that punishment itself is the goal.
Posted on 12/29/25 at 1:34 pm to dgnx6
quote:
So being certain you will fry for your crimes would be a start.
You are advocating for uncertainty.
Are you advocating for the death penalty to be the only available consequence for all crimes?
Posted on 12/29/25 at 1:37 pm to Powerman
quote:
It doesn't deter the initial crime is her point
Right. A criminal justice system focused only on punishing past crimes hasn’t served this country well. We need a proactive approach that prioritizes preventing future crimes, including those committed by people who haven’t even been born yet. Simply arguing about LWOP or the death penalty after the fact does nothing to prevent the next victim.
quote:
But there is a necessity to ensure some people never walk freely among us
Agreed.
Posted on 12/29/25 at 1:37 pm to 4cubbies
I definitely care about the innocent victims. I along with several members of my family have been victims of crime.
I'm on record as not caring one iota about criminals. ...even those that commit minor crimes.
I'm on record as not caring one iota about criminals. ...even those that commit minor crimes.
Page 12 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News