Gilad Shalit

[Pablo]

[MatthewV]

[Antrax]

Yes, they're hard to define. Luckily we have experts. We call them "judges". If you're going to assume all justice systems are biased, disregarding all potential evidence otherwise, then clearly there's not much to talk about. Instead, since it's getting pretty crowded in the "postmodern knee-jerk liberal" slot, may I suggest one of you take up the position of GL solipsist? Just as interesting to debate with, and more unique to boot.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!

[MatthewV]

I am glad there is a balance of cynics in the population. Any system that some people aren't skeptical of is likely to have very deep flaws in it.

But anyways-- the wikipedia article highlights the most serious offenders being released. I would have to guess that their guilt is probably very well founded and clear.
But near the end we have people like "Abdallah Nasser Mahmud Arar (1 life sentence) – Member of the Hamas cell responsible for kidnapping and murdering Israeli businessman Sasson Nuriel in 2005". This guy has a life sentence for belonging to a group that kidnapped and murdered someone. That doesn't sound like a life sentence crime to me. Granted, I only have one sentence of text to go off of.

And the joking side: you should evaluate the courts by joining a terrorist organization and planning a terrorist attack. If you get a life sentence, then you can rest peacefully knowing the courts are fair.

[Courk]

[Pablo]

A judge in Israel may be an expert. But when he's sitting in judgment of someone whom is perceived by the populace as wanting to destroy the entire country, how does he not fear the consequences of ruling "not guilty"? How can you be sure that fear never affects his decision?

I'm not accusing these judges of anything more than being human. But there certainly is the possibility of corruption as well.

And again, I have no real point. I just have a positive visceral reaction seeing people being reunited with their families and homes.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays.

[Antrax]

Yes, yes, I know how that argument works, Pablo. What I don't understand is why you expect me to accept Descartes' evil demon as the reality just because it's irrefutable. Being skeptical for the sake of skepticism is too easy, I don't understand people who think it makes a good argument.
Same goes to you, MattV; You should apply some of the skepticism towards yourself. If there's nothing I can say that can change your mind, then you're trapped in your viewpoint regardless of what objective reality might be there, and are far more biased (100% bias, by definition) than those you criticise.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!

[MatthewV]

If people could be completely fair then the idea of a jury of twelve wouldn't exist in America. And even this system is flawed in many regards. The power of being able to buy the best possible lawyer skews our judicial system. It is a flaw that I guess we accept. No, you will never convince me that people are capable of making consistent, unbiased thoughts or actions.

Let me ask you this: How long should someone be sentenced when convicted of being a member of the Hamas cell responsible for kidnapping and murdering one Israeli businessman?

And the follow up question would be: would you consider answering differently if was a twenty year old male? A Polish businessman? A homeless person?

[Antrax]

Beats me, I never understood how you're supposed to put a price tag on a crime. I guess that's why I'm a software engineer and not a judge or a congressman?
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!

[Pablo]

[Antrax]

Sure. I've asked you, Jack_Ian and MattV the same question: can evidence be presented that will change your mind. None of you said "yes".
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!

[Pablo]

[Pablo]

[Jack_Ian]

[Pablo]

[Nsof]

[Antrax]

[MatthewV]

[Pablo]

[Nsof]

[Antrax]

Nsof, theoretically a life sentence is a "life" sentence. Practically, every president we've ever had always accepted all requests to translate that into some fixed number of years, and 25 years per life sentence seems to be the going rate.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!

[extro...*]

[Jack_Ian]

[extro...*]

[Pablo]

[Antrax]

[MatthewV]

For Nsof:
Yes, I am fine with life imprisonment for repeat criminals. But not for criminals who might be repeat criminals.
Lets see, most first offenses will happen around the age of 20. Five years (served, not sentenced) of prison brings them to 25. They commit another crime shortly thereafter, 15 years of prison later they are 40. So then a 50 year sentence should be sufficient…
And life imprisonment for the crazy people who commit crimes of great magnitude.

The issue comes down to motivation of the person. I see people as being inherently good and develop traits that cause crimes. Kodiak saw exactly one murder happen while I was growing up and I don't believe another has happened yet. In this crime, three people were present. The charges issued were murder and two accessory to murders. The sentences were approximately 20 years and 5 years respectively. (OK, I don't remember exactly what was given it was long ago). As for their motive, it was hard to say. They did take the $21 dollars he had.
My personal guess is that only one person really wanted kill someone and the others just didn't have the guts to stand up and say no. It is very difficult to act out against an injustice that is happening right in front of you when the option of just passing by exists.

Now with Abdallah, part of me suspects that he was just going along with friends. Someone had the bright idea of kidnapping someone. Then they decided kill him. He may or may not have been okay with it at heart.
Think about it this way-- what would have happened to Abdallah if he had said "no, kidnapping someone isn't a good idea. Can't we just hang out and have a beer or something?" There isn't a way for him to get out without being abandoned so he ends up in part of a crime.
So I feel that ~5 to years (so a 10 year sentence) would be enough to break him away from that group of friends. A sentence that is longer will only bring upon more hatred. Israel would benefit from Palestinians who have been part of terrorist cells and then come home to say they don't want part of it anymore.
[Don't get sidetracked by this: The movie American History X shows this from one perspective. And it is a movie I recommend.]

I also am not familiar with gangs. But from liberal radio stories, one of the challenges for members can be leaving. Again, people will tolerate horrible things just because the people around them are their support group. If asked in private with no fear repercussions, many would leave that life. But it is easier just to continue the gang life which leads them to committing crimes.

I feel that I am a good person. I would never kill someone without a good reason and I don't belong in prison. But if I feel into the same shoes as Abdallah, I would have acted in a very similar fashion.


Pablo: the difference is between "crime because you hate someone" and "crime because you hate some type of person". So when you kill me because you don't like me as a person, that is fine*. But if you kill me because you don't like ignorant assholes, that is not okay!
*well not really.

[Pablo]

[Nsof]

[extro...*]

[MatthewV]

OK, I will change it to a beer coffee or something"

Obviously he should have chosen abandonment-- that is why he was convicted and sent to prison. My problem is that I feel I would have done the same thing in the same situation. But I also have worked hard not to bring the same situation upon myself.

[Nsof]

I am not sure why you feel you would have done the same thing in the same situation. What situation are you refereeing to? You have no idea what led him to the crime so why do you assume there is some kind of a rational for it that you could follow? Abdallah had hundreds if not thousands of opportunities to avoid this crime but unlike many of other Gaza inhabitants, who have chosen a less violent way to live and had similar reasons for disliking israelis, he decided to join an active terror group and murder an israeli.

One of the reasons that you wont follow the same path is because, as you indicated, you work hard in order to not get into these situations. Unlike you, Abdallah has worked very hard to create the situation he ended up in. He did not play a minor bystander role.
I partially blame my translation and brevity for not showing how bad that person is. You should learn hebrew and read for yourself . Also bear in mind that this is only taken from someone else's indictment. I can only imagine his own indictment.

I did not get the math related to imprisonment length you wrote about but I think you are approaching imprisonment/punishment only from corrective perspective but imprisonment/punishment has also other motivations.

A hebrew saying goes: One who is compassionate to the cruel should be careful not to become cruel to the compassionate.

[MatthewV]

Your second paragraph makes sense. The sentence of words used to describe the crime don't reflect on how bad of a character someone may be.
But there is a difference between being a monster and becoming a monster. I don't feel Israel's actions/reactions have stopped people from becoming angry. No, I do not have a solution on how to make that happen.

The reason that I am somewhat indifferent about the terror groups America is fighting is because if the roles were reversed, I would be the person in the hillside with a gun. I am thankful that life brought me better choices.

[extro...*]

[Jack_Ian]

[Antrax]

Oh, sorry, then. I'm talking specifically only about the court system (which is the system which judged the aforementioned prisoners). I was under the impression policing and prosecution fall under the executive authority.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!

[Jack_Ian]

Since I have no information to the contrary, I will concede that once a case gets before the judiciary, it is treated fairly by them.
However, they can not convict people for crimes that are ignored by police and they must work within the framework of evidence presented to them by the police and make rulings on laws passed by the legislature, so their scope is pretty limited.

[MatthewV]

[Antrax]

[extro...*]