Man plots the murder of in game rival for 6 months! O_o

[toastmaster2k8]

France is TWO YEARS for ATTEMPTED FIRST DEGREE MURDER!?

In the US that would land you 20 years at the least.

France is stupid, they always have been or just different but I think their just stupid

 

[Firia]

France is TWO YEARS for ATTEMPTED FIRST DEGREE MURDER!?

In the US that would land you 20 years at the least.

In all fairness, that's because in america, many prisons are privately organized and profit driven. That has had a way of influencing sentencing times through the years since the 70's. While I haven't had the same study with Frances' criminal justice system as I've had Americas, I doubt locking people up is as good business as it is in America.

Locking up prisoners is in no way profitable in America, these people must be fed and get a room for decades, that's not cheap, we have a problem with overcrowded prisons here, and we avoid locking people up whenever we possibly can.

We simply don't believe a slap on the wrist for premeditated attempted murder.

It is actually extremely profitable. There are towns that are based entirely on the economy that a prison brings. Lemme break it down for you in a short and sweet version. I learned all this in my time at school. You're getting the watered down version.

1 prisoner goes away to prison for crimes commited. The prison earns money granted by the government to house this prisoner, feed this prisoner, and guard this prisoner. The perk of doing this under private management over federal management, is that private management is cheaper to finance. So the government funds these institutions.

A criminal needs a place to be locked up. Prisons are built. Towns offer to let prisons be built near them because of the high paying jobs they offer. It's not often that with the same education to be a fry cook at Micky D's, you can be making 5 times as much an hour as a prison guard. So entire towns can hinge on the presence of jobs granted by prions. The government pays the private owners of these prisons per prisoner. So the more people locked away, the more money the prisons recieve. The more people locked away long term is good business. And it is a business. (My thesis was about how it's not criminal justice anymore.)

The part where you believe that prisons are not profitable is from the viewpoint of the tax payer. Yes, tax payers get the shaft. You pay a tax, and a percentage of that tax goes to criminal justice. That money goes into holding criminals. But because holding criminals is such good business, they aim to do more. So you pay more over time. They get more prisoners, you pay more. The share holders of private prisons, economies surrounding these prisons, and politicians* that take credit for setting up legal crackdowns on criminals all benifeit off of your tax payer money. But make no mistake, it is extremely good business.

*Politicians use the perception of being hard on crime as an edge to curry favor with the public. To appear "soft" on crime runs the risk of being losing the publics favor, and a whole host of political smeering from opponents. Some may have their hands in the prison pot of gold, but none of my studies focused on that.

Ah, but here is the problem with that theory.

The government is the one that sets the criminal charges and their respective sentences, NOT the prisons. The government loses money when someone is locked up, so it would make no sense for them to give high sentences for money.

It's no theory. If you want to learn more, I can recomend a small stack of books to read on the topic, like I have. There was a source I just tried to find, about a judge locking up every teenager sent before him because of bribes from prison officials needing to fill their prisons, but instead I found another example. [http://isiria.wordpress.com/2009/03/15/judges-paid-by-prison-industry-sent-children-to-jail-for-non-criminal-offences-the-tip-of-the-iceberg/]

While the prison system doesn't set the bar for how long a person is locked up, they influence the people that do. Every time you hear a politician cry out to the masses during voting season about harsher penalties for crimes, you may want to look at who's backing these people. While yes, gaining votes through perception is one thing, but helping to fund their campain to do it is a whole 'nother game.

I want you to know that what I'm talking about is not a theory. It's a true fact that in america, people are being locked away for profit. It's a whole new (except that it's not new) take on human trade. If you want to read more, just say the word and I'll go unpack my books, and give you the list you can buy through amazon.

Judges paid by prison industry sent children to jail for non-criminal offences: the tip of the iceberg

The US and British governments have created a private prison industry which preys on human lives.

Yeah, this doesn't sound biased or extremist in any way whatsoever.....

Judges sending children to jail for not breaking the law? Come on, even if you are wrong, you should at LEAST be able to come up with some better false sources than this

Evolution is a theory, but this opinion of yours is fact. Got it.

Any "legitimate" news site that comes with a picture like this in the article:

Is not exactly looking at the situation from a calm impartial viewpoint.

Oh look, here's another headline from that site:

Was Dr. David Kelly a target of Dick Cheney?s ?Executive Assassination Ring??

Looking more legitimate all the time.

You don't like that source? FINE. I encourage you to RESEARCH as I have before decrying my findings as opinion. That's how it works, by the way. You don't have a leg to stand on until you're educated in the manner I have educated myself. Once you take in that education, you can form a thesis yourself. I'd love to read it. Until then, you should check the sources listed by the lady you didn't like. Rather than, "sounds biased to me," you should research her notes listed at the bottom of the article, and see where she got her notes from. OR, read my research books. I'll even give you amazon links.

Total Confinement by Lorna A. Rhodes [http://www.amazon.com/Total-Confinement-Security-California-Anthropology/dp/0520240766/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275288058&sr=1-1]

Worse than Slavery, by David M. Oshinsky [http://www.amazon.com/Worse-than-Slavery-Parchman-Justice/dp/0684830957/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275288179&sr=1-1] is an example of classic example of prisoners turned business opportunities.

If you want more books, lemme know. Books take a while to read, and I had an incentive to read them (earning my Bachelors degree), whereas you're only engaged in an internet debate. Internet articles are not good research, but the volume of what they have to say should be an indication that something on what I'm saying is true.

Here's some websites.

- Prisons are good business [http://believeorcredo.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/private-prison-damn-good-business/]

- Wiki has something to say about the prison industrial complex. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison-industrial_complex] There's a whole HOST of external links there.

- It's one thing for judges to carry out a sentence. It's another for a judge to carry out a sentence based on bribes to sentence reguardless of guilty or innocent. [http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/01/06/counting-crows-a-sentence-for-the-birds/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wsj%2Flaw%2Ffeed+%28WSJ.com%3A+Law+Blog%29] Sentences longer than normal. PLENTY of links provided to follow that scandal.

- How a prison can shape the local economy of towns [http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/03/business/la-fi-0503-prisons-20100503] by the money they bring in.


A lecture about the prison industrial complex (which is connected how prisons are a business).

Spoiler

Angela Davis discusses Prison Industrial Complex

(remember, my point is that prisons are a business. I can't speak to the rest, though if you will do the research as I have, you will find that a lot of what she has to say has value.)


And that's it. If you're not willing to educate yourself on the topic based on the wealth of resources I have given you, and the sources others have listed, then we have nothing more to discuss, as it will be a matter of educated subject matter (me) verses opinion and intuition (you).

The problem is, you're still talking about how the prisons benefit, the only time you mention a judge is to mention that they are occasionally bribed to give longer than normal sentences. You don't mention why the legislature makes that initial sentence length for that crime, which is what I'm talking about.

There are always isolated patches of corruption in every government, but the sentences determined by legislature for each crime are because the voters value fair punishment for horrible crimes, nobody making that legislation benefits from long sentences.

And that does it. (EDIT - this part removed because it was mean, and unnessessary of me.) I hope you have better researching skills when you grow up. You can't respond my my research with opinion. It doesn't work that way. Either way. You don't need to believe for the truth to be any less factual.

 

[Danpascooch]

France is TWO YEARS for ATTEMPTED FIRST DEGREE MURDER!?

In the US that would land you 20 years at the least.

In all fairness, that's because in america, many prisons are privately organized and profit driven. That has had a way of influencing sentencing times through the years since the 70's. While I haven't had the same study with Frances' criminal justice system as I've had Americas, I doubt locking people up is as good business as it is in America.

Locking up prisoners is in no way profitable in America, these people must be fed and get a room for decades, that's not cheap, we have a problem with overcrowded prisons here, and we avoid locking people up whenever we possibly can.

We simply don't believe a slap on the wrist for premeditated attempted murder.

It is actually extremely profitable. There are towns that are based entirely on the economy that a prison brings. Lemme break it down for you in a short and sweet version. I learned all this in my time at school. You're getting the watered down version.

1 prisoner goes away to prison for crimes commited. The prison earns money granted by the government to house this prisoner, feed this prisoner, and guard this prisoner. The perk of doing this under private management over federal management, is that private management is cheaper to finance. So the government funds these institutions.

A criminal needs a place to be locked up. Prisons are built. Towns offer to let prisons be built near them because of the high paying jobs they offer. It's not often that with the same education to be a fry cook at Micky D's, you can be making 5 times as much an hour as a prison guard. So entire towns can hinge on the presence of jobs granted by prions. The government pays the private owners of these prisons per prisoner. So the more people locked away, the more money the prisons recieve. The more people locked away long term is good business. And it is a business. (My thesis was about how it's not criminal justice anymore.)

The part where you believe that prisons are not profitable is from the viewpoint of the tax payer. Yes, tax payers get the shaft. You pay a tax, and a percentage of that tax goes to criminal justice. That money goes into holding criminals. But because holding criminals is such good business, they aim to do more. So you pay more over time. They get more prisoners, you pay more. The share holders of private prisons, economies surrounding these prisons, and politicians* that take credit for setting up legal crackdowns on criminals all benifeit off of your tax payer money. But make no mistake, it is extremely good business.

*Politicians use the perception of being hard on crime as an edge to curry favor with the public. To appear "soft" on crime runs the risk of being losing the publics favor, and a whole host of political smeering from opponents. Some may have their hands in the prison pot of gold, but none of my studies focused on that.

Ah, but here is the problem with that theory.

The government is the one that sets the criminal charges and their respective sentences, NOT the prisons. The government loses money when someone is locked up, so it would make no sense for them to give high sentences for money.

It's no theory. If you want to learn more, I can recomend a small stack of books to read on the topic, like I have. There was a source I just tried to find, about a judge locking up every teenager sent before him because of bribes from prison officials needing to fill their prisons, but instead I found another example. [http://isiria.wordpress.com/2009/03/15/judges-paid-by-prison-industry-sent-children-to-jail-for-non-criminal-offences-the-tip-of-the-iceberg/]

While the prison system doesn't set the bar for how long a person is locked up, they influence the people that do. Every time you hear a politician cry out to the masses during voting season about harsher penalties for crimes, you may want to look at who's backing these people. While yes, gaining votes through perception is one thing, but helping to fund their campain to do it is a whole 'nother game.

I want you to know that what I'm talking about is not a theory. It's a true fact that in america, people are being locked away for profit. It's a whole new (except that it's not new) take on human trade. If you want to read more, just say the word and I'll go unpack my books, and give you the list you can buy through amazon.

Judges paid by prison industry sent children to jail for non-criminal offences: the tip of the iceberg

The US and British governments have created a private prison industry which preys on human lives.

Yeah, this doesn't sound biased or extremist in any way whatsoever.....

Judges sending children to jail for not breaking the law? Come on, even if you are wrong, you should at LEAST be able to come up with some better false sources than this

Evolution is a theory, but this opinion of yours is fact. Got it.

Any "legitimate" news site that comes with a picture like this in the article:

Is not exactly looking at the situation from a calm impartial viewpoint.

Oh look, here's another headline from that site:

Was Dr. David Kelly a target of Dick Cheney?s ?Executive Assassination Ring??

Looking more legitimate all the time.

You don't like that source? FINE. I encourage you to RESEARCH as I have before decrying my findings as opinion. That's how it works, by the way. You don't have a leg to stand on until you're educated in the manner I have educated myself. Once you take in that education, you can form a thesis yourself. I'd love to read it. Until then, you should check the sources listed by the lady you didn't like. Rather than, "sounds biased to me," you should research her notes listed at the bottom of the article, and see where she got her notes from. OR, read my research books. I'll even give you amazon links.

Total Confinement by Lorna A. Rhodes [http://www.amazon.com/Total-Confinement-Security-California-Anthropology/dp/0520240766/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275288058&sr=1-1]

Worse than Slavery, by David M. Oshinsky [http://www.amazon.com/Worse-than-Slavery-Parchman-Justice/dp/0684830957/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275288179&sr=1-1] is an example of classic example of prisoners turned business opportunities.

If you want more books, lemme know. Books take a while to read, and I had an incentive to read them (earning my Bachelors degree), whereas you're only engaged in an internet debate. Internet articles are not good research, but the volume of what they have to say should be an indication that something on what I'm saying is true.

Here's some websites.

- Prisons are good business [http://believeorcredo.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/private-prison-damn-good-business/]

- Wiki has something to say about the prison industrial complex. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison-industrial_complex] There's a whole HOST of external links there.

- It's one thing for judges to carry out a sentence. It's another for a judge to carry out a sentence based on bribes to sentence reguardless of guilty or innocent. [http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/01/06/counting-crows-a-sentence-for-the-birds/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wsj%2Flaw%2Ffeed+%28WSJ.com%3A+Law+Blog%29] Sentences longer than normal. PLENTY of links provided to follow that scandal.

- How a prison can shape the local economy of towns [http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/03/business/la-fi-0503-prisons-20100503] by the money they bring in.


A lecture about the prison industrial complex (which is connected how prisons are a business).

Spoiler

Angela Davis discusses Prison Industrial Complex

(remember, my point is that prisons are a business. I can't speak to the rest, though if you will do the research as I have, you will find that a lot of what she has to say has value.)


And that's it. If you're not willing to educate yourself on the topic based on the wealth of resources I have given you, and the sources others have listed, then we have nothing more to discuss, as it will be a matter of educated subject matter (me) verses opinion and intuition (you).

The problem is, you're still talking about how the prisons benefit, the only time you mention a judge is to mention that they are occasionally bribed to give longer than normal sentences. You don't mention why the legislature makes that initial sentence length for that crime, which is what I'm talking about.

There are always isolated patches of corruption in every government, but the sentences determined by legislature for each crime are because the voters value fair punishment for horrible crimes, nobody making that legislation benefits from long sentences.

And that does it. I hereby dub you ignorant. I hope you have better researching skills when you grow up. You can't respond my my research with opinion. It doesn't work that way. Either way. You don't need to believe for the truth to be any less factual.

I'm responding to you with logic, and telling you why what you are saying is a logical fallacy, don't seek to prove your argument true by putting a label on me, it won't work.

Explain to me why a few judges being bribed means that the initial sentencing guidelines set by the legislature (NOT the judges) are by motivation of profit. It doesn't make sense, since the people setting the bar for these sentences don't gain anything financially by making that crime carry a high penalty. If you can't explain that, than logically one has to conclude that it is because the popular opinion dictates that these officials support high penalties, or they will not be reelected.

You can't dub me ignorant because I apply logic to your statements, that's a load of bullshit. If your statements can't hold under scrutiny of a logical interpretation, that does not make me ignorant, that either means it is wrong, or you made a mistake in explaining it.

I think it's cute that when backed into a corner, instead of explain yourself, you insult me and assume I am not an adult. There is a difference between being "grown up" and being "a paranoid extremist" by the way.

I am completely justified to reply to your "research" with a logically applied store of common knowledge about the structure of the United States legal system.

 

[JEBWrench]

Again.
It has nothing to do with games. There was probability of him doing same to someone who just happened to bump into him in supermarket or spilled water on him. Its just mental illness and any tries to tie it to games should be met with a a big no, preferably in form of some psychiatric book into face kind of no.

Keava meet the point, I think you missed each other.

Was there a probability of him doing something like that? Maybe.

But the event that actually happened was directly caused by a gaming event.

He spend six months plotting someone's death because of a gaming event.

The game clearly affected his mental state, which, already fragile to begin with (allegedly, might I add, because nothing at all to this point has indicated any history of mental instability).

 

[Firia]

France is TWO YEARS for ATTEMPTED FIRST DEGREE MURDER!?

In the US that would land you 20 years at the least.

In all fairness, that's because in america, many prisons are privately organized and profit driven. That has had a way of influencing sentencing times through the years since the 70's. While I haven't had the same study with Frances' criminal justice system as I've had Americas, I doubt locking people up is as good business as it is in America.

Locking up prisoners is in no way profitable in America, these people must be fed and get a room for decades, that's not cheap, we have a problem with overcrowded prisons here, and we avoid locking people up whenever we possibly can.

We simply don't believe a slap on the wrist for premeditated attempted murder.

It is actually extremely profitable. There are towns that are based entirely on the economy that a prison brings. Lemme break it down for you in a short and sweet version. I learned all this in my time at school. You're getting the watered down version.

1 prisoner goes away to prison for crimes commited. The prison earns money granted by the government to house this prisoner, feed this prisoner, and guard this prisoner. The perk of doing this under private management over federal management, is that private management is cheaper to finance. So the government funds these institutions.

A criminal needs a place to be locked up. Prisons are built. Towns offer to let prisons be built near them because of the high paying jobs they offer. It's not often that with the same education to be a fry cook at Micky D's, you can be making 5 times as much an hour as a prison guard. So entire towns can hinge on the presence of jobs granted by prions. The government pays the private owners of these prisons per prisoner. So the more people locked away, the more money the prisons recieve. The more people locked away long term is good business. And it is a business. (My thesis was about how it's not criminal justice anymore.)

The part where you believe that prisons are not profitable is from the viewpoint of the tax payer. Yes, tax payers get the shaft. You pay a tax, and a percentage of that tax goes to criminal justice. That money goes into holding criminals. But because holding criminals is such good business, they aim to do more. So you pay more over time. They get more prisoners, you pay more. The share holders of private prisons, economies surrounding these prisons, and politicians* that take credit for setting up legal crackdowns on criminals all benifeit off of your tax payer money. But make no mistake, it is extremely good business.

*Politicians use the perception of being hard on crime as an edge to curry favor with the public. To appear "soft" on crime runs the risk of being losing the publics favor, and a whole host of political smeering from opponents. Some may have their hands in the prison pot of gold, but none of my studies focused on that.

Ah, but here is the problem with that theory.

The government is the one that sets the criminal charges and their respective sentences, NOT the prisons. The government loses money when someone is locked up, so it would make no sense for them to give high sentences for money.

It's no theory. If you want to learn more, I can recomend a small stack of books to read on the topic, like I have. There was a source I just tried to find, about a judge locking up every teenager sent before him because of bribes from prison officials needing to fill their prisons, but instead I found another example. [http://isiria.wordpress.com/2009/03/15/judges-paid-by-prison-industry-sent-children-to-jail-for-non-criminal-offences-the-tip-of-the-iceberg/]

While the prison system doesn't set the bar for how long a person is locked up, they influence the people that do. Every time you hear a politician cry out to the masses during voting season about harsher penalties for crimes, you may want to look at who's backing these people. While yes, gaining votes through perception is one thing, but helping to fund their campain to do it is a whole 'nother game.

I want you to know that what I'm talking about is not a theory. It's a true fact that in america, people are being locked away for profit. It's a whole new (except that it's not new) take on human trade. If you want to read more, just say the word and I'll go unpack my books, and give you the list you can buy through amazon.

Judges paid by prison industry sent children to jail for non-criminal offences: the tip of the iceberg

The US and British governments have created a private prison industry which preys on human lives.

Yeah, this doesn't sound biased or extremist in any way whatsoever.....

Judges sending children to jail for not breaking the law? Come on, even if you are wrong, you should at LEAST be able to come up with some better false sources than this

Evolution is a theory, but this opinion of yours is fact. Got it.

Any "legitimate" news site that comes with a picture like this in the article:

Is not exactly looking at the situation from a calm impartial viewpoint.

Oh look, here's another headline from that site:

Was Dr. David Kelly a target of Dick Cheney?s ?Executive Assassination Ring??

Looking more legitimate all the time.

You don't like that source? FINE. I encourage you to RESEARCH as I have before decrying my findings as opinion. That's how it works, by the way. You don't have a leg to stand on until you're educated in the manner I have educated myself. Once you take in that education, you can form a thesis yourself. I'd love to read it. Until then, you should check the sources listed by the lady you didn't like. Rather than, "sounds biased to me," you should research her notes listed at the bottom of the article, and see where she got her notes from. OR, read my research books. I'll even give you amazon links.

Total Confinement by Lorna A. Rhodes [http://www.amazon.com/Total-Confinement-Security-California-Anthropology/dp/0520240766/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275288058&sr=1-1]

Worse than Slavery, by David M. Oshinsky [http://www.amazon.com/Worse-than-Slavery-Parchman-Justice/dp/0684830957/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275288179&sr=1-1] is an example of classic example of prisoners turned business opportunities.

If you want more books, lemme know. Books take a while to read, and I had an incentive to read them (earning my Bachelors degree), whereas you're only engaged in an internet debate. Internet articles are not good research, but the volume of what they have to say should be an indication that something on what I'm saying is true.

Here's some websites.

- Prisons are good business [http://believeorcredo.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/private-prison-damn-good-business/]

- Wiki has something to say about the prison industrial complex. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison-industrial_complex] There's a whole HOST of external links there.

- It's one thing for judges to carry out a sentence. It's another for a judge to carry out a sentence based on bribes to sentence reguardless of guilty or innocent. [http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/01/06/counting-crows-a-sentence-for-the-birds/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wsj%2Flaw%2Ffeed+%28WSJ.com%3A+Law+Blog%29] Sentences longer than normal. PLENTY of links provided to follow that scandal.

- How a prison can shape the local economy of towns [http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/03/business/la-fi-0503-prisons-20100503] by the money they bring in.


A lecture about the prison industrial complex (which is connected how prisons are a business).

Spoiler

Angela Davis discusses Prison Industrial Complex

(remember, my point is that prisons are a business. I can't speak to the rest, though if you will do the research as I have, you will find that a lot of what she has to say has value.)


And that's it. If you're not willing to educate yourself on the topic based on the wealth of resources I have given you, and the sources others have listed, then we have nothing more to discuss, as it will be a matter of educated subject matter (me) verses opinion and intuition (you).

The problem is, you're still talking about how the prisons benefit, the only time you mention a judge is to mention that they are occasionally bribed to give longer than normal sentences. You don't mention why the legislature makes that initial sentence length for that crime, which is what I'm talking about.

There are always isolated patches of corruption in every government, but the sentences determined by legislature for each crime are because the voters value fair punishment for horrible crimes, nobody making that legislation benefits from long sentences.

And that does it. I hereby dub you ignorant. I hope you have better researching skills when you grow up. You can't respond my my research with opinion. It doesn't work that way. Either way. You don't need to believe for the truth to be any less factual.

I'm responding to you with logic, and telling you why what you are saying is a logical fallacy, don't seek to prove your argument true by putting a label on me, it won't work.

Explain to me why a few judges being bribed means that the initial sentencing guidelines set by the legislature (NOT the judges) are by motivation of profit. It doesn't make sense, since the people setting the bar for these sentences don't gain anything financially by making that crime carry a high penalty. If you can't explain that, than logically one has to conclude that it is because the popular opinion dictates that these officials support high penalties, or they will not be reelected.

You can't dub me ignorant because I apply logic to your statements, that's a load of bullshit. If your statements can't hold under scrutiny of a logical interpretation, that does not make me ignorant, that either means it is wrong, or you made a mistake in explaining it.

I think it's cute that when backed into a corner, instead of explain yourself, you insult me and assume I am not an adult. There is a difference between being "grown up" and being "a paranoid extremist" by the way.

I am completely justified to reply to your "research" with a logically applied store of common knowledge about the structure of the United States legal system.

Listen, I've given you more than enough of my time on the topic, and sited many resources. I'm hardly backed into a corner by your all important logic. Somehow you have cooked up a scheme on how the world works with ever venturing out into itself, and STILL have not done the research on the topic we're talking about. Knowledge trumps ignorance.

I will explain to you again one last and final time how it is a judge sentencing people for longer terms in prisons works out to be benificial. And I'm going to do it in fast mode, because again, you can find this in my sited links above-- like the Wall Street Journal article tracking one such scandal.

Prisons earn government subsidies for their operation per prisoner per business year.
The more prisoners a prison has, the more money they make.
The more prisoners a prison has over time, the longer lasting these prisoners pay off.

A judge can be paid off by prison lobbyists to sentence people sent before him (and in the instance I couldn't find for you originally, often without a trial-- yes, that was illegal, which is why it was so much more of a scandal) for longer terms in prison, for nothing "crimes" This filled prisons so that they could be paid more, over longer periods of time.

Government officials want to look good for the public.
Government officials take legal backing from lobbyists.
Some government officials take legal backing from prison lobbyists to make punishment for crimes harsher in terms of prison stay time.
Even without financial backing, politicians will make promises (and occationally make good on them) to "crack down" on crime, and making more things illegal, thereby increasing the prison population.

When it boils down to it, the more a prison has in its population, the more business it builds with the government with finances given to them by the government. That money has a lot of pull, and like it or not, exists in our society.

I've given you the short and skinny of it. I will not reply to your ignorance any more. If you want to VERIFY that your so-called logic is sound, then again, I invite you to go do the research.

 

[Danpascooch]

France is TWO YEARS for ATTEMPTED FIRST DEGREE MURDER!?

In the US that would land you 20 years at the least.

In all fairness, that's because in america, many prisons are privately organized and profit driven. That has had a way of influencing sentencing times through the years since the 70's. While I haven't had the same study with Frances' criminal justice system as I've had Americas, I doubt locking people up is as good business as it is in America.

Locking up prisoners is in no way profitable in America, these people must be fed and get a room for decades, that's not cheap, we have a problem with overcrowded prisons here, and we avoid locking people up whenever we possibly can.

We simply don't believe a slap on the wrist for premeditated attempted murder.

It is actually extremely profitable. There are towns that are based entirely on the economy that a prison brings. Lemme break it down for you in a short and sweet version. I learned all this in my time at school. You're getting the watered down version.

1 prisoner goes away to prison for crimes commited. The prison earns money granted by the government to house this prisoner, feed this prisoner, and guard this prisoner. The perk of doing this under private management over federal management, is that private management is cheaper to finance. So the government funds these institutions.

A criminal needs a place to be locked up. Prisons are built. Towns offer to let prisons be built near them because of the high paying jobs they offer. It's not often that with the same education to be a fry cook at Micky D's, you can be making 5 times as much an hour as a prison guard. So entire towns can hinge on the presence of jobs granted by prions. The government pays the private owners of these prisons per prisoner. So the more people locked away, the more money the prisons recieve. The more people locked away long term is good business. And it is a business. (My thesis was about how it's not criminal justice anymore.)

The part where you believe that prisons are not profitable is from the viewpoint of the tax payer. Yes, tax payers get the shaft. You pay a tax, and a percentage of that tax goes to criminal justice. That money goes into holding criminals. But because holding criminals is such good business, they aim to do more. So you pay more over time. They get more prisoners, you pay more. The share holders of private prisons, economies surrounding these prisons, and politicians* that take credit for setting up legal crackdowns on criminals all benifeit off of your tax payer money. But make no mistake, it is extremely good business.

*Politicians use the perception of being hard on crime as an edge to curry favor with the public. To appear "soft" on crime runs the risk of being losing the publics favor, and a whole host of political smeering from opponents. Some may have their hands in the prison pot of gold, but none of my studies focused on that.

Ah, but here is the problem with that theory.

The government is the one that sets the criminal charges and their respective sentences, NOT the prisons. The government loses money when someone is locked up, so it would make no sense for them to give high sentences for money.

It's no theory. If you want to learn more, I can recomend a small stack of books to read on the topic, like I have. There was a source I just tried to find, about a judge locking up every teenager sent before him because of bribes from prison officials needing to fill their prisons, but instead I found another example. [http://isiria.wordpress.com/2009/03/15/judges-paid-by-prison-industry-sent-children-to-jail-for-non-criminal-offences-the-tip-of-the-iceberg/]

While the prison system doesn't set the bar for how long a person is locked up, they influence the people that do. Every time you hear a politician cry out to the masses during voting season about harsher penalties for crimes, you may want to look at who's backing these people. While yes, gaining votes through perception is one thing, but helping to fund their campain to do it is a whole 'nother game.

I want you to know that what I'm talking about is not a theory. It's a true fact that in america, people are being locked away for profit. It's a whole new (except that it's not new) take on human trade. If you want to read more, just say the word and I'll go unpack my books, and give you the list you can buy through amazon.

Judges paid by prison industry sent children to jail for non-criminal offences: the tip of the iceberg

The US and British governments have created a private prison industry which preys on human lives.

Yeah, this doesn't sound biased or extremist in any way whatsoever.....

Judges sending children to jail for not breaking the law? Come on, even if you are wrong, you should at LEAST be able to come up with some better false sources than this

Evolution is a theory, but this opinion of yours is fact. Got it.

Any "legitimate" news site that comes with a picture like this in the article:

Is not exactly looking at the situation from a calm impartial viewpoint.

Oh look, here's another headline from that site:

Was Dr. David Kelly a target of Dick Cheney?s ?Executive Assassination Ring??

Looking more legitimate all the time.

You don't like that source? FINE. I encourage you to RESEARCH as I have before decrying my findings as opinion. That's how it works, by the way. You don't have a leg to stand on until you're educated in the manner I have educated myself. Once you take in that education, you can form a thesis yourself. I'd love to read it. Until then, you should check the sources listed by the lady you didn't like. Rather than, "sounds biased to me," you should research her notes listed at the bottom of the article, and see where she got her notes from. OR, read my research books. I'll even give you amazon links.

Total Confinement by Lorna A. Rhodes [http://www.amazon.com/Total-Confinement-Security-California-Anthropology/dp/0520240766/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275288058&sr=1-1]

Worse than Slavery, by David M. Oshinsky [http://www.amazon.com/Worse-than-Slavery-Parchman-Justice/dp/0684830957/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275288179&sr=1-1] is an example of classic example of prisoners turned business opportunities.

If you want more books, lemme know. Books take a while to read, and I had an incentive to read them (earning my Bachelors degree), whereas you're only engaged in an internet debate. Internet articles are not good research, but the volume of what they have to say should be an indication that something on what I'm saying is true.

Here's some websites.

- Prisons are good business [http://believeorcredo.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/private-prison-damn-good-business/]

- Wiki has something to say about the prison industrial complex. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison-industrial_complex] There's a whole HOST of external links there.

- It's one thing for judges to carry out a sentence. It's another for a judge to carry out a sentence based on bribes to sentence reguardless of guilty or innocent. [http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/01/06/counting-crows-a-sentence-for-the-birds/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wsj%2Flaw%2Ffeed+%28WSJ.com%3A+Law+Blog%29] Sentences longer than normal. PLENTY of links provided to follow that scandal.

- How a prison can shape the local economy of towns [http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/03/business/la-fi-0503-prisons-20100503] by the money they bring in.


A lecture about the prison industrial complex (which is connected how prisons are a business).

Spoiler

Angela Davis discusses Prison Industrial Complex

(remember, my point is that prisons are a business. I can't speak to the rest, though if you will do the research as I have, you will find that a lot of what she has to say has value.)


And that's it. If you're not willing to educate yourself on the topic based on the wealth of resources I have given you, and the sources others have listed, then we have nothing more to discuss, as it will be a matter of educated subject matter (me) verses opinion and intuition (you).

The problem is, you're still talking about how the prisons benefit, the only time you mention a judge is to mention that they are occasionally bribed to give longer than normal sentences. You don't mention why the legislature makes that initial sentence length for that crime, which is what I'm talking about.

There are always isolated patches of corruption in every government, but the sentences determined by legislature for each crime are because the voters value fair punishment for horrible crimes, nobody making that legislation benefits from long sentences.

And that does it. I hereby dub you ignorant. I hope you have better researching skills when you grow up. You can't respond my my research with opinion. It doesn't work that way. Either way. You don't need to believe for the truth to be any less factual.

I'm responding to you with logic, and telling you why what you are saying is a logical fallacy, don't seek to prove your argument true by putting a label on me, it won't work.

Explain to me why a few judges being bribed means that the initial sentencing guidelines set by the legislature (NOT the judges) are by motivation of profit. It doesn't make sense, since the people setting the bar for these sentences don't gain anything financially by making that crime carry a high penalty. If you can't explain that, than logically one has to conclude that it is because the popular opinion dictates that these officials support high penalties, or they will not be reelected.

You can't dub me ignorant because I apply logic to your statements, that's a load of bullshit. If your statements can't hold under scrutiny of a logical interpretation, that does not make me ignorant, that either means it is wrong, or you made a mistake in explaining it.

I think it's cute that when backed into a corner, instead of explain yourself, you insult me and assume I am not an adult. There is a difference between being "grown up" and being "a paranoid extremist" by the way.

I am completely justified to reply to your "research" with a logically applied store of common knowledge about the structure of the United States legal system.

Listen, I've given you more than enough of my time on the topic, and sited many resources. I'm hardly backed into a corner by your all important logic. Somehow you have cooked up a scheme on how the world works with ever venturing out into itself, and STILL have not done the research on the topic we're talking about. Knowledge trumps ignorance.

I will explain to you again one last and final time how it is a judge sentencing people for longer terms in prisons works out to be benificial. And I'm going to do it in fast mode, because again, you can find this in my sited links above-- like the Wall Street Journal article tracking one such scandal.

Prisons earn government subsidies for their operation per prisoner per business year.
The more prisoners a prison has, the more money they make.
The more prisoners a prison has over time, the longer lasting these prisoners pay off.

A judge can be paid off by prison lobbyists to sentence people sent before him (and in the instance I couldn't find for you originally, often without a trial-- yes, that was illegal, which is why it was so much more of a scandal) for longer terms in prison, for nothing "crimes" This filled prisons so that they could be paid more, over longer periods of time.

Government officials want to look good for the public.
Government officials take legal backing from lobbyists.
Some government officials take legal backing from prison lobbyists to make punishment for crimes harsher in terms of prison stay time.
Even without financial backing, politicians will make promises (and occationally make good on them) to "crack down" on crime, and making more things illegal, thereby increasing the prison population.

When it boils down to it, the more a prison has in its population, the more business it builds with the government with finances given to them by the government. That money has a lot of pull, and like it or not, exists in our society.

I've given you the short and skinny of it. I will not reply to your ignorance any more. If you want to VERIFY that your so-called logic is sound, then again, I invite you to go do the research.

You've got to be kidding me, you keep trying to prove your point, when I am arguing a DIFFERENT POINT THAN YOU ARE. both of what we're saying can be true, why don't you realize that?

When I say a man can get 20 years for first degree attempted murder, it is because that is the ballpark sentencing guideline SET BY LEGISLATURE NOT SET BY THE JUDGE. It doesn't have any relevance if judges are occasionally bribed, that 20 years is a sentencing guideline set by somebody else. So try to prove that judges can be bribed all you want, hell, try to prove that corndogs are salty if you want, but no matter how well you prove it, the thing you are proving is IRRELEVANT to my point.

For the sake of argument, I will say you are 100% right and that judges want to give higher sentences.

But what about the sentencing rules set by legislature? That is what I have been talking about this whole time, no matter how well you try to prove that I am wrong, you are trying to prove I am wrong about something I never even argued.

So please explain, why do the PEOPLE SETTING THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES (NOT the judge) profit from making them high? Because when I said a man would get 20 years for that in the USA, I am saying that because that is the ballpark sentence range a judge is legally obligated to give. There are indeterminate and determinate sentencing rules, the judge often has to choose from a range of sentences pre-described by law, that's why they sometimes say that are giving you the maximum sentence. Show me something that shows that the people setting those sentences ranges make money off of it, because that is the argument here, not the rogue judges.

You keep calling me wrong by trying to prove something that is not what I was talking about.

If you want to stop that's fine, but if you care to continue this, I need to know why you think the people setting those ranges of sentences profit from this, because some corrupt judges are not relevant to my argument.

 

[dmase]

Because he got knifed? There has to be more behind this. There is no way that this is the first time he'd been knifed by someone, yet had still played knife fight enough to care.

It was the worst in game teabagging of his life... you don't come back from that normal.

More people to make the gaming community look bad, but at least the judge seemed to recognize that it wasn't the videogames and that any situation that guy was put in he probably would have gone homicidal eventually.

 

[Keava]

Again.
It has nothing to do with games. There was probability of him doing same to someone who just happened to bump into him in supermarket or spilled water on him. Its just mental illness and any tries to tie it to games should be met with a a big no, preferably in form of some psychiatric book into face kind of no.

Keava meet the point, I think you missed each other.

Was there a probability of him doing something like that? Maybe.

But the event that actually happened was directly caused by a gaming event.

He spend six months plotting someone's death because of a gaming event.

The game clearly affected his mental state, which, already fragile to begin with (allegedly, might I add, because nothing at all to this point has indicated any history of mental instability).

Gaming event is excuse. A person with such state of mental issue can flip over anything trivial. The fact in this specific case it was caused by game does not mean that it is game's fault.
He spent six months plotting someones death because he was disgraced, proven inferior, humiliated and his psyche could not handle such fact. Sure the game was sort of catalyst for such strong reaction, but it could as well be anything else. The boy was accident waiting to happen, and the blame is purely on anyone who failed to keep him in safe environment. On those that failed to notice over 6 months that something is not right with the boy.

Blaming media of any form for such things is just trying to excuse oneself from the fact we, as in humanity, tend to ignore anything that we cant/dont want to handle ourselves.
Mental disorders dont happen overnight.

 

[JEBWrench]

Gaming event is excuse. A person with such state of mental issue can flip over anything trivial. The fact in this specific case it was caused by game does not mean that it is game's fault.
He spent six months plotting someones death because he was disgraced, proven inferior, humiliated and his psyche could not handle such fact. Sure the game was sort of catalyst for such strong reaction, but it could as well be anything else. The boy was accident waiting to happen, and the blame is purely on anyone who failed to keep him in safe environment. On those that failed to notice over 6 months that something is not right with the boy.

Blaming media of any form for such things is just trying to excuse oneself from the fact we, as in humanity, tend to ignore anything that we cant/dont want to handle ourselves.
Mental disorders dont happen overnight.

Once again, you're making the assumption that there was mental instability. I'm not saying there wasn't, but as of yet, there has been no indication of it. For all the evidence that currently exists, he got pissed off because of getting killed in a game, and then tried to stab someone over it.

 

[Keava]

Once again, you're making the assumption that there was mental instability. I'm not saying there wasn't, but as of yet, there has been no indication of it. For all the evidence that currently exists, he got pissed off because of getting killed in a game, and then tried to stab someone over it.

This is exactly the reason why i am making such assumption. You see, normality is behavior within commonly acknowledged social model. The amplitude of acceptable actions is moderate but kept within certain boundaries.

Now the boy's actions are way off the scale and the curve of his behavior would have very high amplitude judging just by that one event, which points to rather serious mental issue. Thing is something like that does not happen for no reason. To actually consider killing someone you need to be mentally unstable or be put in extream situation. Since loosing in a game is not considered as such situation by all standards it leaves the psychopathic tendencies as the cause.
Now add the fact he spent 6 months planning it, more than enough time for a person operating within the boundaries of behaviors considered as sane to get over it. He put effort and time it, which shows he was acting within his own logic and perception of good and bad, acceptable and unacceptable so vastly different from norm that he could not be, by any means, considered a sane person.

 

[JEBWrench]

Now the boy's actions are way off the scale and the curve of his behavior would have very high amplitude judging just by that one event, which points to rather serious mental issue. Thing is something like that does not happen for no reason. To actually consider killing someone you need to be mentally unstable or be put in extream situation. Since loosing in a game is not considered as such situation by all standards it leaves the psychopathic tendencies as the cause.
Now add the fact he spent 6 months planning it, more than enough time for a person operating within the boundaries of behaviors considered as sane to get over it. He put effort and time it, which shows he was acting within his own logic and perception of good and bad, acceptable and unacceptable so vastly different from norm that he could not be, by any means, considered a sane person.

You may very well prove to be correct, I admit. I highly doubt the man was mentally stable, but as of yet, there is no definite indication of that.

Of course, it still doesn't address the fact that he tried killing someone because of a game event.

See, what I'm getting at:

"Man plays CS." -> "Avatar gets knifed." -> "Man tries killing."

The situation could have been avoided by a) Not playing CS, and then it remains completely unknown as to whether the man would've considered killing.

Or b) Being a better CS player.

....

Or c) Not trying killing.