/lit/ - Literature

>>6132102
>rehabilitation
Top kek.
>there are far cheaper and effective methods with which to punish
They're all inhumane.

Prisons are morally wrong, they should not exist. It mainly comes down to these 3 points:

1. Locking up a person, and punishing him only makes the person feel like an outsider when he gets out.

2. Locking a person up with other morally reprehensible people will only further corrupt his character.

3. Human beings have no right to judge human beings.

Locking people up seems so inefficient. Surely they can be put to work somewhere if we desperately want to keep them out of society for 1/4 of their lives.

>>6132155
Excellent proposition, comrade!

As someone who actually been to prison, it's very simple: they make the sentences long as fuck, so that they can get to take a plea deal for a lessor crime, and that saves them from having to deal with you in a trial. If the DA had to take every case to trial, the DA would have a much lower batting average, and it would cost the state a fucking massive amount of money and time, and they would have to release a ton of people because they couldn't get them to trial fast enough (I think they have sixty days if you press the issue).

>>6132159
I think the ideal solution would be to not make people spend over a decade being punished for something. People consume a lot in ten years and I don't think anyone gains anything from prisoners being in prison, aside from maybe the guys running the prison depending on where you are.

>>6132155
You are put to work, unless you're considered too risky for it because you might kill someone or try to escape.

>>6132161
Even in that case, isn't anything more than two or three years a bit excessive?

>>6132159
I'd rather be in the Gulags than prison, tbh, so long as it wasn't during the German invasion.

>>6132162
What about people who would be dangers to society if they were alowed to leave prison?

You need to keep unemployable people out of the streets so you have a higher virtual employment.

>>6132177
Yeah, I can understand them. But most people in prison probably aren't all that dangerous to society and are just kind of sitting there.

Sure, a lot of the smaller time guys will go back to stealing cars a week after they're out, but those people need some kind of support to get their shit together, not just endlessly cycling in and out of prison.

>>6132169
Doesn't really matter. They're going to commit crimes again when they get out anyway, most people in prison are part of gangs, and whites and Mexicans revere the gangs that run them in prisons like Napoleon's men revered him, to the extent that they'll often die for them, and pretty much obey them unquestionably on the outside. Gang members fucking loath the police and the law as something dirty and dishonorable (they have an extremely strict code of honor themselves). Anything over a couple of years might be excessive for regular people, but they'll get off with a very easy pleas if it's their first offense. As for gangsters, they cultural criminals, even if they don't want to commit crimes, all their friends do, and they do not see criminal activity as immoral, but rather a mark of bravery and courage, they look at serious gangsters how regular people look at war heroes. The better ones will definitely die or serve life before snitching, they won't even snitch on someone who stabs them. This isn't just irresponsibility, to them it is a very deep set of values and identities, they earn specific tattoos and work for respect and recognition among their peers, they work out together and chant and have cries...Mexican "soldiers under respect" are even allowed to chant in Aztec as a sign of distinction. This is something they will die for.

>>6132204
As a normal person I find that profoundly retarded.

Is there any chance of dismantling this culture short of open warfare on all American gangs or is it just too deeply entrenched?

And why does America have such an absurd gang problem? In Australia maybe twice a year across the whole country a bikie meth-head stabs another bikie meth-head.

>>6132204
So what you're saying is the laws are focused on dealing with gangs and gang culture. I honestly see this as only making the matters worse for the non-affiliated (I have no clue how much crime is gang-related and how much isn't so I can't make that call for sure).

>>6132201
Most poor people who commit crimes a lot, unless it's just to feed a drug addictions, are at least associates of their local gang. That's where you find criminal peers and people can share knowledge and you can share stories with. And if you're selling stolen cars, you absolutely have to work through a gang.

But there are a few guys in prison who aren't really hard criminals, I have a friend who is doing five years for breaking into a guy's house and beating him up (guy slept with his girl apparently). He got charged with homo invasion, which is very serious, so he's doing a lot of time. He was drunk at the time and he is not a crazy guy as far as temper goes at all. He has a lot of friends who are in gangs, but he himself only wants to be a hardworking regular person. I know for sure he doesn't need five years for what he did, and he's more angry with himself than he is with his (ex) gf or who she cheated with at this point.

>>6132102
because prisons in the U.S. are outsourced to private contractors who earn more if more people get sentenced for longer times

>>6132208
Open warfare would probably just make gangsters more respected. Poorer neighborhoods like the prison gangs at the top, they prohibit rape, drive bys, and child killing, and they prevent wars between gangs on the outside from getting too escalated (that is, Mexican and white gangs; crips and bloods don't have such a central authority). Gangs allow poor people to feel empowered and noble instead of like dirt, you really can't fix that without offering something to replace it. I can tell you, having been locked up, gangsters do not have something wrong with them, they're just regular people when they aren't around guns or drugs, and by regular I mean they aren't even stupider than regular people, they're uneducated, but they're far from stupid (I can tell the difference, and so can they).

>>6132216
A lot of poor people who aren't in gangs still sympathize with them, and I sure as shit appreciated them protecting me from things like rape in prison and generally looking out for me, despite me not actually being in a gang.

But yeah, gang culture is really the issue, I have no doubt a lot of gang members would not be doing shit except everyone they know is in a gang. You can tell when someone is a psychopath or a dumbfuck, and when they'd just be regular in the right enviroment, and most of them would just be regular. I have a friend who is a former gang member, who has killed people (they were killers themselves though), and went to prison for attempted murder (stabbed a guy but it didn't kill him); he got out, ended up getting a job (he was in over seven years, and criminal stuff past seven years employers don't check), and now he is extremely normal and just acts like a regular just, but is covered with tattoos under his shirt. He works at an animal shelter. Big difference is he severed all his old friendships and only has friends with people who aren't in gangs now, and he moved to a different city to do that.

What boggles my mind is why we don't execute habitual criminals and gang members.

It would literally solve the gang problem over night. Just kill them all.

>>6132239
Nope. Everyone in a shitty neighboorhood has numerous friends and family in gangs, you couldn't do that without taking a loved one from just about every slum dweller, and that would enrage them enough to help gangs more. Furthermore, it would make snitches extremely reticent. In the meantime, you would destroy the "mafias" (prison gangs) that run the outside, and all of a sudden you'd have no rules. Gangs cannot slaughter whole families or do drive bys because these things are expressly forbid by the "mafias" under pain of death.

>>6132239
That idea sounds a bit half-baked. Even if you are from Buenos Aires that's probably not the right solution.

Here in Germany, the longest possible sentence that someone can get is 15 years. In a few extreme cases (gruesome or multiple murders/serial rape where the person is considered to be a menace to society), after 15 years the offender is sent to an institution that resembles a prison to be locked up indefinitely.

Here, anything over 3 years is considered to be a very long sentence. Things like assault with a deadly weapon and robbery, even in cases of repeated offences, don't get you more than 5 years.

Not to mention that people don't go to jail in Germany for ridiculous things like possession of drugs or other things that fall into the category of ''victimless crimes''. Which explains why our prisons are not shockingly overfilled like America's prisons.

>>6132249
Germany always sounds so nice and civil when people talk about it. Is it the disposition of the people, or is the system just incredibly well thought out and managed?

>>6132245
>Everyone in a shitty neighboorhood has numerous friends and family in gangs, you couldn't do that without taking a loved one from just about every slum dweller
Who cares?

>and that would enrage them enough to help gangs more.
Send in the national guard and mow them down.

>Furthermore, it would make snitches extremely reticent
On the contrary, it would enable snitching, which is a big no-no today because snitches know very well that the police don't care about their safety.

>In the meantime, you would destroy the "mafias" (prison gangs) that run the outside, and all of a sudden you'd have no rules.
Yeah no rule except for the rule of law perhaps...

>Gangs cannot slaughter whole families or do drive bys because these things are expressly forbid by the "mafias" under pain of death.
Who cares? Gangs are a nuisance. I say exterminate them.

>>6132248
Why does it sound half-baked?

>>6132253
>Send in the national guard and mow them down.
That would incite revolt.

>On the contrary, it would enable snitching, which is a big no-no today because snitches know very well that the police don't care about their safety.
Snitches who aren't getting any time sign special deals, generally for some sort of protection. Snitches who are getting time get protective custody.

>>6132253
>Why does it sound half-baked
You responded to two points made by the guy in this thread who seems to know the issue best with 'who cares?'

It really doesn't sound like you're thinking this through.

It seems like if this idea of yours was attempted the army would probably end up wiping several towns/neighborhoods since people wouldn't stand for their neighbors being executed by the government. Also, soldiers probably wouldn't like killing their own people and that's bitten governments in the ass before.

>>6132253
>exterminate them.

Thanks for your advice, the masterminds at FBI and DEA were working for years on a solution, but god bless, you of all of them casually deduced it from your armchair.
kudos to you good sir

>>6132253
>Why does it sound half-baked?
Different anon here. I wouldn't call it half-baked. I'd call it a mess of eggs and flour in the bowl. Granted, that was what the general idea behind the SPOILER: GODWIN'S LAW Final Solution boiled down to, but that had more than a decade of experimentation, organization, and planning behind it. Plus the Nazis really hated the Jews. I don't think anyone actually hates gangs the way some people hate Jews.

>>6132258
I'm going to add to this that the biggest inhibition to snitching isn't fear, it's a moral code. It's one of the worst possible things you can do, and I guarantee that most of the gang members who end up doing it (usually to avoid a life sentence) feel fucking awful about it, because they just flushed who they were and every value they stand for (values many of them would die for) down the toilet.

>>6132252
Germany does have its flaws but overall i must say im really glad to be born here and not in murica or something. The flaws are not too strict, most times you get in trouble with the police they let you go without fine if youre nice and cooperative.
Education and overpopulation are huge problems but i guess thats only in our eyes and still a improvement to america for example

>>6132258
>That would incite revolt.
Send in the army and kill every last one of them.

>Snitches who aren't getting any time sign special deals, generally for some sort of protection. Snitches who are getting time get protective custody.
All I'm saying is, the idea that persecution would discourage snitches is absurd. The number of snitches reached a record high number in Russia during Stalin's great purge (before you say something, no, I do not condone Stalin's great purge)

>>6132263
>You responded to two points made by the guy in this thread who seems to know the issue best with 'who cares?'
Not "who cares?", but "I don't care". There's a difference.

>It seems like if this idea of yours was attempted the army would probably end up wiping several towns/neighborhoods since people wouldn't stand for their neighbors being executed by the government. Also, soldiers probably wouldn't like killing their own people and that's bitten governments in the ass before.
It would be a tiny loss to lose a few ghettos, if it brings peace and prosperity to the land. A necessary sacrifice.

>>6132264
The FBI and DEA are impeded by the absurd legislation which goes to great lengths to protect criminals.

>>6132208
Retarded how? Vast majority of criminals, including gangsters, come from poverty. They've been largely abandoned by the state. They don't know what to do, they can't get any jobs because there are no jobs, as kids the look for stability and father figures of which none exists outside the gangs (since everyone is unemployed or working shit jobs for shit wages with no union there to help), they see a chance to be recognized for their abilities rather than looked down upon by the rest of society for being born into hopeless situations they can't do much to change. Man, the things that poverty, especially ghettos, does to drive people to idolize and join gangs are plentiful and very easy to understand. Nothing retarded about it at all. Thinking "let's shoot the gangs out of existence" is at all a possible solution, however, is retarded. You'd have to literally kill every single poor person to ensure such a thing, and then everyone who isn't poor but cares enough about poor people to be upset by such an act, and then everyone who doesn't care about poor people but who cares about people who cares about poor people etc.. Crime is dealt with by reducing the conditions that give birth to it: by uplifting the poor so they are no longer poor.

>>6132268
Sorry, I really can't take seriously someone who brings up Godwin's law.

>>6132275
Education and overpopulation are problems in a lot of first world country's so if that's your biggest concern that's pretty decent.

Europe does sound worryingly overpopulated though. In Australia we have a tiny population in relation to our size, especially compared to some parts of Europe. Overpopulation still scares me though, we're good now, but we aren't showing any signs of slowing down.

>>6132285
Considering your cure-all solution to a very complex issue is "let's kill them all" I doubt anyone's taking you seriously.

>>6132286
>Germany
>Overpopulation

Not with massively falling birth rates. Except owait
>immigration

Looks like there's an easy problem to that overpopulation problem

>>6132279
I worded that badly, I agree with what you said, that the conditions that create gangs have to be dealt with, not the gangs themselves. I'm not the anon saying we need to kill everyone with a tattoo.

I meant more that it's retarded that conditions needed to create this gang culture could actually exist. Especially in a first world country.

>>6132290
>genuinely replying to 16yo /v/ tourists

>>6132290
The L.A.P.D. is probably taking notes.

>>6132290
Seriously, how would killing them all not solve the problem?

>>6132298
How would killing all humanity not solve the problem?

>>6132296
Is the LAPD really that bad? I'd like to hear from somebody who's lived in LA.

Why do they have such a shit reputation?

>>6132300
Are you stupid? Most people don't partake in gang activities. How will killing people not affiliated in any way with gangs solve the gang problems? How would killing every single gang member not solve the gang problem? It's not as if it's hard to find, they literally tattoo their gang affiliation on their bodies.

>>6132311
Kill all gang members, you solve all gang problems. Kill all humans, you solve all human problems. Simple.

>>6132277
>Send in the army and kill every last one of them.
I don't think that would work. In think in fact that gangs are far better at urban fighting in the neighborhoods they grew up in, than weekend warriors would be, and that a fuckload of soldiers come from slums would would definitely defect and help the people you're trying to exterminate to acquire all sorts of military grade shit. And make no mistake, there are already a shit ton of guns, including assault rifles and machine guns and even flak jackets, in shit neighborhoods. If did this, you would start a full scale civil war that would be rapidly organized along class lines.

>The number of snitches reached a record high number in Russia during Stalin's great purge (before you say something, no, I do not condone Stalin's great purge)
There was a vast rise in the things you could snitch on. Long-term, this is what made the basis of the Russian mafia, which is extremely organized and efficient.

>>6132300
Nnnnnow you get itttt.
>>6132311
Because gangs are individual criminals who've organized, and indial criminals are a result of poverty, and you don't remove poverty by killing gang members. Also, killing all criminals would result in far more deaths than the criminals themselves are responsible for, you'd be killing ten to save one. Most criminals stick to killing other criminals as well, so you'd be killing eleven criminals to save no criminals.

>>6132307

it honestly depends where you're at in LA

but yeah all cops are pigs fuck LAPD fuck the police cali love baby

>>6132311
what level of education, if any, did you enjoy?
:^)

>>6132219
spooked

>>6132311
Most poor people, even those who absolutely hate gangs, have loved ones who are in gangs (and that is probably one of the things they hate most about gangs, because they don't like seeing their loved ones going to prison or getting killed). If you kill a mother's child for being in a gang, his shits her hatred from the gang toward the state. If he goes to prison or is killed on the street, she hates the gang.

>>6132307
Well, part of it is that they've been shot at so much that they've started shooting before they get shot at. But they also have a long-standing tradition of acting as cronies for companies against unions, of beating down peaceful demonstrators, of corruption and taking bribes from gangs, and of general asshole behavior.

>>6132315
>Kill all gang members, you solve all gang problems. Kill all humans, you solve all human problems. Simple.
Yes, but killing all humans is not the objective here. Improving humanity is.

>>6132318
>I don't think that would work. In think in fact that gangs are far better at urban fighting in the neighborhoods they grew up in, than weekend warriors would be
Kek what? You think that niggas who shoot their gun sideways to look "gangsta" would be better at urban combat than highly specialized soldiers trained specifically in urban combat?

>and that a fuckload of soldiers come from slums would would definitely defect and help the people you're trying to exterminate to acquire all sorts of military grade shit.
History shows the opposite to be true.

> And make no mistake, there are already a shit ton of guns, including assault rifles and machine guns and even flak jackets, in shit neighborhoods. If did this, you would start a full scale civil war that would be rapidly organized along class lines.
That's a big assumption, and I don't share it.

>There was a vast rise in the things you could snitch on. Long-term, this is what made the basis of the Russian mafia, which is extremely organized and efficient.
Honestly, I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject to comment, I was just providing a counter example to your original claim that persecution leads to a decrease in snitching.

>>6132335
Huh, that sucks. It's good to live in a quiet country.

>>6132337
>Kek what? You think that niggas who shoot their gun sideways to look "gangsta" would be better at urban combat than highly specialized soldiers trained specifically in urban combat?
Hell yes. Urban combat isn't just taking cover behind cars, it's about hiding among the populace. Give it a week and gang members will stop wearing gang signs and you won't know who they are until they're tossing firebombs at your vehicle and then disappear into an alley. Not to mention that the increased pressure would attract mercenaries who would educate the gangsters and ultimately take control and organize them in more military fashion. See Mexico.

>>6132337
>Yes, but killing all humans is not the objective here. Improving humanity is.
How is solving humanity's problems not improving it?

>>6132337
if you kill every gang member, nobody will snitch
they only snitch because they believe working with the cops will be better in the long run
its the same reason why you take war prisoners and treat them well, because if you dont, they will fight till they die.

>>6132337
>Kek what? You think that niggas who shoot their gun sideways to look "gangsta" would be better at urban combat than highly specialized soldiers trained specifically in urban combat?
Most gang members I've known do not do that. They practice with guns a lot at firing ranges that are gang friendly, they know very well how to hold a gun, including machine guns and assault rifles. They are extremely serious about guns, they are passionate about them. They are not half=ass in any way.

>History shows the opposite to be true.
Like with the IRA?

>Honestly, I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject to comment, I was just providing a counter example to your original claim that persecution leads to a decrease in snitching.
Killing people certainly would. No one in a shit neighborhood would call the cops again.

>>6132337
How can you say you aren't knowledgeable enough on the last point to comment, but then act all dismissive and ignorant on all the others?

First off, the national guard aren't highly trained or specialized. They're regular guys who know how to point and shoot a gun.

History shows that soldiers do tend to sympathize when ordered to fight their own people. Look at the French revolution, parts of the Royal Guard defected early on and helped the Paris Mobs secure the arms they needed to successfully fight the king.

There are a lot of guns around America. Pretty sure there are more than there are people in a lot of countries.

>>6132346
Humanity's problem is that it's humanity. Gangs are a result of human psychology in conditions of poverty. Poverty can't be the problem, that implies something's wrong with the system thta gives birth to poverty (God bless America!). Therefore human psychology is the problem. Therefore we must remove the problem at its root, and human psychology is a result of the existence of humanity. Thus we must remove humanity.

>>6132323
>Because gangs are individual criminals who've organized, and indial criminals are a result of poverty,
It would be a mistake to chalk down crime to poverty alone. During the 1960s, Chinatown was the part of San Francisco with the most unemployment and poverty, the highest rate of tuberculosis, the least education, and the most substandard housing. Nevertheless, in 1965, only five people of Chinese ancestry went to jail in the whole state of California.

>and you don't remove poverty by killing gang members.
No, you remove gang related crime by killing gang members

>Also, killing all criminals would result in far more deaths than the criminals themselves are responsible for, you'd be killing ten to save one. >Most criminals stick to killing other criminals as well, so you'd be killing eleven criminals to save no criminals.
That's actually a good point. I'd argue that killing gang members, even if in higher numbers than their victims, is morally justifiable since the people killed by gang members can be innocent.

>>6132326
I'm probably more educated than you.

>>6132334
>Most poor people, even those who absolutely hate gangs, have loved ones who are in gangs (and that is probably one of the things they hate most about gangs, because they don't like seeing their loved ones going to prison or getting killed). If you kill a mother's child for being in a gang, his shits her hatred from the gang toward the state. If he goes to prison or is killed on the street, she hates the gang.
Though shit

>>6132355
>Though shit
It would be for the state, considering the proportion of the civilian population that owns guns and fantasize about fighting the gubment.

>>6132355
>It would be a mistake to chalk down crime to poverty alone. During the 1960s, Chinatown was the part of San Francisco with the most unemployment and poverty, the highest rate of tuberculosis, the least education, and the most substandard housing. Nevertheless, in 1965, only five people of Chinese ancestry went to jail in the whole state of California.
Calling bullshit.

>>6132277
Are you an engineer or just underage?

>>6132354
I think we'd be okay if we just had less people rather than none. Maybe some kind of cap, like 200 million per continent.

>>6132355
That's because Chinatowns are run by Tongs, which are traditionalist mafias who handle all internal problems. Chinese tend to stick together and they don't call the fucking white cops to deal with criminals: they go to their local mafia government.

>>6132365
And why don't we? Because it's an unpopular idea. Why is it unpopular? Human psychology. We need to kill all humanity to make that idea feasible, or wait until society obviously starts to collapse due to overpopulation.

>>6132344
>Hell yes. Urban combat isn't just taking cover behind cars, it's about hiding among the populace.
Okay

>Give it a week and gang members will stop wearing gang signs
Fortunately, gang members tattoo their gang affiliation on their foreheads.

>and you won't know who they are until they're tossing firebombs at your vehicle and then disappear into an alley.
You think the army would let anybody waltz towards their vehicle? You're truely oblivious.

>Not to mention that the increased pressure would attract mercenaries who would educate the gangsters and ultimately take control and organize them in more military fashion. See Mexico.
I'd argue that Mexico's problem has more to do with corruption than "educated gangsters". We'll assume that gangs are not paying off congressmen.

>>6132346
No, improving something implies that you what you improve doesn't get destroyed in the process.

>>6132347
>its the same reason why you take war prisoners and treat them well, because if you dont, they will fight till they die.
Jesus, open a history book. The jews sure put up a fight in Auschwitz, amirite?

>>6132348
>Most gang members I've known do not do that. They practice with guns a lot at firing ranges that are gang friendly, they know very well how to hold a gun, including machine guns and assault rifles. They are extremely serious about guns, they are passionate about them. They are not half=ass in any way.
I still don't think they have a chance against the military.

>Like with the IRA?
No, I was thinking more about Stalinian persecution. Thousands of russians killing millions of russians.

>Killing people certainly would. No one in a shit neighborhood would call the cops again.
Once again, see Stalin's russia.

>>6132352
>How can you say you aren't knowledgeable enough on the last point to comment, but then act all dismissive and ignorant on all the others?
I'm not knowledgeable enough on the specific subject of snitching in Russia's mafia.

>First off, the national guard aren't highly trained or specialized. They're regular guys who know how to point and shoot a gun.
Yeah, and gangbangers are all highly-trained snipers. Give me a break...

>History shows that soldiers do tend to sympathize when ordered to fight their own people. Look at the French revolution, parts of the Royal Guard defected early on and helped the Paris Mobs secure the arms they needed to successfully fight the king.
There are plenty of counter examples though. Most of the time, soldiers will shoot when ordered to shoot, regardless of who gives the order. For example : the amritsar massacre.

>>6132375
The jews were civilians you ignoramus.
War prisoners are former soldiers.

>>6132361
>It would be for the state, considering the proportion of the civilian population that owns guns and fantasize about fighting the gubment.
What's the proportion? 0.00001%?

>>6132362
Convincing argument. I stand corrected.

>>6132363
Are you going to make insightful comments or just resort to ad homs?

>>6132380
>There are plenty of counter examples though. Most of the time, soldiers will shoot when ordered to shoot, regardless of who gives the order. For example : the amritsar massacre.

And what was the aftermath of that?

>>6132386
All right, let's take the example of allied soldiers in japanese camps. They were treated like shit, yet they didn't rebel.

>>6132390
It delayed decolonization by 30 years

>>6132375
>I still don't think they have a chance against the military.
I certainly do, especially against le national guard. Gangsters are fucking killers, and used to going every single day carrying a gun and keeping a watch for someone trying to kill them. Against special forces or highly experienced veterans, they'd fare poorly, but against other soldiers they would fucking clobber them.

>No, I was thinking more about Stalinian persecution. Thousands of russians killing millions of russians.
That was after a world war, a revolution and a civil war. Russia was spent and ready to die. What we have now is an extremely masculine culture primed for war and ready to or be killed, this is something they'd almost WANT to happen.

>>6132393
You're completely overestimating gangs. They would get absolutely rekt if they ever had to fight marines. If you want a good example of how such a fight would pan out, take a look at the 1993 raid on mogadishu.

>>6132392
You still didnt tell what education you achieved, because you do sound like a NEET who replying since 2h to every post in this thread

>>6132375
>You think the army would let anybody waltz towards their vehicle? You're truely oblivious.
I think they'd have to impose a 24/7 state-wide house arrest to stop people from walking down the streets, since that's all the transportation a molotov-carrier would require to get within range of military vehicles, assuming said military vehicles are anywhere near an urban area.
>I'd argue that Mexico's problem has more to do with corruption than "educated gangsters"
Absolutely not. Poverty (and geography, sucks to be a corridor between the world's foremost drug consumers and its foremost drug producers) gave birth to Mexican criminality. The large amount of money involved led to the involvement of retired policemen and soldiers who instructed the gangs on how to use weapons. Corruption too is a result of the huge amount of money involved. The Mexican cartels legit have more firepower than, and just as much expertise as, their police or army does. Corruption is born from greed. The grounds for the huge amount of money involved, namely Mexico's poverty and geographical situation, spawned corruption as well as the cartels. But ending corruption wouldn't end the cartels. And for that matter, how would you end corruption? Must we now kill all corrupt as well?
>Jews
>war prisoners
Hurr durr.

>>6132389
.00001% of the US population would be around 30 people. I know for a fact there are more than 30 quasi-survivalist nuts that already want to bring down the US gubmint as is, without the systemic mass killings and all.

>>6132399
you mean where the U.S. got rekked by 3th world niggers who are malnourished? keke

>>6132403
I'm a physics graduate student, but I honestly don't see how my education is at all relevant to this conversation, and I don't expect you (and won't blame you) if you do not believe me, consdering the fact that we're posting on an anonymous mongolian shadow puppet interactive clipboard. It's not been two hours, but exactly one hour (I'm guessing you're not a maths phd).

>>6132410
18 US casualties
5000 somalian casualties
pretty k/d ratio if you ask me.

>>6132399
That was hardly national guard infantry, that was a huge expeditionary force backed by SEALS, and they weren't carrying out a mission to execute a large swathe of the population, neither were they occupying the country long-term.

>>6132411
why do you think that you are qualified to have law related opinions then?

>>6132413
If you're talking about the first battle, that estimate includes a lot of people who were unarmed.

>>6132404
>I think they'd have to impose a 24/7 state-wide house arrest to stop people from walking down the streets, since that's all the transportation a molotov-carrier would require to get within range of military vehicles, assuming said military vehicles are anywhere near an urban area.
I'm sure there are less drastic measures in Kabul, yet the military is relatively safe there.

>Absolutely not. Poverty (and geography, sucks to be a corridor between the world's foremost drug consumers and its foremost drug producers) gave birth to Mexican criminality. The large amount of money involved led to the involvement of retired policemen and soldiers who instructed the gangs on how to use weapons. Corruption too is a result of the huge amount of money involved. The Mexican cartels legit have more firepower than, and just as much expertise as, their police or army does. Corruption is born from greed. The grounds for the huge amount of money involved, namely Mexico's poverty and geographical situation, spawned corruption as well as the cartels. But ending corruption wouldn't end the cartels. And for that matter, how would you end corruption? Must we now kill all corrupt as well?
You said "absolutely not", and then went on to agree with me that the current state of mexico was due to corruption, and then concluded by "ending corruption wouldn't end the cartels". You're all over the place.

>>6132405
All right, take off a zero

>>6132414
Send in the SEALS to do the initial cleaning, then.

>>6132416
I hold the fundamental belief that anyone is entitled to his opinion on any subject, regardless of his educational level.

Yeah I know, I'm a huge reactionnary.

>>6132411
For a physics grad you have a rather poor grasp of deductive reasoning, or are working with crummy, biased principles.

>>6132420
You know whats worse than dumb people?
Dumb people who believe theyre smart.

>>6132419
>Send in the SEALS to do the initial cleaning, then.
In every single fucking major city in the country? No, there's no way you could do that without triggering a civil war; you'd have to give an executive order that goes completely over the courts to be using Federal forces like that, and it would lead to massive dissent and issues within the military, and it would stir the shit out of the massive portion of the population that owns guns and hates the state.

>>6132419
What the fuck does Kabul have to do with this? Are we discussing organized crime in Afghanistan? Because I don't know much about that subject.

>>6132421
Care to give examples of my poor deductive reasoning? You're not exactly being helpful here.

>>6132422
I agree.

>>6132423
Well, we're obviously talking about a hypothetical scenario. Even if it triggers some sort of civil war, the eradication of gang related crime would be worth it.

>and it would stir the shit out of the massive portion of the population that owns guns and hates the state.
I'm still waiting for you to back up that claim.

>>6132428
You were implying that the military would be in constant danger unless they imposed drastic measures such as a 24h curfew. I responded with a counter-example, citing the city of Kabul, which is far more dangerous than any american ghetto, and whose people harbor far more hate towards the american military than ghetto dwellers, and whose security measures aren't as drastic as a 24h curfew.

>>6132431
Well, we're obviously talking about a hypothetical scenario. Even if it triggers some sort of civil war, the eradication of gang related crime would be worth it.

>I'm still waiting for you to back up that claim
The American Civil War? Which wasn't even about something like this.

>hey I know how to solve our gang problem
>oh yeah?
>yep, just strip-search every person in the country and execute anyone with a gang tattoo
>please respect my idea

That's all I need to say after reading all this

heh guys just kill criminals, whats all the fuss about?! XDD

>>6132435
They aren't trying to execute a large portion of the population there.

>>6132436
>The American Civil War? Which wasn't even about something like this.
Really? The american civil war? I didn't know the american civil war was the result of a spontaneous uprising in the poor ghettos of America!

>>6132440
Neither would they be in my hypothetical scenario. Gangmembers aren't a large portion of the population of a ghetto.

>>6132431
First off, your assumption that an army can be made to kill fellow countrymen on command. Unproven, and disproven by common knowledge and a quick glance at recent conflicts. Plus the fact that most people require some narrative to justify pulling the trigger, usually having to do with otherness of the one they're killing (filthy mudslime, Serb scum, and so on), which is a bit hard to have when shooting your own people

Secondly, the idea that gangs can be coerced to drop their flags, which I disagree with, but you could definety argue for. I disagree with it due to the fact that most gangs as already pointed out by others itt are formed our of some sort of reaction to mainstream society, who the gangbangers feel have either abandoned or vilified them. Oppressing them even more is not the solution

There are other points too, just no time to type them since on mobile

>>6132435
That's the basis of your analysis? "Kabul is more dangerous than Compton so what works in Kabul (except they're not doing what you suggest in Kabul at all) would work in Compton"? Man, you must be a shit physicist.

>>6132447
>Neither would they be in my hypothetical scenario. Gangmembers aren't a large portion of the population of a ghetto.
Haha. Yes they fucking are, it's just that 90% aren't registered gang members (since you have to earn gang tattoos, and it's pretty hard for law enforcement to register you as a gang member without one).

>>6132447
>Gangmembers aren't a large portion of the population of a ghetto
Yes they are.

>>6132447
>Really? The american civil war? I didn't know the american civil war was the result of a spontaneous uprising in the poor ghettos of America!
Not sure what your point is. I thought you were asking if people would fight against the U.S. government if given sufficient provocation.

>>6132451
>First off, your assumption that an army can be made to kill fellow countrymen on command.
Now you're arguing that civil wars never happen.

>Unproven, and disproven by common knowledge and a quick glance at recent conflicts.
Then I guess you have plenty of examples, care to share some?

>Plus the fact that most people require some narrative to justify pulling the trigger, usually having to do with otherness of the one they're killing (filthy mudslime, Serb scum, and so on), which is a bit hard to have when shooting your own people
Once again, you're arguing that civil wars never happen.

>Secondly, the idea that gangs can be coerced to drop their flags, which I disagree with, but you could definety argue for. I disagree with it due to the fact that most gangs as already pointed out by others itt are formed our of some sort of reaction to mainstream society, who the gangbangers feel have either abandoned or vilified them. Oppressing them even more is not the solution
We wouldn't be oppressing them, we would be killing them off. It's a very efficient way of doing things. Very warlike people such as the cossacks, which are arguably far more militaristic and loyal to their kind than gang members, where successfully dealt with(read up on the decossackization). Once again, I'm not condoning genocides such as the decossackization. I'm just pointing out how laughable it is to believe that gangs cannot be eradicated through violence.

I don't know why people are bothering to debate some kind of war or conflict, the initial premise is laughably infeasible to begin with.

>>6132467
It's an exercise in logic, plus hurt egos

>>6132452
Yeah, that's the basis of my analysis. Now, it's your turn to poke holes in my theory, instead of resorting to childish ad homs. But I'm aware it would require too much brainpower than you could ever muster.

>>6132455
>>6132457
Geez, then kill them all.

>>6132459
No, I was asking you to back up the following assertion :
> the massive portion of the population that owns guns and hates the state.
What massive portion? There a few nuts, sure, but I honestly doubt they would be numerous enough to be a threat.

>>6132464
Civil wars do happen, but that's because they're the culmination of decades upon decades of friction between parties, not because some commander woke up and said "let's kill all the rebel scum today"

Also, Rwandan genocide (filthy tutsi and tutsi lovers!), Balkan conflicts (filthy mudslimes/serbs/croatians/etc!), IRA (filthy terrorists and car bombers!), among others

Also, systematic categorization and subsequent slaughter = oppression, by most modern definitions of the word

>>6132472
>Geez, then kill them all.
You'd start a class war, probably

>What massive portion? There a few nuts, sure, but I honestly doubt they would be numerous enough to be a threat.
I'm not just talking about survivalists, I'm talking every gun owner who dislikes the state, and there are quite a few of them. You wouldn't have to be a nut to get involved in a civil war when the President is using the army on home soil to carry out mass killings.

>>6132480
>Civil wars do happen, but that's because they're the culmination of decades upon decades of friction between parties, not because some commander woke up and said "let's kill all the rebel scum today"
>Also, Rwandan genocide (filthy tutsi and tutsi lovers!), Balkan conflicts (filthy mudslimes/serbs/croatians/etc!), IRA (filthy terrorists and car bombers!), among others
Okay

I guess a better example would have been rebellions. Most soldiers remain loyal to the current power.

>>6132481
>You'd start a class war, probably
A race war, more probably

>I'm not just talking about survivalists, I'm talking every gun owner who dislikes the state, and there are quite a few of them. You wouldn't have to be a nut to get involved in a civil war when the President is using the army on home soil to carry out mass killings.
I disagre. I don't think average joe who hates Obama would take to the streets with his hunting rifle.

>>6132472
>it's your turn to poke holes in my theory
I have. I've built my entire analysis on modern organized crime in the Americas, as simplified as it's been. As for Kabul, I already said I don't know anything about it. Neither, it appears, do you, because then your analysis wouldn't have been built on what you've admitted are extremely shallow non-similarities (simultaneously presented as extremely shallow similarities, somehow). What is there for me to disprove, when you don't even pretend you've any basis for your claims?

>>6132115
I hope your family is raped by gangs and then murdered by a hobo drifter. are you moralfags telling me you would let this guy wander around because "you cant judge him man, we're all onl human." you disgust me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6V7EL-Yg8Gg

>>6132494
>What is there for me to disprove
I guess you could start with my original argument, that killing off all gang members would lead to the elimination of gang related crimes.

>>>/pol/

>>6132489
A class war, since gangs tend to be drawn from various ethnicities today

Also, rebellions are usually started by the aggressor party, usually an oppressed party that wishes to undo perceived oppression through direct force. Not the scenario you're proposing, where the government is the top-down aggressor, and thus has less "pity points" as it were

>>6132501
Yea. Mostly non-white and tribalistic.

>>6132489
>A race war, more probably
No, a class war. Poor whites and Mexicans are very close, in fact there are many white people in Mexican gangs. When I went to prison, I was picked up by a Mexican gang despite being white. It's blacks and Mexicans-whites that beef, and you'd end up uniting them.

>I disagre. I don't think average joe who hates Obama would take to the streets with his hunting rifle.
The average joe is fiction, I'm talking about illegal gun owners, of which there is a plethora besides gang members. Most gun owners I know have unregistered guns.

>>6132501
>A class war, since gangs tend to be drawn from various ethnicities today
No, gangs are drawn from two ethnicities : blacks and hispanics. Also, blacks and hispanic gangs hate each other and would never cooperate in a class war.

>Also, rebellions are usually started by the aggressor party, usually an oppressed party that wishes to undo perceived oppression through direct force. Not the scenario you're proposing, where the government is the top-down aggressor, and thus has less "pity points" as it were
I think many people would sympathize with the government's efforts to reduce criminality.

>>6132499
Logically speaking you can't eliminate all gang-related crimes by eliminating gangsters, because before you can kill someone for being in a criminal gang they need to form a gang and commit gang-related crime, at which point you've failed to eliminate gang criminality. To eliminate it you would need to stop the gangs from ever forming into gangs, which can't be done by killing gangsters, as they're gangsters after the fact of gang criminality. You've merely reduced it.

>>6132514
>Also, blacks and hispanic gangs hate each other and would never cooperate in a class war.
They hate each other, but not that much. They won't eat at the same tabler in prison, but they certainly cooperate when necessary. If, for instance, a message is being sent to a black guy by a black guy from another prison, and the only person who can get it is Mexican, he will definitely get it. And if there is a prisoner riot against the CO's, blacks and Mexicans definitely cooperate.

>>6132499
>treating the symptom

>>6132277
A pity I can't reach through my screen and strangle your retarded neck. I'd say watch The Wire if you want to find out why your proposals won't work, but somehow I doubt you have the mental capacity to understand.

>>6132525
Consider yourself rused :^)

>>6132514
People already oppose stop-and-frisk, what would they do about identify-and-shoot? In a country like the US?

Plus, you're excluding chinese gangsters/tongs, russian gangsters, armenian gangsters, irish gangsters, among many, many others

>>6132507
>No, a class war. Poor whites and Mexicans are very close, in fact there are many white people in Mexican gangs. When I went to prison, I was picked up by a Mexican gang despite being white. It's blacks and Mexicans-whites that beef, and you'd end up uniting them.
I'll take your word for it. In fact, I'm not american (kekekeke).

>The average joe is fiction, I'm talking about illegal gun owners, of which there is a plethora besides gang members. Most gun owners I know have unregistered guns.
I think you have a biased view of reality due to living (or living close to) the ghetto lifestyle.

>>6132515
Obviously, I'm talking about drastically reducing the number of gang members, not total elimination which is obviously impossible. But coming back to 1950s numbers of gangmembers would be nice.

>>6132520
I think real life would be different than prison politics

>>6132523
I'd treat the cause, but I'd get called a racist.

>>6132525
>making fun of my intelligence
>telling me to go watch a tv show
Are you for real? And I've already watched the wire, it's entertaining but that's it. If you think there are any real life lessons to be gained for watching the wire (or any tv show), you should kill yourself.

>>6132531
>People already oppose stop-and-frisk, what would they do about identify-and-shoot? In a country like the US?
Who opposes stop and frisk, except for white liberals and black criminals?

>Plus, you're excluding chinese gangsters/tongs, russian gangsters, armenian gangsters, irish gangsters, among many, many others
They're all a fraction of the number of black/hispanic gangs, and far less destructive.

>>6132497
wow like a real judge holden over there

>2015
>being pro-retribution
>wanting to punish people for thinks they were determined to do by their genetics and environment

>>6132552
things*

>>6132552
>>6132497

>>6132559
if he can't be rehabilitated he should be kept isolated from society but not punished

>>6132546
I oppose stop-and-frisk, and am an Asian-White expat living in the US

I find it a gross violation of rights of those usually targeted, despite the fact that I was never subjected to it

Also, tongs and russian gangsters, and biker gangs are into serious shit like hard drug dealing/smuggling/manufacturing, fraud, assassins for hire, among other, very serious activities. Not to be dismissed

>>6132546
>Obviously, I'm talking about drastically reducing the number of gang members, not total elimination which is obviously impossible. But coming back to 1950s numbers of gangmembers would be nice.
So let's simply kill all the poor, since poverty leads to alienation and desperation which leads to crime. Killing all current gangsters would lead to far more alienation and desperation among the already poor, and spawn many new gangsters (and more militant revolutionary movements). And killing all the poor would incite rebellion which doesn't guarantee the forming of a new government with policies that stop the rise of poverty, at which point we get new gangsters. In short, we need to kill everyone in order to eliminate the cause of gangsterism.
>Russian gangsters are a fraction of black gangs
Nigga say what. Russian mafia membership is believed to number over three million.

>>6132546
>I think real life would be different than prison politics
You think they wold cooperate for minor shit, but would refuse to cooperate under pressure of both being exterminated?

>>6132573
>killing the poor removes the poor
someone has to take up the shitty jobs no matter what
it is impossible to remove poor people

>>6132591
Read all of it.

>>6132591

I think you're ready, comrade

>>6132559
The guy was abused as a child. if anyone is at fault it's the people who abused him. Evil leads to evil, good leads to good.

>>6132568
>I find it a gross violation of rights of those usually targeted, despite the fact that I was never subjected to it
Oh please, an upper middle class liberal serenading me on human rights violations. Go take a stroll in detroit and see how well your human rights are respected.
>>6132573
>So let's simply kill all the poor, since poverty leads to alienation and desperation which leads to crime
That is false. The poorest regions of the USA is appalachia, which has a pretty low crime rate.

>. Killing all current gangsters would lead to far more alienation and desperation among the already poor, and spawn many new gangsters (and more militant revolutionary movements).
Do you have any historical examples to back up this claim?

>And killing all the poor would incite rebellion which doesn't guarantee the forming of a new government with policies that stop the rise of poverty, at which point we get new gangsters. In short, we need to kill everyone in order to eliminate the cause of gangsterism.
No, you just need to kill the gangsters!

>>6132589
>You think they wold cooperate for minor shit, but would refuse to cooperate under pressure of both being exterminated?
Just do some basic divide and conquer shit, they'll be at each other's throats in no time.


Welp this was fun, I have to go now unfortunately. Hope I changed your minds.

>>6132600
>god created universe
>god was good
>therefore universe must be good
>but universe is bad
>therefore, something stuck in the philosophical works

shieetttttttttt

>>6132613
>upper middle class

More like .001%er

And yet I empathize because I see them getting herded like cattle and treated like shit. Also Detroit isn't so bad, I was there last week, my human rights were, I'm afraid to say, 100% respected

>>6132614
What?

>>6132613
There are no lucrative crimes to commit in Appalachia.
Yes, I have examples of that, it's called the ghetto.
I've already explained how you can't remove gangsterism by killing gangsters, it's logically impossible.
Have fun with whatever you do next.

>>6132596
I've been thinking about it
time to tumble down the rabbit hole

>>6132640
>>6116129

>>6132645
>oytie
Perhaps not.

The problem is that criminal punishment is supposed to be only focussed on the criminal, and that Is often forgotten.
The only category by which a sentence is be measured should be "how can we stop this guy from doing something bad again".
And prisons actually do a very lousy job at that.
You lose your job and your friends, are out of the loop for possibly a very long time and all the people around you are other criminals, what behavior are you supposed to adapt?
Still people are sentenced to long jail time because the general punishment interest of society, the upholding of the law is factored in way too heavily when it should be about the offending individual only

>>6132600
So there are no psychopaths who were born to good families?

Aren't a ridiculous number of American inmates people who got fucked for drug possession?
There you have it, the war on drugs (one of my favorite English language word plays) is to blame.

>>6132657
Abuse isn't always within the family and the cause of psychopathy is very much debated. Antisocial personality disorder isn't the same as psychopathy either.

>>6132155

They do get put to work, and they work for abysmal pay because minimum wage doesn't apply to people currently in prison.

Why pay citizens 8 bucks an hour to press license plates when you can arrest 9 people and pay them 90 cents an hour to do the same thing?

Prison Industrial complexes!

>>6132702
That sounds terrifying but also pretty clever. And this is really happening in the us?
Any reads on this?

>>6132702
>They do get put to work, and they work for abysmal pay because minimum wage doesn't apply to people currently in prison.
It does in Federal. But yeah, in state you get paid a dollar an hour at the very most, and that's if you're working a job like construction.

>round up stoner kids
>let them know hard work for once
>the companies, the true backbone of the nation, are happy
>stoner kids may learn a thing too

America is the best country in the world

>>6132727

Google "Prison Industrial complex" and poke around. There's a reason the U.S. has more people in prison than any other country on Earth. Wardens and jailors of private, for-profit prisons actually pressure law enforcement to make arrests, because they can turn those arrests into what essentially amounts to forced labor for pennies on the dollar.

Really any of the "________-Industrial complexes" are scary. Military Industrial, Medical Industrial, Prison Industrial, the list goes on.

>>6132354
you're a waste of space.

>>6132550
Heh.. nice one.

>>6132807
We're both part of the problem. Me, I intend to take a few with me, when I do my part to solve it. What about you?

>>6132115
>It is wrong to lock up dangerous criminals that kill people and cause problems for society

Only on 4chan could someone be this fucking stupid.

Wow.

>>6132112
Are you fucking kidding me? I would take public lashings over FIFTEEN FUCKING YEARS of my life! Seriously I would rather be tortured for a week than placed in an institutionalized hell for a large portion of my life.

>>6132833
First you tell me why its supposed to be right

>>6132833
How does it help?

>>6132837
Explain to me your justification for allowing dangerous people who would kill you and everyone you know without feeling bad about it run around willy nilly.

>>6132862
Why lock the up for awhile and then let them out and pretend you've solved something?

>>6132862
No you need to explain, because you are talking about taking the rights of these people away by locking them up.
And really, vulgar pleb speak isn't ranting about how "they" are out there to murder "me" isn't helping your case at all.

>>6132864
That's going into execution vs life sentencing, but you have to do something about it.

Way better than that fuckhead above who'd let them run around in the streets.

>>6132873
Execution doesn't solve anything, though. People are fucked up psychologically for social reasons, you don't create less anti-social individuals by executing their friends and relatives.

>>6132873
First if all we are talking about jails in general, not just for people who committed multiple murders or whatever you are fantasizing about.
Second, how do you think you know for sure they would murder again just because they have done it before. Maybe the reason was in the unique relationship he had with the victim and this reason is not existing anymore due to the victims demise?

>>6132884
>>6132882
>>6132870
>>6132864


Ok then, what do you suppose we do with violent criminals?

Neither of you have actually given any alternatives.

And those "unique" circumstances aren't the majority. Some people kill twenty people because God told them to.

Longer jail times help nobody, what we would need is an approach centered around victim-offender-mediation, so people can realize their unique justice for the case.
Satisfaction for the victim and personal salvation after the punishment for the offender

>>6132905
great idea, especially rape and murder cases

>>6132896
Rehabilitation. Uplift their communities. Better social services to help children with abusive parents. Make it easier for ex-cons to find work. Less depriving families of family members by locking them up for minor shit like weed possession. Less throwing mentally ill and antisocial people out on the streets, less telling people not to fuck in order to stop the spreading of AIDS, less building drug trafficking networks between countries (thank you, Reagan), if we're talking he U.S. specifically. I'm not interested in the rare case of the antisocial without a cause, I'm interested in improving the situations that lead people to criminality.

>>6132637
Yeah we just steal copper wire and atvs/tools + do heroin/meth like mad

>>6132102
>rehabilitation
Our goal is not and has never been rehabilitation.
We do not treat prisoners like human beings.

>>6132896
I am not against jail time per se.
While people are in jail they usually cannot commit crimes anymore and if they do its mostly on other criminals, therefore protecting society from them.
But if we don't want life long incarceration for every single crime, we must ask ourselves what punishment is supposed to *do*.
The answer must be to bring the criminal on a path on which he will less likely commit more crimes on the future.
Therefore jail time should be measured less in objective numbers "10 years because this book says so lol and we will make the time extra miserable for you", but on providing an environment in which the criminal can be lead to accepting the rules he broke. A shitty crowded bunker full of assholes most likely will only alienate him more from society

>>6132929
Then you are doing it wrong.
"Payback" justice doesn't work, especially because it cannot undo the harmful event anyways and only creates a new one.

>>6132927
Why meth? Meth is such a shit drug, I just don't understand why anyone would use it.

>>6132939
It works in that people who want payback against criminals are satisfied enough to vote for the parties that push it.

>>6132939
As an american I was raised to believe justice and payback are synonymous

>>6132942
Our education system is also shit you see.

>>6132944
Well the concerns of the citizens in this aren't exactly unjustified.
Codified law always also serves the purpose to strengthen the belief of the people in the capability of the system. That's why in criminal law there is always a state prosecutor. Criminal punishment can in general serve 3 purposes: retaliation, rehabilitation and public norm
Demonstration. All 3 are important but irs often difficult to wield them appropriately in the concrete case.

>>6132970
Don't forget economic purpose. Forced labour is the shit.

poverty begets 'criminality', mental illness begets 'criminality' and societal pressures beget 'criminality'.

Does locking someone in a cell rid them of:
>poverty?
no
>mental illness
fuck no
>societal/peer pressure
no

In every case it exasperates the issue.
upon release from prison - once his servitude has concluded - he is dumped into a worse situation than the one he left behind, spurned by society at large and scapegoated en masse as the root of humanities ills.
He finds that normal people cannot understand him and are unwilling to try.
he finds that the only people who don't judge him so incessantly are fellow 'criminals',
and that other options are unavailable.
he must embrace 'criminality'

>>6132552
What if I'm genetically and environmentally determined to put criminals in prison?

>>6133846
>blaming poverty, mental illness and social pressure

kek

if someone is so mentally fucked that they are committing crimes they need to be locked up anyways. you are not allowed to be a liability, why do you think we lock up alcoholics who drunk drive?

in almost every case of poverty there are many many examples of similar people who are not committing crimes. and again we are usually not talking about locking someone up because they stole a loaf of bread.

none of these things excuse violent crimes especially.

itt:
>no possible alternative reactions to "crime" other than incarceration