Ordinary people pay with their lives for your bleeding hearts

SLUSK

Do you ever wonder why society is so unsafe this days in most western countries?

It is because people with bleeding hearts in leading positions in society has made sure we don't punish people properly anymore when they commit crimes.

There are people with multiple violent crime convictions who walk the streets without having to do to much jail time. They have learned that there are no severe consequences to their actions. Had they been punished properly they would most likely stop with their criminal activities.

Singapore is a role model for the world to follow when it comes to law enforcement and punishment of criminals. They don't have the thug culture of Broken Ireland and Broken Britain. Ever asked yourselves why? The answer is because of proper punishment like caning.

dr.bollocko

Might I suggest moving to Singapore then?
You use a lot of rhetoric there. Broken Ireland. Broken Britain. Can you prove that caning is an effective deterrent?
It's not bleeding heart liberalism to suggest that arbitrarily assaulting people to punish them for crimes committed is not a good idea.
Seriously. Nonsense.

magicbastarder

i think the issue with people being let out is a bit more complex than you make out, and not for the reasons you make out. do you often meet people who claim that criminals get too much time in jail?

plus, you're welcome to go to singapore. it's a soulless place, from pretty much every account i've heard.

I.Am.A.Panda

Caning? Lol.

I'm in support of decriminalising a lot of stuff (Most drugs, easing laws on firearms, etc.), but to be honest I agree our laws are lenient. I feel life ought to mean life. Also, prison privileges ought to be revoked and all the luxury goods donated to charity. I mean, a wife who premeditated her husband murder got 5 years, and Lillis, who's 'killing' happened during an accident got the best part of 7.

However, I feel we draw the line at the death penalty, without a doubt.

Darlughda

SLUSK wrote: »

Do you ever wonder why society is so unsafe this days in most western countries?

It is because people with bleeding hearts in leading positions in society has made sure we don't punish people properly anymore when they commit crimes.

There are people with multiple violent crime convictions who walk the streets without having to do to much jail time. They have learned that there are no severe consequences to their actions. Had they been punished properly they would most likely stop with their criminal activities.

Singapore is a role model for the world to follow when it comes to law enforcement and punishment of criminals. They don't have the thug culture of Broken Ireland and Broken Britain. Ever asked yourselves why? The answer is because of proper punishment like caning.

While I would agree that the sentencing for rape is far too lenient in Ireland, (Yes Justice Fat Carney I mean you), and elsewhere, right now I am more concerned with the proper sentencing for white collar crime.

Not keen on your example of Singapore. Caning and the like is a punishment traditionally meted out on people from lower classes of society, and our history of this in Ireland is a tragic and brutal one.

I suspect, SLUSK, that you would have no problem delivering such treatment upon people who themselves are products and victims of poverty and crime. Am I wrong?

magicbastarder

usually people who complain about bleeding heart types are people who misunderstand the attention said bleeding hearts would like to point at the causes of crime, and assume that means they're weak on crime itself.

It wasn't me!

I like that you didn't get an answer you liked in your thread suggesting violent criminals (which you still haven't defined, at all) should have the protection of society removed and vigilantism be allowed, so you've started another one complaining about "bleeding heart liberals", another term you show no understanding of. Good work.

Flamed Diving

Singapore is also a country where the government seeks to control every aspect of their citizens lives, though not in an entirely malevolent way. However, this is something that I know SLUSK is dead against, and given that he is not a hypocrite, I know he will be with me on this one. An amusing anecdote from John McMillan's book 'Reinventing the Bazaar' is when he visited Singapore's museum only to be greeting by an imposing sign at the entrance. It's translation?

BE NOSTALGIC



Yeah, let's go down that route.

SLUSK

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Singapore is also a country where the government seeks to control every aspect of their citizens lives, though not in an entirely malevolent way. However, this is something that I know SLUSK is dead against, and given that he is not a hypocrite, I know he will be with me on this one. An amusing anecdote from John McMillan's book 'Reinventing the Bazaar' is when he visited Singapore's museum only to be greeting by an imposing sign at the entrance. It's translation?

BE NOSTALGIC



Yeah, let's go down that route.

Singapore has one of the most free economies in the world.

rovert

SLUSK wrote: »

Do you ever wonder why society is so unsafe this days in most western countries?

It is because people with bleeding hearts in leading positions in society has made sure we don't punish people properly anymore when they commit crimes.

There are people with multiple violent crime convictions who walk the streets without having to do to much jail time. They have learned that there are no severe consequences to their actions. Had they been punished properly they would most likely stop with their criminal activities.

Singapore is a role model for the world to follow when it comes to law enforcement and punishment of criminals. They don't have the thug culture of Broken Ireland and Broken Britain. Ever asked yourselves why? The answer is because of proper punishment like caning.

Generalise much?

magicbastarder

re 'broken ireland' - a crime stat picked at random from nationmaster:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_bur_percap-crime-burglaries-per-capita

we're lower than france, canada, significantly lower than NZ, etc.

while i'm not suggesting that those stats are definitive, i do wonder if they imply that all those other countries are broken too.

I.Am.A.Panda

magicbastarder wrote: »

usually people who complain about bleeding heart types are people who misunderstand the attention said bleeding hearts would like to point at the causes of crime, and assume that means they're weak on crime itself.

What's the cause of crime? The government outlawing drugs and prostitution, which people are going to use regardless of their legality. The markets are driven underground, along with the profit. Upstarts from the lower class delve into them to make money.

Then, these people have children, who use drugs, fail school, get involved in crime, and the viscous cycle continues. The communities become run down and poor as a result of these illegal markets, the viscous cycle spreads to them.

Then, bleeding heart politicians come into power, and ignore the real cause because they want power and don't want to make a controversial move that would upset the people, or they are followers of some cult headed by people who protect child molesters, who dictate these things are bad because the invisible man in the sky says so.

Then, these bleeding heart politicians use taxes to give these people welfare and improve the communities which has some effect, until they again quickly fall into disrepair, being consumed by the viscous cycle. Another viscous cycle of bleeding heart politicians also comes into play.

The cycle is broken when someone with common sense legalises these things, and makes the markets legal and regulated. Then, these crimelords empires quickly collapse from underneath them. Eventually, these new legal markets quickly boosts the economy and boosts employment, as well as adding some cash to the state coffers. The viscous cycle is broken and the people in these formerly broken communities can face a bright future.

Flamed Diving

SLUSK wrote: »

Singapore has one of the most free economies in the world.

Nothing whatsoever to do with my point. Thanks, though.

FlutterinBantam

Darlughda wrote: »

While I would agree that the sentencing for rape is far too lenient in Ireland, (Yes Justice Fat Carney I mean you), and elsewhere, right now I am more concerned with the proper sentencing for white collar crime.

Not keen on your example of Singapore. Caning and the like is a punishment traditionally meted out on people from lower classes of society, and our history of this in Ireland is a tragic and brutal one.

I suspect, SLUSK, that you would have no problem delivering such treatment upon people who themselves are products and victims of poverty and crime. Am I wrong?

Aaah ,playing the 'victim 'card.

Was wondering how long would it take before that bad boy was put on the table.

Darlughda

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Aaah ,playing the 'victim 'card.

Was wondering how long would it take before that bad boy was put on the table.

Playin no card, Flutterinbantam. Fact is born into crime, grow up in crime, what the hell do you expect. Are we going to get into a sociological argument about why people in poverty situations end up in the life of crime?

SLUSK

Darlughda wrote: »

Playin no card, Flutterinbantam. Fact is born into crime, grow up in crime, what the hell do you expect. Are we going to get into a sociological argument about why people in poverty situations end up in the life of crime?

Bohoho the poor criminals are just a product of an injust society. Therefore we should not punish them properly and let decent folks suffer because we do not put a stop to their activities.

SLUSK

magicbastarder wrote: »

re 'broken ireland' - a crime stat picked at random from nationmaster:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_bur_percap-crime-burglaries-per-capita

we're lower than france, canada, significantly lower than NZ, etc.

while i'm not suggesting that those stats are definitive, i do wonder if they imply that all those other countries are broken too.

France is a country that has descended into chaos, violent is rampant. Riots are very common in the big cities over in France. Don't believe me? Just look it up on Youtube.

Flamed Diving

Reporters san Frontiéres ranks Singapore 133rd in the World for press freedom:

http://www.rsf.org/en-classement1001-2009.html

A mere three places ahead of Zimbabwe, and nine places behind... Venezuela.

While Freedom House deliver a ranking of 'partly free' to Singapore in the same year:

http://freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&year=2009&country=7700

As part of a broader legal crackdown on government critics in 2008, opposition politician Chee Soon Juan was ordered to pay roughly US$400,000 in defamation damages to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his father, former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew. Another vocal critic of the government, Gopalan Nair, received a three-month jail sentence for insulting two judges on his blog.

Singapore was established as a British trading center in 1819 and became a separate British colony. It obtained home rule in 1959, entered the Malaysian Federation in 1963, and gained full independence in 1965. Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) transformed the port city into a regional financial center and exporter of high-technology goods but restricted individual freedoms and stunted political development in the process.
Lee transferred the premiership to Goh Chok Tong in 1990 but stayed on as “senior minister,” and the PAP retained its dominance. The party captured 82 of Parliament’s 84 seats in the 2001 elections, with opposition parties contesting only 29 seats. Lee’s son, Lee Hsien Loong, became prime minister in August 2004; the elder Lee assumed the title of “minister mentor.” In September 2005, President Sellapan Ramanathan began a second term as the largely ceremonial head of state.

Despite his expressed desire for a “more open society,” Lee Hsien Loong did little to change the authoritarian political climate. He called elections in May 2006, a year early, to secure a mandate for his economic reform agenda. With a nine-day campaign period and defamation lawsuits hampering opposition candidates, the polls resembled past elections in serving more as a referendum on the prime minister’s popularity than as an actual contest for power. The PAP retained its 82 seats with 66 percent of the vote, although the opposition contested a greater number of seats and secured a larger percentage of the vote than in previous years; the opposition Workers’ Party and Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA) each won a single seat despite receiving 16.3 percent and 13 percent of the vote, respectively.

In 2007 and 2008, Lee continued to pursue his economic agenda while using the legal system and other tools to keep the opposition in check. The government also maintained that racial sensitivities and the threat of Islamist terrorism justified draconian restrictions on freedoms of speech and assembly. Such rules were repeatedly used to silence criticism of the authorities.

In September 2007, Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) leader Chee Soon Juan was convicted for trying to travel to a 2006 World Movement for Democracy conference without a permit. He stood trial again in October 2008, marking his eighth trial since 1992, this time for defamation and allegedly participating in an illegal gathering. Chee, a lawyer by training, represented himself due to the absence of lawyers willing to take his case. The High Court subsequently ordered Chee, his sister, and his political party to pay S$610,000 (US$420,000) in defamation damages to the prime minister and his father. The ruling appeared likely to force the SDP into bankruptcy. Chee had already been forced into bankruptcy in 2006 by a US$300,000 ruling against him for defaming former prime ministers Goh and Lee.

Separately, longtime opposition politician J. B. Jeyaretnam died in September. He had been disqualified from Parliament in 2001 after being ordered to pay libel damages for criticizing PAP officials and had refused to pay until June 2007. He had subsequently initiated plans to form a new Democratic Reform Party.

Political Rights and Civil Liberties

Singapore is not an electoral democracy. The country is governed through a parliamentary system, and elections are free from irregularities and vote rigging, but the ruling PAP dominates the political process. The prime minister retains control over the Elections Department, and the country lacks a structurally independent election authority. Opposition campaigns are hamstrung by a ban on political films and television programs, the threat of libel suits, strict regulations on political associations, and the PAP’s influence on the media and the courts.

The largely ceremonial president is elected by popular vote for six-year terms, and a special committee is empowered to vet candidates. The prime minister and cabinet are appointed by the president. Singapore has had only three prime ministers since it gained independence in 1965. Of the unicameral legislature’s 84 members, 9 are elected from single-member constituencies, while 75 are elected in Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs), a mechanism intended to foster minority representation. The winner-take-all nature of the system, however, limits the extent to which GRCs actually facilitate minority representation and, in effect, helps perpetuate the return of incumbents. Up to nine additional, nonpartisan members can be appointed by the president, and up to three members can be appointed to ensure a minimum of opposition representation.

Singapore has traditionally been lauded for its relative lack of corruption. There is no special legislation facilitating access to information, however, and management of state funds came under question for the first time in 2007. Critics lamented the state’s secret investment of national reserves, and investigations into the state investment arm, Temasek Holdings, were launched by Indonesian and Thai watchdog agencies. Singapore was ranked 4 out of 180 countries surveyed in Transparency International’s 2008 Corruption Perceptions Index.

Singapore’s media market remains tightly constrained. All newspapers, radio stations, and television channels are owned by government-linked companies. Although editorials and news coverage generally support state policies, newspapers occasionally publish critical pieces. Self-censorship is common among journalists as a result of PAP pressure. The Sedition Act, in effect since the colonial period, outlaws seditious speech, the distribution of seditious materials, and acts with “seditious tendency.” Media including videos, music, and books are sometimes censored, typically for sex, violence, or drug references.

Foreign broadcasters and periodicals can be restricted for engaging in domestic politics, and new regulations in 2006 required all foreign publications to appoint legal representatives and provide significant financial deposits. Still facing civil defamation claims for the July 2006 article that presumably prompted the new regulations, the Far Eastern Economic Review lost an appeal in February 2007. In June of that year, the Singapore High Court rejected the magazine’s application for a Queen’s Counsel from Britain to represent it. Distribution of the Review remained banned, but it was available online. The PAP regularly uses defamation suits and the revoking of licenses to silence critical (especially foreign) media. In October 2007, the Financial Times published an apology and agreed to pay damages to the Lee family for a September article suggesting that the family had engaged in nepotism.

The government continued its efforts to impose licensing restrictions on the internet, including the blogosphere, in 2008. Blogger Gopalan Nair was charged in June for posting insults aimed at a High Court judge on his blog and another judge in an email. Nair was subsequently sentenced to three months in jail under the Miscellaneous Offences, Public Order, and Nuisance Act.

The constitution guarantees freedom of religion as long as its practice does not violate any other regulations, and most groups worship freely. However, religious actions perceived as threats to racial or religious harmony are not tolerated, and unconventional groups like the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Unification Church are banned. All religious groups are required to register with the government under the 1966 Societies Act.

All public universities and political research institutions have direct government links that bear at least some influence. Academics engage in political debate, but their publications rarely deviate from the government line on matters related to Singapore.

The Societies Act restricts freedom of association by requiring most organizations of more than 10 people to register with the government, and only registered parties and associations may engage in organized political activity. Public assemblies of more than five people and all political speeches must be approved by police. Permits are no longer needed for private, indoor gatherings as long as the topic of discussion is not race or religion. In March 2008, a group of 17 people protested recent price hikes near the Parliament House; two of them were subsequently fined for participating in an illegal procession.

Unions are granted fairly broad rights under the Trade Unions Act, though restrictions include a ban on government employees joining unions. A 2004 amendment to the law prohibits union members from voting on collective agreements negotiated by union representatives and employers. Strikes are legal for all except utility workers, but they must be approved by a majority of a union’s members as opposed to the internationally accepted standard of at least 50 percent of the members who vote. In practice, many restrictions are not applied. All but 5 of the country’s 64 unions are affiliated with the National Trade Union Congress, which is openly allied with the PAP. Singapore’s 160,000 domestic workers are excluded from the Employment Act and regularly exploited. A 2006 standard contract for migrant domestic workers addresses food deprivation and entitles replaced workers to seek other employment in Singapore, but it fails to provide other basic protections, such as rest days.

The government’s overwhelming success in court cases raises questions about judicial independence, particularly because lawsuits against opposition politicians and parties often drive them into bankruptcy. Many judges have ties to PAP leaders, but it is unclear whether the government pressures judges or simply appoints those who share its conservative philosophy. The judiciary is efficient, and defendants in criminal cases enjoy most due process rights.

The government generally respects citizens’ right to privacy, but the Internal Security Act (ISA) and the Criminal Law Act (CLA) permit the authorities to conduct warrantless searches and arrests to preserve national security, order, and the public interest. The ISA, previously aimed at Communist threats, is now used against suspected Islamist terrorists.Suspects can be detained without charge or trial for an unlimited number of two-year periods. A 1989 constitutional amendment prohibits judicial review of the substantive grounds for detention under the ISA and of the constitutionality of the law itself. The CLA is mainly used to detain organized crime suspects; it allows preventive detention for an extendable one-year period. The Misuse of Drugs Act empowers authorities to commit suspected drug users, without trial, to rehabilitation centers for up to three years.

Security forces are not known to commit serious abuses. The government has in recent years jailed police officers convicted of mistreating detainees. The penal code mandates caning, in addition to imprisonment, for about 30 offenses; it is discretionary for certain other crimes involving the use of force. Caning is reportedly common in practice.

There is no legal discrimination, and the government actively promotes racial harmony and equity. Despite government efforts, ethnic Malays have not on average reached the schooling and income levels of ethnic Chinese or ethnic Indians,and they reportedly face discrimination in private-sector employment.

Citizens enjoy freedom of movement, although the government occasionally enforces its policy of ethnic balance in public housing, in which most Singaporeans live, and opposition politicians have been denied the right to travel.

Women enjoy the same legal rights as men in most areas, and many are well-educated professionals, though relatively few women hold top positions in government and the private sector. There are currently 19 female members of Parliament, including 17 of the 84 elected members (all from the PAP) and 2 of the appointed members. In 2007, the government decided to uphold a ban on sex between men, and Parliament voted to maintain provisions of the Penal Code that make acts of “gross indecency” between men punishable by up to two years in prison.

No, SLUSK. No amount of free markets can excuse a 'partly free' country. And I thought you were a libertarian... ah well.

Dr Galen

yes indeed. I'll put my faith in youtube sir.

Must just have been a good day when I was there recently and saw little chaos and no rioting. Actually come to think of it, for the whole 2 weeks I was there, I saw none of this. Maybe they knew I was coming and thought they should behave?

Pittens

Maybe they knew I was coming and thought they should behave?

Maybe you should visit the banlieus?

That said, SLUSK is exaggerating.

FlutterinBantam

Darlughda wrote: »

Playin no card, Flutterinbantam. Fact is born into crime, grow up in crime, what the hell do you expect. Are we going to get into a sociological argument about why people in poverty situations end up in the life of crime?

No but we could get into an argument as to why SOME people brought up in disadvantage end up in crime and SOME people in the same circumstances don't.

Which tells me that it's not the circumstance which predicts the outcome but the person themselves.;)

Pittens

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ies-per-capita

we're lower than france, canada, significantly lower than NZ, etc.

Significantly higher ( 10,000 times per capita) than Saudi Arabia - so maybe Slusk has a point?

Higher than India by a factor of 5?

4 times lower than Australia, and Denmark.

Anyone feel the statistics are biased by how records are kept?

Flamed Diving

Pittens wrote: »

Significantly higher ( 10,000 times per capita) than Saudi Arabia - so maybe Slusk has a point?

Higher than India by a factor of 5?

4 times lower than Australia, and Denmark.

Anyone feel the statistics are biased by how records are kept?

Of course. How well recorded are crimes against women in that black hole of civilisation? Is there a dual court system in place there?

The Raven.

Darlughda wrote: »

Caning and the like is a punishment traditionally meted out on people from lower classes of society, and our history of this in Ireland is a tragic and brutal one.

Where on earth did you get this utter nonsense from? Before corporal punishment was banned, we were ALL severely beaten with canes at school, no matter what class we came from. Bad tempered nuns in the national schools regularly lashed out indiscriminately in violent rages against each and every one of us for the most trivial reasons, sometimes for no reason at all.

It makes me livid when I hear people glibly spewing out this unsubstantiated garbage off the top of their heads!!

Darlughda

SLUSK wrote: »

Bohoho the poor criminals are just a product of an injust society. Therefore we should not punish them properly and let decent folks suffer because we do not put a stop to their activities.

Well, criminals come in all kinds of suits. Suggest punishing the propery developers with caning and then we will talk.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

No but we could get into an argument as to why SOME people brought up in disadvantage end up in crime and SOME people in the same circumstances don't.

Which tells me that it's not the circumstance which predicts the outcome but the person themselves.;)

Very true, FB, however, there is some stuff and sludge harder to get out of and fight against, so its not really an even playing ground.

Nodin

SLUSK wrote: »

France is a country that has descended into chaos, violent is rampant. Riots are very common in the big cities over in France. Don't believe me? Just look it up on Youtube.

I trust this post is humour?

Nodin

SLUSK wrote: »

Do you ever wonder why society is so unsafe this days in most western countries?

It is because people with bleeding hearts in leading positions in society has made sure we don't punish people properly anymore when they commit crimes.

There are people with multiple violent crime convictions who walk the streets without having to do to much jail time. They have learned that there are no severe consequences to their actions. Had they been punished properly they would most likely stop with their criminal activities.

Singapore is a role model for the world to follow when it comes to law enforcement and punishment of criminals. They don't have the thug culture of Broken Ireland and Broken Britain. Ever asked yourselves why? The answer is because of proper punishment like caning.

.....yet violent crime in the west has been in steady decline since the 1800's, not uncoincidentally around the same period that public exectutions and corporal punishment, as well as harsh penalties for minor crimes, were beginning to be abolished....

Darlughda

The Raven. wrote: »

Where on earth did you get this utter nonsense from? Before corporal punishment was banned, we were ALL severely beaten with canes at school, no matter what class we came from. Bad tempered nuns in the national schools regularly lashed out indiscriminately in violent rages against each and every one of us for the most trivial reasons, sometimes for no reason at all.

It makes me livid when I hear people glibly spewing out this unsubstantiated garbage off the top of their heads!!

Cool the jets, Raven, fact is the most horrendous torture and abuse was carried out in the reformatory schools which did round up children for the crime of being poor, and being from 'broken' families.

Nobody is suggesting that kids from other classes weren't subject to abuse.

By the way, I am sorry to hear what you went through, sounds horrific.

goose2005

Darlughda wrote: »

Caning and the like is a punishment traditionally meted out on people from lower classes of society

Actually, I believe corporal punishment at private schools was even worse than that a free schools. In the UK, caning was legal at private schools for 3 years after state schools had forbidden it.

The Raven.

Darlughda wrote: »

Cool the jets, Raven, fact is the most horrendous torture and abuse was carried out in the reformatory schools which did round up children for the crime of being poor, and being from 'broken' families.

Nobody is suggesting that kids from other classes weren't subject to abuse.

By the way, I am sorry to hear what you went through, sounds horrific.

I know the children in reformatory schools were from poor backgrounds, and their torture would have been much worse. However, the use of the cane was widespread in national schools throughout the country. People often underestimate the severity of it, and in those days it was frowned upon for parents to confront those nuns, who walked around the town smiling as if butter wouldn't melt in their mouths.

Thanks for the apology, but I'm sure you will understand that any sort of denial that such cruelty was meted out to all of us is likely to cause anger.

avalon68

While I dont agree with caning people who do wrong, I often wonder about the ability of our legal system to deter criminal activity. Even looking at our banking scandal (as a non violent crime) - Did these people just never worry about being caught? Or did they just know if they were caught out they would receive a slap on the wrist and a golden handshake? If there were stiffer penalties for their behaviour - say for example - seizure of ALL of their personal assets, a ban from ever working in a banking environment again etc. would they have colored inside the lines so to speak. Im not in favour of sending everyone off to jail for eternity, but I cant understand why the government cant take more action against people who consistently break the law. Even for something as simple as repeated speeding tickets, driving without insurance, illegal modifications etc. If youre caught more than 3 times then why not confiscate the car and charge a nice BIG fine to get it back? It would probably be a nice earner for the state too. Longer standardised sentances wouldnt hurt either in my opinion.....If you commit rape, murder, gun crime etc then you get X amount of years. End of story. None of this revolving door stuff.