3rd World Countries?

[CantThinkOfAUserName]

5 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

If you don't actually read what's being said to you of course it will never make sense to you: DUE PROCESS. People are entitled to appeals, several of them. To bring forth new evidence, to ask for clemency, etc. All of this legal procedures the courts have to honor and each one of them has a very real and tangible monetary cost.

That cost should be put on the person making the appeal not the tax payer. Im not talking about law fees just strictly the things we pay for when they are in prison

[Misanthrope]

4 minutes ago, CantThinkOfAUserName said:

That cost should be put on the person making the appeal not the tax payer. Im not talking about law fees just strictly the things we pay for when they are in prison

"You have the right to an attourney. If you cannot afford one, the state will provide one for you"

 

You are really being quite reactionary about this by going with your "gut feeling" disregarding very basic Law concepts that are integral to the entire Judiciary sytem like the Presumption of Innocence. This principle for example, indicates that we shouldn't assume someone is guilty just because they can't afford legal representation or are capable of presenting their own defense.

 

[ThinkWithPortals]

41 minutes ago, CantThinkOfAUserName said:

Honestly keeping the scum of the earth alive and using tax payer money to keep them alive is BS. If they get life in prison we might as well just kill them. A bullet costs less then supporting a human for 40+ years.

Execution is more expensive than life imprisonment. I believe I read that a single execution costs over $300k, because of appeals and stuff.

 

Besides, the point of the justice system is to take criminals and rehabilitate them, or at least attempt to. Not to kill them.

[Thunderpup]

12 minutes ago, CantThinkOfAUserName said:

Makes no sense to me why keeping them for all of a few years vs life is costing them more.

We have an expensive judicial system, and for people with death sentences there are additional layers of that system added to it.  Since the death sentence is the one sentence you can't undo once it has been carried out i feel those added layers are justified.

11 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

It is a decent enough indicator if you actually look at the list I quoted. No it is not perfect, I agree. But in the case of Mexico it actually is very accurate to say that while there's still povertry and several areas extremely lacking, when it comes to services, infrastructure and quality of life we're far away from the "3rd" world. Look at our literacy rates, or child mortality rates, etc.

You are preaching to the choir there.  I get irked at times when someone from a very small country, or a country with a very small population tries to question how the U.S can be so rich yet so poor at the same time.

 

 

[CantThinkOfAUserName]

1 minute ago, Misanthrope said:

"You have the right to an attourney. If you cannot afford one, the state will provide one for you"

 

You are really being quite reactionary about this by going with your "gut feeling" disregarding very basic Law concepts that are integral to the entire Judiciary sytem like the Presumption of Innocence, This principle for example, indicates that we shouldn't assume someone is guilty just because they can't afford legal representation or are capable of presenting their own defense.

 

Honestly a jury found you guilty that was your due process in my book. Unless new evidence comes to light take your punishment with dignity.

[CantThinkOfAUserName]

1 minute ago, ThinkWithPortals said:

Execution is more expensive than life imprisonment. I believe I read that a single execution costs over $300k, because of appeals and stuff.

 

Besides, the point of the justice system is to take criminals and rehabilitate them, or at least attempt to. Not to kill them.

No point in rehabilitating someone who isnt ever going to get out.

[Misanthrope]

2 minutes ago, CantThinkOfAUserName said:

Honestly a jury found you guilty that was your due process in my book. Unless new evidence comes to light take your punishment with dignity.

On one of the first replies I gave exactly that example: New evidence can and has been found to completely exonerate death row immates. In fact we've find out that we killed innocent people because of said new evidence too.

 

You're incapable of conceding that you have no idea what you're talking about even when presented with facts and evidence that completely discredit your position, we're done here.

 

[CantThinkOfAUserName]

1 minute ago, Misanthrope said:

On one of the first replies I gave exactly that example: New evidence can and has been found to completely exonerate death row immates. In fact we've find out that we killed innocent people because of said new evidence too.

 

You're incapable of conceding that you have no idea what you're talking about even when presented with facts and evidence that completely discredit your position, we're done here.

 

bye for the record keeping someone in jail is different then paying for their lawyer.

[Anker_by]

Trump + WW3 = deadline 

[ThinkWithPortals]

18 minutes ago, CantThinkOfAUserName said:

No point in rehabilitating someone who isnt ever going to get out.

By attempting to rehabilitate there is at least a chance of recovery. But no, people still take the more expensive and inhumane option, which has no chance of recovery. If you imprison someone there is a chance, however small, you can produce someone genuinely sorry. By killing them, you achieve nothing.

 

*sigh*, I'm getting angry just think about the death penalty. Anyway, I won't derail the thread any further.

[CantThinkOfAUserName]

2 minutes ago, ThinkWithPortals said:

By attempting to rehabilitate there is at least a chance of recovery. But no, people still take the more expensive and inhumane option, which has no chance of recovery. If you imprison someone there is a chance, however small, you can produce someone genuinely sorry. By killing them, you achieve nothing.

 

*sigh*, I'm getting angry just think about the death penalty. Anyway, I won't derail the thread any further.

Who cares if they are sorry, yet again them getting booty raped in prison is more of a punishment then killing them. Though which is more humane?

[ThinkWithPortals]

8 minutes ago, CantThinkOfAUserName said:

Who cares if they are sorry, yet again them getting booty raped in prison is more of a punishment then killing them. Though which is more humane?

 

11 minutes ago, ThinkWithPortals said:

Anyway, I won't derail the thread any further.

 

[Tocsin_786]

8 hours ago, Minibois said:

So the US is a third world country? At least some parts of it..

It's hard to say one country is entirely first or third world (or somewhere inbetween) especially with countries as big as India and China.

There are rich and developed areas in both of these countries, but also very undeveloped areas. As in areas where food, health care and schooling is scarce.

I dont agree with the term either, But I was only explaing it in a way that OP would understand. Obviously every country has highly developed areas and places where people live in shacks or close to it. The US has some of these things, but i didnt want to get all political on the term itself. 

[Centurius]

2 hours ago, CantThinkOfAUserName said:

That cost should be put on the person making the appeal not the tax payer. Im not talking about law fees just strictly the things we pay for when they are in prison

So only rich people deserve to have their case fully considered? Beyond this, ethically the risk of killing a single innocent person should always outweigh a cost consideration(even if executing were cheaper). As for a jury being plenty of due process, I'd like to refer you to one of the many cases of jury trials being overturned on appeals or individuals exonerated decades after the fact. 

 

---

 

OT: The official third world no longer exists, as pointed out before it started as a term for countries that were neither NATO or USSR-aligned. It just happened that this group included a lot of developing countries(which is the official term for them), so it stuck with the media and in popular language. 

[CantThinkOfAUserName]

8 minutes ago, Centurius said:

So only rich people deserve to have their case fully considered? Beyond this, ethically the risk of killing a single innocent person should always outweigh a cost consideration(even if executing were cheaper). As for a jury being plenty of due process, I'd like to refer you to one of the many cases of jury trials being overturned on appeals or individuals exonerated decades after the fact. 

 

---

 

OT: The official third world no longer exists, as pointed out before it started as a term for countries that were neither NATO or USSR-aligned. It just happened that this group included a lot of developing countries(which is the official term for them), so it stuck with the media and in popular language. 

I think that if someone appeals that they should have to pay for it via credit and if they win then the tax payer picks up the tab. Africa is still a third world along with certain Islamic states.

[IAEInferno]

It's just a label that Countries like to put on other Countries to feel superior but that's none of my business.

[AlwaysFSX]

3 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

1) We don't shoot people to death we're not in the 1800s. Lethal injection is the preferred method since it's the most humane and more certain to actually kill and not produce an expensive vegetable or a prolonged suffering.

Actually the reason we use lethal injection is not because it's humane, it's because it leaves less holes in the body for religious purposes.

3 hours ago, CantThinkOfAUserName said:

Really? So about a dollar for a bullet is cheaper then food and clothing over a period of what could be 60 years or more.

Bullets are cheaper than that lol. You can kill a person with .22LR which is about 6 cents a round.

[duckwithanokhat]

what an interesting turn of events...

[corrado33]

On 11/14/2016 at 2:57 AM, Dredgy said:

I used to work in America intermittently in around 2009 (height of financial crisis) and I thought it was more 3rd world than China where I also worked. The amount of homelessness shocked me - I've been to poor countries in Africa that felt safer and more secure than some cities in the USA. So it can all come down to perception, and like you said there are areas that are more undeveloped and some that are less.

 

You're missing the important point. Bring lots of people together in a small space (aka a city) and you bring crime. It's a fact of life. Cities have more crime than rural areas, regardless of country. I mean, the first google result I found told me that violent crime is 4x as likely in a metropolitan area than a rural area. So yes, if you're comparing Detroit to a rural area in an underdeveloped country, of COURSE you're going to see more crime. 

 

On 11/14/2016 at 6:07 AM, Misanthrope said:

The label is also difficult to escape: there's still people referring to Mexico as a 3rd world country and saying stupid shit like "don't drink the water" even though we're the 15th largest economy, way ABOVE several NATO countries and even above some members of the EU

 

I think it's worth pointing out here that Mexico also is 14th largest country in the world. I wonder if there is some sort of correlation there... Typically larger countries and better developed countries are at the top of the GDP list. So I'd say Mexico is doing pretty average, especially considering how likely that much of its GDP comes from tourism. (Services (which include tourism) makes up 63ish% of its gdp according to the cia) Not to mention that the vast majority of the land is actually usable, unlike countries like canada and russia. 

 

On 11/14/2016 at 8:53 AM, CantThinkOfAUserName said:

Really? So about a dollar for a bullet is cheaper then food and clothing over a period of what could be 60 years or more.

I won't discuss this at length, but as mentioned by other people. The legal fees to execute someone far outweigh the fees to keep them in jail for the rest of their life. And the drugs that most states use for lethal injection has gone up in price by orders of magnitude recently. Not to mention that the death penalty does NOT dissuade people from committing crimes. 

 

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates

 

Finally, the US is a civilized nation (I say that through grinding teeth in observance of recent events). We should NOT have to rely on the death penalty to keep order. We are better than that. While sure, it'd feel good to put that serial rapist down, or that mass murderer, that's not how things should be done. We should work on preventing the serial rapist and murders, not finding new ways to execute them. It's called growing up as a country. Instead of focusing on how to execute people, you focus on programs to recognize why people do those things, then prevent it. Many of those people are mentally unhinged... shall we say. Early detection and treatment of mental problems is the solution here. 

 

 

Oh and as for the OP: I think a better way to decide first/third worldness is to take GDP/Land area. Small, very developed countries like Japan would be at the top of the list. I haven't quite worked out the math for this yet. It may or may not work, but very tiny countries may have an advantage, so it may not be a great way to do what I said... haha

[Dredgy]

2 minutes ago, corrado33 said:

 

You're missing the important point. Bring lots of people together in a small space (aka a city) and you bring crime. It's a fact of life. Cities have more crime than rural areas, regardless of country. I mean, the first google result I found told me that violent crime is 4x as likely in a metropolitan area than a rural area. So yes, if you're comparing Detroit to a rural area in an underdeveloped country, of COURSE you're going to see more crime. 

 

Definitely. I was comparing cities to cities though.