Quote:
Originally Posted by Nage Waza
It is not a false argument - we are peeved the rules work the way they do and are complaining. We wish it was different.
Of course this forum has little bearing on this case, but I use it as a way to express I am peaved with how my money is spent.
I don't think so...it could be much cheaper. Look at what Elon Musk did with electric cars - just because it is done a certain way and always has, does not mean it is right. I don't disagree that there is a value in studying guys like this, but it could be done behind bars.
I agree that the system is not working the way it is, I certainly am not the one to answer this, but there has to be a better way.
|
Point 1. We're getting tangled up in different discussions. I feel your argument is well suited to a discussion on changing the justice/penal system and while I don't agree with it, I do think that's the place for it and it's a valid idea. I don't feel it makes a lot of sense when looking at this specific case as AS IT STANDS NOW, we don't have the option of anything you suggested in regards to this case. It's kinda like saying 'we should remove the neutral zone' in the middle of a hockey game, instead of the end of the season.
2. You're allowed to be peeved and I know many are. I didn't mean this discussion has little bearing on the case, just that your specific argument doesn't, as for the reasons I outlined in point 1. As I said, I get your peeved, I know a lot of people are, and while I don't agree with it, I think it's a good conversation. It's a valid opinion. It's just that here it makes little sense. It's a different discussion. You can't just move goalposts as a solution. 'Hey I know it's not how our system works, and we have no way of implementing it, but we should really just give this guy bread and water and nothing else.' Constructive.
3. I don't even know where to go with this. If you are comparing changing the economics of a functional justice system with the economics in launching a new product... well yeah. You're comparing apples to bulldozers. Of course things can be done different and better, and we can take a look at how. But again I think you are vastly overestimating how much could be changed, and the ease of which it could be changed. Changing society and social programs is way different than launching new tech or products. Infinitely more nuanced.
4. I know it's a popular opinion in some circles, but I wholeheartedly disagree. If you want to be the one who starts the thread and looks at the justice system in general then that would be a good place to do it and it's a valid and useful discussion. I do think the eye for an eye crowd though gets far too upset at looking at the worst cases that seem a little lopsided (and some do for me too) and not enough at the system as a whole which works pretty well for us. When you look at crime rate, incarceration rate, and cost, Canada does pretty well comparatively. Some definite weak spots, but as a whole the way we react and deal with crime is pretty healthy and works for us.
It's just the conservative crowd goes all bonkers at the worst cases and try to use it as an example something is wrong with the system. Statistically, that's not true. There will always be crime, and there will always be Bernardo's and Homolka's and things that make us sick to our stomachs. But it's a percent of a percent of a percent, and hardly indicative of a failing system. Every country in the world has to deal with psychos.