By this definition (not the old one from the 90s) I'm a strong supporter of political correctness (PC). PC is not reacting/responding to group identity politics. PC is one of the founding principles of the US and something I consider a fundamental value. So we will probably not be able to understand each other on this.

Agreed. I don't dispute that there are problems with our criminal justice system. What I disagreed with was the notion that the whole concept needed to be thrown out entirely. Are there fundamental problems with it? Absolutely, just as there are fundamental problems with society.

Political correctness in this
context means not calling the muslims (all of them) on the carpet for NOT abandoning that part of their belief structure that says "kill the infidels". Until a muslim does that, I dont want anything to do with him/her, and I dont want any more of them allowed into the country.
And its not racism. Its right in their bible that because I dont believe in their religion, its OK to kill me off.

"I guess I am DONE with political correctness."
You said that before, and it really has no meaning when I hear it. I first heard of it in the 90s, when people started saying "disabled" instead of "handicapped." It's turned into something else that I completely don't understand.

"If the system does not act as an institute of learning and facilitate rehabilitation of the subject, it is failing in its primary goal"
My wife worked at DoJ in DC 20 years ago. She said she mentioned that some policy they were discussing does not thing for rehabilitation. They referred her to the mission statement for the federal prison system, and there's nothing in there about rehabilitation. This is so wrong, not just for humanitarian reasons but if they're going to be getting out while they're young enough to commit crimes, I really want them rehabilitated and to have a fair chance at a job other than being a criminal.

I guess I am DONE with political correctness. They need to not believe in killing off nonbelievers, however its said. If they wont do that, I want nothing to do with them. I am done dancing around with muslims over this very serious issue. They can clean up their act and if the extremists dont like it, they dont like it.

I don't recall anything about a "real perpetrator," but it has been years since I've seen that movie too.
Thought the star's character being guilty was refreshing.
Now I'm wondering if I should watch that movie again.

The problem with simply locking them up is that it does nothing to address the underlying thought processes of the criminal. I somewhat agree with Mike in that prisons aren't what they should be, but doing away with them entirely is a bridge too far.

When I think of crime and punishment, the entire purpose is to give the perpetrator a chance to change their ways. If the system does not act as an institute of learning and facilitate rehabilitation of the subject, it is failing in its primary goal. Every sentence should be geared around the potential rehabilitation of the subject. If the crime committed, however, is so heinous that no rehabilitation is deemed possible, the system is acknowledging the inability of the subject to be rehabilitated at all. In such cases, then, a system of rehabilitation is insufficient and the death penalty steps in. But I see no value either to society or the criminal in being incarcerated for life: there is no possibility of rehabilitation - no possibility of again becoming a productive member of society. I agree that this is a serious decision which should not be made lightly or considered for anything other than grave crimes, but I don't believe taking it off the table furthers the goal of rehabilitation at all and certainly eliminates any potential for a prohibitive effect on potential perpetrators - a noted downside.

I don't agree with the article. I just needed some basic statistics. National Geographic tends to editorialize a bit too much toward progressivism for me.

And I, too, saw Shawshank (edited). I thought that in that one the protagonist was innocent and that he actually met the real perpetrator, but the perpetrator was trapped and terminated by the Warden who recognized the loss of his income. I don't remember the crime part coming up, but its been quite a while since I saw it.

I thought for sure the movie that would come up was "The Green Mile". That one's all about death sentences...

I like the way you think. I do have a quibble with a statement at the start of the article you've provided a link for.
It's about The Shawshank Redemption which I saw. That movie is not beloved because the indeed admirable hero was innocent.
It was revealed during his trial that he reloaded his gun while shooting his wife and her lover at least a couple times more, I think I recall,, which made his crime of passion even worse for less passionate and more vindictive..

"I want them to disavow tht part of their religion."
I want everyone to accept the Enlightenment values and religious pluralism, or they should not come here. Saying "I want people to disavow" sounds like you want to take away their olive tree. That's exactly what extremists want.

Agreed. There is something ultimately satisfying about turning the page in a physical book that just isn't there in an eBook.

"We have never had a workable penology theory"

So the solution is to get rid of prisons? Okay...

"Second, we know for a fact that hundreds of people today were wrongfully convicted of murder."

If the only system you will accept is perfect, you will accept no system at all. I look at the crime rates - especially violent crime - and they have only gone up since we started restricting the death penalty. There used to be a significant deterrence effect in the use of the death penalty. No longer. (And BTW - for murder convictions, the rate from 1978 is 117 exonerations from a pool of nearly 1750 convictions - http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.c.... I don't know where you're getting your "hundreds" figure.)

"Imprisonment is suffering." "punishment is irrational."

And you would argue that the crimes do not merit such? I most vehemently disagree. There must be a rule of law which is fair and impartial and just or there is no law. You mistake the purpose of suffering and punishment. The whole usefulness of suffering is to discourage future repeated action! It has nothing to do with recompense for the initial act. You are correct in that no action once taken may be undone, but to use this as an excuse to deny or override the consequences of one's actions is to deny law and justice itself. It is to deny the reality of choice and consequence.

"very few people came here come here knowing the Constitution."

Ignorance of a law doesn't absolve one's self from consequences. Claiming that one did not know about gravity does nothing to absolve them from the responsibility to fall to the ground if they attempt to fly by jumping off a building. Does it take effort to learn about the Constitution? Of course. Just as it takes effort to learn of anything. But to excuse any effort out of hand simply because it is inconvenient is ridiculous. What we are really arguing is whether or not there is sufficient justification - sufficient value - in vetting potential entrants to our nation based on their willingness to adhere to our civil code. I hold to the notion that in the wake of the growing threats to our Constitution it is more important than ever.

"The Bible is all about civil disobedience."

Wow. You must be reading a very different Bible than the one I'm familiar with. Christ subjected Himself to the Roman authorities even though his trial and conviction were illegal. What the Bible actually says is that one should stand up for what is right and that God will hold the authorities culpable in His own due time.

My point here was more about religious systems which are specifically at odds with the Constitution - namely Sharia law under Islam. I don't see many Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Sikhs, Wiccans, or others complaining about how their religious rights are getting trampled by the Constitution - by government edicts such as the ACA most certainly, but not the Constitution itself. Islam is a wholly different mentality, however, because it attempts to place both secular and religious punishment and enforcement under one roof and in the hands of the clerics rather than a secular authority. That ideology is incompatible with the Constitution. A Christian can excommunicate a member for failing to adhere to standards, but they have no power to deprive that individual of life or property like Islam.

"I might agree with the legal subordination of churches to civil law"

As I just mentioned, religious organizations in the United States are legally subordinate to local, State, and Federal government. The only punishments they can mete out pertain to membership within their respective organizations. As to taxation, the reason that one is completely wrong is because it is an impingement on speech. Progressives would love to revoke the tax-exempt status of religious organizations because it could tax them into oblivion or use the tax rates themselves as punishments if the respective religions sided contrary to the government especially on moral issues like gay marriage or abortion. We can see it happening right now in Canada where the government's "hate crime" laws prohibit speech - even from the pulpit. Such actions violate the rights of men to choose to believe in what they see as leading them to "happiness" (Declaration of Independence) and act in accordance with that belief. I frequently wonder whether or not the real reason income taxes were invented had nothing to do with revenue, but were actually instituted in order to control the populace and circumvent the First Amendment.

@MM You said you disagreed with Blarman on every point, but you said if someone broke in and threatened you, you believe in shooting them with no questions asked. I believe that too. Does that mean you agree with Blarman on people being armed?

"We have never had a workable penology theory that informed imprisonment."
I agree with your points about locking people up being wasteful. My reason is I think criminals are deterred more by the probability of getting caught than what happens years later in the unlikely event they're caught.

"That deafening "EEEEEE! took a couple of minutes to clear up."
That would confuse people who aren't used to it and make it hard to coordinate a response.

Relish.
My opinion is that individuals can do a better job defending themselves in such a situation if they are not disarmed by government that claims they are being disarmed for the greater good.
The results in this case are 103 casualties. The "security" was a failure for those people.

You're skirting the issue with a "blame the victim" argument: 'Most "true victims" place themselves in harm's way by habit.' You're still letting the criminal off the hook.

"... unreal view of crime that is fed to you by the mass media"? How absurd and condescending! My view of crime is by first hand experience from being a victim and by knowing other victims. You have nothing to offer other than let the perps go because their crimes can't be undone. If this is what you learned in your criminology studies, then you wasted your time and money. You have nothing of value to offer.

I would love to see some study done correlating trust in government with ownership of semi auto weapons "the so called assault weapon". From the stories I have heard, the Obamanation made the DHS erase all their files built up since their creation, to protect the "image" of the US, when it had no bearing on such. Add to that the fact the dude had made life at his workplace miserable with his constant bitching about the US, it is hard to imagine how he wasn't dragged away in cuffs as a threat to himself and others.

This is all about the governments inability to do something simple due to all the various special needs people that have invaded our culture. No one wants to risk "speaking truth" for fear of being spit-roasted as "mean", or "unfair".

There is a distinct issue I have with anyone telling me I "have" to be a certain way, whether it is politics, religion, civil discourse or even work. I just have to be true to myself, and what I believe in. I also extend that respect to others, so that their opinion, which I may disagree with, is respected, and debated with civilly. I have a particular issue with the fact in almost every discourse I see where it is unfettered, there is a person either screaming they want to kill me and my kind, or destroy my country. I find that to be most barbaric, in view of the fact I have never met these people. It is the fact the president blames us for their dysfunction, that seals the whole case for scrapping our government and staring over with a 30 question quiz to qualify new candidates. This whole muslim thing is BS. If they do not want to live by our culture, stay out of it.

You have an unreal view of crime that is fed to you by the mass media. The "mass-mediated hyper-reality of crime" is a consumer service that tells you what you want to hear. In fact, most "victims" are only the second-to-last perpetrator. Strangers tend not to predate upon each other. Most often, you are victimized by someone you know, such as a family member, a neighbor, or someone you met in a bar.

Most "true victims" place themselves in harm's way by habit. Among the "pure victims" are children who are abused by family members.

You confuse prevention with punishment. If you wake up and find a stranger in your home, shooting first (and not even bothering with the questions) is the proper response. Capturing them and imprisoning them is irrational.

Prison as we know it today is a recent invention, going back to about 1780. Before that, people were held in prison before punishment. For the past 200+ years, we have made prison the punishment. Prison as we know it today was invented by Quakers, the political progressives of their day.

Your opinions were not informed by facts but by a mass-mediated mythology sold in the streams of conservativism. (Other political people consume different myths.) On the other hand criminologists study crime. Victimology is the most fruitful aspect of criminology that I found in the four years from my associate's to my master's.

Now I'm thinking that place may have been in violation of fire safety rules.
(As opposed to the kind of fire that shoots bullets).
Here just came another thought.
I'm thinking of that security guard and some repeated behavior exhibited by the South Vietnamese Army.
Cripes! Now I'm thinking of Monty Python's King Arthur: "Run away! Run away!"
I need to go to bed!

Old dino approved of this message.

hear hear!!!!!!!