No, it's not a joke. I was being sincere, and I am happy to explain why. Sexism, racism, homophobia and transphobia are never going to cease unless they are made unsafe by whatever means available--social, economic, or even physical. A person who commits assault, especially a classification-based assault, even if under the influence of drugs, needs to be met with overwhelming corrective force. He and others around him need to be reminded that the inviolability of bodily security is paramount and is not to be responded to simply with criminal charges, such as a short jail sentence and a fine. The niceties of our legal process do not expose violent offenders to the fear of the collective which is necessary to secure this right. I imagine this guy went to jail or is likely to be incarcerated for a long time, perhaps over a year. I don't really want that. For one, I think it's too much. I don't think he is served by that (nor do I think incarceration would correct his attitude or behavior), nor do I think the public is made safer by it (either directly by his removal from the society or by other would-be heterosexist attackers being deterred by his incarceration). I think some other folks on here were mentioning that extended incarceration has a brutalizing effect on people that violent offenders even more likely to reoffend. If that is true, then it seems like we should find alternatives. I think breaking the guy's arm, given the right due process, should be suitable: 1. We keep him out of jail, so we avoid the possibility of permanent psychological damage, 2. In terms of the time required to heal a broken arm, it's softer on crime than a jail sentence over that amount of time, 3. Due to medical costs that he would incur, this is basically just a fine, 4. It would not do any permanent damage, unlike, say, cutting his arm off, which would be quite beyond the pale, 5. It would hurt him really badly, and 6. It would scare the living crap out of other people. I feel that the above is more or less in line with the spirit of retributive justice principles our criminal system is based on.
If it would have been me, I would have caught his foot and then slammed him into the ground. "Who is the sissy now?"
I think there was no excessive force taken place here. They all tackled him to stop an uncontrollable person who is beating another person. Also this happened in an airport, so any small thing will be met with a lot of security, especially after 9/11.
You mean you actually want to legislate for allowing the breaking of offenders' arms or similar, by members of the public or law enforcement, as a type of immediate retribution for assault? So we throw away the laws which surround offences like assault and hand the power of determining what justice is to vigilantes and law enforcement (renowned for their compassion for minorities) and trust their discretion as to what an appropriate penalty is for any given offence. Seems to me to be a little optimistic to think that this would lead to what you'd hope actually it sounds fucking mad This isn't the frontier ffs!
No, I was thinking more like having something like that with full due process of law. But I think your idea is quite interesting. Adding an exception or two to assault statutes sounds a lot better. Less carcerality and all that.
I see. Well I'm not sure I could ever support the breaking of someone's arms as an acceptable sentance to be handed out however it's done so we'll have to agree to disagree here ha
That wasn't excessive force at all. I'm not saying I wish that jerk to be tortured, but nothing about how he was brought to the ground was excessive.
Interesting, but that is precisely how laws work. We fear the potential consequences (hopefully) if we were to steal something and get caught. In other words, most of us fear going to jail more than the potential benefits if we were to take something that did not belong to us. ---------- Post added 2nd Nov 2014 at 12:04 AM ---------- No, already too ugly for that...
