Please explain to me why "minor" crimes deserve "minor" punishments, as is done all over the world.
Willingly, knowingly breaking the social contract in ANY form should be considered a heinous crime in and of itself and deserves brutal punishment.
The notion that "minor" offences even exist is giving tacit approval to many kinds of antisocial behavior, which can only make the world ill.
Did anyone in history have similar ideas about law?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
youtube.com
twitter.com
Because there's an upper limit to the kind of punishments you can dole out, usually at some form of horrific execution.
If you start giving out serious punishments for relatively smaller crimes, criminals escalate the crimes they do commit because hey, they're going to be executed anyway if caught, right?
Do you really think a system where someone would seriously consider murdering a witness to his jaywalking to be a good idea?
And I refuse to believe you've never heard about Draco.
Because you get V for Vendetta when eventually people get pissed that their little brother was mutilated for j-walking.
This is a history forum, if you want to talk about fantasy animals you can fuck off to Veeky Forums.
Can't tell if you're meming or just retarded.
I know it's interesting to question and be skeptical against all social norms. I do it too. But you can't honestly believe this is rational thought, right? You seem intelligent enough, but what is with the hate towards discretion?
Discretion is a fundamental part of what runs the criminal justice system. It's so we don't have lawmakers giving minor drug offenders life sentences. However, your theory isn't without claim, as zero-tolerance policies yield some of the lowest crime rates in the world.
Just look at NYC for an example, super fucking high population, zero tolerance, and low crimes rates (percentage wise). But we can't go shooting people in the streets for stealing candy bars as society will deem the punishment as not matching the crime and usurp those that create the laws.
>I have such a hard-on for society that I can't see it's a constraint on human nature set by the powerful to maintain their pleasant lives
Nothing wrong with conforming, but if you think everyone of every descent should be happy with your precious laws and status quo you can fuck right off.
>accidentally click on copyrighted video on youtube
>get stoned to death for stealing media
But what's the name for this ultra-conformist society?
Democratic totalitarianism?
The proper term is "The United States of America."
scuse me we prefer "freedom doormats"
Because sane people recognize that human institutions are fallible and we (sane people) don't want to give the state the power to brutally punish for minor infractions.
law only works in class systems different castes different meanings & standards
inb4 hierarchy deniers
>your writing sounds smart but your actual thoughts are batshit
I'm not op but I keep getting told this here
;_;
Because no sane person would want to be anywhere near a country where littering lands you in prison or worse.
I actually think littering is a serious crime, people just don't treat it as one because the effects aren't immediate and the guilt is dispersed. How hard is it for you to walk to a trash can you fat fucking nigger? Too much food comes in disposable packaging.
Other than that rant, OP is a retard.
/thread
Littering literally deserves the death penalty
>And I refuse to believe you've never heard about Draco.
Nothing ought to be.
There is also no evidence that suggest soft punishments lead to more crime, quite the opposite in fact.
>social contract
Worth the paper its written on.
But beside that point, there's a pragmatic benefit to not instituting excessive punishment for minor crimes. If the sentence is equally awful for every offense, there's absolutely no reason to not escalate the offense into something worse. So a simple crime of material desperation could become something considerably worse.
>Please explain to me why "minor" crimes deserve "minor" punishments, as is done all over the world.
because don't be such a little stickler dude. laws are made to be broken
So what's the penalty for shitposting, OP?
Yes. Stealing a bread to feed your starving children is just as bad as raping, torturing and killing a dozen people.
>HANG 'EM ALL!
>Survival is worse than survival
Fuck off, commie.
>rape and torture
>things vital for survival
Pick one you neckbearded fetishist.
>Did anyone in history have similar ideas about law?
The Khmer Rouge?
>criminals escalate the crimes they do commit because hey, they're going to be executed anyway if caught, right?
that's not how it works in Singapore.
Rape is vital for survival on a genetic level.
>mfw plebs think survival "instinct" only applies to individuals and not meta entities like groups and genes
Funny how you dropped the "torture" bit there. Also
>mfw plebs think the basest "instincts" are the only things that benefit survival
Do you honestly think a rape-baby is as likely to survive to child-bearing age as one lovingly conceived, in the age of abortion?
Besides that, usually rape and torture, when described together, go together with murder. Generally, murdering (or even just disfiguring) the would-be mother of your child is a bad idea when your goal is to pass on your genes.
Describing rape as "vital" is just an idiotic, r9k-tier fantasy.
>implying sluts didn't keep their rape babies all the time in the age of no abortions
You need to remember that modern times is less that 1% of 1% of 1% of humanities existence. Humanity ( all animals, really ) are a bunch of rapists. The only thing stopping the average man from rape is that the consequences threaten stability and fear. Take away that stability and consequence for rape ( Like, I don't fucking know, WAR which is notorious for producing mass rape ) and suddenly rape is a lot more common
And civilization wasn't always so stable and "lawful" as in modern times.
>"Take away all the rules and following the rules isn't necessary anymore!"
Seriously?
Also, you continue to imply that rape is an act vital to survival and yet you only bring up examples of rape for pleasure and dominance.
>We won a siege!
>Aww yiss gonna go find me a womyn and start me a nice rape-based family!
Not really how it works. Sure, there were plenty examples of exactly this happening with slave-wives and concubines being taken, but it's very, very far from the majority of examples, and also begins to blur the line between rape and the family unit. Most of the time it's more like "let me rape everything in sight and then kill the things I fuck and hey I can cut off bits of them and no one cares fuck this is awesome!"
Orgies of rape and violence are a product of adrenaline, mob mentality, and hate. Not of survival instinct. Rape has at no point in history been the primary source of babies the world over. Passing on your genes is achieved much more successfully when you stick around to protect the mother of your offspring through pregnancy and ensure your child's survival through the vulnerable stages of their life. Plus passing on the knowledge you've acquired through the years which might aid their survival.
You are literally trying to argue that raping a woman and then abandoning her is the best way to ensure your genes are passed on.
There's a reason why protective parental instincts exist, and they also extend protection to women as the bearers of genes. And those instincts lead to acts of extreme retaliation against those who would violate the safety of a man's woman (or child).
Sure the instinct to fuck everything in sight is there but it's tempered by a whole lot of other instincts and the fact that raping a man's woman, even (especially) in a lawless society is a near guaranteed way to get him baying for your blood. That's why military victories are the sites of the majority of mass-rapes.
>Not of survival instinct.
If rape wasn't in human instinct people wouldn't feel overpowering lust and the desire to rape.
Humans aren't magical, we evolved.
Instinct to rape exists because rape was a successful enough breeding strategy that it remains in descendants.
>Take away [...] consequence for and suddenly is a lot more common
gee is this where the smartest whiz kids such as yourself hang around?
The same argument could be applied to homosexuality. The vast majority of people DON'T get overwhelming urges to rape.
The instinct to have sex remains in descendants, not necessarily the instinct to rape. Fucking is fucking, regardless of how many participants are willing. But the passing-on-the-genes thing works far better when both participants are willing. This is why society has developed the way it has (i.e., rape being a heinous crime). Please stop inventing a pseudo-argument for the benefit of your deviant fetish.
>This is why society has developed the way it has (i.e., rape being a heinous crime)
>A few hundred years of rape being a big deal outweighs the hundred of thousands of years of humans not giving fucks about raping a bitch
What the fuck are you even trying to say?
Homosexuality is genetic, and homosexual humans have the instinct towards homosexual activities.
You thought being gay was a choice?
>"hundred of thousands of years of humans not giving fucks about raping a bitch"
[citation needed]
But I see why you're here now. You see history as a non-stop rape-fest and come to this board to indulge in your beta fantasies.
Not him but I think he's saying that a genetic traits existence is not proof of its utility in the field of passing on genes.
Holy shit.
Arranged marriages and women being property subject to having sex with their husbands regardless of personal desire, something that has been prevalent in most human society, CONFIRMED for not rape.
>Veeky Forums
Oh, that's what it is. You think the only rape is violent rape.
No, I'm pointing out that just because a behaviour has genetic basis does not mean it's a generally successful strategy.
>people wouldn't feel overpowering lust
People don't feel "overpowering" lust, friendo.
Just you.
That's an example of either shifting the goalposts or sheer retardation. The post that started this stupid argument _clearly_ associated rape with torture, making it obvious to anyone with half a brain that we were talking about violent rape.
And besides, you yourself used examples like wartime mass-rapes, which are very definitely the violent kind of rape. I'm sorry if me calling you a neckbearded r9k rape-fetishist hurt your pride, but that doesn't change the fact that your argument is false and trying to distract from your argument's lack of merit with fallacies doesn't change that.
>just me
tell that to all the rapists in prison and all the rapists ( by any reasonable definition ) not in prison.
But oh right, you're an idiot and think violent rape is the only kind of rape.
>. The post that started this stupid argument _clearly_ associated rape with torture
No, it's not clear. It's extremely common with plebs to associate rape with being as bad as torture.
It isn't.
>but that doesn't change the fact that your argument is false
Nope. Until recently, a significant amount of human reproduction was the product of rape.
Unless you want to convince me that a wife being obligated to have sex with her husband any time he feels like it isn't rape.
A rape is a rape is a rape. It doesn't matter how violent it is, the rape gene ( having sex without the other parties genuine consent ) proliferated because of this.
>tell that to all the rapists in prison
I would, but they are already in prison because peoplen don't feel overpowering lust.
>and all the rapists ( by any reasonable definition ) not in prison.
that'd be you? Ok, people don't feel "overpowering" lust, friendo.
>because peoplen don't feel overpowering lust.
youtube.com
Any time you have to convince your girlfriend/wife to have sex with you and it's not an immediate yes it's pretty much a minor form of rape
Thanks for the non-sequitur
P.D. I don't rape my girlfriend either but thanks for your concern?
You're continuing to shift dem goalposts. I'm talking about violent rape, and have been since the start, and so have you. You have suddenly seen an opportunity to lay claim to the moral high ground, and are attempting to use that as a way to circumvent a logical argument. Marital rape is different to violent rape. The act itself is the same but the circumstances surrounding it are not. Marital contracts in all cultures include a promise of protection from the man for the woman. The idea that marital sex/marital rape all the time is a no-no is a modern conception, true, but "violent" rape was very definitely regarded as a big no-no in the vast majority of cultures since the beginning of recorded history, and any form of reproduction without the aim of providing for the offspring is generally less likely to succeed than the alternative of being a provider.
You didn't watch the video. You said people don't feel overpowering lust. I proved you wrong by posting a prison inmate stating that the sexual desire is strong enough that they resort to raping other men when they are otherwise heterosexual.
> I'm talking about violent rape, and have been since the start, and so have you
Wrong, because I don't see a qualitative difference between violent rape and non-violent rape. That's on you buddy.
I literally just explained a logical, qualitative difference between violent rape and non-violent rape.
>Marital contracts in all cultures include a promise of protection from the man for the woman
explain further
Wow it's almost like criminals have a disregard for human dignity that they are still willing to coerce people into having sex despite serving time. WOOWEEE WHODA THUNK IT
The fact that they are in jail and nobody debates whether (as far as violent rape goes) rapists should be in jail is proof enough that there is a consensus among the general public that rapists willingly, knowingly transgressed the law, fully in control of their actions because THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS OVERPOWERING LUST.
Frankly, at this point I think that either you will serve time for being a potential rapist, or have served time already. Go back to rape9k.
Fine. I'll admit the true purpose of this thread because it's been hijacked by a rapist
I'm jealous of the popular people that just do drugs and have sex all day and get away with it and in my ideal society such people would be dealt with
>Any time you have to convince your girlfriend/wife to have sex with you and it's not an immediate yes it's pretty much a minor form of rape
Your definition of rape is fucked up. You might as well say that bargaining(or tipping) is a minor form of theft.
Gary Becker is an economist who wrote about that theory of deterrence. Turns out he's wrong because criminals arent usually very rational and forward thinking.
The reason we don't punish minor crimes harshly is because people view that as injustice. Historically minor crimes like theft could be punished by mutilation, but norms changed.
He confused the meaning of coercion, maybe.
I don't know.
To add to this (I'm the same guy, but not this guy ), that video actually supports my argument. To rape is not an instinct. To fuck is an instinct. In that man's case, rape is an act of desperation, not of desire to rape. Literally what I've been arguing all along is that rape (violent rape, for you) is a product not of a specific need for rape itself, but of an instinct to have sex combined with environmental factors.
Try assault a man's wife in any culture and in any time period, whether he practices marital rape or not, and see how he reacts.
>In that man's case, rape is an act of desperation, not of desire to rape
Suuuuure.
I have a gf and she bakes weed brownies for me :^)
fpbp
In my ideal society they'd be required to invite me to their parties.
Because coercion is really the only way of getting off. If only, oh, if only he had another physical means of stimulating his penis. What's a man with two hands gonna do but rape.
Not an argument. He wants have sex. No one wants to have sex with him. So he rapes. Simple, no? It is only extreme outliers that would prefer rape to consensual sex, and then its for factors other than just genetics.
im pretty sure these laws are currently being used in the middle east. cut your hands off if you're a thief, shit like that. maybe someone who has lived in the middle east would have some insight into what you're trying to discuss?
The fuck, stop?
I dun fuck'd up mah quotin's
I'm done now though, irrelevant shite is delet
How exactly do you validate this stance?
What about equal application of law makes it less effective than unequal application of law, rationally speaking?
This is easy question to answer from perspective of game theory. Suppose that we punish rape by execution, then if I rape the victim I could as well kill her because what are you gonna do anyway? When all crimes are major, you just kill witness, kill the victim and go all in basically. Imagine if it isn't a rape, but littering. If you seen me littering, prepare to die, because I am already criminal of the highest caliber who engaged in major crime.
Yeah that threw me off too, but I guess most everyone heard of him indirectly seeing as he's part of our language now
>society should change for my feelings
Kill yourself
>>Did anyone in history have similar ideas about law?
>Islam bait
>no one's taking it
I love you Veeky Forums.
>meta entities like groups and genes
You failed biology didn't you, Mr Sokal?
Where do you think the word "Draconian" comes from you retard?
You should go to your local library or courthouse. Ask to see the United States Code, the Revised Code of (Your State Here), your County Ordinances, and your City Ordinances if you live in one. These will probably be printed on 8"x11" pages of thin paper, and will occupy several feet of shelf space. Everyone violates at least one of these laws every day. Do you really think they can be equally punished? Who would the punishing?
Hard mode; include health and building codes, administrative codes, tax codes, etc. Probably twenty feet of shelf right there.
Tbf modern feminism, and not just the Tumblr variety (although his example is definitely Tumblr-tier), has major problems with determining what constitutes coercion when it comes to consensual sexual relations.
Combine this with the "All rape is rape" mantra, and I can see how an /r9k/ sperg would just give up and decide that it's "natural" for his luster to lead him to jump out of the bushes on some random woman, since all the normal ways could by some logic be "coercive" and therefore rape too.
This is a good post. Even more game theory developed, liberal penological in the 18th century made this exact point, imputing reason to criminals in classic Enlightenment fashion. They figured if two crimes are both punished very harshly, if you're going to do one of them, you may as well do the other and hope it helps you get away with the crime.
*>Even before game theory developed