Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The difference between private and state run law enforcment

Options
  • 20-01-2010 10:59pm
    #1
    SLUSK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭


    A man who beats up a robber goes to jail, the guy he beat up was a career criminal. This career criminal was basically free to walk the streets while the man who beat up the robber was sent to jail.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7034796/Munir-Hussain-father-who-attacked-intruder-freed-from-prison.html

    You see state run law enforcement goes easy on the attackers and hard on the victims who strike back.

    In Sweden a man who shot two robbers will soon face trial for "attempted murder". It is obvious that state run law enforcement does NOT protect ordinary people, it protects violent career criminals.

    A private system would be much more decent. Law enforcement should be privatized.


«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    evercloserunion
    Registered Users Posts: 1,889 ✭✭✭evercloserunion


    SLUSK wrote: »
    A man who beats up a robber goes to jail, the guy he beat up was a career criminal. This career criminal was basically free to walk the streets while the man who beat up the robber was sent to jail.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7034796/Munir-Hussain-father-who-attacked-intruder-freed-from-prison.html

    You see state run law enforcement goes easy on the attackers and hard on the victims who strike back.

    In Sweden a man who shot two robbers will soon face trial for "attempted murder". It is obvious that state run law enforcement does NOT protect ordinary people, it protects violent career criminals.

    A private system would be much more decent. Law enforcement should be privatized.
    What? I was hoping you would provide a counter-example of a modern private law enforcement system which is free of these flaws. But you haven't so on what grounds do you assert that this problem is because the law enforcement system is state run?

    A privatised legal system would be great for victims... until the criminals can make a better offer.


  • Options
    #3
    SLUSK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭SLUSK


    evercloserunion wrote: »
    What? I was hoping you would provide a counter-example of a modern private law enforcement system which is free of these flaws. But you haven't so on what grounds do you assert that this problem is because the law enforcement system is state run?

    A privatised legal system would be great for victims... until the criminals can make a better offer.
    Obviously the vast majority of people are law abiding so there is more money to be made in protecting them. When you see these career criminals with pages of convictions who are still walking the streets it's obvious that today's law enforcement is all about protecting the scumbags.

    In a private run system corporal punishments like they have in Singapore would be very common and that would deter scum from becoming repeat offenders.


  • Options
    #4
    S-Murph
    Closed Accounts Posts: 251 ✭✭S-Murph


    what about a rich rapist murdering scumbag who offers 100 million euro to save going to jail?

    Wouldnt a private company opt to take that money since it exists to make money?


  • Options
    #5
    Lockstep
    Registered Users Posts: 9,030 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    I have yet to see you provide any correlation for your claims. You give an example of a hitch in the legal system and claim that a private system would solve everything....without providing any basis for your claim.


    I can understand libertarian objections to state education, healthcare etc to a point.
    But justice?


  • Options
    #6
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    How would a 'private' law enforcement system operate differently? Are you not really talking about removing the 'law' from the law enforcement system?

    Anyway, a very poor case to base your call for reform on imo.

    Hussain’s ordeal began as he returned from his local mosque after Ramadan prayers on Sept 3 2008 to be ambushed by three masked men, including Walid Salem.
    He was threatened at knifepoint, tied up alongside his wife and three children, and held hostage on the floor of their living room.
    When his 15-year-old son fled upstairs, chased by two of the masked men, Hussain turned on Salem and chased him away.
    Joined by his brother, who lived nearby, he cornered him in a neighbour’s garden and attacked him with a stick, leaving him with brain damage.

    The original attacker was posing no threat at the time of his beating.
    Lord Judge wrote:
    "The burglary was over and the burglars had gone. No one was in any further danger from them."

    Salem was later deemed not fit to plead to charges of false imprisonment and given a supervision order.
    Was it the brain damage inflicted on him that rendered him 'not fit to plead'?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    SLUSK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭SLUSK


    dvpower wrote: »
    How would a 'private' law enforcement system operate differently? Are you not really talking about removing the 'law' from the law enforcement system?

    Anyway, a very poor case to base your call for reform on imo.




    The original attacker was posing no threat at the time of his beating.




    Was it the brain damage inflicted on him that rendered him 'not fit to plead'?

    In a private system it would probably be viewed that you give up all your rights when you break into someones home. So if the homeowner wants to smack him with a cricket bat it should be well within his rights.


  • Options
    #8
    Lockstep
    Registered Users Posts: 9,030 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    SLUSK wrote: »
    In a private system it would probably be viewed that you give up all your rights when you break into someones home. So if the homeowner wants to smack him with a cricket bat it should be well within his rights.
    Gotta love the certainty.

    And what if the breaker-and-enterer happened to be able to pay off the court? Seeing as profit is their motivation.


  • Options
    #9
    S-Murph
    Closed Accounts Posts: 251 ✭✭S-Murph


    SLUSK wrote: »
    In a private system it would probably be viewed that you give up all your rights when you break into someones home. So if the homeowner wants to smack him with a cricket bat it should be well within his rights.

    You mean anarchy/every man for himself?


  • Options
    #10
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    SLUSK wrote: »
    In a private system it would probably be viewed that you give up all your rights when you break into someones home. So if the homeowner wants to smack him with a cricket bat it should be well within his rights.

    In the case you linked, the (first) criminal had left the house at the time he was beaten to the point where he sustained brain damage.

    It sounds like you want a system where, if someone breaks into your home, you would have the right to do anything to him, at any point, without any independent investigation, trial or judgement?


  • Options
    #11
    SLUSK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭SLUSK


    S-Murph wrote: »
    You mean anarchy/every man for himself?
    How is that worse from the protect career criminals at all cost system we have today?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    SLUSK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭SLUSK


    dvpower wrote: »
    In the case you linked, the (first) criminal had left the house at the time he was beaten to the point where he sustained brain damage.

    It sounds like you want a system where, if someone breaks into your home, you would have the right to do anything to him, at any point, without any independent investigation, trial or judgement?
    Yes if someone breaks into you home the victim should be allowed to punish the perpetrator.


  • Options
    #13
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    SLUSK wrote: »
    Yes if someone breaks into you home the victim should be allowed to punish the perpetrator.

    Would this new system of unhindered right to revenge be limited to people who break into your home?

    'cos Tesco overcharged me last month, and I'd like to go up there with a can of petrol and a box of matches.


  • Options
    #14
    evercloserunion
    Registered Users Posts: 1,889 ✭✭✭evercloserunion


    SLUSK wrote: »
    In a private system it would probably be viewed that you give up all your rights when you break into someones home. So if the homeowner wants to smack him with a cricket bat it should be well within his rights.
    Why would that be believed in a private system? What about being private causes the system to enshrine and uphold such values?

    If I broke into your house, raped you and took all your money, and then used that money to pay off the courts and police, how would you obtain justice?

    (And don't even think of going vigilante because my private guards would rape you and take what little money you had managed to re-accumulate in the interim)


  • Options
    #15
    SLUSK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭SLUSK


    evercloserunion wrote: »
    Why would that be believed in a private system? What about being private causes the system to enshrine and uphold such values?

    If I broke into your house, raped you and took all your money, and then used that money to pay off the courts and police, how would you obtain justice?

    (And don't even think of going vigilante because my private guards would rape you and take what little money you had managed to re-accumulate in the interim)
    Obviously you could probably find someone willing to help you, people like this are sure to have made a lot of enemies.


  • Options
    #16
    Lockstep
    Registered Users Posts: 9,030 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    They might have enemies, but would they be powerful enough to help you?

    Your concept is incredibly utopian.


  • Options
    #17
    S-Murph
    Closed Accounts Posts: 251 ✭✭S-Murph


    SLUSK wrote: »
    How is that worse from the protect career criminals at all cost system we have today?

    Who defines/writes the law in your system?

    If it is every man for himself, then what you have is every person having their own rules and laws.

    In otherwords, if I break into your gaff, im not a criminal, rather, im taking what is righfully mine - because I say it is mine.

    The title criminal is therefore applied to "who loses out"/"gets shot in the face".

    Further, if I go shooting people for fun, im not a criminal because no-one has asserted their authority, and therefore label of criminal, upon me.

    Your system is madness. Every child would need to be born with a rifle in their hand.


  • Options
    #18
    evercloserunion
    Registered Users Posts: 1,889 ✭✭✭evercloserunion


    SLUSK wrote: »
    Obviously you could probably find someone willing to help you, people like this are sure to have made a lot of enemies.
    So instead of an impartial legal system sentencing me to jail you want to get a gang together and start a war.


  • Options
    #19
    SLUSK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭SLUSK


    S-Murph wrote: »
    Who defines/writes the law in your system?

    If it is every man for himself, then what you have is every person having their own rules and laws.

    In otherwords, if I break into your gaff, im not a criminal, rather, im taking what is righfully mine - because I say it is mine.

    The title criminal is therefore applied to "who loses out"/"gets shot in the face".

    Further, if I go shooting people for fun, im not a criminal because no-one has asserted their authority, and therefore label of criminal, upon me.

    Your system is madness. Every child would need to be born with a rifle in their hand.
    Obviously different areas would have different rules, but if you ran around shooting randoms you would be shot yourself. Why can't justice exist without government? Do you think goverment is great at protecting people? Are you serious?


  • Options
    #20
    SLUSK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭SLUSK


    S-Murph wrote: »
    Who defines/writes the law in your system?

    If it is every man for himself, then what you have is every person having their own rules and laws.

    In otherwords, if I break into your gaff, im not a criminal, rather, im taking what is righfully mine - because I say it is mine.

    The title criminal is therefore applied to "who loses out"/"gets shot in the face".

    Further, if I go shooting people for fun, im not a criminal because no-one has asserted their authority, and therefore label of criminal, upon me.

    Your system is madness. Every child would need to be born with a rifle in their hand.
    The Swiss are heavily armed and it seems to be one of the safest places in Europe.


  • Options
    #21
    SLUSK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭SLUSK


    evercloserunion wrote: »
    So instead of an impartial legal system sentencing me to jail you want to get a gang together and start a war.
    What stops criminals from bribing the police and courts today? It happens everywhere.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    angry_mob_simpsons.jpg


  • Options
    #23
    Cool Mo D
    Registered Users Posts: 1,419 ✭✭✭Cool Mo D


    SLUSK wrote: »
    Obviously different areas would have different rules, but if you ran around shooting randoms you would be shot yourself. Why can't justice exist without government? Do you think goverment is great at protecting people? Are you serious?

    Government enforces a single, consistent set of laws. How could a private system do this?

    How would private justice decide which courts would have jurisdiction over a particular case?

    How would a private justice system enforce it's rulings? How would it deal with someone who ignored it's rulings?

    Can you give a single example of an effective operating private justice system?

    If I punched a millionaire in the face, and he shot me dead, what private justice system would take up my cause?


  • Options
    #24
    Lockstep
    Registered Users Posts: 9,030 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    SLUSK wrote: »
    The Swiss are heavily armed and it seems to be one of the safest places in Europe.

    There is no causation/correlation in the above.


  • Options
    #25
    S-Murph
    Closed Accounts Posts: 251 ✭✭S-Murph


    SLUSK wrote: »
    Obviously different areas would have different rules, but if you ran around shooting randoms you would be shot yourself. Why can't justice exist without government?

    Because it wouldnt be justice if I broke into your house, shot you and raped your wife, and took all of your possessions. If your wife has no means of retribution, then I wouldnt be a criminal.

    How can justice be performed when your wife does not have the resoures or means to pursue retribution?

    Infact, the poor and disabled in society would by default be criminals and outlaws having no means to assert another title.

    The point in having a state justice system is that people are supposed equal before it.


  • Options
    #26
    SLUSK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭SLUSK


    S-Murph wrote: »
    Because it wouldnt be justice if I broke into your house, shot you and raped your wife, and took all of your possessions. If your wife has no means of retribution, then I wouldnt be a criminal.

    How can justice be performed when your wife does not have the resoures or means to pursue retribution?

    Infact, the poor and disabled in society would by default be criminals an doutlwas having no means to assert another title.

    The point in having a state justice system is that people are supposed equal before it.
    The free market system has proved itself vastly superior in supplying goods and services so I can't believe that law enforcement is an area where government could be superior.


  • Options
    #27
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,508 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    SLUSK wrote: »
    A man who beats up a robber goes to jail, the guy he beat up was a career criminal. This career criminal was basically free to walk the streets while the man who beat up the robber was sent to jail.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7034796/Munir-Hussain-father-who-attacked-intruder-freed-from-prison.html

    You see state run law enforcement goes easy on the attackers and hard on the victims who strike back.

    In Sweden a man who shot two robbers will soon face trial for "attempted murder". It is obvious that state run law enforcement does NOT protect ordinary people, it protects violent career criminals.


    In the Nally case he was let off murder even though he shot the guy in the back and proceeded to beat seven kinds of hell out of him.

    So you see state run law enforcement might do that in the UK, but in Ireland it goes easy on the victims who strike back and hard on the attackers.

    That, or you shouldn't generalise based on one case and your general antipathy towards the criminal justice system.
    A private system would be much more decent. Law enforcement should be privatized.

    There should be a system whereby you get paid per bad-guy's scalp. And of course in Ireland there would have to be light touch regulation to cover up the scalping of innocents. But yeah, it could work. People would certainly be so terrified that they would have to stay home and obey the law (although TV licence evasion is a scapable offence).


  • Options
    #28
    Wheely
    Closed Accounts Posts: 400 ✭✭Wheely


    SLUSK wrote: »
    A man who beats up a robber goes to jail, the guy he beat up was a career criminal. This career criminal was basically free to walk the streets while the man who beat up the robber was sent to jail.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7034796/Munir-Hussain-father-who-attacked-intruder-freed-from-prison.html

    You see state run law enforcement goes easy on the attackers and hard on the victims who strike back.

    In Sweden a man who shot two robbers will soon face trial for "attempted murder". It is obvious that state run law enforcement does NOT protect ordinary people, it protects violent career criminals.

    A private system would be much more decent. Law enforcement should be privatized.

    Your logic is flawless. I'm convinced.:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #29
    S-Murph
    Closed Accounts Posts: 251 ✭✭S-Murph


    SLUSK wrote: »
    The free market system has proved itself vastly superior in supplying goods and services so I can't believe that law enforcement is an area where government could be superior.

    Where has the free market proved this?


  • Options
    #30
    Wheely
    Closed Accounts Posts: 400 ✭✭Wheely


    SLUSK wrote: »
    Obviously the vast majority of people are law abiding so there is more money to be made in protecting them. When you see these career criminals with pages of convictions who are still walking the streets it's obvious that today's law enforcement is all about protecting the scumbags.
    How is it obvious? What about white-collar crime? Regulatory violations which are hugely increasing? They would go completely unpunished. I can't believe I'm engaging.......
    SLUSK wrote: »
    In a private run system corporal punishments like they have in Singapore would be very common and that would deter scum from becoming repeat offenders.
    A good hidin' yeah?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,508 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    SLUSK wrote: »
    Obviously the vast majority of people are law abiding so there is more money to be made in protecting them. When you see these career criminals with pages of convictions who are still walking the streets it's obvious that today's law enforcement is all about protecting the scumbags.

    How many of these people that you see walking the streets have pages of serious offences. Is it not more probable that the people with 100+ convictions have mostly public order, petty theft, road traffic etc offences?

    For serious offences, long prison sentences are regularly handed out.


Advertisement