Victor Chang's killer released from prison

[Walsingham]

Maybe they don't want to help because of litigation? You help someone and they die, you're up for manslaughter.

 

Or you pull a guy out of a burning car which then aggravates a spinal injury from the crash and the result makes him paraplegic. That person in turn sues you.

 

Hurrah for litigation culture! This certainly can apply in the UK. For example, our military first aid training is not 'safe' to use with civilians. *thinks* And I'm not just talking about securing the area around the victim with fire first.

 

My own view is that I'll help and if the stupid ****-holster wants to sue he can fething well try.

[Gorgon]

I understand it's common to do some damage while doing CPR, theres a rib cage and you really have to hammer away for that pressure to translate to the heart, but can you kill anyone while performing CPR. Say if you haven't detected a weak pulse and respiration.

[Walsingham]

I understand it's common to do some damage while doing CPR, theres a rib cage and you really have to hammer away for that pressure to translate to the heart, but can you kill anyone while performing CPR. Say if you haven't detected a weak pulse and respiration.

 

That's what we were told, certainly. The RSM told us he's done it twice in his career and both times it only started working after the ribs broke!

[alanschu]

I have been told it's very bad to perform CPR on someone with a pulse.

[Gfted1]

I understand it's common to do some damage while doing CPR, theres a rib cage and you really have to hammer away for that pressure to translate to the heart, but can you kill anyone while performing CPR. Say if you haven't detected a weak pulse and respiration.

 

I believe there is a very outside chance that a now broken rib, if compressed improperly, can pierce the lungs/heart and cause internal bleeding.

[Hurlshort]

Yep, CPR is only for folks with no pulse. You are basically just trying to keep to heart pumping blood for a bit until medical attention can be given.

[Walsingham]

Yup. It's not for fun.

[alanschu]

Hasn't CPR evolved to where it's no longer considered necessary to give artificial respiration, just chest compressions?

[Walsingham]

Hasn't CPR evolved to where it's no longer considered necessary to give artificial respiration, just chest compressions?

 

You mean WE'VE evolved?

[Hurlshort]

CPR has changed a lot over the years. I was trained last year, my wife gets trained every year since she teaches PE. But artificial respiration is still a part of it.

[alanschu]

Yeah it was a part of my training but that was a long time ago. Someone was telling me that it's only chest compressions now and just said "Buuuuuh?"

[lord of flies]

There are two facts regarding the retributive justice system which explains why it is around:

 

Firstly, retributive justice does not work. When punishment is added to simple situations, the human brain goes from "social" mode, where it thinks in positive, empathetic and mutually beneficial terms, to "rational" mode, where it becomes a rampaging monster who acts like a **** as long as he can get away with it.

 

Secondly, people love to punish. We love it, we love it so much it gives us boners and makes us high as hell. Nothing gets people better than someone whose behavior they consider morally wrong (whether it is or not) being punished. Look at the dumb nerds crowing over Jack Thompson's disbarment, or the way that Freepers get all happy any time a liberal gets in trouble, or just look at people pump their fists when somebody goes to jail. People will punish even when they are told it is not in their best interests. If you don't believe me, try a little thought experiment: do you believe that the majority of people in prison would be a lesser financial drain on society if they had never been put in prison in the first place? Let's say the answer is yes. It certainly is in my country. Okay, now try this: do you believe that all those people should never have been put in their in the first place?

 

For another example, take a look at this graph, which represents the Confidence Game. The Confidence Game has two players, the Mark and the Shark. Both get $10 at the beginning of the round. The Mark gets to send some amount of his money over to the Shark. This Stake is immediately trebled when it reaches the Shark, and now the Mark can Request some amount of the tripled Stake back. But the actual amount of the Mark's Winnings are decided by the Shark.

Graph A represents the amount that the Mark puts in and the amount he expects back. Graph B represents the amount that the Shark puts back in. The dotted line is the perceived "equitable exchange." The red line is the result without any punishment mechanic; the blue one is the result with a punishment mechanic.

 

Obviously, introducing punishment has negative effects on the Shark's behavior! This happens even if the Shark is told that the Mark has no idea there is a punishment mechanic in play, so it's not just the Shark reacting to the Mark being a jerk. But if we let the Mark decide whether or not to use the punishment, and we tell him that this is what will happen, he will still choose to activate the punishment.

[Guard Dog]

*Long pointless example...*

 

I'm curious... do you believe perpetrators of violent crime can be helped by "rehabilitative" punishment given the very very high rate of recidivisim in violent offenders? Second, have you ever been or know anyone (someone close to you if there is such a person... kinda doubt it in your case) who has ever been the victim of a violent crime? I'm betting....no.

[Killian Kalthorne]

As being a "victim" of violent crime, which was having a 9mm shoved at my face, I can say wholehearted that I felt great satisfaction when the police arrested the bugger 30 minutes later and got seven years in prison. Rehab never works, will never work, because the essential element is that the criminal has a choice. He or she can choose to be a criminal or a law abiding citizen. No one twists their arm. No one forces them to do criminal acts. Its called free will and those who violate the laws of our society by their own free will should be punished.

[lord of flies]

As being a "victim" of violent crime, which was having a 9mm shoved at my face, I can say wholehearted that I felt great satisfaction when the police arrested the bugger 30 minutes later and got seven years in prison. Rehab never works, will never work, because the essential element is that the criminal has a choice. He or she can choose to be a criminal or a law abiding citizen. No one twists their arm. No one forces them to do criminal acts. Its called free will and those who violate the laws of our society by their own free will should be punished.

The problem with believing that criminals act in a completely free manner is that it requires you to believe the corollary - that countries, cities, and neighborhoods where the crime rate is higher are full of inferior people. Which is obviously retarded and racist, so what is the reason people commit crimes? Could it be... economic and social conditions, including the general socio-economic level of their area and the character and source of income for local institutions which provide their social safety net? No... couldn't be.

 

Poor people commit more crimes? Well, since poor people act in a completely free manner and are solely acting on the basis of their own choices, obviously the poors are inferior! Hold on a second, let me get out my poor-stomping boots...

[Killian Kalthorne]

Even when I was at my poorest I choose not to steal. Even when I was at my hungriest I choose to do the right thing and obey the law. Don't give me this socio-economic bullcrap, Flyboy. It has nothing to do with who is superior or inferior or any of that s**t. It has everything to do with doing the right thing and making the choice of obeying the law. Being poor is no excuse to break the law.

 

Let me tell you something about the guy who pulled the gun on me. He wasn't poor. He was a football player from the local university who had a fully paid tuition for his entire time there. FULL RIDE SCHOLARSHIP and all the benefits that goes along with it. Free food. F4ree housing. Free books. Free everything and money to spare for some luxuries. He choose to break the law.

Edited October 29, 2009 by Killian Kalthorne

[lord of flies]

Let me tell you something about the guy who pulled the gun on me. He wasn't poor. He was a football player from the local university who had a fully paid tuition for his entire time there. FULL RIDE SCHOLARSHIP and all the benefits that goes along with it. Free food. F4ree housing. Free books. Free everything and money to spare for some luxuries. He choose to break the law.

And? Will his behavior be improved or corrected somehow by his seven-year stay at the rape camp? Or will he just come out worse than he came in? Hmm... a difficult question, surely one for the ages.

[Killian Kalthorne]

To be honest, I don't care. If you choose to break the law you deserve punishment.

[lord of flies]

To be honest, I don't care. If you choose to break the law you deserve punishment.

This is precisely the kind of psychology which I discussed in my post. Its only purpose is to allow the atrocious system to continue; it has no positive societal effect, since prisoners are released from their years-long stay at the rape camp and expected to somehow conform to societal standards while being ostracized by every non-criminal community.

[Killian Kalthorne]

To be honest, I don't care. If you choose to break the law you deserve punishment.

This is precisely the kind of psychology which I discussed in my post. Its only purpose is to allow the atrocious system to continue; it has no positive societal effect, since prisoners are released from their years-long stay at the rape camp and expected to somehow conform to societal standards while being ostracized by every non-criminal community.

Well, gee, if they didn't choose to be a criminal in the first place they wouldn't be ostracized. Wow, who would of thunk that!

 

They made their choice. They pay the consequences for that choice.

 

Free fraking will, Flyboy. It's a b***h.

Edited October 29, 2009 by Killian Kalthorne

[lord of flies]

Well, gee, if they didn't choose to be a criminal in the first place they wouldn't be ostracized. Wow, who would of thunk that!

 

They made their choice. They pay the consequences for that choice.

Hurf a durf, they made a bad choice, ergo let's engage in behavior which is practically designed to make them make the same choice over and over again!!!!

[Killian Kalthorne]

They still have free will, Flyboy. If they make the same bad choice that is their fault and no one else's. You know, have them take some personal responsibility for their lives.

[lord of flies]

They still have free will, Flyboy. If they make the same bad choice that is their fault and no one else's. You know, have them take some personal responsibility for their lives.

Whelp, best pack it in. Killian is resorting to making the "free will" argument, wherein he pretends like human behavior has nothing to do with outside stimulus. No point in discussing how to make a better society with people who make this dumb ass argument.

 

However, I'd like to make a quick last-minute snipe:

 

"I ****ing get a boner every time somebody goes to jail!"

- Killian Kalthorne

Edited October 29, 2009 by lord of flies

[Killian Kalthorne]

They still have free will, Flyboy. If they make the same bad choice that is their fault and no one else's. You know, have them take some personal responsibility for their lives.

Whelp, best pack it in. Killian is resorting to making the "free will" argument, wherein he pretends like human behavior has nothing to do with outside stimulus. No point in discussing how to make a better society with people who make this dumb ass argument.

 

However, I'd like to make a quick last-minute snipe:

 

"I ****ing get a boner every time somebody goes to jail!"

- Killian Kalthorne

 

Human behavior is influenced by outside stimulus, I agree, but it does not CONTROL human behavior. No matter how much outside stimulus effects a human being, that human still has free will to choose. That is the difference between us and animals. Thanks for playing, Flyboy, but you lose once again.

Edited October 29, 2009 by Killian Kalthorne

[alanschu]

I'm curious... do you believe perpetrators of violent crime can be helped by "rehabilitative" punishment given the very very high rate of recidivisim in violent offenders?

 

Recidivism rates can be a bit misleading, because they often are not transparent, and look at what crime was committed in the first place (i.e. a violent one), and then whether or not that person went back to prison at all. One of the common causes of returning to prison is due to a parole violation.

 

 

Recidivism rates also double count individuals, since they're only looking at crimes committed since a release from prison. The people most likely to commit another crime and contribute to recidivism rates are those that already demonstrated that they will commit another crime. As we know, people like these are why justice systems consider ideas like three strike laws and so forth. Hence why repeat offenses are heavily considered when it is time to sentence.

 

 

Though the recidivism rates of criminals that were convicted for murder and sexual crimes usually have smaller recidivism rates. According to a study done in 1994, the lowest rates of recidivism were "for homicide (41 percent), sexual assault (41 percent), rape (46 percent)." A publication by the State of Washington had similar results. Of course, this is most likely impacted by the fact that criminals serving sentences for these crimes also serve longer sentences and are less able to commit crimes. They also get out of prison older. There could also be an issue with the Law of Small Numbers since the rates of these crimes is significantly less.

 

 

Of course, simply being the lowest doesn't necessarily mean "low enough." It's perfectly reasonable to conclude that the recidivism rates are too high.

 

 

Second, have you ever been or know anyone (someone close to you if there is such a person... kinda doubt it in your case) who has ever been the victim of a violent crime? I'm betting....no.

 

No offense, but I think this is a weak defense. People aren't really rational beings at the best of times, least of all when they've become a victim. I wouldn't call them the harbingers of fair decision making. People get vindictive over traffic accidents.

 

 

 

As an aside, violent crime rates seem to be dropping since 1994.