Elections...

[Edi]

Dumb. Bragging about how you flaunted marijuana law is not how you convince John Q. Taxpayer to legalize marijuana. You convince him the government is wasting his money trying to keep dopeheads from fucking up their own lives, and if Sam and Suzie Bonghitter want to burn out their brain cells, they might as well pay taxes to do it. Then you go home and smoke a huge blunt to unwind.

RedImperator, you should see what else that numbskull has to say on a whole host of other things. I read through his website just out of curiosity, and he's so fucked up it really beggars belief. If you roll up a hardcore communist, extremist tree-hugger, die-hard pacifist and an anarchist all into one, you get a close approximation of that idiot. Beside him, the most hardcore leftists (by any defnition) on this board look like frothing-at-the-mouth right-wingers. He's so out of touch with reality that he must have gotten a permanent high from trying some seriously more powerful min-altering substances than marijuana. Probably LSD or other hallucinogens...

Small question, Edi. Is this one of those instances where your left and your right, are our right and our left? Are you conserned that your conservitive goverment might go more liberal (to use basic terminology) or that your liberal goverment will go more conservative?

Yeah, I know. Dumb American. But I trying to learn.

Knife, our right-wing parties start from the American left and go steadily leftward from that. Like Oberleutnant said, the National Coalition would be somewhere on the left wing of the Democrats.
The Centrists used to be named the Agrarian Party, their roots are in the countryside, and they are to the left of the NC. Centrist-right in Finnish politics.
Social Democrats are the main socialist party, to the right of communists.
The Leftist Alliance is what is left of the Communist Party, but they are practically just the left wing of the SD these days. Interestingly, their most popular politician, the party leader Suvi-Anne Siimes has been the Junior Minister of the Treasury and has often sounded more right wing in her comments than many people in the NC. Then again, economic reality being what it is, she has had no choice in that...
The Christian Democrats are a curious mixture here. They are generally rather right wing (extremely so in some issues). If it weren't for the pushing of religion, I wouldn't have a problem, but they are our fundies, and the party leadership is relatively moderate compared to the nutjobs that have a great influence among their voting base. I'm glad they came off worse in these elections despite gaining a lot more votes than last time, but the reason they did so well back then was that they had an electoral alliance with the Centrists.
The Swedish Folk Party is the party of the Swedish-speaking minority of Finns and is right wing. That distinction happens to be meaningless, because they have sat in every government for the past 20+ years and will seek to enter any coalition as long as they stay in power. Their influence is minor, but enough that we can't manage to get rid of Swedish as a compulsory language in schools, and that's why I would never vote for them.

With the exception of the Centrists, the names of every one of those parties scares me.

They shouldn't, as such. The Social Democrats, Green Party, Leftists, SFP, Christians and Centrists are direct translations and the first three are pretty scarily red from an American point of view, I'll grant. The National Coalition is a best-effort translation of a term that sounds a lot less militant in Finnish. Kokoomus as it is called in Finnish means "gathering together" or something like that, and has none of the threatening connotations that the translation carries around. The Basic Finns is another best-effort translation that sounds dorky when the Finnish name is completely acceptable. It is Perussuomalaiset in Finnish, and the perus- prefix means typical or basic or quintessential anything that it is attached to. 'Peruspuukko' would be a basic, utilitarian knife, to make a point. That doesn't alter the fact that the Perussuomalaiset party is a joke as a political force anyway.

Edi

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Marina, you should at least try to make an effort to look at the facts before you start making baseless claims.

Edi

I'd actually read that your prison system was considered the "best" in Europe's and did not know about the fact that you had the highest rate of internment in comparison with the other nordic countries. So, I had in fact done some research on this. Do not be so presumptious as to think otherwise.

My consideration that it was overly lenient was based, yes, primarily on the sentencing times for violent crimes, but also on the conditions inside of the Prisons. In the USA a candidate might use the slogan, for example, "Hard time for hard crime" to get elected; we don't coddle inmates. I was some shocked to read about how your prisons are run.

[Edi]

Well, the the problem with violent crime is not in the length of the punishments prescribed in law, it's in the application of them by the courts, and that's something many people are rather pissed off about. Unfortunately, change in the practice of the courts is slow and the only way to speed it would be to legislate tougher minimum sentences, which has the problem of compounding prison overcrowding as well as partially encroaching upon the separation of powers principle.

As for lenient treatment in prisons, it depends on what type of prison. We have closed prisons and so-called "open" prisons. Closed prison is a typical, traditional prison, and the place where violent criminals end up. They're none too pleasant for the inmates, being cooped up in a small cell is not my idea of fun. The open prisons don't have as tight security and the prisoners there have an easier time of it, though they are still confined. In these prisons they also do work, possibly have an opportunity for education and other things aimed at rehabilitating them when they get out. Most of the prisoners in open prisons won't be too likely to escape because they typically have shorter sentences and the consequences of an escape or attempted escape just lengthen the time they spend behind bars and they would get caught anyway. Dangerous, violent criminals invariably end up in the closed prisons, possibly in solitary confinement on top of that, so that they will not have an opportunity to even try to escape.

Of course, all this most likely sounds incredible to you, but the difference to the American system is in the approach to criminal policy. Ours has been moderately successful at the least, in that reoffense rates are not as high as I think they are in America (I don't have hard data, just a hazy recollection of reading that somewhere), because we seek to actively encourage development away from criminal behavior. Restricting their freedom is punishment enough, making their living conditions shitty on top of that is just unnecessary cruelty and increases suffering that serves no purpose and would actually be counterproductive relative to the goals of our criminal policy.

The angle of approach is different than yours, where as I understand it the rehabilitation issue is secondary at best, but perhaps the criminal policy varies somewhat from state to state?

Edi

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Well, the the problem with violent crime is not in the length of the punishments prescribed in law, it's in the application of them by the courts, and that's something many people are rather pissed off about. Unfortunately, change in the practice of the courts is slow and the only way to speed it would be to legislate tougher minimum sentences, which has the problem of compounding prison overcrowding as well as partially encroaching upon the separation of powers principle.

Hrmm. Interesting. Criminal penalties are always legislated in the USA. We have "Three strikes you're out" laws that were passed here - Someone who is a repeat offender at the felony level in many states goes away for life, no parole. In a few states it's two strikes for sex offenders. And people still complain about the prison system being excessively lenient. You can always expect lots of angry callers when a story pops up on a talk radio show or the like about prisoners getting TV or exercise machines or so on.

As for lenient treatment in prisons, it depends on what type of prison. We have closed prisons and so-called "open" prisons.

Ah. This material must have been laudatory upon your open prisons and glossing over the rest. My apologies.

Closed prison is a typical, traditional prison, and the place where violent criminals end up. They're none too pleasant for the inmates, being cooped up in a small cell is not my idea of fun.

How big are the cells? I think God proves he exists by our ability here in the States to pack large numbers of inmates into small cells. *g* Sorry. I couldn't help myself.

The open prisons don't have as tight security and the prisoners there have an easier time of it, though they are still confined. In these prisons they also do work, possibly have an opportunity for education and other things aimed at rehabilitating them when they get out. Most of the prisoners in open prisons won't be too likely to escape because they typically have shorter sentences and the consequences of an escape or attempted escape just lengthen the time they spend behind bars and they would get caught anyway. Dangerous, violent criminals invariably end up in the closed prisons, possibly in solitary confinement on top of that, so that they will not have an opportunity to even try to escape.

I understand the philosophy with relatively minor criminals. What sort of crimes are you talking about? As for exceptionally severe criminals in the USA we have a level of prison called a "Supermax" in which all the prisoners are in permanent lockdown solitary confinement.

Of course, all this most likely sounds incredible to you,

Nothing from Finland is incredible to me after Everquest Porn.

but the difference to the American system is in the approach to criminal policy. Ours has been moderately successful at the least, in that reoffense rates are not as high as I think they are in America (I don't have hard data, just a hazy recollection of reading that somewhere),

I'd have to drag up some figures.

because we seek to actively encourage development away from criminal behavior.

I'm not sure if that's the only part of what's effective in deterrence, though.

Restricting their freedom is punishment enough, making their living conditions shitty on top of that is just unnecessary cruelty and increases suffering that serves no purpose and would actually be counterproductive relative to the goals of our criminal policy.

Possibly. In the USA it's very important to take the victim or the victim's family into account during sentencing, though. Again, it depends on the crime.

The angle of approach is different than yours, where as I understand it the rehabilitation issue is secondary at best, but perhaps the criminal policy varies somewhat from state to state?

Edi

Oh, definitely! Death penalty laws vary between states, level of punishment, the actual classification of the crimes - And definitely the severity of the punishment. In a few states there are "prisons" that have been set up to deal with overcrowding which consist of surplus army tents surrounded by barbed wire and guardposts. I know of at least one county jail where the Sheriff feeds his prisoners spam. Down south lots of criminals still work the chain gangs. In other places, schooling, exercise bikes, and TVs. Naturally the debate over which is best is absolutely ferocious.

[Edi]

Hrmm. Interesting. Criminal penalties are always legislated in the USA. We have "Three strikes you're out" laws that were passed here - Someone who is a repeat offender at the felony level in many states goes away for life, no parole. In a few states it's two strikes for sex offenders. And people still complain about the prison system being excessively lenient. You can always expect lots of angry callers when a story pops up on a talk radio show or the like about prisoners getting TV or exercise machines or so on.

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear enough. The penalties are set in law, as a variable. For example the minimum penalty for second degree murder is 8 years, the maximum 12, and the judge assigns something from that. It can be modified downwards if extenuating circumstances are present, 25% off the maximum and minimum per application if more than one apply. First degree murder is life imprisonment, no other alternative, and here life imprisonment means just that. No parole, it's behind bars for the rest of your natural life unless pardoned by the president, which does not happen all that easily. The x strikes and out can't happen here, it'd violate more than one constitutional principle.

As for lenient treatment in prisons, it depends on what type of prison. We have closed prisons and so-called "open" prisons.

Ah. This material must have been laudatory upon your open prisons and glossing over the rest. My apologies.

No problem, I just realized that you don't have anything like this two tier system in the same sense we do, so naturally the unusual tends to catch the attention.

Closed prison is a typical, traditional prison, and the place where violent criminals end up. They're none too pleasant for the inmates, being cooped up in a small cell is not my idea of fun.

How big are the cells? I think God proves he exists by our ability here in the States to pack large numbers of inmates into small cells. *g* Sorry. I couldn't help myself.

Not very big. Some three meters in length and maybe half that wide. Enough that you can fit a bed and a table and a chair inside. Varies with the building, though. Some old prisons have very small cells, while they are somewhat roomier in newer ones.


Re: Open prisons

I understand the philosophy with relatively minor criminals. What sort of crimes are you talking about? As for exceptionally severe criminals in the USA we have a level of prison called a "Supermax" in which all the prisoners are in permanent lockdown solitary confinement.

Open prison inmates are typically guilty of property crimes or white collar crime, drug offenses that are minor but serious enough that fines aren't enough to address them and other types of "soft" crime as opposed to violent crime. Solitary confinement here is exactly that, locked alone in your cell, with a daily half hour or so of exercise. No association at all with other inmates, no interaction with the guards above what is absolutely required.

Of course, all this most likely sounds incredible to you,

Nothing from Finland is incredible to me after Everquest Porn.

I see...

but the difference to the American system is in the approach to criminal policy. Ours has been moderately successful at the least, in that reoffense rates are not as high as I think they are in America (I don't have hard data, just a hazy recollection of reading that somewhere),

I'd have to drag up some figures.

Would be interesting, but not entirely necessary. If you wish to go to the trouble, I won't mind.

because we seek to actively encourage development away from criminal behavior.

I'm not sure if that's the only part of what's effective in deterrence, though.

It's definitely not the only part. Criminal policy is such a complex issue that it usually makes the brain bleed trying to figure out how to get the optimum equation, especially since the optimum equation varies according to the angle of approach. It's a sum of many factors, with no single absolutely ruling one. I'm not sure that we want to go to the details here, it's easier to find literature where such things are discussed and read it there. Because it does take volumes of text to articulate well.

Restricting their freedom is punishment enough, making their living conditions shitty on top of that is just unnecessary cruelty and increases suffering that serves no purpose and would actually be counterproductive relative to the goals of our criminal policy.

Possibly. In the USA it's very important to take the victim or the victim's family into account during sentencing, though. Again, it depends on the crime.

There has been some change in that direction here as well, because the suffering of the families of violent crime victims, especially murder victims, has too often been just brushed aside. This is because there is no inherent mechanism in the law to address it. It's gotten the justice system some serious flak and with good reason, and things are improving. There has been too much focusing on the rights of the criminal (which can't just be tossed aside after all) at the expense of the victim. The way it's handled here is that the family gets monetary compensation from the perpetrator, and if the perp can't pay because of lack of assets, the state pays and then takes it out of the criminal's hide (within bounds of law of course). The desire of the family for vengeance is not (and if we wish to observe the principles of our constitution, criminal code and laws in general, cannot be) a consideration in how the criminal is incarcerated.

The angle of approach is different than yours, where as I understand it the rehabilitation issue is secondary at best, but perhaps the criminal policy varies somewhat from state to state?

Edi

Oh, definitely! Death penalty laws vary between states, level of punishment, the actual classification of the crimes - And definitely the severity of the punishment. In a few states there are "prisons" that have been set up to deal with overcrowding which consist of surplus army tents surrounded by barbed wire and guardposts. I know of at least one county jail where the Sheriff feeds his prisoners spam. Down south lots of criminals still work the chain gangs. In other places, schooling, exercise bikes, and TVs. Naturally the debate over which is best is absolutely ferocious.

I see. Thanks. Then prison reform seems in all probability to be one of those grenade topics that can conjure up an inferno out of nowhere...

Edi