My Idea = Add 'banishment' to prison sentences.
This is an idea for individual states to use... Judges should have the option to add 'banishment' when sentencing convicted criminals to time in prison. At the end of his time in prison a convicted felon must leave the state and is bard from ever retuning or risk going back to prison for life!
The benefits are as follows:
--- Keeps the criminals away from the victims.
Victims of rapes and muggings will not need to worry (as much) about seeing their assailants again.
--- Gets the guy away from his jerk friends and co-conspirators.
Lets face it - many guys who are in prison are there because they had help and encouragement from stupid people they call friends. If they are forced to move to another state, they will no longer be influenced by those 'friends'.
--- Would help to breakup criminal organizations.
Whether we are talking about street gangs, drug cartels or the mob - it will be much harder for crime bosses to conduct organized crimes with half their boys banished from the state.
What do you think?
There's this thing called the internet; it kind of makes that sort of thing meaningless.
Would you be happy in your state to accept criminals from another?
... At the end of his time in prison a convicted felon must leave the state and is bard from ever retuning or risk going back to prison for life!
You are hereby sentenced to thirty years at hard labor, after which you will spend the rest of your natural life writing poetry.
Banishment is not the same thing as "relocating" which is what moving form one state to another state would be. Banishment would be removal from society.
so.....this is like a 49 strikes and you're out kind of thing, then?
so.....this is like a 49 strikes and you're out kind of thing, then?
You just gave me an idea.
Instead of a state simply banning a convict which leaves him to choose among the remaining states he isn't banned from, why don't we make ALL states banish
every convict to New Jersey.
Then, we ban New Jersey from banning.
Problem.. solved.
that might fall under the geneva convention and the whole cruel and unusual punishment part... still better than texas.. hmmm.. banishing them to texas might help with the immigration 'problem'.. I mean who'd want to cross thru a few hundred mile escape from new york scenerio?
Hey, the city is statistically the safest in the nation, fantasy movie notwithstanding.
What if the person commits a federal crime? Where are you going to send them? What country would take them if they are known criminals? Do you want to send them to Mars?
Send them to Antartica! The scientists might not like it, but they could carry tazers and supersoakers for protection.
You just gave me an idea.
Instead of a state simply banning a convict which leaves him to choose among the remaining states he isn't banned from, why don't we make ALL states banish every convict to New Jersey.
Then, we ban New Jersey from banning.
Problem.. solved.
:finger:
safest just 'cuz snake plitskin in the man!
(and yes, lets please forget about escape from L.A.... never happened)
safest just 'cuz snake plitskin in the man!
Don't make me bring out the Ox...
After reading the posts on this forum (and on my own forum where I posted the same idea
http://forum.normandcompany.com/ ) I've decided that my idea is not so great after all. As one person put it: "It's like tossing dog poop out of your yard into someone else's yard". Thank you for your posts everyone. :)
Way to kill your own thread, sun. I thought your idea had some potential.
Wasn't this idea already given a trial run on Alcatraz? Not exactly the same thing, but still, it was putting prisoners on an island away from society.
the island prison was for maximum security. this has been tried...but it was Australia, not Alcatraz.
I think they tried it with you lot first.
I think they tried it with you lot first.
Only in the state of Georgia, and unfortunately for us they keep escaping.
well.. letting the prisoners out to clean the highways might seem like a good idea for cheap labour.. but.. who hasn't seen movies where they escape in that situation?
And sweat, you've seen Cool Hand Luke, sweat a lot. :greenface
I think they tried that once.
It was called Australia.
BTW, I highly recommend the book, "The Fatal Shore" by Robert Hughes on that subject.
“Convicts were sent to nine of the American settlements. According to one estimate, about 2000 had been sent for many years annually. Dr. Lang, after comparing various estimates, concludes that the number sent might be about 50,000 altogether.”1 Again, in the Encyclopædia Britannica, under the article “Botany Bay,” we read: “On the revolt of the New England colonies, the convict establishments in America were no longer available, and so the attention of the British government was turned to Botany Bay, and in 1787 a penal settlement was formed there.”
I'm not sure why people keep denying the fact that convicts were originally sent to America. Is this a sore point with you people or what?
To me, it's simply a historical fact.
Show of hands ... who else had a flashback of Mr. Chekov repeating, "Botany Bay, Botany Bay?"
My name is wolf, and I am a geek.
[I
I'm not sure why people keep denying the fact that convicts were originally sent to America. Is this a sore point with you people or what?
To me, it's simply a historical fact.
Because it's not true. Jusus Christ, don't you bother to read your own links. :rolleyes:
Yes I read my own links.
This exerpt from further down the page.
It seems well established that some political convicts had been introduced into Virginia in the time of Charles II. Thus Bruce relates (I. 611) that in 1678, when the uprising in Scotland had been suppressed, a considerable proportion of the prisoners were shipped to America.
Why do you have such a problem accepting that America was at least in part, a penal colony for the British in the begining?
From this
link
Do you need more? There's plenty out there. Just google the phrase 'British Convicts Sent to America'
[ATTACH]12103[/ATTACH]
And this from wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_transportation
Transportation or penal transportation is used to refer to the deporting of convicted criminals to a penal colony, for example to colonies in the United States of America from 1620s to 1770s and Australia in the early 1800s by the United Kingdom (then includingIreland). It can also be used generally to describe such activities.
Prisoners of war, rebels, and indentured servants are not criminals. :rolleyes:
Bruce, I'm just finding it difficult to believe that the history you lot are taught is different to that of anyone else in the world.
There are clearly plenty of references that state the fact that common criminals sentenced through the courts of England were sent to America as convicts.
As far as the definition of indentured servants goes, that's what most of the convicts that were sent here were officially called. Very few of them were sentanced for the term of their natural lives. Mostly 7yrs or there abouts. After that time they were free to do whatever they chose with whatever means they had available.
What's wrong with admitting your country was also the destination of convicts?
What's wrong with admitting your country was also the destination of convicts?
Because they like to keep their heads in the sand. :crazy: It makes the Yanks (and the Poms), feel good to continually say that we Aussies are all descended from convicts, in spite of the fact that this is not true - as you know, convict descendants are a minority of the Australian population. All of my ancestors were free settlers - not that this matters. I don't hold people accountable for what someone did 200 years ago, and many of the convicts were guilty of being poor. Not being guilty of committing a serious crime.
Quite a bigoted post.
Thanks for showing us your colors.
Good to know.
. . . a convicted felon must leave the state and is bard from ever retuning or risk going back . . .
And the verses once written must be sung, ever more off-key.
Not sure about cruel, exactly, but it sure is unusual punishment.:cool:
Because they like to keep their heads in the sand. :crazy: It makes the Yanks (and the Poms), feel good to continually say that we Aussies are all descended from convicts, in spite of the fact that this is not true - as you know, convict descendants are a minority of the Australian population. All of my ancestors were free settlers - not that this matters. I don't hold people accountable for what someone did 200 years ago, and many of the convicts were guilty of being poor. Not being guilty of committing a serious crime.
Quite a bigoted post.
Thanks for showing us your colors.
Good to know.
I'm torn as to whether it was a bigoted post. Bluedave's only
anti comment is about people who deny facts and/ or people who seriously believe that Australia is populated by Britain's offcasts. Personally I don't take offense because I know what the rest of the post states is true - there is a minority of convict descendants and even if there was a majority it's 200 freaking years ago.
Although Bluesdave, you seemed to imply that the people of two nations held this view and expressed it continually - untrue and pretty damning.
I've been unfortunate in meeting some pretty dreadful people from Australia, but I don't judge a country on them - there are dreadful people here too. And I certainly wouldn't judge a nation on what it's inhabitants were doing 200 years ago. Not even the French.
What's wrong with admitting your country was also the destination of convicts?
Nothing. The fact is many of the people that came here were not criminals only because they got away before they could be apprehended.
My problem is with the numbers and the dubious claim that America was, or even contained, penal colonies.
Convicts were sent to nine of the American settlements. According to one estimate, about 2000 had been sent for many years annually. Dr. Lang, after comparing various estimates, concludes that the number sent might be about 50,000 altogether.”
Then you start getting into the evidence, actual happenings.
After the defeat of Charles II. at Worcester, his soldiers who were seized on that occasion were disposed of to merchants, and at least sixteen hundred were thus conveyed to America. The Parliamentary fleet in which they were transported sailed first to Barbadoes. . . . We have certain information of the arrival of only one hundred and fifty Scotch servants in the Colony when the fleet arrived in 1651.
They don't know if it was 1600 or 150? Or exactly which Country (colony) they went to? Plus the fact that they weren't criminals at all.
As Bristol, according to Macaulay, was specially infamous for kidnappers, so it shared largely in an allied branch of business, the traffic in convicts. Hunt, the historian of that city, remarks (p. 142), “Toward the end of the seventeenth century, Bristol aldermen and justices used to transport criminals and sell them as slaves or put them to work on their plantations in the West Indies.” A writer in Notes and Queries3 holds this Bristol industry to have arisen still earlier, saying, “When Cromwell [and William, as well] had conquered Ireland, the Irish officers sought safety on the continent, while the rank and file were pressed to enlist in foreign service. As many as 34,000 men were thus hurried into exile. Widows and orphans the government shipped wholesale to the West Indies — the boys for slaves — the women and girls for mistresses to the English sugar-planters. The merchants of Bristol — slave-dealers in the days of Strongbow — sent over their agents to hunt down and ensnare the wretched people. Orders were given them on the governors of jails and workhouses, for ‘boys who were of an age to labor and women who were marriageable, or not past breeding.’”4 In the foregoing notice of Bristol exports, the words “West Indies” probably mean the best American market, no matter where.
I don't see many criminals there.
After 1727 no printed notice of transports is known to the present writer till the Gentleman’s Magazine was started in 1731. The record there on Tuesday, March 9,1 is: “Upwards of a hundred convicts were removed from Newgate to be transported to America.” Other periodicals gave more particulars. Thus in the London Magazine of 1732 (I. 368) we read: “October 26, sixty-eight men and fifty women felons convict were taken from Newgate, and put on board a lighter to be carried down the river, to be shipped on board the Cæsar off Deptford, for transportation to Virginia.”
"Gentleman's Magazine" is their historical reference? Will future generations discover we were anally probed by aliens as reported in the National Inquirer?
Then there a scraps of information on individual groups of "convicts", a surprizingly (to me) large percentage of them women... breeders, I suppose. But most of these people were "convicted" of being poor or having a bad attitude.
There were certainly criminals deported because they could be sold as slaves for a profit rather than hanged at the crowns expense. But the percentage of real criminals was minicule. And more importantly, there were
no penal colonies.:p
there is a minority of convict descendants and even if there was a majority it's 200 freaking years ago.
Sort of like being black in the USA and being a descendent of slaves?
I can understand why BD suggests some people have their heads buried in the sand. From all the information available, it's quite plain that convicts were sent to America. In fact, that was a large part of the reason the country was settled in the first place. It wasn't until those pesky rebels got together and foiled that plan that they started sending their convicts here.
As to being embarrassed or not about being descended from convicts well, I'm quite happy to claim a convict heritage. In fact, my great...grandfather was transported to Australia on the first fleet and when his time had been served, he because a free man and ended up being the mayor of the town he lived in.
As I said, I just don't understand the denial of obvious facts. This idea of convicts being sent to America is part of the basic curriculum in our primary school classrooms. It's part of history and no amount of postulating about what you call your convicts changes the fact.
Although Bluesdave, you seemed to imply that the people of two nations held this view and expressed it continually - untrue and pretty damning.
I should have said
some Yanks and Poms, I know that most do not hold this view. It was clumsy wording on my part. I worked with a young British guy many years ago who used to take great delight in telling everyone he met who was not born in Australia, that this would be a great place if "we" could just get rid of the Aussies. He was an arrogant son of a bitch, but I should not generalise. My apologies to all my Yank and Pom friends (and I do have many). I just get tired of the convict heritage being brought up all of the time.
Quite a bigoted post.
Thanks for showing us your colors.
Good to know.
I am not a bigot, and I have just apologised to SG, and now I will apologise to you. I do not really believe that you feel we are all convicts. Sorry. :sniff:
I should have said some Yanks and Pom, I know that most do not hold this view.
I really appreciate you clarifying rather then getting snarky. Yes, people can be arses and will anything to get under your skin.
I apologise for the Brit if you apologise for P. Except he had an English Dad, and jis Dad was an arsehole too. And my issues with P were nothing to do with him being Australian... Okay, I forgive you P. Even if you didn't realise he was being held against you anyway.
i think we should tax all people standing in water
As I said, I just don't understand the denial of obvious facts. This idea of convicts being sent to America is part of the basic curriculum in our primary school classrooms. It's part of history and no amount of postulating about what you call your convicts changes the fact.
Just because you were taught it in grade school doesn't make it true. They were trying to assuage the children's inferiority complexes, being the spawn of criminals and remaining pussy whipped by a Queen. :p
The "New World" was wide open and heavy competition between the European powers was developing to grab as much as they could. the didn't want land, territory, they wanted the wealth that could be milked from it.
Various wealthy people or pooled wealth groups, schemed to make a killing from the opportunity. The first Jamestown settlement, many were expecting to pick up gold on top of the ground, while somebody else did the work....they died.
Many groups came to settle, start new, to communities and prosper, rather than send wealth back to Europe. there were others, however that came, especially to the more temperate south, to amass a fortune to send or carry back to Europe. They has no intension of relocating, just take the money and run.
Some others, hired and financed, younger/bolder/poorer people to come over and make money for them. They built huge plantations on Kings grants and produced tidy chunks of wealth to send back to sponsors or family.
The only restriction on the size of the plantations and the earning potential was not land but labor. Since the owners of these plantations were rich and connected, they could gain the ear of the king.
The king could cut his expenses hanging, or worse feeding, everyone locked up for transgressions against the crown or the wealthy. Ship these undesirables to the friends plantations to grow them and their output of goods and wealth.
Why stop there? POWs, former residents of conquered lands like Ireland, religious wackos like jacobites, landless poor, women on the street after 10pm, they were all sent as labor to the "New World". "NewWorld" meaning two continents and all the surrounding islands. Those Islands growing most of the sugar and making oceans of rum.
While a few were actually criminals, most of them were just a nuisance to the crown. Regardless, they were sent to work the big plantations and farms, not settle the "New World" like the ones paying their own way.
No penal colonies.
Whatever you think Bruce. It's quite obvious that regardless of what facts are presented you're going to go on believing in this magical noble begining you've been taught.
Are you aware that there were also free settlers on the first fleet to Australia? Are you aware of exactly how a penal colony works or worked in Australia at any rate? Do you realize that once the majority of the convicts arrived here, they lived under almost exactly the same conditions as the soldiers sent here to guard them? Do you realize that even though these people were sent here for stealing a loaf of bread, a great number of them were just ordinary people?
I'm pretty sure this is what BD was on about when he posted earlier in this thread. The double standards and hypocrisy shown by our 'allies'.
While it's fun for you to crack jokes about us being inferior because of our beginings; beginings which are remarkably similar to those of Americans; you don't mind using our soldiers on the front line. You don't mind using our soil for testing vile weapons. You don't mind using us as a jumping off point for your conflicts.
You might think we come from less than favourable beginings, but I can assure you that most Australians are fed up to the eye teeth with the colonial views of our 'allies'.
Pardon us for saying so.
Oh get off your high horse, for Christs sake. I'd heard that once the ships got to Australia, everybody was in the same boat.(no pun) Sometimes it wasn't a very pleasant boat either, but everybody shared the predicament. I didn't look into it, but had assumed that most of the "convicts" were not criminals in the true sense of the word. In merry old England being convicted had no bearing on guilt, only wealth and social standing. Most of them were convicted of being in the way. If they kept them in jail it cost money so most everything was a hanging offence.
What possible difference could it make 200 years later? Somebody picking on you? It's a fucking joke, get over it. You take way more shots at the US than everybody here, put together, takes at Australia. So you don't have a leg to stand on, no sympathy for you. :headshake
penal colony
pe·nal col·o·ny (plural pe·nal col·o·nies)
noun
Definition: [COLOR="Blue"]prison[/COLOR] at remote location: a place of imprisonment and punishment at a remote location
penal colony
noun ~a penal [COLOR="blue"]institution[/COLOR] where prisoners are exiled (often located on an island from which escape is difficult or impossible)
Devil's Island was a penal colony.
'You take way more shots at the US than everybody here,'
This is bullshit Bruce, and I think it's inappropriate to suggest it. Certainly I express my opinion in the context of the political and current events threads on this boards, but in no way are my views singular on any of the threads.
I don't require your sympathy. That would imply that I consider myself somehow disadvantaged from your perspective.
Why is it that some members of this forum are admired for stating the facts as they see them (calling a spade a spade I think is the phrase of choice) while others are condemned for it?
OK, I'm not going back and count them, even the ones I vividly remember. I'll just point them out in the future. You might not realize how much you do it. But you're all aflutter when it comes back at you.
I'm not talking about expressing an opinion in a discussion. I'm talking about snarky remarks for their own sake. I'm not the only one that's seen it.
Then again, you've made a couple nasty asides about Strines too, like I'd expect from someone that sees them self as better than the proletariat. :eyebrow:
Like I said earlier in this thread Bruce, whatever you say. :) Just remember, people in glass houses are better off not throwing stones, and if you find my comments in some way offensive, then you're no better than I am after some of the things you've said to me.
As to being all aflutter as you put it, if you need to put things that way then go for it, but as far as I can see, I've addressed the issue without resorting to personal attacks, which is more than I can say for some people on this site.
oh get over it Linta !!!
ifn' you are opinionated you WILL be called on it , FACT !!!!!
That is what makesthis place so much fun ;)
I don't mind being called on it. Apparently intellectuals think that you grow through discussion and argument (I'm pretty sure they don't mean the name calling kind of argument). I just don't like being accused of USA bashing. FFS, there's plenty of people who're US citizens who do a shit load more of that than I ever have.
Yes it is an entertaining place to hang about.
Where'd you get Linta from? Most people just use the first few letters of my handle instead of a few from the end.
Like I said earlier in this thread Bruce, whatever you say. :) Just remember, people in glass houses are better off not throwing stones, and if you find my comments in some way offensive, then you're no better than I am after some of the things you've said to me.
As to being all aflutter as you put it, if you need to put things that way then go for it, but as far as I can see, I've addressed the issue without resorting to personal attacks, which is more than I can say for some people on this site.
No, it's people in glass houses should always wash their hands before leaving the bathroom.
I don't remember attacking you or Australia. Can't think of any reason to attack Australia...ever. If I attacked you, it was certainly without malice, possibly responding in kind. But that said......Don't take it personal, don't make it personal. I still believe that. If you or anyone for that matter, feels I'm violating that, call me on it. I may or may not agree, but if not, I'll explain why.
I didn't say you were making personal pokes at me, if you had, I'd have been all over your ass. I was referring to pokes at the USA or it's general population, over and above discussing the topic at hand. There are plenty of opportunities to justifiably criticize, without that. It gets tedious.
I wouldn't interfere with your right to say anything you want, just promising to respond in kind. I think that's fair.
Nobody asked, but let me make something clear. In my opinion, a moderator here removes spam and tries to keep the board reasonably straight, throws out the empty bottles, picks up the trash and gets to empty the litter pan. Not to censor posts. Anything I post is a personal position, not an official one. Nobody is going to be cast out for disagreeing with me. I feel I can hold my own without resorting to claiming diplomatic immunity. Clear? OK, bring it on. :p
Because they like to keep their heads in the sand. :crazy: It makes the Yanks (and the Poms), feel good to continually say that we Aussies are all descended from convicts, in spite of the fact that this is not true - as you know, convict descendants are a minority of the Australian population. All of my ancestors were free settlers - not that this matters. I don't hold people accountable for what someone did 200 years ago, and many of the convicts were guilty of being poor. Not being guilty of committing a serious crime.
I can see where the same old point would get tedious. I don't think you are a bigot for saying so. But cut us a little slack, what else are we going to criticize about Australia? Oh, I know, you drive on the wrong side of the road.:lol: And you've got too many poisonous snakes. That's all I've got....pretty slim pickings, so you don't leave us much choice. If you don't like it, then go do something bad, will ya? Kick a puppy or something.
I feel I can hold my own without resorting to claiming diplomatic immunity. Clear? OK, bring it on.
Bruce ate all the popcorn.
Ate the popcorn? I gobbled it. :blush:
and don't forget the toilets flush backwards!
'I was referring to pokes at the USA or it's general population, over and above discussing the topic at hand. There are plenty of opportunities to justifiably criticize, without that. It gets tedious.'
Bruce, I refute this. It is simply not true. Yes I disagree with US foreign policy and as a citizen of the world I think it's my right and possibly my obligation to voice that opinion to you or anyone else who lives in the US and has the power to change US foreign policy. Maybe not individually, but en mass. Again, I don't think I'm the only person who does this, and if you take it personally when it happens, then I apologise on behalf of myself. I simply feel that the world is in a precarious position because of decisions and actions put in place by the recent administration/s of the US.
As to historical facts. It's quite obvious that there is a discrepancy here although it's interesting that no one else has really voiced an opinion on it. To let you know, I have asked practically every person I've spoken to in the last few days what their thoughts are on this matter, and without fail, they've all given the same answer I have given here.
Maybe this sort of thing is something that needs to be addressed by both/all countries. My main question about this particular issue would be, why do Americans think one thing about their history when Australians (and possibly other nations) think another?
Don't you think that's interesting?
I agree, we should pull our troops and cash out of everywhere and let the rest of the world have at it, while we take care of our own.
See how long we are the "evil empire" after that happens.
lol...you'll still be evil in some peoples eyes. That's the problem with pretty much everything. No one will agree with everyone all the time and you can't ever possibly please everyone either. BTW, in case I need to clarify, I don't think the US is evil.
I think it'd be great though if your government spent more money on social services for example, to help those citizens who are at a disadvantage, and less money on war. You have so much potential as a nation, and it's a shame to see the values the average person holds to being thrown down the toilet by the current administration.
You might think we come from less than favourable beginings, but I can assure you that most Australians are fed up to the eye teeth with the colonial views of our 'allies'.
Pardon us for saying so.
Does it matter where Aliantha is from when this was posted? Of course not. Also not forgotten is why the ultra secret Keyhole satellite program was exposed. The United States government tried to subvert Australian elections for self serving extremist American purposes. One should not forget that history either when throwing stones.
Aliantha's comments are justified. Opinion is based in facts. Whether anyone agrees with that history is no reason to discuss 'high horses' - especially from Americans who too often have a double standard.
When it comes to having an opinion on other people, Americans - who traditionally don't even know what is happening in Mexico and Canada but have opinions - are so quick to have those opinions. One need only see how many non-Americans saw "Mission Accomplished" as wrong when over 70% of Americans had a 'big dic' syndrome. Why is the world so right and Americans so extremist as it ignore reality and promote "Freedom Fries".
Much of what Aliantha posts is justified by history such as story called "Falcon & the Snowman". And yet so many Americans like to forget that history to feel superior to the French, Germans, Turks, S Koreans, Saudis, Chileans, etc.
Look, everyone is right (or wrong), depending on your perspective. I agree with Bruce, just let the previous comments (including mine), die a natural death, and everyone get along with one another and enjoy The Cellar. Tony puts a lot of money and time into providing this service for us, and I think one way of repaying his kindness is to be polite to one another. I apologised earlier, so I am not going to repeat myself (and give LJ another chance to be sarcastic ;) ).
lol...you'll still be evil in some peoples eyes. That's the problem with pretty much everything. No one will agree with everyone all the time and you can't ever possibly please everyone either. BTW, in case I need to clarify, I don't think the US is evil.
I think it'd be great though if your government spent more money on social services for example, to help those citizens who are at a disadvantage, and less money on war. You have so much potential as a nation, and it's a shame to see the values the average person holds to being thrown down the toilet by the current administration.
We spend more on helping other nations and the poor than any other nation. Far more.
I meant for your own citizens rkz.
I apologised earlier, so I am not going to repeat myself (and give LJ another chance to be sarcastic ;) ).
yeah,....cuz i'm always soooOOOOoooo sarcastic.
We spend more on helping other nations and the poor than any other nation. Far more.
Which has always been the myth that so many Americans believe. Top five nations that accounted for most all of US aid - Israel, Egypt, Phillippines, Turkey, and Greece. Most of that aid is in or attached to military aid. Americans now where near the top of generous aid providers per GNP.
Americans now where near the top of generous aid providers per GNP
...when measuring only official government assistance through government budgets, not including private giving such as the Gates Foundation.
Private donations in the United States, for example, are estimated to be at least $34 billion dollars a year
which is almost twice what the government officially gives.
Bruce, I refute this. It is simply not true. Yes I disagree with US foreign policy and as a citizen of the world I think it's my right and possibly my obligation to voice that opinion to you or anyone else who lives in the US and has the power to change US foreign policy. Maybe not individually, but en mass.
I disagree with much of US foreign policy, also. The majority leave that to the government. I heard something recently about a pole saying something like 60 % don't think we should be in Iraq. I'm fuzzy on the numbers but remember it was a clear majority. But we are there.
Changing foreign policy by the power of the people takes decades. You don't change the course of the ship of state quickly. When there isn't a war on, probably most people's concerns would lean toward issues that affect them personally, when choosing who to vote for. The president is the only candidate for office that touches on foreign policy during the campaign, with any regularity. Congressmen usually defer to the executive branch, and move on to making false promises about issues the voters are most concerned with. We vote and hope for the best.
Again, I don't think I'm the only person who does this, and if you take it personally when it happens, then I apologise on behalf of myself. I simply feel that the world is in a precarious position because of decisions and actions put in place by the recent administration/s of the US.
No you are not. But you're the one that got pissy at my retort that you were taught wrong and showed you why. I've gone at disputes with several foreigners without them taking it as a personal affront. I assure you, it's not about you. Remarks like, "
you're going to go on believing in this magical noble begining you've been taught. is asking for a comeback to your sarcasm, so don't be surprised when it comes. And the statement, "
Why is it that some members of this forum are admired for stating the facts as they see them (calling a spade a spade I think is the phrase of choice) while others are condemned for it?", is simply, "poor me", bullshit to elicit sympathy. Always expect a comeback to that false reasoning. If you're surprised by magnitude or ferocity, hey, it's the American way.
As to historical facts. It's quite obvious that there is a discrepancy here although it's interesting that no one else has really voiced an opinion on it. To let you know, I have asked practically every person I've spoken to in the last few days what their thoughts are on this matter, and without fail, they've all given the same answer I have given here.
Duh. If that's what the Aussie schools are teaching, it's what the response from Aussies would be, wouldn't it?
Maybe this sort of thing is something that needs to be addressed by both/all countries. My main question about this particular issue would be, why do Americans think one thing about their history when Australians (and possibly other nations) think another?
Don't you think that's interesting?
Yes it's interesting although not terribly important in the grand scheme of things.
My position is that convict does not necessarily mean criminal. At that time very few were. And there were no penal colonies here. I gave you the definition of penal colony in case you were speaking of something else.
My failure to agree with your statements spawned all kinds of tangential complaints about US/AU relations that are not my fault or even necessarily my views. I may be rude and crude, but honest and cute....did I mention cute. :blush:
Americans now where near the top of generous aid providers per GNP.
Why does "per GNP" enter into it? If everyone else gives you a nickel, and I give you $10, I'm a dick because I earn more than they do?
Well then just give it back, you ungrateful bastard. :p
Americans now where near the top of generous aid providers per GNP
...when measuring only official government assistance through government budgets, not including private giving such as the Gates Foundation.
Private donations in the United States, for example, are estimated to be at least $34 billion dollars a year
which is almost twice what the government officially gives.
It is a funny idea of generosity that relies on government (mis)appropriation.
No you are not. But you're the one that got pissy at my retort that you were taught wrong and showed you why. I've gone at disputes with several foreigners without them taking it as a personal affront. I assure you, it's not about you. Remarks like, "you're going to go on believing in this magical noble begining you've been taught. is asking for a comeback to your sarcasm, so don't be surprised when it comes.
Whatever you say Bruce. Believe whatever you like.
And the statement, "Why is it that some members of this forum are admired for stating the facts as they see them (calling a spade a spade I think is the phrase of choice) while others are condemned for it?", is simply, "poor me", bullshit to elicit sympathy.
Nope, it was a serious question which I've asked before as have others with no reasonable response other than insult.
Duh. If that's what the Aussie schools are teaching, it's what the response from Aussies would be, wouldn't it? Yes it's interesting although not terribly important in the grand scheme of things.
So why do you think totally different historical facts are taught in Australia and the US? If you don't think it's important that's your choice, but I certainly do.
My position is that convict does not necessarily mean criminal. At that time very few were. And there were no penal colonies here. I gave you the definition of penal colony in case you were speaking of something else.
My failure to agree with your statements spawned all kinds of tangential complaints about US/AU relations that are not my fault or even necessarily my views. I may be rude and crude, but honest and cute....did I mention cute. :blush:
Bruce, if you interpret my responses in ways other than which they were intended, whose fault is that? Yes I do believe in the things I've posted, and I don't retract any of them because this is the way it is from the outside. People not from the outside do get the impression that American citizens do believe in a magical noble begining. So what? Be proud of your heritage. I am, and according to most, mine is not noble or magical, but to me it is.
Often people on this forum and others have asked why the rest of the world hates the US or similar types of questions. My answer to that is maybe they don't, but they're just fed up with alternate views of facts which when questioned are shouted down.
If everyone else gives you a nickel, and I give you $10, I'm a dick because I earn more than they do?
Well then just give it back, you ungrateful bastard.
Well at least I can melt that nickel down and get 6 cents for it.
The only countries with a, "magical noble beginning", are in children's books and fairy tales. Making that statement you are accusing me of telling fairy tales. There is no other explanation. You can't understand why I should take offense at that?
When have you been condemned for calling a spade a spade? How were you condemned, somebody didn't agree with you? Somebody told you were wrong? Why are you so sure that spade wasn't a rake?
History is taught from books. Book are written by people. People have prejudices, perspectives and have to be aware of political agendas if they want to sell books to schools.
Why don't your books jib with the history textbooks in Japan, Germany, or the old Soviet Union? If your not sure, no they don't.
That's why I ignored what the textbooks said and looked at facts. Show me where there was a penal colony in what is now the US. I have never heard of one and don't think there was one. Prove me wrong.
Don't tell me I won't accept facts when you don't present any.
Heritage is what it is. There is no reason to be proud or embarrassed by some thing I had no control over and no hand in. Slavery was a bad thing in my opinion, but I'm not embarrassed that it existed. I had nothing to do with it. It's just history to me. I am however, embarrassed by some recent happenings, because it's history I'm a part of. That doesn't mean I'm not proud to be an American or disapprove of everything the country does.
You feel disagreeing with you, questioning your accusations and your interpretation of what are facts, is shouting you down? Do you expect us to just accept statements we feel are wrong? Looking back through the thread, I'll bet money your posts are still there, so they couldn't have been shouted down very far.
The truth is, Americans are smarter than everyone else....heres proof; :p
http://www.lookatentertainment.com/v/v-2228.htm?size=MEDIUMI humbly apologise. I bow to your superior knowledge of the facts as they stand.
Enjoy your day.
out.
Actually, to be honest, that's a lie. I just can't be bothered arguing with you anymore. It's obviously pointless.
I am sorry you got into such a flutter over it though. I hate to think what it's doing to your health. :)
No penal colonies to show me? ;)
As you could see from the link, we are clearly superior.
Show me where there was a penal colony in what is now the US. I have never heard of one and don't think there was one. Prove me wrong.
I was taught in junior high school that Georgia was founded as a penal colony.
Wikipedia says so too.
Most notably, the Province of Georgia was originally designed as a penal colony. Convicts would be transported by private sector merchants and auctioned off to plantation owners upon arrival in the colonies. It is estimated that some 60,000 British convicts were banished to colonial America, representing perhaps one-quarter of all British emigrants during the eighteenth century.
Is your disagreement based on the definition of "Penal Colony?" According to
this site, the convicts settling Georgia were all debtors.
Yes, the definitions in post 44.
We had none here than I know of. :cool:
Yes, the definitions in post 44.
We had none here than I know of. :cool:
OK. Well, do you agree that convicts came from overcrowded debtor prisons in England and were auctioned off to plantation owners in Georgia to do hard labor as mentioned in the wikipedia article I quoted?
Yes, I said so several times. In England anyone not obviously useful was at risk of being tossed out. But it costs money to ship people across the ocean, and they couldn't make the people pay because if they had the fare they probably wouldn't be thrown out. The solution, sentence them to indentured servitude, usually for seven years, but it varied.
Then they would sell the contracts to sea captains who in turn would sell them to people for enough to cover what they paid, plus passage, and a profit, if possible. Very clever scheme to get you to pay for your own deportation plus profits for several, with your future. :yelgreedy
Yes
Alright. Then, I got no beef with you. :)
You know, banishment might serve a purpose. In the case of a powerful defendant, it could provide a way to avoid a costly and divisive trial.
Maybe instead of a pardon, the next administration will offer GWB and Cheney a plane ticket. Of course, the next question is what country will take them, but I'm pretty sure Dubai would. It's welcoming Haliburton, so this would be a natural extension.
Just image a state dinner in the palace with the host at the head of the table, GWB and Cheney on his left, and Michael Jackson on his right.:rolleyes:
BTW, historically speaking, England sent convicts to Australia, debtors and politicals to America, and bastards to Canada.
Way to kill your own thread, sun. I thought your idea had some potential.
Your one of the few people to say so. Still, the more I think of it the less I like it.
After reading the posts on this forum (and on my own forum where I posted the same idea http://forum.normandcompany.com/ ) I've decided that my idea is not so great after all. As one person put it: "It's like tossing dog poop out of your yard into someone else's yard". Thank you for your posts everyone. :)
I'd say it was a pretty fair shot at killing it. Saying you changed your mind a thanking the contributers. That's quite often more than enough.;)
btw, the commercial in your sig line is pushing the envelope.
Banishment would never work. Some ACLU nut would stand up and sue for the child molesters.
on a side note, suncrafter... that's some damn slick orctacular stuff. only 15 copper! a bargain at any price!
anywhoo, I'm still in favor of exile. siberia needs people. yeah, I know. old hat.. but sometimes you just have to go with the traditional approach.
Put them in the tundra of Alaska.
Just out of interest:
Transportation to America and the West Indies, 1615-1776
Legal Records Information 16
1. What Was Transportation?
Transportation was a system that exiled convicts to the American and West Indian colonies for a period of years.
2. Why Was It Introduced?
Until the Restoration in 1660, the only punishment available for people convicted of treason or felony was, with one exception, the death penalty. The exception was petty larceny for which the punishment was to be whipped. Large numbers of those convicted had their lives saved by a legal fiction called benefit of clergy. This originated in the claims of churchmen to be exempt from the jurisdiction of the king's courts, even if they had been accused of ordinary crimes. Benefit of clergy provided a compromise solution, whereby churchmen were tried in the king's courts but were handed over to the ecclesiastical authorities for punishment. After 1576, those who had successfully claimed benefit of clergy were simply discharged.
As early as the fourteenth century, the king's courts were prepared to accept that any male who could read must be a clergyman. Similar privileges were extended to women during the seventeenth century. Claiming benefit of clergy became something of a formality, and it was often granted to illiterate convicts even before the literacy test was formally abandoned in 1706. Even those who were denied benefit of clergy and were therefore sentenced to death had a good chance of securing a royal pardon - which also meant that they would be discharged without further punishment.
Transportation provided a useful compromise for the authorities ensuring that individuals could be punished without actually killing them.
3. When Was It Introduced?
Although benefit of clergy and unconditional pardons continued to be used, after 1615 it became increasingly common for convicted individuals to be offered a pardon on condition of transportation. After 1718 transportation was to America and was standardised at 14 years for those entitled to conditional pardons. Transportation for 7 years was also introduced as a sentence in its own right for non capital offences.
Transportation to the Americas was ended on the outbreak of the rebellion in 1776.
Transportation was for non capital crimes, not just debt related, or political crimes, but was usually accompanied by a conditional pardon.
That is very interesting. It is interesting to note how people could get what essentially was a commuted sentance if they could read and earlier, were a part of the church. The power of religion in those days was great.
I wonder when they started sending them to Aussie land, after 1776?
Just out of interest:
Transportation was for non capital crimes, not just debt related, or political crimes, but was usually accompanied by a conditional pardon.
You didn't say where that quote was from.
Transportation was for non capital crimes, not just debt related, or political crimes, but was usually accompanied by a conditional pardon.
That last bit was not a quote, it was my summation of the information I'd just posted. The information was from the National Archives.
.
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/Leaflets/ri2234.htmTrial records do not usually contain useful genealogical information; nor do they contain transcripts of evidence. They may contain copies of pre-trial witness statements. The indictments were written in Latin, and in a distinctive legal handwriting, until 1733. Pre-trial witness statements are in the ordinary hand of the day, but if you are not familiar with seventeenth century handwriting you may find it difficult to read.
Sound like trying to understand a greek bible.
Not necessarily. The stuff in the ordinary hand of the day is legible, it just requires a little practice reading 17th century handwriting. The latin stuff I woudn't be able to read, as I have only minimal latin.