Freedom: from Fear or Tyranny?

[the_mango55]

Freedom from Fear
Main aspects: Large numbers of police and lots of prisons; The legal system is geared in an assembly line manner, with large numbers of plea bargains; Longer Sentences for crimes; Fewer restrictions to policing (illegal search and seizure laws, self incrimination, etc.); Prison time for non-violent drug offenders.

Pros
Long sentences deter crimes and separate criminals from the public
Police presence solves crimes and prevents future crimes
Less crime makes for a safer country

Cons
Less restrictions mean possible police abuse of power
Keeping people in prison and paying more police is expensive
Longer sentences mean that prison overcrowding could be a problem

Freedom from Tyranny
Main aspects: Fewer police and prisons; More lenient sentences; More rights for the accused; More restrictions placed on policing; more trials and fewer plea bargains; greater reliance on parole and rehab for drug offenders.

Pros
More liberty & privacy because of restrictions on police
More chances to prove innocence in courtroom
Not as expensive to maintain

Cons
Lighter sentences and fewer convictions reduce deterrence
Not as many people in prison means more potential criminals on the street
Fewer police to solve and prevent crimes



EDIT: I just realized that I should explain this poll Starting in the 1990s, the US has been moving more towards a Freedom from Fear stance, and crime has dropped significantly. However, there are significantly more people in prison in America than any of America's peer nations. So this is a poll asking which one of these you prefer. Also, a mix of the two is probably the best bet, and If I could create the perfect system it would be more of a blend, this is just a "which one do you prefer more" thing.

[gigagaia]

With tyranny comes fear...
As Ben Franklin said "Those who would give a little liberty for a little security deserve neither and will lose both."

Given that crime is a social policy, smart social policy can reduce crime and make the police's job less difficult and thus make fear less of an important issue.

Thus, I choose freedom from tyranny

[God]

oo that's tough. There's no compromise between the 2?

I went for 'freedom from fear'. I don't like the sound of hundreds of criminals that should be in prison getting let off.

[IamthePope]

Well, the descriptions were a bit confusing but I beleive the first description fits what we've got in Texas. And that seems to work out pretty well.

Joke:
Q: Why do they have Oak trees outside the courthouse in Texas
A: to string 'em up after the trial's over

[Kanaric]

Well, the descriptions were a bit confusing but I beleive the first description fits what we've got in Texas. And that seems to work out pretty well.

Joke:
Q: Why do they have Oak trees outside the courthouse in Texas
A: to string 'em up after the trial's over

Do you disagree with Franklin's quote? I just want to know.

[IamthePope]

Do you disagree with Franklin's quote? I just want to know.

Yes and no. Although it seems sound at first and supports the underlying principles of Democracy, when applied it becomes something of an extreme statement. Isn't all liberty gained at the price of a little restriction on that liberty. For instance, the ability to drive is gained at the price of restrictions on that right to ensure public safety.

Also it seems like an inditement of the patriot act which I support. If I agreed with this quote I couldn't possibly support the patriot act.

[the_mango55]

Actually his quote was:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

And I don't know if Ben Franklin would describe privacy as an essential liberty, as it wasn't even in the constitution. I see that logic though. I lean more towards the freedom from fear (one of the few areas I lean to the right), but I think we have to have a good mix. True, crime is a social issue, but it is not feasable to attempt to change society and expect results immediately, therefore between now and then we should do something

And nothing in the "freedom from fear" category will severely restrict the change in society that it will take to get rid of crime (which is impossible BTW).

Tough police and laws take away some rights, or limit them, and can make the population less happy.

Only if there are unjust laws though. People (especially young people) sometimes resent and fear police, and therefore will complain about them, but generally people are more happy when there is less crime.
Those who are breaking laws will be the ones most unhappy with freedom from fear

[gigagaia]

Yes and no. Although it seems sound at first and supports the underlying principles of Democracy, when applied it becomes something of an extreme statement. Isn't all liberty gained at the price of a little restriction on that liberty. For instance, the ability to drive is gained at the price of restrictions on that right to ensure public safety.

Also it seems like an inditement of the patriot act which I support. If I agreed with this quote I couldn't possibly support the patriot act.

Well it's not an indictment of Patriot act, per se, given how long ago Franklin was around.

But it's still right today. Would you want to be jailed for your beliefs? Look at what happened in Germany. People wanted economic security, so they voted for a party which gave it to them.
Did they secure either liberty or security?

[LSJ]

A government can try to make the people feel safe from tyranny by flagpoling their democracy, rights, and freedoms. They can gain support by that. But they can also use it as an advantage toward forms of tyranny. The gov't can say they will give their citizens more rights, but also save themselves from punishments or investigations.
Tough police and laws take away some rights, or limit them, and can make the population less happy. Law and order is better, and if done properly, corruption will be found out and removed.
Ideally either should help in different ways, but a corrupt government official can use the systems the wrong way.
In a real world setting neither works as well as it should, unfortunately.

Liberalism is usually safest (but not always the most effective). I prefer middle grounds, but I lean toward freedom from fear.

[Kanaric]

As Ben Franklin said "Those who would give a little liberty for a little security deserve neither and will lose both."

Yes thank you, anyone who believes contrary is against the principles on which this country is founded.

[RusskiSoldat]

When a man is accused, any evidence that can be used against him is to be seized in the shortest possible order.
Outlaw plea bargaining, a man either comitted a crime or he didn't, there's no in between.
Give the police far more rights, so that they actualy do something useful as opposed to waht they do here.

[the_mango55]

Outlaw plea bargaining, a man either comitted a crime or he didn't, there's no in between.

That is impossible, every other person who goes to college would have to become a lawyer or judge, they would have to turn all unused land in America into courtrooms, and 50% of the population would have to serve on juries every day. (exaggeration, but still you get the point). Something like 90% of cases are decided by a plea, it is much less expensive and much more efficient that way.

[Fenris]

Fear from tyranny, by a mile.

But I am for bigger sentences (and even death penalty) for such crimes as violence, murders, stealing,...

I can however recognize what type of person will vote for each...

[the_mango55]

Obviously criminals will vote for freedom from tyranny

JK.

But seriously, I would love if freedom from tyranny system worked, it just doesn't seem to. It is great that people have higher ideals and wish to give people greater rights and freedoms, and I would love that as well, but criminals will still be criminals. If you are more lenient on a criminal, he will simply break more laws, knowing that he can get away with it. I do believe that the war on drugs is a worthless waste of money though, and that (many of) the huge number of drug offenders clogging up our prisons shouldn't even be there.

[trackjacket]

Obviously criminals will vote for freedom from tyranny

JK.

But seriously, I would love if freedom from tyranny system worked, it just doesn't seem to. It is great that people have higher ideals and wish to give people greater rights and freedoms, and I would love that as well, but criminals will still be criminals. If you are more lenient on a criminal, he will simply break more laws, knowing that he can get away with it. I do believe that the war on drugs is a worthless waste of money though, and that (many of) the huge number of drug offenders clogging up our prisons shouldn't even be there.

Would "private" criminals truly be your biggest worry if the government was run by tyrants?

[Garbarsardar]

Or as Berthold Brecht said in 1933:

I'm scared of the people who just want peace and quiet:They are ruthless.

[Kscott]

Neither, Clearly Jails should be places for rehabilitation, however currently they are just places for punishment. I think this is the wrong way to go, we are simply condemming our own citizens and not trying to fix the problem.

[Ó Cathasaigh]

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Well, I think there is a major difference between Essential liberties and nonessential liberties.

The right to keep and bear arms, the right to choose our own religion, the right to free speech, the right to protest peaceably. These are essential liberties.

The right to browse the net and look at kiddy porn without fear of getting busted is not.

I don't realy care if the Govt can see what I look at online, I don't realy have anything to hide. Even if they saw what I looked at, I doubt they'd realy care unless I went to "HOLY JIHAD.com"
whatever, just a crazy rant

Neither, Clearly Jails should be places for rehabilitation, however currently they are just places for punishment. I think this is the wrong way to go, we are simply condemming our own citizens and not trying to fix the problem.

Let me ask my cousin's opinion on that, oh that's right I can't, because someone shot him and I don't have the luxoury of seeing him ever again.

[gigagaia]

Well, I think there is a major difference between Essential liberties and nonessential liberties.

The right to keep and bear arms, the right to choose our own religion, the right to free speech, the right to protest peaceably. These are essential liberties.

The right to browse the net and look at kiddy porn without fear of getting busted is not.

I don't realy care if the Govt can see what I look at online, I don't realy have anything to hide. Even if they saw what I looked at, I doubt they'd realy care unless I went to "HOLY JIHAD.com"
whatever, just a crazy rant

The right to bear arms is hardly an essential liberty. How many advanced liberal states have such a right and have higher crime rates and muders than the US?
Essential liberties that Franklin is talking about are natural rights like liberty, equality etc...
Not specific rights, although they do stem from them. You can give up your right to bear arms to purchase security, but you shouldn't give up your freedom to. That's just asking for it.
For those who think that demcoracy protects you, ask yoruself this; In what liberal-democratic state did a man get elected who promised them protection from fear, and ended up oppressing them, dragging them to war and exterminating at least 6 million people? A very big freedom from fear there.

Garb's quote I think sums it up. As I said in my first post, tyranny leads to fear as the state turns against you, and so you get it anyways. Fear does not lead to tyranny.

[the_mango55]

For those who think that demcoracy protects you, ask yoruself this; In what liberal-democratic state did a man get elected who promised them protection from fear, and ended up oppressing them, dragging them to war and exterminating at least 6 million people? A very big freedom from fear there.

Maybe you don't follow US politics that closely, but every American presidential canditate promises protection from fear.