Denmark Plans To Double Punishments For Crimes Committed In "Ghettos"

Sep 2016
19,442
13,487
My own world
#31
Yes, the residents of the high crime zone want crime reduced. I simply disagree that placing them into a legal category of "dangerous" accomplishes that, or if it could, that it is a rational or humane measure. What reduces crime best is fear of being caught. Increase police presence. Add to the capacity of courts and prosecutors.

Attack the root causes of crime: poverty, emotional distress, hopelessness, alienation. Treat mental health challenges -- don't you suppose anyone who has had to flee due to fear of war and then risk dying to reach Denmark is likely to have trauma-induced mental illness?

NONE of these is accomplished by blaming and shaming. It will deepen the suffering of the refugees and the crime problems attendant to that suffering if the official position of their new country is, they are not respected as individual human beings.

Whether or not this is true, no EU nation is free to use ANY measure it likes to fight crime because they must ALL respect the human rights of the "criminals". Killing burglars will arguably reduce crime, but is not permissible. Torture is not allowed. Imprisoning young men who have committed no crime until they are middle aged will reduce crime, and is not allowed.

Labeling humans in this way is inescapably racist, degrading and unfair. It is worrisome that this has to be explained to anyone who claims to be an American liberal.
Stop exaggerating the EU does not have capital punishment, nobody is being executed. With respect to more police presence that goes without saying. They have anti-gang measures in place that engaged in preventative work in areas judged to be specially at risk. The aim is to stop young people being recruited by gangs in the first place.

This is about addressing one problem with the 2% of the immigrant population because they have seen what not addressing that segment has done in the inner cities of the US. The 2% takes control of the neighbourhood and the 98% are painted with the brush of the lawless 2%. Not going to happen in neighbourhoods were business is better protected, people feel safer and schools are not danger zones. Its' about marginalizing the 2% so they are not the big shots in the neighbourhoods but rather the losers. The point is they are ostriziched not the 98% of the migrant population. Crime is simply not tolerated PERIOD by the 98% and the kids don't grow up looking up to the street thugs.
 
Jun 2014
60,492
34,750
Cleveland, Ohio
#32
Stop exaggerating the EU does not have capital punishment, nobody is being executed. With respect to more police presence that goes without saying. They have anti-gang measures in place that engaged in preventative work in areas judged to be specially at risk. The aim is to stop young people being recruited by gangs in the first place.

This is about addressing one problem with the 2% of the immigrant population because they have seen what not addressing that segment has done in the inner cities of the US. The 2% takes control of the neighbourhood and the 98% are painted with the brush of the lawless 2%. Not going to happen in neighbourhoods were business is better protected, people feel safer and schools are not danger zones. Its' about marginalizing the 2% so they are not the big shots in the neighbourhoods but rather the losers. The point is they are ostriziched not the 98% of the migrant population. Crime is simply not tolerated PERIOD by the 98% and the kids don't grow up looking up to the street thugs.
I have no quarrel with the PURPOSE, just the method.

Remember Jim Crow? Separate But Equal? This approach is inherently, incurably anti-human and I predict, will NEVER pass muster at the EU Court Of Human Rights.
 
Likes: 1 person
Jan 2007
34,649
7,528
#33
Dafuq? When was Denmark destroyed?
Adding all those wonderful ghettos is a good start, extra welfare costs, social and cultural degrading. They had a good thing going. Some want the same for here. They had big hearts but that is wearing off pretty fast. Now reality sets in.
 
Last edited:
Sep 2016
19,442
13,487
My own world
#34
I have no quarrel with the PURPOSE, just the method.

Remember Jim Crow? Separate But Equal? This approach is inherently, incurably anti-human and I predict, will NEVER pass muster at the EU Court Of Human Rights.
You wanna bet? It's not race based policing, its stats based on neighbourhoods. That is were the West has gone off the rails. They are not keeping statistics on geography and the WEST SHOULD. If streets 1 to 10 have a hire crime rate it is labeled "A ghetto". Police presence increases and yes people stopped and questioned increases in those areas not based on race but by area. More people are caught committing crimes increases YES time spent behind bars increases. The goal is to eliminate neighbourhoods that have high crime rates so a person living in streets 1 to 10 is not more prone to be the victim of a crime than someone living in streets 11 to 20. The statistics are continuinally monitored so if the crime moves so does the targetting of the police to the neighbour hood and again not the race.
 
Jun 2006
100,729
11,014
Vancouver
#35
I have no quarrel with the PURPOSE, just the method.

Remember Jim Crow? Separate But Equal? This approach is inherently, incurably anti-human and I predict, will NEVER pass muster at the EU Court Of Human Rights.
Jim Criw was based on the person’s race. Which would never fly in Denmark’s modern legal system. Or The EU commitments.

But this is based on the location. Any person, regardless of race creed culture language or national origin, would get the same treatment in these zones, or out of these zones.

Possibly a court could say that the underlying intent of the law taints the law. Like the judge who felt Trumps statements on banning Muslims tainted the eventual law barring people from certain countries. It implies an ulterior motive.

And I think they’d be right. But... yeah... interesting idea.
 
Likes: 1 person

The Man

Former Staff
Jul 2011
45,063
31,686
Toronto
#36
[MENTION=28231]Eve1[/MENTION]

When you talk of making gangsters into 'loosers' and all that, that's great, that's amazing.

You say it's only targeting criminals, of any background. Awesome.

But you forget an important factor: human emotional reaction.

People in many marginalized communities already have a very negative view of law enforcement, often with good reason. When I, personally, just arrived to Canada, having lived much of my childhood in Moscow, I had an instinctive... not fear, but, shall we say urge to avoid any police uniform. I saw a police car parked on the street, with cops sitting in it, and I would go way long around just to not be in their line of sight. Took months for my sister and other folks here to teach me that most Canadian police are good guys, generally, unlike back home, where most just abuse people and shake them down for bribes.

You talk of gangsters, hell, in most working class towns and neighborhoods in Russia, people trust their mafia waaaaay more than their police. Yeah, the mob you will have to pay them too, but, they at least will actually solve your problem, unlike the cops...

And you have people from various such fucked up societies, where law enforcement are feared and loathed, come to a place by like Denmark. They are already distrustful, again, of law enforcement.

And now, you start this crackdown on them. Yes, on them, not some hypothetical white kid you mentioned. You know as well as I do this will be targeting primarily minority people from those hoods. What will those folks see? Police dragging their boys away to prison. Just like back home, more of the same shit.

This will only alienate them further. Nobody will talk to the cops, report anything to them. Culture of silence, again, like back home.

The cops will be seen as Invaders and occupying force, basically. And the gangbangers will be martyrs. Is that what you want?

If you think in your country it is different, and that black people, for example, want police crackdowns on their neighborhoods, why the heck are there groups like BLM? With the reputation your police has among minority citizens, after decades of abuse of black people, etc, small wonder people don't want them there either...
 
Likes: 1 person
Jun 2014
60,492
34,750
Cleveland, Ohio
#37
Adding all those wonderful ghettos is a good start, extra welfare costs, social and cultural degrading. They had a good thing going. Some want the same for here. They had big hearts but that is wearing off pretty fast. Noe reality sets in.
"Adding all those ghettos"? Dafuq?

Whut Danish ghettos?
 
Jan 2014
17,086
4,705
California
#38
Denmark plans double punishment for ghetto crime - BBC News

I realize we cannot discuss Danish constitutional law, but they belong to the EU and thus, are bound by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They are subject to the jurisdiction of the European Human Rights Commission. So, broadly described, they have a set of parameters for which behaviors the government may criminalize, how they may punish crimes, etc.

And I can't see ANY of this shit passing muster. Dafuq is going on in Denmark? Is their government suddenly far right?

What say you?
Ms. Madeline,

Maybe they are getting sick of immigrants destroying their country.
 
Likes: 1 person
Jun 2014
60,492
34,750
Cleveland, Ohio
#39
You wanna bet? It's not race based policing, its stats based on neighbourhoods. That is were the West has gone off the rails. They are not keeping statistics on geography and the WEST SHOULD. If streets 1 to 10 have a hire crime rate it is labeled "A ghetto". Police presence increases and yes people stopped and questioned increases in those areas not based on race but by area. More people are caught committing crimes increases YES time spent behind bars increases. The goal is to eliminate neighbourhoods that have high crime rates so a person living in streets 1 to 10 is not more prone to be the victim of a crime than someone living in streets 11 to 20. The statistics are continuinally monitored so if the crime moves so does the targetting of the police to the neighbour hood and again not the race.
This is pants on fire level lying.

It's okay to say "humm, good point. Let me reconsider."

You are allowed to back off a stupid idea once you have proposed one. We ALL have, if we are not Trump-esque mental toddlers.
 
Jun 2014
60,492
34,750
Cleveland, Ohio
#40
Jim Criw was based on the person’s race. Which would never fly in Denmark’s modern legal system. Or The EU commitments.

But this is based on the location. Any person, regardless of race creed culture language or national origin, would get the same treatment in these zones, or out of these zones.

Possibly a court could say that the underlying intent of the law taints the law. Like the judge who felt Trumps statements on banning Muslims tainted the eventual law barring people from certain countries. It implies an ulterior motive.

And I think they’d be right. But... yeah... interesting idea.
Jim Crow WAS indeed race-based.

It's primary purpose was enforced segregation. Physical separation was a huge component of it. It's rather disingenuous to say this Danish proposal is "only location based" when the locations are identifiable by reference to the residents' racial identity (or whatever that "non-European" tag is. Religious? Language-based?)

It's a lot like calling a law banning the sale of menstruation products "gender neutral". And is almost as offensive, to my eye.