Yes, this thread is inspired a bit by the Florida situation but I saw something else last night and it made me think.

Why are countries stubborn when it comes to learning, another place might have a better handle on something then you. I learnt last night that the rate of criminals re-offending in Norway is barely 20 percent. In the UK it's over 50 percent. I don't have a direct link at the moment but it was on a show called "The Russell Howard Hour" 

The statistics alone point out that Norway has a better grip on their prison system and how to reintroduce people into society then the UK so to me it just makes sense. I know it'd be very hard to implement but doesn't logic dictate having a look at how they run things? 

It can be frustrating as an American because of our exceptionalism/we're #1 mindset since it doesn't allow us to consider for even a second that something might work elsewhere. I understand that we have 3-5x the population of countries like the UK and Australia, so their health system may not work. But does that mean we just shouldn't try? We spend the most, but it seems at times (i.e. infant mortality) we get some of the poorest results. That's a bad investment...

I'd like to know all the differences Norway has from other countries before adopting their policies because they may not have the criminogenic issues other countries have to deal with. For instance they may have better employment rates, they may have better education, they may have less barriers to health and more security in general.

The big issue with crime is that people have a very concrete view of it. If you do something illegal, you're an awful person and you must pay for it and jump to the back of the cue. That's fine, but research has shown that the penitentiary is an out-dated design that only costs tax-payers millions and doesn't reduce crime rates. What we should be doing instead is assessing the criminogenic issues that causes people to commit deviant acts and make it easier for offenders to assimilate back into society where they can be productive members of society. Of course it's difficult to get a softer stance on crime through to others because the media drums up crime like there's no tomorrow. The moment you question whether the criminal justice system is effective is the moment you become a rape apologist or a pedophile enabler and from that point on it can sink a lot of a political careers. Meanwhile harsher laws are introduced which just make the situation a lot worse. In my home state recently we had a few tough laws introduced like the Bikie Laws where if you were in a group that happened to be riding motorbikes together, you could be detained by police and searched. For the most part it was to target these dangerous bikie gangs which are growing here, but the laws were written in a way that made it difficult for law enforcement to do their jobs without being discriminatory. It's since been refined by our new government, but that's one example. The other is youth crime where for some arbitrary reason, our minimum age for offences is lower than other states. This is despite facts showing that young people should have as little intervention as possible from criminal justice organisations. A lot of young people grow out of crime by their early 20s, but because we make such a big deal about young offenders we come up with these punitive laws that only exacerbate the issue.

But to answer your question, it's because a tough stance on crime is perceived as the right stance. If you believe the media, crime has been growing rapidly over the past few years when figures tell a different story.

The right to free speech in the US should be abolished, the founding fathers had no idea in 1791 the damage they would cause legalising hate speech and how many otherkin’s would get PTSD from being misgendered. Because 1791 was soo long ago and the founding fathers weren’t psychic the 2nd amendment should be abolished, despite many of the ideals of western democracy are pre historic in comparison to the Bill of Rights.

Sweden’s refusal to doing anything about their rape crisis is the most concerning to me, along with Germany’s refuge crisis they brought on themselves.

Can't abolish free speech because you can't account for the endless variety of things that both are and aren't offensive to different people, abolishing free speech is about the worst idea I can think of. You'd basically have to abolish individual thought.

Chuck Klosterman wrote about the changing of the constitution and the downfall of the US rather brilliantly I thought.'

Briefest of summaries.

www.npr.org/2016/06/03/480657678/but-what-if-were-wrong-a-look-at-how-we-will-remember-the-now-later

Seems America is rather stubborn on this concept of diversity. Most nations seem not to care.

This, this is why we need to get rid of free speech in America.
www.techtimes.com/articles/222838/20180312/neil-degrasse-tyson-blames-free-speech-educational-system-for-rise-of-flat-earth-conspiracy-theory.htm

Is NDT really that surprised, we live in a world, that now recognizes several hundred different genders, including some people identifying as trees and cats. And incredibly, it's supported.