People doing what they want

[Robert Eric]

Tackle this however you like: You can't stop people from doing things, but you can provide punishment.

Do you think this is true?  Post what you think.

[Archangel (aka SoupDragon)]

Pff sounds to me like another annoying and pointless argument that may or may not end in a flame war and/or parody threads and/or banning of all references to this topic in forums and irc and/or global thermonuclear war.

[c.leksutin]

Archangel: ease up man, it sounds like an interesting topic to me.  

RobertEric: I agree.  Technically, suicide is illegal, no how do you stop that? you can only punish those who get caught failing, or who are caught and prevented.  Same thing with drug use, again: Illegal, but only after the fact.  One has to have made the decision to use and actually executed or gotte`n caught attepting to exicute said use.

same with almost ALL laws, murders, rapists, theives, traffic violators, ect... 90% caught after the fact.

C.

[Archangel (aka SoupDragon)]

I would have thought my reference to thermonuclear war was lighthearted enough, but it would seem that my particular brand of scathing sattire is just too sharp for some people round here.

[c.leksutin]

like the gen-gen gestapo? :p


C.

[DGMacphee from work]

No one expects the Gen-Gen Gestapo!!

[Quickstrike]

I did.  Try it again, DG.

[Timosity]

I think a lot of laws are too harsh.

Obviously Murder, Rape should be punished accordingly (gaol for a long time - no death penalty, that just makes the government bigger murderers)

thievery and lesser assults and major drug dealing are the next tier down.

but what I find disturbing in most countries on how we deal with drug addicts, there is no easy answer, but throwing them in gaol doesn't rehabilitate them, it's probably easier to get drugs in gaol.

I say legalise all drugs, have them prescription based, it will still be abused, but at least then people don't have there basic human rights taken away.

Eventually people will make there own choices, and everyone will be happy with less thievery, rape and murder.


It's no different to old age, we give them drugs to make them happy, you don't hear much about rape and murder from the elderly. I rest my case.

[Soft, Gooey, Delicious.]

I find no moral basis for punishment. Say someone violates an essentially arbitrary rule or law (for the rules are arbitrary). There is no reason why that person deserves punishment. People who insist there is reason, are irrational. Note, this does not mean people should not not be detained and rehabilitated, only that punishment is crap.

[Shattered Sponge]

I'm one-hundred-and-ten-percent behind Rabbit, there; some people would say that punishment would detour a criminal from re-offending, but that's what rehabilitation is for.

[Timosity]

True, it's really annoying when you hear fools saying people can't be rehabilitated.

Saying once a cheat always a cheat

and people can't change.

It's all bullshit tactics to keep so called "indecent folk" out of the way of the socalled "decent folk" (who are just indecent folk in disguise)

prison is probably the worst place to get rehabilitated too.

but where do you draw the line on crimes and who has the right to make even that decision.

We could decriminalise murder. If we live in a free world (that's what western civilisation is trying to do, unsuccessfully) why not have the right to murder who ever we like. It's just the theory of Relativity, knife goes in, guts come out. every action has an equal but opposite reaction, so by that theory killing people must create more room for others. creating more people will kill others, so killing is a natural part of life.

In war It's murder as well, why isn't GWBush sent to gaol for planning to murder 1000's of people.

If you order a hit on someone you can go to gaol for it, what's the difference? there is none, it's just large scale organised crime, If anything it is much worse and may satan sodomise Bush for eternity.

People can change, I know I have in my life, so to sum it all up blatent ignorance of people outside the "norm" is the biggest flaw in the worlds society

[Soft, Gooey, Delicious.]

I'm one-hundred-and-ten-percent behind Rabbit, there; some people would say that punishment would detour a criminal from re-offending, but that's what rehabilitation is for.

I don't think you quite got me. The threat of imprisonment does deter people from committing certain acts which don't mix well with civilised society. The thing is, to punish someone implies moral righteousness, which is a load of crap. The threat of goal stops most people offending. Separation from society and rehabilatation should stop the few that do offend from doing it again.  I do agree with timbo though, Bush is a murderer. Not only in this jaunt again weapons of mass destruction (none of which have been found yet of course) but also a governor of texas. He presided over state sanctioned murder, when he had the power to do otherwise.

Tim: I think you draw the line where it is reasonable to do so. Hire some ethicists, get them to work something out and then show everybody why they are right.

[Shattered Sponge]

Well I would consider jail to be a form of rehabilitation (and of course protection for both the criminal and society at large) up to a point; once someone is no longer a danger to neither himself nor anyone else, then they should not be in jail - but many (probably) criminals are held for much longer, and the only 'reason' provided is that it is punishment.

[Pumaman]

In a way, the punishment is actually there as a deterrant, rather than as being the best way of dealing with the crime.

As in, I agree totally that imprisoning people for lesser offences is silly and a waste of public money - especially as people tend to come out of prison worse than when they went in.

But the threat of imprisonment has a large role to play in preventing people from committing crimes in the first place, and thus it's a bit of a conundrum how to make the punishment both a deterrent, and an appropriate rehabilitation.

Say someone violates an essentially arbitrary rule or law (for the rules are arbitrary). There is no reason why that person deserves punishment. People who insist there is reason, are irrational.

Indeed. The example that always gets brought up here is speed limits, as they are probably the most arbitrary laws we have. Does someone deserve punishment purely for exceeding some government official's idea of the maximum speed limit? Of course not, IMO.

[plasticman]

But the threat of imprisonment has a large role to play in preventing people from committing crimes in the first place

but as efficient as that threat is, people should conform to the society they live in because of their own morals, and not to avoid punishment.

so the question would be : if they don't "conform", what can you do ? try to change them ? to me that seems a bit ironic, as i think crime is a product of our socitey. but maybe that's another debate

[remixor]

I don't think crime is a product of "our society" per se but of an individual person's surroundings.  Society can be a part of that, but just blaming things on "society" is far too general.  A person's personality and so forth are shaped by their upbringing, their personal experiences, the people they meet, and a million other factors.

I think that punishment is necessary.  That doesn't mean, however, that I think that there aren't crimes which are insignificant enough that the current systems are overkill.  But obviously some form of punishment is necessary.  Certain actions quite simply require consequences, such as murder, rape, theft, and so forth.  This goes beyond simply not wanting to fit into society's given laws.  In my opinion, it should be generally agreed upon that actions that negatively impact another innocent party should be against the law.  To say that you should not be forced against their will to conform to so-called arbitrary laws is rendered hypocritical as soon as you hurt someone else's life in some way against their will.

[OneThinkingGal and ._.]

Regarding speed limits, you plow into someone else going at 90mph instead of the 25 you were supposed to be at, then you do hurt them far more than you would at the 25. The speed limits are not arbitrary, they are calculated as described here: http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/425/425lect04.htm

Also, everyone driving at the same speed kind of helps the flow. Having lived in a place where people do not do this, let me tell you its hell having people all going at various speeds as they please.

About punishment, IMO you can do whatever the hell you like as long as you are not hurting other people. At least as far as breaking laws goes. If your actions are hurting someone else, then you deserve to be punished.

Whether you 'conform' to something or not, you have no right to go around hurting anyone, physically, financially or otherwise.

[Soft, Gooey, Delicious.]

But obviously some form of punishment is necessary.  Certain actions quite simply require consequences, such as murder, rape, theft, and so forth.  

That's the worst argument I've ever heard. You need to back that kind of shit up. You can't just claim something that big.

Also Onethinkinggal you missed the point. I'm saying arbitrary as in the rationale behind the rules is arbitrary. This does not mean that they are applied abitrarily. Also, why do you "deserve" to be punished for anything?

[remixor]

But obviously some form of punishment is necessary.  Certain actions quite simply require consequences, such as murder, rape, theft, and so forth.  

That's the worst argument I've ever heard. You need to back that kind of shit up. You can't just claim something that big.

That's the worst argument you've ever heard?  You need to back that kind of shit up.  You can't just claim something that big.  I'm sure you've heard worse.

I perceive my above statement as self-evident.  You apparently don't, so here's a short justification.  I won't spend much time on it because I can't imagine why someone wouldn't understand that we shouldn't have a system of punishment for rapists.  Without deterrent for actions such as the ones I listed, people would have much less of a legal deterrant to commit such actions.  Obviously, morals are not part of the issue in this case, because those are specific to the individual and if a person's moral code dictates they should not murder people, they won't, and vice versa.  So assuming that, irrespective of morals, people indeed had no fear of punishment should they commit acts such as murder, rape, and theft, those actions would become much more frequent than they are now, probably in large part because people who are currently in prison for them right now wouldn't be in prison, and could then keep doing those things.  At this point it seems to me that it comes down to personal opinion, as an anarchist would say "Well, what's wrong with that?"  However, as I somewhat implied in my original post, I believe that people should have the right to live without other people comitting actions that majorly impact their lives in negative ways, actions such as the ones I mentioned.  But on the other hand, imprisonment does that.  Taking that into account, I would propose that since someone must obviously commit the act BEFORE they are punished for it, they then forfeit their right to live without others imposing negative impact on their life, since they themselves have done so to others.  I don't particularly want to get into the concepts of revenge killings and so forth, since one could bring things like that up in the context of what I've just said, because I've already written far more than I've intended.

That wasn't a particularly well-written post, but hopefully it will get my basic meaning across.

[Soft, Gooey, Delicious.]

I'm sure you've heard worse.

It was ironic exaggeration. Which I'm sure you understood.

I can't imagine why someone wouldn't understand that we shouldn't have a system of punishment for rapists.

Why should anyone be punished for anything? Note, punishment is different to separation from society. To punish someone is to say, We're going to do something bad to you to even out the bad you did to someone else. I'm all in favour of rapists being prevented from raping, but it doesn't need to involve being punished.