People doing what they want

Started by Robert Eric, Fri 25/04/2003 21:44:32

Previous topic - Next topic

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.
Ã, Ã, 

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.






:P

c.leksutin

like the gen-gen gestapo? :p


C.



DGMacphee from work

No one expects the Gen-Gen Gestapo!!

Quickstrike

#6
I did.  Try it again, DG.
"You know something people,  I'm not black, but there's a whole buncha times I wish I could say 'I'm not white'"-Frank Zappa, "Trouble Every Day"

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.

#8
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.
Kant was a dirty deontologist fuck.
the fade.
Yeeha!
Call me...  now

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.

Quote from: Shattered Sponge on Sat 26/04/2003 10:57:33
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.
Kant was a dirty deontologist fuck.
the fade.
Yeeha!
Call me...  now

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.

QuoteSay 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

Quote from: CJ on Sat 26/04/2003 22:56:13But 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.
Writer, Idle Thumbs!! - "We're probably all about video games!"
News Editor, Adventure Gamers

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.

#17
Quote from: remixor on Sun 27/04/2003 02:08:53
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?
Kant was a dirty deontologist fuck.
the fade.
Yeeha!
Call me...  now

remixor

Quote from: Rabbit With Fangs on Sun 27/04/2003 02:37:21
Quote from: remixor on Sun 27/04/2003 02:08:53
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.
Writer, Idle Thumbs!! - "We're probably all about video games!"
News Editor, Adventure Gamers

Soft, Gooey, Delicious.

#19
QuoteI'm sure you've heard worse.
It was ironic exaggeration. Which I'm sure you understood.

Quote
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.  
Kant was a dirty deontologist fuck.
the fade.
Yeeha!
Call me...  now

Timosity

As far as speeding goes, around where I live a couple of years ago, they change the speed limit from 60 km/h to 50 km/h, this is in residential areas that aren't main roads.

The reason behind was the difference of stopping distances ie save lives of kids running onto the road to get a ball etc.

outside schools the limit is 40 km/h during school hours.


The ideas of reducing the speed are justified but what happens when you have these laws for a few years people then say.

Well look at the stopping distance if you reduce it another 10 km/h.

if it kept going that way, it would eventually be quicker to walk around.

people just need to think more when they are driving, that is the main problem, it should just be obvious to drive a bit slower when there are many children on the side of the road coming out of a school.

or in a residential area when anyone could just run out from behind a car etc.

When it's pissing down with rain, or foggy, drive a bit slower, it's just common sense.

If you've had a few beers, get a taxi, or walk, or just stay and drink some more.

These laws are in place for safety mainly but it's usually young men between 17 - 30 that screw it up for everyone, everyone thinks they're the best driver, but they're all wrong, cause it's me.

TerranRich

This whole argument about punishment correlates with spanking a child. Will spanking the child teach him/her a lesson? Or will it only make things worse?

The same goes with crimes. I agree with Annie in that only crimes that hurtt others should warrant temporary separation from society, even something that would not harm the convicted. Something like smokig marijuana here in the U.S. is a ridiculous thing to punish for...which is why the punishment for such an offense is being lowered (or it already has been lowered) to something like a fine and a slap on the wrist.

Futhermore, the death penalty is completely unnecessary. I don't think I'll bore anyone with the reasons why, as they are proabbly evident. If not, I'll be happy to explain. :)
Status: Trying to come up with some ideas...

Renal Shutdown

Right, time for Iqu to stick his oar in, as this is something Iqu feels very strongly about (and there aren't many things).

Most of you will disagree with my opinions, I understand that, I want you to understand these are my genuine feelings on the subject.  Not some random post that's trying to be argumentative or arrogant.  With that disclaimer in place, I shall begin...

Prisons and the whole prison system we have is wrong.  I whole-heartedly agree with punishment, but the prisons we have in the so called "civilised" world are inadequate forms of punishment.

My friend was homeless over Christmas, he was cold and hungry and had no where to go.  He decided to smash a bank window, and then report it to the police.  His result was spending a night in a warm cell and getting free food.

This in itself, isn't to bad.  But it led to him vandalising other things, and ended up with him being sent to prison for three months.  He came out healthier, as he'd been eating properly for a change... but he was still on drugs, which were easier to get on the inside, and now had no fear of punishment.  Now he can break the law and he knows he can have a place to stay.  Where's the deterrent in that?

The prison system according to Iqu is:
1. Your cell in 3ft x 3ft x 6ft.
2. There are no windows.
3. There is a shower head above you.
4. There is a drain below you.
5. There is a hole in the door which can be opened to pass in food.
6. The food consists of one cup of brown rice, per day.
7. You are naked.
8. There is no toilet (see no. 3 and 4)
9. No visitors, except lawyer.
10. There amount of time you spend inside depends on the crime you commit.

That's it.  Much like Iraq under Saddam's control, yes.  However, Saddam was imprisoning innocent people.

I admit, some people may be innocent, that's inevitable.  If the wrong person is imprisoned they will receive a cash settlement, based on the amount of time spent in the cell.  This will be payed for by the money the prison system saves compared with the current system.

Death penalty.  Out-lawed.  If someone has commited a crime worthy of the death penalty, then surely they've commited a crime worthy of suffering for?  Supposing someone raped and killed your children.  Would you want them to (a) Die? or (b) Suffer for the rest of their life?  I know which I'd pick.

Yea, revenge.  But isn't that what most people want in a punishment?  Someone who's being raped doesn't want the guy to be "rehabilitated", and the let go a few years later.  If that happens, they're terrified.  Same with someone who's lost a loved one, they don't want the person to walk around free.

Rehabilitation.  This just doesn't work.  Most criminals arent rehabilitated, they just take some time off while they're inside.  I'm not saying that they *can't* be rehab'ed.  Some of them genuinely change.  What I'm saying is; "You can't force them to change, only help them if *they want* to change".

Morals.  Talking about morals is a joke.  You see, you may have a really good set of morals, but that doesn't mean the world shares it.  In truth, I don't share the same set of morals as my parents, according to my dad; Racism is ok, drugs are not.  I'm the opposite.  So if two people that closely linked can differ, think what a paedophile's morals are and compare them to your own.

That's why we have the moral majority, you say.  Well yea, but the moral majority is usually based on religion or politics, not on social ethics, not on what is right and wrong.

The only way round this problem is to draw up a brand new set of laws, which is voted on by everyone, any colour and any sex.  This new set of laws should say two things:

1. Description of the crime.
2. Penalty for committing it.

A simple, long list of crimes with the amount of time spent in prison, and if need be, the amount of monetary reparations paid to the victim(s).

With this in place, as well as prison-the-Iqu-way, I can only see the crime rate going down, as people will be genuinely scared of the punishment.  At the moment, getting caught for something doesn't scare me or the people I know, and it's only my personal morals stopping my from breaking the law very often.

Thankfully, I haven't committed anything serious, yet... but they way things are, I wouldn't rule it out.

Hugs
Iqu

Oh, yea.  Suicide/drugs would be legal.  Suicide only you die.  Drugs:  You would have to go to a doctor and pharmacist, and request them.
"Don't get defensive, since you have nothing with which to defend yourself." - DaveGilbert

Soft, Gooey, Delicious.

Iqu, you're a sad, sad man. Revenge is for children.
Kant was a dirty deontologist fuck.
the fade.
Yeeha!
Call me...  now

Renal Shutdown

Quote from: Rabbit With Fangs on Sun 27/04/2003 10:28:25
Iqu, you're a sad, sad man. Revenge is for children.
Sure, revenge is somewhat childish.  If someone punches you in the face, do you thank them for it? or punch them back?  If someone raped your mother or your sister, would you pat them on the back?  No, you want them to suffer, too.
"Don't get defensive, since you have nothing with which to defend yourself." - DaveGilbert

Soft, Gooey, Delicious.

Quote from: Iqu on Sun 27/04/2003 10:34:33
Sure, revenge is somewhat childish.  If someone punches you in the face, do you thank them for it? or punch them back?  If someone raped your mother or your sister, would you pat them on the back?  No, you want them to suffer, too.
Defending yourself has nothing to do with revenge.

If someone raped someone I knew, I wouldn't want them to suffer. I'd want them to A) Stop doing it and B) Do their upmost to reverse the damage they've already done. Yes, they should be made to feel the shame they have inflicted on their victims, but only so they never do it again. Deep down, I don't want anyone to suffer. Revenge is an uncivilised, barbaric notion that belongs in the past.
Kant was a dirty deontologist fuck.
the fade.
Yeeha!
Call me...  now

Renal Shutdown

Um, I didn't "defending yourself".  Besides, hitting back is not a defence, it's retaliation.  Blocking and running is defending yourself.

You'd want this rapist to "stop doing it".  How d'you suggest that happen?  A stern talking to is just not going to cut it.

"Do their upmost to reverse the damage they've already done".  The only way to do this is to go back in time, and stop it from happening.  This can't be done.  No amount of apologising will fix the emotional scars left on the victim.

Ergo, punishment.  Knowing that the rapist is in prison for the crime is some comfort to them.  However, most are living in fear of the day they get out.  What guarantees are they given that they work rape again? None.  That's what's wrong with the prison system, in the western world.

Not everyone can be happy, peaceful people.  It takes something that's uncivilised and barbaric to scare the bad element away from crime.  If I could click my fingers and make the world a better place I would, but the criminals would still be here, and it wouldn't take long to bring it back to the mess we currently have.
"Don't get defensive, since you have nothing with which to defend yourself." - DaveGilbert

Soft, Gooey, Delicious.

Quote from: Iqu on Sun 27/04/2003 11:09:01
Um, I didn't "defending yourself".  Besides, hitting back is not a defence, it's retaliation.  Blocking and running is defending yourself.
That's overly simplistic and you know it. Sometimes you can't run. Hitting someone so they can't hit you anymore is defence. Retaliation is coming back an hour later with a gang.

Quote from: Iqu on Sun 27/04/2003 11:09:01
You'd want this rapist to "stop doing it".  How d'you suggest that happen?  A stern talking to is just not going to cut it.
And you think "punishment" is the only way to do it? How about surveilance bracelets or failing that, a humane removal from society where the person can be taught why what they did was wrong.

Quote from: Iqu on Sun 27/04/2003 11:09:01
"Do their upmost to reverse the damage they've already done".  The only way to do this is to go back in time, and stop it from happening.  This can't be done.  No amount of apologising will fix the emotional scars left on the victim.
You do understand what upmost means, don't you? It means doing their best to provide clean up the mess they've created. It doesn't mean they have to fix it all, just as much as they can. You're trying to twist what I said into something else.

Quote from: Iqu on Sun 27/04/2003 11:09:01
Ergo, punishment.  Knowing that the rapist is in prison for the crime is some comfort to them.  However, most are living in fear of the day they get out.  What guarantees are they given that they work rape again? None.  That's what's wrong with the prison system, in the western world.
And what precisely does punishment do to stop reoffenders? You're arguing against your own position. On one hand you say people should be punished, on the the other you admit that punishment doesn't stop people reoffending. Do you know the best way to stop the victim fearing the day someone gets out? It's to rehabilitate the person so they won't do it again.

Quote from: Iqu on Sun 27/04/2003 11:09:01
Not everyone can be happy, peaceful people.  It takes something that's uncivilised and barbaric to scare the bad element away from crime.
No it doesn't. Criminals are punished now and they still commit crimes. You don't have to treat people like sub-humans to stop crime, you need better policing.

Your entire argument rests on the (hidden) premise that the only way to stop someone doing something socially destructive is to punish them. You don't even attempt to show this is the case. Your argument begs the question. The only way it can be right -- as you've layed it out -- is if you assume it's correct to start with.
Kant was a dirty deontologist fuck.
the fade.
Yeeha!
Call me...  now

Renal Shutdown

Surveilance Bracelets.  These tell you where a person is.  They can still commit a crime, you just have the proof of where they were after the fact.

Humane removal from society where the person can be taught why what they did was wrong...  Could you explain this in more detail, please.

The upmost thing...  I was not trying to twist your words, and I apologise if it seemed that way.  It's just that rapists, killers and paedophiles *can't* fix what they've done, to any extent.

Punishment.  It just doesn't work at the moment, nor does rehab.  The only way to fix this is to improve them, but rehab doesn't work unless the person wants to change, and even then there's no actual proof (s)he's different.

You say that you need better policing.  The police can only catch you after you have done something.  If convicted, you enter a inadequate prison system.  This is not enough of a deterrent to stop people commit the crimes.

You seem to dislike punishment as a whole.  What would you suggest, instead of punishing someone, in order to prevent people committing crimes?
"Don't get defensive, since you have nothing with which to defend yourself." - DaveGilbert

remixor

I'm not going to respond to everything, just make a quick observation from my point of view.

To me, a removal of society, humane as it may be, is still a form of punishment.  It's basically what prison is, I assume you just intend a more sophisticated and as you said humane approach, which is not a bad idea.  I still see that as punishment, though.  If the person has somethine done to them that they don't want done to them, and that thing is in response to a law they broke, to me, they are being punished.
Writer, Idle Thumbs!! - "We're probably all about video games!"
News Editor, Adventure Gamers

Soft, Gooey, Delicious.

Quote from: Iqu on Sun 27/04/2003 12:36:30
Surveilance Bracelets.  These tell you where a person is.  They can still commit a crime, you just have the proof of where they were after the fact.
So make upgraded ones that have audio and video signals that are activated whenever the wearer is near someone else. Or, just keep tabs on someone with a video servailence system. There's plenty of options.

Quote from: Iqu on Sun 27/04/2003 12:36:30
Humane removal from society where the person can be taught why what they did was wrong...  Could you explain this in more detail, please.
Like goal now, except without drugs, rape and actually making sure the goal has a rehabilitation program.

Quote from: Iqu on Sun 27/04/2003 12:36:30
The upmost thing...  I was not trying to twist your words, and I apologise if it seemed that way.  It's just that rapists, killers and paedophiles *can't* fix what they've done, to any extent.
That's rubbish. You can always do something to make up for wrongs, even if it's only preventing others from making the same mistakes.

Quote from: Iqu on Sun 27/04/2003 12:36:30
Punishment.  It just doesn't work at the moment, nor does rehab.  The only way to fix this is to improve them, but rehab doesn't work unless the person wants to change, and even then there's no actual proof (s)he's different.
Ok, so neither work, but you have some special insight which says that punishment would work. The world's prisons are the most fucked up places on the planet. You think that by being just a little worse they will suddenly become more effective? Rehab doesn't work at the moment because no one makes a serious attempt at it.

Quote from: Iqu on Sun 27/04/2003 12:36:30
You say that you need better policing.  The police can only catch you after you have done something.  If convicted, you enter a inadequate prison system.  This is not enough of a deterrent to stop people commit the crimes.
Just the presence of the police prevents most crime from happening. Ok, so you pay for more cops and give them better tools to prevent crime. Our goals are terrible and if getting anally raped for the rest of your natural life isn't a deterent, then what do you propose will be?

Quote from: Iqu on Sun 27/04/2003 12:36:30
You seem to dislike punishment as a whole.  What would you suggest, instead of punishing someone, in order to prevent people committing crimes?
Have you even read the rest of this thread? I think I answered your question before you asked it.
Kant was a dirty deontologist fuck.
the fade.
Yeeha!
Call me...  now

Soft, Gooey, Delicious.

Quote from: remixor on Sun 27/04/2003 13:01:51
To me, a removal of society, humane as it may be, is still a form of punishment.
The whole notion of punishment is centred around the idea of deliberately hurting[/] someone because of something that they have done. If the removal from society is designed only to prevent them repeating their behaviour and nothing more, then it isn't punishment. Sure, it might not be too pleasant, but it's not designed to be unpleasant. The difference is on the emphasis.
Kant was a dirty deontologist fuck.
the fade.
Yeeha!
Call me...  now

Renal Shutdown

Upgraded surveilance gear.  Sure, the idea's sound, but the practicality of it is ridiculous.  It would cost far too much.

Back to the rehab thing again, huh?  One of my main points is that Rehabilitation doesn't work, unless they want to change.  Most criminals don't want to change, most don't feel remorse, most don't even think what they have done is wrong.  Also, how do you know when and if someone is rehabilitated?

How can you say that "you can always make up for wrongs, even if it's only preventing others from making the same mistakes"?.  What possible way is there for a killer to make it up,  and wouldn't it involve being released back into society?

I'm not saying that by making prisons "just a little worse" will make them more effective.  I agree the prison system is far too inadequate.  What I'm saying is make them a *lot* worse.  Enough to survive, infact (see previous post).  I suggest a prison system where criminals are genuinely scared of the consequences.

As to your last point.  Yes, I've read the whole thread.  I checked again, and all I can see from your previous posts is:

1. You think punishment is crap and self-righteous.
2. Rehabilitation, whether it works or not, is the answer.

How do you suggest rehab prevents someone from committing a crime, someone who hasn't committed one before?  If you seriously believe rehab can cut crime, then you are a very naive person.

Like CJ said, it's the "threat" of punishment.  With much harsher prisons, more people will not want to commit a crime due to the fear of the consequences.
"Don't get defensive, since you have nothing with which to defend yourself." - DaveGilbert

Soft, Gooey, Delicious.

Quote from: Iqu on Sun 27/04/2003 14:06:23
Upgraded surveilance gear.  Sure, the idea's sound, but the practicality of it is ridiculous.  It would cost far too much.
And the current prison systems are so damn cheap...
And you'd be happy telling the child of murder victim that they'll never see they're parents because it would have cost a bit more at tax time?

Quote from: Iqu on Sun 27/04/2003 14:06:23
Back to the rehab thing again, huh?  One of my main points is that Rehabilitation doesn't work, unless they want to change.  Most criminals don't want to change, most don't feel remorse, most don't even think what they have done is wrong.  
So back it up. You can't just claim it doesn't work. Find some stats or something.

Quote from: Iqu on Sun 27/04/2003 14:06:23
How can you say that "you can always make up for wrongs, even if it's only preventing others from making the same mistakes"?.  What possible way is there for a killer to make it up,  and wouldn't it involve being released back into society?
Yes, it would involve being released. And who are you to say that once someone has broken a rule, they are completely untrustworthy and worthless as a human being.

Quote from: Iqu on Sun 27/04/2003 14:06:23
I'm not saying that by making prisons "just a little worse" will make them more effective.  I agree the prison system is far too inadequate.  What I'm saying is make them a *lot* worse.  Enough to survive, infact (see previous post).  I suggest a prison system where criminals are genuinely scared of the consequences.
You're a sadistic bastard. I find it hard to believe you would condone treating anyone like that. Do you really think that the current prison system isn't scary enough as it is. Look at the US. Murderers haven't stopped killing people even though they know that they might be murdered themselves by the government for committing a crime.

Quote from: Iqu on Sun 27/04/2003 14:06:23
As to your last point.  Yes, I've read the whole thread.  I checked again, and all I can see from your previous posts is:

1. You think punishment is crap and self-righteous.
2. Rehabilitation, whether it works or not, is the answer.
You seem to think I'm not in favour of imprisonment. I am. It does work. I'm not in favour of treating people as animals. I haven't claimed rehabilitation is the only answer at all. I also never claimed punishment was self-righteous. I just claimed it was for children.
Quote from: Iqu on Sun 27/04/2003 14:06:23
Like CJ said, it's the "threat" of punishment.  With much harsher prisons, more people will not want to commit a crime due to the fear of the consequences.
The deterent effect of imprisonment is real and does work. It doesn't imply that goal needs to be inhumane though. But do you really think anyone who actually does murder someone has thought all the consequences out. If harsher prisons worked then places like iraq(where you claim the prison are the kind you want to see), wouldn't have had any crime. Yet, there was crime in iraq. I think it's widely acknowledged in jurisprudential circles that deterence only works so far. Look at people who are put into solitary confinement, which is much like the prisons you describe. If harsher penalties worked, then no-one would ever be put into solitary confinement. That fact that people are put into solitary though, shows that it is ineffective in stopping problem behaviour. Like just about everything else, the deterent effect of imprisonment is subject to the law of diminishing returns. You propose prisons that are not likely to be any more effective than current ones. Not only that, your proposed harsher prisons are inhumane.
Kant was a dirty deontologist fuck.
the fade.
Yeeha!
Call me...  now

SilverHawke

Quote from: Rabbit With Fangs on Sat 26/04/2003 08:37:26
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.

And I simply find that naive. Fear of punishment is quite a powerful deterrent. I do, however, agree that it is not really a solution, just a stalemate. In addition, some are beyond rehabilitation or simply not interested in rehabilitation. The best crime deterrent happens before something goes wrong, not after.

Renal Shutdown

QuoteAnd the current prison systems are so damn cheap...
My proposed system is very cost effective.
QuoteAnd you'd be happy telling the child of murder victim that they'll never see they're parents because it would have cost a bit more at tax time?
Would you be happy telling them;
"Sorry, rehab don't work for everyone.  Pisser, huh?".

"One research project looked at 61 previous studies of sexual recidivism using a 4-5 year follow up period. This research on sex offenders found that 13.4% recidivated with a sexual offence, 12.2% recidivated with a non-sexual, violent offence and 36.6% recidivated with any other offence".
Hanson, R.K. (1997). "Predictors of sex offence recidivism." Research Summary. Ottawa: Solicitor General Canada.

"A long term follow-up study of child molesters in Canada found that 42% were reconvicted of sexual or violent crime during the 15-30 year follow-up period.

In addition, the long-term follow-up study (15-30 years) of child molesters showed that the average recidivism rate for this group of offenders is actually lower than the average recidivism rate for non-sexual offenders (61% versus 83.2% respectively for any new conviction)".
Hanson, R.K. (1996). "Child molester recidivism." Research Summary. Ottawa: Solicitor General Canada.


QuoteYes, it would involve being released. And who are you to say that once someone has broken a rule, they are completely untrustworthy and worthless as a human being.
Who are you to say everyone can be rehab'ed.  And again I ask, how do you know and can prove if they are or not?

QuoteYou're a sadistic bastard. I find it hard to believe you would condone treating anyone like that.
Hmm... murderers, rapists, child molestors?  What do they deserve?  A medal?

QuoteI also never claimed punishment was self-righteous. I just claimed it was for children.
QuoteThe thing is, to punish someone implies moral righteousness, which is a load of crap.
Self-righteous, morally righteous, hmpf, I'll give you that one.

QuoteLook at people who are put into solitary confinement, which is much like the prisons you describe. If harsher penalties worked, then no-one would ever be put into solitary confinement. That fact that people are put into solitary though, shows that it is ineffective in stopping problem behaviour.
What harsher penalties?  The prisoners go into solitary after they've committed a crime inside.

QuoteYou propose prisons that are not likely to be any more effective than current ones. Not only that, your proposed harsher prisons are inhumane.
1. My prisons would be less expensive, and more of a threat again (re)offending.
2. What's humane about rape and kiddie fiddling?
"Don't get defensive, since you have nothing with which to defend yourself." - DaveGilbert

SilverHawke

Quote from: Iqu on Sun 27/04/2003 14:06:23
Back to the rehab thing again, huh?  One of my main points is that Rehabilitation doesn't work, unless they want to change.  Most criminals don't want to change, most don't feel remorse, most don't even think what they have done is wrong.  
Rabbit with Fangs Responded:
So back it up. You can't just claim it doesn't work. Find some stats or something.

Actually.. I looked for the statistics on this once before... there are none. There are numerous reasons WHY crimes are committed. Some feel guilty, and some just feel bad they got caught... but there are no clear statistics on this matter and so as always.. it will remain a matter of opinion. However.. it's always been clear that one cannot help a person who doesn't wish to help themselves. Forcing someone into rehab who doesn't want it is a waste of your time, their time, and our money.

Pumaman

Quote from: OneThinkingGal and ._. on Sun 27/04/2003 02:09:27
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

Oh I agree, there are specific places where lower limits are in force for good reason. Within residential areas and around schools and so forth, they are there for a reason - but they are still arbitrary. Who decides whether the limit outside a school should be 25 mph or 30 mph?

This is pretty much what Timosity was saying - how far do you go? Because lowering the limit will always decrease accidents, so why don't all roads just have a 10 mph speed limit?

I would argue that having 3000 people killed on the roads each year is the price that society is prepared to pay for the convenience of having their cars.

Quote
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.

Exactly the same speed is very bad, I find. If you get three lanes of traffic all moving at the same speed, it becomes very difficult to change lanes (for example, when you want to leave the highway), because all traffic is bunched up together.

Whereas when you have the lanes getting progressively faster, from left to right (or vice versa), it becomes much easier to get a gap in the traffic to move into, and to overtake people - the whole system flows much better.

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

Indeed. Ideally, as plasticman says, we shouldn't need punishment, or indeed laws at all, because everybody would simply play nice by sticking to their own morals.

But the fact of the matter is, everybody's definition of right and wrong is different - and we need laws and punishment to ensure that everybody can "live their lives in peace without the threat of violence", I think is the official quote.

It's quite interesting to note what happened in Baghdad - as soon as there were no police, people revert to their natural state, which is to fend for themselves and grab as much as possible.

Robert Eric

#38
Let's take public nudity for an example (guess why I picked this).  You would think that it wouldn't be that big of a deal, since, basically, being nude is just the absense of clothes.  How can it be wrong?  When we are very hot, do we want to be wearing clothing and having our underware sticking to our asses as we walk down the street or sit in our houses?  

But, many people do not like seeing people naked.  Especially when they are mutated, ugly, fat, etc.  It is horribly exciting to see a beautiful naked woman walking down the street (for both sexes, sometimes), and makes us men want to ravage them on the spot.  But that would lead to possible public embarrassment for having a boner in the street, and being charged with sexual harassment and rape for the latter act.  We wouldn't want to see another guy walking down the street naked, with his weiner flopping about.  This are good reasons for the law, but shouldn't it be our natural right to be nude whenever and wherever?  Opinions and arguements people.

(I know I went a bit off topic, but it's good to stray from the constructed path of the discussion sometimes.)
Ã, Ã, 

Soft, Gooey, Delicious.

Quote from: Iqu on Sun 27/04/2003 16:08:26

Would you be happy telling them;
"Sorry, rehab don't work for everyone.  Pisser, huh?".

"One research project looked at 61 previous studies of sexual recidivism using a 4-5 year follow up period. This research on sex offenders found that 13.4% recidivated with a sexual offence, 12.2% recidivated with a non-sexual, violent offence and 36.6% recidivated with any other offence".
Hanson, are.K. (1997). "Predictors of sex offence recidivism." Research Summary. Ottawa: Solicitor General Canada.

"A long term follow-up study of child molesters in Canada found that 42% were reconvicted of sexual or violent crime during the 15-30 year follow-up period.

In addition, the long-term follow-up study (15-30 years) of child molesters showed that the average recidivism rate for this group of offenders is actually lower than the average recidivism rate for non-sexual offenders (61% versus 83.2% respectively for any new conviction)".
Hanson, are.K. (1996). "Child molester recidivism." Research Summary. Ottawa: Solicitor General Canada.
I didn't claim that rehab works for everyone. I haven't claimed it will work for everyone. All these studies show is that the current regimes of rehabilitation are not completely effective. In fact, they show that some of the people were rehabilitated.

Quote from: Iqu on Sun 27/04/2003 16:08:26
QuoteYes, it would involve being released. And who are you to say that once someone has broken a rule, they are completely untrustworthy and worthless as a human being.
Who are you to say everyone can be rehab'ed.  And again I ask, how do you know and can prove if they are or not?
I'm not saying everyone can be rehabilitated, I'm saying everyone deserves a shot at being rehabilitated. If it's only half effective, then that's still better than the people in that half rotting in gaol. You don't know you have completely rehabilitated people until they are released back into society. But then you don't know if the people in your harsher gaols are going to re-offend or not either.

Quote from: Iqu on Sun 27/04/2003 16:08:26
What harsher penalties?  The prisoners go into solitary after they've committed a crime inside.
Yeah, but the threat of being in solitary still didn't stop them committing that crime.

Quote from: Iqu on Sun 27/04/2003 16:08:26
2. What's humane about rape and kiddie fiddling?
Nothing. If you are inhumane to criminals though, then you aren't much better than they are.
Kant was a dirty deontologist fuck.
the fade.
Yeeha!
Call me...  now

Renal Shutdown

#40
Me thinks you avoid my main questions...

1.  How do you rehabilitate someone.
2.  If they are rehab'ed, how do you know they are ready to be released back into society?

QuoteIf you are inhumane to criminals though, then you aren't much better than they are.
I'm sorry, but in my opinion violent criminals are sub-human.  They gave up any claim for human rights when they violated the rights of another human.  We don't have the right to kill them, and my idea of prisons is designed only to let them survive, nothing more.

I don't see how a child molestor has the right to a second chance.  He has abused the child on purpose, not by accident or mistake.  Personally, I believe they should be locked up for the *rest* of their lives, not just the 25 year maximum or whatever it is.  Same goes for rapist and murderers.

Also, drunk drivers who kill be should be tried for murder.  People who speed, too.  They know what they are doing, and if they don't, they shouldn't be driving in the first place.

Also, slightly off topic...
QuoteIqu, you're a sad, sad man. Revenge is for children.
and...
QuoteKant was a dirty deontologist f*ck.
Ooh, naming calling and swearing... maturity, ahoy.


I'm going to be netless for a week, starting in about two hours.  I'd like to continue this discussion, as I am genuinely interested in your ideas.  I may not agree with them, but that doesn't mean I won't listen to them.  If you do want to continue it send me a PM thru the boards, some time in the week.

"Don't get defensive, since you have nothing with which to defend yourself." - DaveGilbert

Soft, Gooey, Delicious.

#41
Quote from: Iqu on Mon 28/04/2003 08:38:07
Me thinks you avoid my main questions...
Methinks isn't two words.

Quote from: Iqu on Mon 28/04/2003 08:38:07
1.  How do you rehabilitate someone.
2.  If they are rehab'ed, how do you know they are ready to be released back into society?
1. I don't know. Surely it would involve discussion, lots of chatting, showing them why what they did was wrong, what it made the victim feel like and probably a few psychologists/shrinks. Asking me that is like asking me to make a car engine. I know what it's good for and what the benefits of having one are, but I can't build one.
2. That question answers itself. If they're "rehab'ed" then they're obviously ready to be released.

Quote from: Iqu on Mon 28/04/2003 08:38:07
I'm sorry, but in my opinion violent criminals are sub-human... and my idea of prisons is designed only to let them survive, nothing more.
If you only let someone just survive, then you are as sub-human as they are.

Quote from: Iqu on Mon 28/04/2003 08:38:07
I don't see how a child molestor has the right to a second chance.  
Why not? Would a tax cheat deserve a second chance? Do you have a reason for this or is it just what you intuit?

Quote from: Iqu on Mon 28/04/2003 08:38:07
Also, slightly off topic...
QuoteIqu, you're a sad, sad man. Revenge is for children.
and...
QuoteKant was a dirty deontologist f*ck.
Ooh, naming calling and swearing... maturity, ahoy.
The first means exactly what it says. I think the views involved are sad, pathetic ones. I also think they are the views children are inclined to before they are taught to behavoir in a civilised manner.
The second is a ironic comment designed to demonstrate I don't agree with Kant's catagorical imperative in a short, sharp, shiny and humourous way. The irony, is of course, that calling someone a deontologist fuck is not the correct way to a)refute their argument or b) not offend everyone you're talking to.

I'm happy to continue the argument in the public forum of the... forum.
Kant was a dirty deontologist fuck.
the fade.
Yeeha!
Call me...  now

Trapezoid

Iqu's prison: I would think that after being released from one of those horrible cells you talk about, criminals would probably be even crazier and more hateful than before.

Rabbit's rehab: The whole idea of rehab for criminals (horrible criminals, anyway) is just far too idealistic. Some people are just incompatible with the rest of society, and in some cases, the Earth.

I really don't think either method would work very well.

Pumaman

Quote from: Rabbit With Fangs on Mon 28/04/2003 10:52:33
Quote from: Iqu on Mon 28/04/2003 08:38:07
I don't see how a child molestor has the right to a second chance.  
Why not? Would a tax cheat deserve a second chance? Do you have a reason for this or is it just what you intuit?

People should have the right to go about their daily lives without being attacked. If your actions deliberately harm somebody else, then I don't think you deserve a second chance.

On the other hand, offences like fraud may well be immoral, but they don't prevent other people living their lives.

bspeers100

To CJ:
Some of the #1 causes of death are cancer, car crashes, and work related incidents.

Many of these are caused by environmental factors re-enforced by law-breaking companies.  Often a company will lie about having completed safety tests, or training, etc.  In each of these cases, the crime is fraud, the result is death or painful dismemberment.

When Enron went under, thousands of people (maybe millions) lost their livelihoods.  This is a *predictable* cause of corporate misdeeds.  It's predictable, thus, its possible to lay blame (in fact, I predict that the next corporate fraud case will impact grevious harm on individuals).

"White Collar" crime is therefore a powerful cause of death, pain, loss of livelyhood etc, espcecially of children, the most vulnerable in times of economic ill.

Many many times more children die of the ill effects of poverty than of child rape.  And the fraud criminals will strike again.

To the General Folks:

Therefore, if you believe in "lock 'em up" and "throw away the key," the very first victim should be your boss, your friend's boss, the CEO, etc.  Plus, locking these people up would be a better deterrant than locking up some poor insane man who gets his rocks off harming kids directly.  Think of the news stories!  If I believed that punsishment was effective, that's what I would call for.

Unfortunatley, most people who support punishment don't believe in justice (not saying anyone here does not, just most that I have met) or prevention.

The key in my mind is not, "Who deserves to die" but, "What is the most effective method of preventing abuse." Because I care about kids, not just about feeling good about torturing some crazy man.  And time and time again, studies show that preventative medicine and redress of social conditions works better than punishment.

EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Some examples.  During the Balkan war, killing of innocents INCREASED.  When terrorists attempted to "punish" Americans into submission by destroying the two towers, war INCREASED (no one backed down).  After prison, prisoners are MORE likely to strike again.  In countries with more inclusive programs of redistributive justice, crime levels are LOWER than countries of pure punishment systems.

Test it yourself.  Do something bad, get put in your room.  The longer you stayed, the madder, more upset, and abandoned you probably felt (I know I did, as did my younger brother).  Studies show that shorter time-outs work BETTER than long ones.  

So prevent harm.  Don't just play around with being mean for the sake of it.  Intelligent redress works better than legalized torture.

OneThinkingGal and ._.

#45
"A liberal is a person whose interests aren't at stake, at the moment."

How many of you would feel this way if it was you who were the victim?

PS: Don't mean to label everyone opposing as liberal(bleh labels), just wanted to point out the stake part. Not my words, they belong to Player Willis.


Soft, Gooey, Delicious.

#46
Quote from: OneThinkingGal and ._. on Tue 29/04/2003 02:09:01
"A liberal is a person whose interests aren't at stake, at the moment."

How many of you would feel this way if it was you who were the victim?
Firstly, I don't think the victim's interests are at stake. To say so is to put a slant on what we're arguing about that isn't there. Neither Iqu nor myself have suggested that nothing should be done about violent criminals. We just differ on what should be done. Once a person has been rehabilited/served their time or whatever is done as a consequence of their actions then there isn't in any danger.

Secondly, and more importantly, What the victim feels should be done shouldn't necessarily hold any weight. What should be done is what is the right thing to do. As someone who is obviously impressed with the catagorical imperitive, you should realise that reason is king in ethical judgements. Feelings are notoriously bad at producing stable predictable results.
Kant was a dirty deontologist fuck.
the fade.
Yeeha!
Call me...  now

OneThinkingGal and ._.

#47
Okay, I'll agree with that, leaving the victim out of it.

But exactly how would you determine that a person had been 'rehabilitated' and no longer poses a threat to others?

Threat includes physical, financial, psychological or any other kind of harm.

I'm all for making the punishment fit the crime, but I don't quite understand how we're going to enlighten people who know that they're doing is wrong and still do it.

Incidentally, Kant didn't think reason was enough to make a decision on. That is actually the basis for the imperative.  You can find a reason to do something that goes against the imperative, but the imperative depends on goodwill, which is more essential to it than reason.

To illustrate, suppose you hit a parked car in a lonely spot without witnesses. You have a number of reasons to just drive away. You have to pay for the damage. It gets on your driving record. If you just leave, they most probably won't find you. In this situation, if you rely on reason, you'd leave. Goodwill says that if someone plowed into your car, you wouldn't like them driving off, so according to the imperative, you leave a note or wait for the owner.

The problem with the Imperative is simply that everyone needs to follow it, or it just doesn't work. The concept of rational beings breaks down. Anyway, thats off  topic.

Soft, Gooey, Delicious.

Quote from: OneThinkingGal and ._. on Tue 29/04/2003 05:00:58
But exactly how would you determine that a person had been 'rehabilitated' and no longer poses a threat to others?
I'm not exactly sure, I believe you'd need psychologists and such. The thing is though, under current penal systems, after you are in gaol for a certain period of time you are automatically deemed to be ready to re-enter society. This is clearly inadequate. Iqu's solution is to just never release anything (for certain violent crimes). I think this is also inadequate. I think a system should be devised such that people are rehabiliated. This would need actual programs designed to prevent people from reoffending as well as appropriate checks to make sure it works. The thing is though, it would need to be particularly efficient at all to do better than out current system. I think we also owe it to these criminals to make the attempt to rehabitate them anyway. It's true that no man is an island, and while not directly, everyone who has taught or interacted with criminals is to some degree responsible for the actions of those criminals. The fact that most criminals are poorly educated, have past pychological problems and are often substance abusers clearly shows that for the most part, they are the people that society has failed.

Quote from: OneThinkingGal and ._. on Tue 29/04/2003 05:00:58
I'm all for making the punishment fit the crime, but I don't quite understand how we're going to enlighten people who know that they're doing is wrong and still do it.
In the same kind of ways you stop alcoholics with young children from being alcoholics. There are ways to stop negative behaviours and all of them include psychological techniques (including the current system. Deterence is nothing if not psychological). The thing is, I think the current ones are barbaric and they don't seem to work well. I'm really just saying they need to be improved. This includes the shift from antiquidated notions such as punishment being deserved as well.

Quote from: OneThinkingGal and ._. on Tue 29/04/2003 05:00:58
Incidentally, Kant didn't think reason was enough to make a decision on. That is actually the basis for the imperative.  You can find a reason to do something that goes against the imperative, but the imperative depends on goodwill, which is more essential to it than reason.
The usage of reason in my last post was not reason as in an excuse for doing something. Reason in this instance is reason as in clear, rational thinking. As in the Age of Reason. Basically, Kant and many others (notable Bentham and Mill with utilitarianism) want to establish a clear, explicit and definiate moral code. I'm not if you've just made a simple mistake or if you haven't quite explored moral philosophy in much depth.  If it's the first case, cool, I should have been more clear. If it's the second, I recommend "The Elements of Moral Philosophy" by James Rachels. It's a comprehensive introductory textbook.

Quote from: OneThinkingGal and ._. on Tue 29/04/2003 05:00:58
The problem with the Imperative is simply that everyone needs to follow it, or it just doesn't work. The concept of rational beings breaks down. Anyway, thats off  topic.
That's not the main problem. The main problem with the catagorical imperitive, like all deontological ethical theories is that the rules clash. Here's one Kant himself explored.  Kant believed that it is A) Always wrong to lie, and b) Always wrong to allow murder. Suppose the situation arises where the only paths of action you have are to either lie or allow murder. The problem is the catagorical imperitive implies that you can take neither of the actions. Say someone you know has done something bad and someone comes around looking for him at your house. Now, your friend is hiding out in your living room and the person looking for him is going to kill him if he finds him. The person knocks on your front door. Do you either 1) lie and say your friend isn't there, so you don't allow murder or, 2) tell him your friend is in the living room and result in the person breaking your door in and kill your friend, so you avoid lying. Kant would say that you should tell the truth about where your friend is. It is then up to the (potential)murderer to follow the catagorical imperitive in turn. Utilitarianism is a better ethical system and although also flawed, doesn't run into these troubles. If you have read up on utilitarianism, it would be wise to do so, as it's the main competition to deontological ethical systems.
Kant was a dirty deontologist fuck.
the fade.
Yeeha!
Call me...  now

OneThinkingGal and ._.

Quote
I'm not exactly sure, I believe you'd need psychologists and such. The thing is though, under current penal systems, after you are in gaol for a certain period of time you are automatically deemed to be ready to re-enter society. This is clearly inadequate. Iqu's solution is to just never release anything (for certain violent crimes). I think this is also inadequate. I think a system should be devised such that people are rehabiliated. This would need actual programs designed to prevent people from reoffending as well as appropriate checks to make sure it works. The thing is though, it would need to be particularly efficient at all to do better than out current system. I think we also owe it to these criminals to make the attempt to rehabitate them anyway. It's true that no man is an island, and while not directly, everyone who has taught or interacted with criminals is to some degree responsible for the actions of those criminals. The fact that most criminals are poorly educated, have past pychological problems and are often substance abusers clearly shows that for the most part, they are the people that society has failed.
Shoving problems onto society isn't the solution, its an excuse. Everyone has a choice, people who are abusing substances are making that choice. As long as they're not hurting others, I guess that's thier prerogative. But blaming 'society' is shrugging off the choices you have made. Did society force it down your throat?  Realising you made those choices(and thus can also make the choices to reverse them) is one of the steps in most recovery programs.

Your comment about poorly educated does not apply to  white collar criminals. Being a criminal is a choice people make, for various reasons.

According to your own admission, we would never know when the person had truly 'reformed', as it were. Psychology is an inexact science.   So rehab basically just would not work.


QuoteIn the same kind of ways you stop alcoholics with young children from being alcoholics. There are ways to stop negative behaviours and all of them include psychological techniques (including the current system. Deterence is nothing if not psychological). The thing is, I think the current ones are barbaric and they don't seem to work well. I'm really just saying they need to be improved. This includes the shift from antiquidated notions such as punishment being deserved as well.

In Saudi Arabia, they cut your hands off for stealing. Not the first time mind you, but if you do it 2 or 3 times, they will do it. They have a ridiculously low crime rate. You can leave money out in the street and come back after an hour and it will still be there. No one dares lay a hand on it, because they know the consequences if they are caught. This is known as deterrance.  

If the consequences are trivial, people will keep doing it over and over. I am only referring to the career criminals, not someone who steals something for the first time, because say, he doesn't know its wrong.

There is also a social stigma associated with crime there, and in most eastern cultures. Gangsters aren't 'cool', they're social parasites. This further serves to deter people from committing these acts.

IMO jail really isn't enough of a punishment for people who repeatedly commit crimes, because obviously something isn't sinking in. How rehab will make this sink in is still unclear to me. These people just don't care what anyone thinks or how they harm anyone.

Quote
That's not the main problem. The main problem with the catagorical imperitive, like all deontological ethical theories is that the rules clash. Here's one Kant himself explored.  Kant believed that it is A) Always wrong to lie, and b) Always wrong to allow murder. Suppose the situation arises where the only paths of action you have are to either lie or allow murder. The problem is the catagorical imperitive implies that you can take neither of the actions. Say someone you know has done something bad and someone comes around looking for him at your house. Now, your friend is hiding out in your living room and the person looking for him is going to kill him if he finds him. The person knocks on your front door. Do you either 1) lie and say your friend isn't there, so you don't allow murder or, 2) tell him your friend is in the living room and result in the person breaking your door in and kill your friend, so you avoid lying. Kant would say that you should tell the truth about where your friend is. It is then up to the (potential)murderer to follow the catagorical imperitive in turn. Utilitarianism is a better ethical system and although also flawed, doesn't run into these troubles. If you have read up on utilitarianism, it would be wise to do so, as it's the main competition to deontological ethical systems.

Kant would not tell you not to lie. It has to be applied to the bigger picture IMO. The decision is not if you should lie, the decision is whether universally it would be okay to lie to save a friend from being killed. And it seems perfectly okay to me. Path 2 would lead in everyone's friends being killed, which rationally isn't such a happy ending.

Debating Kant belongs in another thread, and I really don't care to because its like arguing about religion, a waste of time and energy, everyone thinks they're right. The imperative is not perfect, lots of people have found situations where it doesn't clearly fit. But its good enough for most things. There will never be a perfect moral philosophical theory. We are not perfect beings.

At any rate, the debate is about crime and punishment, lets stick to that.

Soft, Gooey, Delicious.

Quote from: OneThinkingGal and ._. on Tue 29/04/2003 23:08:14

Shoving problems onto society isn't the solution, its an excuse. Everyone has a choice, people who are abusing substances are making that choice. As long as they're not hurting others, I guess that's thier prerogative. But blaming 'society' is shrugging off the choices you have made. Did society force it down your throat?  Realising you made those choices(and thus can also make the choices to reverse them) is one of the steps in most recovery programs.
I'm not claiming that people were forced into crime, but that the current makeup of society is such that it is far more tempting to be a criminal if you're addicted to heroin and don't have somewhere to live than if you were middle class worker with no real problems. If you fix most of the problems that lead to crime, then most of the crime wouldn't happen. Of course, the sufficient cause of crime is the criminal, but the necessary causes are usually based in the society you live in.

Quote from: OneThinkingGal and ._. on Tue 29/04/2003 23:08:14
According to your own admission, we would never know when the person had truly 'reformed', as it were. Psychology is an inexact science.   So rehab basically just would not work.
That doesn't follow. I agree that rehab won't work perfectly. But neither will anything else. Just because it doesn't work perfectly doesn't mean that it won't work more effectively than the current system. Psychology is inexact, but it stills works.

Quote from: OneThinkingGal and ._. on Tue 29/04/2003 23:08:14
In Saudi Arabia, they cut your hands off for stealing. Not the first time mind you, but if you do it 2 or 3 times, they will do it. They have a ridiculously low crime rate. You can leave money out in the street and come back after an hour and it will still be there. No one dares lay a hand on it, because they know the consequences if they are caught. This is known as deterrance.  
Ok, so someone gets caught 3 times stealing so their children can eat. Do you think they should lose their hand? What if it turns out someone was wrongly convicted? How do you give their hand back?

Quote from: OneThinkingGal and ._. on Tue 29/04/2003 23:08:14
If the consequences are trivial, people will keep doing it over and over. I am only referring to the career criminals, not someone who steals something for the first time, because say, he doesn't know its wrong.
Career criminals spend most of their time in gaol. They are usually poor. Do you think someone who is prepared to steal under the current systems has a high level of mental health? The whole idea of rehab is to find out why people are committing crimes and then treat that. This means if someone is stealing because they can't hold down a regular job, you teach them how to. If they were abused and as a result are violent abusers, you teach them to get over the abuse.  

Quote from: OneThinkingGal and ._. on Tue 29/04/2003 23:08:14
There is also a social stigma associated with crime there, and in most eastern cultures. Gangsters aren't 'cool', they're social parasites. This further serves to deter people from committing these acts.
I seriously doubt anyone rapes, murders or embezzles because it's cool.

Quote from: OneThinkingGal and ._. on Tue 29/04/2003 23:08:14
IMO jail really isn't enough of a punishment for people who repeatedly commit crimes, because obviously something isn't sinking in. How rehab will make this sink in is still unclear to me. These people just don't care what anyone thinks or how they harm anyone.
Ok, so what do you think is enough of a punishment?

Quote from: OneThinkingGal and ._. on Tue 29/04/2003 23:08:14
Kant would not tell you not to lie. It has to be applied to the bigger picture IMO. The decision is not if you should lie, the decision is whether universally it would be okay to lie to save a friend from being killed. And it seems perfectly okay to me. Path 2 would lead in everyone's friends being killed, which rationally isn't such a happy ending.
Yes he would, and in fact he has. It's Kant's own example and he says you shouldn't lie. You will find it in his essay "On a supposed Right to Lie from Altruistic Motives". He writes " To be truthful (honest) in all deliberations, therefore, is a sacred and absolutely commanding decree of reason, limited by no expediency". This means that you can never, ever lie.

Quote from: OneThinkingGal and ._. on Tue 29/04/2003 23:08:14
Debating Kant belongs in another thread, and I really don't care to because its like arguing about religion, a waste of time and energy, everyone thinks they're right. The imperative is not perfect, lots of people have found situations where it doesn't clearly fit. But its good enough for most things. There will never be a perfect moral philosophical theory. We are not perfect beings.
But it's not good enough. And that's the problem. Also, philosophy is not like religion. It's reasonable to make the inference to the best explanation, but if someone can show why your idea is wrong, then you have to accept that the idea is wrong. Religion is based on faith, so you can't disprove it. Philosophy has it's grounding in reason. It can and should be disproven, if it is wrong.

Quote
Kant was a dirty deontologist fuck.
the fade.
Yeeha!
Call me...  now

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk