People doing what they want

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

Previous topic - Next topic

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