Total Posts:58|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

should we kill rapists???

I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2009 3:14:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Therefore, we should put the rapists in a room and let them be raped. What? An aye for an eye does us no good. They should have to do labour for the government for whatever sentence they are given.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2009 3:25:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/6/2009 3:20:19 PM, s0m31john wrote:
Eye for an eye. Rape a child, get raped BY a child. LOGIC.

The rapists benefits in both scenarios. Try again.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
ournamestoolong
Posts: 1,059
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2009 3:43:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/6/2009 3:25:10 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 4/6/2009 3:20:19 PM, s0m31john wrote:
Eye for an eye. Rape a child, get raped BY a child. LOGIC.

The rapists benefits in both scenarios. Try again.

Get raped by a VERY old woman (or a very hairy man)
I'll get by with a little help from my friends.

Ournamestoolong

Secretary of Commerce

Destroy talking ads!
bombmaniac
Posts: 49
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2009 3:44:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
thanks for your opinions

i guess when they go to jail they'll be raped anyway (made somebody's bi**h) so that's justice too. as far as labor goes, all for it as long as they get no compensation for it.
Nik
Posts: 552
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2009 6:43:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Why do you get so much bum sex in american prisons, ive never been to an english prison but we dont have the same sort of image of prisons here. Guess all you americans are gay deep down ;)
"If you could tell the world but one truth, I could convince it of a thousand lies"
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2009 7:16:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/6/2009 6:43:57 PM, Nik wrote:
Why do you get so much bum sex in american prisons, ive never been to an english prison but we dont have the same sort of image of prisons here. Guess all you americans are gay deep down ;)

Low blow...
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Wise_Soul
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2009 11:28:54 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Yea, we should! And we should kill cannibals, racist people, women and men who kill babies, all of those people too. People act like babies have no future. Just like racist people and the cannibals! Just adding to the deserve to die list. Not going against what you said though.

Look at the babies people kill! They are tiny babies! Abortion kills!
http://wickedshepherds.com...

This is a racist Picture, Agreed?
http://abagond.files.wordpress.com...

Even more disturbing, right? Racism kills!
http://markbey.files.wordpress.com...

Ewww! People eating People
http://www.globalinsult.com...

Beware your in for the truth!!!!

At 4/6/2009 3:11:31 PM, bombmaniac wrote:
well should we? and especially child rapists. the punishment should be as horrible as the crime. that's my opinion, whats yours?
FREE MOVIES, DEBATE, LOADS OF GAMES, OH, DID I FORGET To SAY LOADS OF FUN!

Check it out at http://powerfuldebates.ning.com...
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2009 11:43:29 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Wise_Soul---

We should kill racist people lol?

Racism isn't even illegal and you want the death penalty for them? ahah
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2009 12:19:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
... I'm going to give Wise_Soul the benefit of the doubt here and assume that he or she is kidding.

Anyway, no, we should not kill rapists for their crimes. Rape is a complicated issue; take a Psychology course and you'll learn about people's tendencies, diseases, societal malfunctions, etc., and also how defects of the brain are to cause for a majority of these issues.

Therefore the argument of whether or not people even have free will to commit those crimes can be made not only a philosophical level or physical level (applying physics to determinism), but on a psychologically anatomical one as well.

If these rapists "can't help" the nature of their crimes (as is supported by science a lot of the time), then killing them on the basis of what is essentially a birth defect raises a plethora of moral questions that expand far beyond killing rapists, and introduces another set of complications when it comes to punishing all law breaking in general (not to mention moral questions regarding the death penalty).
President of DDO
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2009 1:10:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/6/2009 3:11:31 PM, bombmaniac wrote:
well should we? and especially child rapists. the punishment should be as horrible as the crime. that's my opinion, whats yours?

No. All life holds potential. We need to study crimes as social phenomena, a consequence of biology and environment, and pull ourselves out of the dark ages. We also need to focus more on caring for the victims than on punishing the offenders. People may talk about how horrified they are that a child was harmed. How many actually would take time out of their day to offer help to the child and his/her loved ones?
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2009 1:42:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/20/2009 1:10:45 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
No. All life holds potential. We need to study crimes as social phenomena, a consequence of biology and environment, and pull ourselves out of the dark ages. We also need to focus more on caring for the victims than on punishing the offenders. People may talk about how horrified they are that a child was harmed. How many actually would take time out of their day to offer help to the child and his/her loved ones?

Agreed.
President of DDO
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2009 3:36:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
We also need to focus more on caring for the victims than on punishing the offenders.

In other words, we need moar victims and moar offenders.

It doesn't really matter if someone is mentally ill or not, no one is morally obligated to fail to defend, and therefore by extension fail to retaliate, against the mentally ill, whether they are "morally responsible" or not. Such an obligation would be tantamount to slavery, slavery to someone who wouldn't even know how to appreciate what they are getting no less.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2009 3:50:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/20/2009 12:19:28 PM, theLwerd wrote:
... I'm going to give Wise_Soul the benefit of the doubt here and assume that he or she is kidding.

Anyway, no, we should not kill rapists for their crimes. Rape is a complicated issue; take a Psychology course and you'll learn about people's tendencies, diseases, societal malfunctions, etc., and also how defects of the brain are to cause for a majority of these issues.

Therefore the argument of whether or not people even have free will to commit those crimes can be made not only a philosophical level or physical level (applying physics to determinism), but on a psychologically anatomical one as well.

If these rapists "can't help" the nature of their crimes (as is supported by science a lot of the time), then killing them on the basis of what is essentially a birth defect raises a plethora of moral questions that expand far beyond killing rapists, and introduces another set of complications when it comes to punishing all law breaking in general (not to mention moral questions regarding the death penalty).

That is the liberal psychobabble that never helps anybody. You can't blame everything on society. If these people know the differences between right and wrong, then they should be held responsible, and jailed, if not killed.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2009 4:17:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/20/2009 3:36:09 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

In other words, we need moar victims and moar offenders.

We need less uncared for victims and fewer repeat offenders. That is not achieved by our current system.

It doesn't really matter if someone is mentally ill or not, no one is morally obligated to fail to defend, and therefore by extension fail to retaliate, against the mentally ill, whether they are "morally responsible" or not. Such an obligation would be tantamount to slavery, slavery to someone who wouldn't even know how to appreciate what they are getting no less.

Defense is not equal to retaliation. It is one thing to catch a rapist in medias re and another to apprehend a rapist post facto. Slavery is when you allow the imposition to occur, not when you seek to mitigate the harm of the imposition.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2009 6:38:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/20/2009 4:17:15 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
We need less uncared for victims and fewer repeat offenders. That is not achieved by our current system.
Killing them would definately reduce the number of repeat offenders.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2009 6:47:56 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/20/2009 6:38:45 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 6/20/2009 4:17:15 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
We need less uncared for victims and fewer repeat offenders. That is not achieved by our current system.
Killing them would definately reduce the number of repeat offenders.

It would also eliminate any potential benefit they would provide to society. No person can be defined by one act or quality, no matter how horrid. Not knowing what value such an individual would possess, I must argue for that person's preservation. Knowing that there may be a way to eliminate the undesirable activity while retaining the desirable benefits, I must advocate seeking that possibility.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2009 8:11:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/20/2009 3:50:28 PM, mongoose wrote:

That is the liberal psychobabble that never helps anybody. You can't blame everything on society. If these people know the differences between right and wrong, then they should be held responsible, and jailed, if not killed.

And that is the conservative ignorance that keeps them so unenlightened...

Nobody blamed anything on society, so why are you misquoting me? What I said was that there are psychological reasons why people commit certain crimes, i.e. malfunctions of the brain. This is a proven fact. Additionally, some of these conditions make it so that people DON'T actually know the difference between right and wrong (assuming that what's "right" or "wrong" wasn't subjective, of course). Plus, jailing somebody and killing them are two different things.
President of DDO
sherlockmethod
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2009 8:14:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Rape was a death penalty crime in some states but the SCOTUS overturned them. Think it was Coker v. Georgia, I will look later as Georgia had two cases on this one. I will link them in the morning. Anyway, the problem with the death penalty for rape is the different definitions of the crime. In Georgia the sentences ranged from 13 months to death. Death was reserved for black men accused of raping white women. Tennessee even has a spousal privilege in respect to rape. I don't think the death penalty can be used properly in respect to this crime.
Library cards: Stopping stupid one book at a time.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2009 11:37:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/20/2009 4:17:15 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
At 6/20/2009 3:36:09 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

In other words, we need moar victims and moar offenders.

We need less uncared for victims and fewer repeat offenders. That is not achieved by our current system.
Current system agrees with you more often than me I'll bet. How do you achieve fewer repeat offenders by not eliminating offenders?


It doesn't really matter if someone is mentally ill or not, no one is morally obligated to fail to defend, and therefore by extension fail to retaliate, against the mentally ill, whether they are "morally responsible" or not. Such an obligation would be tantamount to slavery, slavery to someone who wouldn't even know how to appreciate what they are getting no less.

Defense is not equal to retaliation. It is one thing to catch a rapist in medias re and another to apprehend a rapist post facto.
Retaliation is defense against someone who has proven what they will do when they are capable. The only difference is time and practical considerations (notably, the need for courts and such to make it efficient and not cause chaos) not morality.

Slavery is when you allow the imposition to occur, not when you seek to mitigate the harm of the imposition.
Reducing disincentives to impose is not "mitigating the harm of the imposition," it increases the harm.

It would also eliminate any potential benefit they would provide to society. No person can be defined by one act or quality, no matter how horrid.

First, there is no such thing as "to society." Society is not a coherent whole, it as such values nothing. Second, you cannot rationally expect that some random rapist will provide more value than the rape took away. Does the average person on the street provide the opposite amount of utility to you as someone who rapes you? No, the average person on the street can be rationally expected to be of minimal value at best. Being a rapist presumably doesn't raise that rational expectation very much, it probably lowers it drastically.

"Knowing that there may be a way to eliminate the undesirable activity while retaining the desirable benefits"
"Knowing that there may?" That means you have some evidence for such a possibility. Provide it.

Plus, jailing somebody and killing them are two different things.
Not unless they escape. If you jail them successfully, they no more really get to keep their life than if you kill them. The fact that you take possession of that life doesn't much alter the prospects for them, aside from the chance of escape.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2009 1:21:58 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
In advance I would like to apologize for typos and grammatical errors. I've had a few glasses of wine and may not be at peak performance.

At 6/20/2009 11:37:36 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Current system agrees with you more often than me I'll bet. How do you achieve fewer repeat offenders by not eliminating offenders?

Admittedly, killing an offender prevents him from repeating the crime. It also eliminates any potential that the offender could have possessed. Studying the cause and determining how to prevent the action is the future is preferable, not because it is more likely to ensure against repeat offenders (it isn't) but because it is more likely to provide a solution by which the beneficial aspects of the offender's participation in society can be acquired without the dangers of recidivism.

Retaliation is defense against someone who has proven what they will do when they are capable. The only difference is time and practical considerations (notably, the need for courts and such to make it efficient and not cause chaos) not morality.

No, it is not. Defending is "to drive danger or attack away from" oneself. (M-W) Everyone has a right to self-defense. Everyone has a right to defend others against non-consensual assault. Why? Rational self interest is the answer in both cases, actually. In the first case, every individual has itself as its first cause, and therefore can not be expected to abandon defense of itself. In the second case, every individual respects the duty not to attack members of society only so long as society recognizes the right of the individual to not be attacked. It is a symbiotic relationship between the individual unit and the, as you would put it, collective.

When a right has been violated, society has a problem. It can not allow the act to go unnoticed, or the protection it provides is fiction and everyone will act at their caprice. So it has a choice: it can repair the damage to the victim, and thereby mitigate the harm done, restoring the value of the right, or it can punish the offender, reinforcing the right (i.e. the decree against imposition). Presently it does both, though the reward comes at the expense of the offender. The problem with this is that any society progresses due to the value provided it by its constituent parts (and each part is benefited from the other part's contribution). If you have one part that is harmed and brought back to a pre-harm state, and another part that is harmed and left in that state as punishment, you still have a member of society that has its capabilities diminished. It's a net loss for the society.

If, on the other hand, you make the punishment of the offender one that is beneficial to society as well as itself, you not only benefit the offender, but also the victim, as the benefits to society brought about by the reformed offender can be enjoyed, in proportional part, by the victim. This is how both may be restored.

This is not to say that we should let bad things happen. If anything, it means that we should all be more diligent to prevent such things from happening when they do.

Reducing disincentives to impose is not "mitigating the harm of the imposition," it increases the harm.

Actually it does nothing of the sort. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

First, there is no such thing as "to society."

Yes there is. It's the collective unit the rules of which each member thereof agrees to abide by in order to best promote its own existence.

Society is not a coherent whole, it as such values nothing.

It values productivity, which in turn each member enjoys.

Second, you cannot rationally expect that some random rapist will provide more value than the rape took away.

Yes, I can. In fact, I find it far less rational to believe that the violation of a single person's rights would be a greater loss than the benefit that might be provided if the rapist acted in such a way as to improve the lives of multiple other people. It doesn't sound pleasant ... but it does follow logically.

Does the average person on the street provide the opposite amount of utility to you as someone who rapes you? No, the average person on the street can be rationally expected to be of minimal value at best. Being a rapist presumably doesn't raise that rational expectation very much, it probably lowers it drastically.


I have no way of knowing what amount of utility a person would offer me. People can switch from God to Monster and back in a heartbeat. Just because the likelihood is high or low does not mean I should play the odds needlessly. If research is conducted into how rape occurs and why, we could find a better way to prevent and rehabilitate rapists, allowing them to be reintegrated into society as positive, or at least neutral units, in which case I may win, but I do not lose.

"Knowing that there may?" That means you have some evidence for such a possibility. Provide it.

http://www.libraryindex.com...

http://www.csun.edu...

http://www.sciencedirect.com...

http://www.springerlink.com...

This is just what I could find with a quick search. Like I said, not on top of the game right now.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2009 1:32:56 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/21/2009 1:21:58 AM, Lexicaholic wrote:

This is just what I could find with a quick search. Like I said, not on top of the game right now.

Which isn't to imply that I wasn't aware of such research before I made the statement. I just didn't have it indexed for easy retrieval. The first time I was made aware of options to handle criminal offenders beyond punishment was five years ago. It's not like I've been paid to consider such things, so, of course, though I have retained my informed opinion, I don't have the exact information that initially informed it. To be wholly fair, Depro-Provera only works in cases of (male) paraphiliacs, which is a small portion of child molesters, although a fairly large portion of rapists. Still, the fact that we have been able to categorize the different fixations that lead to harmful sexual acts is a good start on fixing an old problem.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2009 1:54:22 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Ask yourself if you would kill a rapist.

If the answer is "no", then there's your answer.
If the answer is "yes", then go ahead and do it. Why ask "us"?
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2009 8:02:56 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/21/2009 1:21:58 AM, Lexicaholic wrote:
When a right has been violated, society has a problem. It can not allow the act to go unnoticed, or the protection it provides is fiction and everyone will act at their caprice. So it has a choice: it can repair the damage to the victim, and thereby mitigate the harm done, restoring the value of the right, or it can punish the offender, reinforcing the right (i.e. the decree against imposition). Presently it does both, though the reward comes at the expense of the offender. The problem with this is that any society progresses due to the value provided it by its constituent parts (and each part is benefited from the other part's contribution). If you have one part that is harmed and brought back to a pre-harm state, and another part that is harmed and left in that state as punishment, you still have a member of society that has its capabilities diminished. It's a net loss for the society.

Right, because we really expect racists to be beneficial to society.

If they are jailed, they should be put to work while in jail.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2009 8:10:17 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/21/2009 8:02:56 AM, mongoose wrote:
Right, because we really expect racists to be beneficial to society.

They can be, if they're punished for what they have done and held accountable for any future actions committed. There is a lot of former rapists that have served their time, gone out into society and rejoined it successfully. These are generally the ones that weren't, for lack of a better word, 'fully committed' to what they were doing.

The ones that are these repeat offenders, the ones that even psychologists agree would be a danger to society - they're the ones that won't benefit society and have to be held accountable.

If they are jailed, they should be put to work while in jail.

Agreed. Do the crime, do the time - while working. Especially for those repeat offenders that aren't going to get out any time soon. Instead of just wasting our tax dollars keeping them locked up (as beneficial as that is), make them work it off as well.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2009 9:11:38 AM
Posted: 7 years ago

Retaliation is defense against someone who has proven what they will do when they are capable. The only difference is time and practical considerations (notably, the need for courts and such to make it efficient and not cause chaos) not morality.

No, it is not. Defending is "to drive danger or attack away from" oneself.
And retaliation drives danger and attack away from oneself. Without consequences of some sort, you find much more danger.

The problem with this is that any society progresses due to the value provided it by its constituent parts (and each part is benefited from the other part's contribution). If you have one part that is harmed and brought back to a pre-harm state, and another part that is harmed and left in that state as punishment, you still have a member of society that has its capabilities diminished. It's a net loss for the society.
Not if the future actions of the rapist would include more rape than his "positive capabilities' make up for, which is on average very little, especially since I'm quite sure therapy or whatever for rape victims is rather expensive and far from fully effective.


If, on the other hand, you make the punishment of the offender one that is beneficial to society as well as itself, you not only benefit the offender, but also the victim, as the benefits to society brought about by the reformed offender can be enjoyed, in proportional part, by the victim. This is how both may be restored.
I'd say let the victim be the judge of that. They are in the best position to know what sort of harm happened ^_^.


This is not to say that we should let bad things happen. If anything, it means that we should all be more diligent to prevent such things from happening when they do.

Reducing disincentives to impose is not "mitigating the harm of the imposition," it increases the harm.

Actually it does nothing of the sort. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
Correlation is not causation. I didn't expect that fallacy here.


First, there is no such thing as "to society."

Yes there is. It's the collective unit the rules of which each member thereof agrees to abide by in order to best promote its own existence.
Was I sleeping? When did this agreement of all people happen? I don't remember signing anything to that effect.


Second, you cannot rationally expect that some random rapist will provide more value than the rape took away.

Yes, I can. In fact, I find it far less rational to believe that the violation of a single person's rights would be a greater loss than the benefit that might be provided if the rapist acted in such a way as to improve the lives of multiple other people. It doesn't sound pleasant ... but it does follow logically.
It follows logically that giving lollipops to three people is more valuable than a rape is unvaluable? After all, that's benefits to multiple people :).


Does the average person on the street provide the opposite amount of utility to you as someone who rapes you? No, the average person on the street can be rationally expected to be of minimal value at best. Being a rapist presumably doesn't raise that rational expectation very much, it probably lowers it drastically.


I have no way of knowing what amount of utility a person would offer me.
You find all the things you have. Subtract from that what you could have on your own in the wilderness. Divide that by the number of people. Weight the formula for location a bit if you please, or prior abilities of the rapists, most rapists will still end up in the kill category.

People can switch from God to Monster and back in a heartbeat. Just because the likelihood is high or low does not mean I should play the odds needlessly.
Sure it does. Playing the odds, by definition, is maximizing the reward you will on average get.

If research is conducted into how rape occurs and why, we could find a better way to prevent and rehabilitate rapists
Conduct all the research you want, until a proven means of turning them into perfect little slaves or whatever is available, killing them remains a useful option.

allowing them to be reintegrated into society as positive, or at least neutral units, in which case I may win, but I do not lose.
You lose if you try "rehabilitation" and fail.


"Knowing that there may?" That means you have some evidence for such a possibility. Provide it.

http://www.libraryindex.com...
"Unfortunately, no approach to prison reform has had much effect on the recidivism rate among released prisoners."

Read more: http://www.libraryindex.com...
Doesn't seem to fix to anything that helps your case.

"


http://www.csun.edu...
5%? I still don't think that lowers the bar enough for their expectations. Especially given how doubtful creativity and productivity are to be unaffected by such drugs (Things altering central motivations probably alter other central motivations, though studies should be conducted on that account.)


http://www.sciencedirect.com...
"A review of treatment studies with rapists suggests that the currently used cognitive-behavioral treatment strategies remain limited in their success. The current article proposes..."
Proposes does not usually mean demonstrates, it means hypothesis for the next round of treatment studies.


http://www.springerlink.com...
Doesn't mention how valid the prediction was, and even if were 100% that alone would still support the killing of those who were predicted to act again. People claim "The hypothesis of predictability was supported" quite often if they only predict it right 60% of the time.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2009 11:16:56 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/21/2009 8:10:17 AM, Volkov wrote:
Instead of just wasting our tax dollars keeping them locked up (as beneficial as that is), make them work it off as well.

Second.
President of DDO
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2009 1:46:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/21/2009 9:11:38 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

And retaliation drives danger and attack away from oneself. Without consequences of some sort, you find much more danger.

There are still consequences, only now the consequences are reformative rather than punitive.

Not if the future actions of the rapist would include more rape than his "positive capabilities' make up for, which is on average very little, especially since I'm quite sure therapy or whatever for rape victims is rather expensive and far from fully effective.

Maximizing utility would be valid if we had any reasonably objective way of measuring the harm produced relative to the benefit received. We don't, so we're stuck with trying to balance the recognized harm with the potential benefit.

I'd say let the victim be the judge of that. They are in the best position to know what sort of harm happened ^_^.

Not really. If we let victims run the legal system, we'd have either a bloodbath or undeserved consequence free pardons all over the place. Victims don't make their decisions based on objectives and result analysis, but on feelings, which, frankly, is not a rational or functional way to go.

Reducing disincentives to impose is not "mitigating the harm of the imposition," it increases the harm.

No, it does not, as the death penalty graph shows, because even though, as you've said ...

Correlation is not causation. I didn't expect that fallacy here.

... I am not using the graph to show that murder rates are increased by the death penalty (false correlation) but rather that the death penalty as a disincentive holds no correlation with reduced number of murders. There is therefore no reason to believe that anyone is being convinced not to murder because of the death penalty.

Was I sleeping? When did this agreement of all people happen? I don't remember signing anything to that effect.

It's implicit in the relationship, like how barring a discussion about it you're not supposed to sleep around on your mate.

It follows logically that giving lollipops to three people is more valuable than a rape is unvaluable? After all, that's benefits to multiple people :).

Assuming that the potential benefit is greater than the harm. The ability of the single individual to provide numerous services to society and develop and produce things for society I would expect to outweigh harm to one of its members. This doesn't mean that the harm shouldn't be addressed, but that the harm alone has to be weighted against the likelihood that the offender would repeat. If we develop a way to obtain the value of the offender's services without him repeating his actions, then we should take that option.

You find all the things you have. Subtract from that what you could have on your own in the wilderness. Divide that by the number of people. Weight the formula for location a bit if you please, or prior abilities of the rapists, most rapists will still end up in the kill category.

? You have this formula and have applied it in a case? If you can show me how these factors can even approach valuing potential utility, I'll accept this. Right now this just sounds like you're arguing they shouldn't have a piece of the value pie because they bit off more than most. If that's the issue, Volkov's work program option is viable (they'd have to spit it back up).

Sure it does. Playing the odds, by definition, is maximizing the reward you will on average get.

Yes, but if we can develop (as we are doing) a way to ensure benefit without playing the odds, then it is pointless. You only gamble when there is risk.

Conduct all the research you want, until a proven means of turning them into perfect little slaves or whatever is available, killing them remains a useful option.

Reform to the extent I have spoken of would only be slavery if one assumes free will.

You lose if you try "rehabilitation" and fail.

It's a process. I lose because harm recurs, but I gain because data is collected that can lead to rehabilitation. If the lost value is unequal to what is gained, we should seek to equalize the value, not to eliminate all the potential value of the offender.

"Unfortunately, no approach to prison reform has had much effect on the recidivism rate among released prisoners."

Right. Because punishment isn't working. Part of positing a better way is to show how the old way is failing. My way couldn't be better if the old way is just as good.

http://www.csun.edu...
5%? I still don't think that lowers the bar enough for their expectations. Especially given how doubtful creativity and productivity are to be unaffected by such drugs (Things altering central motivations probably alter other central motivations, though studies should be conducted on that account.)

Read it again. Recidivism rates fall to 5%, not by 5%. Compare to the rates provided on the prior site, which tracks to 1994, well before D-P was available.

Proposes does not usually mean demonstrates, it means hypothesis for the next round of treatment studies.

Just showing a range of possibilities.

Some other stuff. Obviously the reports will differ in how they measure recidivism. I'm just looking to show a trend for reduced recidivism rates in relation to treatment. Everything I have read that wasn't based on a knee jerk reaction tends to suggest that treatment is a more viable option than punishment. Couple treatment with a compulsory service requirement and work training, and I think we will have a better system for returning value. I think that placing a lien on the accounts of the offender would also be fair, so that value could be returned to the victim and/or the victim's family. I would also be in favor of fining the offender for the costs of any treatment for the victim.

http://www.ipce.info...

http://books.google.com...

http://books.google.com...
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2009 8:39:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
There are still consequences, only now the consequences are reformative rather than punitive.
Education is in high demand right now lol, those "consequences" are equivocation, they provide no deterrence whatsoever.

Maximizing utility would be valid if we had any reasonably objective way of measuring the harm produced relative to the benefit received. We don't, so we're stuck with trying to balance the recognized harm with the potential benefit.
We do have such a measure, I already described it.

Not really. If we let victims run the legal system, we'd have either a bloodbath or undeserved consequence free pardons all over the place. Victims don't make their decisions based on objectives and result analysis, but on feelings, which, frankly, is not a rational or functional way to go.
Didn't you just say we had no such objective method? :P
Besides which, rape is mostly about feelings. Emotional harm is the primary result

... I am not using the graph to show that murder rates are increased by the death penalty (false correlation) but rather that the death penalty as a disincentive holds no correlation with reduced number of murders. There is therefore no reason to believe that anyone is being convinced not to murder because of the death penalty.
The two are essentially equivalent. In order to establish there were "no reason to believe" one would have to have a controlled experiment (instead of a survey) and still have it not correlate, since then you've corrected for the number of states that adopt death penalty due to high crime rates potentially outweighing the deterrence effect of death penalty versus life imprisonment (Which I've already said is small, the only reason to prefer the latter to the former is the possibility of escape).


It's implicit in the relationship, like how barring a discussion about it you're not supposed to sleep around on your mate.
I didn't choose to mate with society, the issues are not comparable (Though I'm perverted enough to wonder at that image, and personally I'd NEVER expect monogamy to be "implied default" for any degree of mating but marriage). You can't have an "implicit agreement" resulting from a relationship you didn't agree to, there is nowhere for you to imply consent. That'd be like being dragged into a house where an orgy goes on, and then raped and said "You were here, it's an orgy, it's implicitly agreed to!" I didn't choose the "here part," I chose no part.

Assuming that the potential benefit is greater than the harm.
an assumption I don't share.

The ability of the single individual to provide numerous services to society and develop and produce things for society I would expect to outweigh harm to one of its members.
One of it's members who is thereby less likely to provide such services himself? One who will harm even more members if you don't stop them? One who is less valuable than average mind, as rape is probably correlated with low productive capacity lol.

This doesn't mean that the harm shouldn't be addressed, but that the harm alone has to be weighted against the likelihood that the offender would repeat. If we develop a way to obtain the value of the offender's services without him repeating his actions, then we should take that option.
That "Without repeating" is a longshot, and it doesn't really address deterrence, especially considering how for your argument we'd have to compare, not death to life sentence, the difference is minimal there, but death or life sentence versus "chemical castration" or whatever the case may be for preserving productive capacity (Net productive capacity, keep in mind life imprisonment costs far more than per capita GDP), which has probably got to be pretty significantly low in deterrent power :). If you were talking REAL castration we might not have that problem, especially without anesthetic, and you're welcome to go there, but I'm not sure that's your style lol.

? You have this formula and have applied it in a case?
I haven't weighted the formula for anything, and I haven't used it yet because I haven't killed anyone or saved anyone's life yet (It can in principle be reversed for cases of whether to save a random bystander's life from an emergency given a particular cost of the action, though then one should probably weigh rather generously given the likelihood of being the target of their positive actions, and reputation gains, exercise, and so forth). Of course, it shouldn't be calculated exactly given the snap nature of these decisions, but estimated at least.)


Yes, but if we can develop (as we are doing) a way to ensure benefit without playing the odds, then it is pointless. You only gamble when there is risk.
I haven't seen "are," just "trying to."


Reform to the extent I have spoken of would only be slavery if one assumes free will.
I wasn't complaining if that's what you think, these are rapists. But bonding them to work off their actions as seems to be the idea is still slavery even when justified.


"Unfortunately, no approach to prison reform has had much effect on the recidivism rate among released prisoners."

Right. Because punishment isn't working.
Not all efforts have been punishment. It's the "reform efforts" that it says have failed, those aren't primarily punishment, since the old old way is basically exclusively punishment lol. So does not follow.


http://www.csun.edu...
5%? I still don't think that lowers the bar enough for their expectations. Especially given how doubtful creativity and productivity are to be unaffected by such drugs (Things altering central motivations probably alter other central motivations, though studies should be conducted on that account.)

Read it again. Recidivism rates fall to 5%, not by 5%.
I wasn't misreading it. My comment was in regard to lowering to 5%

Compare to the rates provided on the prior site, which tracks to 1994, well before D-P was available.
That isn't the relevant thing to compare it to when the default proposal was "Kill em all quick". At least when not accounting for deterrence (deterrence compared to the actual penalty you're aiming for, not compared to the present system in non-death states),the relevant thing to compare that percentage to times harms of recidivism is, again, roughly or under average utility, minus whatever the cost of the program is.

Couple treatment with a compulsory service requirement and work training, and I think we will have a better system for returning value.
How deterrent will THAT be to the average rapist? Even if recidivism is zero, good lord, work training? There are loads of people who really really really really want work training, and wouldn't mind community service, a few chemicals or psychology sessions, and a free lay, as the costs of getting such work training.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.