Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Crime and Punishment

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 3:43:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Retribution: Punishment to satisfy group-sponsored revenge. (an advanced form of groupthink)
Deterrence: Punishment to improve public safety by detaining a dangerous individual and punishment to discourage future similar behavior.

Too many people are incapable of distinguishing what is rational driven from what is emotionally driven. To hate someone that has committed a crime, and wish that such suffering could be reciprocally inflicted on him or her, is a reaction founded on emotion. Whether or not you even agree that people have freewill, this sort of motivation serves no functional purpose. So if we were to model the justice system on deterrence alone, what is so wrong about allowing someone up for life in prison to simply commit suicide or opt for the death penalty. Practically speaking, this would conserve resources, reduce the size of prisons, and allow people a humane punishment as per their individual opinions of what is humane. Justice shouldn't be the social manifestation of a collective hatred.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 4:05:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think a punishments which satisfy the emotional desire for vengeance aren't necessarily mutually exclusive with 'rational' responses to transgressions. Senseless beatings, denying someone to commit suicide, etc, all serve as deterrents to crime - not that I necessarily would condone these.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 4:08:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Oh! I can play the strawman game, too:

At 6/1/2013 3:43:28 PM, 000ike wrote:
Retribution: Just and rational response. If X, then Y.
Deterrence: "Punishment" which is completely subjective to teh society, in which the individual is sacrificed for the assumed possible good of the state.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 4:14:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 4:08:12 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Oh! I can play the strawman game, too:

At 6/1/2013 3:43:28 PM, 000ike wrote:
Retribution: Just and rational response. If X, then Y.
Deterrence: "Punishment" which is completely subjective to teh society, in which the individual is sacrificed for the assumed possible good of the state.

^^^
This
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 5:23:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 3:43:28 PM, 000ike wrote:
Retribution: Punishment to satisfy group-sponsored revenge. (an advanced form of groupthink)
Deterrence: Punishment to improve public safety by detaining a dangerous individual and punishment to discourage future similar behavior.

Too many people are incapable of distinguishing what is rational driven from what is emotionally driven. To hate someone that has committed a crime, and wish that such suffering could be reciprocally inflicted on him or her, is a reaction founded on emotion. Whether or not you even agree that people have freewill, this sort of motivation serves no functional purpose. So if we were to model the justice system on deterrence alone, what is so wrong about allowing someone up for life in prison to simply commit suicide or opt for the death penalty. Practically speaking, this would conserve resources, reduce the size of prisons, and allow people a humane punishment as per their individual opinions of what is humane. Justice shouldn't be the social manifestation of a collective hatred.

I suppose billions of years of evolutionary development just gave us these emotional response for sh1ts and giggles.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 5:34:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 5:23:23 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/1/2013 3:43:28 PM, 000ike wrote:
Retribution: Punishment to satisfy group-sponsored revenge. (an advanced form of groupthink)
Deterrence: Punishment to improve public safety by detaining a dangerous individual and punishment to discourage future similar behavior.

Too many people are incapable of distinguishing what is rational driven from what is emotionally driven. To hate someone that has committed a crime, and wish that such suffering could be reciprocally inflicted on him or her, is a reaction founded on emotion. Whether or not you even agree that people have freewill, this sort of motivation serves no functional purpose. So if we were to model the justice system on deterrence alone, what is so wrong about allowing someone up for life in prison to simply commit suicide or opt for the death penalty. Practically speaking, this would conserve resources, reduce the size of prisons, and allow people a humane punishment as per their individual opinions of what is humane. Justice shouldn't be the social manifestation of a collective hatred.

I suppose billions of years of evolutionary development just gave us these emotional response for sh1ts and giggles.

This is the third retarded response in a row (excluding Dylan and DanT).

really......because a trait's selective evolutionary advantages makes it a justified impulse on which to act in civil society.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 5:39:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 5:34:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/1/2013 5:23:23 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/1/2013 3:43:28 PM, 000ike wrote:
Retribution: Punishment to satisfy group-sponsored revenge. (an advanced form of groupthink)
Deterrence: Punishment to improve public safety by detaining a dangerous individual and punishment to discourage future similar behavior.

Too many people are incapable of distinguishing what is rational driven from what is emotionally driven. To hate someone that has committed a crime, and wish that such suffering could be reciprocally inflicted on him or her, is a reaction founded on emotion. Whether or not you even agree that people have freewill, this sort of motivation serves no functional purpose. So if we were to model the justice system on deterrence alone, what is so wrong about allowing someone up for life in prison to simply commit suicide or opt for the death penalty. Practically speaking, this would conserve resources, reduce the size of prisons, and allow people a humane punishment as per their individual opinions of what is humane. Justice shouldn't be the social manifestation of a collective hatred.

I suppose billions of years of evolutionary development just gave us these emotional response for sh1ts and giggles.

This is the third retarded response in a row (excluding Dylan and DanT).

really......because a trait's selective evolutionary advantages makes it a justified impulse on which to act in civil society.

Your initial argument was "serve no functional purpose". Clearly it does. Whether something is justifiable or not is totally irrelevant, and a bit of a ludicrous and ambiguous question to me considering my moral nihilism and how ill-defined justifiable really is.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 5:40:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
To hate someone that has committed a crime, and wish that such suffering could be reciprocally inflicted on him or her, is a reaction founded on emotion. Whether or not you even agree that people have freewill, this sort of motivation serves no functional purpose.

I sort of agree. I don't believe our prison system should be in the business of inflicting pain or torturing inmates in the name of justice. However, I'd say there's something fundamentally unjust about allowing prisoners access to the kind of luxury they have in Norway, and this is probably where the free will debate becomes relevant.

If free will does exist (either libertarian or compatibilist) then we can certainly make a place for justice, and in that idea of justice I believe one could support some form of deprivation or punishment - not based on any emotional hatred, but on the nature of fairness itself. If justice is to played out then the wrongdoer must ultimately pay their dues.

If free will does not exist then I think deterrence is the way we have to go. I'm just saying that the desire to punish - while often abused - can be routed in a firm and fair sense of justice that carries some credibility.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 5:50:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 5:39:57 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/1/2013 5:34:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/1/2013 5:23:23 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/1/2013 3:43:28 PM, 000ike wrote:
Retribution: Punishment to satisfy group-sponsored revenge. (an advanced form of groupthink)
Deterrence: Punishment to improve public safety by detaining a dangerous individual and punishment to discourage future similar behavior.

Too many people are incapable of distinguishing what is rational driven from what is emotionally driven. To hate someone that has committed a crime, and wish that such suffering could be reciprocally inflicted on him or her, is a reaction founded on emotion. Whether or not you even agree that people have freewill, this sort of motivation serves no functional purpose. So if we were to model the justice system on deterrence alone, what is so wrong about allowing someone up for life in prison to simply commit suicide or opt for the death penalty. Practically speaking, this would conserve resources, reduce the size of prisons, and allow people a humane punishment as per their individual opinions of what is humane. Justice shouldn't be the social manifestation of a collective hatred.

I suppose billions of years of evolutionary development just gave us these emotional response for sh1ts and giggles.

This is the third retarded response in a row (excluding Dylan and DanT).

really......because a trait's selective evolutionary advantages makes it a justified impulse on which to act in civil society.

Your initial argument was "serve no functional purpose". Clearly it does. Whether something is justifiable or not is totally irrelevant, and a bit of a ludicrous and ambiguous question to me considering my moral nihilism and how ill-defined justifiable really is.

Well the whole point of the OP was whether or not there is justification behind prohibiting the choice between suicide/state-administered death and life in prison. What you're telling me is that you plucked out one phrase with no attention to the context, and based your entire response on it?

And in any case, moral nihilism has nothing to do with this. I'm not invoking any positive moral dictum against retributive justice, but pointing out a lack of justification that makes it averse to reason. You do know that most of my opinions involve absolute nihilism too right?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 5:52:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 5:40:53 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
To hate someone that has committed a crime, and wish that such suffering could be reciprocally inflicted on him or her, is a reaction founded on emotion. Whether or not you even agree that people have freewill, this sort of motivation serves no functional purpose.

I disagree. A good part of reciprocity is grounded in the belief that we as people share many common traits, and would find many (but by no means all) things to be agreeably "good" or "evil".

Laws based upon reciprocity thus fulfill the deterrence aspect of punishment.

I sort of agree. I don't believe our prison system should be in the business of inflicting pain or torturing inmates in the name of justice. However, I'd say there's something fundamentally unjust about allowing prisoners access to the kind of luxury they have in Norway, and this is probably where the free will debate becomes relevant.

If free will does exist (either libertarian or compatibilist) then we can certainly make a place for justice, and in that idea of justice I believe one could support some form of deprivation or punishment - not based on any emotional hatred, but on the nature of fairness itself. If justice is to played out then the wrongdoer must ultimately pay their dues.

If free will does not exist then I think deterrence is the way we have to go. I'm just saying that the desire to punish - while often abused - can be routed in a firm and fair sense of justice that carries some credibility.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 5:58:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 5:50:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/1/2013 5:39:57 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/1/2013 5:34:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/1/2013 5:23:23 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/1/2013 3:43:28 PM, 000ike wrote:
Retribution: Punishment to satisfy group-sponsored revenge. (an advanced form of groupthink)
Deterrence: Punishment to improve public safety by detaining a dangerous individual and punishment to discourage future similar behavior.

Too many people are incapable of distinguishing what is rational driven from what is emotionally driven. To hate someone that has committed a crime, and wish that such suffering could be reciprocally inflicted on him or her, is a reaction founded on emotion. Whether or not you even agree that people have freewill, this sort of motivation serves no functional purpose. So if we were to model the justice system on deterrence alone, what is so wrong about allowing someone up for life in prison to simply commit suicide or opt for the death penalty. Practically speaking, this would conserve resources, reduce the size of prisons, and allow people a humane punishment as per their individual opinions of what is humane. Justice shouldn't be the social manifestation of a collective hatred.

I suppose billions of years of evolutionary development just gave us these emotional response for sh1ts and giggles.

This is the third retarded response in a row (excluding Dylan and DanT).

really......because a trait's selective evolutionary advantages makes it a justified impulse on which to act in civil society.

Your initial argument was "serve no functional purpose". Clearly it does. Whether something is justifiable or not is totally irrelevant, and a bit of a ludicrous and ambiguous question to me considering my moral nihilism and how ill-defined justifiable really is.

Well the whole point of the OP was whether or not there is justification behind prohibiting the choice between suicide/state-administered death and life in prison. What you're telling me is that you plucked out one phrase with no attention to the context, and based your entire response on it?

At no point did you actually mention justification in the OP. Don't play this bullsh1t with me. Apparently, according in your world, your perfectly justifiable in misinterpreted my comment meaning that I assume evolutionary preferences = justification, when I was directly responding to the bolded, which you even agree is wrong, but in "context" its correct.

Sorry, I don't play the "context" game. Its just an excuse to make false statements appear right, if you add "context" to them.

And in any case, moral nihilism has nothing to do with this. I'm not invoking any positive moral dictum against retributive justice, but pointing out a lack of justification that makes it averse to reason. You do know that most of my opinions involve absolute nihilism too right?

Really, you think a form of objective justice exist, while a form of objective moral doesn't exist. Splitting hairs bud.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 6:01:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 5:34:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/1/2013 5:23:23 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/1/2013 3:43:28 PM, 000ike wrote:
Retribution: Punishment to satisfy group-sponsored revenge. (an advanced form of groupthink)
Deterrence: Punishment to improve public safety by detaining a dangerous individual and punishment to discourage future similar behavior.

Too many people are incapable of distinguishing what is rational driven from what is emotionally driven. To hate someone that has committed a crime, and wish that such suffering could be reciprocally inflicted on him or her, is a reaction founded on emotion. Whether or not you even agree that people have freewill, this sort of motivation serves no functional purpose. So if we were to model the justice system on deterrence alone, what is so wrong about allowing someone up for life in prison to simply commit suicide or opt for the death penalty. Practically speaking, this would conserve resources, reduce the size of prisons, and allow people a humane punishment as per their individual opinions of what is humane. Justice shouldn't be the social manifestation of a collective hatred.

I suppose billions of years of evolutionary development just gave us these emotional response for sh1ts and giggles.

This is the third retarded response in a row (excluding Dylan and DanT).

So pointing out that you're being unfair and intellectually dishonest is "retarded"?

Retribution =/= hatred.

One can think, for example, that the just punishment for a murderer is the death penalty, while not hating the murderer. Pretending otherwise is absurd.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 6:02:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 5:58:53 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/1/2013 5:50:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/1/2013 5:39:57 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/1/2013 5:34:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/1/2013 5:23:23 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/1/2013 3:43:28 PM, 000ike wrote:
Retribution: Punishment to satisfy group-sponsored revenge. (an advanced form of groupthink)
Deterrence: Punishment to improve public safety by detaining a dangerous individual and punishment to discourage future similar behavior.

Too many people are incapable of distinguishing what is rational driven from what is emotionally driven. To hate someone that has committed a crime, and wish that such suffering could be reciprocally inflicted on him or her, is a reaction founded on emotion. Whether or not you even agree that people have freewill, this sort of motivation serves no functional purpose. So if we were to model the justice system on deterrence alone, what is so wrong about allowing someone up for life in prison to simply commit suicide or opt for the death penalty. Practically speaking, this would conserve resources, reduce the size of prisons, and allow people a humane punishment as per their individual opinions of what is humane. Justice shouldn't be the social manifestation of a collective hatred.

I suppose billions of years of evolutionary development just gave us these emotional response for sh1ts and giggles.

This is the third retarded response in a row (excluding Dylan and DanT).

really......because a trait's selective evolutionary advantages makes it a justified impulse on which to act in civil society.

Your initial argument was "serve no functional purpose". Clearly it does. Whether something is justifiable or not is totally irrelevant, and a bit of a ludicrous and ambiguous question to me considering my moral nihilism and how ill-defined justifiable really is.

Well the whole point of the OP was whether or not there is justification behind prohibiting the choice between suicide/state-administered death and life in prison. What you're telling me is that you plucked out one phrase with no attention to the context, and based your entire response on it?

At no point did you actually mention justification in the OP. Don't play this bullsh1t with me. Apparently, according in your world, your perfectly justifiable in misinterpreted my comment meaning that I assume evolutionary preferences = justification, when I was directly responding to the bolded, which you even agree is wrong, but in "context" its correct.

Sorry, I don't play the "context" game. Its just an excuse to make false statements appear right, if you add "context" to them.


And in any case, moral nihilism has nothing to do with this. I'm not invoking any positive moral dictum against retributive justice, but pointing out a lack of justification that makes it averse to reason. You do know that most of my opinions involve absolute nihilism too right?

Really, you think a form of objective justice exist, while a form of objective moral doesn't exist. Splitting hairs bud.

Well gee, you're the only one here that seems to think my argument was about vindictive tendencies not serving any evolutionary purpose, so I have to wonder whether the fault lies with me or with you.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 6:06:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 5:58:53 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/1/2013 5:50:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/1/2013 5:39:57 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/1/2013 5:34:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/1/2013 5:23:23 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/1/2013 3:43:28 PM, 000ike wrote:
Retribution: Punishment to satisfy group-sponsored revenge. (an advanced form of groupthink)
Deterrence: Punishment to improve public safety by detaining a dangerous individual and punishment to discourage future similar behavior.

Too many people are incapable of distinguishing what is rational driven from what is emotionally driven. To hate someone that has committed a crime, and wish that such suffering could be reciprocally inflicted on him or her, is a reaction founded on emotion. Whether or not you even agree that people have freewill, this sort of motivation serves no functional purpose. So if we were to model the justice system on deterrence alone, what is so wrong about allowing someone up for life in prison to simply commit suicide or opt for the death penalty. Practically speaking, this would conserve resources, reduce the size of prisons, and allow people a humane punishment as per their individual opinions of what is humane. Justice shouldn't be the social manifestation of a collective hatred.

I suppose billions of years of evolutionary development just gave us these emotional response for sh1ts and giggles.

This is the third retarded response in a row (excluding Dylan and DanT).

really......because a trait's selective evolutionary advantages makes it a justified impulse on which to act in civil society.

Your initial argument was "serve no functional purpose". Clearly it does. Whether something is justifiable or not is totally irrelevant, and a bit of a ludicrous and ambiguous question to me considering my moral nihilism and how ill-defined justifiable really is.

Well the whole point of the OP was whether or not there is justification behind prohibiting the choice between suicide/state-administered death and life in prison. What you're telling me is that you plucked out one phrase with no attention to the context, and based your entire response on it?

At no point did you actually mention justification in the OP. Don't play this bullsh1t with me. Apparently, according in your world, your perfectly justifiable in misinterpreted my comment meaning that I assume evolutionary preferences = justification, when I was directly responding to the bolded, which you even agree is wrong, but in "context" its correct.

Sorry, I don't play the "context" game. Its just an excuse to make false statements appear right, if you add "context" to them.


And in any case, moral nihilism has nothing to do with this. I'm not invoking any positive moral dictum against retributive justice, but pointing out a lack of justification that makes it averse to reason. You do know that most of my opinions involve absolute nihilism too right?

Really, you think a form of objective justice exist, while a form of objective moral doesn't exist. Splitting hairs bud.

He's basically just saying retribution is not affirmed by the philosophies of those who support it, in which case its justification is arbitrary and not predicated on anything but itself.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 6:11:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 6:06:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

He's basically just saying retribution is not affirmed by the philosophies of those who support it, in which case its justification is arbitrary and not predicated on anything but itself.

And he's asserting it based on a strawman.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 6:19:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 6:01:24 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/1/2013 5:34:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/1/2013 5:23:23 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/1/2013 3:43:28 PM, 000ike wrote:
Retribution: Punishment to satisfy group-sponsored revenge. (an advanced form of groupthink)
Deterrence: Punishment to improve public safety by detaining a dangerous individual and punishment to discourage future similar behavior.

Too many people are incapable of distinguishing what is rational driven from what is emotionally driven. To hate someone that has committed a crime, and wish that such suffering could be reciprocally inflicted on him or her, is a reaction founded on emotion. Whether or not you even agree that people have freewill, this sort of motivation serves no functional purpose. So if we were to model the justice system on deterrence alone, what is so wrong about allowing someone up for life in prison to simply commit suicide or opt for the death penalty. Practically speaking, this would conserve resources, reduce the size of prisons, and allow people a humane punishment as per their individual opinions of what is humane. Justice shouldn't be the social manifestation of a collective hatred.

I suppose billions of years of evolutionary development just gave us these emotional response for sh1ts and giggles.

This is the third retarded response in a row (excluding Dylan and DanT).

So pointing out that you're being unfair and intellectually dishonest is "retarded"?

Retribution =/= hatred.

One can think, for example, that the just punishment for a murderer is the death penalty, while not hating the murderer. Pretending otherwise is absurd.

Retribution is punishment for punishment's sake - to produce an emotionally restorative effect for the victim and society involved. That's literally the meaning of retribution. So just because you don't like the negative attitude with which I refer to it doesn't actually make the content a strawman.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 6:22:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 3:43:28 PM, 000ike wrote:
Retribution: Punishment to satisfy group-sponsored revenge. (an advanced form of groupthink)
Deterrence: Punishment to improve public safety by detaining a dangerous individual and punishment to discourage future similar behavior.

Too many people are incapable of distinguishing what is rational driven from what is emotionally driven. To hate someone that has committed a crime, and wish that such suffering could be reciprocally inflicted on him or her, is a reaction founded on emotion. Whether or not you even agree that people have freewill, this sort of motivation serves no functional purpose. So if we were to model the justice system on deterrence alone, what is so wrong about allowing someone up for life in prison to simply commit suicide or opt for the death penalty. Practically speaking, this would conserve resources, reduce the size of prisons, and allow people a humane punishment as per their individual opinions of what is humane. Justice shouldn't be the social manifestation of a collective hatred.

I agree with the bolded.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 6:22:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 6:19:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/1/2013 6:01:24 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/1/2013 5:34:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/1/2013 5:23:23 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/1/2013 3:43:28 PM, 000ike wrote:
Retribution: Punishment to satisfy group-sponsored revenge. (an advanced form of groupthink)
Deterrence: Punishment to improve public safety by detaining a dangerous individual and punishment to discourage future similar behavior.

Too many people are incapable of distinguishing what is rational driven from what is emotionally driven. To hate someone that has committed a crime, and wish that such suffering could be reciprocally inflicted on him or her, is a reaction founded on emotion. Whether or not you even agree that people have freewill, this sort of motivation serves no functional purpose. So if we were to model the justice system on deterrence alone, what is so wrong about allowing someone up for life in prison to simply commit suicide or opt for the death penalty. Practically speaking, this would conserve resources, reduce the size of prisons, and allow people a humane punishment as per their individual opinions of what is humane. Justice shouldn't be the social manifestation of a collective hatred.

I suppose billions of years of evolutionary development just gave us these emotional response for sh1ts and giggles.

This is the third retarded response in a row (excluding Dylan and DanT).

So pointing out that you're being unfair and intellectually dishonest is "retarded"?

Retribution =/= hatred.

One can think, for example, that the just punishment for a murderer is the death penalty, while not hating the murderer. Pretending otherwise is absurd.

Retribution is punishment for punishment's sake - to produce an emotionally restorative effect for the victim and society involved. That's literally the meaning of retribution. So just because you don't like the negative attitude with which I refer to it doesn't actually make the content a strawman.

Stop making up your own definitions. It's not "an emotionally restorative effect for the victim and society involved". That's not "literally the meaning of retribution".

Maybe you should use TEH Googles before making things up?

Because the very firs tthing that comes up when you type in that word is the definition:

"ret"ri"bu"tion
/G6;retrəG2;byoV2;oSHən/
Noun
Punishment that is considered to be morally right and fully deserved.
Synonyms
requital - retaliation - punishment - reward - penalty
"
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 6:27:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If by being on death row or being put in prison for life, a criminal has forfeited their right to life, can we not then say they have also forfeited their right to die of their own volition?
yang.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 6:28:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 6:02:18 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/1/2013 5:58:53 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/1/2013 5:50:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/1/2013 5:39:57 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/1/2013 5:34:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/1/2013 5:23:23 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/1/2013 3:43:28 PM, 000ike wrote:
Retribution: Punishment to satisfy group-sponsored revenge. (an advanced form of groupthink)
Deterrence: Punishment to improve public safety by detaining a dangerous individual and punishment to discourage future similar behavior.

Too many people are incapable of distinguishing what is rational driven from what is emotionally driven. To hate someone that has committed a crime, and wish that such suffering could be reciprocally inflicted on him or her, is a reaction founded on emotion. Whether or not you even agree that people have freewill, this sort of motivation serves no functional purpose. So if we were to model the justice system on deterrence alone, what is so wrong about allowing someone up for life in prison to simply commit suicide or opt for the death penalty. Practically speaking, this would conserve resources, reduce the size of prisons, and allow people a humane punishment as per their individual opinions of what is humane. Justice shouldn't be the social manifestation of a collective hatred.

I suppose billions of years of evolutionary development just gave us these emotional response for sh1ts and giggles.

This is the third retarded response in a row (excluding Dylan and DanT).

really......because a trait's selective evolutionary advantages makes it a justified impulse on which to act in civil society.

Your initial argument was "serve no functional purpose". Clearly it does. Whether something is justifiable or not is totally irrelevant, and a bit of a ludicrous and ambiguous question to me considering my moral nihilism and how ill-defined justifiable really is.

Well the whole point of the OP was whether or not there is justification behind prohibiting the choice between suicide/state-administered death and life in prison. What you're telling me is that you plucked out one phrase with no attention to the context, and based your entire response on it?

At no point did you actually mention justification in the OP. Don't play this bullsh1t with me. Apparently, according in your world, your perfectly justifiable in misinterpreted my comment meaning that I assume evolutionary preferences = justification, when I was directly responding to the bolded, which you even agree is wrong, but in "context" its correct.

Sorry, I don't play the "context" game. Its just an excuse to make false statements appear right, if you add "context" to them.


And in any case, moral nihilism has nothing to do with this. I'm not invoking any positive moral dictum against retributive justice, but pointing out a lack of justification that makes it averse to reason. You do know that most of my opinions involve absolute nihilism too right?

Really, you think a form of objective justice exist, while a form of objective moral doesn't exist. Splitting hairs bud.

Well gee, you're the only one here that seems to think my argument was about vindictive tendencies not serving any evolutionary purpose, so I have to wonder whether the fault lies with me or with you.

Nobody really commented on what I bolded. If you wanted to say justice, why say "No functional purpose" when in reality you could've said in the same efficiency and clearly "No justifiable purpose".

And for the record, my stance is that there are some individuals that exemplify anti-social behavior and our down-right parasitic to the unit of the group. The problem often lies in genetics, not entirely environment (both interact with one another how one can use heritablity, which is how much variance can be attributed to genetics).
Allowing the further population of these anti-social individuals would lead to the destruction of the group. So, since I value civilization, I would prefer that these individuals not reproduce, either through sterilization, death, or life-imprisonment.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 6:31:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 6:27:00 PM, tulle wrote:
If by being on death row or being put in prison for life, a criminal has forfeited their right to life, can we not then say they have also forfeited their right to die of their own volition?

Totally agree. But to be fair, Ike was justifying his position on what would benefit society rather than 'a right to die.'
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 6:32:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 6:31:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/1/2013 6:27:00 PM, tulle wrote:
If by being on death row or being put in prison for life, a criminal has forfeited their right to life, can we not then say they have also forfeited their right to die of their own volition?

Totally agree. But to be fair, Ike was justifying his position on what would benefit society rather than 'a right to die.'

Ha, nvm. I missed the last part.
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 6:36:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 6:31:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/1/2013 6:27:00 PM, tulle wrote:
If by being on death row or being put in prison for life, a criminal has forfeited their right to life, can we not then say they have also forfeited their right to die of their own volition?

Totally agree. But to be fair, Ike was justifying his position on what would benefit society rather than 'a right to die.'

I agree that someone sentenced to life in prison should be given the choice to die instead. But in terms of morality, I'm not sure why forcing them to give up their right to die is any worse than forcing them to give up their right to life.
yang.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 6:42:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"But in terms of morality, I'm not sure why forcing them to give up their right to die is any worse than forcing them to give up their right to life."

One could argue that forcibly keeping someone alive in prison when they want to end their life violates both the right to die and the right to live.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 6:43:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 6:42:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"But in terms of morality, I'm not sure why forcing them to give up their right to die is any worse than forcing them to give up their right to life."

One could argue that forcibly keeping someone alive in prison when they want to end their life violates both the right to die and the right to live.

So basically, it's prison and something else. It does matter whether one is worse than the other when it's one vs both of them.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 6:44:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 6:43:55 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/1/2013 6:42:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"But in terms of morality, I'm not sure why forcing them to give up their right to die is any worse than forcing them to give up their right to life."

One could argue that forcibly keeping someone alive in prison when they want to end their life violates both the right to die and the right to live.

So basically, it's prison and something else. It does matter whether one is worse than the other when it's one vs both of them.

doesn't*
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 6:55:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 5:52:22 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/1/2013 5:40:53 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
To hate someone that has committed a crime, and wish that such suffering could be reciprocally inflicted on him or her, is a reaction founded on emotion. Whether or not you even agree that people have freewill, this sort of motivation serves no functional purpose.

I disagree. A good part of reciprocity is grounded in the belief that we as people share many common traits, and would find many (but by no means all) things to be agreeably "good" or "evil".

Laws based upon reciprocity thus fulfill the deterrence aspect of punishment.

I sort of agree. I don't believe our prison system should be in the business of inflicting pain or torturing inmates in the name of justice. However, I'd say there's something fundamentally unjust about allowing prisoners access to the kind of luxury they have in Norway, and this is probably where the free will debate becomes relevant.

If free will does exist (either libertarian or compatibilist) then we can certainly make a place for justice, and in that idea of justice I believe one could support some form of deprivation or punishment - not based on any emotional hatred, but on the nature of fairness itself. If justice is to played out then the wrongdoer must ultimately pay their dues.

If free will does not exist then I think deterrence is the way we have to go. I'm just saying that the desire to punish - while often abused - can be routed in a firm and fair sense of justice that carries some credibility.

Your issue here is with ike, I never said what you attributed to me.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 10:33:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 6:55:02 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 6/1/2013 5:52:22 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/1/2013 5:40:53 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
To hate someone that has committed a crime, and wish that such suffering could be reciprocally inflicted on him or her, is a reaction founded on emotion. Whether or not you even agree that people have freewill, this sort of motivation serves no functional purpose.

I disagree. A good part of reciprocity is grounded in the belief that we as people share many common traits, and would find many (but by no means all) things to be agreeably "good" or "evil".

Laws based upon reciprocity thus fulfill the deterrence aspect of punishment.

I sort of agree. I don't believe our prison system should be in the business of inflicting pain or torturing inmates in the name of justice. However, I'd say there's something fundamentally unjust about allowing prisoners access to the kind of luxury they have in Norway, and this is probably where the free will debate becomes relevant.

If free will does exist (either libertarian or compatibilist) then we can certainly make a place for justice, and in that idea of justice I believe one could support some form of deprivation or punishment - not based on any emotional hatred, but on the nature of fairness itself. If justice is to played out then the wrongdoer must ultimately pay their dues.

If free will does not exist then I think deterrence is the way we have to go. I'm just saying that the desire to punish - while often abused - can be routed in a firm and fair sense of justice that carries some credibility.

Your issue here is with ike, I never said what you attributed to me.

lol sorry, don't know how that happened. =)
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
thett3
Posts: 14,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 10:52:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You start out from a flawed premise. Justify that the ancient principle of lex talionis is simple revenge (you don't even justify why revenge is inherently bad, or why emotionally driven responses are automatically wrong) and then we can actually understand what your thoughts are. But drop the ridiculous strawman please.

I found this quote somewhere on the internet a while ago, and it's something I've tried to keep on my mind since. An intellectual presents the best possible case for the position they're opposing and then proceeds to explain why that case is wrong. A pseudo-intellectual attacks a strawman. I'm not saying you're a pseudo-intellectual but what you've done here comes dangerously close to the latter behavior.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right