Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Punishing Criminals

mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 11:55:49 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I have long thought that deterring crime is the best justification for punishing criminal adults in society.

In line with this I also have long thought that, in serious crimes, punishing the criminal, through bodily, I guess you might say, mutilation, in some way might be a good way of accomplishing this.
Note: I am not talking of Torture, but surgery.

For example:

For any kind of aggravated assault, where the person severely harmed another, in a purposeful and inhumane manner, such as calculated rape, "real" hate crimes, etc. The person ought to lose a digit or two. If they shot people, their trigger finger. If they rape people their instrument.

I feel like this would not only deter people from commiting crimes, but make it harder for people to continue harming others.
Imagine trying to assault someone with a poor grip. Or shooting someone without your trigger finger.

Now of course the courts are not perfect, and such punishments would be quite permanent, so I think that such things should only be instituted for the most solid of cases, and perhaps realistically, in our justice system, not at all, but I think in theory they are Just, and in a case where the person is guilty of said crimes that is what ought to happen.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 12:00:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/6/2009 11:55:49 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
I have long thought that deterring crime is the best justification for punishing criminal adults in society.

In line with this I also have long thought that, in serious crimes, punishing the criminal, through bodily, I guess you might say, mutilation, in some way might be a good way of accomplishing this.
Note: I am not talking of Torture, but surgery.

For example:

For any kind of aggravated assault, where the person severely harmed another, in a purposeful and inhumane manner, such as calculated rape, "real" hate crimes, etc. The person ought to lose a digit or two. If they shot people, their trigger finger. If they rape people their instrument.

I feel like this would not only deter people from commiting crimes, but make it harder for people to continue harming others.
Imagine trying to assault someone with a poor grip. Or shooting someone without your trigger finger.

Now of course the courts are not perfect, and such punishments would be quite permanent, so I think that such things should only be instituted for the most solid of cases, and perhaps realistically, in our justice system, not at all, but I think in theory they are Just, and in a case where the person is guilty of said crimes that is what ought to happen.

I agree!
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 12:18:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
No. If you didn't realise, body parts are useful for other things other than the crime they were utilised in. Taking away their digits is scarring them for life and will prevent them from getting employment. It's an overtly cruel crime.

If someone shoots someone, take away their gun.
If someone rapes someone, give them have a curfew.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 12:41:12 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/6/2009 12:18:35 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
No. If you didn't realise, body parts are useful for other things other than the crime they were utilised in. Taking away their digits is scarring them for life and will prevent them from getting employment. It's an overtly cruel crime.

If someone shoots someone, take away their gun.
If someone rapes someone, give them have a curfew.

It very well might affect other areas of their life, and as such they would not wish to commit more crimes, and be further impaired.
For murderers in Prison, they would not aspire to killing gaurds,
for rapists who delight in controlling others, they might have good reason to control themselves.
For "gangsters" killing and doing time, spraying "gats" would not be a badge of honor but rather a huge impairment and something which makes you increasingly useless to all who might formerly have idolized you. And all would think twice before they comitted themselves to such action.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 12:43:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Good thing that Matrodsam doesn't have any influence over judicial policy.

By the way, do you have any relation to Cody Franklin?
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 12:46:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
lol.. no.
From what I hear he's a fascist.

Im a libertarian ; ) lol.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 12:55:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/6/2009 12:41:12 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 11/6/2009 12:18:35 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
No. If you didn't realise, body parts are useful for other things other than the crime they were utilised in. Taking away their digits is scarring them for life and will prevent them from getting employment. It's an overtly cruel crime.

If someone shoots someone, take away their gun.
If someone rapes someone, give them have a curfew.

It very well might affect other areas of their life, and as such they would not wish to commit more crimes, and be further impaired.

I think a progressively longer jail sentences with each crime committed, along with state help getting back on your feet can suffice.

For murderers in Prison, they would not aspire to killing gaurds,

Or woudl they try and get revenge on the people who took away their fingers? You do also realise there's more than one way to shoot a gun?

for rapists who delight in controlling others, they might have good reason to control themselves.

Taking away someone's reproductive choice is not only taking away a fundamental part of being human, it's also preventing them from continuing on with life

For "gangsters" killing and doing time, spraying "gats" would not be a badge of honor but rather a huge impairment and something which makes you increasingly useless to all who might formerly have idolized you. And all would think twice before they comitted themselves to such action.

Actually, gangsters tend to work around these things and would make it a badge of honour.

Furthermore, do you propose people's whole limbs be cut off? It smells of a suppressive dictatorship.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 1:00:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The Yakuza has a well known history of making a badge of honor out of chopping their fingers off THEMSELVES, so providing this service to criminals free of charge is obviously a bad idea. More useful forms of mutilation, I have no particular problem with.

Panda: Suppressive dictatorship? Suppressive of what? Of murder rape and theft? Regardless of political structure, it is the entire point of government to suppress these things. If you do not believe they should be suppressed, you may as well be an anarchist.
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.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 1:04:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
whole limbs!
no not really, I would hope that before someone worked through all of their fingers, they would be given the death penalty.

Again this is with the hypothetical certainty that these people have all committed heinously cruel crimes, consistently denying other people of their humanity.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 1:06:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/6/2009 1:00:50 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Panda: Suppressive dictatorship? Suppressive of what? Of murder rape and theft? Regardless of political structure, it is the entire point of government to suppress these things. If you do not believe they should be suppressed, you may as well be an anarchist.

If I told you burglars had their hands cut off somewhere, what country woudl spring to mind? Saudi Arabia? Iran?

The punishment needs to fit the crime, and there's such a thing as too harsh a punishment. If it will impair them physically, then it's infringing on their ability to re-normalise into life. If they can't get employed, they turn to stealing again, and the cycle perpetually continues.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 1:06:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/6/2009 1:00:50 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The Yakuza has a well known history of making a badge of honor out of chopping their fingers off THEMSELVES, so providing this service to criminals free of charge is obviously a bad idea. More useful forms of mutilation, I have no particular problem with.

True, but it was my understanding that they only made a habit of removing the pinky (??). Only one finger, and the most useles one at that (though I here it is important for grip).
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 1:10:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/6/2009 1:06:11 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 11/6/2009 1:00:50 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

If I told you burglars had their hands cut off somewhere, what country woudl spring to mind? Saudi Arabia? Iran?

The punishment needs to fit the crime, and there's such a thing as too harsh a punishment.

I absolutely agree. That's why I spelled out the specific kind of crimes.

I think that it is often misguided to try to rehabilitate the worst offenders against humanity. If they were to be rehabilitated they would hate themselves. Freud would suggest ppl. try to avoid such things.

I think giving them real incentive to stop is a good idea.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 1:13:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/6/2009 1:06:11 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 11/6/2009 1:00:50 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Panda: Suppressive dictatorship? Suppressive of what? Of murder rape and theft? Regardless of political structure, it is the entire point of government to suppress these things. If you do not believe they should be suppressed, you may as well be an anarchist.

If I told you burglars had their hands cut off somewhere, what country woudl spring to mind? Saudi Arabia? Iran?
Mere correlation.


The punishment needs to fit the crime
It does. You respond to the initiation of force with the retaliation of force. :)

and there's such a thing as too harsh a punishment.
Nope.

If it will impair them physically, then it's infringing on their ability to re-normalise into life.
And?

If they can't get employed, they turn to stealing again, and the cycle perpetually continues.
If they are incapable of useful labor, how are they capable of theft? Theft is a difficult profession.
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.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 1:14:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Further, I think morality, though native to our species, kind of like language, has a strong learned component, and that people who show themselves to be cold and cruel adults stand little chance of developing it.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 1:29:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/6/2009 1:13:18 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/6/2009 1:06:11 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 11/6/2009 1:00:50 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Panda: Suppressive dictatorship? Suppressive of what? Of murder rape and theft? Regardless of political structure, it is the entire point of government to suppress these things. If you do not believe they should be suppressed, you may as well be an anarchist.

If I told you burglars had their hands cut off somewhere, what country woudl spring to mind? Saudi Arabia? Iran?
Mere correlation




The punishment needs to fit the crime
It does. You respond to the initiation of force with the retaliation of force. :)

How do you balance the crime of someone killing 100 people?


and there's such a thing as too harsh a punishment.
Nope.

Yes. The death penalty is a bit harsh for Disorderly conduct.


If it will impair them physically, then it's infringing on their ability to re-normalise into life.
And?

And the point about punishment is getting the message across not only is what they did wrong, but they can go life without doing the crime.


If they can't get employed, they turn to stealing again, and the cycle perpetually continues.
If they are incapable of useful labor, how are they capable of theft? Theft is a difficult profession.

Right, but in Ragnartopia being able to work is everything.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 1:31:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/6/2009 1:29:40 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 11/6/2009 1:13:18 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/6/2009 1:06:11 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 11/6/2009 1:00:50 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Panda: Suppressive dictatorship? Suppressive of what? Of murder rape and theft? Regardless of political structure, it is the entire point of government to suppress these things. If you do not believe they should be suppressed, you may as well be an anarchist.

If I told you burglars had their hands cut off somewhere, what country woudl spring to mind? Saudi Arabia? Iran?
Mere correlation




The punishment needs to fit the crime
It does. You respond to the initiation of force with the retaliation of force. :)

How do you balance the crime of someone killing 100 people?

uhmmmmmm... Death penalty!
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 1:38:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/6/2009 1:31:54 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 11/6/2009 1:29:40 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 11/6/2009 1:13:18 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/6/2009 1:06:11 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 11/6/2009 1:00:50 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Panda: Suppressive dictatorship? Suppressive of what? Of murder rape and theft? Regardless of political structure, it is the entire point of government to suppress these things. If you do not believe they should be suppressed, you may as well be an anarchist.

If I told you burglars had their hands cut off somewhere, what country woudl spring to mind? Saudi Arabia? Iran?
Mere correlation




The punishment needs to fit the crime
It does. You respond to the initiation of force with the retaliation of force. :)

How do you balance the crime of someone killing 100 people?

uhmmmmmm... Death penalty!

Right, but we can't balance the loss of 99 people.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 1:45:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/6/2009 1:29:40 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 11/6/2009 1:13:18 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/6/2009 1:06:11 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 11/6/2009 1:00:50 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Panda: Suppressive dictatorship? Suppressive of what? Of murder rape and theft? Regardless of political structure, it is the entire point of government to suppress these things. If you do not believe they should be suppressed, you may as well be an anarchist.

If I told you burglars had their hands cut off somewhere, what country woudl spring to mind? Saudi Arabia? Iran?
Mere correlation




The punishment needs to fit the crime
It does. You respond to the initiation of force with the retaliation of force. :)

How do you balance the crime of someone killing 100 people?
You don't "balance." "Fitting"-- (i.e. being a rational response to the crime) is not "balancing."
Incidentally, value does not lie in numbers. If "Balance" were necessary, the death of the perpetrator would "balance" any number of deaths he committed as well as it would one.



and there's such a thing as too harsh a punishment.
Nope.

Yes. The death penalty is a bit harsh for Disorderly conduct.
Define "Disorderly conduct."
As far as I'm concerned, if you aren't prepared to kill for something, you shouldn't make a law about it.



If it will impair them physically, then it's infringing on their ability to re-normalise into life.
And?

And the point about punishment is getting the message across not only is what they did wrong
The point of responding to a crime is to eliminate it. Anything else happening is strictly optional. If you can profitably rehabilitate, go for it, if you'd rather just kill them or cripple them, go for it.


If they can't get employed, they turn to stealing again, and the cycle perpetually continues.
If they are incapable of useful labor, how are they capable of theft? Theft is a difficult profession.

Right, but in Ragnartopia being able to work is everything.

And? Why should I want a thief to have anything?
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.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 1:46:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I should sig that btw.
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.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 3:20:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/6/2009 1:45:19 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/6/2009 1:29:40 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 11/6/2009 1:13:18 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/6/2009 1:06:11 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 11/6/2009 1:00:50 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Panda: Suppressive dictatorship? Suppressive of what? Of murder rape and theft? Regardless of political structure, it is the entire point of government to suppress these things. If you do not believe they should be suppressed, you may as well be an anarchist.

If I told you burglars had their hands cut off somewhere, what country woudl spring to mind? Saudi Arabia? Iran?
Mere correlation




The punishment needs to fit the crime
It does. You respond to the initiation of force with the retaliation of force. :)

How do you balance the crime of someone killing 100 people?
You don't "balance." "Fitting"-- (i.e. being a rational response to the crime) is not "balancing."
Incidentally, value does not lie in numbers. If "Balance" were necessary, the death of the perpetrator would "balance" any number of deaths he committed as well as it would one.



and there's such a thing as too harsh a punishment.
Nope.

Yes. The death penalty is a bit harsh for Disorderly conduct.
Define "Disorderly conduct."
As far as I'm concerned, if you aren't prepared to kill for something, you shouldn't make a law about it.

Well, whatever the U.S. currently defines disorderly conduct as. I think it means being drunk in public.




If it will impair them physically, then it's infringing on their ability to re-normalise into life.
And?

And the point about punishment is getting the message across not only is what they did wrong
The point of responding to a crime is to eliminate it. Anything else happening is strictly optional. If you can profitably rehabilitate, go for it, if you'd rather just kill them or cripple them, go for it.

Right, eliminating a crime mee a number of possible ways: Rehabilitation, punishment, etc. Crippling people for menial crimes is far from the answer.



If they can't get employed, they turn to stealing again, and the cycle perpetually continues.
If they are incapable of useful labor, how are they capable of theft? Theft is a difficult profession.

Right, but in Ragnartopia being able to work is everything.

And? Why should I want a thief to have anything?

Because that person was a thief but has made up for it by serving a term in prison. They're now an ex-thief.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 6:05:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The point of prison systems and such should be focused on rehabilitation, not punishment. Punishment implies that criminals are morally responsible for their actions - however, since free will is an illogical idea, this is not so.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 6:23:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/6/2009 6:05:18 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:
The point of prison systems and such should be focused on rehabilitation, not punishment. Punishment implies that criminals are morally responsible for their actions - however, since free will is an illogical idea, this is not so.

By that logic, rehabilitation is also pointless, since a person's nature doesn't change.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 6:55:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Well, whatever the U.S. currently defines disorderly conduct as. I think it means being drunk in public.
Shouldn't be illegal.


Right, eliminating a crime mee a number of possible ways: Rehabilitation, punishment, etc. Crippling people for menial crimes is far from the answer.
Seems to answer it nearly as well as execution. Rehabilitation lacks deterrent value, and thus the total amount of crime potentially eliminated is less than if deterrents are not lacked.


Because that person was a thief but has made up for it by serving a term in prison. They're now an ex-thief.
That doesn't "make up for anything." Great, you jacked my stuff and then you went to prison. How does this return to me my property and the value I lost by not having it for whatever length of time? And before you go babbling about how execution or mutilation will not accomplish this either, remember that I didn't try to justify those on that grounds :).
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.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 6:57:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Incidentally, ANY government policy that relies on a view on a question like free will is government policy that has overreached its purpose. Punishment implies "We seek to deter this action," it is agnostic about metaphysical responsibility.
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.
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 7:14:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
By that logic, rehabilitation is also pointless, since a person's nature doesn't change.

I'd love to hear an argument about how that is so. People can't change?
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 7:16:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/6/2009 6:57:27 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Incidentally, ANY government policy that relies on a view on a question like free will is government policy that has overreached its purpose. Punishment implies "We seek to deter this action,"

And rehabilitation will work better than punishment.

it is agnostic about metaphysical responsibility.

Why must that be so? Governments presuppose that moral facts exist; they have already taken a stance on meta-ethics. What's so taboo about issues in metaphysics?
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 7:20:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
My understanding is that punishment as a deterrent was the primary theory of justice up until sometime around the 70's, when rehabilitation came into vogue. That was found not to work, so it was supplanted by another theory: if you keep criminals locked up they won't commit another crime against the public until such time as you let them out. That theory works, but it is expensive.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 7:51:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/6/2009 7:16:04 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:
At 11/6/2009 6:57:27 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Incidentally, ANY government policy that relies on a view on a question like free will is government policy that has overreached its purpose. Punishment implies "We seek to deter this action,"

And rehabilitation will work better than punishment.
Rehabilitation will make people not want to commit crime? How does the consequence of crime being an increase in abilities reduce the amount of crime people commit? Any increase in abilities not accompanied by something of sufficient unpleasantness is an incentive to commit crime (Most abilities are probably more useful to the rehabilitater in the hands of paying noninnocents anyway).

Why must that be so? Governments presuppose that moral facts exist
Moral facts, yes. Moral responsibility in any incompatibilist sense, no

What's so taboo about issues in metaphysics?
When it starts thinking about that sort of thing, there is the danger it can define as "Fraud" any disagreement from the official line. It's bad enough to have the danger of banning "Immoral" speech, but once you can't even disagree about nonmoral facts the question will be effectively irreversible in a mere matter of years (which makes it all the more tempting to be the politician who pulls it off). Science can quietly undermine legally enforced moral views, but when both are under the power of the law what is left?

Incidentally, if you believe that the lack of free will rules out moral responsibility in some important way, then how can you believe the government to be morally responsible to rehabilitate instead of punish?
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.
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 8:24:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Rehabilitation will make people not want to commit crime? How does the consequence of crime being an increase in abilities reduce the amount of crime people commit? Any increase in abilities not accompanied by something of sufficient unpleasantness is an incentive to commit crime (Most abilities are probably more useful to the rehabilitater in the hands of paying noninnocents anyway).

If we are going to handle the prison system with rehabilitation in mind, I don't propose anything fundamental changes about it - sentences will mostly stay the same amount, and of course prisoners will be confined in prisons. However, how we handle them during incarceration can have a helpful affect - such as implementing certain programs, etc. Of course, it may be hard to find or create such programs (especially for those with big offenses), but ideally this would be more beneficial.

Why? Because for those who are released, if it has a positive effect on them then it would stop them from preventing crimes. After all, most prisoners who are released go back in a few years from committing another crime (in California, I think it's like 75% of released inmates return in only a few years).

What's so taboo about issues in metaphysics?
When it starts thinking about that sort of thing, there is the danger it can define as "Fraud" any disagreement from the official line. It's bad enough to have the danger of banning "Immoral" speech, but once you can't even disagree about nonmoral facts the question will be effectively irreversible in a mere matter of years (which makes it all the more tempting to be the politician who pulls it off). Science can quietly undermine legally enforced moral views, but when both are under the power of the law what is left?

What you are presenting to me sounds very far-fetched, do you propose a probable way this can happen? Also, why can the government makes presuppositions about moral facts but not about free will - because they both deal with meta issues, do they not? No area of discussion should be barred, nor should there be a reconsideration of implementing their truths.

Incidentally, if you believe that the lack of free will rules out moral responsibility in some important way, then how can you believe the government to be morally responsible to rehabilitate instead of punish?

I didn't - I find it more beneficial for society and indeed my personal interests. I don't want criminals on the street.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 8:36:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/6/2009 11:55:49 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
I have long thought that deterring crime is the best justification for punishing criminal adults in society.

In line with this I also have long thought that, in serious crimes, punishing the criminal, through bodily, I guess you might say, mutilation, in some way might be a good way of accomplishing this.

By your logic, death penalty states should be crime-free.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...