NationStates Jolt Archive

I was wondering what everyone on here thought about various prison systems. How do the prisons from where you're from work? Do you like it or dislike it? If you were in charge of the prisons, how would you punish inmates? What would you make them do/not do? Would you be harsh or lenient?

We shouldn't punish criminals. We should rehabilitate them. Seeing that we eventually have to release these pricks back upon society we might as well qualify them in some trade and teach them some valuable occupational skills. Prisons should be maximum security TAFE* colleges.

*TAFE is the name of Australia's nationwide network of vocational training institutions.

We shouldn't punish criminals. We should rehabilitate them. Seeing that we eventually have to release these pricks back upon society we might as well qualify them in some trade and teach them some valuable occupational skills. Prisons should be maximum security TAFE* colleges.

*TAFE is the name of Australia's nationwide network of vocational training institutions.

Yea, but what about those who can't rehabilitated?

Here's what you do for sex offenders and people who should get the death sentence but we don't kill people round here no more. Get a designer drug, there's another thread about a designer drug on the forum but that just jogged my memory. The drug doesn't do anything for you. No buzz at all. But you're instantly hooked. Then you go through a painful withdrawal over a two week period. Like having the worst flu ever with a migraine. Then you get another shot. Then withdrawal.

You could then bring it in as "hard time" which can be imposed by a judge. "Hard time" is a deterent. Two weeks of it would soften your cough. Two months of it could drive you mad. Two years is a death sentence.

bring back flogging and branding....we need to stop making it "cool" to be a criminal



I was wondering what everyone on here thought about various prison systems. How do the prisons from where you're from work? Do you like it or dislike it? If you were in charge of the prisons, how would you punish inmates? What would you make them do/not do? Would you be harsh or lenient?

Prison is a decent system, provided it is heavily scrutinized by the government to avoid any human rights abuses or corruption, but not be too coddling of the inmates.

Death Penalty...Some things do deserve the death penalty, but as justice systems are never perfect, we can rarely know for absolutely sure that someone is guilty (or innocent) , so I still have not made up my mind on the DP.

Some things are punished much too harshly, like some obscure bureaucratic law breaking that can even be accidental, others not enough, like certain hate crimes. Our system of ranking offenses could use some revising.

Or those that shouldn't be released back into society on account of their being too dangerous to risk being allowed to be around human beings ever again?

I'm all for rehabilitation efforts and restitutive justice over retributive justice, but one has to at least acknowledge what the prison system does; it isolates people who constitute a danger to society from society. It will be difficult to remove that feature from criminal justice short of brainwashing/reprogramming procedures.

NT

Oh boy...don't get me started...

Summary Offences (one time): community service, make ammends to victim (if there is one).
Summary Offences (multiple): community service, make ammends, attend weekly "Community Education" classes (meet in a group, like A.A, with a counsellor, to talk about emotional wellness, career planning, Canadian culture/history/politics) for a set period of time

Indictable Offences (if the offender is deemed fully sane by gov't psychologist): A stay at a rehabilitation centre, where offender will be helped in areas of emotional wellness, career planning, and gerneral education. In order to regain admittance into society, the offender must pass exams in basic reading, writing, math, and Canadian culture, as well as giving a presentation on life goals and plans after release.
Indictable Offences (if offender suffers from any mental illness or personality disorder that would impede his/her ability to be rehabilitated): kept in a "Secure Care Facility" untill death. Within the SCF, the patient would have access to medical care, basic food and entertainment, therapy, etc.

EDIT: As a footnote, Child Rapists would go automatically to the SCF.

I was wondering what everyone on here thought about various prison systems. How do the prisons from where you're from work? Do you like it or dislike it? If you were in charge of the prisons, how would you punish inmates? What would you make them do/not do? Would you be harsh or lenient?


Total reform is needed. Modern prisons are hellholes that no civilized people should ever support.

1. Prisons are there to reform and to retrain criminals. Every criminal should have a chance to be reformed. We should spend more money on these programs.

2. Prisons are not places of torture. We have no place allowing gang rape, prison murder, and other attrocities, which we allow to occur with a dismisal that "These are criminals, they deserve it".

3. We need to put money into retraining theives, conment, and other financial criminals to do jobs that will mean they no longer have to steal for a living.

4. Institute a three-strike policy for serious crimes. Once, you're in jail until you're reformed. Twice, you have an extended sentence for longer treatment. Thrice, and we move you into a place seperate from society for the rest of your life.

5. Put life prisoners into highly secure places which they cannot get out of and let them work out their own society within. The only other justifiable reason to hold people is for public safety, so we seperate them from us, and let them be.

Punishment is not the place of any government or personal group. Reform and public-protection are.

Total reform is needed. Modern prisons are hellholes that no civilized people should ever support.

1. Prisons are there to reform and to retrain criminals. Every criminal should have a chance to be reformed. We should spend more money on these programs.

2. Prisons are not places of torture. We have no place allowing gang rape, prison murder, and other attrocities, which we allow to occur with a dismisal that "These are criminals, they deserve it".

3. We need to put money into retraining theives, conment, and other financial criminals to do jobs that will mean they no longer have to steal for a living.

4. Institute a three-strike policy for serious crimes. Once, you're in jail until you're reformed. Twice, you have an extended sentence for longer treatment. Thrice, and we move you into a place seperate from society for the rest of your life.

5. Put life prisoners into highly secure places which they cannot get out of and let them work out their own society within. The only other justifiable reason to hold people is for public safety, so we seperate them from us, and let them be.

Punishment is not the place of any government or personal group. Reform and public-protection are.

Bravo! I agree (especially number two), and that was very well put.

My question is if we have prison systems that are rehabilitation centers, won't criminals want to commit crimes? Really, education, a place to say, food to eat, a doctor to hear you whine is a gift/reward. By doing a negative thing such as crime, then criminals are rewarded. Its contradictory and will lead to more crime.

My question is if we have prison systems that are rehabilitation centers, won't criminals want to commit crimes? Really, education, a place to say, food to eat, a doctor to hear you whine is a gift/reward. By doing a negative thing such as crime, then criminals are rewarded. Its contradictory and will lead to more crime.

Common arguement; totally false premise.

It is not pleasant to have to go through a reforming treatment. While it isn't as tortuous as gang-rape (what current prisons do), it is a difficult path and one that is unpleasant to walk (and even more unpleasant to resist walking, because these programs expose you to human suffering).

Our first goal is to prevent offense. We handle that through social programs. If that safety-net fails, we fall back to trying to treat those who were not held by the net, to prevent re-offense. If people are not eating well with welfare available, and resort to crime, then retraining them prevents them doing it again.

What leads to more crime is brutalizing criminals, holding them until they are half mad, and then releasing them un-reformed.

Besides which, where do you earn your right to punish? This isn't about punishment, this is about reforming people, and keeping the untreatable seperate from people they can harm. Because we are harming these people by seperating them from society, we must not turn it into a further torture.

bring back flogging and branding....we need to stop making it "cool" to be a criminal

I agree. Misdemeanors should get a flogging, lashes depend on the severity of the crime. Eleminate jail time for them.

Murder, any degree, automatic death penalty. Same for treason, rape, child molestation (3rd time) Kidnapping, attempted murder.....

I would make it seriously suck to be a criminal.

Common arguement; totally false premise.

It is not pleasant to have to go through a reforming treatment. While it isn't as tortuous as gang-rape (what current prisons do), it is a difficult path and one that is unpleasant to walk (and even more unpleasant to resist walking, because these programs expose you to human suffering).

Our first goal is to prevent offense. We handle that through social programs. If that safety-net fails, we fall back to trying to treat those who were not held by the net, to prevent re-offense. If people are not eating well with welfare available, and resort to crime, then retraining them prevents them doing it again.

Ever heard of the kid who sits in the back of the classroom dazing off. He/she is required to attend, yet they can still find ways to daze off and just slip by. I am pretty sure determined criminals could do that too.


What leads to more crime is brutalizing criminals, holding them until they are half mad, and then releasing them un-reformed.

Agreed.


Besides which, where do you earn your right to punish? This isn't about punishment, this is about reforming people, and keeping the untreatable seperate from people they can harm. Because we are harming these people by seperating them from society, we must not turn it into a further torture.

You earn the right to punish someone when they break an understood law that is held among the majority of the people. or a law that is understood by all.

I agree. Misdemeanors should get a flogging, lashes depend on the severity of the crime. Eleminate jail time for them.

Murder, any degree, automatic death penalty. Same for treason, rape, child molestation (3rd time) Kidnapping, attempted murder.....

I would make it seriously suck to be a criminal.

It already sucks to be a criminal, with the brutality and public humiliation that comes with a prison sentance. And yet, crime rates are increasing, not decreasing. Wonder what that says?

Ever heard of the kid who sits in the back of the classroom dazing off. He/she is required to attend, yet they can still find ways to daze off and just slip by. I am pretty sure determined criminals could do that too.



Agreed.



You earn the right to punish someone when they break an understood law that is held among the majority of the people. or a law that is understood by all.

The rehabilitation centre would have to be much more focussed than a public school. People fail in school because the system is crap and teachers are either too busy or too apathetic to care for each kid.
Nobody has the right to punish anyone. All humans are equal. Period. Nothing can change that, not even misguided behavior. The mountain of judgement is a very slippery slope.

Our prisons serve the following purposes: protection, rehabilitation and deterrent. A criminal must be protected form both their own criminal activity and committing further criminal activity against society. Whilst isolated form society, and understanding we have deprived another individual of their basic rights, we owe that individual a duty to ensure they leave their incarceration a better member of society then when they left it. Finally, we must deter individuals from committing similar offences, by sending a message of intolerance to their behaviour. Anything measure that accomplishes these goals may be supported, but anything above or outside of this scope, is unacceptable.

Ever heard of the kid who sits in the back of the classroom dazing off. He/she is required to attend, yet they can still find ways to daze off and just slip by. I am pretty sure determined criminals could do that too.

Why, except from necessity, would one choose to be a criminal? The only answer is mental illness (which needs to be treated, hence, reformation, not brutalization).

You earn the right to punish someone when they break an understood law that is held among the majority of the people. or a law that is understood by all.

Argument from social contract, or argument from superior force? The flaw in both is that they depend on "Revenge" principal. Any good religious man (which I am not), and most sane and healthy humans (which I beleive I am) reject revenge as a good motive. Revenge is an essentially evil motive. You harmed me so I harm you. It creates a malicious (wrong word, but i can't remember the right word) cycle in which violence dominates all. We can be justified in preventing more harm (once again, reforming and seperating, not punishing, because punishing does next to no good), but we can not be justified in revenge.

Yea, but what about those who can't rehabilitated?
Everyone can be rehabilitated. There is nothing permanent about the human mind. If someone is beyond rehabilitation, you don't want to rehabilitate them.

Everyone can be rehabilitated. There is nothing permanent about the human mind. If someone is beyond rehabilitation, you don't want to rehabilitate them.

I'm not sure I agree. I'm not a psychiatrist, so this purely guess work for me, but I would say that most people with personality disorders like Anti-Social disorder may be too far gone.

*snipped*
It creates a malicious (wrong word, but i can't remember the right word) cycle

Vicious Cycle.

Vicious Cycle.

Thanks.

The rehabilitation centre would have to be much more focussed than a public school. People fail in school because the system is crap and teachers are either too busy or too apathetic to care for each kid.
Nobody has the right to punish anyone. All humans are equal. Period. Nothing can change that, not even misguided behavior. The mountain of judgement is a very slippery slope.

So if parents were smart, they'd send their children to prison to get a good education rather than the public school system. What you said about humans being equal is incorrect. Someone humans are smarter than other humans. Is that equal? Some humans are richer than other humans. Is that equal? Some humans are nastier than other humans. Is that equal? Some humans disobey while others comply. Is that equal? Humans are humans. That's all that can be said, not humans are equal. Those that do wrong, face not a reward but a punishment.

Thanks.

You're quite welcome.

A public execution in the morning really gets the blood running. :) Good show too.

I'm not sure I agree. I'm not a psychiatrist, so this purely guess work for me, but I would say that most people with personality disorders like Anti-Social disorder may be too far gone.

The recidivism rate for pedophiles is, I believe, around 97%. I don't really think the remaining 3% are worth saving anyway. :sniper: = The world becoming a better place.

And if you're NEVER going to let people out of prison, what the hell is the point of keeping them alive? That's just a waste of money at that point. Spend the same money on the homeless people who would LOVE to have a doctor, and an education, and a place to stay where all their things won't get stolen between the time they leave and the time they come back. Or just spend it on the crazy homeless people who could clearly use professional help and/or good drugs.

So if parents were smart, they'd send their children to prison to get a good education rather than the public school system. What you said about humans being equal is incorrect. Someone humans are smarter than other humans. Is that equal? Some humans are richer than other humans. Is that equal? Some humans are nastier than other humans. Is that equal? Some humans disobey while others comply. Is that equal? Humans are humans. That's all that can be said, not humans are equal. Those that do wrong, face not a reward but a punishment.

Hey, I'm for reforming the education system, too. There is no reason why it should be in the state that it is. And if you want to be nitpicky, the word I meant is Equivelency. You know, everyone has different strenghts and weaknesses, but they all have the same worth? Like how 1/2 isn't really equal to 2/4, but they have the same value?

So if parents were smart, they'd send their children to prison to get a good education rather than the public school system. What you said about humans being equal is incorrect. Someone humans are smarter than other humans. Is that equal? Some humans are richer than other humans. Is that equal? Some humans are nastier than other humans. Is that equal? Some humans disobey while others comply. Is that equal? Humans are humans. That's all that can be said, not humans are equal. Those that do wrong, face not a reward but a punishment.

I've already adressed the issue of "Punishment". It is not an effective deterrant, and it is in no way ethically justified. Just because someone else has abandoned ethics does not mean you are justified in doing so.

Argument from social contract, or argument from superior force? The flaw in both is that they depend on "Revenge" principal. Any good religious man (which I am not), and most sane and healthy humans (which I beleive I am) reject revenge as a good motive. Revenge is an essentially evil motive. You harmed me so I harm you. It creates a malicious (wrong word, but i can't remember the right word) cycle in which violence dominates all. We can be justified in preventing more harm (once again, reforming and seperating, not punishing, because punishing does next to no good), but we can not be justified in revenge.

Punishment is different than revenge. You're confusing the two.

Maybe you're not. Maybe you're arguing that cause doesn't have an effect. That cause is neither good nor bad and doesn't even matter.

Anyways, who ever said the thing about criminals having to choose to be criminals out of need. Ha. So they don't have the ability to choose? To direct their life to something better? They are a slave to the system?

I'm not sure I agree. I'm not a psychiatrist, so this purely guess work for me, but I would say that most people with personality disorders like Anti-Social disorder may be too far gone.
It is beyond *conventional* treatment. These guys are criminals though. If a patient doesnt respond to conventional therapy, then we bust out with some of the more CIA-esque tactics. Beleive me, psychological reconditioning works, it is just considered inhumane. Take brainwashing. Place person x in solitary confinement with rationed human interaction based upon their beleif in ideal x. No compliance no interaction. Then increase the period between interaction after some time of compliance. In tuirn they should increase the intensity of their beleif. Eventually beleif in ideal x permeates to the subconciousness of individual x, and when eventually released they will automatically adhere to ideal x. That's one of the nicer ones...

The recidivism rate for pedophiles is, I believe, around 97%. I don't really think the remaining 3% are worth saving anyway. :sniper: = The world becoming a better place.

And if you're NEVER going to let people out of prison, what the hell is the point of keeping them alive? That's just a waste of money at that point. Spend the same money on the homeless people who would LOVE to have a doctor, and an education, and a place to stay where all their things won't get stolen between the time they leave and the time they come back. Or just spend it on the crazy homeless people who could clearly use professional help and/or good drugs.

In my original post, I suggested that pedophiles would be sent automatically to the permanent care facility, so I'm in agreement with you there.
The main point of keeping people in a facility for the rest of their lives is this: we do not have the right to decide who gets to live and die. We're all people, we're all the same. Nobody should be allowed to stand up on that high horse and say "You're worthless, so you die!" It's arrogant and it's foolish.

Hey, I'm for reforming the education system, too. There is no reason why it should be in the state that it is. And if you want to be nitpicky, the word I meant is Equivelency. You know, everyone has different strenghts and weaknesses, but they all have the same worth? Like how 1/2 isn't really equal to 2/4, but they have the same value?

Gotcha.

But that doesn't prevent us from punishing people. Punishment isn't meant to rid someone of their worth, it's meant to give an effect to a cause.

In my original post, I suggested that pedophiles would be sent automatically to the permanent care facility, so I'm in agreement with you there.
The main point of keeping people in a facility for the rest of their lives is this: we do not have the right to decide who gets to live and die. We're all people, we're all the same. Nobody should be allowed to stand up on that high horse and say "You're worthless, so you die!" It's arrogant and it's foolish.


If we were all the same, we wouldn't need prisons, as no one would go against the rule of what is socially/legally acceptable. And if your 8 year old child was raped, brutalized, and/or murdered, do you really think you should warehouse the perpetrator and allow him to live in a gilded cage for the rest of his natural life? I didn't say said perpetrator was worthless, I said there was only a 3% chance of rehabilitation. Sorry, but I'd be extra pissed if my child was #2 on some guy's list because he escaped just long enough one day. Throwing good money after bad is the epitome of foolishness.

Punishment is different than revenge. You're confusing the two.

Maybe you're not. Maybe you're arguing that cause doesn't have an effect. That cause is neither good nor bad and doesn't even matter.

Anyways, who ever said the thing about criminals having to choose to be criminals out of need. Ha. So they don't have the ability to choose? To direct their life to something better? They are a slave to the system?

Cause and effect does not apply when a person chooses the effect. If your choice for the effect is unjustified revenge (which is what punishment is), it is unjustifiable revenge.

Petty criminals, many gangsters, and most theives, occupy their position out of a desire to gain financial comfort. By offering them fulfilling jobs and real pay, many can be kept from reoffending.

Most violent criminals either have out of control tempers (something that psychologists can fix, with work), or are mentaly ill (something that a psychologist, MAY be able to treat)

Gotcha.

But that doesn't prevent us from punishing people. Punishment isn't meant to rid someone of their worth, it's meant to give an effect to a cause.

Punishment is still creating a God complex. It's people saying that their morals are some how more correct than the morals of others. Guess what? Morals are subjective! Therefore, we have no right as humans to tell anyone that he/she is being "immoral," and therefore deserves punishment.

Throwing good money after bad is the epitome of foolishness.

Agreed.

If we were all the same, we wouldn't need prisons, as no one would go against the rule of what is socially/legally acceptable. And if your 8 year old child was raped, brutalized, and/or murdered, do you really think you should warehouse the perpetrator and allow him to live in a gilded cage for the rest of his natural life? I didn't say said perpetrator was worthless, I said there was only a 3% chance of rehabilitation. Sorry, but I'd be extra pissed if my child was #2 on some guy's list because he escaped just long enough one day. Throwing good money after bad is the epitome of foolishness.

Let me ask you this: what gives you the right to decide who is good and who is bad? Do you really think that you're so much better than everyone else that you can make a descision so monumental?

Punishment is still creating a God complex. It's people saying that their morals are some how more correct than the morals of others. Guess what? Morals are objective! Therefore, we have no right as humans to tell anyone that he/she is being "immoral," and therefore deserves punishment.

I believe what you meant was "SUBjective" ;)

Punishment is still creating a God complex. It's people saying that their morals are some how more correct than the morals of others. Guess what? Morals are objective! Therefore, we have no right as humans to tell anyone that he/she is being "immoral," and therefore deserves punishment.


Wait wait.. did you mean to say morals are subjective? Cuz I am confused.

Punishment is still creating a God complex. It's people saying that their morals are some how more correct than the morals of others. Guess what? Morals are objective! Therefore, we have no right as humans to tell anyone that he/she is being "immoral," and therefore deserves punishment.
Hmmm, so a human being who decides to impose his will on others by depriving them of their production and livelihood (theft), taking their life (murder), having sex with them despite their consent (rape) and so on should not be punished simply to safeguard their freedom? I disagree. Actions bear consequences. "An it harm none, do as ye will". From that point and on though, other factors enter play.

I believe what you meant was "SUBjective" ;)

Yeah, sorry...shouldn't type at 12am.

Hmmm, so a human being who decides to impose his will on others by depriving them of their production and livelihood (theft), taking their life (murder), having sex with them despite their consent (rape) and so on should not be punished simply to safeguard their freedom? I disagree. Actions bear consequences. "An it harm none, do as ye will". From that point and on though, other factors enter play.

In kindergarten, I was taught that two wrongs don't make a right. Maybe you went to a drastically different school than I, but when Billy hit me, and I hit Billy, both Billy and I were in the wrong.

If you prefer the religious argument "Turn the other cheek" means that you do not seek revenge (which is the root of punishment), but may seek to prevent reoccurance.

Wait wait.. did you mean to say morals are subjective? Cuz I am confused.

Yeah, and it's fixed now.

Hmmm, so a human being who decides to impose his will on others by depriving them of their production and livelihood (theft), taking their life (murder), having sex with them despite their consent (rape) and so on should not be punished simply to safeguard their freedom? I disagree. Actions bear consequences. "An it harm none, do as ye will". From that point and on though, other factors enter play.

But who gets to decide the consequence?

Let me ask you this: what gives you the right to decide who is good and who is bad? Do you really think that you're so much better than everyone else that you can make a descision so monumental?

In some cases, it's not a decision as to who is good and who is bad, but rationality. It is not RATIONAL to continue to spend money on people who cannot be saved and cannot be released without recurring felonious harm to society. So then, why should society bear the burden of maintaining that which it has no use for? Do you let the serial killer go because "hey, he killed x number of people, but he's got it out of his system now"? Are you then surprised when he goes and kills more people? Are you shocked and appalled that your niece was sexually assaulted by the neighbor who just moved in because he's a sexual predator with 3 prior convictions for the same offense?

Why should those who follow the rules, and do not infringe on the rights of others have to support those who have NO respect for rules?

And no, just because some guy robbed a store, or 3, or 8, I don't believe we should stand him up behind the courthouse and shoot him. But if he habitually murders the store-owners along the way, I'll be damned if I'm paying to support him AND myself for as long as we both shall live. I'm not married to the scumbag, why should I be financially obligated to him?

In kindergarten, I was taught that two wrongs don't make a right. Maybe you went to a drastically different school than I, but when Billy hit me, and I hit Billy, both Billy and I were in the wrong.

If you prefer the religious argument "Turn the other cheek" means that you do not seek revenge (which is the root of punishment), but may seek to prevent reoccurance.
I am hardly arguing two rights make a wrong. I am arguing that certain actions bear consequences which one must face. You have no need to murder someone. It is not within your rights vis-a-vis others as it is a deprivation of their freedoms. In order to safeguard others of your actions, you must be limited somehow. Now, I am all for rehabilitation if it works in place of punishment, so long as it is economically and teleologically efficient. Otherwise, no.

Yeah, and it's fixed now.


I am glad you just said that. Argument number one in the handbook for objective morality.


"Morals are relative." Oh really? Then why did you just make an objective statement about a universe that is relative?

Well considering society doesn't exist without laws/rules..
Yes.

Make em watch the last episode of Will & Grace for days straight!

I am glad you just said that. Argument number one in the handbook for objective morality.


"Morals are relative." Oh really? Then why did you just make an objective statement about a universe that is relative?

Morals are subjective. How do we know? Because everyone has a different idea of them. Different cultures and religions have different codes. Perhaps there is an ultimate God with the ultimate rule book. However, while we're on earth, we have no way of knowing who is correct about morals. Therefore we must assume that morals are subjective.

Rule number one in the handbook for debates: One only turns to nitpicking when one is trully desperate.

In kindergarten, I was taught that two wrongs don't make a right. Maybe you went to a drastically different school than I, but when Billy hit me, and I hit Billy, both Billy and I were in the wrong.

If you prefer the religious argument "Turn the other cheek" means that you do not seek revenge (which is the root of punishment), but may seek to prevent reoccurance.

If you want to bring religion into it (mildly, and of a Christian flavor), didn't God drown all but a VERY select few in the Old Testament out of pique at what the world was devolving into? Sounds like punishment to me. . .

FYI, preventing reoccurrence is usually done by means of punishment (I GUARANTEE you, sitting in the psych doc's office listening to them drone on and answering inane questions is punishment). Revenge would be you slapping them back (or, if you want to make a real point about it, pounding them bloody)

Morals are subjective. How do we know? Because everyone has a different idea of them. Different cultures and religions have different codes. Perhaps there is an ultimate God with the ultimate rule book. However, while we're on earth, we have no way of knowing who is correct about morals. Therefore we must assume that morals are subjective.

Rule number one in the handbook for debates: One only turns to nitpicking when one is trully desperate.

I am not desperate... and you turned to insinuating that the other person is incompetent at arguing... rule number two in the handbook for debates: make fun of the other guy when he makes a point

Anyways, it's not nitpicky. It's that you're contradicting yourself. You say that nothing can be certain, it changes from culture to culture. Yet you are absolutely, positively, 100% sure that things are relative and will change. So you objectively believe that things are relative. Does that make sense to you?

In some cases, it's not a decision as to who is good and who is bad, but rationality. It is not RATIONAL to continue to spend money on people who cannot be saved and cannot be released without recurring felonious harm to society. So then, why should society bear the burden of maintaining that which it has no use for? Do you let the serial killer go because "hey, he killed x number of people, but he's got it out of his system now"? Are you then surprised when he goes and kills more people? Are you shocked and appalled that your niece was sexually assaulted by the neighbor who just moved in because he's a sexual predator with 3 prior convictions for the same offense?

Why should those who follow the rules, and do not infringe on the rights of others have to support those who have NO respect for rules?

And no, just because some guy robbed a store, or 3, or 8, I don't believe we should stand him up behind the courthouse and shoot him. But if he habitually murders the store-owners along the way, I'll be damned if I'm paying to support him AND myself for as long as we both shall live. I'm not married to the scumbag, why should I be financially obligated to him?

Sometimes what's right isn't what is practical. And, if you paid any attention whatsoever to my statements, you would know that it's my belief that serial killers and child molesters should be locked up permanently, not released back into society. Now, that's not as cheap as rounding up all the bad guys and knocking 'em off, but it's safer, as it's not absolute.

I am not desperate... and you turned to insinuating that the only person is incompetent at arguing... rule number two in the handbook for debates: make fun of the other guy when he makes a point

Anyways, it's not nitpicky. It's that you're contradicting yourself. You say that nothing can be certain, it changes from culture to culture. Yet you are absolutely, positively, 100% sure that things are relative and will change. So you objectively believe that things are relative. Does that make sense to you?

I wasn't making fun of you; I was questioning your arguement. I'm absolutely certain that things change from culture to culture, because there is proof that things change from culture to culture. Are the bible and the Qa'ran identical? Do all countries have the same laws? I think not.

prision should be about the following things

1) rehabilitation
2) prevention
3) deterance
(I think there was another one but I forgot it)

and NOT about revenge or punishment

You should all you can to rehabilitate anyone who can be rehabilitated - when they are rehabilitated they should be set free (although there might be some further sanction relating to deterance - possible community service or fines etc)
if they cannot be rehabilitated :gundge: there are two options
1) the civil rights version - perminant detention for hte rest of their lives
2) the efficient method - do whatever is required to make them no longer a danger. For example a rapist might be castrated a murderer might be faced with a number of options (use your imagination) that would reduce his ability to murder to a minimal level.

I like the latter - just as long as you can trust the government - (yes I do propose myself).:D

If you want to bring religion into it (mildly, and of a Christian flavor), didn't God drown all but a VERY select few in the Old Testament out of pique at what the world was devolving into? Sounds like punishment to me. . .

FYI, preventing reoccurrence is usually done by means of punishment (I GUARANTEE you, sitting in the psych doc's office listening to them drone on and answering inane questions is punishment). Revenge would be you slapping them back (or, if you want to make a real point about it, pounding them bloody)

If you want to bring religion in to it, shouldn't you believe that only God has a right to make that descision?

Here's what you do for sex offenders and people who should get the death sentence but we don't kill people round here no more. Get a designer drug, there's another thread about a designer drug on the forum but that just jogged my memory. The drug doesn't do anything for you. No buzz at all. But you're instantly hooked. Then you go through a painful withdrawal over a two week period. Like having the worst flu ever with a migraine. Then you get another shot. Then withdrawal.

You could then bring it in as "hard time" which can be imposed by a judge. "Hard time" is a deterent. Two weeks of it would soften your cough. Two months of it could drive you mad. Two years is a death sentence.

I think sex offenders (other than minor sex offenses such as public nudity, statutory rape between like a 17 year old and 18 year old, etc) should just die. But, I also thought it'd be pretty funny to like say, make a "ring" type thing to go around their balls that was impossible to get off (and if they did try to remove it, it'd blow their nuts and dick clean off) that say, provided a random high voltage electric shock, and they have to keep it on them the rest of their lives. So it'll be like 3:42 in the morning and they're snoozin....BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! for like 3 minutes straight. :eek: :)

I wasn't making fun of you; I was questioning your arguement. I'm absolutely certain that things change from culture to culture, because there is proof that things change from culture to culture. Are the bible and the Qa'ran identical? Do all countries have the same laws? I think not.

And you don't see the contradiction in what you said?

For me it depends on the crime they commited, but all prisoners would lose all but the basic human rights ie:they would retain the rights to be treated fairly and given food and drink.No TV's or radio in the cell etc.

1:Minor crimes ie:fraud/minor burglary/traffic law braking etc would be punished by a short term in prison of around 1 month so they realise what they can miss on the 'outside'.Then if they have no education and/or trade or qualifications in any thing give them the education.

2:Intermediate crimes:assault/burglary etc, up to 3 years in prison and the same as number 1.

3:Major crimes(murder/rape/peadophilia):would be automatic life if preempted with no chance of parole as imo, these are not the crimes of a normal sane person.Peadophilia/serial rape/serial murder is not a disease, its a desire and can not be 'cured'.But even if the suspect has commited 1 of these crime a single time they would be treated the same as a serial, as if you can do any of those to a person then you do not deserve freedom.

And you don't see the contradiction in what you said?

No. There is proof that different cultures have different values; there is not proof that one set of values is absolutely correct. I've boiled it down to it's most simple form, and I still don't see the problem.

If you want to bring religion into it (mildly, and of a Christian flavor), didn't God drown all but a VERY select few in the Old Testament out of pique at what the world was devolving into? Sounds like punishment to me. . .

FYI, preventing reoccurrence is usually done by means of punishment (I GUARANTEE you, sitting in the psych doc's office listening to them drone on and answering inane questions is punishment). Revenge would be you slapping them back (or, if you want to make a real point about it, pounding them bloody)

I don't follow a religion of any kind, so I don't know. But, the Christian god is supposed to be "perfect" and therefore incapable of judging wrongly. In that regard, it may punish, because unlike people it is perfect.

Revenge is doing harm to someone because they did harm to you. Revenge is exactly the "actions have consequences" mindset. It is not revenge to strive to prevent reoccurance, but it is revenge to harm in the name of "punishment".

Sometimes what's right isn't what is practical. And, if you paid any attention whatsoever to my statements, you would know that it's my belief that serial killers and child molesters should be locked up permanently, not released back into society. Now, that's not as cheap as rounding up all the bad guys and knocking 'em off, but it's safer, as it's not absolute.

You are arguing for the safety of the individual person, whereas I am arguing the safety and maximum benefit of society as a whole. People who have proven repeatedly that they have no redeeming social value (as judged by the decision to lock them away permanently) should not therefore be allowed to impose an undue socioeconomic burden on society at large. You are punishing the rest of society for that one individual (or group of individuals) defects. In essence, in your world view, it is better to be the criminal, as you are relieved of all responsibility to the world at large, and futhermore, said world REWARDS you by taking care of all your lifelong needs until you expire naturally. The people in the rest of your society only dream of being work free with all their bills/food/housing/medical needs paid for for life. Not right.

And if punishment is what you're after, what better way to guarantee they'll never do it again than to shoot them (n.b. revenge, on the other hand, would be to let their victims, or the families of their victims, in their prison cell for 2 hours every day with the torture implements of their choice).

Revenge is doing harm to someone because they did harm to you. Revenge is exactly the "actions have consequences" mindset. It is not revenge to strive to prevent reoccurance, but it is revenge to harm in the name of "punishment".

See my example of the difference between punishment and revenge above.

See my example of the difference between punishment and revenge below.

Both are revenge. Both stem from the same logic. "You harmed someone, so I shall harm you".

Both are revenge. Both stem from the same logic. "You harmed someone, so I shall harm you".

They stem from the same logic, but they have both different meanings and different results (otherwise they would be synonyms, and they're not :cool: ).

No. There is proof that different cultures have different values; there is not proof that one set of values is absolutely correct. I've boiled it down to it's most simple form, and I still don't see the problem.

The problem is you just said everything is relative. How can you be stating something that is suppose to stand from culture to culture *that things change* when there is no means of it? It has nothing to do with what you're arguing .. it has everything to do with what you just said.

*snip*
I am of same opinion as you. I do not believe in rewarding the perpetrator, nor punishing him. Just safeguarding the economic (and social) welfare of the society at large whose safety is at threat by disruptive individuals. Punishment should ultimately be preventative in scope, rather than vindictive.

You are arguing for the safety of the individual person, whereas I am arguing the safety and maximum benefit of society as a whole. People who have proven repeatedly that they have no redeeming social value (as judged by the decision to lock them away permanently) should not therefore be allowed to impose an undue socioeconomic burden on society at large. You are punishing the rest of society for that one individual (or group of individuals) defects. In essence, in your world view, it is better to be the criminal, as you are relieved of all responsibility to the world at large, and futhermore, said world REWARDS you by taking care of all your lifelong needs until you expire naturally. The people in the rest of your society only dream of being work free with all their bills/food/housing/medical needs paid for for life. Not right.

And if punishment is what you're after, what better way to guarantee they'll never do it again than to shoot them (n.b. revenge, on the other hand, would be to let their victims, or the families of their victims, in their prison cell for 2 hours every day with the torture implements of their choice).

How is society any more safe with a guy dead than a guy locked up? And don't you pull the expense card. Conventional prisons are expensive as it is, and crime rates are going up. A proper system of rehabilitation would lower crime rates, and therefore would be end up being cheaper, even with permanent facilities for the most extreme of crimes. Besides, if you really care about the whereabouts of your tax dollar, you've got bigger fish to fry. Try the military to start with, and then perhaps you can investigate why the more money gets poured into the education system, the worse it gets.
If you disagree with the idea of offenders getting a free stay, then they can perform community service from within their cells. It's already done in alot of places.
In, fyi, I'm not looking for punishment, as I don't believe in it.

Punishment should ultimately be preventative in scope, rather than vindictive.

And THAT, Kinda Sensible (lol), is the difference between punishment and revenge. It can be stated no plainer, and if you still don't get it, might I suggest www.m-w.com . Dictionary definitions can be MOST useful in any debate.

In, fyi, I'm not looking for punishment, as I don't believe in it.

Wouldn't you say rehabilitation is a form of punishment? If you don't believe in punishment, why give people anything that remotely resembles a slap on the wrist. Give them ice cream and sugar after they commit a rape and tell them to go about their business. Live and let live.

The problem is you just said everything is relative. How can you be stating something that is suppose to stand from culture to culture *that things change* when there is no means of it? It has nothing to do with what you're arguing .. it has everything to do with what you just said.

I'm sorry, but I've officially stopped understanding what you're point is. If it pertains to the general point of this argument, then please try to rephrase it in a sensical and clear way. If it doesn't, I don't reallly give a damn. If you had actual proof if objective morality, perhaps we could deal with that. But evidently you do, as you're resorting to complex and questionable "logic".

Wouldn't you say rehabilitation is a form of punishment? If you don't believe in punishment, why give people anything that remotely resembles a slap on the wrist. Give them ice cream and sugar after they commit a rape and tell them to go about their business. Live and let live.

It's not a form of punishment, but it's not a reward either. It's helping people get back on track with society.

I'm sorry, but I've officially stopped understanding what you're point is. If it pertains to the general point of this argument, then please try to rephrase it in a sensical and clear way. If it doesn't, I don't reallly give a damn. If you had actual proof if objective morality, perhaps we could deal with that. But evidently you do, as you're resorting to complex and questionable "logic".

That's fine. I tried explaining it many different ways. You don't seem to catch on. Another day maybe.

It's not a form of punishment, but it's not a reward either. It's helping people get back on track with society.
If this indeed prevents actual crime rates, and costs less than punishment on the whole, then I am all for it. Otherwise, no. If punishment is still cheaper, being minarchist, I refuse to give my money for a more expensive solution the need of which results from the actions of some deviants. Economic efficiency is key to me. Thus, rehabilitation must, as I said, be both economically and teleologically wholly efficient.

It's not a form of punishment, but it's not a reward either. It's helping people get back on track with society.

Well using the common logic around here.. who is to say that society's ways are the right track. Maybe the rapist has got it down and is headed the right way. Maybe society is wrong. Wouldn't it be a punishment to try and correct what the rapist sees as right? Rehabilitation is a punishment in the rapists' eyes. So we can't do it.

How is society any more safe with a guy dead than a guy locked up? And don't you pull the expense card. Conventional prisons are expensive as it is, and crime rates are going up. A proper system of rehabilitation would lower crime rates, and therefore would be end up being cheaper, even with permanent facilities for the most extreme of crimes. Besides, if you really care about the whereabouts of your tax dollar, you've got bigger fish to fry. Try the military to start with, and then perhaps you can investigate why the more money gets poured into the education system, the worse it gets.
If you disagree with the idea of offenders getting a free stay, then they can perform community service from within their cells. It's already done in alot of places.
In, fyi, I'm not looking for punishment, as I don't believe in it.


More safe, because there is 0% chance of escape/evasion from the cemetary. Crime rates are going up partially because (at least in the US), we criminalize more things in an attempt to persecute portions of society (think the whole war on drugs for starters). The actual definition of a felony, vs. the court's defintion these days is VASTLY different (and we will not get into the discussion of why that is so, that would be a whole other thread). And, I don't know about you, but I like being the biggest kid on the block, militarily speaking. They knocked down some towers in ONE city, we bombed a whole COUNTRY to dust in retaliation <- I think my money was well spent on that one (subsequent policies/actions will ALSO not be discussed here, again, another thread). The education system is obviously mismanaged, and instead of community service within jail cells, how about we employ some people to do those things instead of supporting the deadbeats who are only going to wear out clothes and die because they can't be trusted to play nice any other way. Better for the economy.

FYI, you do realize that whole quote is a specious attempt at misdirection, as we were talking about crime, punishment, and revenge, and how my tax dollars go to work in other aspects of the world are totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand, right? :D

But never let it be said that I'm not a good sport.

I think sex offenders (other than minor sex offenses such as public nudity, statutory rape between like a 17 year old and 18 year old, etc) should just die. But, I also thought it'd be pretty funny to like say, make a "ring" type thing to go around their balls that was impossible to get off (and if they did try to remove it, it'd blow their nuts and dick clean off) that say, provided a random high voltage electric shock, and they have to keep it on them the rest of their lives. So it'll be like 3:42 in the morning and they're snoozin....BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! for like 3 minutes straight. :eek: :)

OK mine was cruel, that's definitely unusual.

no offense meant to anyone but those who could look at a fellow human and take pleasure in their suffering (even if they are criminals) are the very people I would be concerned needed rehabilitation… I guess others might think the same of me of course.

"it is better to be the criminal"

Not really if you have to be rehabilitated. Besides - we are all "sinners" so you can’t just write off the rights of sinners or you write off all of our rights.

no offense meant to anyone but those who could look at a fellow human and take pleasure in their suffering (even if they are criminals) are the very people I would be concerned needed rehabilitation… I guess others might think the same of me of course.

"it is better to be the criminal"

Not really if you have to be rehabilitated. Besides - we are all "sinners" so you can’t just write off the rights of sinners or you write off all of our rights.

Very simply stated. But I like it.

Besides - we are all "sinners" so you can’t just write off the rights of sinners or you write off all of our rights. I like your standards

If you want to bring religion in to it, shouldn't you believe that only God has a right to make that descision?

I did not want to bring religion into it, but someone mentioned the "turn the other cheek" argument, hence my statement. Just noticed that one, sry.

More safe, because there is 0% chance of escape/evasion from the cemetary. Crime rates are going up partially because (at least in the US), we criminalize more things in an attempt to persecute portions of society (think the whole war on drugs for starters). The actual definition of a felony, vs. the court's defintion these days is VASTLY different (and we will not get into the discussion of why that is so, that would be a whole other thread). And, I don't know about you, but I like being the biggest kid on the block, militarily speaking. They knocked down some towers in ONE city, we bombed a whole COUNTRY to dust in retaliation <- I think my money was well spent on that one (subsequent policies/actions will ALSO not be discussed here, again, another thread). The education system is obviously mismanaged, and instead of community service within jail cells, how about we employ some people to do those things instead of supporting the deadbeats who are only going to wear out clothes and die because they can't be trusted to play nice any other way. Better for the economy.

FYI, you do realize that whole quote is a specious attempt at misdirection, as we were talking about crime, punishment, and revenge, and how my tax dollars go to work in other aspects of the world are totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand, right? :D

But never let it be said that I'm not a good sport.


In the same sense, it's less safe, because we're not 100% sure of what is right and wrong. Let's say that there is an objective moral book, and we get to see it after we die. Wouldn't you feel awfully guilty if you condoned the death of a criminally, only to discover that his behavior was actually accepted by the moral rule book.
There are two possible cases:
1) that there is an objective moral code, but we do not absolutely know what is in it, and therefore it would be risky to assume we did, OR
2) Morals are subjective, and we therefore have no way of knowing whether or not a person is "good" enough to live

In the same sense, it's less safe, because we're not 100% sure of what is right and wrong. Let's say that there is an objective moral book, and we get to see it after we die. Wouldn't you feel awfully guilty if you condoned the death of a criminally, only to discover that his behavior was actually accepted by the moral rule book.
There are two possible cases:
1) that there is an objective moral code, but we do not absolutely know what is in it, and therefore it would be risky to assume we did, OR
2) Morals are subjective, and we therefore have no way of knowing whether or not a person is "good" enough to live
3) that there is an objective moral code that isn't explicitly stated to our faces, but is understood by most human beings in a very basic sense.. given that its understood by most *sane* people, we can try and guess at which is likely the truth.

Very simply stated. But I like it.

Besides - we are all "sinners" so you can’t just write off the rights of sinners or you write off all of our rights. I like your standards


I'm still trying to edge away from the whole religion thing, but just because it's a sin, doesn't mean it's necessarily criminal in the legal sense, and thus deserving of punishment on the earthly plane. And just to clarify, I at no time advocated the treatment of all criminals in the same fashion. My argument is, and has consistently been, in regards to a subsection of criminals incapable of rehabilitation, who at the same time pose a severe, felonious (in the dictionary sense of the word) danger to society.

3) that there is an objective moral code that isn't explicitly stated to our faces, but is understood by most human beings in a very basic sense.. given that its understood by most *sane* people, we can try and guess at which is likely the truth.

If most humans understand it, why do cultures disagree about what is right?

I'm still trying to edge away from the whole religion thing, but just because it's a sin, doesn't mean it's necessarily criminal in the legal sense, and thus deserving of punishment on the earthly plane. And just to clarify, I at no time advocated the treatment of all criminals in the same fashion. My argument is, and has consistently been, in regards to a subsection of criminals incapable of rehabilitation, who at the same time pose a severe, felonious (in the dictionary sense of the word) danger to society.
A very sensible approach in my view. To believe that all are capable of being rehabilitated is an exercise not only in futility, but naivety too.

If most humans understand it, why do cultures disagree about what is right?

Now I might be stealing from C.S. Lewis here... but most cultures don't vastly disagree about stuff.. such as not turning your back on a friend and that stuff.. when it comes to how many wives you can have.. well that's debated, but in general, most cultures function under basically the same rules.

A very sensible approach in my view. To believe that all are capable of being rehabilitated is an exercise not only in futility, but naivety too.

Who on this thread is advocating the rehabilitation of all criminals?

no offense meant to anyone but those who could look at a fellow human and take pleasure in their suffering (even if they are criminals) are the very people I would be concerned needed rehabilitation… I guess others might think the same of me of course.

"it is better to be the criminal"

Not really if you have to be rehabilitated. Besides - we are all "sinners" so you can’t just write off the rights of sinners or you write off all of our rights.

Well some of the sinners out there rape and beat pensioners for fun and profit. Some of the sinners are child rapists who see nothing in their behaviour that needs changing. Some of the sinners are bad motherfuckers with really unsavoury habits and jolly bad tablemanners.

If people will not respond to reason and their behaviour is of a depraved nature aversion therapy might do the job.

In the same sense, it's less safe, because we're not 100% sure of what is right and wrong. Let's say that there is an objective moral book, and we get to see it after we die. Wouldn't you feel awfully guilty if you condoned the death of a criminally, only to discover that his behavior was actually accepted by the moral rule book.
There are two possible cases:
1) that there is an objective moral code, but we do not absolutely know what is in it, and therefore it would be risky to assume we did, OR
2) Morals are subjective, and we therefore have no way of knowing whether or not a person is "good" enough to live


I am not, and have not, engaged in this discussion from a moral viewpoint. Debating morals is rather inane, as it varies from society to society. However, repeated, felonious action against innocent members of society is unacceptable if one wishes to have a society where the vast majority can co-exist. And no, I wouldn't feel guilty about that criminal who's action was ok by the moral rule book, if I (a group of his peers, substitute what you like for the deciding body - just not God) determined he had to go, and in the great cosmic scheme of things, him molesting 12 year old girls got him into the VIP section of heaven. I'd be demanding to speak to the manager, and finding out what I could do to get the rules changed.

Edited to add: I might not have a way of knowing whether or not a person is good enough to live, but I can define pretty clearly whether they're good enough to live in the same sphere as myself. I'd be more than happy to drop off all the homicidal pedophiliac crazy people on their own little islands with no support or food, to let them live as the noble savage, or whatever tickles your fancy - except that I'm not paying to have them flown there, and they probably wouldn't survive alternative methods of transportation.

Who on this thread is advocating the rehabilitation of all criminals?
Hmm...people that say they don't believe in punishment at all, perhaps? If they cannot be rehabilitated, then what would be done with them?

Now I might be stealing from C.S. Lewis here... but most cultures don't vastly disagree about stuff.. such as not turning your back on a friend and that stuff.. when it comes to how many wives you can have.. well that's debated, but in general, most cultures function under basically the same rules.

In Islam, it's a sin for a woman not to dress modestly. However, there are colonies of people who advocate nudity. Prohibitionists don't believe in alcohol, and yet many people love to drink. Charleton Heston and his groupies believe firmly in rifles, and yet groups of people oppose their existence. How do we know who is right?

Hmm...people that say they don't believe in punishment at all, perhaps? If they cannot be rehabilitated, then what would be done with them?

Every advocate of rehabilitation has suggested some type of holding cell where offenders could function properly, without being able to endanger society.

Every advocate of rehabilitation has suggested some type of holding cell where offenders could function properly, without being able to endanger society.
Meaning incarceration, no? Detainment is a form of punishment, is it not?

And no, I wouldn't feel guilty about that criminal who's action was ok by the moral rule book,

Why is the rapist inherently wrong?

I am not, and have not, engaged in this discussion from a moral viewpoint. Debating morals is rather inane, as it varies from society to society. However, repeated, felonious action against innocent members of society is unacceptable if one wishes to have a society where the vast majority can co-exist. And no, I wouldn't feel guilty about that criminal who's action was ok by the moral rule book, if I (a group of his peers, substitute what you like for the deciding body - just not God) determined he had to go, and in the great cosmic scheme of things, him molesting 12 year old girls got him into the VIP section of heaven. I'd be demanding to speak to the manager, and finding out what I could do to get the rules changed.

To adress the first point of yours, the second you started mentioning making a judgement on whether or not a person should live, you were pulling morals in. You think the criminal is morally wrong, so you, as the morally correct one, get to pull the plug.

To adress the second part, you'd be wrong, and he'd be right. So you'd be the one deserving the death penalty. Everyone up in heavan would look at you in the same way as you look at a child molester. You could fight forever, but objective things don't change, so it wouldn't make a difference.

In Islam, it's a sin for a woman not to dress modestly. However, there are colonies of people who advocate nudity. Prohibitionists don't believe in alcohol, and yet many people love to drink. Charleton Heston and his groupies believe firmly in rifles, and yet groups of people oppose their existence. How do we know who is right?

Actually, every culture demands that women dress modestly.. it's just that the modesty is in relation to the culture. Hawaii women wear skirts because its flipping hot there. Russian women wear parkas because its flipping cold there. Does the change in a length of a skirt make it relative. No. the standard is still held objectively and is understood: women dress modestly.

rifles existence aren't exactly related to morals. its more of a preference thing.

Meaning incarceration, no? Detainment is a form of punishment, is it not?

Not really. The offenders would lead full lives, and it would be the least cruel thing possible.

Why is the rapist inherently wrong?
Forceful deprivation of one's freedom. No free society would allow this. All relationships within a society of such a brand should ultimately be voluntary.

Actually, every culture demands that women dress modestly.. it's just that the modesty is in relation to the culture. Hawaii women wear skirts because its flipping hot there. Russian women wear parkas because its flipping cold there. Does the change in a length of a skirt make it relative. No. the standard is still held objectively and is understood: women dress modestly.

rifles existence aren't exactly related to morals. its more of a preference thing.

I just suggested that nudists don't believe in dressing "modestly," or at least they don't dress modestly by Islam's standards. So, what is the bottom line in modesty? What does the objective rule book say? Who is dressing properly, the muslim or the nudist?
Rifles do relate to morals in the way that I used them. Some people think guns are morally wrong, and some don't.

Forceful deprivation of one's freedom. No free society would allow this. All relationships within a society of such a brand should ultimately be voluntary.

Why should things be voluntary?

Is someone telling you this or do you just understand that things should be done of your own accord?

Not really. The offenders would lead full lives, and it would be the least cruel thing possible.
So long as they are contained, this is perfectly agreeable. Insofar as it is possible, in addition, they should be given the chance to work to provide their own sustenance. Society should not be obliged to pay for their upkeep.

Why is the rapist inherently wrong?


Because his rights end where mine begin. I think some people are missing some major points here. Let me try again.

1. People live in society together
2. Therefore, they must CO-EXIST
3. People who commit crimes of a felonious nature repeatedly and without regard for punishment, are defined as those who CANNOT be rehabilitated
4. Those who cannot be rehabilitated CANNOT CO-EXIST with other members of society
5. Morality is NOT the basis of law (for the subset of criminals I am discussing), the ability to co-exist IS.
6. Therefore, the morality (or lack thereof) of shooting the pedophile is not (or at least, should not be) the counter-argument in this thread.

Carry on

Why should things be voluntary?

Is someone telling you this or do you just understand that things should be done of your own accord?
It is my view on how a society should form its laws. So long as things are arranged between consenting adults, they are legal. Violating one's liberty is illegal on these grounds.

I just suggested that nudists don't believe in dressing "modestly," or at least they don't dress modestly by Islam's standards. So, what is the bottom line in modesty? What does the objective rule book say? Who is dressing properly, the muslim or the nudist?
Rifles do relate to morals in the way that I used them. Some people think guns are morally wrong, and some don't.


The objective rule book still says women dress modestly. That principle doesn't change. What does change is modesty. Modesty is a relative concept to the culture. Just because that's relative doesn't make the objective rule relative.

Because his rights end where mine begin. I think some people are missing some major points here. Let me try again.

1. People live in society together
2. Therefore, they must CO-EXIST
3. People who commit crimes of a felonious nature repeatedly and without regard for punishment, are defined as those who CANNOT be rehabilitated
4. Those who cannot be rehabilitated CANNOT CO-EXIST with other members of society
5. Morality is NOT the basis of law (for the subset of criminals I am discussing), the ability to co-exist IS.
6. Therefore, the morality (or lack thereof) of shooting the pedophile is not (or at least, should not be) the counter-argument in this thread.

Carry on

But you said you would kill such a person, meaning that you thought they did the "wrong" thing. But, if this objective moral book exists, it could say that perophilia is right, and therefore the pedophile should have lived. No matter what stink you raised about it, the pedophile would still be the good guy, and you'd be the bad.

Because his rights end where mine begin. I think some people are missing some major points here. Let me try again.

1. People live in society together
2. Therefore, they must CO-EXIST
3. People who commit crimes of a felonious nature repeatedly and without regard for punishment, are defined as those who CANNOT be rehabilitated
4. Those who cannot be rehabilitated CANNOT CO-EXIST with other members of society
5. Morality is NOT the basis of law (for the subset of criminals I am discussing), the ability to co-exist IS.
6. Therefore, the morality (or lack thereof) of shooting the pedophile is not (or at least, should not be) the counter-argument in this thread.

Carry on

Morality is the basis of law, because it gives us our understanding that certain items can be held as wrong or right.

I do like 1-3 in your argument.

But you said you would kill such a person, meaning that you thought they did the "wrong" thing. But, if this objective moral book exists, it could say that perophilia is right, and therefore the pedophile should have lived. No matter what stink you raised about it, the pedophile would still be the good guy, and you'd be the bad.
Hence the proviso is typically "between consenting adults".

The objective rule book still says women dress modestly. That principle doesn't change. What does change is modesty. Modesty is a relative concept to the culture. Just because that's relative doesn't make the objective rule relative.

Modesty doesn't mean anything. If the nudists are sinning in Islam, there is obviously a conflict of beliefs.

But you said you would kill such a person, meaning that you thought they did the "wrong" thing. But, if this objective moral book exists, it could say that perophilia is right, and therefore the pedophile should have lived. No matter what stink you raised about it, the pedophile would still be the good guy, and you'd be the bad.

In that case, why does the majority of sane people understand that the rapist is wrong?

And why are you using reason to argue when you are subconsciously arguing that reason doesn't exist?

Actually, every culture demands that women dress modestly.. it's just that the modesty is in relation to the culture. Hawaii women wear skirts because its flipping hot there. Russian women wear parkas because its flipping cold there. Does the change in a length of a skirt make it relative. No. the standard is still held objectively and is understood: women dress modestly.


There are cultures in which nudity is the norm. How exactly do they demand that women dress modestly?

It's hard to pretend that morals aren't relative to at least some degree. If you want to argue against moral relativity, you would be better served to pick on something like murder rather than modesty...

Modesty doesn't mean anything. If the nudists are sinning in Islam, there is obviously a conflict of beliefs.


I am sorry; I didn't get your dictionary without the word modesty. There is no conflict of beliefs.. only a conflict of cultures. fool.

Hence the proviso is typically "between consenting adults".

The proviso doesn't matter, because that was set before we saw the hypothetical rule book.

The proviso doesn't matter, because that was set before we saw the hypothetical rule book.
No, it is directly relevant to such a legal rule set so as to remain coherent.

There are cultures in which nudity is the norm. How exactly do they demand that women dress modestly?

It's hard to pretend that morals aren't relative to at least some degree. If you want to argue against moral relativity, you would be better served to pick on something like murder rather than modesty...

Pick the hard subjects rather than the easy ones.

Rule: Women be modest.

Question: What is modesty?

Answer: Not trying to seduce.

Implications for culture: In accordance with your culture, wear things that don't make it seem like you're seducing men.

If you grow up in a hot climate, shorts are obviously not gonna be something that is deemed as a tool to seduce. If you grow up in a cold climate and wear shorts, something isn't logical there and you are either insane or want to seduce men.

The standard that women most be modest is held everywhere. How it is applied because of the culture changes.

I am sorry; I didn't get your dictionary without the word modesty. There is no conflict of beliefs.. only a conflict of cultures. fool.

The nudists and the muslims have different beliefs! In no way are being naked and wearing a hajib the same thing! Face it, morals are different. I can keep listing examples, if you'd like. There's the conflict over marijuana, where one group thinks it should be legal, and the other thinks it shouldn't. There's the conflict over abortion, and at what stage a fetus becomes a life. There's the conflict over whether or not homosexuality is harmful. There is the conflict between peace and war. There is the conflict based on the War with Iraq, and whether it's stupid or effective. There's the conflict over the death penalty. There's the conflict over prostitution.
Not everyone can be right, evidently.

Here's what you do for sex offenders and people who should get the death sentence but we don't kill people round here no more. Get a designer drug, there's another thread about a designer drug on the forum but that just jogged my memory. The drug doesn't do anything for you. No buzz at all. But you're instantly hooked. Then you go through a painful withdrawal over a two week period. Like having the worst flu ever with a migraine. Then you get another shot. Then withdrawal.

You could then bring it in as "hard time" which can be imposed by a judge. "Hard time" is a deterent. Two weeks of it would soften your cough. Two months of it could drive you mad. Two years is a death sentence.
Great. Behavioural therapy. Come on down, Prof Skinner! Ppl in the 21st century think your ideas still work!
A lot of ppl are in there due to committing crimes whilst/due to being addicted to drugs. And your response is to punish them by making them addicted to yet another drug.
Irony.:rolleyes:

In that case, why does the majority of sane people understand that the rapist is wrong?

And why are you using reason to argue when you are subconsciously arguing that reason doesn't exist?

Because they're wrong? People used to think that the world was flat and heat was a liquid flowing from place to place, and those aren't true.
I'm only arguing to prove that the death penalty is wrong in the case of morals being subjective and the case of morals being objective.

There's the conflict over marijuana, where one group thinks it should be legal, and the other thinks it shouldn't. standard conflict of beliefs... proves that conflicts exist.. not that there isn't a moral code

There's the conflict over abortion, and at what stage a fetus becomes a life.
standard conflict of beliefs... proves that conflicts exist... not that there isn't a moral code.
There's the conflict over whether or not homosexuality is harmful.
standard conflict of consequences.. proves that conflicts exist.. not that there isn't a moral code.
There is the conflict between peace and war. conflict of ideologies... proves that conflicts exist... not that there isn't a moral code.

There is the conflict based on the War with Iraq, and whether it's stupid or effective. Conflict of analysis.. proves that conflicts exist... not that there isn't a moral code.

There's the conflict over the death penalty. Conflict of ethics... proves that conflicts exist... not that there isn't a moral code.

There's the conflict over prostitution. conflict of ethics

I never said everyone could be right. In fact, I am saying that a lot of people can be wrong. I don't know where you came up with that. I hope I didn't say that. If anything all you did was prove that groups of people try to guess at what the objective standard is... that's why a conflict happens.

Because they're wrong? People used to think that the world was flat and heat was a liquid flowing from place to place, and those aren't true.
I'm only arguing to prove that the death penalty is wrong in the case of morals being subjective and the case of morals being objective.

but you can't use reason when you say it doesn't exist. reason is based off of right and wrong.

but you can't use reason when you say it doesn't exist. reason is based off of right and wrong.

I was speaking hypothetically. I don't believe in the objective moral book, but I needed to provide argument for those who do.

mass murder: burnt at the steak(p)

murder(premeditated) fireing squad

murder(passion) depends on circumstances but worst case:life in prison

treason:hanging(p)

anti social behavior:24 hours in the stocks(p) people may throw things at him/her

terrorism:hung drawn and quarterd(p)

religious sacrifice(excluding certain peaceful religions) :1 year in prison

gbh/battery:flogging (p)

stealing:10 years in prison

repeted anit social behavior:5 years army service to be called up in any war

(p)= public

To adress the first point of yours, the second you started mentioning making a judgement on whether or not a person should live, you were pulling morals in. You think the criminal is morally wrong, so you, as the morally correct one, get to pull the plug.

To adress the second part, you'd be wrong, and he'd be right. So you'd be the one deserving the death penalty. Everyone up in heavan would look at you in the same way as you look at a child molester. You could fight forever, but objective things don't change, so it wouldn't make a difference.

I'm not arguing this from a moral perspective, but from a social one. I did not in fact make the judgement as to whether or not that pedophile should live, I said that he could not be rehabilitated, and was a detriment to society. Had the pedophile chosen not to BE a pedophile, he would be more than welcome to continue his life as he chose. What I in fact made the judgement on was whether or not he should be allowed to continue life in society. That would be a no. Furthermore, it was determined that the cost to society of maintaining this person was not feasible under the circumstances. I don't necessarily want to be the one to shoot the criminal, so long as I'm not paying for his upkeep, or the building he lives in, or anything else.

There's the conflict over marijuana, where one group thinks it should be legal, and the other thinks it shouldn't. standard conflict of beliefs... proves that conflicts exist.. not that there isn't a moral code

There's the conflict over abortion, and at what stage a fetus becomes a life.
standard conflict of beliefs... proves that conflicts exist... not that there isn't a moral code.
There's the conflict over whether or not homosexuality is harmful.
standard conflict of consequences.. proves that conflicts exist.. not that there isn't a moral code.
There is the conflict between peace and war. conflict of ideologies... proves that conflicts exist... not that there isn't a moral code.

There is the conflict based on the War with Iraq, and whether it's stupid or effective. Conflict of analysis.. proves that conflicts exist... not that there isn't a moral code.

There's the conflict over the death penalty. Conflict of ethics... proves that conflicts exist... not that there isn't a moral code.

There's the conflict over prostitution. conflict of ethics

I never said everyone could be right. In fact, I am saying that a lot of people can be wrong. I don't know where you came up with that. I hope I didn't say that. If anything all you did was prove that groups of people try to guess at what the objective standard is... that's why a conflict happens.

You said everyone is in general agreement about the ultimate morals, which means everyone must be mostly right.
But as we see, it can't be both right and wrong to drink, kill fetuses, kill criminals, be nude, smoke pot, etc.
And in case you didn't know, ethics are morals.

eth·ic:
1
a)A set of principles of right conduct.
b)A theory or a system of moral values: “An ethic of service is at war with a craving for gain” (Gregg Easterbrook).
2)ethics (used with a sing. verb) The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy.
3)ethics (used with a sing. or pl. verb) The rules or standards governing the conduct of a person or the members of a profession: medical ethics.

I'm not arguing this from a moral perspective, but from a social one. I did not in fact make the judgement as to whether or not that pedophile should live, I said that he could not be rehabilitated, and was a detriment to society. Had the pedophile chosen not to BE a pedophile, he would be more than welcome to continue his life as he chose. What I in fact made the judgement on was whether or not he should be allowed to continue life in society. That would be a no. Furthermore, it was determined that the cost to society of maintaining this person was not feasible under the circumstances. I don't necessarily want to be the one to shoot the criminal, so long as I'm not paying for his upkeep, or the building he lives in, or anything else.

Ever considered the possibilty that pedophiles don't choose to do what they do?

Ever considered the possibilty that pedophiles don't choose to do what they do?
Ever considered the possibility that children beneath a certain age are not fully aware of the consequences of their actions, or their very nature? A paedophile should refrain from such behaviour as it is not entirely voluntary on part of both sides. Hence, the proviso "between consenting adults" exists in any libertarial legal regime.

And in case you didn't know, ethics are morals.

Schmuck.


ethics- the philosophical study of moral values and rules

morals - Modes of conduct that are taught and accepted as embodying principles of right and good.

No they are not. Don't make me do your dirty work anymore.

mass murder: burnt at the steak(p)

murder(premeditated) fireing squad

murder(passion) depends on circumstances but worst case:life in prison

treason:hanging(p)

anti social behavior:24 hours in the stocks(p) people may throw things at him/her

terrorism:hung drawn and quarterd(p)

religious sacrifice(excluding certain peaceful religions) :1 year in prison

gbh/battery:flogging (p)

stealing:10 years in prison

pedophilia/rape:castration/eyes burnt out

repeted anit social behavior:5 years army service to be called up in any war

(p)= public
this is my law and i stand by it
it fits the bill (there of course will be a trial and what not)

but you can't use reason when you say it doesn't exist. reason is based off of right and wrong.

Actually, reason is based on what is best for the person doing the reasoning. Punishment comes in because in the absence of someone or something concrete to answer to, it's ok to rape the kid. Reason would state that if you don't want to go to jail for a very long time (or, in my world, be shot) you don't do that.

Ever considered the possibility that children beneath a certain age are not fully aware of the consequences of their actions, or their very nature? A paedophile should refrain from such behaviour as it is not entirely voluntary on part of both sides. Hence, the proviso "between consenting adults" exists in any libertarial legal regime.

I'm not saying that what they do is right. I'm saying that what they do isn't really a choice, because of severe mental illness. Do schzophrenics choose to hallucinate? Do the antisocial choose not to care about human emotions?

this is my law and i stand by it
it fits the bill (there of course will be a trial and what not)

Highly reasonable and not outrageous.

I am sure the majority of the nation will agree with you. :rolleyes:

Ever considered the possibilty that pedophiles don't choose to do what they do?

Nope, never considered it. This is not like homosexuality where two consenting adults are involved. Being a pedophile involves an adult and child, and since the child is not of legal age, the child can not consent. The child does not understand the consequences, where as the adult absolutely does. Matter of choice for pedophiles.

I'm not saying that what they do is right. I'm saying that what they do isn't really a choice, because of severe mental illness. Do schzophrenics choose to hallucinate? Do the antisocial choose not to care about human emotions?
Paedophiles still retain an element of free will, do they not? Hence, they should seek therapy at their own expense, or if a society is benevolent, at the expense of any charity it may offer.

the concrete answer it that if u rape a kid there is something wrong with yur head (recomend shock therapy)and should be castrated

Pick the hard subjects rather than the easy ones.

Rule: Women be modest.

Question: What is modesty?

Answer: Not trying to seduce.

Implications for culture: In accordance with your culture, wear things that don't make it seem like you're seducing men.

If you grow up in a hot climate, shorts are obviously not gonna be something that is deemed as a tool to seduce. If you grow up in a cold climate and wear shorts, something isn't logical there and you are either insane or want to seduce men.

The standard that women most be modest is held everywhere. How it is applied because of the culture changes.

This is simply not true. There are plenty of people who see nothing morally wrong in women seeking to seduce men. I'd consider myself among their number. Let me repeat that - I see nothing morally wrong with a woman going out in public dressed in nothing but a see-through lace bustier and saying, "Hey, big boy, want some of this?" to the first guy she meets. NOTHING.

Feel free to prove that my beliefs are wrong, if you can. Prove that seducing men is immoral. Please.

Schmuck.


ethics- the philosophical study of moral values and rules

morals - Modes of conduct that are taught and accepted as embodying principles of right and good.

No they are not. Don't make me do your dirty work anymore.

Did you look at the dictionary definition? Ethics are based on morals. Therefore, ethical debates of moral roots. Besides, you don't need a dictionary to know that a debate between pro-lifers and pro-choicers is moral in nature. Why not? Because prolifers say it is immoral to kill a fetus, and pro-choicers say is is immoral to deprive women of the choice. Logically speaking, they can't both be right, so they can't both be operating under the same system of moral values.

I'm not saying that what they do is right. I'm saying that what they do isn't really a choice, because of severe mental illness. Do schzophrenics choose to hallucinate? Do the antisocial choose not to care about human emotions?


In the same fashion, does the rabid dog choose to savage any and everyone, or is it ill? What do we do - we shoot the damned dog.

And anti-social people care about people's emotions to some degree, they just don't like most people very much. Sociopathic people, on the other hand, have no feelings, and thus are not motivated by them. Actually, sociopaths may be the most rational people on the planet.

Actually, reason is based on what is best for the person doing the reasoning.

So for you to define what reason actually is you would be assuming that I reason that things are right and wrong... that things have a definition, so in order for me to accept what you just said, I would have to be able to accept that things have a definite meaning.. that something is right or wrong.

Highly reasonable and not outrageous.

I am sure the majority of the nation will agree with you. :rolleyes:
i mean if u castrate a pedo theyre not gonna rape again coz they cant

In the same fashion, does the rabid dog choose to savage any and everyone, or is it ill? What do we do - we shoot the damned dog.

Blaming things on genetics is ridiculous... people are responsible for their actions.

i mean if u castrate a pedo theyre not gonna rape again coz they cant

After being castrated, they will be extremely angry with the government and instead of raping again, they'll just kill instead.

Nope, never considered it. This is not like homosexuality where two consenting adults are involved. Being a pedophile involves an adult and child, and since the child is not of legal age, the child can not consent. The child does not understand the consequences, where as the adult absolutely does. Matter of choice for pedophiles.

Having no choice does not equal something being right. If somebody held a machine gun to your head, you'd really have no choice but to follow his/her instructions, be they right or wrong.

Blaming things on genetics is ridiculous... people are responsible for their actions.
even animals are responsible for their actions
the fact that people can get a lighter sentence for being insane is riddiculus

This is simply not true. There are plenty of people who see nothing morally wrong in women seeking to seduce men. I'd consider myself among their number. Let me repeat that - I see nothing morally wrong with a woman going out in public dressed in nothing but a see-through lace bustier and saying, "Hey, big boy, want some of this?" to the first guy she meets. NOTHING.

Feel free to prove that my beliefs are wrong, if you can. Prove that seducing men is immoral. Please.

Once again, I never said that everyone is right. There are nutters out there that believe weird things. Such as you. lol.

In the same fashion, does the rabid dog choose to savage any and everyone, or is it ill? What do we do - we shoot the damned dog.

And anti-social people care about people's emotions to some degree, they just don't like most people very much. Sociopathic people, on the other hand, have no feelings, and thus are not motivated by them. Actually, sociopaths may be the most rational people on the planet.

Anti-social is the same thing as sociopathic.

After being castrated, they will be extremely angry with the government and instead of raping again, they'll just kill instead.
and then they get burned of shot
(see the punishment list muahahaha)
my punishments are also a deterant

even animals are responsible for their actions
the fact that people can get a lighter sentence for being insane is riddiculus

Yeah, what are those goddamn crazies thinking, blaming the inner workings of their minds? I say shock the idiocy out of them. :rolleyes:

and then they get burned of shot
(see the punishment list muahahaha)
my punishments are also a deterant

I see.

well most of them are cruel and unusual. So you would not get very far in America... maybe in britian though.. those guys are nutters.

I see.

well most of them are cruel and unusual. So you would not get very far in America... maybe in britian though.. those guys are nutters.
So, have you actually read about Britain, like past the Middle Ages?

Once again, I never said that everyone is right. They're are nutters out there that believe weird things. Such as you. lol.

But you said that most people are aware of the objective code of morals, meaning that most people are right about moral issues. I've proven to you that that is nonsensical.

So for you to define what reason actually is you would be assuming that I reason that things are right and wrong... that things have a definition, so in order for me to accept what you just said, I would have to be able to accept that things have a definite meaning.. that something is right or wrong.


You are clearly reading what you'd like to see, not what I said. I assume nothing when I define what reasoning is, I am correcting your misuse of the word, and then expounding upon that line of (sigh) reasoning. Reason is not about right and wrong in it's purest form, it is about what is beneficial or detrimental to the person in question. Society inflicts outside punishment on people who break it's laws to skew the benefit/detriment equation along the lines of what will allow the most people to co-exist in society, not because it's morally right or wrong.

It's like saying all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. Something can be morally and criminally wrong, but just because it is morally wrong, does not necessarily make it criminal in nature.

Once again, I never said that everyone is right. They're are nutters out there that believe weird things. Such as you. lol.
hey iv got nothin wrong with a fit bird wantin a one night stand
the problem comes when children start acting like whores
the age a child loses innocence in england is slowly decresing

i aim to put a stop to it

its a reason why there are alot of pedo's in england

So, have you actually read about Britain, like past the Middle Ages?

Past all the beheadings and into the present British idol phase? possibly yes.

mass murder: burnt at the steak(p)

murder(premeditated) fireing squad

murder(passion) depends on circumstances but worst case:life in prison

treason:hanging(p)

anti social behavior:24 hours in the stocks(p) people may throw things at him/her

terrorism:hung drawn and quarterd(p)

religious sacrifice(excluding certain peaceful religions) :1 year in prison

gbh/battery:flogging (p)

stealing:10 years in prison

repeted anit social behavior:5 years army service to be called up in any war

(p)= public
IM BRITISH AM I A NUTTER
I THINK NOT
THESE PUNISHMENTS ARE FAIR AND JUST

But you said that most people are aware of the objective code of morals, meaning that most people are right about moral issues. I've proven to you that that is nonsensical.

I said the basic code of morals... not the full blown bible. geez.

Also, people can be aware to the code of morals but disobey it...

Once again, I never said that everyone is right. They're are nutters out there that believe weird things. Such as you. lol.

Ah, lovely. Glad to know that believing women can desire sex as much as men can makes me a "nutter".

Your paleolithic ideas on gender roles notwithstanding, you can still offer no evidence that your belief is right and mine wrong. If you can offer objective proof as to why being seductive must be immoral, you are welcome to do so, but until you have such proof (or, in fact, any evidence whatsoever besides your baseless assertion), how can you possibly continue to argue that morality is entirely objective?

I see.

well most of them are cruel and unusual. So you would not get very far in America... maybe in britian though.. those guys are nutters.


Actually, at various times in history, everything on his list was a defined method of punishment for certain transgressions. And even in America, at times it was legal to hang someone for horse theft <- cruel and unusual punishment shifts from time to time.

I said the basic code of morals... not the full blown bible. geez.

Also, people can be aware to the code of morals but disobey it...

But clearly people aren't in agreement about the "basic" code of morals, as people aren't even in agreement about whether or not it's right to kill someone, which is a fairly basic moral.

IM BRITISH AM I A NUTTER
I THINK NOT
THESE PUNISHMENTS ARE FAIR AND JUST
Yes, you keep going on like that, and people will judge you to be perfectly sane. :rolleyes:

mass murder: burnt at the steak
at the steak?
what sort?
T-Bone?
a 12 ounce sirloin perhaps?
eye fillet?

It's 5 am here, so I'm going to sleep now. I will come back to check on this sometime later today, and address any further points directed towards me. And of course, my starter region of Dueling Banjos is always looking for like-minded people who need a home.

In the same fashion, does the rabid dog choose to savage any and everyone, or is it ill? What do we do - we shoot the damned dog.

And anti-social people care about people's emotions to some degree, they just don't like most people very much. Sociopathic people, on the other hand, have no feelings, and thus are not motivated by them. Actually, sociopaths may be the most rational people on the planet.

The difference is that treatments either exist (not in 99% of cases) or may exist in the future for the Sociopaths. They are, for better or for worse, still human, and killing them when they (unlike other criminals) do not choose to do wrong, but are genuinely insane, is truly wrong.

That said, it's an easy cop-out for the truly responsible to claim "insanity" and just get given the right meds and sent back out to harm people, so we do psychological screening to make sure that a case of "innocent due to insanity" truly is insane.

There is one state that has a different form of sentencing "Guilty, but insane" , but if memory serves correctly it's to protect them as much as it is to protect others.

at the steak?
what sort?
T-Bone?
a 12 ounce sirloin perhaps?
eye fillet?
wooden lol
although i may allow ppl to roast things on it if theyre not botherd about contaminating their food

Terrorist Cakes:


Claiming that you know better than 2,000 years worth of moral philosophers about the nature of morality strikes me as more than a little presumptuous. There is still a great deal of disagreement amongst moral philosophers over the nature of morality; which is considered strange by many who study the field considering the large degree of agreement over what actions under what conditions constitute a morally correct form of action.


And another thing: descriptive moral relativism does NOT evidence meta-ethical moral relativism. Just because there exists wide-spread disagreement over anything, much less morality, does not evidence the position that there is no correct answer. A large number of people could well be mistaken, and we would not consider this evidence of the correct position being wrong now would we?


Furthermore: societal rules exist independent of moral law (some moral philosophers assert that moral law = societal law). Or are you prepared to assert that we should not isolate sociopathic pattern killers from society because morality is subjective and the sociopath thought he was morally justified and murdering people because they looked like his mother?



Total relativism is objectively useless. One cannot assert that all things are relative to everything else without creating a mire through which no human being can traverse, and one cannot assert absolute relativity with respect to the self without allowing people to justify acts which clearly bring undue harm to others and to society (as evidenced by the sociopath argument above).

Morality may well be relative to one's self in a limited fashion; I doubt this, but I admit to its possibility. The more substantiated position is that humans do not know what morality is and that this is because morality is too complex for us to understand. I don't like this assertion, but its hard to get around. It is probably obvious by now that I ascribe to an objective moral philosophy; I ground my philosophy in a manner similar to Hobbes in rational self-interest and the gains provided by society (science, art, cuisine, etc).




Now its all well and good to espouse an ideology of restitution over retribution, but this matter is not so cut and dry as you might wish it to be. Punishment is a psychologically proven method of behavior alteration, and there are quite clearly some behaviors which people collectively recognize as bad for people and society in general. So no one can simply equate punishment with revenge and be strictly correct.

Some times treatment methods don't work. Even "unconventional" methods can fail where biological causes are to blame. In many APD sufferers they have substantial chemical differences in the frontal lobe (the morality center of the brain) from a normal individual, and so even if you brainwash them eventually they slide back into their old habits. Some people must at a minimum be isolated from others in order to prevent them from harming others.


Lastly: in order to fully ascribe to moral relativism you have to be willing to forgo the notion of "rights." There cannot by definition be any inherent moral value to a given being under moral relativism, and thus things like the "right to property, life, happiness, liberty, freedom from harm or tyranny, etc" all go out the window. I do not wish to live in a society where another individual is free to punch me in the face on a whim; I don't know about you.

NT

I ground my philosophy in a manner similar to Hobbes in rational self-interest and the gains provided by society (science, art, cuisine, etc).

Same here.

It already sucks to be a criminal, with the brutality and public humiliation that comes with a prison sentance. And yet, crime rates are increasing, not decreasing. Wonder what that says?

It may mean that people are getting increasingly jaded. :)

Same here.

Bit off topic, but isn't Hobbes "Force is the justification of society"?

Or do I have that wrong?

Bit off topic, but isn't Hobbes "Force is the justification of society"?

Or do I have that wrong?
To be honest, I have no idea, and I care little for Hobbes himself. I am interested in the notion of Rational (or Enlightened) Self-Interest as my moral axis. If Hobbes shares that, then all the better.

Bit off topic, but isn't Hobbes "Force is the justification of society"?

Or do I have that wrong?

Hobbes is widely misunderstood. What he suggested in Leviathan was that a common sense approach to morality was correct, and that this necessarily denoted several things.


Essentially people are want to avoid a state of uncontrolled rivalry (he terms it the state of nature), wherein people do or die and there are no limits on what one will do in order to prosper. This is where the life would be nasty, brutish, and short phrase so often attributed to Hobbes comes from.

But if you follow his arguments he arrives at what is essentially rational morality based on the assessment that avoiding a return to the state of nature is to be avoided at all cost, and therefore one must avoid engaging in behaviors which undermine public trust, public cohesiveness etc.

Hobbes then goes on to suggest that one also has to be rationally disinterested with the advancements of science, art, food, philsophy, etc because those things only prosper under the conditions of a society. In the state of nature one can ill-afford to devote resources to scientific advancement or artistic endeavor if it means someone else may steal it or kill you for it. History also backs up Hobbes on this point: one will notice that prior to the professionalization of soldiers "cultural" centers did not really exist. It was only through the protection of the hoplites that allowed ancient Greece to achieve the level of philosophy, science, and art that it did.


Part of the reason Hobbes gets misunderstood is that his ultimate conclusion, the necessity of a monster of a central government, gets oft quoted without the context under which Hobbes arrives at his conclusion. The tools for social control that Hobbes was aware of at the time essentially limit the forms of government which Hobbes would have acknowledged as possible. You will note that fear and awe no longer are used as the basis for keeping control of populations. But before the institutionalization of control measures fear and awe would have been a natural basis for control. Additionally since the state of nature is so bad Hobbes advocated a "doing whatever it takes" to avoid returning to the state of nature, and thus a government which can keep the public rapt at attention is a "good" thing.



Now I don't follow Hobbes' argument strictly, but a lot of what he has to say makes sense when you consider elements of social stability in its relation to society and the benefits an individual derives there with.

NT

Which makes sense; I suppose then, he essentially is saying that a society cannot exist without the means to defend itself. Something which doesn't come into conflict with my minarchist beliefs.

Hobbes is widely misunderstood. What he suggested in Leviathan was that a common sense approach to morality was correct, and that this necessarily denoted several things.


Essentially people are want to avoid a state of uncontrolled rivalry (he terms it the state of nature), wherein people do or die and there are no limits on what one will do in order to prosper. This is where the life would be nasty, brutish, and short phrase so often attributed to Hobbes comes from.

But if you follow his arguments he arrives at what is essentially rational morality based on the assessment that avoiding a return to the state of nature is to be avoided at all cost, and therefore one must avoid engaging in behaviors which undermine public trust, public cohesiveness etc.

Hobbes then goes on to suggest that one also has to be rationally disinterested with the advancements of science, art, food, philsophy, etc because those things only prosper under the conditions of a society. In the state of nature one can ill-afford to devote resources to scientific advancement or artistic endeavor if it means someone else may steal it or kill you for it. History also backs up Hobbes on this point: one will notice that prior to the professionalization of soldiers "cultural" centers did not really exist. It was only through the protection of the hoplites that allowed ancient Greece to achieve the level of philosophy, science, and art that it did.


Part of the reason Hobbes gets misunderstood is that his ultimate conclusion, the necessity of a monster of a central government, gets oft quoted without the context under which Hobbes arrives at his conclusion. The tools for social control that Hobbes was aware of at the time essentially limit the forms of government which Hobbes would have acknowledged as possible. You will note that fear and awe no longer are used as the basis for keeping control of populations. But before the institutionalization of control measures fear and awe would have been a natural basis for control. Additionally since the state of nature is so bad Hobbes advocated a "doing whatever it takes" to avoid returning to the state of nature, and thus a government which can keep the public rapt at attention is a "good" thing.



Now I don't follow Hobbes' argument strictly, but a lot of what he has to say makes sense when you consider elements of social stability in its relation to society and the benefits an individual derives there with.

NT

So, basically, I read that as meaning that he thought that a totallitarian government was the best government possible. That seems to be what the concept drives at. After all, the anarchic, free-market nature of the wild is opposed by the controlled/confisticatory economics and the restricted social system of a communist nation. Huh...

And I thought Locke bothered me.

So, basically, I read that as meaning that he thought that a totallitarian government was the best government possible. That seems to be what the concept drives at. After all, the anarchic, free-market nature of the wild is opposed by the controlled/confisticatory economics and the restricted social system of a communist nation. Huh...

And I thought Locke bothered me.
Hmmm, are you libertarian? Or of some other persuation?

Hmmm, are you libertarian? Or of some other persuation?

I'm an economic pragmatist with a slight left of center bias and a social libertarian. I subscribe to a liberal phillosophy because there's no other group who represents as many of my policies as do liberals.

I was wondering what everyone on here thought about various prison systems. How do the prisons from where you're from work? Do you like it or dislike it? If you were in charge of the prisons, how would you punish inmates? What would you make them do/not do? Would you be harsh or lenient?

Over here we don't "punish", we "rehabilitate" and it works fine. The prisons aren't violent hellholes and are actually not bad at all, being deprived of ones freedom is bad enough. The system works fine, we don't get many repeat offenders and have a very low crime-rate.

Actually Hobbes was in favor of spectacle. He did lobby for a large and ultra-practical (to the point of being cruel) to keep attention away from each other and focused on the government. Now this does not mean to suggest that he was for the governments invasion into all matters of life, but that the leader should essentially be hard and sway not under the passions and prejudices of the populace. A dictator yes, but for different reasons than otherwise presented, as I will explain later.


His reasons for lobbying for a leviathan of a government was that if you keep the publics attention off of relations with each other degenerating back to the state of nature is impossible.

This was considered by him to be of the utmost importance, and that having a "freer" state was risking far to much since it allowed for a backslide into the state of nature to be easier. I believe this is the result of his lack of understanding social sciences; as I said before he was not aware of a great many of the tools for social control others were.

But in general I don't like his conclusion, so much as the chain of reasoning he uses to get up to it. It essentially forms the bed rock of all modern rational self-interest thinkers.

NT