|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
posted May 13, 2010 07:05 PM |
|
|
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 13, 2010 07:14 PM |
|
|
@Bliz
Without definitions of the terms and arguments of why it is so, your claim makes little sense to me.
@Bak
I'm talking about threat estimating based upon observation, not fixed times as we know of today.
So if a person gets out, it's damn unlikely they'd commit the crime again. Does it happen, the system adjust to the new observation, a more precise percentage is evolved and as time goes, the system gets better and better.
About the imprisonment part, I never claimed the two terms had a different meaning, though I prefer to use isolation in stead of imprisonment since, eventhough both practically are a form of isolation, imprisonment of modern age often mean placing criminals together with other criminals, simply finding a place to put them, not considering the environment and then let them be there for a fixed amount of time, independent if they've changed, they'll get parole.
The point is to not only critizise upon the current system, but also to try to come with something constructive, suggestions for how to do better. Though it has gone very very general in relation to the very specific topic this thread is about.
Quote:
The only thing still holding your theory together is good faith that there is a way to convince those people not to commit crimes anymore, without executing any physical punishment or brainwashing.
I disagree, good faith would be if people were released without any kind of evaluation upon threat level to society. Or if the isolation were guaranteed upon fixed timing, independent of the change of the given person.
About the therapy part. Giving people the option of voluntarily remove emotions (or to say, action gradients) they dislike, well I can't see a problem in that.
However when evaluated to be a too big of a threat to society it's forced threatment, but only forced in the way it'll be a choice between isolation, or threatment until threat level is evaluated through an acceptable process to be sufficient low.
Requiring 100% from the method of trial and error is not possible. Likewise it's important to realise that all of us are a threat level to society at all times, but as long as it's sufficient low, it makes little sense to isolate people upon it.
Sure right now we're in full control, but, and it's not be rude or anything, imagine something you just can't even dare to think about would happen. I'm certain we all have tresholds at which we'd loose control, at least I do. That is not even including the random loss of control that can come out of nowhere, from our perspective.
Also, I have for a long time now been supporting that school should be more than just offer a given standard package of information to people attending schools. It should, at the very first level of school, be about getting to find out what you actually want! 
All to often, even around the end of the age of 18 have I seen people not knowing what they want, yet a system outside expecting it, eventhough never focusing on it, and pressing people to take educations they might not even want, making people eventually drop out. Not that it's the only thing that makes people drop out.
Edit: Cool pic! Though that they all be thinking that doesn't mean anyone of them are consciouss though.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 13, 2010 07:44 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 19:45, 13 May 2010.
|
bak and bliz : I would say some people are less conditionned and brainwashed than others. I think there are at least 2 kind of brainwashed people. those who are aware of it, and as a consequence can decide to do something about it (and will probably not ) and those who don't know it.
ohforf : buddhism works quite well to remove bad emotions, and it wouldn't take long to obtain noticeable result (if the prisonners are serious enough of course) the point is to make them understand how interesting it is for them (more exactly, they should understand by themselves)
|
|
Father
|
|
posted May 13, 2010 07:48 PM |
|
|
Bak,
Personally I don't care for the picture because I understand the backhanded slight that your trying to pay with it to everyone that disagrees with you on this particular subject. But it is clever none-the-less.
Reading back over your posts I could see that I failed to come across correctly with you. Or I just maybe didn't explain myself well enough for you (and even some others?) to understand, idk.
You made comments about punishing people for these crimes, I couldn't agree more. I think the debate is about how we go about punishing them, then what is or what is not cruel or inhuman. Trust me, placing someone in prison is certainly a punishment. Now I'm not quite sure where you came up with a letter, but that wasn't me. You also made mention to how many times someone can mess up before we no longer believe they can be helped.
I think the answer to that question lays within the other question that we are asking here. At what point do we cross the barriers of what is humanitarian and what no longer is? Some of us argue that there simply is no argument there, because once such crimes are commited, the individuals in question lose all rights and privs that come with being human in the first place. On the other hand, we have the side that I'm debating for. That side contests that we must not stoop to the same level of debase actions and commit another in order to try and stem the tide. Quoting common sayings such as "two wrongs don't make a right" to lay a foundation of understanding.
Bak, that is exactly where I am coming from. It is no more complicated or simple than that. Assertive action must be taken once a terrible offense like this is commited, and it is already. But to take the action further? Past incarceration? Past losing ones freedoms? Past the humility and embarassment? Past losing your job, your family, your religion? Past losing litterally years of your life? No, I believe if we pass that border then we cross a line into a darker area. I believe that we begin to run from or around our problems as a combined and collective society and entire human race as soon as we start castration.
Now if they wish to volunteer for this that is up to them. However, the government offering lighter terms to encourage such behavior is just another indicator of what they truly want. I for one would not wish to be under the flag of such government. It is a matter of principle to me, to every one in truth. And yes, it crosses many of the same boarders as capital punishment does. It is the wrong and terrible answer to a wrong and terrible crime. There simply HAS to be another answer and I'm willing to pay the price to find it.
There are advances in criminal phychology all the time. It is my oppinion that as long as we continue to hold onto hope and strive for better achievments that we will indeed reach them. I do not want our society to advance around the ideals of capital punishment or even chemical castration. Man, we would all turn out like Klingons or Romulans.
I hope our society continues to strive for the higher road. Yes, I really believe the road is a higher one. It is longer, harder to travel and pain staking but in the end the reward is far greater.
My intention wasn't to put you or omega off base at all. Your certainly entitled to your feelings and indeed I agreed with that emotional reaction to a large degree (look back at my posts regarding the personal experiences).
Well anyway, now I feel like I have beat this subject to death. LOL
____________
Once Bitten,
Twice shy,
Be careful,
This one has sharp teeth.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 13, 2010 07:50 PM |
|
|
It'd be nice if they understood it by themself through logic alone. Though I guess if they've never observed, or at least remember to have observed, the other way, then I guess it can be very very hard to actually use logic on such a problem, as to them it'll probably not be logic at all. That's why it's so important to actually be able to offer the better, like a trial and error approach. [That is, actions says many more times what words can do].
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted May 13, 2010 08:23 PM |
|
|
Dear God, Sake, with a statement like that you might as well just become a lawyer and confuse people for a living.
@JJ
So we should excuse rapists, murderers, thieves, and what have you due to some allegeded defect? If they are defective and dangerous, why should we keep them around? It only gives them the opportunity to be dangerous.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted May 13, 2010 08:39 PM |
|
|
Hardcore sex offenders(©) have the potential to no longer be dangerous, that's the whole point. If you want to break it down to mechanics; it's a waste of national assets to have a citizen sitting in jail indefinitely or for extremely long periods, or to go through the trouble of raising them and sending them through school just to fry them. Castration is the solution for some of them.
@****sake:
All learning is ultimately conditioning/brainwashing. Even if a person bears the mark of wisdom of "being able to entertain an idea without endorsing it", it ultimately boils down to a person weighing which decision is the most enjoyable. A monkey won't reach for banana if it is repetitively shocked when it touches it, because it's no longer worth it. That's one reason why there are consequences to breaking laws: in order to make a person deem living legally the better option. This is ideally accompanied with helping them see the rewards of complying with a social contract, so that they are simultaneously dissuaded from dissent and attracted to compliance.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Father
|
|
posted May 13, 2010 08:41 PM |
|
|
Omega (I know you weren't addressing me directly sorry for interupting)
It's not that we are saying to excuse them, not by any stretch of the term. Rather, they will be locked up and pushished with loss of life and freedom. During that time they will be corrected, redirected and rebuilt. Keep in mind, it is our society that is largely responsible for these individuals anyway (boy that statement may raise some hairs, LOL). No but listen, how many of these offenders were victims themselves earlier in their lives?
Does lopping off nads start to fix the problem? Nope. But come on, can't you guys see the humanitarian approach to this issue? We keep them locked up and safe until counseling and medications as needed help them to regain control of their lives. If they mess up again, fine...we lock them back up longer and try harder, more assertive methods (stronger medication, deeping counseling, hell even hypnosis is worth an effort).
____________
Once Bitten,
Twice shy,
Be careful,
This one has sharp teeth.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 13, 2010 09:10 PM |
|
|
@bliz: When you write it like this: Quote:
conditioning/brainwashing
does it mean that it's, in your perspective, an identical in meaning term? Just wanna know, because I understand those terms very differently (though their basic methods are the same).
I do agree with what you said though, yes learning is very likely a conditioning process. I think it's very closely related to habits as well. Meaning learning and habits are closely related to eachother.
Likewise I agree with the perspective you put forward that through more general conditioning of punishment contra reward you do get a useful response.
However, I still think it's the wrong approach, because it's the tyranic way. It's the emotional way of forcing the society "you" want in stead of building it up through agreement.
Because, I think, there are more sides of the equation, there's the possibility to have a well and orderly society through conditioning (the emotional process) and there's the possibility to create one out of agreement, because everyone gets what they want [which there's no conditioning in, except the conditioning defined by reflecting upon the environment, yet that I'd not call conditioning, that I'd call a measure of intelligence, that is, adaptbility].
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 13, 2010 09:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
@JJ
So we should excuse rapists, murderers, thieves, and what have you due to some allegeded defect? If they are defective and dangerous, why should we keep them around? It only gives them the opportunity to be dangerous.
Depends - I mean, no one suggests to cut off thieves' hands anymore, especially not cleptomaniacs. People commit crimes for a lot of various reasons, and if we want to react adequately on these perpetrators we have to find out what exactly is responsible for their crimes.
As I said, a lot of the pedos don't actually want do what they do - most of the time, at least.
Then you have one-time-offenders who may have just a slight tendency to aggressiveness who can be helped with a thearpy.
Then you have the repeat offenders... some of them have brain defect. It's clear that those are incurable unless it will be possible to heal the defects, which means they should be kept lifelong in custody - quarantine - and studied.
And there may be other cases. We gain nothing by just damning them generally and execute them - it's, like with deseases - about prevention.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 13, 2010 09:28 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 21:31, 13 May 2010.
|
Why is it the responsibility of "society" to spend valuable resources trying to fix broken people?
When a horse breaks its leg, we shoot it. When a dog is rabid, we do not keep it locked up in isolation - we euthanize it. Only when it comes to dangerous, broken* and, based on empirical observations, unfixable humans do we suddenly feel the need to store them in tidy little boxes for many, many years at great expense to everyone else. And then, after they've been isolated for some completely arbitrary amount of time, we set them free.**
Study them? At what cost and to what benefit? Even if we assume that some valuable piece of information might even be possible to extract from such studies (a miracle method of prevention, say) isn't it better investment to put such resources toward something with a higher chance of paying dividents for everyone - say, cancer research?
* Based on the charitable assumption that all pedophiles / sexual predators have a mental illness.
** Imagine if we did this to pit bulls that killed or maimed children. There's a reason we euthanize these animals. We don't try to rehabilitate them, or study them. We kill them. What is the difference between a pit bull that harms a child and a man who harms a child?
|
|
ihor
Supreme Hero
Accidental Hero
|
|
posted May 13, 2010 09:37 PM |
|
|
@OD
I agree with Father's point.
Do you think living behind bars is similar to two weeks sea journey or what? They are punished and are not excused by society. The point of prison is to make people feel their fault and made conclusions out of it. It doesn't matter what crime was commited. It should teach the prisoners to draw a line between good and bad. If your point is to execute everybody dangerous then probably no humans will remain at our planet. Everybody(!) could do wrong things in the heat of passion or when depressed, baffled, disturbed or under other strong emotion. We even don't know what waits for us. How many gun massacres were there in the schools in US during last few years? We can't even know what those people felt killing their classmates and teachers. Perhaps they were sick, but who say we the others are protected from psychic illnesses?
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted May 13, 2010 09:40 PM |
|
|
@****sake:
Your response is outrageously a pie in the sky answer. I don't know why you wouldn't like the idea of a social contract that is flawlessly upheld by all individuals through happy compliance, but the very existence of a penal system is to handle the people that dishonor their end of the contract. You're basically saying that the justice system shouldn't be allowed to force convicted criminals to do something they don't want to do. Your suggestion eradicates liberty, it doesn't expand it, because you allow everybody else to be subject to their unlawful whims, making noncriminals second class citizens.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 13, 2010 09:40 PM |
|
|
@Corribus
Because without this responsibility, the idea of society looses a lot of its purpose.
I dislike the example you make, but it's not as much as I think it to be wrong (I actually think it to be right), but the whole basis of it to be wrong (that society owns people, like people owns animals). In my opinion, it's people who own society and no one owns an animal (and have the right to shoot it), but then again, in principle, I guess one have the right to do whatever they want as long as no one more powerful is there to stop them.
About the question of if we should not focus our ressources other places, in my opinion, it's the duty of society/government/state to focus its ressources on its purpose. Its purpose can then differ from each persons opinion, my opinion is that it's among one of the purpose of society to protect the freedom of every citizen, even if said citizen is a criminal. The best society can do then is to restrict as few freedoms as possible, which I believe to be isolation.
The difference between a dog harming a child and a human harming a child is that it's believed (or at least I believe) that where most animals behaviour is completely determined through an emotional process, the concept of free will do exist for humans and therefore their behaviour is not solely a question about emotions (and with emotions I mean conditioned responses to the environment).
With that said, I still think it's wrong to shoot the dog, but I think it's because people see animals as property.
@Bliz
I think you misunderstand my post(s), if you think I approve people to do "wrongly" (here defined as criminal acts).
Of course I'd approve of people behaving good around eachother, for that to be due to a contract or what you call it, shouldn't really matter.
What I apply against is that freedom is reduced unnecessarily. Criminals are also part of society, yes they're too big of threat and therefore needs to be isolated from the rest of society. That's a reduction of their freedom required given the current ressources and technology as we cannot simply make their criminal acts impossible and undo what they've done. However other reductions, when there are several alternatives equal good, seems to go against the idea of what, in my opinion, society/government/state stands for in the first place.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted May 13, 2010 09:41 PM |
|
Edited by Azagal at 21:42, 13 May 2010.
|
@Corribus
Don't you think you're being a bit extreme here? I mean they're not animals biologically speaking they're still human. And you know... a human life is generally considered more valuable than that of an animals. Don't get me wrong I think rapists are the most disgusting creatures that walk this planet and if they're caught they may consider themselves lucky if they don't die.
However the idea of law and humanrights isn't so trivial as that you can showe it asside because you don't like/despise what someone did. The thing is the resocialisation thing does work from time to time. The question is do you want to have 1 resocialiced criminal or do you just kill them all off sacrificing the few that would actually be able to find their way back to society? Killing them all off would certainly be more cost efficient and probably more helpful to society (since you don't let the freaks go who are beyond help) but then you both sacrifice the value a human as someting special and well the whole civilised law thing.
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 13, 2010 09:50 PM |
|
|
On the matter of death penalty, I think it should also be considered that society would never allow smaller societies within a given society to perform a killing, no matter how well justified it is.
If society/government/state does exactly the same, from the exact same reasoning, it'd be justified from someone even more 'outside' to go in and kill the executioner, because from their perspective, it was a smaller society that made a killing.
My point is, just because we have the power to do so, does not make it right to it. Rather, if we allow death penalty under certain conditions, then when these conditions are set, eventhough independent of the state being involved, the state cannot see it as a crime.
That in turn would mean allowing murder in principle, just as long as the murder would be done the right way.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 13, 2010 09:56 PM |
|
|
@ Corribus
1) Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think we kill deseased humans who are a danger for others. We quarantine them, but we don't kill them.
2) I thought I've written that, but research is for prevention, isn't it? And healing. Why kill people, if they are deseased and can be healed? Why kill people, if by studying them we can find out what's wrong with them. If these brain defects would be obvious with babies or children, there might be a simple test to discover it, taking precautions and so on.
I mean, crimes and their reasons, causes and prevention is as scientific a field as solving them. It's not enough to just bury the victims and kill or detain the perps.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted May 13, 2010 09:58 PM |
|
|
@****Sake:
Although I endorse a rehabilitative penal system, I still think protecting innocent citizens takes priority over rehabilitating guilty citizens, and almost everybody agrees with me even if they don't realize it. This is why almost everybody recognizes the legitimacy of self-defense, or of police being allowed to fire if necessary.
Neutralizing a person's sex drive is an added enforcement on top of being confined in prison, but since it can greatly lessen their need to stay in a prison (which aren't maintained for free) and their incentive to rape somebody (most of whom don't appreciate it) and also the chance of ending up back in prison, I'm okay with it.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 13, 2010 10:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Although I endorse a rehabilitative penal system, I still think protecting innocent citizens takes priority over rehabilitating guilty citizens, and almost everybody agrees with me even if they don't realize it.
I as well agree with that protecting the citizens in general society should be more of a concern than those isolated, though I'd not use the term innocent, I suppose it's sufficent for this debate and will therefore not critisize you for it either.
However I do have one question. A society where, if a person breaks a law, the result is not to make the actions undone, but rather to remove the problem (the person), does such a society really protects its citizens or is it not more of a fearful punisher?
The extreme example of murdering. In the perfect society, murdering would not be possible in the first place. In the society where it's not impossible, yet rare, but a very developed society, murdered people would simply be brought back to life. In a society where they know they can't make murder impossible and can't bring people back to life, their focus is still on making it as impossible as possible (or to say, as unlikely to happen as possible), in stead of, if it happens, then people just gets their revenge, yet the murdered is still murdered.
My opinion is that we should focus on what's important, every citizen, the question is, what can we do? Can we undo the murder and revive the murdered? Sadly, no. Can we somehow make the loss of those close to the murdered less tragic, without having to play to the tune of their emotions during this? Maybe, I think we can, but giving them revenge would just be allowing their emotions to take control and no system of justice would be needed then. Can we then do our very best to make sure the criminal does not commit this action again, yet limiting said persons freedom as little as possible in the process? Well I think we can. What we can do, I'm not sure. I like your suggestion, but I dislike it should be forced. I understand that due to economical reasons, it can get hard to have ressources for everything we want to do, and that we have to priority according to the ressources we actually do have. I'd like to mention on that account I was once told it's more expensive to simply kill them, I don't know if it's true and I suppose it's when killings is done in the "humane" way, eventhough I don't believe such a way exist. Sadly I do not have enough understanding of economics to simply be able to write a great post with all the solutions, to my limited understanding, if we can't afford to isolate someone in certain areas and rehab then, then there's only one way we can afford to isolate these people without limiting their freedom more than at most necessary due to our limited ressources (economics) and that'd be to "kick them out of the country", simply expell them from society. That should be a last resort though, in my opinion.
Sorry about the post got a bit long again.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 13, 2010 10:18 PM |
|
|
Ohforf:
When someone coerces, they are going against the core principle of a non-coercive society. And society is only for those who are part of it, not for those outside of it - especially those who voluntarily choose to go against it.
As for the death penalty, the government is the only legitimate source of punishment for those who break the law. We don't get to punish whomever we want by ourselves.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
