|
This guy should be put to death! (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Akridrot |
Steven Pinker once wrote that if an inmate on death row was about to die, the authorities would get him the best medical care available, recover him to good health and then execute him. That example stuck with me.
I'm thinking that the amount of time doesn't make a sentence necessarily worse. Some criminals are not logical people. 25 years means as much as 10 or 5 years to people who have no future ahead of them. Perhaps we should go by how much treatment someone needs and the amount of progress that person needs to make before we even decide if they're allowed to go back out.
And this might sound absurd at first, but we also need to look (maybe even glimpse) at the environment they go back to. Especially for juveniles. Maybe Johnny wouldn't be so ed up if his family weren't so ed up.
If we give someone 25 years for murder because we have to, what happens to the murderer in those 25 years that will prevent him from murdering when he gets out? What are we really doing?
Why would you put a murderer with nothing to look forward to back on the streets? Why not make sure that this guy is capable of living on his own and that he won't ing explode on someone?
(I posted twice because two posts are better than one)
/rant |
|
|
| d-miurge |
| HE HAD SEX WITH ALL THIS WHITE GIRL. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
But they are our only two options, and I think that pretty well sums up the problem that plagues not just the American justice system, but any justice system in the world - the burden of proof of ones innocence or guilt. Speaking in general terms (and not out of my own opinion), it seems as if someone is guilty of a horrible crime, then to the general public there isn't any punishment good enough for them, yet if they are innocent but treated as though they were guilty, anything that happens to them is "cruel and unusual" or "unwarranted." |
The truth is that for most people, 'justice' is only revenge sufficiently rationalized. People want those who have caused suffering to themselves suffer -- that's 'justice.' As a result, this type of reaction is precisely what we should expect: punishments are judged to be 'good enough' for an offense based on whether they are 'cruel enough,' and nothing is ever really 'cruel enough' to satisfy this thirst for revenge. If and when people realize that this person isn't really guilty of any crime, then they immediately see the cruelty of what is being done, and it is no longer counterbalanced by their desire for revenge, so they suddendly find it objectionable.
The problem is that our system of justice should not be appealing to these primitive notions. We should not be thinking of a "good enough" punishment as a "cruel enough" punishment. We ought to reject the notion that cruelty is "good" when it is directed at people who have done something wrong. If we remove that desire to inflict suffering from our analysis of punishments altogether, it would be a good first step.
| quote: | | And as far as the "loved one" argument goes - to be honest, I can't stand when people bring that up in a discussion like this. In idyllic terms, justice is divorced from personal feelings - and especially when we are talking about how we'd like the justice system to reward criminal behavior, discussing any notion of justice in terms of how we would want our own loved ones treated immediately removes any objective sense of justice one could possibly have. If our entire legal system was based on that, everyone would get a firm slap on the wrist for anything they did, and we'd all go on with our days. |
But the obvious reality is that there is no objective sense of justice that anyone could possibly have, therefore we are only removing the illusion of such a thing. That is precisely the point of this exercise, so what we can begin to proceed with how we ought to react to crime in the absence of some objective 'justice.' It would probably be even better to consider these four extreme scenarios at once:
1. The case where your 'loved one' is found guilty of a horrible crime that they did not in fact commit.
2. The case where your 'loved one' is found guilty of a horrible crime that they did in fact commit.
3. The case where another individual is found guilty of a horrible crime against your 'loved one' that they did not in fact commit.
4. The case where another individual is found guilty of a horrible crime against your 'loved one' that they did in fact commit.
If you can come up with a system that provides for an outcome which entirely satisfies your subjective sense of justice in all four of these scenarios without giving any particular party preferential treatment, then I would have to commend you on your accomplishment. But I suspect that very few people could do so. I certainly could not. To me, perfect justice is impossible in our uncertain existence.
Instead, it's probably more informative to try to create a system that provides for an outcome which satisfies your subjective sense of justice in all four of these scenarios collectively to the greatest extent possible. In other words, to maximize the degree to which the system is subjectively satisfactory, given that it will never be perfect. I'm sure that there would be significant diversity of opinions in this regards, but I doubt that many people's subjectively optimized systems of justice would include simply killing the convicted person outright, torturing them, or any number of the other cruel punishments that this thread is littered with.
| quote: | What you say above effectively makes any sort of punishment "petty" or "revenge" - so I'll ask you, what do you plan doing to the most horrid of criminal offenders? Saying "Don't do it again or I'll slap you"?
:conf:
That tact your taking just seems to be one of "any kind of response to criminal activity amounts to nothing more than revenge", so why even bother with a justice system in general? |
Well, as above it comes down to a matter of opinion. One reasonably good option, in my opinion, is to just quarantine them away from the rest of society so that they don't have the opportunity to commit their crimes again. In that way, we minimize the extent to which we're inflicting suffering on them by limiting it to what is necessary in order to protect society from them. This is particularly a good thing if they later turn out to have been innocent, but I believe that it is a better way to treat those who are guilty as well. Treating people cruelly is a foolish way to attempt to send the message that treating people cruelly is not acceptable.
As you can see, that is a response not motivated at all by the impulse to exact revenge. Rather, it is motivated by a desire to protect society from a person who we have good reason to believe is a dangerous criminal and, moreover, to set a good example about how to handle conflict while still respecting human dignity.
| quote: | | You are never, ever going to see a world where we cannot doubt just about everything - but should that really be a reason not to punish criminals we can be relatively certain are guilty? |
I believe that it should be a reason to use carefully measured punishments that minimize the harm caused to those who are not guilty while still protecting society from those who are. |
|
|
| RJT |
I appreciate the thoughtful response, but isn't something like this...
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
The problem is that our system of justice should not be appealing to these primitive notions. We should not be thinking of a "good enough" punishment as a "cruel enough" punishment. We ought to reject the notion that cruelty is "good" when it is directed at people who have done something wrong. If we remove that desire to inflict suffering from our analysis of punishments altogether, it would be a good first step. |
...what we already have, at least insofar as how we legislate actual punishments (or the range within which they fall) for crimes?
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
. . .
To me, perfect justice is impossible in our uncertain existence. |
Perfect anything is impossible except for perfect death.
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Instead, it's probably more informative to try to create a system that provides for an outcome which satisfies your subjective sense of justice in all four of these scenarios collectively to the greatest extent possible. In other words, to maximize the degree to which the system is subjectively satisfactory, given that it will never be perfect. I'm sure that there would be significant diversity of opinions in this regards, but I doubt that many people's subjectively optimized systems of justice would include simply killing the convicted person outright, torturing them, or any number of the other cruel punishments that this thread is littered with.
Well, as above it comes down to a matter of opinion. One reasonably good option, in my opinion, is to just quarantine them away from the rest of society so that they don't have the opportunity to commit their crimes again. In that way, we minimize the extent to which we're inflicting suffering on them by limiting it to what is necessary in order to protect society from them. This is particularly a good thing if they later turn out to have been innocent, but I believe that it is a better way to treat those who are guilty as well. Treating people cruelly is a foolish way to attempt to send the message that treating people cruelly is not acceptable.
As you can see, that is a response not motivated at all by the impulse to exact revenge. Rather, it is motivated by a desire to protect society from a person who we have good reason to believe is a dangerous criminal and, moreover, to set a good example about how to handle conflict while still respecting human dignity. |
Basically what you seem to be doing is just rationalizing punishments similar to those already metered out (you may as well use "imprison" rather than "quarantine") with language that removes any sense of justice as "revenge" - but it seems regardless of motivation you're advocating the same kinds of punishments people advocate in the name of "revenge" in the name of "societal safety" instead. I don't really think you're accomplishing your goal of creating a justice system that can't have a "revenge" motive mapped onto it rather easily. It's just what society decides collectively is reasonably appropriate "revenge."
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
I believe that it should be a reason to use carefully measured punishments that minimize the harm caused to those who are not guilty while still protecting society from those who are. |
Again, isn't this already the chief aim of our legislative and judicial systems?
:conf:
It really just seems like you're using language that falls close in line with social contract theory in an effort to remove any, as you say, "primitive notion of revenge" that may motivate what we as a society choose for punishments.
I think it's also important to note that crimes like this obviously appeal more heavily to people's emotional sides than those of jaywalking or shoplifting by virtue of nothing more than how utterly horrible the crime was (ground I'm sure we agree on), and as such reactions like those seen in this thread should not only be expected, but I also don't think people should be chastised for reacting with them instead of rational debate solely because you see it as indicating the desire for revenge.
In some way, shape, or form, without any sense of "revenge", we fail to have any kind of justice system to begin with and would fall into anarchy. As far as I understand, part of the reason we have legislative and judicial branches of government is to regulate that desire into what society deems as suitable punishment based on the best information available (how well they accomplish that task is another story).
(The word revenge has been used too many times in this post already and I hate that).
At the end of the day, I just don't think separating justice from any notion of revenge is possible, how one idea incorporates the other, however, is an idea that I think most societies have been trying to cope with since the dawn of civilization, and will likely continue until the planet decides it's had enough of us and says "bye." |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| So what exactly is wrong with revenge killing? |
|
|
| RJT |
| Why kill when "revenge anal" is an option? |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| Hell yes, nigger. |
|
|
| RickyM |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
I think that the punishment should be somewhat related to what you have done. For this guy, he raped, and tried to blind the girl. So my punishment would be to chop off the limb he used to cause harm, and to make him blind.
Meh... maybe I am a bad person, but I think death is too easy for people like this. We need to make examples out of them. |
Ok Theresa, since you approve of 'an eye for an eye' style justice system, surely you wouldn't have a problem administering it to this man? Could you throw bleach over his face, cut off his arm and stab his eyes? If not then why not?
I'd love to know who you think would administer this government sanctioned 'eye for an eye' torture. I'd love to see that job advertisement.
Thankfully though this is the 21st century, where people with more common sense than you are in charge of the justice system. |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by jennypie
Hell yes, nigger. |
:eek:
I wanted to try and make a Toby/Kunta Kinte joke here, but then I remembered how awesome Lavar Burton looked as Geordi LaForge that I just decided to Google image search that instead.
 |
|
|
| pierre_escargot |
Kunta Kinte? Damn.. where is that from ?
*Mumbles to himself* |
|
|
| RJT |
Someone needs to see "Roots"!
:gsmile:
And I probably spelled it wrong. :o |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
Thankyou arbiter and RJT for elevating this discussion above the juvenile and retarded "eye for an eye" mentality on display in here.
The people that think mirrored torture is somehow acceptable as part of an enlightened justice system are ing morons.
yes, morons. |
|
|
|
|
