Texas Executes 300th Inmate

[Imran Siddiqui]

Look at the crime rates in both societies

Correlation does not imply causation. You'll have to do better than that.

[SlowwHand]

The Finns? Like they have a whole lot on their mind.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
Why can't you?

It's bad form to answer a question with another question.

while less authoritarian rehabilitation programs such as the Finns' are much more effective.

I may not know much but I do know that European countries have prisons. That would seem to indicate that they do incorporate some element of punishment into thier rehabilitation program.

[Ramo]

Now can I call you insane for repeated this utterly idiotic argument time and time again?
Example: You can assume deterance is moral, but then you'd have to take the position that any act of deterance is moral; including my chopping your arm off for stealing a pack of gun.
I'm sure this example will illustrate the idiocy of this style of argument. Since you agree with this reason for punishment, you have to agree with the worst for the punishment for the smallest thing.

I didn't assume that deterrence is moral. I said deterrence can be moral if it reduces net coercion. I did assume, however, that increasing coercion is immoral.

OTOH, you never justifed retribution. Again, if you assume the position that retribution is moral, then it follows that any act of retribution is moral. I'm not saying that you've assumed this premise, but if you have you should take the position that any act of retribution is moral.

What part of the 'punishment must fit the crime' (which is a retribution concept) don't you understand?

Why doesn't it "fit" the crime?

What is your position on the killing one's SO scenario? That's "fits" the crime, doesn't it? So you believe it's moral, correct? Remember, I'm talking about your moral beliefs, not anyone else's.

What came first, the chicken or the egg? What is to say that our crime rate wouldn't be even higher without vindictive punishments? Just because you assume it might, doesn't mean it will.

This is an absurd argument. The societies with the most draconian punishments have the highest crime rates. The socities with the least authoritarian punishmetns have the lowest crime rates. Are you saying that this coorelation means absolutely nothing?

Anyways, I've gotta go now. Later.

[Ramo]

Correlation does not imply causation. You'll have to do better than that.

Coorelation indicates causation. Given that sociology isn't a real science, it's the best kind of evidence there is.

It's bad form to answer a question with another question.

It's bad form to ask someone to prove a negative.

I may not know much but I do know that European countries have prisons. That would seem to indicate that they do incorporate some element of punishment into thier rehabilitation program.

But the prisons are used for protecting society, not retribution. I accept the existence of state authority, I just don't accept its use for retribution.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
It's bad form to ask someone to prove a negative.

I asked for proof of a positive assertion.

But the prisons are used for protecting society, not retribution.

What is deprivation of freedom, if not a punishment?

[Ramo]

I asked for proof of a positive assertion.

"...without punishment..."

What is deprivation of freedom, if not a punishment?

Ideally, a protection of society; a method of reducing total coercion.

[SlowwHand]

I thought you were leaving?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I didn't assume that deterrence is moral. I said deterrence can be moral if it reduces net coercion.

Ahhh... so, you believe a theory of punishment is moral WITHIN LIMITS! Why don't you apply this startling discovery to the rest of us who have never said that retribution is morally absolute?

What is your position on the killing one's SO scenario? That's "fits" the crime, doesn't it?

No, of course not. The punishment fitting the crime means that the person that performs the crime must be punished to the extent of the crime he committed.

. The societies with the most draconian punishments have the highest crime rates. The socities with the least authoritarian punishmetns have the lowest crime rates. Are you saying that this coorelation means absolutely nothing?

Yes, or more correctly, it means little when you consider other social factors.

But the prisons are used for protecting society, not retribution. I accept the existence of state authority, I just don't accept its use for retribution.

BULL****! The prision are ALSO used for retribution. Whenever you put someone behind bars you say that 'he deserved it', or else you wouldn't jail him.

And you don't accept state authority, you are an anarchist, not a minimalist, if you have forgetten .

[SlowwHand]

States Rights. A living thing.

[Ben Kenobi]

You didn't say this, but the point that "he can be realesed later" isn't worth much either, if someone innocent has been inprisoned 20 years and gets realesed later... life effectively ruined anyway. He simply should not been imprisoned in the first place.

tinyp3nis:

Not bad, counterargument with your anticipation of my response.

2 points. With the death penalty, there is no way to correct your mistake. Once they are dead, they are gone, no turning back. However, with other crimes, you can free someone held improperly. Yes, they will lose the part of their life spent in prison, but we can compensate the innocent person when they are let out.

This is what we do in Canada, for prisoners falsely convicted of murder. When we let them go, we try to pay them what they would have earned had they been free.

With respect to rehabilitation, I agree that the current system does not work. Now, are there any alternatives to throwing a criminal in jail and locking them away for 20 years? Certainly.

One form of rehabilitation which has worked, I forget the terminology, but here is how it works. Part of what the criminal has to do is to compensate the victim. For example, suppose someone has raped a woman, they would serve in a rape relief centre under supervision, doing small tasks otherwise performed by volunteers. The idea is to have them see the consequences and the hurt inflicted by their actions.

[Imran Siddiqui]

With the death penalty, there is no way to correct your mistake.

I do agree with this. This is why I, personally, believe that the death penalty should only be used for those cases where there is clear DNA evidence compounded with at least one witness. Basically in those cases where there is NO doubt (like Jeffery Dahmer or the Unibomber).

[Wycoff]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui I, personally, believe that the death penalty should only be used for those cases where there is clear DNA evidence compounded with at least one witness. Basically in those cases where there is NO doubt (like Jeffery Dahmer or the Unibomber).

I agree. That's what I said with my John Wayne Gacy example a couple of pages back. If there is 100% irrefutable proof, then he should be executed. If not, then he should get a lesser sentence.

[tinyp3nis]

With respect to rehabilitation, I agree that the current system does not work. Now, are there any alternatives to throwing a criminal in jail and locking them away for 20 years? Certainly.

I don't mind using rehablititation at all, but it's not for everyone. I think it should be a privilidge for those who deserve it. Most likely it also is allready, but I'm no expert about this, so can't say for sure if I would agree with the way they use it.

One form of rehabilitation which has worked, I forget the terminology, but here is how it works. Part of what the criminal has to do is to compensate the victim. For example, suppose someone has raped a woman, they would serve in a rape relief centre under supervision, doing small tasks otherwise performed by volunteers. The idea is to have them see the consequences and the hurt inflicted by their actions.

I see only one problem with this, the actual victim won't get the compensation, society does. So basically it can be a slap in the face for the rape victim, depending of how she feels about his sentence of course. Certainly the society should take care of the problem in the manner what is best for the society itself (cure/isolate the rapist and insure safety for people), but the crime was also personal and I think it would be too harsh to leave her out in the cold with it. I'm not necessearly saying the woman should deside, I mean some people are idiots, they even want severe punishment for people who accidentally cause them harm. But I don't consider punishment in general to be wrong. Law is a tricky thing, sometimes it screws the victim and sometimes the criminal, and oddly enough it sometimes can be fair even.
The finnish system is a bit too soft imo, but I don't want anything like they have in some US states.

[Ramo]

I thought you were leaving?

I came back to spite you.

Ahhh... so, you believe a theory of punishment is moral WITHIN LIMITS! Why don't you apply this startling discovery to the rest of us who have never said that retribution is morally absolute?

*Sigh*
Again, you can take the position where you don't assume that retribution is moral, but then you have to justify it. You haven't justified it. You've just restated the defintion of retribution of few times.

No, of course not. The punishment fitting the crime means that the person that performs the crime must be punished to the extent of the crime he committed.

If you kill my SO, I think I'd have punished you to the extent of the crime you commited if I killed your SO. It's a form of retribution. You said it yourself that there are cultures that practice this form of retribution.

Yes, or more correctly, it means little when you consider other social factors.

Which social factors in particular, and how do you know that they have a greater contribution than the severity of the "justice" system?

Anyways, in the first place, you asserted that the crime rate would explode if the prisons weren't as draconian. Would you mind justifying that assertion since the burden of proof is yours.

BULL****! The prision are ALSO used for retribution. Whenever you put someone behind bars you say that 'he deserved it', or else you wouldn't jail him.

I don't say "he deserved it." I don't think anyone "deserves" to have their all freedom taken away from them. I consider such a use of force immoral.

And you don't accept state authority, you are an anarchist, not a minimalist, if you have forgetten .

I advocate minimal authority, not the lack of authority which I don't consider possible. And that fits within the tradition of anarchism.