First, yes I think armed robbery, by way of example, merits capital punishment. I guess that the sticking point is the practicality of widespread use of life (or very long) sentences as an alternative to capital punishment. I simply don't believe that handing out a life sentence to every violent criminal is practical. We were paroling violent criminals long before dindu justice became the norm because the system would crack under the weight. We would need prisons the size of small cities.
If they offend again, lock them up for life.
Remember that in the case of the proverbial stick-up man, the new offence probably cost an innocent person their life.
Remember that in the case of the proverbial stick-up man, the new offence probably cost an innocent person their life.
I don't even agree. I agree that they're likely to kill eventually, and I certainly agree they should be taken off the streets before they can do that, but plenty of these fuckers commit armed robberies many times without/before killing anyone. Also, hopefully with their probation they get busted for something more minor/stupid before jumping right back into armed robbery.
First, yes I think armed robbery, by way of example, merits capital punishment. I guess that the sticking point is the practicality of widespread use of life (or very long) sentences as an alternative to capital punishment.
I don't see how, if you think death penalty is "practical," long prisons sentences wouldn't be considered such. It seems a perfectly fine alternative to me, and much less ripe for abuse.
I simply don't believe that handing out a life sentence to every violent criminal is practical.
Violent criminals are a small percentage of the overall population, the issue is they keep being let out to reoffend, as well as spread their degenerate mindsets to their communities. Lock the worst offenders up for long periods, society will improve. If we ever get a sensible justice system, and things don't improve, then maybe we can talk about taking things further.
Also, you seem to acknowledge there are a lot of these fuckers. Is killing huge numbers of criminals really more practical than jailing them? Even just optically, that seems pretty monstrous. To scale, and optically, locking this number of people up seems much better than killing them. If we're going to kill people in large numbers, innocent people will be caught up in that, guaranteed.
We were paroling violent criminals long before dindu justice became the norm because the system would crack under the weight.
Not to the degree we are now, but we certainly need to stop letting these fucks out.
We would need prisons the size of small cities.
Sounds based, let's go. We could just go full Escape from New York/LA and turn parts of CA and NY into prison colonies.
This has reminded me to read up on the history of incarceration. Interestingly, I think you and I are having a very old conversation. The very idea of holding people for any amount of time for their crimes is fairly modern. Usually, punishment was meted out based on some sort of capital-corporal dichotomy. Steal someone's purse? You go to the scaffold. Beat your wife? You go to the stocks for a day or two. I know that Kings and Lords may have held a few in literal dungeons, but this was not a society wide system.
Then in the 18th century, progressives (or social reformers as we used to call them) decided that incarceration could cover some of the lesser capital crimes and some of the greater non-capital crimes. It should be noted that from the very beginning the idea behind incarceration was rehabilitation, not separating dangerous people from society. Long and life sentences came about as a sort of stopgap measure.
I should stop here because, like I said, I need to do more reading on this subject to say anything intelligent.
Alright, this is a really good point. And I'm certainly more likely to be convinced in regards to corporal punishment that capital punishment, although many of the same problems remain. The people who would be scared by corporal punishment are, by and large at least, the people who don't need it; they'll behave relatively well regardless. The people who deserve corporal punishment won't be dissuaded by it.
The core problem is the criminal mindset. These people are basically retarded, and incapable of integrating into a sane society. So you have to take them out, one way or another. I personally prefer incarceration, as I think state-enforced death is too violative of rights and freedoms, and too permanent if it hits innocents.
It's very interesting to think about, though, that I may be trapped in the current framing, and trying to make an, as you say, "stopgap measure" work in ways it might not really work. I still think it may be the most feasible and humane solution, although it is certainly worth looking into more.
It's certainly a tricky question, as these sorts of people are so fucked in their thinking it's hard to figure out what to do with them. But continually letting them into society to reoffend certainly isn't the answer. Again, the issue is it's basically impossible to rehabilitate a large swath of the violent criminals. So what do you do with them?
I'll jump back in really quick to say I enjoyed our exchange and I disagree with others who are arguing with you that capital punishment needs to exist for the sake of retribution. I think that's a really bad justification.
I didn't continue our thread because I felt we reached an impasse, in a good way. We would have had to move on to harder questions like the value of a life and human dignity. Good topics to discuss, but honestly, I wasn't really up to it.
If you're into or interested in moral theory and/or the question of human dignity, this is a controversial lecture by Alasdair MacIntyre who is considered one of the preeminent moral theorists of the 20th century (https://youtu.be/q57wxXziKeQ). Getting into moral theory is pretty challenging because, once you move past "what seems fair", shit gets really hard really fast. Still learning myself.
First, yes I think armed robbery, by way of example, merits capital punishment. I guess that the sticking point is the practicality of widespread use of life (or very long) sentences as an alternative to capital punishment. I simply don't believe that handing out a life sentence to every violent criminal is practical. We were paroling violent criminals long before dindu justice became the norm because the system would crack under the weight. We would need prisons the size of small cities.
Remember that in the case of the proverbial stick-up man, the new offence probably cost an innocent person their life.
I don't even agree. I agree that they're likely to kill eventually, and I certainly agree they should be taken off the streets before they can do that, but plenty of these fuckers commit armed robberies many times without/before killing anyone. Also, hopefully with their probation they get busted for something more minor/stupid before jumping right back into armed robbery.
I don't see how, if you think death penalty is "practical," long prisons sentences wouldn't be considered such. It seems a perfectly fine alternative to me, and much less ripe for abuse.
Violent criminals are a small percentage of the overall population, the issue is they keep being let out to reoffend, as well as spread their degenerate mindsets to their communities. Lock the worst offenders up for long periods, society will improve. If we ever get a sensible justice system, and things don't improve, then maybe we can talk about taking things further.
Also, you seem to acknowledge there are a lot of these fuckers. Is killing huge numbers of criminals really more practical than jailing them? Even just optically, that seems pretty monstrous. To scale, and optically, locking this number of people up seems much better than killing them. If we're going to kill people in large numbers, innocent people will be caught up in that, guaranteed.
Not to the degree we are now, but we certainly need to stop letting these fucks out.
Sounds based, let's go. We could just go full Escape from New York/LA and turn parts of CA and NY into prison colonies.
This has reminded me to read up on the history of incarceration. Interestingly, I think you and I are having a very old conversation. The very idea of holding people for any amount of time for their crimes is fairly modern. Usually, punishment was meted out based on some sort of capital-corporal dichotomy. Steal someone's purse? You go to the scaffold. Beat your wife? You go to the stocks for a day or two. I know that Kings and Lords may have held a few in literal dungeons, but this was not a society wide system.
Then in the 18th century, progressives (or social reformers as we used to call them) decided that incarceration could cover some of the lesser capital crimes and some of the greater non-capital crimes. It should be noted that from the very beginning the idea behind incarceration was rehabilitation, not separating dangerous people from society. Long and life sentences came about as a sort of stopgap measure.
I should stop here because, like I said, I need to do more reading on this subject to say anything intelligent.
Alright, this is a really good point. And I'm certainly more likely to be convinced in regards to corporal punishment that capital punishment, although many of the same problems remain. The people who would be scared by corporal punishment are, by and large at least, the people who don't need it; they'll behave relatively well regardless. The people who deserve corporal punishment won't be dissuaded by it.
The core problem is the criminal mindset. These people are basically retarded, and incapable of integrating into a sane society. So you have to take them out, one way or another. I personally prefer incarceration, as I think state-enforced death is too violative of rights and freedoms, and too permanent if it hits innocents.
It's very interesting to think about, though, that I may be trapped in the current framing, and trying to make an, as you say, "stopgap measure" work in ways it might not really work. I still think it may be the most feasible and humane solution, although it is certainly worth looking into more.
It's certainly a tricky question, as these sorts of people are so fucked in their thinking it's hard to figure out what to do with them. But continually letting them into society to reoffend certainly isn't the answer. Again, the issue is it's basically impossible to rehabilitate a large swath of the violent criminals. So what do you do with them?
I'll jump back in really quick to say I enjoyed our exchange and I disagree with others who are arguing with you that capital punishment needs to exist for the sake of retribution. I think that's a really bad justification.
I didn't continue our thread because I felt we reached an impasse, in a good way. We would have had to move on to harder questions like the value of a life and human dignity. Good topics to discuss, but honestly, I wasn't really up to it.
If you're into or interested in moral theory and/or the question of human dignity, this is a controversial lecture by Alasdair MacIntyre who is considered one of the preeminent moral theorists of the 20th century (https://youtu.be/q57wxXziKeQ). Getting into moral theory is pretty challenging because, once you move past "what seems fair", shit gets really hard really fast. Still learning myself.
How about exile? Are there any good islands left? Preferably with animals the convicts could live off of (I’m thinking kangaroos here)
And one day, the President's plane might go down over one of them.