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.
Yeah, it was an enjoyable discussion, we both said our pieces, and I think we can both at the very least get where we're all coming from. We probably didn't change each other's minds, but that's not really the point anyway, and it sounds like we will both keep thinking about this. I'll certainly listen to that conference you linked. It is important to question things, especially the fundamentals, and I'm curious to see what he's got to say. So, cheers, buddy! o7
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.
Agreed, not blaming them, but it felt really out of left field. We had this long discussion about where we were coming from, what we thought of the issue, and then a couple guys show up late talking about how we need to make victims feel good by killing prisoners. I can even mostly get where they're coming from too, but I personally strongly disagree.
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.
Yup, totally agreed.
Getting into moral theory is pretty challenging because, once you move past "what seems fair", shit gets really hard really fast. Still learning myself.
Yup, you really do have to start from the fundamentals, and then work your way up. Gets pretty weird. Looking forward to listening to the speech, though.
Exile is pretty based...problem is you're just fucking up somewhere else. But, maybe somewhere already fucked up...I like your kangaroo thought; let's just ship all the violent criminals to Australia. It was done once, it can be done again.
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.
Yeah, it was an enjoyable discussion, we both said our pieces, and I think we can both at the very least get where we're all coming from. We probably didn't change each other's minds, but that's not really the point anyway, and it sounds like we will both keep thinking about this. I'll certainly listen to that conference you linked. It is important to question things, especially the fundamentals, and I'm curious to see what he's got to say. So, cheers, buddy! o7
Agreed, not blaming them, but it felt really out of left field. We had this long discussion about where we were coming from, what we thought of the issue, and then a couple guys show up late talking about how we need to make victims feel good by killing prisoners. I can even mostly get where they're coming from too, but I personally strongly disagree.
Yup, totally agreed.
Yup, you really do have to start from the fundamentals, and then work your way up. Gets pretty weird. Looking forward to listening to the speech, though.
How about exile? Are there any good islands left? Preferably with animals the convicts could live off of (I’m thinking kangaroos here)
Exile is pretty based...problem is you're just fucking up somewhere else. But, maybe somewhere already fucked up...I like your kangaroo thought; let's just ship all the violent criminals to Australia. It was done once, it can be done again.