We can't determine that satisfactorily, though.
"Of course my interpretation grants that. I'm
saying that imprisonment effectively punishes
someone on account of that likelihood. Such a
punishment has got nothing to do with the
crime he's already committed."
Oh, that's such ROT. And if that's the case then no one should ever be punished via the death penalty by means of retribution.
Just because punishment isn't exactly fit to the crime, in most cases -- i.e. it doesn't redress the crime or offer exact, specific restitution for it -- doesn't mean that the punishment isn't directed toward the crime. But if it is as you say then no one has any reason whatsoever to assign punishment according to the principle of retribution -- and therefore revenge isn't sufficient justification for execution.
402. lillie - Dec. 8, 1998 - 5:59 PM PT
excuse me for interrupting...This is the only issue that keeps me from being called a *Bleeding Heart* liberal in my gang!! I say bring back the death penalty, and give them one year MAX, for appeals etc.. If the badguys know for sure that the Ax (so to speak) will drop in 365 days, maybe that will become more of a deterrant.
On the suject of Death for *cop killers* , these guys take an oath to protect you and me and our homes, and property, they routinely are in harms way to do so. Regardless of current thinking in some circles about the *boys in blue*, they have my respect and I take them for granted just like everyone else...
I see the police on a routine basis in the ER , and I,ve seen tremendous compassion, as well as rage in dealing with the flottsom of life that comes in the doors on a given night..
These guys are a breed apart and deserve to be held in great esteem..that' s my take on this.....lillie
403. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 8, 1998 - 6:00 PM PT
resonance (Message #392)
"You can argue and argue and argue that it's the future crimes which are punished, but the future crimes will not occur without the tendency to commit them. And the tendency is what gets addressed."
First of all, even if the "tendency" is what gets addressed, it is still then not a punishment for the crime actually committed. It's just a punishment for something else. What's the difference?
404. Jenerator - Dec. 8, 1998 - 6:04 PM PT
Resonance,
re Message #398
The arrogance that flows from you is amazing. Truly. To think that this is an open forum, yet YOU decide who should be listened to, demonstrates the enormity of your ego, and the shallowness of your personality.
Clearly, you and PrigErasmus went to the same school of attitude in which most, if not all persons, are seen as inferiors.
Since you like to keep track of my comings and goings, and it irritates you so much for me to (Heaven forbid) stay longer than expected, I'll stay. Just for you sweetie.
By the way, thanks for not getting specific on Speck, the poor guy being locked up for life, sniffing coke, having sex, and undergoing a sex change. Sheer *torture*! How many nurses DID he kill??
405. jonesatlaw - Dec. 8, 1998 - 6:05 PM PT
Re Message #301 It is counter argument. You posit that rights are positive law. If we all agree that everyone has a claim on a cheese sandwich, cheese sandwiches are a right. The founders believed that certain rights were inherent, god-given and inalienable. That is the error your assertions are based on. In this society we have a core belief in a natural law, an immutable right that is a check on the positive law.
406. Seguine - Dec. 8, 1998 - 6:06 PM PT
Sorry about that, Resonance! Exodus 22:18 does indeed condone the killing of witches. I read the wrong passage, one about not serving the blood of sacrifgices with unleavened bread.
But it doesn't do to claim the OT is "part of the Christian tradition" and so the right to life is mitigated by Christianity. Christianity contradicts certain OT standards of morality. Jesus was a revisionist, sort of the first reform Jew...
407. jonesatlaw - Dec. 8, 1998 - 6:10 PM PT
If incarcerating persons for the protection equals punishment, then involuntary mental health commitment is punishment as well,isn't it? It is based on the likelyhood of future dangerousness and not on past actions, and removes these people from society.
408. resonance - Dec. 8, 1998 - 6:12 PM PT
"First of all, even if the "tendency" is what gets
addressed, it is still then not a punishment for
the crime actually committed. It's just a
punishment for something else. What's the
difference?"
Well, I think it's important to keep in mind that it's *partially* tailored toward something else, not totally. But the obvious point is that if I am right, incarceration doesn't reduce to punishment alone.
Your point that punishment=punishment strikes a lot closer to home than most people would feel comfortable with, but it isn't strictly true. And its flaw bears upon the topic at hand, because if incarceration doesn't reduce purely to punishment then we can't condone the death penalty in purely punitive terms.
409. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 8, 1998 - 6:13 PM PT
resonance (Message #401)
"And if that's the case then no one should ever be punished via the death penalty by means of retribution."
Nonsense. First of all, I have no problem with punishing crimes yet uncommitted, as long as some crime was also committed in the past. Second, I mentioned FOUR rationales for incarceration, one of which was retribution, which among the four is the only punishment for the already committed crime. So you can still just imprison people for retributional purposes. All it means that the other three are bogus rationales amounting to punishment for something other than the past crime.
"Just because punishment isn't exactly fit to the crime, in most cases -- i.e. it doesn't redress the crime or offer exact, specific restitution for it -- doesn't mean that the punishment isn't directed toward the crime."
But then the punishment would have to amount to retribution.
If a certain punishment is not retributional and is also directed genuinely and exclusively at past actions, then it would revolve around RECOMPENSE and LIABILITY. For example, the criminal would be forced to compensate the victim of the crime for medical bills, lost wages, etc., by paying through garnished wages, rendered services, indentured servitude or even outright slavery (in case the debt is permanent and infinite, as may be the case with murder).
But of course, this is not practical. So we simply throw him in jail. And my question is, if we can unjustly violate his rights in this way by punishing his future behaviour, why can't we also simply kill him? I am not saying there is no possible principled answer to this. I just haven't come across a good one.
410. resonance - Dec. 8, 1998 - 6:14 PM PT
"The arrogance that flows from you is amazing.
Truly. To think that this is an open forum, yet
YOU decide who should be listened to,
demonstrates the enormity of your ego, and the
shallowness of your personality."
Yes. I decide for myself. I share my opinion. I say why. This is ego-driven? Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
411. KurtMondaugen - Dec. 8, 1998 - 6:20 PM PT
jonesat law:
Incarcerating criminals is generally done for the protection of society. Mental health inpatient treatment is generally done for the protection of the patient.
412. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 8, 1998 - 6:20 PM PT
resonance (Message #408)
"Well, I think it's important to keep in mind that it's *partially* tailored toward something else, not totally."
That "something else" is called a rationale, and I listed four possible ones for incarceration in Message #303. And you have already admitted that you want to "address" the "tendency to commit crime", which is not quite "addressing" the crime actually committed.
413. resonance - Dec. 8, 1998 - 6:26 PM PT
"But then the punishment would have to amount
to retribution."
No, no, no, argh. Come on. That aspect of the punishment would reduce to retribution. Only that aspect. Not the punishment as a whole. Remember, you've anything but satisfactorily demonstrated just why all punishment reduces to retribution.
"If a certain punishment is not retributional and
is also directed genuinely and exclusively at
past actions, then it would revolve around
RECOMPENSE and LIABILITY. For example,
the criminal would be forced to compensate the
victim of the crime for medical bills, lost wages,
etc., by paying through garnished wages,
rendered services, indentured servitude or even
outright slavery (in case the debt is permanent
and infinite, as may be the case with murder)."
I'm not denying that there's a retributional component to punishment, PE. I am only arguing that that component does not make up the whole of punishment. There is also incapacitation and rehabilitation.
414. Jenerator - Dec. 8, 1998 - 6:28 PM PT
Res,
Ignore me. I simply get too irritated by you. I do not know why *your* sarcasm and lack of anything warm bugs me so much, but it does. So, why get into a tizzy over some jerkoff who I care nothing for? I'm sure you share the sentiment.
415. resonance - Dec. 8, 1998 - 6:35 PM PT
I missed this.
"Well, yes. I saw that. Which was my point. They
weren't bloodthirsty. That is because they really
didn't think about what they were doing at all.
Whereas right now, no one is blindly accepting
the death penalty as some meaningless ritual."
Well, whether or not you missed that is fruitless to debate. As per usual, I doubt you were thinking of it.
But your point above is bullshit, anyway. Hell, there's this whole 'the worst crime demands the worst punishment' illogical ritual. And there's Scottloar's point about how soceity uses the death penalty to anchor its morality. That we must as a society sacrifice a criminal to reaffirm our core beliefs.That's ritual. That's why I brought this up.
"So what is the
connection with The Lottery? There is no
similarity between the mentality of people who
are for the death penalty and the people in The
Lottery. "
Yes, there is. Do you really think that this 'sanctity of life' nonsense operates at a far remove from any other cultural ritual? It's primitive.
416. resonance - Dec. 8, 1998 - 6:36 PM PT
"If you are saying, as Christin's interpretation
seems to, that support for the death penalty is
based on the secure conviction that "it will never
happen to me"....shrug. Not that I can see."
Well, perhaps you don't at that. But if you really think that the likes of Jenerator wouldn't shriek on about how the system was corrupt and wrong if she were framed for a capital charge and sentenced to execution, and if you really think that it wouldn't change her point ov view on the whole matter, then you're not really thinking. Do you really think that she'd walk calmly to the gas chamber and go 'even though I have been framed by the system and am about to lose my life, I think that the system is acceptable'? Do you really think that Pseudo would?
417. resonance - Dec. 8, 1998 - 6:39 PM PT
" And you have already admitted
that you want to "address" the "tendency to
commit crime", which is not quite "addressing"
the crime actually committed."
Do show me where I ever indicated that I *exclusively* want to address crime in that way. With no other rationales. I'm quite capable of finding that retribution is pragmatically useful, and wanting to also rehabilitate and incapacitate criminals. And I'm not averse to letting their example serve as a deterrent to others, though I need feel no shame in that, as I need not justify punishment by its deterrent value. Do I really have to have one undivided rationale for punishment, PE? Come, now.
418. arkymalarky - Dec. 8, 1998 - 6:42 PM PT
Resonance(416),
What does being wrongfully sentenced to death have to do with one's general position for or against the death penalty? Guilty or not, I wouldn't want the death penalty applied to me. I wouldn't want to be put in prison, either; but my complaint would be with the failure of the system, not the particular punishment applied.
419. Jenerator - Dec. 8, 1998 - 6:45 PM PT
Estimating about 265,000 murders in the US from 1976 until 1990, William F. Buckley, Jr., calculated that within this 14-year period there was ONE execution for every 2,137 murders committed accross the nation. "This reticence to do justly has resulted in the longest judicial foreplay in history."
p.62 National Review, June 25, 1990.
420. resonance - Dec. 8, 1998 - 6:45 PM PT
"Ignore me. I simply get too irritated by you. I do
not know why *your* sarcasm and lack of
anything warm bugs me so much, but it does."
It bugs you so much because it tries to get you to examine things you'd rather not examine. And I have plenty of warmth. It's just that I have none for false righteousness and an inability to see self-contradiction. Especially when it's smug. And that more or less characterizes those statements of yours which I respond to. You can care, or not care, but as long as you keep making such silly statements and I'm of a mood to, I will respond to them.
421. resonance - Dec. 8, 1998 - 6:51 PM PT
"What does being wrongfully sentenced to death
have to do with one's general position for or
against the death penalty? Guilty or not, I
wouldn't want the death penalty applied to me."
I very strongly suspect that many who favor capital punishment would change their way of thinking were it to start happening to them. It's happy and safe and insulated from them now. It's something that happens to *bad* people. And that group which we don't know if they were bad or not? Well, they're just expendable. After all, we have to kill people.
It's this sort of unthought-out nonsense that I'm talking about, arkymalarky. If these people were able to put themselves in the shoes of someone who was about to be executed for a crime they didn't commit, I think many of them would have a Scrooge-like epiphany on the matter. Not all of them -- there'd be the Gary Busey-syndrome types and the hard-heads. And there would be those who would still stick to their principled beliefs. But I think that a large majority would suddenly be going, 'But...but...but...' and changing their minds on the matter.
422. Jenerator - Dec. 8, 1998 - 6:53 PM PT
Me: "Ignore me. I simply get too irritated by you. I do
not know why *your* sarcasm and lack of
anything warm bugs me so much, but it does."
You: " It bugs you so much because it tries to get you to examine things you'd rather not examine"
Yeah, *YOU*!
423. resonance - Dec. 8, 1998 - 6:54 PM PT
Somehow I doubt that I hold more horrors than the mirror, Jenerator.
424. Jenerator - Dec. 8, 1998 - 6:57 PM PT
What about the killers who WANT the death penalty? There are those who have received life inprisonment who actually want to be executed. But then the ACLU steps in.
I assure you I'm not making this up. Here in Texas, there are those in Huntsville who feel this way.
425. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 8, 1998 - 6:59 PM PT
Message #417
This post is superfluous. I have never claimed that you had only one rationale for punishment. I merely said that "addressing a capacity for committing crimes" is not the same thing as punishing the crime already committed.
Message #413
I've already demonstrated to my satisfaction that rehabilitation and incapacitation amount to punishing something other than the crime committed. (Whether it's future crime or not really doesn't matter; all that matters is that it's not the past crime that's being punished.) I don't know what else to say.
426. resonance - Dec. 8, 1998 - 7:00 PM PT
Then let them die. It's their own choice -- PROVIDED that we can prove that it is, in fact not a coerced choice.
After all, these people can't be said to have been deprived of anything which they didn't want to be deprived of. I'm for the right to commit suicide under certain conditions. I'm for state-assisted euthanasia. I think, however, that there's too much chance for abuse when the state in and of itself decides to kill someone.
427. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 8, 1998 - 7:07 PM PT
I still don't see why imprisoning someone for a "tendency to commit crimes" is not punishment of future actions, since that tendency can really only be manifested in the future. How can a murderer have manifested a tendency, say, with a single murder? You need a trend, a movement in a given direction.
428. resonance - Dec. 8, 1998 - 7:10 PM PT
"I've already demonstrated to my satisfaction that
rehabilitation and incapacitation amount to
punishing something other than the crime
committed. (Whether it's future crime or not
really doesn't matter; all that matters is that it's
not the past crime that's being punished.) I don't
know what else to say."
Maybe I misinterpreted your point. I was under the impression, from your own words, that incapacitation and rehabilitation reduced to retribution. I have shown that there is sufficient reason to believe that they do not. I doubt like hell that you'll find anyone who will argue that rehabilitation is meant to punish a past crime. As for incapacitation, it has an incidental connection to retribution -- the need for the former increases the latter. I really don't know how you can be content with what you've proven, but it's getting to be a tiresome topic.
429. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 8, 1998 - 7:14 PM PT
By the way, the criminological rationale of "incapacitation" is meant to protect society from criminals by imprisoning them, hence "incapacitating" their ability to commit further crimes. Sounds to me like punishment for future crimes.
"I was under the impression, from your own words, that incapacitation and rehabilitation reduced to retribution."
Well, they do. Just retribution for something other than the crime actually committed.
"As for incapacitation, it has an incidental connection to retribution -- the need for the former increases the latter."
Huh?
430. resonance - Dec. 8, 1998 - 7:17 PM PT
"I still don't see why imprisoning someone for a
"tendency to commit crimes" is not punishment
of future actions, since that tendency can really
only be manifested in the future. How can a
murderer have manifested a tendency, say, with
a single murder? You need a trend, a movement
in a given direction."
No, you don't. If you demonstrate the capacity to commit a crime once, that's sufficient reason to assume that you will be more likely than not to do so again, unless someone intervenes. And we aren't just talking about tendency, but tendency and capacity. It's something that's made manifest by the committing of a crime. Therefore, it is not manifested only in the future, but in the present.
431. arkymalarky - Dec. 8, 1998 - 7:21 PM PT
"It's this sort of unthought-out nonsense that I'm talking about, arkymalarky."
What an irrelevant, baseless remark. Maybe you thought it was "unthoughtout nonsesnse" because you didn't get the point. You certainly didn't address it at all. In case that's your problem, let me state it again: No one *wants* ANY kind of punishment for themselves, deserved or not, whether it's the death penalty or anything else that could reasonably be considered punishment. So what would opposition to my *personal* death at the hands of the government have to do with my general views on the death penalty? I might change a lot of my beliefs and viewpoints under duress, but that doesn't make them less valid, it just makes me a coward.
432. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 8, 1998 - 7:23 PM PT
Message #430
"Capability" and "tendency" are meaningless except statistically. And a single data point (one murder) doesn't make for a data set.
"And we aren't just talking about tendency, but tendency and capacity. It's something that's made manifest by the committing of a crime. Therefore, it is not manifested only in the future, but in the present."
How does it manifest itself in the present?
433. resonance - Dec. 8, 1998 - 7:23 PM PT
"Well, they do. Just retribution for something
other than the crime actually committed."
No, no, no, no, no. Whether punishment is retribution depends upon the intent. The fact that they may take the same form is immaterial to the viability of the rationale when determining whether some forms of punishment are just and others aren't.
""As for incapacitation, it has an incidental
connection to retribution -- the need for the
former increases the latter."
Huh?"
The need to incapacitate someone -- to keep them away from society at large -- requires that they be isolated. Isolation is a form of punishment. I should have said 'punishment' instead of 'retribution' in the above quotation.
434. CalGal - Dec. 8, 1998 - 7:28 PM PT
"Well, whether or not you missed that is fruitless to debate. As per usual, I doubt you were thinking of it."
Not true; I mentioned ritual in my first post.
"But your point above is bullshit, anyway. Hell, there's this whole 'the worst crime demands the worst punishment' illogical ritual. And there's Scottloar's point about how soceity uses the death penalty to anchor its morality. That we must as a society sacrifice a criminal to reaffirm our core beliefs.That's ritual. That's why I brought this up."
Hmm. I disagree that it is ritual. However, had you been more specific in your original post, I would have seen the connection.
"Yes, there is. Do you really think that this 'sanctity of life' nonsense operates at a far remove from any other cultural ritual? It's primitive."
Same--I disagree that it is ritual. But no matter. Realize that you made *no* mention of ritual in your original post alluding to The Lottery. Had you done so, I might have understood what your allusion was, whether I agreed or not.
As for Message #416, Arky made the same response I would have. I was unpersuaded and unimpressed by your response. But that, too, is part of our little ritual.
435. CalGal - Dec. 8, 1998 - 7:28 PM PT
Ha--Arky, too, was unimpressed and unpersuaded. (g)
436. resonance - Dec. 8, 1998 - 7:30 PM PT
""It's this sort of unthought-out nonsense that I'm
talking about, arkymalarky."
What an irrelevant, baseless remark. Maybe you
thought it was "unthoughtout nonsesnse"
because you didn't get the point. "
Sigh. Relax -- I didn't mean 'un-thought-out nonsense' to apply to what you were saying, Arkymalarky. If you read what I wrote again, I think yu'll see that it's a bit of a stretch and you might have been being a little defensive. Unless, of course, your rationale for the death penalty can be summed up as
"It's something that happens to *bad* people.
And that group which we don't know if they
were bad or not? Well, they're just expendable.
After all, we have to kill people. "
In which case, I can't help you much.
437. resonance - Dec. 8, 1998 - 7:31 PM PT
"So what would
opposition to my *personal* death at the hands
of the government have to do with my general
views on the death penalty? I might change a lot
of my beliefs and viewpoints under duress, but
that doesn't make them less valid, it just makes
me a coward."
Or it could mean that you realized that you were ignoring something rather important until you were forcibly confronted with it. And it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with cowardice -- it might just mean that you weren't thinking logically beforehand.
438. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 8, 1998 - 7:39 PM PT
resonance (Message #433)
"Whether punishment is retribution depends upon the intent. The fact that they may take the same form is immaterial to the viability of the rationale when determining whether some forms of punishment are just and others aren't."
I think it's easy to question and debunk intentions according to the effects. If the law permits marriage only between men and women, you can easily argue that even though the intention is not prima facie discriminatory against gays, since they can still get married to those of the opposite sex, the EFFECT is nonetheless discriminatory against them.
And my point is really to illustrate that imprisonment is purely punitive in effect for the PRISONER, if not in the JAILOR's intention. It really doesn't matter whether the effects are intended or unintended, whether the intentions are disingenous or delusional. The effects remain the same for the "incapacitated" prisoner -- he is in prison for something he has yet to do, namely endanger society once again.
"The need to incapacitate someone -- to keep them away from society at large -- requires that they be isolated. Isolation is a form of punishment. I should have said 'punishment' instead of 'retribution' in the above quotation."
What the hell is the difference between retribution and punishment when the latter is shorn of such rationales as incapacitation, reinforcement, deterrence, rehabilitation, etc.?
439. resonance - Dec. 8, 1998 - 7:39 PM PT
Well, at least you admit that you misapprehended everything. That's fresh and new.
I suppose it's eminently possible that you could see a reference to the execution in 'The Lottery' and not grasp 'ritual', even though you referred to it yourself. And that you could assume that I meant that bloodthirsty=the crowd in the Lottery, even though I said that it didn't in that very post.
(shaking head) Glad we got that cleared up, IAC.
440. CalGal - Dec. 8, 1998 - 7:42 PM PT
It is not an execution in The Lottery. It is sacrifice. Big difference, IMO.
441. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 8, 1998 - 7:43 PM PT
Resonance: How are you defining "punishment"? I define it in the common way: "the application of pain, cost or hardship to someone who has committed a crime or a sin".
442. CalGal - Dec. 8, 1998 - 7:43 PM PT
And no, I didn't misapprehend. As I said, I disagree. I just wasn't even clear how you drew the connection.
I see no reason to automatically connect ritual with execution. It is fairly far out there for me, in terms of the ongoing debate. Had I thought of it, I would have rejected it on the grounds that it was too idiotic to suggest--I might be insulting you.
Apparently not.
443. arkymalarky - Dec. 8, 1998 - 7:46 PM PT
Res,
"And it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with cowardice -- it might just mean that you weren't thinking logically beforehand."
Haha! Yeah, I guess impending doom can do that to a person. Does that mean you'll possibly turn to religion if faced with imminent demise, yourself?;-)
Rereading your above post, I understand your reference for "unthoughtout" now. FWIW, I've never understood how anyone can stand unwaveringly on any issue without regard to circumstances, as in "a life for a life." The death penalty is a tough issue for me which I've actually changed my position on over the years. I think it's ineffectively and unfairly applied as it currently stands. I just finished teaching _Billy Budd_, as well, which always makes me think more about rigorously applied "justice."
444. resonance - Dec. 8, 1998 - 7:55 PM PT
"If the law permits marriage only between men and women, you can easily argue that even though the intention is not prima facie discriminatory against gays, since they can still get married to those of the opposite sex, the EFFECT is nonetheless discriminatory against them."
So?
I'm missing whatever point you're trying to make. We know that incapacitation and rehabilitation is punitive -- that's what drives the processes. It doesn't correspond to gay marriage, you know.
"The effects remain the same for the "incapacitated" prisoner -- he is in prison for something he has yet to do, namely endanger society once again."
For every time you can say 'he is in prison for something he has yet to do' I can say 'he's in prison so he won't be likely to act on his prior conditioning'. The difference is that you're looking ahead to possible acts and I'm looking to a capacity which has been fully demonstrated.
"What the hell is the difference between retribution and punishment when the latter is shorn of such rationales as incapacitation, reinforcement, deterrence, rehabilitation, etc.?"
Nothing, presupposing that the use of the word 'punishment' means some unpleasant thing which is applied in responce to an act. But it has not been so shorn. Hell, no one in their right mind is going to argue that punishment isn't used to deter, reinforce, incapacitate, and drive rehabilitation. We all understand this. Why should that knowledge lead to the dissolution of these rationales?
445. resonance - Dec. 8, 1998 - 8:05 PM PT
Message #442 Whatever. What else could I have possibly meant? We're talking about 'The Lottery' and I specifically invoked a ritual phrase from that. I, in the same short post, claimed that the bloodthirst part didn't fit. And then you come in and go 'Well, I don't understand why you're bringing up the Lottery, the Lottery didn't have bloodlust'. When I incredulously ask if you had even seen the part where I said that -- oh so hard to miss -- you nonchalantly say 'Well, yes, I did.'
When I set you straight as to the inference, you go, 'Oh, well, I knew that. I mentioned ritual myself in the first place'. And then when I question *how* you could possibly have missed the ritual allusion, you go 'Well, I thought it was pretty far out there. I didn't think you could mean that'.
(laughing) This is nothing new, of course, this dance to try and get you to admit that you are trying to cover up a blunder. Do you have a pathological fear of being wrong? In any case, you're now standing on all four bases and I've made my point. There's no need to discuss it further.
446. resonance - Dec. 8, 1998 - 8:15 PM PT
""Capability" and "tendency" are meaningless
except statistically."
Why? And as far as this nonsense about needing a wider set of data, no, you don't. You don't need to have a wide set of data to prove that someone is capable of an act. They just need to do the act. That will provide the proof.
"And we aren't just talking about tendency, but
tendency and capacity. It's something that's
made manifest by the committing of a crime.
Therefore, it is not manifested only in the future,
but in the present."
How does it manifest itself in the present?"
Well, it has manifested itself. And unless it is conditioned out of someone -- unless we give someone a reason to not want to commit crime -- it will remain. Your point is a good one, though.
"How are you defining
"punishment"? I define it in the common way:
"the application of pain, cost or hardship to
someone who has committed a crime or a sin"."
Sounds reasonable, except we should properly say "is thought to have", not "has".
447. Seguine - Dec. 8, 1998 - 8:41 PM PT
"You don't need to have a wide set of data to prove that someone is
capable of an act. They just need to do the act. That will provide the
proof."
Really, I think this is screamingly obvious and unassailable.
But so is PE's point that incarceration is from the standpoint of the prisoner a "punishment".
But if isolating people who are known, with reasonable certainty, to be capable of the most serious crimes is a legitimate societal interest, and if isolation can't be accomplished without incidental "punishment" occurring, then the only issue is whether the pointlessness or moral groundlessness of punishment is more important than society's need to isolate dangerous people.
To what lengths should a society go to accomplish isolation perfectly free of retribution (which is to say, revenge)? Isn't Australia more or less full now?
(By the way, rehabilitation is largely a crock.)
448. resonance - Dec. 8, 1998 - 9:06 PM PT
"But so is PE's point that incarceration is from the
standpoint of the prisoner a "punishment". "
Let us say that I adopt a different perspective, and that this perspective is influenced by O. Henry (Ninety Days, is that the name?). And that incarceration provides a prisoner with free room and board, gym equipment, opportunities to get a collegiate degree, cable TV, and all the gay sex a guy could want.
Hell, let's assume that I'm examining Richard Speck's conditions, and let's throw in sexual obesiance, free drugs, a VCR, alcohol, hormones, and the authority to have someone else whacked if need be. That's my point of view. What a plush gig.
Does that point of view really bear upon the actual effect of imprisonment, or its necessity?
449. cigarlaw - Dec. 8, 1998 - 9:36 PM PT
has anyone talking here about the plush life in prison ever visited one or served time in one?
emotionally i have no problem with the death penalty, except i think the victims family ought to be the ones who do the killing. we make the process too anticeptic and nice. why not let the appeals run, then let the family have the last appeal -- let them decide if the killer should live or die. if they decide on death, fine -- tie the killer to chair and render him totally immobile and unable to plead; then give them an hour to kill him with their bare hands, or whatever. of course, having decided on death, if they don't kill him, make it a felony and put them in jail.
of course, to make it a real deterrent, it should be televised.
450. Enodiputs - Dec. 8, 1998 - 9:56 PM PT
cigarlaw
I think the victims family & friends should have as long as they want, that way starvation could be a method used to put the thug to death.
It should be televised like a silent movie with no news coverage, so that the media can't call Republicans murderers each and every time.
451. jonesatlaw - Dec. 8, 1998 - 10:03 PM PT
Re post Message #412 I agree that mental health commitment is not designed as punishment and is not equivalent to it. I disagree that it is primarily for the benefit of the patient, there is a second element that is present, the protection of society. It is not enough to show that a person is mentally ill to institute commitment. There must also be a showing of danger either to the self or others.
For example, if one harbors the delusion that Clinton is the anti-christ, and that the Archangel Micheal will strike him with a flaming sword, one is not committed and remains free to post on the Fray.
However, if one holds similar beliefs, but believes that he is the Archangel, and must smite Clinton, he is committed.
My comment is directed at the discussion that all removal from society for its protection must be punishment.
452. Seguine - Dec. 8, 1998 - 10:08 PM PT
"Hell, let's assume that I'm examining Richard Speck's conditions, and
let's throw in sexual obesiance, free drugs, a VCR, alcohol, hormones,
and the authority to have someone else whacked if need be. That's my
point of view. What a plush gig."
May I ask Dick Speck whether he would trade his gig for freedom?
Well let's assume for the sake of argument that he would not. Dick wrangles a precise compensation for his punishment, thus merely being removed to a sort of Australia. The net effect of his incarceration is 0 rehabilitation, 0 punishment, ? deterrence, and 100% incapacitation (as far as society outside prison walls is concerned).
"Does that point of view really bear upon the actual effect of
imprisonment, or its necessity?"
Dick's point of view has to bear upon the actual effect of *his* imprisonment. As for the necessity of imprisonment (which is society's concern), how can I answer that? You haven't told me what makes imprisonment (or punishment, or any response) "necessary". Or maybe you explained, somewhere in the morass, and I missed the concise version...?
453. jonesatlaw - Dec. 8, 1998 - 10:16 PM PT
I do not think that any drugs in prison are "free" or that one can have someone "whacked" without paying a certain price. Richard Speck seemed to like some of those costs. Most of us wouldn't.
454. CoralReef - Dec. 8, 1998 - 10:16 PM PT
The thing about PE's position is that he maintains prisoners have no rights. That's fine, so in his world, PEland, execution might be unassailable.
But in the real world prisoners do have some rights, don't they? I think they have the right not to have cruel and unusual punishments, for one. The death penalty is arguably a form of torture and so shouldn't be allowed for that reason.
Now some one will say 'then just make them unconsious first', or something like that, but that's just an unworkable workaround IMO, as it doesn't take into account that they'll know ahead of time that they'll be killed (and if they won't know, then that opens a whole new can of worms).
The DP lowers the quality of life to intolerable levels for the prisoner during the time in which they are still alive, before they are killed. After all if putting a gun to a prisoner's head and the chamber being empty would be cruel and unusual punishment then there being a bullet and the prisoner actually killed is obviously even more cruel.
455. AuNaturel - Dec. 8, 1998 - 10:19 PM PT
"Dick wrangles a precise compensation for his punishment, thus merely being removed to a sort of Australia."
Precisely what I was arguing some time ago. Prison or whatever is merely a way to remove dangerous people from our midst. Invoking the passion of revenge is counter productive in the long run as it interferes with a rational determination of guilt or innocence.
The deterence value of prison is marginal at best. Beyond a certain length of incarceration, enhancing penalties does nothing to deter crime altho it may reduce crime by keeping dangerous characters out of circulation longer. For example, I doubt very much if increasing the penalty for robbery from 5 to 7 years will have the slightest impact on unarrested robbers. And the statistics claiming to demonstrate significantly increased deterrence of murder by occaisional use of the death penalty are of dubious usefulness to say the least.
456. AuNaturel - Dec. 8, 1998 - 10:26 PM PT
Message #454
The problem being that any and all punishments are going to be cruel. That's why criminals are "punished" and not just given 20 years of "time out". If jail is to have even the slightest deterrent value it has to be extraordinarily unpleasent.
457. CoralReef - Dec. 8, 1998 - 10:29 PM PT
Sorry, that's a cop out, AuNatural, and I will do you the favor of assuming you know it is. Cruel and Unusual means basically torture, not just unpleasant or even very unpleasant.
458. resonance - Dec. 8, 1998 - 10:57 PM PT
Sigh -- the 'plush life in prison' point of view is possible to have. But it's not mine. It was used merely to illustrate a point of view. As for myself, I doubt I'd find prison enjoyable. Does that help, Cigarlaw?
"For example, if one harbors the delusion that
Clinton is the anti-christ, and that the Archangel
Micheal will strike him with a flaming sword,
one is not committed and remains free to post
on the Fray.
However, if one holds similar beliefs, but
believes that he is the Archangel, and must
smite Clinton, he is committed. "
Hahahaha. I like this, but I'm not entirely sure you've paid close enough attention to some of the antiClintonites here.
"My comment is directed at the discussion that
all removal from society for its protection must
be punishment."
Well, of course, if someone genuinely hates people and doesn't want to deal with them, incapacitation might actually be some form of benefit. But I think that it's by and large the opposite.
459. resonance - Dec. 8, 1998 - 10:59 PM PT
"Dick's point of view has to bear upon the actual
effect of *his* imprisonment."
Yes, but that really doesn't bear on the effect to society, etc.
"As for the necessity
of imprisonment (which is society's concern),
how can I answer that? You haven't told me
what makes imprisonment (or punishment, or
any response) "necessary". Or maybe you
explained, somewhere in the morass, and I
missed the concise version...?"
Well, I did explain it, a few times I think. And why are you asking me, anyway, Seguine? Isn't your own noggin working?
Res's rationale for criminal punishment, since it seems to be a matter of some question and people get spastic trying to figure out how to answer me if they don't know Where I Stand:
There are some acts that society cannot pragmatically tolerate. Those acts must be discouraged, and since people given to crime generally don't take a long or broad enough view to discern why these acts are harmful to all, and or generally do not give a damn, that leaves either punishment or negative reinforcement.
460. Seguine - Dec. 9, 1998 - 7:30 AM PT
AuNaturel,
"Prison or whatever is merely a way to remove dangerous people from our midst. Invoking the passion of revenge is counter productive in the long run as it interferes with a rational determination of guilt or innocence."
And yet, it appears that a majority of Americans (while holding a conviction that some quality of life is what makes life important, and while mistakenly believing that that conviction can be summed up in the assertion that "life is sacred" or "murder is wqrong") have a passionate requirement that capital crimes be avenged.
I keep asking about what people here define as "necessary". You have offered a perfectly straightforward answer. So now I'm curious to know, do you think it is remotely possible, from a political standpoint, to eliminate the passion for revenge from American society's response to capital crimes?
461. Seguine - Dec. 9, 1998 - 8:05 AM PT
Resonance,
S: "Dick's point of view has to bear upon the actual
effect of *his* imprisonment."
R: "Yes, but that really doesn't bear on the effect to society, etc."
But obviously, it does. If you agree with me that the deterrence effect of a prison sentence that is no more unpleasnt than freedom--or is preferable to it--could be NIL, then any minor deterrence that might be expected from a sentence a prisoner considers punitive might in fact be eliminated. The deterrence benefit to society would be gone.
I've heard there's not much graffiti in Singapore.
S: "You haven't told me what makes imprisonment (or punishment, or
any response) "necessary". Or maybe you explained, somewhere in the morass, and I missed the concise version...?"
R: "Well, I did explain it, a few times I think. And why are you asking me, anyway, Seguine? Isn't your own noggin working?"
I'm asking you, Resonance, because my noggin has endured quite enough vertigo attempting to follow you as you drive your high horse round in circles. I suspect I may actually agree with you on a number points, but at the moment its hard to know for sure.
"There are some acts that society cannot pragmatically tolerate."
Agreed. But why can society not tolerate those acts?
"Those acts must be discouraged, and since people given to crime generally don't take a long or broad enough view to discern why these acts are harmful to all, and or generally do not give a damn..."
Put another way: people who commit capital crimes are immune to the moral tenets accepted by the majority, or they are incapable of conforming, or are deeply disinclined to conform, to them.
"...that leaves either punishment or negative reinforcement."
I don't know what the difference is. Can you please explain how you define it?
I would have concluded that, since seri
462. Seguine - Dec. 9, 1998 - 8:07 AM PT
I would have concluded that, since serious criminals either will not or cannot conform to moral tenets, it is necessary to demonstrate to them and/or the larger society that the basis for those tenets is, simply, reciprocation. That there is an effect that is generated by criminal action, and the effect has a value in some way equivalent to its "cause".
So, again, why can society not tolerate a criminal "cause" that has no retributive "effect"? Society certainly tolerates, to a far greater extent anyway, the absence of a reliable *reward* for acts that benefit it. One is tempted to conclude that a rational, logical need on the part of human beings to live in a predictable world of tidy equivalences is not all there is to the societal need for retribution.
Is revenge "necessary" or is it not?
463. Ronski - Dec. 9, 1998 - 8:28 AM PT
PE,
I thought you thought that to make the argument that gay people are discriminated against by current U.S. marriage laws was to indulge in sophistry unless one tied the argument to the establishment clause. Have you changed your opinion?
Elliot,
Of course closure involves emotional succor. No one would say otherwise. But to claim that all who speak of closure are irrational remains unfair.
464. Seguine - Dec. 9, 1998 - 8:30 AM PT
PE,
"If a certain punishment is not retributional and is also directed
genuinely and exclusively at past actions, then it would revolve around RECOMPENSE and LIABILITY. For example, the criminal would be forced to compensate the victim of the crime for medical bills, lost wages, etc., by paying through garnished wages, rendered services, indentured servitude or even outright slavery (in case the debt is permanent and infinite, as may be the case with murder).
"But of course, this is not practical. So we simply throw him in jail."
Jail is not practical, except as a means of removing crimanals from circulation. Otherwise, we throw criminals in jail to avenge crimes, and to attempt to deter future crimes committed by others. Rehabilitation is a relatively recent aim of incarceration, and arose in response to criticisms of incarceration's inhumaness. I regard it as a particularly stillborn response, made generally worthless by the predominance of the need for vengeance and the (perhaps justified) belief that deterrence can't be accomplished as reliably via rehabilitation as via punishment.
Torture or criminals is allowed (again, because society requires vengeance). It simply isn't condoned (because society holds that both torture and revenge are "wrong").
465. Seguine - Dec. 9, 1998 - 8:35 AM PT
That should have been "inhumaneness", not "inhumaness".
And the thrust of my point, above, is that practicality is not what prevents crminals from being pressed into slavery or indentured servitude. Politics is.
466. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 9, 1998 - 9:47 AM PT
Ronski (Message #463)
"I thought you thought that to make the argument that gay people are discriminated against by current U.S. marriage laws was to indulge in sophistry unless one tied the argument to the establishment clause. Have you changed your opinion?"
You're hallucinating. I have never written the phrase "establishment clause" in the Fray ever before. What I did argue with Elliot once was that gays were not discriminated against by the current marriage laws because they were not singled out and prohibited from marrying. But I conceded to Elliot's counterargument, which I guess was in vain since you don't even remember it. But that's the way of the Fray.
467. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 9, 1998 - 9:48 AM PT
Message #448
Whether an action has punitive effect on the prisoner depends on whether the prisoner consents to the action or not. If he doesn't consent, then clearly it is punitive.
468. jonesatlaw - Dec. 9, 1998 - 9:49 AM PT
As a practical matter, slavery is proscribed by the thirteenth amendment. However, it is permitted "as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted." The problem is, all criminal offenses in the United States are prosecuted as crimes against the state. It would seem that the government would then be the injured party and ownership of the slave and restitution etc. would be given to the state.
As a moral matter, this country has had the argument over whether is it morally acceptable to own another person, and after long years of bloodshed, the negative prevailed.
469. bubbaette - Dec. 9, 1998 - 9:52 AM PT
Jones at law
But haven't you heard about prison industries?
470. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 9, 1998 - 9:53 AM PT
resonance (Message #444)
It's not so difficult to understand. Forget the jailor's intentions for a second. From the prisoner's point of view, he would be "incapacitated" and "rehabilitated" lest he committed further crimes. That's pretty simple. That is tantamount to punishing crimes he hasn't yet committed. Yes, he is being punished for crimes he hasn't committed BECAUSE he has already committed some ("demonstrated a capability").
"For every time you can say 'he is in prison for something he has yet to do' I can say 'he's in prison so he won't be likely to act on his prior conditioning'."
What's the difference?
"Hell, no one in their right mind is going to argue that punishment isn't used to deter, reinforce, incapacitate, and drive rehabilitation."
I don't deny this. I'm saying the jailor's intentions are not the salient issue here.
Message #446
Contrary to yours and Seguine's remarks, capability and tendency are a function of statistical likelihood. But I won't press that point. It suffices to say that this "tendency to commit crimes" can only be manifested in the past and in the future (since in the present the guy is in jail). If the state felt he wasn't going to commit crimes again, the prisoner wouldn't be in jail. Incarceration is therefore a kind of insurance against future crimes.
471. jonesatlaw - Dec. 9, 1998 - 9:53 AM PT
Most inmates in prison industries are paid, not owned. Although prison wages are usually miniscule, they are payment nonetheless.
472. Jenerator - Dec. 9, 1998 - 9:58 AM PT
Jeff Emery, 39, was executed last night in Huntsville. He broke into LaShan Muhlinhaus' (19) apartment, and when she came home, he stabbed her, then raped her, then stabbed her some more. Over 25 stab wounds were listed on the autopsy report. He went undetected for four years until his wife confessed to police that he came home that night (Oct. 12, 1979) covered in blood. Police tracked Emery down to a jail he was being held at on three counts of burglary. At the time of his arrest, he was planning to kill his wife.
473. Ronski - Dec. 9, 1998 - 10:22 AM PT
PE,
I may hallucinate at times, but I didn't say you mentioned the establishment clause. I recall you eventually agreed with Elliot's argument, which he based on the establishment clause, that the marriage laws discriminate for reasons of religion, namely (this is Elliot's argument) that the marriage laws are written to promote a particular religious viewpoint.
But you also said at that time that my argument that the laws discriminate against gay people because they deny gay individuals the right to marry the person of their own choosing regardless of the person's sex was sophistry.
474. elliot803 - Dec. 9, 1998 - 10:25 AM PT
Ronski:
"I recall you eventually agreed with Elliot's argument, which he based on the establishment clause, that the marriage laws discriminate for reasons of religion,..."
I have never made that argument.
475. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 9, 1998 - 10:27 AM PT
Ronski (Message #473)
No, that is not the argument of Elliot's I ended up agreeing with. (I don't even recall such a view.) I simply acquiesced to Elliot's analogy between the ban on marriage between gays and the ban on interracial marriage. I don't remember what your argument was.
476. Ronski - Dec. 9, 1998 - 10:29 AM PT
Elliot,
What was your argument, if you don't mind repeating the essentials?
477. Ronski - Dec. 9, 1998 - 10:30 AM PT
Elliot,
As PE said?
478. elliot803 - Dec. 9, 1998 - 10:33 AM PT
Ronski:
"Of course closure involves emotional succor. No one would say otherwise. But to claim that all who speak of closure are irrational remains unfair."
"Closure" is a code word for "revenge." The idea that one person must be KILLED in order for another person to be healed emotionally is preposterous. The motive is vengeance, not healing. Anyone who claims otherwise is lying or deluded.
479. elliot803 - Dec. 9, 1998 - 10:35 AM PT
Ronksi:
"What was your argument, if you don't mind repeating the essentials?"
My argument for what proposition? I really don't know what issue, exactly, you are talking about. I have made a number of arguments regarding homosexuality, race and marriage, but never the one you attributed to me.
480. Ronski - Dec. 9, 1998 - 10:52 AM PT
Elliot,
The argument that marriage laws are discriminatory against gay people. I, mistakenly it appears, believed you were the person arguing that they violated freedom of religion, a few months ago. It must have been another Frayster.
You do believe that they discriminate against gay people, yes?
481. cllrdr - Dec. 9, 1998 - 10:53 AM PT
"He went undetected for four years until his wife confessed to police that he came home that night (Oct. 12, 1979) covered in blood. Police tracked Emery down to a jail he was being held at on three counts of burglary. At the time of his arrest, he was planning to kill his wife."
So what happens to wifey? Shouldn't she be charged as an acessorry to murder? If so -- kill her!
Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill!
How else can any of us get any "closure"?
482. elliot803 - Dec. 9, 1998 - 11:00 AM PT
Ronski:
Yes, I believe they discriminate against gay people. I also think they're unconstitutional on equal protection grounds. But not on First Amendment grounds.
483. PsychProf - Dec. 9, 1998 - 11:06 AM PT
We Have It Down To A Science
484. Ronski - Dec. 9, 1998 - 11:17 AM PT
Does Jade's ginseng tea help with memory?
485. ChristinO - Dec. 9, 1998 - 12:30 PM PT
Jen re Message #386
You're still missing me on this. Abolishing capital punishment does not argue that the killer's life is more valuable than his victims. Abolishing capital punishment argues that the life of an innocent man who might be wrongly condemned is more important than the memory of another person's death.
Mr. X kills Mr. Smith. The state arrests, convicts and condemns John Doe by mistake. Then we kill him. Is John Doe any less innocent than Mr. Smith? Is Doe's life worth the chance to kill Mr. X?
That's what it amounts to. We must say that WE DON'T CARE that innocent people die in order for us to be able to kill criminals. We value life so much that we're willing to kill innocent people in order to punish someone for killing innocent people.
That makes no kind of sense.
It is only truthful to say that we want to vent our rage on the guilty so badly that we don't care who else we hurt. Our desire for revenge is so important to us that we don't care about the innocent.
oops. We don't care about the innocent? Then what are we so pissed about? Maybe we just like having a legal means of venting our bloodlust.
It's been established that killing criminals is not necessary for the safety and preservation of our society. The only reason for continuing it is because we WANT to. We like it. Killing criminals does not show a reverence for human life.
If we are going to agree not to care, then fine, but this lying about how much we value life ought to stop.
486. ChristinO - Dec. 9, 1998 - 12:37 PM PT
Arky,
It's not about whether you personally would want to die if faced with it, it's about whether you're willing to take the chance that your son or brother or mother or best friend innocent of all wrongdoing might be killed because our legal system isn't perfect. Is it worth that person's life just so we can kill the bad guys?
487. Ronski - Dec. 9, 1998 - 12:51 PM PT
No?
So I'll just have to stay on the waiting list for hippocampus transplant?
488. arkymalarky - Dec. 9, 1998 - 1:14 PM PT
Christin Message #486,
As it's currently applied, your scenario may be more likely than it would be if more rigid standards for the dp were imposed. For those offenders who are a definite menace to society and who have been convicted beyond a *reasonable* doubt, I believe the death penalty is warranted. The possibility of convicting the wrong individual is minimal under those circumstances and worth the risk, imo. Society can't make judgments on what's best for an isolated individual over what's best for society as a whole. I don't believe, once they're convicted, that hardened criminals who show no appreciation for humanity serve society in any way by continuing to exist.
The man who escaped in Texas could have killed another innocent victim. How does that potential victim have less importance in considering whether to execute that man than the potential wrongfully convicted individual?
489. resonance - Dec. 9, 1998 - 1:25 PM PT
Positive reinforcement -- giving something pleasant as a reward
Negative reinforcement -- removing something unpleasant as a reward
Type one punishment -- introducing something unpleasant as a penalty
Type two punishment -- taking something pleasant away as a penalty.
I accept the argument about Speck.
Society cannot pragmatically accept certain acts because they undermine the tenets of society. Whether these acts threaten key personal rights -- such as the right to do something a culture finds it necessary to be able to do, such as vote or drive a car or walk without being attacked or whatever -- or property rights, or the free existence of the society as a whole (i.e. treason), they attack society's operating mechanism. Society breaks down if they are permitted.
"I'm asking you, Resonance, because my noggin
has endured quite enough vertigo attempting to
follow you as you drive your high horse round
in circles."
Oh, come on. What's so hard to understand about anything I've said here? If you're trying to figure out my exact stance on capital punishment, there's probably a good reason why you're confused -- I haven't said it, I've only offered a few arguments about it and a lot more against this silly argument about how punishment accrues to the criminal in unfair ways and is all retribution in the end. I've gone out of my way to avoid making a definitive statement, because I really don't think that personal convictions matter when it comes to pragmatism. And my own POV is incidental to my logic, anyway, and shouldn't bear upon the discussion.
490. resonance - Dec. 9, 1998 - 1:28 PM PT
"That there
is an effect that is generated by criminal action,
and the effect has a value in some way
equivalent to its "cause". "
This, and the stuff after it, are going to have to be clarified for me.
491. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 9, 1998 - 1:44 PM PT
Resonance: I'm not arguing against pragmatism.
492. lowlife - Dec. 9, 1998 - 2:01 PM PT
Alex Khan--execute yourself. BTW, did you really study hotel administration? I'm serious . . . with the exception of Cornell, I didn't know such a program existed? Also, unless you're phenomenally wealthy where do you find the time to "read" all those books you cite?
493. marshame - Dec. 9, 1998 - 2:08 PM PT
ll
He's a child protegy with no social life and a photographic memory.
And a snake in the grass.
494. resonance - Dec. 9, 1998 - 2:10 PM PT
"Forget the
jailor's intentions for a second. From the
prisoner's point of view, he would be
"incapacitated" and "rehabilitated" lest he
committed further crimes. That's pretty simple.
That is tantamount to punishing crimes he hasn't
yet committed."
I accept everything except the last line. You are looking at the end action and I am examining the cause. You want to say that incapacitation and rehabilitation aren't just because they are applied without knowing the exact chance of recidivism -- the criminal may be incapacitated and rehabilitated even though he or she would never commit another crime. That they are therefore flawed rationales, and that we therefore apply punishment only for retribution. You've said this clearly.
But since we can point to a known quantity within the prisoner -- the demonstrated capacity for committing a crime -- the element of chance is removed, provided that we understand we are conditioning against a tendency, and not against something that hasn't happened yet. This supports the rationale of incapacitation and rehabilitation.
I don't see how the prisoner's POV matters to whether incapacitation and rehabilitation are valid ideas. Incapacitation certainly works. Rehabilitation needs some work but it does function. I am all for cost-efficient ways to better rehabilitate criminals.
495. resonance - Dec. 9, 1998 - 2:10 PM PT
"For every time you can say 'he is in prison for
something he has yet to do' I can say 'he's in
prison so he won't be likely to act on his prior
conditioning'."
What's the difference?"
Sigh.
496. ChristinO - Dec. 9, 1998 - 2:15 PM PT
Hiya Arky,
"Society can't make judgments on what's best for an isolated individual over what's best for society as a whole. I don't believe, once they're convicted, that hardened criminals who show no appreciation for humanity serve society in any way by continuing to exist."
It's not about whether hardened criminals serve society but about why it is necessary to kill them. If killing is not necessary and it endangers the lives of the innocent then why do it?
"The man who escaped in Texas could have killed another innocent victim. How does that potential victim have less importance in considering whether to execute that man than the potential wrongfully convicted individual?"
There are several things I want to address about this, but it's lunchtime here so I'll get back to you on it. Off the cuff I see a difference between murder committed by the State and murder committed by a civilian. There is also the degree of likelihood of death row escapes to be weighed against the risk to the innocent of enforcing CP and as always what the alternatives might be.
See you in a bit.
497. arkymalarky - Dec. 9, 1998 - 2:59 PM PT
Hey, Christin.
I'll wait until you post the rest of your thoughts before responding.
498. Seguine - Dec. 9, 1998 - 3:09 PM PT
Resonance,
"I've only offered a few arguments about [my personal stance on CP] and a lot more against this
silly argument about how punishment accrues to the criminal in unfair ways and is all retribution in the end. I've gone out of my way to avoid making a definitive statement, because I really don't think that personal convictions matter when it comes to pragmatism. And my own POV is incidental to my logic, anyway, and shouldn't bear upon the discussion."
I did not ask for your personal views. I asked, "What makes imprisonment (or punishment, or
any response) "necessary"?" You have now finally begun the process of explaining what makes a response of some kind "necessary":
"Society cannot pragmatically accept certain acts because they undermine
the tenets of society. ...they attack society's operating mechanism.
Society breaks down if they are permitted."
And so, certain crimes ar not permitted. But prohibition of an act (the antithesis of permission) is one thing and retribution for it is another, separate thing. What you have not explained is why the *particular* actions society takes in response to crime are necessary. For instance, when a murderer is convicted, why do we imprison him instead of joining in a big circle around him, linking arms, and singing about how murder is not permitted?
Please--I envision you leaping to your keyboard--understand that I'm not disputing that society determines CORRECTLY that criminals haven't the inclination or wherewithal to control themselves, and so takes them out of circulation as a protective measure against their committing more crimes. I'm just pointing out that *not permitting* something is only aided by incarceration to the extent that it prevents a recurrence of a crime, or its punitive aspect (per PE's formulation, which I now provisionally accept: punitive from the criminals' standpoint) serves as a deterrent t
499. Seguine - Dec. 9, 1998 - 3:11 PM PT
(cont.)
...serves as a deterrent to other criminals. Incarceration does not in any way *repair* acts already committed--UNLESS incarceration is intended and designed to be a punishment, and that punishment is the state's proxy for personal vengeance. In which case vengeance is the recompense, in the currency of human emotion, for the grave emotional injury caused by capital crimes.
Is it logical to dispense with this form of recompense?
500. Seguine - Dec. 9, 1998 - 3:13 PM PT
Resonance (2),
An attempt to clarify my remarks about human expectations of equivalence:
Retribution, as far as I can see, is a function either of some general human need for the world to make sense--for actions to have equivalent reactions--or else it is a function of that need amplified by another: the need for revenge.
Americans expect rewards for things like hard work, good deeds, etc. But most people seem to understand that not all of what we contribute to society--not even the most profound of contributions--is guaranteed to be returned to us in some way; and this fact of life doesn't unravel the fabric of society.
It would never occur to most people that a punishment for murder should not be expected, required, and demanded. Murder--the taking of what is most profoundly important--is thought to "attack society's operating mechanism". But wouldn't that attack be disarmed to some great extent if we could just forgive and forget, and take capital crimes in stride along with the rest of life's unfairness? If we did, and capital crimes could still be shown to have some detrimental effect on society's "operating mechanism", then it would only be necessary to set aside some large, attractive piece of real estate in the Dakotas, surround it with barbed wire and armed guards, and send social disruptors there to live out their days.
But we don't do that--not for people who have committed capital crimes.
Because vengeance is a social necessity.