502. elliot803 - Dec. 9, 1998 - 3:56 PM PT
"Because vengeance is a social necessity."
Vengeance of some kind may or may not be a social necessity, but the death penalty certainly isn't. The United States is virtually the only advanced democracy in the world that still uses it, and I think you'd be hard-pressed to make the case that American society is somehow healthier because of it.
503. elliot803 - Dec. 9, 1998 - 4:04 PM PT
"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?"
Yes, if by "vengeance" in this context you are referring to the death penalty, for all the reasons already given. If vengeance really is some kind of social necessity, which I doubt, and which no one has demonstrated that I can see, we can exact a measure of vengeance without executing people. It is no more "illogical" for the state not to kill killers than for the state not to torture torturers. We rejected "an eye for a eye" as a legitimate standard of criminal justice a long time ago.
504. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 9, 1998 - 4:06 PM PT
"We rejected 'an eye for a eye' as a legitimate standard of criminal justice a long time ago."
Obviously not, since capital punishment still exists in the United States and people still advocate retribution as a rationale.
505. elliot803 - Dec. 9, 1998 - 4:19 PM PT
pseudo:
No. We don't even use "an eye for an eye" with respect to murder, let alone for other crimes of violence or for property crimes. Most murders are not even constitutionally eligible for the death penalty, and for the ones that are, the murderer is not executed in the same manner in which he killed his victims. And this treatment has the force of constitutional law behind it.
And the countries criminal justice systems come closest to "an eye for an eye" are widely regarded as uncivilized and barbaric.
506. resonance - Dec. 9, 1998 - 4:21 PM PT
"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. "
Who says that incarceration is supposed to repair these criminal acts? It can't. And vengeance doesn't repair the offense. Incarceration is punitive conditioning and incapacitation. It is inexact. I will not deny that there is a retributive component to incarceration. The important thing is that it serves a purpose.
We cannot -- at all -- fully recompense the victim of any crime. In minor cases, such as petty theft that is immediately made good, the compensation is close enough to make no real difference, I suppose. But at the higher levels or criminal harm -- from slander to murder -- the gap grows. But we can't just mentally shoehorn punishment in as a stopgap and say that we punish someone to recompense a crime. Punishment has never repaired anything. All it does is give someone the satisfaction of knowing that the law has been upheld.
Sorry, I can't buy this equation of yours. Some people may believe that vengeance can repair a misdeed, but some people see the Virgin Mary's face appear on the sides of water tanks.
507. resonance - Dec. 9, 1998 - 4:21 PM PT
PE: I understand that incarceration is a heuristic means of preventing crime and that we can either have a practicable system of incarceration or we can have one that is as close to error-free as possible. We choose the practicable system. That means that there are errors, and we are tacitly accepting the existence of those errors. We're agreeing that some people will be unjustly punished.
You, however, claim that we cannot in principle accept *some* cases of unjust punishment, and in turn argue against capital punishment because it is unjust.
This, really, perplexes me. How is it that I cannot in principle accept that some rights must be suborned to serve the state, but insist that this practice be minimized both in occurence and in degree of effect? Could you explain this to me?
508. resonance - Dec. 9, 1998 - 4:24 PM PT
BTW, I'm willing to support punitive conditioning to a limited extent if rehabilitation is not an option. But the important thing is to meter such a need by its overall costs to the rights of prisoners.
509. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 9, 1998 - 4:26 PM PT
"You, however, claim that we cannot in principle accept *some* cases of unjust punishment, and in turn argue against capital punishment because it is unjust."
What the hell are you talking about? I claim no such thing.
"How is it that I cannot in principle accept that some rights must be suborned to serve the state, but insist that this practice be minimized both in occurence and in degree of effect?"
You can accept it, and you needn't insist it.
By the way, you used "suborn" and "heuristic" incorrectly.
510. resonance - Dec. 9, 1998 - 4:32 PM PT
No, I didn't use them incorrectly. Think about why I might have meant those words. Wanker.
"You, however, claim that we cannot in
principle accept *some* cases of unjust
punishment, and in turn argue against capital
punishment because it is unjust."
What the hell are you talking about? I claim no
such thing."
What the fuck? Yes you have! You went on and on and on saying that if someone accepted the existence of injustice in our system of incarceration, they could not offer a principled argument against the death penalty based on the injustice to all wrongfully executed people. And that's exactly what I'm doing here, it's what you've been going on about, it's why I reiterated the whole point.
511. arkymalarky - Dec. 9, 1998 - 4:34 PM PT
Elliot,
No, I don't see it as one way or the other, and never implied such at all. I was responding to Christin's argument about innocents being wrongfully convicted with a counterexample of a guilty man who escaped and had the potential to kill another victim.
IMO, the criteria for applying the dp should not be based solely on the jury decision, but on the crime, which should be heinous, and the status of the offender(repeat, mental state, etc.)I simply do not think that an individual who has been destructive to society, who has had no regard for human life, should continue to exist in and be supported by that society. It's not a question of whether the offender is "worthy" of death. I look at it as social surgery. Society makes the determination of when the right to life has been forfeited, and it always has. Life is much more respected at this point in history by most governments than at any time previous; but an undue fanaticism(that's not directed at you, Elliot, but at the "sanctity of life" argument in general) which esteems every human merely for the fact of being born is not indicative of a more civilized society, imo.
FWIW, I think I made it clear that the death penalty is too randomly and frequently applied as it stands currently.
512. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 9, 1998 - 4:38 PM PT
resonance (Message #494)
"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."
The two statements are NOT equivalent. Only the latter is correct in my view. If you knew that a person with a 99% chance of murdering someone, yet hasn't, it would still be unjust to imprison him before the fact.
The only rationale for imprisonment which withstands scrutiny, IMO, is retribution. That is the only punishment (other than forced restitution of victims) for the actual crime committed.
"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."
The element of chance is not removed at all. If the rationale of rehabilitation is that you are "punishing a tendency to commit crimes" [your words], then since that tendency can only be manifested in the future, it is in fact tantamount to pre-punishment of future crimes.
"I don't see how the prisoner's POV matters to whether incapacitation and rehabilitation are valid ideas."
Well, if one is arguing that certain forms of punishment are more or less just than others, then the prisoner's POV clearly matters. To those who argue that the death penalty is unjust for some reason, I think it bears saying that many of the rationales for imprisonment are equally unjust.
513. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 9, 1998 - 4:40 PM PT
resonance (Message #510)
"...we cannot in principle accept *some* cases of unjust punishment, and in turn argue against capital punishment because it is unjust."
Sorry, that is indeed a correct characterisation. I read too quickly.
"How is it that I cannot in principle accept that some rights must be suborned to serve the state, but insist that this practice be minimized both in occurence and in degree of effect?"
Because if the rationale for opposing one action (execution) is that it's unjust, then it begs the question why you tolerate other unjust actions.
514. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 9, 1998 - 4:47 PM PT
"...some rights must be suborned to serve the state."
SUBORN
1. to bribe or induce unlawfully or secretly to perform some misdeed
2. to induce a person to give false testimony.
Perhaps I am a wanker, but I for the life of me don't understand how Resonance uses the word "suborn" correctly in the quoted sentence.
"...incarceration is a heuristic means of preventing crime."
"Heuristic" means "serving to indicate or point out, stimulating interest as a means of investigation". Now, Resonance's usage is not altogether implausible, but is idiomatically deficient. Incarceration might be heuristic to criminology students, but not to criminals.
So, you've got a malapropism and an idiomatic deficiency, both due, no doubt, to an attempt to be clever.
515. davidmeyer - Dec. 9, 1998 - 5:14 PM PT
Well, I believe Russia is discussing the reinstatement of its death penalty in the wake of the Starovoitova assassination. Primakov was talking about "physical annihilation" as the only way to reduce political violence.
PseudoErasmus: when you say:
"If you knew that a person with a 99% chance of murdering someone, yet hasn't, it would still be unjust to imprison him before the fact."
in Message #512, you are making several assumptions which I disagree with.
First, I know of no way to accurately determine a person's likelihood of committing a substantial crime absent some form of previous criminal behavior. Part of criminal law is based on the supposition that the only acceptable indicator of "murder potential" is a previous act of violence.
Second, the injustice of imprisonment in this situation is certainly contentious; if society deems incapacitation to be the only way of preventing the crimes, then it seems like it would be just.
516. MrSocko - Dec. 9, 1998 - 5:16 PM PT
resonance: Oh boy, you've been nicely sprung (msg num=514>). Don't be disheartened. There's been a noticable improvement of late in the wording of your posts.
517. ChristinO - Dec. 9, 1998 - 5:18 PM PT
PE Re Message #384
PE,
You appear to be hung up on the whole "justice" issue, which I haven't ever used as the basis of my argument. I never said that CP offends my sense of justice. My sense of justice is equally offended by all wrongful convictions whether they result in death, incarceration or the $32 ticket my roommate got for parking in front of our house last week. Opposing the death penalty has nothing to do with appeasing my sense of justice and everything to do with not risking the lives of innocent people for nothing more than the bestial thrill of killing a lowlife.
Yes it is important to perfect our system to minimize the incarceration of the innocent, but that is a long slow process of fine-tuning. Quality of life is important, but it is a moot point without the existence of life to begin with.
518. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 9, 1998 - 5:24 PM PT
davidmeyer (Message #515)
"First, I know of no way to accurately determine a person's likelihood of committing a substantial crime absent some form of previous criminal behavior. Part of criminal law is based on the supposition that the only acceptable indicator of 'murder potential' is a previous act of violence."
I agree 100%. So what? How does that make punishing crimes yet uncommitted just?
"...the injustice of imprisonment in this situation is certainly contentious; if society deems incapacitation to be the only way of preventing the crimes, then it seems like it would be just."
I didn't say that imprisonment was unjust.
Read my Message #303
519. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 9, 1998 - 5:27 PM PT
Message #516: Yes, I agree, no doubt on account of our badgering.
Christino: I don't see how your Message #517 responds at all to my Message #384.
520. AuNaturel - Dec. 9, 1998 - 5:30 PM PT
Message #460
No. But we can always try... Revenge seems to be biologically driven so it cannot be entirely overcome. The best idea is probably to exclude those with the greatest motives for revenge from the decision making process.
521. ChristinO - Dec. 9, 1998 - 5:37 PM PT
Arky,
Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you. I've been looking for figures on exactly how many death row inmates have successfully escaped. Then I realized that it didn't really make any difference to how I feel about the application of the death penalty.
Martin Gurule is the first inmate to have escaped Death Row in Texas in 64 years. Surely, it's worth a man's life to tighten security on death row inmates? I haven't seen any details as to how the escape was engineered other than the use of a hack-saw to cut the fence (what idiot gave death row inmates a hack-saw to begin with?), but there was clearly negligence on the part of the prison staff if seven condemned men could even get to the fence much less with a hack-saw. If we can't keep the killers inside-----and 64 years without a jail break suggests that we likely can-----then I would consider execution as a necessary means of preventing future murders. Execution should be an absolute last resort when we've exhausted all other avenues. We haven't done that and until we do then capital punishment is an UN-necessary evil, which to my mind makes it a willful act of wrongdoing.
522. AuNaturel - Dec. 9, 1998 - 5:48 PM PT
Message #498
"But prohibition of an act (the antithesis of permission)"
You lost it here. The opposite of prohibition is prescription, i.e. mandating the behavior. Not merely tolerating it.
523. ChristinO - Dec. 9, 1998 - 5:49 PM PT
PE,
Sorry, I must have misunderstood you. (momentous event)
I was under the impression that you faulted my opposition to capital punishment because I don't equally oppose incarceration on the grounds that innocents are punished.
Your statement:
"Because if the rationale for opposing one action (execution) is that it's unjust, then it begs the question why you tolerate other unjust actions."
reinforces what I believed to be the intent of your post 384. Hence my assurance that I wasn't talking about justice.
I can certainly address the justice issue, but I think it will come down to my belief that not all injustice is equal. All acts of injustice are equally wrong, but they do not cause equal harm and therefore do not elicit equal responses from me. I don't know that I've met anyone who believes differently with the possible exception of Elliot.
524. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 9, 1998 - 6:00 PM PT
Christino
My Message #513 has no bearing on Message #384, which is still not addressed by your Message #523. My point in #384 looks at the finality argument from a different angle than before.
525. ChristinO - Dec. 9, 1998 - 6:12 PM PT
PE,
Then please explain to me where I've gotten it wrong. If your contention was not "They're both unjust so why get so upset about one and not the other" then I've obviously missed your point. Having now re-read post #384 for the 6th time I'm still missing it. I'd like to understand and be able to address your actual argument.
526. CoralReef - Dec. 9, 1998 - 6:27 PM PT
I have got to go out for a few hours, but I'd like to make a couple of points on imprisonment relevant to the above exchanges between resonance, PE and Seguine.
1) People are imprisoned before the commission of crimes, merely be redefining what is a crime. We create crimes like 'conspiracy to commmit murder' to catch people before they commit crimes. Being jailed for a crime like 'conspiracy to commit murder' is effectively being jailed for murder before you commit it, though with a lesser sentence of course (unless you're in NY where murder gets 3 weeks, no ifs ands or buts).
2) Imprisonment arguably helps a prisoner to at least some extent by protecting them from violent retribution which might well occur without an effective justice system that the public thought removed violent criminals from society. Therefore imprisonment isn't wholly punative in the way execution is.
527. arkymalarky - Dec. 9, 1998 - 6:32 PM PT
Christin,
The stats on escapees really don't have anything to do with my argument. I used that example to illustrate a point. I don't support capital punishment simply because there's a remote possibility a criminal might escape. My support of it *in limited cases* is best outlined in Message #511.
"Execution should be an absolute last resort when we've exhausted all other avenues."
Exactly. Though we may differ on what that constitutes.
528. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 9, 1998 - 6:38 PM PT
christino
You said in Message #359:
"As long as we agree that something must be done [about convicts] then that is the case. It's terrible that innocent people are punished, but the net detriment to punishing no one is unacceptable whereas no one has offered any legitamate detriment to abolishing execution."
And I countered in Message #384 that "punishing no one" is a spurious alternative to life imprisonement. There are other (though much more expensive) ways of protecting society from criminals, many of whom might be quite innocent, than herding them into dangerous prisons for the rest of their lives.
529. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 9, 1998 - 6:42 PM PT
CoralReef (Message #526)
#1 is very clever. But the difference is that no one is imprisoned before they commit a crime. The state has outlawed "conspiracy to commit murder" just as much as "murder". But no one has yet outlawed a "tendency to commit murder".
#2 is spurious. Would you object to being "protected" if you didn't want it?
530. davidmeyer - Dec. 9, 1998 - 6:50 PM PT
PE: First, why do you believe that “punishment for crimes not yet committed” is unjust?
As for Message #303:
Retribution is not just “punishment of past actions.” It is the administration of punishment commensurate to a previously committed crime. A retributive rationale typically conceives of crime as involving the abrogation of an objectively “good” social norm, morally requiring the application of an equivalent “bad” experience, as in “an eye for an eye.”
Rehabilitation is often defended with the idea that people deserve (or “have a right”) to be conditioned in a “good” way. Criminality is taken as evidence of adverse conditioning, thereby morally necessitating “correction.” Certainly the proponents of a retributive rationale would argue that it reduces recidivism, but their primary justification is usually something to the extent of “these people deserve a second shot…”
Deterrence is based on a utilitarian concept of justice, and seems to be entirely just on that rationale, despite its emphasis on “future actions.”
531. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 9, 1998 - 6:59 PM PT
davidmeyer (Message #530)
"First, why do you believe that 'punishment for crimes not yet committed' is unjust?"
I don't. But most people do. If you don't think it unjust, then Message #303 is not addressed to you.
"Retribution is not just 'punishment of past actions.' It is the administration of punishment commensurate to a previously committed crime."
Whatever. I don't see much difference.
"Rehabilitation is often defended with the idea that people deserve (or 'have a right') to be conditioned in a 'good' way. Criminality is taken as evidence of adverse conditioning, thereby morally necessitating 'correction'."
Well, it seems to me, if the criminal doesn't want this rehabilitation (and I'm sure most don't), then it is indistinguishable from rehabilitation.
"Deterrence is based on a utilitarian concept of justice, and seems to be entirely just on that rationale, despite its emphasis on 'future actions'."
I said nothing about "future crimes" with respect to deterrence.
532. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 9, 1998 - 7:00 PM PT
ERRATA (Message #531)
...if the criminal doesn't want this rehabilitation..., then it is indistinguishable from RETRIBUTION from his point of view.
533. Seguine - Dec. 9, 1998 - 8:49 PM PT
AuNaturel,
S: "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?"
AuN: "No. But we can always try... Revenge seems to be biologically driven so it cannot be entirely overcome. The best idea is probably to exclude those with the greatest motives for revenge from the decision making process."
Aside from the concern for not convicting innocents, which is helped by just such measures as you suggest, what is the moral justification for trying to eliminate the passion for revenge from society's response to capital crimes? What is the rational justification?
S: "And so, certain crimes are not permitted. But prohibition of an act (the antithesis of permission) is one thing and retribution for it is another, separate thing."
AuN: "The opposite of prohibition is prescription, i.e. mandating the behavior. Not merely tolerating it."
You're correct, if you interpret my use of "antithesis" to mean "opposite". I suppose I must clarify that I meant "antithesis" in the sense of "striking contrast". Even so, where crimes are not prescribed but only permitted or prohibited, the opposite of permission must be prohibition.
534. Seguine - Dec. 9, 1998 - 8:50 PM PT
Elliot,
"Vengeance of some kind may or may not be a social necessity, but the death penalty certainly isn't."
Well that depends, doesn't it, on how much vengeance people need. How is this determined?
"The United States is virtually the only advanced democracy in the world that still uses [the death penalty], and I think you'd be hard-pressed to make the case that American society is somehow healthier because of it."
We also allow possession of handguns. Is it possible that certain greater freedoms must be accompanied by greater punishments?
535. Seguine - Dec. 9, 1998 - 8:53 PM PT
Res: "Who says that incarceration is supposed to repair these criminal acts?"
It is "repair" only in the sense of emotional recompense. I didn't say it was anything other. And in answer to your question, virtually *everyone* wants emotional recompense for wrongs done to him, and most people agree that a punishment such as incarceration serves exactly that purpose. Can you honestly claim that this isn't the case?
"We cannot -- at all -- fully recompense the victim of any crime."
I have not mentioned full recompense. Do you think partial recompense is made unnecessary by the impossibility of full recompense?
"Punishment has never repaired anything."
Well, money has never brought a dead victim of medical malpractice back to life either. Would you dispense with all forms of compensation for adjudicated wrongs?
"All it does is give someone the satisfaction of knowing that the law has been upheld."
And even if the *satisfaction* that "the law has been upheld" is all that is obtained, that *satisfaction* is some kind of compensation, isn't it? For heaven's sake, your own nomenclature makes my point.
536. resonance - Dec. 9, 1998 - 8:56 PM PT
There is nothing wrong with my usage of 'heuristic' and you're still a froth-mouthed wanker. Six Semioticians in search of a Handjob, and five of them are you. As for the sixth, well, ...everybody knows that. But I will admit that I thought 'suborn' carried an element of coercion. I am duly chastened. The Wet Noodle of Wanker Discipline has lashed me. Oh, the mortification.
"Because if the rationale for opposing one action
(execution) is that it's unjust, then it begs the
question why you tolerate other unjust actions."
Because I must, for the greater good. I have no overriding need to ignore the injustice of capital punishment. So I do not. Explain to me why I can't, and explain to me why this is unprincipled, given the underlying desire underneath *all* of our laws -- to maintain the greater good.
537. resonance - Dec. 9, 1998 - 9:00 PM PT
"The only rationale for imprisonment which
withstands scrutiny, IMO, is retribution. That is
the only punishment (other than forced
restitution of victims) for the actual crime
committed."
Do you really believe that we ought not to bother rehabilitating criminals? That we ought not even try? I ask out of curiosity.
538. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 9, 1998 - 9:14 PM PT
Message #536: Well, of course, Monsieur Malaprop, who is prone to using words like "praxis" and "nescience" in egregiously inapt contexts, would not see that his use of "heuristic" was idiomatically deficient (as well as pretentious).
"Because I must, for the greater good. I have no overriding need to ignore the injustice of capital punishment."
How do you determine what is the greater good, and how and when to ignore some injustices and not others? For example, why can you not say that we might tolerate that a few innocents might get executed in exchange for the permanent elimination of the many more who are guilty and who thereby present zero change of escaping, killing prison guards, etc.? And what of Message #384?
Message #537: No, I don't believe that.
539. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 9, 1998 - 9:15 PM PT
..zero CHANCE...
540. CoralReef - Dec. 9, 1998 - 9:49 PM PT
Message #529
PE
Re 1): Yes, they are other crimes unto themselves but they are merely created so as to catch people likely to commit the more serious crime, so I see it as a workaround, a way the law tries to get around the problem of how can they imprison someone before they commit a crime.
Re 2) Plenty of people do want that protection. The bombers in the Oklahoma city bombing, for instance, wore bullet proof vests and were surrounded by police because their life was seen to be in danger due to possible vigilanteism. Individual criminals may not want that protection but the law isn't tailored to the needs of individual criminals but rather one what would be appropriate for most. It is reasonable to assume that many criminals would be in mortal danger if not separated from society once they are revealed to have been the perpetrators.
I maintain that the state does not take the side of the victim or the victim's family against the perpetrator, doling out retribution, but rather separates the perpetrator and society for the protection of both. Since the perpetrator committed the crime, they face the onus of imprisonment (Australia being, as Seguine earlier noted, full, though if Clive James was expelled I'm sure that'd clear up some room) as the means society judges most viable to effectively separate them.
Now execution would *really* separate them! But unlike imprisonment it carries no benefits at all for the prisoner, it is purely punative.
541. Seguine - Dec. 9, 1998 - 10:06 PM PT
"Now execution would *really* separate [criminals from the other citizenry]! But unlike imprisonment it carries no benefits at all for the prisoner, it is purely punative."
A fine argument. But wait--not so fast! Execution surely benefits the prisoner by putting an end to his punishment.
It benefits him especially if imprisonment is a variety of torture.
542. CoralReef - Dec. 9, 1998 - 10:20 PM PT
It may benefit individual prisoners in that way, but I can't see most prisoners choosing that option. If they want to though, fine, it's basically assisted suicide.... Though I doubt the govt is going to want to bother to customize the options for unique cases like that, they tend to favor one size fits all.
543. CoralReef - Dec. 9, 1998 - 10:27 PM PT
The hard part of my argument was proving that all elliptical curves are modular.
544. Seguine - Dec. 9, 1998 - 10:34 PM PT
"Though I doubt the govt is going to want to bother to customize the
options for unique cases like that, they tend to favor one size fits
all."
Another miscarriage of justice!
I think Texas used to allow a convict to choose his method of execution. Well, wherever Gary Gilmour was executed, I seem to recall he requested firing squad and was accommodated.
545. resonance - Dec. 9, 1998 - 10:34 PM PT
PE, 'heuristic' also has the meaning of 'a rule of thumb, simplification, or educated guess'. It's a programming term that has been adopted by the mainstream. It's hardly a malapropism or inappropriate to use. Now, run along and add that to your database.
From Webster's online dictionary:
Suborn \Sub*orn"\, v. t. To procure privately, or by collusion; to procure by indirect means; to incite secretly; to instigate.
Monsieur Malaprop indeed, you tosser.
Seguine:
"It is "repair" only in the sense of emotional
recompense. I didn't say it was anything other"
Forgive me. I may be misunderstanding you. Are you suggesting that the only way punishment of criminals makes sense is if we view it as emotional restitution?
"And in answer to your question, virtually
*everyone* wants emotional recompense for
wrongs done to him, and most people agree that
a punishment such as incarceration serves
exactly that purpose. Can you honestly claim
that this isn't the case?"
That most people view prison as eye for an eye emotional retribution? Yes, I think I can say with some confidence that most people do not see it in that particular light.
546. resonance - Dec. 9, 1998 - 10:35 PM PT
"We cannot -- at all -- fully recompense the
victim of any crime."
I have not mentioned full recompense. Do you
think partial recompense is made unnecessary
by the impossibility of full recompense?"
This is irrelevant. What's it to do with the matter on the table? (In case you need an answer on this one, to match the other answers you've demanded -- if you'd read my earlier comments in the thread, you would know that I had already argued something similar, though to a different end.)
"Well, money has never brought a dead victim of
medical malpractice back to life either. Would
you dispense with all forms of compensation for
adjudicated wrongs? "
???
I am extremely puzzled as to why you feel this is relevant. In order for your point to be germane to the topic, I believe, I would have to be arguing that we shouldn't allow people to feel an emotional satisfaction at the imprisonment of someone who wronged them. If you can find where I did that, please, point it out.
547. resonance - Dec. 9, 1998 - 10:35 PM PT
"And even if the *satisfaction* that "the law has
been upheld" is all that is obtained, that
*satisfaction* is some kind of compensation, isn't
it? For heaven's sake, your own nomenclature
makes my point."
Heavens, no. Your point was that the only way punishment makes sense is if we view it as equivalent to the crime. And if we view it as emotional recompense to the survivors. How's the above 'nomenclature' make your point?
548. resonance - Dec. 9, 1998 - 10:46 PM PT
"How do you determine what is the greater
good, and how and when to ignore some
injustices and not others? "
...
Arbitrarily. The same way we make any other decision. We see what must be accomplished and find a pragmatic way to do it. The fact that we cannot exactly quantize injustice doesn't mean that we can't make a damned good guess as to whether some process is more unjust than another. OR that we can't decide that something is necessary -- incarceration -- but something else isn't -- execution.
"For example, why can
you not say that we might tolerate that a few
innocents might get executed in exchange for the
permanent elimination of the many more who
are guilty and who thereby present zero change
of escaping, killing prison guards, etc.? "
That last is silly. By your own lights, we can't rationalize killing someone on death row simply because they might kill again, anyways. By mine, we cannot then satisfactorily explain why, in principle, we don't kill all prisoners. And -- more importantly -- we don't have to do it in the first place. And there's no pragmatic reason to do it in the first place.
549. resonance - Dec. 9, 1998 - 10:46 PM PT
The essential weakness in your argument for execution is that there's no reason why it doesn't equally apply to everyone; that is to say, there's no reason why we shouldn't kill anyone with a demonstrated capacity for violence. If you're not willing to accept such a thing then you had best withdraw the silly notion from the debate.
550. Seguine - Dec. 9, 1998 - 10:49 PM PT
Resonance:
"Are you suggesting that the only way punishment of criminals makes sense is if we view it as emotional restitution?"
No, I'm saying that people apparently require emotional restitution, and punishment does serve this requirement (no doubt incompletely, in some cases).
I like CR's rationale for a disinterested state, but I think the reality is that punishment is not merely incidental to taking criminals out of circulation. It is intended, and intended as recompense to the non-criminal citizenry (or more specifically, to victims).
"That most people view prison as eye for an eye emotional retribution?
Yes, I think I can say with some confidence that most people do not see it in that particular light."
Well that's some confidence indeed. I'm even more confident that you are R-O-N-G. Maybe we should take a carefully worded survey.
551. resonance - Dec. 9, 1998 - 10:53 PM PT
I'm R-O-N-G?
wtf? Or maybe just tf?
552. resonance - Dec. 9, 1998 - 11:05 PM PT
Message #384 Don't be daft, PE. We can't have a perfect justice system because we don't have perfect, all encompassing information.
I really don't see the point of all this 'Well, if injustice is so bad, why don't you eliminate it' twaddle, to be honest. We can't eliminate it all and run the rest of our society. We don't have to worship justice and spend all our money on it in order to want unnecessary injustice to be minimized in a cost effective fashion.
NONE of that means that we must, in accepting some measure of injustice, bar ourselves from arguing against further injustice. Once again, that's closet absolutist gibberish.
If your point were to be legitimate, then we'd have no good reason, say, to argue against torturing prisoners, or executing jaywalkers, or allowing prison guards to rape their prisoners. After all, we've accepted injustice, surely we can't scruple at more of the same?
Don't you see how pathetic that notion is, in the round?
No, there's no need for the injustice of the death penalty. And there's therefore no need to have the death penalty.
553. resonance - Dec. 9, 1998 - 11:09 PM PT
Really, PE, I understand that some of the tax money you paid this year got wasted. That's unjust, I'd think. Yet you tacitly support the government by paying your taxes, so you're agreeing that the injustice is necessary. So you certainly won't mind if we stop by your house and confiscate all you own. Geez, the money will help a lot of people, too! And you don't mind injustice, so you can't complain, can you?
554. Seguine - Dec. 9, 1998 - 11:12 PM PT
"... Or maybe just tf?"
NOW you're catching on.
555. Seguine - Dec. 9, 1998 - 11:19 PM PT
"No, there's no need for the injustice of the death penalty. And there's therefore no need to have the death penalty."
There is if there is a societal "need" for revenge. You have claimed there isn't, but I bet you're wrong. So indulge me (because I'm right; or simply for the sake of argument).
1. What's the moral argument against revenge--i.e., the moral argument for attempting to change what the majority wants?
2. What is the rational argument?
3. What is the pragmatic argument?
556. resonance - Dec. 9, 1998 - 11:30 PM PT
"There is if there is a societal "need" for revenge.
You have claimed there isn't, but I bet you're
wrong."
What in the hell are you talking about, Seguine? Where have I ever claimed that there is no societal need for revenge?
There are lots of destructive societal needs. Their existence isn't sufficient grounds for their reinforcement. You have a lot to do before you manage to prove that the need for revenge is in and of itself a sufficient reason to punish someone.
557. Seguine - Dec. 10, 1998 - 12:25 AM PT
Resonance,
"What in the hell are you talking about, Seguine? Where have I ever
claimed that there is no societal need for revenge?"
S: " virtually *everyone* wants emotional recompense for wrongs done to him, and most people agree that a punishment such as incarceration serves exactly that purpose. Can you honestly claim that this isn't the case?"
Res: "That most people view prison as eye for an eye emotional retribution? Yes, I think I can say with some confidence that most people do not see it in that particular light."
Emotional recompense and revenge are the same thing. You are pretending people don't see punishments such as incarceration (and the death penalty) as emotional retribution, in order to deny that the majority of Americans require revenge. It's plain that they do, since Americans also value life and freedom, and dispensing with those things implies some greater need. One such need is the need for protection from future acts. Another is emotional recompense.
I don't think the majority of Americans have an emotional requirement that criminals be rehabilitated, but one could certainly make a moral argument in favor of rehab.
As for how your nomenclature makes my point about recompense, look up the word "satisfaction".
"There are lots of destructive societal needs."
So the need for revenge is altogether destructive? OK. Say it is. What if it can't be helped?
"Their existence isn't sufficient grounds for their reinforcement. You have a lot to do before you manage to prove that the need for revenge is in and of itself a sufficient reason to punish someone."
I haven't even attempted to *prove* it. I have observed that the status quo suggests that a majority of people in this democratic society require revenge for capital crimes. (Naturally, they call revenge "justice".)
I have been asking, out of pure cu
558. Seguine - Dec. 10, 1998 - 12:26 AM PT
I have been asking, out of pure curiosity, what arguments--moral, rational, pragmatic--you would use to discourage that requirement or its fulfillment.
Now you have offered that revenge is destructive. But if the state effectively mediates and controls revenge, how is it necessarily destructive?
559. resonance - Dec. 10, 1998 - 12:28 AM PT
""What in the hell are you talking about,
Seguine? Where have I ever
claimed that there is no societal need for
revenge?"
S: " virtually *everyone* wants emotional
recompense for wrongs done to him, and most
people agree that a punishment such as
incarceration serves exactly that purpose. Can
you honestly claim that this isn't the case?"
Res: "That most people view prison as eye for
an eye emotional retribution? Yes, I think I can
say with some confidence that most people do
not see it in that particular light.""
You're being sloppy. None of that says that people don't have a need for revenge. All it says is that people don't think that incarceration is necessarily revenge-based.
560. resonance - Dec. 10, 1998 - 12:37 AM PT
"Emotional recompense and revenge are the
same thing. You are pretending people don't see
punishments such as incarceration (and the
death penalty) as emotional retribution, in order
to deny that the majority of Americans require
revenge. "
Once again, this doesn't follow.
"As for how your nomenclature makes my point
about recompense, look up the word
"satisfaction"."
I know exactly what it means. Even the definition which translates out to mean, in shorthand, 'revenge'. People might need to take revenge. They might even feel that they sometimes get revenge when someone is locked up. That *doesn't* mean that they justify incarceration in terms of revenge. Hell, most of them would like to euphemize it wherever possible. Heard the word 'closure' lately?
"So the need for revenge is altogether
destructive? OK. Say it is. What if it can't be
helped? "
We still minimize it wherever possible.
561. resonance - Dec. 10, 1998 - 12:37 AM PT
"I have
observed that the status quo suggests that a
majority of people in this democratic society
require revenge for capital crimes. (Naturally,
they call revenge "justice".)"
You're begging your own question with that last.
"Now you have offered that revenge is
destructive. But if the state effectively mediates
and controls revenge, how is it necessarily
destructive?"
??
The more I post in here, the more unbelievable stuff I get asked.
Why would the state's hand in matters make things necessarily less destructive? The Nazis were a state, Seguine. So was the Confederacy and Stalin's regime. 'Effectively mediates and controls' is meaningless. As to how it is destructive if the state controls revenge, well, ask someone who is about to be executed for a crime that they didn't commit.
562. Seguine - Dec. 10, 1998 - 12:58 AM PT
Resonance,
You are, indeed, too tired to comprehend or represent clearly a single point either of us is making.
And I'm too tired to sort you out. Perhaps tomorrow.
563. resonance - Dec. 10, 1998 - 1:01 AM PT
Well, if it's so clear, Seguine, then see that you do. If someone can point out to me where my logic has been faulty in my discourse with you, then please let them speak.
564. Adrianne - Dec. 10, 1998 - 4:35 AM PT
Death by the bucketful in Tejas!
565. Seguine - Dec. 10, 1998 - 8:19 AM PT
"Why would the state's hand in matters make things necessarily less
destructive? The Nazis were a state, Seguine."
The US is not a dictatorship, Resonance. Please don't change states in the middle of the discussion.
*This* state's hand in things is, ostensibly, the hand of the people. The people require revenge; the people, through their representatives, decide how much and what kind of revenge is appropriate and required for various capital crimes; state-administered justice regulates the meting out of revenge; the state determines who is a criminal.
The state also removes criminals from circulation, something individuals cannot reliably do. This serves *potential* victims, thus giving all citizens a stake in the state's regulation of revenge.
State regulation of revenge implies a tradeoff between a victim's need for revenge (which might be nearly infinite) and the good he receives, and shares with other citizens, from allowing the state to determine how much emotional recompense he will actually receive. Perhaps a victim of robbery will only be fully compensated for his emotional injury if the offender is horsewhipped. But he trades his full compensation for the partial compensation of punishment by imprisonment, which meets some of his need for revenge and exchanges the remainder of his emoptional compensation for a *public* good: preventing more robberies (certainly by the prisoner, and perhaps by others contemplating capital offenses).
566. Seguine - Dec. 10, 1998 - 8:33 AM PT
"Your point was that the only way punishment makes sense is if we view it as equivalent to the crime. And if we view it as emotional recompense to the survivors."
Once again, no. I'm saying that punishment is vengeance, and that state-admisitered punishment is adulterated vengeance. Some of the vengeful needs of individuals are traded for protection of society in general: the state stabilizing the dynamics of vengeance (which stops with the state, a final arbiter Hatfields and McCoys don't recognize); the state (supposedly) protecting equally all citizens against crimes (incarceration removes criminals from circulation, prosecution represents victims unable to represent themselves); the state (hopefully) guarding against incorrect identification of criminals; the state protecting violators of moral tenets from the *unchecked* rage of victims capable of exacting retribution for themselves.
567. Seguine - Dec. 10, 1998 - 8:49 AM PT
Res: "People might need to take revenge. They might even feel that they sometimes get revenge when someone is locked up. That *doesn't* mean that they justify incarceration in terms of revenge. Hell, most of them would like to euphemize it wherever possible. Heard the word 'closure' lately?"
The fact that some people are instructed (primarily by their religious heritage, and primarily the Christian one) that revenge is morally wrong, and so substitute euphemisms for what they actually mean, has NO bearing on whether they desire (or "need") revenge. I do not care how people justify their needs. I am talking about what those needs are and I'm asking you for a clear explanation of how/to what extent those needs should be met and limited, and why. This is the crux of the CP question.
S: "So the need for revenge is altogether destructive? OK. Say it is. What if it can't be helped? "
Res: "We still minimize it wherever possible."
We minimize the need or we minimize the destruction? Can't you see that the degree of a need for vengeance must determine to some extent the degree to which we "minimize"? Otherwise, minimization itself becomes destructive.
568. elliot803 - Dec. 10, 1998 - 8:52 AM PT
Arky:
You didn't address my question: What benefit does the death penalty provide that compensates for the risk of executing innocent people, not to mention its other problems (cost, arbitrariness, racial bias, etc.)? And don't say the risk of executing innocents is trivial or non-existent, because there is a mass of empirical data that shows otherwise.
"I simply do not think that an individual who has been destructive to society, who has had no regard for human life, should continue to exist in and be supported by that society."
But this is just meaningless rhetoric. What constitutes "no regard for human life?" What constitutes "destructive to society?" How do you make these determinations? There are countless ways in which people show disregard for the lives of others and are destructive to society other than through committing murder. Should these people also be executed in your opinion? Or is what you're really trying to say, "I think people convicted of murder should be killed?"
569. SeaSailor - Dec. 10, 1998 - 8:53 AM PT
There has to be a better way. Death is too quick for some murders and unnecessary for those who will never be a treat to society.
Give 'em a shovel and tell them to dig a pit. Close off the top. When they want to eat or send up the chamber pot, first they send up a bucket or two of dirt. That isn't cruel and unusual. It saves on prisons. We've got a lot of empty space in deserts or even places like N. Dakota where they'd be no threat even if they could get out. The Russians used and probably still use Siberia. The Mexican prisons are a little worse than a hole.
We talk about civil rights, but surely such a person should have lost any rights except what the court, not our Constitution, would allow.
570. jonesatlaw - Dec. 10, 1998 - 9:02 AM PT
I'd like to bring the theoretical back to ground here. Would a proponant of CP as we have now, please address the problem illustrated in my post Message #241? How does this fit with the theories of retribution, punishment and incapacity we've been discussing?
571. SeaSailor - Dec. 10, 1998 - 9:04 AM PT
Ronski Message #473
You cause yourself endless grief if you think marriage laws are "religious". They are social laws, meant to provide paths to adulthood for children. It doesn't belong to any religion and many non-religious hold the belief that it is better for children to be raised in their own homes. For society to put a child into a gay marriage sends a message that society is not interested in preserving itself.
Some gays I've known would make better parents than some parents I've known, but that is not the point. The point is what is good for the Society. Laws protect society and individuals within that society, but first is the society. There used to be a religion called the Shakers, but they died out because they outlawed sex of any kind. That's a religious law!
572. elliot803 - Dec. 10, 1998 - 9:09 AM PT
Seguine:
Me: "Vengeance of some kind may or may not be a social necessity, but the death penalty certainly isn't."
You: "Well that depends, doesn't it, on how much vengeance people need. How is this determined?"
It's not clear to me that vengeance is "needed" at all. Since you are the one claiming that this alleged need exists, it seems to me that you have the burden of showing that. Almost every other advanced democracy in the world, many of which are arguably far healthier socially than the U.S., get by perfectly well without the death penalty. So why does America "need" to execute people?
"We also allow possession of handguns. Is it possible that certain greater freedoms must be accompanied by greater punishments?"
No, I don't think so. Why must certain greater freedoms be accompanied by greater punishments? I see no evidence that the U.S. is a safer or healthier society because it imposes greater punishments on its criminals than other countries. If anything, the evidence suggests the opposite.
573. elliot803 - Dec. 10, 1998 - 9:25 AM PT
Seguine:
"I have observed that the status quo suggests that a majority of people in this democratic society require revenge for capital crimes."
Hardly. Was slavery *required* simply because it was supported by the "status quo?" Was racial segregation *required*? Your argument degenerates into the claim that everything represented in the "status quo" is somehow a "need." In any case, it's not clear that the death penalty is supported by a majority of Americans, anyway. Some polls indicate that support for it drops far below 50% if the alternative is life imprisonment without parole.
574. VicKuligin - Dec. 10, 1998 - 9:35 AM PT
elliot
If you are a proponent for life imprisonment without parole, how should we treat those prisoners? Are you willing to lock them up so that they have NO contact with other humans, such that they cannot kill other inmates and/or prison guards as well??
Or would that be too inhumane IYO??
575. Seguine - Dec. 10, 1998 - 9:36 AM PT
Elliot,
You're quite right, of course, that there's a difference between desire and need. But for the purposes of this discussion, I assume that a sufficiently strong or pervasive desire on the part of individuals translates into a "need" in society simply because of the consequences that will ensue (the "destruction", to extrapolate from Resonance) if the desire is not met outright or bargained away.
576. elliot803 - Dec. 10, 1998 - 9:54 AM PT
VicKuligin:
"elliot If you are a proponent for life imprisonment without parole, how should we treat those prisoners? Are you willing to lock them up so that they have NO contact with other humans, such that they cannot kill other inmates and/or prison guards as well??"
No, I am not, unless it can be shown for the prisoner in question that the risk of his killing a guard or inmate justifies such isolation. The idea that simply because someone has killed once we can conclude that he poses such a risk that he must be isolated from all human contact for the rest of his life seems to me ridiculous. A very small number of Hannibal Lecter-type killers may warrant such extreme treatment (although I think even Lecter was a rather silly, overblown caricature of a psychopathic killer), but the vast majority of murder convicts would not.
577. VicKuligin - Dec. 10, 1998 - 10:00 AM PT
elliot
I am not certain what % of total murderers actually are on death row, but my guess is it is a low %.
I was speaking more about the really psycho ones, but even then, I suppose one could argue that, just because a guy raped and killed 20 women doesn't necessarily mean that he would be a threat to other male inmates or prison guards.
Taking out your "vast majority," for those that we could reasonably believe *would* pose a threat to the lives of other inmates and/or prison guards, would you support locking them up in such a way that they have no contact with other human beings, in any sense such that they could potentially kill said people??
578. elliot803 - Dec. 10, 1998 - 10:11 AM PT
VicKuligin:
"I am not certain what % of total murderers actually are on death row, but my guess is it is a low %."
It is a low percentage. It should be a zero percentage.
"Taking out your "vast majority," for those that we could reasonably believe *would* pose a threat to the lives of other inmates and/or prison guards, would you support locking them up in such a way that they have no contact with other human beings, in any sense such that they could potentially kill said people??"
I would support conditions of confinement commensurate with the risk, as best we can assess it. It's not a matter of risk versus no risk, it's a matter of degrees of risk. You can't say "this inmate poses a risk of killing again, but this other inmate does not," just as you can't say that about people generally. There is a non-zero risk that ANYONE will kill someone else at some time in their life.
579. VicKuligin - Dec. 10, 1998 - 10:20 AM PT
elliot
"There is a non-zero risk that ANYONE will kill someone else at some time in their life."
But certainly, we CAN develop certain measures by which we can *rank* people if you would. I doubt Mother Teresa would have been a high risk, but Jeffrey Dahmer would be.
So, knowing that certain people DO pose a higher risk, simply based upon their past actions, you would agree that we should incarcerate these people, without chance of parole, for their entire lifetimes, and also lock them up in such a way that they do not come into contact with other humans in any sense such that they could kill said people??
And yes, I realize that we are talking about a very low % of total murderers. But, it is precisely this % that I am worried about.
580. VicKuligin - Dec. 10, 1998 - 10:22 AM PT
I should restate. I am not *only* worried about this small % of people, but my question to elliot is addressing just these people for now.
I venture to guess that there is a fair amount of murders that take place in America's prisons by people that weren't even near death row. Does anybody have any figures that would show us how many people are murdered each year in prisons in the US??
581. VicKuligin - Dec. 10, 1998 - 10:28 AM PT
elliot
It would seem that a "necessary evil" of the current prison system is that we will have some inmates lose their lives to other inmates (as well as the occasional guard). This is no doubt a very small %, much like the % of innocent people who were executed wrongly.
Do you have any suggestions how we could decrease the number of inmate deaths in our prisons?? Are you concerned about this??
BTW, we actually DO "rank" prisoners based on their potential threat. We call it "maximum security prison."
582. elliot803 - Dec. 10, 1998 - 10:31 AM PT
VicKuligin:
I've already answered your question: I support conditions of isolation commensurate with the risk posed by the inmate to others, as best we can assess it. But it's not clear to me that anyone is so dangerous to all other human beings that he must be deprived of all human contact for the rest of his life.
583. elliot803 - Dec. 10, 1998 - 10:35 AM PT
VicKuligin:
"It would seem that a "necessary evil" of the current prison system is that we will have some inmates lose their lives to other inmates (as well as the occasional guard). This is no doubt a very small %, much like the % of innocent people who were executed wrongly."
Yes. So what?
"Do you have any suggestions how we could decrease the number of inmate deaths in our prisons?? Are you concerned about this??"
No to the first, yes to the second.
"BTW, we actually DO "rank" prisoners based on their potential threat. We call it "maximum security prison.""
Yes. And I support that type of ranking and different treatment, as I said.
584. Jenerator - Dec. 10, 1998 - 11:39 AM PT
I wonder how it is determined that certain inmates pose a threat to others and are at high risk for violent behavior? Isn't the nature of the crime that put them in prison for life sufficient? Do they have to actually kill another inmate before they are considered high risk?
I would be more inclined to support life inprisonment if truth in sentencing was a reality. Also, I think that there should be certain restrictions and behavioral rules monitored more consistently. For example, I do not think that maximum security/life inprisonment inmates should have access to computers, they should wear uniforms, they should work, and guards should increase supervision to ensure that no gang hits take place, etc.
585. JaDeGoLd - Dec. 10, 1998 - 11:46 AM PT
Why should prisoners be denied computers?
586. Jenerator - Dec. 10, 1998 - 11:50 AM PT
I consider computers a luxury for inmates, and I definitely think that if they have them already, no system should have internet access!
587. JaDeGoLd - Dec. 10, 1998 - 11:54 AM PT
Jen;
Disagree. Why deny prisoners a computer with internet access? Is a pen and paper a luxury? How about we remove prisoners' vocal cords so
they don't have the luxury of communication? Are books a luxury?
588. VicKuligin - Dec. 10, 1998 - 12:04 PM PT
"How about we remove prisoners' vocal cords so
they don't have the luxury of communication?"
I agree with you Jade.
589. VicKuligin - Dec. 10, 1998 - 12:05 PM PT
Oooooh, and no working sewage system either. I think they should sit in their own defacation.
590. Jenerator - Dec. 10, 1998 - 12:08 PM PT
Jade,
Have you never considered the fact that inmates can get access to ALL of YOUR personal information via the internet? You know, your address, your social security number, financial records, etc. Just think, after early parole, they can look you up, your husband, and your child too. Or, while they're waiting to be released, they can start screwing with your records and possibly start some sort of financial fraud for you. It has happened here in Texas. Or they can spend there "hard time" downloading porn.
591. VicKuligin - Dec. 10, 1998 - 12:10 PM PT
Oh, but don't take away their HBO. THAT would be too inhumane!!
592. Jenerator - Dec. 10, 1998 - 12:12 PM PT
Vic,
Mandatory uniform
Mandatory weight program
Mandatory regimented exercise program
No airconditioning
No computers
Cell search two times a week
Mandatory work program
No gangs allowed of any sort
Censored book list
593. Jenerator - Dec. 10, 1998 - 12:13 PM PT
Vic,
Don't even tease about taking away HBO!!! Too cruel I say!
594. VicKuligin - Dec. 10, 1998 - 12:13 PM PT
No mandatory weight or exercise program. I think they should physically fall apart during incarceration.
Oh, and they should have air conditioning in the winter time, and heat in the summer.
595. JaDeGoLd - Dec. 10, 1998 - 12:15 PM PT
Jen;
They can get the same info via a letter.
A computer is just a tool---try not to fear it.
596. VicKuligin - Dec. 10, 1998 - 12:16 PM PT
Wait a minute, wait a minute!!
Come to think of it, just think of all those innocent people in the prisons. How unfair.
I think we should abolish prisons.
597. justlooking - Dec. 10, 1998 - 12:16 PM PT
While in jail inmates communication with the outside world is monitored. Or may be. Inmates have been known to run criminal enterprises from behind bars, intimidate witnesses, run scams and in general have lots of anti-social or criminal reasons for communication. This is a population which has lost its privacy after due process. I wouldn't mind if inmates could read internet sites but communication must be controlled. And I think that would be difficult for prison officials to do an adequate job of monitoring.
598. VicKuligin - Dec. 10, 1998 - 12:17 PM PT
"A computer is just a tool"
Oh, well then, we had better not let them have any tools either. Don't want them to break out or nuttin'.
599. justlooking - Dec. 10, 1998 - 12:20 PM PT
The internet is just a medium of communication. But it has several characteristics that make it more dangerous for a prison population. Speed for one. Letters sit in a pile until they are monitored. Prisoners can write in "code" but if the plain meaning is too convoluted to be reasonable, guards can censor incoming and outgoing. More difficult with massive volume of email.
600. Jenerator - Dec. 10, 1998 - 12:21 PM PT
Jade,
I'm not afraid of a computer, I'm afraid of inmates using the internet while in prison. Also, I think that it is a luxury that they do not deserve while serving their sentence for committing crimes.
Tell me Jade, should we provide tanning beds so that the prisoners still have that healthy sunny glow?
Should we provide cologne and body lotions so that they can smell pretty?
Should we give them all tv's so that they can watch movies in the privacy of their own cell?
Should we have some sort of in-house department store so that they can still "shop"?
Should we increase the size of the cells so that they don't feel too confined?
It's called INPRISONMENT. I do not think that convicted criminals should have it easy in prison.