|
-deterrent
-That is over my head not even going there hahahah
-no idea I am not omniscient
-Acting exactly how you want to without any conscious thought or care to the consequences of your actions(this behavior may be just fine depending on the person haha so I guess I'm not saying it right)
- I meant Canada. Canada in general. His original comment was aimed at fellow Canadians on TL and I meant my comment in regard to EVERY Canadian citizen although I might as well point my finger in every direction. Why would I hope JUST Canada could figure out a proper justice system, I would hope that everyone would 
I think I am going to step out of this conversation. I don't think I have the education or focus of mind to properly express myself (or even have something decent to express in the first place)
To put everything simply, I'm sad that woman got burned, and I'm also sad the man is going to get burned. I would prefer everyone just kick back and have a good time, but I have no idea to accomplish that. That and I'm confused at how anyone can come to an answer of what someone does or does not deserve as punishment for their crimes. I want to say this is unknowable but I am not a knowledgeable person.
|
I think the reason so many support is that they don't think prison is a good enough punishment for what they did. And they are probably right, prison really isn't that big of a deal (relatively speaking) they get nice meals, even a gym! In fact they are living better than most people in third world countries.
On top of that, since prisons are so overcrowded in the US a lot of criminals get out early and go right back into crime.
I know the woman is not from America, but the reason so many support her is because of what they know about our prisons.
If they made prison punishment actually meaningful, I doubt as many people would support her.
|
On May 15 2011 11:23 Djzapz wrote:For the rest, you're going for an ideal... I wish the woman had never been defaced in the first place, but we're not that lucky. I would obviously go for that, but given the current state of things, I have to settle for putting people in jail. Like I said, it's imperfect, but as far as I can tell it's the best we've got.
I think that there are many good reasons to consider the possibility that "imperfect" is a genuinely misleading euphemism.
|
On May 15 2011 12:52 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2011 11:23 Djzapz wrote:For the rest, you're going for an ideal... I wish the woman had never been defaced in the first place, but we're not that lucky. I would obviously go for that, but given the current state of things, I have to settle for putting people in jail. Like I said, it's imperfect, but as far as I can tell it's the best we've got. I think that there are many good reasons to consider the possibility that "imperfect" is a genuinely misleading euphemism.
1- Prison rape is unfortunate and the number of occurrences can certainly be lowered if prisons take the proper steps. Regardless of that issue, it's better than having the government do even worse.
2- Prisons are overcrowded because people go to jail for drug-related BS and other silly stuff.
3- Obviously prisons need to be controlled better.
I say imperfect because we won't get anything better. I really wish we didn't have to.
|
On May 15 2011 11:35 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2011 11:18 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:I guess I'll need to get my obs as a spotter cause we definitely have someone jumping on a moral high ground here.  ..especially with the whole "non-western = barbaric" and "my views are so enlightened" statements, lol. "True" enlightenment would be engaging in debate and discourse and avoiding unjustified assumptions. Here's a list of assumptions/questions that need to first be answered before you can even approach your view: -what's the function of the legal system? As a deterrent? As a mechanism of retributivism? -what is the relation of ideal justice in relation to said legal system? Are they equivalent? Does the practical necessity of real-world action create some gray area of permissibility? -how do you gauge proportionality? to what extent would you draw the line in violating proportionality, and relate this case to that? -what's "barbarian" or "uncivilized"? I'd just like to note that this kind of dichotomy in thinking is the exact same vein of thinking in the logic of exclusion, where people separate "us" from "them" and thereby commit violence against others. It's also the rhetoric of colonialism, obviously. -how on earth are you connecting the disparate comments of a few people in a specialized forum [starcraft-specific] to a representation of the people from your country, let alone any region? "non-western" and "enlightened" are words I would never use for this conversation. This is my point of view and that's it. If you want to give my point of view a geographical location on earth and title it it's your thing but I won't support it. My opinion (quickly): -The legal system prevents criminals from preventing future crimes. It has somewhat of an element of deterrence, but its main point is to remove "bad" people from the population to reduce the amount of harm done to human beings. -When you talk about "ideal justice", I think you're kind of getting outside of the realm of actual possibilities. Grey areas are unavoidable and difficult to gauge. -I don't quite understand the question. I think it kind of leads no where, otherwise pardon my frenchness. -I use barbaric as an adjective, not necessarily saying that the people are barbarians. I don't think there's any kind of dichotomy involved. Barbaric people support cruel "solutions". As for "uncivilized", I guess I tend to compare modern societies to dark ages societies. Perhaps it's not the perfect terminology to use, but we have a tendency to be less barbaric, obviously. Many practices from the dark ages should have been left in the dark ages - like torture. -My bad!
The whole "enlightened" aspect seemed to be a part of the original rhetoric of the OP [although now it's edited], and I'm perfectly sure that that was just a quick careless choice of words that can be overlooked.
The whole "barbaric" concept, though, still resonates in the etymology of the term, regardless of whether or not its an adjective or noun. IE, the sedentary civilizations casting nomadic groups as cruel, violent, inhumane monsters when they often possessed degrees of culture comparable, or simply did actions that those same criticizing civilizations had committed in the past. I just think the term carries baggage with it. Anyways:
[I should probably revert to numbers to keep it more organized, so just look at it as corresponding to the dashes in order]:
1. "to reduce the amount of harm done to human beings" - a utilitarian outlook on the law, then. However, your response seems to be more of the deontological approach, since it's more of a gut-reaction to this incident as "stepping over the line." That implies things like absolute side-constraints, ie things the government cannot do, but if you were to be utilitarian, the means would justify the ends so the harshness of the act would be irrelevant to the larger concern of whether or not this more cruel punishment could deter more crimes to reduce more harm.
2. That's the point. Your reactions of "inhumane, cruel, and barbaric" are appeals to more ideal thoughts of justice, rather than the actual practicality of whether or not this policy will work as a legal system. IE, cruelty and inhumanity [which you define barbarism as] are nothing but references to a violation of some notion of human dignity, which is this kind of ideal concept.
3. I don't see how you can't understand this, this is one of the most direct factors for a proper punishment, that it is proportional to the crime. For instance, burglary might net someone 5 years in prison, whereas murder would get a life sentence. The severity of punishments must correspond to the severity of the crime, so if you gave someone the life sentence for petty theft, that'd clearly be excessive and fall under notions of "cruel" punishment.
|
On May 15 2011 13:36 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2011 11:35 Djzapz wrote:On May 15 2011 11:18 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:I guess I'll need to get my obs as a spotter cause we definitely have someone jumping on a moral high ground here. ..especially with the whole "non-western = barbaric" and "my views are so enlightened" statements, lol. "True" enlightenment would be engaging in debate and discourse and avoiding unjustified assumptions. Here's a list of assumptions/questions that need to first be answered before you can even approach your view: -what's the function of the legal system? As a deterrent? As a mechanism of retributivism? -what is the relation of ideal justice in relation to said legal system? Are they equivalent? Does the practical necessity of real-world action create some gray area of permissibility? -how do you gauge proportionality? to what extent would you draw the line in violating proportionality, and relate this case to that? -what's "barbarian" or "uncivilized"? I'd just like to note that this kind of dichotomy in thinking is the exact same vein of thinking in the logic of exclusion, where people separate "us" from "them" and thereby commit violence against others. It's also the rhetoric of colonialism, obviously. -how on earth are you connecting the disparate comments of a few people in a specialized forum [starcraft-specific] to a representation of the people from your country, let alone any region? "non-western" and "enlightened" are words I would never use for this conversation. This is my point of view and that's it. If you want to give my point of view a geographical location on earth and title it it's your thing but I won't support it. My opinion (quickly): -The legal system prevents criminals from preventing future crimes. It has somewhat of an element of deterrence, but its main point is to remove "bad" people from the population to reduce the amount of harm done to human beings. -When you talk about "ideal justice", I think you're kind of getting outside of the realm of actual possibilities. Grey areas are unavoidable and difficult to gauge. -I don't quite understand the question. I think it kind of leads no where, otherwise pardon my frenchness. -I use barbaric as an adjective, not necessarily saying that the people are barbarians. I don't think there's any kind of dichotomy involved. Barbaric people support cruel "solutions". As for "uncivilized", I guess I tend to compare modern societies to dark ages societies. Perhaps it's not the perfect terminology to use, but we have a tendency to be less barbaric, obviously. Many practices from the dark ages should have been left in the dark ages - like torture. -My bad! 1. "to reduce the amount of harm done to human beings" - a utilitarian outlook on the law, then. However, your response seems to be more of the deontological approach, since it's more of a gut-reaction to this incident as "stepping over the line." That implies things like absolute side-constraints, ie things the government cannot do, but if you were to be utilitarian, the means would justify the ends so the harshness of the act would be irrelevant to the larger concern of whether or not this more cruel punishment could deter more crimes to reduce more harm.
John Stuart Mill would be very proud of you, but I don't believe that the deterrence would be good enough to justify the harm done directly from those punishments. IMO, it leads to more harm.
2. That's the point. Your reactions of "inhumane, cruel, and barbaric" are appeals to more ideal thoughts of justice, rather than the actual practicality of whether or not this policy will work as a legal system. IE, cruelty and inhumanity [which you define barbarism as] are nothing but references to a violation of some notion of human dignity, which is this kind of ideal concept.
You seemed to talk about perfection which I can't provide.
3. I don't see how you can't understand this, this is one of the most direct factors for a proper punishment, that it is proportional to the crime. For instance, burglary might net someone 5 years in prison, whereas murder would get a life sentence. The severity of punishments must correspond to the severity of the crime, so if you gave someone the life sentence for petty theft, that'd clearly be excessive and fall under notions of "cruel" punishment.
Sorry, I genuinely didn't understand your wording. I don't care about "proportionality". I think that when you start saying the punishment must be as bad as the crime, you completely lose sight of the concept of rehabilitation. Also it looks like retribution/vengeance - and like I've been saying, that's just an emotional "need", so to speak. It doesn't need to be equal.
"Proportional" still applies in that murder != theft. Since the person is more dangerous, it's important to keep them out of the population.
|
On May 15 2011 13:08 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2011 12:52 HULKAMANIA wrote:On May 15 2011 11:23 Djzapz wrote:For the rest, you're going for an ideal... I wish the woman had never been defaced in the first place, but we're not that lucky. I would obviously go for that, but given the current state of things, I have to settle for putting people in jail. Like I said, it's imperfect, but as far as I can tell it's the best we've got. I think that there are many good reasons to consider the possibility that "imperfect" is a genuinely misleading euphemism. 1- Prison rape is unfortunate and the number of occurrences can certainly be lowered if prisons take the proper steps. Regardless of that issue, it's better than having the government do even worse. 2- Prisons are overcrowded because people go to jail for drug-related BS and other silly stuff. 3- Obviously prisons need to be controlled better. I say imperfect because we won't get anything better. I really wish we didn't have to.
I dunno. I guess what this boils down to is that I tend to think getting acid dropped into one's eyes is a little more tolerable than being beaten to death by combination-lock stuffed in a sock because you refused to perform oral sex on one of the "bad people" society has sentenced you to coexist with. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't.
I mean ultimately I guess I don't have much of an opinion on whether "our" approach to justice or that of another culture is better in any absolute or final sense, nor do I have a very informed opinion on what an ideally just nation would look like. But in any case I think it's worth mentioning that the cruelty and brutality that you take to be indicative of barbarity are very much alive in our modern penal system (and have been for almost its entire career). It's just, again, that we don't have to see them. I don't know that we're "humane" so much as just squeamish.
It's also worth mentioning that building and maintaining prisons on a large scale is a luxury of wealthy nations. So you might wonder how much of our vaunted moral superiority to certain practices in different parts of the world is actually just financial superiority. Is it worth mentioning that Europeans in part attained said financial superiority through the colonization of some of those very countries in question here? Does the conquest of a sovereign nation constitute barbarity? I mean is the world we inhabit really amenable to being neatly laid out onto a single continuum with the enlightened and humane "us" on one end and the barbaric and backwards "them" on the other?
I'm with zobz on this one:
On May 15 2011 08:02 zobz wrote: Perhaps you should take this new diversity of outside opinions you've discovered as an opportunity to hone your own, since now you know you can't always depend on just being able to state your opinion for its face value and have people aknowledge your intelligence automatically. You have to work harder than that to convince most strangers that you know what you're talking about, as you should have to work harder to convince yourself.
I'm not saying that the disillusionment you feel is illegitimate. Just that maybe you should take it as an occasion to reevaluate and better understand your own beliefs on the subject (as well as the beliefs of others) rather than an occasion to express that you're upset because there are "still" so many people in the world who have not attained your level of moral advancement.
|
On May 15 2011 13:58 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2011 13:08 Djzapz wrote:On May 15 2011 12:52 HULKAMANIA wrote:On May 15 2011 11:23 Djzapz wrote:For the rest, you're going for an ideal... I wish the woman had never been defaced in the first place, but we're not that lucky. I would obviously go for that, but given the current state of things, I have to settle for putting people in jail. Like I said, it's imperfect, but as far as I can tell it's the best we've got. I think that there are many good reasons to consider the possibility that "imperfect" is a genuinely misleading euphemism. 1- Prison rape is unfortunate and the number of occurrences can certainly be lowered if prisons take the proper steps. Regardless of that issue, it's better than having the government do even worse. 2- Prisons are overcrowded because people go to jail for drug-related BS and other silly stuff. 3- Obviously prisons need to be controlled better. I say imperfect because we won't get anything better. I really wish we didn't have to. I dunno. I guess what this boils down to is that I tend to think getting acid dropped into one's eyes is a little more tolerable than being beaten to death by combination-lock stuffed in a sock because you refused to perform oral sex on one of the "bad people" society has sentenced you to coexist with. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't.
The government is only partially to blame for that event. Not entirely. You can argue that blinding someone is "more tolerable" but the government certainly isn't.
I mean ultimately I guess I don't have much of an opinion on whether "our" approach to justice or that of another culture is better in any absolute or final sense, nor do I have a very informed opinion on what an ideally just nation would look like. But in any case I think it's worth mentioning that the cruelty and brutality that you take to be indicative of barbarity are very much alive in our modern penal system (and have been for almost its entire career). It's just, again, that we don't have to see them. I don't know that we're "humane" so much as just squeamish.
I would qualify it as more humane regardless for the reason stated above. We make a genuine effort and it seems to work (at least partially). Obviously we can take some of our worst cases of violence between inmates and compare it to the less outrageous practices of Iran to declare that Canada is a totalitarian government, but in the end, our prisons suck and hopefully they get better --- yet bad things will always happen.
It's also worth mentioning that building and maintaining prisons on a large scale is a luxury of wealthy nations. So you might wonder how much of our vaunted moral superiority to certain practices in different parts of the world is actually just financial superiority. Is it worth mentioning that Europeans in part attained said financial superiority through the colonization of some of those very countries in question here? Does the conquest of a sovereign nation constitute barbarity? I mean is the world we inhabit really amenable to being neatly laid out onto a single continuum with the enlightened and humane "us" on one end and the barbaric and backwards "them" on the other?
The past is the past. I'm here because my ancestors mauled down "Indians". Can't condone that but I certainly can't change history.
Also, while our legal system costs a lot of money, it is, like you said, a luxury. I'm pretty sure we're much less likely to be wrongly accused here than in China, for instance. Let alone being wrongly executed.
I'm not saying that the disillusionment you feel is illegitimate. Just that maybe you should take it as an occasion to reevaluate and better understand your own beliefs on the subject (as well as the beliefs of others) rather than an occasion to express that you're upset because there are "still" so many people in the world who have not attained your level of moral advancement.
No I think there's a linear progression. As science progresses and people get smarter, weird practices go down. As countries mature, democracy comes up, women acquire rights, people gain freedoms, $$$, barbaric practices fade away... religion loses popularity.
This isn't a stance that I'm winging on the spot - I'm not a simpleton. Everything is constantly being reevaluated to generally fall back to the conclusion I had before, or a slightly modified one. I'm not closed to big changes, but since I've already given much thought to this and have considered most arguments from the opposite side and explored some grey areas, I would be surprised if someone completely changed my mind.
|
On May 15 2011 14:18 Djzapz wrote:No I think there's a linear progression. As science progresses and people get smarter, weird practices go down. As countries mature, democracy comes up, women acquire rights, people gain freedoms, $$$, barbaric practices fade away... religion loses popularity.
Well, if that's the case, if you believe that, then I'd just encourage you to be a little more sympathetic to today's barbarians as a nod, at least, to your common fate. The march of progress will leave you both in the dust of history. You'll be tomorrow's barbarian after all—and the proto-human of the day after that.
|
On May 15 2011 14:42 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2011 14:18 Djzapz wrote:No I think there's a linear progression. As science progresses and people get smarter, weird practices go down. As countries mature, democracy comes up, women acquire rights, people gain freedoms, $$$, barbaric practices fade away... religion loses popularity. Well, if that's the case, if you believe that, then I'd just encourage you to be a little more sympathetic to today's barbarians as a nod, at least, to your common fate. The march of progress will leave you both in the dust of history. You'll be tomorrow's barbarian after all—and the proto-human of the day after that.
If vegetarianism catches on (hopefully never) then I'll be tomorrow's barbarian... otherwise I'm pretty much a balls out pacifist
|
On May 15 2011 13:58 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2011 13:36 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:On May 15 2011 11:35 Djzapz wrote:On May 15 2011 11:18 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:I guess I'll need to get my obs as a spotter cause we definitely have someone jumping on a moral high ground here. ..especially with the whole "non-western = barbaric" and "my views are so enlightened" statements, lol. "True" enlightenment would be engaging in debate and discourse and avoiding unjustified assumptions. Here's a list of assumptions/questions that need to first be answered before you can even approach your view: -what's the function of the legal system? As a deterrent? As a mechanism of retributivism? -what is the relation of ideal justice in relation to said legal system? Are they equivalent? Does the practical necessity of real-world action create some gray area of permissibility? -how do you gauge proportionality? to what extent would you draw the line in violating proportionality, and relate this case to that? -what's "barbarian" or "uncivilized"? I'd just like to note that this kind of dichotomy in thinking is the exact same vein of thinking in the logic of exclusion, where people separate "us" from "them" and thereby commit violence against others. It's also the rhetoric of colonialism, obviously. -how on earth are you connecting the disparate comments of a few people in a specialized forum [starcraft-specific] to a representation of the people from your country, let alone any region? "non-western" and "enlightened" are words I would never use for this conversation. This is my point of view and that's it. If you want to give my point of view a geographical location on earth and title it it's your thing but I won't support it. My opinion (quickly): -The legal system prevents criminals from preventing future crimes. It has somewhat of an element of deterrence, but its main point is to remove "bad" people from the population to reduce the amount of harm done to human beings. -When you talk about "ideal justice", I think you're kind of getting outside of the realm of actual possibilities. Grey areas are unavoidable and difficult to gauge. -I don't quite understand the question. I think it kind of leads no where, otherwise pardon my frenchness. -I use barbaric as an adjective, not necessarily saying that the people are barbarians. I don't think there's any kind of dichotomy involved. Barbaric people support cruel "solutions". As for "uncivilized", I guess I tend to compare modern societies to dark ages societies. Perhaps it's not the perfect terminology to use, but we have a tendency to be less barbaric, obviously. Many practices from the dark ages should have been left in the dark ages - like torture. -My bad! 1. "to reduce the amount of harm done to human beings" - a utilitarian outlook on the law, then. However, your response seems to be more of the deontological approach, since it's more of a gut-reaction to this incident as "stepping over the line." That implies things like absolute side-constraints, ie things the government cannot do, but if you were to be utilitarian, the means would justify the ends so the harshness of the act would be irrelevant to the larger concern of whether or not this more cruel punishment could deter more crimes to reduce more harm. John Stuart Mill would be very proud of you, but I don't believe that the deterrence would be good enough to justify the harm done directly from those punishments. IMO, it leads to more harm. Show nested quote +2. That's the point. Your reactions of "inhumane, cruel, and barbaric" are appeals to more ideal thoughts of justice, rather than the actual practicality of whether or not this policy will work as a legal system. IE, cruelty and inhumanity [which you define barbarism as] are nothing but references to a violation of some notion of human dignity, which is this kind of ideal concept. You seemed to talk about perfection which I can't provide. Show nested quote +3. I don't see how you can't understand this, this is one of the most direct factors for a proper punishment, that it is proportional to the crime. For instance, burglary might net someone 5 years in prison, whereas murder would get a life sentence. The severity of punishments must correspond to the severity of the crime, so if you gave someone the life sentence for petty theft, that'd clearly be excessive and fall under notions of "cruel" punishment. Sorry, I genuinely didn't understand your wording. I don't care about "proportionality". I think that when you start saying the punishment must be as bad as the crime, you completely lose sight of the concept of rehabilitation. Also it looks like retribution/vengeance - and like I've been saying, that's just an emotional "need", so to speak. It doesn't need to be equal. "Proportional" still applies in that murder != theft. Since the person is more dangerous, it's important to keep them out of the population.
1. As would Bentham, Cummiskey, etc. I'm glad you have familiarity with the most basic of util authors, but you're not addressing the relevant implications of this. Your acceptance of this contradicts the initial claim "but it's cruel!" because the means don't matter if the ends justify the means, and labels of cruelty are only criticisms of means [ie it indicts intent/mindset and/or an act].
2. Which is another flaw in the initial claims of "cruelty," demonstrating that those claims may be unrealistic in their own right. After all, there is some degree of cruelty in methods of prisonment generally accepted by most people, but that is dismissed in the necessity of the legal punishment. Likewise, because the world is not perfect, perhaps it may be acceptable for them to reciprocate that etching of the eyes.
3. Sure, that clarifies your stance on punishment.
Basically, all these points boil down to: don't go calling things barbaric when that is a criticism of means, not ends, when you also saying that you consider this situation in a util approach. To maintain logical consistency, you really should be arguing that deterrence doesn't work and more policy-making arguments rather than "but it's so cruel and mean and bad!!"
Or imo, just make justifications/arguments, instead of ranting at people in general  .
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
