Then clearly in this case forcing people to go to AA is not "proven to work effectively." LogicX asked whether, in the hypothetical situation in which it was effective, whether we should give also give people jail time. The answer is still no.
In practice, it is possible that forcing people to go to AA is the most effective in reducing drunk driving for the majority of the population. Then maybe you would do something like AA for the first offense, and larger consequences afterwards.
Like? There is only so many things they can do. And money comes into play. There has to be a line.
Like I have said many times, not all punishments work for all people. It gets to the point people are rationalizing when they do things. Thats not a society I want to be living in. I want people deterred form doing things, not rationalizing that if they do 'X' they only have to do 'X' in punishment.
Then clearly in this case forcing people to go to AA is not "proven to work effectively." LogicX asked whether, in the hypothetical situation in which it was effective, whether we should give also give people jail time. The answer is still no.
In practice, it is possible that forcing people to go to AA is the most effective in reducing drunk driving for the majority of the population. Then maybe you would do something like AA for the first offense, and larger consequences afterwards.
I was talking about driving drunk and killing someone. Does no jail time still apply?
I'm talking about accountability, not revenge. Your future behavior does not matter; you must be held accountable for the harm your actions have caused.
I was talking about driving drunk and killing someone. Does no jail time still apply?
I'm talking about accountability, not revenge. Your future behavior does not matter; you must be held accountable for the harm your actions have caused.
Why? If therapy for the killer protects more people than punishment, why is punishment necessary?
The way I see it is this: the only reason for a justice system to exist is to protect people.
If X prevents more deaths/maimings/psychological harm for future victims than Y, then X is what should be done.
X in this case could be jail time, fines, therapy, exile to the wilds of Canada, execution, or being forced to pick up litter for five hours a day over a period of three years. So could Y.
The point is, the justice system should order whatever is shown to protect the most people most effectively in each case.
EDIT: Also, unnecessary harm should be minimised. That should be obvious, but I thought I should point it out.
If I could steal $20 and the only consequence would be if I was caught I would have to pay back $20, then yeah, that is hardly a consequence.
You keep leaving out the "and we make sure you don't do it again."
Again, the hyperbole and inaccuracy of your language shows the weakness of your position. Modern prisons are not dungeons, and while there inmates get adequate food, health care etc. The primary punishment is loss of freedom.
I didn't say that US prisons were dungeons (though I think a good case could be made that they are dangerously close), I said you advocated that. Just earlier you indicated that we should remove their access to media, because that's a luxury.
Ok fine, so you get medical help. But not money for your suffering. That is just bloodlust! What do your feelings have to do with my punishment? Stop being so sadistic. The family of the victim of a murder likewise should not get to exercise their bloodlust by punishing the criminal who committed the crime!
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
You feelings for vengeance are irrelevant. I didn't say all of the victim's feelings are ignored, unless the only feeling you ever feel is vengeance.
So I can commit any crime as long as the monetary damages are taken care of?
Yes, and I extend monetary damages to a great many other things. I include pain and suffering as a real, tangible problem that needs fixing. I do not include in that the desire to cause harm. I find that desire to be a Bad Thing.
So everyone really truly gets a freebie crime of their choosing? Does this extend to murder as well?
If you remove the reasons people commit crimes in the first place, you don't need a "freebie."
Honestly, would you go out and kill someone if you knew you could get away with it? Because I wouldn't. Is fear of prison the only thing preventing you?
Wikipedia: Corporal punishment is a form of physical punishment that involves the deliberate infliction of pain as retribution for an offence.
I forgot, prison isn't physical, painful, nor is it retribution.
If you remove the reasons people commit crimes in the first place, you don't need a "freebie."
The most naive thing I have ever seen written on these boards. Someone who truly doesnt understand that there are people whos way of life is different then their own.
Like I have been trying to say, just because person A kills because of reason A, doesnt mean persons B,C,and D killed for the same reasons. SO you want to coddle to each person whos broken the law, costing the tax payers even more money, to find the reason why they killed and have them go thru a personalized rehab stint.
My god, how naive...
US prisons are actually quite prone to be horrible, overcrowded and rife with corruption and violence. Rape of inmates is known to be widespread and has been turned into a punchline. You think that indicates a healthy prison culture? Never mind the deeply inhumane practice of isolation.
Have you been lately or are you basing your views on movies? If someon eis hurting others, please explain to me how you protect the masses WITHOUT isolation? Or do you just keep feeding the monsters more people?
You don't need to toss someone into an isolation cell to keep them from mingling with the rest of the prison population, though. Simply having separate areas for high-risk individuals would be sufficient.
I see, king of the prison yard. Let the monsters kill each other off... How is that any less violent? Another one who doent understand the human mind and that there are people out there that think and do different then themselves.
That's not remotely what I said. How can you read a post saying that one can simply have sections in the prison to house high-risk individuals so that they may be given the additional care that is necessary and interpret it as advocating for gladiator combat?
Those areas of the prison that deal with high risk prisoners is ISOLATION! You want those that are high risk to mingle together. What do you think would happen? It would be come king of the prison yard. The only difference is it would be with only the real bad guys.
No, I didn't suggest that they mingle together freely, merely that they are supervised in an area separate from the rest of the prison population. That does not mean putting them all in the same room and leaving them there. It means an area with the layout, personnel and schedule necessary to take care of these people while minimising the risk for incidents.
You're pretty much describing isolation for everything except for SuperMax prisons...
Basically, Norway has a system where the maximum sentence you can get is 21 years.
Perhaps.
Which means Breivik, who is 32, will be out when he is 53.
That can't be right (not in a morally right/wrong sense).
Maybe it's my naivete, but is it at all pragmatic to have these maximum sentence lengths?
So, 3 months of jail for each person he killed. Fair?
I don't think so but I don't "believe in" life sentences or death sentences. They seem counterintuitive, counterproductive, and unsound.
This does not seem like justice to me. Breivik gets a luxury vacation for killing 77 people.
You opened a can of worms with "luxury" and then expounding on it by mentioning flat screen, flat-screen TV, etc.
I don't have too much of an idea of the 'correctional system' where I live or in general, but "what is" is clearly not "what should be". In any case, I believe in that criminal law and justice should be, in small part, for deterrence and retribution and, by and large, for reform and atonement.
But it does bring an interesting question to mind; should we be willing to sacrifice justice for the greater good of lower recidivism rates? The average murderer in Norway spends only 14 years in prison. This is not justice, and it makes me sick. But they do have lower crime rates and recidivism than the US, which has much longer prison terms.
Perhaps that isn't an example of justice Well, what is justice? What is meant or implied by the closely related concept of fairness?
As I said above, a maximum sentence should be but a guideline (unless it's a life or essentially a life sentence). It's clearly quite a complex matter, with, say, some offenders being unable to reform due to "the system" or themselves; there are numerous theories of punishment, retribution, and the legion of facets in law.
Discretion should have greater worth than precedent or limitation of flexibility in sentencing. It'd slow things down tons, though.
So, the question is; assume Norway's prison system is a reason for lower crime rates- does that make it right to forgo real justice so that future crimes will not be committed?
Doesn't make sense to me actually.
Should we give up on the idea of punishment and go for full on rehabilitation instead?
Doesn't have to be like that.
Does the statistical likelihood of potential future crimes outweigh punishment and justice for a present case where a crime has been committed?
A patient may have an x% risk of having a particular pathology but, at the end of the day, whether he or she has it is 0 or 1.
Short answer is that doctor from years ago was a fool it's complicated (excuse the cliched cop-out) and that, while you could have a broad approach and obey both spirit and word of law, you truly have to deeply consider it.
Perhaps.
That can't be right (not in a morally right/wrong sense).
Maybe it's my naivete, but is it at all pragmatic to have these maximum sentence lengths?
It's not correct. The Norway system has a maximum guaranteed sentence of 21 years. After that they conduct a review and can hold you for 5 years (until your next review) if you're still judged to be dangerous.
It's not correct. The Norway system has a maximum guaranteed sentence of 21 years. After that they conduct a review and can hold you for 5 years (until your next review) if you're still judged to be dangerous.
So all he has to do is be a perfect model prisoner in every way, and appear to be no threat to even the smallest little fuzzy bunny rabbit...and he's out in 21 years for the spree of murder.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
So all he has to do is be a perfect model prisoner in every way, and appear to be no threat to even the smallest little fuzzy bunny rabbit...and he's out in 21 years for the spree of murder.
Like? There is only so many things they can do. And money comes into play. There has to be a line.
Like I have said many times, not all punishments work for all people. It gets to the point people are rationalizing when they do things. Thats not a society I want to be living in. I want people deterred form doing things, not rationalizing that if they do 'X' they only have to do 'X' in punishment.
I was talking about driving drunk and killing someone. Does no jail time still apply?
I'm talking about accountability, not revenge. Your future behavior does not matter; you must be held accountable for the harm your actions have caused.
The way I see it is this: the only reason for a justice system to exist is to protect people.
If X prevents more deaths/maimings/psychological harm for future victims than Y, then X is what should be done.
X in this case could be jail time, fines, therapy, exile to the wilds of Canada, execution, or being forced to pick up litter for five hours a day over a period of three years. So could Y.
The point is, the justice system should order whatever is shown to protect the most people most effectively in each case.
EDIT: Also, unnecessary harm should be minimised. That should be obvious, but I thought I should point it out.
Art is life itself.
You feelings for vengeance are irrelevant. I didn't say all of the victim's feelings are ignored, unless the only feeling you ever feel is vengeance. Yes, and I extend monetary damages to a great many other things. I include pain and suffering as a real, tangible problem that needs fixing. I do not include in that the desire to cause harm. I find that desire to be a Bad Thing. If you remove the reasons people commit crimes in the first place, you don't need a "freebie."
Honestly, would you go out and kill someone if you knew you could get away with it? Because I wouldn't. Is fear of prison the only thing preventing you? I forgot, prison isn't physical, painful, nor is it retribution.
Like I have been trying to say, just because person A kills because of reason A, doesnt mean persons B,C,and D killed for the same reasons. SO you want to coddle to each person whos broken the law, costing the tax payers even more money, to find the reason why they killed and have them go thru a personalized rehab stint.
My god, how naive...
Have you been lately or are you basing your views on movies? If someon eis hurting others, please explain to me how you protect the masses WITHOUT isolation? Or do you just keep feeding the monsters more people?
I see, king of the prison yard. Let the monsters kill each other off... How is that any less violent? Another one who doent understand the human mind and that there are people out there that think and do different then themselves.
Those areas of the prison that deal with high risk prisoners is ISOLATION! You want those that are high risk to mingle together. What do you think would happen? It would be come king of the prison yard. The only difference is it would be with only the real bad guys.
You're pretty much describing isolation for everything except for SuperMax prisons...
That can't be right (not in a morally right/wrong sense).
Maybe it's my naivete, but is it at all pragmatic to have these maximum sentence lengths?
I don't think so but I don't "believe in" life sentences or death sentences. They seem counterintuitive, counterproductive, and unsound.
You opened a can of worms with "luxury" and then expounding on it by mentioning flat screen, flat-screen TV, etc.
I don't have too much of an idea of the 'correctional system' where I live or in general, but "what is" is clearly not "what should be". In any case, I believe in that criminal law and justice should be, in small part, for deterrence and retribution and, by and large, for reform and atonement.
Perhaps that isn't an example of justice Well, what is justice? What is meant or implied by the closely related concept of fairness?
As I said above, a maximum sentence should be but a guideline (unless it's a life or essentially a life sentence). It's clearly quite a complex matter, with, say, some offenders being unable to reform due to "the system" or themselves; there are numerous theories of punishment, retribution, and the legion of facets in law.
Discretion should have greater worth than precedent or limitation of flexibility in sentencing. It'd slow things down tons, though.
Doesn't make sense to me actually.
Doesn't have to be like that.
A patient may have an x% risk of having a particular pathology but, at the end of the day, whether he or she has it is 0 or 1.
Short answer is
that doctor from years ago was a foolit's complicated (excuse the cliched cop-out) and that, while you could have a broad approach and obey both spirit and word of law, you truly have to deeply consider it.— jean-baptiste alphonse karr, les guêpes (1849)
wiki subforum @ mtgs forums * mtgs wiki * site rules
It's not correct. The Norway system has a maximum guaranteed sentence of 21 years. After that they conduct a review and can hold you for 5 years (until your next review) if you're still judged to be dangerous.
So all he has to do is be a perfect model prisoner in every way, and appear to be no threat to even the smallest little fuzzy bunny rabbit...and he's out in 21 years for the spree of murder.
Just like how Manson is out on good behavior.
Do you believe Manson should be out?