Incarceration: Rehabiliate and Protect? Or Punish?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Bdog,

[ QUOTE ]
Multiple recidivist offenders should simply be excluded for civilized society.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps representatives of the victim would be allowed to castrate and bullwhip the rapist. Who knows. I bet rapes would go down.

[/ QUOTE ]

These two statements are hard to reconcile with the word “civilized” included.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see why.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't such a punishment lead to continued recidivism?

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps. But the market is better than I am at minimizing costs. That's why it exists.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder what some of the posters here think of this, from your essay in that book:

"We should realize that those criminals who commit crimes that are clearly "bad plays" (by the poker risk vs. reward criteria) are more sick than evil. The truly evil person is the one who would, for instance, rape women were it not for the punishment he fears. (And the fact that there are men like this out there is demonstrated periodically when there is a conquering army and some of the soldiers take advantage of the fact that they can rape with impunity.) Those who rape anyway, in spite of the obvious probable severe consequences, may need to be put away but probably shouldn't be reviled. Rather those who walk among us who are law abiding only because of the consequences of crime are the ones to be considered the most despicable (as well as those few in prison who got unluck while committing a "good play" crime). [emphasis in original]

[/ QUOTE ]

Kinda the way I look at those theists who can't understand what would possibly keep an atheist from pillaging, plundering, and raping. This sort of suggests that the only reason they don't, is due to a fear of God. This has been brought up numerous times on this forum and it shocks me every time.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Rather those who walk among us who are law abiding only because of the consequences of crime are the ones to be considered the most despicable

[/ QUOTE ]
So if on-line poker was illegal punishable by death then those who didn't play only because of the consequences of the crime would be despicable?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely we can make a distinction between violent and victimless crimes.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Rather those who walk among us who are law abiding only because of the consequences of crime are the ones to be considered the most despicable

[/ QUOTE ]
So if on-line poker was illegal punishable by death then those who didn't play only because of the consequences of the crime would be despicable?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely we can make a distinction between violent and victimless crimes.

[/ QUOTE ]
We could but those who make these laws claim they aren't victimless. I think the relevent distinction is between things we believe to be right or wrong. then we get:

Someone who believes rape is wrong but only doesn't rape because of fear of the consequences is most despicable.

but that's possibly not correct either.

chez

[Lestat]

I like it!

Seriously, one of the best posts I've ever read. Good not only because I agree with it, but because it offers a logical alternative.

But I wonder how this would play out when it comes to gangs or crime syndicates. They harm or kill someone, that someone gets to harm or kill them, etc., etc. The problem here is that gangs and crime syndicates have the resources to make this a never ending cycle. Although, I guess that's the way it is now too. It's just that if the first aggressor is more heavily backed, I'm not sure this system of yours would work. People would be too afraid of further retaliation.

Otherwise, I really like your thoughts on this.

[borisp]

[ QUOTE ]
...things like ruining their credit...Economic ostracism...

[/ QUOTE ]
This seems like a great idea. Sort of along the lines of "the only defense we have against ridiculous ideas is ridicule." (Thomas Jefferson?)

However, to play devil's advocate...once you introduce this level of accountability, the new crime could become abusing the potential to hold someone accountable. I guess then we are led to ask if this is ever escapable. Meaning that with every revision of our "justice" system, it is feasible that we create more problems than we solve. There may be nothing we can do about this.

If so, I think that is a strong argument for the status quo, in that we are at least familiar with its weaknesses.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Rather those who walk among us who are law abiding only because of the consequences of crime are the ones to be considered the most despicable

[/ QUOTE ]
So if on-line poker was illegal punishable by death then those who didn't play only because of the consequences of the crime would be despicable?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

You were joking right? If not this was a perfect example of how you screw up by taking sentences too literally. In this case I was obviously talking only about crimes where actual perpetrators are considered depicable.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Rather those who walk among us who are law abiding only because of the consequences of crime are the ones to be considered the most despicable

[/ QUOTE ]
So if on-line poker was illegal punishable by death then those who didn't play only because of the consequences of the crime would be despicable?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

You were joking right? If not this was a perfect example of how you screw up by taking sentences too literally. In this case I was obviously talking only about crimes where actual perpetrators are considered depicable.

[/ QUOTE ]
You read the follow up? maybe its a perfect example of a lack of analysis of what's going on.

Do you consider someone who doesn't realise they are doing wrong to be despicable?

chez

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

[ QUOTE ]
"I'm sure some social norm would develop."

Have most (or some) current punishments for lawbreakers derived from some previous social norm?

[/ QUOTE ]

They have, but his point (I think) is they are based upon a flawed premise.