Enough to make one support the death penalty...

[MontagK505]

The conclusions bother me some, the process bothers me more. We improve processes elsewhere to great benefit, why not here? What does the evidence say? Why go with our gut in this one area when we would laugh at doing so elsewhere?


If pointing out flawed reasoning is sanctimonious, then that is shoe I will proudly wear on my head.

If a person had children and they were living next to a child rapist/murderer that had been "re-educated", what would you expect their "guts" to tell them?
And if the "re-education" process fails what then?

We lack the technology to re-engineer humans to correct for psychotic behavior. Is it really right to put the innocent in the path of a re-engineered psychotic? And yes, I regard a rapist as psychotic.

And don't worry about trying to fit that shoe on your head.

 

[MontagK505]

I have no interest of any kind in rehabilitation of anything that chooses to or otherwise kills, mutilates, physically harms or mentally harms to the level that causes a change of mental function or loss of mental function to another person who has not responsibly caused same without legitimate reason to it. For sociopaths and psychopaths this is upscaled by a factor of 2 or greater. I'm not sure what other points you are speaking of and, in all fairness I do not remember using the word recidivism - although I easily grant that is another factor that is, by default, achieved by terminal education.

The purpose of terminal education is to be certain that the perpetrator of the crime for which it is applied leaves this vale of tears with screams of agony and prayers to be allowed to die causing recognition of the great wrong he/she did and the true sorrow they have forever for doing it and the promises they will never do it again until at last they are educated and are dead. The only pleasure in this is the knowledge that the person guilty of what they chose to do died knowing it was wrong and that people knew it was wrong - and hopefully those who might be tempted to follow in their footsteps might get the same idea.

Oh , the reason it is called terminal education is because it is the only philosophy of education that ensures the lesson is learned and the learner will therefore never do the bad thing again.

I have to disagree with you here. While tree-shredder executions are fun to fantasize about, I don't honestly think they have much educational value. It's pointless to spend time educating someone who's about to be dead. I don't think psychotics would learn much from such a spectacle.
A quick killing would be fine or keeping them in a welded cell is OK with the provision that their up keep be paid by people who want to keep them alive.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

It's healthy and humane to be outraged when confronted with savage, outrageously cruel crimes.

I was outraged when confronted with the satanic murder of Azaria Chamberlain by her mother, who blamed it on a dingo. I was outraged when I saw a photo of the blood-smeared bathroom where Meredith Kercher was brutally raped and murdered by her flatmate and boyfriend. I was outraged when I heard about how Cameron Todd Willingham intentionally set fire to his home in order to kill his own children.

Then I was even more outraged to discover that I was directing my outrage at innocent people, who were imprisoned (and in one case executed) for crimes they didn't commit.

But all that pales in comparison to the outrage I feel towards the monster who made us responsible for the deaths of 4,486 American soldiers and up to 1 million innocent civilians - plus widespread torture, rape and other crimes against humanity. So much outrage, I can barely stand it!

And yet, the idea of ripping his face off and feeding him feet-first into a wood chipper makes me sick. I guess there must be something wrong with me...

 

[MontagK505]

I was outraged when confronted with the satanic murder of Azaria Chamberlain by her mother, who blamed it on a dingo. I was outraged when I saw a photo of the blood-smeared bathroom where Meredith Kercher was brutally raped and murdered by her flatmate and boyfriend. I was outraged when I heard about how Cameron Todd Willingham intentionally set fire to his home in order to kill his own children.

Then I was even more outraged to discover that I was directing my outrage at innocent people, who were imprisoned (and in one case executed) for crimes they didn't commit.

But all that pales in comparison to the outrage I feel towards the monster who made us responsible for the deaths of 4,486 American soldiers and up to 1 million innocent civilians - plus widespread torture, rape and other crimes against humanity. So much outrage, I can barely stand it!

And yet, the idea of ripping his face off and feeding him feet-first into a wood chipper makes me sick. I guess there must be something wrong with me...

No there is nothing wrong with you. However, if you think there is something morally wrong with people who have different ideas about fantasy / humor than you do....... Do you think people who enjoy Quentin Tarantino movies morally suspect?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

It's pointless to spend time educating someone who's about to be dead. I don't think psychotics would learn much from such a spectacle.

It's not about them. We have an outrage that needs to be sated, so the more agonizing their punishment the better. The more they suffer, the happier it makes us! That's what this is really about.

We have been told that it's healthy and humane to be outraged when confronted with savage, outrageously cruel crimes. So we should thank the news media for digging up every heinous crime they can find and presenting it to us in the worst possible light. They are only trying to help us become healthier and more humane.

Do you think people who enjoy Quentin Tarantino movies morally suspect?

I enjoyed watching Reservoir Dogs. However that doesn't mean I enjoyed the violence. In fact the film was quite unsettling and hard to stomach in places, but those disturbing scenes were essential to the message - which is that idolizing violence isn't just evil, it's stupid.

The kinds of movies I don't enjoy are those where the bad guys are intrinsically evil one dimensional characters that deserve only our hatred. Compare eg. Independence Day vs. District 9.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Roger,

1) the Iraq war, as bad as it was, pales in comparison to the horror of tamerlane, the eastern front of ww2, Rwanda and Vietnam

2) on the point of movies, do you seriously think that you couldn't depict the conquistadors, tamerlane, Genghis Khan as anything other than apocalyptic horrors visited upon The new world/Eurasia

 

[Belz...]

I have no interest of any kind in rehabilitation of anything that chooses to or otherwise kills, mutilates, physically harms or mentally harms to the level that causes a change of mental function or loss of mental function to another person who has not responsibly caused same without legitimate reason to it.

And may I ask why ? Let's posit a future where we find a way to rehabilitate anyone, regarless of their past crimes, into empathic, functional members of society. Wouldn't that be better than just killing them ? And, if it would, why are you _not_ interested in rehabilitation when it _is_ possible today ?

The purpose of terminal education

Please stop using that term. It's not education when the person is dead.

is to be certain that the perpetrator of the crime for which it is applied leaves this vale of tears with screams of agony and prayers to be allowed to die causing recognition of the great wrong he/she did and the true sorrow they have forever for doing it and the promises they will never do it again until at last they are educated and are dead.

Yes, in other words it's revenge. You don't like what they did, and you want to make them pay for it, regardless if whether it's actually useful: you want them to suffer and die so you can feel better.

Oh , the reason it is called terminal education is because it is the only philosophy of education that ensures the lesson is learned and the learner will therefore never do the bad thing again.

Yes, so it's nonsensical.

 

[MontagK505]

And may I ask why ? Let's posit a future where we find a way to rehabilitate anyone, regarless of their past crimes, into empathic, functional members of society. Wouldn't that be better than just killing them ? And, if it would, why are you _not_ interested in rehabilitation when it _is_ possible today ?

<snip>

Who defines what is a "functional member of society" Keep in mind, that such technology would be a wonderful tool for tyrants to create compliant slaves. As we understand more about the relationship between behavior and brain function this might become your dream technology. This could also become the ultimate torture device. Or, look up wireheading, such technology could be used to condition bad people to do "good" things. Good being defined by whoever controls the pleasure / torture switch.
Be careful what you wish for.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Roger,

1) the Iraq war, as bad as it was, pales in comparison to the horror of tamerlane, the eastern front of ww2, Rwanda and Vietnam

You missed a few.

Like I said, there's more than enough outrage to go around. But it's hard to keep staying angry with someone who's been dead for over 600 years, Hitler got his just desserts, Rwanda can't be pinned onto any one person, and my outrage over Vietnam peaked in the 1970's.

2) on the point of movies, do you seriously think that you couldn't depict the conquistadors, tamerlane, Genghis Khan as anything other than apocalyptic horrors visited upon The new world/Eurasia

Any movie that depicts any group as nothing but an apocalyptic horror is not worthy of my attention. Movies with one dimensional villains aren't just boring, they can be actively harmful. We will never get anywhere while we continue to demonize the enemy and deny their humanity - how do you think genocides like Rwanda get started?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Who defines what is a "functional member of society" Keep in mind, that such technology would be a wonderful tool for tyrants to create compliant slaves.

Any technology can be used for good or evil. So we shouldn't have invented fire, the bow and arrow, the wheel etc., because people could use them for evil purposes?

tyrants have lots of ways to create compliant slaves already. The answer to that problem is to eliminate tyrants, not the technologies they might use. And the best way to do that is stop them from becoming tyrants in the first place.

technology could be used to condition bad people to do "good" things.

Most 'bad' people don't like being mentally ill, and would welcome a cure. Refusing to develop the technologies that would help them just makes you a Luddite.

 

[Belz...]

Who defines what is a "functional member of society" Keep in mind, that such technology would be a wonderful tool for tyrants to create compliant slaves.

You are taking the question well beyond its parameters. Are you doing this on purpose ? Did you understand my point ?

 

[MontagK505]

Any technology can be used for good or evil. So we shouldn't have invented fire, the bow and arrow, the wheel etc., because people could use them for evil purposes? tyrants have lots of ways to create compliant slaves already. The answer to that problem is to eliminate tyrants, not the technologies they might use. And the best way to do that is stop them from becoming tyrants in the first place.

Most 'bad' people don't like being mentally ill, and would welcome a cure. Refusing to develop the technologies that would help them just makes you a Luddite.

Where was it suggested that such technologies should never be developed? The R&D for such technologies are likely being carried out right now.
Not too long ago lobotomies were used to control mental patients. Imagine a more subtle form of lobotomy that produces a "good" citizen. A good citizen, for example, is someone who never fantasizes about tree-shredders as a means of execution. Magic technologies that could make tyrants impossible could make people who do creative (or annoying) art impossible as well.
Be careful what you wish for. You may get it in spades.

 

[MontagK505]

You are taking the question well beyond its parameters. Are you doing this on purpose ? Did you understand my point ?

Do you understand my point, that a "re-education" technology that could reliably turn a psychotic into a "normal" citizen could be used to turn people who have undesirable thoughts about the uses of tree-shredders into something that would be more appealing to the more sanctimonious types among us? You brought up the idea. To put it another way, if you are going to postulate the uses of such technology, do you think it unreasonable to question the consequences of such technology? To turn a psychotic into a desirable citizen might involve mental torture just as bad as a tree-shredder. It feels good, to some people, because the body is still walking around but the "bad" guy is just as dead if you used a guillotine.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

You missed a few.

Like I said, there's more than enough outrage to go around. But it's hard to keep staying angry with someone who's been dead for over 600 years, Hitler got his just desserts, Rwanda can't be pinned onto any one person, and my outrage over Vietnam peaked in the 1970's.

So why is Bush a unique horror on that level?

Any movie that depicts any group as nothing but an apocalyptic horror is not worthy of my attention. Movies with one dimensional villains aren't just boring, they can be actively harmful. We will never get anywhere while we continue to demonize the enemy and deny their humanity - how do you think genocides like Rwanda get started?

I'm pretty sure the Spanish Conquistadors, Tamerlane and Atilla the Hun were primarily Apocalyptic Horrors in real life, much less movies. Besides, it's like trying to link comic books/dnd/music/computer games to violent crime even though there is no evidence. And did we see Kebab Removal in America following the Call of Duty Games megablockbuster?

 

[Dr. Keith]

If a person had children and they were living next to a child rapist/murderer that had been "re-educated", what would you expect their "guts" to tell them?

I'm not sure what you mean by "re-educated" but I will treat that as released criminal to answer your questions.

Protect their children.

And if the "re-education" process fails what then?

What do you mean by fail?

Does the person still have urges to commit illegal acts? Does the person have a drive to commit illegal acts? Does the person actually commit illegal acts?

There is a spectrum of failure.

We lack the technology to re-engineer humans to correct for psychotic behavior. Is it really right to put the innocent in the path of a re-engineered psychotic? And yes, I regard a rapist as psychotic.

I don't think a person who has a psychotic episode is destined to always want to commit psychotic acts, or be driven to commit psychotic acts, or actually commit psychotic acts. If we can reduce recidivism rates shouldn't we try to do that?

And don't worry about trying to fit that shoe on your head.

I have a keen sense of fashion. I will make it look stunning!

Full disclosure: I lived for several years next to a registered sex offender while my kids were about the age of his victim. It was stressful and I did not enjoy it, but I also dissuaded neighbors who wanted to find a way to force him to move. I was not going to let him have any more impact on my life than he already had. I focused on making my kids and neighbors aware, making sure he did not interact with my kids at all, and letting him know that I did not want any interaction between him and my family. I was happy when he left and happy that I didn't get any more involved.

 

[MontagK505]

I'm not sure what you mean by "re-educated" but I will treat that as released criminal to answer your questions.

Protect their children.



What do you mean by fail?

Does the person still have urges to commit illegal acts? Does the person have a drive to commit illegal acts? Does the person actually commit illegal acts?

There is a spectrum of failure.



I don't think a person who has a psychotic episode is destined to always want to commit psychotic acts, or be driven to commit psychotic acts, or actually commit psychotic acts. If we can reduce recidivism rates shouldn't we try to do that?



I have a keen sense of fashion. I will make it look stunning!

Full disclosure: I lived for several years next to a registered sex offender while my kids were about the age of his victim. It was stressful and I did not enjoy it, but I also dissuaded neighbors who wanted to find a way to force him to move. I was not going to let him have any more impact on my life than he already had. I focused on making my kids and neighbors aware, making sure he did not interact with my kids at all, and letting him know that I did not want any interaction between him and my family. I was happy when he left and happy that I didn't get any more involved.

Interesting story. Thanks for sharing. You didn't mention what kind of sex-offender was living next to you.

Let me give you a more specific example. Would you want a someone like a "re-educated" Ted Bundy or someone who's past psychotic episodes make them a menace, living next to you?

The other question is, if we had the means to make the "Ted Bundys" of the world into desirable citizens, as an alternative to execution or life imprisonment, is it really a ethical thing to do? As I stated in a reply to someone else, we might develop a method of lobotomy that makes a "bad" person safe, but the principle is the same as what they used to do in mental institutions to make people easier to control. In the case of Ted Bundy, the body might be walking around, but a good deal of the original person was destroyed. It might be kinder to execute them.

 

[Belz...]

Do you understand my point, that a "re-education" technology that could reliably turn a psychotic into a "normal" citizen could be used to turn people who have undesirable thoughts about the uses of tree-shredders into something that would be more appealing to the more sanctimonious types among us?

That is NOT what I am talking about. You are the one who brought up "re-education technology", not I, and you are using this hypothetical to avoid answering my question, which was: if we could rehabilitate all criminals, would it change Fuelair's mind about the death penalty ? At this point I can only conclude that you are trying to confuse the issue deliberately.

 

[MontagK505]

That is NOT what I am talking about. You are the one who brought up "re-education technology", not I, and you are using this hypothetical to avoid answering my question, which was: if we could rehabilitate all criminals, would it change Fuelair's mind about the death penalty ? At this point I can only conclude that you are trying to confuse the issue deliberately.

I'll let Fuelair answer the question for himself. He seems to know his own mind.

I would like to gently remind you that you are making comments publicly and thus are subject to public reply. It happens to me all the time when I post here. I've kind of gotten used to it don't you know.

Speaking for myself, If you had some magical technology that could turn bad people into "good" people I would say sure, go for it, with the stipulation that such technology doesn't have ANY of the negative consequences I've already pointed out.

If you don't find my reply to your satisfaction feel free to put me on ignore.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Interesting story. Thanks for sharing. You didn't mention what kind of sex-offender was living next to you.

Middle aged, overweight, sporadicly employed, absentee father, and smoker whose victim was pre-teen. That's about all I cared to know about him.

Let me give you a more specific example. Would you want a someone like a "re-educated" Ted Bundy or someone who's past psychotic episodes make them a menace, living next to you?

Again, if you can't define your terms I can't answer your questions. What do you mean by "re-educated"?

And I would not want a "menace" living next t me, psychotic past or not.

The other question is, if we had the means to make the "Ted Bundys" of the world into desirable citizens, as an alternative to execution or life imprisonment, is it really a ethical thing to do? As I stated in a reply to someone else, we might develop a method of lobotomy that makes a "bad" person safe, but the principle is the same as what they used to do in mental institutions to make people easier to control. In the case of Ted Bundy, the body might be walking around, but a good deal of the original person was destroyed. It might be kinder to execute them.

I'm not sure I follow you here, but would it be less of an ethical quandary if we gave the prisoner a choice?

 

[Dr. Keith]

I would like to gently remind you that you are making comments publicly and thus are subject to public reply. It happens to me all the time when I post here. I've kind of gotten used to it don't you know.

What does that mean?

What message are you trying to convey with the quoted words?