Enough to make one support the death penalty...

[MontagK505]

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



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.

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

By re-educated, I meant brain-washed, forcibly re-conditioned by what ever means works, send them to room 101, use wireheading etc etc.

The condemned gets a choice:
1 Execution by a fast painless method.
2 Re-educated with the understanding that the process may have unpleasant side effects and some of their personality may be missing afterward.
3 Lifetime imprisonment in a locked cell with the understanding that their up-keep will paid for by individuals who want to keep them alive.

 

[Belz...]

I would like to gently remind you that you are making comments publicly and thus are subject to public reply.

And here you do it again: you reply to something I haven't said. I didn't say you couldn't respond to my post. I said that your response has little to do with my question.

You seem to put a lot of effort into misunderstanding me or steering the conversation away from what I'm actually saying.

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.

Which is, again, totally irrelevant.

 

[MontagK505]

What does that mean?

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

I thought it was obvious. I'm deliberately confusing the issue.

 

[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>

I have no problem with what you propose with the following stipulation:

The condemned gets a choice:
1 Execution by a fast painless method.
2 Re-educated with the understanding that the process may have unpleasant side effects and some of their personality may be missing afterward.
3 Lifetime imprisonment in a locked cell with the understanding that their up-keep will paid for by individuals who want to keep them alive.

I add the point in item 2 because if you are trying to "re-educate" Ted Bundy to make it safe to turn him loose, you may have to use extreme methods.

Otherwise, I without the stipulations I can't answer yes/no. Hopefully, that clarifies my position.

 

[Belz...]

I have no problem with what you propose with the following stipulation:

The condemned gets a choice:
1 Execution by a fast painless method.
2 Re-educated with the understanding that the process may have unpleasant side effects and some of their personality may be missing afterward.
3 Lifetime imprisonment in a locked cell with the understanding that their up-keep will paid for by individuals who want to keep them alive.

I still have no clue why you are making that stipulation, since it has nothing to do with what I originally said.

I add the point in item 2 because if you are trying to "re-educate" Ted Bundy to make it safe to turn him loose, you may have to use extreme methods.

Again, this is your addition, not mine. All I asked was, to paraphrase myself, "if it were possible to rehabilitate anyone, would you rather do that than kill any convict ?" Now you are adding torture/mind-wiping technology to the mix in order to spin my question into something else. I find that a questionable rhetoric device.

 

[Howie Felterbush]

3 Lifetime imprisonment in a locked cell with the understanding that their up-keep will paid for by individuals who want to keep them alive.

An interesting idea.

We'd find out pretty quick who is actually interested in prisoner's rights.

 

[MontagK505]

I still have no clue why you are making that stipulation, since it has nothing to do with what I originally said.



Again, this is your addition, not mine. All I asked was, to paraphrase myself, "if it were possible to rehabilitate anyone, would you rather do that than kill any convict ?" Now you are adding torture/mind-wiping technology to the mix in order to spin my question into something else. I find that a questionable rhetoric device.

If you read the last sentence in my post. I clearly made the point without those stipulations I can't answer the question. If you insist on an answer then I would say NO for the reasons I've stated.

 

[Belz...]

If you read the last sentence in my post. I clearly made the point without those stipulations I can't answer the question.

Yeah, so your comment about reeducation technology was a total non-sequitur. I know.

 

[Dr. Keith]

By re-educated, I meant brain-washed, forcibly re-conditioned by what ever means works, send them to room 101, use wireheading etc etc.

OK, I like good sci-fi so write it out as a short story and I'll let you know how I feel about it before you commit to something longer.

 

[MontagK505]

3 Lifetime imprisonment in a locked cell with the understanding that their up-keep will paid for by individuals who want to keep them alive.

An interesting idea.

We'd find out pretty quick who is actually interested in prisoner's rights.

Yes, it's a variation of "If you want to help them, I won't try to won't stop you." It tends to add a element of reality to an otherwise abstract argument.

 

[MontagK505]

Yeah, so your comment about reeducation technology was a total non-sequitur. I know.

Translation: You don't like the answer I gave. Got it.

 

[MontagK505]

OK, I like good sci-fi so write it out as a short story and I'll let you know how I feel about it before you commit to something longer.

Naw, I'm not a good writer. Besides, Orwell's room 101 didn't require sci-fi technology, they just systematically used old fashioned torture / fear technology. It's quite possible to use such technology on a Ted Bundy type. (and maybe even fun to do so) The US bill of rights might prohibit such applications, however.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Translation: You don't like the answer I gave. Got it.

More like: you've strayed so far off topic that it is no longer interesting.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Naw, I'm not a good writer.

I'm not one to argue . . .

Besides, Orwell's room 101 didn't require sci-fi technology, they just systematically used old fashioned torture / fear technology. It's quite possible to use such technology on a Ted Bundy type. (and maybe even fun to do so) The US bill of rights might prohibit such applications, however.

I think that is straying back to the topic. Tell us more about why this may be fun to you.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Yes, it's a variation of "If you want to help them, I won't try to won't stop you." It tends to add a element of reality to an otherwise abstract argument.

We should apply that to food stamps. Or even military spending. I like the way you think.

 

[MontagK505]

I'm not one to argue . . .



I think that is straying back to the topic. Tell us more about why this may be fun to you.

Actually, I meant that people who like to work in torture chambers would find it fun. I should have clarified that. Sorry.

I do find it interesting that you seem more focused on finding reasons to think I'm a sadist than the actual topic at hand.

 

[MontagK505]

More like: you've strayed so far off topic that it is no longer interesting.

Asking if "re-education" should be a alternative to capital punishment, and then pointing out that an meaningful reply without discussing how and when you would you would apply such "re-education", is far off topic or a total non-sequitur? Really?

 

[MontagK505]

We should apply that to food stamps. Or even military spending. I like the way you think.

None of those groups have been convicted of capital crimes. Now that's what I call a "total non-sequitur".

 

[Belz...]

Translation: You don't like the answer I gave. Got it.

Would you stop being dishonest for just one moment ? Your answer had nothing to do with my question.

 

[MontagK505]

Would you stop being dishonest for just one moment ? Your answer had nothing to do with my question.

Translation: You still don't like my answer.

I can't answer your question the way you've stated it, and I've given the reasons why. If you see this as dishonesty, total non-sequitur etc. etc. that's fine with me. More importantly, why in the Nine Names of Odin do you care what my answer might be?

Let's invert the question, if execution by tree-shredder actually causes a major reduction in the rape / murder of women, would you say yes to that? Keeping in mind if you say no, then some large number of women will suffer horrible deaths.

If someone says I can't answer that question because I see it as a moral slippery-slope or it raises too many other questions etc. etc. I'm not going to accuse them of dishonesty, total non-sequitur etc.