Crime ain't no cause for punishment.

[Mirrorglass]

Sure, in a PERFECT Utopian world .But then, on Utopia there would be no crime. Hmmm...



Hell yes, accordingly of course.
How should we enforce laws if there is no penalty, fitting for the action? Maybe no laws at all? In that case Viva anarchy! Pfftttt...

Dog Town, this makes it seem you did not read the thread, but only the OP before posting. What I mean by "punishment" here is pain caused to the criminal for no reason other than "he deserves it". I'm not saying laws shouldn't be enforced; merely that punishment as a form of vengeance is not effective or morally acceptable. If you wish to argue a point, please respond to the entire thread, not simply select statements from the OP.

 

[Dog Town]

Dog Town, this makes it seem you did not read the thread, but only the OP before posting. What I mean by "punishment" here is pain caused to the criminal for no reason other than "he deserves it". I'm not saying laws shouldn't be enforced; merely that punishment as a form of vengeance is not effective or morally acceptable. If you wish to argue a point, please respond to the entire thread, not simply select statements from the OP.

What you call "punishment, vengeance" others call justice. That is how I see it anyway.
Semantics be damned. Spare me the lecture! I'll respond to specifics at my leisure, anyway I see fit!

 

[Mirrorglass]

What you call "punishment, vengeance" others call justice. That is how I see it anyway.
Semantics be damned. Spare me the lecture! I'll respond to specifics at my leisure, anyway I see fit!

Of course. I'm sure you'll excuse me for not putting too much effort to answering your questions then.

 

[drkitten]

Evidence please! Can't wait to see this.

The penal system was originally devised and proposed as an alternative to the then-existing system of corporal punishment for almost every crime under the sun. (Prisons existed merely as holding pens for the short time until the gallows was available.)

You can see this in the alternative name for a prison -- "penitentiary." The idea was that prisoners, given time and solitude to reflect upon the nature of their behavior and its effects upon society, would naturally become "penitent," repent, and return to society a reformed person. In Wikipedia's words : "For most of history, imprisoning has not been a punishment in itself, but rather a way to confine criminals until corporal or capital punishment was administered. There were prisons used for detention in Jerusalem in Old Testament times.[2] Dungeons were used to hold prisoners; those who were not killed or left to die there often became galley slaves or faced penal transportations. In other cases debtors were often thrown into debtor's prisons, until they paid their jailers enough money in exchange for a limited degree of freedom.

Only in the 19th century, beginning in Britain, did prisons as we know them today become commonplace. The modern prisons system was born in London, as a result of the views of Jeremy Bentham. The notion of prisoners being incarcerated as part of their punishment and not simply as a holding state till trial or hanging, was at the time revolutionary.

The first "modern" prisons of the early 19th Century were sometimes known by the term "penitentiary" (a term still used by some prisons in the USA today or the Dutch "Penitentiare Inrichting/Institution): as the name suggests, the goal of these facilities was that of penance by the prisoners."

What are you talking about? That makes no sense.

You don't send people to a hospital to punish them. You send them to a hospital to treat them, so they become healthy.

The idea behind the "penitentiary system" is that you send people who are morally sick -- as expressed through criminal behavior -- to a location where they can get appropriate treatment and return to society once they become morally healthy.

ETA: dodge noted on how we should enforce law!

No dodge at all. It's not relevant. You can enforce law with mandatory moral treatment just as well as with "punishment,".... and for that matter, you can enforce law with punishment without using prisons (as are done with fines and community service). I didn't feel it necessary to point out the limitations of that rather silly argument about "enforcing the law, " but since you insist....

 

[Dog Town]

Of course. I'm sure you'll excuse me for not putting too much effort to answering your questions then.

Honestly with your attitude, no!
But you should be careful what you ask for!

Mirrorglass:

So what are other people's opinions on this?

On your terms only, does not a discussion make. Adios!

 

[Mirrorglass]

Honestly with your attitude, no!
But you should be careful what you ask for!

Mirrorglass:


On your terms only, does not a discussion make. Adios!

Oh, don't get me wrong. You're free to post all you like, even welcome to. I find all opinions educational. But I won't respond to questions that don't acknowledge my previous posts.

Anyway, as drkitten is already refuting you full steam, I'm not needed anyway. Have at it!

ETA: Oh, and if you want to make a quote show the poster, simply write

inside the first brackets.

 

[Dog Town]

You can see this in the alternative name for a prison -- "penitentiary." The idea was that prisoners, given time and solitude to reflect upon the nature of their behavior and its effects upon society, would naturally become "penitent," repent, and return to society a reformed person.

No desire to respond to the rest of your fancifully well written frontier gibberish.
But since semantics is playing such a large role, in the "punishment, vengeance" argument crowd. Here's a definition for y'all.

Traditionally, penance has been viewed as a punishment (the Latin poena, the root of pen(it)ance, means "punishment"), and varying with the character and heinousness of the offences committed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penance

Enjoy the rounds,
DT

 

[gnome]

I am required by law to pay taxes. These taxes support the prisons which house those serial killers. If I do not pay these taxes, I am a criminal. Therefore, I am a slave which is required to support that serial killer, by law. I do not have any problem with him being required to contribute to society through manual labor, even if it is merely to support his own subsistence - a society of one. If his labor goes towards supporting victims, or preventing new ones as a deterrent, even better.

I don't have trouble requiring prisoners to work, or to contribute as possible to victim reparations. But I take issue with a couple of your points.

You define taxation as being "enslaved" to supporting the serial killer? I think that's rather a broad definition. If you consider the payment of taxes towards everything you didn't personally vote for to be slavery, then you have some fundamental problems with how a representative democracy functions.

Some of the things that you resent prisoners being offered are a matter of practicality rather than a question of what they deserve. In other words, it's done because there's an outcome (beneficial to society) desired more than being as harsh as possible. For example, the ability to keep order within the prison, or the ability of the prisoner to function as a law-abiding citizen upon release. You may not agree with what benefits society and what does not, but that's why we vote. Taxation with representation is nothing to fundamentally resent.

 

[drkitten]

No desire to respond to the rest of your fancifully well written frontier gibberish.

You mean, the Wikipedia article I cited?

I'd like to take credit for how well-written it is, but really, the history of the penitentiary system and the idea that prisons should not be places of punishment but of reflection is well-known and well-documented.

 

[Mirrorglass]

You mean, the Wikipedia article I cited?

I'd like to take credit for how well-written it is, but really, the history of the penitentiary system and the idea that prisons should not be places of punishment but of reflection is well-known and well-documented.

I think you're making the wrong conclusions from the article. It clearly states that prisons were originally just a way to store the criminals before execution; definitely not a place of reflection, just a practical necessity. And the 19th century British model was precisely a form of punishment, not an attempt to rectify the criminals. From your own post:

The notion of prisoners being incarcerated as part of their punishment and not simply as a holding state till trial or hanging, was at the time revolutionary.

Bolding mine.

Don't get me wrong; I think prisons should be places that rehabilitate criminals. But the idea is a modern one, with few examples for it in history beyond the last century.

 

[drkitten]

I think you're making the wrong conclusions from the article. It clearly states that prisons were originally just a way to store the criminals before execution; definitely not a place of reflection, just a practical necessity.

No. The idea that imprisonment itself was part of the treatment of prisoners is precisely the "penitentary system." Prison wasn't part of the sentence, it was just a way to make sure that sentences would be carried out.

And the 19th century British model was precisely a form of punishment, not an attempt to rectify the criminals.

No, it was an attempt to rectify the prisoners. The whole idea is that non-punitive incarceration would produce repentance (as opposed to punitive execution or whatever.) Read Bentham's writings on the subject.

For further examples, look up the "Philadelphia system" vs. the "Auburn system." The big argument there was whether labor was a benefit or a hindrance to the penitentiary process.

 

[dtugg]

A severely schitzophrenic murderer does not deserve punishment but medical care.

Maybe not. But he should be locked up in the looney bin, if for no other reason than to protect society from him.

A kid grown in the slums who gets swept to gang activity and shoots a man during an armed robbery isn't a heinous criminal,

Yes he is. Nobody made him join a gang, commit an armed robbery, and kill someone.

The solution to problems like these is not to punish the criminal; it is to find the source of the problems and fix those. Blind hate towards the criminal only serves to hide the circumstances behind the crime.

That's not to say there aren't people who are just evil and beyond rehabilitation, but they are an exception, not the norm. And even those evil people are, in the end, mentally incomplete individuals who should be treated as such.

I'll admit that the vengeance angle isn't 100% based in reason. But there is a completely rational reason for locking up murderers and rapists for life: to protect society from an individual who has proved himself to be extremely dangerous. Since there is no way to be sure if these people have reformed, it is much better to err on the safe side and throw away the key.

 

[Dog Town]

You mean, the Wikipedia article I cited?

No silly, the added spin from your misunderstanding of said article.

I'd like to take credit for how well-written it is, but really

I'm sure you would, especially if it really meant what you think it does.

, the history of the penitentiary system and the idea that prisons should not be places of punishment but of reflection is well-known and well-documented.

Is that your final answer? Cuz, it's a fail. Nice propaganda though, you should be a political speech writer, with such talents.


Ding, Ding...

 

[Dog Town]

Prison wasn't part of the sentence, it was just a way to make sure that sentences would be carried out.

But it wasn't part of the sentence? REALLY?
This one should have made you dizzy!

I hope you have a good cut man in your corner. This round really isn't going well for you.



Ding, Ding!

 

[JJM 777]

And then there's the whole human rights part of the problem.

There are people who have many imaginary problems between their ears.

But seriously, there is no problem violating any human right which the criminal himself violated from his victim. No problem confiscating money from a criminal who confiscated money from his victims, no problem hitting a criminal who hit his victim, no problem executing a criminal who executed his victim, and so on.

Should the prisons be places for punishing criminals?

Yes, that is their original main purpose.

Does it matter whether or not they suffer?

Yes, it is unfair if the criminal suffers essentially less (physically and/or psychologically) than the victim (if the crime had any). But also unfair if the criminal suffers exorbitantly for minor offenses, in Medieval style (wait, in modern Chinese style).

 

[Mirrorglass]

No. The idea that imprisonment itself was part of the treatment of prisoners is precisely the "penitentary system." Prison wasn't part of the sentence, it was just a way to make sure that sentences would be carried out.

No, it was an attempt to rectify the prisoners. The whole idea is that non-punitive incarceration would produce repentance (as opposed to punitive execution or whatever.) Read Bentham's writings on the subject.

For further examples, look up the "Philadelphia system" vs. the "Auburn system." The big argument there was whether labor was a benefit or a hindrance to the penitentiary process.

Okay, I was wrong about Bentham then. Good to know. But I think that would establish him as the creator of the idea of a prison as a rectifier. There was no such idea in antiquity.

Maybe not. But he should be locked up in the looney bin, if for no other reason than to protect society from him.

Yes he is. Nobody made him join a gang, commit an armed robbery, and kill someone.

I'll admit that the vengeance angle isn't 100% based in reason. But there is a completely rational reason for locking up murderers and rapists for life: to protect society from an individual who has proved himself to be extremely dangerous. Since there is no way to be sure if these people have reformed, it is much better to err on the safe side and throw away the key.

Bolding mine.

That's a bit of a difficult statement. In quite a few cases, the criminal can be rehabilitated and, if necessary, medicated to become a member of society no more dangerous than the average. After all, we can't be certain that any member of society won't commit crimes, so we can't always err on the safe side. I disagree with the view that it's always best to do so in case of criminals.

Take the example of the slum kid. Obviously he'll have to be locked away for a while, but if he is given proper education during his sentence and a job and social services afterwards, he won't likely commit crimes again - unless, of course, the prison caused him to become more involved in gang activity. Which makes me think that a form of community service (obviously very tightly guarded in the case of a murderer) would be a much better solution than prison.

There are people who have many imaginary problems between their ears.

But seriously, there is no problem violating any human right which the criminal himself violated from his victim. No problem confiscating money from a criminal who confiscated money from his victims, no problem hitting a criminal who hit his victim, no problem executing a criminal who executed his victim, and so on.

Yes, that is their original main purpose.

Yes, it is unfair if the criminal suffers essentially less (physically and/or psychologically) than the victim (if the crime had any). But also unfair if the criminal suffers exorbitantly for minor offenses, in Medieval style (wait, in modern Chinese style).

You're essentially quoting Hammurabi there. I can't say "an eye for an eye" is an unacceptable moral principle - it can be reached by logical reasoning. But I do believe it's an ineffective basis for a justice system, and rather outdated. The general moral systems western countries and the UN accept these days do not revoke the human rights of criminals.

 

[dtugg]

That's a bit of a difficult statement. In quite a few cases, the criminal can be rehabilitated and, if necessary, medicated to become a member of society no more dangerous than the average.

I'm sure plenty of murderers and rapists can be rehabilitated. But there is no way to be sure if any given one has been. Hell, a smart one would probably pretend to be rehabilitated in order to get out of prison.

After all, we can't be certain that any member of society won't commit crimes, so we can't always err on the safe side.

No, but most members of society haven't already murdered or raped people.

I disagree with the view that it's always best to do so in case of criminals.

Not always. Just with murderers and rapists.

Take the example of the slum kid. Obviously he'll have to be locked away for a while, but if he is given proper education during his sentence and a job and social services afterwards, he won't likely commit crimes again -

Maybe he won't. But I would rather just keep him in prison so we know for sure that he won't.

unless, of course, the prison caused him to become more involved in gang activity. Which makes me think that a form of community service (obviously very tightly guarded in the case of a murderer) would be a much better solution than prison.

Commit murder and get off with community service. Wow. Is that a joke?

 

[Mirrorglass]

Maybe he won't. But I would rather just keep him in prison so we know for sure that he won't.

And I think that's too extreme. But it is a very multi-faceted problem.

Commit murder and get off with community service. Wow. Is that a joke?

I thought that one might require clarification.

Obviously I do not think the sentence for murder should be mild. The "form of community service" I referred to would be a situation where the convict would be restricted to a small area and well guarded, but also allowed to (and required to) work at a meaningful job (I'd even throw in a small salary as incentive). The difference to prisons would be that the convict would not be in contact with other convicts. Otherwise it would be pretty much the same.

The reason I propose this is that a large reason for the ineffectiveness of the prison system is, as stated by previous posters, the fact that prisons offer an excellent chance for criminals to contact each other and form organizations. If those contacts were removed, the rehabilitation process would be greatly aided.

 

[dtugg]

And I think that's too extreme. But it is a very multi-faceted problem.

Why is it too extreme? A life sentence is actually less severe than the crime. And it makes sure that the crime won't be repeated (well, at least outside of prison), whereas rehabilitation cannot.

I thought that one might require clarification.

Obviously I do not think the sentence for murder should be mild. The "form of community service" I referred to would be a situation where the convict would be restricted to a small area and well guarded, but also allowed to (and required to) work at a meaningful job (I'd even throw in a small salary as incentive). The difference to prisons would be that the convict would not be in contact with other convicts. Otherwise it would be pretty much the same.

The reason I propose this is that a large reason for the ineffectiveness of the prison system is, as stated by previous posters, the fact that prisons offer an excellent chance for criminals to contact each other and form organizations. If those contacts were removed, the rehabilitation process would be greatly aided.

I wouldn't have a problem with that. I still say the murderers and rapists shouldn't ever be let out though.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Why is it too extreme? A life sentence is actually less severe than the crime. And it makes sure that the crime won't be repeated (well, at least outside of prison), whereas rehabilitation cannot.

I think the costs would outweigh the benefits. I think making absolutely sure there crime isn't repeated is overkill, since in many cases we can make it very unlikely that the crime is repeated, and not have to have the guy in prison for fifty more years. Also, I don't believe in "an eye for an eye", so I don't care if the sentence is more, less or equally severe as the crime. I just care about what's best for the society.