norway's controversial 'cushy prison' experiment

[bcbm]

pretty interesting stuff (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1384308/Norways-controversial-cushy-prison-experiment--catch-UK.html)

[~Spectre]

It also provides a good hidden argument for reducing the harshness of prison sentences. I.E. it provides incentive for focusing more on rehabilitation instead of punishment. That of course resulting in more humane treatment of prisoners.

[Kamil]

i dont give a shit about the humane treatment of alot of prisoners/ I'd rather they rot in fucking misery. I've had a great deal of family in prison, I've been inside maximum security prisons and know firsthand accounts of family members and "friends" inside and what its like and I STILL feel the same way. While some of this may work, for the like of rapists and murders this is fucking bullshit. who cares if they re-offend? they shouldnt be allowed back out in the first place. If you cry out against capitalism for the way it ruins peoples lives u should similarily cry out against utter scumbugs who DIRECTLY kill and ruin peoples lives

[eyedrop]

From the article:
"He goes on to explain that because the Norwegian penal system has no death penalty or life terms and a maximum sentence of just 21 years, Norwegian society is forced to confront the fact that most prisoners, however heinous their crimes, will one day be released back into society. As a result by far the most significant statistic for Nilsen and Norway's law-abiding citizens is that of reoffending rates. "

The connection between harsh penal punishment and reduced crime is tenuous at best, or negative at worst.

[RadioRaheem84]

i dont give a shit about the humane treatment of alot of prisoners/ I'd rather they rot in fucking misery. I've had a great deal of family in prison, I've been inside maximum security prisons and know firsthand accounts of family members and "friends" inside and what its like and I STILL feel the same way. While some of this may work, for the like of rapists and murders this is fucking bullshit. who cares if they re-offend? they shouldnt be allowed back out in the first place. If you cry out against capitalism for the way it ruins peoples lives u should similarily cry out against utter scumbugs who DIRECTLY kill and ruin peoples lives

Troll. We cry out against capitalism because it creates "scumbags".

Prison should be about rehabilitation not dehumanization.

I always knew that you could lock up criminals in a giant mall for a month and they would still want to be released after that month because being locked up was never be about the horrible conditions, but about the restriction of freedom/mobility. .

[Rakhmetov]

Can the Beaver come out and play???

[chegitz guevara]

How do you negative thank someone?

[Decolonize The Left]

How do you negative thank someone?

Negative reputation. The little scales in the upper right hand corner of the person's post. Click it, then click negative, then type a msg if you want. Then watch their rep go down.

- August

[Ocean Seal]

Well, its slightly too nice for my view but between choosing to have prisons like Norway and prisons like the United States where rape, physical abuse and murder are common, I would say that Norway's system is much more rational.

[Rafiq]

I assume prisoners don't reoffend because they would feel guilty.

[Obs]

I assume prisoners don't reoffend because they would feel guilty.

Or maybe because they haven't been demeaned and mentally broken in the same way they would have been in prisons where cruelty and humiliation are commonplace.

[Coggeh]

Well, its slightly too nice for my view but between choosing to have prisons like Norway and prisons like the United States where rape, physical abuse and murder are common, I would say that Norway's system is much more rational.

I've seen a documentary about this prison and its in no way "too nice" it is the best example to date i've seen of rehabilitation. Those who display good behaviour are able to have there own rooms pick there own jobs i.e run a little farm, work in the factory , fishing etc (with minor pay) and others are actually able to take online college courses to help them when they are released to find a job or to pursue a new career.

Tradition prisons just manufacturer more criminals by harsh punishments and 0 rehabilitation.

[GPDP]

Norway's example should be one for all societies to follow. Those who envision prisons to be torturous, demeaning places speak with emotion, not rationality. It is why justice is no longer up to the transgressed to be determined: vigilante justice often leads to emotionally-based egregious punishment of the eye-for-an-eye variety.

A rational society would do well to deliver punishment in accordance with a desire to make sure criminals are rehabilitated, not made to suffer just because someone has a lust for blood.

[thesadmafioso]

It's a shame that such a progressive and effective system as this doesn't stand any plausible chance at being implemented in the US or any other comparable nation. Any democrat outside of the bluest district/state would be destroyed over being 'soft on crime' by any generic republican challenger if they tried to propose something like this. Which is terrible, as the whole crime requires excessive physical and mental punishment narrative is so incredibly outmoded and really needs to be addressed.

[Chicxulub]

This may work for some people, but I don't believe everyone can be rehabilitated. Some people, I don't really think should be allowed back into society. sometimes, crimes are so heinous (rape, pedophilia, genocide, aiding and abetting capitalism), I'd almost say they revoked their right to live.

[NewSocialist]

This may work for some people, but I don't believe everyone can be rehabilitated. Some people, I don't really think should be allowed back into society. sometimes, crimes are so heinous (rape, pedophilia, genocide, aiding and abetting capitalism), I'd almost say they revoked their right to live.

I couldn't agree more.

I think it's pretty naive of people to think that, say, a serial killer, serial rapist, or child molester can ever truly be rehabilitated --most likely, such people suffer from innate cognitive disorders that cannot be treated. Not only does the fact they've ruined the lives of people in such an egregious fashion render them deserving of capital punishment (in my humble opinion, of course), but it's a real danger to allow such people to re-assimilate into society.

[Chicxulub]

I couldn't agree more.

I think it's pretty naive of people to think that, say, a serial killer, serial rapist, or child molester can ever truly be rehabilitated --most likely, such people suffer from innate cognitive disorders that cannot be treated. Not only does the fact they've ruined the lives of people in such an egregious fashion render them deserving of capital punishment (in my humble opinion, of course), but it's a real danger to allow such people to re-assimilate into society.

You then also have to ask yourself, "do some people even deserve to be allowed into society?" I don't buy all that Christian hocus-pocus about forgiveness. Why should a nazi death camp supervisor be forgiven? The damage has been done!
Does a woman deserve to be confronted by her rapist after she was raped, just because a court said he was "rehabilitated" in a cozy, comfy prison environment? Does a Jewish death camp survivor deserve to have to see a Nazi SS officer walk free because he was "rehabilitated"?

The European way of doing things isn't always right, and it's chauvinistic to think so. This is a terrible idea, as some people truly deserve to be summarily executed without any chance of rehabilitation.

[Princess Luna]

People like serial killers almost always suffer from huge mental health issues, and if they are to dangerous to be allowed in society, than they should be put in a asylum not a prison. And when i say asylum i don't mean like in one flew over the cukoo's nest, it should extremely nice and they should have access to everything people on the outside would have (with the exception of weapons of course). Also most child molesters were themselves molested as a child, so once again they need mental help and treating them like monsters is going to keep them from seeking it.

[GPDP]

I couldn't agree more.

I think it's pretty naive of people to think that, say, a serial killer, serial rapist, or child molester can ever truly be rehabilitated --most likely, such people suffer from innate cognitive disorders that cannot be treated. Not only does the fact they've ruined the lives of people in such an egregious fashion render them deserving of capital punishment (in my humble opinion, of course), but it's a real danger to allow such people to re-assimilate into society.

There is indeed a difference between petty criminals and psychopaths who may not be able to be treated. But then you go on to say those that cannot be treated should deserve capital punishment. Is that really fair, then? After all, if it is a mental condition, then it is something outside their control.

This is what I am talking about. There's no logical reason to the desire to treat criminals like crap or wish torture or death upon them. Behind all facades of justice I find there to be little more than a base, emotional desire for revenge.

[GPDP]

You then also have to ask yourself, "do some people even deserve to be allowed into society?" I don't buy all that Christian hocus-pocus about forgiveness. Why should a nazi death camp supervisor be forgiven? The damage has been done!
Does a woman deserve to be confronted by her rapist after she was raped, just because a court said he was "rehabilitated" in a cozy, comfy prison environment? Does a Jewish death camp survivor deserve to have to see a Nazi SS officer walk free because he was "rehabilitated"?

The European way of doing things isn't always right, and it's chauvinistic to think so. This is a terrible idea, as some people truly deserve to be summarily executed without any chance of rehabilitation.

Once again, all emotion, no logic. Indeed, I do find people who do that shit despicable, but what will killing a rapist really do? It won't undo the damage done, and the death penalty has been proven to be an ineffective deterrent and in fact more costly than a life sentence. All it does, then, is feed into a bloodlust that I do not think is healthy for anyone to engage in.

[Chicxulub]

Once again, all emotion, no logic. Indeed, I do find people who do that shit despicable, but what will killing a rapist really do? It won't undo the damage done, and the death penalty has been proven to be an ineffective deterrent and in fact more costly than a life sentence. All it does, then, is feed into a bloodlust that I do not think is healthy for anyone to engage in.

Emotions are a fact of life and reality, and to deny their importance is to trivialize human civilization. Why shouldn't emotions come into play? a woman having to confront her rapist walking free is a very emotional thing, and is also very important.

I could also argue how giving people in prison a cushy pad in prison can help them "rehabilitate", and accuse you of ploying an emotional argument via the whole "human rights" and "inhumane treatment" of prisoners spiel:


There is indeed a difference between petty criminals and psychopaths who may not be able to be treated. But then you go on to say those that cannot be treated should deserve capital punishment. Is that really fair, then? After all, if it is a mental condition, then it is something outside their control.

This^ sounds like an emotional plea, because whether mentally ill or not (and you know we're not talking of mentally handicapped people here, but people who still have the ability to reason normally), the prisoners still poise a danger to society, and lower societal morale if they're allowed to roam after committing heinous crimes. It's like the execution of deserters: it's not right, but it's necessary, or else everyone would think it was okay to desert a battle field, when the most important war could be happening (think the siege of Stalingrad).

I appreciate your ideas, but I reiterate that I think a bodybag should be the only way some people should ever leave prison.

[NewSocialist]

This is what I am talking about. There's no logical reason to the desire to treat criminals like crap or wish torture or death upon them. Behind all facades of justice I find there to be little more than a base, emotional desire for revenge.

I'm sorry, but once you've crossed the line and taken the life of an innocent person (let alone scores of people, as in the case of serial killers and genocidal maniacs), you forfeit the right to carry on your own existence. Again, this is simply my opinion --but since there is no objective foundation to morality, my opinion on this issue is as good as yours. I just happen to think that, overall, more people would agree with my view on the matter than yours.

[#FF0000]

This^ sounds like an emotional plea, because whether mentally ill or not (and you know we're not talking of mentally handicapped people here, but people who still have the ability to reason normally), the prisoners still poise a danger to society, and lower societal morale if they're allowed to roam after committing heinous crimes. It's like the execution of deserters: it's not right, but it's necessary, or else everyone would think it was okay to desert a battle field, when the most important war could be happening (think the siege of Stalingrad).

Except every day society is not a battlefield like Stalingrad and I think the fact that crime rates and recidivism are so low in Norway kind of pokes holes in this "social morale" stuff.

[Chicxulub]

...I think the fact that crime rates and recidivism are so low in Norway kind of pokes holes in this "social morale" stuff.

We could also argue the same for Singapore, literally speaking, the safest country on earth...

...oh yeah, except they execute drug dealers and serial killers, not to mention pedophiles, rapists, and other assorted scum. and other undesirables convicted of criminality, so there goes your whole "cushy prisons will make crime lower" drivel.

[GPDP]

Emotions are a fact of life and reality, and to deny their importance is to trivialize human civilization. Why shouldn't emotions come into play? a woman having to confront her rapist walking free is a very emotional thing, and is also very important.

I could also argue how giving people in prison a cushy pad in prison can help them "rehabilitate", and accuse you of ploying an emotional argument via the whole "human rights" and "inhumane treatment" of prisoners spiel:

Because basing a system of justice around emotions leads to crap like eye-for-an-eye. I'm sure a raped woman would like nothing better than to be given the opportunity to shove a broom handle up her rapist's ass if given the chance. Should a criminal justice system allow for that and facilitate it?

And do not get me wrong: I do not particularly feel too bad for a scumbag put in death row. However, as I said, is it really healthy for me to actually wish death upon him? Is it healthy for society?


This^ sounds like an emotional plea, because whether mentally ill or not, the prisoners still poise a danger to society, and lower societal morale if they're allowed to roam after committing heinous crimes. It's like the execution of deserters: it's not right, but it's necessary, or else everyone would think it was okay to desert a battle field, when the most important war could be happening (think the siege of Stalingrad).

I appreciate your ideas, but I reiterate that I think a bodybag should be the only way some people should ever leave prison.

Then put the insane ones in an asylum and be done with it. I reiterate there is nothing logical to wishing bad conditions upon criminals, because nothing gets accomplished except fulfilling revenge fantasies. If anything, it's been proven the societies which treat their prisoners the worst also tend to be relatively authoritarian compared to those who treat them nicer.

[#FF0000]

I'm sorry, but once you've crossed the line and taken the life of an innocent person (let alone scores of people, as in the case of serial killers and genocidal maniacs), you forfeit the right to carry on your own existence.

Nope/


Again, this is simply my opinion --but since there is no objective foundation to morality, my opinion on this issue is as good as yours. I just happen to think that, overall, more people would agree with my view on the matter than yours.

1) Doesn't matter how many people agree with you. You can all be wrong.

2) Just because there's no objective basis for morality doesn't mean you aren't wrong, though. Because this isn't about morality. This is about having a system to deal with criminals that works. As much as you feel it's wrong, the Norwegian system seems to be working pretty damn well. You can't deny those numbers.

[#FF0000]

...oh yeah, except they execute drug dealers and serial killers, not to mention pedophiles, rapists, and other assorted scum. and other undesirables convicted of criminality, so there goes your whole "cushy prisons will make crime lower" drivel.

Yeah, but does that hold for every prison system? The US has a pretty brutal one, and it doesn't seem to be helping much. Do you only have one example here?

[Chicxulub]

As much as you feel it's wrong, the Norwegian system seems to be working pretty damn well...

...But not as well as the Singaporean system, and they execute all their scum.



Do you only have one example here?

Most East Asian prison systems are excellent at this sort've thing. Japan has the death penalty, and they make their prisoners do hard labor, and they have very low crime. As does South Korea.

and for a less contemporary account, I would say by all means the Soviet Justice system seemed to do the trick...

[GPDP]

We could also argue the same for Singapore, literally speaking, the safest country on earth...

...oh yeah, except they execute drug dealers and serial killers, not to mention pedophiles, rapists, and other assorted scum. and other undesirables convicted of criminality, so there goes your whole "cushy prisons will make crime lower" drivel.

Did you really just bring out Singapore as a good example? The country that cuts off the hands of people who masturbate?

And cushy prisons aren't what lower crime - high standards of living and low inequality do. Guess which country manages to both have low crime and not be ruled by a police state.

Edit: I may have gotten countries mixed up. I think it was Indonesia that cuts off the hands of people who masturbate. Sorry about that mess-up. Still, Singapore isn't exactly a bastion of freedom.

[Chicxulub]

Did you really just bring out Singapore as a good example? The country that cuts off the hands of people who masturbate?


Give me a single piece of proof that Singapore cuts off the hands of those who masturbate. I'm waiting...unless you're ready to admit that it was some racist western chauvinism on your part against Asians.

EDIT: Indonesia doesn't have a single unitary justice system, so you're wrong again. They have one state that does it in Aceh, but that is irrelavent and besides the point relating to Singapore. If facts aren't what you're good with, just tell me and we'll play a different game.

[GPDP]

Give me a single piece of proof that Singapore cuts off the hands of those who masturbate. I'm waiting...unless you're ready to admit that it was some racist western chauvinism on your part against Asians.

I already apologized for my mistake. I got the countries mixed up for some reason.

Nice job playing the "racist" card on me, though. I seem to be striking a nerve.

[#FF0000]

Most East Asian prison systems are excellent at this sort've thing. Japan has the death penalty, and they make their prisoners do hard labor, and they have very low crime. As does South Korea.


They also have a pretty all around excellent standard of living. That's a p. strong factor, I'd say.

[Chicxulub]

Nice job playing the "racist" card on me, though. I seem to be striking a nerve.

Lol, yes, you're striking a nerve alright, you're making me tremble with fear at your logical and forensic superiority by putting forward the argument that a country with a low crime rate and a harsh yet effective justice system cuts off the hands of those who masturbate (talk about an emotional plea!), and thus shouldn't be emulated, despite Singapore not cutting off the hands of those who masturbate, and despite you having no further argument to suggest why the Singaporean model shouldn't be adopted en masse.


You're making me shake in my little boots, you master debater you! ;)

[#FF0000]

you're insisting that there's a 1:1 correlation between how brutal a justice system is and how safe a society is. that is not true.

[Princess Luna]

Lol, yes, you're striking a nerve alright, you're making me tremble with fear at your logical and forensic superiority by putting forward the argument that a country with a low crime rate and a harsh yet effective justice system cuts off the hands of those who masturbate (talk about an emotional plea!), and thus shouldn't be emulated, despite Singapore not cutting off the hands of those who masturbate, and despite you having no further argument to suggest why the Singaporean model shouldn't be adopted en masse.


You're making me shake in my little boots, you master debater you! ;)

For one reason, what happens if they fuck up and execute a innocent person?

[NewSocialist]

1) Doesn't matter how many people agree with you. You can all be wrong.

And who, pray tell, would be the final arbiter of the issue? This is fundamentally a moral issue, and since morality is itself subjective, the will of the people should decide the matter (that is, if you believe in democracy).


2) Just because there's no objective basis for morality doesn't mean you aren't wrong, though. Because this isn't about morality. This is about having a system to deal with criminals that works. As much as you feel it's wrong, the Norwegian system seems to be working pretty damn well. You can't deny those numbers.What "works" is also subjective. You might happen to think that a system that allows murders to sunbathe is just dandy and is working wonderfully, while I happen to think that same person doesn't deserve any such luxuries (let alone paid for at the public's expense).

Norway does have a lower aggregate crime rate when compared with other Western nations, but I haven't been talking about the potential for "cushy prisons" to do a better job at rehabilitating petty criminals (i.e., drug dealers/addicts, thieves, pimps, and so on); it may very well do better for such people than traditional prison environments do. I'm not concerned with them.

As I said previously, I don't believe that serial murders, serial rapists, or child molesters can be genuinely rehabilitated in any environment, being that there is quite a bit of evidence which indicates that the sociopathic behavior necessary to carry out such crimes is the result of innate cognitive disorders. And again, I personally don't believe that someone who consciously took the life of an innocent person deserves the right to live, let alone in relative luxury.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Norway's prison system is a great example of how to run future prison systems - not as a means of torturing, nor harsh conditions, but through rehabilitation and socially moral conditions.

As for those who may not be able to be rehabilitated, this can easily be restrained through psychiatric wards under corrective measures. And by corrective measures, I don't mean placing them in terrible conditions and treating them like rats. Treat them fair and make them feel as comfortable as possible. There's no need of treating them wrongly just because they might've done so to others.

This isn't some christian bullshit. This is about creating a much more healthy future for everyone. Especially under socialism. This isn't to say that all crimes will stop under socialism. That's just unrealistic. It also disregards genetic-led, or pre-disposed behaviors which could lead to crime, no matter how great the social conditions are. But that doesn't mean we should treat them terribly, likewise.

[Chicxulub]

For one reason, what happens if they fuck up and execute a innocent person?

There is mistakes in any capacity, and the authorities in charge of such a body should do all they can to eliminate mistakes. That said, what if there is a mistake where someone gets sent to prison for 10 years? are you going to repay him/her his 10 years back? what if it was 20 years? 30? 40? are you going to rehabilitate his/her reputation? if not, how so? can you attach a monetary value to lost time?

mistakes happen. even in non-death penalty societies.


Norway's prison system is a great example of how to run future prison systems - not as a means of torturing, nor harsh conditions, but through rehabilitation and socially moral conditions.

As for those who may not be able to be rehabilitated, this can easily be restrained through psychiatric wards under corrective measures. And by corrective measures, I don't mean placing them in terrible conditions and treating them like rats. Treat them fair and make them feel as comfortable as possible. There's no need of treating them wrongly just because they might've done so to others.

This isn't some christian bullshit. This is about creating a much more healthy future for everyone. Especially under socialism. This isn't to say that all crimes will stop under socialism. That's just unrealistic. It also disregards genetic-led, or pre-disposed behaviors which could lead to crime, no matter how great the social conditions are. But that doesn't mean we should treat them terribly, likewise.

If that works for you, great. meanwhile, I'll continue to prefer the Dzherzhinsky model and the Singapore model.

[#FF0000]

And who, pray tell, would be the final arbiter of the issue? This is fundamentally a moral issueWrong. This is a matter of whether or not a system of punishment works. Or it ought to be. I don't care whether or not something is "right" or "just" or "good" in the eyes of "justice", whatever that is. If you can have a system when criminals go in, come out, and then more often than not do not commit a crime again, then that is a good system to go with. Why cause undue suffering, especially when there's a correlation between that and recidivism, apparently?


What "works" is also subjective. You might happen to think that a system that allows murders to sunbathe is just dandy and is working wonderfully, while I happen to think that same person doesn't deserve any such luxuries (let alone paid for at the public's expense). I think a safe society is more important than a society in which someone's bloodlust is sated. If treating criminals like teddy bears makes a safer society, then you go with that. If this is the case and you don't go with that, then whatever guy. Blood's on your hands, then.


As I said previously, I don't believe that serial murders, serial rapists, or child molesters can be genuinely rehabilitated in any environment, being that there is quite a bit of evidence which indicates that the sociopathic behavior necessary to carry out such crimes is the result of innate cognitive disorders. And again, I personally don't believe that someone who consciously took the life of an innocent person deserves the right to live, let alone in relative luxury.

Psychopaths and sociopaths like this are the exception rather than the rule, though. Most criminals are not like this, so why build a system around those few?

[#FF0000]

mistakes happen. even in non-death penalty societies.

Wouldn't you want to minimize these, though? Non death penalty societies have the distinct advantage of not killing innocent people.

[Chicxulub]

Wouldn't you want to minimize these, though? Non death penalty societies have the distinct advantage of not killing innocent people.

I'll answer that as soon as you tell me how you'll repay those who got sent to prison by accident for 40 years, their 40 years back.

[#FF0000]

I'll answer that as soon as you tell me how you'll repay those who got sent to prison by accident for 40 years, their 40 years back.

You can't, which is tragic. They aren't dead, though, which is a plus.

[Robocommie]

Yeah, so the argument is these prisons are bad because the inmates won't suffer enough to satisfy my personal Judge Dredd complex? What a sound and rational way of looking at things.

Justice is about restoring social harmony. Not inflicting enough pain to make sure that things are equally fucked up all round.

[Robocommie]

You can't, which is tragic. They aren't dead, though, which is a plus.

To avoid wrongfully imprisoning you for 10 years, we've decided to kill you instead.

[#FF0000]

To avoid wrongfully imprisoning you for 10 years, we've decided to kill you instead.

bless you sir

[Chicxulub]

To avoid wrongfully imprisoning you for 10 years, we've decided to kill you instead.

if they were wrongfully imprisoned, they'd be released, not killed. those who are killed are those who warrant a crime worth being executed for, i.e, rape, pedophilia, aiding and abetting capitalism, etc.

[#FF0000]

if they were wrongfully imprisoned, they'd be released, not killed. those who are killed are those who warrant a crime worth being executed for, i.e, rape, pedophilia, aiding and abetting capitalism, etc.

But what if they're wrongfully convicted? Why not just lock them up for a long, long time?

[Chicxulub]

But what if they're wrongfully convicted? Why not just lock them up for a long, long time?

so what you're saying is, "we may have taken his whole life away, and he may be old and will never see his younger years ever again, since he spent them in prison...but at least we didn't kill the SOB!"

Wasn't I just accused of using an "emotional plea"? :confused:

[NewSocialist]

Wrong. This is a matter of whether or not a system of punishment works. Or it ought to be. I don't care whether or not something is "right" or "just" or "good" in the eyes of "justice", whatever that is. If you can have a system when criminals go in, come out, and then more often than not do not commit a crime again, then that is a good system to go with. Why cause undue suffering, especially when there's a correlation between that and recidivism, apparently?

Show me the empirical evidence verifying that serial killers, serial rapists, and/or child molesters can be successfully rehabilitated (meaning let out of prison and never repeating their offense). I realize that such data will be somewhat difficult to come by, considering the fact that the overwhelming majority of societies don't exactly let convicted serial killers back into society. However, there are plenty of rapists and child molesters who are freed from prison and re-integrated into society --though I'm quite certain that many (if not most) of them end up repeating their offense.

I'd even be interested if you could find any good data suggesting that some (any) method of rehabilitation or treatment has been able to actually make a diagnosed sociopath capable of empathy.


I think a safe society is more important than a society in which someone's bloodlust is sated. If treating criminals like teddy bears makes a safer society, then you go with that. If this is the case and you don't go with that, then whatever guy. Blood's on your hands, then.As I said, I believe that people who have made the decision to willingly take the life of an innocent person forfeit their right to go on living themselves. Moreover, I'm pretty sure if harsh penalties for severer crimes were abolished, we'd see an increase in criminal behavior across the board --people tend to think twice about committing crimes when they contemplate having to live in a hellish prison for several years.

Anyway, when you can seriously show me that treating violent criminals like royalty will somehow decrease criminal behavior, come back and tell me all about it. It might not make me change my preference for serial killers and the like to suffer capital punishment for their crimes, but it will seriously intrigue me nonetheless.

[#FF0000]

so what you're saying is, "we may have taken his whole life away, and he may be old and will never see his younger years ever again, since he spent them in prison...but at least we didn't kill the SOB!"

Wasn't I just accused of using an "emotional plea"? :confused:

So, is killing someone better than putting them in jail for a long time?

[Robocommie]

so what you're saying is, "we may have taken his whole life away, and he may be old and will never see his younger years ever again, since he spent them in prison...but at least we didn't kill the SOB!"

Wasn't I just accused of using an "emotional plea"? :confused:

No moron, if he's still alive then you can let him out. Do you know how many people have been released from prison because of recent advances in DNA analysis? Under your "kill all the rapist scum" system, a lot of innocent men (who, I should add, are often men of color) would be dead now!

And even if they spend a long time behind bars, they can still at least do something with their lives, like advance their education or learn a skill and derive some limited pleasure out of life, rather than simply being dead.

[#FF0000]

Show me the empirical evidence verifying thatserial killers, serial rapists, and/or child molesters can be successfully rehabilitated

I'm not talking about these special cases. I am talking about the vast majority of "criminals" who are not mentally ill, psychopathic, or sociopathic.


As I said, I believe that people who have made the decision to willingly take the life of an innocent person forfeit their right to go on living themselves. Moreover, I'm pretty sure if harsh penalties for server crimes were abolished, we'd see an increase in criminal behavior across the board --people tend to think twice about committing crimes when they contemplate having to live in a hellish prison for several years.


I don't care about what people what rights people have forfeit. If a safer society can be achieved with pirsons that can be described as "cushy", then you are actually harming innocent people by insisting to go on with more brutal punishments and systems.

And your second point is wrong. There is no correlation between harsher punishments and crime rates. In the US, when the death penalty was abolished for a short time, violent crime actually decreased. There are countries with more lax punishments and with far lower crime and recidivism rates.

That claim is pretty well disproven at this point.


Anyway, when you can seriously show me that treating violent criminals like royalty will somehow decrease criminal behavior, come back and tell me all about it. It might not make me change my preference for serial killers and the like to suffer capital punishment for their crimes, but it will seriously intrigue me nonetheless.

Well there's an interesting article in the original post of this thread you might want to look into.

I can go find my high school sociology and psychology books if you want to learn more about how punishment and reinforcement works, too.

[NewSocialist]

Justice is about restoring social harmony. Not inflicting enough pain to make sure that things are equally fucked up all round.

And just what is "social harmony"? In the eyes of many (myself included), "social harmony" would be allowing people the comfort of knowing that if their lives are unjustly taken from them at the hands of some mentally deranged criminal, they can rest assure that such murderers will not go on living while they're rotting in the ground. Does such "eye-for-an-eye" logic sound unsophisticated and primitive? I can see how it does, but that doesn't make it wrong. There is no "right" or "wrong" answer when it comes to subjective matters, such as what constitutes "appropriate" punishment for crime.

[#FF0000]

I can see how it does, but that doesn't make it wrong. There is no "right" or "wrong" answer when it comes to subjective matters, such as what constitutes "appropriate" punishment for crime.Whether or not a brutal prison system is harmful is not subjective.

EDIT: better yet, the fact that brutal prison systems/executions/etc don't reduce violent crime is not subjective.

[NewSocialist]

I'm not talking about these special cases. I am talking about the vast majority of "criminals" who are not mentally ill, psychopathic, or sociopathic.

Well, I am not. I'm talking about violent psychopaths who have committed murder(s).


I don't care about what people what rights people have forfeit. If a safer society can be achieved with pirsons that can be described as "cushy", then you are actually harming innocent people by insisting to go on with more brutal punishments and systems.If a safer society can be achieved by said "cushy prisons," then I'd be completely in favor of them, but no substantive conclusion can be drawn on that issue just yet (more experimentation and research is obviously going to be needed). However, here I'm talking about their affect on psychologically healthy people who are involved in relatively petty crimes (drugs, theft, etc.).


And your second point is wrong. There is no correlation between harsher punishments and crime rates. In the US, when the death penalty was abolished for a short time, violent crime actually decreased. There are countries with more lax punishments and with far lower crime and recidivism rates.

That claim is pretty well disproven at this point.Are you telling me that the number of cases wherein convicts would have otherwise endured capital punishment dropped when the death penalty was abolished, or are you talking about the overall crime rate dropping? If you're referring to the latter, it's irrelevant and can be explained for a whole host of reasons.

[Robocommie]

And just what is "social harmony"? In the eyes of many (myself included), "social harmony" would be allowing people the comfort of knowing that if their lives are unjustly taken from them at the hands of some mentally deranged criminal, they can rest assure that such murderers will not go on living while they're rotting in the ground. Does such "eye-for-an-eye" logic sound unsophisticated and primitive? I can see how it does, but that doesn't make it wrong.

Yeah well, some folks used to think the wergeld was effective. Vendetta used to be really popular in Sicily, too. Should we bring it back? I mean, subjectively speaking they're all equally sound forms of justice.

Simply because you disagree doesn't make it subjective issue. There's a field of expertise to deal with this subject, it's called sociology. And while it's not exactly a hard science, sociologists at least try to use statistics and reasoning. You, on the other hand, are just making bizarre arguments based on the idea of the honor of the slain and the comfort of knowing that the fallen will be avenged or some weird shit, conveniently overlooking the fact that you're assuming for everyone how they would want their killer to be dealt with.

With that and all this talk of the mentally deranged, you're basically working off of a nearly Victorian level of social science here. It's a wonder you're not using phrenology to back up your argument.

[GPDP]

Lol, yes, you're striking a nerve alright, you're making me tremble with fear at your logical and forensic superiority by putting forward the argument that a country with a low crime rate and a harsh yet effective justice system cuts off the hands of those who masturbate (talk about an emotional plea!), and thus shouldn't be emulated, despite Singapore not cutting off the hands of those who masturbate, and despite you having no further argument to suggest why the Singaporean model shouldn't be adopted en masse.


You're making me shake in my little boots, you master debater you! ;)

Wow, you really latched on to my fuck-up, which I already apologized for, didn't you? Like a shark to a drop of blood in the water.

Anyway, a quick google search tells me the following about Singapore: it has one of the highest number of prison inmates in the world, second only to the good ol' USA, is one of the most unequal societies among "rich" countries, criminalizes drug use harshly (possession of 500 grams of weed nets you the death penalty, for instance), freedom of speech is highly regulated, homosexuality is criminalized, and prison conditions are deplorable (and I'm sure not all prisoners are of the bottom-of-the-barrel-scum variety). Until recently, marital rape was not criminalized.

And despite all this, its homicide rate is only marginally lower than Norway's. What a nice trade-off.

[#FF0000]

Well, I am not. I'm talking about violent psychopaths who engage have committed murder(s).

Then that was answered back on the first page. Put them in an asylum forever/as long as necessary.

That fucking simple.

Jesus.


Are you telling me that the number of cases wherein convicts would have otherwise endured capital punishment dropped when the death penalty was abolished, or are you talking about the overall crime rate dropping? If you're referring to the latter, it's irrelevant and can be explained for a whole host of reasons.

There is no correlation between murder rates/violent crime rates and the death penalty. Right now, the South has the highest murder rates in the U.S. Most executions also take place in the South.

You'll also be hard pressed to find any expert on criminology who will advocate deterrence.

[Robocommie]

Well, I am not. I'm talking about violent psychopaths who engage have committed murder(s).

Well then you're clearly shifting goalposts, because this thread was not about a prison for violent sociopaths, was it?

[Robocommie]

Wow, you really latched on to my fuck-up, which I already apologized for, didn't you? Like a shark to a drop of blood in the water.

It's the only thing he's really got to work with.

[NewSocialist]

Whether or not a brutal prison system is harmful is not subjective.

EDIT: better yet, the fact that brutal prison systems/executions/etc don't reduce violent crime is not subjective.

Reducing crime rates is irrelevant, especially since there's no conclusive evidence which shows that any method of rehabilitation can successfully treat violent sociopaths. And since no one can show any method whereby serial killers, or would-be serial killers, can be taught to feel empathy --thus ensuring they could safely reenter society-- yours is a moot point. Even if there was such a method of rehabilitation, it still wouldn't answer the question as to whether or not proven murders should or shouldn't receive capital punishment (that's where the fundamental subjectivity lies).

[#FF0000]

. Reducing crime rates is irrelevant, especially since there's no conclusive evidence which shows that any method of rehabilitation can successfully treat violent sociopaths.

We.

Are.

Not.

Talking.

About.

Sociopaths.


Even if there was such a method of rehabilitation, it still wouldn't answer the question as to whether or not proven murders should or shouldn't receive capital punishment (that's where the fundamental subjectivity lies).

Here's a bunch of reasons:

Innocent people can be wrongly convicted.

Life imprisonment is far, far, far cheaper, mostly because it's expensive to have appeals and appeals to make sure the right person is being killed.

Capital punishment does not deter violent crime.

All it does is satisfy bloodlust, and that is not anything to base a justice system on.

[Arilou Lalee'lay]

Honestly? I think today's wave of trolls were created by some clever leftist on here to spout such a dumb opinion that it would provide something to rally around and build solidarity.

[Robocommie]

Honestly? I think today's wave of trolls were created by some clever leftist on here to spout such a dumb opinion that it would provide something to rally around and build solidarity.

They can't all be Stormfronters.

[Arilou Lalee'lay]

At least RedRaptor and Chicx went to bed at the same time, around 1:40 (my time). Definitely socks.

[NewSocialist]

Well then you're clearly shifting goalposts, because this thread was not about a prison for violent sociopaths, was it?

The issue was brought up nevertheless (and I can claim some responsibility for that).


Yeah well, some folks used to think the wergeld was effective. Vendetta used to be really popular in Sicily, too. Should we bring it back? I mean, subjectively speaking they're all equally sound forms of justice.Indeed, you are correct. "Justice" itself is subjective, and rooted in the subjective moral preferences of a given location. Morals can be made to change, and they clearly have over time (hence why vendetta and wergeld are no longer acceptable in the eyes of most people). No all knowing being came from on high and told us what "true justice" is. So you can criticize the "eye for an eye" ethic to your heart's content, but you won't be able to magically vindicate your opinion as being anything other than a mere subjective preference, no better than my own (except in the eyes of those who happen to agree with you, obviously).


Simply because you disagree doesn't make it subjective issue. There's a field of expertise to deal with this subject, it's called sociology. And while it's not exactly a hard science, sociologists at least try to use statistics and reasoning.There's another field of expertise you're conveniently omitting, that of psychology. And there's simply no psychological evidence showing that violent sociopaths or psychopaths can be made to feel empathy --which is why, if re-released into society, they'd post a consistent threat to the public.


You, on the other hand, are just making bizarre arguments based on the idea of the honor of the slain and the comfort of knowing that the fallen will be avenged or some weird shit, conveniently overlooking the fact that you're assuming for everyone how they would want their killer to be dealt with."Bizarre arguments" that I would wager the majority of humanity would agree with. And I'm not "assuming for everyone," just most people. Personally, I'd be perfectly fine if a law was developed allowing each individual in society to sign a document stating, in the unlikely event they be murdered, whether they would like their murderer to suffer capital punishment or not (and have sentences carried out accordingly). Such a law is unlikely to ever come about, but I certainly wouldn't object to it if it did.


With that and all this talk of the mentally deranged, you're basically working off of a nearly Victorian level of social science hereOn the contrary, I think it is you who is being naive here. Contemporary researchers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy#Causes) readily acknowledge that psychopathy, for example, is a genetically-derived mental disorder.

[#FF0000]

0/10

[NewSocialist]

We.

Are.

Not.

Talking.

About.

Sociopaths.

I.

Am.

That's where my point of contention is with you. If you agree that sociopaths won't benefit from costly "cushy prisons," then you and I have nothing further to discuss with respect to that.


Here's a bunch of reasons:

Innocent people can be wrongly convicted.True, and the entire judicial system needs to be reformed to ensure that people on trail (especially in cases that could land them a life sentence or capital punishment) are provided with sufficient resources to mount a decent defense, and that only hard evidence (i.e., DNA) be grounds for a sentence entailing capital punishment.


Life imprisonment is far, far, far cheaper, mostly because it's expensive to have appeals and appeals to make sure the right person is being killed.Cushy prisons are surely expensive as well, but money isn't the issue here, subjective standards of justice is.


Capital punishment does not deter violent crime.Probably not, but to date I don't know of a method that can be shown to conclusively do so.


All it does is satisfy bloodlust, and that is not anything to base a justice system on.I really don't see why your alternative is any superior --I needn't go over why again.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I.
Probably not, but to date I don't know of a method that can be shown to conclusively do so.


Improved social and material conditions decrease violent crime levels considerably.

[NewSocialist]

Improved social and material conditions decrease violent crime levels considerably.

Certainly "violent crime" in the form of gang shootings, fights, and so forth; but not in cases dealing with serial killers and the like.

[Robocommie]

Certainly "violent crime" in the form of gang shootings, fights, and so forth; but not in cases dealing with serial killers and the like.

Man you REALLY want to talk about that, don't you?

[NewSocialist]

Man you REALLY want to talk about that, don't you?

I made a fairly modest claim: "Cushy prisons" might genuinely rehabilitate most criminals (of otherwise sound mental health) better than conventional prisons, but they won't do anything for mentally ill people unable to feel empathy and who get off on killing people.

I also claimed that being in favor or opposed capital punishment is a fundamentally subjective moral preference, and that (given the choice) I think most people would choose to keep capital punishment for especially egregious crimes. You might disagree with them, but your opinion (being that it is an opinion) isn't objectively any better than theirs.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I made a fairly modest claim: "Cushy prisons" might genuinely rehabilitate most criminals (of otherwise sound mental health) better than conventional prisons, but they won't in don't anything for mentally ill people unable to feel empathy and who get off on killing people.

I also claimed that being in favor or opposed capital punishment is a fundamentally subjective moral preference, and that (given the choice) I think most people would choose to keep capital punishment for especially egregious crimes. You might disagree with them, but your opinion (being that it is an opinion) isn't objectively any better than theirs.

Are you illiterate? On page one of this thread, it was explained, that there might be those that are not possible to rehabilitate. Those with mental problems of a serious nature, would be in institutes of mental health, and would not be released lest they show improvements. What is your fucking problem with comprehending this? It has been said SEVERAL times in this thread.

Also argument ad populum is a load of shit.

[#FF0000]

I also claimed that being in favor or opposed capital punishment is a fundamentally subjective moral preferenceJust because it's a moral question doesn't mean it has to come down to "this is how i feel about it".


True, and the entire judicial system needs to be reformed to ensure that people on trail (especially in cases that could land them a life sentence or capital punishment) are provided with sufficient resources to mount a decent defense, and that only hard evidence (i.e., DNA) be grounds for a sentence entailing capital punishment. DNA evidence doesn't always = a correct verdict. That's a big myth that people who only know about justice systems because of TV sort of fall for.


Cushy prisons are surely expensive as well, but money isn't the issue here, subjective standards of justice is.Money is definitely an issue and this discussion is about how capital punishment and brutal prison conditions are dumb as shit.



Probably not, but to date I don't know of a method that can be shown to conclusively do so.No one does because deterrence doesn't work. All you can do is what Takayuki said.

Sorry guy but I am p. sure you haven't beaten any of the arguments I've brought to the table.


I made a fairly modest claim: "Cushy prisons" might genuinely rehabilitate most criminals (of otherwise sound mental health) better than conventional prisons, but they won't in don't anything for mentally ill people unable to feel empathy and who get off on killing people. And we said "put them in asylums".

And then you continued.


I think most people would choose to keep capital punishment for especially egregious crimes. You might disagree with them, but your opinion (being that it is an opinion) isn't objectively any better than theirs.

My opinion is an argument backed up with facts. Meanwhile you're just falling back to ad populum and "opinions".

Pretty sure you're a troll.

[eyedrop]

That's where my point of contention is with you. If you agree that sociopaths won't benefit from costly "cushy prisons," then you and I have nothing further to discuss with respect to that.
How come people insists on posting on a tread when they don't even bother to give the article an cursory glance? If you had bothered to read it you would know that it is not costly, and there are plenty of killers there, as they especially seek people with long sentences.

But I reckon that reading an article you don't agree with could taint/challenge your world-view.

Since I know you haven't read it.
From article:
"He adds that a significant advantage of the ecological approach is that due to low staffing levels and producing their own food and fuel, Bastoy is actually the cheapest prison to run in the whole of Norway.

'We have a price for each prison bed in this country and we are much cheaper to run than a conventional closed prison.'"

[NewSocialist]

Just because it's a moral question doesn't mean it has to come down to "this is how i feel about it".

I disagree. Morality is entirely about how people feel.


DNA evidence doesn't always = a correct verdict. That's a big myth that people who only know about justice systems because of TV sort of fall for.I never claimed that it ensures that every verdict is correct, but it's the best method that exists to tie someone to a crime. You'll notice that most of the innocent men who were convicted of murders (some of whom died in prison or via capital punishment) were proven innocent using DNA evidence --most of them having been convicted before sufficient methods to analyze DNA existed.


Money is definitely an issue and this discussion is about how capital punishment and brutal prison conditions are dumb as shit....in your opinion.


No one does because deterrence doesn't work. All you can do is what Takayuki said.That's hardly the only option. People with severe cognitive disorders (i.e., serial killers or would-be serial killers) can, and should, be put into mental asylums if they haven't already committed murder(s). If, on the other hand, they have committed murder(s), placing them in asylums can be a choice society chooses to adopt, but so can capital punishment.


Sorry guy but I am p. sure you haven't beaten any of the arguments I've brought to the table.Your argument amounts to little more than "it's nicer to not allow murderers to receive capital punishment sentences." The only substantive reason you provide is that occasionally innocent people are convicted of crimes.

Moreover, I'm really not that concerned if you think I've "beaten" any of your arguments or not --I assure you, I'm not going to be losing any sleep over it.


And we said "put them in asylums".And I say that's bullshit. The Jeffrey Dahmer's of the world aren't deserving of life, in my opinion.


My opinion is an argument backed up with facts. Meanwhile you're just falling back to ad populum and "opinions".The facts you've "brought to the table," in and of themselves, are incapable of determining how crimes should be punished. You can use them to attempt to sway public opinion in your favor, but it's still a fundamentally subjective issue. In a democratic society (which certainly doesn't truly exist anywhere in the world at the moment) communities would ultimately decide the matter for themselves.


Pretty sure you're a troll.:rolleyes: I just love how when someone deviates from the consensus on a forum, they're automatically assumed to be a "troll."

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

:rolleyes: I just love how when someone deviates from the consensus on a forum, they're automatically assumed to be a "troll."

It's not that you deviate from some consensus. There's a lot of those. It's just that you come off as being quite the tool, frankly.

[NewSocialist]

It's not that you deviate from some consensus. There's a lot of those. It's just that you come off as being quite the tool, frankly.

..And you only say that because I'm presenting a point of view you don't happen to agree with. In your eyes, there is no "rational" reason for allowing capital punishment to be enacted for any crime whatsoever, so it's understandable. What you don't realize, however, is that unless you adhere to some form of moral realism, your opposition to the death penalty isn't any more "rational" than the eye for an eye ethic you despise ever so much.

[Demogorgon]

I made a fairly modest claim: "Cushy prisons" might genuinely rehabilitate most criminals (of otherwise sound mental health) better than conventional prisons, but they won't do anything for mentally ill people unable to feel empathy and who get off on killing people.

I also claimed that being in favor or opposed capital punishment is a fundamentally subjective moral preference, and that (given the choice) I think most people would choose to keep capital punishment for especially egregious crimes. You might disagree with them, but your opinion (being that it is an opinion) isn't objectively any better than theirs.
It might be subjective whether or not state sanctioned murder is more acceptable than other murder; I feel it is not, you feel it is. But what is not subjective is that the use of capital punishment (and harsh punishments in general) increase the crime rate. In other words if you desire to have capital punishment and generally harsh punishment in general then you must accept the trade off of higher crime.

Now you may feel that harsh punishments are such a good thing that it is worth having a higher crime rate in order to have them, but you cannot take that position and justify your desire for such punishments by appealing to the horror of crime as you implicitly accept higher crime as the price for what you want.

Of course you could abandon that silly position and attempt to argue for harsh punishments on the grounds that they in fact reduce crime, but you would no longer be able to claim subjectivity then and would simply be objectively wrong. Conservatism fails again.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

..And you only say that because I'm presenting a point of view you don't happen to agree with. In your eyes, there is no "rational" reason for allowing capital punishment to be enacted for any crime whatsoever, so it's understandable. What you don't realize, however, is that unless you adhere to some form of moral realism, your opposition to the death penalty isn't any more "rational" than the eye for an eye ethic you despise ever so much.

I base that upon your way of arguing, not your position. You constantly continue to make references to questions which have already been addressed. The threat of harsh punishment is only effective in cases where the crime is done in a manner that the criminal is well-aware of what he/she is doing and rationally ponder the potential consequences. Needless to say, this is extremely uncommon.

This also isn't about morals. This is about death penalty not being effective deterrence, this is about an irrational desire to punish being utterly ineffective in decreasing crime, not to mention reinforcing an unhealthy social atmosphere.

[Chicxulub]

Wow, you really latched on to my fuck-up, which I already apologized for, didn't you? Like a shark to a drop of blood in the water.

It was such a memorably funny fuck-up, seeing as it looked like it sprang from some racist chauvinist style anti-asian or anti-islamic propaganda. Of course I couldn't let your stupidity slide!


Anyway, a quick google search tells me the following about Singapore:

I always knew you were an academic type :rolleyes:



it has one of the highest number of prison inmates in the world, second only to the good ol' USA, is one of the most unequal societies among "rich" countries, criminalizes drug use harshly (possession of 500 grams of weed nets you the death penalty, for instance), freedom of speech is highly regulated, homosexuality is criminalized, and prison conditions are deplorable (and I'm sure not all prisoners are of the bottom-of-the-barrel-scum variety).

many of these things you say apply to other countries that have no death penalty or that have a death penalty, and they have marginally different crime rates: South Africa has no death penalty for example and focuses strongly on rehabilitation, and they have one of the highest crime rates on earth. Russia recently banned the death penalty, and crime is going nowhere but up.


Until recently, marital rape was not criminalized.

Read below to feel like an ass, please.


And despite all this, its homicide rate is only marginally lower than Norway's. What a nice trade-off.

Yet you forget to mention Scandanavia's appalling rape statistics, while we're at it:

http://www.finlandforthought.net/2009/06/23/rape-is-legal-in-finland/

http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Amnesty+International+criticises+Finnish+rape+legi slation/1135239507838

so it shows that their soft on crime approach fails at many turns. I guess rape is okay to a bleeding heart leftist such as yourself these days? :rolleyes:

[#FF0000]

:rolleyes: I just love how when someone deviates from the consensus on a forum, they're automatically assumed to be a "troll."

it's actually because you keep bringing up sociopaths and psychopaths when they were dealt with on the first page

[#FF0000]

I always knew you were an academic type :rolleyes:yeah fuck people who look things up so they can back arguments up with stuff.


so it shows that their soft on crime approach fails at many turns. I guess rape is okay to a bleeding heart leftist such as yourself these days? :rolleyes: prove that the death penalty/harsh prison conditions stop rape

also your articles say that laws concerning rape are lacking. i don't see what that has to do with anything here.


many of these things you say apply to other countries that have no death penalty or that have a death penalty, and they have marginally different crime rates: South Africa has no death penalty for example and focuses strongly on rehabilitation, and they have one of the highest crime rates on earth. Russia recently banned the death penalty, and crime is going nowhere but up.

I wonder how the standard of living/quality of life in Russia and South Africa measure up next to Norway hmmmmmmmm i wonder

[Chicxulub]

No moron,

The minute you start calling names just like that, it means you know deep down inside you're losing the argument. Or else, why would you result to name calling?



if he's still alive then you can let him out. Do you know how many people have been released from prison because of recent advances in DNA analysis? Under your "kill all the rapist scum" system, a lot of innocent men (who, I should add, are often men of color) would be dead now!

And even if they spend a long time behind bars, they can still at least do something with their lives, like advance their education or learn a skill and derive some limited pleasure out of life, rather than simply being dead.

I'm done arguing this strawman. accidents do happen and it's extremely unfortunate, yes. We also have friendly fire in the military. are you suggesting we stop all wars, even those of defence and liberation?

Anyways, the vast majority of those executed aren't accidents. tihs is just an emotional plea by the bleeding hearts to satisfy their subconcious judeo-Christian guilt as to why pedophiles and rapists should be allowed to live, because some fictional Jewish zombie taught that we should forgive and forget. It won't work on me.

[#FF0000]

Anyways, the vast majority of those executed aren't accidents. tihs is just an emotional plea by the bleeding hearts to satisfy their subconcious judeo-Christian guilt as to why pedophiles and rapists should be allowed to live, because some fictional Jewish zombie taught that we should forgive and forget. It won't work on me. lol what


I'm done arguing this strawman. accidents do happen and it's extremely unfortunate, yes. We also have friendly fire in the military. are you suggesting we stop all wars, even those of defence and liberation

You can say that wars are necessary sometimes, though. It's never necessary, per se, to execute people. You can just as easily lock them up forever, which is way, way, WAY cheaper than executing them is.

[Chicxulub]

yeah fuck people who look things up so they can back arguments up with stuff.

prove that the death penalty/harsh prison conditions stop rape

prove that the lack of a death penalty and softer prison conditions deter crime. The only thing I can find is that rehabilitation can bring people back into society with a lesser chance of recidivism, not that it deters crime. Speaking of which, I strongly agree with rehabilitation, I'm stating my opinion that some people commit crimes so heinous, they revoke their right to live.


also your articles say that laws concerning rape are lacking. i don't see what that has to do with anything here.

Do you even read what he was posting? He was saying Singapore just criminalized maritial rape, and I'm essentially saying that he was so quick to condemn a successful asian justice system, that he ignores his own white chauvinism and in the process, overlooks that Scandanavia has equally lacking laws.



I wonder how the standard of living/quality of life in Russia and South Africa measure up next to Norway hmmmmmmmm i wonder

Well, if you had any sense of literacy, you'd know that I was responding to his claim that "Singapore is the most unequal "rich" country on earth", when in fact, Brazil, Russia, and South Africa are (and yes, they're "rich" countries).

[Chicxulub]

lol what

in response to your taunt worthy of 4chan or some other lesser (I'm hoping this site is greater) website, I was saying that many people have subconscious guilt instilled in them as children through all the judeo-christian propaganda that we have to forgive monsters in order to be decent human beings, that killing is somehow morally wrong in all examples. I'm saying that that is simply not the case.



You can say that wars are necessary sometimes, though. It's never necessary, per se, to execute people. You can just as easily lock them up forever, which is way, way, WAY cheaper than executing them is.

Oh how moral! lets lock up a guy or girl for eternity, and prepare them for death safely behind prison walls, rather than...executing them behind prison walls? logic isn't your strong suit, it seems.

Besides, cheaper to whom? I'm not talking of a common law clusterfuck justice system like America's. I'm thinking more Dzherzhinsky era USSR, or Singapore, which make execution very efficient.

[#FF0000]

prove that the lack of a death penalty and softer prison conditions deter crime.

I would if that's what I was arguing.


The only thing I can find is that rehabilitation can bring people back into society with a lesser chance of recidivism, not that it deters crime.

Nothing deters crime. Deterrence as a strategy is a failure in every facet except as a platform for conservatives to stir people up and get votes.


Speaking of which, I strongly agree with rehabilitation, I'm stating my opinion that some people commit crimes so heinous, they revoke their right to live.

But there's no good reason other than sating bloodlust to do that. It is more efficient to lock people up, and you eliminate the chance of wrongful execution. To say we should risk killing innocent people on top of wasting resources cuz THEY DESERVE IT HARHFHG it's insane.


Do you even read what he was posting? He was saying Singapore just criminalized maritial rape, and I'm essentially saying that he was so quick to condemn a successful asian justice system, that he ignores his own white chauvinism and in the process, overlooks that Scandanavia has equally lacking laws.


This is true. I think Singapore's are way, way worse.


Well, if you had any sense of literacy, you'd know that I was responding to his claim that "Singapore is the most unequal "rich" country on earth", when in fact, Brazil, Russia, and South Africa are (and yes, they're "rich" countries).

I'm p. sure he said "one of the most", but whatever. I think this point's kind of irrelevant.

[#FF0000]

Oh how moral! lets lock up a guy or girl for eternity, and prepare them for death safely behind prison walls, rather than...executing them behind prison walls? logic isn't your strong suit, it seems.I think keeping people seperated from society and letting them do their thing is a lot better than killing them, yes. Don't you agree?


Besides, cheaper to whom? I'm not talking of a common law clusterfuck justice system like America's. I'm thinking more Dzherzhinsky era USSR, or Singapore, which make execution very efficient. How do they make execution more efficient? By getting rid of appeals and things that try to screen out people who were wrongfully convicted?

EDIT:
in response to your taunt worthy of 4chan or some other lesser (I'm hoping this site is greater) website, I was saying that many people have subconscious guilt instilled in them as children through all the judeo-christian propaganda that we have to forgive monsters in order to be decent human beings, that killing is somehow morally wrong in all examples. I'm saying that that is simply not the case.

Sounds more like you're trying to dismiss arguments without having to actually engage them, tbh.

[We will rise again]

Petty crimes should be forgiven.

More serious crimes like murder should have rehabilitation.

And anyone committing disgusting crimes like rape or molestation should be seriously punished with intense labour and harsh conditions.

[Meridian]

Petty crimes should be forgiven.

More serious crimes like murder should have rehabilitation.

And anyone committing disgusting crimes like rape or molestation should be seriously punished with intense labour and harsh conditions.
So murder merely requires rehabilitation but "disgusting" crimes is serious punishment with intense labour and harsh conditions?

Just because you find it more disgusting does not warrant harsher treatment.

Murder comes in many forms, but if any type of crime warrants rehabilitation it is molestation and sexual abuse.

[Robocommie]

The minute you start calling names just like that, it means you know deep down inside you're losing the argument. Or else, why would you result to name calling?

Because you're a moron? Sorry man, but just because I think you're a tool doesn't mean you win the argument.



I was saying that many people have subconscious guilt instilled in them as children through all the judeo-christian propaganda that we have to forgive monsters in order to be decent human beings, that killing is somehow morally wrong in all examples. I'm saying that that is simply not the case.Oh great, let's remove the social stigma around killing while also keeping prisons as rancid pits in which to punish the wicked. That's certainly going to create a healthy social attitude between people.

[#FF0000]

And anyone committing disgusting crimes like rape or molestation should be seriously punished with intense labour and harsh conditions.

Even though they don't accomplish anything?

[We will rise again]

Even though they don't accomplish anything?

Make them productive, make them work.

[#FF0000]

Make them productive, make them work.

Maybe you are new to this whole "communism" thing but here's the deetz:

we're not big on slave labor.

[We will rise again]

Maybe you are new to this whole "communism" thing but here's the deetz:

we're not big on slave labor.

I didn't say they were slaves. They would have access to needs and a few commodities. But they should work nevertheless.

Don't put words in my mouth.

[Robocommie]

I didn't say they were slaves. They would have access to needs and a few commodities. But they should work nevertheless.

Don't put words in my mouth.

Coerced labor is sort of what slavery is, bro. He doesn't need to put words in your mouth, all he has to do is quote "make them work" and it's pretty much spelled out for him.

[We will rise again]

Coerced labor is sort of what slavery is, bro. He doesn't need to put words in your mouth, all he has to do is quote "make them work" and it's pretty much spelled out for him.

So what sort of punishment do you propose to a rapist or child molester?

I don't think some people understand the severity of this kind of shit...

[#FF0000]

So what sort of punishment do you propose to a rapist or child molester?

Something that is not execution or forced labor.


I don't think some people understand the severity of this kind of shit...I don't think some people understand the severity of forced labor.

This also isn't really a path you want to go down, either. You don't know what people on here might have experienced, remember.

[tm315]

So what sort of punishment do you propose to a rapist or child molester?

I don't think some people understand the severity of this kind of shit...

There is no need for punishment.

[We will rise again]

Something that is not execution or forced labor.

I don't think some people understand the severity of forced labor.

You still haven't given me a decent answer, and by the way I am against death sentence.

What do you propose as an alternative to labour, that remains productive?

[Robocommie]

I don't think some people understand the severity of this kind of shit...

You can go fuck yourself right now. Seriously. I've had sleepless nights waking up next to a girlfriend who was screaming in terror because of the nightmares she had had from the horrific abuse she suffered as a child. I watched her slowly poison herself with drugs just to be able to get away from the memories. I have had several girlfriends explain to me how they just could not let people get close to them emotionally because of what happened to them. I watched another old friend go to prison because she broke in to her rapist's apartment to torch his shit. Don't you even fucking dare presume to talk about what we understand, or how severe we understand this shit is.

Do YOU even understand rape or molestation as anything other than an abstract? I had to spend my fucking time in Hell, being unable to do anything to heal the scars of people I loved. Did you?

[#FF0000]

What do you propose as an alternative to labour, that remains productive?

I don't know. Arts and crafts?

[Robocommie]

I don't know. Arts and crafts?

Make them learn to weave baskets with their toes.

[#FF0000]

We need baskets to increase grain yield. Good plan.

[Demogorgon]

So what sort of punishment do you propose to a rapist or child molester?

Prison.

Granted it is an idea that nobody has ever had before, but who knows, maybe it will catch on.

[We will rise again]

Do YOU even understand rape or molestation as anything other than an abstract? I had to spend my fucking time in Hell, being unable to do anything to heal the scars of people I loved. Did you?

I had a girlfriend that was raped (in fact it was her first sexual encounter) and had a partner who was sexually abused by her father when she was a child, and was eventually adopted when authority took her away from her biological parents. I also have an older friend who was sexually abused by a priest while he lived in a monastery.

Do I understand what this is outside abstract? No I don't, because I have never been abused in such a way, and neither do YOU if you claim to be in the same shoes as I. Only the 2 girls and man I referred to understand truly what it is.

So quit your shit.

[We will rise again]

Prison.

Granted it is an idea that nobody has ever had before, but who knows, maybe it will catch on.

Prison is not productive. It's a waste of resources.

[NewSocialist]

It might be subjective whether or not state sanctioned murder is more acceptable than other murder; I feel it is not, you feel it is.

On what basis can you claim that it is not, without adhering to some form of moral realism?


But what is not subjective is that the use of capital punishment (and harsh punishments in general) increase the crime rate. In other words if you desire to have capital punishment and generally harsh punishment in general then you must accept the trade off of higher crime.That's not at all clear. You can look at countries with high crime rates which have capital punishment, then compare them with other countries with lower crime rates which happen to have abolished the death penalty, and try to draw a correlation between crime rates and capital punishment. But that correlation doesn't necessarily imply a causation. For example, crime rates in Sweden are most likely lower than those in the United States because they have a relatively more egalitarian society than we do (poverty ='s crime).

Moreover, comparing overall crime statistics is misleading, since I've been discussing a particular type of crime. Since violent sociopaths suffer from an innate cognitive disorder (which enables them to be able to take life without any feelings of empathy whatsoever), virtually no environmental influence impacts the number of them in any given society, least of all what the laws happen to be.


Conservatism fails again.:rolleyes: Right, because everyone who believes in capital punishment is a "conservative."

I wonder if you would take such an approach if, say, a revolution were to occur. Should reactionary counterrevolutionaries, violently attempting to overthrow a socialist state, not be killed? Should they merely be apprehended and sent to a "cushy prison"?

[#FF0000]

I wonder if you would take such an approach if, say, a revolution were to occur. Should reactionary counterrevolutionaries, violently attempting to overthrow a socialist state, not be killed? Should they merely be apprehended and sent to a "cushy prison"?

Why that's a little different from crime being committed within a stable society, isn't it?

[#FF0000]

Prison is not productive. It's a waste of resources.

If you support forced labor, you're not a communist. Sorry guy.

[NewSocialist]

You can go fuck yourself right now. Seriously. I've had sleepless nights waking up next to a girlfriend who was screaming in terror because of the nightmares she had had from the horrific abuse she suffered as a child. I watched her slowly poison herself with drugs just to be able to get away from the memories. I have had several girlfriends explain to me how they just could not let people get close to them emotionally because of what happened to them. I watched another old friend go to prison because she broke in to her rapist's apartment to torch his shit. Don't you even fucking dare presume to talk about what we understand, or how severe we understand this shit is.

Do YOU even understand rape or molestation as anything other than an abstract? I had to spend my fucking time in Hell, being unable to do anything to heal the scars of people I loved. Did you?

YOU are not the only person who has had to console a rape victim, I have as well. Have you ever had anyone close to you be murdered? I have, and no, the murderers weren't given the death penalty.

[We will rise again]

If you support forced labor, you're not a communist. Sorry guy.

Moving on.

[NewSocialist]

Why that's a little different from crime being committed within a stable society, isn't it?

Why should stability factor into the equation? We're talking about human life and when (or if) there's ever an instance when it can be justly taken. If you're going to make excuses for killing counterrevolutionaries, but not serial killers, then your position is based on a foundation of sand --and you're just confirming the utter subjectivity of the entire issue.

[#FF0000]

this is an excellent demonstration of why you never make discussions like this personal.

[#FF0000]

Why should stability factor into the equation? We're talking about human life and when (or if) there's ever an instance when it can be justly taken. If you're going to make excuses for killing counterrevolutionaries, but not serial killers, then your position is based on a foundation of sand --and you're just confirming the utter subjectivity of the entire issue.

Neat. Counterrevolutionaries get locked up forever then too.

v:mellow:v

[We will rise again]

YOU are not the only person who has had to console a rape victim, I have as well. Have you ever had anyone close to you be murdered? I have, and no, the murderers weren't given the death penalty.

He made himself the victim. Truth is he is not, nor are we.
The victims are the people who suffered the abuse.

We don't have the right to tell people to fuck off when we are in the same situation as them. Truth is we don't know shit about being raped, so Robocomie, I suggest you quit your whining.

[We will rise again]

Why should stability factor into the equation? We're talking about human life and when (or if) there's ever an instance when it can be justly taken. If you're going to make excuses for killing counterrevolutionaries, but not serial killers, then your position is based on a foundation of sand --and you're just confirming the utter subjectivity of the entire issue.

True, I don't understand why some of us will like the idea of killing counter-revolutionaries, yet we are against the idea of death-sentence. I call BS.

I'm against any sort of killing full stop, there are certainly more effective ways of punishment.

[#FF0000]

We don't have the right to tell people to fuck off when we are in the same situation as them. Truth is we don't know shit about being raped, so Robocomie, I suggest you quit your whining. you are a ****.

infraction please.

[We will rise again]

you are a ****.

So now we've sunk down to the level of insults have we? Very nice.

Didn't you say we shouldn't take things personally in the above comment?

[#FF0000]

I'm against any sort of killing full stop, there are certainly more effective ways of punishment. Punishment is an ineffective way of changing behavior though, compared to reinforcement.


So now we've sunk down to the level of insults have we? Very nice.

Didn't you say we shouldn't take things personally in the above comment? I'm not taking anything personally and I'm not insulting you for any of your arguments. Just for that particular comment you made in reference to a response you provoked by turning a discussion about a volatile subject personal.

[We will rise again]

you are a ****.

infraction please.

Excuse me but I didn't start this argument, nor did I insult anyone.

[NewSocialist]

Neat. Counterrevolutionaries get locked up forever then too.

Why "forever"? Because you really dislike them? Seeing the subjectivity yet?

[We will rise again]

Punishment is an ineffective way of changing behavior though, compared to reinforcement.

I'll look into that.



I'm not taking anything personally. I'm just callin' it like I see it.

Calling me a **** is disgusting and most certainly personal.


Just for that particular comment you made in reference to a response you provoked

I didn't provoke anyone mate.

[#FF0000]

Why "forever"? Because you really dislike them? Seeing the subjectivity yet?

i figure if a group of people just up and take up arms against a socialist society, they'll be dealt with according to how dangerous they are. They could get amnesty, they could be separated from the society for a spell. Who knows? It depends on the circumstances. Kind of also depends on what you mean by "counter revolutionary".

Besides, in my mind, "counter-revolutionary activities" are more like acts of war than run of the mill criminal things. Especially violent criminal actions that are usually targeted towards an individual or group of individuals, rather than against society itself.

But hey who knows. I'm actually a communist so I'm more interested in the liberation of humanity than how best to brutalize people.


Calling me a **** is disgusting and most certainly personal.

I think it's p. disgusting to tell a dude who is talking about dealing with close friends and their experience with sexual assault to stop whining.

You can cry harder, I guess.

Where's my infraction, mods?


I didn't provoke anyone mate.

Saying "you guys don't understand how serious rape/child molestation is do you..." is sure to cause a massive problem. That is what I'm talking about.

[We will rise again]

This is getting off topic. I think we said enough.

[NewSocialist]

i figure if a group of people just up and take up arms against a socialist society, they'll be dealt with according to how dangerous they are.

"Dealt with" by whom? Who's to say they would make the right decision? How can one even decide what the right decision is anyway? Subjectivity.


They could get amnesty, they could be separated from the society for a spell. Who knows? It depends on the circumstances. Kind of also depends on what you mean by "counter revolutionary".By "counter revolutionary," I mean men and women who take up arms and fight to restore bourgeois social relations.


Besides, in my mind, "counter-revolutionary activities" are more like acts of war than run of the mill criminal things.In the case of counter revolutionaries, we have people fighting on behalf of an ideological cause. With serial killers, we have people killing just for the sake of it (or whatever gratification it happens to give them). Call me crazy, but I think the latter is somewhat worse than the former. Of course, among a group of counter revolutionaries, there can be sadists who are just as bad as serial killers (killing innocent women and children just for the hell of it.)

[Jazzratt]

you are a ****.

infraction please. I gave the infraction. I don't know whether or not I should have one myself since I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment.

[#FF0000]

"Dealt with" by whom? Who's to say they would make the right decision? How can one even decide what the right decision is anyway? Subjectivity.

I don't think I have the time necessary to explain to you what an "argument" is, and how they work


In the case of counter revolutionaries, we have people fighting on behalf of an ideological cause. With serial killers, we have people killing just for the sake of it (or whatever gratification it happens to give them). Call me crazy, but I think the latter is somewhat worse than the former. Of course, among a group of counter revolutionaries, there can be sadists who are just as bad as serial killers (killing innocent women and children just for the hell of it.)Aren't serial killers usually mentally ill? P. sure that mitigates responsibility.

[Chicxulub]

Something that is not execution or forced labor.

I don't think some people understand the severity of forced labor.

This also isn't really a path you want to go down, either. You don't know what people on here might have experienced, remember.


A bit of corrective labor never seemed to create massive social problems in the USSR...

[GPDP]

tihs is just an emotional plea by the bleeding hearts to satisfy their subconcious judeo-Christian guilt as to why pedophiles and rapists should be allowed to live, because some fictional Jewish zombie taught that we should forgive and forget. It won't work on me.

:laugh: First off, I was never very religious, even before I became an atheist. Secondly, I used to agree with your point of view not too long ago, and I would in fact say I changed my mind on the death penalty and harsh punishment at about the same time I became an atheist. Funny how that works.



he was so quick to condemn a successful asian justice system, that he ignores his own white chauvinism

I wasn't aware an undocumented Mexican who is almost as brown as the dirt in my backyard could be a white chauvinist.


Well, if you had any sense of literacy, you'd know that I was responding to his claim that "Singapore is the most unequal "rich" country on earth", when in fact, Brazil, Russia, and South Africa are (and yes, they're "rich" countries).

Good thing I said "one of the most" then.

[We will rise again]

A bit of corrective labor never seemed to create massive social problems in the USSR...

Agreed. In fact I'm sure it will make people think twice when back in society.

[NewSocialist]

Aren't serial killers usually mentally ill? P. sure that mitigates responsibility.

Yes, they are. However, acknowledging that fact still doesn't answer the fundamental question: Should those who take the lives of innocent people receive capital punishment or not? You just can't accept that the answer to that question is completely subjective --you desperately want there to be some way to conclusively state that your view is the only correct one (but unfortunately for you, there isn't).

You can claim that the "eye for an eye" ethic is archaic, barbaric, unnecessary, and so on, but what you can't say is that those are anything more than your opinions.

[We will rise again]

"eye for an eye" punishment toward a serial-killer would be death sentence. That won't get us anywhere.

Corrective labour and giving civil education in prison on the other hand...

[tm315]

Yes, they are. However, acknowledging that fact still doesn't answer the fundamental question: Should those who take the lives of innocent people receive capital punishment or not? You just can't accept that the answer to that question is completely subjective --you desperately want there to be some way to conclusively state that your view is the only correct one (but unfortunately for you, there isn't).

You can claim that the "eye for an eye" ethic is archaic, barbaric, unnecessary, and so on, but what you can't say is that those are anything more than your opinions.
We don't want people who support the death penalty. Just like we don't want people to support fascism. I guess they're both "subjective", but I would still claim that fascism (just like the death penalty) is objectively wrong.

[NewSocialist]

"eye for an eye" punishment toward a serial-killer would be death sentence. That won't get us anywhere.

Corrective labour and giving civil education in prison on the other hand...

I respect your consistency, being that you consider the taking of life to be unacceptable in all cases. However, penal labor and civil education aren't going to magically make a mentally ill sociopath suddenly capable of feeling empathy. Moreover, your preference for penal labor and education doesn't answer whether or not the "eye for an eye" ethic is right or wrong (which, I submit to you, is subjective.)

One thing that might be feasible is screening people for violent sociopathy at an early age and closely monitoring them (and, if need be, isolating them) so as to ensure they don't ever have the opportunity to take the lives of innocent people.

[We will rise again]

One thing that might be feasible is screening people for violent sociopathy at an early age and closely monitoring them (and, if need be, isolating them) so as to ensure they don't have the opportunity to take the lives of innocent people.

Very good idea, but doesn't that create a "control" environment over the people, and create false-positives? Libertarians might outright refuse this.

Paranoia...

Plus, parents might refuse to admit their child is unstable, and cause a lot of problems...


PS: An "eye for an eye" is NEVER a method we should guide our punishments upon. Crime and punishment is too relative for that.

[NewSocialist]

Very good idea, but doesn't that create a "control" environment over the people, and create false-positives? Libertarians might outright refuse this.

The more libertarian inclined might very well object to the idea. Personally, I think individual rights should be suspended in cases having to do with public safety in some, very rare, cases (such as keeping likely killers out of society.) Obviously such a program would have to handled quite delicately, and I wouldn't support the implementation of such a program within any capitalist society.


Plus, parents might refuse to admit their child is unstable, and cause a lot of problems...That's true, but over the years psychologists have been able to construct a pretty good set of criteria to determine whether or not someone has the potential to become a murderer (e.g., the torture and/or killing of animals at a young age, an inability to feel empathy, gratification at the sight of suffering, etc.) It's important to note that such characteristics don't always lead one to becoming a serial killer, but they're traits almost every known serial killer has possessed.


PS: An "eye for an eye" is NEVER a method we should guide our punishments upon. Crime and punishment is too relative for that.I agree that crime and punishment are relative (i.e., a starving person stealing bread to feed himself and his family isn't equivalent to a capitalist stealing the surplus value his workers produce.) Therefore, I don't subscribe to the idea of "an eye for an eye" in the case of all crimes, just particularly heinous ones (such as serial killing, serial rape, child molestation, etc.)

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I agree that crime and punishment are relative (i.e., a starving person stealing bread to feed himself and his family isn't equivalent to a capitalist stealing the surplus value his workers produce.) Therefore, I don't subscribe to the idea of "an eye for an eye" in the case of all crimes, just particularly heinous ones (such as serial killing, serial rape, child molestation, etc.)

Not to disrupt the lovely circle-jerk you two got here, but how would the latter be enforced? Eye for an eye for serial rape will be serial rape, so have you got something disgusting like police rape planned for that? You're fucking depressing.

[Chicxulub]

Therefore, I don't subscribe to the idea of "an eye for an eye" in the case of all crimes, just particularly heinous ones (such as serial killing, serial rape, child molestation, etc.)

0__o



child molestation, etc.)

er...how would that work exactly?

[We will rise again]

er...how would that work exactly?

I LOL'd and feel evil :crying:

[NewSocialist]

Not to disrupt the lovely circle-jerk you two got here, but how would the latter be enforced? Eye for an eye for serial rape will be serial rape, so have you got something disgusting like police rape planned for that? You're fucking depressing.

:rolleyes: You're taking things too literally. In retrospect, perhaps I shouldn't have written "eye for an eye" per se, and instead have been more clear for people like you. Replace "eye for an eye" with capital punishment.

Serial rapists ruin the psychological well-being of numerous women, which is a psychological scar those women have to endure for the rest of lives. Likewise, children that have been molested have psychological scars for the duration of their lives. Once again: I don't believe serial rapists, child molesters, or serial killers can be truly rehabilitated, and I feel their crimes are deserving of the most severe of punishments. Maybe you think sending them to a little island where they can sunbathe and go fishing is a more appropriate measure, but that's simply your subjective preference (and good luck convincing the majority of humanity of the validity of such a view.)

[tm315]

:rolleyes: (and good luck convincing the majority of humanity of the validity of such a view.)
You keep saying that like you know that the majority are for capital punishment. Do you have a citation for that? Or is it just a baseless claim?

[NewSocialist]

You keep saying that like you know that the majority are for capital punishment. Do you have a citation for that? Or is it just a baseless claim?

Here's (http://www.gallup.com/poll/1606/death-penalty.aspx) a pretty thorough poll that was conducted on the issue, verifying that most people favor capital punishment for convicted murderers.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Here's (http://www.gallup.com/poll/1606/death-penalty.aspx) a pretty thorough poll that was conducted on the issue, verifying that most people favor capital punishment for convicted murderers.

And most people are against communism.

It's utterly irrelevant.

Also your poll is conducted in the United States, which has what I'd call an unhealthy social atmosphere, after years of politicians running on "well I'm tough on crime!"-programs the entire landscape is one of perverted revanschism and bloodlust.

Let's just say that conducted in some European country the result would be lower in favour of death penalty and it would be regarded as barbarism.

Popularity is utterly, totally, fucking irrelevant. If we were to judge the desirability of things on the basis of opinion polls, we'd be inoffensive capitalist-parliamentary "democrats", not socialists.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Capital punishment is gross.

[Obs]

Y'all might wanna check out Anton Makarenko's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Makarenko) works on pedagogy. I think a lot of them could be used for adult criminals just as well as juveniles.

[NewSocialist]

And most people are against communism.

Indeed, which is why great efforts need to be made by us so as to make them not be.


It's utterly irrelevant. I was specifically asked if I could verify that most people are in favor of the death penalty, and I did; so it was perfectly relevant.


Also your poll is conducted in the United States, which has what I'd call an unhealthy social atmosphere, after years of politicians running on "well I'm tough on crime!"-programs the entire landscape is one of perverted revanschism and bloodlust."Unhealthy," "perverted," :rolleyes: the theists use such language all of the time when trying to convince people that their moral standards are the only right ones.. Are your views anything other than subjective preferences yet? Hardly. When you, or anyone else, can show me exactly how your opinions on this topic can be viewed as objectively correct, come back and tell me all about it.


Let's just say that conducted in some European country the result would be lower in favour of death penalty and it would be regarded as barbarism.That's lovely, and maybe the Americans subjective moral preferences can be changed to consider the death penalty to be "barbaric" eventually as well. The plasticity of moral views only further proves my point about the subjective nature of morality.

Incidentally, world-wide, the death penalty is still favored by majorities in Britain, South Korea, and Mexico. And 45% of French citizens, and 35% of Germans also continue to favor capital punishment. (source (http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/163/Death-Penalty-International-Poll.aspx))


Popularity is utterly, totally, fucking irrelevant. If we were to judge the desirability of things on the basis of opinion polls, we'd be inoffensive capitalist-parliamentary "democrats", not socialists.Socialism itself won't be achievable until it becomes relatively popular once again. I never said that people can't change their minds with respect to capital punishment, or anything else for that matter. That's not the point. What I said is that I happen to believe that certain crimes are deserving of the death penalty and that judging whether this issue is "right" or "wrong" is ultimately subjective. You can continue calling me a "fucking disgusting barbarian," but that's not going to suddenly make your preference for treating serial killers, serial rapists, and child molesters humanely objectively correct.

And I repeat my question: Should violent counter revolutionaries be killed following a revolution, or merely detained and sent to a "cushy prison"? If you think they should be killed, why are they deserving of such treatment while serial killers and the like aren't?

[tm315]

And I repeat my question: Should violent counter revolutionaries be killed following a revolution, or merely detained and sent to a "cushy prison"? If you think they should be killed, why are they deserving of such treatment while serial killers and the like aren't?

I see nothing wrong with sending the counter-revolutionaries to a "cushy prison".

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

And I repeat my question: Should violent counter revolutionaries be killed following a revolution, or merely detained and sent to a "cushy prison"? If you think they should be killed, why are they deserving of such treatment while serial killers and the like aren't?

If you cannot see the difference between the turbulent times of a revolutionary period and peace-time justice for common criminality, there is no point in arguing with you.

[Meridian]

So what sort of punishment do you propose to a rapist or child molester?

I don't think some people understand the severity of this kind of shit...
I agree wholeheartedly that rape and child abuse are both 'extremely severe', but I fail to see how they are more severe than murder, which you suggest by saying that murder should be treated with rehabilitation while molestation should be punished with forced labor.

If you disagree and do not think that this is a question about severity, but rather what treatment is most effective in the case of the perpetrator, then the question is: How can it be the case that murder is treated effectively with rehabilitation, but sexual abuse is not?

Consider all the different reasons that could lead a person to murder another, and then consider whatever reasons can make someone sexually abuse another. Don't you think that murder is more likely to have circumstantial causes, or non-treatable causes, than sexual abuse?

All this is of course not considering the implications of advocating forced labor to begin with.

[NewSocialist]

If you cannot see the difference between the turbulent times of a revolutionary period and peace-time justice for common criminality, there is no point in arguing with you.

:laugh: That's so idiotic.

First of all, I was never talking about "common criminality," I was quite specific in limiting my discussion to serial murder, serial rape, and child molestation --if you can't tell the difference between those relatively rare, heinous forms of crime (their heinous nature being my subjective opinion, of course) and "common criminality," there is no point arguing with you. Secondly, on what basis can "turbulent times" be used as a legitimate justification for deviating from you alleged commitment to opposing capital punishment? That seems rather subjective to me.. Refer to post #114 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2108449&postcount=114).

[NewSocialist]

I see nothing wrong with sending the counter-revolutionaries to a "cushy prison".

The bourgeoisie are sure to tremble at the thought of revolution, if opposing it means it will land them in a pleasant "cushy prison."

[Obs]

The bourgeoisie are sure to tremble at the thought of revolution, if opposing it means it will land them in a pleasant "cushy prison."

If that means they lose all their money and power, yeah, they probably are.

[NewSocialist]

If that means they lose all their money and power, yeah, they probably are.

Let me ask you a very simple question: What would make you less inclined to oppose a revolution - being sent to a "cushy prison" for X number of years, or having your life ended? I pretty sure most people would select the latter (I know I would).

If you seriously believe that a socialist revolution can be upheld if violently opposing it would merely result in being sent to a "cushy prison," I wish you the best of luck.

[Obs]

Let me ask you a very simple question: What would make you less inclined to oppose a revolution - being sent to a "cushy prison" for X number of years, or having your life ended? I pretty sure most people would select the latter (I know I would).

If you seriously believe that a socialist revolution can be upheld if violently opposing it would merely result in being sent to a "cushy prison," I wish you the best of luck.

I think you have a poor definition of class society. If the bourgeoisie has already been stripped of its capital and its ownership of the means of production, it's been pacified. It's powerless. After that, the only thing resistance would amount to would be impotent stepladder activism. We don't have to kill every single individual member of the bourgeoisie (I won't weep for them if we do, but it's rather inconvenient), all you have to do is destroy them as a class.

I mean, I agree that a revolutionary situation would be too tumultuous to make sure prisoners are treated with an optimal degree of humaneness, your opinion just seems to be that at no point until communism will it be possible to maybe not run shit like it's 1940s Belarus, which is absurd, and your arguments are based on ancient, outdated thinking rather than analysis. Beyond that, keep in mind that we're not even discussing the treatment of organised class enemies, but rather discussing how to rehabilitate people who have ended up as common criminals and/or are mentally ill.

[Princess Luna]

Let me ask you a very simple question: What would make you less inclined to oppose a revolution - being sent to a "cushy prison" for X number of years, or having your life ended? I pretty sure most people would select the latter (I know I would).

If you seriously believe that a socialist revolution can be upheld if violently opposing it would merely result in being sent to a "cushy prison," I wish you the best of luck.
Sorry, but if someone sends me to do hard labor or to a horrible prison, I am not going to say "wow these guys are sure swell, i totally see the error of my ways now!"

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

:laugh: That's so idiotic.

First of all, I was never talking about "common criminality," I was quite specific in limiting my discussion to serial murder, serial rape, and child molestation --if you can't tell the difference between those relatively rare, heinous forms of crime (their heinous nature being my subjective opinion, of course) and "common criminality," there is no point arguing with you. Secondly, on what basis can "turbulent times" be used as a legitimate justification for deviating from you alleged commitment to opposing capital punishment?

Those are common criminality, not in the sense of occurring often, but compared to counter-revolutionary crimes in the time of revolution; to make it easier for you to understand in what sense this is meant, think of it as "civilian" crimes.

In turbulent times it might not be possible to assure secure facilities for holding counter-revolutionaries; they might come under attack from the bourgeois resistance, or they might simply not be possible to keep under control, and in those cases it can be an acceptable decision to use state murder. Although I am opposed to capital punishment in common justice, there can be political crimes where it is useful, I never said I was against it at all times and in all situations. What I am opposed to is its use for no reason in areas where there is no deterring effect whatsoever simply to satisfy a lust for revenge and this pandering to mob mentality that you consistently resort to back up your murderous nature.

[We will rise again]

I agree wholeheartedly that rape and child abuse are both 'extremely severe', but I fail to see how they are more severe than murder, which you suggest by saying that murder should be treated with rehabilitation while molestation should be punished with forced labor.

While I do agree that crime is so relative I probably shouldn't of said "X punishment for this and Y punishment for that", from my understanding murder can have it's own very good reasons, and can have rational thought behind it.

Rape on the other hand, I believe there is never a good reason to commit such a disgusting offence. Plus not only does it cause Psychological damage, it doesn't kill you! It may sound like being dead is worse than being left alive, truth isn't so. At least if you're dead you don't have to carry those terrible memories for the rest of your life...

So yes, I think Rape is much more serious than murder (not serial killing that's sick), because it's barbaric and disgusting.

Murder on the other hand, can be barbaric, but can also have very good reasons behind it.

[Arilou Lalee'lay]

Plus not only does it cause Psychological damage, it doesn't kill you! It may sound like being dead is worse than being left alive, truth isn't so...I somehow think most rape victims would disagree with you there, and be a little... disgusted? that you've implied they should go kill themselves and can't ever overcome the damage that has been done to them.

[Demogorgon]

While I do agree that crime is so relative I probably shouldn't of said "X punishment for this and Y punishment for that", from my understanding murder can have it's own very good reasons, and can have rational thought behind it.

Rape on the other hand, I believe there is never a good reason to commit such a disgusting offence. Plus not only does it cause Psychological damage, it doesn't kill you! It may sound like being dead is worse than being left alive, truth isn't so. At least if you're dead you don't have to carry those terrible memories for the rest of your life...

So yes, I think Rape is much more serious than murder (not serial killing that's sick), because it's barbaric and disgusting.

Murder on the other hand, can be barbaric, but can also have very good reasons behind it.
Aside from the obvious stupidity of claiming that the fact that rape doesn't kill makes it worse, not to mention a whole variety of other idiotic statements in there that I won't go into, the implication of this post is that a rapist who then murders his victim has in fact mitigated his crime.

This is the stupid kind of line of argument that comes when you start trying to justify retribution in the justice system.

[agnixie]

While I do agree that crime is so relative I probably shouldn't of said "X punishment for this and Y punishment for that", from my understanding murder can have it's own very good reasons, and can have rational thought behind it.

Rape on the other hand, I believe there is never a good reason to commit such a disgusting offence. Plus not only does it cause Psychological damage, it doesn't kill you! It may sound like being dead is worse than being left alive, truth isn't so. At least if you're dead you don't have to carry those terrible memories for the rest of your life...

So yes, I think Rape is much more serious than murder (not serial killing that's sick), because it's barbaric and disgusting.

Murder on the other hand, can be barbaric, but can also have very good reasons behind it.

I know I prefer to be alive. I'm a survivor, not a victim.

[black magick hustla]

Petty crimes should be forgiven.

More serious crimes like murder should have rehabilitation.

And anyone committing disgusting crimes like rape or molestation should be seriously punished with intense labour and harsh conditions.
how is murder less disgusting than molestation and rape

anyway the gulags are more comfortable imho