As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Do Murderers and Rapists Deserve to Be Punished?

1101112131416»

Posts

  • KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Why do recidivist criminals come up in a discussion about capital punishment?

    Capital punishment is reserved, under the US system, for those criminals for whom we would never release back into the community anyway.

    So Ketherial's position isn't pro-capital punishment, it's pro-expanding the range of crimes for which people should be executed to include a large portion of people who currently would be placed into rehabilitation programs and later released.

    EDIT:
    Also the capital punishment calculation from a while ago was pretty inaccurate anyway, the only metric is whether the rate of deterrence of a crime due to capital punishment far outstripped the potential for executing innocent citizens. This has been shown to be staggeringly not true.

    first of all, not my point - it's cade's point.

    second of all, im not sure why you measure rate of deterrence against actual lives lost. shouldnt it be an apples to apples comparison?

    Ketherial on
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    zakkiel wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    We have that because we are very concerned with the state punishing the wrong people. The state has a very high bar to pass before it can violate the rights to life and liberty.
    Yes, and the question is, why? To which the answer is either considerations of justice or no considerations at all.
    edit: this is en entirely different argument from the argument over what it is moral or useful for the state to do, once it has passed that bar.

    No, this is exactly the argument. The justification for punishment will determine the standards applied for punishment.

    I guess I don't understand the point you're making; that an absolutely utilitarian society would figure out how many innocent people need to be punished to provide an effective deterrent, and do that?

    edit: which I suppose is a fine conclusion as far as it goes, but I don't think it really speaks to the argument about punishment.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    it was the smallest on the list but
    Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    I don't understand people talking about punishment for punishments sake.

    That doesn't make sense. Punishment is always about deterrence, no matter what form it takes. The urge to beat the crap out of some guys who rob my house isn't based on the urge to beat the crap out of them, it's based on the urge to send a message to them and everyone else that my house is not to be fucked with.

    i totally disagree.

    beating the crap out of the guys who robbed your house is not a message to everyone, it's only a message to people you can actually beat up.

    beating the crap out of the guys who robbed your house is punishment for them robbing you, cause robbing people is a bad thing to do.

    i think we've just summarized this entire thread and i almost feel like there isnt anymore to say.

    Ketherial on
  • zakkielzakkiel Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    zakkiel wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    We have that because we are very concerned with the state punishing the wrong people. The state has a very high bar to pass before it can violate the rights to life and liberty.
    Yes, and the question is, why? To which the answer is either considerations of justice or no considerations at all.
    edit: this is en entirely different argument from the argument over what it is moral or useful for the state to do, once it has passed that bar.

    No, this is exactly the argument. The justification for punishment will determine the standards applied for punishment.

    I guess I don't understand the point you're making; that an absolutely utilitarian society would figure out how many innocent people need to be punished to provide an effective deterrent, and do that?

    edit: which I suppose is a fine conclusion as far as it goes, but I don't think it really speaks to the argument about punishment.

    That depends on whether you find such a society objectionable or not.

    zakkiel on
    Account not recoverable. So long.
  • MatrijsMatrijs Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Ketherial wrote: »
    I don't understand people talking about punishment for punishments sake.

    That doesn't make sense. Punishment is always about deterrence, no matter what form it takes. The urge to beat the crap out of some guys who rob my house isn't based on the urge to beat the crap out of them, it's based on the urge to send a message to them and everyone else that my house is not to be fucked with.

    i totally disagree.

    beating the crap out of the guys who robbed your house is not a message to everyone, it's only a message to people you can actually beat up.

    That's the thing - the police can beat the crap out of everyone, which is why state punishment is such a great idea.

    Matrijs on
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Ketherial wrote: »
    i totally disagree.

    beating the crap out of the guys who robbed your house is not a message to everyone, it's only a message to people you can actually beat up.

    beating the crap out of the guys who robbed your house is punishment for them robbing you, cause robbing people is a bad thing to do.

    i think we've just summarized this entire thread and i almost feel like there isnt anymore to say.

    The problem with deterrence is that you usually have to go a bit overboard to really be effective. You are correct in that beating the crap out of the people who robbed your house is really only going to deter people you can beat up. A rather large person, with some intense physical training may think that since he can beat you up there is no reason not to rob your house, if we are ignoring police involvement.

    However if you take those same burglars, spend a couple hours working them over with sharp objects, and painfully nail them up at the borders of your property until their corpses rot away you send a rather different message. That message is much more likely to motivate people to rob your neighbor.

    You would not however go through this same process against the people who had robbed you because since you plan on killing them it doesn't matter if their learn their lesson or not. They will not be able to recommit the crime.

    Deterrence comes down to risk vs reward. Beating someone up is unlikely to really register on a persons risk scale. Unless you are physically imposing they are going to likely feel they have a decent chance against you, and therefor the risk of robbing you is minimal. Either you get away, or you get in a fight you might win. Against the latter example the sheer violence of it is likely to shock most people into thinking twice. When faced with the proposition of such an unpleasant fate they are left with the choice of get away clear, or slow painful death. They are either going to work to ensure they get away, taking more precautions, possibly coming in armed, or hit an easier target where the risk is less.

    It really all depends what your end goal is. If you want people to avoid your house, that is easy. If you want people to stop robbing houses entirely you have to ask a different question. Why the hell are they robbing houses in the first place?

    Detharin on
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Ketherial wrote: »
    I don't understand people talking about punishment for punishments sake.

    That doesn't make sense. Punishment is always about deterrence, no matter what form it takes. The urge to beat the crap out of some guys who rob my house isn't based on the urge to beat the crap out of them, it's based on the urge to send a message to them and everyone else that my house is not to be fucked with.

    i totally disagree.

    beating the crap out of the guys who robbed your house is not a message to everyone, it's only a message to people you can actually beat up.

    beating the crap out of the guys who robbed your house is punishment for them robbing you, cause robbing people is a bad thing to do.

    i think we've just summarized this entire thread and i almost feel like there isnt anymore to say.
    Oh hey, some good reasons why I in fact don't follow that urge up? Because it would be utterly utterly valueless and ineffective, and probably harmful and spark some type of escalation?

    EDIT: One would also note the point of punishing the individuals involved is deterrence - deterrence against fucking with me in the future. That's the point of the urge.

    electricitylikesme on
Sign In or Register to comment.