|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 14, 2015 19:13:30 GMT -6
Apart from some cheap shots aimed at Nils, all I'm hearing is "I'm not responsible" and "it can't be done". Get used to it. Sounds more like defeatist whining than someone who actually cares about murder. You're the one whining, Bernard. go drive towards LAX and think about what might be accomplished when scientists give it their all. I don't want scientists wasting their time on murderers. Murderers don't reoffend if they are killed in prison, one way or the other. "Rehabilitation" of murderers is a solution looking for a problem.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 14, 2015 19:42:49 GMT -6
Murderers don't reoffend if they are killed in prison, one way or the other. Your answer to murder: Hope the murderer gets murdered before the parole board lets him out. And if, while we're waiting for him to take a sharpened fork to the kidney, he rapes and kills some poor kid doing a couple of years for shop lifting or smoking weed, or stabs a guard in the eye… well, that's not your problem is it? Say what you like about Nils, he's trying to make some progress. Your attitude, in contrast, seems kinda lazy. Not completely sure why you're here.
|
|
|
Post by nils on Jan 14, 2015 22:10:30 GMT -6
Murderers don't reoffend if they are killed in prison, one way or the other. Your answer to murder: Hope the murderer gets murdered before the parole board lets him out. And if, while we're waiting for him to take a sharpened fork to the kidney, he rapes and kills some poor kid doing a couple of years for shop lifting or smoking weed, or stabs a guard in the eye… well, that's not your problem is it? Say what you like about Nils, he's trying to make some progress. Your attitude, in contrast, seems kinda lazy. Not completely sure why you're here. Joseph is just not interested in the subject. It is as if he and some people here just dont want rehabilitation to be possible. I wonder why? Best. Nils
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 15, 2015 8:20:54 GMT -6
he and some people here just dont want rehabilitation to be possible. I wonder why? For the same reason I don't spend money on the state lottery, Nils. It's a waste of time and energy. Rehabilitation of criminals is not my problem. It's their problem. It's only POSSIBLE if it's their problem. "Rehabilitation," whatever that means, cannot be imposed upon criminals by the law-abiding. You manage your criminals in your little p#iss-ant Scandinavian country, and I'll manage mine.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 15, 2015 8:25:12 GMT -6
Say what you like about Nils, he's trying to make some progress. Your attitude, in contrast, seems kinda lazy. Not completely sure why you're here. I'm here in stern opposition to the theory, posited by the stupid, which claims murderers can be rehabilitated.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 15, 2015 10:07:06 GMT -6
You manage your criminals in your little p#iss-ant Scandinavian country, and I'll manage mine. But you won't. As soon as someone tries to discuss how to manage them, you suggest something unworkable (kill them all or lock them up for good, but with no suggestion for how to make this politically real) then wash your hands of responsibility.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 15, 2015 10:19:32 GMT -6
Say what you like about Nils, he's trying to make some progress. Your attitude, in contrast, seems kinda lazy. Not completely sure why you're here. I'm here in stern opposition to the theory, posited by the stupid, which claims murderers can be rehabilitated. I wonder if you are against the correction of children, on the grounds that everyone is born as evil as they are, and it's "stupid" to think that anything can be done to change them.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 15, 2015 11:57:01 GMT -6
But you won't. As soon as someone tries to discuss how to manage them, you suggest something unworkable (kill them all or lock them up for good, but with no suggestion for how to make this politically real) then wash your hands of responsibility. Nils isn't from California, so I consider his suggestions perfunctorily, as I would those of any other interloper. As for responsibility, the only responsible thing to do with murderers is kill them, either by executing them or letting them expire in prison. It is not responsible to even consider their "rehabilitation" before releasing them, because they've already committed murder, and because it is physically impossible, everywhere in the multiverse, to prevent someone from killing another. One cannot even reduce the risk because the killing of a human being is such an easy thing for anyone to do.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 15, 2015 14:06:53 GMT -6
But you won't. As soon as someone tries to discuss how to manage them, you suggest something unworkable (kill them all or lock them up for good, but with no suggestion for how to make this politically real) then wash your hands of responsibility. Nils isn't from California, so I consider his suggestions perfunctorily, as I would those of any other interloper. As for responsibility, the only responsible thing to do with murderers is kill them, either by executing them or letting them expire in prison. It is not responsible to even consider their "rehabilitation" before releasing them, because they've already committed murder, and because it is physically impossible, everywhere in the multiverse, to prevent someone from killing another. One cannot even reduce the risk because the killing of a human being is such an easy thing for anyone to do. This is not California. It's the world wide web. And Nils is from the world. As for the rest, you object to rehabilitation because it is impossible. But as far as I can tell, it's impossible in our political system to guarantee that a felon sentenced to death will get death, or that a felon sentenced to get life will get life. Rehabilitation, in contrast, appears to be possible. Or at least, we have thousands of years of successfully correcting children to speak in its favor.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 15, 2015 14:17:28 GMT -6
This is not California. It's the world wide web. And Nils is from the world. Californians are not. As for the rest, you object to rehabilitation because it is impossible. But as far as I can tell, it's impossible in our political system to guarantee that a felon sentenced to death will get death, or that a felon sentenced to get life will get life. Michigan sentences all murderers to life without parole. It's not impossible. California simply has to follow Michigan. Californians may beat to a different drummer, but we aren't that far removed from Michigan. We have nothing in common with Sweden, or with any country in Europe, for that matter. Rehabilitation, in contrast, appears to be possible. Or at least, we have thousands of years of successfully correcting children to speak in its favor. No child murderer has ever been rehabilitated. You just don't get it, do you.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 15, 2015 14:29:09 GMT -6
Michigan sentences all murderers to life without parole. It's not impossible. And what's the guarantee that, in the next year or five years or maybe even tomorrow, the people of Michigan won't choose to release some of the felons they have already sentenced to life behind bars? What I don't get is how you propose to answer the two counterpoints I have made, namely: (1) You are in no position to determine that rehabilitation is impossible when that is a question for the appropriate researchers. You're like an 18th century technoramus confusing what hasn't happened yet for what's impossible in principle. (2) Children have been successfully corrected, for a variety of behavioral problems, for generations, using everything from gentle reinstruction to a severe whipping. This is evidence that humans can be reprogrammed.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 15, 2015 14:54:10 GMT -6
And what's the guarantee that, in the next year or five years or maybe even tomorrow, the people of Michigan won't choose to release some of the felons they have already sentenced to life behind bars? No guarantees, but there are no other choices. You are in no position to determine that rehabilitation is impossible when that is a question for the appropriate researchers. Researchers don't define "rehabilitation" for the commonweal. The electorate does. If the voters say there's no rehabilitation possible of murderers, then that is the case. Children have been successfully corrected, for a variety of behavioral problems, for generations, using everything from gentle reinstruction to a severe whipping. This is evidence that humans can be reprogrammed. There is no successful "correction" of murder, so there is no successful "correction" of a murderer. The purpose of punishment isn't to rehabilitate anyone. Recidivism is a choice beyond the scope of anyone's influence.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 15, 2015 15:21:09 GMT -6
And what's the guarantee that, in the next year or five years or maybe even tomorrow, the people of Michigan won't choose to release some of the felons they have already sentenced to life behind bars? No guarantees, but there are no other choices. Wrong, Joe, the electorate may make other choices. If the electorate wants to make its judgements intelligently, it should consult the relevant experts. The same goes for you. I like poetry as much as the next guy, but logic works better for serious topics. #debatetip Nonsense. We persuade children not to reoffend all the time.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 15, 2015 15:28:23 GMT -6
If the electorate wants to make its judgements intelligently, it should consult the relevant experts. The same goes for you. Why consult experts with a political agenda? The issue of rehabilitation is a moral question. I don't need researchers to make up my mind on what rehabilitation is or isn't. I like poetry as much as the next guy, but logic works better for serious topics. #debatetip Nonsense. We persuade children not to reoffend all the time. Murderers are simply recalcitrant children, to you? They simply need the wrongness of murder explained, by enlightened superbeings, such as yourself?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 15, 2015 15:45:55 GMT -6
The issue of rehabilitation is a moral question. I don't need researchers to make up my mind on what rehabilitation is or isn't. By how much is the chance of recidivism reduced by a public flogging? Can a lobotomy, or other neurosurgical intervention, reduce the chance that a murderer will murder again? These aren't mere questions of definition, Joe, they're empirical questions that require scientific investigation. Nils is suggesting that we conduct the relevant experiments. I can't see any reason not to, except perhaps an excess of care for the poor murderers. Is that the concern you have?
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 15, 2015 19:48:56 GMT -6
By how much is the chance of recidivism reduced by a public flogging? Can a lobotomy, or other neurosurgical intervention, reduce the chance that a murderer will murder again? This sounds desperate, even for you, Bernard. These aren't mere questions of definition, Joe, they're empirical questions that require scientific investigation. Nils is suggesting that we conduct the relevant experiments. I can't see any reason not to, except perhaps an excess of care for the poor murderers. Is that the concern you have? Cute. Insincere, of course, but cute. You seem to be throwing in the towel on your argument, which isn't much of an argument.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 15, 2015 21:20:48 GMT -6
By how much is the chance of recidivism reduced by a public flogging? Can a lobotomy, or other neurosurgical intervention, reduce the chance that a murderer will murder again? This sounds desperate, even for you, Bernard. These aren't mere questions of definition, Joe, they're empirical questions that require scientific investigation. Nils is suggesting that we conduct the relevant experiments. I can't see any reason not to, except perhaps an excess of care for the poor murderers. Is that the concern you have? Cute. Insincere, of course, but cute. You seem to be throwing in the towel on your argument, which isn't much of an argument. If the interventions I described are too severe for you to contemplate, they nonetheless serve to illustrate that the matter is empirical.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 16, 2015 7:51:28 GMT -6
If the interventions I described are too severe for you to contemplate, they nonetheless serve to illustrate that the matter is empirical. They're not too severe for me to contemplate. If scientists want to look brain chemistry or anatomy, or for genes or genetic combinations, which are only possessed by murderers, I'm all for it. What little I know about you, however, leads me to believe you are anything but sincere. You regard murder as nothing more than a social problem.
|
|
|
Post by nils on Jan 16, 2015 10:47:00 GMT -6
Let me just say that I am a great fan of America, and I enjoy to visit your country with some frequency. I see that as a privilege. I am not "radically focused on the USA". But when America deserves to be criticized she should. America (still) is the main global power, she is democratic (with flaws), she is liberal, she is free, she is creative, she is fun and she also is all the opposite to the above mentioned. To quote Winston Churchill "America will eventually do the right thing, but only after having tried all other options".The justice system has its flaws in all democratic countries, and the American system is no exception. We in the West are devastated to, not only see America execute prisoners,to shoot first and ask later, invade Iraq on false grounds, to establish an illegal prison at Guantanamo, to exercise TORTURE, and more. The unfortunate result has been a significant weakening of Americas standing in the world. But all alternatives to American leadership are much worse. Therefore in an imperfect world - America is our best hope - .If you read my posts you will soon realise that I prefer an evidence based approach to correction policies and justice. We all want safe streets and little crime. Why not then through reaserch and science find out what works in terms of rehabilitation? Again let me remind you: a convicted murderer will on average be free to walk our streets after 10-15 years. Other dangerous criminals after shorter time behind bars. Isnt it then a good idea to exercise justice with proven positive benefits?This is an open board and I am invited to participate. I know some of you want me to go away - I dont understand why. I only want safe streets, low recidivism, and a humane society, based on democratic, predicitible and fair justice. Fear must be a drivning factor behind many shootings, with so many guns around. But I dont know under what circumstances most fatal shootings occur. I also dont know how common situations are like the tragic "I CANNOT BREATHE" incident or the Ferguson incident. On what facts do you base that claim? Availible evidence suggests that education reduces recidivism. Should we not then educate offenders while incarcerated? Remember, even if you wish all murderers executed, that will simply not happen and on average the convicted murderer will be free again after 10-15 years. Please understand.You are entitled to tour own opinion Joseph, but it will not happen. Try to be realistic. Again: most murderers are set free after 10-15 years. Is it really responsible and sensible justice not to do what is proven to reduce recidivism? To kill someone is indeed easy, yet it happens so rarely - doesent that suggest to you that it takes more than a dangerous individual to make it happen. It takes for example a triggering event. Most of us can commit henious acts under the "right" circumstances. But what is a triggering event for a dangerous person may be an insignificant incident for most others. We should not consult experts with an agenda. We should consult the best researchers in their respective fields. We should base our system on what works and on what is humane. What you say is that whatever can be proven to work as regards rehabilitation it will not make you want to implement it. It is the same kind of fundamentalism that brought Galileo to court when he dared suggest that Jupiter could be a planet. Best Wishes from Europe. Nils
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jan 16, 2015 11:49:55 GMT -6
Nils, you want us to start at the top, do away with the DP.
We have already starting working on issues in our court system.
We let out the non violent. joe blow who just had a small amount of marijuana on him, etc.
Should we totally do away with the DP, no.
As far as guns millions & milliions legally own guns, criminals would end up being the only ones armed illegally. That would be so foolish to unarm the citizens in the US. When you know how many of us have guns legally, one would think it would turn into the wild west( which it has not) The only one in the news I find an issue with on the police side is the man who told them he could not breath. That man was very overweight & with the pressure on his body I am sure he could not breath. All that over selling cigs illegaly & loss tax revenue is insane.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 16, 2015 11:53:32 GMT -6
We in the West are devastated to, not only see America execute prisoners, to shoot first and ask later, invade Iraq on false grounds, to establish an illegal prison at Guantanamo, to exercise TORTURE, and more. You're not in the west. You're in Sweden, and you're not devastated. There's nothing illegal about our base in Guantanamo, and there's nothing inherently wrong with torture. I can think of several examples where torture is the right thing to do. As for Iraq, invading it was the right thing to do at the time, given the available information. Hindsight is 20-20. It's easy to criticize the actions of the United States while sipping coffee in a sparsely-populated, frozen nordic country. Not if I have anything to say about it. You people have had a free ride for way too long. It's time you folks fended for yourselves. We all want safe streets and little crime. Why not then through reaserch and science find out what works in terms of rehabilitation? This is a false dichotomy. Crime, including murder, is way down in California because of a tough three-strikes law. We can reduce crime further by making it two-strikes, instead. Where I live that is more achievable than successfully begging criminals to obey the law. a convicted murderer will on average be free to walk our streets after 10-15 years. In California the average time served for murder is 24 years, and it's getting longer. This is an open board and I am invited to participate. I know some of you want me to go away - I don't understand why. You're welcome to participate but you're still not an American, so you lack credibility. I only want safe streets, low recidivism, and a humane society, based on democratic, predicitible and fair justice. Those are your goals, not mine. I'm guessing very few people in California share your sentiments. Fear must be a drivning factor behind many shootings, with so many guns around. But I dont know under what circumstances most fatal shootings occur. I also dont know how common situations are like the tragic "I CANNOT BREATHE" incident or the Ferguson incident. There's a reason why some people are shot by the police and others, who are law-abiding, like myself, do not. Stupid people, with bad attitudes, fail to adapt. It's simple evolution. On what facts do you base that claim? Availible evidence suggests that education reduces recidivism. Not in California. Educate a criminal and you have a well-educated criminal. He's going to violate his parole, end up with a third strike, and do a minimum of 25 years MORE time than he's already served. That, by itself, solves the recividism problem, because he'll be an old man by the time he gets out, and not likely to reoffend. To kill someone is indeed easy, yet it happens so rarely - doesent that suggest to you that it takes more than a dangerous individual to make it happen. It takes for example a triggering event. Most of us can commit henious acts under the "right" circumstances. But what is a triggering event for a dangerous person may be an insignificant incident for most others. All the more reason to demand harsh, draconian punishment. We should not consult experts with an agenda. We should consult the best researchers in their respective fields. Someone who believes murder is a social problem already has an agenda. We should base our system on what works and on what is humane. I'm for what works, whether or not Swedes consider it humane. If one defines being "rehabilitated" as having made a crime victim whole, then rehabilitation is not available to the murderer. He has excluded himself from such consideration. If one defines being "rehabilitated" as becoming law-abiding, California has already done enough to motivate felons. Still, as Ron White eloquently says, you can't fix stupid.
|
|
|
Post by brumsongs on Jan 16, 2015 12:40:36 GMT -6
Joe, I'm surprised by your support for torture. In all other areas you espouse moral absolutism but here you seem to be drifting into "end justifies the means" expediency. It seems inconsistent to me.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 16, 2015 13:15:09 GMT -6
Joe, I'm surprised by your support for torture. In all other areas you espouse moral absolutism but here you seem to be drifting into "end justifies the means" expediency. It seems inconsistent to me. I was not aware I gave that impression. Perhaps you can give an example of my moral absolutism. Consider the condemned murderer who refuses to disclose the location of his victims' remains. You could torture him to find those victims, to the great relief of the survivors. That's just one of many examples I could give, justifying torture.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 16, 2015 18:46:35 GMT -6
Joe, I'm surprised by your support for torture. In all other areas you espouse moral absolutism but here you seem to be drifting into "end justifies the means" expediency. It seems inconsistent to me. I was not aware I gave that impression. Perhaps you can give an example of my moral absolutism. "I argue for an absolute right not to be murdered." - Joseph D. Phillips "A moral absolute is more important than human life. Once you compromise on that, away goes your absolute right to anything." - Joseph D. Phillips "An absolute moralist does not distinguish between different kinds of killings. He's opposed to all of them. By acknowledging the utility of killing human beings in certain circumstances, your objection to state-sanctioned killing is simply one of personal taste, not morals." - Joseph D. Phillips "You and I are moral absolutists when it comes to murder." - Joseph D. Phillips
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 17, 2015 0:00:00 GMT -6
What little I know about you, however, leads me to believe you are anything but sincere. You regard murder as nothing more than a social problem. Murderers are like dogs. Whether one will grow up a biter depends on genes. Pit bull's more likely to grow up aggressive than a lab. Also depends on environment. Dog's more likely to turn ugly if its beaten and whipped without rhyme or reason, or if it's trained to be mean. Now once you have a biter, ain't no known way to change that dog back. But whether it could be done in the future is a question for science. Does that mean I think crime's a "social problem"? If that means I think "society's to blame" for a murderer's actions then no, I don't really buy into that.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 17, 2015 0:04:27 GMT -6
to exercise TORTURE, and more. Nils, would you favor performing painful experiments on criminals to see if they cause a reduction in recidivism? E.g. flogging some people for their crimes and comparing them with a control group to see whether it reduces the chance of offending again? I ask because it seems consistent with your scientific spirit to try these things out to see if they work.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Jan 17, 2015 13:07:39 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 17, 2015 16:11:53 GMT -6
"I argue for an absolute right not to be murdered." - Joseph D. Phillips "A moral absolute is more important than human life. Once you compromise on that, away goes your absolute right to anything." - Joseph D. Phillips "An absolute moralist does not distinguish between different kinds of killings. He's opposed to all of them. By acknowledging the utility of killing human beings in certain circumstances, your objection to state-sanctioned killing is simply one of personal taste, not morals." - Joseph D. Phillips "You and I are moral absolutists when it comes to murder." - Joseph D. Phillips I'm a moral absolutist about murder, as defined only by state law, then, not about torture. I believe the second statement addressed someone who wasn't, or isn't, a pacifist yet claims opposition to the death penalty.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 17, 2015 16:15:06 GMT -6
So like dogs, we may exterminate the people who have murdered, correct? Or abort them, in utero, before they get the chance, once we have established a genetic link to future behavior?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 17, 2015 21:03:56 GMT -6
So like dogs, we may exterminate the people who have murdered, correct? My answer is yes. Go ahead and juice them. Just prove first that they really are murderers. I.e. prove this isn't one of those cases that you admit are inevitable, wherein we are sure beyond a reasonable doubt, but we are wrong.
|
|