|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 17, 2015 21:39:52 GMT -6
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. We don't demand that level of safety in any other public endeavor. Why demand it in criminal justice? You're asking for guilt beyond any doubt, which is ridiculous. That level of safety isn't achievable or desirable.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 17, 2015 22:45:19 GMT -6
I can think of several examples where torture is the right thing to do. Do you think it's ever morally wrong for a state to torture?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 17, 2015 22:47:25 GMT -6
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. We don't demand that level of safety in any other public endeavor. Why demand it in criminal justice? You're asking for guilt beyond any doubt, which is ridiculous. That level of safety isn't achievable or desirable. It's self-evidently desirable.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 18, 2015 7:57:03 GMT -6
It's self-evidently desirable. No, because of the time and cost accruing from the pursuit of perfection. A functioning system of criminal justice requires an error rate greater than zero. I would argue that the error rate is actually too low right now.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 18, 2015 7:58:36 GMT -6
Do you think it's ever morally wrong for a state to torture? Morally, no. Practically, yes. I am not opposed to torture in and of itself.
|
|
|
Post by nils on Jan 18, 2015 10:28:22 GMT -6
Guilt beyond resonable doubt is fundamental to western justice. What would you like to replace it with? Your replies speak for themselves Joseph. Justice as defined in America, Europe and in the western world differs grossly from the opinions you display. I understand those are your values, but what you are asking for is not compatible with the constitutions in the western world. Again: what would you like to replace it with? You can define your own justice as you like, Joseph, but invanding countries without legal backning, to torture people against treaties you have negotiated and signed, and to imprison without legal grounds - all this undermines your own position in the world, and opens for countries like Russia to abandon treaties signed for example re Ukraine. Your behaviour comes to a significant and painful cost Joseph. I agree. Europe should be able to take care of its own security and its own affairs. I am not sure we will get our act together and do that though. About the three strike law: The law imposed a life sentence for almost any crime, no matter how minor, if the defendant had two prior convictions for crimes defined as serious or violent by the California Penal Code..... the sentencing scheme was intended to “keep murders, rapists, and child molesters behind bars, where they belong.” However, today, more than half of inmates sentenced under the law are serving sentences for nonviolent..... Project clients have been given life sentences for offenses including stealing one dollar in loose change from a parked car, possessing less than a gram of narcotics, and attempting to break into a soup kitchen. Is this fair and reasonable justice Joseph? Best. Nils.
|
|
|
Post by nils on Jan 18, 2015 10:33:00 GMT -6
Such experiments should not be performed, and flogging in the interest of science is not acceptable research. Science can be performed without such, and evidence suggests that inmates who get education do better as regards recidivism than those who dont. There is also evidence that harsher prison conditions rather increase than decrease recidivism. Best. Nils.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 18, 2015 10:46:02 GMT -6
Guilt beyond resonable doubt is fundamental to western justice. What would you like to replace it with? I wouldn't replace it, but perfect justice implies two things: (a) guilt beyond unreasonable doubt and (b) jury verdicts are never dispositive. Your replies speak for themselves Joseph. Justice as defined in America, Europe and in the western world differs grossly from the opinions you display. "America, Europe and the western world" is not California. I couldn't care less about justice in Europe or in "the western world," whatever that is. Your reside in this archaic "west." I do not. You can define your own justice as you like, Joseph, but invanding countries without legal backning, to torture people against treaties you have negotiated and signed, and to imprison without legal grounds - all this undermines your own position in the world It didn't violate United States law, so it was legal. Ditto with claims of torture. As for my country's standing in the world, I don't lose any sleep over it. It will always be higher than, say, Sweden's. You'll be asking for our help after the imams take over your television networks. and opens for countries like Russia to abandon treaties signed for example re Ukraine. Your behaviour comes to a significant and painful cost Joseph. I have no problem with what the Russians did in Ukraine. It's their business, and the Ukrainians', not mine. About the three strike law: The law imposed a life sentence for almost any crime, no matter how minor, if the defendant had two prior convictions for crimes defined as serious or violent by the California Penal Code..... the sentencing scheme was intended to “keep murders, rapists, and child molesters behind bars, where they belong.” However, today, more than half of inmates sentenced under the law are serving sentences for nonviolent..... Project clients have been given life sentences for offenses including stealing one dollar in loose change from a parked car, possessing less than a gram of narcotics, and attempting to break into a soup kitchen. Is this fair and reasonable justice Joseph? Yes, absolutely. The intent was never to keep violent offenders behind bars longer. The intent to was keep career criminals behind bars longer. Look it up, Nils. The language of the original law and the arguments for it said anything about the nature of the offenses. I would reform it further by making it two strikes, not three.
|
|
|
Post by nils on Jan 18, 2015 11:20:38 GMT -6
But if America negotiated and signed treaties re Torture - is it not then a legal bindning treaty? Nils.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 18, 2015 11:23:18 GMT -6
if America negotiated and signed treaties re Torture - is it not then a legal bindning treaty? If it's not enforced, it isn't binding.
|
|
|
Post by nils on Jan 18, 2015 14:24:29 GMT -6
if America negotiated and signed treaties re Torture - is it not then a legal bindning treaty? If it's not enforced, it isn't binding. You negotiate a treaty with a number of countries. You promise not to torture. You sign it. And then, you walk away from it. Dont you see that such behaviour does away with your trustworthiness. Is it not important for you to be trusted? Is it not important to have friends you can trust? Best. Nils
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 18, 2015 15:34:21 GMT -6
If it's not enforced, it isn't binding. You negotiate a treaty with a number of countries. You promise not to torture. You sign it. And then, you walk away from it. Dont you see that such behaviour does away with your trustworthiness. Is it not important for you to be trusted? Is it not important to have friends you can trust? Best. Nils :) Any country which puts its national interest first doesn't give a second thought to abrogating a treaty. That would include Sweden. Treaties will always be nothing more than pieces of paper. Taiwan will find that out for itself, in due time.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 18, 2015 15:45:41 GMT -6
Such experiments should not be performed, and flogging in the interest of science is not acceptable research. Science can be performed without such, and evidence suggests that inmates who get education do better as regards recidivism than those who dont. There is also evidence that harsher prison conditions rather increase than decrease recidivism. So it seems that you favor programs that reduce recidivism providing they make the murderer better off (education, less harsh conditions) but oppose even investigating programs that may reduce recidivism if they make the murderer worse off (e.g. flogging). This makes it sound like what you really care about is the welfare of the murderer, and all your talk about reducing recidivism is just a convenient cover.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 18, 2015 15:48:20 GMT -6
Do you think it's ever morally wrong for a state to torture? Morally, no. Practically, yes. It sounds like you just said there would be nothing morally wrong with a nation state torturing its own soldiers in a stadium for the entertainment of the ruling classes. Is that really what you think?
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 18, 2015 17:52:28 GMT -6
It sounds like you just said there would be nothing morally wrong with a nation state torturing its own soldiers in a stadium for the entertainment of the ruling classes. Is that really what you think? I am concerned with California, and then with the United States. I'm not concerned with what happens elsewhere. In the circumstance of torture for entertainment purposes only, I would be opposed, unless of course the tortured give consent first.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 18, 2015 20:42:43 GMT -6
It sounds like you just said there would be nothing morally wrong with a nation state torturing its own soldiers in a stadium for the entertainment of the ruling classes. Is that really what you think? I am concerned with California, and then with the United States. I'm not concerned with what happens elsewhere. In the circumstance of torture for entertainment purposes only, I would be opposed, unless of course the tortured give consent first. I don't know how you could oppose it unless you thought it was morally wrong. I can't see any other reason to oppose it.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 18, 2015 22:34:40 GMT -6
It's self-evidently desirable. No, because of the time and cost accruing from the pursuit of perfection. A functioning system of criminal justice requires an error rate greater than zero. I would argue that the error rate is actually too low right now. So what you meant was that that level of safety is neither achievable nor desirable achievable without great cost. A bit redundant.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 18, 2015 22:40:34 GMT -6
It's self-evidently desirable. No, because of the time and cost accruing from the pursuit of perfection. A functioning system of criminal justice requires an error rate greater than zero. I would argue that the error rate is actually too low right now. In other words, though it's nice to execute the guy who actually did it, sometimes it's cheaper and quicker to pin it on someone else. #functioningjustice!!
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 19, 2015 4:56:41 GMT -6
I don't know how you could oppose it unless you thought it was morally wrong. I can't see any other reason to oppose it. Something can be wrong without it being morally wrong. It's wrong, for instance, to pay extra for name-brand gasoline when all the gas stations buy from the same jobbers. It's wrong to market such gasoline as other than what it is, but I wouldn't call it morally wrong. I can't say torture is morally wrong in all circumstances when there are valid circumstances justifying torture.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 19, 2015 5:01:49 GMT -6
It sounds like you just said there would be nothing morally wrong with a nation state torturing its own soldiers in a stadium for the entertainment of the ruling classes. Is that really what you think? It isn't the United States you're contemplating, so it's not something I worry about. Just as killing isn't wrong in all circumstances, neither is torture. If the soldiers consent to the torture, it wouldn't bother me.
|
|
|
Post by nils on Jan 19, 2015 9:24:38 GMT -6
Such experiments should not be performed, and flogging in the interest of science is not acceptable research. Science can be performed without such, and evidence suggests that inmates who get education do better as regards recidivism than those who dont. There is also evidence that harsher prison conditions rather increase than decrease recidivism. So it seems that you favor programs that reduce recidivism providing they make the murderer better off (education, less harsh conditions) but oppose even investigating programs that may reduce recidivism if they make the murderer worse off (e.g. flogging). This makes it sound like what you really care about is the welfare of the murderer, and all your talk about reducing recidivism is just a convenient cover. Hi. I have no reason whatsoever to sympathise with any killer or with any criminal. The damage they inflict on their victims, their families and on society as a whole is unacceptable and must be fought with the best possible means. Flogging, as you mentioned, is not an acceptable punishment and belongs to the history books. I think you agree. The options at hand are various prison conditions such as solitary confinment, harsh or less harsh prison restrictions, education, work etcetera, and all those means are used today. If evidence suggests (as it seems) that education points towards lower recidvisn I am all for it. Arent you? Check this link re Scandinavian prisons: www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/why-scandinavian-prisons-are-superior/279949/As a father of three kids - now grown up - we never used punishment, and I think a large proportion of the population here in Scandinavia did away with punishment altogether a long time ago. Our kids never heard the word "naughty corner" or anyting like it. We just didnt punish. Yet, Scandinavians grow up to become law abiding citizens for the most part. best nils
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Jan 19, 2015 13:19:47 GMT -6
Yet, Scandinavians grow up to become law abiding citizens for the most part. So do most Americans! So what's your point, Nils?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 19, 2015 14:17:04 GMT -6
I don't know how you could oppose it unless you thought it was morally wrong. I can't see any other reason to oppose it. Something can be wrong without it being morally wrong. It's wrong, for instance, to pay extra for name-brand gasoline when all the gas stations buy from the same jobbers. It's wrong to market such gasoline as other than what it is, but I wouldn't call it morally wrong. Yeah, but killing your own soldiers for entertainment is morally wrong, or else nothing is.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 19, 2015 14:24:12 GMT -6
It sounds like you just said there would be nothing morally wrong with a nation state torturing its own soldiers in a stadium for the entertainment of the ruling classes. Is that really what you think? It isn't the United States you're contemplating, so it's not something I worry about. Sure it is. Governments go bad. And you're the first to remind us how we revert to atavistic barbarism when the power gets cut. Do you really think that the United States, and the United States alone, has risen above the bloodthirsty sociology of the primate? I know for a fact you don't.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 19, 2015 14:44:41 GMT -6
Do you really think that the United States, and the United States alone, has risen above the bloodthirsty sociology of the primate? I know for a fact you don't. Correct, I do not, but I don't understand your point. Torture-as-entertainment, without the consent of the tortured, just seems like a very long way off.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 19, 2015 14:46:41 GMT -6
killing your own soldiers for entertainment is morally wrong, or else nothing is. You said nothing about killing. You asked about torturing for entertainment, not killing.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 19, 2015 14:48:10 GMT -6
Flogging, as you mentioned, is not an acceptable punishment and belongs to the history books. I think you agree. No, I don't. I haven't made up my mind. My point, though, was only about whether we should investigate flogging, scientifically, to see if it reduces recidivism. We have good reason to think that it might. People in the past believed that it worked. (My British grandma always said that the worst thing the UK did was abolish birching, since it was rare that a man given the birch came back for a second dose.) It also accords with common sense and psychological research. An animal that is subjected to an electric shock or other pain upon performing a certain action becomes much less likely to perform it again. This is one of the most robust findings in the whole of behavioral science. My question is: If the evidence supports the idea that flogging is better at reducing recidivism than other punishments, will you support the flogging of criminals? I want to know if you will change your view if the evidence goes against you.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 19, 2015 14:50:05 GMT -6
Do you really think that the United States, and the United States alone, has risen above the bloodthirsty sociology of the primate? I know for a fact you don't. Correct, I do not, but I don't understand your point. Torture-as-entertainment, without the consent of the tortured, just seems like a very long way off. State-approved torture-for-entertainment was a staple of Roman society. And the Romans were homo sapiens, just like us.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 19, 2015 14:50:59 GMT -6
killing your own soldiers for entertainment is morally wrong, or else nothing is. You said nothing about killing. You asked about torturing for entertainment, not killing. Good catch that was my mistake. Let me change it to... Torturing your own soldiers for entertainment is morally wrong, or else nothing is.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 19, 2015 16:40:53 GMT -6
Torturing your own soldiers for entertainment is morally wrong, or else nothing is. I just don't see that happening, given the public investment of time and money in each soldier. Torturing other countries soldiers, maybe...
|
|