Ironic name for a child molester

[TheHuckster]

-1x(-1)=+1

-1 + (-1) = -2

And yes you did, numerous times things that cause harm to someone are the right thing to do, even going by the idea that right is the least wrong thing.

e.g.: imprisoning someone

Imprisoning someone alone does not cause broken bones, physical pain, or death. And, again, one of its primary benefits is keeping known criminals from society, as well as making would-be criminals think twice before committing crime. Looking at other societies both now and in the past where there is cruel punishment, it doesn't look like that added "harm" actually does much to additionally deter crime.

[SkullKing]

Imprisoning someone alone does not cause broken bones, physical pain, or death.

I think you are working with a very narrow definition of harm. I never said that harm, needs to be physical damage.

A curtailing of freedom IS harm, in fact it can be worse than a beating.

:EDIT: I think Bernard Gert's definition of harm is a good starting point.

(1) Death
(2) Pain
(3) Disability
(4) Loss of Pleasure
(5) Loss of Freedom

:EDIT:

Retribution does not need to be physical.



A fine is a good example. If a vandal destroys things there is value in rehabilitating him. But there is value in making him pay a fine, not only as a way to pay for what was destroyed, but in punishment in itself.


Also

-1-(-1)=0 Some acts are not inherently bad, their aplication and motivation influences their morality.
for that matter:

-1-(-2)=+1

And, again, one of its primary benefits is keeping known criminals from society, as well as making would-be criminals think twice before committing crime. Looking at other societies both now and in the past where there is cruel punishment, it doesn't look like that added "harm" actually does much to additionally deter crime.

I know it does not deter crime, and I never advocated simple "cruel" punishment, cutting a hand for theft for example is horrible.

I just think that the punishment must fit the crime, and that punishment and rehabilitation are not mutually exclusive

[TheHuckster]

Also

-1-(-1)=0 Some acts are not inherently bad, their aplication and motivation influences their morality.
for that matter:

-1-(-2)=+1

Using this logic fail, I guess we should drop a nuke on a murderer, since -1-(-2*10^50) = +2*10^50

I know it does not deter crime, and I never advocated simple "cruel" punishment, cutting a hand for theft for example is horrible.

But cutting a hand because he cut someone else's hand is OK? Imprisonment is much more effective: It keeps the criminal off the streets, it doesn't involve basically hiring a thug to carry out corporal punishment, and it gives victims and their families enough closure, and as you already admitted, it does in fact cause harm to the criminal.

[Andara Bledin]

I just think that the punishment must fit the crime, and that punishment and rehabilitation are not mutually exclusive

And how does a civilized society make the "punishment fit the crime" without becoming monstrous?

There is a reason that we limit the punishments to harming finances and freedoms and that the one deviation we have is so controversial.

Plus, as I said before, you can never be 100% positive that any single person committed any single crime or whether there was justification for it's commission.

Both loss of freedom and loss of money can be reversed (although the time spent without either cannot be given back). There is no reversal of any type of corporal punishment, and once it's determined that an innocent was so punished, wouldn't that make those who meted out such punishments guilty of being unjust themselves, and thus worthy of being punished for what they did to an innocent person?

Vengeance is only a reasonable option if you are onmiscient.

^-.-^

[SkullKing]

Using this logic fail, I guess we should drop a nuke on a murderer, since -1-(-2*10^50) = +2*10^50

Why would dropping a nuke on him be so low a number? He won´t be any more dead.

Besides, all i was showing with this equations was that BlaqueKatt's comment

"you can't get a positive from two negatives" is silly, you can´t treat something as complex as morality as a simple equation;

But cutting a hand because he cut someone else's hand is OK?

I believe that depending on the circumstances, it could be.

Imprisonment is much more effective: It keeps the criminal off the streets, it doesn't involve basically hiring a thug to carry out corporal punishment, and it gives victims and their families enough closure, and as you already admitted, it does in fact cause harm to the criminal.

It probably would be better, yes. What I am saying is that the harm it causes can have value as punishment besides having value as a tool for rehabilitation.

Both loss of freedom and loss of money can be reversed (although the time spent without either cannot be given back). There is no reversal of any type of corporal punishment,

Broken bones and a few bruises can very well heal. And a you yourself said you can´t give someone's time spent in jail back. You MIGHT stop punishing the person IF he hasn´t finished doing the time.

In fact, some could consider some time with a broken arm better than some time in jail, depending on the circumstances.

But that is not really that important due to the following:

Plus, as I said before, you can never be 100% positive that any single person committed any single crime or whether there was justification for it's commission.

I never disagreed with this on purely practical terms. In fact I agreed with it when I said:

I honestly believe there are people who should be killed, however I am against the death penalty because I do not believe there is a reliable way for the state to administer it.

I also said:

I would also like to say that sometimes what is best for society as a whole, is not what i would consider to be ethically right.

For example, I live in a place that until recently(1985) was ruled by a genocidal military dictatorship from which the country has never completely recovered(The public school system, for example, used to be very good, and now is terrible).

When the transition to democracy came, there was a "general amnesty". This meant 2 things:

1: Exiled and persecuted people were not considered criminals anymore

2: The Military would not be judged by any crimes committed, during their time governing the country.

This allowed for a relative peaceful transition to democratic republic and is widelly regarded as a necessary thing. To avoid civil war, It needed to be done.

However, that means there are a lot of murderer, rapists and professional torturers who will never be persecuted.

And to me that is quite simply not right. Necessary perhaps, but not right.

Which means that I fully believe that what would be right, ideally, is not feasible in practical terms.

You called right the least wrong decision, And while I would say there were no possible right decisions in that situation, I never disagreed that on practical terms you need to take the best possible course, even if it is not ideal.

My comments on punishment are meant in a more "philosophical" way.

[wolfie]

I suppose this is very subjective since it deals with right and wrong, but I strongly disagree.

Unwarranted violence is wrong. Righteous violence as retribution is right.

And who decides what is unwarranted vs. righteous? Let's take the case of someone who's wrongfully convicted. He KNOWS he didn't do it, and because the violence directed against him is supposed to be punishment for the offense, it's UNWARRANTED (even though society as a whole, seeing the conviction and believing that "innocent people don't get convicted", thinks it's righteous).

Eventually he gets out, and acting on the basis of "your mis-identification of me as the criminal resulted in violence against me, therefore you need to be punished", inflicts (from his viewpoint, righteous) violence against his accuser as retribution for the violence society inflicted on him.

For more information, study the case "Hatfield vs. McCoy".

[SkullKing]

And who decides what is unwarranted vs. righteous?

Well, who decides what is right and wrong?

Let's take the case of someone who's wrongfully convicted. He KNOWS he didn't do it, and because the violence directed against him is supposed to be punishment for the offense, it's UNWARRANTED (even though society as a whole, seeing the conviction and believing that "innocent people don't get convicted", thinks it's righteous).

Eventually he gets out, and acting on the basis of "your mis-identification of me as the criminal resulted in violence against me, therefore you need to be punished", inflicts (from his viewpoint, righteous) violence against his accuser as retribution for the violence society inflicted on him.

once again:

I fully believe that what would be right, ideally, is not feasible in practical terms.

[Jester]

First, let me state up front that I am a vindictive bastard. This should not be a shock to anyone who's read my posts over the years; I've used that exact phrase to describe myself on many occasions.

Now, I believe in revenge. And I believe in the justice system. I also believe that revenge should not be part of the justice system. The classic picture of Justice is one of a blind figure holding scales to be evened out. We use our justice system to punish and detain those who commit crimes. Some of these laws may or may not be just, and that is an argument for another time and place. But generally speaking, if you commit a crime and are caught, the justice system's job is to react to it, either by detention, or fines, or other forms of punishment that have been deemed to be appropriate. I do not think that vengeance should be institutionalized as part of the justice system.

That is NOT to say that I have any problem with vengeance itself. I reiterate: I am a vindictive bastard. So, with that in mind, do I have a problem with murderers being killed? No. I don't. Do I have a problem with pedophiles being beat up or assaulted in prison? Not particularly. Do I have any issues with a guy who violently abused his wife or girlfriend having his face smashed in with a hammer? Not in the least. Do I think these should be punishments meted out by the justice system? No. But I also have absolutely no problem with these things when they happen. I am perfectly comfortable with bad things happening to bad people.

And then there's the whole "wishing prison rape on rapists" thing. I am anti-rape. I find rapists loathsome and vile. Do I wish rape upon them? Among many other painful and horrible things, yes. I also wish beatings, tortures, and a slow painful death upon them. Do I think that should be institutionalized in our justice system? Absolutely not. Do I have an problem with it if it actually happens? None. Zero. Zip.

...prison rape is never justified.

Justified? No. Appropriate? I would say quite often. Particularly if done to the more loathsome of our population. As an example, if I heard that a pedophile, or a rapist, or a woman beater were forcibly gang-raped in prison, would I shed a tear? Oh, hell no. I would probably drink a toast to it. I believe that oftentimes you reap what you sow, and if you are going to be a vile, disgusting, repulsive shit that gets your jollies out on beating or raping women or children, I say fuck you, and you deserve whatever horrible things come your way.

"But Jester, you clearly didn't read the article." Oh, but I did. And while I agreed with some of it, I disagreed with certain parts.

To say that a rapist should be raped is to say that rape is a legitimate act of revenge and justice. It is to establish a set of circumstances under which rape is acceptable.

It is perfectly acceptable to me when horrible people have horrible things happen to them. That in no way makes it acceptable to rape innocent people. One does not equate to the other.

Everyone has a right to their own body — this has to be a basic staple of the anti-sexual violence movement.

In my opinion, once you do something so heinous as raping or beating an innocent, you lose your right to your own body. Not legally, mind you--I still say that such things should not be meted out by the justice system, or be institutionalized as a legal form of punishment--but I have no problem if one of these vile shitstains gets raped by another vile shitstain. And I won't shed a single tear over this.

A lot of pedophiles are segregated in prison anyway, for that very reason; so don't be thinking that this pedophile is going to be thrown in at the deep end. He'll more than likely spend his time among other child abusers, cuz to put him in general would result in his death.

And this is one reason why I would have no problem with putting pedophiles in the general population. What's that? Someone shanked him? Oh, gee, what a bummer....now, what's for dinner?

After you claim it's ok as a punishment, you open the floodgates, and "that's not what I meant" is nothing more than arguing semantics.

I don't agree that it's "opening the floodgates." To wish for a scumbag to get raped in prison, or to revel in the news that such a thing has happened, in NO WAY condones the raping of innocent people. One is not the same as the other. When my friend got battered and beaten by her boyfriend (and eventually either killed by him or driven to suicide), I loudly and proudly wished jail rape on him. I still do. Doing so in no way means that I favor the raping of innocent people.

I agree that this should not be a form of formalized punishment--how could it be?--but I fail to see how wishing bad things on bad people "opens the floodgates" to approving of rape in general.

And yes I have been raped, no I would not wish that to happen to the perpetrators, it's awful, someone here I believe described it as "soul murder", I would not wish the experience, or the aftermath on anyone, I'm a compassionate human being, not a monster.

You are a compassionate person, yes. You would not wish rape on your rapist, and that is admirable.

But not everyone is as admirable in this respect as you are. There ARE people who have been raped who wish nothing but the most horrible things upon their assaulter, including rape. Does this make the victim a monster for wishing such things? No. Does it make them a person without compassion? No. It DOES make them a person without compassion for their rapist, but I think that that is perfectly understandable.

The only thing condoning the rape of rapists does is satisfy a base and vulgar lust for revenge, so call it what it is.

I have no problem with calling it base and vulgar. And there are times when being base and vulgar is okay. I am perfectly alright with condoning the rape of rapists, and so in your eyes I am base and vulgar. I am perfectly fine with that. If I saw a man assault my niece, I would be very base and very vulgar and beat him to a bloody pulp. I have no problem with that, either.

Plus, as I said before, you can never be 100% positive that any single person committed any single crime or whether there was justification for it's commission.

Not true. If you witness something, you know it has happened. In this age of media and technology proliferation, there are times when you can see a recording of someone committing a crime, and have zero doubt it was them. You might have to have experts testify to the authenticity of the recording, but beyond that, how can you say that if you see a recording of Joe Smith clearly running his neighbor over with his lawnmower, you can't be 100% positive of it? Using the example above, if I see some dude assaulting my niece, I am going to be 100% certain that I am seeing some dude assaulting my niece. I am also going to be 100% certain that I am going to do some very ugly things to him, probably involving a baseball bat, a golf club, or whatever other blunt object might be nearby.

A lot of you will disagree with my opinions. And that's fine. Not everyone is going to agree on this. But do not condemn everyone who disagrees with you as being a discompassionate monster. There are people, good people, honest people, wonderful people, who wish bad things on bad people. I have no issue with that. Of course, I'm one of them.

I may agree that a rapist being raped is not justified. That doesn't mean I don't think it is appropriate, or right, or deserving. Jeffrey Dahmer, a murderer, was murdered in jail. Did that make what his murderer do justified? No. But were many good people happy to hear that news? Yes. Yes there were. Because while it was not justified, somehow it seemed very, very appropriate.

But what do I know? I'm a vindictive bastard.