Shwa Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) Good, you can see where I am going with this. It would appear that a R&R policy is not mutually exclusive with capital punishment. I think it would be more correct to say that an R&R policy wasn't mutually exclusive with capital punishment. Well, except for the dead people. Edited February 4, 2011 by Shwa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 I think it would be more correct to say that an R&R policy wasn't mutually exclusive with capital punishment. Well, except for the dead people. That will do nicely...so we can say that capital punishment is not/ was not abandoned exclusively because of any R&R considerations. Clearly other factors were in play. Ergo, restorative justice does not necessarily exclude capital punishment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 Actually quite relevant. You were the one who was touting the great "advances in neuroscience" as a reason to keep psychopaths alive (under the assumption that they might be cured). However, the fact that after all our work we've managed to actually make the problem worse is quite relevant. Its an indication that that magic pixie dust you're suggesting as a cure for the psychopath is something that's not going to be coming in anyone's lifetime. No, you're confusing neuroscience with psychotherapy. The latter, in the opinion of a hell of a lot of scientists, not scientifically sound at all. It stands to reason that a psychopath, at least one of reasonable intelligence, could play along with psychotherapy for his own ends. Hell, no doubt non-psychopaths do the same thing regularly. Actual science of the brain (which psychotherapy uses, yes, but to extremely limited degrees) not only might give us a more profound understanding of the violent sociopath (as opposed to the trite and meaningless "He's evil!" hypothesis firmly believed by knuckledragging hang-'em-high-ers)...it almost certainly will do so. Hell, there's already been compelling evidence that a great many violent people are, for all intents and purposes, not totally responsible for their behaviour. And that's the crux of the problem; lots of folks despise this idea (ie despise scientific knowledge), not because they know "free will" as an objective truth, but because they need to use the term in order to justify pre-existing systems of reward and punishment. A large enough paradigm shift scares the pants off them. But then, they're not too brave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 That will do nicely...so we can say that capital punishment is not/ was not abandoned exclusively because of any R&R considerations. Clearly other factors were in play. Ergo, restorative justice does not necessarily exclude capital punishment. On the contrary, restorative justice in the form we know it today absolutely excludes capital punishment. But I don't think you really mean 'restorative justice' and might mean something else. The problem at this point is the the concepts of rehabilitation, redemption and restitution have been extended to all prisoners and is codified in law as a right. If we change that, we are not talking a temporary suspension of rights for individuals, but the removal of those rights that will end in their death. In the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in section 7, it is pretty clear: Life, liberty and security of person7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. The question then becomes, and where it turns into a slippery slope, is that do we revert to capital punishment and call that reversion 'fundamental justice?' we have already stated - through acts of Parliament and subsequent insitutional programming - that rehabilitation, redemption and restitution are to be extended to all sentenced individuals which is implied in Section 12: Treatment or punishment12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. It's a very tricky valley to navigate and I haven't come across someone who can convince me that we need to revert back to capital punishment. The middle ground, obviously, is what is stated in the Chart including Section 15 which states that "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination..." Are we locked in? I can't know that. All I know is that no matter what the arguments for capital punishment from individuals might be, they are inevitably crushed by the Charter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 No, you're confusing neuroscience with psychotherapy. The latter, in the opinion of a hell of a lot of scientists, not scientifically sound at all. It stands to reason that a psychopath, at least one of reasonable intelligence, could play along with psychotherapy for his own ends. Hell, no doubt non-psychopaths do the same thing regularly. Actual science of the brain (which psychotherapy uses, yes, but to extremely limited degrees) not only might give us a more profound understanding of the violent sociopath (as opposed to the trite and meaningless "He's evil!" hypothesis firmly believed by knuckledragging hang-'em-high-ers)...it almost certainly will do so. Hell, there's already been compelling evidence that a great many violent people are, for all intents and purposes, not totally responsible for their behaviour. And that's the crux of the problem; lots of folks despise this idea (ie despise scientific knowledge), not because they know "free will" as an objective truth, but because they need to use the term in order to justify pre-existing systems of reward and punishment. A large enough paradigm shift scares the pants off them. But then, they're not too brave. Very well said! And of course, there is always the defence of mental disorder, or insanity defence, which never fails to raise the bile in more than a few. Because schizophrenics should have learned to control themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) On the contrary, restorative justice in the form we know it today absolutely excludes capital punishment. But I don't think you really mean 'restorative justice' and might mean something else. No, I mean it in its generally accepted framework as practiced in Native American - First Nation communities. It can be reconciled with crimes large and small, because it is about healing and reinforcing "community" over punishment, but punishment can still be part of the process. If you recall the capital case of Gary Gilmore and the State of Utah, he requested an expedited execution and the end to all appeals. Does your perspective preclude this potential/real aspect of the process? The problem at this point is the the concepts of rehabilitation, redemption and restitution have been extended to all prisoners and is codified in law as a right. If we change that, we are not talking a temporary suspension of rights for individuals, but the removal of those rights that will end in their death. Yes, but clearly this was a drawn out political process that coexisted with the Charter for many years. If political winds change, then so can these "rights" (for prisoners). Edited February 4, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) Very well said! And of course, there is always the defence of mental disorder, or insanity defence, which never fails to raise the bile in more than a few. Because schizophrenics should have learned to control themselves. Yes, there's another amusing issue; those who shout about all the killers getting off on insanity defenses. They might want to look at the stats and discover just how often such a defense is used...and how often it is successful when it is used. It's an invented outrage, meaningless. (Besides, it wouldn't surprise me if there is a real issue of injustice occurring that more people aren't allowed such a defense, people for whom it genuinely applies. "Insanity" as a legal term is not necessarily a sound principle; it's based on us determining "knows what he did is wrong," as if we've learned to accurately measure such a thing in any meaningful moral sense.) Edited February 4, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 No, I mean it in its generally accepted framework as practiced in Native American - First Nation communities. It can be reconciled with crimes large and small, because it is about healing and reinforcing "community" over punishment, but punishment can still be part of the process. Even in Native restorative justice, as known today, capital punishment is not include and if it were, it would still apply as illegal in Canada. If you recall the capital case of Gary Gilmore and the State of Utah, he requested an expedited execution and the end to all appeals. Does your perspective preclude this potential/real aspect of the process? Not at all, because I have repeatedly stated my perspective. However, such a request in Canada would be ignored. Euthanasia is illegal too. Yes, but clearly this was a drawn out political process that coexisted with the Charter for many years. If political winds change, then so can these "rights" (for prisoners). Not the Charter specifically, but the Bill of Rights, which preceeded it. The Bill of Rights also included provisions for the right to life, but didn't seem to carry the same weight as the Charter does today. Capital punishement was abolished in 1976 or so. ut yes for sure, if the political winds change it is possible that capital punishment could be re-instated. Possible, but I think highly unlikely since Western societies are moving away from capital punishment. However, the point being, is that there hasn't been a convincing reason to reverse the abolishment of capital punishment in Canada and more than likely any political move to do so would be political suicide. Which, by the way, is perfectly legal in Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 Even in Native restorative justice, as known today, capital punishment is not include and if it were, it would still apply as illegal in Canada. Not at all, because I have repeatedly stated my perspective. However, such a request in Canada would be ignored. Euthanasia is illegal too. Illegal today, legal tomorrow. And vice versa. Watch the gun "control" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 Illegal today, legal tomorrow. And vice versa. Watch the gun "control" It's unlikley we're going to bring back the death penalty. You'll have to stick with the porn for your pleasure needs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 I don't need to. I have young pretty wife Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 I don't need to. I have young pretty wife Even better. Your mental health will flourish just fine; you don't need to munch popcorn and cheer on Big Government executing citizens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 you don't need to munch popcorn and cheer on Big Government executing citizens. That's why I don't live in China. Or some Arabic cuntry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 That's why I don't live in China. Or some Arabic cuntry. ?? No it isn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted February 6, 2011 Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 ?? No it isn't. You want to say they don't? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.