Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

This is a central dichotomy between Jews (eye for an eye) and Chrisitans (turn the other cheek).

When you think about it, this is big trouble...

"We have seen the enemy and he is us!". Pogo (Walt Kelly).

Posted
Disagree Charles. It is true that $1000 may have different worth to different people, however if the $1000 meant a lot to the perpetrator, then confiscating $1000 would mean an equally large loss to the perpetrator. This is just retribution for the act committed. It does not matter if the $1000 meant less to the victim than the perpetrator.
It may be a sensible penalty but it does not follow that it is automatically a fair punishment.
In addition to returning the $1000, for retribution and restitiution, the perpetrator should have additional penalty applied for the original transgression (for deterrence ).
With respect to restitution, you do not understand. Just giving back the same amount of money is not necessarily enough. The rich-victim could develop agoraphobia.

If my rent and grocery bill depend on that $1000 just before the theft, I can be out on the street and starving. I could have lost my job or missed my bus to the next job interview or I could be sick in the hospital and dying with pneumonia and grieving over my child that just died of cold-exposure. Giving me back $1000 is not restitution. That is my point.

The concept of eye-for-an-eye is short-sighted. [i just thought of that now! <<--pat pat pat myself on the back-->> I love the sound of that!]

We do not have time for a meeting of the flat earth society.

<< Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >>

Posted
It may be a sensible penalty but it does not follow that it is automatically a fair punishment.

I'm not saying it is automatic. I'm judging the specifics of this case. What is your guage what is a "fair" punishment?

In addition to returning the $1000, for retribution and restitiution, the perpetrator should have additional penalty applied for the original transgression (for deterrence ).
With respect to restitution, you do not understand. Just giving back the same amount of money is not necessarily enough. The rich-victim could develop agoraphobia.

If my rent and grocery bill depend on that $1000 just before the theft, I can be out on the street and starving. I could have lost my job or missed my bus to the next job interview or I could be sick in the hospital and dying with pneumonia and grieving over my child that just died of cold-exposure. Giving me back $1000 is not restitution. That is my point.

Yes I agree with that. The minimium restitution is the return of the original $1000, additional restitution may be required.

The concept of eye-for-an-eye is short-sighted. [i just thought of that now! <<--pat pat pat myself on the back-->> I love the sound of that!]

I think you are interpreting the eye-for-an-eye concept too literally. IMV the concept is that the perpertrator suffers the same extent of damage as was inflicted on the victim.

If you are a one-eyed man and I intentionally destroy the sight in your one eye, then the penalty for me should be blindness in both eyes under my interpretation of an "eye for an eye" concept.

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” - Thomas Jefferson

Posted
What is your guage what is a "fair" punishment?
I have none and I do not think an objective guage exists.
I think you are interpreting the eye-for-an-eye concept too literally. IMV the concept is that the perpertrator suffers the same extent of damage as was inflicted on the victim.
I am interpreting it literally.

Now, to make things more complicated: what if I forgive you but The State still wants to punish you?

What would be the reasonable punishment or the restitution?

Who has the right to decide?

Previously in this thread, Hugo suggested that prison should only be for violent offenses but not non-violent crime. That is too simplistic.

If you are a one-eyed man and I intentionally destroy the sight in your one eye, then the penalty for me should be blindness in both eyes under my interpretation of an "eye for an eye" concept.
Sorry, but that is too simplistic. What if you, the perpetrator, are blind anyway??

We do not have time for a meeting of the flat earth society.

<< Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >>

Posted

There is a rather lengthy quote, I believe is attributable to Oliver Wendell Holmes (but I can't spend any more time searching for it this morning...gotta pay some bills!) which I will paraphrase very loosely...

Lady Justice carries two items...the scales which everyone remembers, but she also carries a sword. The scales represent the measured weighing of evidence which must be done to ensure justice is done...the sword represents the need to mete out harsh punishment for those who offend justice. Both items are equally necessary. The scales without the sword would be impotent and futile. The sword without the scales would be barbaric and inhumane.

To me, this post is a simple manifestation of our current struggle with the interplay between the scales and the sword. I think rather than get too far off into biblical or pure philosophical musings, what those who feel the system is 'soft' really need to do is make their case for a greater role for the sword...but not allow the sword to be used to cut the chains on the scales.

To go so far as to say we should abandon a centuries old concept of crime / punishment / justice and just revert to "an eye for an eye" seems to me a method of giving Lady Justice's arm a rest and having her put down the scales altogether.

FTA

Posted

The solution is simple. There's no conditions, no maybe's, no if's. Person kills another person, we lock them up for the sake of secluding them from society to protect ourselves. It's that simple. Prisons getting conjested? Have them work. Manufacture, mine, anything to contribute, and make money so they don't have to share bunks with Big Joe or whoever is the token rapist in the prison. I don't know why the government finds it so hard to throw a guy in jail for 50 years of his life. Hmm...it's like having slaves...except these one's deserve it.

-Apple Scruff

Posted
I have none and I do not think an objective guage exists.

I agree, but then your statement implying that a punishment should be "fair" is meaningless.

Now, to make things more complicated: what if I forgive you but The State still wants to punish you?

As I've said before there are multiple reasons for punishment. You as a victim may forgo restitution and retribution, however the state may still act to ensure rehabilitation and deterrence.

I understand that some states (Pakistan or Saudi Arabia I believe) will forgo punishment if the victim (or the victim's family) request it.

What would be the reasonable punishment or the restitution?

Don't know if there is a general answer. I assume that that is why the state sets "guidelines" on punishment and then leaves it to individual courts as to where the proper punishment falls within those guidelines.

Who has the right to decide?

Good question! Not sure I have a good answer.

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” - Thomas Jefferson

Posted
I have none and I do not think an objective guage exists.
I agree, but then your statement implying that a punishment should be "fair" is meaningless.
No. My original statement said that we can not automatically say that a punishment is fair. The concept of "fair" with respect to justice may be analogous to the concept of "temperature" with respect to music. In other words, it might not objectively apply.

However, justice might conceivably be "fair" if it was negotiated. So far, we are only considering two forms of justice:

1) eye-for-an-eye

2) centuries-old State-enforced

There is a third: private law or market law or polycentric law.

I will chicken-out and refer to The Giant again whose presentations of polycentric law are scattered throughout this forum. Some of the most compact ones are: 'Law and Policing Market". How would it work??? and Not enough cops -- Why does crime go unpunished? which explains private policing. Myself, I have very little to add except snarky comments.

We do not have time for a meeting of the flat earth society.

<< Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >>

  • 3 months later...
Posted

extracted in response to the Should rich prisoners pay their keep? thread

You have anticipated exactly where this line of analysis leads. If there is no victim, what harm has been done? If no harm can be seen, what makes the act a 'crime'? That is to say, on what premise is the state purporting to punish someone for it? And that leads us directly to the question of 'vice' crimes like recreational drug use or prostitution.
There is no moral premise. To get that moral premise you have to demonstrate the morality of unprovoked aggression or coercion and the definition of a state.
As FTA just pointed out, this is already available through civil proceedings.
Like I said, saying something is legal means that it is written in a book and enforced.

I clearly made the distinction between "legal" and "moral" and you quoted me on that.

Are you deliberately misrepresenting my statements? You do not have to. You can do better than that.

Civil courts, however, typically don't consider themselves to be capable of addressing any punitive or rehabilitory function as regards the wrongdoer.
That is for "legal" reasons and not for "moral" reasons.
That is, crimes are not just offenses against the victim, they are offenses against society or the state.
How is that?
So, Charles, I think before we can assess negotiated criminal justice it's necessary to consider the rectitude of the state/criminal concept.
Go ahead: justify your state-criminal concept.

We do not have time for a meeting of the flat earth society.

<< Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >>

Posted
Barbaric? In some cases, yes, but it's hard to really say that an eye for an eye mightn't be justice in the case of violent offenders who willingly injure other people.

Sorry, Ghandi nailed this one very well.

An eye for an eye just makes the whole world blind.

P.S. Violent offenders do not act rationally. Expecting them to do so is a fallacy.

Posted
Sorry, Ghandi nailed this one very well.

An eye for an eye just makes the whole world blind.

No. Ghandi made a mistake. He did not realize that some people are stronger than others and some people have the wisdom to realize that a world of blind people are not the best business associates.
P.S. Violent offenders do not act rationally. Expecting them to do so is a fallacy.
Why is that a problem?

We do not have time for a meeting of the flat earth society.

<< Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >>

Posted
Sorry, Ghandi nailed this one very well.

An eye for an eye just makes the whole world blind.

No. Ghandi made a mistake. He did not realize that some people are stronger than others and some people have the wisdom to realize that a world of blind people are not the best business associates.

You say Ghandi is wrong? Suit yourself.

P.S. Violent offenders do not act rationally. Expecting them to do so is a fallacy.
Why is that a problem?

It is a problem because all theories about capital punishment or increased penalties are predicated on the fact that they will reduce crime due to the criminals acting rationally to avoid punishment.

They will not reduce crime at all since criminals don't act rationally (that's why they are criminals).

Posted
It is a problem because all theories about capital punishment or increased penalties are predicated on the fact that they will reduce crime due to the criminals acting rationally to avoid punishment.

They will not reduce crime at all since criminals don't act rationally (that's why they are criminals).

logical fallacy. You are suggesting that all criminals only committ one crime, once.

Alot of the criminal activity taking place is from repeat offenders. One only needs to look at child molesters for proof of this. Locking them up longer will reduce repeat offences and therefore help 'fight crime'.

Those Dern Rednecks done outfoxed the left wing again.

~blueblood~

Posted
One only needs to look at child molesters for proof of this. Locking them up longer will reduce repeat offences and therefore help 'fight crime'.

In this case, yes, and I do think it is a good idea.

But would it would be safe to say that sexual predators are of a very different breed then say, your run of the mill car thief?

Motivation for committing a crime often varies from crime to crime, even case to case (though most are linked through the fact they are "irrational" acts.

" Influence is far more powerful than control"

Posted
But would it would be safe to say that sexual predators are of a very different breed then say, your run of the mill car thief?
Yes. However, given that the effects of each of those crimes can be infinitesimally variable, what does it matter? It makes no sense to generalize. Would you rather have a sexual predator sneak a peek up your kilt or a car thief jack your Porshe?
Motivation for committing a crime often varies from crime to crime, even case to case (though most are linked through the fact they are "irrational" acts.
None of that really matters to the victim, does it?
Alot of the criminal activity taking place is from repeat offenders. One only needs to look at child molesters for proof of this. Locking them up longer will reduce repeat offences and therefore help 'fight crime'.
I think it is also worthy to note that the general public views and responds to criminals differently. Look at what happens when child molesters are released from prison. Often, they have no place to go and maybe rightly so. Their crime continues to get punished for the rest of their lives -- if it was not punished in prison by fellow inmates enough.
You say Ghandi is wrong? Suit yourself.
You do not understand my explanation for why I say Ghandi is wrong? Suit yourself.
It is a problem because all theories about capital punishment or increased penalties are predicated on the fact that they will reduce crime due to the criminals acting rationally to avoid punishment.
I do not care for all theories about capital punishment. I honestly believe that the majority of capital punishment advocates simply want barbaric vengeance -- regardless of their arguments. Personally, I abhor capital punishment.
They will not reduce crime at all since criminals don't act rationally (that's why they are criminals).
First, I just do not think the rationality of the criminal should matter when it comes to meting out justice. Second, your categorical assertion that crime is irrational does not make sense. If a person can secure their escape from justice, it does not follow that crime is irrational. Do you have trouble believing that not all crime is detected?

We do not have time for a meeting of the flat earth society.

<< Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >>

Posted
It is a problem because all theories about capital punishment or increased penalties are predicated on the fact that they will reduce crime due to the criminals acting rationally to avoid punishment.

They will not reduce crime at all since criminals don't act rationally (that's why they are criminals).

logical fallacy. You are suggesting that all criminals only committ one crime, once.

Alot of the criminal activity taking place is from repeat offenders. One only needs to look at child molesters for proof of this. Locking them up longer will reduce repeat offences and therefore help 'fight crime'.

I am suggesting no such thing. Indeed, that most offenders are repeat offenders suggests that legal punishment is not a deterrent.

As for child molesters, oddly enough, they have the lowest recidivism rate.

One last point - the amount of time spent in jail co-relates very closely with the probability of committing new crimes (murder being the only exception here). That is to say, if you send to guys to jail for the same crime - one for 5 years, the other for 7 years, the one with 7 years is MORE likely to commit a crime when he gets out.

Your recipe for longer sentences (which is not "eye for an eye" which is what this thread is all about) will increase the likelihood of repeat offenses.

The core issue is all about why we treat offenders the way we do. Many people want revenge, many want public safety, many want rehabilitation. No system can satisfy all three demands.

Posted
It is a problem because all theories about capital punishment or increased penalties are predicated on the fact that they will reduce crime due to the criminals acting rationally to avoid punishment.
I do not care for all theories about capital punishment. I honestly believe that the majority of capital punishment advocates simply want barbaric vengeance -- regardless of their arguments. Personally, I abhor capital punishment.

I haven't made any arguments in this thread other than to say that "eye for an eye" justice is stupid (it just makes the world go blind) which is the topic of the thread. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else.

They will not reduce crime at all since criminals don't act rationally (that's why they are criminals).
First, I just do not think the rationality of the criminal should matter when it comes to meting out justice. Second, your categorical assertion that crime is irrational does not make sense. If a person can secure their escape from justice, it does not follow that crime is irrational.

I never said the rationality of the criminal is relevant to the judgement of justice (though legally it is a fact - accused must be judged psychologically competent to stand trial).

Secondly, I have not stated that crime is irrational. I have stated that criminals tend to act irrationally. Big difference.

Do you have trouble believing that not all crime is detected?

Do you have trouble reading my words? I've not made any assertion upon that topic.

Posted

To use the Bible for any argument relating to justice is inappropriate unless one is willing to consider Leviticus and Deuteronomy. To cherry pick out "an eye for an eye" is totally invalid without giving credence to Lev. 20:9-27, and 24:16-21 or Deu. chapters 13 - 22.

I will, however, give my very own statistic on how capital punishment directly reduces crime: No person who has been executed has ever gone on to re-offend.

That may be but it doesn't explain why murder rate is up in many States that have the death penalty.

Posted
That may be but it doesn't explain why murder rate is up in many States that have the death penalty.
Proponents of the death penalty may not be concerned about deterence. Some of them want to retaliate.
I haven't made any arguments in this thread other than to say that "eye for an eye" justice is stupid (it just makes the world go blind) which is the topic of the thread.
No, you did not make an argument. You just stated it as fact.
Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else.
Yes, I was confusing you with somebody who had an argument.
I never said the rationality of the criminal is relevant to the judgement of justice (though legally it is a fact - accused must be judged psychologically competent to stand trial).
Nice try. What connection were you trying to make in your last sentence in your very first post of this thread:
Barbaric? In some cases, yes, but it's hard to really say that an eye for an eye mightn't be justice in the case of violent offenders who willingly injure other people.
Sorry, Ghandi nailed this one very well.

An eye for an eye just makes the whole world blind.

P.S. Violent offenders do not act rationally. Expecting them to do so is a fallacy.

You exclusively quoted that one line of the Opening Post and responded to it by stating your opinion on the rationality of violent offenders to which you linked the choice of justice. Now you are saying you did not.

Secondly, I have not stated that crime is irrational. I have stated that criminals tend to act irrationally. Big difference.
I know you said that. To which I questioned the application of this "criminals tend to act irrationally" theory on how some criminals escape detection. Your belief does not jive with what occurs in real life.
Do you have trouble reading my words? I've not made any assertion upon that topic.
I have no trouble reading them and I enjoy how you play with them.

You say:

It is a problem because all theories about capital punishment or increased penalties are predicated on the fact that they will reduce crime due to the criminals acting rationally to avoid punishment.
which is false and I pointed out that some advocates of capital punishment want vengeance. Even though you quoted from the same post #40 where my statement appears, you conveniently skipped over that.
They will not reduce crime at all since criminals don't act rationally (that's why they are criminals).
This is irrelevant and wrong since your premise (all theories are based on crime deterrence) is false. I asked about criminals going undetected to which you seem to have no answer. For you, according to your "do not act rationally" belief, criminals who go undetected can not possibly have planned their escape.

So, if criminals can not be expected to act rationally (your assertion), is it pure accident that some go undetected?? they happen to irrationally slip through the fine rational detective work and police work??

We do not have time for a meeting of the flat earth society.

<< Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >>

Posted

Charles Anthony, it is clear to me that we are addressing two different issues here and criss-crossing them similtaneously.

To be honest, I haven't a clue what your point is at all. I tried to clarify my point, but you seem to be misrepresenting my point to address some other point here that I know what.

Posted
The solution is simple. There's no conditions, no maybe's, no if's. Person kills another person, we lock them up for the sake of secluding them from society to protect ourselves

What about cases such as negligence/involuntary manslaughter (though some punishment should take place in such cases, just to different degrees) or even more pressing, the case of self defense causing death?

You still believe there should be no conditions?

I am suggesting no such thing. Indeed, that most offenders are repeat offenders suggests that legal punishment is not a deterrent.

As for child molesters, oddly enough, they have the lowest recidivism rate.

Part 1, I agree with you in large part. But we must classify offenses.

Some people generally refrain from driving at very high and dangerous speeds very often for fear of some sort of sanctions/punishment. In that case, yes it would be a deterrent.

But for other laws (generally most criminal laws), agreed, many of the current actors are not rational (if they are aware of the possible consequences) whilst committing the act, and therefore deterrents do not work.

But what if these deterrents did not exist? Would there be an increase, especially amongst rational beings (who decide to perpetrate an act seeing as their cost/benefit analysis would tip in favour of benefits since their personal costs, i.e. sanctions are minimal). I genuinely believe so.

Anyhow, as per the second part. A car thief may steal a car again, but acts committed,( or even the risk) by sexual predators (especially child molesters) are FAR more detrmental than car thefts.

Not many people are going to be seeking counseling if their car gets stolen, whereas victims of predators are often suffering for life.

-----------------------------------------------------

Recidivism Rates

One research project looked at 61 previous studies of sexual recidivism using a 4-5 year follow up period. This research on sex offenders found that 13.4% recidivated with a sexual offence, 12.2% recidivated with a non-sexual, violent offence and 36.6% recidivated with any other offence.1

A long term follow-up study of child molesters in Canada found that 42% were reconvicted of sexual or violent crime during the 15-30 year follow-up period.2

In addition, the long-term follow-up study (15-30 years) of child molesters showed that the average recidivism rate for this group of offenders is actually lower than the average recidivism rate for non-sexual offenders (61% versus 83.2% respectively for any new conviction).

Likelihood of Recidivism

The long term follow-up study referred to above included a control group of non-sexual criminals. The highest rate of recidivism (77%) was for those with previous sexual offences, who selected boy victims outside the family and who were never married.3

In general, rapists reoffend more often than child molesters.4

Among child molesters, those with male victims have been found to have the highest recidivism rates, followed by those with unrelated female victims.5

Incest offenders show the lowest recidivism rates of all sexual offenders.6

" Influence is far more powerful than control"

Posted

And in context, the recidivism rate for theft or burglary is above 75%.

Which was my point.

Btw, the category of "sex offenders" in the USA usually includes any person busted for hiring a prostitute or anyone caught urinating in a public place (charged with indecent exposure) and thus is not a very useful category for such analysis.

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,861
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    SteveJohnson14
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Cyfar earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • JVDZD earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Barquentine went up a rank
      Enthusiast
    • Scott75 earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • A Freeman went up a rank
      Apprentice
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...