Earlier quoted context omitted.
How can you say it clearly doesn't? Sure it doesn't deter ALL but none?
Have you ever chosen not to do something because you want to avoid prison? Or is there other stuff that's stopping you from breaking laws?
Do We Still Need Prisons?
71–80 of 105 posts
Re: Do We Still Need Prisons?
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the most damaging things Clive Stafford Smith has done is to give public support for Moazzem Begg, who was almost certainly a high-ranking member of al Qaeda ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moazzam_Begg ). (Sure, Begg should have gotten a fair trial -- he would have gone to court had the charges not been dropped, probably because the intelligence services didn't want to reveal all the intel they had gathered o…
In every human society in history, there have been people who choose to rob, rape and kill. There's no pleasant way to deal with such people, but it is the role of the state to deal with them, or you have anarchy. It isn't the role of the state to prevent "emotional damage", "bad wives" or "bankers". The point of the question (which is an interesting question regardless of who asked it) is that we should challenge wh…
States have justified their actions by many different codes of ethics. I know my answer to the legitimate role of the state: to protect individual rights.
Re: Do We Still Need Prisons?
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about sociopaths? They can become serial offenders, learning all the while how to apologize more effectively each time they are apprehended. If a crime has little downside, then crime will grow.
Go re-read his post. Apologizing might be acceptable for some crimes and with some victims, but not all. Others may demand compensation or more punitive measures. There's nothing there about crime having little downside; if the community requires you to repay a victim for everything you stole from him, and wants you to do a bunch of hard labor (community service) in addition, that sounds like a pretty big downside to…
Re: Do We Still Need Prisons?
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are still crimes where the punishment should be a short rope and a tall tree. Forty years of a roof over your head, a bed to sleep in, and three squares a day is insane.
Yes and No, I'd sooner my taxes pay to keep someone away from society who needs to be than pay to execute them even if it costs more, I'd sooner living that society even if it costs more. Fortunately where I am the death penalty is a settled issue.
I understand the concerns around the death penalty, namely the possibility of a wrongful conviction with the inability to appeal once the sentence is carried out. But just comparing the punishments, why is one morally better than the other?
Re: Do We Still Need Prisons?
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
>what is the physical damage to you if you get raped? I don't think the parent was suggesting only physical damage be considered. They discussed several examples of emotional damage. EDIT: And I'm not really sure why you're calling their post reductive either, it seemed fairly nuanced, and ended with "It's a very deep question. Not something that HN will answer in a thread."
The OP kind of was when they brushed away the burglary they experienced as, not much monetary loss and the lost feeling of security was back went away after a few weeks . To feel secure in one's home is f*&(ing important. I'm not equating it to rape, but it's that intangible feeling of lost of trust you cannot quickly brush away.
Re: Do We Still Need Prisons?
#76Spoken like a truly out of touch academic. Here's an incident that took place last week in a town near me: A man with a beer and a condom approached a random couple on the sidewalk and declared his intention to have sex with the woman. When she declined, two of his brothers and a fourth man appeared from behind a bush, beat the man into submission and dragged the woman back to their apartment. They barricaded the doo…
Re: Do We Still Need Prisons?
#77I think author forget that prison ALSO means that we are isolating someone dangerous, someone that is dangerous for society, that's why we lock him up. There will be no other solution/place for murderers etc. Period. I really would like that authors of that kind of articles go to areas where there is a lot of gang activities and live there for couple of months. I am sure they would change their mind.
Are most of people locked up murderous maniacs or other constant danger to rest of us?
Enough that we still need prisons? Yes.
Re: Do We Still Need Prisons?
#78There's a very interesting thought experiment devised by the human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smitg and outlined at the end of the excellent book "So You've Been Publicly Shamed" by Jon Ronson. Quoting from the book; “Let me ask you three questions,” he said. “And then you’ll see it my way. Question One: What’s the worst thing that you have ever done to someone? It’s okay. You don’t have to confess it out loud. Que…
One of the most damaging things Clive Stafford Smith has done is to give public support for Moazzem Begg, who was almost certainly a high-ranking member of al Qaeda ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moazzam_Begg ). (Sure, Begg should have gotten a fair trial -- he would have gone to court had the charges not been dropped, probably because the intelligence services didn't want to reveal all the intel they had gathered o…
I don't know enough about this person to say one way or another whether he was a high ranking al qaeda member or not. But _even if he were_ I don't think insisting on a habeas corpus rights for detainees or decrying torture is a _damaging_ thing at all. It was up to the state; who originally imprisoned him and almost certainly tortured him to prove his guilt. They didn't even attempt to do this; and it likely had nothing to do with not wanting to reveal intel -- the 'court' he'd have been charged in had little to no due process, and the evidence was presented to a government tribunal, not to the defendant.
I think Smiths point there wasn't that there was some problem-meanness correlation, but that the justice system as it is structured doesn't even try to have a sensible metric by which to sentence by. I think framing it in terms of damage done to society is a reasonable one. Under such a metric, (unarmed) robbery should be treated with much less severity -- and daresay rehabilitative measures as opposed to just imprisonment -- than rape or murder. That seems reasonable, and not particularly evil as worldviews go.
Re: Do We Still Need Prisons?
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes and No, I'd sooner my taxes pay to keep someone away from society who needs to be than pay to execute them even if it costs more, I'd sooner living that society even if it costs more. Fortunately where I am the death penalty is a settled issue.
Honest question, why is putting someone in a box for the rest of their life more morally acceptable than killing them? I personally find life imprisonment to be far more horrifying than death. I understand the concerns around the death penalty, namely the possibility of a wrongful conviction with the inability to appeal once the sentence is carried out. But just comparing the punishments, why is one morally better th…
Re: Do We Still Need Prisons?
#80There's a very interesting thought experiment devised by the human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smitg and outlined at the end of the excellent book "So You've Been Publicly Shamed" by Jon Ronson. Quoting from the book; “Let me ask you three questions,” he said. “And then you’ll see it my way. Question One: What’s the worst thing that you have ever done to someone? It’s okay. You don’t have to confess it out loud. Que…
These questions seem deep (which actually translates to "without an obvious answer") only if you assume that you are choosing who should be punished, what is a crime and what is a punishment. Then, unsurprisingly, it is quite hard to explain rationally the current state of things — so that "your" choices would seem "right" enough. Because that's just not the case.
But if you try to answer the question about "what is right" from the "Golem's" point of view — the legal system, the government, the "social norm" — it actually is pretty clear and simple. "Right" is what keeps it stable. Punishing somebody, who makes somebody else miserable doesn't really help it — it's ok for people to be miserable, it's not ok for them to turn on the Golem. It doesn't have to be rational or efficient, it doesn't have to help anybody or protect anybody. The moment it becomes something more than a mere human — and it long time is — it doesn't care for human needs or worries. Feeding murderers on behalf of other people, while keeping them in a closed institution doesn't really help anybody or is rational, it isn't about justice or whatever — it just works, it just keeps the system stable. On the other hand, people using psychedelic drugs and living in hippie communes doesn't hurt people, but hurts the system. That's why things are what they are.