11-25-2010, 06:20 PM
Hi,
I fear I have not made my (admittedly inconsistent and murky) position clear. I would propose to agree to disagree, except that I really don't think we disagree that much on the issue, just on this instance.
I can't agree with that. That was the big 'rehabilitation' argument of the '60s. Mostly, it doesn't work. That's not opinion, that's measurable fact. Recidivism rates run as high as 75% depending on the crime. The average person sentenced to jail has been arrested for about 20 crimes (not all convictions, but knowing who did it and proving who did it are two very different things).
Nor do I believe in punishment per se. The purpose of punishment is to alter behavior. It doesn't work on people past their early teens (and often not even then).
The only purpose I see for incarceration is to sequester the predators from their prey. Which is why I approve of the three strikes rule, although I wonder why three -- other than the baseball analogy, why not two? Can a person 'mistakenly' hold up a liquor store? Can they make that same 'mistake' twice?
But even on this issue, I have mixed feelings. For one thing, I no longer trust the US legal system to dispense justice. Nor do I believe (as I used to) that their error rate is acceptable. For those two reasons, and until they're corrected, I cannot support the death penalty at this time. My second problem is that entirely too many moral issues have been and are being legislated and criminalized. Anything that doesn't do damage to a person's body or property should not be a crime. At most, a misdemeanor, subject to fine and/or community service. But that is another long rant in itself.
Take care. Have a happy (second) thanksgiving -- IIRC, you live close enough to the border to be entitled to the good things we have.
--Pete
(11-25-2010, 12:56 PM)ShadowHM Wrote: Ok, so you have chosen a philosophy that has no room for sympathy for children forced into battle.
I fear I have not made my (admittedly inconsistent and murky) position clear. I would propose to agree to disagree, except that I really don't think we disagree that much on the issue, just on this instance.
(11-25-2010, 12:56 PM)ShadowHM Wrote: ... the desired societal outcome is to have the criminal cease doing the activity that he/she was sentenced for.
I can't agree with that. That was the big 'rehabilitation' argument of the '60s. Mostly, it doesn't work. That's not opinion, that's measurable fact. Recidivism rates run as high as 75% depending on the crime. The average person sentenced to jail has been arrested for about 20 crimes (not all convictions, but knowing who did it and proving who did it are two very different things).
Nor do I believe in punishment per se. The purpose of punishment is to alter behavior. It doesn't work on people past their early teens (and often not even then).
The only purpose I see for incarceration is to sequester the predators from their prey. Which is why I approve of the three strikes rule, although I wonder why three -- other than the baseball analogy, why not two? Can a person 'mistakenly' hold up a liquor store? Can they make that same 'mistake' twice?
But even on this issue, I have mixed feelings. For one thing, I no longer trust the US legal system to dispense justice. Nor do I believe (as I used to) that their error rate is acceptable. For those two reasons, and until they're corrected, I cannot support the death penalty at this time. My second problem is that entirely too many moral issues have been and are being legislated and criminalized. Anything that doesn't do damage to a person's body or property should not be a crime. At most, a misdemeanor, subject to fine and/or community service. But that is another long rant in itself.
Take care. Have a happy (second) thanksgiving -- IIRC, you live close enough to the border to be entitled to the good things we have.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?