Bleeding heart liberals

Lame. My conversation with you dte is over.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,721
I wasn't aware we were having one. You avoided dealing with simple questions because they completely undercut your argument. Then you cried about how mean I am. Then, when faced with evidence that you dish just as well as you get, you take your ball and run home. I bow to your overwhelming maturity. Not really much exchange of thought there, me thinks, so "conversation" seems a bit misplaced. Unfortunate.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,535
Location
Illinois, USA
Pretty much have to agree w/ DTE here. As much as I sit here with the desire to rake him over the coals for his (IMO) massively incorrect stance on the death penalty & punishment in general, he's clearly been correct in this regard compared to the typical michael moore "liberal" (it's important to note those quotes, folks, because I'm saying you're poor examples of liberalism) intellgentsia.
 
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
2,299
Location
VA
So, what, Plato? Most people are fully aware that what they are doing is wrong when they do it. As a child I understood that murder, rape, etc were wrong and you shouldn't do them.

I'm sure you did. I'm also sure you've never murdered or raped anyone. We're not talking about you though, we're talking about those who have murdered or raped someone, and what they know or don't know. Remember, just because you understand something doesn't mean everyone does or that everyone can.

Imagine this, though. There's this guy who's moved to Sweden from the States. One day a robber breaks into his house and starts threatening his wife with a gun. The robber hasn't noticed the guy, who manages to sneak up on him from behind and shoots the robber. The robber dies.

Acording to Swedish law that's murder (sneaking up on someone from behind and shooting him is too cold blooded for a manslaughter label). Does that mean the guy thinks murder is right? I'm sure he'd say "no, but that wasn't murder, it was self defence". IE the guy thought what he did was justified (and justified actions aren't wrong). That's usually the case when someone does something wrong - they come up with a reason why it wasn't wrong in their case. Sometimes in hindsight, but in those cases it's still quite clear that there wasn't any "I shouldn't do this" knowledge stopping them from doing it. Or it was undercut with them not seeing any alternative solutions (IE they thought their options was even more wrong).

All in all, pepole who commit crimes tend to think they have solid reasons for doing so (or no solid reasons not to). At the time of the crime, anyway.

(By the way, be aware that I'm not at all sure this is actually what Swedish law would say, so don't take my word for it this is how it works. I'm fairly certain it would at least be "causing someone elses death", but it might also be manslaughter or even murder. I chose murder because that's what would give my example the most power. I'm also not sure whether you'd get away with "self defence" here or not.)

Under your system, no criminal can be blamed for ever committing a crime.

That's right, and I don't blame criminals (when I can help it - nobody's perfect). That doesn't mean I don't think "punishing" them is a good idea. It's just that when I put murderers in prison I do so because they are a danger to society and needs to be isolated, not because they deserve to suffer for what they've done.

Übereil
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
1,263
Location
Sweden
That's right, and I don't blame criminals (when I can help it - nobody's perfect). That doesn't mean I don't think "punishing" them is a good idea. It's just that when I put murderers in prison I do so because they are a danger to society and needs to be isolated, not because they deserve to suffer for what they've done.

Übereil

So let me ask you this. In '99, a recent ex-girlfriend of mine murdered her two children (around ages 4 and 6 IIRC) the day after Christmas. Apparently the catalysts were that for the second year in a row, she didn't have them at Christmas and a week before, the judge overseeing the custody agreement with her ex-husband had given him full custody on a 'permanent' basis (he had full custody on a temporary basis prior to that).

IIRC, she had her tubes tied, so she wasn't going to be having any more kids. She really didn't represent any on going threat to society (she was actually a highly credited elementary school teacher). Would you send her to prison, or just let her walk?
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,353
Location
Austin, TX
So let me ask you this. In '99, a recent ex-girlfriend of mine murdered her two children (around ages 4 and 6 IIRC) the day after Christmas. Apparently the catalysts were that for the second year in a row, she didn't have them at Christmas and a week before, the judge overseeing the custody agreement with her ex-husband had given him full custody on a 'permanent' basis (he had full custody on a temporary basis prior to that).

IIRC, she had her tubes tied, so she wasn't going to be having any more kids. She really didn't represent any on going threat to society (she was actually a highly credited elementary school teacher). Would you send her to prison, or just let her walk?

Are you seriously suggesting society should take your word for it, that she didn't represent any ongoing threat after murdering two children?

However, if there was some way to be sure that she'd never harm another - then of course she should be set free.

What possible purpose would there be in incarceration?

I know the theory of dissuading crime, but when it comes to child-murdering - I refuse to believe it would be effective.
 
Are you seriously suggesting society should take your word for it, that she didn't represent any ongoing threat after murdering two children?

Well that is sort of the point. Übereil makes the assertion that criminals should only be incarcerated if they represent an on-going threat to society, thus implying that at least SOME do not and hence should not receive any prison time regardless of how bad the crime they committed is. In the case I presented, the likelihood of her committing another murder doesn't seem very high, jail or not.

However, if there was some way to be sure that she'd never harm another - then of course she should be set free.

So there should be no consequences for her actions so long as you're sure she won't do it again?

What possible purpose would there be in incarceration?

Ever hear the term, justice for the victims? If someone murders me, I certainly hope they have to pay the price for that action.

I know the theory of dissuading crime, but when it comes to child-murdering - I refuse to believe it would be effective.

That's the thing, justice isn't just about deterring future crime. It's also about holding people accountable for their actions.

Let's take this another direction: Bernie Madoff and John Corzine. Both committed massive fraud in the securities market. Once exposed, the chances of either of them being able to do so again are about nil. No one is going to trust them with money ever again, and they could easily be barred from the industry. Both destroyed a large number of people's lives as well as many charitable institutions.

Should Madoff be spending the rest of his life in jail? There is no chance he could perpetuate his fraud again. Should Corzine go to jail? The $1.2B of client money missing will likely never be recovered (partly because it isn't really missing) and sending him to jail will not change that.

Punishing them won't deter the next Madoff or Corzine though. In theory it should, but as we have seen in practice, it doesn't. But shouldn't they pay the price for their actions?
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,353
Location
Austin, TX
Well that is sort of the point. Übereil makes the assertion that criminals should only be incarcerated if they represent an on-going threat to society, thus implying that at least SOME do not and hence should not receive any prison time regardless of how bad the crime they committed is. In the case I presented, the likelihood of her committing another murder doesn't seem very high, jail or not.

There's what he's literally saying, and then there's what he's really saying.

He's saying, as far as I can see, that we shouldn't punish people for the sake of punishing them alone - and not in direct relation to the supposed seriousness of the crime. Because punishment in and of itself serves no purpose, and because motives are sometimes not easy to comprehend or condemn.

So there should be no consequences for her actions so long as you're sure she won't do it again?

A consequence should have a beneficial purpose, is what I'm saying. Since we can't be sure, ever, of whether people will repeat crimes when they're set free - the situation in question is not valid or useful.

Ever hear the term, justice for the victims? If someone murders me, I certainly hope they have to pay the price for that action.

Yeah, I've heard the term. I think satisfying the emotional needs of victims is an incredibly stupid practice if the benefit of it isn't more than the harm. Especially because I don't easily blame people for doing harm. That's because it's my opinion that no human being in the world does harm without a reason - and that reason can't be understood fully unless you're that person or you're willing to be that person for the sake of understanding. The vast majority of people don't want to deal with that.

That's the thing, justice isn't just about deterring future crime. It's also about holding people accountable for their actions.

That's a need you may have that I don't. The only punishment I can agree with, is the punishment that has a more beneficial effect than the result of the lack of punishment would represent. Satisfying the emotional needs of the victim for short-term gain will have to be compared to the damage inflicted through the punishment. So, murdering someone or taking away their freedom - because some people are emotionally satisfied by it - doesn't qualify.

But even so, we have to punish murder - because we have to maintain a societal structure - and we can't go around condoning murder. I don't really see how we could not do it. But the motivation should not be revenge.

Doesn't mean I can't sympathise - and it doesn't mean I wouldn't take horrible revenge on anyone who hurt my loved ones. But that's because I'm as weak and driven by emotion as any other idiot human being.

Let's take this another direction: Bernie Madoff and John Corzine. Both committed massive fraud in the securities market. Once exposed, the chances of either of them being able to do so again are about nil. No one is going to trust them with money ever again, and they could easily be barred from the industry. Both destroyed a large number of people's lives as well as many charitable institutions.

Should Madoff be spending the rest of his life in jail? There is no chance he could perpetuate his fraud again. Should Corzine go to jail? The $1.2B of client money missing will likely never be recovered (partly because it isn't really missing) and sending him to jail will not change that.

Punishing them won't deter the next Madoff or Corzine though. In theory it should, but as we have seen in practice, it doesn't. But shouldn't they pay the price for their actions?

Yes, since we have no other means to dissuade financial crime - I think it's very reasonable to punish the people in question. I believe that punishing financial crimes is a pretty effective way to combat it - though the details are hard to determine.

I'd say we have to maintain an ongoing fight against crime in general, but I also have to say that I don't think our efforts do much when it comes to child-murderers.

But I think there are many cases of murder or similarly serious crimes, where our only current course of action is to punish the people responsible. But it's to dissuade or maintain our societal structure - rather than to punish people for being who they turned out to be.
 
I'm sure you did. I'm also sure you've never murdered or raped anyone. We're not talking about you though, we're talking about those who have murdered or raped someone, and what they know or don't know. Remember, just because you understand something doesn't mean everyone does or that everyone can.
Yes, but the average person understands 'murder is wrong'. It's a pretty basic concept. That doesn't mean they're incapable of doing it. Normal people murder others all the time, and they KNOW what they did was wrong.


Imagine this, though. There's this guy who's moved to Sweden from the States. One day a robber breaks into his house and starts threatening his wife with a gun. The robber hasn't noticed the guy, who manages to sneak up on him from behind and shoots the robber. The robber dies.

Acording to Swedish law that's murder (sneaking up on someone from behind and shooting him is too cold blooded for a manslaughter label). Does that mean the guy thinks murder is right? I'm sure he'd say "no, but that wasn't murder, it was self defence". IE the guy thought what he did was justified (and justified actions aren't wrong). That's usually the case when someone does something wrong - they come up with a reason why it wasn't wrong in their case. Sometimes in hindsight, but in those cases it's still quite clear that there wasn't any "I shouldn't do this" knowledge stopping them from doing it. Or it was undercut with them not seeing any alternative solutions (IE they thought their options was even more wrong).
So what about a mafia hitman or an assassin? Are you saying they just don't "know" what they are doing is wrong or illegal? I think most of them just don't CARE. I've done morally wrong things in the past - not rising to the level of murder, obviously - and committed these acts knowing full well they are morally wrong, but I did them because I knew I would benefit or someone I disliked would suffer. I don't buy the Platonic idea that "they just don't know its wrong!" These are pretty basic concepts, and sure, you can come up with gray area examples (your 'castle doctrine' one is pretty good), but people know that murdering some dude because he slept with your wife or because you want his money is morally wrong.

All in all, pepole who commit crimes tend to think they have solid reasons for doing so (or no solid reasons not to). At the time of the crime, anyway.
No disagreements here, but I think those solid reasons for doing it speak for their gain/etc and doesn't mean they weren't aware of what they were doing is wrong. For instance: when I was a kid, I knew taking money out of my mom's purse so I could go buy a video game was wrong. Did I do it anyways? Yep, because I wanted that game.

(By the way, be aware that I'm not at all sure this is actually what Swedish law would say, so don't take my word for it this is how it works. I'm fairly certain it would at least be "causing someone elses death", but it might also be manslaughter or even murder. I chose murder because that's what would give my example the most power. I'm also not sure whether you'd get away with "self defence" here or not.)
No, it's a good example, and its one that'd be valid in some U.S. states. For example: California has pretty open "Castle Doctrine" laws - so if someone breaks into your house/business and you are "afraid for your life", it's legal to shoot and kill them. In fact, it's actually legally better for you TO kill the person, since if they're alive they can contest your claim and potentially sue you or land you in jail.

In my current state of Virginia, I *believe* there is no Castle Doctrine, so I have no inherent right to shoot and kill someone breaking on my property. In other states, you have a modified Castle Doctrine where you can only shoot them if flight is impossible, etc.

Now, the point of this is, there are always areas where "the law" is fuzzy and where there IS moral debate over whether or not something is wrong or not. I, for one, have no moral or ethical issue with the targeted killing of Anwar al-Awlaki. Others consider it murder of a US Citizen. However, on a very basic level, we understand "murder is wrong" or "rape is wrong" - yet people still do it.

That's right, and I don't blame criminals (when I can help it - nobody's perfect). That doesn't mean I don't think "punishing" them is a good idea. It's just that when I put murderers in prison I do so because they are a danger to society and needs to be isolated, not because they deserve to suffer for what they've done.

Übereil

I do it for both reasons, but I'm a pretty cold and uncaring bastard. If there was a pill or a surgery or treatment that would make them safe and unable to commit the crime again, I'd release them after a decade or two for murder.

EDIT:

I'll also say, though, that if we ever DID live in a society where people *Weren't* punished for their actions (say if Dartagnan's 'justice for the victims is stupid' idea spread) and someone murdered my hypothetical friend/loved one, I'd go and kill them myself - and why shouldn't I? If society fails to secure justice for victims, they'll secure it for themselves.
 
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
2,299
Location
VA
He's saying, as far as I can see, that we shouldn't punish people for the sake of punishing them alone - and not in direct relation to the supposed seriousness of the crime. Because punishment in and of itself serves no purpose, and because motives are sometimes not easy to comprehend or condemn.[

A consequence should have a beneficial purpose, is what I'm saying. Since we can't be sure, ever, of whether people will repeat crimes when they're set free - the situation in question is not valid or useful.

I disagree. Punishment gives justice to victims. Even if it doesn't prevent a reoccurrence of the crime, what it does is give a measure of satisfaction to the victim that, as much as is possible, a wrong has been righted. Without that, it invites people to deliver their own punishment against those that have wronged them, which leads to anarchy. Punishment is a cornerstone of an orderly society.

Yes, since we have no other means to dissuade financial crime - I think it's very reasonable to punish the people in question. I believe that punishing financial crimes is a pretty effective way to combat it - though the details are hard to determine.

The evidence does not bear out that belief. Punishing the higher ups of Enron didn't do anything to dissuade the massive fraud we have seen exposed over the past few years. Heck, the fraud has gotten even worse.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,353
Location
Austin, TX
The evidence does not bear out that belief. Punishing the higher ups of Enron didn't do anything to dissuade the massive fraud we have seen exposed over the past few years. Heck, the fraud has gotten even worse.

This is a side point, do you think that is the case because the financial system is so arcane that the average citizen is incapable of understanding it and comprehending the vast damage these men have done to our society, country, and economy?

I mean, it's easy for someone to comprehend "MAN RAPES AND MURDERS CHILD IN COLD BLOOD", but white collar crime, etc is pretty hard to understand and doesn't ... offend people nearly as much as violent crime does. Although, I'd argue that white collar crime (say, Madoff) is far more damaging to society than even serial killers could ever hope to be.
 
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
2,299
Location
VA
I disagree. Punishment gives justice to victims. Even if it doesn't prevent a reoccurrence of the crime, what it does is give a measure of satisfaction to the victim that, as much as is possible, a wrong has been righted. Without that, it invites people to deliver their own punishment against those that have wronged them, which leads to anarchy. Punishment is a cornerstone of an orderly society.

Justice is a human concept that's utterly flawed. I never said punishment is wrong, but the reason can be wrong.

Then again, I don't believe in the concept of "wrong" because it's fuzzy and hardly ever exists in a form I can truly understand. To me, there's benefit or harm - that's it.

The evidence does not bear out that belief. Punishing the higher ups of Enron didn't do anything to dissuade the massive fraud we have seen exposed over the past few years. Heck, the fraud has gotten even worse.

Ehm, are you saying there are examples of fraud in the world even after we've penalised the practice?

I'd hardly consider that "evidence" that dissuasion is not useful.

I remain quite firm that punishing financial crime has an effect, and it's about the most effective means of prevention we have at this time. That said, there are many ways to punish - and there could be alternatives we have yet to explore.

Seeing as how I would like to eliminate the monetary system and completely restructure our world society - it should be obvious that I think our current means of governing ourselves is a total joke - and when I talk about these things, I'm talking about minimising the damage in a completely moronic and rotten world structure. Very far from solutions I'd call actual solutions.
 
This is a side point, do you think that is the case because the financial system is so arcane that the average citizen is incapable of understanding it and comprehending the vast damage these men have done to our society, country, and economy?

That and the fact that Washington, both dems and repubs, are heavily backed by these people.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,353
Location
Austin, TX
The equation of a society that is falling apart due to people not giving a shit about the long-term consequences of what they do, feigning ignorance when they're caught in the act.

The only difference between a person in a position of power committing fraud, and the average citizen is the amount of money available to play with.
 
The equation of a society that is falling apart due to people not giving a shit about the long-term consequences of what they do, feigning ignorance when they're caught in the act.

The only difference between a person in a position of power committing fraud, and the average citizen is the amount of money available to play with.

What, me stealing money from my mom when I was nine?
 
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
2,299
Location
VA
Punishment has a purpose in being a theatre. It sends a message to rational people and gives closure to the victims. Part from that it serves no purpose.

The "knowledge about right/wrong" is misleading. First problem is that few crimes are done in a rational condition. Many factors including stress disable capacity for rational thought, which research on the topic have shown numerous times. If you wish to reduce crime, work with these factors. A crime comitted is in its own a failure as no punishment can ever undo the harm.

But there is also another issue. Right/wrong according to whom? Here's a difference between external pressure and internalized values. If society say this/that is wrong, the individual must also have a positive relationship with society in order to care. Many eho are for one reason or another rejected by society have no reason to care about what society thinks is right or wrong. External pressure means "you should follow the law, or else". Internalized values means something like "i do this because it's the right thing to do regardless whether or not I get punished for it".
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
6,027
Back
Top Bottom