|
Post by MaybeNever on Mar 8, 2009 23:51:25 GMT -5
keeping them locked up for life is a much harsher and more appropriate punishment. See, this is ironic because it completely undermines your thing about the death penalty being mere brutish revenge. I agree entirely that keeping offenders in prison is harsh in the extreme - but if revenge isn't your goal, then the harshness shouldn't matter next to the effectiveness. I'm not saying the death penalty is a dissuader - I don't believe it is - but if anything it seems like a lot less revenge than your own thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by ausador on Mar 9, 2009 0:25:04 GMT -5
Sigh...you can't offer them nothing of revenge...you have to give them something to gloat over. "Prison is horrible, every second is a fight for your life and honor!"If you tell them that prison is actual just boring as hell and that after the first few days if you handle it correctly you really wont have any trouble then they will want to execute everyone or something. I went to prison at sixteen at 5'8" and 125lbs...I never got raped, although I did get the crap beat out of me a couple of times. Most people just want to do their time and be left alone, if you become a player in the drugs, gambling, contraband sales, then the bad things that happen to you are something you invited. Really if you want to know the truth once you settle in, prison is more likely to bore you to death than worry/scare you to death. Shhhhh...don't tell anyone, its a secret. [And yes keeping them locked up with nothing to do and nothing to think about than "what if" is a pretty harsh sentence. Goodness knows I surely regreted ending up there by the time I got out.]
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Mar 9, 2009 5:50:55 GMT -5
I think that a working definition of murder is "Ending the life of a human without consent and without the reasonable need for the killing in defense of self, or others to the maximum utility."
Using that definition, the state deciding to kill defenceless, perhaps innocent, and harmless inmates who often did not get a fair trial due to lack of funds of mental illness in a brutal, mind-destroying and slow fashion, as many US governments do, is often an even worse form of murder than that which we self-righteously chastise our victims for causing.
Martin Luthor King remains right: "The United States government is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today."
|
|
|
Post by caretaker on Mar 9, 2009 12:44:23 GMT -5
Of course here you assume that performing abhorrent crimes is strongly/completely correlated with impossibility of rehabilitating the perpetrator. While I agree that currently we don't have the means I do not support the general statement. I am happy that at least sandafluffoid is sharing my opinion on the matter. No. I stated that some crimes are strongly correlated with the impossibility of rehabiliating the perp. Serial child rapists who then torture and murder their victims? I'll be quite blunt - I don't believe someone who did that sort of sustained, extreme crime could be rehabiliated. What confuses me is that we're discussing rehabilitation for this sort of offender - when we should be discussing whether that sort of offender is killed by the government. I don't believe they should, but my motivation is - I'm the first to say it - shrewdly cruel. Things are rarely black-and-white, but you can't claim that every single person is capable of rehabilitation. While the cases may be relatively few, there are people who simply can't grow into the sort that agrees with society's morals. EDIT: Just wanted to add: Being in prison opens your eyes that there are some that are simply anti-social, they need to be locked up and kept segregated from society. But that doesn't justify killing them, keeping them locked up for life is a much harsher and more appropriate punishment. QFT. In the cases where rehabilitation is not viable, and the offender needs to be kept secure to prevent a repeat of their crimes, lock them up and throw away the key. Like I said - it's far more cruel, and it adds to the delicious irony of not "lowering ourselves to their standards" to the mix, while keeping the public safe from them.
|
|
|
Post by Shano on Mar 9, 2009 15:47:41 GMT -5
Of course here you assume that performing abhorrent crimes is strongly/completely correlated with impossibility of rehabilitating the perpetrator. While I agree that currently we don't have the means I do not support the general statement. I am happy that at least sandafluffoid is sharing my opinion on the matter. No. I stated that some crimes are strongly correlated with the impossibility of rehabiliating the perp. Serial child rapists who then torture and murder their victims? I'll be quite blunt - I don't believe someone who did that sort of sustained, extreme crime could be rehabiliated. What confuses me is that we're discussing rehabilitation for this sort of offender - when we should be discussing whether that sort of offender is killed by the government. I don't believe they should, but my motivation is - I'm the first to say it - shrewdly cruel. Things are rarely black-and-white, but you can't claim that every single person is capable of rehabilitation. While the cases may be relatively few, there are people who simply can't grow into the sort that agrees with society's morals. EDIT: Just wanted to add: Being in prison opens your eyes that there are some that are simply anti-social, they need to be locked up and kept segregated from society. But that doesn't justify killing them, keeping them locked up for life is a much harsher and more appropriate punishment. QFT. In the cases where rehabilitation is not viable, and the offender needs to be kept secure to prevent a repeat of their crimes, lock them up and throw away the key. Like I said - it's far more cruel, and it adds to the delicious irony of not "lowering ourselves to their standards" to the mix, while keeping the public safe from them. I thought that by specifying abhorrent I have made sure I talked about SOME crimes and not ALL of them. Unless you think all crimes are abhorrent and in that case I apologize for not making it clear. So to reiterate: I was talking about those few heineous crimes the perpetrators of which some people think deserve DP, and you think they deserve the harsher punishment of not being murdered. And again - I do not see why you are putting what I see as completely superficial limit of what can in general be rehabilitated. What arguments would you provide in support of that limit? In particular I would like to hear a justification of the impossibility of rehabilitating a person that rapes children versus one that rapes adults. What property of the object of the crime makes it impossible?
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on Mar 9, 2009 16:20:00 GMT -5
Well, the two most often cited reasons for the death penalty are that it's cheaper than keeping the inmate in prison (which is absolutely is not) and that it is a deterrent to other potential criminals (which is absolutely is not).
Beyond these two demostratably false reasons, there really is not justification other than "God wants it that way" or societal revenge.
|
|
|
Post by Death on Mar 9, 2009 16:20:34 GMT -5
That the Texas gov said this is good. Pro Death Penalty people have used the "Why should we support people in prison, it's cheaper to kill them" argument for a long time. Yes, they'll just argue, have argued, that the justice system should be quicker. I get a bit upset when they start on about Victim's Rights. grrrr
|
|
|
Post by caretaker on Mar 9, 2009 16:40:01 GMT -5
I thought that by specifying abhorrent I have made sure I talked about SOME crimes and not ALL of them. Unless you think all crimes are abhorrent and in that case I apologize for not making it clear. So to reiterate: I was talking about those few heineous crimes the perpetrators of which some people think deserve DP, and you think they deserve the harsher punishment of not being murdered. No, I do not think all crimes are abhorrent. I think that those most abhorred, however, nonetheless have degrees of abhorrence. Whether you approve or not, people will always consider certain crimes worse than others - raping a woman my age will be perceived as less abhorrent than say, raping a nine year old. Both crimes, both abhorrent, but one will always be perceived as more extreme than the other. I'm not saying that this is right, that this is how it should be - I am merely stating that it is.And again - I do not see why you are putting what I see as completely superficial limit of what can in general be rehabilitated. What arguments would you provide in support of that limit? Westley Allan Dodd was scheduled to be hanged at 12:01 a.m. this morning at the Washington State Penitentiary in Walla Walla. Sentenced to execution for the torture-murder of three boys, Mr. Dodd has refused all efforts to appeal his case. He may not have exhausted his legal remedies, but he has certainly exhausted society's efforts at "rehabilitation." A chronic, calcified sexual sadist, Mr. Dodd stated in a recent court brief, "If I do escape, I promise you I will kill and rape again, and I will enjoy every minute of it." Mr. Dodd's threat demands a response because we know he is not unique.Full article here.Or take the well-publicised case of Ian Brady, Myra's partner in crime, who quite happily stated that he would kill again if he were freed and, unlike Hindley, never attempted to be freed. MOSCOW, March 12 (Reuters) - A Russian serial killer convicted of murdering 48 people said in an interview published on Wednesday he does not regret his killing spree and bragged that prison guards were in awe of him.Full article here."I have no regrets. I killed 100 children. I was denied justice," Javed Iqbal told The News newspaper in Lahore shortly before he was arrested.Full article here.How about Ted Bundy? During the interview, Bundy made repeated claims as to the pornographic "roots" of his crimes. He stated that, while pornography did not cause him to commit murder, the consumption of violent pornography helped "shape and mold" his violence into "behavior too terrible to describe." He alleged that he felt that violence in the media, "particularly sexualized violence," sent boys "down the road to being Ted Bundys." In the same interview, Bundy stated: "You are going to kill me, and that will protect society from me. But out there are many, many more people who are addicted to pornography, and you are doing nothing about that."Drawn from the Wikipedia article here.It would appear that forensic/criminal psychologists have, by and large, studied this field a little more than you and I have. Now, can you show me your evidence of cases that parallel the above being rehabilitated? In particular I would like to hear a justification of the impossibility of rehabilitating a person that rapes children versus one that rapes adults. What property of the object of the crime makes it impossible? Whether you like it or not, and it's clearly a "not", children are one of the most vulnerable groups in society. There is no justification for rape in any case, but sexual abuse committed during formative years is at least as traumatic as abuse committed during adult years. It's programmed into our society that we need to take care of our children, thus crimes against them seem that much more disgusting than the crimes already are as perpetrated against other groups. Criminals who rape children are fully aware of this, and of the further-elevated power they have over their victims. Is it completely impossible to rehabilitate these people? I don't presume to make such declarations for the entire section, but by and large, we've seen individuals who have had no remorse, shame or anything else that society expects from one who committed those deeds. It's a huge barrier to rehabilitation. In the cases of those who can't or won't be rehabilitated - if you require it, I'll start digging around, but I had some trouble finding more psychological studies due to the prominence of the more sensationalised publications - then yes, that's when I opine that my scenario would be put to good use. Also, you neglected to counter the anecdote of one who'd experienced life in prison and concurred with the assesment that certain people will not or cannot be rehabilitated. Edited cuz I r gud spelr.
|
|
|
Post by Shano on Mar 9, 2009 19:37:39 GMT -5
It seems, caretaker, that you refuse to think out of the box.
Statements by perpetrator have nothing to do with whether it is possible to rehabilitate them (however difficult that is). Let me emphasise: the question is not how difficult rehabilitation is, but whether it is possible at all. I have no examples because I don't need them. My statements is that I do not know if it is possible and thus I reject DP or penalties that do not intend to rehabilitate. Your statement (which you seem to support with criminal phychologists' inability to currently rehabilitate) is the one where the burden of proof lies. Your statement is a null-hypothesis and thus not rejecting it is not a proof.
In regards with the child rape. You seem to become more and more emotionally involved and thus losing mind clarity... How much we care about the object of the crime has nothing to do with rehabilatability. And the problem is twofold. One the already mentioned question of general rehabilitability. And two, what makes child rapist less rehabitable (or totally not) as compared to adult ones.
And finally the personal experience post needs not to be addressed as it has no value in a logical argument.
|
|
|
Post by caretaker on Mar 9, 2009 20:47:29 GMT -5
It seems, caretaker, that you refuse to think out of the box. Statements by perpetrator have nothing to do with whether it is possible to rehabilitate them (however difficult that is). Let me emphasise: the question is not how difficult rehabilitation is, but whether it is possible at all. Read the first link again. Sociopaths are not noted for their ability to be rehabilitated. Honestly, I didn't link those articles for the craic. Your ground state of opinion seems to be that you don't know, so everybody can be rehabilitated. I have, if you had clicked on links, provided basis to help you understand my opinion. I respectfully request that you do the same, as your mere repetition is not helping me to see your viewpoint. Then research the subject and review your perspectives. Studying and adapting our opinions to match our knowledge is not a wasted exercise. So I need to prove that sociopathic serial-killers can't ever be rehabilitated? I'd rather take Pascal's Wager - I don't have an ever to spend studying it to prove a point in a discussion on FSTDT XD; Lol. No. Actually, I was enjoying the debate. Now, I feel as if you're breaking the parameters of a reasonable discussion. I'm not emotionally involved, and I'm afraid my mental clarity is as good as it usually is, but thank you for your assessment. Unfortunately, it does. Think of the vigilante justice - paedophiles whose neighbours discover their past and attack. The more abhorrent the crime is, the more hostile the society is. What use is there in rehabilitating a person who will spend their freedom in hiding? Furthermore, if a sociopath was - by some miracle - able to gain empathy, it's very possible that some would resort to suicide. Who gains? The person in question has real-life experience in these waters. These experiences have helped form his opinion. While I'm all for logical thought, when discussing something like this, it helps to give people's experiences and opinions a little value. We can debate from our armchairs all we wish, but we can say nothing from experience, unlike this person. Ignoring everyone's opinions to single out my own and then continually demand "proof" of something I haven't spent decades studying - that's of more value than someone's anecdotal experience? Possibly not. (I'll dig up some psychological studies on the topic if I can - but I'd be much obliged if you would at least read them, as I'm going to the trouble, and all.) Edited to add: Okay, got my paws on a paper for ye. Distinguishing between primary and secondary sociopaths is also critical for decisions about confinement and rehabilitation. Quinsey & Walker (1992) cite examples where recidivism rates went up for psychopaths, but down for nonpsychopaths, after they were exposed to the same kind of "treatment". Recidivism is much greater in primary sociopaths than in secondary sociopaths (Hare, Forth & Strachan 1992), and sometimes the only response is prolongued incapacitation (until they literally "grow out of it"). A recent international meeting of experts concluded that "treatment" programs dealing with primary sociopaths should be "less concerned with attempts to develop empathy or conscience than with intensive efforts to convince them that their current attitudes and behavior (simply) are not in their own self-interest" (Hare 1993, p 204).From this in-depth study. It seems that there are some cases where keeping the offender imprisoned is the best choice. Treatment for certain kinds of sociopathic disorders seems to be semi-effective, which the study is extremely interested in as, apparently, there will always be a certain amount of primary sociopaths with us (as opposed to secondary, who the stereotypical serial-killer tends to be categorised as; those shaped by environmental factors rather than genes).
|
|
|
Post by Shano on Mar 10, 2009 1:21:32 GMT -5
Caretaker,
I will give you an example from another science field to illustrate things. In 17th century there was one governing principle in the understanding of mechanics - the gallilean principle. Until late 19th century (about 200 years) there was no experiment contradicting it and thus it was the dominant theory. Things changed with Michelson's experiment, which contradicts the gallielean principle, and Einstein developed the theory of relativity. For our argument it doesn't matter whether you have working knowledge of the topic. What matters is how science works. I do acknowledge here that we may have slight misunderstanding - I am arguing from fundamental standpoint and not caring about the practicability of rehabilitation. In no way am I saying that rehabilitation of all perpetrators is concievable with the current knowledge in the field. I am just saying that, as in any science, the current understanding is not absolute and always subject to change. Thus the argument of my previous post stands and your statement, being a null-hypothesis, can not be positively proven.
To address some other points (a bit emotionally):
I am very confused with what you are trying to say about rehabilitation and societal hostility. Are you really saying that it is useless to rehabilitate when society will reject them anyway? In any case that point still doesn't address the rehabilitation side and the artificial limit being put (rape of children vs adults). Don't you think that exactly because of your argument it is necessary to adjust societal attitudes (starting for example from DP) than to not rehabilitate people?
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 10, 2009 1:55:17 GMT -5
There are cases of psychopathic personalities that are impossible to rehabilitate. Many, not all, but most serial killers are sociopathic individuals. They grew to adulthood without a sense of concience, in the normal understanding. They understand right from wrong, understand that it is wrong to commit their crimes, but, as I understand it, just don't care. Stone cold killers who not only kill without remorse, but derive pleasure from the act, and are compelled to repeat the act to regain the pleasure. These people, in my opinion, are candidates life-long, isolated incareration, their only contact with guards or psychologists, for study in early recognition of the sociopathic personality. At least their lives could be used for good, in aiding this recognition and possible treatment at a very early stage. The DP is misused. Most one-time killers, who kill in a rage or in desperation, are candidates for rehabilitation, if my Criminology 101 text books are correct. The DP is misused as a political tool for the "law and order" types. The DP is misused as a deterrent. It isn't one. The DP is misused to placate a frightened population, whose fear, for the most part, is unfounded. The DP is misused as a method of revenge. The DP is wrong, even in the most extreme cases. Our prisons are overfilled, due to crime. The relationship between poverty amid riches and crime is well understood. Society fights crime by narrowing the discrepencies between being rich in an afluent society and being poor in affluent societ. That is how to fight crime. Recividism is a huge problem, again, for the above reason, and, prisoners learn stuff in prisons, and make friends there, and these lead to repeat offenses. Filling prisons up in the "war on drugs" takes up space needed to house the real criminals. Cheech Marin spent two years in prison for selling fucking bongs. Not coke, not pot, fucking glass smoking pipes. The U.S. justice system houses more prisoners per capita than Iran does, than China and so on. This BEGS the question. WHY?
|
|
|
Post by caretaker on Mar 10, 2009 13:20:05 GMT -5
Caretaker, I will give you an example from another science field to illustrate things. In 17th century there was one governing principle in the understanding of mechanics - the gallilean principle. Until late 19th century (about 200 years) there was no experiment contradicting it and thus it was the dominant theory. Things changed with Michelson's experiment, which contradicts the gallielean principle, and Einstein developed the theory of relativity. For our argument it doesn't matter whether you have working knowledge of the topic. What matters is how science works. I do acknowledge here that we may have slight misunderstanding - I am arguing from fundamental standpoint and not caring about the practicability of rehabilitation. In no way am I saying that rehabilitation of all perpetrators is concievable with the current knowledge in the field. I am just saying that, as in any science, the current understanding is not absolute and always subject to change. Thus the argument of my previous post stands and your statement, being a null-hypothesis, can not be positively proven. I think I'm starting to see your point. As far as we know right now, certain sociopaths can't be rehabilitated - but this may not always be the case. Well, the study I linked comes to the same conclusion (that, at present, certain sociopaths can't be rehabilitated with present psychological/psychiatric understanding) and I'd agree with that. JonathanE's mention of having contact with psychologists makes sense - the study wouldn't have progressed if the researchers didn't have access to these cases. No - I'm saying that, hypothetically, it may not necessarily be in the best interests of the offender. Witness Protection schemes to keep them safe would obviously be employed, but living with the knowledge that everyone around them would be disgusted - and afraid - if they knew the offender's identity is quite a burden to live with. I'm not sure societal attitudes towards child rape vs adult rape actually can be altered. You see, it's very hard to recondition an instinct - which in this case, is to protect our children, a deeply ingrained instinct for a myriad of reasons. I agree that, to look at the situation logically, there shouldn't be such a vast difference of reaction, but applying logic to human instinct can be somewhat difficult if the purpose is to alter a reaction at such an emotional and deep level. To be emotional for a moment myself - I would rather face that trauma than have a young child face it. Unfortunately, I can't quantify it beyond - my brain and emotions are already developed, I am less vulnerable than the child, and it's simply an instinct that I have. Annnd JonathanE, I agree with everything you just said XD;
|
|
|
Post by Shano on Mar 10, 2009 16:19:22 GMT -5
I am glad we are moving towards convergence of perspectives. I certainly see the point where people will treat child offenders more harshly than other ones and agree with its reasoning. But while societal attitude might not be changable I think a lot more attention should be put in preventing the emergence of such behavior. While there is evidence that there are genetic factors there is evidence that a lot can be attributed to environment, and that is where we can influence things. Unfortunately the USA seem to have a big issue with that. It might be interesting to see per capita child rape (or any kind of crime in general) rates comparison between USA and other countries (in particular European ones, possibly Japan too). Wonder how culturally dependent things are. Then again... I am not that interested to do the research myself Still I think rehabilitation should be pursued in all cases just for the sake of creating better people.
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on Mar 17, 2009 15:37:45 GMT -5
I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but...
The death penalty isn't used nearly enough.
Rape, kiddie-fiddling, and domestic violence ought to all be automatic death sentences. The perpetrator, in committing these acts, HAS ESSENTIALLY KILLED THE VICTIM. Maybe not physically, no, but the death of the spirit, the death of who they WERE, who they would have been, had the bastard not touched them. At the very least, I'd accept life-without-parole for these sickos.
Further, the death penalty ought to be reformed. Convicts facing death should get a maximum of two appeals, to be made within three years of conviction, and the sentence should be carried out within no more than six years. This would save taxpayers money, and the courts all kinds of time and resources, not to mention it would free up space for the rapos, kid-diddlers, and wife-beaters.
Some whiny bitch is going to pipe up with, "b-but we can reform them!"
No you can't. Rapists continue to rape. Pedos continue to molest and/or rape children. Abusers (both of children and women) continue to abuse, and END UP KILLING THEIR VICTIMS.
As it stands, these "people" (and I use the term *very* loosely) get a slap on the wrist and a stern warning not to do it again, or else... (but they do it again, and get the same damn treatment!) I am sick and tired of the US INJUSTICE system locking up adults for what we choose to put in our bodies (nanny state, much?), but letting people who have actually done HARM to others walk free.
It's long past time for reform.
|
|