3 ms·

I think it's proper to nitpick by pointing out when scenarios are highly artificial and therefore should not be use to make policy decisions. Why not use actual

by dalke 10y ago

I think it's proper to nitpick by pointing out when scenarios are highly artificial and therefore should not be use to make policy decisions. Why not use actual examples, rather than make one up? Look to Norway. They have a mass-murderer, Breivik. They have a wonderful rehab program. If they are convinced that it doesn't work, then the state will place him in custody for longer than the 21 year maximum sentence, in order to protect the population. If they believe he is rehabilitated, and his sentence is over, then he will be released. But don't confuse punitive punishment for preventive detention! Now, you argue that we should not break the hearts of the families of the victims. We surely cannot use that as our primary guide, for that means that killing an unloved homeless man would carry less punishment than killing the beloved mother of 8. Is that what you want? How much weight should heartbreak place on the decision? If the family hated their abusive father, and had no remorse over his death, should the murderer get less of a sentence? I don't agree with the importance of "prime years of his life taken away from him". Do you think Breivik should have been caned then set free? Or that if Norway had caning for mass-murder that Breivik wouldn't have done what it did? Given that Breivik can play X-Box and is a full student in the bachelor degree program in political science at the University of Oslo, can you really say that his prime years are "taken away"? What do you think are Breivik's "long-term prospects and potential", should he have been caned instead of being placed in prison? Feel free to explain the likely long-term prospects and potential of any other mass-murderer you are thinking of, had they been caned instead of imprisoned. Does your argument change if the mass-murderer is past the prime years of life? Specifically, Andrew Philip Kehoe, at 55 years of age, who killed his wife and 43 other people (including 38 children). Now, he committed suicide, so it's clear that no amount of punishment - caning or otherwise - would have affected him. But if he had been sentenced, is your argument that it would have been okay to put him in jail for the rest of his life, because the prime years of his life were over? And you'll notice that nothing - caning, prison, preventive detention, etc. - can deter a mass-murderer who plans to commit suicide, so it's not like the threat of punishment (even corporal punishment) can be convincingly dissuasive. So, rather than construct artificial scenarios about a young mass-murderer who kill people from loving families, why not point to real-world examples instead, and argue how institutionalized caning would have improved things? And why not use as your baseline a country like Norway, with a human prison system, instead of one which is inhumane, like the US?

whack 10y ago
"They have a mass-murderer, Breivik. They have a wonderful rehab program... If they believe he is rehabilitated, and his sentence is over, then he will be released." I'm glad you bring up this example. There are 2 conditions here for his being released: 1) They have to believe that he is rehabilitated. 2) He has served his minimum sentence, which in his case, is 10 years. There is no reason to believe that 1) cannot happen at an earlier point in time, compared to 2). Ie, he might be considered to be rehabilitated after spending just 4 years in prison. According to the Norwegian justice system which you're holding up as a role model, he would then be forced to spend another 6 years in prison, even though he's already been rehabilitated by then. If you don't believe in punitive punishment, then why do we need 2) at all? Why should Breivik be given any minimum sentence at all? Why shouldn't he be released as soon as officials believe him to be rehabilitated, no matter how quickly that may occur? Are you really going to endorse such a reform which will allow murderers to be released, as soon as they are rehabilitated, no matter how soon that may occur? If you answered yes to that question, I refer you to the outrage over the following: http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/06/us/sexual-assault-brock-turner-stanford/ http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/06/us/sexual-assault-brock-turner... If you answered no to that question, then you too believe in punitive punishment, even though you may not like to admit it. The only question remaining, is what form that punitive punishment should take. You seem to believe that the best form of punitive punishment is locking someone up in prison for many years/decades. I believe that the best form of punitive punishment is taking all of the unpleasantness that the prison sentence is designed to inflict, and compressing it over a shorter time period, so that the prisoner can move on with his life as soon as possible.
- dalke 10y ago
  > "If you don't believe in punitive punishment" Please define "punitive". According to http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/punitive http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/punitive there are two meanings: Definition #1: "intended to punish someone or something". I'm for that. But c'mon, a fine for $1 is a punishment. An order to stay away from someone else is a punishment. Is that what you mean by punitive punishment? Definition #2: "extremely or unfairly severe or high". I'm against that. I don't believe in cruel and unusual punishment. Like caning. I don't believe in inhumane punishment. Like most prisons in the US. Just because I am against "extremely or unfairly severe or high" punishment doesn't mean I am for no punishment. I can still be for moderate or measured punishment. Which I am. > "The only question remaining what form that punitive punishment should take" I do not agree with "extremely or unfairly severe or high punishment", no. As the essay points out, some people are much more affected by certain forms of punishment than others. The "extremely or unfairly" may be hard to determine. This is why Breivik is allowed to plea for a change of his conditions. This is indeed a question. It's a well studied question, with a long history and associated court cases from multiple jurisdictions. But as I complained, the essay ignores the existing concept of "cruel an unusual punishment", and makes things up out of whole cloth - literally, by positing a new culture which just happens to reproduce the US prison system and also happens to consider caning as something other than "cruel and unusual."

by dalke 10y ago

whack 10y ago

"They have a mass-murderer, Breivik. They have a wonderful rehab program... If they believe he is rehabilitated, and his sentence is over, then he will be released." I'm glad you bring up this example. There are 2 conditions here for his being released: 1) They have to believe that he is rehabilitated. 2) He has served his minimum sentence, which in his case, is 10 years. There is no reason to believe that 1) cannot happen at an earlier point in time, compared to 2). Ie, he might be considered to be rehabilitated after spending just 4 years in prison. According to the Norwegian justice system which you're holding up as a role model, he would then be forced to spend another 6 years in prison, even though he's already been rehabilitated by then. If you don't believe in punitive punishment, then why do we need 2) at all? Why should Breivik be given any minimum sentence at all? Why shouldn't he be released as soon as officials believe him to be rehabilitated, no matter how quickly that may occur? Are you really going to endorse such a reform which will allow murderers to be released, as soon as they are rehabilitated, no matter how soon that may occur? If you answered yes to that question, I refer you to the outrage over the following: http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/06/us/sexual-assault-brock-turner-stanford/ http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/06/us/sexual-assault-brock-turner... If you answered no to that question, then you too believe in punitive punishment, even though you may not like to admit it. The only question remaining, is what form that punitive punishment should take. You seem to believe that the best form of punitive punishment is locking someone up in prison for many years/decades. I believe that the best form of punitive punishment is taking all of the unpleasantness that the prison sentence is designed to inflict, and compressing it over a shorter time period, so that the prisoner can move on with his life as soon as possible.

dalke 10y ago
> "If you don't believe in punitive punishment" Please define "punitive". According to http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/punitive http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/punitive there are two meanings: Definition #1: "intended to punish someone or something". I'm for that. But c'mon, a fine for $1 is a punishment. An order to stay away from someone else is a punishment. Is that what you mean by punitive punishment? Definition #2: "extremely or unfairly severe or high". I'm against that. I don't believe in cruel and unusual punishment. Like caning. I don't believe in inhumane punishment. Like most prisons in the US. Just because I am against "extremely or unfairly severe or high" punishment doesn't mean I am for no punishment. I can still be for moderate or measured punishment. Which I am. > "The only question remaining what form that punitive punishment should take" I do not agree with "extremely or unfairly severe or high punishment", no. As the essay points out, some people are much more affected by certain forms of punishment than others. The "extremely or unfairly" may be hard to determine. This is why Breivik is allowed to plea for a change of his conditions. This is indeed a question. It's a well studied question, with a long history and associated court cases from multiple jurisdictions. But as I complained, the essay ignores the existing concept of "cruel an unusual punishment", and makes things up out of whole cloth - literally, by positing a new culture which just happens to reproduce the US prison system and also happens to consider caning as something other than "cruel and unusual."