6 ms·

Wow this is something else. The historical revisionism and simultaneous appeal to Catholicism is ridiculous. While prisons have many problems and the church ha

Wow this is something else. The historical revisionism and simultaneous appeal to Catholicism is ridiculous. While prisons have many problems and the church has spoken against poor treatment of prisoners for many years, the opposite conclusion -- that we should abolish prisons -- is nowhere to be found in the compendium of social teaching. Moreover, the idea that prisons should serve a purely restorative role is a modern invention. While restoration is certainly one goal, catholic teaching also commands just punishment for crimes. The issue today is disproprotionality in the sentence when compared with the crime committed. Had the author stuck to that point, he would have had a good essay. Instead he claimed all prisons are immoral. This is simply at odds with the Catholic social teaching that just societies must seek temporal justice on behalf of the victimized Claims that prisons did not exist in the past are met with obvious skepticism when you read about the apostles being imprisoned for sedition as well as the catholic moral commandment to visit the imprisoned. Long sentences are of course more common today as the power of the state has grown, but this is not something to be criticized since many prisoners who have long sentences today would have been swiftly executed in the past. (Focusing on catholic teaching here because its from notre dame and Villanova)

rpiguy 8y ago
I commented myself then deleted it because your rebuttal was more elegant :-) As a father of daughters I am personally glad that prisons exist and fully understand the issues with incarceration, but gladly accept the trade-off (like many moral dilemmas the optimal choice may differ from person to person). Were I African American and more likely to be wrongly imprisoned, I might feel differently.
- badfrog 8y ago
  > As a father of daughters [...] > Were I African American [...] I might feel differently. Why can't you incorporate women's issues into your world view without having daughters? Or civil rights issues without being black?
  - Jtsummers 8y ago
    Because many people are incapable or unwillling to practice viewing issues from perspectives other than their own.
  - DoofusOfDeath 8y ago
    > Why can't you incorporate women's issues into your world view without having daughters? Or civil rights issues without being black? Most people are most sympathetic to the plight of themselves and perhaps their children. The GP has daughters and is presumably not African-American. I wonder if you're talking about an attitude that you think the OP ought to have, whereas he/she is describing the attitude that he/she does have.
    - badfrog 8y ago
      > I wonder if you're talking about an attitude that you think the OP ought to have Yes, of course I am. My question was rhetorical. It sounds like that person understands that there are serious race issues in the criminal justice system but is willing to overlook them for his own self interest. I think we'd all be better off if we cared a bit more about people who are different from us.
- pavlov 8y ago
  > "As a father of daughters I am personally glad that prisons exist" How does one follow from the other? I also have daughters and it hasn't affected my view of prisons one way or the other.
  - rpiguy 8y ago
    Makes me more grateful for law enforcement in general. Women are more likely to be victims of violent crimes.
- chasingthewind 8y ago
  The implication that being the father of daughters has some kind of special relevance for one's views on prisons strikes me as poorly thought out. At best it comes across as paternalistic.
  - ummonk 8y ago
    >At best it comes across as paternalistic. Well it's perfectly normal for a father to be paternalistic.
- thisisweirdok 8y ago
  Yikes dude. You should feel empathy because women and black people are fellow humans, not because you _are or have fathered_ someone in those groups.
  - DoofusOfDeath 8y ago
    It seems to me you're committing an is/ought fallacy. The GP was was describing his/her actual feelings on the matter, not the idealized feelings you seem to be recommending.
    - thisisweirdok 8y ago
      Alright, I guess I can revise my comment to say that I feel like it's kind of fucked that GP's empathy only extends to his self and no further.
      - tathougies 8y ago
        Empathy is an often overused word. It is quite likely your empathy only extends to yourself and a few other intimate relationship. Empathy refers to the ability to actually feel another's pain. Very few people can do this for anyone more than their family and close friends. Most people ought to instead focus on cultivating sympathy, which is the intellectual realization of another's suffering, and turning that sympathy into action.
        thisisweirdok 8y ago
        Empathy is understanding, sympathy is recognition. If I stub my toe you don't have to feel that pain to empathize it, you have to understand what it feels like to suddenly be in pain. Sympathy in that situation would only require recognizing and pitying someone who is in pain, without necessarily understanding it.
        tathougies 8y ago
        The word empathy was originally understold to mean actually feeling the pain of someone else in pain. Sympathy had the meaning you ascribe to empathy: understanding intellectually that the person in pain is having a tough. That the words take on ever extravagant meanings indicates that theyve become so cliche as to be meaningless.
- daeken 8y ago
  As a father of a daughter, I particularly enjoy snow cones. Non-sequiturs are fun! When my daughter was born, my mom asked if my views on the death penalty (which I have historically opposed) have changed. When I said no, she asked "if someone hurt her, wouldn't you want them to die?" And I had to think about this, because yes, I probably would. But what I want and what is right aren't necessarily the same thing. Our entire justice system is fucked, at every possible level. If I put my daughter in the shoes of every victim out there, how would that possibly help me see things more objectively and make things better? You need to think outside your experience.
ConceptJunkie 8y ago
And it's nice to see Catholic teaching represented clearly here. These days, Catholic social teaching is being distorted and downright misrepresented by many people (including the current Pope because of his sloppy and imprecise language). We absolutely must practice mercy and forgiveness, but not at the expense of justice and security. St Augustine's doctrine of just war does not contradict Christ's admonition to "turn the other cheek".
- andrepd 8y ago
  >social teaching is being distorted and downright misrepresented by many people (including the current Pope because of his sloppy and imprecise language) Isn't catholic social doctrine dictated by the pope?
  - simonh 8y ago
    In a sense yes, but for example the doctrine of infallibility is restricted to specific and explicit official pronouncements 'ex cathedra'. It does not mean they believe the pope is incapable of sloppy or imprecise language in ordinary conversation for example.
  - tathougies 8y ago
    No, not really. Catholic social doctrine is dictated by all the popes now and in the past. When this pope and a previous pope contradict, one of them is being interpreted incorrectly. The Church also is guided by its own traditions, ultimately meaning the collective decisions of bishops in the past. In other words, the pope trying to dictate social doctrine would result in massive unpopularity or schism. That is why this pope is unpopular in some circles. Whether that's deserved or not is not an argument I'm having today.
    - ConceptJunkie 8y ago
      > the pope trying to dictate social doctrine To be precise, social doctrine that is contradictory to what the Church previously taught would be a problem. The Pope can and should and does dictate correct Catholic social doctrine.
webmobdev 8y ago
I haven't read the article. But wanted to add to what you said. While you mention Christianity (specifically catholicism) and its influence on modern American criminal / prison system, I personally believe that the American criminal system is more influenced by the Islamic Sharia system when it comes to punishment. Under the Islamic Sharia system, the laws are very harsh - you steal and your hand is cut off, you rape someone and you are stoned to death, you commit adultery and you are publicly lashed and so on. But the Sharia also allows the victim (or their relatives) to forgive the perpetrator (with or without some compensation, usually money) in the spirit of Islam. The American criminal legal system is modelled similarly - the punishments for most crimes are absurd - for e.g. US courts sometimes award absurd punishments of 200 years of jail time. Like the Sharia system, once punishments is awarded and carried out the system ensures you end up broken (in spirit, if not physically). Where as in a Sharia system the victim decides on being compassionate or a "fair" compensation in lieu of a lesser punishment, in the US system this power is held with the government. And this is used as a bargaining chip to make "deals" with the accused (note that I don't say the guilty, as sometimes even the innocent make such deals afraid of the harsher punishment if they were to lose the trial). (From what I have read, some of the founding fathers of the US were admirers of the Islamic empire and their political and legal system influenced by Islam).

rpiguy 8y ago

I commented myself then deleted it because your rebuttal was more elegant :-) As a father of daughters I am personally glad that prisons exist and fully understand the issues with incarceration, but gladly accept the trade-off (like many moral dilemmas the optimal choice may differ from person to person). Were I African American and more likely to be wrongly imprisoned, I might feel differently.

badfrog 8y ago
> As a father of daughters [...] > Were I African American [...] I might feel differently. Why can't you incorporate women's issues into your world view without having daughters? Or civil rights issues without being black?
- Jtsummers 8y ago
  Because many people are incapable or unwillling to practice viewing issues from perspectives other than their own.
- DoofusOfDeath 8y ago
  > Why can't you incorporate women's issues into your world view without having daughters? Or civil rights issues without being black? Most people are most sympathetic to the plight of themselves and perhaps their children. The GP has daughters and is presumably not African-American. I wonder if you're talking about an attitude that you think the OP ought to have, whereas he/she is describing the attitude that he/she does have.
  - badfrog 8y ago
    > I wonder if you're talking about an attitude that you think the OP ought to have Yes, of course I am. My question was rhetorical. It sounds like that person understands that there are serious race issues in the criminal justice system but is willing to overlook them for his own self interest. I think we'd all be better off if we cared a bit more about people who are different from us.
pavlov 8y ago
> "As a father of daughters I am personally glad that prisons exist" How does one follow from the other? I also have daughters and it hasn't affected my view of prisons one way or the other.
- rpiguy 8y ago
  Makes me more grateful for law enforcement in general. Women are more likely to be victims of violent crimes.
chasingthewind 8y ago
The implication that being the father of daughters has some kind of special relevance for one's views on prisons strikes me as poorly thought out. At best it comes across as paternalistic.
- ummonk 8y ago
  >At best it comes across as paternalistic. Well it's perfectly normal for a father to be paternalistic.
thisisweirdok 8y ago
Yikes dude. You should feel empathy because women and black people are fellow humans, not because you _are or have fathered_ someone in those groups.
- DoofusOfDeath 8y ago
  It seems to me you're committing an is/ought fallacy. The GP was was describing his/her actual feelings on the matter, not the idealized feelings you seem to be recommending.
  - thisisweirdok 8y ago
    Alright, I guess I can revise my comment to say that I feel like it's kind of fucked that GP's empathy only extends to his self and no further.
    - tathougies 8y ago
      Empathy is an often overused word. It is quite likely your empathy only extends to yourself and a few other intimate relationship. Empathy refers to the ability to actually feel another's pain. Very few people can do this for anyone more than their family and close friends. Most people ought to instead focus on cultivating sympathy, which is the intellectual realization of another's suffering, and turning that sympathy into action.
      - thisisweirdok 8y ago
        Empathy is understanding, sympathy is recognition. If I stub my toe you don't have to feel that pain to empathize it, you have to understand what it feels like to suddenly be in pain. Sympathy in that situation would only require recognizing and pitying someone who is in pain, without necessarily understanding it.
        tathougies 8y ago
        The word empathy was originally understold to mean actually feeling the pain of someone else in pain. Sympathy had the meaning you ascribe to empathy: understanding intellectually that the person in pain is having a tough. That the words take on ever extravagant meanings indicates that theyve become so cliche as to be meaningless.
daeken 8y ago
As a father of a daughter, I particularly enjoy snow cones. Non-sequiturs are fun! When my daughter was born, my mom asked if my views on the death penalty (which I have historically opposed) have changed. When I said no, she asked "if someone hurt her, wouldn't you want them to die?" And I had to think about this, because yes, I probably would. But what I want and what is right aren't necessarily the same thing. Our entire justice system is fucked, at every possible level. If I put my daughter in the shoes of every victim out there, how would that possibly help me see things more objectively and make things better? You need to think outside your experience.

ConceptJunkie 8y ago

And it's nice to see Catholic teaching represented clearly here. These days, Catholic social teaching is being distorted and downright misrepresented by many people (including the current Pope because of his sloppy and imprecise language). We absolutely must practice mercy and forgiveness, but not at the expense of justice and security. St Augustine's doctrine of just war does not contradict Christ's admonition to "turn the other cheek".

andrepd 8y ago
>social teaching is being distorted and downright misrepresented by many people (including the current Pope because of his sloppy and imprecise language) Isn't catholic social doctrine dictated by the pope?
- simonh 8y ago
  In a sense yes, but for example the doctrine of infallibility is restricted to specific and explicit official pronouncements 'ex cathedra'. It does not mean they believe the pope is incapable of sloppy or imprecise language in ordinary conversation for example.
- tathougies 8y ago
  No, not really. Catholic social doctrine is dictated by all the popes now and in the past. When this pope and a previous pope contradict, one of them is being interpreted incorrectly. The Church also is guided by its own traditions, ultimately meaning the collective decisions of bishops in the past. In other words, the pope trying to dictate social doctrine would result in massive unpopularity or schism. That is why this pope is unpopular in some circles. Whether that's deserved or not is not an argument I'm having today.
  - ConceptJunkie 8y ago
    > the pope trying to dictate social doctrine To be precise, social doctrine that is contradictory to what the Church previously taught would be a problem. The Pope can and should and does dictate correct Catholic social doctrine.

webmobdev 8y ago

I haven't read the article. But wanted to add to what you said. While you mention Christianity (specifically catholicism) and its influence on modern American criminal / prison system, I personally believe that the American criminal system is more influenced by the Islamic Sharia system when it comes to punishment. Under the Islamic Sharia system, the laws are very harsh - you steal and your hand is cut off, you rape someone and you are stoned to death, you commit adultery and you are publicly lashed and so on. But the Sharia also allows the victim (or their relatives) to forgive the perpetrator (with or without some compensation, usually money) in the spirit of Islam. The American criminal legal system is modelled similarly - the punishments for most crimes are absurd - for e.g. US courts sometimes award absurd punishments of 200 years of jail time. Like the Sharia system, once punishments is awarded and carried out the system ensures you end up broken (in spirit, if not physically). Where as in a Sharia system the victim decides on being compassionate or a "fair" compensation in lieu of a lesser punishment, in the US system this power is held with the government. And this is used as a bargaining chip to make "deals" with the accused (note that I don't say the guilty, as sometimes even the innocent make such deals afraid of the harsher punishment if they were to lose the trial). (From what I have read, some of the founding fathers of the US were admirers of the Islamic empire and their political and legal system influenced by Islam).