4 ms·

The slippery slope goes in two directions, mainly: First, if we as society are going to lock them up forever, why not just save ourselves the expense and execu

The slippery slope goes in two directions, mainly: First, if we as society are going to lock them up forever, why not just save ourselves the expense and execute them all. Secondly, if we are going to do this to Sex Offenders, and it proves really useful and effective, let's start doing it to violent criminals. Then, say, bank robbers. Then, we should get rid of all the drug dealers. The repeat drug users gotta go now. While we're making society better, let's also clean up all the fraudsters and tax cheats. An example that springs to mind is the way Nazi Germany dealt with the Jewish people. I believe they were morally okay with it, too.

thejohnconway 7y ago
> First, if we as society are going to lock them up forever, why not just save ourselves the expense and execute them all. Because locking someone up is reversible. Your slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy in any case. Not all crimes have equal rates of damage or recidivism. There are many good reasons to differentiate between types of crimes and their motivations. Presumably you agree that we should probably lock up serial killers, right? According to your style of slippery-slope argument you have no way of distinguishing between that and executing children that won't go to bed on time, because it's all a continuum.
- Fjolsvith 7y ago
  Yes, I pretty much agree with you. I was disagreeing with the blanket "lock'em all up forever" opinion expressed above. Emotional reactions I can understand to crimes like these but some sense needs to be exercised or we end up in another situation like Nazi Germany.
thejohnconway 7y ago
I've just clicked on your profile and see you have "ex-con" in your bio, and I wonder if that's where some of this disagreement is coming from. I just thought I'd make clear that am not in favour of generally harsher sentences (in many cases the opposite). I'm very skeptical of marking people for life for past mistakes. What I am actually talking about a specific subset of criminals, who's motivations are reasonably well understood, and who's crimes are extremely damaging.
- Fjolsvith 7y ago
  I kinda thought my story of Jeff gave away my status.
  - thejohnconway 7y ago
    Brain fart, sorry!

thejohnconway 7y ago

> First, if we as society are going to lock them up forever, why not just save ourselves the expense and execute them all. Because locking someone up is reversible. Your slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy in any case. Not all crimes have equal rates of damage or recidivism. There are many good reasons to differentiate between types of crimes and their motivations. Presumably you agree that we should probably lock up serial killers, right? According to your style of slippery-slope argument you have no way of distinguishing between that and executing children that won't go to bed on time, because it's all a continuum.

Fjolsvith 7y ago
Yes, I pretty much agree with you. I was disagreeing with the blanket "lock'em all up forever" opinion expressed above. Emotional reactions I can understand to crimes like these but some sense needs to be exercised or we end up in another situation like Nazi Germany.

thejohnconway 7y ago

I've just clicked on your profile and see you have "ex-con" in your bio, and I wonder if that's where some of this disagreement is coming from. I just thought I'd make clear that am not in favour of generally harsher sentences (in many cases the opposite). I'm very skeptical of marking people for life for past mistakes. What I am actually talking about a specific subset of criminals, who's motivations are reasonably well understood, and who's crimes are extremely damaging.

Fjolsvith 7y ago
I kinda thought my story of Jeff gave away my status.
- thejohnconway 7y ago
  Brain fart, sorry!