4 ms·

You have made a series of claims, but not given any reasons to back them up. What theory of ethics/justice are you invoking, when you claim that retribution/det

by whack 6y ago

You have made a series of claims, but not given any reasons to back them up. What theory of ethics/justice are you invoking, when you claim that retribution/deterrence is unethical and should not be a goal of our justice system. If a billionaire is found guilty of pedophilia, and offers to build for himself a lifetime "prison" that is really a 5-star resort, should he be allowed to do so? According to your argument, the answer is yes, as long as he is equally isolated.

syshum 6y ago
>>What theory of ethics/justice are you invoking Mainly Zero-Aggression principle, under which the only ethical use of force is for defense of either yourself or others, and only to the extent eliminate the aggressive force being applied. >>If a billionaire is found guilty of pedophilia, and offers to build for himself a lifetime "prison" that is really a 5-star resort, should he be allowed to do so? That is a strawman and a red herring all in one. No a person should not be allowed to build their own guided cage, however the prison s/he is sent to should be humane, where s/he would not be physically abused by other inmates or guards, not be subjected to physical or psychological abuse, should be provided basic nutrition, and health care, etc This can not be said to be true for the US prison system today Further the system I advocate for would provide for massive amounts of restitution for the victim(s) of this billionaire, unlike the system of today which holds the criminal has a "debt to society" but not necessarily their victims where any restitution would be secondary to the retribution offered to society as "payment" for this debt I advocate for victim restitution being the primary goal, and hold that society is owed nothing in the equation. This once a person is isolated from society and can not harm anyone, continued abuse or violence is unethical, "punishment" in captivity is unethical.
- whack 6y ago
  >> If a billionaire is found guilty of pedophilia, and offers to build for himself a lifetime "prison" that is really a 5-star resort, should he be allowed to do so? > That is a strawman and a red herring all in one. No a person should not be allowed to build their own guided cage This is a direct implication of what you're proposing. The fact that you don't like the implication, doesn't make it a strawman. You stated that the only goals of the criminal justice system should be rehabilitation, restitution and isolation. Allowing a billionaire pedophile to sequester themselves in a self-funded 5-star resort, is consistent with all of your stated goals, while still being minimally aggressive, and maximizing their welfare. If you find this objectionable, you need to revise your earlier claim.
gowld 6y ago
Saying retribution == deterrence is an extreme claim.
- whack 6y ago
  Luckily I did not say that. Retribution and deterrence are very different concepts and objectives. However, most retributive actions also happen to have a deterrent effect. Ie, sending someone to prison as retribution, will also have a deterrent effect on other would-be criminals. This is an empirically verifiable claim with many supporting studies that you can find via a quick google search.

by whack 6y ago

syshum 6y ago

>>What theory of ethics/justice are you invoking Mainly Zero-Aggression principle, under which the only ethical use of force is for defense of either yourself or others, and only to the extent eliminate the aggressive force being applied. >>If a billionaire is found guilty of pedophilia, and offers to build for himself a lifetime "prison" that is really a 5-star resort, should he be allowed to do so? That is a strawman and a red herring all in one. No a person should not be allowed to build their own guided cage, however the prison s/he is sent to should be humane, where s/he would not be physically abused by other inmates or guards, not be subjected to physical or psychological abuse, should be provided basic nutrition, and health care, etc This can not be said to be true for the US prison system today Further the system I advocate for would provide for massive amounts of restitution for the victim(s) of this billionaire, unlike the system of today which holds the criminal has a "debt to society" but not necessarily their victims where any restitution would be secondary to the retribution offered to society as "payment" for this debt I advocate for victim restitution being the primary goal, and hold that society is owed nothing in the equation. This once a person is isolated from society and can not harm anyone, continued abuse or violence is unethical, "punishment" in captivity is unethical.

whack 6y ago
>> If a billionaire is found guilty of pedophilia, and offers to build for himself a lifetime "prison" that is really a 5-star resort, should he be allowed to do so? > That is a strawman and a red herring all in one. No a person should not be allowed to build their own guided cage This is a direct implication of what you're proposing. The fact that you don't like the implication, doesn't make it a strawman. You stated that the only goals of the criminal justice system should be rehabilitation, restitution and isolation. Allowing a billionaire pedophile to sequester themselves in a self-funded 5-star resort, is consistent with all of your stated goals, while still being minimally aggressive, and maximizing their welfare. If you find this objectionable, you need to revise your earlier claim.

gowld 6y ago

Saying retribution == deterrence is an extreme claim.

whack 6y ago
Luckily I did not say that. Retribution and deterrence are very different concepts and objectives. However, most retributive actions also happen to have a deterrent effect. Ie, sending someone to prison as retribution, will also have a deterrent effect on other would-be criminals. This is an empirically verifiable claim with many supporting studies that you can find via a quick google search.