7 ms·

If someone killed a family member of mine id believe in the revenge system pretty fast.

by trident5000 6y ago

airstrike 6y ago
Laws are supposed to codify what we want the ideal society to be, not what our rage-fueled selves crave.
- trident5000 6y ago
  Right, it also serves to remove that person from society as they are a threat to others. When you kill someone, it stops being about you and your "rehabilitation" and more about other people.
  - HarryHirsch 6y ago
    When you kill someone, it stops being about you and your "rehabilitation" and more about other people. That's not correct, and tells something about your preconception. I was told by someone who had been to prison that those doing time for murder or manslaughter are considered less dangerous, they killed their target and that was that. The ones in there for GBH, those are the ones you have to look out for, they have low impulse control and low intelligence and are basically incorrigible.
    - trident5000 6y ago
      I'm not sure if I take this comment seriously and answer it to be honest.
      - HarryHirsch 6y ago
        The comment was meant extremely seriously. It's the old conflict of intent versus outcomes. A murderer certainly intended to kill his target, but such a person isn't necessarily volatile or dangerous. But an impulsive person may well kill a person or three even though he didn't intend to. What's worse, and what should society do about it?
      - ddingus 6y ago
        I would, if I were you. Seriously. From a policy POV, the comment is entirely serious and rational, appropriate.
    - Djvacto 6y ago
      GBH == Grievous Bodily Harm, for anyone else who didn't know before.
    - gher-shyu3i 6y ago
      It's about justice. If someone took another person's life, they gave up their right to live. It's not hard, and it works in proper societies.
      - implements 6y ago
        > ... they gave up their right to live ... You’re stating a moral axiom, one that is widely and increasingly rejected in civilised countries. Assuming you mean “capital punishment for intentional murderers” then how do you defend this? A murderer kills to satisfy some need, you appear to wish to death on someone to satisfy some need of your own ie “justice”, even presumably when you aren’t personally victimised by their crime. It seems capital punishment creates at least two evils - an unnecessary taking of human life, and the encouragement of sadistic ideation in the general population.
        gher-shyu3i 6y ago
        Don't give me this "civilized countries" false dichotomy. It's not only condescending, but wrong. Taking a life can be a necessary evil. In "civilized countries" as how you put it, the next of kin has the choice on whether to forgive the killer or take blood money, or have him executed by the court. This is for one on one incidents. For other cases, such as serial rapists or serial killers, the decision is 100% in the hands of the court, as it is way bigger than a single interaction.
        implements 6y ago
        Taking a life can be necessary to protect one’s life or the life of others, but that isn’t the case in capital punishment as someone in custody is no longer a mortal threat to society. Regarding civilised or not, perhaps this might be of interest: https://goodessaysblog.wordpress.com/2016/10/23/capital-punishment-necessary-evil-or-relic-of-uncivilised-past/ https://goodessaysblog.wordpress.com/2016/10/23/capital-puni...
        gher-shyu3i 6y ago
- lazide 6y ago
  Do you have a citation for that assertion? I’ve got plenty to the contrary. Laws from what I’ve seen are to codify expected behavior so it isn’t arbitrary. The tone and nature of them is up to the legislator.
  - airstrike 6y ago
    From a jurisprudence perspective, they really mostly codify our collective morals as norms, so if you assume we all aim to have our morals to be as close to an ideal as possible–which I think is a fair assumption–, then the original statement is true. Which is not to say that we do in fact write laws that codify those ideals, hence the words "supposed to" in my prior comment. I can probably dig up a citation tomorrow when I hope have a little more free time, but not making any promises either, sorry
    - lazide 6y ago
      I think you may also be ascribing more weight to something vague, hangwavey, and PR focused than the reality? Additionally, the only places I see explicitly saying laws are coming from a place of moral authority are places with Sharia law (literally - sharia means ‘the clear well trodden path to water’ and it’s the codifying of traditions the population considers to work). Pretty much every law in the US that uses morals as it’s justification has been thrown out by the US Supreme Court. If ‘we all’ are not actually in agreement (always the case) on what is morally right, then what happens? Is executing a slightly underdeveloped person (80 iq) for murdering several people morally right? Is NOT executing that person morally right? You could poll the population and get a large chunk of people agreeing with both of those stances very strongly. Is asset forfeiture morally ok? What if the person is a certain color and speaks with the accent of a certain country to the south of the US? You can get a large portion of the population to disagree with the first one, and strongly agree with the second. A law is codifying a stance (writing it down in as unambiguous a way as possible) that can be passed by representatives without them all getting fired/hanged by angry constituents and enforced willingly by a large law enforcement group without getting overridden by a higher power. Part of the whole not getting fired/hanged part is making sure it can’t be enforced arbitrarily against people their constituents wouldn’t like it being enforced against, and can be against people they do. It’s a messy business with huge implications for everyone.
- AmericanChopper 6y ago
  I have personally never come across a political ideology that I consider to be properly self-consistent in regards to justice, I don’t think any society has a rational idea of what they want their justice system to do. Speaking generally, the right place a lot of importance on law and order, as well as individual liberty. Yet those ideals are in direct contention. The left is very concerned protecting marginalized groups from injustices, but the communities of marginalized groups tend to be the most heavily impacted by crime. Why not come to some agreement on what we want our justice system to do before trying to reform it? Because most theories for reform that I come across tend to either imagine that victims of crime aren’t important, or that the rights of the accused aren’t important.
scythe 6y ago
Of the 2.3 million people currently serving time in the US prison system, less than 10% are incarcerated for some kind of homicide. When you consider that murder carries the longest sentences, the proportion looks even smaller. The idea that all prisoners can be compared to murderers is a major reinforcing myth that perpetuates the system of abuse and allows people to tell themselves it's okay. It's not okay. The world looks at us in horror, rightly.
- trident5000 6y ago
  Thats fair. As long as its not serious (violent) or repeated crime.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    This is a pretty sad and myopic view of humanity. People are functions of their environment. A bad environment causes criminality. Putting people with criminal histories in an environment where they're surrounded by and threatened by other criminals serves to reinforce the unwanted behavior. The duty of the state shouldn't be to exact revenge (which by the way, studies show, after a threshold incremental punishment does nothing) but rather to give folks the tools to escape their environments. That means showing them how to live in the real world. At the end of the day the state should measure the efficacy of a prison system against recidivism and total population crime rate. The individual cases shouldn't really factor in.
    - trident5000 6y ago
      Whats sad? That violent people should be removed from society to prevent them from injuring other people? At some point you reject making excuses and put in a hard-stop. Being in a constant state of understanding is not how you govern a country if you want it to be peaceful and cleaned up. People need to be in charge of their actions at the end of the day.
      - arcticbull 6y ago
        That's a pretty big misreading of my point. > That violent people should be removed from society to prevent them from injuring other people? No, I made it clear that I believe the efficacy of a prison system should be measured by total population crime rate and recidivism rates. The US prison system fails to achieve the goal you're implying it does. It has a very high recidivism and reconviction rate. In a sense, my point is more that "we've tried it your way and it's not working." The goal should be to, as you say, "stop people from injuring other people" in the future. You can't un-injure someone in the past, and the constitution provides for proportional punishments in the 8th amendment if I'm not mistaken, so people will end up out of prison at some point. The question on my mind is how to make sure that when they do, they don't injure more people. Recidivism rates are available for your review: [1]. My point is rather that the plan you're advocating for isn't achieving the result that you're telling me it is. > Being in a constant state of understanding is not how you govern a country if you want it to be peaceful and cleaned up. Being data-driven is how you achieve goals, and the data says this is the wrong approach. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6743246/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6743246/
arcticbull 6y ago
While I'm sure you'd be pretty mad - as would I, that doesn't make it an optimal approach. Unless you lock up or kill these people, they'll return to society. Once they do, you want them not to cause the same harm to others. Rehabilitation is the right play.
- trident5000 6y ago
  Im pretty good with 40 year sentences for egregious cases of murders and rapists. If they want to give it another shot when they're 70 years old, have at it.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    I suspect you've some more reading to do, and life to experience, before you decide it's kosher to "throw people away."
    - trident5000 6y ago
      Funny how you phrase this to stand on your podium, wise man. I have no issue partitioning violent people from society and that's my final view. You actions have consequences.
      - arcticbull 6y ago
        The only thing I'm "standing on" is data that the system doesn't work. Just doing more of something that doesn't work isn't a great way to land on a functioning system.
        trident5000 6y ago
        Really? Because I dont hear about gang banger 70 year olds. Or 80 year old violent rapists. This could be warranted for light non-violent crime. Or murders who had a very very good case (like they were brutally bullied or threatened and there is clear proof). Then I believe in rehabilitation. So I guess it really depends on the case. Most probably wont pass that test though.
jwalton 6y ago
The ideal justice system would not help you get revenge on someone who killed your family, but dissuade anyone from killing your family in the first place?

If someone killed a family member of mine id believe in the revenge system pretty fast.

airstrike 6y ago

Laws are supposed to codify what we want the ideal society to be, not what our rage-fueled selves crave.

trident5000 6y ago
Right, it also serves to remove that person from society as they are a threat to others. When you kill someone, it stops being about you and your "rehabilitation" and more about other people.
- HarryHirsch 6y ago
  When you kill someone, it stops being about you and your "rehabilitation" and more about other people. That's not correct, and tells something about your preconception. I was told by someone who had been to prison that those doing time for murder or manslaughter are considered less dangerous, they killed their target and that was that. The ones in there for GBH, those are the ones you have to look out for, they have low impulse control and low intelligence and are basically incorrigible.
  - trident5000 6y ago
    I'm not sure if I take this comment seriously and answer it to be honest.
    - HarryHirsch 6y ago
      The comment was meant extremely seriously. It's the old conflict of intent versus outcomes. A murderer certainly intended to kill his target, but such a person isn't necessarily volatile or dangerous. But an impulsive person may well kill a person or three even though he didn't intend to. What's worse, and what should society do about it?
    - ddingus 6y ago
      I would, if I were you. Seriously. From a policy POV, the comment is entirely serious and rational, appropriate.
  - Djvacto 6y ago
    GBH == Grievous Bodily Harm, for anyone else who didn't know before.
  - gher-shyu3i 6y ago
    It's about justice. If someone took another person's life, they gave up their right to live. It's not hard, and it works in proper societies.
    - implements 6y ago
      > ... they gave up their right to live ... You’re stating a moral axiom, one that is widely and increasingly rejected in civilised countries. Assuming you mean “capital punishment for intentional murderers” then how do you defend this? A murderer kills to satisfy some need, you appear to wish to death on someone to satisfy some need of your own ie “justice”, even presumably when you aren’t personally victimised by their crime. It seems capital punishment creates at least two evils - an unnecessary taking of human life, and the encouragement of sadistic ideation in the general population.
      - gher-shyu3i 6y ago
        Don't give me this "civilized countries" false dichotomy. It's not only condescending, but wrong. Taking a life can be a necessary evil. In "civilized countries" as how you put it, the next of kin has the choice on whether to forgive the killer or take blood money, or have him executed by the court. This is for one on one incidents. For other cases, such as serial rapists or serial killers, the decision is 100% in the hands of the court, as it is way bigger than a single interaction.
        implements 6y ago
        Taking a life can be necessary to protect one’s life or the life of others, but that isn’t the case in capital punishment as someone in custody is no longer a mortal threat to society. Regarding civilised or not, perhaps this might be of interest: https://goodessaysblog.wordpress.com/2016/10/23/capital-punishment-necessary-evil-or-relic-of-uncivilised-past/ https://goodessaysblog.wordpress.com/2016/10/23/capital-puni...
        gher-shyu3i 6y ago
lazide 6y ago
Do you have a citation for that assertion? I’ve got plenty to the contrary. Laws from what I’ve seen are to codify expected behavior so it isn’t arbitrary. The tone and nature of them is up to the legislator.
- airstrike 6y ago
  From a jurisprudence perspective, they really mostly codify our collective morals as norms, so if you assume we all aim to have our morals to be as close to an ideal as possible–which I think is a fair assumption–, then the original statement is true. Which is not to say that we do in fact write laws that codify those ideals, hence the words "supposed to" in my prior comment. I can probably dig up a citation tomorrow when I hope have a little more free time, but not making any promises either, sorry
  - lazide 6y ago
    I think you may also be ascribing more weight to something vague, hangwavey, and PR focused than the reality? Additionally, the only places I see explicitly saying laws are coming from a place of moral authority are places with Sharia law (literally - sharia means ‘the clear well trodden path to water’ and it’s the codifying of traditions the population considers to work). Pretty much every law in the US that uses morals as it’s justification has been thrown out by the US Supreme Court. If ‘we all’ are not actually in agreement (always the case) on what is morally right, then what happens? Is executing a slightly underdeveloped person (80 iq) for murdering several people morally right? Is NOT executing that person morally right? You could poll the population and get a large chunk of people agreeing with both of those stances very strongly. Is asset forfeiture morally ok? What if the person is a certain color and speaks with the accent of a certain country to the south of the US? You can get a large portion of the population to disagree with the first one, and strongly agree with the second. A law is codifying a stance (writing it down in as unambiguous a way as possible) that can be passed by representatives without them all getting fired/hanged by angry constituents and enforced willingly by a large law enforcement group without getting overridden by a higher power. Part of the whole not getting fired/hanged part is making sure it can’t be enforced arbitrarily against people their constituents wouldn’t like it being enforced against, and can be against people they do. It’s a messy business with huge implications for everyone.
AmericanChopper 6y ago
I have personally never come across a political ideology that I consider to be properly self-consistent in regards to justice, I don’t think any society has a rational idea of what they want their justice system to do. Speaking generally, the right place a lot of importance on law and order, as well as individual liberty. Yet those ideals are in direct contention. The left is very concerned protecting marginalized groups from injustices, but the communities of marginalized groups tend to be the most heavily impacted by crime. Why not come to some agreement on what we want our justice system to do before trying to reform it? Because most theories for reform that I come across tend to either imagine that victims of crime aren’t important, or that the rights of the accused aren’t important.

scythe 6y ago

Of the 2.3 million people currently serving time in the US prison system, less than 10% are incarcerated for some kind of homicide. When you consider that murder carries the longest sentences, the proportion looks even smaller. The idea that all prisoners can be compared to murderers is a major reinforcing myth that perpetuates the system of abuse and allows people to tell themselves it's okay. It's not okay. The world looks at us in horror, rightly.

trident5000 6y ago
Thats fair. As long as its not serious (violent) or repeated crime.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  This is a pretty sad and myopic view of humanity. People are functions of their environment. A bad environment causes criminality. Putting people with criminal histories in an environment where they're surrounded by and threatened by other criminals serves to reinforce the unwanted behavior. The duty of the state shouldn't be to exact revenge (which by the way, studies show, after a threshold incremental punishment does nothing) but rather to give folks the tools to escape their environments. That means showing them how to live in the real world. At the end of the day the state should measure the efficacy of a prison system against recidivism and total population crime rate. The individual cases shouldn't really factor in.
  - trident5000 6y ago
    Whats sad? That violent people should be removed from society to prevent them from injuring other people? At some point you reject making excuses and put in a hard-stop. Being in a constant state of understanding is not how you govern a country if you want it to be peaceful and cleaned up. People need to be in charge of their actions at the end of the day.
    - arcticbull 6y ago
      That's a pretty big misreading of my point. > That violent people should be removed from society to prevent them from injuring other people? No, I made it clear that I believe the efficacy of a prison system should be measured by total population crime rate and recidivism rates. The US prison system fails to achieve the goal you're implying it does. It has a very high recidivism and reconviction rate. In a sense, my point is more that "we've tried it your way and it's not working." The goal should be to, as you say, "stop people from injuring other people" in the future. You can't un-injure someone in the past, and the constitution provides for proportional punishments in the 8th amendment if I'm not mistaken, so people will end up out of prison at some point. The question on my mind is how to make sure that when they do, they don't injure more people. Recidivism rates are available for your review: [1]. My point is rather that the plan you're advocating for isn't achieving the result that you're telling me it is. > Being in a constant state of understanding is not how you govern a country if you want it to be peaceful and cleaned up. Being data-driven is how you achieve goals, and the data says this is the wrong approach. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6743246/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6743246/

arcticbull 6y ago

While I'm sure you'd be pretty mad - as would I, that doesn't make it an optimal approach. Unless you lock up or kill these people, they'll return to society. Once they do, you want them not to cause the same harm to others. Rehabilitation is the right play.

trident5000 6y ago
Im pretty good with 40 year sentences for egregious cases of murders and rapists. If they want to give it another shot when they're 70 years old, have at it.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  I suspect you've some more reading to do, and life to experience, before you decide it's kosher to "throw people away."
  - trident5000 6y ago
    Funny how you phrase this to stand on your podium, wise man. I have no issue partitioning violent people from society and that's my final view. You actions have consequences.
    - arcticbull 6y ago
      The only thing I'm "standing on" is data that the system doesn't work. Just doing more of something that doesn't work isn't a great way to land on a functioning system.
      - trident5000 6y ago
        Really? Because I dont hear about gang banger 70 year olds. Or 80 year old violent rapists. This could be warranted for light non-violent crime. Or murders who had a very very good case (like they were brutally bullied or threatened and there is clear proof). Then I believe in rehabilitation. So I guess it really depends on the case. Most probably wont pass that test though.

jwalton 6y ago

The ideal justice system would not help you get revenge on someone who killed your family, but dissuade anyone from killing your family in the first place?