4 ms·

Agreed, but note however that, for many people, no amount of careful thinking will bring them to the latter decision in your example. They want the imprisoned t

Agreed, but note however that, for many people, no amount of careful thinking will bring them to the latter decision in your example. They want the imprisoned to suffer - to them, that's the whole point ("deterrent", they'll say).

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Knufferlbert 6y ago
I think the "suffer"/"rehabilitation" is only one of the important aspects. There is a selfish component as well, do I want to have low crime. A successful return to society facilitates that (life sentences for all is the only other alternative). The difference between doing what is right (whatever that means), or what is effective (which is much easier to measure). Though the blatant disregard for human life in general in the US is quite astonishing for a "western" country.
- Clewza313 6y ago
  The rights vs outcomes chasm weirds out many visitors to the US. For example, in California every hotel and apartment pool has to be outfitted at considerable expense so any rich but disabled inhabitants could theoretically enjoy their right a dip in the pool while in their wheelchair, although I've never seen these conveyances actually used. Meanwhile, there are mentally ill homeless people outside the hotel, enjoying the freedom of begging for money, camping on the sidewalk and using BART escalators as toilets.
  - cto_of_antifa 6y ago
    I don't quite follow the part about homeless people.
MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
I think it depends. If you murder someone, you shouldn't be allowed to live. Likewise with heinous crimes like Anders Brevik. Why he wasn't put to death is still mind boggling to me. For people who do serious crimes but maybe aren't as severe, that would warrant prison. I just think the US's system of perpetual imprisonment leads to a worse system overall. I personally have a threshold that if I were to be jailed for longer than a specified amount I'd just kill myself. There's no sense in it. People who want justice also want you to get Shawshank Redemptioned but without the happy ending which is even sadder than when the criminal gets caught. It's why I think the death penalty is vital in human society. Torturing people with futile boredom or potential assault for the rest of their life is how you destroy someone's psyche to the point of complete psychopathy.
- thatwasunusual 6y ago
  > If you murder someone, you shouldn't be allowed to live. So if the government murder someone, it should not be allowed to exist? > Likewise with heinous crimes like Anders Brevik. Why he wasn't put to death is still mind boggling to me. Why? > I just think the US's system of perpetual imprisonment leads to a worse system overall. You contradict yourself; you want harser sentences, but also thinks that harser sentences "leads to a worse system overall."
  - MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
    Death is not harsher than "25 to life." Being a rat in a cage told to exist but your purpose is futile is no life worth living. I also do firmly believe that even if the wrong person is chosen for the death penalty, it's still significantly more humane than throwing an innocent person in jail for decades stealing their life away in an even worse way. Lastly, if you don't think Anders Brevik shouldn't be put to death, I'd argue morally you're the one purporting immorality.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Knufferlbert 6y ago

I think the "suffer"/"rehabilitation" is only one of the important aspects. There is a selfish component as well, do I want to have low crime. A successful return to society facilitates that (life sentences for all is the only other alternative). The difference between doing what is right (whatever that means), or what is effective (which is much easier to measure). Though the blatant disregard for human life in general in the US is quite astonishing for a "western" country.

Clewza313 6y ago
The rights vs outcomes chasm weirds out many visitors to the US. For example, in California every hotel and apartment pool has to be outfitted at considerable expense so any rich but disabled inhabitants could theoretically enjoy their right a dip in the pool while in their wheelchair, although I've never seen these conveyances actually used. Meanwhile, there are mentally ill homeless people outside the hotel, enjoying the freedom of begging for money, camping on the sidewalk and using BART escalators as toilets.
- cto_of_antifa 6y ago
  I don't quite follow the part about homeless people.

MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago

I think it depends. If you murder someone, you shouldn't be allowed to live. Likewise with heinous crimes like Anders Brevik. Why he wasn't put to death is still mind boggling to me. For people who do serious crimes but maybe aren't as severe, that would warrant prison. I just think the US's system of perpetual imprisonment leads to a worse system overall. I personally have a threshold that if I were to be jailed for longer than a specified amount I'd just kill myself. There's no sense in it. People who want justice also want you to get Shawshank Redemptioned but without the happy ending which is even sadder than when the criminal gets caught. It's why I think the death penalty is vital in human society. Torturing people with futile boredom or potential assault for the rest of their life is how you destroy someone's psyche to the point of complete psychopathy.

thatwasunusual 6y ago
> If you murder someone, you shouldn't be allowed to live. So if the government murder someone, it should not be allowed to exist? > Likewise with heinous crimes like Anders Brevik. Why he wasn't put to death is still mind boggling to me. Why? > I just think the US's system of perpetual imprisonment leads to a worse system overall. You contradict yourself; you want harser sentences, but also thinks that harser sentences "leads to a worse system overall."
- MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
  Death is not harsher than "25 to life." Being a rat in a cage told to exist but your purpose is futile is no life worth living. I also do firmly believe that even if the wrong person is chosen for the death penalty, it's still significantly more humane than throwing an innocent person in jail for decades stealing their life away in an even worse way. Lastly, if you don't think Anders Brevik shouldn't be put to death, I'd argue morally you're the one purporting immorality.